Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India c25: XXI. Kālapriya and Brahmaśilā

Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India c25

Language
English

XXI. Kālapriya and Brahmaśilā

c25.1

There is an interesting passage in Rājaśekhara’s *Kāvyamīmāṃsā*¹ which refers to the Antarvedī tract bounded by the Ganges in the north, the Jumna in the south, Vinaśana (the same as Kuru-kṣetra according to the *Trikāṇḍaśeṣa*²) in the west and Prayāga (Allahabad) in the east. Thereafter the passage runs—

c25.2

¹ G. O. S. edition, 1934, p. 94

c25.3

² III, 14—कुरुक्षेत्रं विनशनम्.

c25.4

तदपेक्षया दिशो विभजेत इत्याचार्याः । तत्रापि महोदयं मूलमधिकृत्य इति यायावरीयः । अनियतत्वादिशामनिश्चितो दिग्विभाग इत्येके । तथा हि यो वामनस्वामिनः पूर्वः स ब्रह्मशिलायाः पश्चिमः यो गाधिपुरस्य दक्षिणः स कालप्रियस्योत्तर इति । अवधिनिवन्धनमिदं रूपमितरस्त्वनियतमेव इति यायावरीयः ।

c25.5

The reference to the four localities—Vāmanasvāmin in the west, Brahmaśilā in the east, Gādhipura in the north and Kālapriya in the south—is very interesting to the student of the historical, geography of ancient India, especially when we know that the author of the *Kāvyamīmāṃsā* lived for long at Kanauj, the capital of his Pratīhāra patrons. In the notes appended to the G. O. S. edition of the above work (pp. 243-44), it has been suggested that the said four localities were situated respectively in the western, eastern, northern and southern suburbs of the city of Kanauj.

c25.6

It has been pointed out that, according to the *Padma Purāṇa*,³ Rāma built a temple for the god Vāmana at Mahodaya, *i.e.* Kanauj. The author of the notes, referred to above, conjectures that the temple of Vāmana was probably situated at the western end of the city. He admits that Rājaśekhara’s own *Bāla-Rāmāyaṇa* (X, 88) applies the name Gādhipura to Kanauj itself, and indeed this identification is supported by a number of authorities including Hemacandra.¹ Still, however, he concludes that Gādhipura was a locality in the northern suburbs of Kanauj, while Kālapriya was at its southern end. It has been rightly pointed out that the dramas of Bhavabhūti, who lived at the court of king Yaśovarman of Kanauj (c. 725-52 A. D.), were staged before the audience assembled in connection with the festivities held in honour of the god Kālapriyanātha, the presiding deity of the locality called Kālapriya. The views of the commentators on Bhavabhūti's works identifying Kālapriyanātha with the god Mahākāleśvara of Ujjain or with the presiding deity of Padmapura, Bhavabhūti's birth place, have, again, been rightly rejected. It has then been suggested that Kālapriyanātha was probably the presiding deity of the city of Kanauj which was the capital of Bhavabhūti's patron and that possibly the god's temple was situated in the southern suburbs of the city. The position of Brahmaśilā at the eastern end of Kanauj has been conjecturally determined on the strength of the identification of the other three localities.

c25.7

³ Dey, *Geographical Dictionary*, p. 87 ; *Padma Purāṇa*, Sṛṣṭi-khaṇḍa, Chapter 35 (Vaṅgavāsī edition, Ch. 38, 186-87); Uttara-khaṇḍa, Ch. 53.

c25.8

¹ *Abhidhānacintāmaṇi*, Bhūmi-kāṇḍa, vv. 39-40—कान्यकुब्जं महोदयम् । कन्यकुब्जं गाधिपुरं कोशं कुशस्थलं च तत् ॥

c25.9

It will be seen that the location of the four places in the suburbs of Kanauj is actually based on mere conjecture. It must be admitted that Gādhipura was either another name of Kanauj or at least the name of a part of the city. We should therefore search for a locality called Kālapriya to the south of Kanauj. According to Bhavabhūti's works, the poet's ancestral home was at Padmapura which lay in the Deccan, i.e. to the south with reference to the shrine of the god Kālapriyanātha. It is strange that some scholars have identified this Padmapura with Padam Pawaya (ancient Padmāvatī) near Narwar (ancient Nalapura) in the former Gwalior State.² The prelude to Bhavabhūti's *Viracarita* places Padmapura in Dakṣiṇāpatha or the Deccan, while the *Mālatīmādhava*, with more definiteness, locates it in Vidarbha (modern Berar) in Dakṣiṇāpatha. The identification of Bhavabhūti's birthplace with modern Padampur in the Bhandara District, near the Amgaon Railway Station, seems to be reasonable. The village of Padampur, it may be pointed out, lies directly to the south of Kanauj. It is very interesting to note that the only Kālapriya known to history and situated, like both Kanauj and Padampur, to the west of long. 80, appears to be modern Kālpī on the Jumna in the Jalaon District of U. P., about 75 miles directly to the south of Kanauj. It was an important station between the Ganges-Jumna Doab and the South not only during the Muslim period, but also in the early medieval age. In the first quarter of the tenth century A.D., when Indra III (915-28 A.D.),¹ the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king of the Deccan, was advancing against Kanauj, the capital of his Pratihāra enemies, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa army was for a time encamped at Kālpī where it crossed the Jumna. The Cambay plates of Govinda IV give the story in the following verse:

c25.10

² Cf. Tripathi, *History of Kanauj*, p. 209.

c25.11

¹ The date of his northern expedition is usually supposed to be 916 A.D. as Indra III is believed to have died in 917 A.D. Both the dates are, however, wrong since the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king is known to have ruled till 928 A.D. Cf. *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXII, pp. 49-50.

c25.12

यन्माद्यद्विपदन्तघातविषमं कालप्रियप्राङ्गणं
तीर्णा यत्तुरगैरधायमुना सिन्धुप्रतिस्पर्धिनी ।
येनेदं हि महोदयारिनगरं निर्मूलमुन्मूलितं
नाम्नाद्यापि कुशस्थलमिति ख्याति परां नीयते ॥²

c25.13

² Cf. Altekar *The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times*, p. 102. There is a pun on the word *Kuśasthala* which indicates the city of Kanauj as well as a field covered with *kuśa* grass. According to the much exaggerated claim put forward in the verse, Indra III totally destroyed the city of Kanauj which from that time became a field of *kuśa* grass. There is however no reason to believe that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were successful in razing Kanauj to the ground or to paralyse Pratihāra power in the Doab even for a short period. That Malwa was occupied by Indra III is concluded from the wrong identification of Kālapriyanātha with Mahākāleśvara of Ujjain. For Pratihāra possession of Malwa, cf. the Partabgarh inscriptions of Mahendrapāla II, dated 946 A.D. The verse—

c25.14

यस्य परुषेक्षिताखिलदक्षिणदिग्दुर्गविजयमाकर्ण्य ।
गलिता गुर्जरहृदयात् कालंजरचित्रकूटाशा ॥

c25.15

in the Deoli (940 A.D.) and Karhad (959 A.D.) plates of Kṛṣṇa III does not imply that the Pratihāra fortresses of Kālañjara and Citrakūṭa (Chitor) were captured by the Rāṣṭrakūṭas who, however, merely threatened them. The claim of Govinda IV having been served by the Ganges and the Jumna does not, again, prove his mastery over the Doab, but simply refers to the artificial representation of Gaṅgā and Yamunā at his palace gate. The *praśasti* of the Cālukya chief Narasimha, probably a feudatory of Indra III to have defeated Pratihāra Mahīpāla I and to have bathed his horses at the junction of the *Gaṅgā-vārdayoḥ* as found in the *Pampa-Bhārata* appears to be a hopeless The identity of Kālāpriya with Kālpī is proved by epigraphic evidence. In the Khaḍāvadā inscription (1484 A.D.) of king Ghiyās Khalji of Maṇḍū, Husaṁga Gorī (Hushang Alp Khān Ghūrī) is represented as having defeated Kādira Sāhi (Abdul Qādir), ruler of Kālāpriya-pattana, and having made the latter's son, Salaha, a Khān at Māṇḍū. This Kālāpriya-pattana is apparently different from Ujjain and Kanauj and is no doubt the same as Kālpī. The name Kālāpriya applied to Kālpī can thus be traced to a date as late as the fifteenth century A.D.¹ At Kālpī, there still exists a temple of Kālāpriya. Kālpī must have formed a part of the Kanauj kingdom under Yaśovarman. The annual fair and festivities held in honour of Kālāpriyanātha were no doubt the most famous in the whole kingdom. It was, therefore, not at all unnatural that Bhavabhūti's dramas were staged on such occasions at Kālpī.

c25.16

¹ See J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. XXIII, pp. 12 ff.

c25.17

If the Padma Purāṇa is to be believed, the temple of Vāmanasvāmin was situated somewhere in the city of Kanauj. We should, therefore, search for a locality called Brahmaśilā to the east of Kanauj. This Brahmaśilā seems to be no other than Barhamshil mentioned by Al-Bīrūnī who says, "A man marching from Kanoj to the south between the two rivers Jaun and Ganges passes the following well-known places:—Jajjamau, 12 *farsakh* from Kanoj, each *farsakh* being equal to four miles or one *Kuroh*; Abhāpurī, 8 *farsakh*; Kuraha, 8 *farsakh*; Barhamshil, 8 *farsakh*; the Tree of Prayāga, 12 *farsakh*, the place where the waters of the Jaun join the Ganges, where the Hindus torment themselves with various kinds of tortures which are described in the books about religious sects."² As regards the measure of distance, Al-Bīrūnī says that the *Krośa* is equal to 'our mile,' *yojana* is 'equal to 8 miles or to 32,000 yards,' and '1 *Kuroh* = ½ *yojana*.'³

c25.18

² Sachau, Alberuni's India, Vol. I, p. 200.

c25.19

³ Ibid., p. 167.

c25.20

exaggeration. The decline of the Gurjara Pratīhāras had nothing especially to do with the northern expedition of Indra III. It was hastened by constant warfare on all fronts and especially by the protracted struggle for the throne (after the death of Mahīpāla I) about the middle of the tenth century A.D. Cf. Ray, D.H.N.I., Vol. I, pp. 580-90.

c25.21

One *farsakh* was therefore equal to 4 Arabic miles and to 3 77/100 English miles.¹

c25.22

¹ Cf. *ibid.* Vol. II p. 316.

c25.23

Al-Bīrūnī thus gives the distance from Kanauj to Jajjamau as about 45 miles; from Jajjamau to Abhāpurī as about 30 miles; from Abhāpurī to Kuraha as about 30 miles; from Kuraha to Brahmaśilā as about 30 miles; and from Brahmaśilā to Prayāga or Allāhābad as about 45 miles. Brahmaśilā thus lay about 45 miles to the west or north-west of Allāhābad and was situated in the Doab between Kanauj and Allāhābad. It was therefore to the east or south-east of Kanauj.

Linked texts (7)