Ksemagupta becomes king

Accession and the character of the evidence

Ksemagupta became king of Kashmir after his father Parvagupta died in 950. He ruled until 958, when his child-son Abhimanyu succeeded under the guardianship of Queen Didda. His marriage linked the Kashmiri court with the ruling family of Lohara and, through Didda’s maternal ancestry, with the Shahi royal house.

The main narrative is Kalhana’s Rajatarangini, composed in the twelfth century. It is strongly critical of Ksemagupta’s conduct and his companions. Its reported acts of violence and patronage must be distinguished from the author’s moral judgments, especially his contempt for particular occupations, castes and women.

The accession year is conventionally 950. The account follows Parvagupta’s death but does not establish a separate exact Gregorian accession date. Individual events within the reign, including the marriage and the destruction of a monastery, should not be assigned precise months merely because they appear in a particular narrative order.

Favourites, gifts and humiliation at court

Kalhana depicts a court dominated by drinking, gambling, sexual exploitation and competition for gifts. Phalguna, formerly a councillor of Yasaskara, appears among the leading courtiers. The sons of Jisnu are accused of manipulating the king through flattery, entertainment and access to their households.

The account includes claims that courtiers offered women in their families to obtain royal favour. It does not preserve those women’s own testimony or establish their consent. These allegations should not be turned into a celebration of courtly pleasure or repeated through the chronicler’s contempt for the people involved.

Kalhana also describes the public humiliation of respected men and says the old commander Rakka endured blows to regain favour. The nickname Kankanavarsa, referring to the king’s distribution of bracelets, is connected with courtiers extracting gifts from him. These episodes portray dependence on personal access and the insecurity of status at court.

Phalguna is credited with founding the Vishnu shrine Phalgunasvamin and other religious buildings. That patronage belongs to the minister, not automatically to the king. The same man could appear as a donor, a royal adviser and a participant in the struggles surrounding the royal household.

The burning of Jayendravihara

Kalhana says the Damara Samgrama sought refuge in the Jayendravihara after an attack by assassins. Ksemagupta then ordered the monastery burned in an effort to kill him. The chronicle describes the building as completely destroyed by the fire.

This Samgrama is a Damara, not the child-king Samgramadeva killed by Parvagupta in the previous succession crisis. Keeping their identities separate is essential to the sequence. The passage gives no reliable total of people killed in the monastery, nor a complete list of those present.

The king is then said to have taken bronze from the monastery’s Buddha image and gathered stones from decaying temples for a new shrine of Shiva, Ksemagaurisvara. The story records destruction, appropriation and reuse of religious material. It should not be reduced to an uncomplicated account of temple building.

The stated immediate purpose of the burning was an attack on a political opponent. That does not diminish the destruction of a Buddhist institution, but it also does not establish a general campaign against all Buddhists. The actions attributed to this ruler do not justify collective blame against a religious community.

A new shrine and the transfer of monastery lands

Ksemagaurisvara is placed in a market street of the city. Stein compares the notice with Bilhana’s later description of an imposing temple whose halls extended towards a river confluence. Because the tributary is not clearly identified, he does not regard the precise site as securely established.

The chronicle also reports the transfer of thirty-six villages from the burned monastery to a Khasa ruler. Stein identifies that ruler as Simharaja of Lohara. His translation follows an emendation of the Sanskrit wording; the alternative manuscript reading could imply the burning of more than one monastery. The uncertainty matters and should not be silently expanded into a list of additional destroyed institutions.

This transfer concerns the economic resources supporting the monastery as well as its building and image. The passage does not preserve grant charters, village boundaries, tax terms or the reactions of cultivators. Those details remain unestablished.

The use of older building materials is itself an important part of the account. It shows why a foundation notice and reused sculpture or masonry do not necessarily date every component of a later structure to the same reign.

Didda, Lohara and the Shahi connection

Simharaja, ruler of Lohara and other strongholds, gave his daughter Didda in marriage to Ksemagupta. Her maternal grandfather was Bhima Shahi. The marriage created a connection between royal households across the wider region; the chronicle does not provide the bride’s exact age or an independently established wedding date here.

Kalhana says Didda so occupied the king’s attention that he became known as Diddaksema, a name the author treats as humiliating. Stein points out that the abbreviated combination of their names on coins could itself account for the nickname. A coin legend is evidence of royal representation, not proof that the queen exercised every power attributed to her by a hostile anecdote.

Didda was not the only royal wife named in the account. Phalguna’s daughter Candralekha was also married to Ksemagupta. Kalhana describes tension between Didda and Phalguna arising from that connection. The minister’s position and his family’s access to the king were therefore intertwined.

Bhima Shahi is credited with building the Vishnu temple Bhimakesava. This is his foundation, not a building that should simply be assigned to Ksemagupta. Stein tentatively identified it with a shrine at Bumzu, drawing on names, local traditions and the building’s location. That historical proposal is not the same as a conclusive modern archaeological identification.

A coin issued in the king’s own name

A copper coin catalogued by Classical Numismatic Gallery offers another line of evidence. Auction 48, lot 114, attributes a 6.03-gram specimen to Ksemagupta and describes a seated goddess on one side and a standing royal figure at an altar on the other. The catalogue reads parts of his name in the Sharada lettering and distinguishes this issue from coins combining his name with Didda’s.

This is the cataloguer’s attribution and reading, not an independent decipherment of the specimen here. The coin provides material evidence to examine alongside the literary account. It does not verify the chronicle’s accusations about court conduct or establish the date of the royal marriage.

Hunting, illness and death in 958

The chronicle describes Ksemagupta hunting jackals with dogs, net-carriers and other companions. It names Damodararanya, Lalyana and Simika among the places he frequented. Stein associates the first with the Damodar plateau but leaves the other locations uncertain.

A final hunt becomes an omen story: the king is said to have seen fire issuing from a jackal’s mouth and then developed a feverish illness. The supernatural sight belongs to the narrative. It is not a medical explanation of the illness.

Kalhana describes eruptions on the king’s body and calls the illness luta. The description is insufficient to establish a modern diagnosis. He went to die in Varahaksetra, the sacred area associated with Baramulla and nearby Huskapura, where he had founded two mathas. Stein could no longer locate those establishments precisely.

The death is dated to the ninth day of the bright half of Pausha, Laukika year 4034, conventionally 958. Stein notes that the month of the earlier hunting omen is itself unclear. Neither uncertainty should be resolved by inventing a Gregorian day or a precise interval between the hunt and death.

Abhimanyu’s succession and Didda’s survival

Abhimanyu succeeded as a child, with Didda acting as guardian. This began a different phase of government: the son formally occupied the throne while his mother exercised royal authority. It should not be confused with Didda’s later reign in her own name.

Kalhana also describes Didda initially preparing to die as a sati after her husband. He says Phalguna readily assented because of their hostility, but the minister Naravahana persuaded her not to proceed. The account is shaped by the chronicler’s judgments about her character and the ministers’ motives. It does not establish that the pressures surrounding the decision were absent.

Her survival mattered to the subsequent political history of Kashmir. The conflicts of her regency followed the alliances and rivalries formed during Ksemagupta’s lifetime, particularly those involving Phalguna. They are treated in the separate account of Didda’s regency.

Ksemagupta’s reign combines a hostile portrait of court life with evidence about religious institutions, transferred resources, dynastic marriage and royal representation. Those strands need to remain distinct. Neither the chronicle’s satire nor a coin bearing royal names can, by itself, stand for the whole history of the period.