Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c31.s6: VI. The Chandēls of Jejākabhukti and the Kalachuris of Chedi

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c31.s6

Language
English

VI. The Chandēls of Jejākabhukti and the Kalachuris of Chedi

c31.s6.2

The ancient name of the province between the Jumna and Narmadā, now known as Bundelkhand, and partly included in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, was Jejākabhukti.² The extensive region, farther to the south, which is now under the administration of the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces, nearly corresponds with the old kingdom of Chedi. In the mediaeval history of these countries two dynasties—the Chandēls of Jejākabhukti and the Kalachuris of Chedi—which occasionally were connected by marriage, and constantly were in contact one with the other, whether as friends or enemies, are conspicuous. From the beginning of the eleventh century the Chedi country was divided into two kingdoms, Western Chedi, or Dāhāla, with its capital at Tripura, near Jabalpur, and Eastern Chedi, or Mahākosala, with its capital at Ratanpur.

c31.s6.3

² i. e. the province of Jejāka; the name Jejāka or Jejā occurs in the inscriptions (*Ep. Ind.*, i, 121). Compare Tīrabhukti, Tirhūt. The name of the ruling clan is Chandēl in Hindī, Chandella in Sanskrit. It is better to use the Hindī form.

c31.s6.4

The Chandēls, like several other dynasties, first come into notice early in the ninth century, when Nannuka Chandēl, about A. D. 831, overthrew a Parihār chieftain, and became lord of the southern parts of Jejākabhukti. The Parihārs of Bundelkhand, like their brethren of Bhinmāl, must have belonged to the Gurjara or Gūjar group of tribes which had entered India in the sixth century. The Parihār capital had been at Mau-Sahaniya, between Nowgong (Naugāon) and Chhatarpur.¹ The predecessors of the Parihārs were Gaharwār Rājas, members of the clan which afterwards gave Kanauj the line of kings commonly miscalled Rāthōrs.

c31.s6.5

¹ *J. A. S. B.*, 1881, part i, p. 6.

c31.s6.6

The Chandēl princes were great builders, and beautified their chief towns, Mahoba, Kālanjar, and Khajurāho, with many magnificent temples and lovely lakes, formed by throwing massive dams across the openings between the hills. In this practice of building embankments and constructing lakes the Chandēls were imitators of the Gaharwārs, who are credited with the formation of some of the most charming lakes in Bundelkhand.

c31.s6.7

The Chandēls, who appear to have been Hinduized Gonds, closely connected with another autochthonous tribe, the Bhars, first acquired a petty principality near Chhatarpur, and gradually advanced northwards until the Jumna became the frontier between their dominions and those of Kanauj. The earlier Rājas may have been subject to the suzerainty of Bhoja and Mahendrapāla, the powerful kings of Panchāla, but in the first half of the tenth century the Chandēls certainly had become independent. Harsha Chandēl, aided perhaps by other allies, helped Mahīpāla to recover the throne of Kanauj from which he had been driven by Indra III Rāshtrakūta in A. D. 916. Harsha's son and successor, Yasovarman, whose power had been greatly enhanced by the occupation of the fortress of Kālanjar, was strong enough to compel Mahīpāla's successor, Devapāla, to surrender a valuable image of Vishnu, which the Chandēl king wanted for a temple built by him at Khajurāho.

c31.s6.8

King Dhanga, son of Yasovarman (A. D. 950–99), who lived to an age of more than a hundred years, was the most notable of his family. Some of the grandest temples at Khajurāho are due to his munificence, and he took an active part in the politics of his time. In A. D. 989 or 990 he joined the league formed by Jaipāl, king of the Panjāb, to resist Sabuktigīn, and shared with the Rājas of Ajmēr and Kanauj in the disastrous defeat which the allies suffered between Bannū and Ghaznī, in or near the Kurram (Kurmah) valley.¹

c31.s6.9

¹ Raverty, *Notes on Afghānistan*, p. 320.

c31.s6.10

When Mahmud of Ghaznī threatened to overrun India, Dhanga's son Ganda (999–1025) joined the new confederacy of Hindu princes organized by Ānand Pāl, son of Jaipāl, king of the Panjāb, in 1008–9 (A. H. 399), which also failed to stay the hand of the invader. Ten years later, as already narrated, Ganda's son attacked Kanauj and killed the Rāja, Rājyapāla, who had made terms with the Muhammadans; but early in 1023 (A. H. 413) was himself compelled to surrender the strong fortress of Kālanjar to Mahmūd,² who, however, did not retain it or any of his conquests in the interior of India beyond the Panjāb.

c31.s6.11

² *Tabakāt-i-Nāsirī* in Elliot, ii, 467, where A. D. 1021 is wrongly stated to be the equivalent of A. H. 413.

c31.s6.12

Gāngēyadeva Kalachuri of Chedi (*circa* 1015–40), the contemporary of Ganda and his successors, was an able and ambitious prince, who aimed at attaining the position of paramount power in Upper India, and succeeded to a considerable extent. In 1019 his suzerainty was recognized in distant Tirhūt.³ His projects of aggrandizement were taken up and proceeded with by his son Karnadeva (*circa* 1040–70), who joined Bhīma, king of Gujarāt, in crushing Bhoja, the learned king of Mālwā, about A. D. 1060. He had attacked the Pāla king of Magadha at an earlier date, about A. D. 1035.

c31.s6.13

³ Bendall, ‘Hist. of Nepāl’ (*J. A. S. B.*, 1903, part i, p. 18 of reprint). Sylvain Lēvi rejects Bendall's interpretation (*Le Népal*, ii, 202, note), but without sufficient reason. See R. D. Banerji in ‘The Palas of Bengal’ (*Memoirs A. S. B.*, 1915).

c31.s6.14

But some years later Karnadeva was taught the lesson of the mutability of fortune by suffering defeats inflicted by several hostile kings, and notably one at the hands of Kīrtivarman Chandēl (1049–1100), who widely extended the dominion of his house. The earliest extant specimens of the Chandēl coinage were struck by this king in imitation of the issues of Gāngēyadeva of Chedi. Kīrtivarman is also memorable in literary history as the patron of the curious allegorical play entitled the *Prabodha-chandrodaya*, or 'Rise of the Moon of Intellect', which was performed at his court in or about A. D. 1065, and gives in dramatic form a clever exposition of the Vedānta system of philosophy.¹

c31.s6.15

¹ A full abstract of the play is given by Sylvain Lévi (*Théâtre Indien*, pp. 229–35). See plate of coins, fig. 13.

c31.s6.16

The last Chandēl king to play any considerable part upon the stage of history was Paramardi, or Parmāl (1165–1203), whose reign is memorable for his defeat in 1182 by Prithivīrājā Chauhān, and for the capture of Kālanjar in 1203 (A. H. 599) by Kutb-ud-dīn Ībak.² The Chauhān and Chandēl war occupies a large space in the popular Hindī epic, the *Chand-Rāisā*, which is familiar to the people of Upper India.

c31.s6.17

² There is a variant reading A. H. 597 (A. D. 1200–1201) in the text of the *Tāj-ul-Maāsir* (Raverty, transl. *Tabakāt*, App. D).

c31.s6.18

The account of the death of Parmāl and the capture of Kālanjar, as told by the contemporary Muhammadan historian, may be quoted as a good illustration of the process by which the Hindu kingdoms passed under the rule of their new Muslim masters:—

c31.s6.19

‘“The accursed Parmār,” the Rai of Kālanjar, fled into the fort after a desperate resistance in the field, and afterwards surrendered himself, and placed “the collar of subjection” round his neck; and, on his promise of allegiance, was admitted to the same favours as his ancestor had experienced from Mahmūd Sabuktigīn, and engaged to make a payment of tribute and elephants, but he died a natural death before he could execute any of his engagements. His Dīwān, or Mahtea, by name Aj Deo, was not disposed to surrender so easily as his master, and gave his enemies much trouble, until he was compelled to capitulate in consequence of severe drought having dried up all the reservoirs of water in the forts. “On Monday, the 20th of Rajab, the garrison, in an extreme state of weakness and distraction, came out of the fort, and by compulsion left their native place empty; ... and the fort of Kālanjar, which was celebrated throughout the world for being as strong as the wall of Alexander,” was taken. “The temples were converted into mosques and abodes of goodness, and the ejaculations of the bead-counters and the voices of the summoners to prayer ascended to the

c31.s6.20

highest heaven, and the very name of idolatry was annihilated. . . . Fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus." Elephants and cattle, and countless arms also, became the spoil of the victors.

c31.s6.21

‘The reins of victory were then directed towards Mahobā, and the government of Kālanjar was conferred on Hazabbar-ud-dīn Hasan Arnal. When Kutb-ud-dīn was satisfied with all the arrangements made in that quarter, he went towards Badāūn, “which is one of the mothers of cities, and one of the chiefest of the country of Hind.”’¹

c31.s6.22

¹ *Tāj-ul-Maāsir*, as abstracted by Elliot, *Hist. of India*, vol. ii, p. 231; Raverty, transl. *Tabakāt*, p. 523. The learned translator, usually so accurate, has made an unlucky slip in this passage by rendering the personal name Parmār as ‘of the Pramārah race’. Kālanjar is in the Bānda District, N. lat. 25° 1′, E. long. 80° 29′; Mahobā is in the Hamīrpur District, N. lat. 25° 18′, E. long. 79° 53′.

c31.s6.23

Chandēl Rājas lingered on in Bundelkhand as purely local chiefs until the sixteenth century, but their affairs are of no general interest.² The Chandēl clan was scattered, and its most notable modern representative is the Rāja of Gidhaur, near Mungir (Monghyr) in Bengal.

c31.s6.24

² The subject is exhaustively treated (with a bibliography), in my monograph entitled ‘The History and Coinage of the Chandel (Chandella) Dynasty of Bundelkhand (Jejākabhukti), from A. D. 831 to 1203’ (*Ind. Ant.*, 1908, pp. 114–48). One inscription of Paramardi has been discovered since the publication of that essay (*Ep. Ind.*, x, 44).

c31.s6.25

The Kalachuri or Haihaya Rājas of Chedi are last mentioned in an inscription of the year A.D. 1181, and the manner of their disappearance is not exactly known; but there is reason to believe that they were supplanted by the Bāghēls of Rēwā. The Hayobans Rājpūts of the Baliyā district in the east of the United Provinces claim descent from the Rājas of Ratanpur in the Central Provinces, and probably are really an offshoot of the ancient Haihaya race. The later kings of Chedi used an era according to which the year 1 was equivalent to A.D. 248–9. This era, also called the Traikūtaka, originated in Western India, where its use can be traced back to the fifth century.³ The reason of its adoption by the kings of Chedi is not apparent.

c31.s6.26

³ For Kalachuri history, see Cunningham, *Reports*, vols. ix, x, xxi; and many inscriptions in *Ep. Ind.* For the era, see Fleet (*J. R. A. S.*, 1905, p. 566), and Kielhorn (*Ep. Ind.*, ix, 129). For the Hayobans Rājputs, see Crooke, *Ethnographical Handbook* (Allāhābād, 1898), p. 156; *Tribes and Castes of the North-West Provinces and Oudh*, vol. ii, p. 493. In connexion with the Rājas of Ratanpur see C. V. Wills, 'The territorial system of the Rājput kingdoms of mediaeval Chhattisgarh', in *J. and Proc. A. S. B.*, N. S., vol. xv, No. 5, pp. 198–262.

Linked texts (6)