The Brahmans of Mithila before the PañjīPrabandha

 

Nisha Thakur

Assistant Professor, Department of History, Adamas University, Barasat, Kolkata, West Bengal

*Corresponding Author Email: nishathakur.jnu@gmail.com

 

ABSTRACT:

Genealogies are composed in order to validate the present by confirming the past. The panji Prabandha introduced during the fourteenth century was a landmark in the history of the north Bihar. They contain details on the ancestry of an individual in order to establish his relationship with another person, his association with a lineage, or membership in a particular social group. If we presuppose that Brahmins by registering the ancestries and understanding their past to establish a future plan then how was their condition before its promulgation. The Brahmins of Mithila (Cultural zone in the north Bihar) are one of the five Brahmins in north India (Panca-Gaudas). They are presently the most powerful class in north Bihar and the majority of land is under their possessions. It is also said that it is only in Mithila, the Bhudevas(land owners) and the Bhupalas(land protectors) have combined their power. They were the rulers as well as the priestly class. It is also worth mentioning that till the nineteenth century, Sanskrit continued to be the official language in the courts of Maithili rulers in which these rulers were experts.  My paper aims to seek the origin of Brahmins in Mithila before the promulgation of genealogies (the Pañjī Prabandha).

 

KEYWORDS: Pañjī, Mithila, North Bihar, Migration, Assimilation, Contestations.

 

 


INTRODUCTION:

There seems to have been some sort of a palace revolution that deprived the king (of Karnata dynasty) of his actual power… 1

These lines have a lot to tell about the political history of north Bihar. It was in this background that historians have placed the importance of Brahmins in Maithili society. Vidyapati writes in his famous work Kirtilata that it is only in Mithila, where theBhudevas (priest/owners of land) and the Bhupalas (protectors/rulers) are the Brahmins.2

 

The Pañjī means the formal maintenance of the genealogical records and rank system of the Brahmins in north Bihar.

 

It is a unique institution of the Maithili Brahmin community that for the first time established endogamous boundaries through restrictions on the marriages. It was formalized in the fourteenth century under the Karnata king named Harasimhadeva. The system also laid down rules for the future memberships of the Brahmins. The rank system resulted in the creation of four grades within the community3, which expanded to five grades as a result of inter-marriage between the grades. Overtime these five grades began to function as sub-castes. While the Maithili community did not fracture into territorial sub-castes, the five grades themselves became a distinctive part of a Brahmin’s identity.

 

The Pañjī Prabandha in the fourteenth century was instituted during a period of relative stability in medieval north Bihar after the disappearance of the Pala rulers. This period also witnessed many economic changes. Mithila became one of the most important strategic locations. As mentioned earlier in addition to establishing the ‘Maithili’ community, the Pañjī Prabandha also placed the authority to regulate the Brahmin community of Mithila in the hands of the king. This management of the Brahmin caste by the king adheres to traditional brahmanical views of the social order, but it seems that in Mithila this order was disrupted before implementation of Pañjī Prabandha.

 

Thus my paper is divided into three parts. In the first part this paper discusses the origin and background of the Pañjī, the second part discusses the pre-Pañjī position of Brahmins. In the third this paper talks about the political background of the Pañjī.

 

Origin of the Pañjī Prabandha:

The promulgation of Panji begins with the legend of Harinātha Upādhyaya. Harinātha Upādhyaya is a popular name and his legend has long circulated among the Maithili Brahmin community. This tale provides some significant insights into the consequences of such a decision by the king named Harasimhadeva, the most beloved ruler of Mithila, whose ‘contribution’ towards the ‘re-organisation’ of the Maithili society are immense.

 

The tale goes like this:

The Court Pundit (Brahmin) named Harinātha Upādhyāya lived in the village of Satadhara. One day a man belonging to the ‘untouchable’ Dusadh caste approached his wife when she was going to the temple. As the man tried to seize her, a black snake appeared and the man was killed then and there and because of her chastity/honesty. Nevertheless, a rumor began to spread that the pundit’s wife had an improper meeting with and ‘untouchable’. Traditionally the practice of ordeal fire was practiced and the kings in Mithila were the ultimate judges.  Therefore the case was registered in the court. When Harihara’s wife was asked about the incidence, she said, ‘nāhaṃcāṇḍālagāminī’

(I have not had an intercourse with an outcaste.).

 

But, she was asked to prove her innocence by holding a heated iron rod. The logic behind this ordeal fire was that if she were not guilty, her hand would not burn. But her hands burnt and hence she was proved guilty. As she was determined to prove her innocence, she decided to resolve the matter again. She then approached Lakkhima Devi, a learned pundit and believed to be the wife of Caṅdeśvara Thākkura (the famous law-giver of fourteenth century Mithila), and well-respected woman in the community. Lakhima advised her to request the king a re-trial. A few days later, she reappeared before the court and reaching again for the iron rod, she again declared, ‘nāhaṃsvapativy-atiriktacāṇḍālagāminī’.

(I have not had an illicit relationship with any out-caste except my husband).

 

 

 

This time her hand did not burn. She had preserved her chastity but posed a serious allegation to her husband. The whole community was shocked. How could Harinātha, a scholar of the dharma, be an outcaste? An investigation revealed that he had married a woman who was the daughter of a daughter of a cousin. The pundit had become an outcaste because he had chosen a near relative as a wife. Subsequently, it became known that the marriages of other Brahmins in the community were also illegitimate.

 

The news shocked the Maharaja Harasimhadeva too, who saw this as a threat to the purity of the Brahmin community. In order to prevent such an incident from occurring again, Harasimhadeva appointed official genealogists (the Pañjīkaras) and ordered all Brahmans within his realm to provide their family histories to maintain the records. Furthermore, he mandated that all Brahman marriages be verified by the genealogist and approved by the king.4

 

The legend establishes that Harinātha Upādhyāya had not married a woman according to the prescribed brahmanical rules. Also the breaking of exogamy had gone unnoticed for quite a long time until the fateful day that its effects became known. Thus, the consequence of this unnoticed everyone ultimately knew illegitimate marriage when the women declared publicly that she had not had relations with any man who was an outcaste other than her husband.

 

The incident has been venerated in the following lines: Nayanātha of Gaṅgaura had a daughter, who was married off to Tārāpati. His son Maṭihāni had a daughter. Harinātha from Gaṅgaura took that girl as a wife, who was related to him within the fifth degree, and because she was therefore a relative, she was unworthy of maintaining relationships with her own kin and was considered a Cāṇḍālinī.5 Consequently both Harinātha Upādhyāya and his wife had broken the codes of Brahmin society and had become outcastes. Harinātha was a Brahmin by birth and profession, but according to the norms of brahmanical society in Mithila, he had become a non-Brahmin because he disobeyed the laws of prescribed marriage.

 

Harinātha had thus lost his status as a Brahmin and become a cāṇḍāla in the eyes of his community. Whatever system the Brahmins of Mithila had been using for recording their ancestries and for verifying that marriages were being conducted in accordance with the regulations of Smr̥ti had failed to prevent the illegitimate marriage between Harinātha and his wife. Moreover, following the legend it was possible that Brahmins had begun to entirely disregard the Smr̥ti altogether. Whatever be the case, the king decided that a new mechanism of recording genealogies was necessary in order to preserve the ‘Brahminhood’ of the Brahmins of his kingdom. Thus in the fourteenth century, the formal recording of the family history begin under the Maithili king Harasimhadeva.

 

An analysis of the genealogical records shows that these records continued to expand in details and scope well after they were first developed. Presently, Panjis are the most important records in all the Maithili marriages of north Bihar. This indicates that these experts actively recorded each new marriage and birth with the community and it also acknowledged the acceptance of the system of recording by the specialists. The genealogists were also compiling information about the mulas and their members beyond what might be required for determining suitable marriages. These records also contained detailed information about the administrative positions and scholarly titles.

 

Pre-Pañjī Brahmins:

There is no doubt that the region became a strong brahmanical centre during the medieval period. But the question is how? How was their relation with the rulers of this region become so intense that they even had the power to oust them from power? Thus in this part I try to see their migration and origin of the Brahmins in Mithila in relation to the rulers.

 

HetukarJha proposes that in the agrarian society, right in land constitutes the main element of political system.6 The structure of such a society “reflects that way in which numerous interests are accommodated in a scale which reaches from the tiller of the soil to the highest authorities of the state.”7

 

Historically speaking there is a complex relation between the purohita(priest) and the king. In the Vedic texts it is mentioned that the relation is the one between the sky and the earth.8 In this background the promulgation of the Panjis (maintenance of the genealogical order of the Brahmins) under the Maithili king Harasimhadeva becomes very crucial.

 

The creation of the mūla (a defined territorial boundary or settlements) legitimized the Brahmins of Mithila to be indigenous, bounded them as a separate community within a territorial boundary of a kingdom. It clearly suggests a cordial relationship between the Kshatriya rulers and the Brahmins. It was the Mūla that became introductory principle in the social organization in addition to the other criterias. Mūla, a term that has the sense of an ‘origin’ records the ancestry of each Brahmin.

 

Sources tell us that the mūla is the name of the common ancient abode or origin of a group of Brahmins. It is a named maximal agnatic lineage that is founded upon an apical ancestor orvijipurūṣa ‘primal individual’.9 But ironically it also recognizes that the Brahmins were migrated at a certain point where the mulais established. Thus the Brahmins were given a territorial identity through the promulgation of the Panji. In this way the rulers maintained a tie among themselves and the Brahmins.

 

There are some records from north Bihar that contain evidence of grant of lands made to Brahmins by various kings especially from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries. The extant records are copperplate grants. The first plate dates to 1020 CE. It was issued by a king named Saurāditya who belonged to the Malayaketu dynasty, which is believed to have ruled in the far northwest of Tirabhukti, bordering on the Gorakhpur region of the modern state of Uttar Pradesh. The donee is a Brahmin of the Sāvarṇagotra named BhaṭṭaYaśāditya, son of Vāṭṭho and grandson of Aḍavi. He is from Usīya-grāma and his family is from Chela. The king Saurāditya granted land to this Brahmin at Vanapalli-grāma, located in the Vyalisi-viṣaya within the Daradgaṇḍakī-maṇḍala of Tirabhukti, which is situated somewhere along the Gandak river.10

 

The second plate dates to the reign of the Pala king Vigrahapala III in the eleventh century.11 The donee is a Brahmin of the Śāṇḍilyagotra belonging to the Chāndogaśākhā of the Sāmaveda. This Brahmin was named Ghāṇṭūkaśarman and he was the son of Tuṅga, and the grandson of Yogasvāmi.12 He is described as a student of a teacher named Nara Siṃha and he was a scholar of mīmāṃsa, vyākaraṇa (grammar), and tarka (logic). He lived at Iṭṭāhāka and his family was originally from Kolāñca. He was granted land in the village of Vasukavartta in the Hodreya-viṣaya of Tirabhukti.13

 

The Brahman chief in Mithila unlike the Rajputs and the Bhumihars in the other regions emerged as the most favored local allies. Till the time the Khandavalas (sixteenth century onwards) Brahmins enjoyed this privilege even after the collapse of the central Mughal power in Delhi. These rulers granted various types of land grants to the Brahmins for their services to the state.

 

Political Background of Pañjīs:

In this part we will see the political situations that gave rise to a situation where Pañjī became essential for the rulers as well as the Brahmins. The Pañjī Prabandha was instituted during a period that followed the demise of the Pala Empire of Bengal and other powers, and preceded the rise of the Delhi Sultanate. Before rising to power in 109714, Nanyadeva (r.1097-1147), a Karnata Kshatriya appears to have taken advantage of the instability in north Bihar that preceded the final decline of the Pala kingdom of Bengal, which had ruled over most of Bihar. He had served as a chief under either Chalukya or the Pala kings. It is said that in addition to being a statesman and a soldier, Nanyadeva was also a scholar of the performing arts.

 

Nanyadeva wrote a commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra that is titled Bharatabhāṣya. In this treatise he refers to himself as a “chief of the feudal lords”(mahāsāmantādhipati) and an “observer (or upholder) of dharma” (dharmāvaloka). Therefore it can be said that he controlled bothterritorial and social authority within the Pala regime and that he had gained the loyaltyof various other officials, particularly those who presided over the administrative regions ofthe Pala empire that lie in north Bihar. It is possible that Nanyadeva himself presided oversome portion of northern Bihar and that as Pala control in the region began to disintegratein the late twelfth century, he made an effort to assert his control. As he is said to have ruled for fifty years, it is apparentthat he managed to establish enough peace with other successor states such as the theGahadavala kings (to the west) in Kanauj and the Sena rulers (tothe east) in Bengal. He built his capital at Simraon in the western portion of Tirabhukti15 that was known as Camparanya, or modern ‘Champaran’. However after the death of Nanyadeva, the kingdom was saidto have divided between his sons Malladeva and Gangadeva.16 Tradition holds thatMalladeva extended Karnata control into Nepal and that he settled here, while Gangadeva(r.1147–1188) carried on in Tirabhukti.

 

Ganga deva is saidto have introduced a system of territorial administration in the kingdom. Tradition holdsthat he organized the kingdom into pargana-s, or administrative and fiscal divisions, andthat he established a bureaucracy in each of these regions for the collection of revenue andgeneral supervision, as well as village councils for more local administration.17

 

These developments were carried on by Narasimhadeva (r.1188–1227), the son of Gangadeva, as well as by Narasimhadeva’s son Ramasimhadeva (r. 1227–1285). These two kings expanded the administrative structure of the Karnata realm by appointing law enforcement officials through the kingdom and accountants for each village.18 It appears that the administrators of the Karnata state had begun to grow increasingly powerful by the time Ramasimhadeva yielded the throne to his son Saktisimhadeva (r. 1285–1295). Of these administrators, the ministers directly associated with the king’s court appear to have become particularly powerful, to the extent that they began to exert their control over the kingdom. The influence of the ministers becomes clear during the reign of Saktisimhadeva. The traditional account in Mithila, as conveyed by Shyam Narayan Singh, is that Saktisimhadeva was a “despoticruler” and his “despotism offended the nobles” to the point that “one of his ministers established a “council of seven elders, as a check upon the autocratic powers of the king.”19

 

 

Noted historian Radhakrishna Chaudhary writes, “There seems to have been some sort of a palace revolution which deprived the king of his actual power.”20 it is said that the revolution was directed at getting Saktisimhadeva to abdicate the throne in favor of his son, Harasimhadeva. Chaudhary writes, “The executive power was naturally vested in the Council of Elders who seem to have run the administration till Harisimha came of age and took over the reign of government.”21 The above incidence gives the sense that the “Council of Seven Elders”, whoever they were, were powerful enough to orchestrate a supposed coup against the king and to enthrone a successor of their choice, presumably one they could influence more effectively. Whether he came to power as a result of a coup or not, Harasimhadeva (r. 1295–1326) replaced his father as the ruler of Tirabhukti. It was under the reign over Harasimhadeva that Pañjī Prabandha was instituted. The above suggests that Brahmins had attained powerful positions in the Karnata kingdom. If we relate the two stories we may infer that context in which the Pañjī became a solution to tackle the political crisis.

 

Another example to substantiate our understanding of the power of Brahmins in Mithila are the copper-plates grant from Panichobh, near modern Darbhanga, dated to the 12th century and the Bangaon plate from the eleventh century. The Panichobh grant was not made by a Karnata king, but by someone named Samgramagupta, who describes himself as a “great king” (maharājādhirāja) and as a “governor” (mahāmaṇḍālika).22 Additionally, the grant enumerates several officials such as the “minister of war and peace”(mahāsāndhivigrahika),“military strategist or commander” (mahāvyūhapati), “chief officer” (mahādhikārika), “keeper of the royal seal” (mahāmudrādhikarika), “head of the village councils” (mahāmahattaka), and a host of others.23

 

While there is no other records that shed light upon Samgramagupta, his usage of such titles on grants suggest that he may truly have held an important position in the Karnata kingdom, such as governor of a district. He claim to be a “great king” may be more embellishment than any actual position he may have held. In any case, Samgramagupta was granting lands in Tirabhukti to Brahmins. There is also evidence that officials of the Pala Empire were exerting a level of independence well before the arrival of the Karnata.

 

The second plate is the Bangoan plate from the 11th century, which is one of the few pieces of evidence showing grants of lands to Brahmins by the Brahmins in north Bihar. This plate deserves a bit more attention. Although the Bangaon plate is stamped with the name of the Pala king Vigrahapala III, the real donor of the land is a Brahmin minister named Ghaṇṭīśa.24 the grant states Ghaṇṭīśa gave lands out of his own possession to the don Ghāṇṭūkaśarman. The minister also makes it a point to inscribe upon the plate that he is the son of Yogesvara and the grandson of Vivada, and that this Vivada’s mother is Iddhahala, who is the daughter of Gohanaka and the granddaughter of Kacchha, who came to Tirabhukti from Krodanca (Kolanca).25 The plate is important to our understanding of the politics of north Bihar at this period because it not only shows Brahmins granting lands to other Brahmins to settle them in Tirabhukti, but it also shows that Brahmin ministers were conscious of their own ancestral territorialities.

 

Having mentioned the above two copper plates, we may answer as to who were these ministers who had gained enough authority in the Karnata court to oust the ‘despotic’ king Saktisimhadeva and to put in place his successor, Harasimhadeva.

 

Some evidence may be gleaned from both literary records writing during the Karnata period and from the pañjī records. Both of these sources provide insight into the relationship between Brahmins and the kingdom. The excerpt of the Visapi Mūla reveals that some members of the family had attained important positions in the administrative life of north Bihar.

 

The founder of Gaḍha-Visaphī is Viṣṇuśarmmā. The progenies of this Viṣṇuśarmmā were accomplished statesmen. It is a well known fact that the Brahmins of Visaphī served as “minister of war and peace” (sāndhivigrahika), “chief of the vassals” (mahāsāmantādhipati),26 “head of village councils” (mahāmahattaka),27 “royal advisor” (rājavallabha),“officer in charge of the armory”(raṇāgārika),“officer in charge of legal codes and digests” (vartika-naibandhika),28 “officer in charge of stores” (bhāṇḍāgarika),“officer in charge of the provinces” (sthānāgarika), “officer in charge of the royal seal” (mudrahastaka),29 These individuals were not only noted administrators and governors, but they were respected scholars and they wrote several important Smr̥ti texts.

 

The high positions attained by this family may be a consequence of their long-standing relationship with the kings of Mithila. Evidence for this claim is found in the introduction of the Gaṅgābhaktitaraṅgiṇī by a scholar named Gaṇapati, who is the son of Dhiresvara and whose “grandfather served Nanyadeva”.30 This passage indicates that the family descended from Viṣṇuśarmmā, the founder of the Visaphīmūla, had been in hereditary service with the Karnata dynasty of Tirabhukti since the time of its establishment by Nanyadeva in 1097.

 

 

 

That they continued to achieve hereditary appointments by the successors of Nanyadeva is evident from the writings of Caṅdeśvara. In his Grihastha-ratnākara, Caṅdeśvara states that he is a minister of the king of Mithila,31 and also specifies that he serves as the mahāsāndhivigrahika of king Harisimhadeva and that his father Vīreśvara also held this position.32

 

Caṇḍeśvara’s writings show that theVisaphī family had a great hand in administering the kingdom, but they also show that these Brahmins continued to make contributions to scholarship. In the introduction of the Vivāda-ratnākaraCaṇḍeśvara seeks to convey to the audience his credentials for writing a treatise on civil law as he refers to himself as the“jewel among the ministers” (saciva-ratna)33 and well-versed in the subjects of mimamsa and dharma.34 Then he informs the audience of the following accomplishment.35 The esteemed minister Caṇḍeśvara being pleased after conquering the king of Nepal, performed the tulā-pūruṣa Dāna on the banks of the river Vāṅmatī [Vāgmatī], which flowed like the Suradhunī (river of the gods).

 

From the above it is known that Caṇḍeśvara carried out a military expedition in Nepal and defeated some king there. Afterwards, he performed the tulā-pūruṣadāna on the banks of the river Vagmati (modern Bagmati), which courses through the center of Mithila from north to south until it joins the river Ganges. Caṇḍeśvara considers the performance to be quite important because he mentions it again in the final section of the Vivāda-ratnākara, but here he mentions that the event took place towards the end of 1314 or the beginning of 1315. The tulā-pūruṣadāna or the “gift equaling the weight of a man” consists of giving a measure of gold equal to the weight of the donor. In addition to the gifts of gold, the dāna often consisted of grants of land or villages to Brahmins.36

 

The above sources demonstrate that the Visaphī lineage was tightly connected to the Karnata court. The descriptions of the various achievements of these individuals in defending the kingdom, conquering neighboring territories, protecting and nurturing the Brahmin community, and making donations of gold and land portrays the members of the Visaphī family as the light of Kshatriya rulers. These Brahmins assumed titles that were used by Nanyadeva, such as ‘head of a feudatory council’ (mahāsāmantādhipati), but also represented themselves as the ‘upholder of dharma’ and “lord of the ministers”, whose feet were kissed and illuminated by the jewels in the crowns of various kings. They rescued the land from the darkness cast by enemies of the king through the light of their own wisdom. Had readers been unaware that the authors were Brahmins (priestly class), they could not be faulted for assuming that Gaṇeśvara, Caṅdeśvara, and their kinsmen might well have been Kshatriyas (rulers).

In addition to illustrating that Brahmins had grown quite powerful in Mithila, the literary evidence shows the importance of the mūla in the organization of Brahmin society. The ministers of the Visaphī lineages were able to maintain their hereditary ties to the Karnata court for more than two centuries and with the governments of six kings.

 

Returning to the question posed at the outset of this section, considering the extent to which the Visaphī family administered the kingdom, it is possible to conceive that conflict may have arisen between the king Saktisimhadeva and one of these mahāsāmantādhipati-s, sāndhivigrahika-s, or mahāmattaka-s. The dispute may have grown to the point where these Brahmin ministers as ‘despotic’ interpreted the king’s expression of authority. Devāditya, whose seven sons went onto become ministers of the Karnatas, was himself the Sāndhivigrahika of Ramasimhadeva. His son Vīreśvara assumed the same position under the latter’s successor, Saktisimhadeva.37 As these ministers held political power and social status, they could have assumed effectual control of the kingdom by placing it in the hands of a ‘Council of Elders’, which administered the kingdom until Harasimhadeva had attained an age at which he could be coronate as the next Karnata king.

 

CONCLUSION:

Thus in this paper we have seen that the Brahmins and the rulers of Mithila had a very complex relation. The Pañjī system can be seen as a step taken to settle the contestations within the society where the rulers and the priest became two poles. The incidents occurred in the Karnata court gives enough evidence to substantiate the evolution of the Brahmins as an aristocratic class. The Brahmins had both temporal as well as spiritual powers. The emergence of the Brahmins as an powerful class is proved by many sources but the promulgation of the Pañjī and the ranking among them shows that they planned their future in such a way that they will eventually became the rulers.

 

REFERENCE:

1.       Chaudhary, Radhakrishna “The Karāa Kingdom of Mithila.” In The Comprehensive History of Bihar, vol. II, pt.I, edited by Syed HasanAksari and Qeyamuddin Ahmad, 1983, pp. 107–156.

2.       Sakasena, Baburama, ed. Kirtilata. Kasi: Nagari Pracini Sabha. 1964, P.9

3.       These are Shrotriya or Soit, Jogya or Jog, Panjeebadha and Jaiwaar Brahmins

4.       Singh, Rameshwar ‘An Account of the Maithili Marriage’, The Journal of the Bihar and Orissa research Society III (1917), pp.515-542; Upendra Thakur, History of Mithila: Circa 3000 BC-1556 AD; UgraNathJha, Genealogies and Genealogists of Mithila: A Study of the panji and the Panjikars. Varanasi: KishorVidyaNiketan, 1980; Paramesvara Thakur, Mithila TatvaVimarsaPatna: Maithili Akademi, 1977; also my own memories from my village, which lies in the (so-called) core areas in Darbhanga.

5.       Jha, Paramesvara, MTV.P. 84

6.       Jha, Hetukar, ‘Permanent Settlement in Bihar’, Social Scientists, Vol. 9 August 1980. Pp. 53

7.       Ibid

8.       Singh, Upinder, ‘Kings, Brahmans and Temples in Orissa: An epigraphical study (300-1147 CE)’. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. 1990 p.18

9.       Maithili VijiPurusa ‘primal individual’, Sanskrit Bija‘seed’ + purusa‘man’; refer to the progenitor of a tribe or family’ Monier- Williams, ed. Sanskrit English Dictionary: Etymologically and philologically arranged with special reference to cognate Indo-European languages. New edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1889, p. 732.

10.     Dineshchandra Sircar, “Copper Plate Grants from Bihar, EpigraphiaIndica XXXV, pt.II (1963): 125-144

11.     Found at Bangaon in Bhagalpur District of Bihar

12.     DineshchandraSircar, “Bangaon Plate of Vigrahapal III, Regnal Year 17’ EpigraphiaIndica XXIX, pt.1 (1951): 48-57 “55

13.     Line: 25: “tirabhuktauHodreya-Vaishyika-Vasukavarttat| “(ibid).

14.     An inscription found at the ruins of the fort of Simraon cited in RadhakrishnaChoudhary ed. ‘The So-called Simraon Inscription of Nanyadeva,’ in Select Inscriptions of Bihar, Madhipura: Shanti Devi, 1958, 124. He interprets this date as being Saturday in the month of Sravara, in the Naksatra of Svati in the year 1097. Political History of North Bihar, “ 306

15.     Administrative name of Mithila

16.     Sircar D.C, Studies in the Society and Administration of Ancient and Medieval India. Vol. 1. Calcutta: Rirma K L Mukhopadhyaya. 1967, p. 140

17.     Singh, Shyam Narayan, History of Tirhut: from the earliest times to the end of the nineteenth century. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press. 1922. P. 62

18.     Ibid

19.     Singh, History of Tirhut, 63

20.     Choudhary, Radhakrishna, ‘The Karnata Kingdom of Mithila’ in The Comprehensive History of Bihar, vol. II, pt.I, edited by Syed HasanAksari and Qeyamuddin Ahmad, 107-156. Historical Research Series, vol- XIX, Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1983. P.116

21.     Ibid.

22.     Panchobh copper plate of Samgrama Gupta, “114

23.     Panchobh copper plate of Samgrama Gupta, lines 6-7

24.     ‘Bangaon Plate,’ 51

25.     ‘Bangaon plate’ Lines 49-50, p. 57

26.     Sircar D.C, Indian Epigraphical Glossary, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. 1966. P. 179

27.     Ibid

28.     Ibid. p. 215

29.     Seems to be a synonym of the Mudradhikarina described by Sircar, Indian Epigraphical Glossary, 204

30.     Quoted in Jayaswal and Sastri, Catalogue of Manuscripts of Mithila no. 86 ‘Gangabhaktitarangini’ p. 88

31.     Kamalaksna Smrtiirtha Grhastha Ratnakara.3

32.     Ibid., 6

33.     Kamalakrsna Smrtitirthaed.  Vivāda-Ratnakara: A treatise on Hindu Law by Candesvara Thakkura. Bibliotheca Indica Vol. 103 (re-issue).Issues no. 1511 (new series). Calcutta: Aisatic Society of Bengal, 1931. P. 2

34.     Ibid.p. 1

35.     Ibid. p.1

36.     Kane, P V, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. II, Part I, Bhandarkar Orient Research Institute. 1941. Pp.870-872.

37.     Mishra, Jayakant, History of Maithili Literature, Vol I, (Early and Middle periods) Allahabad: Tirabhukti Publications, 1949. P. 136

 

 

 

Received on 03.12.2018       Modified on 12.01.2019

Accepted on 10.02.2019      ©AandV Publications All right reserved

Res.  J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(1): 235-240.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00043.3