Partha returns to the throne

A return after years outside the throne

Partha returned to the throne of Kashmir after the removal of Suravarman I. The restoration is conventionally dated to 934, and his second reign ended when Cakravarman regained power in 935. This was a separate episode from Partha’s first reign, which had begun with his childhood accession in 906 and ended with his father Nirjitavarman’s installation in 921.

Between the two reigns, Nirjitavarman and then Cakravarman had ruled, followed by Suravarman. Partha remained a claimant within the same royal family. His return shows that removal did not necessarily end a ruler’s political prospects when armed supporters could change their allegiance.

Why the Tantrins restored him

Kalhana places the restoration immediately after his account of Suravarman’s loss of support. Suravarman’s maternal uncles and ministers had withheld payments expected by the Tantrin infantry. After about a year, the troops removed him and made Partha king again, anticipating financial advantage from a ruler whom the chronicle describes as generous.

That description concerns Partha’s ability or willingness to reward his supporters. It should not be expanded into an undocumented programme of public generosity. Kalhana gives neither the amount promised for this restoration nor a complete account of how the money was raised.

The succession date is reconstructed within the chronicle’s sequence. Stein’s table places the return in 934; no Gregorian accession month is established. Nor does the short interval justify assuming that Partha regained the throne through a separately documented major battle. The surviving account emphasizes the troops’ choice and expected rewards.

Sambavati’s political role

In the passage concerning Partha’s return, Kalhana introduces Sambavati, a courtesan and his intimate companion. He describes her as skilled in winning over groups of Tantrins. This gives her a political role in the story, beyond simply identifying her relationship with the king.

The notice is concise. It does not name a formal office, describe an appointment as commander or set out the terms of her dealings with the troops. Influence over armed supporters is not the same as holding a documented military rank. The account also does not establish that she alone organized Partha’s restoration.

Her name and role are preserved in the Sanskrit passage as well as in the later translation. The early printed edition calls her Sambavati and connects her with Sambesvara. Comparing the editions helps recover names damaged in digitized text, but they remain editions of the same chronicle rather than independent witnesses to her life.

The foundation of Sambesvara

Kalhana credits Sambavati with founding Sambesvara, identified in Stein’s translation as a shrine of Shiva. The foundation belongs to her patronage. It should not be credited automatically to Partha merely because the notice appears in the account of his reign.

The passage records an act of religious patronage by a woman whom the same author identifies as a courtesan and political intermediary. It does not provide the size of the establishment, its endowment, the names of its personnel or the date when construction began. The position of the notice in the narrative is not sufficient to assign a precise building year.

Stein’s note reports a gloss placing the shrine at a village named Samborana and tentatively suggests Sambor on the right bank of the Vitasta. He says no ancient remains could be traced there at the time of his investigation. That is a historical observation and a proposed identification, not a current archaeological survey or proof of a securely located surviving temple.

Cakravarman’s return in 935

Partha’s second reign was short. Kalhana says Cakravarman waited for an opportunity and offered substantial wealth to the Tantrins, who restored him in Ashadha of Laukika year 4011, conventionally 935. The traditional month is retained without an unverified conversion to a Gregorian month or day.

The succession continued the same pattern that had brought Partha back: support could move to another claimant when larger rewards were offered. The chronicler does not describe a stable hereditary settlement or an institution able to make one claimant’s position secure against the troops’ next decision.

The sons of Meruvardhana continued to hold influence through these changes. Kalhana condemns their ability to obtain offices from rulers whose families they had previously helped displace. Cakravarman’s restored administration and the subsequent struggle with these ministers belong to the next chronological entry.

Partha’s later destitution and death

Partha’s removal in 935 must be distinguished from his later death. After Cakravarman’s killing in 937, Partha’s son Unmattavanti became king. In the account of that reign, Kalhana says Partha had been deprived of his property and lived with his wives at the Jayendravihara, where Buddhist ascetics supplied him with food.

The chronicle portrays Unmattavanti as seeking to eliminate members of his own family, with encouragement from the ambitious Parvagupta. It says the king confined his younger brothers and caused their deaths through hunger. Among them it names Sankaravarman, who must not be confused with the earlier king of that name.

Kalhana then describes an order to kill Partha. Officials and armed men surrounded his lodging at night, assaulted a wife who tried to bar the entrance and dragged the former king away before killing him. The narrative emphasizes his poverty, hunger and lack of weapons. These details belong to the chronicler’s account of the killing, not a surviving judicial record.

The event falls within Unmattavanti’s reign, conventionally 937–939. The passages examined do not establish an exact year, month or day for Partha’s death within that interval. Assigning his death to 935 simply because that was the end of his second reign would erase the intervening events.

Evidence for the second reign

Coins attributed to Partha are often catalogued against both his first and second reigns. The Classical Numismatic Gallery record examined for his earlier article, for example, associates a copper coin with 906–921 and 934–935. That broad attribution does not establish that the specimen was struck during this restoration rather than the first reign.

The account of the restoration is primarily textual. It preserves the transfer of military support, Sambavati’s influence and foundation, the displacement by Cakravarman, and a later account of Partha’s violent death. It leaves much less evidence for routine government during the short second reign. Those gaps remain open to further textual and material research.