South Indian Inscriptions

KALACHURI OF TRIPURI

of these lists do we find any mention of the Kalachuris,¹ which shows that in this period they had ceased to count as a great political power in North India.

Kōkalla II was succeeded by his son Gāngēya in circa 1015 A.C. He was an aggressive and able king, and by his conquests raised his family to a high level of glory and prosperity. In the beginning of his reign, however, he occupied a comparatively subordinate position. This is indicated by the modest titles Mahārha-mahā-mahattaka and Mahārāja, with which he is mentioned in the Makundpur stone inscription, dated 1019 A.C. A Chandēlla inscription² at Mahōbā states that Bhōja and Kalachuri-chandra (the Moon of the Kalachuris) waited upon the Chandēlla prince Vidyādhara, the master of warfare, who had caused the destruction of the king of Kānyakubja, and who was lying on a couch. The Kalachuri-chandra is probably Gāngēya.³ The reference here is evidently to the attack on Rājyapāla for his abject submission to Mahmud, in which the Chandēlla prince Vidyādhara took a leading part. He was aided by some princes, one of whom, we know, was the Kachchhapaghāta ruler Arjuna.⁴ The Paramāra Bhōja and the Kalachuri Gāngēya also seem to have fought under the leadership of Vidyādhara in this expedition against Rājyapāla.⁵

In the south Gāngēya carried on the war with the Chālukyas, which had been commenced by his father. He seems to have achieved success for a time. In some records of his son Karna,⁶ Gāngēya is described as fond of defeating the king of Kuntala in a clever manner. The Khairhā and Jabalpur plates of Yaśahkarna state that wishing to run away in haste from Gāngēya, the king of Kuntala ceased to wield his spear. The king of Kuntala must, of course, be taken to mean the contemporary ruler of the Later Chālukya Dynasty, namely, Jayasimha, who ruled from about 1015 A.C. to 1042 A.C. From the ___________________

¹Firishta alone mentions this confederacy; but his statement may be incorrect in regard to Delhi and Ajmer. See Nazim, Sultan Mahmud, p. 89, n. 3.
² Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 222. Prof. S. H. Hodivala has recently made the ingenious suggestion that Kulchand, mentioned by the Muhammadan historians as ‘a Satanic leader who had assumed superiority over all other rulers, defeated, put to flight every one he had fought with, and possessed a great army, numerous elephants and strong forts which were secure from attack and capture, and who defended Mahāvan near Mathurā against Mahmud of Ghazni in 1018 A.C. is really Kōkalla Chid or Kōkalla II of Chēdi. S. I. M. H., P. 146. This is, chronologically, not impossible; because the earliest known date of Gāngēya’s reign is 1019 A.C. But Prof. Hodivala’s other suggestion that he is identical with the Kalachuri-kula-chandra who helped the Chandēlla prince Vidyādhara in defeating the pusillanimous Rājyapāla does not seem to be correct for two reasons: (i) the Muhammadan historians say that Kulchand committed suicide after his defeat at Mahāvan, and (ii) in 1019 A.C. when Rājyapāla was defeated, Gāngēya, not Kōkalla II, was on the throne. See the Makundpur stone inscription, dated K. 772 (1019 A.C.).
³ Dr. Hultzsch and, following him, Dr. H. C. Ray identify him with Kōkalla II; but this is incorrect. See above, n. 2.
⁴ See the Dubkund inscription. Ep. Ind. Vol. II, p. 233.
⁵ The colophon of a Rāmāyana Ms., discovered by Prof. Bendall in the Nepal Durbar Library, mentions Mahārājādhirāja Punyāvalōka Gāngēyadēva, born in the lunar family, as ruling over Tirabhukti in samvat 1076. Prof. Bendall referred the date to the Vikrama era and took it as equivalent to 1019-20 A.C. He identified Gāngēyadēva with the homonymous Kalachuri king, as the date falls in his reign. On the strength of this reference, it was believed for a long time that Gāngēya extended his sway to Tirhut early in his reign. The epithet punyāvalōka, however, made this identification doubtful; for, Kalachuri kings are not known to have assumed such epithets ending in avalōka. I have recently drawn attention to another epithet Garudadhvaja (previously misread by Bendall as Gaudadhvaja) applied to Gāngēya in the same colophon. It clearly shows that this king of Tirhut was different from the Kalachuri Gāngēyadēva who was paramamāhēśvara, i.e., a devout worshipper of Śiva. For the identification of this Gāngēyadēva of Tirabhukti, see my article in A. B. O. R. I., Silver Jubilee Vol., pp. 291 ff.
⁶ No. 50, 1. 18 and No. 51, 1. 9.