This article is co-authored by Shanmukh, Saswati Sarkar, Kirtivardhan Dave and Dikgaj
Introduction
Queen Didda has always evoked mixed emotions, as the career of the longest ruling queen of Kashmir has always been mired in controversy. Some laud her as an inspirational figure, who used her power to ensure a peaceful and stable Kashmir (eg, [1]). Others claim that Didda was a cruel, merciless woman, and a kinslayer. A mixture of opposites, she was a queen whose ruthlessness, indeed cruelty, was moderated by genuine love and kindness, whose consuming and relentless power hunger was tempered by complete detachment at times, and whose licentious ways alternated with genuine devotion. Her failings however recur in most monarchs all over the world; above and beyond, despite all those, she had accomplished several significant feats as a ruler. It is therefore that her story deserves narration, again and again.
Didda ruled Kashmir for nearly half a century, either directly as the queen, between 981 and 1003 CE, or as a regent for her son, or grandsons, between 958 and 981 CE. During the half century of her rule when she held supreme power, she had to face a variety of problems, and her actions affected a lot of people. In this article, we have analysed Didda’s life and career, from her marriage to Kshemagupta [a] to her death half a century later, and the state of Kashmir when she gained control of it, to its state when she bequeathed it to her successor. We have positioned Didda’s life and rule against those of both her immediate predecessor and her successors. Her rule reveals glimpses about the society of Kashmir, the status of women therein, and also, the general conditions prevailing in the country during Didda’s time, which we have shared as well.
The primary source for this article is राजतरङ्गिणी [2] of Kalhana. All the verses pertaining to the life and times of Didda have been translated added to this article as an appendix [8]. Further, all the verses in Kalhana pertaining to the clash between the Kashmiri-Shahi alliance and Mahmud Ghazni have also been translated and placed in the appendix [8]. We have also consulted Stein’s translation [3] (after we had finished our own translation) of the relevant verses of राजतरङ्गिणी, so that where we differ from the Prof. Stein, we have mentioned why we have gone with our own translation. We found that there are significant differences between our translations and that of Prof. Stein, which, often, is the view of an educated westerner looking at Indic texts, and have remarked on them in our appendix [b]. Further, we have also consulted what Prithivi Nath Kaul Bamzai [5], Premnath Bazaz [6] and RC Majumdar [9] say in their secondary sources about Queen Didda. Finally, we have looked at the narrative of Al-Biruni [7] and al-Utbi [10] for the details on the attempted invasion of Kashmir by Mahmud of Ghazni.
All our translations have been shown underlined. Whenever our translation differs significantly from Stein’s translations, we have remarked on it in our notes at the end of the article.
Didda’s Origins
The early life of Didda is shrouded in mystery and it is only at the time of her marriage to the Raja of Kashmir, Kshemagupta, that we hear of Didda. We know nothing of her date/year of birth, or her childhood, nor do we know anything much about her family, except that her father, Simharaja, was the celebrated lord of Lohara 6:176, [2], probably a feudatory prince of the King of Kashmir, and that her mother was a Shahi princess, 6:178, [2], whose name we unfortunately do not know. We are told that she had at least one brother, named Udayaraja 6:287, [2]. Her maternal grandfather was the great Bheemashahi, from the famous Shahi family that ruled the Kabul valley, along with large parts of Punjab. We quote Kalhana verbatim to establish our points.
दुर्गाणां लोहरादीनां शास्ता शतमुखोपमः।
नृपतिः सिंहराजाख्यस्तस्मै स्वां तनयां ददौ॥ 6:176, [2]
The lord of fortresses like Lohara and others, a ruler like Indra, the king (of Lohara), named Simharaja gave his daughter [Didda] to him [Raja Kshemagupta].
Her maternal grandfather, who was from the Shahi family, we are informed by Kalhana, had constructed the famous Bheemakeshava temple. It is clear that Didda came from a very illustrious lineage, and Kalhana says
मातामहेन भूभर्तृवध्वास्तस्या व्यधीयत।
श्रीभूमिस्वामिनोदात्तप्रसादो भीमकेशवः॥ 6:178, [2]
[The king’s [Raja Kshemagupta] wife’s maternal grandfather had constructed, with the blessings of the Bhoomiswamin, the temple of Bheemakeshava.] [c]
Stein points out here that the Bheema mentioned in the text is the famous king Bheema Shahi, the man who ruled the Kabul valley and northern Punjab pp. 249-250, [3]. On a sidenote, the temple of Bheemakeshava is identified by Stein as converted to a Muslim ziarat on the island of Bumzu, a small island in the Lidar. He further points out that the once temple’s walls have been covered in a thick plaster and consequently, it is hard to examine the details therein. p. 249, [3].
Marriage of Didda
Didda’s marriage to the king of Kashmir, Kshemagupta, seems to have been a reasonably happy one. Despite maintaining a polygamous household, in particular, the king, Kshemagupta became so enamoured with Didda that Kalhana mentions that he acquired the rather embarrassing title of `Didda-Kshema’.
स तस्यां शाहिदौहित्र्यां दिद्दायां सक्तमानसः।
दिद्दाक्षेम इति ख्यातिं ययौ लज्जावहां नृपः॥ 6:177, [2]
He [Raja Kshemagupta] became captivated in mind by Didda, the daughter’s daughter of the Shahi kings. The king was so attached to Didda that he became famous with the embarrassing title of `Didda Kshema’.
The above attachment of Kshemagupta to Didda has, to some extent, been corroborated. Kaul-Bamzai notes that the coins of Kshemagupta are embossed with the prefix `di’, which, he speculates are a contraction of Didda p. 133, [5].
There is another corroboration of the affection of Kshemagupta for Didda. Kshemagupta was infamous for disgraceful orgies with his courtiers’ and their wives, before his marriage to Didda, and Kalhana describes those orgies at some length in his work [verses 6:158, 6:163-166]. However, after his marriage with Didda, there is no mention of such debauched behaviour on the part of Kshemagupta. Consequently, it is quite possible that, given his already mentioned attraction to Didda, Kshemagupta distanced himself from those depraved pleasures that he had once indulged in.
The king, however, was still passionately fond of hunting foxes and during one of the hunts, and after eight years of his rule, contracted [either measles or small pox] [d], travelled to Varahakshetra where he had built two important monasteries, and expired [e] on Pausha Shukla navami of Laukika year 4034 [958 CE], leaving Didda a young widow.
Premnath Bazaz, in his narrative, claims that even during Raja Kshemagupta’s life, Didda had taken over all the functions of the government in her own hands pp. 29-30, [6]. However, he adduces no evidence for his claims and there is nothing in राजतरङ्गिणी to substantiate his views.
Didda’s Widowhood and Attempted Sati
In the initial arrangements after Raja Kshemagupta’s death, it would appear that, while the regency was offered to Didda, the position of the principal minister was offered to Phalguna, the chamberlain of the deceased king. At this juncture, Didda desired to commit sati along with some of the other wives of her husband [f], and Phalguna, the principal minister, immediately consented to her desire to commit Sati, when she sought permission. There was already significant bitterness between Didda and Phalguna due to the fact that Phalguna’s daughter, Chandralekha, was also a wife of Didda’s husband, Kshemagupta. This fact may have contributed to Phalguna’s ready assent to Didda’s request to commit sati. Kalhana mentions it thus.
चन्द्रलेखाभिधां कन्यां राज्ञे दत्तवताभवत्।
फल्गुणद्वारपतिना समं दिद्दा समत्सरा॥ 6:179, [2]
The chamberlain named Phalguna had given his daughter named Chandralekha as a wife to the king [Raja Kshemagupta]. Didda grew jealous of the chamberlain [and one expects, of the daughter, Chandralekha, as well, by extension.]
This rivalry manifested itself in full after Raja Kshemagupta’s death. On the death of Raja Kshemagupta, the son of Kshemagupta and Didda, named Abhimanyu was crowned the king. However, he was too young to rule, and consequently, Didda was offered the regency. That Didda did not really mean to desire to commit Sati is clearly pointed out by Kalhana, who says
पत्यौ मृते सपत्नीनां दृष्ट्वानुमरणं ततः।
दम्भेनानुमुमूर्षन्तीमनुमेने स तां द्रुतम्॥ 6:195, [2]
Then, seeing that the other wives of the departed king [Raja Kshemagupta] were committing Sati, Didda also, just for appearances, sought to follow them and this was immediately permitted by Phalguna. [g]
However, the `regretting’ Didda was stopped at the funeral pyre by a minister named Naravahana. We shall quote Kalhana verbatim to discuss this point.
निशिषेधानुबन्धात्तु सानुतापां चितान्तिके।
कृपालुर्मरणादेताममात्यो नरवाहनः॥ 6:196, [2]
Near the funeral pyre, the kindhearted minister, Naravahana, forbade the repenting/regretting Didda from committing Sati due to his attachment to her.
Here two separate interpretations are possible. Didda may have been regretting her decision to commit Sati, or she may have been regretting her earlier hypocrisy (wherein she wanted to commit sati just for appearances). Both interpretations seem acceptable within the ambit of the text. However, if she had been regretting her decision to commit sati, there would be no need for Naravahana to `forbid’ her from committing sati. Entreaties, or even suggestions, much before her march to the funeral pyre would have been sufficient, since her not committing sati seems to have had no reprecussions at all. However, Kalhana specifically uses the strong term, `निशिषेध‘, which is `forbade’ Further, there is nothing in the text to show that Naravahana was actuated by anything except affection for the widowed queen. Consequently, we are inclined to the second interpretation – that she was regretting her earlier hypocrisy. Nevertheless, this brings up further points that are of note
a) Didda was not compelled to commit Sati. She sought to do so `for the sake of appearances’, according to Kalhana, out of her own volition. This indicates that while it was perhaps fashionable to commit sati, it was not expected, certainly not compelled.
b) Didda was stopped at the brink of the funeral pyre by a minister, who, according to Kalhana, was actuated by affection for her. That she could return without committing sati did not diminish her stature in the court. Indeed, there is nothing in the text that suggests that she suffered any slights or insults for not committing sati.
What the above two indicate are that, while sati may have been fashionable in some quarters, there was no stigma attached to a woman not committing sati. Didda certainly faced no blame for not committing sati. Further, Didda was not the first widow of a king not to commit sati, but accept the regency or may be, even ascend the throne herself. Just a few decades earlier, Queen Sugandha had not committed commit sati without facing any recriminations, and even become the queen herself for a short period, before she was forced to abdicate, by ambitious ministers, who wanted her more pliable child on the throne. However, there was no stigma attached to not committing sati, and this indicates the free society that Kashmir already was in the tenth century and which did not penalise those not following any custom, however fashionable. This is in perfect consonance with the prevalent ethics of the Hindu society, which, at its core, is a free society.
There is a further point about why Didda sought the permission of Phalguna at all to commit sati. The other queens of Kshemagupta who committed sati do not seem to have sought anyone’s permission to commit sati. Indeed, in Banabhatta’s Harshacharita part 2, ch. 2, [12], Harshavardhana’s mother did not seek anyone’s permission to commit sati, and did so even without her dying husband’s or her son’s consent. Consequently, why did Didda seek Phalguna’s permission to commit sati? One part of the explanation comes from the narrative of Kalhana himself. He says `दम्भेनानुमुमूर्षन्तीम्‘ ([Didda] desired to commit sati for show). If we accept his explanation, then it stands to reason that she would want her decision to commit sati to be well-known and well-publicised. But there is another point too. Didda was the regent and it would have been quite unseemly of her to abdicate her responsibilities by committing sati without putting her affairs in order and handing over her responsibilities to others. Therefore, it is to be supposed that those who served the king, would be required to obtain the permission of the competent authorities before they relinquished their responsibilities. The orderly transition enjoined upon the king’s servants further reflects on the high conception of duty and orderliness in the king’s ministers, especially those of high rank.
Didda’s Regency and First Challenges
With Didda returning to assume the regency during the minority of her son, power was split between the prime minister, Phalguna (who was once the chamberlain of the king) and Didda. As already mentioned before, there was already a bitter feud between Phalguna and Didda, and the feud cannot have ameliorated by Phalguna consenting to Didda’s sati petition. This feud between the two was exacerbated by congenital troublemakers of the court. Says Kalhana
अतो निसर्गपिशुनो रक्कस्तां मन्युदूषिताम्।
फल्गुणाद्राज्यहरणाशङ्कां राज्ञीमजिग्रहत्॥ 6:197, [2]
Naturally a tale bearer/conspirator, Rakka, then began to poison the already biased Didda against Phalguna. Rakka instilled the fear of the kingdom being usurped by Phalguna in the queen.
Rakka seems to have occupied the position of कम्पनाधिपति (commander) at the court. Under his instigation, Didda began to show disinclination towards Phalguna, and the lead of the queen was followed by other ministers, who also began to emulate her. Further, all these intrigues made the Phalguna the centre of attention, and perhaps also suspicion. With his son, Kardamaraja, and, we suspect, a good portion of his own personal guards gone to Prayaga perform the last rites of the departed king Kshemagupta, Phalguna, fearing that his enemies would do him a mischief in the palace, decided to move to Parnotsa [near modern day Poonch town] for greater security. 6:197-201, [2]. However, when Phalguna had departed with his personal retinue and treasury, the queen, first sent envoys entreating him to return, but later, frightened by the courtiers like Rakka, sent guardsmen to kill him. Kalhana writes
आकलय्य द्रुतं दिद्दा संत्यज्य प्रार्थनादिकम्।
पृष्टे प्रस्तुत याष्टीकांस्तस्य हन्तुं व्यसर्जयत्॥ 6:203, [2]
Frightened [by the ministers], Didda immediately abandoned prayers to him to return, and sent guardsmen after him to kill him. [h]
However, the plans of the queen backfired spectacularly, as Phalguna quickly learnt of her intention, and stung by this new affront, quickly gathered a large number of men to his standard, and it was the turn of the queen and her court to shudder in horror. We quote Kalhana verbatim once more.
नवावमानखिन्नः स मिलितानन्तसैनिकः।
प्रत्यवृत्य ततो मानी वराहं क्षेत्रमाययौ॥ 6:204, [2]
Stung by this fresh insult to him, the honourable man [Phalguna] managed to collect an endlessly large army and returned to Varahakshetra.
श्रुत्वा समेतसैन्यं तं प्रत्ययातं प्रतापिनं।
आस्कन्दशङ्किना दिद्दा सामात्या समकम्पत॥ 6:205, [2]
Hearing the return of this brave man [Phalguna] with an army, with mounting suspicion, Didda and her ministers quailed. [i]
However, the honourable Phalguna had no desire to foment a rebellion. Having demonstrated his strength, he long bemoaned his departed master [Raja Kshemagupta] and then cast away his arms at the feet of Varahaswami. By so doing, he removed all suspicions of treachery from the queen’s mind 6:206-207, [2]. With the retirement of Phalguna, the other ministers who had long chafed under his energetic and resourceful management of them, celebrated like students celebrating the departure of their teacher 6:209, [2].
The above is the narrative of Kalhana; however, we should examine this narrative a bit more closely. When Phalguna desired to move to Parnotsa, he had no thoughts of abdicating his responsibilities, let alone his position. He just desired greater security till his son, Kardamaraja, returned with his force to Kashmir. Further, when he evaded Didda’s guardsmen and started gathering an army, he does not seem to have had any thoughts of surrendering his weapons at the feet of Varahaswami. It leaves the field open to speculation why he surrendered tamely. The same Phalguna would return as Didda’s lover several years later. Consequently, it is quite possible that Phalguna’s decision to surrender his arms was actuated more out of the weakness of his position, and deciding not to test his strength when he was convinced of his weakness, he chose to surrender to save himself. It is also very likely that Didda, given her Machiavellian cunning, and her control of the royal treasury, undercut his support and forced his surrender. However, since Phalguna surrendered his weapons peacefully and left Kashmir for the time, he probably saved his own life.
Mahima’s Conspiracy to Dethrone Didda
A previous king, Parvagupta, had given his daughters to two ministers named Choja and Bhubhata, who had sworn fealty to him, and these two had a son each named, Mahima and Patala 6:212-213 [2]. These two had grown up in the royal household and they were both desirous of the kingdom, and conspiring with great nobles like Himmaka and others. Didda chased these two out of the royal household, but angry at being driven out, they still had entry into the royal household and were entering and leaving the palace at will. Kalhana says,
बलिनौ तावबलया राज्ञापास्तौ नृपास्पदात्।
समन्यू स्वगृहादास्तां यावत्कृतगतागतौ॥ 6:214, [2]
Those two powerful people [Mahima and Patala], who had been driven away from the King’s home by the queen, were angry at being chased out of their own home, [but] still were coming and going to the palace. [j]
One day, when Mahima entered the palace, Queen Didda openly sent guardsmen after him to banish him from the kingdom. We quote Kalhana verbatim once more.
एकतः पृष्टतः प्रादान्महिम्नो निर्गतस्य सा।
निर्वासनाय याष्टीकांस्तावत्प्रकटवैकृता॥ 6:215, [2]
Once when Mahima presented himself [at the palace], but now she openly sent guardsmen after Mahima to banish him. [k]
Terrified, Mahima fled to his father-in-law’s [named Shaktisena] home and Shaktisena pacified the guards that had followed him there, and sent them back. This incident, however, flared up the already simmering tensions, and both sides prepared for war. To the side of Mahima came several nobles, among whom Kalhana names the principal ones. Himmaka [who has already been mentioned], Mukula, Eramattaka, Udayagupta, and Yashodharamukha flocked to the standard of Mahima and now they openly raised the standard of revolt. 6:218-220, [2]. There was great panic on Didda’s side, and only the minister, Naravahana, with his relatives, stood steadfastly at the queen’s side. Both sides, gathering forces as they marched, converged for battle near the temple of Padmaswamin 6:222, [2], and Didda, leaving her son Abhimanyu in Shuramatha for safety, began her moves to counter this revolt 6:223, [2]. Didda displayed her Machiavellian intellect at this juncture, and decideding to forego the sword in favour of the purse, began bribing the Brahmins of Lalitadityapura to spread discord among her enemies. In her endeavours, she was eminently successful, and she managed to break up even those who had sworn unity with Mahima. We shall quote Kalhana verbatim once more.
ललितादित्यपुऱजान्द्विजान्सर्वेण भूरिणा।
तूर्णं स्वीकृत्य विदधे रिपूणां संघभेदनम्॥ 6:224, [2]
She gave a lot of money to the Brahmins of Lalitadityapura and recruited them to spread discord among her enemies. [l]
एकाक्षेपेखिलैः कोपो विधेय इति वादिभिः।
महिम्नः पीतकोशैस्तैः संधिर्देव्या समं कृत॥ 6:225, [2]
[In the service of Mahima], they had sworn that from one accusation/attack, all would be furious. With these people [on the side of Mahima], they proceeded to make peace with the queen. [m]
With the threat of the revolt for the moment subsided, Didda acted with a combination of cunning and ruthlessness. Counting on self-seeking ambition to work better than gold in bribery, she offered Yashodhara the position of `कम्पनाधिपति’ and other nobles on Mahima’s side were offered high offices too 6:228. Having bought them off, she proceeded to perform, within just a few days, `अभिचार‘ on the hapless Mahima and he was dead [n] 6:229, [2]. With Mahima dead, the writ of the queen ran unchallenged in Kashmir 6:229, [2].
The Revolt of the Nobles
While Didda may have bought her peace with the nobles at the side of Mahima with high offices, the peace was problematic from the start, both due to Didda’s own nature and the nature of her court.
The `कम्पनाधिपति’ took offence with a man named Thakkana and invaded the latter’s country, which was full of streams, hills and forts, with his relatives. Swiftly, he marched into the country, and captured Thakkana, and obtaining from him the tributes due to the king, began to beautify the country and glory in his own victory 6:230-232, [2]. However, this act of the `कम्पनाधिपति’ gave courtiers like Rakka in Didda’s court a chance to plot again. They carried to the queen a complaint that Yashodhara had taken bribes from Thakkana to reinstate him on the throne 6:233, [2], and believing their complaint to be true, Didda sent her guardsmen to banish Yashodhara from the country 6:236-237, [2]. As a result, Himmaka, Yashodhara, Eramattaka and others began plotting treason against the queen once more 6:238, [2].
With treason once more afoot, the elites led by Naravahana stayed loyal to the queen 6:239, [2]. With Shubhadhara and others [of the queen’s enemies] entering the city in anger, Didda once more sent away her son, Abhimanyu, to safety in the Bhattaraka matha. Luck was with the queen, as Didda was forced to lock herself inside her palace for a whole day and her enemies did not crush her, though. Kalhana opines
दत्तार्गले नृपगृहे स्थितां तां दैवमोहिताः।
ते तदैव विना पुत्रं वमूढाः नोदपाटयन्॥ 6:241, [2]
Didda locked herself away in her palace, safety [literally, under lock and key], they [this is a reference to Shubhadhara and the others] were dazed by the Gods, and did not uproot her immediately, when she was without her son.
Didda was, however, nothing if not resourceful, and the very next day, she assembled her own forces, 6:242, [2], though her movements seem to have been hampered by the enemy which was within her very city. The two inimical forces were ranged between the Jayabhattarika [temple?] and the Shura matha. With the queen’s army also entering the capital, the Ekangas [a martial class, who, in this case, were adherents of the queen] locked the main door [of the palace], set themselves before its main entrance, rallied their terrified force and caring nothing for their own safety, began to chase down the enemies 6:244-245, [2]. At that moment, more of the queen’s forces led by Rajakulabhatta arrived, and they began to slaughter the enemy forces. Himmaka, the famous rebel warrior, who was famed for his strength and prowess, was unable to make any impression on Rajakulabhatta and his men, and was surrounded and slain by the enemy. Yashodhara was taken prisoner, as was Eramattaka, who fought on despite the reverses suffered by Himmaka and Yashodhara, and was finally only captured, when his sword was shattered and he was thrown off his horse. As Udayagupta [another of the conspirators against the queen] was a relative of the king, the queen’s soldiers allowed him to escape the battlefield and flee 6:247-252, [2].
Didda’s vengeance against her enemies was terrible. Kalhana says that not only were the conspirators punished, but many of their relatives also faced the queen’s fury. Says Kalhana
इत्थं लब्धजया राज्ञी तत्क्षणान्न्यग्रहीद्रुषा।
यशोधरं शुभधरं मुकुलं च सबान्धवम्॥ 6:253, [2]
Thus victorious, the queen became furious at that instant with Yashodhara, Shubhadhara, Mukula and their relatives.
Eramattaka had a big stone tied around his neck and was thrown into the Vitasta, according to Kalhana. 6:255, [2]. For long, the country had been in turmoil, but Didda finally put an end to the treacheries, and forced all of them to submit. Kalhana pays Didda supreme tribute in the following two verses, stating,
वर्षषष्टिं प्रतापायुः श्रीहरा द्रोहवृत्तयः।
ते क्षिप्रं मन्त्रिणः सर्वे सान्ववायाः सहानुगाः॥ 6:257, [2]
For sixty years, those who were in revolt against the king, those who were stealing money, those who had been indulging in treason, [they were all destroyed by Didda] immediately, with their families and attendants.
भीमभ्रूभङ्गमात्रेण दिद्दादेव्या सकोपया।
असन्निःशेषतां नीता दुर्गयेव महासुराः॥ 6:258, [2]
Just with a fierce frown and knotted brows, Didda-devi in anger could bring total destruction [literally, reduce to nothing] [to her enemies] as Durga did to the great Rakshasas.
Two men who had played a vital part in the triumph of Didda were Rakka and Naravahana. Rakka was made the कम्पनाधिपति, while Naravahana was granted the title `राजानक‘ in the hall of the ministers. 6:260-261, [2].
The Downfall of Naravahana
Naravahana who had held close to Didda during her time of troubles was greatly favoured by Didda. Didda sought his advice in everything, and kept close to him, 6: 262-263, [2], and Kalhana remarks upon the degree of affection and favour bestowed on Naravahana by Didda. However, this was not destined to last and other courtiers brought about differences between them. Narrates Kalhana
अभूतां युग्यवाहस्य कुय्यनाम्नः सुतौ पुरा।
यौ सिन्धुभुज्यौ सज्यायान्सिन्धुर्लालितकः किल॥ 6:264, [2]
The sons, Sindhu and Bhujya, of a past coachman [o] named Kuyya, who came with their wives, came to the court and Sindhu became a favourite [of queen Didda].
This Sindhu, who had gained the favour of the queen, had become a `गञ्जाधिकारी‘ [p]. Sindhu poisoned the deeply insecure queen that Naravahana was probably planning to take her power 6:267, [2]. The queen began to heed his words. When Naravahana had invited the queen to dinner at his home, Sindhu frightened her by suggesting that Naravahana was planning to imprison her there. Terrified the queen asked his suggestion what to do, and she fled his home and returned to the capital/her palace, without informing anyone. 6:268-270 [q], [2] From that day, their protracted friendship was finished, and deeply wounded and humiliated by the queen’s continuing suspicions over time, Naravahana committed suicide. Kalhana pays a deep tribute to Naravahana saying,
शशिहीनेव रजनी सत्यत्यक्तेव भारती।
विरराज न राजश्री नरवाहनवर्जिता॥ 6:279, [2]
A night without the moon, words without the truth – [such was the plight of the royalty], from which all royal glory had gone, without Naravahana.
Damara Revolt
Didda resolved to kill the sons of Sangrama Damara [r], for reasons that Kalhana does not explain. He merely says that she was hardened by continuous cruelty and thus resolved to kill them 6:281, [3]. However, her plans miscarried. Says Kalhana,
निजमुत्तरघोषं ते तद्भय़ेन विनिर्गताः।
कय्यकाद्वारपत्यादीन्कृतारब्धीन्व्यपादयन्॥ 6:281, [2]
They [the children of Sangrama Damara], knowing her intention, in fear, left the place, and fleeing to their own northern village [or to their Ghosha in the north], began to assault and kill the gatekeeper of Kayyaka [or it may be a gatekeeper named Kayyaka] and others
The queen decided to pacify the Damaras, afraid of the revolt according to Kalhana. The terrified Damaras, accompanied by other governors, appeared before the queen, and the revolt was essentially contained before much damage was done.
The idea that Didda wanted to kill the brave sons of Sangrama Damara, because she was hardened by cruelty, does not harmonise with the personality of Didda. While she was utterly ruthless in her extermination of her foes, she was not wantonly cruel. What she suspected about the Damaras is unknown. However, it must be said that most Kashmiri rulers saw the Damaras (who were always prone to rebellion) as a problem to be managed and consequently, Didda may not have been any different in wanting to curtail their power, even before any problem with the Damaras could mature into a revolt.
The queen also made other changes in her court. Rakka, the courtier who had fuelled so many of her insecurities was dead and Didda brought back Phalguna, who had been victorious in Rajapuri [modern Rajouri] to her court. Rajatarangini hints that Phalguna became the lover of Didda. 6:286, [2].
Abhimanyu’s Death, Didda’s Grief and her Charity
Udayaraja, the brother of Didda, had a dear helper named Jayagupta, in the `अक्षपटल‘ [s]. With this man and other evil colleagues, Udayaraja began to loot Kashmir, with all the attendant atrocities, and Didda does not seem to have been able to stop her brother. Seeing all these evil deeds, and also his mother’s bad behaviour [t], Abhimanyu went into a depression, contracted tuberculosis and died on the third day of Kartika shukla paksha, in the Laukika year 4048 [972 CE] p. 133, [5].
Abhimanyu’s son, Nandigupta, was crowned the king, even though he was too young to rule yet 6:293, [3], and Didda seems to have continued her position of the regent. But Didda was devastated by her son’s death, and she seems to have developed a detachment in the aftermath of his death. Says Kalhana,
सा शोकपिहितक्रौर्या तस्थौ प्रशमशीतला।
रविरत्नशलाकेव ध्वान्तच्छन्नोपि वैकृताः॥ 6:294, [2]
Her cruelty diminished by her sorrow, she stood pacified and subdued, as Suryakanta gem becomes cold when kept in darkness. [u]
Didda busied herself in noble works for the next year, taking scant interest in ruling. She expended huge sums on restoring the kingdom, and encouraged by Bhuyya [a city official and the brother of Didda’s treasury official, Sindhu], managed to get rid of her reputation as a cruel woman, and won the approval of the people 6:296-297, [2], and her rule was pleasant as the autumn sun 6:298, [2]. Among her other works, she created a new city called Abhimanyupura and therein, constructed the Abhimanyuswamin temple 6:299, [2]. She also created the new city called Diddapura and therein constructed the Diddaswamin temple, with a matha for the refuge of the foreigners. Further, she created Kankanapura and therein, created another Diddaswamin temple, from white marble 6:300-302, [2]. She created a vihara for the benefit of the foreigners and Kashmiris. Further, in the name of her father, Simharaja, she created the Simhaswamin matha for the convenience of the foreign Brahmins [v] 6:304, [2]. She also established the Vaikuntha matha at the confluence of the Vitasta and the Sindhu [w] and sanctified the place [x] 6:305, [2]. Further, Didda also caused the various temples that had been derelict to be resuscitated and erected stone enclosures around the temples 6:307, [2].
Nanditgupta, Tribhuvana and Bhimagupta
Nandigupta did not last long on the throne. Kalhana attributes his death to Didda performing अभिचार on her young grandson. Says Kalhana
चर्षणी वर्षमात्रेण शान्तशोका बभूव सा।
भोगोत्सुकार्भके तस्मिन्नप्तरि व्यभिचारकृत्॥ 6:310, [2]
Within the passing of just an year, her sorrow was quelled. On her grandchild who was a pleasure loving child, she performed witchcraft [y].
वर्ष एकान्नपञ्चाशे नीतः पक्षे सिते क्षयम्।
स मार्गशीर्षद्वादश्यामार्गव्यग्रया तया॥ 6:311, [2]
In the year 4049 [Laukika era], on the Dwadashi of the shukla paksha Margashira, the child was taken to his death by the harsh Didda [z].
Nandigupta died in 773 CE p. 133-134, [5], and was succeeded by Tribhuvana, another grandchild of the Didda. He too did not last long, and died in 775 CE p. 133-134, [5]. Says Kalhana
पौत्रस्त्रिभुवनो नाम मार्गशीर्षे सितेहनि।
पञ्चमेप्येकपञ्चाशे वर्षेतद्वत्तया हतः॥ 6:312, [2]
Another grandchild of hers, named Tribhuvana, on Margashira shuddha panchami year 4051, was slain by her, in the same fashion as the previous one [using witchcraft].
During Bhimagupta’s rule, Phalguna died, and Didda seems to have assumed rulership more openly. 6:314-315, [2]. Didda’s behaviour does not seem to have been very pleasant, for Kalhana says that, with Phalguna’s death, Didda threw off the last vestiges of restraint and was like an elephant gone mad 6:315, [2]. Among other paramours, she took a handsome young lover named Tunga, who was a letter carrier and who was the son of a buffalo herder named, Bana. 6: 318-322, [2]. Bhuyya, the chief of the city, who showed dissatisfaction against her was slain using poison 6:322, [2]. With Phalguna and Bhuyya gone, her court degenerated into sycophancy. Says Kalhana,
धिङ्भिर्विजारान्कुपतीन्येषां विषमचेतसां।
फलशून्या स्तुतिस्तोषे दोषे प्राणधऩक्षय़ः॥ 6:323, [2]
Shame on her favourites, who had an unsteady mind, and with fruitless praises they made her happy, but those that pointed out errors they lost both lives and wealth [aa].
Her favourites also hugely abused their official positions to make money and perpetrate other abuses on the hapless populace 6:324-325, [2].
Bhimagupta grew into a more mature intellect and began to comprehend that the evils in administration and his grandmother’s behaviour, as he stayed in the king’s palace. As he began to comprehend the evils, Didda’s suspicions were raised by courtiers, who were always observing him. The full force of Didda’s cruelty was turned against this unhappy child. Abhimanyu’s wife tried to save her nobly born son, by secretly hiding him away from his grandmother’s fury [ab], but it was useless. Alerted by Devakalasha [a courtier] about his possible hiding place, she imprisoned him openly and had tortured Bhimagputa to death 6:327-332, [3] in the Laukika year 4056, i. e., 981 CE pp. 134-135, [5]. With the death of Bhimagupta, there were no others who could be crowned, and Didda openly assumed the throne.
We shall analyse the deaths of Didda’s grandchildren here. Before their deaths, in the past, Didda had been ruthless against her foes (both real and imagined). However, there is little evidence that Didda was brutal against her own relatives. Indeed, the relative of the King, Udayagupta, was allowed to flee the battlefield, even after his treason against Didda 6:252, [2]. Similarly, we have seen her deep attachment to her son, Abhimanyu. Further, we must observe some important points here. Firstly, Kalhana adduces no reasons for Didda to be incensed with the first two of her grandsons. Second, and more important, both Nandigupta and [it appears] Tribhuvana, were too young to pose any threat to Didda Kalhana explicitly says that Nandigupta was too young to rule 6:293, [2], and it appears that Tribhuvana was equally young. Consequently, there is no reason for Didda to kill them. Finally, it is not as if slaying these two children brought Didda any material benefit. She continued to rule as regent during their reigns, and she continued as regent after these two, with the crowning of her last grandchild, Bhimagupta. Says Kalhana,
अथ मृत्युपथे राज्यनाम्नि स्वैरं निवेशितः।
क्रूरया चरमः पौत्रो भीमगुप्ताभिधस्तया॥ 6:313, [2]
Treading the path of death, with her will supreme in the kingdom, the cruel Didda’s last grandchild Bhimagupta, was made the king.
Consequently, there was no change in the status, and Kalhana gives us no reason for Didda to slay her grandchildren. There are two explanations possible. Didda had become temporarily insane [very possible given her breakdown after her son’s death], and she did her evil deeds in her bouts of insanity. But her insanity is not remarked either. Further, the slaughter of infants would have brought Didda enormous ill repute. There seems to have no such occurrence [at the very least, Kalhana does not say so].
Again, Kalhana says that the deaths of Nandigupta and Tribhuvana were only the suspicions of the people.
निगूढे नन्दिगुप्तादिद्रोहे लोकस्य योभवत्।
संदेहः स तया तेन व्यक्तकृत्येन वारितः॥ 6:331, [2]
People were already suspicious of [her] treachery towards Nandigupta and the others. But her public actions against Bhimagupta made her treachery clear to the people.
Hence, what Kalhana is saying about the witchcraft being responsible for the deaths of Nandigupta and Tribhuvana were no more than the suspicions of the people.
Finally, we must remember that Kalhana was writing nearly a century and a half after Didda’s death, and these finer details would be available to him only by rumour. In an age when superstition was rife, the deaths of the children may well have been blamed on the witchcraft of the evil widow, Didda. Given that their father suffered from tuberculosis, it is not unlikely that these children also contracted tuberculosis, but their deaths were blamed on Didda’s witchcraft. At the very least, in these cases, we must exonerate Didda for lack of evidence for the murder of her first two grandchildren.
The Second Noble Revolt
Didda was enamoured with her paramour, Tunga, who became the prime minister and began to unseat the old ministers. Tunga’s increasing importance in the affairs of the kingdom became resented by the other ministers, who invited to Kashmir, a cruel and violent man named Vigraharaja [ac] 6:333-335, [2]. He got the Brahmins to begin a प्रायोपवेश [a fast unto death] against Didda. With the Brahmins united against Didda, the land was in turmoil and Vigraharaja began looking for Tunga to kill him. Didda hid Tunga behind a secret door, fearing an attack on him, and began bribing the Brahmins with gold, to stop the fast and return home. Her ploy succeeded, and the Sumano, Mantaka, and other Brahmins [ad] took her gold and retreated. With the unity of the Brahmins shattered, Vigraharaja returned home as he had arrived, his strength broken. With their strength returning, Tunga killed Kardamaraja and other prominent nobles who had supported Vigraharaja in the revolt. 6:336-341, [2]. Vigraharaja made one more attempt to incite the Brahmins with the help of secret messengers, but Tunga, seeing that the Brahmins were willing to take bribes, bribed them and nipped the revolt in the bud 6:343-344, [2]. A man named Aditya, who was Vigraharaja’s secret agent, was living among them[ae] and he fled, and further, Vigraharaja’s favourite coachmaker was killed. Further, a doorkeeper [of Vigraharaja] named Vatsaraja was injured by weapons and captured alive by Nyankotaka and others. With the revolt quelled, the Brahmins, including Sumano, Mantaka and others, who had accepted Tunga’s bribes were all tied up and sent to prison 6:345-347,[2].
That the Brahmins of Kashmir should have succumbed to temptation and attempted to spread discord in Kashmir does not speak well of them.
Conquest of Rajapuri [Rajouri]
With the death of Phalguna, who had conquered Rajouri for Kashmir, the king of Rajouri, named Prithivipala, became arrogant and threw off the overlordship of Kashmir. The queen and her ministers sent an expeditionary force to force him back to submission, but the brave Prithvipala fell on the Kashmiri force in a narrow valley, and two ministers, Shipataka and Hamsaraja, were killed, and Chandra and other ministers so badly wounded [af] that death would have been a blessing.
Then Tunga, accompanied by his brothers, moved into Rajapuri by a different route and set the city on fire. By this means, Tunga delivered the ministers from their misery [ag]. With his power enfeebled, the King of Rajapuri gave tributes to Tunga and thus Tunga found a means to recover the monetary losses [ah]. Finally, Tunga accepted the position of कम्पन [commander] and destroyed the village of the Damaras [in Rajapuri]. 6:348-354, [2]. Thus, Rajapuri was restored to the Kashmiri suzerainty.
Choosing a Successor
With her own strength fading, Didda seems to have focussed her last years on ensuring a smooth transition. She tested the various princes for their ability, and chose unhesitatingly [ai] the son of her brother, Udayaraja, named Sangramaraja as her successor. Her tests for her successor are interesting. She put a heap of fruits before the princes whom she was testing, and asked them to get as many fruits as possible, thus causing a quarrel [for the fruits] among the princes. Most of the princes had few fruits, but had received a number of blows in the scuffle, but Sangramaraja had received few blows, but had gathered a lot of fruits. When the surprised Didda asked him how he had managed to get his fruits without receiving any beatings, he told her that he had caused the other princes to fight, and while they were preoccupied in fighting, he simply took the fruits. Hearing his explanation, Didda determined that he was the fittest person to become her successor 6: 355-362, [3]. Finally, on the Bhadrapada shukla Ashtami day of Laukika year 4079 [1003 CE], Didda passed away, leaving her nephew, Sangramaraja, a kingdom that would not be marred by conflicts over succession.
Didda and the Invasion of Ghazni
Didda chose as her successor a man who was full of cunning and of similar Machiavellian disposition as she herself was. The king would have been ideal in peacetime, if the only threats were internal ones and not external ones like invaders of the class of Mahmud Ghazni. Nevertheless, her successor was called upon to defend his kingdom from Mahmud Ghazni, and he seems to have been reasonably successful in this hard test. At a time when all the kingdoms around Kashmir were falling before Mahmud of Ghazni, being plundered and reduced to misery, Kashmir held its own and managed to avoid any serious consequences. A full examination of the clashes between Kashmir and Ghazni, which did not occur at all during the reign of Didda at all, is beyond the scope of this article. The many sources that are available do not always converge, so we cannot examine the attacks in detail. We shall examine this bit of history, briefly, as far as the sources converge, with the help of primary sources of the time [2], [7], [10], as well as secondary sources such as [5], and [14].
Didda died in 1003 CE, just as the first invasions of Mahmud Ghazni were beginning. The first clash between the Kashmiris and the Ghazni occurred in 1013-14 p. 138, [5], p. 271, [3], when the king of Kashmir, Sangramaraja, sent reinforcements to aid Trilochanapala. Trilochanapala quickly advised them to take up a defensive position, till they were ready to face the enemy in open combat. This advice was disdained by Tunga, who, being unacquainted with the Turkish mode of warfare, arrogantly crossed the Taushi, defeated an advance force/reconnaissance unit of Mahmud, and suffered a disastrous defeat as a consequence of his rashness the next morning when Ghazni himself advanced against him 7:47-69, [2]. Triolochanapala also suffered because of this rashness of Tunga, and his country was totally despoiled by the army of Ghazni 7:70, [2]. Tunga returned in shame to his own country 7:71, [2].
Kalhana is totally silent on the other attacks of Mahmud on Kashmir, which find a brief mention in [7] and [10]. An attack seems to have been made on the fortress of Lohkot during the same campaigning season that Tunga suffered his disastrous defeat in. According to [10], ``After a while, when the snow began to fall, and the season became intensely cold, the enemy received reinforcements from Kashmir.’’ p. 13, [10]. The sultan seems to have been obliged to raise the siege and return home as a consequence pp. 12-13, [14]. pp. 138-139, [5]. In [14], another inconclusive attack on the same Lohkot p. 18, [14] has been mentioned. Nevertheless, it is clear that if the Kashmirians did not fare well in one pitched battle they fought against Mahmud of Ghazni, they were able to hold their own and deny Mahmud entry into the fair land of Kashmir. This seems to have rankled among the Muslims, since al-Utbi bemoans amidst his boasts, ``For the conquests of the Hindu territory, so as to become the territory of Islam, were overflowing. All had been adorned with the insignia of that profession [Islam], and the veil of infidelity remained nowhere except in the interior of Kashmir.’’ pp. 449-450, [10].
Discussion
Didda’s Personal Life and Characteristics
Didda has been excoriated over her many affairs. While some of it is probably rumour, many of them are undoubtedly true. It is of some interest to observe that her male counterparts could engage in similar affairs without being excoriated. Indeed, all the contemporary kings of Kashmir had their wives and mistresses openly, and they were not condemned for their polygamy [de facto or de jure]. There are two points to be observed here. First, there are no reasons to believe that Didda violated her marriage bed. Indeed, Kalhana makes no mention of any of her affairs during the time she was married to Kshemagupta. The couple seem to have had a happy married life, for the times [Kshemagupta also maintained a polygamous household]. She even seems to have drawn him back from his many debaucheries during the time of her marriage. All her affairs were only after she became a widow. Secondly, for the most part, her affairs seem to have had little to no effect on her ability to rule the country. The only questionable decision she may have made is appointing a paramour, Tunga, in the declining years of her life, to the position of a prime minister. But apart from that one decision, her many affairs seem to have had little effect on her ability to rule her country, and in the case of Phalguna, even actually had a stabilising effect on the country. However, it is to be admitted too, that her many affairs seem to have had a disastrous effect on the morale of those around her, including her son, and grandson.
There is a further point about her affairs. Her first affairs are mentioned alongside her अभिचार and her lameness. The first mention of Didda’s serious affairs is after her lameness is mentioned [aj]. During the time she was caring for her son, and continuing with her regency for him, she does not seem to have had any affairs. It is an open question whether her lameness enhanced her already high insecurity to the point that she desired reassurance that she was still desirable. Her अभिचार is also first mentioned after her lameness is mentioned. Whether she sought cures in अभिचार for her lameness is something that is open to speculation.
The first mention of her lameness is remarked after her victory over Mahima, which is well into the reign of her son, Abhimanyu, when she was ruling as a regent. We quote Kalhana verbatim, here.
गोष्पदोर्ल्लङ्घने यस्याः शक्तिर्नाज्ञायि केनचित्।
वायुपुत्रात्रियं पङ्ग्वा तया संघाब्धिलङ्धने॥ 6:226, [2]
No one knew of her [Didda’s] ability to jump a small pit [literally, the mark made by the hoof of the cow], but she [the lame Didda] jumped the ocean of peacemaking [with her enemies].
The fact that her lameness has not been mentioned till this point is remarkable. Indeed, when Kalhana speaks of the deep attachment of Kshemagupta to Didda, he does not mention her lameness. It is, therefore, very likely that her lameness was acquired in the consequence of an accident or illness later on. However, her lameness, to whatever degree that it affected her, does not seem to have affected any of her activities. She continued to rule effectively and proceeded with her other activities without any effect from her lameness.
Didda’s Rule in the Context of the Kashmir of the Time
To examine the context in which Didda ruled, we examine the period before Didda, i.e., from 902 CE, when Shankaravarman died, to 950 CE, when Kshemagupta came to power. Similarly, we shall examine the period after Didda, from 1003, to 1101 CE, when Harsha of Kashmir died. It would be an incomplete work to examine the life of Didda, to summarise the good and evil she did, without putting it in the context of the time she ruled in. Kashmir was a kingdom in decline since the death of Shankaravarman (died in 902 CE). From then on, administration was in decay and by the 940s, was in total decay. Revolutions, palace coups, and uncontrollable ministers were the order of the day, and they replaced kings at their whim. We shall establish what happened just before Didda, and what happened after her in Kashmir. The source for all this information is the Rajatarangini itself [3].
Since the death of Shankaravarman, Kashmir had a series of revolutions, murders and violent overthrows of kings. Shankaravarman’s son, Gopalavarman was a child, and he ascended the throne under the guardianship of his mother Sugandha. Two years later, he was destroyed by `अभिचार’ by an unscrupulous minister named Prabhakaradeva, and another king, a supposed son of Shankaravarman, Samkuta, was installed. He lasted only ten days, before dying in suspicious circumstances. Then, Sugandha herself ascended the throne, but was ousted in a coup by the Tantrins two years later, who brought in Partha, the son of her relative, Nirjitavarman, as the king. However, some years later, Sugandha collected enough troops and returned to reclaim her place, but was defeated. A massive famine in 917-18 CE devastated Kashmir and officials made a huge killing by selling stores at inflated prices. In 921 CE, Nirjitavarman defeated his son and declared himself the king. He lasted two years before dying, and his son Chakravarman became a king. However, in 933 CE, he was deposed by the Tantrins, who raised Suravarman as the king. However, Suravarman also did not suit the Tantrins, and they deposed him and raised Partha as the king. He was again deposed by Chakravarman, who promised greater bribes to the Tantrins. Chakravarman did not have the money to bribe the impossibly greedy Tantrins and fled the country an year later. He was replaced by Shambhuvardhana, who was defeated and killed by Chakravarman again, after he secured the aid of a powerful Damara named Sangrama. An year later, Chakravarman was murdered by the Damaras, in the arms of his mistress. He was replaced by Unmattavanti, who led a bloody reign, which culminated in parricide. He died of tuberculosis within an year. His supposed son, Suravarman, still a child, became the king. After a few days, he was deposed by his commander, Kamalavardhana, and this coup resulted in Yashaskara becoming elected as the king. Yashaskara’s rule of nine years (940-949CE), a relatively peaceful era, was marred by his end, wherein his ministers stole all his gold from his dying body. His son, Sangramadeva, became the king, only to be murdered by his own minister, Parvagupta, who drowned his own king in the Jhelum. He died within a year, leaving his hedonistic son, Kshemagupta as the king. We have seen his rule earlier.
Similarly, of the six kings of the first Lohara dynasty, which was established by Sangramapala, who succeeded Didda in 1003 CE, four died violently. Didda’s successor, Sangramaraja, had a relatively peaceful reign, thanks to the removal of potential obstacles by Didda. He was able to die peacefully, even though he was also unable to ensure a peaceful transition to his successor. Hariraja, the successor of Sangramaraja, died in suspicious circumstances, possibly murdered by his own mother, Srilekha in 1028. His successor, Ananta, was forced to abdicate his throne in favour of his son, Kalasha, by his own wife, Suryamati. Kalasha, resenting his father’s influence and power in Kashmir, burnt down his palace and treasure at Vijayakshetra, leaving the latter without the resources to sustain his retinue. Humiliated by his wife and son’s conduct, Ananta committed suicide. Ananta’s successor, Kalasha, was one of the two kings of the First Lohara dynasty who died `peacefully’. Kashmiri nobles were uncontrollable in his time, and in despair, he drank and had too many mistresses. Indeed, he went to the extent of buying women from `Turuskha’ countries for his harem. These excesses took their toll on him, and he died, possibly of venereal disease. Kalasha’s successor, Utkarsha, was surrounded in his own palace by his half-brother, Vijayamalla installing another half-brother, Harsha, on throne. Utkarsha committed suicide. Utkarsha’s successor, Harsha [or Harshadeva], was the eccentric king who destroyed many temples in Kashmir and looted their wealth. Kalhana goes to the extent of calling Harsha `Turushka’. Harsha also slaughtered the Damaras en masse, so much that some of them were driven to a rebellion for dear life, while others fled out of Kashmir. Harsha’s combination of brutality and cowardice prompted an uprising against him and a distant cousin of his, Uchchala, was promoted by his foes. Abandoned by everyone, even his own mercenaries, Harsha and his son, Bhoja, were forced to flee. Both Harsha and Bhoja were murdered in different places. In fact, the next fully peaceful succession would be achieved in Kashmir a full hundred and fifty years after, with Raja Jayasimha’s successor achieving a peaceful transition from Raja Jayasimha in 1155 CE. After the death of Sangramaraja, civil war flared up and down till the death of Kalasha, and completely destroyed Kashmir during the reigns of Harsha, Uchchala and Sussala, with massive arsons reducing entire cities like Vijayakshetra and Parihasapura to ashes, during the reign of Sussala.
In this era of extreme depravity, ruthlessness, deceit and cruelty, Didda’s reign stands out as an oasis of relative peace, amidst a storm of instability and cruelty everywhere else. With the one possible exception of Yashaskara, none of the kings since the death of Shankaravarman deserve more than a footnote. Similarly, after the death of Didda, only her successor, Sangramaraja, enjoyed a peaceful reign, and that was mostly because Didda had eliminated all sources for trouble for him. Towards the end of Sangramaraja’s reign itself, troubles had begun stirring, after the murder of Tunga. It is in this context that Didda’s reign needs to be lauded. She provided the people a relatively stable rule for the people. Kashmir would not be ravaged by civil wars the way it was just a few years before her, and as it would for a century after her successor. Indeed, her father-in-law had secured Kashmir through brutal violence, by engaging in regicide. No such massive upheavals would disrupt her country. She engaged in considerable charity, as charity was understood in her time. She left a peaceful kingdom to her successor. She picked her own successor, choosing him based on merit, as she understood merit by her lights. She was cognisant of the fact that she needed to ensure a smooth transition of power to her successor. And finally, she controlled her officials to a reasonable extent, which ensured that the country did not suffer from the rapacity of uncontrollable officials, as was the case during other periods of anarchy.
Cultural Efflorescence in Kashmir
During the reign of Didda, literary accomplishments, that, during the time of troubles between 902 CE and 950 CE, were beginning to suffer, revived. Four great poets of Kashmir were contemporaries of Didda. And towards the end of her reign, when a degree of stability had been achieved in Kashmir, two of the greatest ever Kashmiri poets and scholars began their career.
Early in her reign, Utpalacharya (lived around ~950 CE), a student of Somananda, wrote प्रत्यभिज्ञासूत्र, a book on Advaita [13]. Abhinavagupta, the greatest of the Kashmiri Shaivite scholars, began his career late in her reign (~993CE) and continued in the reign of her successor, Sangramaraja (till ~1015 CE). He has authored more than forty five books, including मालिनीविजय, तन्त्रसार, तन्त्रालोक, परत्रिंशिकाविवरण, परमार्थसार, etc. Most of these are on Dharmic topics, including Kashmiri Shaivism. Two books stand out in technical excellence. These are
अभिनवभारती – a commentary on Bharatamuni’s नाट्यशास्त्र, and लोचन, a commentary on Anandavardhana’s ध्वन्यालोक [13]. Both these works have been lauded for their technical excellence. Another great poet, who was born in Didda’s time and began his career during the last days of Didda was Kshemendra (though most of his work was during the reign of her successors). He wrote on several different topics including didactic ones likeलोकप्रकाश, generic advice ones like देशोपदेश, books on अलङ्कार like औचित्यविचारचर्चा and books in काव्य like बृहत्कथामञ्जरी. Finally, the last great scholar who began his career during her times [ak] was Mahimabhatta, who wrote a deep criticism of लोचन, called व्यक्तिविवेक [15]. What this shows is that Didda engendered a cultural revival of Kashmir, that had been decaying since the death of Shankaravarman.
Apart from a literary efflorescence, she also had several temples renovated, and established two cities, along with multiple temples in them. This shows that she was a dharmic queen, cognisant of the welfare of her subjects, even if her personal conduct tarnished her rule.
Didda’s Rule Compared with that of the Other Great Monarchs Across the World
Before we compare Didda to other rulers, we must ask what makes them great. The thrones of the great kings have always been ringed in blood. Whether it was Elizabeth I of England, Darius II of Persia, Alexander I of Macedonia, Philip II of Spain, or even Catherine II of Russia, none of them ever practised any moderation when it came to political enemies. Many of their nearest and dearest, their kith and their kin, fell a prey to their own ambitions, and they remorselessly strode further with their rule. But they all had one major achievement, at least, in their lives. Darius II expanded Persian rule into Thrake and Macedonia, after restoring the old borders of the Persian empire. Alexander I of Macedon conquered the Persian empire, Elizabeth defeated the Spanish Armada and established the English naval power, Philip II made Spain the biggest colonial power on earth, and Catherine II of Russia finally put an end to the Crimean Khanate which had ravaged Russia for centuries with their raids. Didda falls a little short in that respect. She was a capable schemer, a strong ruler, but she comes up short in that she has no single major achievement that makes her rule stand out. She lacked the spark of genius that transforms the capable to the magnificent, the good to the great. In conclusion, we must conclude that she was a good ruler [this is a comment as it concerns her subjects, not her political enemies, even if those opponents were her own kith and kin], but not a great one.
Odds and Ends
The Kashmiri society was totally Hindu and the form of Hinduism they followed had deep connections with the rest of the country. Whether it was the temples of the Hindu Gods and Goddesses, or the Hindu practice of immersing the ashes of the dead in the Ganga, or the practice of performing shraddha ceremonies at Gaya it is clear that the Kashmiris had the same connection to the rest of the Hindus that they have today. This has been emphasised throughout history. It was suggested in an interview by a Kashmiri Pandit that Kashmiri Pandits have no connection to the Ganga [11]. However, historically, the association of Kashmir with the Ganga is irrefutable. We adduce a few pieces of evidence, to show that the association was clear from at least the time of Didda.
Kardamaraja, the son of Phalguna [the prime minister of Kashmir] took the bones of Parvagupta to Prayaga as evidenced by these verses.
अस्तीनि क्षैमगुप्तस्य गृहीत्वा जह्नवीं गते।
पुत्रे कर्दमराजाख्ये प्रबलैरन्विते बलैः॥ 6:200, [2]
Phalguna’s son, who was named Kardamaraja, had taken Raja Kshemagupta’s bones to the Ganga for his final rites. He was accompanied by a large armed force as an escort.
तत्प्रयागमपर्यन्तं पर्णोत्से स्थातुमुद्यतः।
अविश्वसन्नृपगृहे फल्गुणो वैरिशङ्कितः॥ 6:201, [2]
With the son gone to far away Prayaga, Phalguna, mistrusting the palace and fearing his enemies, desired to stay at Parnotsa.
Similarly, Eramattaka, who rebelled against the queen Didda, had taken away the tax on those going from Kashmir to Gaya, as evidenced by this verse.
काश्मीरिकाणां यः श्राद्धशुल्कोच्छेत्ता गयान्तरे।
सोप्येरमत्तकः शूरः परिहासपुराश्रयः॥ 6:254, [2]
The man who had removed the tax for Kashmiris going to Gaya for Shraddha ceremonies, [was] the same brave Eramattaka of Parihasapura.
When Kandarpa, a brave and noble commander of Harshadeva [a king of Kashmir who ruled about a century after Didda], chose voluntary exile after the king had lost faith in him, he went to Varanasi and Gaya, and freed Kashmiris from the taxes levied in Gaya for Shraddhakarma, by a princeling there. We quote Kalhana verbatim here.
हत्वा गयायां सामन्तमेकमन्यं निवेश्य च।
काश्मीरकाणां चक्रे स श्राद्धशुल्कनिवारणम्॥ 7:1007, [2]
Having killed the princeling in Gaya, and ushered in another, he [Kandarpa] got the shraddha taxes for the Kashmiris waived/removed.
Further, the discussion between Mirza Pandit and Azim Khan, after the former had helped Birbal Dhar flee Kashmir indicate the connection between the Kashmiris and the Ganga, even as late the nineteenth century.
When Azim Khan asked, `Birbal kuja raft’ (Where has Birbal gone) p. 420, [5], Mirza Pandit replied, `Hargah au ra hawas-i-dunya na munda bashad ba Ganga khwahad raft, warnah peshi Ranjit rafta Singhan bar tu arad’ (Should he care no more for the world, he will go to the Ganges; otherwise, he will go to Ranjit and bring the Sikhs against you)’ p. 420, [5]. This establishes that the Kashmiris had a deep connection with the rest of the Hindus and the Ganga from the earliest times, till today.
Conclusions
Rafael Sabatini, in his analysis of the Life of Cesare Borgia, has written“This is no Chronicle of Saints. Nor yet is it a History of Devils. It is a record of certain very human, strenuous men in a very human, strenuous age; a lustful, flamboyant age; an age red with blood and pale with passion at white-heat; an age of steel and velvet, of vivid colour, dazzling light and impenetrable shadow; an age of swift movement, pitiless violence and high endeavour, of sharp antitheses and amazing contrasts.
To judge it from the standpoint of this calm, deliberate, and correct century—as we conceive our own to be—is for sedate middle-age to judge from its own standpoint the reckless, hot, passionate, lustful humours of youth, of youth that errs grievously and achieves greatly.’’ [4]. Nowhere else does this immortal quote apply more than for the monarch whose life we have just dwelt on.
Didda’s greatest qualities were her ability to rule effectively, and her characteristics were to use Machiavellian cunning to break up her enemies, and subdue them one by one. She was a ruler with cold focus, confronting challenges, despite her physical disabilities. She never lacked courage, as demonstrated by her moving to rally her troops, when the first opportunity offered, even when the enemy was inside her city itself. She was a strong, decisive ruler, who met the many challenges that life threw her way, even when she laboured under the disabilities suffered by her gender due to the time in which she ruled (see the translations of verses from Kalhana 6:193, [8], and 6:317-318, [8]). Her licentious life is quite typical of monarchs all over the world, and never interfered with her ability to rule, except in one instance towards the end. Above and beyond, she gave her kingdom half a century of relative peace and tranquility, rejuvenated Kashmir, by building and renovating its temples and other cultural treasures, and re-ignited a period of literary efflorescence.
Her greatest sin – her insecurity, which led to all her other sins – has to be seen in the context of the time she ruled. In a period when betrayal was common, and she herself had grown up at a time when the entire kingdom was in turmoil, at the best of times, and in the grip of anarchy at the worst, she could not have been otherwise if she had to survive, particularly given that she laboured under the disability of her gender. Her ruthless conduct towards her enemies was typical of nearly all capable kings, who, to rule successfully, have to be ruthless, cynical and often, amoral and Machiavellian. Didda, labouring under the disability of her gender, could not have been otherwise. Indeed, one may even argue that by nipping potential revolts in the bud, she spared Kashmir the civil war and bloodshed that would come to haunt Kashmir for more than a century after her.
Finally, it remains to be said that the Hindu society of the time was relatively liberal. Didda did not face any opprobrium for not committing sati, even when sati was quite fashionable. Didda’s choice was accepted without any demur. There was indeed an undertone of contempt about the ruling capabilities of women (see the translations of verses from Kalhana 6:193, [8], and 6:317-318, [8]). Yet the disparages were not universal. For example, her subordinates carried through her orders, despite her gender. She was accorded the authority naturally associated with her stature as a monarch. The Hindu society of the time was therefore more egalitarian, more accepting of women in ruling positions, than most other contemporary ones. And for a society such as Kashmir, that has always worshipped Sharikadevi, Sandhyadevi and Sharadadevi, it seems fitting that a woman should be a successful queen.
References
[1] Aarti Tikoo Singh, “A Women’s History’’, https://medium.com/@aarti.tikoo/a-womens-history-16477b3473df
[2] कल्हण, “राजतरङ्गिणी‘’, Vol. 1
[3] Aurel Stein, “Kalhana’s Rajatarangini – A Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir’’, Vol. 1
[4] Rafael Sabatini, “The Life of Cesare Borgia’’, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3467/3467-h/3467-h.htm
[5] Prithivi Nath Kaul Bamzai, “A History of Kashmir’’
[6] Premnath Bazaz, “Daughters of the Vitasta’’
[7] Al-Biruni, “India’’
[8] Shanmukh, Saswati Sarkar, Kirtivardhan Dave, and Dikgaj, “Translations of the Verses pertaining to Didda from the Rajatarangini’’ https://sringeribelur.wordpress.com/translation-of-rajatarangini-verses-pertaining-to-didda-and-the-war-with-ghazni/
[9] RC Majumdar, “History and Culture of the Indian People’’ Vol. 4 (Age of Imperial Kanauj)
[10] al Utbi, “Kitab i Yamini’’, Translated by
[12] बाणभट्ट “हर्षचरित‘’
[13] G Hanumantha Rao, “Kashmira Shaiva Darshana’’
[14] RC Majumdar, “History and Culture of the Indian People’’, Vol. 5 (Struggle for Empire).
[15] Mahimabhatta, “Vyaktiviveka’’, Introduction by HV Nagaraja Rao (translated by him to Kannada).
Notes
[a] The exact date of Didda’s birth and Didda’s marriage to Kshemagupta are unknown. Kshemagupta ascended the throne in 950 CE p. 133, [5], and died in 958 CE p. 133, [5]. We know that Didda married Kshemagupta when he was the ruler, but we are uncertain of the exact date of her marriage.
[b] We are aware that there is at least another translation of Rajatarangini; that translation is by RS Pandit. However, we have not examined that particular translation. Given that Stein’s translations seem to be used more often, it is with Stein that we have compared our translations.
[c] Here, Stein translates `श्रीभूमिस्वामिनोदात्तप्रसादो‘ as a reference to Bheema Shahi [by the grace of Bheema Shahi] and that the word Bhoomiswamin is corrupted from Bheemashahi. He has adduced some circumstantial evidence for the claim, but it is doubtful that the word Bhoomi would be corrupted to Bheema in highly Sanskrit literate Kashmir. It would be perfectly in line for Kalhana to mention the Bhoomiswamin, who may well have been a favourite deity of Bheema Shahi (or whose blessings Bheema Shahi had sought, before building the temple).
[d] Kalhana writes thus
मसूरविदलाकारलूताक्लिन्नकलेवरः।
पौषो चाव्दे चतुस्त्रिंशे नवमेह्नि सिते मृतः॥ 6:187, [2]
His body was disfigured with swollen, lentil shaped, pus filled boils due to the disease. He died on 4034 Pausha shukla navami.
[e] It is unclear from the text if the king made it all the way to Varahakshetra before expiring. Nevertheless, it was his desire to die there.
[f] We know from 6:195, [2] that at least some of the wives/mistresses of Kshemagupta committed sati. However, there is no evidence that all, or even most of the wives/mistresses of Kshemagupta committed sati.
[g] Stein adds the word `out of malice’ in his translation of the intentions of Phalguna. However, there is no word in the text that indicates that he desired to do so out of malice. Nevertheless, this is a minor quibble.
[h] Stein translates `याष्टीक‘ as `staff-bearers’. This is the literal translation, since `यष्टि‘ means a `stick’, but we are more inclined to go with our translation of `guardsmen’. It can also be interpreted as `the personal guards’, I suppose. In his notes below, Stein remarks that they were the class of guards and indentifies them with `cobdar’ of modern India.
[i] Stein translates `प्रतापिनं‘ as `man of dignity’; the more accurate translation would be `man of prowess’. Again, this is a minor quibble.
[j] Stein translates the latter line as `full of anger, they were going hither and thither from their own house’. We are not very certain of this second line of translation. गतागतौ does not suit the `hither and thither’. This is a specific reference that they were still coming to and going from the place [the royal household] that they had been chased out of.
[k] Stein translates this somewhat differently. He translates this as `When Mahima had left one place’, not `once when Mahima presented himself [at the palace]’. We are inclined to go with our translation, since it fits with our translation of the previous verse. Despite being driven out of the palace, Mahima and Patala were still entering the palace, which angered the queen. Consequently, she sent guardsmen after Mahima to permanently exile him from the country.
[l] Stein translates this somewhat differently as `bought off the Brahmins of Lalitadityapura and thus broke up the league of her enemies’. However, again, we are inclined to go with our translation. It agrees with the next verse, and endows the verses with greater narrative coherence.
[m] Stein translates this differently. His translation is given verbatim here. `They took an oath by sacred libation that if one were attacked, they would all resent it and [then] brought about a reconciliation between Mahima and the queen.’ However, Stein’s translation does not fit. The reconciliation was not between Mahima and the queen; it was between the queen and those sworn to serve Mahima (महिम्नः पीतकोशैस्तैः). The entire previous line of the verse qualifies those sworn to serve Mahima. It also fits that they had sworn unity – that if any one was attacked, all of them would be furious with the attacker [and presumably retaliate against the attacker]. Despite such solemn oaths, these people proceeded to make peace with the queen due to the exertions of the previously mentioned bribed Brahmins of Lalitadityapura.
[n] The word `अभिचार‘ has been often used by Kalhana and there is some question about what exactly it means. Literally, it means `forbidden practice’. But it means `witchcraft’ too, as `witchcraft’ is also a `forbidden practice’. Nevertheless, `witchcraft’ is just a subset of the wider set of forbidden practices, and it is unreasonable to suppose that Mahima just died coincidentally, due to witchcraft performed by Didda, barely a few days after Didda had isolated him from his own sworn followers.
[o] Stein translates युग्यवाह as `litter carrier’. However, it appears to us that `coachman’ is more the appropriate word here.
[p] Stein translates गञ्जाधिकारी as `treasurer’. It is unclear if this is the correct one. A more accurate translation may be that he was an official in the treasury/revenue departments.
[q] There is a certain ambiguity in the verses. Stein translates
सा सानुगां तत्र यातां ध्रुवं त्वामेव वन्त्स्यति।
इत्युक्ता सिन्धुना पृच्छत्तत्कर्तव्यं भय़ाकुला॥ 6:269, [2]
as `When Sindhu told her that if she went there [to Naravahana’s home] he [Naravahana] would, for certain, imprison her and her attendants, the terrified [queen] asked him for advice’. However, the text indicates that she had already gone there, in the next verse, which says.
अनुक्त्वैव प्रचलिता राजधानीमलक्षिता।
स्त्रीधर्मिण्यस्मि जातेति पश्चाद्वार्तां व्यसर्जयत्॥ 6:270, [2]
Without saying anything/giving any indication, she left for the capital/her palace. Later on, she sent word to Naravahana that she was in her menstrual period.
The two do not harmonise completely, since it indicates that she was already either part way to his home or had already reached it. Sindhu cannot have told her that if she went to his home, she would be imprisoned if he went to his home if she had already reached his home. We take it to mean that she was on her way, when Sindhu frightened her.
[r] The Damaras were a tribe/clan. Modern authors have made many associations of the old Damaras with modern castes, but there is no clear indication who the Damaras were. However, starting early 10th century, they appear in Kashmiri politics quite regularly.
[s] The word अक्षपटल is often translated as `a court of law’. However, we are not very certain what exactly it meant in Kalhana’s time.
[t] Kalhana’s reference to Didda’s दौशील्य is, we suspect, a reference to her affairs.
[u] The Suryakanta stone is one that is gives off burning radiance when exposed to the sun. However, when kept away from the sunlight, it turns cold and lustreless.
[v] Alterhatively, this can be interpreted as `foreigners and Brahmins’.
[w] This Sindhu is not the river Indus. This is a separate river.
[x] Stein translates `मठप्रतिष्ठवैकुण्ठनिर्माणाद्यै स्वकर्मभिः‘ as `By the construction of Mathas, by the placing of Vaikuntha (Visnu) images and other pious works of her own’. However, it is unclear to us that this is the correct one. There are no `images’ of Vaikuntha that are worshipped, as far as we know.
[y] Literally, अभिचार is `forbidden practice’, but it is also used for witchcraft, as previously mentioned. Stein translates `भोगोत्सुकार्भके तस्मिन्नप्तरि व्यभिचारकृत्‘ as `the unfaithful woman, lusting for pleasures, employed witchcraft against her little grandson’. It is unclear if the `भोगोत्सुका‘ is an adjective for Didda or whether भोगोत्सुक is a qualifier for the grandson. Grammatically, both of them hold true. However, since the word भोगोत्सुक is attached to अर्भक, it makes us wonder if the child – he may have been a teenager – was the pleasure seeking one. However, it is impossible to be certain.
[z] Stein translates `व्यग्र‘ as `persisting on her unholy course’. व्यग्र seems to mean restless or excited, though. This is, nevertheless, a minor quibble.
[aa] Stein translates `धिङ्भिर्विजारान्कुपतीन्‘ as `shame on the bad masters’, however, the reference seems to us to be to to the favourites of Didda, and not a generic statement as `bad masters’.
[ab] Stein translates
अभिमन्युवधूस्तं हि चक्रे गू़ढप्रवेशितम्।
महाभिजननं पुत्रं तस्मात्सोभूत्तथाविधः॥ 6:329, [2]
as `He was the scion of a noble family whom Abhimanyu’s wife had secretly substituted [as her own son. It was] for this [reason that] he was of such character.’ However, the part about substitution for her own son is purely interpretation. There is nothing in the text to suggest such a thing. The more accurate translation to us seems to be `Abhimanyu’s wife tried to usher her nobly born son into a hiding place, [but] he became like the others’ The तथाविधि is probably a reference to the fates of Nandigupta and Tribhuvana.
[ac] Stein claims that Vigraharaja was the son of Didda’s brother, but the text does not say so. We are unable to account for Stein’s specific claim.
[ad] Stein claims that Sumanomantaka is one person. The name occurs in only two places in Rajatarangini, and in both places it is combined with आदयः. Consequently, we are unable to tell whether Sumanomantaka is one person, or it is a reference to two people, Sumano and Mantaka.
[ae] The verse is accurately
तेषां मध्ये वसन्गूढमादित्याख्यः पलायितः।
हतो विग्रहराजस्य प्रियः कटकवारिकः॥ 6:345, [2]
Among them, a man named Aditya was living secretly [we assume he was secretly an agent of Vigraharaja] and he fled. Vigraharaja’s dear coachmaker was killed. Stein opines that Aditya was the coachmaker of Vigraharaja, and he fled and was later killed. But there is nothing in the text to suggest that they are the same person. Also, the text does not say that he was killed after fleeing. Consequently, we are inclined to believe that they are two different people. Further, when Kalhana says `staying in their midst’, he is not very clear whether it was in the middle of Didda’s court or whether it was amidst the Brahmins.
[af] Stein translates `र्दुर्गतिर्दृष्टा‘ in 6:350, [2] as so badly discomfited [through defeat] that death would have been a medicine. We are unclear whether the र्दुर्गति experienced was due to injuries or just their desperate predicament. Both seem to fit the context here.
[ag] Stein translates `संकट‘ in 6:352, [2] as `narrow valley’. But in this case, it can be `trouble’ too and Tunga delivered the ministers from their chastened state after their defeat at the hands of the Rajapuri forces.
[ah] Stein translates अर्थ as `cause’ in 6:353, [2], but it seems to us to be `wealth’, and it is a reference to the monetary loss suffered by Kashmir due to loss of tributes from Rajapuri, as well as the cost incurred in sending an expedition to Rajapuri to return it to vassalage.
[ai] Stein says Didda made Sangramaraja Yuvaraja `without scruple’ (अशङ्किता). It seems to be more `without hesitation’ in this context.
[aj] There is a slight allusion to possible affairs during the time she was manoeuvring to get the position of the regent. However, it is very indefinite, with rumour and haziness predominating. However, for the sake of accuracy, we quote the verse verbatim.
सन्धिविग्रहशुद्धान्तमुख्यधर्माधिकारिणः।
निस्साध्वसं राजवधूमवन्ध्यशयनां व्यधुः॥ 6:189
Principal officers in charge of the war and peace, and private apartments of women used to enter her [Didda’s] bed chamber fearlessly.
However, this verse is so nebulous that it is probably nothing more than rumour and innuendo after the fact, and things that were repeated after her affairs become commonplace.
[ak] He was born during the reign of Didda and worked mostly under her successors.