The Family-Seats of the Candras of Bengal and of the (so-called) Tungas of Orissa
By Haridas Mitra
Summary
The text discusses scholarly debates on identifying historical sites and family-seats linked to the Candras of Bengal and the so-called Tungas of Orissa. Benoy Kumar Sarkar critiques Dr. Ghoshal’s rebuttal for its abusive language and lack of substantive engagement with his original arguments. He defends his detailed analysis of Bhattacharya’s readings, interpretations, and conclusions, particularly regarding the descent of Suvarna Candra, identifications of Dipaikara Srijena and Rohtisgadh, and synchronism of Kantideva and Candradeva. Sarkar argues that Rohtisgadh’s proposed identification with the Tungas of Orissa is implausible due to geographical barriers like dense forests and primitive tribes hindering communication. He also challenges the use of “Tunga” as a distinct title, noting its broader usage among Southern dynasties like the Rashtrakutas and Cholas. The text emphasizes the paucity of ancient Aryan sites in the Jharkhand region, supporting the improbability of direct connections between Bengal and Orissa.
Conclusion
This document examines the contested historical narratives surrounding the Candras of Bengal and the so-called Tungas of Orissa, highlighting methodological disagreements in interpreting inscriptions and regional identities. The analysis critiques the tentative conclusions of Bhattacharya, particularly regarding Rohitigiri's identification with Rohtasgadh and its alleged Orissan connections, challenging the feasibility of such claims given Bengal's geographical isolation from Orissa. The study underscores the importance of rigorous evidentiary approaches in political science and historiography, emphasizing that imaginative reconstructions lack credibility without substantial empirical support. By engaging with Kautilyan and Machiavellian ethical frameworks, the text situates these debates within broader discussions of governance and social dynamics, ultimately advocating for balanced scholarly discourse over polemical assertions. The findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of early Indian political structures and regional power dynamics.