# The Pālas of Bengal/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II.
Gopāla I and Dharmmapāla.
Gopāla I was most probably an elderly man when he was called to the throne. Nothing is stated definitely about him or the events of his reign in any of the numerous Pāla inscriptions. In the Khalimpur grant of his son Dharmmapāla we find that he married Deddadevī, the daughter of the king of the Bhadra country. The Bhadras have been variously placed in Middle, Eastern or Southern India in the Bṛhat Saṁhita. The Mungir grant of Devapāladeva mentions him as the type of a well-conducted king. In the rest of the copper-plates of the Pāla dynasty the verse quoted below is used about Gopala I:—
Jitvā yaḥ kāma-kārī-prabhavam = abhibhavaṁ śāśvatīṁ prāpa śāntiṁ, Sa śrīmān lokanātho jayati Daśabaloऽnyaś = ca Gopāladevaḥ.
We find this verse in the Bhagalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla, Dinajpur grant of Mahīpāla I, Amgachi grant of Vigrahapāla III, and the Manahali grant of Madanapāla. No inscriptions of this king either on stone or on plates of copper have been discovered as yet, as has been stated by Mr. V. A. Smith. According to Mr. V. A. Smith, Gopāla I was the king of Bengal, who was defeated by the Gurjara king Vatsarāja. But in my humble opinion the Gurjara and Rāṣṭrakūṭa invasions must have taken place before the accession of Gopāla I. In the next reign we find that the king of Bengal was acknowledged supreme by all kings of Northern India. Now Gopāla was elected king by the people of Bengal and his position consequently was not very strong within his own possessions. He was the son of a military adventurer, and he must have wanted a long and peaceful reign to consolidate his power. The Gurjara king Vatsarāja must also have reigned for a pretty long time as he is mentioned in a Jaina work, which we shall examine later on, to be the contemporary of a king who was overthrown by the son of Gopāla. Most probably Gopāla I had a shorter reign than Vatsarāja, who had overrun Bengal before the accession of the former, but lived long enough to see the former's son conquer his former possessions.
Length of reign and successor.According to Tārānātha, Gopāladeva is said to have reigned for 45 years and Mr. V. A. Smith puts accession to the year 732 A.D., but as we shall see later on when we come to the first definite date of this dynasty, that this is a little premature. Gopāladeva ascended the throne about 750 a. d. and was most probably succeeded by his son Dharmmapāladeva after a very short reign.
​Dharmmapāla.Dharmmapāladeva, the second king of the Pāla dynasty, was the real founder of the greatness of his line and the Empire over which his successors ruled. He was also the leading figure in Northern Indian politics in the last half of the eighth and the first half of the ninth centuries A.D. Most probably Bengal enjoyed some respite from foreign invasions during the reign of Gopāla I, and after him, his son felt strong enough to take part in the disputes of the contemporary monarchs of Northern India, and to conduct long campaigns. Before proceeding to discuss the events of his reign we should consider his date which is the first fixed point in the History of Bengal during this period. The chronology of the Pālas of Bengal was for a long time in a hopelessly confused state. Leaving aside the earlier theories about the dates of the Pālas we find even in recent times widely divergent theories about the date of Dharmmapāla. In the XVth Volume of his reports the late Sir Alexander Cunningham fixed the date of Dharmmapāla's accession in 831 A.D. In his article on the Cambay plates of Govinda III, Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar places Dharmmapāla in the earlier part of the tenth century. Dharmmapāla's date seems to have become fixed from synchronisms, which have been given for the first time in the preface of the Rāmacarita of Sandhyākaranandi by the learned Editor. The synchronisms have also been noticed almost simultaneously by two other scholars—Mr. V. A. Smith and Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar.
The first question about the true date of Dharmmapāla was raised incidentally in 1891 by the late Dr. Kielhorn on a passage in the Bhagalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla:—
Jitv = endra-rāja-prabhṛtīn = arātīn = upārjjitā yena Mahodaya Śrīḥ, dattaḥ punaḥ sa valin = ārthayitre Cakrayudhāy = ānativāmanāya.
At that time Dr. Kielhorn was unable to identify the kings Indrarāja or Cakrāyudha. The discovery of the Khalimpur grant supplied some additional facts and the well-known verse:—
Bhojair-Matsaiḥ sa-Madraiḥ Kuru-Yadu-Yavan = Āvantī-Gandhāra-Kīrair = bhupair = vyālola-mauli-praṇati-pariṇataiḥ sādhu saṅgīryamānaḥ, Hṛṣyat Pañcāla-vṛddh-oddhṛta-kanakamaya-svābhiṣekodakumbho dattaḥ śrī-Kānyakubjas = sa-lalita-calita-bhrulatā-lakṣma-yena.
For a long time nothing could be made out of the historical allusions in the two verses quoted above. It was known to the scholars that a certain verse of the Jaina Hari-vaṁśa-purāṇa referred to a king named Indrarāja who was a contemporary of Vatsarāja and was living in the year 705 of the Śaka era, i.e. 783 A.D. But so far nobody was able to connect Indrāyudha with the Indrarāja of the Bhagalpur grant. Some time before November 1896, a stone inscription was discovered in some excavations which were being carried ​on near the city of Gwalior, and a pencil rubbing of which with a photograph was handed over to the late Dr. Kielhorn by Dr. A. F. R. Hœrnle. A summary of this inscription was published by Dr. Kielhorn and it became known that Nāgabhaṭa II, son of Vatsarāja of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra family, conquered a king named Cakrāyudha, "whose low state was manifested by his dependence on another (or others)," and defeated the Lord of Vaṅga. The Cakrāyudha mentioned in this inscription is evidently the same Cakrāyudha who received the sovereignty of Mahodaya from Dharmmapāla of Bengal, and this identity is made doubly certain by the phrase "parāśrayakṛta-sphuṭa-nīca-bhāvaṁ." The inscription has since been edited by Pandit Hirānanda Sāstrī of the Archæological Survey, Northern Circle, and the verses about the conquests of Nagabhaṭa II run thus:—
Trayy = āspadasya sukṛtasya samṛddhim = icchur = yaḥ kṣatradhārā-vidhi-vaddha vali-prahandhaḥ, Jitvā parāśraya-kṛta-sphuṭa-nīca-bhāvaṁ Cakrāyudhaṁ vinayanamra-pūrvvarājat.— verse 9.
As a confirmation of the above statement came the verses of an unpublished grant of Amoghavarṣa I, now in the possession of Prof. Śrīdhara R. Bhandarkar, according to which during the victorious march of Govinda III, Dharmma and Cakrāyudha submitted of their own accord to that king:—
Himavat = parvvata-nirjjhar = āmbu turagaiḥ pītañ = ca gāḍhaṅ-gajair-ddhanitaṁ majjan-turyakair = dviguṇitaṁ bhuyopi tat-kandare, svayam = ev = opanatau ca yasya mahatas = tau Dharmma-Cakrāyudhau Himavān-kīrttisarūpatām-upagatas-tat = kīrttinārāyaṇaḥ.—verse 23.
As Nāgabhaṭa is mentioned in the preceding verse there remains no doubt about the identity of Dharmma and Cakrāyudha and the Cakrāyudha and the King of Bengal of the Gwalior inscription. He is the very same person who was seated on the throne of Mahodaya or Kanauj by Dharmmapāla of Bengal and who was defeated by the Gurjara king Nāgabhaṭa at the same time as the Pāla king. The mention of Nāgabhaṭa in the preceding verse makes this identification doubly certain:—
Sa Nāgabhaṭa-Candragupta-nṛpayor-yaśo{?)r-yaṁ raṇe svahāryam = apahārya dhairya-vikalān-ath-onmulayan. Yasor-jjanaparo nṛpān-svabhuvi śāli sasyān-iva puṇaḥ punaratiṣthipat-svapada eva c - ānyān = api.—verse 22.
So it is evident that the Kings Nāgabhaṭa II and Govinda III were the contemporaries of Dharmmapāla and Cakrāyudha. We possess a certain date for Nāgabhaṭa II, in the Buchkala inscription; the Vikrama year 872 = 815 A.D. ​Govinda III's certain dates range from 794 to 813 A.D. Consequently Dharmmapāla must be placed in the last decades of the eighth and the first decades of the ninth century A.D.
The events of Dharmmapāla's reign.The most important event in the reign of Dharmmapāla is his conquest of Northern India. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Dhruva had driven Gurjara invaders back into the desert and the Rāṣṭrakūṭa occupation of the country most probably did not last long, otherwise there would not have been any necessity of a fresh invasion under Govinda III. The whole of Northern India most probably relapsed into that restless state which necessitated the election of a strong ruler in Bengal. On his accession, an able man like Dharmmapāla practically found the whole country at his mercy. The ancient race of Bhaṇḍi had been ousted from the throne by Vatsarāja, Nāgabhaṭa's father, and a king named Indrāyudha was reigning at Mahodaya or Kanauj in the Vikrama year 705 = 783 A.D. It may be that he also belonged to the family of Bhaṇḍi. When we remember that according to the verse of the Bhagalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla, Dhrammapāla ousted a king of Kanauj named Indrarāja and gave the kingdom to Cakrāyudha, we feel certain that this Indrāyudha is no other than the Indrarāja of the Bhagalpur grant.
Dharmmapāla's Northern Indian campaign must have begun some time after 783 A.D. In the Jaina Harivaṁśa Purāṇa we find that in the year 705 of the Śaka era Indrāyudha was ruling in the North, Śrī-Vallabha in the South, the Lord of Avanti in the East, and Vatsarāja in the West:—
Śakeṣvabdaśateṣu saptasu diśāṁ pañchottareṣūttarāṁ Pātīndrāyudhanāmni Kṛṣṇanṛpaje Śrīvallabhe dakṣiṇāṁ, Pūrvaṁ Śrīmad-Avantī-bhubhṛti nṛpe Vatsādirāje parāṁ Sorya nāmādhimaṇḍale jayayute vīre varāhe vati.
We know already from the Wani and Radhanpur grants that Dhruva, Śri Vallabha and Vatsarāja were contemporaries. In the year 783 Dhruva must have been in his old age, and long before that he must have driven Vatsarāja back into the desert country from Kanauj and Bengal as the latter is only mentioned as ruler of the West. Again, as Indrarāja or Indrāyudha was reigning in the North in 783 a. d., so Dharmmapāla's Northern Indian campaign must have taken place after that year. As has been already stated above, Dhruva and Vatsarāja seem to have had very long reigns. The invasion of Northern India by these two kings seems to have taken place during the earlier parts of their reigns. Bengal most probably enjoyed about fifty years' respite from foreign invasions before Dharmmapāla came to the throne. Though Indrāyudha, the contemporary of Dhruva and Vatsarāja, was dispossessed of his throne by Dharmmapāla, yet it appears that both of these kings died before Dharmmapāla's accession, as their sons, Nāgabhaṭa II and Govinda III, are mentioned in the inscriptions as his contemporaries. The first act of Dharmmapāla ​Conquest of Kanauj and displacement of Indrāyudha.after his accession seems to have been the invasion of Kanauj. The exact cause of this invasion has not been revealed to us by any of the records discovered up to date. Most probably the existence of the weak kingdom on his western frontier tempted him to lead an invasion into the heart of the middle country. The result of this invasion is already well known. Indrāyudha, the old king,—old he must have been as he was to some extent the contemporary of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Dhruva and the Gurjara Vatsarāja,—was deposed. Dharmmapāla set up a nominee of his own, named Cakrāyudha, who was most probably the king of the Pañcāla Country. The last supposition is based on the fact that in the Khalimpur grant it is stated that the Elders of the Pañcāla Country rejoiced at his election. This selection finally proved to be a very costly one for Dharmmapāla. In the famous historical verse of the Khalimpur grant we find that the Kuru, Yadu, Yavana, Avantī, Gandhāra, Kīra, Bhoja, Matsya and Madra kings had to agree to the selection of Cakrāyudha as the king of Kanauj or Mahodaya. This means, in plain language, that Dharmmapāla had to defeat these kings, and then to force his nominee on them. Consequently we must acknowledge that Dharmmapāla conquered or overran Eastern Punjab and Sindh (Kuru and Yadu), Western Punjab and the North-Western Frontier Provinces (Yavana and Gandhāra), Kangra (Kīra), Malwa (Avantī), and North-Eastern Rajputana (Bhoja and Matsya). The Madras are mentioned in the Mahābhārata as living outside the pale of Aryan civilization, and most probably the country meant is some part of Afghanistan.
The accession of Cakrāyudha on the throne of Kanauj was not satisfactory to Nāgabhaṭa II, the king of the Gurjaras. We know from the 9th verse of the Gwalior inscription of Bhoja I, that Nāgabhaṭa II defeated Cakrāyudha. According to the 10th verse of the same inscription he is said to have defeated the King of Bengal also:—
Dūrvvāra-vairi-vara-vāraṇa-vāji-vārayān = augha-saṁghaṭana-ghora-ghan — āndhakāraṁ, Nirjjitya Vaṁgapatim = āvirabhūd = vivasvān = udyan = n-iva tri-jagad-eka-vikāśa-kośaḥ. — verse 10.
It is evident that Dhammapāla tried his best to support his protegee. In so doing he must have suffered a serious reverse at the hands of the Gurjara king. In this condition both Dharmmapāla and Cakrāyudha sought the help of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Emperor Govinda III. This is proved by the 23rd verse of the unpublished grant of Amoghavarṣa I in the possession of Mr. S. R. Bhandarkar. Being solicited by the most influential king of Northern India and his subordinate, the king of one of the oldest cities in India, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa monarch led a campaign against the powerful Gurjaras. The result of this campaign has already been stated above while quoting the 23rd verse of the unpublished grant of Amoghavarṣa I. ​The defeat inflicted upon the Gurjaras by the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Emperor had a very lasting effect. Govinda III made his nephew, the Mahāsāmantādhipati Karkarāja II of the Gujarat Branch of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family, a door-bar for the country of the Gurjaras, which we learn from the verse of the Baroda grant of Karkarāja quoted above. Besides the unpublished grant of Amoghavarṣa I, we have further evidence of the defeat of a Gurjara king by Govinda III. In the Radhanpur grant of Govinda III it is stated that the Gurjara king fled on hearing of the approach of Govinda III, as the rainy season flies away on the approach of autumn;—
Saṁdhāy = āśu śilīmukhāṁ sva-samayāṁ va(ba)nāsanasy = opari prāptaṁ varddhita-vaṁ(baṁ)dhujīva-vibhavaṁ padm-ābhivṛddhy-anvitaṁ. Sannakṣatram = udīkṣya yaṁ śarad-ṛtuṁ parjanyavad = Gurjaro naṣṭah kv = āpi bhayāt = tathā na samaraṁ svapne = pi paśyed = yathā. — verse 15.
The dream of having a capital at Kanauj, which had impelled more than one Gurjara King to invade Northern India, was over. The Mahāsāmanta became such an efficient door-bar that the Gurjaras were confined to the desert tracts of Rajputana for more than two generations. Dharmmapāla and Cakrāyudha were left in undisputed possession of their territories. Further mention of this triangular struggle between the Pālas, Gurjaras and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas is to be found in two inscriptions of Mahendrapāla, edited by the late Dr. Kielhorn just before his death. In these grants it is stated that Vāhukadhavala, a feudatory of the Gurjara Emperor Mahendrapāla, but a Cālukya by descent, defeated a king named Dharmma. Now as Vāhukadhavala was the third in ascent from Balavarman, the contemporary of Mahendrapāla, it is probable that he was a contemporary of Nāgabhaṭa II, who, as we have seen above, was the contemporary of Dharmmapāla of Bengal. So it now appears to be certain that the king Dharmma defeated by Vāhukadhavala was no other than Dharmmapāla of Bengal, who was fighting for his lost prestige in Northern India. In his article on the Una grant of Mahendrapāla, Dr. Kielhorn says that as Balavarman was a contemporary of Mahendrapāla and lived in 893 A.D., so his grandfather Vāhukadhavala must be the contemporary of Bhoja I. But this is hardly possible as king Dharmmapāla must have preceded Bhoja I to some extent at any rate. As Balavarman, as well as his son, Avanivarman II, were the contemporaries of Mahendrapāla so it becomes certain that Balavarman was advanced in age when Mahendrapāla came to the throne. So Balavarman himself must be taken to be the contemporary of the Emperor Bhoja I. Consequently Avanivarman I becomes the contemporary of Rāmabhadra and Vāhukadhavala of Nāgabhaṭa II. This statement is amply supported by the fact that Nāgabhaṭa II had a long war with Dharmmapāla of Bengal. Vāhukadhavala is also said in Mahendrapāla's grants to have defeated the Karṇṇāṭa Army. As Dr. Kielhorn has suggested, the Karṇṇāṭas mentioned are really Rāṣṭrakūṭas. Most probably Vāhukadhavala defeated some portion of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa forces during the Northern Indian campaign of Govinda III.
We know from the Nilgund inscription of Amoghavarṣa I, that some time during ​the campaign of Dharmmapāla and Govinda III against Nāgabhaṭa II, the Pāla and Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings fell out and in the struggle which ensued Dharmmapāla was defeated. This must have taken place after the defeat of Nāgabhaṭa II by the confederate armies:—
Kerala-Mālava-Gauḍān = sa-Gurjjarā[ṁ]ś = Citrakūṭagiridu[r]-ggasthān baddhvā Kāñcīśān = atha sa Kīrttinārāyaṇo jātaḥ.
Dharmmapāla must have reigned for at least thirty-two years as his Khalimpur grant is dated in that year. Tārānātha says that he ruled for sixty-four years, which is impossible as we shall see in the following pages. The late Dr. Kielhorn was also of opinion that Dharmmapāla had a long reign. In the Monghyr grant it is stated that Dharmmapāla married the daughter of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa chief Parabala, a lady named Raṇṇādevi. Recently Dr. Kielhorn has published an inscription found on a pillar at Pathari, in the Native State of Bhopal in Central India. Length of reign, and relations.According to this inscription a king of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas named Parabala was reigning in the Vikrama year 917 = 861 A.D. This Parabala is most probably the father-in-law of Dharmmapāladeva. So if Parabala married his daughter to the Pāla king, the latter must have had reigned for a very long time. Parabala and his father were very long-lived men. His father Karkarāja defeated a king named Nāgāvaloka, who was a contemporary of Chāhamāna Guvāka I of Sākambharī and one of whose grants is dated in the year 813 of the Vikrama era = 756 A.D. Dharmmapāla had a son named Tribhuvanapāla, who is mentioned in the Khalimpur grant as the dūtaka, and who seems to have died during the lifetime of his father as Dharmmapāla was succeeded by his second son Devapāladeva after a reign of about forty years.
No coins of Dharmmapāla have been discovered as yet, and the only other inscription of Dharmmapāla besides the Khalimpur grant is a small votive inscription of the 26th year of his reign, found at Bodh-Gaya in the Gaya district of Bengal. The sculpture, on which the inscription has been incised, was removed to the Indian Museum in 1895 when Mr. Broadley's collection of antiquities was sent to Calcutta by the order of the Government of Bengal. The inscription was published in 1908 by Pandit Nilmoni Chakravartti, Professor of Pali and Sanskrit in the Presidency College, Calcutta. It records the erection of a four-faced Mahādeva in a place called Campaśāyatana, by a man named Keśava, the son of a sculptor named Ujvala, and the excavation of a tank at the cost of three thousand drammas, in the 26th regnal year of Dharmmapāla. His Khalimpur grant was issued from Pāṭaliputra. It is well known that he is the king of Bengal repeatedly referred to in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa and Gurjara records. In the Monghyr grant of his son Devapāla, Dharmmapāla's followers are said to have bathed at Kedāra, and at the mouth of the Ganges during his expeditions, and this bears out the statements made in the ​Khalimpur grant. This grant was issued in his 32nd year and records the grant of the villages named Krauñcaśvabhra, Māḍhāsāmmalī and Pālitaka in the Vyāghrataṭī maṇḍala of the Mahantāprakāśa viṣaya, and Gopippalī of the Āmraṣaṇḍikā maṇḍala of the Sthālikkaṭa viṣaya, all of which were situated in the Pauṇḍravardhana bhukti, to the temple of the god Nunna-Nārāyaṇa at Śubhasthalī, at the request of his feudatory, the Mahāsāmantādhipati Nārāyaṇavarmman, which was communicated to the king by the Prince Tribhuvanapāla.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. IV, p. 248, v. 5.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XXII, pp. 174-5.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. XXI, p. 255.
* ↑ Ibid. Vol. XXXVIII, p. 245.
* ↑ J.R.A.S., 1909, p. 76.
* ↑ Arch. Survey Rep., Vol. XV, p. 150.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. VII, p. 33.
* ↑ J.R.A.S., 1908, p. 252.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 26, note 4.
* ↑ Ind. Ant. Vol. XX, pp. 187-88.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. IV, p. 248.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XV, p. 141, Peterson's 4th report on the search of Skt. MSS. in the Bombay Presidency.
* ↑ Nachrichten von der Konigl. Ges. der Wiss. zu Gottingen, Phil. Hist. klasse, 1905, p. 301.
* ↑ Ann. Rep. Archl. Surv., 1903—04, pp. 281 and 284.
* ↑ J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. XXII, pt. LXI, p 118.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 198.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. VII, App. II, p. 3.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXV, p. 17.
* ↑ Arch. Survey Rep., 1903-04, p. 281.
* ↑ Epi. Ind. Vol. VI, p. 244.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 3.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 103.
* ↑ Nach. Kon. Ges. der Wiss. zu Gottengen, 1905, p. 303.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XXI, p. 255.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 250.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 231, note 4.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., Vol. IV, New Series, p. 102.