Pala Chronology — A Reply to Prof. Banerji
By Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya
Summary
The text presents a scholarly debate between Prof. R.D. Banerji and the author over Pala chronology, particularly regarding the reign of Gopala I and the interpretation of a colophon from the *Astasahasrika* manuscript. Banerji argues that the colophon, dated to the 57th year of Gopala I, was misread as "17" instead of "1" due to paleographic analysis, suggesting a shorter reign for Gopala I. However, the author counters that the numerals are indistinct and that the spacing irregularities make the "17" reading plausible, aligning with Dr. Sastri’s earlier interpretation. The author emphasizes that Gopala I’s exceptionally long reign (over 50 years) is supported by contemporary records like the Bangad, Augichi, and Manahali grants, which consistently attribute a lengthy rule to him. The author also critiques Banerji’s revised chronology, which pushes Dharmapala’s accession to 709 CE and compresses the reigns of early Pala kings to accommodate a shorter Gopala I reign. This adjustment creates inconsistencies, such as the Kamboja usurpation of 966 CE conflicting with Vigrahapala II’s reign and the improbability of Niryanapala recovering northern Magadha in 899 CE. The author defends the earlier chronology (841 CE for Sirapala’s date) as more coherent, noting that Banerji’s reliance on paleography over historical context leads to contradictions. The debate underscores tensions between epigraphic evidence and broader historical records in reconstructing Pala chronology.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
This document presents a critical re-examination of Pala chronology, challenging Prof. Banerji's interpretations of key numismatic and epigraphic evidence. The analysis demonstrates that Dr. Sastri's readings of the Mastrya Philarna colophon, previously dismissed as "extremely doubtful," hold greater paleographic validity than Prof. Banerji's alternative interpretations. The study reaffirms Gopala I's exceptionally long reign (over 50 years) based on contemporary records, despite Prof. Banerji's attempts to shorten it through contested numerical readings. The critique exposes inconsistencies in Prof. Banerji's revised chronology, particularly his arbitrary pushback of Dharmapala's accession date by over two decades without substantive justification. The document concludes by highlighting the methodological flaws in Prof. Banerji's engagement with fixed chronological markers, particularly his unexplained adoption of the 852 A.D. reference for Sirapala while ignoring earlier evidence. The findings underscore the need for rigorous paleographic analysis and consistent application of epigraphic principles