# The Pālas of Bengal/Chapter 3

CHAPTER III.
The Struggle with the Pratīhāras.
For a long time after the Northern Indian campaign of Govinda III, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa, Bengal enjoyed immunity from Gurjara invasions. The Rāṣṭrakūṭas had barred the Gurjaras so effectively in their desert country, that for the next two or three generations, the Gurjara kings were obliged to remain content with their former boundaries. It was not till the reign of the Gurjara Emperor Bhoja I, Mihira or Ādivarāha, that we hear of a Gurjara invasion of Bengal. After his succession to the throne, Devapāla was engaged in several lengthy campaigns, and pushed his conquests as far as the Himalayas in the North and the Vindhya Hills in the South:—
He met with considerable success in his wars, and we find a corroboration of this statement in an inscription incised at the request of the grandson of his minister, Darbhapāṅi Miśra. The Badal pillar inscription records that "By his (Darbhapāṇi's) policy the illustrious prince Devapāla made tributary the earth as far as Revā's parent, whose pile of rocks are moist with the rutting juice of elephants, as far as Gauri's father, the mountain which is whitened by the rays of Īśvara's moon, and as far as the two oceans, whose waters are red with the rising and the setting of the sun":—
Ā Revā-janakān = mataṅgaja-madastimyac-chila-saṅghater = ā-gaurī-pitur = īśvarendu-kiranaiḥ puṣyat = sitimno gireḥ, Marttaṇḍās-tamay-oday-āruṇa-jalād-ā-vārirāśi-dvayān = nītyā yasya bhuvaṁ cakāra karadāṁ Śrī-Devapālo nṛpaḥ. — verse 5.
In the very same inscription another verse refers to the campaigns of the same king and mentions the names of his antagonists in detail. This verse has been assigned to Vigrahapāla I by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī, but in my humble opinion it refers to the king Devapāla, for the simple reason that the verse referring to Śūrapāla, the next king after Devapāla, according to the Badal pillar inscription, is placed after it. According to this inscription both Darbhapāṇi and his grandson Kedāramiśra were the contemporaries of Devapāla. Someśvara, the son of Darbhapāṇi and the father of Kedāramiśra, was ​most probably a general. Kedāramiśra continued as minister under Śūrapāla I or Vigrahapāla I, and his son Guravamiśra was the minister of Nārāyaṇpāla. The second verse in the Badal pillar inscription about the campaigns of Devapāla runs as follows:—
Utkīlit-otkala-kulaṁ hṛta-hūṇa-garvvaṁ kharvvīkṛta-draviḍa-gurjjaranātha-darppaṁ, Bhū-pīṭham = abdhi-raśan = āhharaṇamvubhoja Gauḍeśvaraś = ciram = upāsya dhiyaṁ yadīyāṁ — verse 13.
"Attending to his (Kedāramiśra's) wise counsel the lord of Gauḍa long ruled the sea-girt earth, having eradicated the race of the Utkalas, humbled the pride of the Hūṇas, and scattered the conceit of the rulers of Draviḍa and Gurjjara."
Devapāla, his wars.The invasion of Utkala is a new point, but the fight with the Hūṇas perhaps is the same as that with the Kambojas referred to in the Monghyr grant. We know from an independent source that there was a war with the Drāviḍas, i.e. the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. In the Nilgund inscription Amoghavarṣa I, it is stated that he was "worshipped by the lords of Vaṅga, Aṅga, Magadha, Mālava and Veṅgi":—
Ari-nṛpati-makuṭa-ghaṭṭita-caranas = sakala-bhuvana-vandita-śauryyaḥ, Vaṁg-āṁga-Magadha-Mālava-Veṁgīśair = arccito = tiśayadhavalaḥ. 7-8.
Amoghavarṣa I seems to have been the contemporary of Devapāla as we know that his father Govinda III was of Dharmmapāla. The first three names: Vaṅga, Aṅga and Magadha, must refer to one and the same kingdom as we know from inscriptions that Vaṅga, Aṅga and Magadha were under Devapāla, viz. the Monghyr grant and the Ghosrawan inscription. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa invasion was most probably over within a very short time, like those under the predecessors of Amoghavarṣa I, and at its close, in spite of the reverses, Devapāla was left master of Northern India. The war with the Gurjaras was either followed by the invasion of Amoghavarṣa I, or itself followed that. In either case it is quite clear that the Gurjara king Rāmabhadra suffered this reverse at the hands of this king of Bengal, for neither in the Gurjara copper-plate grants nor in their stone inscriptions are any victories assigned to him.
During the reign of Devapāla, a Brāhmaṇa named Vīradeva, an inhabitant of Nagarahāra, came on a pilgrimage to the Mahābodhi and paid a visit to the Yaśovarmmapura Vihāra. During his stay in Magadha, Devapāla heard of him and he was made the principal abbot of Nālandā. The Monghyr grant was issued to record the grant of a village named Meṣika, in the Krimilā Viṣaya, and the Śrī-nagara bhūkti, to a brāhmaṇa named Vihekarāta, of the Aupamanyava gotra and the Āśvalāyana Śākhā, in the 33rd year of the king. The dūtaka of the grant was the king's son Rājyapāla. There is a vast mass of MSS. literature ​in Bengal recording the descent of Brāhmaṇas. For the most part these MSS. Inscriptions and Mss. records.are carelessly copied and hardly reliable, save for the names and descent of Brāhmaṇas. These records are said to contain historical allusions. Devapāla is mentioned in one of these genealogical works, the old Kārikā of Hari-Miśra-Ghaṭaka. But it is quite possible that the name is a modern interpolation, added to prove the authenticity of the work. The śloka itself as quoted by Babu Nagendra Nātha Vasu runs as follows:—
Kṣmāpāla-pratibhūr-bhuvaḥ patir-abhūd Gauḍe ca rāṣṭre tataḥ, Rājā-bhūt pravalaḥ sadaiva śaraṇaḥ Śrī-Devapālas=tataḥ.
The Prince Rājyapāla was made a Yuvarāja before the grant of the copper-plate in the 33rd regnal year, but he must have died during the lifetime of his father as we find that the king Devapāla was succeeded by Vigrahapāla I, the son of his His successor and relations. Length of reign.cousin Jayapāla and the grandson of Vākpāla, the younger brother of Dharmmapāla. In the Badal pillar inscription, the next king after Devapāla is named Śūrapāla. But these two names belong to one and the same person as we shall have to see later on. In the Monghyr grant the date is given as the 33rd regnal year, but according to Tārānātha, Devapāla is said to have reigned forty-eight years. This is most probably incorrect, though we find that both Darbhapāṇi and his grandson Kedāramiśra were his ministers and contemporaries. Devapāla's successor was Vigrahapāla I or Śūrapāla I, whose father Jayapāla had led the expedition against the king of Utkala or Orissa at the request of his cousin and conquered Prāgjyotiṣa for him. Vigrahapāla I is no doubt the same as the Śūrapāla mentioned in the Badal Vigrahapāla I or Śūrapāla Ipillar inscription because it is the only name mentioned between Devapāla and Nārāyaṇapāla, and again in the Bhagalpur grant, Vigrahapāla's name is the only one mentioned between Devapāla and Nārāyaṇapāla. Moreover in the Manahali grant of Madanapāla we do not find the name of Śūrapāla before or close to the name of Nārāyaṇapāla. Had there been a different prince of the name of Śūrapāla, his name would surely have been mentioned in it as that inscription contains almost all the names of the Pāla dynasty. Only two small inscriptions of Śūrapāla I have been discovered as yet. Both of them are dated in the second year of this king and record the erection of images at the Vihāra in Uddaṇḍapura by an old Buddhist monk named Pūrṇadāsa. These two inscriptions have been assigned to Śūrapāla II on palæographical grounds by Prof. Nilmoni Chakravartti but that is hardly tenable, as inscriptions of Mahīpāla I and Rāmapāla are written in Proto-Bengali character and it is hardly possible that the inscriptions of Rāmapāla's brother should be written in the acute-angled form of Nagari characters. The name of the Vihāra was read by Prof. Chakravartti as Uddaṇḍacuṛa, but in reality it is Uddaṇḍapura. Uddaṇḍapura is the ancient name of the modern town of Bihar. It ​is mentioned as Adwand Bihar in the Ṭabaqāt-i-Nās̤iri of Minḥāj-ud-dīn and as Uddaṇḍapura in another mediæval inscription in the town of the Gaya in Bengal. The Tibetan historian Lama Tārānātha mentions it as Otantapura, which is the nearest approach to the Sanskrit Uddaṇḍapura. Śūrapāla I or Vigrahapāla I married Lajjādevī, the daughter of the Haihaya king of Tripurī. Vigrahapāla's father, Jayapāla, was a Hindu by inclination, as after his father Vak-pāla's death he is said to have performed the funeral ceremony according to Hindu rites. Umāpati, a learned Brahmana of Kāñjivilvī, is said to have got the Mahādāna on that occasion. The fact is recorded in a commentary on the Chandogapariśiṣṭa named Pariśiṣṭa-prakāśa by Umāpati's grandson, Nārāyaṇa:—
Kṣmāpālāj = Jayapālataḥ sa hi Mahāśrāddhaṁ prabhutaṁ. Mahādānaṁ c-arthi-gaṇ = ārhaṇ = ārdra-hṛdayaḥ praty-agrahīt puṇyavān. — verse 8.
The name of the village where Umāpati lived is given as Kāñjivindā in the 2nd verse, but it is clearly a mistake for Kanjivilva, the name of a well-known town. Nothing is known about the other relatives of this king, besides his son Nārāyaṇapāla who succeeded him. The votive inscriptions mentioned above were incised in the 2nd year of the king and most probably Vigrahapāla I or Śūrapāla I had a very short reign.
Nārāyaṇapāla succeeded to the throne in very troublesome times. The Gurjaras, after their long confinement in the desert, were issuing again for the conquest of Northern India, and this time they were destined to succeed and to make Mahodaya or Kānyakubja their capital. Bhoja I succeeded his father Rāmabhadra and at the beginning his kingdom seems to have consisted of the ancestral lands of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras. Step by step Bhoja advanced towards the North. Kanauj or Mahodaya became his capital as several of his grants were issued from that place. It is not known from whom the Gurjara king wrested Kanauj, and Bhoja I and his war with the Palas.it may be that it was taken either from the Pālas or one of their contemporaries. Nothing is known about the state of Uttarāpatha or Northern India about this time, but it is certain that the Pālas lost much of their territorial possessions during this period. Bhoja I invaded Bengal and defeated the king disastrously. The war with Bengal is mentioned in his Gwalior inscription:—
Yasya vain bṛhad = baṅgān = dahataḥ kopa-vahṇinā. Pratāpād = arṇṇasāṁ rāśīn = pātur = vvaitṛṣṇam = āvabhau. — verse 21.
This invasion must have taken place late in the reign of Bhoja I, as it must have taken him some time to be seated on the throne, advance towards Kanauj, conquer it and then invade Magadha and Vaṅga. The invasion is recorded in another Pratīhāra inscription found at Māndor in Jodhpur. Kakkuka, whose brother Bauka's ​inscription is dated Vikrama Samvat 918 = 861 A.D., states that his father Kakka gained fame in a fight with the Gauḍas at Mudgagiri:—
Tatopi Śrīyutaḥ Kakkaḥ puttro jāto mahāmatiḥ. Yaśo Mudgagirau labdhaṁ, yena Gauḍaiḥ samaṁ raṇe. — verse 24.
Kakka seems to have accompanied Bhoja in his expedition against Bengal. As his son Bauka was alive in 861 A.D., Bhoja I and Kakka must have invaded Bengal a few years earlier, and this invasion must have taken place during the earlier years of Nārāyaṇapāla.
The statements of the Gwalior inscription of Bhoja I and the Mandor inscription of the Pratīhāra Kakkuka lead one to believe that there was a great war between the first Pratīhāra Emperor Bhoja I and the Pāla Emperor Vigrahapāla I or Nārāyaṇapāla of Gauḍa and Vaṇga. This fact coupled with the discovery at least of three inscriptions mentioning the reign of the Emperor Mahendrapāla, the son of Bhoja I, in Magadha of Southern Bihar and one copper-plate in Tirhut, proves that the Province of Magadha was for a time added to the vast Empire of the Pratīhāras, either during the war of Bhoja I or after it.
We have positive evidence of the fact that the city of Gayā was in the possession of Nārāyaṇapāla up to the seventh year of his reign, because in that year a man named Bhāṇḍadeva erected a monastery for ascetics in that city. Up to the seventeenth year of Nārāyaṇapāla, Mudgagiri was in his possession as his grant was issued from that place in that year. From this grant we learn that at least a part of Tīrabhūkti or Mithilā continued to be in the possession of Nārāyaṇapāla. The Pratīhāra Kakka most probably gained renown during the siege of the famous fort of Mudgagiri or Mungir.
It appears that during the long reigns of Amoghavarṣa I and Bhoja I,—and they Invasion of Amoghavarṣa I.were to some extent contemporaries,—the Gurjaras had not come into collision with the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. In the Sirur and Nilgund inscriptions of Amoghavarṣa I, that monarch claims to have been worshipped by the kings of Vaṇga, Aṅga, Magadha, Mālava and Veṇgi:—
Ari-nṛpati-makuṭa-ghaṭṭita-caraṇas = sakala bhuvana bandita śauryyaḥ. Vaṅg-Āṅga-Magadha-Mālava-Veṁgīśair = arccito = tiśayadhavalaḥ.
-verse 6 Nilgund inscription and verse 5 Sirur inscription.
The kings of Vaṅga, Aṅga and Magadha were most probably one and the same person, one of the Pālas, either Vigrahapāla I or Nārāyaṇapāla. Amoghavarṣa I must have invaded Magadha and Vaṅga through Orissa, or otherwise he must have come into conflict with the Gurjaras who were then occupying most of Northern India, but of this no record has been discovered up to date.
But as we have seen above, the Gurjaras succeeded in annexing Magadha and most probably Tīrabhūkti or Tirhut permanently to their dominions and succeeded in keeping them till the rise of the Cedis under Karṇṇadeva, when Mahīpāla I ​annexed Magdha to his territories. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa invasion was not a lasting one, like the previous ones, and, at the close of the war, the Gurjjara-Pratīhāras re-occupied Magadha.
According to the Bhagalpur grant, up to the seventeenth year of the king Mudgagiri was in his occupation. After that nothing is known about him. He was succeeded by his son Rājyapāladeva. The names of the other relations of the king are not known. The earliest record of Nārāyaṇapāla is the Gayā inscription of the seventh year. This is at present in the courtyard of the Viṣṇupāda temple in Gaya Inscriptions of Narayanapala.City. Its discovery was announced by the late Sir Alexander Cunningham in his reports, with a drawing. As this inscription has never before been properly edited, I edit it from the original:—
1. Om namo Puruṣottamāya namaḥ॥ Oṁ jayati jagati nāthaḥ prasphurac = cārumūrttir = jagad-ari-vinihantā Śrī-mad = eko murāris = tadanu-muni-janoya[ṁ] sthira-saṁkleśa-raśiḥ sphura- 2. -d = amala-guṇāyāṁ dhyāna-vṛttau sthirātmā॥ Prodbhūt-āti-darppa-pravala-mana-saṁtrāsa-hetu-svabhāvaṁ Kṛtv-aitan-nārasiṅghaṁ sphuṭa-vikaṭa-saṭam rūpam = aty-ugra-raudraṁ। ye- 3. -n = odīrṇṇaḥ pṛthivyāṁ khara-nakhara-karair = bhedito daityarājaḥ Śrī-mān = lokaikanātho bhuvana-hita-vidhātā pātu yuṣmān = sa viṣṇuḥ॥ Śrī-mān - aśeṣa-śubha-saṁbhṛta-cāru-mū- 4. -rttiḥ bhadraḥ sunirmmala-dhiyāṁ pravaro Śrīgrāha (?)। Prāptodayādita kule sukṛti vabhūva yo Vāmadeva iti sarvva-jagat = pratītaḥ। Tasy=ātmajaḥ priya-tamo viduṣāṁ samā- 5. -sīt yaṁ Sīḥadevam-iti vandhu-jano juhāva [।] Tasyābhavat = sutavaro varadharmmavṛttiḥ sammānito gurujanair-api Vappadevaḥ॥ Sarvvārtha-siddhikaraṇ-aika-nidhāna-bhūtā sau- 6. -ndarya-garbha-rucir-āmala-rūpa-saṁpat patnī ca tasya kamal = eva sadā praśastā khyātā bhavaj = jagati Vallabhadevy = at = īṣṭā॥ Tābhyām = ajanyām = ajāyata suto-mala- 7. -dharmma-vṛttir = vvāk-kāya-citta-kṛta-saṁyamano-bhimānī [।] Brahm-opavīta-carite vrata-saṅgata-śrīḥ yo Bhāṇḍadeva iti pūrvvam = iha pratītaḥ॥ Vidyul = lolām kṣaṇa-pariṇatīṁ 8. saṁskṛtānāṁ viditvā janmottrāsād = amala-bhuvana prāptum = abhyudgatena [।] yen = āty = arthaṁ sukṛta-matibhis = sevite dhyāna-mārgge ceto-nyastaṁ [su]vimalamalaṁ jñānam = āsvādanā- 9. -ya॥ Ten = āneka-dvija-jana bhuvi prema-vṛttyā Gayāyāṁ Śrī-mād = eṣo yatiṣu vihita[ḥ] sad-guṇ-āvāsa-vāsaḥ jñātaṁ śreyo yad = amala-guṇaṁ vrahma-cāryāśrameṇa tenā- 10. stvataj = jagad = amalinaṁ kṣīṇa-samkleśa-rāśiḥ॥ Cātur-vvidyaṁ-samastaṁ prasamita-kaluśaṁ vrahma-saṁnyasta-vṛttiṁ Śrīmantaṁ sat = kriyātmā prathita-pṛthu-guṇaṁ prārthaya-
11. -ty-eṣa maunī Bhuyāl = lokoऽ mita-śrīḥ para-kṛta-sukṛtaiḥ pālane rakṣaṇe ca tat = karttavyaṁ bhavadbhiḥ sthiravamala-guṇah syānnivāya-yathāyaṁ॥ Sad = vṛtt- = āmala-vṛ- 12. -ttibhiḥ sphuṭataraṁ jātādaraiḥ sarvvataḥ sarvvān = etā[n] bhāvina[ḥ] pārthivendrā bhūyo bhūyo jācaty = eṣa maunī sāmāny = oyaṁ dharmma-śetur = nārāṇ[āṁ] kāle kāle pā- 13. -laneyo bhavadbhiḥ[॥] Vyāṅgānārya-vahis = tapodhana-janaiḥ sthātavyam = atr = āśrame। Ity = etat = vratadhāribhir = niyamitaṁ bhuyād = yathā-nānyathā। Karttavyaṁ tad = ih = āmalaṁ pri- 14. -yatamair = viprair = Gayāvāsibhiḥ॥ Sphuratu kīrttir = iyaṁ guṇa-śālinī sakala-satva-hit-odaya-hetave tapati yāvad = ayaṁ bhuvi bhāskaro himaka- 15. -reṇa sah = āmala-dīdhitiḥ॥ Śrī-Nārāyaṇapāladeva iti prāpt-odayo bhūpatiḥ bhūto bhūmi bhūjā[ṁ] śirobhir-amala yasy-ocita[ṁ] śāsanaṁ rājñas = ta- 16. -sya guṇ-āmalasya mahataḥ samvatsare saptame Vaiśākhyāṁ śubha-sambhṛtena vidhinā labdha pratiṣṭhīta-maṭha.
The language of the inscription is very incorrect Sanskrit, like that of the Buddhist Sanskrit manuscripts of Nepal, and the record itself has been very carelessly incised. The purpose of the inscription is to record the erection of a monastery for Brāhmaṅical ascetics by a man named Bhāṇḍadeva in the seventh year of the king Nārāyaṇapāladeva, in the month of Vaiśākha. It opens with an invocation to Viṣṇu, in his Man-lion (Narasiṁha) incarnation and curiously enough it is at present outside the small temple of Narasiṁha, in the courtyard of the Viṣṇupāda temple, which, as we shall see later on, was certainly built during the reign of Nayapāladeva. It may mean however that the small temple of Narasiṁha was built by Bhāṇḍadeva near the monastery and was rebuilt during the time of Nayapāladeva. The genealogy of the builder is given as follows:—
| VĀMADEVA, married Vallabhadevī, | VĀMADEVA, married Vallabhadevī, | VĀMADEVA, married Vallabhadevī, | VĀMADEVA, married Vallabhadevī, | VĀMADEVA, married Vallabhadevī, | VĀMADEVA, married Vallabhadevī, |
| SIHADEVA, | SIHADEVA, | SIHADEVA, | SIHADEVA, | SIHADEVA, | SIHADEVA, |
| VAPPADEVA, | VAPPADEVA, | VAPPADEVA, | VAPPADEVA, | VAPPADEVA, | VAPPADEVA, |
| BHĀṆḌADEVA. | BHĀṆḌADEVA. | BHĀṆḌADEVA. | BHĀṆḌADEVA. | BHĀṆḌADEVA. | BHĀṆḌADEVA. |
Another small inscription of Nārāyaṇapāla was found by Pandit Vinoda Vihari Vidyavinoda of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, in the Inscription gallery of that Museum. He has published it in the journal of the Vaṅgīya Sāhitya Parishad. It is incised on a long piece of carved stone, probably the portion of a pedestal. Most probably it came with the other sculptures from the Bihar Museum founded by Mr. Broadley, when that collection was shifted to Calcutta, according to the ​directions of the Government of Bengal. There is no record about it in the Office of the Indian Museum. I edit it from an excellent inked impression made for me by Babu Hari Das Datta, of the Archæological Survey, Eastern Circle, at the order of the late Dr. T. Bloch.
(1) Om Samvat 9 Vaiśākha Śudi 5 Parameśvara-Śrī-Nārāyaṇapāladeva-rājye Andhra-vaiṣayika Śākya-bhikṣu-sthavira-Dharmmamitrasya (2) yad = atra puṇyaṁ tad = bhavatv-ācāry = opādhyāya-mātā-pitṛ-pūrvvaṅgamaṁ kṛtvā sakala-satva-rāśer = anutttara-jñāna-prāptaya iti॥
It records the erection of an image in the ninth year of the king Nārāyaṇapāla, in the month of Vaiśākha, by a Buddhist Elder, named Dharmmamitra, an inhabitant of the Andhra country.
The Bhagalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāladeva was issued when the king was staying at Mudgagiri and records the grant of the village of Makuṭikā to the temple of Siva at Kalaśapota, which was situated in the Kakṣa viṣaya, of Tīrabhūkti, thus proving that up to that time Tīrabhūkti or modern Tirhut was under the Pāla kings. The Dūtaka of this grant was the Bhaṭṭa Pūṇyakīrtti, otherwise named Guravamiśra, who erected the Garuḍa-stambha at Badal. The other inscription is not dated. It was incised to record the erection of a stone monolith surmounted by an image of Garuḍa by the Bhaṭṭa Guravamiśra, the minister of the king. According to this inscription Guravamiśra was the minister of Nārāyaṇapāla, his father Kedāramiśra that of Śūrapāla, and Devapāla, his grandfather Someśvara, a general, and his great-grandfather Darbhapāṇi, the minister of Devapāla, while his great-great-grandfather Garga was the minister of Dharmmapāla. The synchronism is shown below.
| Pāla Emperors. I Gopāla I, | Pāla Emperors. I Gopāla I, | Pāla Emperors. I Gopāla I, | Pāla Emperors. I Gopāla I, | Pāla Emperors. I Gopāla I, | Pāla Emperors. I Gopāla I, | | | | | | | Ministers | Ministers | Ministers | Ministers | Ministers | Ministers |
| II Dharmmapāla, | II Dharmmapāla, | II Dharmmapāla, | II Dharmmapāla, | II Dharmmapāla, | II Dharmmapāla, | Vākpāla, | Vākpāla, | Vākpāla, | Vākpāla, | Vākpāla, | Vākpāla, | Gargga, | Gargga, | Gargga, | Gargga, | Gargga, | Gargga, |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | Darbhapāṇi, | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Someśvara, | Someśvara, | Someśvara, | Someśvara, | Someśvara, | Someśvara, | | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | III Devapāla. | | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, | Jayapāla, |
| | | | | | | IVŚūrapāla I or Vigrahapāla I, | IVŚūrapāla I or Vigrahapāla I, | IVŚūrapāla I or Vigrahapāla I, | IVŚūrapāla I or Vigrahapāla I, | IVŚūrapāla I or Vigrahapāla I, | IVŚūrapāla I or Vigrahapāla I, | Kedāramiśra, | Kedāramiśra, | Kedāramiśra, | Kedāramiśra, | Kedāramiśra, | Kedāramiśra, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | V Nārāyaṇapāla. | V Nārāyaṇapāla. | V Nārāyaṇapāla. | V Nārāyaṇapāla. | V Nārāyaṇapāla. | V Nārāyaṇapāla. | Guravamiśra. | Guravamiśra. | Guravamiśra. | Guravamiśra. | Guravamiśra. | Guravamiśra. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Nothing is known about Nārāyaṇapāla's son Rājyapāla, who succeeded him, save that he married the Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess Bhāgyadevī, the daughter of Tuṅga, most probably the same as the Tuṅga Dharmmāvaloka, whose inscription at Mahabodhi was published by the late Dr. Rajendra Lala Mitra in his Buddha-Gaya. The verse about the marriage of Rājyapāla is to be found in the Bangarh grant of Mahīpāla I, Amgachi grant of Vigrahapāla III and the Manahali grant of Madanapāla. ​We learn from the position of the Badal pillar that the Varendrī or Northern Bengal was included in the kingdom of Nārāyaṇapāla, and after the loss of Magadha and Tīrabhūkti his son must have succeeded to a very small principality which was situated either in Rāḍhā (Western Bengal) or in the Vaṅga (Eastern Bengal) as we know from later records that about this time a Mongolian tribe invaded Northern Bengal through modern Sikkim or Bhutan and occupied Gauḍa. Later on we shall see that Gauḍa was in the occupation of Mongolians in the Śaka year 888 = 966 A.D. So the invasion must have taken place some fifty or hundred years earlier. These Mongolians are named Kāmbojas in a Sanskrit inscription. In the Mungir grant of Devapāla and the Badal pillar inscription, Devapāla is said to have fought the Kāmbojas, but this may refer to the Western Kāmbojas. The Mongolian or Kāmboja invasion of Northern India must have taken place just after Nārāyaṇapāla as no Pāla records have been found in Northern Bengal till the accession of Mahīpāla I.
Magadha was annexed by the Gurjara-Pratihāras to their dominions, and after Nārāyaṇapāla we find the names of the Gurjara princes in the votive inscriptions of Magadha. For a long time scholars have been at a loss to assign a place to a king named Mahendrapāla, several of whose inscriptions have been found in the Gayā District. All along he has been considered to be one of the Pālas of Bengal. The late Dr. F. Kielhorn also thought that he was one of the Pālas, and mentions him in a footnote in his list of the Pāla kings of Bengal. Mr. V. A. Smith, in his recent article on the Pālas of Bengal, goes so far as to assert that he was the successor of Govindapāla, whose inscriptions are dated Vikrama Samvat 1232 and 1235, i.e. 1175 and 1178 A.D. Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasād Śāstrī thinks that Mahendrapāla may have belonged to the Pāla dynasty. Two inscriptions of this king are definitely known to have been discovered in the Gayā District. One of these were found at Rām-gayā, on the other side of the river Phalgu, just opposite the temple of Gadādhar at Gayā, while the other was found at Guneriya, a village near the Grand Trunk Road. Major Kittoe spoke of a third inscription of this king, but of that we shall have to speak later on. The first of the inscriptions of this king, the one at Rāmgayā, was examined by the late Sir Alexander Cunningham, and the first line was deciphered by him. According to him, the record is incised on the pedestal of the figures of the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu. Following Cunningham's description, the image was at last found in the walls of a modern temple of Śiva at Rāmgayā, and after great difficulties, a clear impression was secured. It was evident even at the first sight that the record was considerably older than the inscriptions of Govindapāla, Rāmapāla or even Mahīpāla I. The figures of the ten avatāras are now completely hidden by whitewash, but the pedestal has been cleared of it, and it was found that the record had been incised on the right half of it. Acute-angled characters of the ninth century A.D. had been used in it, and on no account can it be placed later than the tenth century. As the record has only been partially edited before, I take the opportunity of placing it on record:—
(1) Oṁ Samvat 8। Śrī-Mahīndrapāla। rājyābhiṣe- (2) -ka। Sauḍi Riṣi putra Sahadevasya.
"Om, the year 8 (from) the coronation of Mahīndrapāla. (The gift) of Sahadeva, the son of the Riṣi (Ṛṣi) Sauḍi (Sauri)."
Mahendrapāla, in the ninth or tenth centuries A.D., immediately suggests the name of the son of Bhoja I, the great Pratihāra Emperor Mahendrapāladeva. A comparison with the Asni inscription of Mahīpāla confirmed me in the opinion that no other person than the great Pratihāra monarch was being referred to. The forms of P and J are very much similar to those used in Asni inscription and the Ghosrawan inscription of Devapāla. Moreover, the form of the name is identical with that used in the Asni inscription, where we find the name as Mahīndrapāla, and not Mahendrapāla as in other inscriptions. Dr. Fleet read this name as Mahīṣapāla. I saw a beautiful impression of this inscription in the Allahabad exibition of 1910-11, and there the name is clearly legible as Mahīndrapāla. Another inscription of Mahendrapāla is to be found at Gunariya, near the Grand Trunk Road, in the Gayā District, which was brought to notice by Major Kittoe. Kittoe's drawing of the inscribed portion of the sculpture is very clear and the record can be edited from it:—
(1) Ye dharmmā hetu prabhavā hetun = teṣāṁ ta- (2) -thāgato hy = avadat teṣāṁca yo nirodho evaṁ vā- (3) -dī mahāśramaṇaḥ। Samvat 9 Vaiśākha. (4) śudī 5 Śrī-Guṇa- (5) -carita Śrī-Mahīndrapā- (6) -ladevarājye devadha- (7) -rmmeyaṁ . . .
Kittoe found a third inscription of this king somewhere in Bihār, but as he did not state the exact locality, it is no use searching for it. Some day it will come up as a new discovery of some one who chances to stumble on it. According to Major Kittoe this inscription was dated in the 19th year of the king:—
"One mentions the fact of the party having apostatized, and again returned to the worship of the Śākya, in the 19th year of the reign of Śrī Mahendrapāladeva." There are two votive inscriptions of Mahendrapāladeva in the British Museum. One of these records the erection, most probably, of an image by a Buddhist monk named Kusuma in the ninth year of Mahendrapāla. The nature of the contents of the other inscription is not known, but it is dated in the second year of Mahendrapāladeva. It may be that the third inscription mentioned by Major Kittoe, has found its way, by some means or other, into the British Museum. As for the reading of the date, there need not be any difficulty about that, as Kittoe's readings are invariably faulty. So we have definite proof that in the eight and ninth years of the king Mahendrapāla, Magadha formed an integral part of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Empire, which at that time extended from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal.
​No inscriptions of Rājyapāla have been discovered as yet, and so nothing definite can be stated about the length or the events of his reign. According to the inscriptions of the later Pālas, he was succeeded by his son Gopāla II.
The British Museum possesses a Manuscript of the Aṣṭasāhasrika Prajñāpāramitā written in the 15th year of Gopāla II at the monastery of Vikramaśilā. Its colophon runs thus:—
Parameśvara-paramabhaṭṭāraka-paramasaugata-Mahārājādhirāja-Śrī-mad-Gopāladevapravarddhamāna-kalyāṇa-vijaya-rajy-etyādi samvat 15 āsmine dine 4 Śrī-mad Vikramaśīla-deva-vihāre likhiteyaṁ bhagavati.
We possess two inscriptions of Gopāla II, and from these we learn that Magadha was temporarily recovered by the Pālas during the reign of this monarch. The first of these inscriptions was discovered by the late Sir Alexander Cunningham, at Bargaon in the Patna District, the ancient Nālandā. It records the fact that an image of the goddess Vāgīśvarī, at Nālandā, was covered with gold leaf by some unnamed personage in the first year of Gopāladeva. The second inscription was discovered amidst the ruins of the Mahābodhi temple at Bodh-Gayā and records the erection of image of Buddha by a person named Śakrasena during the reign of Gopāladeva, no year being mentioned. These inscriptions prove that some time during the reign of Gopāla II, South Bihār or Magadha was temporarily occupied by the Pālas. The reason of this sudden enterprise is not far to seek. During the long reign of Amoghavarṣa I, whose certain dates extend from 817 to 877 A.D., there was no war between the Gurjaras and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. In fact the only war between Bhoja I and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas was his war with the Rāṣṭrakūṭas Dhruvarāja II of Gujarat some time before 867 A.D., in which Bhoja I himself was worsted. After Bhoja I, Mahendrapāla succeeded to an empire which had reached its greatest extent at that time, from Punjab to the borders of Bengal, and from the foot of the Himalayas to Saurāṣṭra. Mahendrapāla's reign was a very short one, as his certain dates range from 893 to 907 A.D. He had two wives and was succeeded by Bhoja II, his son by Dehanāgā. Most probably there was some dispute about his succession, which, may have been contested by his half-brother Mahīpāla II. Bhoja II was assisted to the throne by the Cedi Emperor Kokkalla I, which is referred to in the Bilhari inscription:—
Jitvā kṛtsnāṁ yena pṛthvīm = apurvvaṅ-kīrtti-stambha-dvandvam = āropyate sma, Kaumbhod-bhavyāndiśyasau Kṛṣṇarājaḥ Kaurveyāñ = ca Śrī-nidhir-Bhojadevaḥ—verse 17.
We find a corroboration of this statement in the Benares grant of the Cedi Emperor Karṇadeva:—
Bhoje Vallabharāje Chitrakūṭa-bhūpāle, Śaṅkaragaṇe ca rājani yasy = āsīd = abhayadaḥ pānīḥ—verse 7.
​So the Cedi Emperor also set up the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Kṛṣṇa II, whose surname was Vallabharāja, on the throne of his father Amoghavarṣa I. Kṛṣṇa II defeated the Gurjaras and at the same time led an invasion into Bengal:—
Tasy = ottarjjita-Gurjaro hṛta-haṭa-llāṭ-odbhaṭa-śrīmado Gauḍānāṁ vinaya-vratārppaṇa-gurus = Sāmudrā = nidrāharaḥ, Dvārasth = Āṁga-Kaliṁga-Gāṁga-Magadhair = abhyarccit = ājñaś = ciraṁ sūnus = sūnṛtavāg = bhuvaḥ parivṛḷaḥ Śrī Kṛṣṇarājo-bhavat. -verse 13, Deoli plates of Kṛṣṇa III, and verse 15, Karhad plates of the same.
The Gurjara king defeated by Kṛṣṇarāja II seems to be Bhoja II. He was succeeded very shortly by his half-brother Mahīpāla, under whom the area of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Empire became very circumscribed. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Kṛṣṇa II also had a very short reign and was succeeded by his grandson Indra III. His certain years range from 902 to 911, and as those of Bhoja II are almost the same, it is almost certain that he was the king who was defeated by Kṛṣṇa II. After the accession of Mahīpāla, whose certain dates range from 914 to 917, Indra III invaded the Gurjara Empire, crossed the Yamunā, occupied Kānyakubja, and most probably destroyed the city. Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar has already proved that at that time Kṣitipāla or Mahīpāla was the reigning sovereign at Kanauj. In this campaign, Narasiṁha, a feudatory of Indra III, pursued the Gurjara king Mahīpāla as far as the confluence of the Ganges. Narasiṁha, according to the Karṇṇāṭaka-Śabdānuśāsana by Bhaṭṭa Kalaṅkadeva, "snatched from the Gurjara king's arms the goddess of victory, whom, though desirous of keeping, he had held too loosely. Mahīpāla fled as if struck by thunder-bolts, staying neither to eat nor rest, nor pick himself up, while Narasiṁha pursuing, bathed his horse at the junction of the Ganges and established his fame." The mention of the confluence of the Ganges as the extremity of Narasiṁha's pursuit of Mahīpāla, without any mention of the Gauḍa king, most probably indicates that the Eastern frontier of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Empire at that time extended up to the junction of the Ganges with the Sea. This is not to be wondered at as it is now certain that Magadha formed an integral part of the dominions of Mahīpāla's father Mahendrapāla. During this war Gopāla II of Bengal may have taken the opportunity of recovering some of the traditional possessions of his family and pushed the Western frontier as far as the eastern banks of the Sone. This re-occupation of the Magadha may have been temporary, and Mahīpāla may have recovered the possession of his Eastern Provinces, with the help of the Candella Yaśovarmman. As no inscriptions of Gopāla's successor Vigrahapāla II have been discovered, we are not in a position to say definitely whether Magadha continued to be a province of the Pāla Empire or was re-annexed by the Gurjaras. A MS. of the Pañcarakṣā written in the 26th year of Vigrahapāladeva II is preserved in the British Museum collection: the latter part of its colophon runs thus:—
​Parameśvara-Paramabhaṭṭāraka-Paramasaugata Mahārājādhirāja-Śrīmad-Vigrahapāladevasya pravardhamāna-vijayarājye-[about 15 indistinct akṣaras] Samvat 26 Āśāḍha dina 24॥
Before closing this chapter it should be noted that about this time an independent kingdom was established in Eastern Bengal. The existence of this kingdom was made known by the discovery of two copper-plate grants of Devakhaḍga, the last king of this dynasty. From these copper-plate grants it is now known that the dynasty reigned for three generations:—
| Khaḍgodyama. | Khaḍgodyama. | Khaḍgodyama. | Khaḍgodyama. | Khaḍgodyama. | Khaḍgodyama. |
| Jātakhaḍga. | Jātakhaḍga. | Jātakhaḍga. | Jātakhaḍga. | Jātakhaḍga. | Jātakhaḍga. |
| Devakhaḍga. | Devakhaḍga. | Devakhaḍga. | Devakhaḍga. | Devakhaḍga. | Devakhaḍga. |
Nothing is known about their dates save and except that the grants were issued in the thirteenth year of Devakhaḍga. The learned Editor of the plates has assigned them to the eighth or ninth century A.D. But on comparison with the inscriptions of the Pāla Emperors it is found that their correct date would be the first half of the tenth century A.D. These two plates are the earliest inscriptions from Eastern Bengal proper, and the record next in order was incised so late as the reign of king Lakṣmaṇasena of Bengal.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XXI, p. 255.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 162.
* ↑ Mem. A.S.B, Vol. III, p. 8.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol II, p. 162, verse 9.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 103.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XVII, p. 309.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., Pt. I, 1896, p. 21.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XV, p. 305, v. 6.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., N.S., Vol. IV, p. 108.
* ↑ Mem. A.S.B., Vol III., p. 13.
* ↑ Tabaqat-i-Nasiri (Bib. Ind.), p. 491.
* ↑ Cunningham, Arch. Surv. Rep., Vol. III, p. 128.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XV, p. 305, v. 9.
* ↑ Eggeling-Cat., Skt. MSS. in Ind. Office Lib., Pt. I, pp. 92-3.
* ↑ Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind., 1903-04, pp. 282-84.
* ↑ J.R.A.S., 1894, pp. 3 & 7.
* ↑ Ibid., 1895, p. 515.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XV, p. 306, l. 30.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. VI, p. 103.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 205.
* ↑ Cunningham, Arch. Surv. Rep., Vol. III, p. 120, No. 6, pt. XXXVI.
* ↑ Vangiya Sahitya-parishad-Patiika, Vol. XV, p. 13.
* ↑ Buddha-Gaya, p. 195, pl. XI.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. VIII, App. p. 18, note 2.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXVIII, p. 246.
* ↑ Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 16.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, p. 174.
* ↑ J.A.S B., Vol. XVII, 1848 pt. I, p. 238.
* ↑ Nachr. v. d. Konigl. Ges. d. Wis. z. Gotting., phil.-hist, Kl. 1904, pp. 210-11
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol IX, p. 4
* ↑ J.R.A.S., 1910, pp. 150-51.
* ↑ Cunningham, Arch. Surv. Rep., Vol. I, p. 36, pl. XIII. 1.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., N. S., Vol. IV, p. 105.
* ↑ J.R.A.S., 1904, pp. 647-8.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, p. 181.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 4.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol XV, p. 110.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. I, p. 256.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 306.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. V, p. 193; ibid., Vol. IV, p. 283.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 38.
* ↑ Karnnataka-Sabdanusasana, ed. Lewis Rice, p. 26.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. I, p. 122.
* ↑ Bendall, Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the British Museum, p. 232, J.R.A.S., 1910, p. 151.
* ↑ Mem. A.S.B., Vol I, p. 86.