Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29.s2: (2) Kalacuris of Ḍāhala (C.P.)

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29.s2

Language
English

Contents

(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

v2.c29.s2.67

¹ Mentioned by Hiralal in *ABOI*, 1927-28, pp. 289-90. Hiralal also suggests that the *Golaki Maṭha* of this inscription should be identified with the Caunsath Jogini temple at Bheraghat. If this is accepted, that temple, which was founded by Sadbhāvaśambhu, must be referred to the time of Yuvarāja I; see *ibid*. For his temples, see *MASI*, No. 23, pp. 31 ff.

v2.c29.s2.68

² An interesting fact about the origin of this Caulukya family is that they trace their descent from the *Culuka* of Droṇa Bhāradvāja, while the Caḷukyas of Bādāmi traced their descent from that of Brahmā; see *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 180. For the story of origin of the Caulukyas of Anahilapāṭaka (Gujarat), see *infra*, chapter on the *Caulukyas*.

v2.c29.s2.69

³ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 266-67, Vs. 30-45. Cunningham identified Poṇḍī with the village of Pondi situated 4 miles to the N. W. of Bilhari. He also suggested that Khaila-pāṭaka was probably represented by Khailwara, 6 miles east-north-east of Bilhari; see *ibid*, p. 251; also *ASR*, Vol. IX, p. 104.

v2.c29.s2.70

The Karitalai stone-inscription of the time of Lakṣmaṇarāja supplies us with the name of one of the officers of the administration of this king. We are told that the Brāhman Bhāka Miśra, who flourished in the family of the sage Bhāradvāja, served Yuvarāja as his chief minister (*mantri-pradhāna*).⁴ No records of this king have so far been discovered.

v2.c29.s2.71

⁴ *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 174-76, Vs. 2-6.

v2.c29.s2.72

Yuvarāja I was succeeded by Lakṣmaṇarāja, his son by Nohalā. There appears to have been no weakening of the Kalacuri power under his administration; and if the records can be believed, he considerably increased the prestige of his house by invading the territories of his neighbours. Thus the Bilhari inscription tells us that ‘the powerful Cedi lord (*Cedi-nātha*)

v2.c29.s2.73

marched with all his elephants and horses, (and) accompanied by strong foot-soldiers of tributary chiefs (*Sāmanta-patti*), to the very pleasant *western region*, inspiring his adversaries with fear……Having valorously struck down (adversaries) who were humbled in battle, having his commands honoured by presents offered by princes who bowed down (before him)…… he made the host of his army sport in the water of the ocean. Having bathed in the sea, the illustrious (prince) then worshipped *Someśvara* with golden lotuses; but he also presented something else. After defeating the lord of Kosala (*Kosala-nātha*), he made (the effigy of the serpent) Kāliya wrought of jewels and gold, which was obtained from the prince of Oḍra (*Oḍra-nṛpati*), a reverential offering to Someśvara. Having besides presented elephants, horses, splendid dresses, garlands, sandal and other (gifts), the prince to get out of the toils of this life, humbly praised (the god), full of joy.”¹ The Goharwa grant of Lakṣmī-Karṇa gives him credit for conquering the kings of Vaṅgāla, Pāṇḍya, Lāṭa, Gurjara and Kāśmīra.²

v2.c29.s2.74

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 268, Vs. 59-63.

v2.c29.s2.75

² *Vaṅgāla-bhaṅga-nipuṇaḥ paribhūta-Pāṇḍyo Lāṭeśa-luṇṭhana-paṭūrjjita-Gurjarendraḥ-Kāśmīravīra-mukuṭārcita-pādapīṭhaḥ*: see *ibid*, Vol. XI, p. 142, V. 8.

v2.c29.s2.76

These descriptions of Lakṣmaṇarāja’s victories are of course not free from the usual suspicion attaching to all royal *praśastis*; but certain statements in them seem to contain some truth. His claim to have advanced as far as Somnath (Patan), in the Kathiawar peninsula, seems to be based on an historical fact. During the second half of the 10th century A.D., which probably saw the reigns of both Lakṣmaṇarāja and his father Yuvaraja I, great confusion prevailed in the Gurjara and Lāṭa countries. During the first half of the 10th century Southern Gujarat (Lāṭa) was held by the Silāhāra feudatories of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Mānyakheṭaka, while Northern Gujarat was possessed by the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj. With the decline of the Pratīhāra and Rāṣṭrakūṭa powers in the 2nd half of the 10th century, their hold on those distant provinces also grew weak, and during the last quarter of this century we find the Caulukya Mūlarāja (*c.* 974-95 A.D.) fighting with Bārappa, the general of the Cāḷukya Taila II (*c.* 973-97 A.D.), for the possession of Gujarat.¹ In this period of uncertainty, therefore, it was not very difficult for a daring king to penetrate into Gujarat and Kathiawar with a mobile force. It is interesting to remember in this connection the claim of Yuvarāja I to have 'sported with Lāṭa women.'' By penetrating to Somnath (Patan), therefore, Lakṣmaṇarāja merely carried forward a step further the policy initiated by his illustrious predecessor. The references to the ornamented effigy of the serpent *Kāliya* seem to indicate that his claim to victory over the lord of Kosala was also genuine. It is however difficult to identify this *Kosala-nātha* or the *Oḍra-nṛpati* from whom Yuvarāja obtained the bejewelled *Kāliya*. The former may have been one of the earlier members of the Somavaṁśī rulers of Orissa who regularly assumed the title of *Kosalendra*.² There is again no inherent impossibility in the claim that Lakṣmaṇarāja defeated the king of the Vaṅgālas. For the second half of the 10th century marked a dark patch in the history of the Pālas, which appears to have culminated in the Kamboja rebellion. The references in the records of the Pālas and the Varmans, as well as the Paikor (Birbhum dist., Bengal) pillar inscription of Lakṣmī-Karṇa, conclusively prove that the Kalacuris in the first half of the 11th century were in intimate contact with the Bengal rulers.³

v2.c29.s2.77

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 23, 213 and 430; also *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the *Caulukyas*.

v2.c29.s2.78

² See *EI*, Vol. III, pp. 330-33. Also *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 394 ff. The association of Kosala with Oḍra shows that *MASI*, No. 23, p. 12, is wrong in taking it to mean N. Kosala The Pratihāras were never known as lords of Kosala. Their capital Kanauj lay in Pañcāla. Tripurī Lakṣmaṇarāja also cannot be identified with the founder of the Kahla Kalacuris. See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 743, fn. 3. Oḍra king=a Kara prince? See *ibid*, pp. 413 ff.

v2.c29.s2.79

³ *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 326 ff. King of the Vaṅgālas was probably the Varman prince of E. Bengal. See *ibid*, pp. 318, 324, 331 ff.

v2.c29.s2.80

It may well be that Yuvarāja I,¹ and his son Lakṣmaṇarāja laid the foundation of that eastern policy, which at last culminated in the reign of Lakṣmī-Karṇa (*c.* 1042-90 A.D.). There is however some difficulty in accepting the claim to victory over Kashmir which is made on behalf of both Yuvarāja I and his son Lakṣmaṇarāja. It must be admitted that the 2nd half of the 10th century was also one of the most inglorious epochs in the history of Kashmir. From Kṣemagupta (950-58 A.D.) to the end of the reign of Diddā (980-1003 A.D.), she was a constant prey to anarchy and civil war.² But the valley of Kashmir is so distant from the borders of the Kalacuri dominions, that we are loth to accept this claim without some confirmatory evidence from an independent source. The same argument applies to Lakṣmaṇarāja's claim to victory over the Pāṇḍya king. Though the decay of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa power and the uncertain position of the newly re-established Cālukya dynasty made it comparatively easy for a king of the C.P. to invade the southern portion of the Indian peninsula, yet in view of the great distance separating the two countries it would perhaps be better to reserve our judgment till we discover some evidence stronger than the eulogy of a court poet. The only piece of indirect evidence which may possibly be quoted in favour of this southern campaign of Lakṣmaṇarāja is his matrimonial alliance with the rising power of the Cālukyas of the Kanarese districts. We know from the records of the latter, that he married his daughter Bonthādevī to Vikramāditya IV, the father of Āhavamalla-Nūrmaḍi Taila II (*c.* 973-997 A.D.), who destroyed the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkheḍ about A.D. 973.³ It is not impossible that Lakṣmaṇarāja may have invaded peninsular India to assist his new allies against the Rāṣṭrakūṭas.

v2.c29.s2.81

¹ *Ibid*, Vol. II, p. 760 and fn. 1.

v2.c29.s2.82

² *Ibid*, Vol. I, pp. 130 ff.

v2.c29.s2.83

³ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 427. Hiralal mentions Tailapa II as the daughter's son of Yuvarāja II. This must be a mistake; see his article in the *ABOI*, 1927-28, p. 291.

v2.c29.s2.84

The Bilhari stone-inscription of the time of Yuvarāja II shows that Lakṣmaṇarāja continued his father's patronage of the Śaiva ascetics. We are told that this line of ascetics emigrated from Kadambaguhā. An object of veneration of these sages was Rudraśambhu. His disciple was Mattamayūranātha, who, 'became possessed, oh! of the town (?) of the prince of Avanti.' His disciple's disciple was Mādhumāteya. His disciple's disciple was Hṛdayaśiva, who 'still further increased the renown spread over the illustrious Mādhumāteya lineage (*vaṁśa*).' We are then informed that the *Cedi-candra*, Lakṣmaṇarāja showed his devotion to this sage, 'by presents sent by well-conducted messengers.' He also 'made over to that great ascetic the monastery of the holy Vaidyanātha.¹

v2.c29.s2.85

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 267-68, Vs. 48-57. For another inscription of about the end of the 10th century A.D., discovered at Ranod, which mentions Kadambaguhā, a prince of Avanti and the town of Mattamayūra, see *JASB*, Vol. XVI, p. 1080; Cunningham, *ASR*, Vol. II, p. 305; *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 351 ff.

v2.c29.s2.86

The only record so far known of this prince is the *Karitalai stone-inscription* of his minister (*mantri-tilaka*) Someśvara, the son of Bhāka Miśra, who served as the chief minister of his father. This record, which was found at Karitalai, a village in the Mudwara subdivision of the Jubbulpore District of the C. P. (Lat. 24°3′N, Long. 80°46′E), is much damaged, and the preserved portion, which contains 34 lines, appears to be 'only the concluding portion of an apparently much longer inscription, the upper part of which is missing.' The missing portion probably contained an eulogy of the 'earlier Cedi rulers of Tripurī, especially Yuvarājadeva I and Lakṣmaṇarāja, who are actually mentioned in the sequel.' Verses 2-17 of the preserved portion give an account of the family of the Brāhman minister of the king, who belonged to the *vaṁśa* of Bharadvāja. He is described in verse 9 as *bhaṭṭa-Someśvara-dīkṣita*. The proper object of the inscription is to record that this Someśvara built a temple of Viṣṇu named after the founder *Somasvāmideva*, in which this inscription was apparently set up. The latter part of the inscription records certain donations, mainly by the royal family. For the maintenance of a *Pura* for eight Brāhmans, near the temple, the king granted the village of Dīrghaśākhika (which may be the modern Dighee of the maps, about 6 miles S.E. of Karitalai). His queen *Mahādevī Rāhaḍā* gave to the temple the village of Cakrahradī, while the king's son, the *Parama-vaiṣṇava* Śaṅkaragaṇa, made a donation on the occasion of a lunar eclipse. There is no date in the preserved portion of the inscription.¹

v2.c29.s2.87

¹ An account of the contents of the inscription was first given by Cunningham. *ASR*, Vol. IX, p. 81. It was then edited from a rubbing by Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 174-79.

v2.c29.s2.88

Lakṣmaṇarāja was succeeded by Śaṅkaragaṇa, his son by Rāhaḍā. This prince is omitted by the Goharwa grant of Lakṣmī-Karṇa;² but he is mentioned as king in the Benares³ and the Bilhari⁴ inscriptions. Both these records praise him only in vague terms, without any remark of the slightest value. He probably had a rather brief and inglorious reign. The only interesting fact known about him is his devotion to the god Viṣṇu (*Vaiṣṇava-parama*).⁵

v2.c29.s2.89

² *EI*, Vol. XI, p. 142; Vol. II, p. 3.

v2.c29.s2.90

³ *Ibid*, Vol. II, p. 307, V. 19.

v2.c29.s2.91

⁴ *Ibid*, Vol. I, p. 260, Vs. 64-66.

v2.c29.s2.92

⁵ *Ibid*, Vol. II, p. 179, V. 33.

v2.c29.s2.93

After Lakṣmaṇarāja came his younger brother Yuvarāja II.⁶ The Goharwa plates of Lakṣmī-Karṇa call him a ‘moon among the kings of Cedi’ (*Cedīndra-candra*), who became a ‘supreme ruler’ (*Parameśvara*).⁷ The Karanbel stone-inscription of Jayasiṁha tells us that he dedicated the wealth which he took from other kings to the holy Someśvara (*i.e.*, Somanātha in Gujarat).¹ It was probably in the course of this western expedition, which he may have undertaken, to emulate the success of his father, that he came into violent conflict with the Paramāras. The Udaipur *praśasti* of the kings of Malwa informs us that Vākpati II (Muñja) (*c.* 974 A.D.) ‘conquering Yuvarāja and slaying his generals, as victor, raised on high his sword in Tripurī.’² This expedition by Vākpati was probably undertaken as a retaliation for the western campaigns of the Kalacuri kings. The remark in the Khairha and the Jubbulpore grants of Yaśaḥ-Karṇa that Yuvarāja ‘purified the town of Tripurī,’³ may have a veiled reference to the purificatory ceremonies which the Kalacuri king possibly performed after the re-occupation of his capital. In connection with these hostilities between Vākpati and Yuvarāja, it is interesting to remember the struggles between the former and the Cāḷukya Taila II, the nephew (sister's son) of Yuvarāja. The recent discovery of the Ahmedabad grants of the Paramāra Harṣa Sīyaka II (*c.* 947-70)⁴ has shown that the predecessors of Vākpati were feudatories of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Mānyakheṭaka. This explains to some extent the nature of the struggle between the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, Cāḷukyas, Kalacuris, and Paramāras of this period. These conflicts, in which the Rāṣṭrakūṭas ceased to exist as a great power in the Deccan and in which Tripurī was plundered and Vākpati Muñja met a tragic end, were possibly not detached incidents, but only episodes of the long drawn duel between the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and Paramāras on the one hand and the Cāḷukyas and Kalacuris on the other. The alliance between the Cāḷukyas and the Kalacuris however did not long survive these events. The claim put forward in some of the later Cālukya records that Taila, in addition to subverting the power of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, overcame the king of Cedi, indicates that Yuvarāja II must have subsequently come into conflict with his relatives.¹ Thus the history of Kalacuri-Cālukya relationship forms a close parallel to the earlier Kalacuri-Rāṣṭrakūṭa connections.

v2.c29.s2.94

⁶ *Ibid*, Vol. II, p. 307, V. 21; Vol. I, p. 260, V. 67.

v2.c29.s2.95

⁷ *Ibid*, Vol. XI, pp. 142-43, Vs. 10-12. Some identify *Kalacuri-candra* who ‘worshipped’ the Candella Vidyādhara with this prince (*MASI*, No. 23, p. 14.). But see *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 689-90; also *ibid*, *infra*, p. 771.

v2.c29.s2.96

¹ *IA*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 215-16, line 7. *MASI*, No. 23, pp. 14-15, curiously enough, thinks that these ‘epithets applicable to Yuvarāja I’ have been ‘misapplied’ by the inscription ‘to his grandson Yuvarāja II.’

v2.c29.s2.97

² *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 235-237, V. 15; see *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the *Paramāras*.

v2.c29.s2.98

³ *EI*, Vol. XII, p. 211, V. 7.

v2.c29.s2.99

⁴ *PTOC*, Madras, 1924, Madras, 1925, pp. 303 ff.; *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 236 ff.; also *infra*, *DHNI* Vol. II, chapter on the *Paramāras*.

v2.c29.s2.100

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 431.

v2.c29.s2.101

The only record which can be referred to the time of Yuvarāja II is the *Bilhari stone-inscription of the Śaiva ascetics of the Mattamayūra sect*, who originally emigrated from Kadambaguhā.² The stone which bears it is said to have been found at Bilhari (the Balihrī of the maps, Lat. 23°48′ N., Long. 80°19′E.), described as one of the oldest towns in the Jubbulpore district of the C. P. The record consists of 33 lines, the last 3 lines of which are somewhat damaged. It opens with *Om namaḥ Śivāya* and then invokes Śiva under various names. Next it traces the genealogy of the Haihayas from Atri down to Yuvarāja II. It also contains a list of the various Śaiva ascetics who were honoured by or received gifts from these princes. The proper object of the inscription is to record the various gifts and endowments to the temple of Śiva raised by Nohlā, the queen of Yuvarāja I. Towards the end we are told that the inscription was set up in the monastery of Nohaleśvara by the holy preceptor Aghoraśiva, the disciple of the sage Hṛdayaśiva, who was a contemporary of Lakṣmaṇarāja. Verses 83-84 mention the names of Tripurī (mod. Tewar near Jubbulpore), Saubhāgyapura (mod. Sohagpur in Rewa state), Lavaṇanagara, Durlabhapura and Vimānapura (?), ‘the inhabitants of which would seem to have had to contribute towards the support of the temple.’ V. 85 informs us that this composition ‘would deserve praise (even from the wonder-struck poet (*vismita-kavi*) Rājaśekhara.’ The *praśasti* was partly composed by Śrīnivāsa and partly by Sajjana. It was written by Nāī, the son of *Karaṇika* Dhīra, and engraved by Nanna, son of the *Sūtradhāra* Saṁgama. The inscription is not dated; but Kielhorn ‘felt no hesitation in assigning it to about the end of the 10th or the beginning of the 11th century.’¹

v2.c29.s2.102

² See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 762-63 and 767.

v2.c29.s2.103

¹ Edited by Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 251-70. Just before the last verse (86) occurs ‘*Kāyastha śrī-Sīrukasya*.’ It is difficult ‘to construe the genitive with the preceding or the following verse.’ Kielhorn suggested that Sīruka may have been the writer of a portion of the eulogy; see *ibid*, fn. 50 on p. 270. V. 63 of this inscription seems to refer to a real incident in Yuvarāja II’s life, *viz.*, the slaughter of a fierce ‘tiger with his hand which wielded a knife.’ The record is now in the Nagpur Museum.

v2.c29.s2.104

Yuvarāja II was succeeded by his son Kokalla II. No record of this prince has so far been discovered and in the inscriptions of his successors he is generally praised in very vague terms. Thus the Jubbulpore and Khaira plates of Yaśaḥ-Karṇa call him ‘a lion-like prince, the progress of whose four-fold (*caturaṅga*) armies was checked (only) by their encountering the masses of waves of the four oceans.’² The only interesting thing recorded about him in these inscriptions is that he was placed on the throne by the chief ministers (*amātyamukhyāḥ*) of Yuvarāja II.³ This may indicate that he was not the heir-apparent of his father, or when his father died Kokalla was still a minor. The silence of the *praśastikāras* clearly shows that his reign did not form a brilliant chapter in the history of the Kalacuris. It is therefore likely that the *Kalacuri-candra* who ‘worshipped’ the great Candella king Vidyādhara ‘full of fear like a pupil’ is to be identified with this prince.⁴ Kokalladeva, like his predecessors, may have had also something to do with the Mattamayūra Śaiva ascetics. His name apparently occurs in the lower part (line 40) of a much damaged stone inscription of these ascetics, discovered at Gurgi (12 miles E. of Rewa).⁵

v2.c29.s2.105

² *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 3-4, V. 8; Vol. XII, p. 211, V. 8. This verse also occurs in the Kumbhi grant of Vijayasimha; see *JASB*, Vol. VIII, Part I, p. 489, V. 8.

v2.c29.s2.106

³ *Ibid*.

v2.c29.s2.107

⁴ *ASR*, Vol. IX, p. 105, and *EI*, Vol. I, p. 219. See also *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 689-90, and *ibid*, Vol. II, p. 768, fn. 7.

v2.c29.s2.108

⁵ *ASI, WC*, 1921, p. 51; *MASI*, No. 23, pp. 122 ff., line 40. The next line (41) mentions water-forts (*jala-durga*) in connection with the king of Gauḍa. At present it is difficult to know whether this king of Gauḍa had anything to do with Kokalla II. *MASI*, No. 23, p. 9, seem to be wrong in reading in this a reference to incidents of the reign of Yuvarāja I.

v2.c29.s2.109

Kokalla II was succeeded by his son Gāṅgeya. The only inscription of this prince so far known, is the *Piawan rock-inscription*. Piawan is a small valley, 25 miles to the N.N.E. of Rewa. At the western end of the valley, below a waterfall formed by a small stream, there is a rock formed into an *Argha* for the reception of a *liṅga*. The inscription is engraved on this rock. It consists of 6 lines and begins with the name of the king: *Śrīmad-Gāṅgeyadeva Mahārājādhirāja Parameśvara... Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara*. The record is damaged, but it contains the date (K.) *Saṁvat* 789 (A.D. 1038), and ends with *Śrī-Ḍhāhala-m-iti*. It was certainly a Śaiva record, for it contains the word *Maheśvara*.¹

v2.c29.s2.110

¹ Edited by Cunningham, *ASR*, Vol. XXI, pp. 112-13, and plate XXVIII. In his list of northern inscriptions Kielhorn gives the date with a sign of interrogation; see *EI*, Vol. V, *Appendix*, p. 58, No. 406. *Ḍhāhala* is possibly another variation of the name spelt as *Ḍabhālā* (*GI*, p. 114), *Ḍahālā*, *Ḍāhala*, *Ḍāhālā*, *Ḍahāla*, *Ḍahalā*, etc. In Kanarese sometimes *Ḍahale*.

v2.c29.s2.111.1

This inscription shows that Gāṅgeya had already succeeded his father as king of Ḍāhala before 1038 A.D., and that at that date his dominions had extended in the north to within 50 miles from Allahabad. An earlier date of his reign is supplied by the *Kitābul-Hind* of Bīrūnī, composed about 1030 A.D.,² which mentions *Dahāla* with its capital *Tīaurī* as one of the countries of India. At the time of the composition of this work the ruler of that country was *Gangeya*, no doubt the Gāṅgeyadeva of the Piawan rock-inscription. In the records of his successors Gāṅgeya is given credit for extensive conquests. Thus the Goharwa plates of Lakṣmī-Karṇa tell us that Gāṅgeya imprisoned the king of Kīra and defeated the rulers of Aṅga, Kuntala, and Utkala.³ The Khairha and the Jubbulpore grants of Yaśaḥ-Karṇa inform us that he became famous under the name Vikramāditya.⁴ The same two grants in a rather obscure verse seem to refer to Gāṅgeya's victory over the king of Kuntala.

v2.c29.s2.111.2

It has been translated as follows: "The crest-jewel of crowned heads, he became famous under the name Vikramāditya, wishing to run away from whom with dishevelled hair (the king of Kuntala) who was deprived of his country came to possess it again."¹ According to Hiralal, 'the eulogist evidently seems to convey that Gāṅgeyadeva was so noble that he restored the Kuntala country to its king who was defeated and was running away with dishevelled hair?'² A Candella inscription from Mahoba tells us that 'when Gāṅgeyadeva who had conquered the world (*jita-viśva*) perceived before him (this) terrible one (Vijayapāla)... the lotus of his heart closed the knot of pride in battle.'³ It is difficult to separate *praśasti* from facts in these claims. But the fact that he is given the credit of having conquered the world in an enemy's record is highly significant. I have already indicated elsewhere that the reign of Vijayapāla probably represented a rather inglorious period of Candella history.⁴ The Piawan rock-inscription, as well as the statement in the Kalacuri records that Gāṅgeya took up his residence at the feet of the holy fig-tree at Prayāga,⁵ shows the extension of his power up to the Ganges in the north. It suggests also the possibility that the whole of the Baghelkhund Agency had passed into his possession.

v2.c29.s2.111.3

Our inference is further supported by the statement of Baihaqi, who tells us that when Aḥmad Niyāl-tigīn, the general of the Yamīnī king Mas'ūd I (*c.* 1030-40 A.D.), invaded 'Banāras,' (*c.* 1034 A.D.) that city 'belonged to the territory of Gang' (واليت گنگ). It is possible that this *Gang* is to be identified with the Kalacuri king Gāṅgeya.⁶ At this time the Gurjara-Pratīhāras had practically disappeared as an effective power in the Ganges-Jumna valley. The death of Vidyādhara had also probably caused a decline of Candella influence in the *Doab*. Under the circumstances it was not impossible for a daring ruler to advance from his base at Allahabad up the Jumna valley into Kangra, and capture a petty Kīra prince ruling in that area. In the east the Aṅga king at this time was probably the Pāla ruler Mahīpāla I; and an attempt to advance down the Ganges valley from Allahabad may have brought Gāṅgeya into conflict with him also. This would receive confirmation from the colophon of a Nepal MS. of the *Rāmāyaṇa* if we could accept the identification of the *Gauḍadhvaja* Gāṅgeyadeva mentioned in it with the Tripurī ruler of that name. The colophon runs as follows: *Saṁvat* 1076 (A.D.

v2.c29.s2.111.4

1019) *Āṣāḍha vadi* 4, *Mahārājādhirāja puṇyāvaloka Somavaṁśodbhava Gauḍa-dhvaja Śrīmad-Gāṅgeyadeva-bhujyamāna-Tīrabhuktau Kalyāṇa-vijaya-rājye*.¹ Similarly it is not impossible that he may have attacked the rulers of Orissa from some base in the Bilaspur district by following the downward course of the Mahanadi.² In his hostility to the kings of the Kanarese districts (Kuntala) he was carrying on the policy laid down by his predecessor Yuvarāja II. The defeated Kuntala king was most probably Vikramāditya V Tribhuvanamalla (*c.* 1009-1011 A.D.), the grandson of Taila II. The only recorded instance of the defeat of Gāṅgeyadeva is probably found in the statement of the *Pārijātamañjarī* of Madana which tells us that (the Paramāra king) Bhoja (*c.* 1010-55 A.D.) "had his desires speedily fulfilled for a long time at the festive defeat of Gāṅgeya" (*Gāṅgeya-bhaṅg-otsava*).³ Hultzsch rightly identified this prince with the Tripurī Kalacuri Gāṅgeya.

v2.c29.s2.112

² Trans. by Sachau, Trübner, Vol. I, p. 202.

v2.c29.s2.113

³ *EI*, Vol. XI, p. 143, V. 17.

v2.c29.s2.114

⁴ *Ibid*, Vol. II, p. 3, V. 11; Vol. XII, p. 211, V. 11. In *ASI*, 1915-16, Part I, p. 23 fn., Sir John Marshall seems to take this Vikramāditya as Vikramāditya V (1009-11 A.D.), the name of the Kuntala king defeated by Gāṅgeya.

v2.c29.s2.115

¹ *EI*, Vol. XII. pp. 205 ff., V. 11; *ibid*, Vol. II, pp. 3-4, V. 11.

v2.c29.s2.116

² *Ibid*, Vol. XII, p. 215, fn. 2. See also *ABOI*, 1927-28, p. 291.

v2.c29.s2.117

³ *Ibid*, Vol. I, pp. 219 and 222, Vs. 22-24.

v2.c29.s2.118

⁴ See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 691 and 698.

v2.c29.s2.119

⁵ *EI*, Vol. II, p. 4, V. 12; Vol. XII, p. 211. V. 12; *JASB*, Vol. VIII, Part I, p. 489, V. 11.

v2.c29.s2.120

⁶ *Ta'rīkh-i-Baihaqī*, Ed. by Morley, 1862 (*Bibliotheca Indica*), p. 497. Trans. of extracts in *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 123; *HI*, Vol. III, pp. 29-30.

v2.c29.s2.121

¹ *JBAS*, Vol. LXXII, 1903, Part I, p. 18; see also R. P. Chanda, *Gauḍa-rāja-mālā*, p. 41, fn. R. D. Banerji, *Bāṅgālar Itihās* (second Ed.), Vol. I, p. 252; Sylvain Lévi, *Le Népal*, Vol. 2, p. 202, fn. 1; also *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 317.

v2.c29.s2.122

² See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 406.

v2.c29.s2.123

³ *EI*, Vol. VIII, pp. 98 & 101, line 2, V. 3; *DHNI*, Vol. II, *infra*, chapter on the *Paramāras*.

v2.c29.s2.124

The success of Gāṅgeya as a ruler is probably better illustrated by the evidence of his coins. He was the first, and, so far as our present knowledge goes, also the last, in his dynasty to strike his own coins. Their design is very simple. The obverse is occupied by the legend containing the king's name, while the reverse shows the limbate figure of *Lakṣmī* seated cross-legged. His coins in gold, silver, and copper form, in the opinion of Cunningham, 'a perfect monetary system,' which 'must have been very useful and convenient.'¹ The only record of the building activity of Gāṅgeya is probably contained in the Bheraghat inscription of Alhaṇadevī, which tells us that he 'made the earth, though resting below, rise beyond the heavens up to the abode of the gods by raising (on it) a *Meru* without equal.'² According to the *Bṛhat-Saṁhitā* Meru denotes a particular kind of temple (hexagonal, with twelve stories, variegated windows, and four entrances).³ It is difficult to determine whether this was dedicated to a Śaiva or a Vaiṣṇava deity. It was probably a Śaiva temple, for there is some evidence to show that Gāṅgeya was a devotee of Śiva. His only inscription, that of Piawan which mentions the name of *Maheśvara* seems to have been a Śaiva record. But what appears to be conclusive evidence on the point is the statement of his son's Benares grant, that the latter meditated on the feet of *Parama-bhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara-Śrī-Vāmadeva*.⁴ From A.D. 1042, the date of this record, onwards several successors of Lakṣmī Karṇa also refer to themselves in their records as meditating on the feet of Vāmadeva.⁵ The custom was later on adopted from the Kalacuris by some of the later Candellas of Jejāka-bhukti.⁶ As the name of Vāmadeva does not occur in the genealogical lists of either the Kalacuris or the Candellas, the question of the identification of Vāmadeva appeared to present an insoluble problem.¹ Vāmadeva is of course a well-known name of Śiva; but as he is given the epithets *Pb.-M.-P.* and in some even designated *Parama māheśvara* it is unlikely that Śiva was meant by this name. From the epithets used, there is no doubt that in every case the predecessor of the reigning prince is meant by the name of Vāmadeva. The solution of the difficulty may perhaps be found in the suggestion of Dr. Barnett that these princes who are called Vāmadeva, were perhaps so noted for their devotion to that god that in the reign of their successors they were considered to have become a part of that god himself. The only instance of such deification of kings hitherto recorded in Indian history is provided by an inscription from Kurgod, a village in the Bellary district of the Madras Presidency. In this record the Sinda *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* Rācamalla I, the grandfather of Rācamalla II, a feudatory of the Cālukya Someśvara IV of Kalyani (*c.* 1183-89 A.D) is said to have reappeared after his death in the form of a *liṅga*. The inscription states that

First 129 of 277 passages. Read on

Linked texts (27)