Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c18.s1.t1: Candradeva

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c18.s1.t1

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (3)