The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29.s1: (1) Kalacuris of Gorakhpur (U.P.)
The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29.s1
- Language
- English
Contents
- v2.c29.s1.25 — 4 parts
(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.
Linked texts (5)
- Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
- Śibipura
- Kasia
- Shorkot
- Kasiā stone inscription — Sanskrit