Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c18: Chapter XII. The Gāhaḍavālas

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c18

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XII. The Gāhaḍavālas

Section A. Chaotic conditions

c18.s1.2

We have seen above that the successors of Trilocanapāla were mere nonentities shorn of all dignity and power, and under their weak rule the kingdom of Kanauj seems to have suffered much from the rapacity of a succession of invaders. The Moslems, who had now become a permanent feature of the political situation in the north, repeated their cruelties in the Doab, for we are told in the *Tārīkh-us-Subuktigin* of Baihaki that in the summer of 424 *Hijri* or 1033 A. D. Ahmad Nialtigin, the governor of the Panjab, led an expedition against Benares in order to further his schemes of independence from Ghazni by getting hold of the accumulated riches of its myriad temples¹. Marching down the Ganges he suddenly arrived in Benares, which was then in possession of ‘Gang’, and which no Moslem army is said to have reached before. The city was plundered of its gold, silver, perfumes and jewels from “morning to mid-day prayer,” and overrunning the intervening territories Nialtigin soon returned to Lahore by way of Indar-dar-bandi² (Indar-bedi) or Antarvedi, which appears from Kalhaṇa to signify the land between the Ganges and the Jumna with Gādhipur or Kānyakubja as its chief town.¹

c18.s1.3

¹ Elliot, *History of India*, Vol. II, pp. 123-24.

c18.s1.4

² *Ibid.*, p. 124.

c18.s1.5

¹ Stein's Rājatarangiṇī, Vol. I, Bk. IV, verses 132-133.

c18.s1.6

Another important item of information obtained from the testimony of the Moslem historian is that the eastern portions of the former kingdom of Kanauj were at this time under the domination of Gang, who must be identical with Gāṅgeyadeva Cedi, known to have been ruling in A. D. 1019,² 1030,³ 1037,⁴ and 1041.⁵ The latter's connection with the north may further be supported by the discovery of his coins on the site of Kanauj⁶—although this is a very weak argument—and also by the fact that according to the Jabalpur copperplate he "found salvation" i.e. died at Prayāga along with his hundred wives.⁷ Besides, Gāṅgeyadeva is called Vikramāditya,⁸ and is even styled as "conqueror of the universe" in a Candella inscription found at Mahoba,⁹ which doubtless indicates that he must have extended the bounds of the Cedi realm. His power was, however, eclipsed by the rise of Bhoja who, according to the Kalvan plates,¹⁰ Udepur inscription,¹¹ and the Pārijāta-mañjarī,¹² defeated Gāṅgeya. The Paramāra ruler then carried his arms to distant regions, and in the Udepur praśasti he even claims to have "possessed the earth upto the Kailāśa mountains."¹³ This may not be true literally, but that it contains some grains of historical information is clear from the following verse of the Basahi plate :

c18.s1.7

² J. A. S. B., 1903, p. 18.

c18.s1.8

³ Sachau, Alberuni's India, Vol. I, p. 202.

c18.s1.9

⁴ See Kielhorn's list, Ep. Ind., V, No. 406; Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep., XXI, p. 113.

c18.s1.10

⁵ Ep. Ind., VIII, p. 146.

c18.s1.11

⁶ Ind. Ant., XIV, p. 99.

c18.s1.12

⁷ Ep. Ind., II, pp. 4, 6, verse 12.

c18.s1.13

⁸ Ibid., p. 3.

c18.s1.14

⁹ Ibid., I, pp. 219, 222, line 14

c18.s1.15

¹⁰ Ibid., XIX, pp. 71, 74.

c18.s1.16

¹¹ Ibid., I, pp. 235, 239, v. 19.

c18.s1.17

¹² Ibid., VIII, pp. 98, 101.

c18.s1.18

¹³ Ep. Ind., I, pp. 237-38.

c18.s1.19

“Yāte Śrī-Bhoja-bhūpe vivu (bu) dha-vara vadhū-
netra sīmātithitvaṁ,
Śrī-Karṇṇe kīrtti-śeṣaṁ gatavati ca nṛipe kṣmāt-
yaye jāyamāne.
Bharttāraṁ yaṁ dharitrī tri-diva-vibhu-nibhaṁ
prīti-yogād upetā,
Trātā viśvāsa-pūrvaṁ samabhavad iha sa kṣmā-
-patis’ Candradevaḥ,”

c18.s1.20

i.e. When king Bhoja became a guest of the eyes of the celestial damsels, and when Karṇa existed only in renown and the earth was sorely troubled, the husband whom she (earth) chose from love and took with confidence as the protector was Candradeva.¹

c18.s1.21

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XIV, p. 103, line 3. ² See also *H. M. H. I.*, Vol. III, p. 166. ³ See *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, V (1929), pp. 89-90. ⁴ See II, 72 (ed. Jinavijaya Muni, p. 31).

c18.s1.22

The Bhoja mentioned in the above passage is to be identified with Bhoja Paramāra (*circa* 1000-1050 A. D.)², although he has sometimes been equated with Bhoja Pratihāra without sufficient justification³, as the latter had died in *circa* 885 A. D., and the context also does not suggest that the reference is to a king who lived about two centuries earlier. Now, it is important to note that Bhoja’s name occurs in an inscription of the Gāhaḍavāla dynasty, and this would not have much point if he had not made some incursions in the north and for a time established his hegemony over Kanauj. Support for this view may further be found in Merutuṅga’s *Prabandhacintāmaṇi*,⁴ which states that when Bhoja went out for conquests “the king of Kānyakubja is here bent double”.

c18.s1.23

Next, Gāṅgeyadeva’s son, Karṇa, who ruled from *circa* 1041 to 1072 A. D., aggrandised himself in northern India. He was a great monarch, and he even defeated Bhoja with the help of Bhīma of Gujarat (1022-1064 A. D.). Indeed, the Kalacuri monarch’s military achievements were of such a high order as have won for him the proud epithet of “Hindu Napolean.”¹ According to the Jabalpur copper plate he erected a lofty temple at Benares called Karṇa’s Meru,² and in the Karanbel inscription of Jayasiṃhadeva we are informed of the progress of his arms as far north-west as the Kīra country or the Kangra valley.³ This shows that Karṇa must have made some depredations in the Kanauj territory and asserted his influence there, and it is no doubt significant that the Basahi plate mentions him along with Bhoja in connection with the “earth’s distress” before the rise of the Gāhaḍavālas. But Karṇa’s power was not long after shattered by Kirtivarman Caṇḍella and the Cālukya Someśvara I Āhavamalla (*circa* 1042-1068 A. D.), while there are even reasons for believing that the latter also turned his attention towards Kanauj, since the Yewur tablet tells us that afraid of his might “the king of Kānyakubja, who was uncontrolled from the beginning, quickly experiences an abode among the caves.”⁴ When the “earth” was thus badly disturbed by political upheavals and destructive raids, a bold adventurer of the Gāhaḍavāla sept named Candradeva arose, and, as the dynastic inscriptions say, by his “noble prowess” put an end to “all distress of the people”.⁵

c18.s1.24

¹ J. B. O. R. S., IX, p. 300.

c18.s1.25

² Ep. Ind., II, pp. 4, 6, verse 13.

c18.s1.26

³ Ind. Ant., XVIII, p. 217, line 11.

c18.s1.27

⁴ Ibid., VIII, p. 19.

c18.s1.28

⁵ Ibid., XVIII, pp. 16, 18, line 4. Cf. “Yenodāratara pratāpa śamitāśeṣa prajopadrava.”

c18.s1.29

*Meagre sources*

c18.s1.30

The materials regarding the Gāhaḍavālas are even more scanty than those for preceding dynasties. The inscriptions of other contemporary families are almost totally silent about them, nor are they alluded to in the whole range of literature except in some Moslem and Sanskrit works and the unauthentic *Pṛthvīrāja-Rāso*. A large number of copper plates issued by these kings have no doubt been discovered,¹ but, as we shall see below, they do not furnish much historical information.

c18.s1.31

¹ See Appendix.

c18.s1.32

*Who were the Gāhaḍavālas?*

c18.s1.33

The Gāhaḍavālas emerge into the light of history so suddenly that it is difficult to clear away the obscurity hanging over their origin. None of their numerous charters connects them with any of the well-known lines of the Sun and the Moon,² although it is worthy of note that they expressly mention the name of the family or clan and call them Kṣatriyas.³ Their modern representatives are the Gaharwars of the United Provinces, and the family bards of the head of the sept—the Rājā of Kantit in the Mirzapur district—narrate a fanciful legend to explain this designation.⁴ We are told that in the line of Yayāti’s youngest son, in whose favour the father had abdicated, there was born after many generations one named Devadāsa, who ruled over the Benares region. He incurred the wrath of the malignant deity Sani or Saturn by his virtuous deeds, so much so that the deity tried to mislead him. But the king resisted all evil influences, thus gaining the title “Grahavara” or ‘Overcomer of the Planet,” which afterwards became corrupted into Gaharwar or Gāhaḍavāla.¹ It is significant that this tradition traces the Gāhaḍavālas back to an obscure descendant of Yayāti, and refrains from linking them up with any hero of popular mythology. Does it, therefore, hint that the Gāhaḍavālas were originally an unimportant autochthonous tribe, who came into prominence as Kṣatriyas only after seizing political power and championing the cause of Brahmanism? The Paurāṇik texts, at any rate, refer to a people called “Gahvara or Girigahvara”, who are described as dwellers in jungles and caves,² and since “Gahvara” might conceivably correspond in meaning to the Prakrit “Gāhaḍa” (both words being derived from the same root), it may indeed be tempting to conjecture that the term “Gāhaḍavāla” is equivalent to “Gahvaravāsī.” Pandit Bisheswar Nath Reu has, however, another theory to offer. He thinks that Gāhaḍavāla is used in the sense of “balavān” and that they were so called because they conquered the most important kingdom of the times.³ Mr. C. V. Vaidya, on the other hand, derives it, like Agarwāla, from some place Gāhaḍa in the Deccan.⁴

c18.s1.34

² The splendour of these monarchs is, of course, poetically likened to both luminaries (see *Ind. Ant.*, XV, pp. 7-8, 10; XVIII, pp. 11, 12-13, 18, etc.).

c18.s1.35

³ Cf. “Jagati Gahaḍavāle Kṣatravamśe prasiddhe” (*Ep. Ind.*, IX, pp. 324, 327, verse 14). Also see *Ind. Ant.*, XIV, p. 103, line 2. These references indicate that the forms Gahaḍavāla and Gāhaḍavāla were used indiscriminately.

c18.s1.36

⁴ Crooke’s *Tribes and Castes of N. W. P. and Oudh.*, Vol. II, pp. 371-72; *Mirzapur Gazetteer*, p. 204.

c18.s1.37

¹ The variants are explicable if we remember that in Sanskrit ra, la, and ḍa are often interchangeable. See Cawnpore Settlement Report, p. 22, for another fanciful derivation.

c18.s1.38

² Wilson’s Viṣṇu Purāṇa, p. 196.

c18.s1.39

³ History of India (Hindi), Vol. III, p. 462.

c18.s1.40

⁴ H. M. H. I., Vol. III, p. 217 f. Dr. R. C. Majumdar throws out a suggestion that the Gāhaḍavālas were perhaps of Karṇāṭaka origin like the Senas of Bengal and Nānyadeva of Mithila. He traces the name Gāhaḍavāla to Gawarmād mentioned in a Kanarese inscription of Śaka 994 (See Ind. Hist. Quart., VII (1931), p. 634, note 1).

c18.s1.41

But some scholars¹ affirm that the Gāhaḍavālas were a branch of the famous Rāṣṭrakūṭas or Rathors, and their arguments may be thus summed up :

c18.s1.42

¹ Pt. Ramkaran, *Sir Āśutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volume*, Orientalia, Part II, pp. 259-61; Pt. B. N. Reu, *J. R. A. S.*, January, 1930, pp. 111-21; C. V. Vaidya, *H. M. H. I.*, Vol. III, pp. 217-221, etc.

c18.s1.43

Legend avers that the Rathors of Marwar are descended from one Sīhāji, the son or grandson or grandnephew of Jayacandra, who escaped the wreck of the latter’s kingdom. It is contended that the descendants of Sīhāji would not be called Rathors unless we assume the inclusion of the Gāhaḍavālas within the larger body of the Rathors. Secondly, support for this view is found in the list of 36 Rajput clans as mentioned in Cand Bardāi’s *Prithvīrāja Rāso*, which omits to give a separate place to the Gāhaḍavālas. Thirdly, it is generally believed that Jayacandra belonged to the Rathor stock, and the great Hindi bard also applies the epithets Kamadhaja and Rathor to him. Lastly, there are indications that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were settled in the United Provinces prior to the rise of the Gāhaḍavālas. A passage in the Surat grant of Trilocanapāla dated 1151 A. D. bears testimony to their earliest connexion with Kanauj, when it says: “O thou Caulukya, king of kings, marrying the princess of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in Kanyākubja, bless thou (the world) with offspring obtained from her”.² But even if the verse be differently interpreted, as has been done by Dr. Hoernle³, the evidence of the Badaun stone inscription of Lakhanapāla, in conjunction with that of the Saheṭ-Maheṭh record, has been taken to prove definitely that “princes born in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa lineage” were ruling over Kanauj about the third quarter of the 11th century A. D. Indeed, Pandits Rāmakaran and Bisheswar Nath Reu go so far as to assert that Candra of the former epigraph is identical with Gāhaḍavāla Candra, the conqueror of Kanauj according to the copper plates.¹

c18.s1.44

² *Ind. Ant.*, XII, pp. 201, 203, verse 6. Cf. “Kanyākubje Mahārāja Rāṣṭrakūṭasya kanyakām, Labdhvā sukhāya tasyāṁ tvaṁ Caulukyāpnuhi saṁtatim.”

c18.s1.45

³ *J. R. A. S.*, 1905, p. 10. Dr. Hoernle considers the verse as of no historical value.

c18.s1.46

¹ A. S. M. *Jubilee Volume*, Pt. II, p. 259; J. R. A. S., January, 1930, p. 116.

c18.s1.47

The theory doubtless has some apparent cogency, but it is far from conclusive, for the Gāhaḍavālas never call themselves Rathors (Rāṣṭrakūṭas) in any of their grants; and we also know that the two clans intermarry and they differ from one another in their *gotras*, being Kāśyapa and Gotama respectively. Secondly, the tradition of Sihāji is perhaps vitiated by an inscription at Bithu on a memorial tablet which gives for his death the Vikrama date 1330 or 1273 A. D. thereby making him rather removed in time from Jayacandra². Besides, the Hathaunḍi (Hastikuṇḍi) inscription, dated in the vikrama year 1053 = 997 A. D.,³ testifies to the fact that Rāṣṭrakūṭa princes ruled over tracts of Marwar long before the supposed migration of the Gāhaḍavālas from Kanauj. It appears probable that the legend was concocted only to establish some connection with a distinguished Kṣatriya family that was once the master of the principal kingdom of Northern India. Thirdly, Cand Bardāī’s omission of the Gāhaḍavālas in the traditional list of 36 clans is at best an *argumentum ex silentio*, although they are elsewhere mentioned by him in a way which shows that he was aware of their separate entity. In the *Ālhā-Prastāva*, for example, we read “Sajji Gaharwar Gohila aneka”, i.e., “there were many Gaharwars and Gohils arrayed”.¹ Lastly, the presence of Rāṣṭrakūṭa ruling families in Kanauj and adjacent regions during the latter half of the 11th century A. D. would hardly prove anything regarding their collateralness with the Gāhaḍavālas. And chronological considerations distinctly go against identifying the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Candra of the Badaun inscription with the Gāhaḍavāla Candra. As shown below, Madanapala, who represented the fifth generation from Candra, the founder of this Rāṣṭrakūṭa line, lived about the beginning of the 12th century, and so the latter must have flourished about the first quarter of the 11th century A. D.; i.e., at least half a century before the Gāhaḍavāla Candra.

c18.s1.48

² *Ind. Ant.*, XL, p. 181.

c18.s1.49

³ *Ep. Ind.*, X, pp. 17-24; *Imp. Gaz. of India*, VI, p. 247.

c18.s1.50

¹ Elliot’s *Races of N. W. P. and Oudh*, Vol. I, p. 122 and Note.

Candradeva

c18.s1.t1.1

According to the testimony of inscriptions, the Gāhaḍavāla dynasty was founded by one Yaśovigraha “after the lines of the protectors of the earth born in the solar race had gone to heaven”,² but it is not clear where he and his successor Mahicandra (also called Mahiala and Mahitala) ruled at first. In fact, the absence of royal titles in case of both has sometimes been taken to indicate that they were not even royal personages, although in the records the former is called “a noble (personage)……… (who) by his plentiful splendour (was) as it were the sun incarnate”,³ and the latter is represented as having “defeated the host of his enemies, (and) by entrusting to whose arm the whole burden of the earth, Śeṣa enjoyed permanent comfort.”¹ The family was thus brought into prominence by Mahītala or Mahīcandra, who appears to have been a chief with some military power. His son, Candradeva, was also an enterprising character, and he availed himself of the anarchy rampant in the Gangetic Doab, for we learn that he “by the valour of his arm acquired the matchless sovereignty over the glorious Kānyakubja or Gādhipura”.² None of the epigraphs mentions the name of the vanquished monarch, but a conjecture may be hazarded that it was probably Gopāla of the Badaun inscription, who, as shown elsewhere, was perhaps identical with the “Gādhipurādhipa” Gopāla of the Saheṭ-Maheṭh inscription. Whosoever he may be, Candradeva inflicted a crushing defeat upon him and his allies somewhere on the banks of the Jumnā, since we are told in the Sarnath inscription that “by the streams of the tears of the wives of the kings who could not resist him (Candradeva), the water of the Yamunā forsooth became darker”.³ This conquest, which is evidently referred to in the copper plates as his greatest exploit, raised Candradeva to imperial dignity—he being the first in the family to be honoured with the so-called imperial formula of Parama-Bhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja, and Parameśvara⁴—and inaugurated in Kanauj another era of peace and stable government until the kingdom received its death-blow from the victorious arms of Islam. We have unfortunately no definite data whereby to fix the date of this momentous event, but as it followed the inroads of Karṇa Cedi (died *circa* 1072 A. D.) and other invaders and the earliest known date of Candradeva is 1090 A. D.,¹ we may assume in round numbers that it took place between the years 1080 and 1085 A. D. Nor is our information regarding the extent of his suzerainty less obscure, for the only reference to it is contained in the proud claim that Candradeva was “the protector of the holy places of Kasi, Kuśika, Uttarakosala, and the city of Indra after he had obtained them”.² Kasi is beyond doubt the modern city of Benares, and Kuśika signifies Kanauj itself³, while Uttarakosala was the old denomination for the vicinity of Ayodhyā (Fyzabad district),⁴ Indrasthāna being perhaps Indraprastha or ancient Delhi.⁵ It will thus be seen that Candradeva’s jurisdiction comprised almost the whole length of the present United Provinces. The Candravati plates further describe him as having made his power felt by Narapati, Gajapati, Triśankupati, and Giripati⁶. The true import of these terms has not been determined so far. The first two, besides Aśvapati, appear generally as epithets of the kings of this period, e.g., they are used in the Bakerganj grant of Keśavasena,⁷ or the Goharwa plates of Karṇadeva.¹ Some scholars think that Narapati was the title borne by kings of Telingānā and Karṇāṭa and Gajapati by those of Orissa,² but it is not at all likely that these rulers ever paid allegiance to Candradeva. We should therefore seek for an explanation elsewhere, and perhaps it would not be unreasonable to suggest that these expressions denoted so many feudatories or classes of feudatories, who had accepted Candradeva as the paramount power in this Gangetic kingdom.³

c18.s1.t1.2

² *Ep. Ind.*, XIII, p. 218; IX, p. 304, etc., Cf. “Asīdaśītadyutivaṃśa - jāta - kṣmāpāla-mālāsu divam gatāsu”.

c18.s1.t1.3

³ *Ind. Ant.*, XV, p. 7, verse 2. Cf. “Sākṣāt vivasvān iva bhūridhāmnā nāmnā Yaśovigraha iti Udāraḥ”.

c18.s1.t1.4

¹ *Ibid.*, XVIII, pp. 15, 17. ² *Ibid.*, p.

c18.s1.t1.5

¹⁸ Cf. “Nija-bhujopārjita-Kānyakubjādhipatya Śrī-Candradevaḥ.” ³ *Ep. Ind.*, IX, pp. 324, 327, verse 14. Cf. “Yadsahananṛipā-ṇām kāminī-vāspa-vāhaiḥ Śitataramida-māsīd Yāmunām nūnamambhaḥ”. ⁴ *Ibid.*, XIV, pp. 193-94.

c18.s1.t1.6

¹ See the Candravati plates, *Ep. Ind.*, IX, pp. 302-05.

c18.s1.t1.7

² *Ind. Ant.*, XV, pp. 7, 8; XVIII, pp. 16, 18. Cf. “Tīrthāni Kāsi - Kuśikottara - Kośalendrasthānīyakāni paripālayatādhigamya.”

c18.s1.t1.8

³ See *Ante*, Introduction.

c18.s1.t1.9

⁴ See also Wilson’s *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*, p. 190, fn. 79.

c18.s1.t1.10

⁵ That there was a village (*mauzā*) of the name of Indarpat near Delhi about this time is also clear from the *Tāj-ul-Maāsir* (Elliot, *History of India*, Vol. II, p. 216). In some later inscriptions, however, Delhi is called Yoginīpura, e.g., Mangalana stone inscription (*Ind. Ant.*, 1912, pp. 85-88) and Batihagarh stone inscription (*Ep. Ind.*, XII, pp. 44-47).

c18.s1.t1.11

⁶ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 193, lines 11-12.

c18.s1.t1.12

⁷ *J. A. S. B.*, 1838, p. 49.

c18.s1.t1.13

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XI, pp. 141, 144.

c18.s1.t1.14

² *J. A. S. B.*, XLII, pt. I, (1873), p. 327, Note.

c18.s1.t1.15

³ But according to the *Si-yu-ki*, when there is no paramount monarch, the Southern, Western, Northern and Eastern parts of Jambūdvīpa are respectively supposed to be ruled over by four sovereigns called Gajapati, Chattrapati, Aśvapati and Narapati (Beal, I, p. 13 and Note).

c18.s1.t1.16

In the east, Candradeva seems to have taken part in repressing the aggressive activities of Vijayasena, who, according to the Deopara inscription, had attacked the king of Gauḍa, defeated and imprisoned Nānyadeva of Mithila; and whose fleet was once sailing “in its playful conquest of the western regions up the whole course of the Ganges”.⁴ The monarch, with whom Candradeva allied himself, must have been Madanapāla of the Pāla dynasty,⁵ and it is perhaps in allusion to this help that the Rāmacarita of Sandhyākara Nāndi speaks of him so eulogistically in the following verses:

c18.s1.t1.17

⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 309-10, 314.

c18.s1.t1.18

⁵ MM. H. P. Śāstrī, *Mem. As. Soc. Beng.*, III, No. I, p. 16; R. D. Banerji, *Ibid.*, V, p. 103.

c18.s1.t1.19

Simhisutavikrāntenārjunadhāmnā bhuvaḥ pradīpena,
Kamalāvikāśabheṣaja-bhiṣajā Candreṇa bandhunopetam,
Caṇḍicaraṇasaroj-prasāda-sampannavigraha-śrīkam,

c18.s1.t1.20

Na Khalu Madanaṁ saṅgeśamīśamagād jagadvijayalakṣmiḥ.”¹

c18.s1.t1.21

¹ *Ibid.*, III, p. 52, verses 20-21. Dr. R. G. Basak identifies this Candra not with Candradeva Gahaḍavāla, but with Candra of Aṅga, son of Suvarṇadeva and grandson of Mahana (*Ind. Hist. Quart.*, V (1929), p. 46).

c18.s1.t1.22

Besides, the Naihati grant of Ballālasena informs us that Vijayasena “outshone Sāhasāṅka by his deceitless prowess”.² Now, we know from Maheśvara’s *Viśvaprakāśa*³ that there was a sovereign of Gādhipura named Sāhasāṅka, in whose court the author’s grandfather, Śrīkṛṣṇa, lived as a physician. The date when the work was compiled is given as Śaka 1033 or 1111 A. D.,⁴ and since it is usual among native rulers to have old physicians, we may not unreasonably assume that Śrīkṛṣṇa lived upto a very advanced age, and that his patron was no other than Candradeva. Although it may seem fanciful, I venture to suggest that Candradeva asssumed the name or epithet Sāhasāṅka, compounded as it is of *Sāhasa* (valour) and *aṅka* (mark of distinction), in allusion to his proud boast that he “acquired the kingdom of Kānyakubja by the valour of his arm.” Thus if this identification be correct,⁵ we get an epigraphic corroboration that there was some conflict between the Gahaḍavāla king and Vijayasena.⁶

c18.s1.t1.23

² *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, pp. 159, 162, verse 7. Cf. “Nirvyājavikramatiraskṛta Sāhasāṅka”.

c18.s1.t1.24

³ *Viśvaprakāśa* (Caukhambā Sanskrit Series, Bombay, 1911), verses 5-6, and 10-12.

c18.s1.t1.25

⁴ Keith, *A History of Sanskrit Literature*, (1928), p. 414.

c18.s1.t1.26

⁵ Mr. R. D. Banerji, however, identifies this Sāhasāṅka with Prince Sālivāhana of the Chamba grant of his son Somavarmadeva (*Ep. Ind.*, XIV, pp. 157-58). But this identification seems doubtful, as that prince must have lived in the first quarter of the eleventh century A. D. (*Ind. Ant.*, XVII, p. 9).

c18.s1.t1.27

⁶ It is worth noting that the expression used does not indicate any defeat.

c18.s1.t1.28

Lastly, Candradeva is described in the copper plates as an ardent and philanthropic Brahmanist, who made numerous land-grants and *Tulādānas* to Brahmans¹ and divinities. The latter, which is a characteristic Indian ceremony, consists of gifts of gold and other articles equal in weight to that of one's own body. History preserves instances showing how this ceremony has persisted in India throughout the ages.²

c18.s1.t1.29

¹ In one case 500 Brahmans were the grantees (*Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 192).

c18.s1.t1.30

² See *Dānakhaṇḍa* of Hemādri for a full description. It is recorded in the *Tuzuk-i-Jahangir* that Jahangir also followed the same practice.

Madanapāla

c18.s1.t2.1

The Candravati plates³ furnish us with the Vikrama year 1156 or 1099 A. D. as the last date for Candradeva’s reign, and we learn from the Basahi plate of Mahārāja-putra Govindacandra⁴ that his father Madanapāla was on the throne in Vikrama *saṃvat* 1161 = 1104 A. D. Hence we may safely assume that Candradeva died and his son Madanapāla⁵ succeeded him sometime between the years 1100 and 1104 A. D. The Sarnath inscription of Kumāradevī describes the latter as “a crest-jewel among impetuous kings........ , the lord who brought the circle of the earth under one sceptre, the splendour of the fire of his valour being great and mighty, and who even lowered the glory of Maghavan by his glory”.⁶ Similarly, other charters bestow high praise on Madanapāla,⁷ but much of it is simply conventional and vague bombast, which is of no value to the historian. In fact, he does not even seem to have taken any active part in the state affairs, for except confirming the gift of the village of Ahuāma in the Dhanesaramaua Pattalā made by his father to the Brahman Vāmanaśvāmideva,¹ no grants by Madanapāla are known, and those that refer to his reign were executed on his behalf by the crown-prince (Mahārājaputra) Govindacandra and his two queens Rālha-Devī (Rālhaṇa-Devī) and Pṛthvī-Śrikā. Was this circumstance due to Madanapāla’s wars, which mostly kept him busy far away from the capital? Or, does it show that he was an invalid? If the latter alternative be true, he may have studied the science of medicine during his illness, and the *Madana-Vinoda-Nighaṇṭu* ascribed to a king Madana, lord of Kasi,² may be his compilation. It may, however, be added that no undue weight should be attached to this suggestion.

c18.s1.t2.2

³ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 192 f.

c18.s1.t2.3

⁴ *Ind. Ant.*, XIV, pp. 101-04.

c18.s1.t2.4

⁵ Sometimes called Madanadeva (*Ibid.*, XVIII, pp. 12, 14) or Madanacandra (*Ep. Ind.*, IX, pp. 324, 327, v. 15).

c18.s1.t2.5

⁶ *Ibid.*, IX, pp. 324, 327, verse 15.

c18.s1.t2.6

⁷ See e.g., *Ind. Ant.*, XVIII, pp. 16, 18.

c18.s1.t2.7

¹ *Ibid.*, XVIII, pp. 10-11, 13.

c18.s1.t2.8

² See verse 4, p. 1.

c18.s1.t2.9

Coins

c18.s1.t2.10

Some specimens of billon (copper) and base silver coins (containing on the obverse a horseman with the indistinct legend Madana or Madanapāladeva, or sometimes simply Mada or Śrī Ma, and on the reverse the figure of a recumbent humped bull with the legend Mādhava Śrī Sāmanta or Mādhava Śrī Sām, or sometimes Sāmanta or Mādha) have been discovered, and they have usually been attributed to Madanapāla of Kanauj.³ The point to be noted is that these coins confirm by their bull-emblem the testimony of inscriptions, which describe the Gāhaḍavāla kings as “Parama-māheśvara” or devotees of Śiva.

c18.s1.t2.11

³ See Rapson, *Indian Coins*, p. 31; Smith *Cat. Co. Ind. Mus.*, Calcutta, pp. 257, 260; Cunningham, *Mediæval Coins*, p. 87; Bidyā-vinod, *Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta*, Vol. I, (Non-Moslem-Series), p. 65.

Govindacandra

c18.s1.t3.1

Madanapāla was succeeded by his son Govindacandra¹ at some date between the years V. E. 1166= 1109 A.D., when the former is known to have been alive,² and 1114 A. D., when the latter first issued a charter in his own name as the ruling sovereign.³ His mother’s name was probably Rālhadevi or Rālhaṇadevī, who gave her consent to a grant made by him in 1105 A. D. during his father’s lifetime.⁴ Besides executing deeds, Govindacandra seems to have wielded substantial power in the state while he was only a “yuvarāja” or crown-prince. He defeated the invading bands of Moslems sometime before 1109 A. D., for the Rahan plate records that he “again and again by the play of his matchless fighting” compelled the Hammīra (i.e., Amir) to “lay aside his enmity.”⁵ The immunity from the Moslem danger that Govindacandra thus secured for the kingdom was apparently so effective that according to the Sarnath inscription of his queen Kumāradevī he gained fame as the incarnation of Hari “who had been commissioned by Hara in order to protect Bārāṇasī from the wicked Turuṣka warrior, as the only one who was able to protect the earth.”¹

c18.s1.t3.2

¹ Called Govindapāla in the Sarnath inscription (Ep. Ind., IX, pp. 324 327, v. 16).

c18.s1.t3.3

² Ind. Ant., XVIII, pp. 16, 17.

c18.s1.t3.4

³ Ep. Ind., IV, p. 102. Vincent Smith, however, fixes 1100 A. D. (Oxford History of India, 2nd ed., p. 195) or 1104 A. D. (Early Hist. of India., 4th ed., p. 400) as the earliest limit of Govindacandra’s reign. Evidently this misapprehension is due to a confusion of the grants that he made as crown-prince.

c18.s1.t3.5

⁴ Ep. Ind., II, pp. 359, 361.

c18.s1.t3.6

⁵ Ind. Ant., pp. 16, 18, line 9. ( Add XVIII. ) Cf. “Hammīraṃ nyasta-vairaṃ muhurasama-raṇa-krīḍayā yo vidhatte.”

c18.s1.t3.7

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, IX, pp. 324, 327, verse 16. Cf. “Bārānasīm bhuvana-rakṣaṇa dakṣa eko duṣṭāt Turuṣka- Subhaṭa-davitum Hareṇa. Ukto Hariḥ sa punaratra babhūva Tasmād Govindacandra iti prathitābhidhānaḥ.” ² *Tabaqāt-i-Nāsirī* (Raverty’s Eng. Trans.), Vol. I, p. 107. ³ Woollaston’s *English-Persian Dictionary*, p. 454. ⁴ Elliot, *History of India*, Vol. IV, p. 526. ⁵ *Dy. Hist. North. Ind.*, Vol. I, p. 514; see, however, Elliot, *History of India*, IV, p. 526 for a different interpretation. ⁶ Raverty, Eng. Trans., Vol. I, p. 107; see also Briggs, *Firishta*, Vol. I, p. 143. ⁷ Elliot, *History of India*, Vol. II, (*Tarīkh-i-Yamīnī*) p. 46.

c18.s1.t3.8

It is very likely that the inscriptions refer to the expedition reported in the *Dīwān* of Salman, which was sent by the Ghaznavide king Masud III (492 to 509 Hijri² or 1098 to 1115 A.D.)³ against Kanauj, “the capital of Hind......, the Kaāba of the Shamans and the Kibla of the infidels,” where “the treasures of Hind were collected just as all rivers flow into the sea.”⁴ At first its king Malhī or Malhīrā, which is perhaps a corrupted form of the name Madanacandra or Madanapāla, suffered serious reverses, for we are told that he was even “compelled to ransom his person by a large sum of money,”⁵ but it appears Govindacandra soon retrieved the situation and hurled back the Moslem advance. The *Tabaqāt-i-Nāsirī* further testifies that during the reign of Masud III, the Hajib Tughatigin “crossed the river Gang (Ganges?) in order to carry on holy war in Hindustan, and penetrated to a place where except Sultan Mahmud no one had reached so far with an army before”.⁶ Now, we know that Mahmud did not proceed further east than Kanauj or Asi;⁷ and we may therefore be sure from the date and the description given above that it was this inroad against which Govindacandra had to contend. In his fight with the Moslem raiders Govindacandra was probably assisted by the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Madanapāla in the capacity of a vassal, for the Badaun inscription informs us that "in consequence of his distinguished prowess there never was any talk of Hambīra's coming to the banks of the river of the gods."¹ Kielhorn has assigned this undated epigraph on palæographic grounds to the 12th century or more possibly to the 13th century A. D.,² but as Badaun was conquered by Qutb-ud-dīn Aibak in 1202 A. D. (Hijri 599),³ and conferred as a fief upon Altamash,⁴ its date must not be brought down later than the 12th century A. D. We also know that it was engraved in the reign of Lakhanapāla, whose great-grandfather Devapāla ruled after, and was the younger brother of Madanapāla. Hence the latter may be considered to have flourished about the beginning of the 12th century; and as he was obviously a minor prince, and the Gahaḍavāla suzerainty had extended to the confines of Indraprastha even during the time of Candradeva, Madanapāla must have helped the paramount power in its wars against the Moslems.

c18.s1.t3.9

¹ Ep. Ind., I, pp. 62, 64, line 4. Cf. "Yat pauruṣāt pravarataḥ surasindhu tīra Hambīra saṃgama-kathā na kadācid āsit."

c18.s1.t3.10

² Ibid., I, p. 61; Ibid., V, Appendix, Kielhorn's list, No. 605.

c18.s1.t3.11

³ Elliot, History of India, Vol. II, p. 232.

c18.s1.t3.12

⁴ Raverty, Tabaqāt-i Nāsiri, (Eng. Trans.), Vol. I, p. 530.

c18.s1.t3.13

The Rahan plate further describes Govindacandra as "terrific in cleaving the frontal globes of arrays of irresistible mighty large elephants from Gauḍa,"⁵ which shows that he must have made some encroachments in Magadha. This was probably due to the decadent state of the Pāla monarchy, whose power had been considerably weakened at this time by the aggressions of Vijayasena of the Sena dynasty. Availing himself of this favourable opportunity, evidently according to certain Michiavellian precepts of some Indian manuals on state-craft,¹ Govindacandra annexed portions of Magadha, where in the Vikrama *saṃvat* 1183 or 1126 A. D. he is definitely known to have made a grant of the village Padali, situated in the Maniyara (Maner) *pattalā* in the western part of the Patna district, to a Brahman named Gaṇeśvaraśarman.² At a later date, however, Govindacandra pushed his conquest further towards the east, for we learn from the Lar plates of 1202 V. E. or 1146 A. D. that when in residence at Mudgagiri (Monghyr) after bathing in the Ganges on the occasion of the Akṣaya-tritīyā festival he granted the village of Potacavada in the Paṇḍala *pattalā* to the Ṭhakkura Śrīdhara.³ This inscription, therefore, proves that Mudgagiri passed into the hands of the Gahaḍavālas, but we do not know for certain whether the Pālas maintained their independent existence in some safer corner of the kingdom or were reduced to subordination. At any rate, two rulers who must have belonged to this line seem to have come after Madanapāla. One of them, Palapāla, dedicated an image in the 35th year of his reign according to the Jayanagar inscription;⁴ and another Govindapāla is known from the Gadādhar Gaya inscription, which states that the Vikrama year 1232 was "Śrī-Govindapāladeva gatarājye caturdaśasaṃ- vatsare”.¹

c18.s1.t3.14

⁵ Ind. Ant., XVIII, pp. 16, 18, line 9.

c18.s1.t3.15

¹ Compare for example Kauṭilya's *Arthaśāstra* : "Whoever is superior in power shall wage war" (Bk. VII, ch. I, p. 293; see also Bk. VI, ch. 2, p. 290, etc.).

c18.s1.t3.16

² J. B. O. R. S., (1916), Vol. II, Pt. IV, pp. 441-47. Maner must have been an important place then, for Bakhtyar Khilji directed his operations against it before proceeding eastwards (Raverty, *Ṭabaqāt-i-Nāsirī*, Vol. I, p. 550 and note 6).

c18.s1.t3.17

³ *Ep. Ind.*, VII, pp. 98, 99.

c18.s1.t3.18

⁴ R. D. Banerji, J. B. O. R. S., December, 1928, pp. 490, 496; Cunningham, *Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep.*, Vol. III, plate XLV, No. 33,

c18.s1.t3.19

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 125; *J. B. O. R. S.*, December, 1928, p. 534.

c18.s1.t3.20

Next, a copper plate of Vikrama *samvat* 1177 or 1120 A. D. mentions that Govindacandra sanctioned the transfer of the village of Karanda and the *talla* of Karanda in the *pattalā* of Antarāla, which was originally granted by Yaśaḥkarṇa, from the possession of Bhaṭṭāraka Rudraśiva, a royal chaplain, into that of the Ṭhakkura Vasiṣṭha.² Unfortunately it is impossible to identify the localities mentioned, but the name of Yaśaḥkarṇa is enough to show that Govindacandra must have aggrandised himself at the cost of the Cedis. In the earlier stages of his rule, however, he was on quite friendly terms with them. This is evident from the Ratnapur inscription of Jājalladeva, who belonged to a line founded by one of the eighteen sons of Kokalla of Tripurī. It informs us that “on account of his prowess he (Jājalladeva) was like a friend honoured with fortune” by the king of Kānyakubja, who must be identified with Govindacandra, considering that the grant is dated in the Cedi year 866 or 1114 A. D.³

c18.s1.t3.21

² *J. A. S. B.*, XXXI, p. 124.

c18.s1.t3.22

³ *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 35, 38, verse 21.

c18.s1.t3.23

The *Rambhāmañjarī* of Nayacandra even testifies that Govindacandra achieved a victory against Daśārṇa on the day of his grandson Jayacandra’s birth⁴. According to the *Meghadūta* of Kālidāsa,⁵ Daśārṇa denoted eastern Malwa, of which Vidiśā or modern Bhilsa was the capital, but it is rather doubtful if this region actually submitted to the yoke of Kanauj.

c18.s1.t3.24

⁴ See Bom. ed. (1899), p. 4.

c18.s1.t3.25

⁵ Cf. “Teṣāṁ (Daśārṇānāṁ) prathita Vidiśā-lakṣaṇāṁ rājadhānīṁ,” Ed. Hultzsch (London, 1911) verse 24. See also R. G. Bhandarkar’s *Early History of the Deccan*, Sec. III, p. 18. In the *Viṣṇu Purāṇa* (p. 186, note 17), however, Wilson is of opinion that the modern Chattisgarh district might represent the site of ancient Daśārṇa. See also *J. A. S. B.*, 1905, N. S., p. 7.

c18.s1.t3.26

Govindacandra also seems to have come into touch with the Candellas, for the Mau inscription records some transactions of Sallakṣaṇavarman (circa 1100-1115 A. D.) in the country of Antarvedi;¹ unfortunately the inscription is so hopelessly mutilated that it is beyond the range of possibility to recover the historical allusion contained therein. In fine, Govindacandra made himself a considerable power, and under him the glories of Kanauj revived, so that the Gagaha plate² could represent him as having captured the elephants of the “nine kings,” an expression which probably signifies that he placed himself in the position of almost the leading monarch in Jambūdvīpa.

c18.s1.t3.27

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 201, 206, verse 38.

c18.s1.t3.28

² *Ibid.*, XIII, p. 218, line 8. The *Navakhaṇḍas* or *Navarājyas* are the traditional nine divisions of Jambūdvīpa according to Hindu Geography.

c18.s1.t3.29

Foreign relations

c18.s1.t3.30

Govindacandra also extended the sphere of his influence by forming alliances with contemporary kings like Jayasiṃha (1128-49 A. D.), who, as the *Rājatarangiṇī* puts it, “made the rulers in Kānyakubja and elsewhere who were powerful owing to the possession of excellent territories, proud by his friendship.”³ Moreover, we are told in the *Śrīkaṇṭhacarita* of Maṅkha or Maṅkhaka that Govindacandra deputed one Suhala to attend the assembly of Kashmirian scholars and officials, convoked at the instance of Alaṃkāra, the minister of king Jayasiṃha.⁴ This mission was no doubt non-political, but it must have materially contributed to cementing good relations between Kanauj and Kashmir. Perhaps Govindacandra had diplomatic intercourse with another monarch named Siddharāja Jayasiṃha, who, according to the *Prabandha-Cintāmaṇi*, sent a messenger to the lord of Kaśi.¹ This must surely have happened during the time of Govindacandra (*circa* 1112-1155 A. D.), and not Jayacandra, as stated in the *Prabandha-Cintāmaṇi*, for the latter's reign-period being 1170-94 A. D. he was never a contemporary of Jayasiṃha Cālukya, who ruled from *circa* 1095 to 1143 A. D. We may further refer here to an inscription, found as far south as Gangai-Koṇḍa-Colapuram, the ancient Cola capital in the Trichinopoly district of the Madras Presidency, which forms part of a document of the 41st regnal year of Kulottuṅga I, equivalent to 1110-11 A. D., and thus belongs to the interval between the earliest known date of Govindacandra and the last of Madanapāla. The record is in a very damaged condition, but Mr. Venkayya assures us that "what is actually found on the stone may be taken to show that some sort of relationship or connection existed between the Gāhaḍavālas of Kanauj and the Colas of Tanjore."² Does it allude to a friendly visit paid by a Gāhaḍavāla prince to the distant south and his benefactions to local Brahmans and temples?

c18.s1.t3.31

³ *Rājatarangiṇī*, Vol. II, Bk. VIII, verse 2453, (Stein, p. 191).

c18.s1.t3.32

⁴ *Śrīkaṇṭhacarita*, canto 25, verse 102. Cf. “Anyaḥ sa Suhalas tena tato’vandyata paṇḍitaḥ, Dūto Govindacandrasya Kānyakubjasya bhūbhujaḥ.”

c18.s1.t3.33

¹ III, 121, p. 74 (ed. Jinavijaya Muni); see also *Dy. Hist. North Ind.*, II, p. 972.

c18.s1.t3.34

² *Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind.*, 1907-08, p. 228.

c18.s1.t3.35

Literary activity

c18.s1.t3.36

Govindacandra's reign was marked by the literary efforts of his minister for peace and war (Sāndhivigrahika) named Lakṣmīdhara. He seems to have produced a crop of works on law and procedure, of which the most important is the *Kritya-Kalpataru* or *Kalpadruma*. Among its chief *khaṇḍas* are:
(a) *Vyavahāra-Kalpataru*.

c18.s1.t3.37

(b) *Vivāda Kalpataru*, quoted by Raghunandana.
(c) *Dāna-Kalpataru*.
(d) *Rājadharma-Kalpataru*. Perhaps there were many other authors of repute in the court of Govindacandra, who is himself described in the grants as “vividhavidyā-vicāra-vācaspati,” but their works having disappeared it is impossible to rescue their names from the oblivion of time.

c18.s1.t3.38

Coins

c18.s1.t3.39

Some copper and gold coins of Govindacandra have been discovered in northern India. Of these the latter are more abundant, for in 1887 Nanpara in the Bahraich district of U. P. alone yielded a hoard of 800 gold *Drammas*. They have a large percentage of alloy, and their fabric is also very rude, which apparently indicates a period of financial stringency. On the reverse they have a seated goddess with four arms as on those of Gāṅgeyadeva Cedi; on the obverse, the legend “Śrīmad Govindacandra” (in some “deva” is added), followed by the representation of a *Triśūl*.¹ The fact that they are copied from the coins of Gāṅgeya-Deva-Cedi is important, since it confirms the Cedi connections with the north during the period of anarchy.

c18.s1.t3.40

¹ Smith, *Cat. Co. Ind. Mus.*, Calcutta, pp. 257, 260-61; Bidya-vinod, *Non-Moslem Series*, Vol. I, p. 65; Cunningham, *Coins of Mediæval India*, pp. 80, 87.

c18.s1.t3.41

Family relations

c18.s1.t3.42

The inscriptions give us to understand that Govindacandra had at least four wives, viz.,
(a) Nayanakelidevī, entitled Paṭṭamahādevī and Mahārājñī.²
(b) Gosaladevi. This wife was also called Paṭṭamahādevī Mahārājñī, which shows that she was raised to this dignity after the death of the first wife.¹

c18.s1.t3.43

² *Ep. Ind.*, IV, pp. 107, 109.

c18.s1.t3.44

¹ *Ibid.*, V, pp. 116-18; *Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep.*, Vol. I, (1871), p. 96.

c18.s1.t3.45

(c) Kumāradevī, daughter of Devarakṣita, king of Pīthi or Pīthikā of the Cikkora clan, who had married Śankaradevī, daughter of the Aṅga ruler Mahana of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family. The Sarnath inscription records that Kumāradevī restored the "Lord of the Turning of the Wheel" (Dharmacakra-Jina) in accordance with the form in which it existed in the time of Dharmāśoka, the ruler of men². The marriage of Kumāradevī, a Buddhist, with an orthodox Hindu like Govindacandra proves that matrimonial alliances between Buddhists and Brahmanists were possible at this time, although such instances must have been rare.

c18.s1.t3.46

² *Ep. Ind.*, IX, pp. 325, 328.

c18.s1.t3.47

(d) Vasantadevī : She is mentioned in a colophon of a manuscript of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā in the Nepal durbar library (No. 381 of the third collection), which runs thus : "Śrīmad Govindacandradevasya pratāpa-vasataḥ Rājñī Śrīpravara-Mahāyāna-yāyinyāḥ paramopāsikā Rājñī Vasantadevyā Deya dharmo 'yaṃ."³

c18.s1.t3.48

³ *Ibid.*, IX, p. 321.

c18.s1.t3.49

Some scholars, however, identify the last two on the ground that both were Buddhists, and one of the meanings of Vasanta is youth=Kumāra. But as some eastern potentates used to keep notoriously big harems it is better to regard them as two different persons.

c18.s1.t3.50

Regarding Govindacandra’s sons, the plates give us the names of three :
(a) Mahārājaputra Asphoṭacandradeva, who being endowed with all royal prerogatives (Samastarājaprakriyopeta) and anointed as Heir-Apparent (Yauvarājyābhiṣikta), made a grant in the year 1134 A. D. with the consent of the king¹.

c18.s1.t3.51

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, VIII, p. 155.

c18.s1.t3.52

(b) Rājyapāladeva, who granted a village by the “consent of the lotus-feet” of Govindacandra in the Vikrama year 1199 or 1142 A. D.² A plate also mentions a town named Rājyapālapura, which was probably called after him.³

c18.s1.t3.53

² *Ibid.*, XIII, pp. 217, 219; *Ind. Ant.*, XVIII, p. 21.

c18.s1.t3.54

³ *Ep. Ind.*, VIII, pp. 157, 158.

c18.s1.t3.55

(c) Vijayacandra, the successor of Govindacandra. It appears, therefore, probable that the other two must have died quite young, or else were beaten in the race for the throne.

Linked texts (27)