South Indian Inscriptions

KALCHURI OF TRIPURI

possession up to the end of the eighth century A.C. Afterwards it was occupied successively by the Pratihāras,¹ Rāshtrakutas,² Chandellas³ and Muhammadans,⁴ but the Kalachuris’ occupation of the fort was remembered for a long time. The Kalachuryas of South India mention with pride in their records the title Kalañjarapuravaradhisvara, ‘the lord of Kalañjara, the best of cities’.⁵ This, like other similar titles, must be interpreted to mean that these princes were descended from a Kalachuri king who formerly ruled at Kalañjara.

The Kahla places of Sōdhadeva⁶ state that an illustrious Kalachuri prince established himself at Kālañjara, from where he raided and conquered Ayomukha (modern Partapgarh and Rai Bareli Districts, U. P.). We are further informed that after having defeated his enemies, he gave the kingdom to his younger brother Lakshmanarāja, who, in turn, conquered Svetapada. As shown below, this Lakshmanarāja is identical with Lakshmanarāja I, mentioned in the Kasia stone inscription. Like the former, the latter also had a uterine brother. Besides, he is said to have first occupied a fort (Kālañjara) and latter on established himself at Saivaya⁷ which may be identical with Svetapada.⁸ As shown below, Lakshmanaraja I’s great-grandson Lakshmanaraja II alias Rajaputra flourished about 775 A.C. Lakshmanaraja I can, therefore, be placed in circa 700 A.C. The elder brother who placed him in charge of the territory round Kalañjara is unfortunately not named in the Kahla plates. His name is, again, lost in the Kasia stone inscription, but in view of what is said above, he may be identified with Vamaraja. As his younger brother Lakshmanaraja I was probably ruling in 700 A.C., Vamaraja may have flourished from circa 675 A.C. to 700 A.C.

The Kasiā inscription names two ancestors of Lakshmanaraja I, viz., his grandfather Sankaragana and his father Nannarāja. Sankaragana may have flourished from 625 A.C. to 650 A.C., and Nannaraja, from 650 A.C. to 675 A.C. It is not stated where they were ruling, but if Vāmarāja was the first prince who conquered and established himself at Kalañjara, his father and grandfather might have been reigning at Mahishmati, the old Kalachuri capital. In that case, Sankaragana may have been a son of Buddharaja (circa 600-625 A.C.) who was defeated by Pulakesin II. In India a grandson is often named after his grandfather. So Sankaragana of the Kasiā inscription may have been named after Buddharāja’s father Sankaragana. The connection of the Earlier and the Later Kalachuris may, therefore, be stated in the following genealogical table⁹:––
_____________

¹The Barah plate of Bhōjadēva shows that in the beginning of the ninth century A.C., the Kālañjara mandala was ruled over by Śarvavarman, who was a feudatory of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Nāgabhata II. See Ep. Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 18.
² In the tenth century, the Pratīhāras seem to have lost both Chitrakūta and Kālañjara which were occupied by the Rāshtrakūtas probably during the northern campaign of Indra III. The two forts were in the occupation of the Rāshtrakūtas till the time of Krishna III. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 284.
³ According to the Khajuraho stone inscription (ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 127-28), the fort of Kālañjara was occupied by the Chandēllas during the reign of Yaśōvarman (circa 930-950 A.C.).
⁴ It was taken by Kutub-ud-din Ibak in April 1203 A.C., but was soon recovered by the Chandēllas.
⁵ See, e. g., Ep. Ind., Vol. V, p. 24.
⁶ No. 74, 1. 5.
⁷ No. 73, 11. 15 and 16.
⁸ Śvētapada was wrongly identified by R. D. Banerji with the northern part of the Nasik District (Ep. Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 70). The correct reading in 1.25 of the Kalvan plates of Yaśōvarman is Śvētapata meaning Śvētāmbara. Śvētapada may be identical with Svētapatha or Sētapatha mentioned in Sāñchī in- scriptions, No. 89 and No. 475 respectively (M. S., Vol. I, p. 299), but the country has not been identified. Śaivaya seems to be the Sanskritised form of Prakrit Seavaa derived from Śvētapada.
⁹ The identification of Vāmarāja with the elder brother of Lakshmanarāja I, mentioned in the Kasiā and Kahla inscriptions, on which the table is based, is probable, though not quite certain.