Pala Rule in the Tippera District
Summary
The article examines the historical debate surrounding Pala rule in the Tippera District, focusing on the identification of a king named Mahipila mentioned in the Baghaura inscription. The author critiques Dr. D. C. Ganguly’s theory, which identifies this Mahipila as the Gurjara-Pratihara Mahipila I rather than the Pala Mahipila I. Ganguly’s argument relies on the assumption that the Pratiahara dynasty maintained control over Tippera and North Bengal until the early tenth century, a claim the author refutes using epigraphic evidence. Inscriptions from South Bihar and North Bengal demonstrate that the Pratiharas lost these territories before the 54th regnal year of Narayanapala, rendering Ganguly’s chronological framework untenable. The author further challenges Ganguly’s assertion that the Pala dynasty was confined to Tirabhukti (North Bihar) and that the Candras received the Dacca Division from the Pratiharas. Instead, the article presents evidence that Pala rule extended into South-East Bengal, including the Tippera District. A newly discovered inscription from the first regnal year of the Pala king Gopala II in the Tippera District provides direct proof of this dominion, undermining Ganguly’s argument from silence. The article also discusses a recently found Mandhuk Ganeda image inscription, which corroborates Pala authority in the region during the reigns of Gopala II and Mahipila I. This inscription, dated to the tenth century, records a Buddhist merchant named Jambhalamitra dedicating an image of the Brahmanical deity Ganesha. This reflects the gradual absorption of Buddhists into Brahmanical society. The author concludes that the Pala kingdom under Gopala II and his successors comprised not only Magadha and Anga but also North Bengal and Samatata, where the Tippera District was located, thereby establishing a well-defined territorial extent for the early Pala rulers.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The article critically re-evaluates Dr. D. C. Ganguly’s theory that the Mahipala of the Tippera District inscription was the Pratihara king rather than the Pala monarch. By systematically challenging Ganguly’s conjectures regarding Pratihara dominance over South-West Bengal and the absence of Pala rule, the author establishes that the Palas maintained control over Tippera. The discovery of a tenth-century Mandhuk image inscription, dated to the first regnal year of Pala king Gopala II, provides concrete epigraphic evidence of Pala authority in South-East Bengal. This finding, corroborated by earlier records, confirms that the Palas held the region during the reigns of Gopala II and his grandson Mahipala I. Consequently, the article refutes the *argumentum ex silentio* and demonstrates that the Pila kingdom encompassed South Bihar, North Bengal, and South-East Bengal, highlighting the complex political dynamics and gradual absorption of Buddhist merchant families into Brahmanical society during the Pala era.