The Pālas of Bengal/Chapter 5

by Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay

CHAPTER V.

The Decline of the Pālas.

After the death of Vigrahapāla III, his eldest son Mahīpāla II ascended the throne of his ancestors. According to the author of Rāmacarita, untoward things began to happen in this reign.^[1] Accession of Mahīpāla II, imprisonment of the Princes Rāmapāla and Śūrapāla. Rebellion in Northern Bengal.He did not act according to the advice of his ministers and was not well disposed towards his remaining brothers Śūrapāla and Rāmapāla. He was told by the people that Rāmapāla was an able Prince, as well as a popular and vigorous administrator, and that he would kill him and take away his kingdom. So, by low cunning, he tried to kill him, and at last succeeded in confining him in a prison.^[2] It appears that Mahīpāla's younger brother Śūrapāla was sent to prison at the same time as his youngest brother Rāmapāla:—Apareṇa bhrāttrā Śūrapālena saha kaṣṭāgāraṁ kārāgṛhaṁ mahattavanam rakṣaṇam yatra.^[3] This Śūrapāla was older than Rāmapāla, because the author of the Rāmacarita states, that Rāmapāla's son succeeded to the throne, though Śūrapāla was Rāmapāla's elder.^[4] The brothers were reduced to very great straits while in prison.^[5] The author adds in another place that both brothers were sent to prison because Mahīpāla had apprehensions of being dethroned by them.^[6] About this time Divvoka, a former servant, by cunning, took away a part of Rāmapāla's paternal kingdom Varendrī.^[7] War in Northern Bengal. Death of Mahīpāla II.Mahīpāla went to fight against the confederate rebel's with the small force at his command and fell in battle. This happened while Rāmapāla was in prison.?^[8] Elsewhere it is specified that the Kaivartta King killed Mahīpāla.^[9] After Mahīpāla's death Rāmapāla seems to have been set free, but driven out of the country, as the author of Rāmacarita states, that Rāmapāla became careless of his body and mind, because he was kept out of his kingdom.^[10] Nothing is known about the period following the death of Mahīpāla II up to the accession of Rāmapāla. Śūrapāla II seems to have been recognized, by the adherents of the Pāla Princes as the successor of Mahīpāla II, as he is mentioned by name in the Manahali grant of Madanapāladeva. Accession of Śūrapāla II, ignored by Sandhyākara Nandi but recorded in the Manahali grant of Madanapāla.The importance of this grant lies in the fact that it does not ignore a single king of the Pāla dynasty from Gopāla I to Madanapāla. Thus it might have omitted the names of Gopāla III and Kumārapāla, because these two Princes are not ascendants of Madanapāla and such names are usually omitted in the genealogical part of a copperplate grant. If Śūrapāla II had not actually reigned his name would have surely been omitted from this grant. For a similar reason we do not find the name of Rājyapāla, the eldest son of Rāmapāla, who could not have reigned as he died in his father's lifetime:—

Vigrahapāla III

Mahīpāla II

Śūrapāla

Rāmapāla

Rājyapāla (died in his father's lifetime)

Kumārapāla

Madanapāla.

Gopāla III.

The mention of Śūrapāla's accession to the throne or the recognition of his chiefship in the Pāla dominions, may have been omitted by Sandhyākaranandi, either through carelessness, or as not being relevant to his subject. It may also be possible that Śūrapāla was Rāmapāla's rival for the throne, and though he had succeeded temporarily he was overthrown in the long run and perhaps murdered at the instigation of his younger brother. Nothing is known about the extent of Śūrapāla's reign or his death. But it is quite certain that he was succeeded by his younger brother Rāmapāla. In the course of time Divvoka had died and was succeeded by his brother Rudoka. Rudoka was succeeded by his son Bhīma, who on his succession, began to harass the people, living in the tract of land, which was still left in the possession of the Pālas.^[11] At that time Rāmapāla was in great straits and thought himself to be without friends.^[12] But his son and his advisors sought him, and urged him to take the necessary steps, and he regained courage.^[13] The author Rāmapāla is urged by his son and his friends to take the field against Bhīma. of the Rāmacarita states in another place that he became very anxious to fight with Bhīma.^[14] His first step was to travel round the country to propitiate the feudatories and subordinate kings of his father's kingdom, and he succeeded in gaining over the forest feudatories.^[15] During his travels he became convinced that all feudatories were well disposed towards him.^[16] By giving away lands along river banks and immense wealth, Rāmapāla succeeded in obtaining horse and foot soldiers and elephants from the feudatories. Śivarāja, the son of his maternal uncle and a Mahāpratīhāra, crossed the Ganges with foot, horse and elephants and entered the He obtains aid from the feudatories and his cousin Śivarāja crosses the Ganges and enters the enemy's country. enemy's country.^[17] This expedition was undertaken either to reconnoitre the enemy's position or as a sort of counter raid. Śivarāja so impetuously attacked Varendrī that the viṣayas and grāmas in Bhīma's country became distressed. Śivarāja began to enquire about the ownership of the lands so that the properties of the gods and the Brāhmaṇas might be protected.^[18] He succeeded in driving away Bhīma's followers from Varendrī proper^[19], and then came back to report to Rāmapāla that his paternal kingdom was free of intruders.^[20] Sandhyākara Nandi is silent about the events which followed this raid into Vārendrī. It appears from the second chapter of his work that the effect of Śivarāja's success in Northern Bengal was only temporary, because it became necessary for Rāmapāla to lead another and much bigger army into Northern Bengal, accompanied by his principal feudatories. One particular incident in the life of Rāmapāla has been totally left out by his biographer, which is his enmity and wars with Devarakṣita of Pīṭhī. In the commentary of the 8th verse of the second chapter of his work Sandhyākaranandī hints that Mahaṇa, the maternal uncle of Rāmapāla, recovered the kingdom, as the Boar incarnation had recovered the earth in former days. There is no reference to the enmity which Devarakṣita, the Lord of Pīṭhī and of Sindhu, bore towards Rāmapāla, which has become known to us from the Sārnāth inscription of Kumāradevī discovered by Messrs. Marshall and Konow in 1906-7.^[21] It is stated there, that Mahaṇa, the King of Aṅga, the venerable maternal uncle of the Kings, conquered Devarakṣita in war, and maintained the glory of Rāmapāla, which rose in splendour, because the obstruction caused by his force was removed:—

Taṁ jitvā yudhi Devarakṣitam-adhāt Śri Rāmapālasya.

Yo lakṣmīṁ nirjita-vairi-rodhanatayā dedīpyamānodayāṁ.

verse 7.^[22]

The defeat of Devarakṣita and Mahaṇa is also mentioned in the Rāmacarita, where it is said that Mathana or Mahaṇa defeated the King of Pīṭhī from the back of the elephant Vindhyamāṇikya.^[23] The relationship between Mathanadeva and Rāmapāla has been explicitly mentioned in the commentary on verse 8, Chapter II of the Rāmacarita, so the references about Mathanadeva in the Sarnath inscription of Kumāradevī are quite clear. He is called the maternal uncle of the King because he was the maternal uncle of Rāmapāla, and perhaps also of Śūrapāla and Mahīpāla II also. Besides these, the sons of his other sisters might have been reigning in other parts of the country also. Devarakṣita of Pīṭhī and Mathanadeva of Magadha.The mention of the defeat of Devarakṣita by Mathana or Mahaṇa is significant. The Sarnath inscription of Kumāradevī leaves no doubt about the fact that Mathana relieved Rāmapāla by defeating Devarakṣita. Evidently Devarakṣita of Pīṭhī had taken the part of one of Rāmapāla's rival claimants to the throne or invaded the Pāla dominions at a time when the Pāla kings were weakened by the defection of Northern Bengal, and so he expected to have an easy victory. The materials at our disposal are quite insufficient for the narration of details, but the Sarnath inscription of Kumāradevī proves, that though Mathana had humbled Devarakṣita at first, he had subsequently, owing to some unknown reason, given his daughter Śaṅkaradevī in marriage to him.^[24] The probable reason is that either Devarakṣita succeeded in defeating Mathana and a peace was concluded after the marriage, or that Śaṅkaradevī was given to Devarakṣita in order to draw him to the party of Mathana and Rāmapāla. Whatever may be the fact of the case, we are sure that Devarakṣita did not continue to be the ruler of Pīṭhī for a long time, as we find another king in that country when Rāmapāla led his expedition into Northern Bengal. The relationship between the Pālas, the Gāhaḍavālas, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Magadha and the rulers of Pīṭhī are shown in the table on following page.

Pīṭhī has been identified by Dr. Sten Konow with the modern Piṭhapuram in the Madras Presidency.^[25] But this is perhaps wide of the mark. It is mentioned as a separate principality, the ruler of which makes war upon the Pāla Kings of Bengal, and later on during the war between the Pālas and the Kaivartta King of Bengal, The Position of Pīṭhī.another prince of Pīṭhī is mentioned as a feudatory or as an ally of the Pāla King. It was hardly possible for the Pāla Kings after Nayapāla and Vigrahapāla III to wage war with the princes of Piṭhapuram or to demand an acknowledgment of suzerainty from them for any length of time. On the other hand, Pīṭhī should be somewhere near Magadha or a province with a boundary contiguous to the possession of the Pālas. A place named Pīṭhaghaṭṭā is mentioned in an ancient geographical work called Deśāvalī,^[26] a copy of which is in the manuscript collection of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. The addition of the word ghaṭṭā probably means that his place was situated on the Ganges. This Pīṭha or Pīṭhī was most probably on the western or northern boundary of Magadha and is perhaps represented by the trans-Son districts or Tirhut in the modern days. Some coins bearing the name Paṭha (most probably Pīṭhī) are preserved in the Cabinet of the Indian Museum,^[27] but no records are available to prove their find-spots.

The great event of Rāmapāla's reign was his campaign in Northern Bengal, against the descendants of the rebel Divvoka, in which he Campaign in Varendrī.was assisted and accompanied by a large number of allies and feudatories. A long list of these princes is given, at the beginning of the second Chapter of Sandhyākaranandi's Rāmacarita. Allies and feudatories.Unfortunately very few of the localities mentioned in this list can be identified at present. At the head of the Ust is the name of Bhīmayaśas, Prince of Pīṭhī and Magadha. This prince is apparently Bhīmayaśas of Pīṭhī and Magadha.the successor of Devarakṣita, as in one of the following verses the commentary describes the defeat of Devarakṣita by Mahaṇa as an already accomplished fact.^[28] It may be that Devarakṣita had placed his son Bhīmayaśas on the throne after his defeat by Mahaṇa. The commentary distinctlv states, that Bhīmayaśas was Lord of Pīṭhī and Magadha,^[29] but in the commentary on the Rāmacarita Mahaṇa is called Lord of Magadha, and Devarakṣita, King of Sindhu and Pīṭhī. Mahaṇa may have been divested of the possession of Magadha by Bhīmayaśas of Pīṭhī, after his defeat of Devarakṣita and the marriage of Mahaṇa's daughter with him. It also appears that though Devarakṣita was the Lord of Pīṭhī and Sindhu, his successor Bhīmayaśas was not. The position of Sindhu is doubtful. Bhīmayaśas is said to have

Gāhaḍavālas of Kanauj

Cikkoras of Pīṭhī

Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Magadha (?)

Pālas

Kalacuri-Cedīs of Dāhala

Yādavas of East Bengal

Mahīpāla I

Gāṅgeya

?

?

Nayapāla

Karṇṇa

Vajravarman

Chandradeva

Vallabharāja

Mahaṇadeva

Suvarṇadeva

Sister

Vigrahapāla III

Yauvana Śrī

Vīra Śrī

Jātavarman

Madanapāla

Devarakṣita

Śaṅkaradevī

Kāhṇuradeva

Mahīpāla II

Śūrapāla II

Yaśaḥkarṇṇa

Sāmalavarman

Śivarājadeva

Rāmapāla

Govindacandra

Kumāradevī

Govindapāla (?)

Bhojavarman

Kumārapāla

Madanapāla

Vijayacandra

Gopāla III

Jayaccandra

Hariścandra

defeated the troops of a king of Kānyakubja, whose name has not been discovered as yet. The position of Pīṭhī is also indicated by this reference. It seems to have been a buffer state between those of Kānyakubja and Gauḍa. The Pratīhāra dynasty was falling, and the kingdom of the proud Gāhaḍavāla was rising on its ruins. It is quite possible that Bhimayaśas of Pīṭhī assisted Candradeva, the Gāhaḍavāla, to obtain the city of Kānyakubja and to overthrow the last Gurjara-Pratīhāra King. The next prince in the order adopted by Sandhyākaranandi is Vīraguṇa of the forest of Koṭā, who is also styled "the over-lord of the Vīraguṇa of the South.Southern thrones." But nothing is known about this king. Dr. Kielhorn's lists of Northern and South Indian Inscriptions do not contain any record which mentions this king of the South. Jaya Siṁha, the Lord of Daṇḍabhukti, seems to have been a man of great importance. The position of Daṇḍabhūkti has already been indicated.^[30] It is represented at the present day by the District of Midnapur. So Jaya Siṁha Jaya Siṁha of Daṇḍabhūkti.was the march-lord of the South. The commentary very appropriately mentions the defeat of the King Karṇakeśari of Utkala by this prince. It is more natural for the King of Orissa to fight with a prince, whose land lay on his border, than with one, whose possessions were separated from his by a belt of mountains and forests. The position of Devagrāma in Vāla-valabhī, the king of which, Vikrama Keśari, Vikrama-Keśari of Devagrāma in Vāla-valabhī.comes next in order, is far less certain. The commentary adds: "Devagrāma-prativaddha-vasudhā-cakravāla-vālavalabhī-taraṅga-vahala-galahasta-praśasta hastavikramo."^[31] The explanation of this is not quite certain and nothing can be made out beyond what has already been stated by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Sāstri. Vikrama Keśari was the King of Devagrāma and the surrounding country which was washed by the rivers of Vāla-valabhī. Vāla-valabhī has been identified by Pandit Hara Prasāda Sāstri with Bāgaḍī, one of the five divisions into which Bengal proper The position of Vāla-valabhī.was divided before the Muhammadan conquest, but no reliable authority whatsoever can be cited in support of it. The name Vāla-valabhī itself was unknown in Bengal before the discovery of the Bhuvaneśvara praśasti of Bhavadevabhaṭṭa^[32] and has not been found anywhere else except the Rāmacarita. There are hundreds of villages in Bengal bearing the name of Devagrāma, and I do not find any reason to confine it to one of them. Even in the Nadiāh district itself there are several Devagrāmas, and so the attempt to identify it with the materials at present at our command is premature. Lakṣmīśūra is said to be the Madhusūdana of another Mandāra and is described as the head of all Forest feudatories "Samast-āṭavika-sāmanta-cakracuḍāmaṇiḥ."^[33] The Mandāra mentioned here seems to be the hill of that name at present in the Bhagalpur district of Bihar. Mandāra hill commands the surrounding hilly and Lakṣmīśūra of Mandāra.forest country to a great distance, and it may be that its king lorded over the Saontals of the Forest. The name of the next prince is suggestive. Śūrapāla is mentioned as being the chief of Kujabaṭī. The Śūrapāla of Kujabaṭī. Tirumalai inscriptions mention a feudatory of Mahīpāla I, named Dharmmapāla, who ruled over Daṇḍabhūkti.^[34] Perhaps these princes belonged to the minor branches of the Imperial Pāla Dynasty. Rudraśikhara of Tailakampa is mentioned as a great warrior. Perhaps Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī's identification^[35] of Tailakampa with the modern Telkupi in^[36] Rudraśikhara of Tailakampa.the Manbhum district is correct, but there is no proof in support of it beyond the resemblance in place names. Mayagala-siṁha of Ucchāla was the king of a country which was partly surrounded by the sea. The commentary mentions "Aparalohitārṇava" Mayagala-siṁha of Ucchāla.which means another Red Sea, but it is quite possible that the poet intends to mention the river Brahmaputra which is also known as the Lauhitya. Pratāpa-siṁha of Ḍekkarīya is also extolled in the commentary as a great warrior. There is nothing in the Pratāpa-siṁha of Ḍekkarīyacommentary to indicate the position of Ḍekkarīya, but it has been identified by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī with the modern village of Ḍhekura or Ḍhekurī in the northern part of the Burdwan District, on the ground of similarity of names.^[37] The commentary on the next verse mentions five princes, and among the names of places over which they ruled only two can be identified:—

(1) Narasiṁhārjjuna, the king of the Kayaṅgala maṇḍala;
(2) Candārjjuna of Śaṅkaṭagrāma;
(3) Vijayarāja of Nidrāvala;
(4) Dorapavarddhana of Kauśāmbī; and
(5) Soma of Paduvanvā.

Dorapavarddhana of Kauśāmbī seems to have been a landlord of Varendrī. Kauśāmbī seems to be the ancient name of the modern Pargana of Kusumba in the Rajshahi District of Bengal. I am indebted to Prof. Jadunath Sarkar of the Patna College for this suggestion. Paduvanvā has been identified by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī with the modern Pabna on the ground of similarity of names.

At the bottom of the list of feudatories we find mention of Rāmapāla's cousins on his mother's side, viz. the princes of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Rāmapāla's son and cousins.family, and his eldest son Rājyapāla, who died in his lifetime. Rāmapāla's maternal relations are specified in the next verse, his eldest maternal uncle Mathanadeva, whom we have already met, his brother Suvarṇadeva and their sons, the Mahāmāṇḍalika Kāhṇuradeva, and the Mahāpratīhāra Śivarājadeva.^[38]

Rāmapāla, with his allies and feudatories, crossed the Ganges either on boats or by a bridge of boats. The commentary on the next verse states that the great army crossed the Ganges by a 'Nauka-melaka'^[39], which has been interpreted by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī as "a bridge of boats." The commentary on the work The campaign, a bridge of boats on the Ganges.does not specify the place where the battle took place, but it is quite certain that the contending armies met somewhere in the south-western part of the modern District of Rājshāhī, or the southern part of the Maldah District. According to the commentary on verse 16, Bhīma was captured alive during the battle, and the soldiers of Rāmapāla received a fresh impetus from the news.^[40] The commentary on another verse The battle. Capture of Bhīma on the back of an elephant.states that Bhīma was captured on the back of an elephant.^[41] Bhīma's army most probably dispersed on the capture of their leader, and Rāmapāla seems to have obtained an easy victory, which was followed by the sack of the town of Ḍamara, the capital of Bhīma.^[42] The commentary on another verse states that Rāmapāla destroyed Ḍamara, a small town. The adjective Upapura is no doubt applied slightingly because it happened The sack of Ḍamara, the enemy's capital.to be the capital of the enemy. Bhīma remained a captive and was placed in charge of a certain Vittapāla.^[43] The scattered forces of Bhīma were rallied by one of his friends named Hari. In the ensuing battle Rāmapāla's son contested every inch of ground and at last succeeded in defeating the Kaivarttas. Hari was, at last, deprived of his forces, captured and executed with Bhīma. Ḍamara seems to have continued its existence after its sack by Rebellion of Hari, defeat, capture and execution with Bhīma.Rāmapāla, and even to this day a village named Ḍamaranagara exists close to Rāmapāla's capital. In another verse, Rāmapāla is said to have taken into employ the soldiers of Bhīma.^[44] Rāmapāla founded a city named Rāmāvatī at the confluence of the Karatoyā and the Ganges.^[45] The site seems to have been selected for Rāmapāla by a chief named Caṇḍeśvara of Foundation of a capital—Rāmāvatī.Śrī-hetu (not Śrī-haṭṭa) and one Kṣemeśvara.^[46] The city was beautified within a very short time, and the author has devoted the best part of a chapter to its praise. The only feature, worth mentioning, is a Buddhist Vihāra named Jagaddala-Mahāvihāra, which was built by Rāmapāla in the new city. It is interesting to note that there is a village named Jagaddala close to the ruins of Rāmāvatī. Rāmāvatī continued to be the capital of the Pālas for some time, and Madanapāla's Manahali grant was issued from this place.^[47] It continued to be a place of importance for several centuries. In the sixteenth century it gave its name to a fiscal division, and one of the circles in the Sirkar of Lakhnauti was named Ramauti^[48] in Akbar's time. Ramauti is an exact transliteration of Rāmāvatī as Lakhnauti is of Lakṣmaṇāvatī, and the identity of Ramauti with Rāmāvatī has been made certain by the discoveries of Babu Haridās Pālit in the Maldah District. This gentleman has industriously searched the environments of Rāmāvatī and has traced the following villages bearing ancient names: Amrauti or Ramrauti (Rāmavātī), Jagadalā (Jagaddala), Ḍāmrol [Ḍamara).

After the foundation of Rāmavātī, Rāmapāla engaged in wars with his neighbours. He attacked Utkala and ruled the country up to Kaliṅga,^[49] and returned the kingdom of Utkala to the Nāgavaṁśa. His feudatory chief Māyana conquered Kāmarāpa which seems to have been becoming weaker and weaker at this time, as several invasions into that country were led by successive kings of Later wars of Rāmapāla.Bengal or their generals, e.g., Māyana sent by Rāmapāla, Vaidyadeva sent by Kumārapāla, Vijayasena and Lakṣmaṇasena. A king of Eastern Bengal sought the protection of Rāmapāla in order to save himself by surrendering to him his best elephants, his coach of state and his armour.^[50]

Svaparitrāṇanimittaṁ patyā yaḥ prāg-diśīyena।
Vara-vāraṇena ca nija-syandana-dānena varmmaṇārādhe॥

Rāmacarita III. 44.

This king seems to be one of the Yādavas of Eastern Bengal. Two different powers may have caused him to throw himself under the protection of Rāmapāla: first is an invasion by Pāla forces, and second an invasion of his territories by a new power. Sāmantasena was most probably getting very powerful at this time, and it was he who seems to have caused the Yādava prince to seek the shelter afforded by Rāmapāla.

In his later years Rāmapāla returned to Rāmāvatī, leaving the cares of the management of the state to his eldest son Rājyapāla.^[51] About this time Mathanadeva, the king's maternal uncle, died. The king was residing at Mudgiri (Mudgagiri or Mungir) at this time,^[52] and on hearing of his benefactor's Death of Mathanadeva and Rāmapāla.death distributed much wealth to the Brāhmaṇas and entered the sacred river Ganges. Mathanadeva must have become a centenarian at the time of his death, and Rāmapāla himself had become a very old man at the time of his death after forty-six years of reign.

Tārānātha states that Rāmapāla reigned for forty-six years.^[53] This is not impossible as the Caṇḍimau image was dedicated in the 42nd year of the king. We know the names of three of the sons of Rāmapāla, two of Length of reign. Successors.whom succeeded him on the throne. His eldest son, Rājyapāla, was an able man, and assisted his father in gaining the throne, in the wars in Vārendrī, and finally in administering the kingdom in his father's old age. He seems to have died during the lifetime of his father, as we find that Kumārapāla succeeded after Rāmapāla's death. His third son, Madanapāla, ascended the throne after the death or dethronement of his brother Kumārapāla's son Gopāla III. We know nothing about the other relations of Rāmapāla except his maternal uncles, Mathanadeva or Mahaṇadeva and Suvarṇadeva and their sons Kāhṇuradeva and Śivarājadeva. Sandhyākaranandi's father, Prajāpatinandi, Ministers.was the principal minister of peace^[54] and war (Mahāsāndhivigrahika) , but his principal adviser was Bodhideva, son of Yogadeva, the minister of his father Vigrahapāla III.^[55]

The earliest record of Rāmapāla is the Tetrawan inscription recording the erection of an image of Tārā by a certain Bhaṭṭa Īcchara, in the 2nd year of the King's reign. This image was discovered by the late Mr. A. M. Broadley, who read the king's name as Rāmapati.^[56] Cunningham published it in one King's reign. Inscriptions and MS. Records.of his reports.^[57] The inscription was finally published by Babu Nilmani Chackravartti with a good ink impression in 1908.^[58] It consists of two lines partly damaged, and is at present in the Indian Museum.

The next record in order is a manuscript of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā written at Nālandā in the Magadha viṣaya. The manuscript was purchased by Dr. A. F. R. Hoernle from Nepal, during his stay in India,^[59] and afterwards acquired by the Bodleian Library.^[60] It was written in the 15th year of the king and its final colophon runs as follows:—

1.—ranuttara jñānāvāptaya iti, Maharājādhirāja Parameśvara-Paramabhaṭṭāraka-Paramasaugata Śrīmad = Rāmapāladeva-pravarddhamāna-vijayarājye pañcadaśame samvatsare abhilikhyamāne yatrāṁkenāpi samvat 15, Vaisākṣadine kṛṣṇasaptamyām 7 Asti Magadhaviṣaye, Śrī Nālandāvasthita lekhaka Grahaṇakuṇḍena Bhaṭṭārikāpra-
2.—jñāpāramitā likhitā iti.

Late in the king's reign an image of the Bodhisatva Padmapāṇi was dedicated, at or near the modern village of Chaṇḍimau in the Bihar Sub-division of the Patna District by an inhabitant of Rajagṛiha. This inscribed image was discovered by Cunningham in 1877 or 1878,^[61] but he did not attempt to read it. No attempt has hitherto been made by anybody else to read this inscription. The image was found lying among the number of broken ones in the outskirt of the village of Chaṇḍimau in August 1911 and was removed to Indian Museum. A part of the inscription was broken owing to careless packing, but fortunately two inked impressions of the inscription were taken while in situ, otherwise it would have become quite impossible to read the date, as the part bearing the numerals for the year have disappeared. This is the most interesting part of the epigraph as it proves conclusively that Rāmapāladeva reigned for a considerable length The date of the Chaṇḍimau Image.of time, at least 42 years, which made Tāranātha's statement about his length of reign acceptable. Cunningham read the date as 12, but it certainly was 42. The inscription itself runs as follows:—

(1). Ye dharmmā hetu prabhavā hetu(ṁ) teṣām hy = avadat (t)eṣām(ṁ) yo niroddho evaṁ vādī mahāśramaṇaḥ। Śrī-mad = Rājagṛha vinirggateḥ Etrahāgrāmāvasthitaḥ॥ Paramopāsaka paramamahājān (ānuy) āyinaḥ॥ Vaṇika Sādhu.
(2) Saharaṇasya Sādhu Bhādulvasutasya yadatra puṇyaḥ॥ Tad-bhavatv-ācaryopādhyāya-mātā-pita purvvaṅgama(ṁ) kṛtvā sakala (satva) rāser-ajñāna phalavāptaya iti। Paramabhaṭṭāraka Parameśvara Paramasau (?)
(3) ......... ta। Mahārājādhirāja Śrī-mad = Rāmapāladevapāda pravarddhamāna-kalyāṇa-vijayarājye samvat 42 Āṣāḍha dine 30.

The date is given in the decimal notation so that there remains no doubt about its reading. The first numeral is certainly 4 and not 1. We find it in a contemporary inscription—the Bodh-Gaya inscription of the 74th year of the Lakṣmaṇasena era.^[62] The donor, Sādhu Saharaṇa, was most probably Vaiṣya by caste and a merchant by profession. Nothing was known about Rāmapāla and his times twenty years ago. When Mr. Venis was editing the Kamauli grant of Vaidyadeva, he was faced with great difficulties for want of materials.^[63] The date of Vaidyaveva's grant was fixed by him on conjecture. Recent discoveries have proved beyond doubt, that the grant must be placed half a century earlier. Rāmapāla's date was fixed and the events of his reign made known by the discovery of the Rāmacarita of Sandhyākaranandi.^[64] Nothing has been stated about, and the place of discovery of, this unique manuscript, by the discoverer himself, in the introduction to his edition of the Rāmacarita, but I have since its publication learnt on enquiry from him that the manuscript was purchased in Nepal in 1897. The manuscript itself consists of two different parts:—(1) The text, which is complete, and (2) the commentary, which is incomplete but older than the text. It runs up to the thirty-fifth verse of the second chapter of the text. The text of the work is written in Bengali characters of the 12th or 13th centuries on strips of palmleaf. It is, Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī observes, written The text of the Rāmacarita.in imitation of the Rāghava-Pāṇḍavīya, in double entendre.^[65] The difficulty of understanding such a work is apparent, and had it been discovered without its commentary, it would have been of no use to historians or antiquarians. The principal value of the discovery lies in the commentary. The commentary is a mine of historical information, and supplies the details of the events of Rāmapāla's reign. The style of the composition of the commentary is highly ornamental prose, which makes it very The Commentary.difficult for one to get at the truth. The text does not end after the death of Rāmapāla but continues to describe the events of the reigns of his successors, Kumārapāla, Gopāla III, and Madanapāla. If the second part of the commentary is ever recovered, then an abundance of detail will be available, about the events of the time of the three princes mentioned above. There is very little doubt about the fact, that the author of the poem was obliged to write the commentary on it himself. The masses of details The Author.which are called up by the use of single works, would have had no meaning to other persons. The author had great facilities for the collection of information as his father was Rāmapāla's Sāndhivigrahika. The comparison of Rāmapāla with Rāma, the hero of the Rāmāyaṇa, seems to have been habitual with the courtiers of the 11th century A.D. A verse of the Kamauli grant of Vaidyadeva mentions the conquest of Mithilā and a king named Bhīma, and at the same time compares Rāmapāla with Rāma:—

Tena yena jagat=traye janaka-bhū-lābhād-yathāvad = yaśaḥ.
Kṣauṇī-nāyaka-Bhīma Rāvaṇa-vadhād-yuddhārṇṇav =ollaṁghanāt॥.

verse 4.^[66]

According to Lama Tārānātha, Yakṣapāla was a colleague of Rāmapāla.^[67] It is stated definitely that this prince was the son of Rāmapāla who was the son of Hastipāla and was the last prince of the Pāla family.^[68] An inscription of a king (Narendra) named Yakṣapāla was found at Gayā by Sir Alexander Cunningham and published by the late Dr. Kielhorn in 1887. But the king mentioned in this record cannot be the same person as that mentioned by Lama Tārānātha as Rāmapāla's son, as the genealogy of this Yakṣapāla is given in the inscription. He is the son of Viśvāditya, who built the temple of Gadādhara,^[69] of Yakṣapāla of Gayā.Akṣayavaṭa and of Prapitāmaheśvara, the grandson of Śūdraka. The family was a very important one during the reigns of Nayapāla, Vigrahapāla and his sons. The following inscriptions of the family have been discovered at Gaya:—

(1) Inscription on the gate of the modern Kṛṣṇa-Dvārika temple, recording the erection of a temple of Viṣṇu by a low class Brāhmaṇa named Viśvāditya in the 15th year of Nayapāladeva.^[70]

(2) Inscription inside the small temple dedicated to Narasiṁha in the courtyard of the Viṣṇupāda temple recording the erection of a temple to Gadādhara and several other minor shrines—by one Viśvarūpa of the same lineage as Viśvāditya in No. 1.^[71]

(3) Inscription broken into two parts in the wall of small shrine under the Akṣayavaṭa at Gayā, recording the erection of two temples of Śiva—Vateśa and Prapitāmaheśvara—by the same Viśvāditya.^[72]

(4) Inscription under the image of Gadādhara at Gayā—begins with an invocation to the Sun-god and mentioning Paritoṣa, the grandfather of Viśvāditya.^[73]

(5) The Sitalā temple inscription of Yakṣapāla recording the erection of a temple dedicated to various deities and digging a tank named Uttaramānasa.^[74]

The last inscription was published in 1887 and at that time the late Dr. Kielhorn was of opinion that "the characters of the inscription are Devanāgarī, or to be more particular, a kind of Devanāgarī, which appears to have been current in the 12th century A.D." But if the characters of this inscription are compared with those of the Narasiṁha temple inscription of Nayapāladeva, on the one hand, and the Gadādhara temple inscription of Govindapāladeva, it will be found that the characters of the inscription of Yakṣapāla are more akin to those of Kriṣṇa-Dvārika, Narasiṁha temple and Akṣayavaṭa than to the latter. In my humble opinion the characters belong to the middle of the 11th century A.D. The inscription was edited without a facsimile and could not be traced easily. Kielhorn had stated that it had been found at Satighat in Gayā , but I could not find any Satighat or any old inscription. The inscription was eventually found hidden behind a door inside a small temple, on the side of a paved tank, called the śītalā temple, close to the river Phalgu, and just behind the Gaya Zilla School. Dr. Kielhorn's edition is transcribed below, with the exception of the last word which he could not read from the rubbings:—

1. Oṁ namaḥ Sūryāya॥ Viṣaya-madhūtkara-pūrṇṇaṁ Prāṇi-nikāy-āli viśva-śata patraṁ। Aṣṭāśā-dala-ramyaṁ prakāśayan-navatu vo bhānuḥ॥.
2. Tīrthaṁ phalgu-taṭ-ādi-tīrtha-ghaṭanā-vyājena sopāninī gantṛṇāṁ paramasya dhauta-tamasāṁ dhāmno Gayā rājate। Śrī maty-aiva ya-
3. —yā mahīmaya-milac-citrasya jīv-ātmanā śilp-otkarṣam-amanyat-ātmani vidhiḥ kṛtvā trilokīm-api॥ Asyāṁ vabhūva ripu-vṛndam-a-
4. —nindya-sauryaḥ kurvvan-vana-praṇayi pattra-niketanasthaṁ। Śrī Śūdrakaḥ svayam-apujayad-indra-kalpo Gauḍeśvaro nṛpati-lakṣaṇa-puja-
5. —yāyaṁ॥ Tasmād-adbuta-pauruṣāmvudhir-abhūt Śrī-Viśvarūpo nṛpaḥ kīrtti-śrī-matayaḥ svayaṁvaratayā bhejur-yam-ekaṁ patiṁ। A-
6. —dyāpi sphurad-ugra-vikrama-kathām-ākarṇṇayad-yasya ca svāsaṁbhūtim-arāti-cakram-asama-ttrāsāt-tadā ślāghate॥ Lakṣmīṁ ripoḥ
7. sva-bhuja-vīrya-vasīkṛtāṁ yo bhogyāṁ tathā vihitavān dvijapuṅgavānāṁ। Eṣāṁ yathā yuvatayo dyutim-ādadhānā nā-
8. —kāṅganā iva virejur-ilātalepi॥ Yasy-ojvalena yaśasā bhramatā samantāccakre ciraṁ dhavalite vidiśāṁ di-
9. —Śāñ-ca lokeṣv-abhiprathayituṁ mṛga-lāñchanaḥ svaṁmeṇāṅkam-ulvaṇa mahar-nniśam-ādadhāti॥ Yen-ādy-āpi cakāśati prati-di-
10. —śaṁ devalayāḥ kāritā bhuyāṅso hima-dīdhiti-dyuti-muṣo mediny-alaṁkāriṅaḥ। Murtyāyāmatayā himdāri-śikhara-spa-
11. —rddh-occhritair-mūrddhabhiḥ kurvvanto viyati skhaladgatirathaṁ prasthānadusthaṁ raviṁ॥ Dharmmasya hṛdya iva sūnur-ajātaśatrus-tasy-ātha-
12. dhairya-nilayo-jani Yakṣapālaḥ। Luptakratau Kaliyugasya vijṛmbhite yaḥ kāmān-bhṛśaṁ kratubhujaḥ kratubhiḥ pu-
13. —poṣa॥ Pluṣṭo-naṅgatayā pareṣv-ayam-ayaṁ bhikṣā-bhujā-nirjjitaḥ sarvveṇāpy-avalā-valoyaṁ-acirasthāyī mano-bhūr-a-
14. yaṁ। Ity-anyo vidhinā manojña tanu-bhṛj-jetā dviṣāṁ yo bhujādaṇḍ-aika pravalaḥ sthiro yudhi sadā mīnadhvajo nirmmi-
15. —taḥ॥ Bhūbhāro rohana-bhūditara-taru-tulām-āśritaḥ kalpa-śākhī kiṁdhenuḥ kāmadhenuḥ kṣititala-parikhā kīrtti-
16. —pātraṁ payodhiḥ। Ity-āśann-ādi-dātṛin-prati jagati giro gīyamānā narendre yasminn-abhyarthamānair-vvasubhir-avirataṁ tarppayaty-arthisā-
17. —rthān॥ Yad-dhṛt-padma-kuṭīraka-praṇayitām-āpādite śrī-patau suprīte vyabhicāranītv-aratayā bhaktyā parikrīḍitaṁ। Arthibhyo vi-
18. —niyuktay-āpy-anudinaṁ pātre sucau jātayā mat-svāmi-priyavāsa eṣa iti yaḥ kāmaṁ śriyā saṁśritaḥ॥ Maunāditya-Sahaśralinga-
19. Kamal-ārddhāṅgīṇa-Nārāyaṇa-Dvistomeśvara-Phalgunātha-Vijayādity-āhvayānāṁ kṛtī। sa prāsādam-acīkarad-dviviṣadāṁ Kedāradevasya
20. ca khyātasy-Ottaramanāsasya khananaṁ sattraṁ tathā c-ākṣaye॥ Sūrya-candra-masau yāvad-yāvat kṣauṇī sasāgara। Tāvat śrī Yakṣapālasya rā-
21. —Jantāṁ bhuvi kīrttayaḥ॥ Nyāya-vidyā-vidāṁ śreyān-Āgīgrāma kulodbhavaḥ Śrī-Murārir-dvija-śreṣṭhaḥ praśastim-akarod-imāṁ.
22. Likhit-āsau Śrī Padmapāniṇā॥

The characters of this inscription cannot be said to belong to the 12th century A.D., as the form of the test letters are much earlier than those of Rāmapāla. Most probably Yakṣapāla assumed independence during the troublesome times of the reigns of Vigrahapāla III, Mahīpāla II and Śūrapāla II. Perhaps he was contemporary of Rāmapāla during the earlier part of the latter's reign. He is not mentioned in the Rāmacarita, and most probably he was subdued by Rāmapāla's maternal uncle, Mathanadeva, who is styled Magadhādhipa in the commentary. He might have continued to reign either as a subordinate prince, or as an independent one, because no evidence is forthcoming to prove that any of the Pāla Emperors after Rāmapāla held any part of Western Magadha or South-Western Behar. Rāmapāla's inscriptions have been discovered in Eastern Magadha, but no Pāla record after the time of Vigrahapāla III have been found in the Gayā or Shahabad District, except the two inscriptions of Govindapāladeva. Another powerful dynasty of kings, who founded their monarchy on the ruins of the second Pāla Empire, was that of the Varmans of Eastern Bengal.

Four records of this dynasty have come to light as yet:—

(1) Bhuvaneśvara inscription of the time of Bhaṭṭa Bhavadeva.^[75]

(2) The unpublished copper-plate grant of Harivarmmadeva, which has been noticed by Babu Nagendra Natha Basu in "Vaṅgera Jātīya Itihāsa," Vol. II, p. 215 and plate. This copperplate grant was seen and examined by the author several years ago. It was obtained from the late Mr. Hari Nath De, and was photographed with the permission of the owner. Very little can be made out of the grant at present.

(3) A manuscript of the "Aṣṭa-sāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā" written in the 19th year of Harivarmmadeva, recently acquired by me.

(4) The Belabo grant of Bhojavarman. According to the genealogy given in the inscription, the Varmans were descended from the race of Yadu. In that race were a lines of princes, who ruled at Siṁhapura, which was in the Punjab, as we know from the Lakkha-mandal-praśasti of the Princess Īśvarā. Vajravarman of that dynasty was the founder of a kingdom in Eastern Bengal. His son, Jātavarman man, was, as we have seen, the contemporary of Vigrahapāla III, who defeated the Cedī King Karṇṇa in Aṅga, and obtained the hand of his daughter Vīra-Śrī, conquered Kāmarūpa and Govarddhana, and acquired paramount power. His son was Sāmalavarman, about whom we do not know much. The accounts of Sāmalavarman as found in the genealogical works are wholly imaginary. He was succeeded by his son Bhojavarman. The characters of the new grant show that Harivarman and his father Jyotirvarman cannot either be placed before Vajravarman or taken to be his descendants, because most probably Sāmantasena made an end of the Yādava kingdom of Eastern Bengal shortly afterwards. So it appears probable that the two dynasties were to some extent contemporaneous.

The first inscription has indeed been published by the late Dr. Kielhorn, but no facsimile was published at that time. A complete analysis of the characters of these three records or an attempt to fix the date of Harivarman would be out of place here. I intend very shortly to publish another paper on the inscription and the chronology of the Varman kings. It might suffice here to say that the copperplate of Harivarmmadeva, though in a very bad state of preservation, gives us the name of the king and his father. The last line of the first side and the first line of the second contained the following sentences:—

Mahārājādhirāja-Śrīmad-Jyotirvarmmadeva-pādānudhyāta Paramavaiṣṇava-Parameśvara-Paramabhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja Śrīmad-Harivarmmadeva kuśalī.

The grant itself was issued from the victorious camp of Vikramapura, and from it we learn that part at least of Eastern Bengal belonged to Harivarmmadeva and that he was preceded by his father Jyotirvarmmadeva on the throne. The characters of the records of those dynasties show that Harivarman cannot be placed in the 12th century A.D. Consequently it must be admitted that his father Jyotirvarmman has to be placed in the earlier decades of the 11th century. The dynasty seems to have continued for three or four generations. We learn from Bhuvaneśvara inscription that Bhavadeva I received the village of Hastinībhiṭṭa from the King of Gauḍa. His son was Rathāṅga, whose son was Atyaṅga, and from him was descended Ādideva, who was the minister of peace and war (Sāndhivigrahika) of the king of Vaṅga. It is stated in verse 3 that the family settled in the village of Siddhala in Rāḍhā. Ādideva's son was Govarddhana who was renowned as a warrior and most probably served under Jyotirvarmmadeva. His son Bhavadeva II was the minister of Harivarmmadeva and of his son also.

The newly discovered Belabo plate records the grant of 9 droṇas of land in the village of Upyalikā, in the sub-division of Kauśāmvī-Aṣṭagaccha in the Maṇḍala or District of Adhaḥpattana, in the Division or Bhukti of Pauṇḍravarddhana, to a Brāhmaṇa of the Yajur-deva, named Rāmadevaśarman, son of Viśvarūpadevaśarman, grandson of Jagannāthadevaśarman and great-grandson of Pītāmbaradevaśarman, who was an inhabitant of the village of Siddhala, in Northern Rāḍhā, and had emigrated from Madhyadeśa or Kanauj.

The last line of the Bhuvaneswar inscription of Bhavadeva contained his surname—

Vālavalabhī-bhujaṅga.

Vālavalabhī is mentioned as the name of a country in the Rāmacarita of Sandhyākaranandi. Vikramarāja of Devagrāma in Vālavalabhī had fought with Rāmapāla, in the war, in Varendra.^[76] Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasād Sastri had identified Vālavalabhī with Bāgḍī. He translates the passage of the commentary as follows:—

"Vikramarāja, the Rājā of Devagrāma and the surrounding country, washed by the waves of the rivers of Vāla-valabhī or Bāgḍī, one of the five provinces into which Bengal was divided." The identification stands without any support. From the description given in the commentary on the Ramacarita it appears that Vālavalabhī was pre-eminently a land of rivers, and must be identified either with Eastern or Southern Bengal. The mention of Vikramapura in the copperplate grant of Harivarman does not help us in fixing the chronology of the Varmans. It may be that both dynasties occupied different parts of East Bengal at the same time and may have laid claim to the ownership of the city of Vikramapur. So far we have no positive evidence to prove that Jyotirvarman and Harivarman were descended from the Yādava Vajravarman, and we can only assume that they belong to co-lateral branches of the same family.

The invasion of the great southern conqueror Rājendra Coḷa I seems to have left some permanent marks in Bengal. We learn from the Sītāhāṭī grant of Vallālasena, that the ancestors of Sāmantasena, the grandfather of Vijayasena, lived in the country of Rāḍhā.^[77] All Sena inscriptions agree in stating that the Sena kings were descended from a family of Karṇāṭa Kṣatriyas, i.e. from a family which originally came from the Kanarese-speaking districts of Southern India. Though the Cālukya King, Vikramāditya VI of Kalyāna, is said to have invaded Bengal during the lifetime of his father Somesvara I,^[78] it cannot be said that the Cālukya Kings effected any permanent conquest in Eastern India. But, on the other hand, Vīlhaṇadeva's remarks should be taken with great reservation, as none of the records of the Cedīs of Tripurī or Ratnapura mention any Cālukya invasion of Northern India in the middle of the 11th century A.D. On the other hand, Rājendra Coḷa I defeated the Cālukya King, Jayasiṁha II, at Muyaṅgi or Musaṅgi, and though Cālukyan poets state that the Cālukyas defeated the Coḷas, the definite terms of the Melpāḍi inscription leave no doubt about the fact that the defeat of the Cālukya Kings was decisive, and Rājendra Coḷa I obtained a large amount of treasure from him.^[79] Some obscure Karṇāṭa Chief seems to have followed Rājendra Coḷa I and settled in Western Bengal after the defeat of his Chief on the banks of the Ganges. From him was descended Sāmantasena, who is generally taken to be the founder of the Sena Dynasty. He seems to have succeeded in carving out a small principality for himself in Western Bengal. In the Deopara praśasti of his grandson, Vijayasena, it is stated that he, Sāmantasena, defeated his enemies after being surrounded by them.^[80] None of the Sena Princes are mentioned in the list of Rāmapāla's feudatories, and most probably their relations with the Imperial Pālas were not cordial. Sāmantasena, probably, came to power during the disturbances, in the earlier part of the reign of Vigrahapāla III. We know nothing about his son, Hemantasena, who was most probably a very tame vassal of the Emperor Rāmapāladeva.

Rāmapāla's minister was Bodhideva, the son of Yogadeva, who was the prime minister of his father Vigrahapāla III. His minister for peace Officers.and war (Sāndhi-vigrahika) was Prajāpatinandi, the father of Sandhyākaranandi. Māyana, one of his principal generals, conquered Assam^[81] for him, and according to Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasād Śāstrī, his Chief Medical Officer was Bhadreśvara.^[82]

 

1. Comm. on V 31, p. 29, Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III.
2. Comm. on V 37, SC. L.C., p. 31.
3. Comm. on V 33, L.C., p. 29.
4. Comm. on V 28, L.C, p. 28.
5. Comm. on V 35, L.C, p. 28.
6. Comm. on V 36, L.C, p. 36.
7. Comm. on V 38, L.C, p. 31.
8. Comm. on V 31, L.C, p. 29.
9. Comm. on V 29, L.C., p. 28.
10. Comm. on V 41, L.C, p. 32.
11. Comm. on V 39, L.C., p. 31.
12. Comm. on V 40, L.C., p. 31.
13. Comm. on V 26, L.C., p. 27.
14. Comm. on V 43, L.C., p. 32.
15. Comm. on V 43, L.C., p. 32.
16. Comm. on V 44.
17. Comm. on V 47, L.C., p. 33.
18. Comm. on V 48, L.C., p. 34
19. Comm. on V 40, L.C.
20. Comm. on V 50, L.C.
21. Annual Rep. of A.S. of India, 1907-8, p. 76.
22. Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, 324-26.
23. Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 38, Comm. on V 8.
24. Epi Ind. Vol. IX, p. 322.
25. Ibid.
26. J.A.S.B. 1904, Pt. I, p. 178, note 1.
27. V. A. Smith Cat. of Coins. Ind. Mus, Vol. I, p. 263.
28. Mem. A.S.B.. Vol III, p. 38, Comm. on V. 9.
29. L.C. p. 36. Comm. on V. 5.
30. See Ante, p 71.
31. Comm. on V. 5, Chap. II, p. 36.
32. Ep. Ind. Vol. VI, p. 205.
33. Comm. on V. 5, Ch. II, p. 36.
34. Epi. Ind., Vol. IX, p 232.
35. Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 14.
36. Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. VIII, p. 169.
37. Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 14.
38. Comm. on V. 8, Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 38.
39. L. C. Comm. on V. 10, p. 38.
40. Comm. on V. 16, L.C., p. 40.
41. Comm. on V. 20, L.C. p. 41.
42. Comm. on V. 27, Chap. I, L.C, p. 27.
43. L.C., p. 14; V. 36, Ch. II, p. 45.
44. V. 38. Mem. A.S B., Vol. III. p. 46
45. V. 10, Ch. III, L.C, p. 47.
46. V. 2, Ch. III, L.C.
47. J.A.S.B., 1900, pt. I.
48. J.R.A.S., 1894, Ain-i-Akbari, Bib. Ind., Vol. II, p. 131.
49. Mem. A.S B., Vol. III, p. 50, Ch. III, V. 45.
50. Mem. A.S.B., Vol III, p. 50. This has also been translated differently by Mr. Maitra. "A King of Eastern Bengal, who held the title of Varman, sought the protection of Ramapala in order to save himself by surrendering his elephants and chariot."
51. L.C., p. 51, Ch. IV, V. 6.
52. L.C., V. 9.
53. Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXVIII, p. 246.
54. L.C. p. 55, V. 3.
55. Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 348.
56. J.A.S.B. 1872, Pt. I, p. 282.
57. Cunningham's Arch. Survey Rep., Vol. III, p. 124.
58. J. and P.A.S.B., Vol. IV, p. 109, pl. vii.
59. J.A.S B., 1900, pt. I, p. 100.
60. Cat. Bodleian Liby., Cambridge, Vol. II, p. 250, No. 1428.
61. Cunningham Arch. Survey Rep., Vol. XI, p. 169.
62. Ind. Ant., Vol. X, p. 346.
63. Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 348.
64. Proc. A.S.B., 1900, p. 70.
65. Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 1.
66. Epi. Ind., Vol II. p. 351.
67. Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXVIII, p. 243.
68. Ibid., Vol. XVI, p. 64.
69. See ante, p. 79.
70. J.A.S.B. 1900, pt. I, pp. 192-93.
71. See ante, p. 78.
72. See ante, p. 81.
73. See ante, p. 82.
74. Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, p. 64.
75. Epi. Ind., Vol. VI, p. 203.
76. Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 36, Comm. on V, p. 5.
77. Vangīya Sāhitya Pariṣad-Patrikā, Vol. XVII, Pt. IV, p. 235, v. 3.
78. Vikramānkadeva Caritam. (Ed. Bühler, III. 74).
79. South Indian Inscriptions, Vol. III, No. 18, p. 27.
80. Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 124.
81. Mem A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 50, Comm. on v. 47.
82. Ibid., p. 15.