LATE RADHAKRISHNA CHOUDHARY

 

 

I

 

GENERAL INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

 

North India, during the period under review, was parceled out into numerous political units and Bihar and Bengal were split up into numerous principalities which showed only a nominal allegiance to the Palas or for that matter to any other overlord ruling over this part of the country. After the disappearance of the Gurjara Pratiharas in the second half of the tenth century AD, the fragmentation of power was never so complete and thorough as on the eve of the Turkish conquests. The Pala Kingdom was split up during the second half of the tenth century AD. On the break-up of the two empires of the Pratiharas and the Palas, we have a large number of independent dynasts and feudal chiefs whose sovereign powers are proved by their land grants without any reference to their overlords. Hitherto the historians have characterized the period as ‘Struggle for Empire’ but it would be more appropriate to change this nomenclature as ‘the Classical Age of Feudalism’.(1)

It was as a result of the numerous land grants in the eleventh and twelfth centuries AD that the area was parceled out into numerous small principalities. There were a number of minor principalities in Bihar and Bengal. The Palas measured swords with the Kalachuris and Gahadawalas for the possession of western part of Bihar apart from fighting the Kaivarttas in Bengal. The Senas and the Karnatas followed the Palas in Bengal and Mithila and once established in power they fought among themselves. Besides these there were a number of minor states in Bihar and Bengal, ruling over small territories either independently or as Feudatories. Such States played their parts in the contemporary history of the time and deserve a sympathetic study in the background of regional and national history. One point that has to be borne in mind in this connection is that the economic consequences of the frequent changes, on account of land grants, bore heavily on the peasantry and naturally they lost interest in the preservation of such states. Of all the early medieval rulers, the Palas were an exception in the sense that they ruled for more than four centuries which was due mainly to the fewer categories of Vassals. There is no evidence of land assignments to officials and feudatories except in a very few cases.

For the sake of convenience we would like to study the history of the period under following heads:

i. MINOR DYNASTIES OF BENGAL:

1. The Later Palas from Mahipala I onwards.

2. The Senas.

3. The Chandras.

4. The Varmanas.

5. The Deva Dynasty.

6. The Kingdom of Pattekera.

ii. MINOR DYNASTIES OF BIHAR:

1. The Karnatas of Mithila.

2. The Kingdom of Pithi.

3. The Dynasty of Khayaravalas.

4. The Minor Gupta Dynasty.

5. The Cheros – the dynasty of Masanikesa.

6. The Ranakas of Eastern India.

7. The Mana Dynasty.

8. Rulers ending with the title ‘Aditya’.

iii. THE ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERN

iv. EARLY TURKISH INVASION OF BIHAR AND THE DECLINE OF THE VIKRAMASILA UNIVERSITY

 

 

 

II

 

MINOR DYNASTIES OF BENGAL

 

1. THE LATER PALAS

 

 

MAHIPALA I (988-1038): The decline of the Palas set in after Devapala and the Pala authority came to be confined up to Magadha and Anga. In about AD 988, the accession of Mahipala I brought about the restoration of the Pala power. He recovered his paternal kingdom(2) and restored the fortunes of his family to a great extent.(3) This was a great achievement since the Pala had sunk to the lowest depth at the time of his accession.  He succeeded in establishing his authority over East Bengal, Bihar and Mithila and restored the temple of Nalanda(4). His authority in North Bihar is proved by two identical image inscriptions found in Imadpur but this has to be discussed in the background of a Ramayana MSS, where there is a reference to Punyavaloka Gaudadhvaja (Garudadhvaja in another) Sri Gangeyadeva ruling in Tirabhukti in 1076 of an unspecified era. Bendall(5) took it to be the Vikram era and equated it with 1019 AD and identified this King with Kalachuri Gangeyadeva as ruling over Tirhut. If this view is accepted then Mahipala conquered Tirhut from the Kalachuris in AD 1026. This view is not accepted by a majority of scholars who take it to be a Saka era and identify Gangeyadeva with Gangadeva, son of Nanyadeva of Mithila. B P Sinha identifies him with Kalachuri King(6), V V Mirashi with Rastrakuta King, R C Majumdar(7) and the writer of these lines with the Karnata King. That, however, does not preclude the possibility of his coming into conflict with the Kalachuris who were also trying to fish in the troubled waters of north India and who had defeated the ruler of Anga. The political situation was not rosy and he had to tide over serious difficulties in restoring the fortunes of his family. The Chandras and the Kambojas were already entrenched in their respective Kingdoms and the Suras had established their authority in Southern Radha.(8) Mahipala I had to ward off the formidable invasion of Cholas and seems to have suffered defeat at the hands of Rajendra Chola.(9)

Mahipala I extended his sway up to Kasi by taking advantage of the misfortunes of the Pratiharas. His empire included a large part of Bengal, whole of Bihar and a part of eastern UP.(10) He restored and repaired the monuments at Nalanda and constructed two temples at Bodh-Gaya. Neither he nor his successors were concerned about the Turkish invaders though a Vikramasila monk Ratnakarasanti was very much concerned at that.(11) He told the Tibetan party who had come to take Atisa: “Are you aware that the Turks are knocking at the western gate of the country?” It is strange that the Pala rulers did not take note of it. Mahipala had extended his authority up to Benaras and yet he did not realize the danger. R C Majumdar appears to be apologetic while defending Mahipala I or other Pala rulers on this score.(12) Mahipala’s death marked the beginning of the final decline of the Pala authority. His end came in 1038. He was succeeded by his son Nayapala.

NAYAPALA (1038-54): Nayapala waged incessant wars against the Kalachuris. Karna had invaded the Pala empire and his wars with Vanga and Gauda are referred to in the Kalachuri inscriptions.(13) The most important event of his reign was the long drawn struggle with Karna. At that time Atisa, the renowned scholar, was residing at Vajrasana in Magadha. At first Karna defeated Nayapala. When victory turned towards Nayapala and troops of Karna were being slaughtered by the Magadhanas, Atisa took Karna and his men under his protection and sent them away.

The war, referred to in the Tibetan text, is only a phase of the long drawn struggle between the Palas and the Kalachuris. Karna is said to have sacked the Buddhist monasteries(14) and Nayapala inflicted a crushing defeat on the invading army. Atisa made arrangements for Karna’s safe departure and succeeded in establishing peace between the Kalachuris and the Palas. Atisa must have done so on compassionate grounds otherwise it does not stand to reason why a native of Bihar, also a Buddhist, should show mercy to an invading army who had also destroyed Buddhist monasteries. It was Nayapala who had appointed Atisa as the high priest of the University of Vikramasila.(15) Through the efforts of Atisa a treaty was concluded between the Palas and the Kalachuris and Vigrahapala III married his daughter Yauvanasri.(16) The treaty was just an interlude and Karna once again directed his arms against the Palas in the reign of Vigrahapala III.(17) Taking advantage of the fluid political situation(18), Sudraka became the protector of Gaya. Nayapala was succeeded by Vigrahapala III.

VIGRAHAPALA III (1054-72): Vigrahapala’s two inscriptions have been found at Naulagarh(19) (District Begusarai) and Bangaon (District Saharsa) in North Bihar. According to D C Sircar, the rule of Vigrahapala III in Tirabhukti has now to be reconciled with Kalachuri expansion in that area and he feels that Gangeyadeva of the Ramayana MSS may be regarded as the Kalachuri ruler of North Bihar(20). The matter is open to varied interpretations and as such any final judgment at this stage is not possible. In the reign of Vigrahapala III Karna once again directed his arms against the Palas and went up to the borders of West Bengal. According to Sandhyakar Nandi(21), Vigrahapala defeated Karna and married his daughter Yauvanasri. The series of invasions from all sides must have shaken the Pala Kingdom to its very foundations during the reign of Nayapala and Vigrahapala III and that hastened the decline of the Palas in the coming years.

The Palas were losing hold over West Bengal as is evident from the grant issued by Mahamandalika Iswaraghosa.(22) Vanga had passed into the hands of the Chandras. East Bengal came to be ruled by the Chandras and the Varmanas respectively. About the same time, the kingdom of Pattikera appeared on the scene. Anga came under a Rastrakuta Feudatory Mathanadeva. Magadha came under the control of Chikkor family of Pithi, whose king Devarakshita was known as Magadhanatha and Pithipati. The Palas also lost their authority in Gaya(23) where we find Sudraka – Visvarupa – Yaksapala ruling in succession. Viswarupa had helped Vigrahapala III against the Kalachuris. By now, Kamarupa had also defied the Pala authority. The Somavamsi King of Orissa, Mahasivagupta Yayati, invaded north, east and west Bengal.(24) All these led to the dismemberment of the Pala empire and the invasion of Chalukya Vikramaditya VI(25) paved the way of its final destruction and further contributed to the rise of the Senas in Bengal and the Karnatas in Mithila. The Pala empire fell on evil days and the fortune of the Palas sank during the Civil War that broke out after the death of Vigrahapala III.

The Ramacharita of Sandhyakara Nandi throws sufficient light on the political condition of Bihar and Bengal following the death of Vigrahapala III. The narrative begins at 1070 and ends at 1120. Vigrahapala III had three sons – Mahipala II (1072-75), Surapala II and Ramapala. The situation had come to such a pass that the feudal chiefs had taken full advantage of the weakness of the Pala power and had carved out their own principalities in their respective areas. Mahipala II not only lost Varendra but also his life. The feudal chiefs in west and south Bengal and of Santhal Parganas in Bihar successfully carved their own kingdoms and Nandi mentions as many as thirteen of them in the following order(26) :

1. Viraguna(27), King of Kotatavi in the South (a forest region called Kota).

2. Jayasimha, King of Andabhukti (Midnapur district) who crushed Karnakesarai of Utkala.

3. Vikramarja, ruler of Devagrama.

4. Laksmisura, lord of Apara-Mandara(28) and head of the group of feudal chiefs of the forest (Samastatavikasamantachakrachudamani).

5. Surapala, ruler of Keyavati – fourteen miles north of Naya Dumka.

6. Rudrasikhara, ruler of Tailakampa (Telkupe) in Manbhum district.

7. Bhaskara or Mayagalasimha, King of Uchchala (Burdwan district).

8. Pratapasimha, King of Dhekkariya (Dhekuri near Katwa in Burdwan district).

9. Narasimharjuna, King of Kayangalamandala, south of Rajamahal.

10. Chandarjuna of Samkatagrama.

11. Vijayaraja of Nidravati (identified with Vijayasena).

12. Dvaropavardhana of Kausambi (Rajashahi or Bogra district).

13. Soma of Paduvanva.

• All these thirteen chiefs had helped Ramapala in his evil days.

RAMAPALA (1077-1120): Surapala and Ramapala had escaped from prison. Surapala (1075-1077) ascended the throne but was soon replaced by Ramapala in 1077 AD. He was the last great King of the Palas. He had some authority over West Bengal. Magadh was out of his control and so was Anga and Gaya where Narendra Yaksapala (son of Viswarupa and grandson of Sudraka) does not mention him in his inscription.(29) From the West, the Gahadawalas were encroaching on the traditional boundary of the Palas. The Antichak inscription gives a list of four generation of rulers, possibly Pala feudatories, and they appear to have helped the Gauda King against the Vangas. Thus it is evident that the Pala throne did not prove to be a bed of roses for Ramapala and his successors. For the recovery of his paternal kingdom, Varendra, Ramapala had to wage a struggle against the rebellious Kaivarttas. The Kaivartta rebellion is an important event of the later Pala history and it would not be out of place to delineate on the nature of Kaivartta rebellion.(30)

NATURE OF THE KAIVARTTA REVOLT: After the death of his father Mahipala II had ascended the throne. During his reign the feudal lords of Varendra revolted against his authority. The Kaivarttas, under the leadership of Divya or Divyoka, had revolted against the authority of the Palas.(31) After Divya, his brother Rudok and then his son, Bhima, headed the rebellion.(32) Varendra was lost to the Palas and it fell to the lot of Ramapala to get back Varendra. His counterpart, Sandhyakara Nandi, gives a good account of this revolt but we cannot treat him as an impartial critic of the Kaivartta rebellion as he was a partisan of Ramapala. Kaivartta revolt was the result of the weakness of the central authority under a feudal system in which the feudatories had become restive. Divya himself was a feudatory who has been described as an evil doer, a villain and a dasyu. It has been suggested that Divya was called to the throne by the people of Varendra to save it from the oppression of Mahipala II.(33) Divya, Rudok and Bhima ruled in unbroken succession.(34) It has been characterized as a rebellion of the feudal chiefs by some. Divya also came into conflict with Jatavarmana of the Varmana dynasty who brought disgrace to the strength of the arms of Divya.(35) It was as a result of the confusion and anarchy arising out of the Kaivartta rebellion that Jatavarmana carved out a kingdom for himself and fought both against the Palas and Kaivarttas. He conquered Anga but was humbled by the Kalachuris and established matrimonial alliance with the latter by marrying Kalachuri princess Virasri. The Kingdoms of Varendra and Vanga were hostile to each other and Ramapala’s efforts proved futile. The fact that the Kaivarttas had attained success over the Palas is proved by the fact that Bhima is highly praised by Nandi.(36) Bhima is praised for his personal virtues, riches and strength of the kingdom.

Being one of the important feudal chiefs of the Pala periods, Bhima built his kingdom on a strong foundation and for that purpose he might have taxed his subjects heavily or would have extracted surplus to maintain his status. The feudal beneficiaries had developed a vested interest in the preservation of their principalities and Bhima was no exception. Such feudal lords were also against the insurrections of the peasants. At the time of the Kaivartta revolt in 1075 AD, the whole of Eastern India was split up into a number of principalities. Originally the Kaivarttas were feudatories under the Palas who left the boundaries of the gift villages undefined and that enabled the beneficiaries to increase their personal demesne. This practice continued. The Kaivarttas had also received land grants (in the shape of service grants). The chief cause of the revolt in this case appears to have been possibly the deprivation of their plots of land given as service tenures(37), and subjected to heavy taxes. The peasant’s rebellion may have also compelled the princes to reduce the rigours of Visti or forced labour. The revolt was a sort of peasant’s reaction to oppressive conditions. They appear to have been deprived of their lands. The fact that naked soldiers fought with bows and arrows riding buffaloes shows that they were ordinary peasants; chariots were conspicuous by their absence in the army of Bhima. From the context of the text, it is evident that it was probably a peasant uprising directed against the Palas. The revolt was within the feudal set up and that is why the fruits of such revolution could not be turned peoples’ welfare. It was led by a highly placed royal official Divya who was ruling over the kingdom after the death of Mahipala II as follows from Verse 15 of the Manhali Copperplate Grant of Madanpala.(38)

The rebellion appears to have been a popular reaction against oppression, an assertion of peoples’ right to dethrone a bad king and elect a popular chief in his place. R C Majumdar has compared it with the risings of the Kambojas of Varendra and Radha or Sudraka of Gaya(39) but that is just belittling the popular character of this rebellion.

The inherent defect of this popular rebellion under the feudal set up was that it took reduction in the intensity of oppression to be a great reform and such rebellions were utilised by the opportunists to step into power. The general framework of the feudal political and economic set up remained the same and these events degenerated into bonds of exploiting classes. It was in such cases that feudal houses emerged from the peasantry. Sandhyakara Nandi’s flattering account of Ramapala’s enemy, Bhima, justifies that he was a king of unusual ability and has rescued Varendra from chaos and confusion and that he had never transgressed the bonds of propriety.(40) Whether Bhima was a cruel tyrant or a benevolent ruler, it is difficult to say on the basis of the Ramacharita, which is written by a partisan but the fact that the Kaivarttas, for more than a decade, kept the Palas on their toes is indicative of their being the popular representatives of the people and Ramapala had to beg support from his feudatories and feudal chiefs to fight them to recover Varendra.

It was the combination of the feudal chiefs of Bihar and Bengal led by Ramapala himself that enabled him to remove the Kaivarttas from power and free Varendra. The struggle between Bhima and Ramapala forms the theme of the Ramacharita. The rising was so formidable and resistance so strong that Ramapala had to mobilise not only his own resources but also those of his feudal lords for the purpose. The list, furnished by the Ramacharita, of de facto independent chiefs furnishes a vivid and interesting picture of the political dismemberment of Bengal in the time of Ramapala. Bhima and the members of his family were executed(41) by Ramapala.

It is true that Ramapala, after defeating the Kaivarttas, recovered Varendra, secured the submission of the Varmanas of East Bengal, conquered Kamarupa and Orissa and extended his conquests up to Kalinga. He founded a new capital in his own name Ramavati. In spite of the difficulties faced by him, he succeeded in restoring the Pala power to a great extent. Out of fear and respect Varmaraja of Vikramapur submitted to him. He advanced to the southern part of Bengal and secured the submission of rulers in those parts. Anga and Magadha were within his kingdom. He lost Mithila to Nanyadeva of the Karnata Dynasty and Vanga to the Senas. His maternal uncle, Mathanadeva, ruler of Anga, was his real supporter and when he heard of his death, he put an end to his life by drowning in the Ganga at Munger in AD 1130.(42) Ramavati continued to be the capital of the Palas till the end. Mathanadeva (also known as Mahana) arranged the marriage of his granddaughter (from draughter’s side), Kumaradevi, with Devaraksita of Pithi. This was done to cement the alliance between the Palas and the Gahadawalas but the alliance did not survive the death of Mahana(43) and Ramapala. In fine it can be said that Ramapala revived the glory and greatness of the Palas for a while.

Ramapala was succeeded by Kumarapala (AD 1120-1128). He was a very weak king and failed to quell the disturbances which broke out in different parts of Bengal. The King of Kamarupa became independent. He was succeeded by Gopal III (1128-1144). Not much is known about him. Fresh disorders and revolt broke out in his reign and he proved inefficient. In 1144-45, the son of Ramapala, Madanapala succeeded his nephew Gopal III. He did his best to save his kingdom from all kinds of troubles. He defeated Anantavarmana Chodagangadeva but was finally defeated himself by Vijayasena of the Sena dynasty and Gangadeva of Mithila. Kamarupa was finally lost and last semblance of Pala authority was wished away by the declaration of independence of Vaidyadeva (once a minister of Kumarapala). Bhojavarmana also became an independent king. Govindachandra Gahadawala came up to Maner.(44) Madanapala’s inscription dated in his fourteenth year (1157-58) has been found in Munger(45), and he is believed to have ruled up to 1161 AD as is evident from his Valgudar Inscription. He temporarily recovered his position from the Gahadawalas as is evident from his Jayanagar Inscription. He maintained his hold over Anga where Chandradeva, grandson of Mathanadeva was ruling as a Pala feudatory. By his time the Pala power came to be confined to the middle and eastern part of Magadha.

Confusion about the succession of the Palas follows the death of Madanapala. Nothing is known about his successors. After some time, say between 1162 and 1176, one Govindapala is seen as ruling over Gaya. It is not known whether he belonged to the Imperial Palas. He seems to have been a contemporary of Madanapala and was a follower of Buddhism. One Gaya inscription places him in 1175 AD. He is believed to have ruled for four years at Nalanda. The reckoning in the Gaya inscription in the gatarajye began possibly from his accession.(46) There is, however, no evidence in the whole range of north Indian inscriptions of an “expired regnal year” being used to express a data. The term may mean that his reign had ceased at Gaya but he might have been ruling somewhere else.

The expression ‘Gandeswara Palapala’ in the Jayanagar Image inscription is indicative of the fact that he was a ruler of the Pala dynasty and that he ruled at least for thirty five years if not more.(47) The last two rulers, known to us from tradition, are Palapala and Indradyumna and both of them continued to rule from Jayanagar near Lakhisarai on the Eastern Railway.

DECLINE OF THE PALAS: The last known historical figure who did something for the maintenance of the prestige of his family was Madanapala. Feudatories had begun to raise their heads. Vaidyadeva had practically assumed independence in Kamarupa. Eastern Bengal had passed out of the hands of the Palas. Bhojavarmana had become independent. The Gahadawalas had extended their authority up to Patna and Munger between 1124 and 1146 but Madanapala recovered Munger from him in about 1157 AD. Nanyadeva of Mithila claims to have broken the powers of Gauda and Vanga(48) and his son Gaudadhwaja Gangeyadeva is believed to have defeated Madanapala, who was ruling over Muger in the 14th year of his reign. In view of the rise of the Gahadawalas, the Karnatas and the Senas, the Pala authority seems to have been circumscribed to a very limited area in the district of Munger and a portion of Anga. On the basis of the sources available to us, it appears that Govindapala of the MSS and the Gaya inscription was either a contemporary or a rival of Madanapala.(49) He possibly ruled between 1158 and 1162. No connection between Madanapala and Govindapala has been established so far. If he belonged to the Palas his rule must have been confined to the area around Gaya. The last king Palapala is of dubious origin and according to R C Majumdar he ‘should not find any place in sober history until further evidence is forthcoming’.(50) The same may be said of Indradyumnapala51, who is known to us only from traditional sources. The Palas declined due to the combination of various factors, though they ruled for about four centuries. The factors included foreign invasions from different corners, internal disruptions, peasant revolt like the Kaivartta rebellion, rise of feudatories who took advantage of the situation and that led to the emergence of a number of minor states throughout the length and breadth of Bihar and Bengal. With the combined efforts of the Senas, Karnatas and the Gahadawalas, the Palas were driven out after Madanapala and like all other ruling dynasties of the past, they also passed out of history.

 

Continued: home/page 4  (Click HOME in the menu and select the page you want to visit.)