Tunga and the politics of ministerial power

Origins and the limits of the biography

Tunga rose from service outside the royal family to become chief minister and commander under Didda. He retained power after her death and became a dominant figure in Sangramaraja’s government. His career connects the Kashmir Valley with Parnotsa, the Poonch region, and with neighbouring Rajapuri and the Shahi kingdom.

Kalhana identifies him as the son of Bina, a Khasa from Parnotsa, and describes an early livelihood as a buffalo herdsman followed by employment as a letter-carrier. He came to Kashmir with brothers who later appear among his supporters. The precise identification of his native village is uncertain: Stein questions a proposed identification because of its distance from Parnotsa.

The chronicle places his rise in its account of Bhimagupta’s reign, conventionally 975–980/981. The starting year used in this catalogue locates that narrative period; it is not a known birth year, arrival date or appointment date. His age and the exact duration of his early service remain unestablished.

Kalhana explains his advancement partly through Didda’s affection for him and alleges an intimate relationship. His account repeatedly combines political criticism with contempt for social origins and hostility towards the queen. The reported relationship belongs in the history of the narrative, but the language of contempt is not evidence that humble origins made someone unfit to govern.

Chief minister under Didda

After Bhimagupta’s reported imprisonment and killing, Didda took the throne in her own name in 980/981. Kalhana then describes Tunga’s elevation as sarvadhikarin, translated by Stein as prime minister. His brothers also acquired influence, displacing former officeholders. This created a group with strong reasons to oppose him.

The displaced ministers brought Vigraharaja, a son of Didda’s brother, into Kashmir. Brahmans holding agrahara grants began a solemn fast, a form of pressure through which religious standing and political demands could reinforce one another. Kalhana describes people searching for Tunga and Didda hiding him inside a closed apartment.

The first crisis ended after the queen distributed gold to influential participants. Tunga’s supporters subsequently killed Kardamaraja and other opponents. Some councillors were exiled and later recalled. These reversals suggest that office, punishment and negotiated return all formed part of court politics.

A renewed fast did not remove Tunga. The chronicle instead reports arrests, the killing of Vigraharaja’s agent Aditya and the capture of a chamberlain during flight. Its accusation that protesters could be bought should be attributed to Kalhana, rather than treated as proof that every participant had the same motive. No independent record of their demands has been established here.

Rajapuri and command of the army

The conflict with Prithvipala of Rajapuri first went badly for Kashmir’s ministers. Kalhana says their army was attacked in a defile and that ministers were killed or trapped. Tunga and his brothers then took another route into Rajapuri and burned the town, forcing the opposing ruler to respond.

The chronicle presents this as the diversion that rescued the trapped force and secured tribute. On his return to Srinagar, Tunga received command of the army. Kalhana then credits him with defeating forces of the Damaras, powerful landed groups who recur throughout the political history of Kashmir.

The military success and the burning belong in the same account. The narrative supplies no reliable count of residents killed, homes lost or people displaced at Rajapuri. It cannot support a precise casualty total or the assumption that destruction affected combatants alone. Nor does its brief notice of the Damaras establish that every landed opponent was eliminated.

This episode helps explain Tunga’s power beyond personal access to Didda. He commanded troops and could intervene when other ministers failed. The source does not, however, provide an exact year or a modern map of the route he used.

Surviving the succession of 1003

Didda’s death in 1003 might have ended her minister’s authority. Kalhana instead describes Tunga becoming stronger. Before her death, the queen had required Sangramaraja, Tunga and others to take an oath by sacred libation that they would not harm one another. The oath later became a central element in the chronicle’s account of betrayal.

Sangramaraja relied on Tunga while seeking support elsewhere. His daughter Lothika married Preman, the wealthy superintendent of the Diddamatha. Kalhana disapproves of the social inequality he sees in that marriage. His disapproval should not be mistaken for evidence that the marriage was unlawful or that Preman lacked political influence.

A coalition of councillors, Brahmans and temple priests organized another fast at Parihasapura and demanded Tunga’s expulsion. Kalhana alleges that they retrieved a body from a well and falsely presented it as a victim of Tunga’s violence, intending to burn it at his residence. The claim of fabrication is the chronicler’s; there is no separate investigation available in the examined evidence.

The confrontation became an armed struggle. Rajakalasa was defeated and publicly humiliated; seven sons of Srinkara died fighting. Bhutikalasa and his son went into exile, returned through mediation and were exiled again after another alleged plot was exposed. These episodes show repeated bargaining and violence within the governing elite, rather than a single settled transfer of authority.

Administration and Bhadresvara’s rise

Kalhana initially describes Tunga as prudent and attentive to the people, then presents a decline in his judgment. He connects that change with the appointment of Bhadresvara as an assistant and his replacement of Dharmartha in the Grhakrtya office, an important administrative post.

The account accuses Bhadresvara of cutting off support to religious establishments, poor people, visitors and royal servants. These allegations concern the distribution of resources as well as court rivalries. They do not amount to a surviving budget: the passage supplies neither a complete schedule of taxes nor figures with which to measure the burden on particular households.

Kalhana attacks Bhadresvara’s former occupations and social standing. Those insults should be separated from the substantive allegation that people and institutions lost their maintenance. Work as a gardener, carrier or trader is not itself evidence of administrative abuse.

The sequence becomes more closely dated in traditional months. Tunga is said to have given Bhadresvara extensive power in Chaitra; his brother Sugandhistha died in Ashadha; the expedition to aid Trilochanapala followed in Margasirsha. The passage does not specify the year. These month names preserve a relative sequence without justifying invented Gregorian dates.

The expedition to assist Trilochanapala

Sangramaraja sent Tunga, his son and a substantial force to assist the Shahi ruler Trilochanapala. Kalhana contrasts the Shahi’s experience with the confidence of the arriving commanders. He says Tunga neglected precautions, ignored advice to hold a defensive position and crossed the Tausi with a smaller force that defeated an enemy reconnaissance party.

The initial success was followed by a major defeat when the opposing army advanced. Kalhana says Tunga’s troops dispersed, while several commanders and Trilochanapala continued fighting. The adversary called Hammira is identified by Stein with Mahmud of Ghazni. Stein associates the Tausi with the Poonch Tohi, while explaining the geographical reasoning behind that identification.

The campaign’s year requires care. Kalhana does not supply it. Stein considered the campaign of 1013 the strongest possibility among the accounts available to him, while explicitly acknowledging discrepancies in chronology and geography. The expedition is therefore not assigned a precise modern date in this biography.

Abdur Rehman’s later study places Mahmud’s first departure in November 1013, an interruption caused by snow, and a renewed advance in spring 1014. It discusses the Tausi fighting after the fall of Nandana, while retaining a note about Stein’s earlier dating. This comparison shows why departure, renewed campaign and individual battle should not be collapsed into a single confidently dated event. Rehman also depends on Kalhana for Tunga’s conduct, so that part of his account is not independent corroboration of the minister’s behaviour.

Kalhana’s military narrative praises particular acts of resistance and condemns Tunga’s judgment. Its enormous rhetorical figures are not usable troop counts. The defeat also should not be described as the conquest of the Kashmir Valley: the campaign took place in support of an allied ruler beyond it.

The killing at court

After Tunga returned, Sangramaraja remained uneasy about his dependence on the minister. Kalhana adds that Tunga’s son Kandarpasimha behaved with royal pretensions. Vigraharaja urged action through secret messages. The king hesitated because of the earlier oath and fear of Tunga’s strength, then discussed the possibility of striking when father and son were within reach.

The chronicle says that within six months an opportunity arose. Tunga came to the palace and proceeded to the council hall with only a small following. Attackers struck him with swords. One unarmed attendant tried to shield him. The narrative contrasts this action with the fear or inaction of others, using the scene to judge loyalty.

Sangramaraja then ordered the heads of Tunga and his son displayed outside, intending to discourage their followers. Fighting nevertheless continued. Kalhana reports deaths among royal servants and Tunga’s guards, and the plundering of Tunga’s residence and wealth. The individual figures in the passage do not establish a complete death toll.

The text dates his destruction to the twelfth day of the bright half of Ashadha, but gives no year at this point. That is a traditional calendar date with an unresolved year, not a verified modern anniversary. Its explanation that his breath stopped from fear is literary characterization, not a medical finding.

Family dispersal and political aftermath

Tunga’s brother Naga received command of the army. Kalhana accuses him of helping cause the deaths through secret accusations. Bhadresvara took Tunga’s place in government and is accused of further plunder. The redistribution of offices shows how the killing benefited people within the existing circle of power.

Four days after the disturbance, according to the chronicle, Bimba, a Shahi daughter-in-law of Tunga, died on a funeral pyre. The account does not establish the conditions of consent or coercion. Stein asks whether she was Trilochanapala’s daughter; that is an inference, not a demonstrated identification.

Tunga’s wife Matribhandā left for Rajapuri with Mamma and Mamma’s two sons by Kandarpasimha, Vichitrasimha and Matrisimha. The family’s displacement is part of the aftermath, not an incidental detail beside the transfer of offices.

Tunga’s career cannot be reduced either to a court favourite’s success or to his final defeat. The chronicle gives him administrative ability, military initiative, formidable rivals and responsibility for harmful appointments. It also describes the violence through which his authority ended. Independent evidence for many personal allegations remains limited, and the voices of the people affected by these struggles are largely absent from the surviving account.