The eclipse of Shiva Singh’s power gave a signal 
Dronwara king f° r the total disintegration of the house 
Puradjtya 0 f the Oinwara and also for the grad- 

ual but complete occupation of Mithila by the 
Muslim. After his defeat, his family members, under 
the care of Vidyapati, shifted to a village Raja-Banauli 
in Nepal, where Shiva Singh’s friend Puraditya 
“Arjun Vijayee” was ruling. Here again the tradi- 
tional accounts are conflicting. From Likhnavali, it is 
evident that Puraditya had carved out an independent 
kingdom or a Janapada in Saptari after having slain 
his enemy Arjun. He is called Dronawara Mahipati. 
He defeated all his enemies. We have discussed above 
the local tradition of a civil war for the throne 
between the two branches of Kameshwara dynasty. 
Bhava Singh’s son, Tripura Singh, has also been 
associated with the murder of Ganeswara. Arjun 
Singh was the son of Tripur Singh. Perhaps the 
family feud was at the root of this trouble and 
taking advantages of this ugly situation, Puraditya 


c 



( 158 ) 


succeeded in killing him and creating for himself 
a small independent Janapada in Saptari, a district 
in the Nepal territory. Arjun is mentioned in the 
Ram Bhadrapur manuscript and one Amara is men- 
tioned in the Padavali. Both Arjun and Amara 
were sons of Tripur Singh. Ashoka pillar at Luriya 
Nandan Garh in Champaran contains an inscription 
dated V. S. 1556 (1499 or 1500 A. D.) which reads 
“Nripa-Narayan Suta Amar Singh’’, This Amar 
Singh is no other than brother of Arjun Singh. 
These two brothers were probably local chieftains 
and were defeated by Puraditya. After Arjun, 
Amar exercised some political powers and that is 
evident from the above inscription. They all belong 
to the same dynasty and naturally Vidyapati’s occa- 
sional references to these princes are not unnatural. 

The word “Baudhau-A'risansa-yate” is still con- 
troversial. Mm. Umesh Mishra thinks that Arjun 
was a Budhist and was ruling in Saptari. It is said 
that when Vidyapati reached Puraditya’s capital 
and got dug a tank and called a meeting of the 
learned Pandits to celebrate a yajna, the Buddhist of 
Arjun’s kingdom created disturbance. That led to 
war between Arjun and Puraditya. Arjun was defeat- 
ed and Saptari Pargana was conquered by Puraditya. 
He has not cared to give any authentic source in 
support of these arguments and hence no credence 
can be given to this conclusion arrived at by the 
learned scholar. There is no room for any doubt to 
accept that Arjun was a son of Tripur Singh. What 
seems probable is that before going to Puraditya, 



159 ) 


Vidyapati tried to seek shelter with Arjun and when 
he did not see any chance of getting any asylum 
there, he went to Shiva Singh's frimd Puraditya. 
As is evident from Vidyapati ’s activities, he did not 
feel happy and anyhow spent his time there. His 
genious was directed towards writing sample letters 
for ordinary persons and in copying out the Bhag- 
vata. He could not produce any original work of 
repute. 

From the term “Baudhau-Nrisansa-ydte , '’ it appe- 
ars that Arjun’s behaviour towards his kinsman was 
cruel. That supports our contention. He belong- 
ed to a branch of the Oinwara, whose record is not 
praiseworthy and whose descendant could never 
get a chance to rule. In keeping wi th the tradition 
of his father Tripur Singh, he showed scant respect 
to his cousin’s wife, Lakhima, when she needed help, 
after Shiva Singh’s arrest and under the circum- 
stances she took shelter with Puraditya. Another 
scholar, Dr. Sukumar Sena has used Baudhau in 
place of Bandhau — to suit his own argument, but he 
has emphatically pointed out that they were not 
Buddhists. Though attempt has been made to prove 
that this Arjun wasjayarjuna of Nepal, there is no 
evidence to support this point. According to Ben- 
dall Jayarjuna died in Nepal Samvat 502 (1382 A.D. ) 
While Vidyapati’s Likhnavali could not have been 
written earlier than L. S. 299 (1417-18 A. D. ) Thus 
there is no possibility of identifying Jayarjuna with 
Arjun of Likhnavali. Even if we accept the story, 
presented by Mm. Mishra, it may be interpreted 



( 160 )