Sussala’s first accession

The first reign, April 1112 to November 1120

Sussala first became king of Kashmir in April 1112 after defeating Salhana. His first reign ended in November 1120 when rebellion, defections and pressure inside the capital forced him to withdraw to Lohara. He survived that defeat and later returned, but the restoration belongs to a separate stage of the chronology.

He was a son of Malla and a brother of Uchchala, whose struggle against Harsha he had shared. Before taking the Kashmir throne, Sussala ruled the mountain territory of Lohara, associated with Loharin. That base continued to matter as a place to keep wealth, protect his family and recover after defeat.

Kalhana’s Book VIII gives an extensive account of these years. It combines detailed political narrative with speeches, moral judgments and explanations through fate. The dates of accession and departure are firmer than the dates of many appointments and local conflicts, which should not be assigned invented Gregorian months.

Accession and reprisals

Sussala’s successful advance followed an alliance with Gargachandra, the powerful Damara who had first secured Salhana’s position. Salhana and his brother Lothana were captured in the palace and later imprisoned at Lohara. The transfer of power did not eliminate the importance of either the royal family or the local leaders who supported competing claimants.

Kalhana initially describes the new king as resolute and capable, attentive to opportunities and willing to spend when circumstances required. He also records the destruction of families associated with Uchchala’s betrayers, including children. That violence must remain part of the account rather than being obscured by the surrounding praise.

The chronicler contrasts the brothers in several ways: Sussala accumulated more wealth, was less accessible and less freely generous, and did not share Uchchala’s enthusiasm for lethal duels. These are comparisons within a literary portrait, not a complete independent assessment of either government.

The infant heir and Gargachandra’s first rebellion

The unresolved position of Uchchala’s young son soon caused trouble. Sussala exiled Sahasramangala, whom Gargachandra had considered as the child’s guardian during the succession crisis. Gargachandra then refused to hand over the child when Sussala demanded him.

Kalhana places the ensuing rebellion only a month and some days after Sussala’s accession. Gargachandra and his brother-in-law Vijaya defeated royal forces in several encounters. Sanjapala remained effective despite the reverses, and Sussala eventually pressed Gargachandra into a hill fort, where he surrendered and gave up the child.

The king then restrained Gargachandra’s local rival Mallakoshtha and renewed his favour towards the defeated leader. The sequence shows that rebellion could end in accommodation rather than permanent exclusion. It also shows how a surviving royal child could influence alliances without actually occupying the throne. The passages do not provide a secure name or final fate for Uchchala’s son.

Local conflict, exiles and competing claimants

In Devasarasa, conflict with two leaders known as the Great Tikka and Little Tikka exposed the dangers of Sussala’s partiality towards Gargachandra. After the king had them beaten during an appeal for support, their followers attacked. The Great Tikka was killed; the Little Tikka survived and remained important in later opposition.

Sussala also dismissed or exiled men who had served him, including Sanjapala. Some displaced officials joined Sahasramangala and his son Prasa. Kalhana distinguishes their conduct: Sanjapala is praised for refusing rebellion despite his treatment, while others sought a claimant around whom to organize.

Bhikshachara, presented as Harsha’s grandson, gradually became the more powerful focus of opposition. The narrative follows his connections with hill rulers, marriage alliances and periods of poverty as support and funds failed. His eventual return was the result of a changing network of patrons, not an uninterrupted campaign maintained at the same strength for years.

The history of these exiles connects events inside the Valley with neighbouring courts. It does not justify treating every hill ruler as a permanent ally of one side or assigning the same motives to all who offered shelter.

Treasury policy, officials and foundations

Sussala appointed Gauraka as chief minister after removing Sahela and other senior officials. Kalhana credits the new administration with keeping the treasury supplied, but condemns the means by which resources were obtained and describes officials burdening the inhabitants. The king sent much of his accumulated wealth to Lohara.

Kanaka, a relative of Prashastakalasha, receives a different assessment. The chronicle credits him with a permanent food-distribution endowment helping people who arrived from other lands suffering from famine. This particular charitable foundation should not be enlarged into a claim of universal relief across the kingdom.

The narrative also records building activity: three temples beside the Vitasta associated with Sussala, his mother-in-law and his wife, and repairs to the Diddavihara after a fire. Later completion of foundations must be distinguished from their initiation under Sussala. The account does not supply exact construction months for these works.

The king’s demand for new works and horses is said to have benefited artisans and foreign horse dealers. These observations suggest economic activity alongside coercive extraction. They do not provide a continuous budget, a fixed tax schedule or a reliable total for the wealth stored at Lohara.

The second rupture with Gargachandra

Court tensions renewed the conflict with Gargachandra. Kalhana describes complaints about the conduct and power of his son Kalyanachandra, warnings of intended imprisonment and flight back to his own territory. Sussala then promoted Mallakoshtha as a counterweight to Gargachandra in Lahara.

After fighting in the Valley, Gargachandra withdrew to Dhurtavana, a mountain locality identified by Stein with a spur in the upper Sind Valley. The chronicle places operations there in Phalguna amid heavy snow. The month belongs to the traditional calendar; it is not converted here into a precise modern date.

Gargachandra eventually negotiated through his wife and daughter, but the settlement left him exposed to Mallakoshtha’s rivalry. His followers were drawn away, and he came to court with his family. The king disarmed and imprisoned him, while his sons also fell into royal custody.

Kalhana dates the execution of Gargachandra and three sons to Bhadrapada in Laukika 4194, corresponding to 1118. The chronicle says that the king expected relief from their removal but encountered new troubles. Their deaths did not end the local military and political networks through which opposition could develop.

Rajapuri and the return in 1119

Sussala’s next major external intervention concerned a succession dispute at Rajapuri. Nagapala sought his protection after conflict involving the ruler Somapala and the death of Pratapapala. When Somapala called Bhikshachara to his court, Sussala treated this as a further threat and marched against him.

Kalhana says Sussala installed Nagapala and remained in the region for seven months. He praises the protection of religious establishments and the arrangements for the army, while also noting that local subjects remained loyal to Somapala. The presence of an occupying force did not amount to unanimous acceptance of the new ruler.

The king returned to Kashmir in Vaisakha of Laukika 4195, or 1119. Nagapala followed after losing the throne. The episode therefore needs an account of its failure as well as its initial success; installing a ruler did not ensure that he could remain after Sussala withdrew.

During and after the expedition, accusations against Gauraka led to another administrative change. Kalhana describes reduced expenditure, increased pressure on inhabitants, discontent among dismissed officials and losses caused by inexperienced replacements. His narrative links fiscal policy and court mistrust with the weakening of royal support.

The widening rebellion in 1120

The king attempted to punish Gargachandra’s former supporters through a new appointment in Lahara. They rallied to Mallakoshtha, who killed the official sent against them. Royal arrests and executions then expanded the conflict. Prithvihara, previously a valuable supporter, also became an opponent after an attempted attack on him.

Kalhana describes local coalitions, damaged royal stores, protest fasts and general fear as the conflict widened. By the beginning of Laukika 4196, or 1120, the Damaras were ready for a broad rising. Fighting in Devasarasa and Lahara strained the royal army and its commanders.

Sussala responded to defeats with violence against hostages and relatives of opponents. The chronicle records killings and mutilation and explicitly compares his course with the conduct that had destroyed Harsha’s position. No dependable numerical total of victims can be extracted from these passages.

The commander Tilaka’s alienation is another central thread. After military successes he received rebuffs instead of the recognition he expected. Kalhana condemns his eventual disloyalty while also explaining how the king’s conduct encouraged it. This Tilaka of Kaka’s family must be distinguished from the official Tilakasimha, another figure in the narrative.

Bhikshachara’s entry and the struggle around Srinagar

Vijaya tried to bring Bhikshachara into Kashmir but was defeated and killed. Mallakoshtha then renewed the effort. Kalhana describes the king leaving an opening for the claimant’s arrival and Tilaka helping make use of it. Stories exaggerating Bhikshachara’s prowess spread through the capital and increased uncertainty.

Sussala sent his principal queen, son and other relatives to Lohara for safety. The narrative supplies traditional Asadha dates for events around this move, but its order of telling is not a simple day-by-day diary. The family’s removal must not be dated by merely following the order of the verses.

By Shravana, Bhikshachara was being moved among allied local leaders. Forces from several districts then pressed towards Srinagar. Kalhana describes fighting near streams and approaches to the city, including the Ksiptika and Mahasarit, while royal resources were increasingly consumed by recruitment and military allowances.

The source records treatment for wounded soldiers and expenditure on medicines, as well as destructive fighting, arson and plunder. It explicitly mentions women and children killed by arrows at the city’s outskirts. Its expansive descriptions of losses convey the scale of suffering without providing a verified casualty count.

The harvest, protests and failed negotiations

As fighting continued, Brahmans at Rajanavatika protested against the inactivity of ministers and feared the loss of the ripening autumn crop. They demanded guarantees of the ministers’ conduct. Kalhana is hostile to their intervention, but their stated concern connects the political struggle with agricultural income and food security.

Sussala tried negotiation and efforts to divide the opposing coalition. Prithvihara appeared willing to reach an agreement, then attacked members of the royal delegation. The former minister Gauraka, given as a hostage, was killed. Kalhana places the resulting crisis on the fourteenth day of the bright half of Ashvina.

Defections accelerated. Janakasimha negotiated with Bhikshachara, and horsemen carried their equipment over to the claimant. The autumn harvest was taken by Damara forces, and people fled their homes. Kalhana mocks expectations that a change of king would suddenly make the country wealthy; those expectations are reported political hopes, not a promise the article treats as realistic.

The opposition was itself divided and at one stage considered retreat. Sussala’s defeat was therefore not inevitable from the beginning of the siege. Pressure from his own unpaid or dissatisfied soldiers and from temple priests further weakened his position, even while the enemy coalition had difficulties of its own.

Departure in November 1120

Soldiers blocked access in the palace and demanded allowances. Priests also pressed claims, and valuables were broken up for distribution. Gifts no longer restored dependable support. Sussala eventually left the palace, and plundering began before his party had fully departed.

Kalhana dates the withdrawal to the sixth day of the dark half of Margashirsha in Laukika 4196. Stein’s note and the modern chronological summary by Theresa Wilke place it in November 1120. The website uses the month and year while retaining the traditional date without asserting an independently recalculated Gregorian day.

The narrative says that thousands initially followed, but that the force diminished rapidly through desertion. Sussala considered gathering fresh troops in Kramarajya, yet could not rely on Tilaka. He continued towards Lohara, paying off or resisting people who threatened his passage.

In Srinagar, ministers and military leaders assembled after his departure. Kalhana describes a night without a king, during which vulnerable inhabitants suffered further violence, before Bhikshachara’s entry. Sussala’s escape preserved the possibility of his later return, but ended this first period of his rule.

Coins and the limits of the record

The British Museum’s collection listing assigns coins IOLC.5140 and IOLC.5142 to Sussala and dates them to 1112–1120. Those catalogue entries provide material evidence associated with his name, but the listing consulted here does not establish an exact minting year, findspot or connection with a particular campaign.

Cunningham’s older catalogue also lists a Sussala issue within the seated-goddess and standing-king series. Such records should be compared with individual specimens and later attribution work. They cannot independently prove the amounts of treasure described by Kalhana or the precise terms of taxation.

The chronicle remains the main source for the political sequence. Its detailed names and dates are valuable, but its praise of order coexists with reports of collective punishment, extraction and civilian losses. A complete account must preserve those tensions and avoid turning repeated retellings of the same verses into independent corroboration.

Further work needs closer study of the coin specimens, foundations, regional geography and calendar conversions. The first reign should also remain distinct from Sussala’s restoration in 1121 and later death: the circumstances and alliances changed, even when many of the same people returned.