The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c16.232

v1.c16.232

The records cited above reveal the existence of a line of *Candra* kings of Vikramapura in Eastern Bengal in the period *c.* 950-1050 A.D. The time and locality fit in so well with those of Govindacandra (*c.* 1021-25 A.D.) that it is almost impossible to resist the temptation to conclude that he was one of them. It is not unlikely, as Mr. Bhattasali has contended, that they were related to the Candra kings of Arakan (*c.* 788-957 A.D).² But if these Candras were independent sovereigns, of a large portion of Eastern and Southern Bengal, as is evident from their records and the Tirumalai inscription, and if they also had control over a portion of North Bengal, as seems to be the case from their grant of land in Pauṇḍra-*Bhukti* (the same as Pauṇḍravardhana-*Bhukti*), and if we take into account the existence of independent sovereigns in the Burdwan division, then we must cut down the limits of the so-called empire of the Pālas in the time of Mahīpāla and his successors. Undoubtedly there was a revival of Pāla power under this ruler, but the facts revealed in the documents cited above considerably circumscribe the extent of his real power in Bengal and Bihar. The presence of Candras in *Vaṅgāla-deśa* in about 1021-25 A.D. shows that Mahīpāla I must have lost his hold on Eastern Bengal some time after about 995 A.D., or, what is more probable, the Baghaura inscription dated in his 3rd year, being on an image, was transferred to Tippera district from some region further west outside *Vaṅgāladeśa*. We can now understand why the name of the Pālas was omitted by the Musalman writers from the list of princes, who according to them, were active in opposing the rising tide of Islam in Northern India. It was not Mahīpāla's asceticism¹ or his envy and religious bigotry,² that prevented his name from figuring in the lists of the Muslim chroniclers among the opponents of the Yamīnīs. It was their position as rulers of a comparatively small and decadent principality in the north-east of India, a position which was much too humble to be even compared with that of Dharmapāla, which prevented them from taking any intelligent interest or playing any ambitious role in pan-Indian affairs.³