पवनदूतम् /34
This page has not been fully proofread.
[ 26 ]
From the description of the capital as it appears in the
Pavanaduta we can gather that it was probably included in
Suhma and that it was on the banks of the Ganges. We also
learn that it was to be reached after visiting Triveṇī which thus
seems to have been to the south of the capital. All these pieces
evidence combined point to the Nadia region as the probable
of locality which included Vijayapura within it. Muhamudan
historians also mention Nodiah (probably identical with Nadia)
as a capital of Lakhmaniyā-probably the same person as our
Lakṣmaṇasena. A large mound locally known as the Ballāla-
ḍhibi in the village of Bamanpukur in Nadia is believed to be
the remnant of the palace of Ballälasena and a tank near by
the mound called the Ballāladīghi may be identical with the
one referred to in verse 54 of our poem. As to the second
identification put forward by some scholars it should be said
that it does not seem to have anything in its favour except
the similarity of the two names-Vijayanagara and Vijayapur,
and a local tradition of doubtful credibility. The fact of the
former place being near Deopara the find-spot of a stone inscrip-
tion of Vijayasena cannot possibly indicate that this particular
place is the site of the capital of king Lakṣmaṇasena.
We need not also dismiss as unauthentic the statement of
Dhoyi that Vijayapura was a capital of Lakṣmaṇasena. It may
not be improbable that he too, like many other kings, bad several
capitals or rather seats of government e.g. Lakṣmaṇīvatī,
Vijayapura, Vikramapura etc. of which the last alone is found
to have been referred to in the epigraphic records so far
available.
I. Tabakat-I-Nasiri (Raverty's translation)-p. 554.
From the description of the capital as it appears in the
Pavanaduta we can gather that it was probably included in
Suhma and that it was on the banks of the Ganges. We also
learn that it was to be reached after visiting Triveṇī which thus
seems to have been to the south of the capital. All these pieces
evidence combined point to the Nadia region as the probable
of locality which included Vijayapura within it. Muhamudan
historians also mention Nodiah (probably identical with Nadia)
as a capital of Lakhmaniyā-probably the same person as our
Lakṣmaṇasena. A large mound locally known as the Ballāla-
ḍhibi in the village of Bamanpukur in Nadia is believed to be
the remnant of the palace of Ballälasena and a tank near by
the mound called the Ballāladīghi may be identical with the
one referred to in verse 54 of our poem. As to the second
identification put forward by some scholars it should be said
that it does not seem to have anything in its favour except
the similarity of the two names-Vijayanagara and Vijayapur,
and a local tradition of doubtful credibility. The fact of the
former place being near Deopara the find-spot of a stone inscrip-
tion of Vijayasena cannot possibly indicate that this particular
place is the site of the capital of king Lakṣmaṇasena.
We need not also dismiss as unauthentic the statement of
Dhoyi that Vijayapura was a capital of Lakṣmaṇasena. It may
not be improbable that he too, like many other kings, bad several
capitals or rather seats of government e.g. Lakṣmaṇīvatī,
Vijayapura, Vikramapura etc. of which the last alone is found
to have been referred to in the epigraphic records so far
available.
I. Tabakat-I-Nasiri (Raverty's translation)-p. 554.