Post-Gupta Period:

Que.Kalhana’s Rajatarangini is the best example of history writing tradition in early India. Discuss. [UPSC CSE-2022]

Approach:

(1) Give a brief of Kalhana and Rajatarangini

(2) Explain Kalhana’s Views on History Writing and his method as explained in Rajatarangini.

(3) Give limitations of Rajatarangini and compare it with Al Beruni’s Kitab Ul Hind.

(4) Conclude on a balanced footing.

Introduction:

The Rajatarangini (River of Kings) is an epic poem (mahakavya/prabandha) composed in the classical language, Sanskrit, in 1148 AD-1150 AD in Kashmir. It was composed by a Kashmiri Pandit, named Kalhana. Running into nearly 8000 verses that are unequally distributed among eight books or sections, the Rajatarangini is an account of the royal dynasties that ruled the kingdom of Kashmir from its putative origins to the poet’s own time. In other words, it narrates nearly two millennia of the ancient and early medieval history of the Kashmir Valley.

Kalhana’s Views on History:

Kalhan in the prologue of his book Rajatarangini expresses his view on history. Following are Kalhan’s view on historiography and his way of writing history which makes him the greatest historian of his time.

(1) A Good Historian: Kalhana says that a good history has the power to take the person into the past and explore in a way like an eye witness. History involves a superior kind of creativity which retains its relevance even after many centuries.

(2) Honest Judgement: He says that historians should be appreciated who honestly judges the past incidents unaffected by his personal likes and dislikes. He says that history must be unbiased. Though he was under several kings, he didn’t get any patronage from them. Hence his writing is not biased just to please the ruler and have detailed and objective analysis. So, his writing was devoid of rhetoric and clear of praises, evident in other writers under the patronage of the kings.

(3) Criticism: Kalhan criticised his earlier historians. He explained that there were many missing and even wrong things in early history books. Early historians wrote eulogy to please their patrons. Kalhan criticised the text “Nripavali” for lack of historical content. He blames that the book is more like literature and less like a history.

Other Criticism: He criticised Suvrat’s writing which had manifested the early history in concise form because his writing style was so compact and critical that it remained non-comprehensive and even misleading for many.

(4) True History Writing: As per Kalhana, narration of events was not the true way of writing history. It was just like a chronicle with no validity. Kalhan explains his extensive study. According to him, history should be written only after comprehensive study.

(5) Sources: Kalhan displayed surprisingly advanced technical expertise for his period. He had given the sources of his writing. For example: for writing history, he gave importance to viewing the inscriptions, recording construction of temples and other architectures, inspecting several kinds of grant plates given by ancient kings, looking up epigraphic sources relating to royal eulogies, studying coins, monumental remains & family records and studying several other texts.

(6) Literary Sources: Harshacharita, Brihat-samhita, local rajkathas, and some previous works on Kashmir like Nripavali by Kshemendra, Parthivavali by Helaraja were also referenced by him. He mentions his sources in detail. He mentions the 11 scholars who gave him the family tree of Kashmir rulers. He mentions legends, myths, folklore etc. His use of records as reason based sources of history was indeed an important contribution to history. He not only described the events but also tried to understand and explain the conditions of that time. As per Kalhana, people should learn lessons from the mistakes of their past.

Limitations of Rajatarangini:

(1) Language: He chose Sanskrit as the medium of verse for his writings and his writing was inclined towards an ornate style in which he has mingled some fiction with the historical truth.

(2) Irregularities: There are few inconsistencies in chronology and dates in the earlier chapters of his book, especially the first three parts (out of total 8 parts of Rajatarangini). These first three parts cover a history of more than 3000 years which mainly rely on Puranas and legends. In earlier chapters, he seems to be presenting folklore. For e.g. Ranaditya is given a reign of 300 years by him.

(3) Exaggeration: He exaggerated the military conquests of Lalitaditya Muktapida in Book IV.

(4) Regionalism: Regionalism was also apparent in his writing. For e.g. He included Mauryas as rulers of Kashmir, which is clearly a mistake.

(5) Gender biasness: It is also showcased by him on occasions. For e.g. his excessive criticism of Queen Didda. His thought shows favouritism towards Brahmins

Comparison of Rajtaragini with Al Beruni’s Kitab ul Hind:

(1) Brahmanical Source: Both relied on Brahmanical sources which presented an ideal version of society from the perspective of Brahmanical order. This is reflected in their books too when Rajatarangini gives us the reign of the king lasting 300 years.

(2) Unbiased Attitude: Both preferred a rational and neutral version of history which was explained by them in their book itself.

Conclusion:

In the end it can be stated that Kalhana’s rational attitude summarizes a similar trend shown by Al Beruni in his Kitab Ul Hind. Hence which source is best is still a matter of debate. However, despite some inconsistencies, Rajatarangini is much more important and of much more historical importance than that of the others during the same period as it is the only authentic source of the history of early Kashmir.