________________
No. 8.)
IRDA COPPER-PLATE GRANT OF KING NAYAPALADEVA.
than a mere surmise. This Pratihāra occupation of the Pāla dominions does not appear to have lasted long. It must have come to an end with the death of Mahendra pāla I. It appears from the BargÃon (Patna District) inscription of the time of Rājyapāla that he must have recovered at least Magadha on or before the 24th year of his reign. This clearly explains why Rādha bas been mentioned as a separate entity by Dhanga. After Rādha, Dhanga names Anga, which shows that Anga also was an independent country at the time. He makes no mention of Magadha, which country he must have had to pass through, to return to his kingdom. This probably shows that he was friendly with the Pratihāras, who occupied that province.
The two Rājyapālas being one, ho had at least three sons, viz., Nārāyanapāla, Nayapāla and Gopāla II. Both the first and the third claim to have succeeded their father directly. Both the statements may be true, if we take that Rajyapāla divided his kingdom between Närāyanapala and Gopāla, giving Rādha to the former, and Magadha to the latter to rule independently. About the other provinces we have no information if they were recovered in the life-time of Rajyäpāla. The Jājilpārā inscription shows that Göpāla was in possession of Gauda, at least in the sixth year of his reign. An inscription of the first year of his reign has been discovered in Bargāon! Another solution may be that Gopāla usurped the throne of Nayapāla. As this was not a peaceful succession, he did not mention the names of his brothers. It is not likely that Göpāla's throno was usurped by either of his brothers. If at all, it must have been for a time only, for we find that he was succeeded by his son, Vigrahapāla II. We are in favour of the first view, for that explains why Nayapāla traces his descent from Rajyapāla, and not from Gopāla, the founder of the dynasty. Rādha, no doubt, was a feudatory state under the Palas, but it was Rajyapāla who raised it to an independent kingdom and built his capital there. So he was the founder, and Nayapala, inheriting that kingdom only, traces his descent from Räjyapala! Göpäla II., who inherited Magadha, a country ruled by his forefathers directly, names his forefathers from Göpäls I., like others of the main line.
We think, we have been able to solve satisfactorily all doubts that could be raised against the identification of the two Rajyapälas as one. Now we shall devote our attention to find out, if we can, who this Kamboja, another inveterate foe of Rajyapāla, was. We have seen that the Pratihāras conquered all the important provinces of his forefathers. So who could have been more inveterate enemy than these Pratihāras ? Nay, they were hereditary enemies of the Pāla dynasty from the time of Dharmapala. We find also that Rajyapäla came into direct conflict with them when he reconquered Magadha, on or before the 24th year of his reign. Can these Pratihāras be the Kambojas? Let us see. Kamboja, according to Pāṇini, meant a king or a Kshatriys of the country of Kamboja. Now where was this Kamboja country? According to the earlier authorities, it was in the north-west of India. But some later works as the Mārkandēya-Purāna and the Brihatsamhitā place a Kamboja country in the south-west, along with Sindhu, Sauvira and, Ānarta. Garuda Purana, a still later work, mentions it side by side with Lāta, in the south-west. This Kamboja might be the same as the Stambha-tirtha about the Narbadā, mentioned in the Kurma-Purāņa", and the niodern Cambay, on the gulf of that name. It might have derived its name from this Stambha or Khamba-tirtha. It, no doubt, formed part of the Pratihāra empire. According to some authorities, the Pratibāras were Gurjaras. We find this Kamboja
1J. P. A. 8. B., Vol. IV, p. 105.
Mr. Majumdar entertains the last view (Modern Review, September 1937). It appears from the Tirumalai insoription that a Pāla king of the name of Dharmapāla ruled in Dandabhukti till the reign of Mahipals I. H. was probably a grandson of Nayapāla of this plate. So the question of usurpation on either side does not arise.
Nark. P., ch. 58, v. 30; Brihat-s., ch. 14, v. 17. Garuda.P., Pt. I, ch, 55, v. 15. Karma-P., Pt. II., ch. 39, vv. 40 & 50.
