LATE RADHAKRISHNA CHOUDHARY

 

 

NOTES

 

1 IF – 127 ff. (2nd edition, Delhi, 1980). Sharma describes the period as “The heyday of Political Feudalism”.

2 EI – XIV, 328 ff.

3 IHQ – XVI, 179 ff.

4 DKM – 407; JBORS – XIV, 328 ff.

5 H P Sashtri – Catalogue; IHQ – VII, 679 ff; ABORS – XXXV, 91 ff; SMK; JBORS – IX,304 ff; JAHRS – I,45 ff; TNI; ABORI – XXIII, 291 ff.

6 CAB – I (II), 262-63.

7 HAB (RCM).

8 K A N Sashtri, ‘The Cholas’, (I) 247 ff; They were also ruling in the Apara-Mandara region of Santhal Pargana.

9 Ibid, 251.

10 IA – XIV, 139 ff; IC – VII, 3 ff.

11 He held Vanga, Gauda, Anga, Magadha and Tirabhukti.

12 R K Choudhary; ‘Decline of the University of Vikramasila’, JIH – LVI – Pt II, pp. 213-235 (August, 1978).

13 HAB – 135 ff.

14 EI – II, p 15; IA – XVIII, 215/217; EI – XXIV, 112.

15 JIH – LVI – Pt II, 222 ff.

16 HCIP – V, 417; PIHC, 1972.

17 JBTS – I, 9 ff – infra.

18 DHNI – II, 779.

19 R D Banerji; ‘The Palas of Bengal’, p 75.

20 R K Choudhary (edited); G D College Bulletin Series, No. I, Begusarai, 1951.

21 Infra for discussion; Cf, EI – XXIX, 48 ff.

22 RC – 1.9 Commentary; ASIAR – 1921-22, p 115. The treaty has been described as ‘Kapalasandhi’.

Cf: R K Choudhary; ‘A Short Note on Kapalasandhi’, Journal of the Oriental Institute, VII, No 4, 1958.

23 IB – III, 119.

24 IA – XVI, 63.

25 RCM – 141.

26 Vikramankadevacharita, II, 74.

27 RC 1.29, 33; II, 5, 6, 8.

28 The word King is used here in the sense of an ordinary ruler.

29 N Dasgupta identifies it with the modern localities of Deoghar, IA, 1930, p 244.

30 EI – XXXVI, 92. The Parmaras are believed to have raided Bengal in the time of Ramapala; Cf, DHNI – II, 882.

30(a) The continuous revolts by the Kaivartta peasants between 1070 and 1084 killed Mahipala II and established an independent kingdom where three Kaivartta rulers ruled till they were driven out by Ramapala in 1084 AD.

31 EI – IX, 329.

32 JBORS – IV, 273.

33 DUS – I, No 2, p 125 ff. In about 993, three villages in North Bengal together with a certain measure of land formerly enjoyed by Kaivarttas were given by Mahipala for Buddhist worship (EI – XXIX, 1, B; IF – 64).

34 RC – 1.39.

35 IB – 14.

36 RC – I. 40-41; II. 21-27; Mahipala II was faced by a rebellion of a large number of his vassals (Militananta Samantachakra). The Kaivartta revolt was against the tyranny of Mahipala II.

37 EI – XXIX. 5; RC – II. 40.; II. 39-42.

38 Gaudalekhamala, p 152; In the Belava Copperplate of Bhojavarmanas, Jatavarmana claims to have disgraced the strength of the arms of Divya (IB – III, p 22).

39 DUS – I, No 2, p 125 ff.

40 The Kaivarttas belonged to the fishing class (regarded as a degraded caste) and had taken to cultivation and called themselves Mahishya and according to a tradition, they were raised to the status of a clean Sudra by Ballalasena. Cf: B N Datta; ‘Studies in Ancient Indian Polity’, p 369.

41 RC – II, 12-20, 30, 41 ff.

42 IHQ – XVII, 207 ff.

43 Mahana had two sons – Mahamandalika Kanharadeva and Suvarnadeva. Mahana’s brother’s son was Mahapratihara Sivarajadeva. These people had helped Ramapala in times of distress. Bhimayasasa, the king of Pithi and Lord of Magadha had overthrown the army of the king of Kannauja.

44 JASB – XVIII, 81; EI – VII, 93.

45 JRASB (L) – VII, 27 ff; EI – XXVIII, p 137.

46 Cf: B P Sinha; ‘Dynastic History of Magadha’, p 232.

47 JBRS – XLI, pp 142-53; Cf: RCM – 195, doubts the reading of Gaudeswara Palapala.

48 CHB – 102 ff.

49 PB – 108-112; RCM – 194-95, for details; PIHC – III, 528; IHQ – XXX, 213; EI – XXXV, 233.

50 RCM – 160; JBORS – XIV, 496; XV, 649; IHQ – VI, 164.

51 IA – XXXVIII, 248.

52 Cf: The Deopara Inscription and Madhainagar Grant.

53 QJMS – XLIV, p 1 ff.

54 EI – XXIII, 290 (Nalanda Copperplate of Devapala).

55 PB – 99; JBORS – IX, 306; IHQ – XII, 475-76. The theory of Karnata allies of Karna, as propounded by Jaiswal, does not hold good as Karna’s alliance with the Karnatas was of a temporary character.

56 IB – III, p 42; p 68.

57 HAB – 224 ff. Vilasadevi, daughter of Laksmisura of Apara-Mandara. We get the name of Ranasura from the inscription of Rajendra Chola. South Radha was under the Suras. Vijayasena’s matrimonial alliance with the Suras enabled him to be the master of Radha.

58 IHQ – XXX, 205 ff.

59 These identifications are based on the Ramacharita of Sandhyakara Nandi and the inscriptions of Bengal.

60 JASB – L-XVII, 29-30; EI – XXVIII, 137 ff; IC – II, 578. It is said that Vijayaraja of Nidravati, mentioned in the RC, was Vijayasena himself who helped Ramapala against the Kaivarttas but ultimately overthrew the Palas and established his dynasty in Bengal.

61 JASB (NS) – II, 161; also Cf: Purusapariksa of Vidyapati; R K Choudhary, ‘History of Muslim Rule in Tirhut’, HAB – 232 ff.

62 JAOS – VI, 547-49; DHNI – I, 534; EI – V, No 132.

63 IA – XVIII, 129; IHQ – V, 14; DHNI – I, 537-38.

64 JASB (NS) – XVII, 8ff. His military triumphs are praised by Sarana and Umapatidhara.

65 IHQ – X, 321 ff; EI – XXVII, 119; XXX, 42; IC – I, 679.

66 JIH – LVI (II), 213 ff.

67 Minhaj says, “Trustworthy persons have related to this effect, that little or much, never did any tyranny proceed from his hand.” Minhaj is not cent percent trustworthy as he leaves many things in his account relating to the contemporary events. That has led to a good deal of confusion among the historians.

68 EI – XII, 136-42; XVII, 188-92; 349; Cf Ramapala CP, Bharella inscription of Lahadachandra, Kedarpur CP, Dhulia CP (IB – III, 165-66; EI – XXXIII, p 134-40), Edilpur CP (EI – XVII, 189-90) etc.

69 IC – VII, p 405-416; Cf: K A N Shastri, ‘The Cholas’, p 247. There is a difference in the total length in the above two lists.

70 Barrie N I Morrison; ‘Political Centres and Cultural Regions in Early Bengal’, Jaipur, 1980; p 20.

Cf: A H Dani; ‘Purba Vanger Chandravamsa’, Bangla Ekademi Patrika, IV, 24-34; PIHC, 1961.

71 R C Majumdar and N K Bhattasali try to locate this place in East Bengal and Commilla. Cf: IHQ – II, 317-18, 325-27, 655-56; III, 217, 418. Rohitagiri is the abbreviated form of Rohtasgarh or Rohitasvagarhi.

72 N G Majumdar interprets it as “the support of Goddess of Fortune smiling at the umbrella, which was the royal insignia of the king os Harikela”. D C Sircar holds that Trailokyachandra was a feudatory or an ally of the king of Harikela country. Both he and Srichandra were subordinate allies (laghumitra) of the king of Harikela and of the Palas (EI – XXVIII, p 54; XXXIII, p 135).

73 Taranatha’s account of the Chandra dynasty is yet to be corroborated by a reliable evidence. Inscriptions, coins and Burmese chronicles, however, testify to the rule of a line of kings with names ending in Chandra in the Arakan region. When these kings were ousted from Arakan, a branch of them settled at Pattikera (Tripura) and founded a kingdom there. In view of the absence of any solid evidence, it is desirable that the history of the Chandras of East Bengal should be studied without any reference to Burma and their inscriptions (thirteen in all) should be the basis of such a study. They appear to have ruled between 825 and 1035 AD. For details, Cf: Phayre, ‘History of Burma’, p 45; EI – XXXII, pp 103-9, and the Bengali article of A H Dani referred to earlier. Also, IHQ – XIII, 151-52; EI – II, 11, 15; XXIV, 105, 112. Through the tenth and into the 11th century AD, the Pala and Chandra dynasties dominated the region and extended their influence into the northern Gangetic plain and into Burma.

74 EI – IV, p 143; XII, p 37. It has been suggested that they belonged to Simhapur of Kalinga (IHQ – XII, 608-9). Morrison (48-49) holds that Varmana dynasty controlled Vikramapur and the power was limited to the territories adjacent to their capital cities. Three plates of the dynasty have been recovered from the Dacca area.

75 BI – 276; IHQ – V, 225; JASB (NS) – X, 124; DHNI – II, 772, 778 and 782.

76 EI – XXI, 97; IC – VI, 55.

77 Modern Review, 1932; pp 529-32.

78 H P Sastri, Cat. 1.79; PB – 97; IHQ – XXII, 135; IB – III, 28.

79 IB – III, 25.

80 EI – XXX, p 255 ff; N N Basu, VJI – II, 215.

81 IHQ – XXII, 134-35.

82 IB – XXX, XXXI.

83 IHQ – XXVIII, 339. The Vaidika Brahmans claim that they at first settled in Bengal during the reign of Samalavarmanadeva in Saka 1001 (=1079 AD) at his invitation and thenspread elsewhere.

84 IHQ – XXII, 133; EI – XII, 37. The minor dynasties of Bengal were relatively isolated and unpretentious. On the basis of the plates available to us, we can see that there is much less information about the actions of the Government, though claims to authority by rulers portray a royal government centred in the Court without the graded territorial hierarchy. Royal courtly government had become the normal pattern. Even the minor ruling dynasties of Bengal and Bihar assumed grandiloquent titles with the prefix Maha (Great).Cf: Morrison, op. cit., 151.

85 Phayre, ‘History of Burma’, 49-50. For the history of Pattikera also Cf IHQ – IX, 284-5.

86 CHB, p 100 ff; CHB – I (ii), p 301 ff; TM; SKM; ABORI – XXXV, 91 ff; JBORS – IX, X.

87 EI – XIV, 159. The destruction of Kalchuri Karna by Someswara I (1040-1069) facilitated the path for Karnata domination in North Indian politics. The emergence  of the Chalukyas in north Indian politics ushered in a new epoch and the dynasties of Kannauj, Mithila and Bengal were the direct results of the Chalukya invasion (IHQ – VII, 684).

88 JAHRS – I, 57.

89 Ibid.

90 JBORS – IX, 306.

91 IA – 1880, p 188.

92 Levi, ‘Le Nepal’, II, 221-22.

93 JASB-L, p 186; Charitrakosa (Marathi), S V Nanyadeva, EI – I, 305; JASB (1909), 467 ff; JASB (1901), p 471; XV, 282.

94 HCIP – V, 47; JBORS – XXVIII, 131; PIHC – XIV, 130 ff; JASB – V, 121; (for B H Hodgson’s article). Whether they were the results of Chola invasion or the Chalukya invasion is yet a matter of dispute but the fact remains that they belonged to the south and kept their connections alive. Ballalasena had matrimonial connection and Harisimhadeva had some relations with the Yadavas of Devagiri.

95 IHQ – III, 577; IA – 1922; ABORI – XXXV, 91 ff; SKM; TM; The verse was brought to the notice of the learned scholars by late Pt Chanda Jha in his edition of Vidyapati’s Purusapariksa; CIB – S V Mithila Inscriptions; Levi has read the verse with slight variations here and there; Levi, ‘Le Nepal’, II, 194-97. M Chakravarti places him in the 12th century AD. JASB (NS) – XI, 407. An earlier date has been suggested by Dr K C Pandey but that is not acceptable. IHQ- VII, 685; CHB – 101 ff; Sandhyakara Nandi in his Rama Charita (IV.27) refers to an invasion of Gauda by the Karnata ruler of Mithila – this may just be an illusion. The Palas decayed into a trifling country family. Sandhyakara Nandi reduced “Sanskrit poetry to the level of an acrostic .... in effect it can not be understood at all” (D D Kosambi, ‘An Introduction to the Study of Indian History’, 2nd Edn., Bombay, 1975; p 372).

96 Cf: CIB, p 124; JBORS – IX, 308; Sridharadasa is the famous author of Saduktikarnamrita and is also associated with the court of Laksmanasena. Nanya’s two ministers were Sridharadasa and Ratnadeva of the Balainavamsiya and Biaravamsiya Karnatakayastha families respectively of Mithila whose descendents are yet living. The Karana-kayasthas  of Mithila monopolised the posts of ministers under the Karnatas and Oinwaras of Mithila. The Sena Court of Bengal was also manned by the Karan Kayasthas.

97 G Roerich (edited), ‘Biography of Dharmaswami’, Patna, 1959. The famous Nepali scholar Dr D R Regmi, in his voluminous works on Nepal dismisses the event of Karnata rule in Nepal as a figment of imagination but he fails to say as to why the Nepal Vamsavalis cling to it and how are we to account for the mention of the Karnatas in the Pratapamalla’s inscription?

98 Prakrta-Painglam, BI series, Calcutta, 1902; p 296, verse 4. Cf: JBORS – IX, 301 ff; EI – II, 2; HCIP – V, 63. Two Copperplate inscriptions from Bagaha (Champaran) belonging to the time of king Suryaditya (son of Hamsaraja and grandson of Helavaraha) are dated in 1020 and 1026 AD, refer to Darada-gandika-mandala and is a land grant. The dynasty belonged to the solar race. Cf: EI – XXXV, 130-140. These two grants are indicative of the fact that Champaran was under the control of Suryaditya in the first half of the eleventh century AD who could issue grants.

99 R C Majumdar says,’It is impossible to believe that as a ruler of Mithila, he would have carried his arms so far to the west.’ IHQ – VII, 685.

100 HCIP – V, 35, 37.

101 EI – I, 305; Cf: DHNI – I, 360, 530.

102 HAIB – 473.

103 IHQ – XXX, 210.

104 HCIP – V, 53.

105 EI – VII, 85-93; DHNI – II, 747.

106 EI – VII,93 ff; JNSI – X, 72-74; CHB – 101 ff.

107 D W Wright, ‘History of Nepal’, p 167.

108 Luci and Petech, ‘Medieval History of Nepal’, p 53 ff.

109 Colophon of a MSS of Kubjikamata ‘Ramadevasya-Parmeswara Paramabhattarak Paramasaugata Maharaja Srimadaramapala-devasya’; The MSS is dated AD 1099; Cf: H P Sastri, Cat, I, p 54.

110 Petech; op. cit., 54.

111 D R Regmi, ‘Ancient and Medieval Nepal’ (1st Edn.), p 145.

112 JIH – XXXVI, 123-25.

113 G D College, Begusarai, Bulletin No. 4 (edited by R K Choudhary).

114 His inscription, ‘OM SRI MALLADEVASYA’, has been found at Bheet Bhagwanpur. Vidyapati calls him ‘heir-apparent’.

115 PP – 1, 3; PB – 86.

116 ST – 62.

117 Sastri; Cat. p 23; It has to be noted that the Mallas of Nepal trace their descent from Nanyadeva. Cf: ABORI – Silver Jubilee Volume, 1942 for Gangadeva.

118 JIH – XXXIV, 325; ABORI – XXXV, 107-8 ff; We cannot reject the authority of Vidyapati outright. He has given us the history of the Karnatas in five tales and in doing so he has kept in view the chronological order. There is a lot of confusion with regard to the names and their identifications in the History of Mithila and the error, once committed, has been followed by others without examining the text. Cf: Grierson’s edn. of PP, p 19, fn; JASB (NS) – XI, 412-13; TM – 266-67.

119 Cf: ST – 62; Archaeological Report of the Terai Excavation – 1901, p 634; History of Bengal (edited by Sir Jadunath Sarkar) – II, pp 22-23; HCIP – VI for R C Majumdar’s chapter on Mithila; G D College Bulletin, Series No. 4; Mulla Taquia’s ‘Bayaz’ (a sixteenth century Travel Account from Jaunpur to Bengal in the reign of Akbar) was published by Illiyas Rehmani in ‘Maasir’ (an Urdu monthly), Patna, May-June, 1949.

120 IC – V, 379 ff. The view stands rejected as there is no supporting evidence.

121 HAB – 281; also p 148. Bhimayasas had overthrown the army of Kannauj.

122 EI – XXXVI, 42.

123 Vidyapati also mentions Chikkor family of Pithi in his account of Malladeva of Mithila. Govinda Chandra Gahadawala married the Pithi princess Kumaradevi, whose mother was the daughter of Mathanadeva of Anga who engineered the matrimonial alliance to cement alliance between the Palas and Gahadawalas. She was the daughter of Devaraksita.

124 IA – XLVIII, 1919, 43 ff; JBORS – IV, 273 ff; EI – XXXV, 79.

125 Srimat Laksmanasenasyatitarajya Sam 51 (EI – XIII, 29); Srimat Laksmanasena devapadanam atita rajya Sam 74 (EI – XII, 28); Laksmanasenasyatitarajye Sam 83 (IA – XLVIII, 47).

126 JASB (NS) – XVII, 9-10; IHQ – VI, 166-67; IA – 1881, p 341; J N Banerji Volume, 113-15.

127 SERNIEI, p 29 ff; EI – XXXV, IX, 323 ff.

128 Ibid.

129 EI – XXXVI, 42 ff.

130 RC – II, 8; II, 5. Pithipati is said to have defeated Mathanadeva. Bhimayasas might have been a successor of Devaraksita and a feudatory of Ramapala.

131 They are now listed as scheduled tribes. Buchanan found many small mounds of the Kharwaras between Tarachandi Hills and Sasaram.

132 EI – V, p 22, No. 152 Appendix; IA – XIX, 179. Bhandarkar’s List. No. 338.

133 EI – IV, p 310; R Niyogi, ‘The History of Gahadawala Dynasty’, p 259.

134 IA – XIX, p 179; Niyogi, op. cit.

135 JAOS – VI, 547-49.

136 EI – XXII, 222-30. Here we have three stages; Overlord was Gahadawala ruler, lord was Indradhawala and the donor was a mahamandalika of Indradhawala.

137 Niyogi, op.cit., pp 118-19. The Silasila Rock Inscription of the time of Angasimha throws light on early medieval history of Bhabua. It refers to the reign of Nayak Angasimha. Vimcirti purchased a plot of land from the Nayak and granted it in favour of Siva. The inscription is dated VS 1162 (=1106 AD); EI – XXXV, p 38-41.

138 JBORS – V (Pt IV), p 582 ff; CHB – I (II), Appendix VII, p 707 ff, p 275-76; HB – 282. The lineage of Arjuna is not known to us. Line 15 of the epigraph suggests that the family became exalted and famous for the victory of Arjuna. Since no other Arjuna, except the Governor of Harsa, is known to us, we may infer that following the disappearance of the Tibetan rule and the consequent void in the history of Mithila, these people might have strengthened the hands of the successors of Arjuna. The recently discovered Katra Copperplate inscription refers to some connection with Arjuna. It seems that after the later Gupta, a branch of theirs settled somewhere in Tirhut. Katra Plate Inscription refers to Chamunda Visaya in Tirbhukti and line 20 of the Panchobh Copperplate refers to Chamundaraja. If these two be accepted and connected, we can suggest that the ancestors of Samgramagupta were the descendants of the later Gupta dynasty.

139 Buchanan: a) PATNA-GAYA – I, 78-89, SHAHABAD, p 72; The author of these lines travelled and contacted a large number of Chero families in 1965-66 in the village of Jagdishpur (village home of Kunwar Singh) in the district of Bhojpur and some of the materials collected there were sent to Dr K S Singh, now Director, Anthropological Survey of India.

140 JBRS – XLIV, 1958, p 14 ff.

141 EI – XXXV, 140 ff; for Antichak Inscription, see, JAIH – VI, 55 f; B P Sinha, ‘Dynastic History of Magadha’, pp 228-29; JIH – LVI, Pt II, pp 232-35.

142 JBRS – XXXVII, 1951, pp 7-10.

143 EI – XXX, 82-84. The village Lai is situated about ten miles from Kajra Railway Station of Munger. Yaksapala was a Vasagarika, officer-in-charge of the king’s Vasagara, i.e., the inner part of the house or the bed chamber.

144 EI – II, 343; Cf: HCIP – III, 78, 93 ff; PIHC (1968), Bhagalpur session, for author’s article on ‘Theory of Commendation’. It is said that in the last quarter of the sixth century AD, a Mana dynasty was ruling over a greater part of Orissa. Its rulers assumed imperial titles. They lost authority after Sasanka.

145 EI – II, 333. The Mana rulers had assumed the high sounding title of Magadheswara. They appear to have continued as feudal petty chiefs of the forest tracts of Gaya and Hazaribag and taking advantage of the disturbed situation under later Palas they rose as independent rulers.

146 JBRS – LI (1965), pp 56-57. The provenance of the inscription, since lost, is not known. The reference to Purana in the sense of Coin in the last line of the inscription is interesting. Suvarnakhanda, a part of Suvarnabhumi, may have been the ancient name of Singhbhum. Suvarnakhanda was a Visaya in which a village was donated.

147 EI – XXXV, 130-36; 136-40.

148 IA – XLVI, 304 ff.

149 JBAS – LXIX, Pt I, 66 ff.

150 IA – XIV, 166-8; XXI, 97 ff; EI – XXIII.

151 EI – XXIX.

152 Ibid. These 8 or 9 Jayaskandhavaras of the Palas may have been flourishing towns in those days.

153 HAIB, p 542.

154 Garga, Darbhapani, Someswara, Kedaramisra, Gauravamisra.

155 EI – XXXV, 130-36; 136-40. Mahapramatrmahasamanta was the executor of land grants under Harsa. His position underwent some diminution under the Palas. The office seems to have been abolished in the post-Harsa period.

156 IB – III, 156-57; JBORS – V, 593-94.

157 There were only four or five maha-prefixed officials under Dharmapala and Devapala, nine under Narayanapala, Ballalasena and Laksmanasena, thirteen under Ishwaraghosha and eighteen under Samgramagupta.

158 EI – XVII, 7; XIX.

159 EI – XVII, 17; XXIX.

160 JRASB, series III, VIII, 34-35.

161 EI – XIX, p 279; For a mention of forced labour (IB – II, p 8). Mrrison suggests that Srichandra was carrying out a specific settlement policy in the area – this is the largest grant among the Bengal epigraphs (op. cit., 95 ff); Cf: JASB (L) – XVII, 139.

162 HAIB – 568; Cf: HAB.

163 G D College Bulletin, Series No. 1 (since lost). Recently the discovery of a hoard of Vigrahapaladrammas has been reported from Naulagarh (Begusarai), Bihar.

164 HAB – 322. Perhaps Coins were used in trade for it is said that a tank was constructed at Gaya for one thousand Drammas; ASIAR – 1908-9; p 150.

165 JBORS – II, 441 ff.

166 Sharma suggests that Patna is derived from Pattana and not Pataliputra as is generally believed. Patna became popular under Shershah. CHB – I (ii), pp 352, 358.

167 He revoked the Grant of two villages procured by a Brahmana through bribery. JAOS – VI, 547 ff. The expression ‘Utkocha’ is interesting. We have an example of forged grants also dating back to the age of the Guptas.

 

 

Continued: home/page 10         (Click HOME in the menu and select the page you want to visit.)