The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c16.288

Language: English

v1.c16.288.1

The Kāmarūpa prince is probably to be identified with one of the predecessors of Vallabhadeva, whose Assam plates are dated in *Śaka* 1107.³ The identification of Govardhana, whose dignity was crippled by Jātavarman, is not certain. Mr. Basak has asked: May he be the father of Bhaṭṭa Bhavadeva of a Bhuvanesvar inscription,⁴ the Brahman Govardhana "distinguished as a warrior and a scholar," whose father was the *Mahāmantrī* and *Sandhivigrahin* of a king of Vaṅga? The probability of this identification is increased by the fact that the village of Siddhala where lay the residence of the donee of the Belava grant is also mentioned in this Bhuvanesvar epigraph as the residence of this ministerial family. The context of both the inscriptions shows that this village was situated in Rāḍhā. It is not unlikely that the *Vaṅgarāja* referred to above is to be identified with one of the Candra kings after whose downfall the family in the time of Bhaṭṭa Bhavadeva, the son of Govardhana, transferred its allegiance to the Varmans. If this guess is correct, king Harivarmadeva, who together with his son was aided by the counsel of Bhavadeva, must be supposed to be a later member of the line of Bhojavarman of the Belava grant.¹ Another identification proposed by Paṇḍit H. P. Śāstrī is that the great warrior Udayin, the contemporary of Sāmalavarman, who is mentioned in V.

v1.c16.288.2

10 of the Belava inscription, is the same as the Paramāra ruler Udayāditya (*c.* 1060-87 A D.) who defeated the Tripurī Kalacuri Lakṣmī-Karṇa.² The same scholar also takes the word Jagad-vijaya-malla in V. 11, not as an adjective of *manobhū*, but as a proper name, and identifies him with Jagaddeva or Jagadeo, the youngest son of the Paramāra Udayāditya, who served under Jayasiṁha-Siddharāja, the Caulukya ruler of Anahilapāṭaka (*c.* 1094-1144 A.D.).³ Though some of these identifications have been accepted by other scholars, yet on the whole I think them rather improbable, if not impossible. The reason that led H. P. Śāstrī to place all these rulers in Malwa is perhaps the occurrence of the word Mālavya (Mālava?)-devī in V. 11, as the name of the queen of Sāmalavarman.⁴ Whatever may be the value of these identifications, it is certain that these Varmans held Eastern Bengal, and portions of North and West Bengal during the latter half of the 11th century. The Belava inscription shows that they had their camp at Vikramapura, and they granted land in Puṇḍra-Bhukti (= Puṇḍravardhana-*Bhukti*) to inhabitants of villages in Rāḍhā. At least one of them, Jātavarman, was so powerful as to gain supremacy over Aṅga (Bhagalpur region, Bihar), which was certainly under the Pālas during this period. Thus the Pāla power under Vigrahapāla III must have been restricted to portions of Bihar, North Bengal, and probably the upper part of the Presidency division of Bengal.

v1.c16.288.3

It is possible that the Varmans took possession of portions of Puṇḍravardhana *Bhukti* after the 13th year of Vigrahapāla III. In this case it must be assumed that the Pāla kingdom was fast declining in the latter part of the reign of this ruler. The crisis was hastened by the death of Vigrahapāla III (*c.* 1081 A.D.) He left three sons, Mahīpāla II, Śūrapāla II, and Rāmapāla.¹ Of these the eldest, Mahīpāla II, succeeded him. The history of his reign and of the troublesome period that followed is entirely derived from the *Rāma-carita* of Sandhyākara Nandī. According to this work there was not much love lost between these brothers, and soon after his accession Mahīpāla imprisoned Śūrapāla and Rāmapāla.² Taking advantage of these internal dissensions, Divvoka, a chief of the Kaivartas, who appears to have been at first a servant of the Pālas,³ raised the standard of rebellion in Varendrī, and drove away his master from that part of North Bengal which still remained under the Pālas. Mahīpāla II who is described as lacking in good policy⁴ did not accept the advice of his ministers, but foolishly marched out against the rebel chief with a hastily collected force. The campaign ended in disaster. Mahīpāla was defeated and killed.⁵