Vanga and Vangala
By V. Raghavan
Summary
The debate surrounding Vanga and Vangila centers on whether they represent distinct countries or variations of the same entity. Dr. H.C. Roychowdhuri proposed Vanga and Vangila as separate nations, linking Vangila to Candradvipa based on the Ablur inscription mentioning Vijjala. However, this view lacks historical evidence, as the Kalacurya King’s invasion of Bengal is unsubstantiated. Scholars argue that Vangila likely stems from Dravidian linguistic variations of Vanga, with "élam" deriving from the root "a1," implying "possess," thus describing a marshy, moist region. Further evidence from 12th-century records, including the Ablur inscription and the Hammira Mahakavya, mentions Vanga and Bengala (Vangala) together, though these references are often vague or poetic. Historical interactions between Bengal and Burma suggest possible geographical associations, with Marco Polo’s accounts and Burmese political ties hinting at Vangila’s potential location east of the Brahmaputra. However, reliance on Marco Polo’s hearsay accounts and unproven migrations limits definitive conclusions. The discussion also touches on linguistic and cultural references, such as the Jain Prakrit term "Mankha" for mendicants displaying picture panels, with glosses noting alternative names like Gauriputraka and Kedaraka. Despite these references, the exact historical and geographical status of Vanga and Vangila remains contested, with evidence leaning toward linguistic and regional overlaps rather than distinct political entities.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This study critically re-examines the historical distinction between Vanga and Vangila, challenging earlier scholarship that posited them as separate entities based on limited epigraphic evidence. While the Ablur inscription and other records mention both terms, the analysis underscores the lack of concrete historical basis for their separation, attributing "Vangala" likely to etymological variations or regional linguistic adaptations of "Vanga." The exploration of Burmese accounts and geographical theories further complicates definitive localization, highlighting the interplay of political claims and historical ambiguities. The findings emphasize the need for cautious interpretation of poetic or generalized references in medieval texts, suggesting that Vanga and Vangila may represent overlapping or evolving regional identities rather than distinct polities. This contribution reframes the debate, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of early Bengal's historical and linguistic dynamics.