LATE RADHAKRISHNA CHOUDHARY

 

 

III

 

MINOR DYNASTIES OF BIHAR

 

1. THE KARNATAS OF MITHILA

The year 1097(86) forms a landmark in the history of Bihar in general and Mithila in particular. Hitherto parts of Bihar had been the political playground of contemporary powers like the Palas, Pratiharas, Kalachuris, Rastrakutas and others and all of them tried their luck in this region to be followed by the Gahadawalas, the Senas and the Turkish invaders. Bihar, then, consisted of South Bihar and North Bihar and both these parts were under the political control of the one power or the other. So far as north Bihar is concerned, we stand on a secure footing of history after the emergence of the Karnatas of Mithila in 1097.

Nanyadeva, the founder of the dynasty, calls himself Karnatakulabhusana and Karnataksatriya. Verse IV of the Madhainagar Grant and Naihatti Grant of Ballalasena(87) describe the Senas as Karnataksatriyas. The association of the Karnatas with south India can be traced back to the Pala inscriptions which leave no doubt that they were employed by the Palas as important officials. These Karnata officials actually acquired political power and set up independent kingdoms for themselves when the supreme authority became weak. The Chola conquest did not affect in any way the political condition of Bengal and the neighbouring countries. M Radhakrishna Kavi believes that the Rastrakutas were the Karnatas and after their decline in 970 AD, they moved towards the north.(88) If this view is accepted, it is quite likely that the Karnatas maved along with the Cholas and when further strengthened by the fresh Chalukya invasions, they asserted their independence in the last decade of the eleventh century AD. Nanyadeva is said to be a brother of Kirttiraja who is known to us from the Bodh Gaya Inscription of Tunga Dharmavaloka but the identification lacks corroborative evidence.(89) In the present state of our knowledge, it is very difficult to be precise with regard to the time as to when the Karnatas first settled in Bihar and Bengal. Jayaswal suggests that Nanya’s name is only a sanskritised form of Dravidian ‘Nanniya’ meaning affectionate.(90)

The Karnatas are described as Karnatachudamani in Nepal inscription(91) and Karnatavamsodbhava and Karnatadhipa(92) by Chandeswara. They were Kannada speaking from Deccan(93). They were southerners and are described as Karnatakulalaksha in the Sena inscription. Their southern origin is evident from all sources.

It seems that Nanya at first accepted service under some king and taking advantage of the weakness wielded sovereignty. D C Ganguli believes that Nanya was an officer under the Palas and established a kingdom during the Kaivartta revolt. A new danger, mentioned in the Ramacharita may be referring to this incident.(94) The sober view seems to be that the forefathers of Nanya established themselves as feudatory chiefs in Tirhut on the borders of Nepal (Simaraongarh, visited by Tibetan traveller Dharmaswami in 1234-36) as a result of the successive raids by the Chalukyas and after the withdrawal of the Chalukyan army, they rose to pre-eminence, broke off their allegiance and established themselves as rulers of Tirabhukti and Nepal. The Mahasamanta, Nanyadeva, was the founder and the first ruler of the dynasty which ruled from 1097 to 1324-25 AD. In almost about the same period the two prominent Karnata chiefs, Vijayasena in Bengal and Nanyadeva in Mithila, established two independent Karnata kingdoms on the ruins of the Palas and played an important part in contemporary politics.

NANYADEVA (1097-1147): There has been a good deal of controversy over the date of Nanyadeva of Mithila. Kielhorn placed him in the Saka era 1019 (1097 AD). The date is known to us from the so-called Simaraon Stone Pillar Inscription and the exact replica of the text is preserved in Nepal Vamsavali records. It is believed that the Fort of Simaraongarh was built by Nanyadeva himself. Regarding the Simaraon Inscription, it has been suggested that in the whole domain of Bengal and Magadha antiquities there is not another record with such a date of marvellous accuracy. It states that Nanyadeva made an erection in a Simhalagna (i.e., early morning) of a Saturday in a Sravana, the tithi being Sukla seven and the naksatra svati in the year 1019 Saka (= July 10, 1097 AD).(95) This date now stands accepted and it is said that he ascended the throne in 1097 AD and laid the foundation of the Karnata kingdom in Mithila, which played an important part in the history of North-Eastern India and Nepal for about two hundred and twenty five years.

At the beginning of his political career Nanya seems to have been an ordinary feudatory chief as is evident from his own commentary on Bharata’s Natyasastra. He is referred to as Mahasamantadhipati, Dharmavaloka Srimana Nanyapati. He is also referred to as Srimana in the Andhratharhi Inscription of his minister Sridharadasa.(96) It is very difficult to ascertain whether he was a Samanta under the Chalukyas or the Palas but his epithet Mahasamantadhipati is indicative of the fact that he was a powerful feudatory chief before he assumed royal power in Mithila. It appears that he assumed the Viruda Dharmavaloka after ascending the throne of Mithila, which then seems to have included the Terai portion of Nepal. Simaraongarh, the capital of the Karnatas, lay in the Terai area of Nepal and was visited by Dharmaswami, the Tibetan traveller in 1234-36 AD.(97)

Nanyadeva was the founder of the greatness of his dynasty. He consolidated the kingdom to the best of his ability and his diplomatic move was responsible for the safety of Mithila from any foreign attack. His important contemporaries were:

1. Ramapala of the Pala dynasty and also Madanapala;

2. Vijayasena and Ballalasena of the Sen dynasty;

3. Govindachandra Gahadawala of Kannauj;

4. Raghava of Kalinga; and

5. Magadhadhipati Pithipatih.

The Senas and the Gahadawalas were contemporaneous with the Karnatas. Nanya’s kingdom was hemmed on all sides by ambitious powers and its existence was at stake. Nanya was a realist and pragmatist and instead of being over ambitious like his contemporaries he remained satisfied with what he had. We do not know of any of his successful conquests except one in Nepal. The Palas were disintegrating and the Senas and the Karnatas were consolidating their position in Bengal and Mithila. From an account in the Prakrt Painglam we learn that the Kalachuris, having broken the Gahadawala barrier at Kasi, had devastated Champaran and the statement finds support in the Bheraghat inscription of Alhandevi. The event, in any case, must have taken place before 1124 AD when the Cedis retreated from Benaras. Jayaswal has suggested that the event took place in the reign of Nanyadeva but we are not sure about the result of this campaign and it is very difficult, in the present state of our knowledge, to say whether Nanya was defeated or Champaran passed into the hands of the Cedis.(98) It was a type of raid into these territories and did not result in the permanent occupation of the area. As a precaution against such raids in future, Nanya took a very serious view of the situation and founded an alternative capital at village Nanpur. When the danger was over, he again shifted to Simaraongarh and fortified it in a remarkable manner. Its strategic importance doubled after his victory in Nepal.

He is said to have broken the name and fame of his contemporaries of Sauvira and Malava.(99) He might have defeated them not as a ruler of Mithila but as feudatory of the Karnata ruler. He claims to have broken the powers of the Vangas and the Gaudas. After having settled in Mithila, he might have turned his attention towards Gauda and Vanga. He possibly came into conflict with Kumarapala of Gauda and Yadava ruler Harivarmana of Vanga.(100) At first it appears that both Nanya and Vijayasena combined in their efforts to defeat the Palas but later fell out over the spoils and that led to a conflict between the two. Vijayasena claims victory over Nanya in his Deopada Inscription.(101) The inscription does not give any definite information regarding invasion of Mithila except his defeat. It is not possible to say against whom he sent his naval expedition in the West because there were then three different rulers in Bihar at that time – Govindachandra, Madanapala and Nanyadeva. The inscription is not specific. In the Madhainagar Grant of Laksmanasena, Ballalasena is described as Ariraja Nihsanka-samkara. It was during his Mithila expedition that Ballala seems to have displayed his military talents.(102) The Senas could not conquer Mithila and D C Sircar is right in his assertion that ‘it is difficult to believe that Vijayasena had any appreciable success against Nanya whose successors were ruling over Mithila for a long time to come’.(103)

Nanyadeva(104) was an immediate neighbour of the Gahadawalas. As early as 1079 AD Sodhadeva had declared himself independent in Gorakhpur and has extended his authority up to Saran in North Bihar.(105) The Lucknow Museum Plate of Kirttipaladeva of AD 1111 (=VS 1167) reveals that north-eastern portion of Gorakhpur lay outside the Gahadawala dominion. The inscription refers to the grant of two villages in Darada-Gandakai-Desa, which lay contiguous to a dart or a mountain and the Gandaki.(106) Possibly Burhi Gandaka was the boundary between the Gahadawalas and the Karnatas. Nanya avoided conflict with the Gahadawalas and remained satisfied with his own fortune in Tirhut and sought his compensation in the valley of Nepal. Nepal was passing through a critical phase and there were disturbances between the Thakuris of Nayakota and Patana. The later Vamsavalis hold that Nanya entered Nepal, introduced the Saka era and established his court at Bhatgaon.(107) From there he ruled over Patana and Kathamandu. Petech refuses to acknowledge Nanya as a King of Nepal but admits that ‘apparently he(Nanya) did raid Nepal after the death of Harsadeva, and this was not forgotten ....’(108) Prior to Nanya’s rule, Nepal was under Ramapaladeva(109), whose feudatory Ramadeva was ruling in Nepal. He was a mahasamantadhipati. According to Petech, Ramadeva accepted the overlordship of Ramapaladeva ‘perhaps as an insurance against any threat from Nanyadeva’.(110) It is reasonable to suggest that Ramadeva might have transferred his loyalty to Nanya after the death of Ramapaladeva. Nanya might have used him against Sivadeva (1098-1126). The vacuum created in Nepal was filled by the Karnatas of Mithila. Between 1118 and 1141 the internal difficulties in Tirhut called for the immediate attention of Nanya (who appears to have entered Nepal between 1119 and 1125) and hence a re-conquest of the Valley became necessary in 1141 AD.(111) and since then his rule over Nepal continued unabated.(112)

Nanya ruled for about fifty years. He was not only the founder of his dynasty but also one of the greatest kings. He was treated by his contemporary as a Ksatriya. He is described as the ‘lord’, ‘victor’ and besides his extraordinary achievements, he is said ‘to have turned the world into a second Ksirasagar’ by his fame.(113) He succeeded in carving out an independent state practically out of dust. He not only conquered and created a state but also consolidated it and left a good heritage for his successor. Besides being a good warrior, diplomat and administrator, he patronised art and letters and was himself one of the greatest scholars of his time. He wrote his famous commentary on Bharata’s Natyasastra which came to be regarded as the most standard work on the subject. Under his able leadership, Mithila once again came to the forefront of Indian history both in the realm of politics and culture.

SUCCESSORS OF NANYADEVA

MALLADEVA: Nanyadeva had two sons – Malladeva(114) and Gangadeva. Vidyapati describes Malladeva as a valiant warrior who went to Jayachandra, King of Kannaauj, but due to his quarrelsome nature he could not stay there for long. He went to the Chikkor King of Pithi and played an important part there. Malladeva was the cause of difference between the Gahadawalas and the Chikkor King of Pithi who had not the means to measure arms with Jayachandra. Naturally Malladeva had to leave his kingdom to eke out his existence somewhere else.(115) He is said to have settled and ruled in Nepal.(116) Since he was not on good terms with his brother Gangadeva, Malladeva had to shift to Nepal. It is not possible to be absolutely certain about the rule of Malladeva as an independent king in the present state of our knowledge and as such we leave the matter here until further evidence is forthcoming.

GANGADEVA (1147-1188): We learn from the Pratapamalla’s inscriptions of Nepal that Gangadeva succeeded Nanyadeva in Mithila in 1147 AD. If the division of the Karnata kingdom between Malladeva and Gangadeva be accepted, it appears that the division enabled Nepal to assert its independence in the time of Gangadeva. Anandadeva (1146-66), Rudradeva, Mitradeva (Wright) or Amitadeva (Bendall) were ruling in Nepal contemporaneously with Gangadeva. The discovery of five MSS representing the restoration of Thakuri line suggests that the authorities of the Karnatas had been reduced to non-entity in Nepal.(117) The Thakuris had asserted their independence in view of the weakness of the Karnatas. The Mangalai inscription represents Yadava Jaitungi to have defeated the armies of Nepal.

Gangadeva was a contemporary of Madanapala and Ballalasena. He claimed some political authority in Bengal. He has been rightly called Gaudadhwaja in the Colophon of a much discussed Ramayana MSS. He seems to have defeated Madanapala and wrested portions of the Pala Empire from him. Ballalasena did not lead any independent expedition against Mithila during his rule though he came up to Bhagalpur. The Karnata authority remained intact in Mithila under Gangadeva, whose reign was comparatively peaceful. The Senas were kept at bay on account of the advance of the Gahadawalas, who were also face to face with the Turkish invaders. While his contemporaries were faced with internal and external troubles, Gangadeva, after being free from the initial trouble on account of Malladeva, maintained peace and tranquillity in Mithila and set himself to the task of introducing certain administrative reforms and consolidating the gains of the Karnata dominion. He built a strong fort at Andhratharhi and if Mulla Taquia is to be relied upon, he built a capital at Darbhanga. Though Simaraongarh continued to be the main capital but several other towns were developed and converted into temporary capitals. Nanyadeva conquered and consolidated but it was left to Gangadeva to stabilise the kingdom on sound lines. He got dug many tanks and three such big tanks bearing his name are yet extant. For the purpose of revenue administration, he introduced the system of Parganas or fiscal divisions and appointed a Choudhary for each of them. Their main task was to collect revenue. For the settlement of all types of dispute, he created Panchayats. He is known in Mithila more for his administrative reforms and philanthropic activities than for his political achievements. He gave stability, peace and prestige to the newly established Karnata kingdom of Mithila.

NARASIMHADEVA (1188-1227): He succeeded his father Gangadeva in 1188 AD. We get some information about this king from Vidyapati’s Purusapariksa. In tale 4 of the PP, we are told that the Delhi Sultan in his march against enemy was helped by two young princes – Narasimhadeva of the Karnata race and Cacikdeva Chauhan. Muhammad of the PP is to be identified with Shihabuddin Ghori. At the end of Jayachandra’s rule, Narasimhadeva, who used to visit the court of Kannauj with his uncle Malladeva, fought for Shihabuddin Mohammad Ghori. Mulla Taquia informs us that Narasimha had been reduced to a subservient position under Laksmanasena of Bengal. The Karnata kingdom of Mithila was sandwitched between the two powerful kingdoms of Oudh and Lakhanauti. Narasimhadeva followed the policy of Vetasivritti and thereby succeeded in maintaining the independence of Mithila. His kingdom was no better than a supple cave bending under pressure and becoming straight again.(118)

Nepal took advantage of the weakness of Karnata rule and it is doubtful if the Nepal rulers like Gunakamadeva (1187), Laksmikamadeva (1193), Vijayakamadeva (1196-7), Arimalladeva, founder of the Malla dynasty, Ranasura (1221) and Abhayamalla (1223-1252) accepted the suzerainty of the Karnatas. The Malla rulers of Nepal were very weak at that time and the most important ruler of the dynasty was Arimalladeva (1201-1216), a contemporary of Narasimhadeva of Mithila. Though Mallas trace their descent from the Karnatas, the proposition is doubtful. Nepal, under Arimalladeva, broke connections with Tirhut. Had that not been the case there was no necessity of embarking on fresh conquests by Candeswara. Candeswara’s (Narasimha’s minister) boasts about Nepal’s conquests is an ample proof of the fact that Nepal had freed herself from the control of the Karnatas.(119) He was the first outsider to have touched the shrine of Pashupatinatha in Nepal.

 

2. THE KINGDOM OF PITHI

There has been a lot of discussion on the identification of the state of Pithi, normally identified with Magadha, as Pithipati is usually identified with Magadhadhipati. Pithi has been identified with the region lying between Kahalagaon and Sakrigali junction and is said to have been located at Pirpainti.(120) K P Jayaswal regards Pithi as the whole of Bihar minus Mithila. Pithi is derived from Pitha and it represented Vajrapitha, usually associated with Vajrasana at Bodh-Gaya. R C Majumdar thinks that Pithi comprised the district of Gaya.(121) Bhimayasas, one of the feudal chiefs who helped Ramapala in his fight against the Kaivarttas, is described as Pithipati and Magadhadhipati, and Pithi and Magadha were identical. An inscription of Pithipati Devasena dated in the fourteenth regnal year of Madanapala has been found at Arma in the district of Munger.(122)

During the reign of Ramapaladeva, Anga was under Mathanadeva of the Raastrakuta family and Magadha was under Devaraksita of the Chikkor family.(123) He was also known as the lord of Pithi and appears to have superseded the authority of Yaksapala of Gaya. On the basis of the Arma inscriptions we can suggest that by 1157 AD Pithipati Devasena had extended his authority up to the region of Arma in western Munger.

A connected history of the dynasty ruling over Pithi begins with a family of kings with the name ending in Sena.(124) The Janibigha inscription says that Jayasena, son of Buddhasena, was the king of Pithi in 1283 AD with Bodh-Gaya Vajrasana as the capital. Buddhasena is mentioned in an inscription found at Bodh-Gaya in respect of some grant made to Sri Dharmaraksita, the religious preceptor of Asokachalla, king of Kama. The three inscriptions of Asokachalla at Bodh-Gaya refer to atitarajye Sam 51, 74 and 83 respectively.(125) The reckoning of the era in this case is to be counted from the date of the destruction of the last Hindu kingdom in the east, that is, the destruction of the Sena kingdom in 1200 AD. Asokachalla is also mentioned in the year 1813 of the Buddhist Nirvana era (1813-543 = 1270 AD). His inscriptions also refer to the existence of the Ceylonese Buddhist Community at Gaya.(126) The  Janibigha inscriptionof Jayasena, recording the grant of a village for the maintenance of Ceylonese monk, is to be placed in 1283 AD. His father Buddhasena was ruling in 1234-36 when the Tibetan traveller Dharmaswami visited Gaya. On the evidence of Dharmaswami, it is now almost certain that the era referred to in the Gaya inscriptions of Asokachalla and in the Janibigha inscription may be regarded as having started in 1200 AD.

Both Ramasimha of Mithila and Buddhasena of Gaya were contemporaries and known to Dharmaswami. Dharmaswami describes him as a king of Magadha and he is to be identified with the king of the same name of the Janibigha inscription. He is described as Pithipati. The fact that as a ruler of Magadha, he was ruling at Vajrasana suggests that Pithi was merely an abbreviation of Vajrapitha and was nothing else than Bodh-Gaya itself. The Bodh-Gaya Stone Slab Inscription of Buddhasena in the Berlin Museum(127) suggests that the grant was issued from the Vikramapataka by Pithipati Acarya Buddhasena. According to D C Sircar, the Pithipatis appear to have been originally Acarya or spiritual guides of the Pithipatis of Chikkor family of the Sindhu clan of Kannada origin and may have inherited the title from the latter.(128)

The Chikkor or the Sind kings Vallabharaja, the lord of Pithika, and his son Pithipati Devaraksita (1090-1115) are known to us from the Saranatha inscriptions(129) of Kumaradevi, Queen of Govindachandra Gahadawala (1114-55) and also from Sandhyakara Nandi.(130) The Acarya , a successor of Chikkor or Sind (Chinda) Pithipatis ruled over the said region together with western fringe of Munger district were subordinates of the Palas in 1157 AD. Acarya Devasena, referred to earlier, may have been a predecessor of Buddhasena. These people ruled even after the establishment of Turkish rule. There is no evidence to show that Buddhasena or his son Jayasena ruled as vassals of any muslim sultan but they could not maintain their independence for long. On the basis of the Berlin Museum Inscription of Buddhasena, it can be said that Pandit Brahmanas were his feudatories and some of the officers mentioned therein included Sadhanika, Ranaka, Mandalika, Pandita etc. It was Buddhasena of Gaya who was maintaining and supporting Rahulasribhadra (aged 90) at Nalanda monastery, where there were yet seventy monk scholars. Asokachalla of Sapadalaksa (Punjab) was a contemporary of Buddhasena. Buddhasena and Jayasena were the last two great rulers of Pithi or Magadha in the 13th century independent of the Turkish rulers and were maintaining the last vestige of Buddhists, the skeleton of the Nalanda University. They were not related to the Senas of Bengal as suggested by Taranatha and others.

 

Continued: home/page 6  (Click HOME in the menu and select the page you want to visit.)