Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/An Introductory Essay on the History of Kashmira By R. C. Dutt
| Wikified by:Laxman Burdak, IFS (R) |
Being A Translation of the Sanskrit Work
Rajatarangini of Kalhana Pandita: Vol.2
By Jogesh Chunder Dutt
1887
London: Trubner & Co.Contents
Attempts to fix the chronology of ancient India
[p.iii]: The want of an authentic history of the ancient Hindus has been a matter of just regret from the days of Sir William Jones. Attempts have been repeatedly made to fix the chronology of ancient India, but every attempt, however ingeniously commenced and assiduously conducted, appears to have resulted in disappointment and failure. Baffled antiquarians have at last recorded their conviction that the task is hopeless; that the nation which cultivated poetry and mathematics and some of the sciences in remote times with such wonderful success must ever remain without a history ; that the dead past of India is to us a volume sealed with seven seals, and the seals will never be broken.
While we share to a certain extent the regrets of antiquarians at the want of an authentic history of India, we cannot at the same time share their belief that the past of India is altogether a scaled volume to us. While we agree with them in considering the fixing of a chronology for ancient India a hopeless task, we venture to think that we may yet obtain much useful and interesting information about the ancient Hindus without knowing their chronology.
While we despair of ever being able to construct a connected narrative of the great wars and successive reigns, and important occurrences that took place in ancient India from extant materials, we are nevertheless hopeful that those materials will enable the historian to trace the real history of the great people and their peculiar civilisation, and to reproduce with faithfulness and accuracy, at least in general outlines, the story of their national rise and progress, from the date of their settlement as shepherd and agricultural tribes on the banks of the Indus, to the founding of powerful independent kingdoms and the wonderful development of religions, literature, arts and sciences all over the continent.
* The above essay appeared m a review of tho first volume of the present translation in the Calcutta Review for July 1880. It is here inserted with the permission of the writer.
[p.iv]: of India. And if we can succeed in doing this, if we can trace how the Hindu nation achieved its civilisation gradually, and through successive stages, and if we can further ascertain the general character of the civilisation of each stage or epoch, we shall not very much regret that a list of kings, or of wars, is wanting to complete the history of India.
Indeed, it seems to us that the disappointment and failure of the earlier antiquarians were to a great extent due to the wrong method they pursued. Our earlier antiquarians spent all their energies in trying construct lists of kings for the different provinces and kingdoms of India. Sir William Jones and his fellow labourers repeatedly had recourse to the Puranas, and such lists were again and again made out ; all more or less incorrect and valueless. Later investigators followed in their footsteps, and Mr. H. H. Wilson has given us lists of some of the oldest reigning dynasties of India.
We believe these lists to be more or less incorrect ; but supposing they were correct, we fail to see what we should gain by having long lists of royal names of the Houses of the Sun or the Moon. If it were possible to construct such lists with regard to every kingdom in India, from Kashmira in the north to Drabira and Carnata in the south, we should Still know as little of the real history of India as if they had never existed ; the true history of the people would still remain for us a book sealed with seven seals.
Fortunately, with the advance of antiquarian knowledge, such attempts have been given up and we have been taught to follow a better method. The labours of living antiquarians generally, and of Max Muller more especially, have more and more brought home to us the conviction that the gradual development of civilisation in India followed a method which can be ascertained, and that the details, not of wars or reigns, but of the progress of the nation from age to age, can be ascertained from the materials in our possession. A great nation never pauses away without leaving records of its thought as achievements. And if in India such records have been left unintentionally and almost unwittingly, — they are for that very reason the more reliable, because ungarbled. Each successive age has left, in its literature, an impress, a photograph as it were, of its thought and civilisation ; and when we bring all these photographs together, compare the features of the nation gradually
[p.v]: developing intone strength of manhood, or declining to the furrows and feebleness of old age, we perceive at a glance the whole history of the Hiudu nation and its civilisation. There is no gap anywhere, no link is wanting ; we never miss the cause when we perceive a great effect or change in society ; and a full, connected, and true history of four thousand years, such as no other nation in the world can lay claim to, — is laid before our eyes,— so full, so clear, that he who runs may read.
Such is the method that we are now pursuing, and there can be no doubt that the labours of the present generation will be rich in results. It is true that a history of Ancient India has yet to be written ; but the materials we are gathering are so rich and so full, that such a history is only a question of time. Years of patient enquiry and criticism will perhaps yet be necessary to gather from the existing records and works of different ages the laws, manners, and customs of the people of India through successive stages of civilisation ; and even after such enquiry, much will yet remain obscure or doubtful, especially in the minuter details. Nevertheless, the general outline of the history of the people will be ascertained with accuracy and distinctness, and the philosophical historian will trace with pleasure the progress of a nation isolated from the rest of the world, and working out its civilisation gradually and uninterruptedly, through a period of four thousand years.
When such work of criticism and enquiry shall have borne its fruits, we shall know how over two thousand years before the Christian era, bands or pastoral and agricultural tribes left their homes in Iran or Bactria and settled on the fertile banks of the five rivers of the Punjab. We shall know how they clustered together in small villages under their petty kings or chiefs ; tended their cattle on the banks of rivers ; cleared forests to introduce a rude sort of agriculture ; and lived at first a semi-nomad and rude life. We shall know how they fought with the black dwellers of the country and defended and extended their settlements by their strong right arm ; how they worshipped the sun, the sky, the fire, find whatever else was striking and beautiful in nature ; and how the patriarchs of tribes, or the fathers of families were the natural priests, and invoked blessings on the tribe or family, and prayed to the gods for the preservation of cattle or the
[p.vi]: confusion of their black enemies. Such hymns are still preserved to us after a period of three thousand years and more and breathe a simplicity, a fervour, and a piety worthy of the earliest recorded poetry of the human race.
Caste system
We shall further gather from such enquiry and criticism how priestcraft and priestly influence crept into this simple and archaic state of society, spoilt its fervour, and repressed its native energy. Forms of worship were gradually elaborated and crystallised until they assumed monstrous proportions ; priests formed a caste by themselves, and, as elsewhere in the world, domineered over laymen ; kings and soldiers formed a second proud caste, while the great mass of traders and agriculturists formed a third. The aborigines who had owned the supremacy of the conquerors, were content to be their slaves and formed a fourth caste. These divisions, and the increase of priestly influence and formal worship through hireling priests, repressed the healthy growth of the people and restrained their activity of thought for hundreds of years.
The only element which disturbed from time to time this unhealthy stagnation, was the rivalry of the great royal and military class, which could scarcely brook the supremacy even of priests. In the end this caste seems to have openly questioned priestly supremacy, and given a healthy stimulus to national thought and action. The earliest philosophical speculations of India are connected with this movement, inaugurated by the military caste, while the name of Janaka of Mithila, who was the proudest asserter of Kshatriya supremacy, is also connected with the story of the first great Aryan invasion of southern India. Thus the national activity of this period manifested itself in action no leas than in contemplation. New lands were visited and new kingdoms founded, until the whole of northern India and a part of the south were carved out into strong independent kingdoms and races, living side by side, all following the same religion, all enjoying a high degree of civilisation, and forming a sort of united confederation of nations. Wars were, of course, of frequent occurrence, as every ambitious prince tried to establish a sort of supremacy over his neighbours ; but these wars were of a humane nature and never disturbed the peoples in their respective occupations ; and when the supremacy so much sought after was established, the victor
[p.vii]: and the surrounding princes were friendly again. One of the most signal of these international wars, if we may so term them, occurred about thirteen hundred years before Christ- it was the war of the Kurus. This war was the commencement of a new epoch in the history of India ; it closed the Vedic epoch, and was the commencement of the epic period of India.*
The traditions of India assert that Vyasa, the compiler of the Vedas, was contemporaneous with the war of the Kurus. Vyasa was probably a mythical personage ; but the tradition points at any rate to the fact that the great war happened about the time when the Vedas were collected, arranged and compiled, — that is to say, at the close of the Vedic period. But, although this war happened immediately at the close of the Vedic period, and although the first invasion of Aryans into southern India occurred, as we have seen above, at a still earlier period, that is within the Vedic times, the two great epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, describing these two events respectively, were composed many centuries after. Indeed these two epics are not the
* It is needless to remark that the real facts of the war and the names of those who fought it have been much filtered and distorted in the epic of the Mahabharata, which was composed long after the occurrence took place. The only contemporaneous allusion to the war that has, yet been discovered is in the Satapatha Brahmana of the Yajur Veda. In the earlier part of the Brahmana the Kurus and the Panchalas are represented as two friendly races living together in peace. In the latter portions of the Brahmana there are allusions to a violent occurrence and sin, and the fall of Janamejaya, Parikshita and his brothers Bhimasena, Ugrasena and Srutasena. The great war must therefore have taken place between the time when the earlier portions of the Satapatha Brahmana were composed and the time when the later portions were composed. And as the Satapatha Brahmana was composed towards the close of the Vedic period, we are right in placing the great war at the close of the Vedic period.
There is no allusion in the Satapatha Brahmana or any other Brahmana to the Pandavas, and apparently therefore, they were not among the main actors in the real war between the Kurus and the Panchalas. The legend of the Pandavas is in fact of a later date.
The Buddhist work Lalita Vistara makes an allusion to the five Pandus in the introduction, but in the work itself the Pandavas are described as a wild mountain tribe, living by marauding and plunder? The Pandavas therefore, if they had any real existence at all, were probably a Non-Aryan hill-tribe, among whom polyandry prevailed, and who may or may not have taken a part in the war between the Aryan Kurus and Panchalas.
The name of Arjuna is mentioned in the Satapatha Brahmana, but not as a hero of the war, but as synonymous with the name of the god Indra!
[p.viii]: works of any single poets, but are the predictions of saintly and imaginative writers of many centuries, each succeeding writer adding to, or altering, or modernising, the great heritage left by his predecessors. The traditions of the two great events lived in the memory of the nation and spontaneously gave rise to Jays and songs, centuries after the occurrences had taken place. The names of the heroes of the wars had by that time been considerably altered, miraculous incidents had been intertwined with the main story, and as the great works -went on increasing, numerous tales from the great storehouse of Hindu mythology were gradually mixed up with the stories of the wars. To throw a halo of sacredness over the compositions, they were ascribed to two great saints who were said to be contemporaneous with the two great wars, and under the shadow of these great names, each succeeding writer contributed his mite, until the poems assumed the ponderous proportions which they now exhibit. Thus the greatest literary heritages of India are in truth the results of national, not of individual, genius. Scholars like Weber and Max Muller agree that the main portions of them were composed before the spread of Buddhism in India in the third century before Christ, but portions have been added, and the poems have been modernised perhaps in a still later period.
Fixing of date of Mahabharata war
Such being the history of the two great epics of India, it is necessary to turn to the events which they describe. We have observed before, that the war of the Kurus occurred at the close of the Vedic period. For several reasons it is necessary to fix the date of this occurrence. If we can fix the date of this period, we shall know when the Vedic period closed and the Vedas were compiled and arranged ; we shall learn how early the whole of Northern India was divided into powerful and civilised independent tribes and kingdoms ; and lastly, and what is more immediately to our purpose, we shall know when the authentic- history of Kashmira begins, — for the history of Kashmira, which is the subject of our present article, commences at the time of the Kura war. Fortunately we are able to fix this date with a greater degree of certainty than we can fix the dates of most other events of ancient Hindu history. A number of very distinguished scholars, starting from different premises, and proceeding by different lines of argument, both astronomical
[p.ix]: and chronological, have yet arrived at much the same conclusion, viz., that the Kuru war and the final compilation of the Vedas took place about the 12th or 14th century before Christ. We need not here recapitulate their researches and reasoning on this point, but will only briefly allude to the results. Colebrooke, following two different lines of reasoning, arrives nevertheless, at the same date, viz 14th century before Christ. Major Wilford fixes 1370 B.C. while Dr. Hamilton puts it down to the 12th century B.C. Archdeacon Pratt accepts this last date on astronomical grounds, while Mr. H. H. Wilson accepts the conclusion of Colebrooke. All later historians and scholars have accepted either the 14th or the l2th century before Christ as the date of the momentous events which opened a new epoch in the history of India.
To the results of the researches of these eminent scholars we will only add the testimony of such facts and figures as the history of two great kingdoms in India can supply. The history of Magadha, thanks to the Buddhistic revolution, presents us with some dates which cannot be disputed. Sakya Sinha, the founder of the Buddhist religion, died about 550 B.C. and thirty-five princes reigned in Magadha between the Kuru war and the time of Sakya Sinha. Seventeen or sixteen years are considered a good general average of the reigns of kings in India ; we shall accept the more moderate average, viz., 16 years, and this calculation shows that the Kuru war took place in the 12th century before Christ.
Testimony of the history of Kashmir
Last, though not the least, is the testimony of the history of Kashmir. Kalhana Pandita, the writer of the history, lived in 1148 A.D. and his dates are perfectly reliable, and have rightly been accepted by Mr. H. H. Wilson, up to five or six centuries previous to the time of the historian. Indeed there can be no doubt as to the correctness of Kalhana's dates up to the reign of Durlabhabardhana, who ascended the throne in 598 A. D.* When, however the historian travels to an anterior period, his dates become extravagant and unreliable, and require to be adjusted. Mr. Wilson has, by so adjusting the dates, ascertained that the reign of
* Mr. Wilson makes it 615 A. D. But we accept the dates given by Mr. Jogesh Chunder Dutt, because his work is a literal translation of the Sanscrit history, whereas Mr. Wilson often consulted Persian authorities in writing his essay. The difference, however, is only of seventeen years.
[p.x]: Gonanda I, who was contemporaneous with the heroes of the Kuru war, happened about 1400 B. C. We should have very, much liked to see the present translator, Mr. Jogesh Chunder Dutt, attempting such an adjustment of dates. Since, how-ever, he has not done so, and, as we cannot for many reasons accept Mr. Wilson's dates,* we shall attempt to adjust the dates for ourselves.
We have seen that Durlabhabardhana ascended the throne in 598 A. D. Thirty-seven kings reigned between the time of Gonanda III and Durlabhabardhana. Giving Sixteen years to each reign, we find that Gonanda III ascended the throne A. D. 6, that is about the commencement of the Christian era.
What was the period which elapsed between Gonanda I and Gonanda III ? We are told that fifty-two kings reigned from Gonanda I to Gonanda III, and they reigned over a period of 1266 years. This gives an average of over twenty-four years for each reign, which, though not impossible, is highly improbable. Either, then, the period (1266 years) has been wrongly described, or there is a mistake in the number given of the kings who reigned in this period. If we had as clear and reliable an account of these fifty-two kings before Gonanda III, as we have of the kings who succeeded him, we should not have hesitated to give them each an average of sixteen years' reign as we have done to the successors of Gonanda III and so reduced the alleged period of 1266 years to 832 years. But so far from having any reliable account of these fifty-two kings, the very names of most of them are lost, and we have therefore the bare assertion of Kahlana that fifty-two unknown kings reigned. It
* Mr. Wilson gives 20 years to each reign which is too high an average to lead to a.correct conclusion. According to his calculation again, the date of disputes between Buddhists and Brahmanas in Kashmira is anterior to the birth of Sakya Sinha, the founder of Buddhism, which is absurd. Lastly, he makes the curious mistake of supposing that the first fifty-two kings of Kashmira, whose names have mostly been lost, were anterior to Gonanda I, whereas the following passage from the Rajatarangini clearly shows that the fifty-two kings whose names have mostly been lost were Gonanda I and hit successors down to Abhimanyu. " No mention is made of fifty-two kings on account of their irreligion. Four of these, Gonanda, &c. are named by Nilamuni; Padma Mihira, following Helaraja, gives an account of eight kings (descendants of Asoka) from Lava ; and Srichchhavillaka speaks of five only. He writes from Asoka to Abhimanyu, five kings have been named out of fifty-two." — Jogesh Chunder Dutt's translation. We are much afraid Mr Wilson's Persian authorities led him into these and similar mistakes. If he had faithfully followed the original Sanskrit work he would surely have avoided them.
[p.xi]: is more than probable therefore that, in reckoning this number, weak princes who reigned for short periods have not been included and that the actual number of kings who reigned before Gonanda III was over fifty-two. That this is likely, appears from a disagreement between two authorities whom Kalhana quotes in his history. Padmamihira says there were eight kings from Lava to Abhimanyu, while Srichchhavillaka says there were only five. It is clear, therefore, that no reliance can be placed on the number given of the princes who reigned before Gonanda III. It is very likely that the number was over fifty-two, and it is not unlikely therefore that the period covered by these reigns has correctly been described as 1266 years.
Even assuming that only fifty-two princes did reign from Gonanda I to Gonanda III, it is not impossible to suppose that the average of their reigns was twenty-four years, and that they ruled for 1266 years, which is the period given by Kalhana. We cannot therefore be far from the truth if we accept Kalhana's statement that 1266 years elapsed from the reign of Gonanda I to that of Gonanda III. But we have seen before that Gonanda III began to reign in 6 A. D. It follows, therefore, that Gonanda I reigned, and the heroes of the Kuru war lived, in 1260 B. C. Such is the testimony borne by the history of Kashmira as regards the date of the war of the Kurus.
Thus, then, by the concurrent testimony of all antiquarians and scholars of note who have enquired into the subject, by reasoning based on astronomical, philological and chronological premises, as well as by the evidence afforded by the histories of Magadha and of Kashmira respectively, the date of the war of the Kurus is fixed between the 12th and the 14th century before Christ. This is the date when the Vedic period closed and the Vedas were arranged and compiled, and a new epoch in the history of India was opened. And this, too, is the date from which the history of Kashmira commences. From this date, then, shall we follow Kalhana's history of Kashmira, occasionally alluding to contemporaneous events which transpired in other parts of India.
Gonanda I then reigned about 1260 B.C. and was the friend of Jarasindhu and the opponent of Krishna. He
[p.xii]: invaded Mathura, the capital of Krishna, but was defeated in battle and fell pierced with wounds. The proud heart of Damodara I. brooded over the circumstances of his father's death, and determined to wipe out the disgrace, and he suddenly attacked Krishna in the midst of some nuptial festivities on the banks of the Indus. Krishna, however, was again victorious, and Damodara, like his father, fell on the field of battle. His widow Yasabati was with child, and was raised to the throne. In due time she gave birth to a boy who was named after his grandfather Gonanda. It was in the reign of the boy Gonanda II, that the war of the Kurus was fought, but Gonanda II was only a boy and could not therefore join either side. Then there is a long blank in the history of Kashmira, and nothing is known of the successors of Gonanda II for several centuries. Indeed the eventful period which elapsed from the war of the Kurus to the rise of Buddhism in India is a blank in the history of Kashmira.
But although this is a blank period in Kashmirian history, it is not a blank in the great story of the progress of the Hindu nation and civilisation. On the contrary, we know with some degree of accuracy, the sort of change which Hindu society underwent during the centuries after the Kuru war. The Khatriyas, or warrior caste, of king Janaka's time, had asserted their equality with Brahmans or priests in learning and in rank, and the successors of Janaka had signalized their prowess by carrying the Aryan banner to the southernmost point of India, as also by fighting the great war subsequently described in the Mahabharata.
Monopoly of Brahmanas
This activity of the Khatriyas manifested itself no less in bold investigations into philosophy and religion than in wars ; and in the Upanishads, composed about this time, very often by Khatriyas, we see the first recorded human attempts to solve those problems of philosophy which ages and centuries after puzzled the thinkers of Greece, Arabia or modern Europe.
But this activity, of the Khatriyas appears to have abated after a time, and the Brahmans once more succeeded in assuming, and even monopolizing, that supremacy in thought and learning which the warriors had in vain tried to share with them. In the Sutra literature, which was written after the Vedic period, we mark not only the activity of the Brah-
[p.xiii]: minical intellect, but also that unquestioned supremacy which the priests at last established over the Khatriyas. Not only were philosophy, astronomy, rhetoric, grammar, metre and cognate sciences cultivated by Brahmans with wonderful acuteness and success, but social laws were laid down investing Brahmans with a halo of unapproachable sanctity and glory. Indeed Brahmans appear to have used the power which they had now attained to their best advantage ; there was one law for them, another law for others ; Brahman offenders were treated with leniency, offenders against Brahmans were punished with tenfold severity; Brahmans alone bad the right to expound the Vedas ; they alone performed all ceremonies and received gifts from other castes ; they monopolised all the highest and most honorable executive and judicial posts under government, and they also enjoyed a practical monopoly of philosophy, science and learning. However much we may admire the genius of the Brahmans of this period ; however highly we may esteem their six schools of philosophy, their astronomy, their science and their poetry, — the Ramayana and the Mahabharata were originally composed at this period, — we nevertheless cannot help deploring the loss of that equality between man and man which the Khatriyas had vainly attempted to establish, and we deeply regret the civilisation of this period in which the rights of humanity were sacrificed in order to add to the privileges and heighten the dignity of priests and priesthood.
Happily the Khatriyas made another attempt to shake off priestly supremacy and preach the equality of man, and the effect was the rise of that religion which even now, after the lapse of over two thousand years, counts a larger portion of the human race among its followers than either Christianity, or Muhamadanism, or Hinduism, or any other religion. This reaction against priestly supremacy, this second recorded attempt of Khatriyas to proclaim the equality of man is known as the rise of Buddhism in the sixth century before Christ. We need not here retrace the story of the great Sakya Sinha and his religion, which ignored caste inequalities and proclaimed the equality of man and humanity towards all living beings. India listened to the great lesson and benefited by it, and the great religious revolution evoked a social and a political change. Extension of ideas had its effect
[p.xiv]: on the political economy of India, and the supremacy of king; Asoka and of the Buddhist religion over all northern India, in the third century before Christ, was only an effect of the great lessons and the enlarged views which Sakya Sinha had preached to the world. For two or three centuries more Buddhism remained the dominant religion in India, after which it gradually gave place to that Brahmanism and priestly supremacy which prevails to the present day. Let us, then, turn to the history of Kashmira and see whether we discover here that contention between Brahmanism and Buddhism which shook all India for centuries before and after the birth of Christ.
After the long blank which we have spoken of above, we come to a line of eight kings, from Lava to Sachinara, of whom Kalhana has very little to say. Sachinara was succeeded by Asoka, who was the fifth prince before Gonanda III and who, therefore, according to our calculation, reigned in the first century before Christ. Buddhism was then the prevailing religion in India; and Kalhana tells us that Asoka himself was a Buddhist and a truthful and a spotless king, and built many Buddhist stupas on the banks of the Bitasta (Jhelum.) He also built a chaitya so high that its top could not be seen, and he founded the city of Srinagar which exists to the present day. He also, according to Kalhana, pulled down the wall of an old Hindu temple and built a new wall to it ; and the writer of the Ayin Akbari is therefore probably right in saying that Asoka abolished the Brahmanical rites and substituted those of Jaina."* There can be no doubt, therefore, that the dispute between Brahmans and Buddhists had commenced before the time of Asoka, and that in the first century before Christ Buddhism was the prevailing religion in Kashmira, as elsewhere in India.
The death of Asoka appears to have been a serious loss to Buddhism in Kashmira, for his successor Jaloka appears to have been a Hindu and a Saiva. He was a powerful king and drove back the Mllechchhas (Scythians ?) who had overrun kashmira during the lifetime of his father and he extended his conquests to the eastern side to Kanouj. This conquest of one of the great centres of "Brahmanism by a prince of Kashmira " possibly marks† the introduction of
* H. H. Wilson, Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV. †Ibid.
[p.xv]: the Brahmanical creed in its more perfect form into the kingdom" of Kashmira. Kalhana informs us that from Kanouj, Jaloka carried to his kingdom some men of each of the four castes who were versed in law and religion, (Brahinanicalk of course,) that he created new offices after the orthodox method, that he established eighteen places of worship, and used to hear the Nandi Purana recited. The triumph of Brahmanism seemed to be complete, but the Buddhists did not lose heart, and their attempts to win over the king have been thus handed down by tradition in the shape of a tale. We quote from Mr, Jogesh Chunder's translation—
"It is narrated of this king that one day, when he was going to the temple of Vijayeshvara, he met a woman in the way who asked him for some food, and when he promised her whatever food she wanted, she changed herself into some deformed shape and asked for human flesh. Unwilling to kill any one to satisfy her unnatural appetite, he permitted her to take off what she liked from his own body. This heroic self-devotion seemed to move her, and she remarked, that for his tender regard for the life of others she considered him a second Buddha. The king, being a follower of Shiva, did not know Buddha, and asked her who Buddha was, whom she took him to be. She then unfolded her mission, and said, that on the other side of the hill of Lokaloka, where the sun never shone, there lived a tribe of Krittika who were the followers of Buddha. 'This tribe,' she continued with the eloquence of a missionary, 'were never angry even with those who did them injury, forgave them that trespassed against them, and even did them good. They taught truth and wisdom to all, and were willing to dispel the darkness of ignorance that covered the earth. But this people,' she added, 'you have injured. There was a monastery belonging to us in which the beating of drums once disturbed your sleep, and incited by the advice of wicked men, you have destroyed the monastery. The angry Buddhists sent me to murder you, but our high priest interfered ; he told me that you were a powerful monarch, against whom we would not be able to cope. He said that if you would listen to me, and built a monastery with your gold, you would atone for the sins of which you are guilty in destroying the former one. Here I came, therefore and tested
[p.xvi]: your heart in disguise.' Krittidevi then - returned to her people after extorting from the king a promise to build a monastery, and agreeably to his promise he caused it to be erected on the very place of their meeting."
Jaloka was succeeded by Damodara II, and in the account of his reign we have the counterpart of the story we have given above. For now it was the Brahmans who were angry with the king, probably for his favouring Buddhism, and their attempt to revive their faith is thus handed down by tradition in the shape of a tale which we also quote from Mr. Jogesh Chunder's work —
" One day, when the king was going to bathe, previous to performing a Sraddha, some hungry Brahmans asked him for food ; but he disregarded their request and was proceeding to the river, when the Brahmans by force of their worship brought the river to his feet. ' Look ' said they, ' here is Bitasta (Jhelum), now feed us!' But the king suspected it to he the effect of magic. ' Go away for the present,' . replied the king. ' I will not feed you till I have bathed.' The Brahmans then cursed him saying that he would be turned into a serpent. When much entreated to withdraw their curse, they so far mitigated it as to say, that if the king could listen to the Ramayana from the beginning to the end in one day, he would be restored to his form. To this day he may be seen running about at Damodarasuda in the form of a thirsty serpent."
These stories, which appear so childish on fee face of them, are simply invaluable when taken according to their proper significance. They shew that in the first century before Christ the great religious revolution which had shaken the whole continent of India had also found its way into the secluded heights of Kashmira, and that Brahmans and Buddhists in that country were struggling for that supremacy which eventually crowned the efforts of the latter.
Such Brahman supremacy, however, was not achieved in a day, and in the joint reigns of Hushka, Jushka and Kanishka, the immediate successors of Damodara II, Buddhism was once more triumphant, and "during their long reign Buddhist hermits were all powerful in the- country and Buddhist religion prevailed without opposition."* In the reign of their successor, Abhimanyu, " the Buddhists, under their great leader
* Rajatarangini,— Jogesh Chunder Dutt, Translation.
[p.xvii]: Nagarjuna, continued to gain strength in the country ; they not only defeated in argument the Panditas who upheld the worship of Siva, and rejected the duties prescribed in the Nila Purana, but had the influence to discontinue the ceremonies and worship enjoined by it. The Nagas, in consequence, rose in arms, murdered many people, mostly Buddhists, by rolling down ice from the mountains, and carried out their devastations year by year.* Thus religious differences, as elsewhere, culminated in civil war, man killed man for differences in belief, and the country was in confusion. Brahman intellect and influence prevailed in the end over Buddhism, and Chandracharya, the learned and noted grammarian, led the van of Brahmauical success. It was by the instrumentality of such powerful intellects which appeared in India from time to time, that Brahmanism slowly triumphed over Buddhism from the commencement of the Christian era. Chandracharya, of Kashmira, was probably the first of these apostles of modern Brahmanism ; Sankaracharya, of Southern India, who lived and preached in the 8th or 9th century aftet Christ, was the lust. Abhimanyu was the last of his dynasty. His successor, Gonanda III., began a new dynasty in 6 A. D., as we have seen before.
A test to examine correctness of the dates
Here we come across a curious test by which we may examine the correctness or otherwise of the dates we have given to the reigns of kings. The Chinese traveller Hieun Tsiang tells us that Kanishka succeeded to the kingdom of Kashmira "in the fourhundredth year after the Nirvaua." .(Beales' translation.) R. Davids fixes the Nirvana at about 412 B.C. So that Kanishka began his reign about the beginning of the Christian era. The profound antiquarian Lassen also proves from coins that Kanishka lived between 10 A.D., and 40 A. D. Accepting this conclusions correct, and giving 16 years for the intervening reign of Abhimanyu, we find that Gonanda III. commenced his reign at 56 A. D., i.e, just half a century after the date that was have given him.
If then, in testing our long chain of calculations and dates by a random and severe test, at one single point we find that we are out only by 50 years, it follows that the chain of our calculations cannot be very far from correct.
* Rajatarangini,— Jogesh Chunder Dutt, Translation.
[p.xviii]: There is yet another fact about Kanishka which we wish to mention before we proceed further with our story. Indian writers have carefully concealed the fact of foreign immigrations and conquests in India though we know such things have taken place. The present instance is a case in point. Kalhana suppresses the fact that Kanishka was a foreign invader. We learn from the Chinese historians however that he belonged to the Gushan tribe of the Yuei-Chi, who came originally from the borders of China. We learn from Hieun Tsiang that tributary princes from China sent hostages to him, and that the town where the hostages resided was called China-pati. Chinese fruits were imported into India with the influx of the Chinese, and the peach and the pear,— previously unknown in India — came to be known as the Chinani and the China-rajaputra. We must proceed however with our story.
The fifth king after Gonanda III, was Nara I, who " burnt thousands and thousands of monasteries and gave to the Brahmans who dwelt at Madhyamata the villages that supported those monasteries." The reason assigned for this conduct is, that a Buddhist had eloped with the king's wife ; but this seems unlikely and false, and has apparently been got up by later Brahmans to blacken the character of the Buddhists. The real cause seems to be, that, in the struggle - between Brahmanism and Buddhism, the former had now gained complete ascendency, and the gradual extinction of Buddhism in Kashmira was only a question of time.
The filth king after Nara I was Mukula, in whose reign Mlechchhas (Scythians ?) once more overran Kashmira. His successor, Mihirukula, is described as a powerful but cruel king, and is said to have invaded and conquered Ceylon and then returned through Chola, Karnata, Nata and other kingdoms. Gopaditya was the sixth king after Mihirakula, - and he bestowed ninny villages on Brahmans, expelled from his country irreligious Brahmans who used to eat garlic, brought purer Brahmans from foreign countries, and forbade , the slaughter of animals except for religious purposes. Brahmanism in Kashmira, as elsewhere in India, was apparently assuming its most rigid shape after its triumph over Buddhism ; priests invented new laws and prohibitions to enslave a superstitious people ; thought and culture were prohibited to all except Brahmans, apparently to prevent any future reaction against Brahman supremacy ; gods and religious
[p.xix]: rites and superstitions observances were multiplied by a number of modern Puranas, written by astute priests, but prudently ascribed to the great Vyasa the compiler of the Vedas, and the unhealthy and demoralizing religion, Puranism, fast reared its head over the ashes of Buddhism. The nation which had once dared to question the supremacy of Brahmans and Brahmanism was now shackled by its chains, once and for ever.
Three kings reigned after Gopaditya, after which Pratapaditya began a new dynasty in the year 342 A.D. according to our calculation. A severe famine visited Kashmira in the reign of Tunjina I, the grandson of Pratapaditya and the son and successor of Jalauka, in consequence of the sali grain being blighted by a sudden and heavy frost. The king died childless, and Vijaya, of a different family, succeeded him. Jayendra, his son, reigned after him, and after him his minister, Sandhimati, became king, but resigned the high office in favour of Meghabahana, a descendant from the older royal dynasty of Gonanda III.
Meghabahana, who ascended the throne in 438 A.D. according to our calculation, seemed to have been favorably inclined towards Buddhism, and his queens built numerous Buddhist monasteries in the kingdom. Following the Buddhist doctrines, the king not only prohibited the slaughter of animals in his own kingdom, but is said to have " carried his arms to the sea, and even to Ceylon, making the subdued kifgs promise not to kill animals." Meghabahana was succeeded by his son, Shreshtasena, and his son, Hiranya, succeeded him.
After the death of Hiranya, a foreigner, Matrigupta, obtained the kingdom of Kashmira by the help of Bikramaditya, king of Ojein. This was probably the great Bikramaditya of Ojein in whose reign the poet Kalidasa lived (5th century A.D.), but the historian of Kashmira mistakes him for Bikramaditya, the foe of the Sakas, who lived in the first century before Christ.* Matrigupta was a courtier of
* This is the one great reason of the confusion of Kalhana's dates. His dates are quite reliable from his own time 1148 A.D. to the reign of Durlabhabardhana 598 A.D. Only six kings ruled between Durlabhabardhana and Matrigupta; and, as Kalhana believed Matrigupta to be contemporaneous with Bikramaditya of the Saka era, i. e. of the first century before Christ, he makes those six kings reign over the whole of the intermediate six centuries ! Hence Kalhana's dates are perfectly useless for the period anterior to 598 A.D.
[p.xx]: Bikramaditya, and was rewarded by him with the kingdom of Kashmira ; and the people of Kashmira accepted the king sent to them by the renowned king of Ojein.
In the meantime Pravarasena, the nephew of the late king Hiranya, and the rightful heir of Kashmira, marched against Bikramaditya, who had usurped his heritage and bestowed it on a stranger. Bikramaditya died about this time, and his protege, Matrigupta, resigned in grief, and Pravarasena, therefore, easily got back the kingdom of his uncle. He was a powerful prince and defeated the people of Saurastra (near Suratt, and seven times defeated Siladitya, the successor of Bikramaditya of Ojein, and brought away from that place the ancient throne of Kashmira; which Bikramaditya appears to have taken away from Kashmira. His son, Yudhisthira II, and grandson, Narendraditya, succeeded him in their turns, and the latter was succeeded by his brother, Ranaditya. Bikramaditya, the son of Ranaditya, was a powerful king, and so was his brother and successor, Baladitya, with whom the dynasty ended. Baladitya died 598 A.D. and his son-in-law Durlabhabardhana, of Kayastha caste, began a new dynasty. From this date, 598 A.D., we can rely on Kalhana's dates.
We have now arrived at the close of the sixth century of the Christian era, when Brahmaism had once more asserted its supremacy over the length and breadth of India. Buddhism had not yet entirely disappeared ; and, indeed, it did not entirely disappear from Benares, Magadha and other places till after the Mahomedam conquest. Nevertheless it was everywhere on the wane, and Buddhist monasteries were everywhere outnumbered by Hindu temples. We have a valuable and graphic account of the India of this period from the pen of the Chinese traveller, Hioueu Sang, just as we have a good account of the Hindu civilization of the third century before Christ from Greek visitors. Hiouen Sang came into India in 629 A.D., and saw the great continent divided into 138 kingdoms and principalities of which he personally visited 110. Among other places he describes Kashmira, Mathura, Kanouj, Benares, Magadha, Burdvan, Assam, Tumlook, Orissa, Drabir, Maharashtra and Ojein, and almost everywhere deplores the decadence of Buddhism.
[p.xxi]: Siladitya, the king of Kanouj, was the Most powerful potentate in India at the time, and had made all the other princes recognize his supremacy. The trade from Tumlook in Bengal to Ceylon was brisk, and numerous vessels crossed and recrossed the sea. Magadha and Ojein are described as the two kingdoms in which learning was cultivated and encouraged - with the greatest assiduity, while the Maharattas are described as a powerful race who had defied even Siladitya of Kanouj, who were brave in war, generous towards dependents, fair towards enemies, and altogether the most warlike and determined race in India. But we must return from these interesting and almost invaluable details to the story of Kashmira.
Durlabhabardhana was succeeded by his son Durlabhaka, in 634 A.D., and his son Chandrapira, succeeded in 684 A.D. Chandrapira was murdered by his brother Tarapira, Who employed some Brahmans to do this foul deed, in 693, but the impious brother, after a short reign of four years, himself fell a victim to the intrigue of Brahmans and was murdered. His brother Lalitaditya succeeded in 697 A. D. and was a powerful and warlike king, and set out on an expedition to subdue the continent. He subdued Kanyakubja, and Bhababhuti, the greatest dramatic poet of India after Kalidasa, came over to the court of the conqueror. He then proceeded on his march of conquest through Kalinga, Goura, and along the Bay of Bengal to Karnata, which was at that time governed by a powerful queen. She submitted to Lalitaditya, who is said to have then "crossed the sea, passing from one island to another." Then the king turned northwards, crossed the Vindya and entered Avanti.
Some hard fighting followed, when the king tried to subdue the hardy races and kings of the country now called Rajputana, after which the king returned to his country. He built numerous edifices, Buddhist as well as Brahmanical, and his queens and ministers followed his example. In the end the king appears to have lost his life in attempting to penetrate the Himalayas to conquer the unknown North.
Kubalayapira succeeded his father in 733 A. D., but had to resign in favour of his more powerful brother Bajraditya who- reigned from 734 to 741 A. D. We read that " this luxurious king had many females in his zenana. He sold many people to the Mlechchhas and introduced their evil habits." Who are these Mlechchhas, with their luxurious and evil habits, and their custom of buying slaves in India,
[p.xxii]: of whom we now hear for the first time? The dates at once shew that they were Muhammad Kasim, the first Mahomedun invader of India and his successors, who kept possession of Scinde from 711 to 750 A.D. The passage above quoted, then, is the first mention of Mahomedans in the history of Kashmira, unless some of the victories of Lalitaditya, of which we have spoken in the last paragraph, were victories over the Mahomedans of Scinde.*
Prithivyapira reigned for four years, and Sangramapira for seven days, after which the powerful Jayapira ascended the throne in 745 and reigned for thirty-one years. He was a great patron of learning, invited men of genius to his court, and employed learned men in collecting the fragments of Patanjali'a, Commentary on Katyana's Notes on Panini's grammar. These are the greatest grammarians of India, and we know from the above passage that they must have lived long before the eighth century of the Christian era. Jayapira travelled out of his kingdom in disguise to Gour, there married the king's daughter, and, returning to his country, vanquished and killed his rebellious brother-in-law, who had usurped Kashmira in his absence. Soon after he again set out for conquest. In the kingdom of Bhimsena, and again in Nepal, he was beaten and imprisoned, but on both occasions he managed to escape and to triumph, over his enemies in the end.
Returning to his country, Jayapira followed the advice of Kayastha ministers and financiers, and so offended the Brahmans, who (being the historians of Kashmira) have not failed to heap abuse on him. The following account of the death of Jayapira, which we take from Mr. Jogesh Chunder's
* Thus we are told that Lalitaditya, after crossing over to the north of the Vindya mountains, " thrice defeated Dassani and subdued him. He then conquered the Bouttas, in whose naturally pale faces no further sign of anxiety was visible. He also conquered Darad." Dassani is not improbably a corruption of a Mahomedan name, while the pale-faced race may have been the fair countrymen of Mahomed Kasim. Then again we read that " to mark the conquests he (Lalitaditya) offered other kings to were a symbol of subjection, which they bear to this day. The Turashkas commemorate the fact of their being bound, by generally clasping both their hands behind their backs and shaving the front parts of their heads " Who were the Turashkas subdued by Lalitaditya unless they were the Mahomedan Turks of Scinde? Lastly we are told that the "king of the sandy Sindhu sent a messenger to the king of Kashmira and to make him and his men perish in the desert but the king overcame all obstacles and defeated the wily king of Sindhu, and devastated his country.
[p.xxiii]: translation, will give a good idea of the insolence and pride of the Brahmans, as well as of the manner in which they fabricated stories and interwove them with history in order to preserve their supremacy and glorify their power.
The Brahmanas who dwelt at Tulamula, once came to say something to the king, but were struck in his presence by his door-keeper, and consequently were very angry. 'Brahmans were never insulted before, even in the presence of Manu, Mandhata, Rama and other great kings ; they said, ' and when angry they can destroy in a moment the heaven with Indra, the earth with her mountains, and the nether world with its Naga-chief.' The king, who would not ask for advice, and was deserted by his feudatory kings, replied with supercilious pride: 'You cunning people who eat by begging, what pride is this of yours that you pretend to do what the Rishis did.' The Brahmanas were cowed down by his frown, but one Iitti thus replied : — ' We conduct ourselves according to the times'; as you are a king, even so we are Rishis.' The king scornfully enquired : 'Art thou the great Rishi, Vishvamitra, or Vashishta, or Agastha?' And, as if flaming with anger, the other replied, ' If you be Harishchandra,Trishanku or Nahusha, then I am one of those you mention. The king then answered with a smile, ' The curse of Vishvamitra and others destroyed Harishchandra, &c., what will your anger effect? The Brahmana struck the earth with his hand and said, ' Will not my anger bring down Brahmadanda on thee ? Then said the angry king, ' Let fall the Brahmadanda, why delay it longer?' '0 cruel man ! there it falls.' And no sooner had litti said so, than a golden bar from the canopy fell on the king. The wound degenerated into erysipelatous inflammation, and insects generated on the suppuration. He suffered great pain, the sample of what he would have to surfer in hell. After five nights, he who had counted danger, died."
His son, Lalitapira, reigned for twelve years and was succeeded by his half-brother, Sangramapira, who reigned till 795 A. D. On his death, Chippatajayapira, the son of Lalitapira by a concubine, was raised to the throne, and the five brothers of this woman shared all the ruling power among themselves. They and their sons successively set up three more kings on the throne, after which Avantivarma, the grandson of one of these brothers, ascended the throne, and thus commenced a new dynasty in 855 A. D.
[p.xxiv]: It is in the reign of Avantivarma that we first read an account of the country being improved by drainage and irrigation operations, and Suyya was the great engineer who performed this work. He was of low birth, and, as usual, his attempts have been somewhat grotesquely described; but, nevertheless, our readers will not fail to observe from the following passage that Kashmira was greatly benefited by the industry and intellect of this great man. We quote from Mr. Jogesh Chunder's translation.
" One day, when some people were grieving on account of the recent floods, he, Suyya, remarked that he had intellect, but not money, and he could therefore give no redress. This speech was reported to the king by his spies, and the king wondered and caused him to be brought before him. The king asked him as to what he had said. He fearlessly repeated that he had intellect but no money. The courtiers pronounced him to be mad, but the king, in order to try his intellect, placed all his wealth at the disposal of this man. Suyya took out many vessels tilled with dinnaras, but went by boat to Madava. There in the village named Nandaka, which was under water, he threw a pot of dinnaras, and returned.
Although the courtiers pronounced him to be undoubtedly mad, the king heard of his work, and enquired as to what be did afterwards. At Yakshadara in Kramarajya he began to throw dinnaras by handfuls into the water. The Vitasta was there obstructed by rocks which had fallen into its bed from both its rocky banks ; and the villagers who were suffering from scarcity, began to search for the dinnaras and in so doing removed the rocks which were in the bed of the river, and cleared the passage of the water. No sooner had the water flowed out than Suyya raised a stone embankment along the Vitasta, which was completed within seven days. He then cleared the bed of the river, and then broke down the embankments. The passage was now quite open, and the river flowed easily and rapidly towards the sea, as if anxiously and eagerly, after this long detention ; and consequently the land again appeared above the waters. He then cut new canals from the Vitasta wherever he thought that the course of the River had been obstructed. Thus many streams issued out of one main river, even like the several heads of a serpent from one trunk. Sindhu Which flowed from Trigrama to the left, and Vitasta on the right, were made to meet one another at Vainyasvami. And even to this day the
[p.xxv]: junction made by Suyya, near this town, exists ; as also the two gods Vishnusvami and Vainyasvami at Phalapura and Parihasapura situated on either side of the junction ; and the god Hrishikesha whom Suyya worshipped, just at the junction. And to this day may also be seen the trees which grew on the banks of the river as it flowed before, distinguished by marks of ropes by which boats were tied to them. Thus Suyya diverted the course of rivers. He raised a stone embankment seven yojanas in length ; and thereby brought the waters of the Mahapadma lake under control. He joined the waters of the lake Mahapadma with those of the Vitasta, and built many populous villages after having rescued the land from the waters. * * He examined several places and irrigated many villages (the produce of which did not depend on rain) by means of artificial canals cut from the Chanula and other rivers until the whole country became beautiful. Thus Suyya benefited the country such as even Kashyapa and Valadeva had not done."
Avantivarma died in 883, the first Vaishnava king that we read of. Vaishuavism and Saktaism are later phases of Hinduism than Shaivaism, and in the history of Kashmira we scarcely hear anything of Vaishnaism till the present time.
His successor Sankaravarma, was a great conqueror and conquered Guzerat. Returning to his country, be listened to the advice of his Kayastha financiers and imposed taxes on the people which made him unpopular with them, or at any rate, with the offended Brahmana who narrate his history. He conquered many hill places on the banks of the Indus and was at last killed by the arrow of a hunter. Surendravati and two other queens perished with him on the pyre, 902 A.D.
In the short reign of his successor Gopalavarma, the minister Prabhakara (who was a favorite of the queen mother Sugandha), defeated "the reigning Shahi" because he had disobeyed his orders to build a town in "Shahirajya." This seems to have been some petty dependent or tributary king, and we shall hereafter read more of the " Shahirajya."
Gopolavarma's brother, Sankata, dying ten days after the former, their mother Sugandha a dissolute woman, reigned for two years by the Help of the Ekangas. The Tantri infantry, however, raised Partha to the throne ; a civil war ensued, the Ekangas were beaten and the queen Sugandha killed, 906 A. D. The Tantris, being now supreme, set up one
[p.xxvi]: king after another, according as they were bribed and courted, until Chakravarma with the help of the Damaras and Ekangas at last broke their power in 935 A. D., and for the third time ascended the throne. Within two years he was assassinated by some Damaras and was succeeded by Partha's son, Unmattavanti. This young man killed his father, but died soon after, and his successor Suravarma was the last of this unfortunate dynasty which ended in 939 A. D.
Yasaskara, the first king of the new dynasty, was the son of Prabhakara, who had been minister of Gopalavarma of the preceding dynasty, and was famed for his justice ; but in the very year of his death Purbagupta murdered his son, Sangarma, and founded a new dynasty. His son, Kshemagupta, inherited the vices and dissolute habits of his father and reigned eight years. His son Abhimanya, was the only virtuous and worthy king of the line, and reigned fourteen years ; and on his death his mother, Didda (widow of Kshemagupta), successively murdered three infant kings, (her grandsons), Nandigupta, Tribhubanagupta and Bhimagupta, and became queen in 980 A. D. She reigned for 23 years, and in her reign her favorite, Tunga, defeated the king of Rajapuri.
Didda's nephew, Kshamapati, ascended the throne in 1003 A. D. and reigned till 1028 A. D. Tunga, who had been the favorite of Didda, was all powerful during the reign of her nephew, and went out with a Kashmirian army and Rajput and other subsidiary forces to help the Shahi king against the attack of the Turashkas. We shall quote Kalhana's account of the event from Mr. Jogesh Chunder's translation:
" The Kashmirians crossed the river Toushi, and destroyed the detachmant of soldiers sent by Hammira to reconnoiter. But though the Kashmirians were eager for the fight, the wise Shahi repeatedly advised them to take shelter behind the rock, but Tungga disregarded the advice, for all advice is vain when one is doomed to destruction. The general of the Turks was well versed in the tactics of war and brought out his army early in the morning. On this the army of Tungga immediately dispersed, but the troops of the Shahi fought for a while."
The heroism of the Shahi king, however, was unavailing he was beaten, and his kingdom was destroyed for ever.
[p.xxvii]: Now who was this Hammira (a Mahomedan name apparently) and who were these powerful Turashkas who defeated the Kashmirians and the Rajputs and annexed the " Shahirajya," an ally or dependent of Kashmira ? The dates show at once that Kalhana is speaking of the invasion of India by the invincible Mahmud of Ghazni.*
Tunga was soon after murdered, and Nandimukha was sent with another army against the Turashkas, but they, too, fled back to their country before the conquering Moslems.
Hariraja succeeded his father, Ksharaapati, and reigned only for 22 days after which his brother, Ananta Deva, ascended the throne and reigned 35 years i.e. from 1028 to 1063 A. D. We read that in this reign one Brahmaraja combined with seven Mlechchha kings and entered Kashmira, but was beaten back by Rudrapala, the powerful Kashmirian general. When we remember that, from the time of Mahmud of Ghuzui, a part of the Punjab always remained under Mahommedan rule, we are at no loss to guess who these seven Mlechchhas were.
After a long reign of 35 years Ananta was prevailed upon by his queen to resign in favour of his son Ranaditya ; but the prince was unworthy of their confidence, and shocked his parents and all men by his excesses of wickedness, folly and dissipation. Disheartened at this conduct of their son, the aged parents retired to Bijayeswara and passed their days in devotion, but even there they were not allowed to enjoy repose. Harassed by the enmity of this ungrateful son, Ananta at last committed suicide, and his widow ascended the funeral pyre.
The ingratitude of Ranaditya towards his father was punished by the misconduct of his son, Harsha, who rose in rebellion. Ranaditya died in 1089 A. D., a victim to his dissolute habits; his son Utkarsha succeeded him, but was soon deposed by his abler and more popular brother, Harsha, and committed suicide. Bijayamalla, _ who had helped his brother Haraha to the throne, now thirsted for the kingdom himself, but the fraternal war finally came to an end by the accidental death of Bijaymalla.
* Hammira was therefore either a general of Mahmud, or was the great conqueror himself. ... If we eliminate first syllable of Mahammud, we get the Sanskritized name Hammira
[p.xxviii]: Harsha's powerful general, Kandarpa, subdued the king of Rajapuri, but at last retired from the court in disgust at the growing jealousy of the king. Harsha subsequently attempted to subdue Rajapuri and Darad respectively but failed in both his attempts. His excessive taxation and his, oppression over the Damaras made them rise in rebellion ; and they had powerful chiefs in two brothers Uchchala and Sussala. Uchchala defeated the Lord of Mandala, but was subsequently beaten by the royal-army.
His brother Sussala defeated the royal commander Manikya, broke through all opposition and defeated the Lord of Mandala, but was at last beaten by Bhoja, the son of king Harsha. At last Uchchala defeated Harsha and his son Bhoja in a signal battle, burnt the capital and became king. The unfortunate Harsha retired to the tent of a hermit, but was there traced out and killed, 1101 A. D.
We have only one more remark to make of Harsha's reign. Allusions to Turashkas and their kingdom become more frequent now than ever before. Thus we are told that Harsha had a hundred Turashka chiefs under his pay ; that, after besieging Rajapuri, he fled back to bis kingdom through fear of the Turashka who, he heard, were approaching ; and, lastly, that his oppressed subjects left their homes and Went to the country of the Mlechchhas. Who are these Turashkas and what was their country of which we find such frequent mention during the reign of Harsha ? The dates of Harsha's reign shew at once that there was good reason for such frequent allusion to the rising Turashka power, for it was during Harsha's reign that Shahabuddin Mahommed Ghori conquered Delhi, Kanouj, and the whole of northern India, and Hindu independence was lost once and for ever. Here appropriately ends Mr. Jogesh Chunder's translation.
Thus we have traced the history of Kashmira from the earliest times to the date of the final conquest of India by the Mahomedans. We have refrained from making any remarks on the value of Kalhana's great work, because the above brief resume of it is the best- commentary on its great value. We have seen how every great social of religious revolution, and every great historical event which transpired in India, have left their impress on the history of this secluded province. The history of this province has borne its testimony
[p.xxix]: towards fixing the date of the great Kuru war ; it has helped Us to understand how Buddhism was a protest against caste distinctions, and a Khatrya assertion of the equality of all men ; it has revealed to us how Buddhism was for a time the accepted faith of the kings and peoples of India, and how, after the commencement of the Christian era, it began to decline under the renewed exertions of Brahmans to assert their supremacy and revive their old religion. In the history of Kashmira we find evidences of the dates of the two great dramatic poets of India, vie., Kalidasa and Bhababhuti ; in it we find allusions to the first Mahomedan invasion of India under the renowned Mahommed Kasim ; in it we read of that " General of the Turashkas" " well versed in the tactics of war," the invincible Mahmud of Ghuzi, before whom the Kashmirian army twice recoiled in dismay and disorder ; and, lastly, in this history we read of the rising power and kingdom of the Turashkas at the end of the eleventh century, when Delhi and Kanouj and all Northern India fell under the power of the followers of the prophet.
Such are some of the facts we learn from Kalhana's history of Kashmira, and, considering the poverty of historical records in India, the value of this record can scarcely be overestimated. It is a matter of regret and surprise, there-fore, that Kalhana's work had hitherto not been translated into English. The only accouut in English we had of it is the brief essay of H. H. Wilson in the XVth volume of the " Asiatic Researches," in which he gives a short resume of the Sanskrit work. That resume, however, is mixed up with facts gleaned from Mahomedan historians, and is besides incomplete. Kalhana's Sanskrit work comes down to 1148 A. D., and is continued by a series of writers to the date of the conquest of Kashmira by Akbar in the sixteenth century. Mr. Wilson's brief resume comes down only to the reign of Didda Rani, ending in 1003 A. D.
Such being the case, we hail with delight Mr. Jogesh Chunder Dutt's attempt — the first that has been hitherto made — to give a faithful and complete translation of the great Sanskrit work. He has already brought down the story to 1101 A. D. as we have seen, and intends to give us the remaining 47 years of Kalhana's history ( which short period, being in the writer's own time, has been narrated at great length) in a second volume. The third and last volume of the translator will include the continuation
[p.xxx]: by the other writers, and will thus bring down the story to the date of the conquest of Kashmira By Akbar. Such is the intention of the translator, and, though he distinctly states in his preface that he can hold out no promise, we sincerely hope he may succeed in carrying out his intention, and thereby make an important contribution towards the study of Indian history and antiquities.