Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29: Chapter XII. Haihayas of the United and Central Provinces

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XII. Haihayas of the United and Central Provinces

v2.c29.2.1

The Haihayas¹ according to Epic and Purāṇic tradition, were descendants of Sahasrajit, a son of Yadu and grandson of Yayāti. The name of the family is derived from Haihaya, the grandson of Sahasrajit. Their capital was situated in Māhiṣmatī (mod. Mandhata on the Narbada, Nimar District, C. P.), named after Mahiṣmant, a descendant of Haihaya. The greatest king of this line was Arjuna Kārtavīrya, who is called both a *Samrāj* and a *Cakravartin*. The next important king of this race was Tālajaṅgha, who had many sons, called the Tālajaṅghas. The *Purāṇas* mention five different groups of Haihayas, *viz.*, the Vītihotras, Śāryātas, Bhojas, Avantis, and Tundikeras, who were all Tālajaṅghas.² The Indian inscriptions reveal the existence of some other branches of this line. Thus the Ārjunāyanas, who did homage to the Gupta king Samudragupta, may have claimed descent from the Haihaya Arjuna.³ But the most important line that claimed such descent was certainly the Kalacuris,⁴ whose name appear in records from at least the 6th century A.D. down to the 15th century. We have seen that Epic and Purāṇic tradition connects the Haihayas with the middle Narbada valley. Their capital was at Mandhata while one of their subdivisions is actually named Avanti.

v2.c29.2.2

This tradition about Mandhata was recently confirmed by the discovery of an inscription at Yewur which introduces us to the *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* Revarasa of the Ahihaya race with the title *Māhiṣmatī-puravareśvara*.¹ It is again interesting to note that the earliest inscriptions of the Kalacuris so far discovered reveal the Avanti-Mandhata region as the stronghold of the tribe. Thus the Abhona plates of the Kalacuri Śaṅkaragaṇa, the son of Kṛṣṇarāja, dated in (K.) S. 347 (A. D. 595), were issued from Ujjayinī.² As the power of the Kalacuris extended as far south as Nasik district, they soon came into conflict with the rising Cālukya power. The Cālukya king Maṅgaleśa claims to have defeated in the course of an expedition to the north the Kalacuri king Buddha. This Buddha has been rightly identified as the son of Śaṅkaragaṇa; and it has been calculated that these conflicts took place some time between 597-98 and 602 A. D.³ In their records the Kalacuris use an era which was founded in 248-49 A. D,⁴ probably by the Ābhīras⁵ and first used in the grants of the Traikūṭaka *Mahārāja* Dahrasena. But this does not prove that the Ābhīras and the Traikūṭakas were identical with the Kalacuris. As the Abhona and the Sarsavni grants⁶ show that the Kalacuris' territory was contiguous to the area where this era had its origin, it is not unlikely that they may have adopted it to date their official records.

v2.c29.2.3

An interesting point in the Kalacuri history is raised by their title *Kālañjara-puravarādhīśvara*.⁷ As the title occurs in the inscription of the Kalacuris of Kalyani (*c.* 1145-1183 A.D.) it is possible that the Kalacuris assumed this title after the victories of the Kalacuri king Lakṣmī-Karṇa (*c.* 1041-1098) over the Candellas. But the Kalha grant of the Kalacuri Soḍhadeva, dated in (V.) *Saṁ.* 1134 (A. D. 1077),¹ seems to suggest that the Kalacuris were in possession of the hill-fort some time before the rise of the Candellas. In this grant Soḍhadeva traces his descent to one Rājaputra, who has been placed by Kielhorn in the beginning of the 9th century. Rājaputra, we are told, was born in the family of Lakṣmaṇarāja, whose elder brother is said to have possessed himself of Kālañjara by conquering Ayomukha and subduing the Krathas.² I have already shown that Kālañjara was in the possession of the Gurjara Pratīhāras, Rāṣṭrakūṭas, and Candellas from *c.* 836 A.D. down to the time of the Muhammadan conquest of Northern India.³ Therefore the brother of Lakṣmaṇarāja must have conquered Kālañjara some time before 836 A.D.⁴ In this connection it is interesting to notice the Karitalai and Khoh grants of the feudatory *Mahārājas* of Uccakalpa dated in the same era that was used by the Kalacuri kings of Malwa.⁵ Their dates range from the (K.) year 174 to 214, *i.e.*, A.D. 423 to 462.

v2.c29.2.4

Some of these plates were found in the Nagod state, which is not very far from Kalinjar, while one grant was found in the Jubbulpore district. We have already seen that the Kalacuris' dominions extended in the south at least as far as Nasik. On the west they reached at least up to Anand in the Kaira district of Gujrat; and on the east they may have extended along the whole upper course of the Narbada including a large portion of Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand.

v2.c29.3

¹ The inscriptions supply a variant of this name, Ahihaya; see *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 268 ff.; *ibid*, Vol. II, pp. 229 ff.

v2.c29.4

² Pargiter, *IHT*, pp. 41, 102, 143, 153, 263, etc

v2.c29.5

³ Fleet, *GI*, Introduction, p. 10. *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 293. Some connect them with the Pāṇḍava Arjuna. Raychaudhury, *Political History* (3rd Ed.), p. 371.

v2.c29.6

⁴ There are several variants of this name, *viz.*, Kaṭaccūri (*EI*, Vol. IX, p. 296), Kaṭaccuri (*ibid*, Vol. VI, pp. 5 and 297), Kalatsūri (*IA*, Vol. XIX, p. 18), Kālacchuri (*ibid*, Vol. XVI, p. 22). Kalacuti (*EI*, Vol. II, pp. 228 ff.) and Kulacuri (*JASB*, Vol. VIII, Part I, pp. 481 ff.; *IA*, Vol. XVII, p. 140). The origin of the name is at present doubtful. In the Jubbulpur grant of Yaśaḥ-Karṇa, Kārtavīrya is said to have begat the *Kalacuri-vaṁśa* (*EI*, Vol. II, pp. 1 ff.) I reserve the discussion of the origin of the tribe for my third volume.

v2.c29.7

¹ *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 268 ff. Yewur is a village in the Shorapur taluq of the Gulbarga district in the Nizam's Dominions.

v2.c29.8

² Ibid, Vol. IX, pp. 296 ff. The inscription grants lands in the Nasik district.

v2.c29.9

³ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 295.

v2.c29.10

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XVII, p. 215.

v2.c29.11

⁵ *Catalogue of Indian Coins (Andhras, W. Kṣatrapas, etc.)*, by E. J. Rapson, 1908, p. clxii.

v2.c29.12

⁶ *EI*, Vol. VI, pp. 294 ff.; Vol. IX, pp. 296 ff. The Sarsavni grant was issued from Ānandapura, identified with Anand in the Kaira district.

v2.c29.13

⁷ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 469 ff. In some inscriptions from Huli occurs the form *Kālāñjana-puravarādhīśvara*; see *EI*, Vol. XVIII, p. 209.

v2.c29.14

¹ *EI*, Vol. VII, pp. 85 ff.

v2.c29.15

² *Ibid*, p. 89, V. 5.

v2.c29.16

³ See *DHNI*, Vol. I, p 589; Vol. II, p. 674.

v2.c29.17

⁴ Cunningham also held that the Kalacuris "obtained possession of Kālañjara......... long before Maṅgaleśa Chālukya in the 6th century." See his *ASR*, Vol. XVII, pp. 83-84.

v2.c29.18

⁵ *GI*, pp. 117-35; *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 293. Fleet suggested that these princes were possibly the 'feudatories of early Kalacuri kings.'

v2.c29.19

In the present state of our knowledge no connected history of the Kalacuris of this early period is possible;¹ but it seems probable that they were deprived of most of their southern provinces by the steady pressure of the Caḷukyas of Badami, while the invasion of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras from their bases in the Punjab and Rajputana probably drove them out from Malwa sometime in the 7th and the 8th centuries A.D.² Possibly also their power after this was confined to the provinces around the upper waters of the Narbada and Bundelkhand. But the rapid rise of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire probably drove them across the Bhanrer and the Kaimur hills into the northern districts of the Central Provinces. The Barah grant of Bhojadeva shows that the Pratīhāras were already in possession of the Kālañjara-*viṣaya* in 836 A.D.³ These repeated misfortunes seem to have caused a dispersal of the tribe. While one section of the line remained in the C.P., other sections appear to have dispersed to various parts of India. Some of them accepted service as *condottieri* under the Deccani and the Northern Indian kings. It was no doubt from one of these families, settled in the south, that the Kalacuris of Kalyani⁴ were descended. In the north also at least one branch appears to have accepted service under the Gurjara-Pratīhāras.⁵ It is difficult to define the exact relationship of the Kalacuris of C.P. with the great Pratīhāra emperors; but it is certain that some of the earlier members at least maintained amicable relations with them. It was only after the gradual decline and downfall of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras that the Kalacuris once again succeeded in making their power felt in North Indian history.

v2.c29.20

¹ Fleet found a possible reference to the Kalacuris in the Ārjunāyanas of the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta (*c.* 340-75 A.D.), *GI*, *Introduction*, pp. 9-10.

v2.c29.21

² *JL*, Vol. X, pp. 29 ff.

v2.c29.22

³ *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 15-19.

v2.c29.23

⁴ For their history see *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 468-89.

v2.c29.24

⁵ *Ibid*, Vol. VII, p. 85, V. 9; see also *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 744, 745-46.

v2.c29.25

The account of the various branches of the Kalacuris that ruled in Northern India during this period can be conveniently grouped under three heads, *viz.*, (1) *Kalacuris of Gorakhpur*, (2) *Kalacuris of Ḍāhala*¹ and (3) *Kalacuris of Tummāṇa*.² We shall take them one by one.

v2.c29.26

¹ Usually known as *Kalacuris of Tripurī*. On *Ḍāhala*, *see infra*, p. 772, fn. 1.

v2.c29.27

² Popularly known as ' *Kalacuris of Ratnapura*.' But the dynasty even after the foundation of Ratnapura claims to be rulers of Tummāṇa (*Tummāṇādhipati*); *see supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 395, 470 and 478 ; *ibid*, *infra*, Vol. II, pp. 812, 815.

(1) Kalacuris of Gorakhpur (U.P.)

v2.c29.s1.1

The existence of the Kalacuris of Gorakhpur was revealed by the discovery of the Kahla plate of Soḍhadeva and a stone inscription from Kasia. The second inscription is unfortunately much damaged, and some writing at the end of it is lost, with the name and possibly the date of the reigning king. But from the preserved portion it is clear that the two records represent two distinct families of the Kalacuris which for convenience again we shall designate as the (a) *Kahla* and the (b) *Kasia Kalacuris*. The Kahla grant was discovered by a cultivator in his field at the village of Kahla, in tappa Athaisi, pargana Dhuriapar, Gorakhpur District, U.P. The inscription contains 59 lines, and is written on both sides of a single copper-plate. In the middle of the lower part of the plate there is a ring-hole. The seal (which was probably attached to the ring) is circular, and "contains in high relief the figure of a bull, lying down and facing to the proper right ;³ below it is the legend *Śrīmat Sōdhadevasya.*' The characters resemble those on the copper-plates of the Gāhaḍavāla Govindacandra (*c.* 1114-55 A.D.) and Jayaccandra (*c.* 1170-93 A.D.) of Benares and Kanauj. The language is Sanskrit, but certain proper names are given ' in their vernacular forms or in forms based on them.' The inscription opens with *Om Svasti*; then begins the genealogy of the donor, which may be tabulated as follows :

v2.c29.s1.2

³ The Abhona and Sarsavni grants of the Kalacuris of Malwa appear to have no seals attached to their rings or plates. But the seal on the grants of the Kalacuris of Kalyani, contain the figure of the bull; see *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 160.

v2.c29.s1.3

Atri

v2.c29.s1.4

Soma

v2.c29.s1.5

Budha

v2.c29.s1.6

Purūravas

v2.c29.s1.7

| =Urvaśī
|

v2.c29.s1.8

Naghu(hu?)ṣa In his family (*kula*) Haihaya In his family (*vaṁśa*) Kṛtavīrya

v2.c29.s1.9

Kārtavīrya Arjuna.¹ In his family a certain *Kalacuri-tilaka*...who by conquering Ayomukha and subduing the Krathas possessed himself of Kālañjara (V. 5)² His younger brother Lakṣmaṇarāja......conquered Śvetapadam.³ (V. 6) In his family
(1) Rājā Rājaputra......captured the *Turagapati* Vāhali, defeated the kings of the east (*Prāci*) and lowered the fame of Kirīṭin and other princes (V. 7):

v2.c29.s1.10

¹ This mythical portion of the genealogy does not agree with the Epic and Purāṇic tradition. The composer of the inscription has omitted many kings. Thus between Haihaya and Kṛtavīrya he has omitted 7 kings, *viz*., (1) Dharmanetra, (2) Kunti, (3) Sāhañja, (4) Mahiṣmant, (5) Bhadraśreṇya, (6) Durdama, and (7) Kanaka. Between Nahuṣa and Haihaya he has omitted (1) Yayāti, (2) Yadu, (3) Sahasrajit, and (4) Śatajit. See Pargiter, *IHT*, p. 144.

v2.c29.s1.11

² Ayomukha is the name of a mountain, and also a demon. The location of the mountain or the legend here referred to is unknown. See *EI*, Vol. VII, p. 86, fn. 2. *Kratha* is the name of a people probably inhabiting the region of Berar. In Purāṇic tradition Kratha is the son of a king of Vidarbha; see Pargiter, *op. cit.*, p. 168. In the *Mahābhārata* the *Kratha-Kauśikas* and the *Pāṇḍyas* are said to have been conquered by Bhīṣmaka the mighty king of the Bhojas (*Sabhā*, Chap. XIV). Some identify *Kratha-Kauśika* with Payoṣṇī (mod. Purna in Berar), see *GDl*, p. 104.

v2.c29.s1.12

³ Identified with the northern part of the modern Nasik District in the Bombay Presidency. This shows that this branch of the Kalacuris must have come from beyond the Narbada. The identification of the conqueror of. this place with the Tripurī Kalacuri Lakṣmaṇarāja (*EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 70; *MASI*, No. 23, p. 12) has nothing to support it except the similarity of names. See *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 715.

v2.c29.s1.13

(2) Śivarāja (I)

v2.c29.s1.14

(3) Śaṅkaragaṇa (I)

v2.c29.s1.15

```
(4) Guṇāmbhodhi . . . . . ' obtained some territories from alias Guṇasāgara (I) Bhojadeva and by a warlike expedi- Kāñcanadevī= =Madanadevī tion took away the fortune of the (First wife) (2nd wife) Gauḍa' (V. 9).

v2.c29.s1.16

(5) Ullabha abdicated in favour of (6)

v2.c29.s1.17

(6) Bhāmāna........'distinguished himself in war with the king of Dhārā' (Dhārāvaniśa); (V. 13) =Dehaṭṭadevī
(7) Śaṅkaragaṇa (II) Mugdhatuṅga =Vidyā

v2.c29.s1.18

(8) Guṇasāgara (II) . . . . . =Lāvaṇyavatī. Rājavā= |

v2.c29.s1.19

(9) Śivarāja (II) Bhāmāna | =Sugalladevī |

v2.c29.s1.20

(10) Śaṅkaragaṇa (III) | =Yaśolekhyadevī |

v2.c29.s1.21

(11) Bhīma........by the decree of fate lost his | kingdom (or was dethroned). |
(12) Vyāsa...raised to the throne when the royal camp was at Gokulaghaṭṭa in (V.) S.1087 (A.D. 1031).

v2.c29.s1.22

(13) Soḍhadeva......the life of Sarayūpāra (the bank of the Sarayū; V. 30). ```

v2.c29.s1.23

Then in the prose portion of the grant we are informed that from his residence at Dhuliaghaṭṭa, after bathing, the *Pb.-M.-P.-Maryādāsāgaradeva-pādānudhyāta-Pb.-M.-P.-Parama-māheśvara*, *Soḍhadeva*, on the occasion of the *Uttarāyaṇa-saṁkrānti* in (*V.*) *Saṁvat* 1134 (A. D. 1077), granted to 14 Brāhmans (names, *gotras*, Vedic *śākhās* and places of residence or origin given) various pieces of land situated in a group of 6 villages (*pāṭakas*) included in the Guṇakala-*viṣaya* of (the district of) Tīkarikā. Towards the end, in line 57, we are told that the *tāmrapaṭṭa* was written by the *Ādeśa-naibandhika* (recorder of orders) Janaka in the (*V.*) *Saṁvat* 1135 (A. D. 1079), *i.e.*, about 14 months after the donation. In line 59 the grant ends with the sign-manual of *Mahārājādhirāja*-Soḍhadeva.¹

v2.c29.s1.24

¹ The plate was discovered in 1889. Kielhorn edited it from impressions in *EI*, Vol. VII, pp. 85-93. It is now in the Lucknow Museum. The find-spot of the inscription is about 28 miles from the town of Gorakhpur.

v2.c29.s1.25.1

The real founder of this line of the Kalacuris was king Rājaputra. Commenting on the date of the inscription (A. D. 1031), Kielhorn remarked that "it shows that the founder of this new branch of the Kalacuri family…cannot be placed later than the beginning of the 9th century." As Soḍhadeva is the 10th in lineal descent from Rājaputra, they cannot be separated by a period of more than 250 years (1031-250=781 A.D.). This prince is said to have captured the 'lord of horses' Vāhali, defeated the kings of the East, and lowered the fame of Kirīṭin and other princes. In the present state of our knowledge we cannot with certainty identify any of these. But if he was already ruling in the Gorakhpur region in the last quarter of the 8th century or the beginning of the 9th, some of the early Pāla kings may be included amongst the *prācī-kṣitīndras* defeated by him. Nothing is recorded of the next two princes, Śivarāja and Śaṅkaragaṇa I. But it is possible that the last of these two is to be identified with the *rājā* of the same name who was 'granted freedom from fear' by Kokkalla (*c.* 860-900 A. D.), the founder of the Tripurī branch of the Kalacuris.² Guṇāmbhodhi who succeeded Śaṅkaragaṇa I, is said to have received some land (*bhūmi*) from Bhojadeva, and taken away the fortune of the Gauḍa by a warlike expedition. As he is 4th in lineal descent from Rājaputra (*c.* 780-800 A.D.), he is probably to be referred to the last quarter of the 9th century A.D.

v2.c29.s1.25.2

This would make him a contemporary of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra emperor Bhoja I (*c.* 836-882 A.D.), and it seems likely that he took part in the great offensive of Bhoja against his eastern neighbours, the Pāla rulers of Gauḍa.¹ It is not improbable that Guṇāmbhodhi received a gift of land after the successful termination of this expedition. It is certain that this Kalacuri prince and his immediate feudatories were subordinate to the Gurjara-Pratīhāras; for as I have shown elsewhere,² the Pratīhāra empire some time after 836 A.D. gradually spread eastwards till in the reign of Mahendrapāla I it included large portions of Bihar and Northern Bengal. We may therefore venture the conclusion that the Pratīhāra hold on the Gorakhpur region remained unshaken till their serious reverses at the hands of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in the first quarter of the 10th century A. D. Nothing definite is known about the next king, Ullabha, except that he abdicated in favour of his younger brother Bhāmāna. This last prince is credited with having distinguished himself in a war against a king of Dhārā; who the latter was is unknown. There is nothing to indicate that the authority of Bhāmāna extended from U. P. to Malwa. But it may be that this king of Dhārā was one of the earlier Paramāras, possibly (Harṣa) Sīyaka II, whose Ahmedabad grants are dated in 949 and 970 A.D.³ The Partabgarh inscription of Mahendrapāla II shows that the Gurjaras in 946 A.D. still held portions of Malwa.

v2.c29.s1.25.3

It is not unlikely that the struggle which made the Paramāras the masters of Dhārā was already raging. We have shown elsewhere that this was only a side-issue of the continuous struggle between the Gurjara-Pratīhāras and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas.⁴ The Paramāras fought as feudatories of the latter; and Bhāmānadeva, though holding a fief in U. P., may perhaps have fought on this frontier on behalf of his masters. It was probably in this war that he found an opportunity to distinguish himself against the *Dhārā-vanīśa*. Nothing is recorded of the next 5 rulers (7-10), *viz*., Śaṅkaragaṇa II,¹ Guṇasāgara II, Śivarāja II, Śaṅkaragaṇa III, and Bhīma. The last was probably dethroned in favour of Vyāsa, a son of Guṇasāgara II, the 8th prince. The grant records that this happened in *(V.) S.* 1087 (A.D. 1031) when the royal camp (*kaṭaka*) was at Gokulaghaṭṭa. Vyāsa's son was Soḍhadeva, the donor of the grant. It is difficult to determine the exact limits of Soḍhadeva's dominions, as the numerous localities mentioned in his inscription have not yet been identified. But since he is called 'the life of the bank of Sarayū'² (*Sarayūpāra-jīvitaṁ*) and he bathed in the Gaṇḍakī before making the grant, we may infer that his dominions probably included at least the Gorakhpur division of the U.P., and the Saran district of Bihar. His royal titles indicate that he was no longer a feudatory.

v2.c29.s1.25.4

Possibly the destruction of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra power in the Gaṅgā-Yamunā valley by the Yamīnīs and Candellas may have helped Vyāsa Maryādāsāgara, the father of Soḍhadeva, to carve out an independent principality on the banks of the Gogra and the Gandak. From the figure of the bull on his seal as well as his title *Parama-māheśvara*, we may infer that Soḍhadeva was a worshipper of Śiva. Nothing else is known about his reign or the reign of any of his possible successors. It is however not unlikely that Soḍhadeva was the last prince of this Kalacuri line. The rise of the Gāhaḍavāla power in the 2nd quarter of the 11th century appears to have destroyed the power of the Kalacuris on the Gogra. The Candravati grant of Candradeva, dated in *(V.) S.* 1150 (A.D. 1093), shows the extension of the Gāhaḍavāla dominions from Benares and Kanauj to the Svarga-dvāra *tīrtha* at the confluence of the Sarayū and the Ghargharā in Ayodhyā (Fyzabad district).³ As the earliest date (A.D. 1090)

v2.c29.s1.26

² But see *infra*, p. 754, fn. 5 ; also *EI*, Vol. II, p. 306, V. 7. Kielhorn identified the Śaṅkaragaṇa of the Benares grant of Karṇa, with Kokkalla's own son (also called Raṇavigraha), whose daughter Lakṣmī was married by the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Jagattuṅga II, the father of Indra III (A.D. *c.* 915-17); see *ibid*, p. 301, also *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 414. But as this Śaṅkaragaṇa is called *rājā*, and grouped together with Bhoja and Vallabharāja, the Gurjara-Pratīhāra and Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings, it is more probable that the third prince was also a separate ruler and 'not' a mere *crown-prince* like Raṇavigraha.

v2.c29.s1.27

¹ *J L*, Vol. X, p. 52

v2.c29.s1.28

² *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. xxxvii, 302 ff., 569 ff.

v2.c29.s1.29

³ *PTOC*, Madras, 1924, Madras, 1925, pp. 303-08. *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 177-79; 236 ff

v2.c29.s1.30

⁴ *See supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 588 ff.; see also Vol. II, pp. 761 and 769-70.

v2.c29.s1.31

¹ But see *infra, DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 754, fn. 5, and *supra*, 745, fn. 2.

v2.c29.s1.32

² Most probably the river Gogra which in Oudh is known 'by the names of Dehoa, Surjoo or Sarayu as well as Ghogra.' See *IGI*, Vol. XII, 1908, pp. 302-03.

v2.c29.s1.33

³ *EI*, Vol. XIV, p. 193; see also *supra DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 509 ff.

v2.c29.s1.34

of Candradeva¹ is separated only by a period of 11 years from the latest recorded date (A.D. 1079) of the Kahla plate, the founder of the Gāhaḍavālas may well have been the destroyer of Soḍhadeva.

v2.c29.s1.35

¹ *Ibid*, Vol. IX, p. 302. See also *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 508-09.

v2.c29.s1.36

The existence of another family of the Kalacuris in Gorakhpur was revealed by the discovery of the *Kasia stone-inscription*. The blue stone slab on which this is engraved was found at the Buddhist ruins near Kasia, ‘in all probability the ancient site of Kuśanagara,’ in the disirict of Gorakhpur (U. P.). The inscription is much damaged, and ‘evidently some writing is lost at the end of it.’ The existing portion contains 24 lines, and is written in *Nāgari* characters of about the 12th century A.D. It is throughout in verse, excepting the opening invocation to Buddha. The first four verses are devoted to the praise of Śaṅkara, Pārvatī, Tārā and Buddha. Then follows the mythical and historical portion of the genealogy which may be presented in tabular form as follows :

v2.c29.s1.37

² In Purāṇic tradition the name is spelt Sahasrajit, see *IHT*, p. 144. The inscription omits Śatajit between Sahasrajit and Haihaya.

v2.c29.s1.38

³ The inscription omits 8 kings between Haihaya and Kārtavīrya (Arjuna). See *IHT*, op. cit., p. 144.

v2.c29.s1.40

In his family

Kārtavīrya

In his family

(1) Śaṅkaragaṇa
|
(2) Nannarāja
|
(3) Lakṣmaṇa (I)
|
(4) Śivarāja (I)
|
(5) Bhīmaṭa (I)
|
?
(6) *Rājaputra* Lakṣmaṇa (I)
|
(7) Śivarāja (II)
|
(8) Name lost = Bhūdā
|
(9) Lakṣmaṇarāja (III)
:
? = Kāñcanā
|
(10) Bhīmaṭa (II)

v2.c29.s1.41

The inscription abruptly comes to an end after this. The name of the king in whose reign this record was engraved, as well as the object of it has been lost. It is likely however that the epigraph 'recorded the erection of the brick shrine in which the large black stone image of the Buddha' was originally enshrined and near the doorway of which it was discovered. The preserved portion contains no date.¹

v2.c29.s1.42

¹ The stone inscription was discovered in 1875-76. Kielhorn published a *résumé* of the contents of the inscription in *NKGWG*, 1903, pp. 300-03. It was fully edited by D. R. Sahni in 1925. *EI*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 121-37. It is not impossible that Kāñcanā was the wife 'of another king whose name has disappeared;' see *ibid*, p. 129.

v2.c29.s1.43

The founder of this branch was Śaṅkaragaṇa, about whom we are told that Purajit (Śiva) being pleased instantly granted him an emblem of his own. His son and successor, Nannarāja, is vaguely praised as one 'whose fame spread up to the ocean.'

v2.c29.s1.44

His son Lakṣmaṇa is credited with having entered a fort and ‘resorted to a mountainous district named *Saivaya*,¹ which was the sum-total of the universe and the residence of Śibi Auśīnara.’ Kielhorn identified *Saivaya* with Seweya situated a few miles south or south-east of Kasiā. But as Seweya ‘is situated on perfectly level ground and nót on a mountainous region,’ objection has been taken to Kielhorn’s suggestion. It appears however probable that *Śaivaya* (or *Śaivya*) ‘must have been situated somewhere in the vicinity of Kasiā’ The next person and the first to be called a king (*narapati*) was his son Śivarāja I, whose prowess resembled the light of the flame created by (the sage) Aurva and ‘who was more successful even than Kīrti.’ This Kīrti was no doubt the name of a person, but his identity has not yet been ascertained. Can he be the same as the Candella Kīrtivarman (A.D. 1098), who by defeating the mighty Karṇa and recovering his dominions appears to have performed one of the most sensational military achievements of the period? Nothing is known about his son and successor the *Kṣitīśa* Bhīmaṭa (I). The next in the genealogical list is the *Rājaputra*, Lakṣmaṇa II, who was probably the son of Bhīmaṭa. It is said of him that ‘the title son of a king, the source of virtues, befitted him more appropriately than hundreds of (other) princes.’ Next is mentioned Śivarāja (II), who is said to have produced ‘confusion in the circle of his enemies.’ The son of Śivarāja is called ‘the crest-jewel of kings’ (*Narendra-cūḍāmaṇi*) but unfortunately his name is lost. His wife (*dharma-patnī*) Bhūdā bore to him the *narapati* Lakṣmaṇarāja III.² The latter is vaguely praised for his victories against his enemies. His wife Kāñcanā bore to him the last prince on the list, Bhīmaṭa II, who ‘earned fame by his fierce prowess.’

v2.c29.s1.45

¹ Sahni suggests that this is a mistake for Śaivya (= *Śivi* + the suffix *ñya*), *i.e.*, the country or city of the Śibis. Vogel identified Shorkot in the Punjab as the ancient Śibipura; *see EI.* Vol. XVI. p. 15

v2.c29.s1.46

² *Rājaputra* Lakṣmaṇa probably did not reign. In that case Lakṣmaṇarāja III should be Lakṣmaṇarāja II. It is not absolutely certain that Kāñcanā was his wife; *see supra*, p. 749, fn. 1.

v2.c29.s1.47

From the account given above, it does not seem that this branch of the Kalacuris ever became very powerful. I have already shown that the Gāhaḍavālas from *c.* 1093 gradually extended their territories from Kanauj and Benares to the banks of the Gogra. That the Gāhaḍavālas retained their power on the banks of the Gogra till the reign of their last ruler, is shown by the Bengal Asiatic Society's plate of Jayaccandra, dated in *(V.) S.* 1234 (A.D. 1177), which grants land on the banks of the Daivahā (mod. Deoha, another name of the Gogra).¹ It is therefore likely that this branch of the Kalacuris was suffered to remain as a feudatory line after the main dynasty of Kalha was destroyed by Candradeva. Though there is no apparent connection between the Kalha and the Kasiā branches, the occurrence of many common names at least tends to indicate close connection between the families. If my guess about the identification of Kīrti with the Candella Kīrtivarman (A.D. 1098) be accepted, some of the last princes, at least Bhīmaṭa II, may have to be placed in the first half of the 13th century.

v2.c29.s1.48

¹ *IA*, Vol. XVIII, p. 138 and *EI*, Vol. VII, p. 88, and fn. 2 on p. 83; see also *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 539.

(2) Kalacuris of Ḍāhala (C.P.)

v2.c29.s2.1

² Usually called *Kalacuris of Tripurī*.

v2.c29.s2.2

We have already suggested the probability that one of the branches of the Kalacuris was driven into the C. P. by the pressure of Gurjara-Pratīhāra power in Bundelkhand. The Kalacuri dynasty of Ḍāhala may have been descended from this Kalacuri stock. We have epigraphic evidence to show that these Kalacuris ruled in the C.P. for at least 300 years. Like the inscriptions of the Kasiā branch their records also trace their descent to the god Viṣṇu. The mythical portion of their pedigree may be summarised in tabular form as follows :

v2.c29.s2.3

Viṣṇu: From his navel

v2.c29.s2.4

(The god) born from the lotus (Brahmā)

v2.c29.s2.5

Atri

v2.c29.s2.6

'The friend of the ocean' (*i.e.*, Moon)

v2.c29.s2.7

Budha (or Bodhana) ... son-in-law of the 'friend of the lotuses' (*i.e.* Sun)

v2.c29.s2.8

Purūravas = Urvaśī. In his family Bharata ... 'whose pure fame is proclaimed by the Yamunā, hemmed in by more than a hundred posts of horse-sacrifices (offered by him)' In his family (*anvaye*) The *Haihaya-Cakravartī* Kārtavīrya Arjuna, who inprisoned Rāvaṇa ... He begat the *Kalacuri-vaṁśa*.

v2.c29.s2.9

It will be observed from this table that the list leaves out some mythical kings who figure in the genealogy of the Gorakhpur branches. With one exception,¹ most of the inscriptions omit to mention Haihaya or the Haihayas before Arjuna, while the Khairha plates of Yaśaḥkarṇa, make Kārtavīrya 'the ancestor of the family of these Haihaya princes.'² But the most serious difference seems to be the inclusion of Bharata in the genealogy of the Haihayas. This Bharata cannot be the Paurava Bharata Dauṣyanti, because he flourished after Arjuna. It is likely that the *praśastikāras* meant the 'mythical king of that name after whom (it is said) India was called Bhāratavarṣa.'³ In the Epic and Purāṇic lists of the Yādava Haihayas also, the name of Bharata does not occur.⁴

v2.c29.s2.10

¹ The Bilhari stone inscription mentions the Haihayas before Arjuna; see *EI*, Vol. I, p. 263.

v2.c29.s2.11

² *Ibid*, Vol. XII, p. 215.

v2.c29.s2.12

³ Pargiter, *IHT*, pp. 131 and 146.

v2.c29.s2.13

⁴ *Ibid*, p 144.

v2.c29.s2.14.1

The first historical name in the genealogy of the Kalacuris of Ḍāhala¹ is that of Kokkalla.² No record of his reign has so far been discovered; but the documents of his successors refer to a number of political incidents of his time. Thus the Bilhari stone-inscription of the time of Yuvarāja informs us that Kokkalladeva, ‘having conquered the whole earth, set up two unprecedented columns of his fame,—in the quarter of the pitcher-born (Agastya, *i.e.* the south) that well-known Kṛṣṇarāja, and in the quarter of Kuvera (*i.e.* in the north) Bhojadeva, a store of fortune.’³ The Benares grant of Karṇa informs us that the hand of Kokkalla ‘granted freedom from fear to Bhoja, Vallabharāja, the *Citrakūṭabhūpāla* Harṣa, and *rājā* Śaṅkaragaṇa.’⁴ The same inscription further tells us that Kokkalla married a lady named Naṭṭā or Naṭṭādevī (*Naṭṭākhyadevī*), who was born in the Candella family.⁵ Kielhorn rightly identified Kṛṣṇarāja and Vallabharāja of these two records with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kṛṣṇa-Vallabha of Malkheḍ (*c.* 878-912 A.D.), and Harṣa with the Candella Harṣa of Khajraho (*c.* 900 A.D.).⁶ Kṛṣṇa II married a daughter of Kokkalla,⁷ who is described in the Karda plates as the younger sister of Śaṅkuka.⁸ This Haihaya princess, we are told, ‘attained the rank of chief queen’ (*mahādevī*) and became the mother of Jagattuṅga, the father of the famous Indra III (*c.* 15-17 A.D.), who raided Ujjayinī and Kanauj in the reign of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Mahīpāla I (*c.* 914-43 A.D.).

v2.c29.s2.14.2

Possibly Kokkalla may have assisted his son-in-law when the latter suffered disaster at the hands of the Eastern Calukya Vijayāditya III (*c.* 844-88 A.D.)¹ Naṭṭā or Naṭṭādevī probably belonged to the family of the Candella king Harṣa.² In view of the fact that Indra III, the great-grandson of Kokkalla was contemporary with Mahīpāla, the grandson of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Bhoja I (*c.* 836-882 A.D.), Cunningham and Kielhorn were perhaps right in identifying the Bhojadeva of the Bilhari and Benares inscriptions with Bhoja I.³ But as one of the contemporaries of Kokkalla, the Candella Harṣadeva, was possibly a contemporary of Mahīpāla I, the younger brother of Bhoja II (*c.* 908-14 A.D.), it is just possible that the Gurjara contemporary of Kokkalla may have been Bhoja II, and not Bhoja I.⁴ Another identification of Kielhorn is also open to doubt as I have already pointed out, *viz.*, that the *rājā* Śaṅkaragaṇa to whom Kokkalla granted freedom from fear was probably one of the Kalacuri kings of that name who ruled in Gorakhpur, and not the prince of that name who was a son of Kokkalla.⁵ Cunningham assigned the reign of Kokkalla 'with certainty to the period between 860 and 900 A.D.'⁶ In view of the above discussion however it will probably be safer to allot to him the period 875-925 A.D. During these years he firmly laid the foundation of his family's sovereignty.

v2.c29.s2.14.3

He formed matrimonial alliances with the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and the Candellas, and kept up friendly relations with the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj. After consolidating his position at home he seems to have raided a large area of northern and southern India. In the Amoda plates of the Haihaya Pṛthvīdeva of Tummāṇa (K. S. 831=1079 A.D.) Kokkalla is said to have plundered ‘the treasuries of the Karṇāṭa, Vāṅga, Gurjara, Koṅkaṇa, and Śākambharī kings and also of those born of the Turuṣka and Raghu families.’¹ Much of this is no doubt mere *praśasti*. As the word *Turuṣka* in the records of this period generally means the Turks represented by the ruling families of Ghazni and Ghūr, and as the earliest recorded date for a Turkish invasion of India cannot be placed before the middle of the 10th century, when Alp-tigīn established himself at Ghazni,² the chances of Kokkalla meeting a Turuṣka opponent were extremely remote. Without, therefore, accepting literally all that the poet claims for him, we can believe that he really raided a wide area around his dominions. There is, however, no means to determine the exact limits of his kingdom. In some records of the Tummāṇa Haihayas his dominions seem to be designated as *Tritaśaurya*.³ This place has not yet been identified. But as one of his sons is said to have ascended the ancestral throne at Tripurī (6 miles from Jubbulpore, in the Central Provinces), and another appears to have fixed his residence at Tummāṇa (mod.

v2.c29.s2.14.4

Tumāna, 45 miles north of Ratnapur in the Central Provinces), we may infer that Kokkalla’s power extended from the Bhanrer to the Maikal range, or roughly over the region now known as the Jubbulpore Division.

v2.c29.s2.15

¹ Sometimes the family is said to have arisen in the *Ātreya-gotra* (*IA*, 1889, XVIII, p. 210). At other times the family is called *Haihaya-kula* (*IA*, Vol. XII, p. 265, line 16), *Cedi-kula* (*EI*, Vol. I, p. 40), and *Sahasrārjuna-vaṁśa* (*ibid*, p. 42; *IA*, Vol. XII, p. 250, line 16).

v2.c29.s2.16

² Among the variants of this name may be mentioned Kokalla (*EI*, Vol. I, pp. 34) and Kokkala (*EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 78). Kekkalla in the Ghotia plates of Pṛthvīdeva is probably a mistake of the scribe (*IA*, 1925, p. 44).

v2.c29.s2.17

³ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 264, V. 17. In early Sanskrit Kuvera is spelt *Kubera*.

v2.c29.s2.18

⁴ *Ibid*, Vol. II, pp. 300 and 306, V. 7.

v2.c29.s2.19

⁵ *Ibid*, V. 8.

v2.c29.s2.20

⁶ *Ibid*, pp. 301 and 304. The identification of Kṛṣṇarāja with Kṛṣṇa II, was first suggested by Cunningham, *ASR*, Vol. IX, p. 80. Kṛṣṇa II was known as Vallabharāja; see *BG*, Vol. I, Part II. p. 410. See also *DHNI*, Vol. I, chap. on the Candrātreyas (Candellas), p. 673.

v2.c29.s2.21

⁷ *IA*, Vol. XII, pp. 250 and 265.

v2.c29.s2.22

⁸ *Ibid*, p. 265, line 17. Śaṅkuka is probably an abbreviation of Śaṅkaragaṇa.

v2.c29.s2.23

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 411-12.

v2.c29.s2.24

² See *DHNI*, Vol. I, chapter on the Candellas, p. 673.

v2.c29.s2.25

³ *ASR*, Vol. IX, pp. 84 and 103; *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 301 and 304.

v2.c29.s2.26

⁴ See on this point *MASB*, Vol. V, p. 65; also *JL*, Vol. X, p. 52, fn. 4; *MASI*, No. 23, p. 4.

v2.c29.s2.27

⁵ See *JL*, p. 53, fn. 1; also p. 8, and fn. 2 on p. 8. If Bhojadeva is identified with Bhoja II, Śaṅkaragaṇa of the Benares plate is probably to be identified with the Kahla Kalacuri Śaṅkaragaṇa II. See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 745, fn. 2, and p. 747, fn. 1.

v2.c29.s2.28

⁶ *ASR*, Vol. IX, p. 103. Rai Bahadur Hiralal places his reign in the last quarter of the 9th century A.D.; see *ABOI*, 1927-28, p. 282.

v2.c29.s2.29

¹ *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 75 and 78, Vs. 4-5.

v2.c29.s2.30

² *CHI*, Vol. III, p. 11. *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 25, 79 and 80.

v2.c29.s2.31

³ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 33, 34; see also *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 802.

v2.c29.s2.32

According to the inscriptions of the Haihaya kings of Ratnapura, Kokkalla had 18 sons, of whom the eldest became king of Tripurī, while the others became *maṇḍalapatis* or feudatory chiefs in the kingdom. They mention Kaliṅgarāja as one of these younger sons, from whom the Kalacuris of Tummāṇa traced their descent. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa grants reveal the names of some other sons of Kokkalla. Thus the Karda grant of Kakka II (A.D. 972) gives us the name of Saṅkuka, whose younger sister became the queen of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kṛṣṇa II. The Saṅgli grant of Govinda IV (A.D. 933) tells us that Jagattuṅga married Lakṣmī, a daughter of Raṇavigraha, the son of Kokkala, the ornament of the *Sahasrārjuna-vaṁśa*.¹ The Karda grant mentioned above also informs us that this Jagattuṅga married Lakṣmī, the daughter of the *Cedīśvara Śaṅkaragaṇa*.² As in both the grants the issue of Jagattuṅga by Lakṣmī is stated to be Indra III, it is clear that Raṇavigraha and Śaṅkaragaṇa are one and the same person ‘the latter appellation being his real name, and the former a *biruda*.’³ The Karda grant reveals the interesting fact that Jagattuṅga in the course of an expedition during the reign of his father came to the Cedi country and married Govindāmbā, another daughter of his maternal uncle (*mātula*) Śaṅkaragaṇa.⁴ This princess became in course of time the mother of Amoghavarṣa III Vaddiga (*c.* 933-40 A.D.) and the grandmother of Akālavarṣa Kṛṣṇa III (*c.* 940-56 A.D.). The Saṅgli grant of Govinda IV gives us the name of yet another son of Kokkalla, named Arjuna. This Arjuna, we are told, had a son named Ammanadeva, ‘of exceedingly great might,’ whose daughter Vijāmbā became the wife of Indra III and mother of Amoghavarṣa II and Govinda IV (*c.* 918-33 A.D.).⁵ The records of the Haihayas of Tripurī however do not mention any of these names of the sons of Kokkalla. The Bilhari stone inscription of the time of Yuvarāja II tells us that Kokkalla was succeeded by his son Mugdhatuṅga, while the Benares grant of Karṇa relates that he was succeeded by Prasiddhadhavala, his son by Naṭṭādevī. As both these names are given as that of the father of Yuvarāja I, it is clear that these two names belong to one and the same person. Hitherto it has been believed that one of these names is a titular name.¹ But possibly both are *birudas* of the *Cedīśvara* Śaṅkaragaṇa, whose daughters Lakṣmī and Govindāmbā were married to Jagattuṅga, the son of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kṛṣṇa II. In view of his epithet 'lord of Cedi,' it is difficult to identify Śaṅkaragaṇa with one of the younger sons of Kokkalla who became mere lords of *maṇḍalas*.² As the genealogical lists of the Haihayas of Tripurī does not mention this 'lord of Cedi' amongst the immediate successors of Kokkalla, and as both the names Mugdhatuṅga and Prasiddhadhavala look more like *birudas* than personal names it is likely that the personal name of the eldest son who succeeded him at Tripurī was Śaṅkaragaṇa. If this is accepted, Raṇavigraha must be another *biruda* of this king. We have not yet discovered any records of this prince; but the Bilhari stone-inscription of Yuvarāja II contains the following description of his victories:

v2.c29.s2.33

¹ *IA*, Vol. XII, pp. 250 and 253, line 16.

v2.c29.s2.34

² *Ibid*, pp. 265 and 268, line 18.

v2.c29.s2.35

³ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 414.

v2.c29.s2.36

⁴ The Cāḷukya king Vikramāditya II of Bādāmī (733-46 A.D) also married Loka-mahādevī and Trailokyamahādevī, who were uterine sisters and came from the same Haihaya stock; see *ibid*, p. 374.

v2.c29.s2.37

⁵ *IA*, Vol. XII, pp. 250 and 253, lines 20-22. Fleet first read the name as Dvijāmbā but see *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 415.

v2.c29.s2.38

¹ *ABOI*, 1927-28, p. 285. See also *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 441. Mugdhatuṅga is a *biruda* of the Kalha Kalacuri Śaṅkaragaṇa II.

v2.c29.s2.39

² *EI*, Vol. II, p. 301.

v2.c29.s2.40

"On his expeditions the forests by the sea, near which his army encamped, had the number of their coral-sprouts doubled by the tips of the hands of women, stretched forth to gather them.
To Malaya his thoughts wandered, because it is there that the waves of the sea are playing, because there that wind is blowing which causes the Kerala women to sport, because there the serpent is stealing the fragrance of the trees.
Having conquered the lines of the country by the shore of the eastern sea, and having taken Pāli from the lord of Kosala,

v2.c29.s2.41

having uprooted the dwellings of enemies one after another, he was a most splendid master of the sword '' ¹

v2.c29.s2.42

¹ *Ibid*, Vol. I, pp. 256 and 265, Vs. 22-24.

v2.c29.s2.43

The references to Malaya and Kerala are so vague that they seem to have no historical basis. Excepting the Bilhari inscription, most of the Kalacuri records are silent about the achievements of Prasiddhadhavala. He does not appear to have been powerful enough to pierce through the heart of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa territory and reach the Malabar coast. It is however not impossible that he may have been associated with some of the southern campaigns of his Rāṣṭrakūṭa relatives. The conquest of Pāli from ' the lord of Kosala ' looks like a statement of fact. Some scholars show a tendency to identify this Pāli with 'the village of Palia in the Balasore district, six miles from the sea shore,' ² but it seems more likely that it is to be identified with the village of Pali situated 12 miles to the north-east of Ratanpur in the Bilaspur district. Cunningham visited this place in 1873-74 and found here ' a fine large tank and the remains of several temples on its banks ' in the style of the Khajraho temples.³ There can be no doubt therefore that the village marks the site of an important city. It is however difficult to identify the *Kosalendra* from whom this place was taken by Mugdhatuṅga. It is possible that this prince was a member of the dynasty conveniently designated as ' Sarabhapura kings.' Land-grants of two kings of this line, named Mahājayarāja and Mahāsudevarāja, have been discovered in Raipur, Arang, Khariar and Sarangarh, all situated in the Raipur district of the Central Provinces.⁴ The grants contain circular seals with the standing figure of *Gaja-Lakṣmī*. They are written in the ' boxheaded variety of the Central Indian alphabet,’ and are all issued from Śarabhapura.¹ It has been suggested that these Śarabhapura princes drove away the line of rulers known as ‘Śrīpura kings’ from the Raipur region into the middle Mahanadi valley, but were themselves gradually supplanted by the Kalacuris.² The records of these ‘Śrīpura kings’ were issued from Śrīpura (mod. Sirpur) and were all found near about the Raipur district.³ Their seals bear the figure of Garuḍa, and they claim to belong to the *Pāṇḍu-vaṁśa* and assume the title ‘lord of Kosala’ (*Kosalādhipati*). The characters in their inscriptions belong to the northern class of alphabets of about the 8th or the 9th centuries A.D. ‘In spite of overwhelming paleographic evidence,’ some scholars have tried to link together these ‘Śrīpura kings’ with the so-called ‘Somavaṁśī kings of Kaṭak,’ who also called themselves ‘lords of Kosala,’ and had similar names and titles.⁴ If this be accepted then the *Kośalendra* defeated by Prasiddhadhavala may possibly have been some princes of this dynasty,⁵ and not of the Śarabhapura line, for the latter, though it ruled in Kosala, never seem to have assumed the title of *Kosalendra*. After the conquest of Pāli from the king of Kosala, Prasiddhadhavala may have reached the shores of the Bay of Bengal by following the lower courses of the river Mahanadi.

v2.c29.s2.44

² *ABOI*, 1927-28, p. 287. But see *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 396 and 401.

v2.c29.s2.45

³ *ASR*, Vol. VII, pp. 217-19.

v2.c29.s2.46

⁴ For these grants see Fleet, *GI*, pp. 191-200; *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 170-74 and 281-85; Hiralal, *DLI*, pp. 96-97. The characters of the grants belong to the southern class of alphabets. For the Sirpur stone-inscription of Śivagupta Bālārjuna, see *EI*, Vol. XI, pp. 184-97.

v2.c29.s2.47

¹ This place has not yet been identified; but Rai Bahadur Hiralal thinks that this may be another name of Sirpur, in the district of Raipur, see *DLI*, p. 90.

v2.c29.s2.48

² *DLI*, p. 90.

v2.c29.s2.49

³ *GI*, pp. 291-99; *EI*, Vol. VII, pp. 103-07; Vol. XI, pp. 184-201; *IA*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 179-81. *DLI*, p. 101. *JRAS*, 1907, p. 621.

v2.c29.s2.50

⁴ *DLI*, p. 90. See for further details *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 393 ff.

v2.c29.s2.51

⁵ Probably Śivagupta, the first prince of the Orissa line, *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 396. *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 306-07, V. 13.

v2.c29.s2.52

Prasiddhadhavala was succeeded by his son Bālaharṣa. The Bilhari inscription omits him; but the Benares grant of Karṇa distinctly calls him a *nṛpati*.⁶ So it is certain that he ruled for some time. As that record only praises him in general terms, and most other inscriptions do not mention him at all, he must have had a very short and inglorious reign; and he may have been the king of •Cedi who was ‘impetuously’ defeated by the Candella Yaśovarman.¹ His younger brother Yuvarāja² who succeeded him, is given in the Bilhari inscription the *biruda* Keyūravarṣa.³ The same record gives the following account of his victories: “Who fulfilled the ardent wishes of the minds of the women of Gauḍa, who was a deer to sport on those pleasure-hills—the breasts of the damsels of Karṇāṭa, (*and*) ornamented the foreheads of the women of Lāṭa; who engaged in amorous dalliance with the women of Kaśmīra, (*and*) was fond of the charming songs of the women of Kaliṅga. Up to the Kailāsa... and up to the noble eastern mountain over which the sun shines forth, near the bridge of the waters, and as far as the western sea, too, the valour of his armies brought endless anguish on hostile people.’”⁴ In spite of obvious exaggerations, it is possible that the Kalacuris recovered from the effects of their defeat at the hands of the Candellas under Yuvarāja I, who, following the usual practice of successful kings, raided the countries all round his dominions. The conflict with the Karṇāṭa sovereigns, who must be identified with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa sovereigns of the Deccan, throws interesting light on the relations of these two dynasties. We have seen how intimate was the bond of union between these two royal families. Since the time of Kokkalla, the Kalacuris of Tripurī had formed frequent matrimonial alliances with the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkhed. Even Yuvarāja himself gave his daughter Kundakadevī as a bride to Amoghavarṣa III Vaddiga (*c.* 933-40 A.D.).⁵ The Karhad grant of Kṛṣṇa III (*c.* 940-56 A.D.), seems to indicate that he also, like his father, married a Sahasrārjuna princess.⁶ These matrimonial alliances may be represented by the following table:

v2.c29.s2.53

¹ *Ibid*, Vol. I, p. 132. Kielhorn suggested that the defeated Cedi king was Yuvarāja I; see *ibid*, Vol. II, p. 301. But chronology and facts seem to point out that the defeat should be referred to the weak reign of his elder brother. See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 675.

v2.c29.s2.54

² *Ibid*, Vol. II, p. 307, V. 15.

v2.c29.s2.55

³ *Ibid*, Vol. I, p. 256, V. 24.

v2.c29.s2.56

⁴ *Ibid*, p. 265, Vs. 24 and 28. The Gauḍa king was possibly Gopāla II, see *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 350 ff. *seq.*

v2.c29.s2.57

⁵ *IA*, Vol. XII, p. 268, line 23; *ASR*, Vol. IX, p. 104; *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 418.

v2.c29.s2.58

⁶ *EI*, Vol. IV, p. 288, V. 25.

v2.c29.s2.60

The above table shows that in three generations, within a period of less than three-quarters of a century (*c.* 888-956 A.D.), there were no less than six marriages between the two families. The recent discovery of the Jura inscription of Kṛṣṇa III in the State of Maihar in Baghelkhand and the references to the possible Rāṣṭrakūṭa occupation of Kalinjar contained in the Deoli and Karhad plates of the same king show that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas' dominions during this period probably encircled the Kalacuri kingdom in the north, west, and south.¹ It is not impossible that the Kalacuris may have even assisted the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in their northern campaigns against the Gurjara-Pratīhāras and their Candella feudatories. But the references to the conflict of the Kalacuris and the Karṇāṭas show that this period of close alliance and co-operation had come to an end. This conclusion is also supported by the Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III, which tell us that during his father's reign (*c.* 933-40 A.D.) he conquered a Sahasrārjuna prince.¹ From the fact that this prince is described as ‘an elderly relative of his mother and his wife’ it seems very likely that the defeated Kalacuri prince was no other than Yuvarāja I, the father of his mother. This conflict must have happened some time before 940 A.D., when Yuvarāja was already well advanced in years.

v2.c29.s2.61

¹ See *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 588 ff.; *MASI*, No. 23, pp. 10 ff.

v2.c29.s2.62

¹ *EI*, Vol. IV, p. 288, V. 25.

v2.c29.s2.63

The limits of the kingdom of Yuvarāja I cannot be definitely fixed. But the Chandrehe stone-inscription,² seems to indicate that in the north it included a portion of Baghelkhand. This document is written on two slabs of stone ‘built into the walls of the front verandah of a Śaiva monastery which stands close to the great temple of Śiva at Chandrehe,’ on the Son river in Rewa. It belongs to the Mattamayūra sect of the Śaiva ascetics. One of these, Prabhāvaśiva, we are told, was greatly honoured by Yuvarāja. The identity of this prince is established by another stone-inscription,³ said to have been discovered in the ruins of Gurgi some 12 miles to the east of the town of Rewa. The 6th verse of this record tells us that the Mattamayūra ascetic Prabhāvaśiva ‘was brought to this part of the country by Yuvarājadeva, son of Mugdhatuṅga, and made to accept a monastery or a temple.’ As this last inscription also refers to the building of a high temple at the place by the same king, it is likely that Yuvarāja's power extended across the Son to the north of the Kaimur Range.

v2.c29.s2.64

² The inscription is dated in (K.)S. 724. (A.D. 973) and records the re-excavation and rebuilding of a well by Prabodhaśiva which was formerly excavated by his *guru* Praśāntaśiva. The latter was the disciple of Prabhāvaśiva. The inscription was composed by the *kavi* Dvāmaata. See *IA*, Vol. XX, p. 85; *ASI*, *WC*, 1921, pp. 53-54; *MASI*, No. 23, pp. 117-22.

v2.c29.s2.65

³ *ASI*, *WC*, 1921, pp. 51-52. *MASI*, No. 23, pp. 122-29. This is another record of the Śaiva ascetic Prabodhaśiva.

v2.c29.s2.66

The association of Yuvarāja with Śaiva ascetics is also revealed by a number of other records. An unpublished inscription, found at Malakāpuram, in the Madras Presidency, tells us that Yuvarāja gave 3 lakhs of villages as a *bhikṣā* to the Śaiva teacher Sadbhāvaśambhu of the Ḍāhala-*maṇḍala* situated between the Bhāgīrathī and the Narmadā.’¹ The Bilhari stone-inscription tells us that Yuvarāja had as his wife Nohalā, who traced her origin to the Caulukya lineage. She was the daughter of Avanivarman, who was the son of Sadhanva and grandson of Siṁhavarman.² Nohalā is said to have erected near the modern Bilhari a large temple of Śiva, which she endowed with the villages Dhaṅgaṭa-pāṭaka, Poṇḍī, Nāgabala, Khaila-pāṭaka, Viḍā, Sajjāhalī, and Goṣṭhapālī. She is also reported to have given the villages of Nipānīya, and Ambi-pāṭaka to the sage Iśvaraśiva, a disciple of Śabdaśiva, who again was a disciple of Pavanaśiva, ‘as a reward for his learning.’³

First 147 of 465 passages. Read on

Linked texts (32)