S06 
E. A. Gait — The Koch Kings of Kdmarupa. [No. 4, 
once took steps to punish Bhima Narayana and Jayadhvaja Simha and to 
recover the lost territory. He begun by invading Koch Bihar. Bhima 
Narayana, asked for pardon, but Mir Jumla refused to accept his ex- 
cuses, and in November 1661, he started from Jahangirnagar with his 
army. Bhima Narayana had fortified the road via the Yale Duar, and 
also the Khuntaghat road, which passed by Rangamafi, hut had neglect- 
ed to protect a third which ran through the Morang country. By 
this road, therefore, Mir Jumla advanced. The Raja fled to the 
Bhotan hills, and the greater part of his baggage and guns and other 
munitions of war was captured by Mir Jumla’s army. The latter sent 
to the Dlmrma Raja of Bliotan, requesting him to deliver up Bhima 
Narayana, but this the Deva Raja refused to do. Being pressed for time, 
Mir Jumla did not stay to enforce his request, but proceeded to carry 
out his projected invasion of Assam. 
The Koch King is described in the Fathiyali i ‘Ibriyah as being 
noble and mighty and fond of company. He was a great wine-bibber, 
and was so addicted to the pleasures of his harem, that he neglected 
to look after his kingdom. He had a magnificent palace. There were 
flower beds in the streets, which were lined on each side with rows of 
trees. The weapons of the people were swords, firelocks and poisoned 
arrows. 
This invasion by Mir Jumla is not mentioned in the account given 
by Hunter. Moreover, the name of the king at the time in question 
is said by him to be Prana Narayana who came to the throne in 1627 
and died in 1666 A. D. 
The omission to refer to the invasion may be explained by the fact 
that it left no permanent effect. Mir Jumla advanced, and the king- 
retreated without giving battle, and apparently returned again to his 
capital as soon as Mir Jumla vacated it. The discrepancy in the 
mattor of names is also of very little importance. The character of 
the king as pourtrayed by Hunter agrees closely with that given in 
the Fathiya i ‘‘Ibriyah ; we know that Visva Simha, Nara Narayana, S'il- 
arai and others of the family bore each two different names, and there is 
thus no reason why Prana Narayana should not also have been known 
as Bhima Narayana. 
After Parxkshit’s defeat, his son Vijita Narayana was confirmed by 
the Musalmans as Zamindar of the country 
Bijni Family. , J 
between the Manas and the Sankosh. He set- 
tied at Bijni and is the ancestor of the existing Bijni family. Under 
the auspices of this family, a small pamphlet was issued, some years ago, 
giving an account of Yijita’s successors, but as they were not independent 
princes, there would be little use in dwelling on their history. It may, 
