Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.s1: Was the First Shahi Dynasty of Kabul, Turki in Origin?

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.s1

Language
English

Was the First Shahi Dynasty of Kabul, Turki in Origin?

v1.c14.s1.1

Sir V. Smith observes at page 373-4 of his Early history of India (3rd Edn.) under Kashmir "during his (Śankarwarma's) reign, the last of the Turki Shahiya kings, the descendants of Kanishka, was overthrown by the Brahmin Lalliya. The Turki Shahiya kings had ruled in Kabul until the capture of that city by the Arab general Yakub-i-Lais in A. D. 870." We have already shown that the last dynasty overthrown by Mahmud of Ghazni at Kabul was a Brahmin dynasty, the mention of whose king Trilochanpāla has already come in Kashmir history. We have here to inquire: was the first dynasty Turki in origin and descended from Kanishka? Smith's observations are plainly based on Alberuni as interpreted by Stein in his Rājatarangiṇī, Note I, Vol. II p. 336 "Shahi of Udabhānda." Let us first see what Alberuni states (Vol. II, p. 10 trans, by Sachau).

v1.c14.s1.2

"The Hindus had kings residing in Kabul, Turks who were said to be of Tibetan origin. The first of them Barahatakin came into the country and entered a cave. (Here is given a strange legend which we omit). He became a king under the title of Shahiya of Kabul. The rule remained in his family for 60 generations. Unfortunately the Hindus do not pay much attention to historical order of things, and they are very careless in relating the chronological order of their kings etc., and when pressed for information they not knowing what to say, invariably take to tale-telling. One of this dynasty was Kanik (another strange story is here given of Kanishka of the Buddhists and we omit his history). The last king of this race was Lagaturman and his Vazier was Kallar a Brahmin. Lagaturman had bad manners and worse behaviour and people complained of him. So the Vazier put him in chains and occupied the royal throne. After him ruled Brahmin kings named Samand, Kamalu, Bhim, Jaipal, Anandpal and Tarojanpal. The latter was killed in A. H. 412 (A. D. 1021) and his son Bhīmpāla 5 years later." We cannot finish this quotation without giving a few further observations of Alberuni in which he like Kalhaṇa sheds a tear over the downfall of the Brahmin kings of Kabul.

v1.c14.s1.3

"The Hindu Shahiya dynasty is extinct and of the whole house there is not the slightest remnant in existence. We must say that in all their grandeur, they never slackened in the ardent desire of doing that which is good and right, that they were men of noble sentiment and noble bearing. I admire the following passage in the letter of Ānandapāla which he wrote to Prince Mahmud. "I learned the Turks have rebelled against you. If you wish I shall come to you or send my son with 500 horse, 1000 soldiers and 100 elephants. I have been conquered by you and therefore wish that another man should not conquer you". The true Rajput valourous and generous character appears here plain. Destiny was adverse and the Kabul Shahi Brahmin dynasty was extirpated as we shall have to relate later on.

v1.c14.s1.4

To return, we are concerned here with the question was the first dynasty which the Brahmin minister supplanted Turki in origin? Alberuni's information is plainly based on vulgar tradition which he himself remarked was clearly absurd. Now Hiuen Tsang distinctly says that the king of Kabul was a Kshatriya (this was in 630 A.D.). Hiuen Tsang knew well enough what a Turk was for he had come to Kabul through their country and he knew the difference between a Turk and a Kshatriya. As against the contemporary evidence of Hiuen Tsang, therefore, an absurd tradition related by Alberuni after 400 years and with evident reluctance and disbelief in it cannot be taken for history. And we can very easily show the absurdity of the tradition. Firstly, a dynasty cannot last in history for 60 generations or 1200 years. Secondly, Kanishka may have been a Turk but he lived nearly a thousand or 900 years before Alberuni. His descendants cannot have ruled in Kabul so long. We know that Kanishka ruled not in Kabul but in Peshawar or Purushapura of Gāndhāra. Thirdly, history tells that after Kanishka several incursions of foreigners occurred notably that of the Huns under Mihirakula. If any descendants of Kanishka had remained, they must have been swept off by the Huns. The Huns themselves were overthrown in India and in Persia and hence we believe that in 630 A. D. when Hiuen Tsang visited Kabul there was an Aryan Kshatriya king ruling there. The kings called themselves Shahis because they copied the title from the Persians as the most powerful of their neighbours. After 630 A. D. down to Mahmud's time, the Turan people, Turks or Huns, did not invade India as we know it from history and Kabul had a tranquil rule for about 400 years. They were no doubt threatened by the Arabs in the beginning; but the internal dissensions of the Arabs soon stopped their progress beyond Sind. In short we do not believe there was any Turki dynasty of Kanik ruling in Kabul in 630 A. D. Kabul according to Hiuen Tsang had just conquered Gāndhāra where some Huna king must have been supplanted. Udabhāndapura so frequently mentioned in Kashmir history was hence under Kabul. Stein has rightly identified this town with Wahind of the Mahomedan historians. The Prakrit of Udabhānda would be properly (da being dropped and bha being changed to ha) Uahind; but it does not appear that Kabul was given up and the latter made their capital by the Brahmin Shāhi kings.

v1.c14.s1.5

We, however, obtain some information of the Brahmin dynasty which supplanted the Kshatriya dynasty of Hiuen Tsang from Alberuni, information which being near his time is more reliable. The supplanting of an effete declining dynanty by a Brahmin minister is an ordinary event in Indian history (we have the example of Chacha of Sind and others), and the taking of Kabul by Yakub Saffavi about A. D. 878 must have assisted this event as stated above. Alberuni mentions six kings as noted in the margin, and their dates may be taken approximately as in the margin, at the average rate of 20 years for each king. Now we have the mention of three of these kings in Kashmir history with definite dates. These practically tally with their probable dates here given. First going backwards Saṅgrāmarāja assisted Trilochanapāla in his last struggle with Mahmud. This Saṅgrāma died in 1828. Secondly, Bhīmapāla's grand-daughter the notorious Diddā was married to Kshemagupta and Bhīma himself erected a temple in Kashmir to commemorate his name. Kshemagupta died in 958 A. D. Bhīma can certainly be his contemporary. Thirdly and lastly, Śaṅkaravarman is said to have conquered Lalliya Shahi king. This Śaṅkaravarman came to the throne of Kashmir in 885 A. D. and died in 902. His conquest of Lalliya was about the beginning of his reign. From the above Lalliya may be taken to have seized the kingdom of Kabul in 880 A. D. Śaṅkaravarman very soon after this must have uprooted him. The verses in the Taraṅgiṇī are here somewhat obscure and I take them differently from Stein's Trans. (V. 15-5). It seems to me that Lalliya took refuge with Ālakhāna king of the Gurjaras of the Panjab. And Kashmir retained possession of Kabul for some time. It was restored after Śaṅkaravarman's death by Prabhākaradeva minister of Śaṅkara's widow, Sugandhā, to Toramāṇa son of Lalliya. This happened after Lalliya's death which equally with that of Śaṅkara took place about 902 A.D. Alberuni gives the second king as Sāmanta. Now this word Sāmanta indicates that he was more a subordinate than independent king and as we have shown elsewhere Kabul remained subordinate to Kashmir for some time. The Kabul Aryans however in ancient as in modern times were greatly addicted to independence, for even the Arab historians say that "the people loved their own king and recognised none who was not crowned in Kabul." The people therefore rebelled after Śaṅkaravarman's death during his son's minority and the minister Prabhākaradeva went and conquered them but like the English in later Kabul history thought it prudent to give the kingdom back to Toramāṇa son of Lalliya. From the Rājatarangiṇī ślokas it appears that this king was given another name Kamaluka (see the verse already quoted). Thus we have every corroboration of Alberuni from Kalhaṇa and the first three Brahmin kings were 1 Lalliya 2 Sāmanta (some relative of Lalliya) and 3 Kamaluka (originally called Toramāṇa). Coins of all the three have also been found as shown in the body of the look.

v1.c14.s1.6

| 1 Kallar | ... | 880—900 A. D. |
| 2 Sāmanta | ... | 900—920 " |
| 3 Kamalu | ... | 920—940 " |
| 4 Bhīma | ... | 940—960 " |
| 5 Jayapāla | ... | 960—980 " |
| 6 Ānandapāla | ... | 980—1000 " |
| 7 Trilochanapāla uprooted by Maḥmud of Ghazni | ... | 1000-1021 " |

v1.c14.s1.7

( For the history of Kashmir we have, as for Sind, a reliable history, not indeed written by outsiders, but by a native historian in Sanskrit. Kalhaṇa wrote the well-known Rājatarangiṇī in Śaka 1070 or A. D. 1148. He mentions in the introduction many previous authors on the same subject as Suvrati, Kṣemendra, Nīlamata, Chhavillākara and Helarāja. Unfortunately their works are unavailable at present probably because the Rājatarangiṇī supplanted them, But as Kalhaṇa has given up their versions in several places it would have been most useful for us to see what their version was and how far that version corresponds with other facts and with modern views. However, regret is of no avail and we have to rely upon Kalhaṇa unless it is impossible to do so. Stein who has studied the work most carefully opines that Kalhaṇa's history from our period onward is reliable. Kalhaṇa says he has got his statements verified by grants, inscriptions and other records. He appears to have been a state officer himself. We may, therefore, safely follow him assisted by Hiuen Tsang, Chacha-nāma and such historical data as may elsewhere be available. )

v1.c14.s1.8

We know from Kalhaṇa that the mediæval period of Indian history actually commenced in Kashmir in the very beginning of the 7th century A. D. by the establishment of a new dynasty of kings. The ancient mythical Gonardīya dynasty came to end in Laukika era 3677. This era commenced 25 or 26 years after Kaliyuga which in the opinion of all begins in 3101 B. C. Thus the Laukika era which obtained in Kashmir down to Kalhaṇa's days begins with 3075 B. C. This Gonardīya ancient dynansty accordingly ended in (3677-3075) 602 A. D. The last king Bālāditya had no son, nor probably any other male heir. In order to preserve the kingdom in his own line through a female, he gave his sole daughter in marriage, not as usual to a king ruling elsewhere in India but to an officer of his own named Durlabhavardhana. After the death of Bālāditya, Durlabhavardhana ascended the throne in 602 A. D. His dynasty is called the Karkotaka dynasty, inasmuch as it was protected by the mythical serpant Karkotaka mentioned in the Mahābhārata. Probably of obscure origin, Durlabhavardhana allowed court poets to create the myth of his descent from the Karkotaka serpent. Or perhaps he was born in a Nāga or aboriginal family and hence this natural myth. Whatever the explanation, this belief did obtain in his time as Hiuen Tsang also notices it and says that the kings of Kashmir crowed over other kings, because they were protected by a dragon. The Tarangini represents Durlabhavardhana as a Kāyastha. It is difficult to believe that Bālāditya would condescend to give his daughter to a Kāyastha. He was probably a local chief of Nāga descent and his name-ending, Vardhana, clearly indicates that he was a Vaiśya and and not a Kāyastha and a supplier of grass to the state cavalry. He was certainly a discreet and careful man and governed his kingdom successfully for 36 years. He founded a line of kings capable and energetic, called by the name of the Karkota dynasty which according to the Tarangini ruled for 254 years i. e. from 602 to 856 A. D. through 17 kings.

v1.c14.s1.9

It may be noted here that the kings of this line were, like the Vardhanas of Thanesar, worshippers of Śiva. That was the usual worship among the Hindus at that time. They were also in addition worshippers of Vishnu and Āditya. The Buddhistic religion had already fallen into disfavour in Kashmir. The days of Meghavāhana were long gone by. Slaughter of animals was no longer prohibited by the state nor "were the butchers by profession compensated for their loss of work by grants from the state treasury" as in his days. The penalty of the profession of a religion of non-slaughter had already been paid dearly by Kashmir when the Huns under Mihirakula had enslaved the people for a time. Pravarasena a remnant of the Gonardiya line had established Hindu sovereignty again in Kashmir with Śiva worship about a hundred years or so before Durlabhavardhana. The kings of this dynasty were therefore powerful owing to the revival of the orthodox sacrificial religion. They built temples chiefly to Śiva and often to Vishnu and to Āditya which are mentioned in detail in each reign by Kalhaṇa but which we may pass over as not being of much importance to the general history of India.

v1.c14.s1.10

Hiuen Tsang visited the country in the reign of this king and notices the downfall or rather decline of his religion in Kashmir. There were still many monasteries then and the Chinese traveller resided in one of them while in Kashmir. Vihāras are doubtless often mentioned by Kalhaṇa as built by queens of the Karkota dynasty. But these were probably not Buddhist Vihāras, though the name sounds Buddhistic. Śaivas and Vaishnavas also had Vihāras of their own in which their Sanyāsis or recluses dwelt as is evidenced by Hiuen Tsang himself. It seems therefore that Buddhism was not only not the state religion during this dynasty but also was not much professed by the people. The kings and even the queens were rigidly othodox and were devoted to Śiva or Vishnu or Āditya. The religion of pure sacrifice also flourished but apparently the bloody sacrifices of the Vedas had fallen into desuetude. For none of the powerful kings of this dynasty performed the much-honoured Aśvamedha performed by ancient Kashmir kings and even by kings of the Gupta line. Probably Hindu orthodox sentiment had changed. For the non-performance of Aśvamedha even in the case of Lalitāditya who made a digvijaya throughout India like Samudra Gupta as we shall have to relate further on, cannot be explained on the ground that the Karkota kings were not Kshatriyas. The Guptas indeed were most probably not Kshatriyas but Vaiśyas and yet they performed the Aśvamedha. Surely the Brahmins of Lalitāditya would have found ways to enable him to perform a horse sacrifice if he had wished it. But it seems general sentiment amongst the orthodox Hindus had by this time set in against the more horrid animal sacrifices of the Vedic ritual and thus the Buddhistic religion professed by Kashmir so long had by that time triumphed at least in Kashmir and put a period to these bloody sacrifices.

v1.c14.s1.11

The people of Kashmir appear to have been, in the lower strata, aboriginies, They were called Dāmaras a name which still survives. The upper layers of the population were the three Aryan castes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaiśyas with the mixed castes Kāyasthas and others. The Brahmins were of course ministers of religion as also the conservers of learning sacred and profane, i. e. Vaidikas and Pandits, but they were also generally as a class, government servants ever as now. From the ministers downwards to the revenue collectors and accountants the public servants were Brahmins in Kashmir as in Sind where as we have already seen in the last chapter even Mahomed Kasim had to retain their services for revenue administration. The ministers were indeed usually Brahmins ( as in Sind and elsewhere, witness Chacha himself). The Kshatriyas were usually in the military service but the same was open to Brahmins and to Vaiśyas also like the warlike Guptas. Unlike Sind and the, Panjab, however, agriculture was in the hands of the Śūdras or the aboriginal Dāmaras. In Sind and the Panjab the Jats and the Gujars were the true Vaiśyas of the Aryan ancient social arrangement. the persons in charge of kṛishi and gorakṣyā of the Bhagavadgita. The Panjab was par excellence the land of the Aryans and Sind followed it closely. Kashmir was half non-Aryan. We have already described the Kashmir Aryans as they appeared to Hiuen Tsang in those days. viz: handsome, learned, yet deceitful.

v1.c14.s1.12

Having described the social and religious condition of Kashmir at this time we may return to its political condition in the 7th century A. D. A new dynasty, as usual strong, energetic and as yet not depraved had begun to rule. Durlabhavardhana appears to have extended the sway of the kingdom, chiefly by conquering smaller kingdoms in the Panjab such as Taxilā (which Hiuen Tsang expressly declares to have come under Kashmir), Sinhapura and Uraśa. Various hill states such as Punach and Rajaouri are also mentioned by Hiuen Tsang as under the rule of Kashmir. The sub-montane part of the Panjab down to the Salt Range was thus reduced to subjection by Durlabhavardhana. The modern Panjab in its east and south parts only was under a separate line of kings by the name of Tekka but the rest was either under Kashmir or under Sind, the boundaries of which, as the Chacha-nāma relates, were then conterminous. Harsha was the Emperor of Northern India at this time and he is said to have defeated Kashmir, which perhaps nominally acknowledged his supremacy. Bāṇa says Harsha exacted tribute while Hiuen Tsang relates that Harsha obtained by force a valuable relic viz. a tooth of Buddha which was triumphantly conveyed to Kanauj. Durlabhavardhana not a Buddhist himself was probably not very averse to part with that precious relic.

v1.c14.s1.13

Durlabhavardhana died in 637 A. D. having ruled for 36 years. He was succeeded by Durlabhaka or the younger Durlabha. As grandson of the old dynasty king Bālāditya, he assumed the name of Pratāpāditya. He is said to have reigned for 50 years which coming after a long reign is not quite probable. He was a most meritorious king and many stories of his justice and solicitude for the welfare of his people are related by Kalhaṇa. He established a Maṭha called Nona Maṭha for Brahmins of the Rohitaka country. When he built the temple of Tribhuvana Svāmi a shoemaker refused to give up his hut which stood in the way of the building. Durlabhaka declined to oust him by force whereon the tanner, moved by the king's high sense of justice, delivered up the land of his own free will. His queen Prakāśadevi built a Vihāra called Prakāśikā Vihāra, perhaps a Buddhist monastery. She was a Vaiśya lady and Vaiśyas have throughout Indian history usually shown a predilection for the religion of mercy and non-slaughter, that is to say Buddhism and Jainism as we shall see further on. The king's guru by name Mihiradatta (a Brahmin) built a temple to Śiva (Vishnu probably) by name Gambhira Svāmi. We mention these temples as typical of the practice of these kings, their queens and their ministers to build temples to their favourite deities. Thus the king enjoyed a long rule endeared to his people by his religiousness and justice.

v1.c14.s1.14

Durlabhaka had three sons, Chandrāpīda, Tarāpīda and Muktāpīda. Perhaps Bāṇa's Kadambarī had already become popular and names ending in Āpīda had begun to be liked by kings. Chandrāpīda succeeded his father necessarily at an advanced age and reigned for 8 years and 8 months only. He was like his father a very good ruler but his ambitious brother Tārāpīda had him killed by Abhichāra or magic, belief in which in those days was universal. Perhaps Chandrāpīda died of some sudden illness and people attributed it to the incantations of his base brother Tārāpīda. The latter next ruled but for a short time only viz. 4 years and one month, less by six days (such exact statements show that we are entering upon history based on records). Cruel and tyrannical as he was, he fell a prey to his own instrument and some one of his oppressed subjects had him also killed by incantations or Abhichāra. He was succeeded by the third and youngest son of Durlabhaka named Muktāpīda alias Lalitāditya who turned out to be, if not the most, one of the most illustrious kings of Kashmir.

v1.c14.s1.15

The most attractive greatness of a king has always been his extensive conquests. Universal dominion has been the constant ambition of capable rulers in past and present history. What Cæsar and Augustus desired, what Charlemagne fought for, what Charles V and Louis XIV attempted, what Napoleon aspired to and what the last German Emperor Kaiser William III has sacrificed millions of lives for, is the same goal of universal dominion. It has attracted in all times graet sovereigns in the East and in India, like Aśoka and Samudragupta, Akbar and Auranzeb. The vivid example of Samudragupta was before Lalitāditya and of Harsha also. The Rājatarangiṇī describes in detail the digvijaya of Lalitāditya i. e. his conquest of the four quarters, East, South, West and North an achievement which is not much remembered nor much;

v1.c14.s1.16

described by modern historians. Perhaps like the panegyric of Yaśodharman of Mandsaur, famous in ancient Indian history, by his court poet who recorded a glowing description of his greatness on his Jayastambha, this description in the Rājatarangiṇī may at first appear fulsome and imaginary. But we have found a peculiarly strange confirmation of this event in the Chacha-nāma, a contemporary foreign account of the conquest of Sind. In a letter addressed by Dāhar to Mahomed Kasim (p. 87) occurs the following passage: "If I had sent against you the king of Kashmir, on whose royal threshold the other rulers of Hind had placed their heads, who sways the whole of Hind, even the countries of Makran and Turan, whose chains a great many noblemen and grandees have willingly placed on their knees, and against whom no human being can stand etc." This passage occurring so unexpectedly and without necessity and without any temptation for addition or interpolation is of great value as corroborating the account given in the Rājatarangiṇī of the extensive conquests of Lalitāditya. His achievements are therefore historical and stand on a par with those of Samudragupta and Harsha, and we will without hesitation, place them before readers of ancient Indian history, on the combined testimony of the Rājatarangiṇī and the Chacha-nāma.

v1.c14.s1.17

The above quoted passage occurs in the Chacha-nāma in a letter written in 712 A. D. The conquests of Lalitāditya must therefore be placed a few years only before this, as they appear to be fresh in Dāhar's mind. They must have occupied Lalitāditya for half a dozen years at least. The date assigned by Kalhaṇa to his accession is therefore correct and reliable. Durlabha ruled for 36 years, Durlabhaka for 50, Chandrāpīda 8, and Tārāpīda 4. Thus Muktāpīda alias Lalitāditya came to the throne in 602 + 36 + 50 + 8 + 4 = 700 A. D. which is not at all inconsistent. Like Harsha and others Lalitāditya must have started immediately after accession on his world-conquering expedition. Of course he had at his back the resources of a large kingdom well-governed for 100 years besides his own valour and engrossing ambition. His first enemy was Yaśovarman of Kanauj who as we shall relate in the history of Kanauj had at this time attained to nearly the sovereignty of the whole of Northern India by his conquest of the king of Gauda or Bengal. The conflict consequently between Lalitāditya and Yaśovarman was severe; but Lalitāditya was victorious and Yaśovarman fled the field of battle or as the poetical historian relates served the rising and resplendent sun with his back. It is not quite clear whether Yaśovarman was deprived of his kingdom. For in one verse Kalhaṇa says that Yaśovarman was totally uprooted (samūlam udapātayat) but in another following verse he says that Yaśovarman who had such famous court poets as Vākpatiraya and Bhavabhūti, himself turned a court poet of Lalitāditya. The services of Mitra-Śarma, Peace and War Minister of Kashmir were duly rewarded by his being made a prince entitled to the five royal instruments of sounding (pancha-mahā-śabdabhāk). He also obtained the title of Shah, a Persian title about which we shall speak later on. He also appointed five new officers with the same title Shah for his new imperial concerns, viz. the great Chamberlain Mahā Pratihāra, the great foreign minister Mahā Sāndhivigrahika, the great cavalry commander Mahāśvaśāla, the great treasurer Mahābhāndāgāra and the great commissariat minister Mahāsādhanika. It appears that Lalitāditya's chief arm of offence was cavalry and not the elephant force as with Harsha, and naturally enough, for the countries of Kashmir, Afghanistan, Persia and Turkestan supply more horses than elephants. But he had elephants also no doubt and he is said by Kalhaṇa to have compelled the Gauda king to give him his whole elephant force for his further progress.

v1.c14.s1.18

Who this Gauda king was whom he next conquered the Tarangiṇī does not tell us nor the name of the king of Kalinga nor of the king of Karnāta, nor of the Kaveri region, nor of the seven Konkanas, nor of Saurāshtra or Dvārakā, nor of Avanti or Malwa which countries he successively traversed and conquered. The absence of the mention of the kings of these countries may perhaps be looked upon as suspicious and imaginary (Stein). But we think there is no reason to disbelieve this march of Lalitāditya resembling the march of Samudragupta through the then known countries in India. For the kingdoms mentioned were assuredly the most prominent ones in north and south India at that time viz. Kanauj, Bengal (or Gauda) Kalinga, Karnāta or the country under the Eastern Chālukyas, the Kaveri or Kanchi country of the Pallavas and the seven Konkanas belonging most probably to the Gangas. In Saurāshtra we had the Valabhi kingdom and and in Malwa there was the kingdom of Avanti or Ujjain where the famous temple of Mahākāla was situated. Curiously enough in Karnāta we have the particular mention of a Ratta queen who proferred submission willingly. Who was this queen? The Chālukya Vallabha king at this time i. e. about 700 A. D. in the Deccan or Dakshināpatha was Vijayaditya whose rule is assigned as we shall see later on from 696 to 736 A. D. He was undoubtedly a Ratta or Maratha. He was for some time in captivity at Kānchī and hence his queen might have proferred submission. But we think Lalitāditya did not go to Vātāpi at all. He moved along the coast and hence he conquered the Eastern Chālukyas. The mention of Vindhya here is therefore proper and of course refers to the eastern Ghāts. Here were also the same Rattas. The queen, as we shall show later on in Vengi history, must have been Jayasinha's widow with her son Kokkili after whom there was some family dispute as described in that history.

v1.c14.s1.19

We have no mention of the conquest of Sind and probably Lalitāditya did not go to Sind. Dāhar must have proferred submission when the latter was in Dwarka on the southern frontier of his kingdom. His letter above quoted clearly admits his submission to the suzerainty of Kashmir. Having returned to Kashmir after conquering east, south and west, Lalitāditya undertook the most difficult task of conquering the north which in the case of Kashmir meant the conquering of Tibet and Turkestan, an apparently difficult task. He is said to have conquered the Daradas and Kambojas (Tibet) which was easy enough, but he conquered the Turks also and their king Mummuni is said to have been thrice defeated. This is perhaps the first and the last mention in Indian history of an Indian king going out of India into the country of the fierce and warlike barbarians of Turan. But there is no doubt of the truth of this conquest or rather success in battle. For we have not only the mention of Mummuni their king but the extract above given from the Chacha-nāma also states that the king of Kashmir had conquered Mekran (Baluchistan) and Turan (Turkestan). India has always been conquered by hordes coming from Turan but this singular exploit of Lalitāditya in going out of India and conquering Turan deserves a prominent record in the mediæval history of the country. Turan seems to have offered stubborn resistance and Mummuni had to be thrice vanquished. In fact, Lalitāditya subsequently led many expeditions to the north of Kashmir and is said to have even crossed the Gobi desert. And he is said to have lost his life eventually in these regions, historians of Kashmir did not know how. Of northern barbarians Tukkharas and Bhauttas are mentioned. Prāgjyotishapura and Strīrājya are also mentioned probably to fill up the usual Mahābhārata story (they are evidently Assam and Burma or Manipur). And the mythical Uttarakurus finally come in to finish his Digvijaya. The partial poet declares in the end that in order to emphasise his conquest of the north and the south, Lalitāditya compelled the Turushkas in the north to half shave their heads and to hold up their hands in token of their being prisoners and he compelled the Dākshinātyas of the south (the Deccanese) to wear long kachhas reaching the ground like tails in token of their being beasts !!!. It is really wonderful how poets represent already existing local customs as contributing to the praise of their favourite king. It seems however certain that the practice of half shaving their heads is very old among the Turks and did not originate with Mahomedanism. And the practice of having long kachha among the Deccanese (Marathas) is also very ancient, Northerners putting on tight kachha (the Kashmiris too doing the same). The modern practice of wearing payajamas prevalent in Kashmir is not thus as old as Kalhaṇa but is of still recent date being borrowed, very clearly, from the Mahomedans.

v1.c14.s1.20

The internal administration of Lalitāditya was also remarkable. From his foreign conquests immense wealth and treasure came into Kashmir and it was naturally spent on the building of temples and Vihāras. He gave 11 crores of golden money to the temple of Bhūteśa (Śiva). He built a Mārtanda temple (Sun) with a great uncut stone-wall which is still famous. He built a bridge over the Vitastā at Chhatrapur. He built a town outside Srinagar and at some distance and called it Parihāsapura and built there a famous temple to Viṣṇu called Parihāsa Keshava where he placed a Garuda image on a one-stone pillar 54 cubits long. Many gold and silver images of Viṣṇu, Varāha etc. are also spoken of. The Parihāsa Keshava image was of silver adorned with valuable jewels. Gold and jewels began thus to accumulate in temples, a necessary evil of idol worship, an evil which in consequence created a counter religion of idol-breaking: and the jewelled golden idols of India added the temptation of greed to the promptings of religious zeal among the Mahomedans. We shall have to speak of this strange infatuation of kings and grandees to stuff temples with immense portable riches in gold and silver and in diamonds and rubies. The practice was older than Lalitāditya, but here we have a sure mention of it, Kalhaṇa observing that "the wealth offered and dedicated in temples could not be counted". The queens also as usual built temples to their favourite deities. Chankuṇa, a Tukkhar minister gave two magical stones to the king and purchased from him an idol of Buddha which had been brought from his conquest of Magadha. He placed it in a Vihāra which he dedicated to the Buddhists. It seems clear from this as is also otherwise well-known that before Mahomedanism, Buddhism was the prevailing religion among Turks, Tukkhars and other barbarians of Turan.

v1.c14.s1.21

These temples to Śiva, Viṣṇu, Āditya and Buddha of course satisfied the religious cravings of those times. To the modern historian it is interesting to note that Lalitāditya had many halls established in his kingdom for the feeding of the hungry and for giving water to the thirsty. These chhatras and prapās testify to his humane disposition and his care for his subjects. He is also said to have excavated wells and springs in the northern sandy regions of the Turks where for many miles water is often unobtainable. These, the historian says are still visible and supply water to the thirsty traveller of these inhospitable regions. Thus Lalitāditya appears to have been a true Kṛitayuga or golden age king in the otherwise not very happy history of Kashmir.

v1.c14.s1.22

But there is one bad act of this famous king which Kalhaṇa says was prompted by the Kali or iron age. He had the Gauḍa king killed in spite of his promise not to harm his life given on oath of his favourite god Parihāsa Keshava of his favourite town. Who this Gauḍa king was and why Lalitāditya did this horrible deed so unlike himself, Kalhaṇa does not describe. He however relates that when the most loyal servants of the Gauḍa king heard of this slaughter, they started at once for Kashmir and having got entrance to the kingdom on pretext of visiting the Śāradā temple they came to Parihāsapura. The king was fortunately absent on an expedition to the north. The exasperated men in their mad zeal went to the temple of Parihāsa Keshava to take vengeance on the god who had allowed his oath to be broken. Finding the temple of Rāmasvāmi* open they mistook that god for Parihāsakeshava, threw down the silver idol, broke it into pieces and even atoms and strew them on the road as they went back.

v1.c14.s1.23

∗ This idol was believed to have been made by Rāma himself and was found in a tank. The names of idols in Kashmir often end in Svāmi which means of course 'Lord' Lord of Rāma and so on.

v1.c14.s1.24

Such is the strange story of the slaughter of the Gauḍa king and the religious frenzy of his loyal servants.

v1.c14.s1.25

The end of this wonderful king was alike wonderful. Where and when he died is not known to Kashmir historians. He certainly did not die in Kashmir. A messenger arrived from his camp somewhere among the Northern barbarians announcing that the king could not return and that the ministers should proclaim his son king. He is said to have ruled for 36 years and thus his reign came to end in 736 A. D. Comparing this account with the account derivable from foreign sources as related by Smith we may say that an embassy from China in 733 A. D. may have been received, investing Lalitāditya with the title of king. Of couse it must be taken subject to Chinese misrepresentation in that the Chinese Emperor was believed to be the ruler of the whole world. Lalitāditya also looked upon himself as Emperor and the embassy must have been nothing more than greetings between rival emperors claiming sovereignty over Turkestan. As for the date of his victory over Yaśovarman, Smith on the authority of Levi and Chauvanes places it in 740 A. D. But this does not seem to be correct. It is against the authority of the Tarangiṇī which places his death in 736 and also against the evidence of the Chacha-nāma which seems clearly to place this victory before the conquest of Sind by the Arabs in 712 A. D. This date will be further discussed in a note.

v1.c14.s1.26

Lalitāditya was succeeded by his son Kuvalayāpīḍa a very sensitive man. When a minister disobeyed his order he was so incensed that he passed a sleepless night, but reflecting in the morning in the opposite strain he resigned sovereignty as full of difficulties and disquiet and retired to a forest. He ruled for one year only and 15 days. He was succeeded by his brother Vajrāditya a man of an exactly opposite temperament. He immediately threw himself headlong into the pleasures of kingly power and naturally succumbed after a bad reign of 7 years and some days. He was succeeded by his elder son Sangrāmapida who too died after a short reign of 7 years. His brother Jayāpida and a grandson of Lalitāditya now came to the throne of Kashmir. His goodness and greatness had already been marked and foretold by his grandfather and we come to the reign of another brilliant king as illustrious as Lalitāditya and only next to him in foreign conquests.

v1.c14.s1.27

Jayāpida like his grandfather commenced his reign by issuing out for world conquest a favourite game with powerful Indian kings. His first enemy was of course the king of Kanauj name not mentioned. Conquering him he proceeded as far as Prayāga where he made liberal gifts to Brahmins. His army, however, afraid of long journeys into the south as in the days of Lalitāditya, returned to its native country. Nothing daunted Jayāpida is said to have gone into Bengal single-handed. He came to Paundra Vardhana town ruled by one Jayanta Having killed a tiger which had become a terror to the town he came to the notice of Jayanta who gave him his daughter Kamalādevi in marriage. This story sounds more as fable than as history. Jayāpida then subdued five Gauda princes in Bengal in behalf of his father-in-law and then returned in triumph to Kashmir with his bride. On his way back he seized the precious throne of Kanauj and took it to Kashmir. In his absence his brother-in-law, one called Jajja, had seized the Kashmir throne. Jajja was overthrown and killed in a battle and the country was proud and glad to be again under the rule of its rightful king Jayāpida.

v1.c14.s1.28

But Jayāpida became more famous than his grandfather Lalitāditya as a patron of letters. He himself was a great pandit; and the poet historian says that he was as jealous of a rival in the field of arms as in the field of letters. He revived the study of the Mahābhāshya (the great work on grammar by Patanjali) and appointed Kshirasvāmi as teacher of grammar. The head of the council of pandits was Udbhata the well-known author of Udbhatālankāra on poetics and paid him as pay one lakh of Dināras per day (most certainly a hyperbole of the poet historian even if like Mahmud of Ghazni Jayāpīda gave copper Dīnāras instead of silver or gold ones). Other famous literary names are Manoratha, Śankhadanta, Chātaka and Sandhimān poets, Vāmana (writer on both grammar and Alankāra), Damodargupta author of Kuttinimata (mathematics) and Thakkiya who was originally superintendent of granary in the service of a minister of his. The best men in the whole land of India were called and patronised by Jayāpīda, so much so that Kashmir became famous as the land of learning and as the poet historian remarks, there was a famine of learned men in other countries of India. Though a conqueror he assumed the title of Vinayāditya or the sun of education. The poet historian observes, "Equally divided between valour and learning, as if placed between two reflecting mirrors, the king seemed not doubled only, but made hundred fold."

v1.c14.s1.29

He renewed his foreign expeditions many times, accompanied by many subordinate kings among whom is mentioned strangely enough Mummuni. But in Nepal he had a reverse unlike his grandfather and fell a prisoner into the hands of the king of Nepal, named Artundi. In this misfortune he was saved by his minister who brought another army into Nepal and by a stratagem enabling Jayāpīda to escape from the castle where he was imprisoned, by the sacrifice of his own life placed him in possession of new forces. Nepal was defeated and Jayāpīda returned triumphant to Kashmir, mourning, however, for the death of his faithful minister Devaśarmā son of Mitrasarmā the famous minister of his grandfather.

v1.c14.s1.30

It is unfortunate that this valiant and learned king became in his later days a tyrant and an oppressor of Brahmins. Perhaps his misfortunes in spite of his victories left him poor. It is said that a serpent having promised to reveal to him a mountain of gold revealed in the end, owing to his mistake, only a mountain of copper situated in the Kramarājya (a province of Kashmir) and he had 99 crores of copper dīnāras struck. But he had a dirth of gold and for the sake of gold he began to oppress his subjects through his Kāyastha officers. We must speak here of the Kāyasthas, a caste to whom Kalhana always refers with contempt and disapprobation. The Kāyasthas are found in the history of Kashmir onward, always assisting oppressive kings with their bad counsel and are generally associated with a rapacious administration. Kāyasthas did not meet us in the history of Sind. They are in fact (even now) not found in large numbers either in Sind or in the Panjab, where their place is taken by the Khatris who like the Kāyasthas were the competitors of Brahmins in the ranks of government servants. Even now Kāyasthas are to be found predominant in Kashmir, in the U. P. and in Bengal both in the population and in government service. They are not found to the south of the Nerbuda except in the Konkan. In the Deccan and in the south they are not to be seen. Undoubtedly the Kāyastha claim to Kshatriya origin is correct though there is admittedly a mixture of blood. The mixed caste of Kāyasthas is not mentioned in the earlier Smritis and finds mention only in one or two later ones. They are mixed Kshatriyas whose caste occupation is writing and government service as we find even in the Mṛichhakaṭika. By intelligence and energy they are undoubtedly Aryans and Kshatriyas. But strangely enough Kāyastha public servants are, though efficient, generally unpopular and oppressive. In the Panjab, government service is almost monopolised by Khatris. They are clearly Kshatriyas who have given up the sword for the pen and their intelligence as certainly indicates their Aryan origin as their physique, but they are not specially mentioned in ancient history like the Kāyasthas. To return to our history from this digression; Jayāpīda through his Kāyastha officers began to oppress his subjects by various exactions. He was opposed by the Brahmins who are usually a fearless out-spoken people ( सर्वकालं ब्राह्मणानामहौ धैर्यमकुण्ठितम्। निर्भिशस्य बभूवुर्ये तस्यापि परिपन्थिनः ॥ ) Jayāpīda now became unpopular even among the pandits who at once turned their wit against him. The following verses are typical and well worth quotation. They are of course based on pun of words. Jayāpīda who prided himself upon his learning is said to be not inferior to Pāṇini the grammarian. “नितान्तकृतकृत्यस्य गुणवृद्धिधायिनः। श्रीजयापीडदेवस्य पाणिनेश्च किमन्तरम्॥ कृतविप्रोपसर्गस्य भूतानिष्ठाविधायिनः। श्रीजयापीडदेवस्य पाणिनेश्च किमन्तरम्॥” The king, however, was incorrigible and ill-treated and despised the Brahmins the more till at last by the curse of a Brahmin, so the poet relates, the golden pole of his tent fell upon him and he died of the wound received. He is said to have ruled for 31 years. Thus his reign may be said to have ended in 736 + 1 + 7 + 7 + 31 = 782 A. D. the kings intervening between him and Lalitāditya ruling for one, seven and seven years only.

v1.c14.s1.31

We may close this chapter with a short account of the remaining kings of the Karkota dynasty which coming to a decline was now represented by incompetent men. The same spectacle of worthless sovereigns set up and deposed by ambitious and unscrupulous officers as is witnessed at the end of Mogul or Abbaside Khalifa or other kingly dynasties appears. Lalitāpīda son of Jayāpīda ruled for 12 years and squandered the riches unjustly amassed by his father on courtezans and sycophants. His brother Sangrāmāpīda ruled after him for seven years and was succeeded by a minor king named Chippata (the lesser) Jayāpīda son of Lalitāpīda son of the elder Jayāpīda. His maternal uncles Utpala and Mamma ministers fought for power. Now Utpala to secure power in his own hands set up another minor Ajitāpīda in place of the now major Jayāpīda while Mamma set up another. The two ministers fought a battle between themselves and Utpala was successful. The last minor king hereafter set up was Anangāpīda who was eventually set aside by Avantivarman grandson of the powerful Utpala and he founded the Utpala dynasty in about 855 A. D.

v1.c14.s1.32

Kashmir during the reign of the Karkota dynasty enjoyed great power politically being twice the overlord of the whole of Northern India. Within the empire it had several provinces or rather districts of the Panjab under it and the territory of Kashmir itself is shown to be divided into several divisions called Rājyas in the Rājatarangiṇī (Kramarājya, Madavarājya etc. appear to be divisions of Kashmir). The kings were usually worshippers of Śiva and also often of Viṣṇu (Viṣṇu temples being styled by names ending in Svāmi and Śiva temples in Īśa or Īśvara—a distinction which is clearly apparent in the Rājatarangiṇī). The people were both Śaivites and Vaiṣṇavites but there were also some who were Buddhists, especially among lower orders and foreigners. Under this dynasty Kashmir not only maintained but even increased its renown for learning and many noted names in Sanskrit literature belong to this period. We can thus understand why it was an ambition with Indian pandits to conquer the pandits of Kashmir as is apparent from Śaṅkara’s visit to the temple of Śāradā in that country to which we shall have to refer in our next volume.

v1.c14.s1.33

LATER HISTORY OF KASHMIR

v1.c14.s1.34

Though not connected with the period treated of in this volume, we shall go on to relate succintly the later history of Kashmir down to the end of the Hindu period, as Kashmir in the next portions of that period seems to be practically cut off from India. This history has not much importance for the general history of India, but it has an importance of its own. It exhibits on a smaller scale how despotic kingly government always tends to abuse after a period of glorious exhibition of justice and valour, how degenerate and debaucherous kings succeed highly vigorous and conscientious kings in the same line, how while kingly power is borne with a great weight of conscience by some kings, in the hands of others it becomes the instrument of oppression and opportunity for licentiousness, how for some time able ministers under the firm guidance of able rulers achieve great progress in administration, and how during another period unscrupulous ministers keep the country under their heel by bribery and terrorizing under incapable masters, how while under some kings an organised army is the means of securing peace at home and respect abroad, under others it becomes the de facto master of the state raising to the throne puppet after puppet, and how lastly the love of kingship sets father against son and son against father, not to speak of brother against brother and even mother against son and wife against husband. These and similar regular tendencies of despotic rule are as fully exhibited in this history of Kashmir as they were at Rome or at Baghdad, at Delhi or at Cairo. We will, therefore, describe this history in some detail and show how after all, a form of government combined of king and people is the best for securing continuous good government and progress.

v1.c14.s1.35

When the Karkota dynasty came to an end, as usual by becoming old and rotten, Avantivarman came to the throne by his own power and founded the Utpala dynasty, Utpala being his grandfather and the first minister of the tottering Karkotakas who tried to seize the kingly status. Avantivarman as usual with founders of dynasties was a most capable and conscientious sovereign. Tales of his extreme sense of justice are related in the Tarangiṇī, which we may pass over. But his revenue administration was equally most successful. With the help of an able and imaginative minister named Suyya, he excecuted various works of irrigation by damming the Vitastā and other rivers of Kashmir. Hundreds of new villages sprang into existence and thousands of acres of land came under cultivation. The poet historian relates that whereas from the most ancient times a Khārī ( Khandi ) of grain ( rice ) sold in the most prosperous days for 200 dināras, the same Khārī in the same Kashmir land began to be sold for 36 dināras ( V. 117 ).

v1.c14.s1.36

The king was highly religious and of course built several temples to Śiva and Viṣṇu and so also his ministers and queens. But he was also so liberal to the Brahmins and held riches of so little count that he finally gave away all his wealth to Brahmins except as the poet says his sceptre and umbrella. He also appears to have been a perfect Vaiṣṇava and an upholder of the tenet of Ahimsā (the mantle of Buddhism had in this respect now fallen upon Vaiṣṇavism). He, therefore, prohibited totally the slaughter of animals and the historian records that for ten years as in the days of Meghavāhana no animal was killed throughout the kingdom (V. 64). The poet remarks that "tortoises leaving the cold waters of rivers in winter securely basked in sun-shine on the banks". Bhatta Kallata it is further on said, and other sages were born in the days of Avantivarman 'for the salvation of the country'. Who this Śrikallata was we have not been able to find; but he must have been some Vaiṣṇava writer. The king died as religiously as he had lived, hearing during his last moments the Bhagavadgīta recited. (This is the first mention in history of the Bhagavadgīta as a book of religious recitation). He died in 59 in the month of Āshādha Shukla 3. (This according to Kashmir reckoning which omits hundreds means 3959 Laukika era i. e. deducting 3075, 884 A. D.) V. 123. He thus ruled for 29 years from 855 to 884 A. D.

v1.c14.s1.37

His son Śankarvarman succeeded him. But it appears there was a faction among the ministers and a party appointed a cousin of his as Yuvaraja. He and his cousin both being strong men, fought for power and many faithful adherents on both sides lost their lives in this civil war. Śankarvarman eventually got the upper hand and ruled singly. He now led his forces in Digvijaya most probably with a view to lead the fighting spirits of the people into other channels. The names of the countries and kings he conquered are important historically. He subjugated a king of Dārvābhisāra and imprisoned a king named Hari-gaṇa. While yet fighting with the Gurjara king he put to flight Prithvīchandra king of Trigarta and gave his kingdom to his son Bhuvanachandra who had already submitted to him. He is said to have 9 lakhs of foot-soldiers and 300 elephants (the infantry number is plainly exaggerated). With this immense force he defeated Ālakhāna king of the Gurjaras (Ālakhāna appears to be the name of a king and not of a place). The Gurjara king handed over to him the Takkadeśa "giving up his own body in fact". He reinstated the descendant of Thakkiya who had been ousted by Bhoja. "He lay unconquerable between the Daradas and the Turushkas like the country of Āryāvarta lying between the Himalayas and Vindhyas". He remained firm in Udabhāndapura (perhaps a battle was fought here with the Northerners.) "The Shahi king Lalliya was not reinstated owing to his anger and took refuge with Ālakhāna."

First 37 of 56 passages. Read on

Cites (11)