Original sentence: Barua claimed that the throne of Kamarupa was occupied by a king named Prithu after the end of the Vaidyadeva line.Bhattasali asserts that the Prithu mentioned in the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri was in fact some other king from Awadh which K.However, N.Recent scholarship identifies Prithu with Visvasundara, a post-Pala ruler of Kamarupa
Edited sentence: Barua Bahadur in his book Early History of Kamrupa claims that the throne of Kamrupa was occupied by a king named Prithu after the end of the Vaidyadeva line.Bhattasali in his article published in the journal The Indian Historical Quarterly hypothesized that the Prithu mentioned in the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri was in fact some other king from Awadh which K.He writes:I am afraid, a mistake of Sir Wolsey Haig in the IIIrd volume of the Cambridge History of India misled the Rai Bahadur (Barua) into taking Prithu to be a king of Kamrupa.However, the historian N.It is, therefore, necessary here to discuss again the proofs on which the existence of this Prithu rests.The only authority for the existence of this Prithu is the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri,...I hope it is clear now, that Prithu must have been a man of Audh and not of Kamrupa, and Sir Wolsey Haig's erroneous conjecture led Rai Bahadur Barua into error