Deficit x (c) to (g) credited Rs 108,141 (surplus as
as loans in general budget account.
Total Rs 116,969 Total Rs 116,949
King Mukunda Sen's Invasion of Kathmandu Valley By
Mahesh Raj Panta and Dinesh Raj Pant
We shall now discuss the views of different historians on the Vamshawali accounts relating to Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu Valley.
During the winter of 1941 Vikrama, Cecil Bendall, a Professor of Sanskrit at the University of London, visited Mewar (Udaipur) in Rajputana in the course of a research tour of Nepal and Northern India. There he met the Court Poet, Shyamaldas, who was engaged in compiling a history of that region. Bendall has recorded that he was highly impressed by the work of Shyamaldas. (Cecil Bendall, A Journey of Literary and Archaeological Research in Nepal and Northern India, During the Winter of 1884-5, Cambridge: University Press, 1886, pp. 30-31), Shyamaldas compiled a detailed 2,800-page history of Rajputana in the Hindi language, which was published in 1947 Vikrama (A.D. 1890) under the title of Vir Vinod. In view of the legend that the rulers of Nepal originally came from Rajputana, Shyamaldas has devoted 80 pages of his work to the history of Nepal (1809-1888 pp). (Theodore Riccarui, Jr., ''An Account of Nepal from the VirVinod of Shyamaldas,'' Kailash, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1975, pp. 199-286. However, Riccardi has not been able to write anything about Bendal and Shyamaldas.
In the Vikrama year 1937 (A.D. 1880), Bhagavanlal Indraji edited 23 inscriptions from Nepal. He realized that there were important discrepancies in the chronology contained in the Vamshawalis. In 1941 Vikrama (A.D. 1884), he published a scholarly article pointing at those discrepancies. That the courage to reject the Vamshawalis and compile an authentic history of Nepal on the basis of authoritative documentary evidence. Accordingly, he followed an easy way. He incorporated into his work a summary of the Vamshawali mentioned by Bhagavanlal Indraji without putting any dates. The VirVinod contains references to King Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu Valley. This is almost nothing but a summary of the account given by Bhagavanlal Indraji, albeit without mentioning dates. In any case, this shows that Shyamaldas had no doubts that the invasion had actually taken place.
In Vikrama 1966 (A.D. 1909), Saraya Prasad Mishra published an annotated translation of a Bengali work under the title Nepalaka Prachina Itihasa. (Bankipore: Khadgavilas Press). We do not know who wrote the original work in Bengali. But because it deals with events until the Vikrama year 1951 (A.D. 1894), and the author has expressed his desire to write a history of Nepal from the earliest times to the
present, it appears to have been written at around that time. The author has also indicated his desire to have the work published in the form of a book (p. 154), hence it appears that it was originally published in some Bengali magazine. (According to Paras Mani Pradhan, the work was published in the Navya Bharat. (Paras Mani Pradhan, Nepali Bhashako Utpatti ra Vikasa (Origin and development of the Nepali language). Kalimpong: P. M. Pradhan & Sons, 2029 Vikrama (A.D. 1972), 2nd ed., p. 19).
The anonymous Bengali author has pointed out discrepancies in the Vamshawali accounts of King Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu Valley, mainly because the relevant chronology lacked credibility. He has written that the Nepal era was the reign of Jayadeva Malla, eighth in line after Sadashivadeva. The Bengali author has also noted that the Vamshawali dates of Nanyadeva's reign are more then two centuries earlier than the actual dates.
A three-volume history of Nepal by Sylvain Levi, a Professor of Sanskrit in Paris, was published there in 1962-65 Vikrama (A.D. 1905-8). This scholarly work, written at a time when historical materials were comparatively meager, is worth study and meditation even after seventy years. Sylvain Levi's account of Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu Valley, based on new (Nepali-language) Vamshawalis, contemporary records, and old Vamshawalis (such as the Gopalaraja Vamshawalis), must be noted in the present content.
Sylvain Levi has commenced his account with an attempt to lest the authenticity of the Vamshawali version that Nanyadeva invaded Kathmandu Valley soon after the commencement of the Nepal era at the time when Ananda Malla was on the throne. The Nepal era commenced in Vikrama 937, whereas Nanyadeva ruled in Vikrama 1154. Because of this discrepancy, Sylvain Levi was unable to accept the Vamshawali version. Moreover, he was unable to locate any reference to Ananda Malla in contemporary documents. Even then, he did not totally reject the Vamshawali version, but made an attempt to resolve the discrepancy in an ingenious way. He put forward the view that Ananta Malla, who is shown in contemporary records as having ruled from 1335 to 1359 Vikrama, and for 30 years according to old Vamshawalis, was none other than Ananda Malla as mentioned in the new Vamshawalis. Similarly, Levi was unable to reject totally the Vamshawali version that Mukunda Sen invaded Kathmandu Valley at a time when a descendant of Nanyadeva was on the throne. However, he put forward his own interpretation. The history of Palpa refers to a few Kings named Mukunda Sen, put not during such an early period. Accordingly, Levi could not agree that the invader was named Mukunda Sen. He made an attempt to solve the problem on the basis of the account given in the Gopalaraja Vamshawali. According to the source, the Khasa Kings Jitari Malla and Aditya Malla had invaded Kathmandu Valley in 1344 and 1384 Vikrama respectively. Levi expressed the view that the Vamshawalis had described these Khasa invasions from the
West as a Khasa-Magar invasion led by Mukunda Sen. In the same way, there is no authentic evidence to show that king Nanyadeva of Tirhut had invaded Kathmandu Valley in Circa 1154 Vikrama. however, the Gopalaraja Vamshawali mentions that a King of Tirhut did so in 1347 Vikrama. hence Sylvain Levi was written that Nanyadeva's invasion of Kathmandu Valley, as mentioned in the new Vamshawalis, occurred in 1347 Vikrama.
Ambika Prasad Upadhyaya's Nepalko Itihasa (History of Nepal) is the first history of Nepal published in the Nepali language. It was published in the Vikrama year 1979 (A.D. 1922) for the first time. New editions were published in 1986 Vikrama (A.D. 1929) and 2004 Vikrama (A.D. 1947). At one time, this history was very popular. It too reproduces the account of King Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu Valley as given in the Vamshawalis.
We have already mentioned above that according to Wright's Vamshawali, Harideva, who was sixth in line from Nanyadeva, the Karnataka King who established his rule over Kathmandu Valley, was occupying the throne during King Mukunda Sena's invasion. Elsewhere the same Vamshawali states (pp. 174-75) that King Harisimhadeva of Ayodhya, defeated in battle by Muslims fled to Simrangadh, from where he proceeded toward Nepal in 1245 Shaka, corresponding to 444 Nepal era or 1380 Vikrama. Wright's Vamshawali thus mentions Harideva Upadhyaya, on the other hand, maintained that they were the same person, the correct name being Harisimhadeva. (Ambika Prasad Upadhyaya, Nepalaka Itihasa, (History of Nepal), Varanasi: Devi Prasad Upadhyaya, 1979 Vikrama (A.D. 1922), p. 1). To substantiate his contention, he has pointed at absence of any reference to the name of Harideva in authoritative chronides, as well as to documentary evidence showing that around Vikrama 1381 Harisimhadeva, a descendant of Nanyadeva, who had come from Karnataka and ruled Simraungadh, had fought Ghayasuddhin Tughlak of Delhi. According to him, although Wright's Vamshawali mentions Harideva as the King ruling in Kathmandu at the time of Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu Valley, his real name, as given later in the same Vamshawali, is Harisimhadeva. Ambika Prasad Upadhyaya says that Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu Valley had taken place in the latter half of the fourteenth century of the Vikrama era. however, he has sought to raise questions regarding the authenticity of this invasion in respect to the ancestry of Mukunda Sen. His doubts stem from the fact that the Sen Kings of Palpa claimed to be descendents of King Ratna Sen of Chittor, and that Mukunda Sen is described as seventh in the line of King Dharmapala Sen. Inasmuch as there is authoritative evidence to show that Ghayasuddin Tughlak had invaded the Kingdom of Harisimhadeva, it is clear that they were contemporaries. Nearly thirty years previously, Alauddin Khilji had invaded Chhitor, and only thereafter had the Rajputs come into Nepal. ambika Prasad Upadhyaya belives that it was improbable, if not impossible that (the Rajputs) could have reached the Nepal Tarai from Chittor, vanquished the Khasas and Magars, established a powerful Kingdom in Nepal, and invaded an ancient Kingdom such as Nepal within this short period.
Perceval Landon's account of Nepal published in 1985 Vikrama (A.D. 1928) is the most popular book after Wright's Vamshawali. He has described Mukunda Sen as Mukunda Deva, and given an account of his invasion of Nepal. in Landon's view, this invasion took place during the latter part of the fourteenth century of the Vikrama era.
Baburam Acharya (1944-2029 Vikrama) established the tradition of studying Nepali history on the basis of authentic materials and spent many years of his life in research on Nepali history. He has shed light on many aspects of Nepali history. (Dhanavajra Vajracharya and Saket Bihari Thakur (eds.), Baburam Acharya ra Wahanka Kriti (Baburam Acharya and his works), Kathmandu: Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuwan University, 2029 Vikrama (A.D. 1972). One of his scholarly articles is ''Tanahuko Sen Vamsha'' (the Sen Dynasty of Tanahu), published in the Bhanubhakta Memorial Volume from Darjeeling in 1997 Vikrama (A.D. 1940). The article contains a refutation of the view that Mukunda Sen had invaded Kathmandu Valley. In his opinion, Pandit Gunananda, who was the source of Wright's Vamshawali, concocted the story of please the British, and that ''not even a century has passed since this apocryphal story was concocted.'' But accounts of Mukunda Sen's invasion Vamshawali but in other Vamshawalis as well. So Baburam Acharya is not correct in saying that the account was concocted by Pandit Ganananda. Baburam Acharya may have held this view because by 1997 Vikrama (A.D. 1940), when his article was written, only Wrights's Vamshawali had been published.
Baburam Acharya has also given a summary of the account of Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu valley as contained of Wright's Vamshawali. However, the summary contains mattes that are not found in that Vamshawali.
Wright's Vamshawali does not mention Mukunda Sen's caste, but only states he was accompanied by persons belonging to the khas and Magar communities. Baburam Acharya, however, in his summary describes Mukunda Sen as a Magar King, with the original English text as ''the Magar rajah named Mukunda Sen.'' At another place in his article, he writes, ''Be it Gunananda or some other person, he has made the Khatriya King Mukunda Sen, a great son of Nepal, as Magar King, and thus Slurred his pure character.'' It is surprising why Baburam Acharya incorrectly claimed that Wright's Vamshawali had described Mukunda Sen as a Magar King.
Wright's Vamshawali only states that when Mukunda Sen invaded Kathmandu Valley, ''through fear of the troops of people buried their radishes, and having cut their rice, stacked it and concealed it by heaping earth over it.'' It does not mention that the places where this was done. However, Baburam Acharya, in his summary of Wright's account, states that the radish was buried in Lalitpur, and the rice in Kirtipur. This was the version given by Ambika Prasad Upadhyaya, and Baburam Acharya appears to have confused the two versions.
Wright's Vamshawali states that when Mukunda Sen invaded Kathmandu Valley, Harideva, sixth in line from Nanyadeva, was on the throne. It also states that King Harisimhadeva of Ayodhya fled from Muslim invaders to Simraungadh, and then came to Nepal in 1380 Vikrama. notwithstanding these clear statements, Ambika Prasad Upadhyay has described Harideva and Harisimhadeva as the same person, with the correct name being Harisimhadeva. He based his argument of the fact that documentary evidence was available only about Harisimhadeva, and not about Harideva. In his summary of Wright's account, Baburam Acharya has followed in the footsteps of Ambika Prasad Upadhyaya and mentioned Harisimhadeva. Because the Gopalaraja Vamshawali has mentioned Hara Simha as King of Simraungadh, Baburam Acharya writes: ''A comprehensive survey of Nepali history shows that there was no King known as Harisimhadeva at any time. The name of the sixth and last King of the Karnata dynasty was Harasimhadeva, not Harisimhadeva,'' Baburam Acharya then maintains that because there is not evidence to support the view that King Harasimhadeva of Simraugadh ruled over the hill reion, and that his contemporaries in Kathmandu valley were first Anandadeva and then Arimalla, it is not possible that Haradimhadeva, described as Harideva in Wright's Vamshawali, could have ruled over Kathmandu Valley.
Baburam Acharya was able to procure a gift-deed (denapatra) issued by King Rudra Sen of Palpa in Vikrama 1571. On the basis of this document, he has determined the regnal years of the Sen Kings. According to him, the Sen dynasty emerged early in the sixteenth century of the Vikrama era. the first Sen King was Khama Sen, who was the grand-father of Rudra Sen, father of Mukunda Sen. In the light of this fact, he has determined the regnal years of Mukunda Sen as Vikrama 1575-1610.
Baburam Acharya has described as apocryphal the view that Harisimha Deva had never ruled Nepal Valley, that Kings other than him ruled over this area at the time he was ruling Simraungadh, and that Mukunda Sen and invaded Kathmandu Valley when it was ruled by Harisimhadeva. He points out that the time gap between Harisimha Deva and Mukunda Sen amounted to 200 years.
Prime Minister Padma Shumshere Jung Bahadur Rana, being more liberal than most other Rana rulers, had thought of molding Nepal's administrative system along democratic lines. In Magh 2003, (January 1947), in the fourteenth month of his assumption of the Prime Ministership, he had sent questionnaires to the leading Bhardars with regard to reforms in the administration. He also decided to frame a constitution consistent with democratic ideals and asked the Congress rulers of India to send Indian constitutional experts to help in this task. In response to his request, India sent Sri Prakash and Ram Ogra Sinha in 1947. They assisted the Nepal government in this task. Raghu Nath Singh, who accompanied Sri Prakash, wrote a book on Nepal, entitled Jagrata Nepal (Awakened Nepal). It was published from Varanasi
in 1947. At one place, he writes that Mukunda Sen had conquered Nepal Valley in the 13th century Vikrama when Harideva was King. Like Perceval Landon, he mentions Mukunda Deva, rather than Mukunda Sen. His account shows that the conquest of Nepal Valley had taken place in the latter half of the fourteenth century of the Vikrama era. (Raghunath Singh, Jagrata Nepal, Varanasi: Anubhuti Prakashana, 2007 Vikrama).
Nepal Ko Itihasa, Arthat Digdarshana (A history or outline of Nepal), published from Varanasi in Vikrama 2007, also mentions Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu Valley. Ramji Upadhyaya, the author of this book, has given an exaggerated account of the invasion. This will be clear from a comparative study of the Vamshawali and this book. He had relied wholly on the Vamshawali account of the invasion. We have to draw attention to a particular point which distinguishes this book from other historical accounts. We need not repeat that one of the aforesaid five Vamshawalis, except V3, specifies the time of Mukunda Sen's invasion of Kathmandu valley. Even V3 too shows a gap of nearly 200 years between the date of that invasion and the regnal years of the King attacked by Mukunda Sen. In face of this fact, Ramji Upadhyaya has claimed that Mukunda Sen had invaded Nepal Valley in Vikrama 1165. We must find out what basis he has made this assertion. As we have already noted, Wright's Vamshawali clearly mentions Vikrama 946 as the year of Nanyadeva's arrival in Nepal valley. In Vikrama 1165, Rama Simha Deva, his great-great-granson, was ruling Kathmandu Valley as we have already noted above. Wright's Vamshawali thus shows that Rama Simha Deva was succeeded by Harideva, his son, and Rama Simha Deva was succeeded by Harideva, his son, and it was during the latter's rule that Mukunda Sen had invaded Nepal Valley. That seems to explain Ramji Upadhyaya's claim that Mukunda Sen had invaded Nepal Valley in Vikrama 1165.
Bala Chandra Sharma's Nepal Ko Atihasik Ruparakha (An Outline of the History of Nepal), published from Varanasi in Vikrama 2008, has gained considerable fame in Nepal. this detailed work has been prescribed as a text-book for higher studies. It has been published in four editions by Vikrama 2033. Whatever has been stated in the Vamshawali about Mukunda Sen's invasion has been contradicted in all these four editions on the basis of the aforesaid account of Baburam Acharya with the remark: ''because the Sen dynasty had not emerged in western Nepal before the sixteenth century A.D., the view that Mukunda Sen lived in the thirteenth or the fourteenth century A.D. is completely imaginary.'' However, Bala Chandra Sharma has committed an error in presenting a summary of Daniel Wright's Vamshawali in this respect. According to Wright's Vamshawali, Nanya Deva had arrived in Nepal Valley in Vikrama 946 during the reign of Ananda Malla, and Mukunda Sen's invasion had taken place during the rule of his great-great grandson. Despite this obvious truth, Bala Chandra Sharma has misquoted Wright's Vamshawali as having said that Mukunda Sen had invaded Nepal Valley during the reign of Ananta Malla. In doing so, he seems to have been influenced by Levi's account mentioning the name of Ananta Malla, instead of Ananda Malla.