Vangala-desa
Summary
The article 'Vangala-desa' in The Indian Historical Quarterly volume 19, number 4 (December 1943) examines the historical and geographical identity of the ancient region known as Vangala or Vangala-desa, which later came to be identified with Bengal. The author compiles evidence from epigraphic records, literary sources and foreign accounts to trace the evolution of the term and to differentiate it from related names such as Vanga, Gauda and Radha. Inscriptions from the Chola period, such as the Tirumalai Rock Inscription of Rajendracola dated 1025 A.D., mention Vangala-desa in the context of military campaigns against Govindacandra and Mahipala and indicate that the region was distinct from Gauda and Radha. The article notes that various medieval inscriptions and chronicles list Vanga and Vangala alongside other kingdoms, suggesting that contemporaries recognised them as separate entities. However, the author argues that these references are vague and often inaccurate; while some scholars treat Vanga and Vangala as distinct, the evidence suggests that Vangala was originally a small tract within Vanga that gradually lent its name to the larger province. Chinese, Muslim and European sources, including Peng-ka-lo and Bangalah, are analysed to show that they refer to the same region. The author also critiques misinterpretations in translations of texts like Tarikh-i-Firozshahi, where differences in readings led to erroneous conclusions about separate regions of Bang and Bangala. By comparing inscriptions, chronicles and etymological data, the study concludes that Vangala-desa did not denote a different country but was an alternative name for eastern Bengal that gradually came to designate the entire province. The article thus clarifies the historical geography of Bengal and highlights how names evolved through political, linguistic and cultural processes.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
In summary, the article demonstrates that medieval references to Vangala-desa cannot be taken at face value as evidence for a separate polity from Vanga. By critically examining inscriptions, chronicles and foreign accounts, it shows that Vangala was initially a small district whose name was applied progressively to larger areas, culminating in its adoption by European writers as Bengal. The study cautions against literal reading of epigraphic lists and emphasises the need to contextualise place names within broader political and cultural changes. Understanding how Vangala became synonymous with Bengal offers insight into the fluidity of regional nomenclature in medieval South Asia and underscores the importance of careful source criticism.