Miscellany: Bhattasali's comments on Rimacarita

Summary

This short ‘Miscellany’ note responds to criticisms raised by the historian N.K. Bhattasali in his article on the second struggle of Bhima and his friend Hari in the Rāmacaritam. Bhattasali had accused the author of overstating the extent of King Rāmapāla’s dominions in eastern India. In quoting a sentence from the introduction, Bhattasali omitted a crucial clause—“or at least over major portions of these provinces”—and then criticised the author for asserting that Ramapāla ruled over Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Assam. The note reproduces the full sentence and shows that, when the omitted clause is restored, the author’s statement becomes a cautious inference rather than the sweeping claim ascribed by Bhattasali. It invites readers to judge the propriety of selectively quoting a passage and then attacking a position never actually held. The author also challenges Bhattasali’s “facts,” arguing that the critic misunderstood the historical evidence for Ramapāla’s territorial control. By glossing over qualifiers and ignoring context, Bhattasali distorted the argument. The note therefore defends the introduction’s interpretation and emphasises the importance of accurate quotation and context in scholarly debate. The piece ends with a call for careful scholarship: historians should reproduce passages in full, consider caveats and uncertainties, and avoid building critiques on misrepresentations. Rather than dismissing the introduction’s cautious conclusions, it encourages readers to examine the primary sources and weigh competing interpretations. The note thus underscores the value of collegial, fair‑minded discourse in historical research.