________________
No. 43)
TWO GRANTS OF VARMANS OF VANGA
261
captured quite a number of kings and the issue of his Barrackpur grant in his 62nd year! from Vikramapura, the whilom capital of the Chandra and Varman kings, implies that Vanga also was included in his conquests.
In verse 21 of the Deopärä inscription the following kings are said to have been imprisoned by Vijayasena: 1. Nanya, king of Mithila; 2. Vira, king of Kōṭatavi; 3. Vardhana, king of Kausambi (the present 24 Parganas); and 4. Raghava, identified with the king of Kalinga who ruled from 1156 to 1170 A.D. N. N. Vasu doubts this identification of Raghava.
As we hold that Vanga was snatched off from the Varmans and annexed by Vijayasena, can we seek a clue to the identification of this Raghava in that quarter? Here the mysterious and hitherto unexplained verse 14 of the Belava plate comes to our help. The difficulty in its proper interpretation lies in the last two expressions of the verse which have been read variously. I am now inclined to read it as sankasv-a-lank-adhipaḥ and translate the half verse as follows: "Oh, fie! How painful! The world is bereft of heroes today. Has this trouble of the Rakshasas appeared again? May Alankadhipa (i.e. opposite of Lankadhipa, Rāma or Raghava) farewell during this apprehended danger!"
We have to remember that Ramapala was living at this time, as he died so late as 1120 A.D. He was the Rama who faced the first trouble with the Rakshasas (i.e. the Kaivarta usurpation of North Bengal) and his killing of Ravana in the form of the Kaivarta usurper and recovery of Sita, that is Varendri, was a favourite theme with the poets of the period, an outstanding instance of which is the Ramacharita. Though the Pālas during this period had lost complete control over Bengal, south of the Ganges, they still commanded respect as the past emperors of East India. Vijayasena, newly risen to power in Radha by his marriage with Viläsadevi, a daughter, if not the heiress, of the old Sura line of Radha, was eager to strike north and east and make himself the undisputed master of Bengal. He had already gathered together formidable forces and everybody in Bengal expected that sooner or later the blow would fall. But whether it would fall on the Varman kingdom east of the Bhagirathi or on the Pāla kingdom north of the Ganges, no one could guess. The Belava plate granted land on the east bank of the Bhagirathi and it appears to have been granted at this period of sanka or apprehended danger. The poet Purushottama in this half slōka probably wanted to please both Ramapala and one Raghava by double entendre. The favour and alliance of Ramapala of the old imperial line was sought against the formidable upstart Vijayasena, while Raghava, probably a scion of the Varman line, appears to have been the leader of the Varman kingdom of the period. He was the commander of the forces and the guardian of Bhojavarman, the reigning Varman king. The meaning of the sloka becomes quite clear, if we assume that the poet wanted to please Alankadhipa, i.e. Rama of the Pala line as well
Above, Vol. XV, pp. 278 ff. and Plate, where the date is read as 32. The figures may possibly represent 61. Vide JASB, 1921, p. 16, n. [For different readings of the date of this record see History of Bengal, op. cit., p. 210, n. 3; cf. above, p. 80.-Ed.]
Above, Vol. I, pp. 305 ff.
[The identifications suggested are not beyond doubt.-Ed.]
Vanger Jatiya Itihasa, Rajanya-kanda, p. 308.
[Cf. above, p. 80.-Ed.]
Above, Vol. XII, p. 40, lines 22-23.
Originally I read sankäsu-a-labdha dhiyah (Dacca Review, July 1912, p. 144). Then R. D. Banerji read sankasu babdha(?) dhiyah (JASB, 1914, p. 127). R. G. Basak first read sankäsvalank-adhipah, but subsequently changed the reading to sankäsu lankadhipah (above, Vol. XII, p. 40). Basak's translation conveys no meaning and he recognises this fact. Sten Konow in an editorial note suggests that it is an exhortation to king Bhoja to engage on some expedition. N. G. Majumdar follows Basak's second reading (Inscriptions of Bengal, Vol. III, p. 22), but is unable to arrive at any satisfactory meaning. However, it is undeniable that the passage hints at contemporary political happenings (cf. adya).
JRAS, 1935, p. 83.
