Bhikshachara displaces Sussala

A throne recovered, but power divided

Bhikshachara entered Srinagar in November 1120 after Sussala abandoned the capital. His accession briefly restored the line associated with Harsha, whose fall in 1101 had brought Uchchala and then Sussala to power. The new king depended on the landed chiefs, officers and urban leaders who had helped bring down his predecessor. Their cooperation did not last.

Kalhana’s account follows this short reign through the defeat of an expedition against Sussala, protests in the Valley, fighting within Srinagar and the restoration of the displaced king in 1121. It is unusually detailed about changing loyalties. It is also highly judgmental, often explaining political failure through personal weakness, luxury and the supposed fickleness of ordinary people.

The accession belongs under November 1120. The narrative continues into the following year because the consequences cannot be understood within a single calendar month. Traditional lunar dates are retained where a separately checked conversion is unavailable; they should not be silently turned into modern calendar dates.

The claimant and conflicting stories of survival

Bhikshachara, also called Bhikshu in the chronicle, was recognised as a survivor of Harsha’s family. That identity mattered because it supplied an alternative royal lineage around which opponents of Uchchala and Sussala could gather. Yet Kalhana preserves incompatible stories about how the child escaped death during Uchchala’s reign.

In one version, he survived an attempt to drown him in the Vitasta, was rescued and was taken away by Asamati. Another credited Queen Jayamati with substituting another child at the execution. A third alleged that the real Bhikshachara had died and that a similar-looking child was later presented under his name. Kalhana records the uncertainty rather than resolving it through evidence available to us.

The account associates his upbringing with Naravarman of Malava and describes education in arms and learning. Later patronage among neighbouring chiefs sustained his claim. These traditions should not be combined into one seamless childhood biography, nor should the substitution allegation be treated as a demonstrated fraud. What the subsequent narrative establishes is the political importance of the person recognised as Bhikshachara.

Entry into Srinagar and marriage alliances

Sussala’s departure left Srinagar exposed. Ministers and troops assembled, and the city prefect Janakasimha emerged as a central intermediary. The account says that he surrendered his son and nephew as hostages to assure Bhikshachara’s supporters. It describes killings, plunder and the burning of homes during a night without effective royal authority.

Bhikshachara entered the following day. Mallakoshtha stayed beside him, introducing influential people and explaining their family connections and importance to the throne. Kalhana compares this guidance to a nurse looking after a child. The comparison conveys the chronicler’s view of dependency; it does not establish that the new king was literally a child at accession.

Before assuming the royal dignity at the palace, Bhikshachara visited Janakasimha’s house to receive the bride promised to him. The later passage identifies her as Janakasimha’s niece. Tilaka subsequently gave him a daughter in marriage as well. Marriage helped connect the ruler to powerful households, but these relationships did not prevent later hostility and desertion.

The court and the distribution of royal property

The incoming government inherited stores left by Sussala. Kalhana describes horses, armour and weapons being divided among the king, ministers, Damaras and plunderers. This was both a transfer of military resources and a sign that the new ruler could not exercise exclusive control over what had belonged to the crown.

Bimba became chief minister, with the title sarvadhikarin. Kalhana presents him as the effective holder of royal power, while Bhikshachara possessed its name. Janga, previously an officer of the ruler of Rajapuri, received the Padagra office. The precise meaning of his earlier designation is uncertain in Stein’s translation, so it should not be replaced with a confident modern job title.

Jyesthapala, described as Daryaka’s stepbrother, became a prominent confidant. Former councillors of Bhikshachara’s grandfather also appeared around the restored court. The government therefore joined people linked to the older dynasty with officers and chiefs whose influence had grown under its successors.

Kalhana ridicules the rural appearance of some supporters and repeats a claim that Bhikshachara was an incarnation. Those passages reveal social prejudice and royal publicity. Neither a woollen garment nor a supernatural claim supplies an independent measure of someone’s competence or legitimacy.

Rival patrons and an unstable king

Prithvihara and Mallakoshtha quarrelled repeatedly. Bhikshachara tried to reconcile them by arranging a marriage between their children, but the hostility continued. When he himself married into Prithvihara’s family, Mallakoshtha took offence and openly withdrew. An alliance intended to strengthen one connection damaged another.

Janakasimha also intrigued against the king despite their marriage connection. He encouraged disaffection among Brahman councillors, including Ojananda. The succession coalition was coming apart from within, while Sussala remained alive and capable of receiving defectors outside the Valley.

Kalhana places much responsibility on the king’s indulgence, lack of authority and attachment to favourites. His allegations about Bimba’s wife form part of that moral portrait. They are court accusations transmitted by the chronicler, not independently documented intimate facts. The political evidence is clearer where it concerns appointments, defections and public confrontations.

The account later credits Bhikshachara with refusing a proposal to kill the Damaras and with sparing priests who abandoned their protest. Those passages complicate a portrait of uniform folly or cruelty. A critical account needs to preserve them alongside the descriptions of weak government.

Everyday insecurity and the problem of money

Kalhana describes a country with many competing masters and disrupted business. He reports violence against women through the caste hierarchy of his own society, treating the status of victims and attackers as part of the outrage. That language should not be adopted as a ranking of whose suffering matters. The passage is evidence of reported insecurity, but provides neither a comprehensive casualty record nor the testimony of the women involved.

One unusually specific statement concerns money. During Bhikshachara’s reign, the chronicle says, old money ceased to circulate and one hundred units of it bought eighty of the new. The ratio is valuable evidence for a reported monetary disturbance. It does not, by itself, tell us the metal content, weight or purchasing power of either issue.

Stein observed in 1900 that he had not identified coins of Bhikshachara, and that Cunningham’s published list did not supply an attribution. He wondered whether the issues had been withdrawn and melted after Sussala’s restoration. That was a hypothesis, not a documented order. His observation also cannot establish that no specimen has been recognised in the years since his publication.

The expedition against Sussala

Bhikshachara sent Bimba towards Lohara through Rajapuri to attack the displaced king. Somapala joined the expedition, and the force included troops called Turushkas in the chronicle, associated with a commander rendered as Sallara Vismaya. Stein understood these as Muslim troops from the Punjab or lower hills, but could not securely recover the commander’s original name.

The army crossed political and regional boundaries. It should not be described as a simple conflict between two unified religious communities. Kashmiri forces fought on opposing sides, and alliances changed during the campaign. The chronicle’s broad labels and hostile descriptions do not identify every soldier’s background.

The southern approach also had a seasonal context. Stein points out that the higher passes made a direct attack from the north difficult during winter and spring. This explains the importance of Rajapuri and the approaches to Lohara without requiring the invention of a daily itinerary.

Protest fasts and demands for a restoration

As the government lost support, Mallakoshtha, Janaka and others sent messages encouraging Sussala to return. Meanwhile, the plunder of the agrahara of Aksosuva by Tilaka’s men prompted its Brahmans to fast against the king. Stein could not securely identify that settlement, so its modern location remains uncertain here.

Other holders of religious endowments gathered at Vijayeshvara. A separate fast began among the Rajanavatika Brahmans in Srinagar. Temple priestly corporations then assembled at the Gokula, encouraged by Ojananda and other leading Brahmans. Kalhana describes sacred images carried on litters, decorated parasols and musical instruments accompanying the gathering.

The participants discussed political plans with citizens and demanded Sussala’s return. They also feared an attack and prepared to resist. These were religious protests with direct political aims, involving property grievances, urban networks and factional leadership. They should not be treated as a unanimous vote by everyone in Kashmir.

Bhikshachara attempted to persuade the protesters at Vijayeshvara to stop. There Tilaka advised him to kill the Damaras. He rejected the proposal and told Prithvihara and the other landed leaders about it, strengthening their trust in him while increasing their fear of Tilaka. A later assembly of citizens also failed to settle the conflict.

Defeat near Parnotsa and renewed defections

The expedition reached the vicinity of Parnotsa, associated by Stein with present-day Poonch. Sussala, supported by Padmaratha of Kalinjara, fought the coalition on the thirteenth day of the bright half of Vaishakha in Laukika 4197. Kalhana praises his performance, but does not supply a reliable numerical balance of the two armies.

Somapala’s maternal uncle was killed, Somapala and the Turushka force withdrew, and Kashmiri troops abandoned Bimba for Sussala. Bimba himself then changed sides. The defeat therefore damaged Bhikshachara through both military losses and the transfer of men and leadership to his rival.

Sussala began his return shortly afterwards. A Rajaputra called Kalhana, identified as Sahadeva’s son, went ahead to gather Damaras in Kramarajya. This man should not be confused with the author of the Rajatarangini merely because they share a name. Officers and Tantrins linked to Janakasimha also approached the returning king.

Fighting in the capital

Bhikshachara and Prithvihara moved against a soldier in Bhangila who had allowed people to pass towards Sussala. During these operations, a report reached Janakasimha that the king intended to kill him. Janakasimha collected citizens, horsemen and Tantrins in Srinagar and rose against Bhikshachara.

The king returned with Prithvihara. Fighting took place near a bridge by the Sadashiva temple. Prithvihara and his nephew Alaka defeated Janakasimha’s force, and the city prefect escaped at night with his relatives to Lahara. Horsemen who had supported him then appeared again on Bhikshachara’s side.

The priestly protesters dispersed, carrying away their images. A few people remained beside the empty litters and declared that they had ended their fast; Bhikshachara did not harm them. This local victory briefly improved his position, but it did not stop Sussala’s larger advance.

The end of the reign and the surviving record

Sussala’s supporters prevailed around Hushkapura, and the returning king approached Srinagar by the Lahara route with Mallakoshtha, Janaka and other chiefs. Kalhana dates his return to the third day of the bright half of Jyeshtha in Laukika 4197, after an absence of six months and twelve days. Modern chronological summaries place the restoration in May 1121.

Bhikshachara withdrew with Prithvihara, briefly turned back when other supporters joined him, and was defeated again. Sussala entered the palace. Bhikshachara then left Kashmir for Pushyananada in Somapala’s territory. The loss of the capital ended this reign; it was not the end of his involvement in the subsequent conflict.

The chronicle’s detailed sequence explains how a successful challenger lost his coalition in a matter of months. It also leaves substantial gaps. We have no complete administrative archive, independently established coin series or comprehensive account of ordinary households during the fighting. The voices of women and displaced people appear largely through the priorities of a court-centred narrative.

Kalhana occasionally invokes eyewitness memory, making the proximity of the account especially valuable. That does not turn every insult, rumour or motive into a verified fact. The strongest account follows the recorded sequence while keeping literary judgments, uncertain identities and modern geographical identifications distinct.