________________
338
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXVIII
The late Mr. N. G. Majumdar explained the passage, adharō, etc., as 'the support of the Fortune goddesses of other kings smiling at (i.e. joyful on account of) the umbrella which was the royal insignia of Harikēla'. Dr. R. C. Majumdar, observes on the above views of Dr. Basak and the late Mr. Majumdar, "According to the first interpretation, Trailōkyachandra was the de facto if not de jure, ruler of Harikēla, while, according to the second, he was both de facto and de jure king of Harikēla, with a number of other rulers subordinate to him. The latter view seems preferable. Thus Trailōkyachandra added Chandradvipa and Harikēla to his paternal dominions'. In my opinion, the real import of the ssage in question has escaped the notice of all the three scholars referred to above.
I am inclined to interpret the passage adhārō Harikela-rāja-kakuda chchatra-smitānāṁ śriyām as 'the mainstay of the Fortune goddesses whose smiles are represented by the white umbrella that is the symbol of royalty of the Harikēla king'. The passage thus says that Trailōkyachandra was the support of the royal fortune of the king of Harikēla. Its real import is apparently that the Chandra king Trailōkachandra of Chandradvipa was a feudatory or ally of the king of the Harikēla country. There are instances in epigraphic literature of a feudatory's representation as the mainstay of the overlord's kingdom or fortune. Thus the rulers of the Parichchhedin family, who were feudatories of the Eastern Chalukya monarchs, are mentioned in inscriptions as VēnyiChalukya-rajya-mula-stambha, i.e., 'the main support of the kingdom or royalty of the Chalukyas of Vengi'. In my opinion therefore Tailōkyachandra was not a king of Harikēla, but was the ruler of Chandradvipa, i.e., Bakla-Chaddradvipa in the present Buckergunje District, owing allegiance to or allied with the king of the country called Harikēla.
As pointed out by Basak, the lexicographer Hemachandra identifies the Harikēla or Harikēli country with Vanga in the passage Vangas-tu Harkelayaḥ (or keliyāḥ) in his Abhidhanachintamani. But undoubtedly an earlier tradition regarding the location of that country is preserved in Kesava's Kalpadrukōsa which says Srihatto Harikeliḥ syach-Chhrihatō-pi kvachid= bhave. This shows that Harikēli or Harikēla was originally the name of the Srihaṭṭa (modern Sylhet) region but that the n. me was later applied in a wider sense to Vanga apparently as a result of the expansion of a kingdom that had its headquarters in the Sylhet area. The expansion of the Harikēli kingdom is actually suggested by the Chittagong plate of Kantideva who was a ruler of Harikēlā-mandala in the eight or ninth century A.C. Kantidēva seems to have been originally a petty ruler of Harikēlā, or Harikēla Harikēli in the Sylhet region; but he appers to have later acquired a wide kingdom which had its capital at Devaparvata near modern Comilla in the Tippera District. Trailōkyachandra who flourished about the middle of the tenth century seems to have owed allegiance to the line of Harikēla kings represented by Kantideva.? Śrichandra, son of Trailōkyachandra, was the first independent monarch of the Chandra dynasty. He appears to have thrown off the yoke of Harikēla and extended Chandra power over wide areas of southeast Bengal at the expense of the erstwhile overlords of his family. The rise of Srichandra as an independent monarch may have been facilitated by a possible struggle between the Pālas and the kings of Harikēla as suggested by the discovery of an image inscription dated in the first regnal year of Gopala II(circa 940-60A.C.) at Mandhuk within the Chandina Police Station of the Tippera District. That Srichandra, who ruled about the second half of the tenth century, had himself
1 Inscriptions of Bengal, Vol. III, p. 7.
2 History of Bengal, Dacca University, Vol. I, p. 195.
See J.O.R., Vol. XVII, p. 131; above Vol. VI, p. 224; S.I.I., Vol. IV, Nos. 985, 1127, etc. cf. below, Vol. XXIX, p. 232.
Above, Vol. XXVI, pp. 313 fr.
Gaekwad Oriental Series, No. 42, I, 26. See J.B.A.S.B., Letters, Vol. XVII, pp. 83 ff.
His comparison with Dilipa in the stanza in question scarcely proves his independent status Cf. I.H.Q., XXIV, p. 73.
• Verendra Research Society's Monograph, No. 8, 1950, pp. 4-6; LH Q., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 4
51 ff.
