Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.s4: IV. Chronology of the Karkota Dynasty.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.s4

Language
English

IV. Chronology of the Karkota Dynasty.

v1.c14.s4.1

Stein divides Kashmir history by Kalhaṇa into three portions: I history of legendary kings down to Karkota dynasty. II. history of this dynasty and III history of later dynasties. The chronology of the first is distorted and unreliable while that of the last two given by Kalhaṇa is correct. The chronology, however, of the Karkota dynasty though generally reliable requires a correction of 25 years according to Stein and others. This opinion has been propounded by scholars on a comparison with dates in Chinese history which contain references to Kashmir kings. Thus Chandrāpīda is assigned by Kalhaṇa to 686–695 A. D. But Chinese history says that Chandrāpīda sent an embassy in 713 A. D. to China and was recognised as king by China in 720 A. D. Then again Lalitāditya Muktāpīda who according to Kalhaṇa ruled from 699 to 735 sent an embassy to China after 736-7 ( Stein Vol. I p. 67). There seems to be a reference also to the first king Durlabha ( 602-635 ) as Dulope is said in Chinese history to have been asked to give safe conduct to Kipisi ( Kabul ) envoys between 627-649. Lastly a poet, Ratnākara, wrote during the reign of " the young Bṛhaspati last king of the Karkotakas ; but he is also said by Kalhaṇa himself to be a poet in the court of the next king Avantivarman who ruled correctly enough from 855 to 883 A. D. How can Bṛhaspati's date be 814, scholars ask, as assigned by Kalhaṇa to his death? Such are the arguments on which Stein and other European scholars bring Kalhaṇa's dates for Karkotakas down by 25 years. These corrected dates are of course followed by Sir V. Smith, who has accordingly placed the conquest of Kanouj by Lalitāditya after 736 A. D. ( also on other authorities of Chinese historians ).

v1.c14.s4.2

But we have followed Kalhaṇa's dates and not these in our summary of Kashmir history given here. For the dates of Kalhaṇa are supported by the Chacha-nāma wherein the conquests of Lalitāditya are dated before the Mahomedan conquest of Sind in 712 A. D. as we have stated here. We may, therefore, accept Kalhaṇa supported by the foreign Arabs as against the Chinese who were always impressed by their own greatness. They even represent Lalitāditya to be a subordinate king of the Chinese emperors which is absurd. The difficulties pointed out above are not insuperable. Durlabhaka was the name of the first king's son and successor and the Chinese dates 636 to 649 may refer to his reign. Chandrāpīda and Muktāpīda may have been moved 25 years later by Chinese historians to suit their history; and lastly Ratnākara may have written his poem Haravijaya in his youth under Bṛhaspati alias Chippata Jayāpīda in 813 A.D. and yet may have been a court-poet of Avantivarman in 855. This instance of an active life of 50 years is not at all strange nor is a life of 80 or 90 years in Kashmir an absurdity. Ratnākara may be 30 years old in 813 and 70 or 80 years old in 855-60 under Avantivarman.

Cites (2)