Bangladesh not going too like Pakistani.

you’re wrong

Shivkara 2

@@QueenBattle-zb7nz If it be Shivakara Deva ll (809 - 809 AD or 810- 820 AD),then the success of Devapala might be short lived . Because, the former was succeeded by Shantikara Deva ( ascended throne in 809 or 820 AD),who as far as is known was not a feudatory. The BADAL inscription and BHAGALPUR plate say about Devapalas success against the Utkalas , but there is no direct reference who was his opponent and when the battle took place. From some indirect references some Odia historians tried to establish that it was SHIVAKARA DEVA ll . Shivakara ruled for a very short period and built a temple in his time. How could he build a temple in a tumultuous period? According to PANIGRAHI, the Rastrakuts invaded Toshal ( Utkal) beforehand, during SHUBHAKAR DEVA . However, the successive attacks couldn't douse the might of Bhaumakaras , as is evident from HINDOL and DHARAKOT inscriptions, which speak about SULKI ( feaudatories of Bhoumakaras) domination in RARH or South Bengal, sometimes before 839 AD , when Devapala ( 810 -850 AD) himself was on the throne of GOUD .

@@user-sr6rs8rm9g rarh was under bhaumkara during era of Shivkara 1 and sulkis were Feudetries of north orrisa who also holded rarh But devpala defeated shivakara 2 and made him a vassal king 👑 Shivkara 2 accepted pala sovereign Means all of his governors accepted this

@@QueenBattle-zb7nz The plate no VII of Ranastambha, a SULKI feudatory under Bhaumakaras mentions that Ranastambha offered lands to Yajurvedi Brahmins ( one of them was POUCHUKA , son of HARI, Grand son of Baghu of JARA sub district ( Khanda) , formerly in Hooghly district and now in Paschim Medinipur.This plate was given in 839 . HINDOL and DHARAKOT inscriptions of the Bhaumakaras support Sulki dominance in RARH . This was the time when Devapala was at his Zenith. The authenticity of the inscriptions are universally accepted. The puzzle is that how could a feudatory of the Bhaumakaras snatched a big land portion from the PALAs who were the master of not only India but it's neighbouring countries. Historians are still in darkness in fixing who was the actual Utkal ( Toshal) opponent of Devapala, as different historian has different opinion. You will find the differences in view if you follow different historian writing on this same matter. Questions arise in my mind as I try to delve deeper, for the history of my own region is entangled with it .

@@user-sr6rs8rm9g local feudetries became the feudetries of palas because their master became vassal of devpala Even area of bengal।was not ruled by devpala himself the area of devpala was also ruled by local feudetries

Gadha hai kya be sena are kayastha