‘Kuntaleśvaradautya’—A Study

Posted on by Priya Chaturvedi

The ambassador of an Indian Emperor is seemingly on an official visit to a kingdom south of the Vindhya-s. On reaching his destination, instead of being received with due deference, the ambassador is not even given a proper seat in the court — certainly an appalling disregard to the socio-political mores. The ‘courtiers jeer at him’ but he is surprisingly unperturbed.  This fascinating nugget of a story must be generating a great many questions in readers’ minds, inflating their curiosity. To answer these —

The ambassador is the great Kālidāsa; the ruler who sends him is none other than the Gupta Emperor Candragupta II Vikramāditya and, as the title of this post suggests — the king who receives Kālidāsa is the lord of the Kuntala-s.

Details of painting by Asit Kumār Hāldār (1890–1964): ‘Kālidāsa reciting his Immortal Meghadūta Lyric at the Navaratna Sabhā of Śrī Vikramāditya (Candragupta II)’. 1952

Contents & Links —

The scene I just mentioned is an excerpt from ‘Kuntaleśvaradautya’ (The Embassy to the Lord of the Kuntala-s) — another work of the great poet Kālidāsa. But that is all we have — excerpts — for unfortunately, this work is not extant and we have to rely on such parches of information mentioned in other great texts of Saṃskṛta literature. We learn about Kuntaleśvaradautya primarily from stray references in the following Saṃskṛta texts — Aucityavicāracarcā of Kṣemendra; Kāvyamīmāmsā of Rājaśekhara; Śṛṅgāraprakāśa and Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa of Bhoja. Let’s try to understand the relevant excerpts from these works in depth and then I will be analyzing the information thus presented before us in its historical context.

Aucityavicāracarcā of Kṣemendra —

Kṣemendra was a famous 11th century Saṃskṛta poet from Kaśmīra who was also a disciple of the great Kaśmīrī philosopher and poet Abhinavagupta. The text Aucityavicāracarcā is a treatise that discusses the role of propriety in and of poetry with various illustrations and examples. In an exhaustive discussion of 27 different kinds of propriety in poetry like pada (propriety of phrase), vākya (propriety of sentence), guṇa (propriety of qualities), alañkāra (propriety of poetic figure), rasa (propriety of state of being) etc., Kṣemendra also discusses adhikaraṇa (propriety of place). And as an instance of it, he cites the following verse from the Kuntaleśvaradautya of Kālidāsa (adhikaraṇaucityaṃ yathā kunteśvaradautye kālidāsasya – kunteśvaradautya verily being a mistake for kuntaleśvaradautya; Mirashi, 1960 :4) —  

iha nivasati méruḥ śekharaḥ kṣmādharāṇā—

miha vinihitabhārāḥ sāgarāḥ sapta cānye.

idamhipatibhogastambhavibhrājamānam

dharaṇitalamihaiva sthānamasmadvidhānām

It is mentioned that the ambassador of Vikramāditya (mahārājasya vikramādityasya dūtaḥ) when not provided a respectful seat in keeping with the position of his lord in the court of the feudatory king i.e. the lord of the Kuntala-s (sāmantāsthāne kunteśvarasabhāmaṇḍape) — the ambassador ‘in view of the importance of his work, sat on the ground and (when other courtiers jeered at him) said boldly’ (Mirashi, 1960: 4) —

Tr — ‘This surface of the earth is a seat rendered immovable by the pillars in the form of the hoods of (the serpent) śeṣa. It is a seat worthy of persons like us; for Meru, the best of mountains, as also the seven great oceans are seated on this very seat and I am in no way inferior to them.’

Thus, in an exemplary fashion, the ambassador with his wit made an unfavourable situation into a favorable one by conveying that the ground where he was sitting was not an ordinary one but was the most appropriate for an Emperor’s representative like himself (Mirashi, 1960: 4; Jha, 1982 : 108-109). Readers must have noticed that in these excerpts, we neither learn about the personal identity of this ambassador or of the feudatory ruler to whose court he was sent (Mirashi, 1960: 4). At least for the former, other texts mentioned above are more useful and will be discussed in the sections below.

Kāvyamīmāmsā of Rājaśekhara –

Rājaśekhara was a poet and a dramatist of late 9th – early 10th century who wrote in both Mahārāṣṭrī Prākrit and Saṃskṛta. He authored a text called the Kāvyamīmāmsā which discusses elements and composition of a good poem. This text is significant for giving excerpts from another ancient work no longer extant – Devīcandraguptam 1 and in yet another such example, this text is again relevant for our topic at hand – Kuntaleśvaradautya. The verses concerned are –

asakalahasitatvātkṣālitānīva kāntyā

mukulitanayanatvādvyaktakarṇotpalāni

pibati madhusugandhīnyānanāni priyāṇām

tvayi vinihitabhāraḥ kuntalānāmadhīśaḥ.

Tr — Leaving the responsibility (of governing his kingdom) to you, the lord of Kuntala is engaged in kissing the faces of his beloveds, fragrant with wine, which have, as it were, been cleansed with lustre and the lotuses on whose ears can be seen as their eyes are half-closed (Mirashi, 1960: 5).

The fact that the Kunteśvara of Aucityavicāracarcā was a mistake for Kuntaleśvara is corroborated here in kuntalānāmadhīśaḥ (the Lord of the Kuntala-s). And this ruler appears to have been an unserious one as he is seemingly wasting his time in his harem, ‘leaving the responsibility (of governing his kingdom)’ to the Emperor.  

Śṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhoja —

Written by the great Bhoja, the 11th-century ruler of the Paramāra dynasty, Śṛṅgāraprakāśa is another excellent study of poetry. Its significance lies in that it confirms for us the identity of the ambassador to the Kuntala court. Through Aucityavicāracarcā, we learnt that Kuntaleśvaradautya was written by Kālidāsa and through Śṛṅgāraprakāśa, we learn that Kālidāsa himself was the ambassador in his own drama. This particular text tells us that the aforementioned reply was said by Kālidāsa in reply to Vikramāditya’s question, ‘What is the lord of Kuntala engaged in?’ (Mirashi, 1960: 5).

Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa of Bhoja gives an illustration for a second variety of the Śabdālaṁkāra called Paṭhiti, in which a ‘verse gives another meaning by the mere change of a main word, or the case (Vibhakti) only. According to Bhoja, some speaker pleads to somebody on behalf of the King of the Kuntalas; and the person addressed gives the same verse as reply, changing ‘tvayi’ into ‘mayi’ thereby permitting the request asked for’ (Raghavan, 1946 : 191). Based on above mentioned sources, we can easily deduce that after listening to the report about the lord of Kuntala from Kālidāsa, Vikramāditya is said to have given the following reply, making slight changes in the verse of Kālidāsa —

pibatu madhusugandhīnyānanāni priyāṇām

mayi vinihitabhāraḥ kuntalānāmadhīśaḥ

Tr— The lord of Kuntala may continue to kiss the faces of his beloveds, leaving the responsibility (of governing his kingdom) to me (Mirashi, 1960: 5).

Historical Context —

Whenever the topic is related to the historicity of the dramas written by Kālidāsa, or any other ancient writer for that matter, the discussion is usually considered irrelevant by a section of history enthusiasts, denying the possibility of the dramas being compositions with historical contexts. The other side to this is the one that takes the contents of such dramas with a lot more seriousness than required. In my opinion, the better way to analyze such ancient works is the middle path — to understand that there could very well have been a historical core of Kālidāsa’s dramas with layers of ornate literary embellishments hiding the cores within.  

It is generally accepted that Kālidāsa many a times used real events related to the Gupta dynasty, weaving them intricately within his literary masterpieces like Raghuvaṃśa being a story of the dynasty of the Guptas including the great Emperor Samudragupta and the life events of his patron Emperor Candragupta II Vikramāditya as well. Similarly, Kumārasambhava is suggested to be metaphorically depicting the historical birth of prince Kumāragupta. Mālvikāgnimitra, though not related to the Gupta dynasty, nevertheless had genuine historical information worth genuine consideration regarding the Śunga-s.2 Meghadūta, even though not concerned with political aspects, is still considered to have been inspired by Kālidāsa’s personal experience when he probably stayed at the Vākāṭaka capital Nandivardhana at the behest of Candragupta and visited Rāmagiri (modern Rāmṭek) near Nandivardhana ‘where the idea of composing the Meghadūta suggested itself to his mind.’ And he, being separated from his own wife, composed the sentimental Meghadūta as if Kālidāsa himself was sending that cloud messenger to her (Raghavan, 1946 : 196).

Thus, the likelihood of Kuntaleśvaradautya being another inspired work from real events regarding the Gupta-s is quite high. And this time, as the great poet was directly involved in the events, therefore he included himself as an important character within the drama. Analyzing the historicity of the events mentioned in such dramas is difficult in itself, but the task becomes more challenging when all we have are few fragments from the play. Recognizing the limitations within, we are bound to only speculate or make an informed guess. Keeping that in mind, let us dive into the analysis.

Identity of Kuntaleśvara —

§ The Kadamba-s

One of the most obvious choices has been to identify the Kuntala region mentioned by Kālidāsa with the territory ruled by the Kadamba-s. This ancient dynasty ruled in present day northern Karnāṭaka and Konkan region from their capital in Vaijayantī (Banavāsī). Rev. Heras was the first one to suggest that the Kuntaleśa (the lord of the Kuntala-s) was the Kadamba ruler Kākusthavarman (Mirashi, 1960: 7). In his Tālguṇḍa inscription the Kadamba ruler is said to have made the royal family of the Gupta-s glorious by giving his daughters in marriage to them (Mirashi, 1960: 7). Some scholars speculate that one of the daughters was given in marriage to Kumāragupta’s son Skandagupta. Basing his identification on this inscription, Heras suggested that Kuntaleśvara was the Kadamba king Kākusthavarman. However, the period of his rule (r. ~ 425 – 450 CE) is too late for him to have been the Kuntaleśvara.

According to other historians, another possible candidate is the father and predecessor of Kākusthavarman – Kadamba ruler Bhagīratha (r. ~ 385 – 410 CE). So, it is suggested that Candragupta probably sent the embassy to his court for a marital alliance (Raghavan, 1946 : 195). According to this view, as Bhagīratha’s power was then in the ascendant, he thus did not offer a seat to the ambassador from the Gupta court (Raghavan, 1946: 195). However, by all available accounts, Bhagīratha was seemingly an excellent ruler who was – “loved by his kingdom just as a husband is held dear by his bride” and “the ‘sole lord’ of the lady that is the Kadamba country” – and that is why, it seems unlikely that he was the Kuntala lord who appears to have been an unserious and even a debauch king in the extant excerpts of Kuntaleśvaradautya.

If not Bhagīratha and his younger son Kākusthavarman, probably the Kuntala lord meant was Bhagīratha’s elder son Raghu but here again we face similar problem because Raghu’s character that we come across in inscriptions is very different to the picture painted by Kālidāsa. Raghu is said to have been greatly fond of war and, who relished taking part in battles, his face being described as “marked with the weapons of his enemies in combat with opposing warriors.” We have to remember that the Kadamba kings have been known to proudly proclaim themselves as Kuntaleśvara-s, so at least relying on their self-proclamations in the inscriptions, it is reasonable to assume only a Kadamba king is possible as the Kuntala lord of this drama. But which Kadamba king was meant by Kālidāsa is still elusive to us.

§ The Vākāṭaka-s

One other suggestion came from Prof. Aiyangar identifying Kuntaleśa with the Vākāṭaka king Pravarasena II. His reasoning was based on the premise of Kālidāsa’s presence in the Vākāṭaka court during the regency of Gupta princess and the Vākāṭaka queen Prabhāvatīgupta. She was married to Vākāṭaka prince Rudrasena II who died shortly after the marriage leaving Prabhāvatī as the regent to their eldest son Divākarasena and his brothers Dāmodarasena and Pravarasena. Eventually, Pravarasena ascended the throne. It is generally believed that it was this Pravarasena II who wrote the famous Mahārāṣṭrī Prākṛta poem Setubandha. Based on a later text called Bharatacarita by a poet named Śrīkṛṣṇa, Aiyangar suggested identifying Kuntaleśvara with the Vākāṭaka king Pravarasena II. In Bharatacarita, Śrīkṛṣṇa ‘while praising earlier poets….refers to the author of the Setubandha as Kuntaleśa (Mirashi, 1960: 8).’ It is also a possibility that Pravarasena II wrote Setubandha with the help of Kālidāsa who probably was his tutor.3

Aiyangar found corroboration for his suggestion in Ajantā inscription of Pṛthviṣeṇa I (grandfather of Pravarsena II) in which he is stated to have defeated the king of Kuntala (Mirashi, 1960: 8). Since then, Aiyangar believed, the Vākāṭaka-s appeared to have assumed the title of Kuntaleśa (Lord of Kuntala). Interesting to note that Rājaśekhara in his Kāvyamīmāmsā mentions Mahārāṣṭra, Vidarbha and Kuntala as separate regions of southern India but in Bālarāmāyana, he seemingly identifies Kuntala with Vidarbha and includes the region in Mahārāṣṭra (Handiqui, 1976: 22).  

To further complicate the matter, the ancient city of Vatsagulmā, the capital of the second main Vākāṭaka branch has been variously stated to exist in Vidarbha in Kāvyamīmāmsā and Kuntala in Karpūramañjarī (Handiqui, 1976: 22). In addition to this, he argued that the Vākāṭaka-s were meant when some later authors like Rāmadāsa said that Bhoja was patron of Kālidāsa. 4

However, it is known that since Candragupta Vikramāditya’s reign, Ujjain had been an important seat of Gupta power in Central India and thus the Bhoja king could have been Candragupta himself. Besides, Candragupta had great influence in the Vākāṭaka court, especially during Prabhāvatigupta’s regency. Another possibility is that the tradition of Pravarasena II being an author of great poems like Setubandha got mixed with the personality of Candragupta II Vikramāditya, creating one single persona for the later writers that resembled the great Paramāra ruler Bhoja who was both an excellent king and a prolific author. And as just mentioned, the confusion between the location of Kuntala region and Vidarbha persisted, resulting in confusing references like Pravarasena II being called a Kuntala lord.

Despite explanations in favour of Pravarasena II being the Kuntala lord, some important points actually negate this possibility. In fact, the Vākāṭaka-s in their inscriptions consider Kuntala as a region outside of their territory (Handiqui, 1976: 22). According to Balaghat inscription of Pṛthviṣeṇa II, Vākāṭaka king Narendrasena married a Kuntala princess, clearly stating that the Vākāṭaka-s were different from the kings of Kuntala (Mirashi, 1960: 9). Even Śrīkṛṣṇa, the author whose work provided the corroboration for Aiyangar is a very late author, thus not necessarily providing us accurate information. Also it is extremely unlikely that the Vākāṭaka-s could have treated an ambassador from his maternal grandfather and Gupta Emperor in such a manner.

§ The Early Rāṣṭrakūṭa-s of Mānapura

Mirashi suggested one other possible identification — the Early Rāṣṭrakūṭa family of Mānapura ruling in southern Mahārāṣṭra from the fourth century CE (Mirashi, 1960: 9). Their capital, Mānapura, according to Mirashi, is probably identical with the town Māṇ in Sātārā.

‘The progenitor of this family was Mānāṅka, who ruled from Mānapura, which he seems to have founded and named after himself. In a copperplate grant discovered near Kolhāpur, Mānāṅka is described as the ruler of the prosperous Kuntala country. This country comprised the valley of the Kṛṣṇā as suggested in a beautiful verse descriptive of the Chālukya king Jayasimha alias Mallikāmoda.’

— Mirashi, 1960: 9

Thus as per this hypothesis, Kālidāsa was sent as the ambassador to the early Rāṣṭrakūṭa-s of Mānapura ruling the Kuntala region. Mirashi conjectured that the Kuntala lord was probably their ruler named Devarāja (Mirashi, 1960: 10). As Candragupta II gave his protection to the Vākāṭaka-s of Nandivardhana and probably the early Rāṣṭrakūṭa-s family of Mānapura, Mirashi is of the opinion that this could have eventually resulted in friendly relation between the vassals and that is why, Vākāṭaka prince Narendrasena, the great-grandson of Candragupta II, was married to the Kuntala princess Ajjhitabhaṭṭārikā as recorded in the Balaghat plates, who probably was a princess of the early Rāṣṭrakūṭa-s family of Mānapura (Mirashi, 1960: 11).

While it is tempting to identify the Kuntala lord with the early Rāṣṭrakūṭa king, it is merely a hypothesis with no certain corroboration. And even the identification of Mānapura with Māṇ in Sātārā is debatable. Another important point that negates this identification is the interpretation of the phrase ‘kuntalāṇāṁ praśāsita’ used in these early Rāṣṭrakūṭa inscriptions. While Mirashi seems to have taken it to mean ‘ruler of the Kuntala-s’, apparently, the real meaning is ‘chastiser of the Kuntala-s’ i.e. chastiser of the Kadamba-s (Sircar, 1970 : 183).

Whatever be the value of the tradition regarding Kālidāsa’s embassy at the Kuntala court, a Kuntala king of the fifth century cannot possibly be regarded as any other than a ruler of the Kadamba family.

— Sircar, 1970 : 183

The Purpose of the Embassy —

As mentioned above, some historians have fixed their analyses on the likelihood of the embassy actually being a proposal for a matrimonial alliance. However, it is just as likely that Vikramāditya perhaps sent Kālidāsa to the Kuntala lord to see how he was conducting himself and probably to even smoothen their strained relations (Raghavan, 1946 : 192). Based on the available excerpts, it indeed seems like their relations were strained for otherwise, it is impossible that an ambassador of the great Emperor would have been treated in such a cold, insulting manner. Besides, as Dr. Raghavan has pointed out, the verse quoted by Rājaśekhara and Bhoja etc., prohibits any suggestion of the purpose of the embassy being a marriage negotiation. Had Kālidāsa been sent to arrange for the marriage of a Gupta princess, the question of Vikramāditya on the return of the poet would have been different to which Kālidāsa would have replied differently, certainly not that the Kuntala lord was enjoying himself happily in his harem (Raghavan, 1946 : 196). And, Vikramāditya surely would not have been as amused by the answer, as he certainly is in the play.

The Chosen Ambassador —

Another interesting point to ponder here is the choice of Kālidāsa as the ambassador which in itself is quite fascinating. If the embassy was sent to smooth their strained relations, any other experienced official ambassador probably would have been a better choice but Kālidāsa was sent instead. Two factors could have been the reason behind this choice – One, if we accept that Kālidāsa was already present in the Vākāṭaka court at the behest of Candragupta, mentoring the princes and helping the regent queen, it is possible that he could have been ordered to continue his journey further south after his visit to Rāmṭeka. Thus, Kālidāsa was sent due to his physical proximity to Kuntala. Two, Candragupta probably knew that Kuntaleśa was a ruler who would be impressed by someone more eloquent in literary skills than the average diplomat as confirmed by the outcome of their meeting in Kuntaleśa’s sabhāmaṇḍapa. Raghavan makes an interesting inference in this regard that Kālidāsa was at the Kuntala court for no great purpose, except to be his court-poet for some time (Raghavan, 1946 : 193). Kālidāsa certainly stayed at the Kuntala court for longer duration post their first meeting for him to make his observations regarding his host. The awkward first meetings turning into friendships are known to us from other instances like the first meeting of another great poet Bāṇabhaṭṭa with Emperor Harṣavardhan as described in his Harṣacarita.

If we are to assume the Kuntala lord to be a Kadamba ruler, there is one other possibility that Candragupta sent Kālidāsa to the Kadamba court to ease the strained relations not between the Gupta-s and the Kadamba-s but between the Vākāṭaka-s and Kadamba-s. The point regarding the Gupta influence in the Vākāṭaka court during Candragupta’s rule has already been mentioned. The fact that in the extant excerpts, Vikramāditya seems happy with the Kuntala lord wasting his time in his harem seems to imply that Candragupta II wanted this ruler to stay uninterested in his own kingdom and the rest would be taken care of by the great Gupta himself.

The Character of Vikramāditya —

We also learn some nuggets about Candragupta Vikramāditya’s character as a ruler. Through the exchange between Kālidāsa and the emperor, the former extols the latter’s valorous character, effectively saying — ‘he is so powerful that he protects the kingdoms of his vassals who, shifting the burden of protection to the sovereign, give themselves up to pleasure’ (Raghavan, 1946 : 193). While it of course, could just be a poet’s praise for his royal patron but if we allow ourselves little more liberty to assume, it could be a genuine character trait of the emperor and his administration suggesting that Vikramāditya preferred effective control on his territories and his vassals.

Conclusion —

In another instance of the frustrating aspects of Indian history, Kuntaleśvaradautya of Kālidāsa again presents us with so many possibilities with just as many unanswered questions. Who was this elusive Kuntala lord, why indeed was he not welcoming to the ambassador at first and, why Vikramāditya was content knowing that this Sāmanta was not doing his duties diligently. While I have attempted to understand some of these questions, their answers cannot be satisfactory until more informative evidence is forthcoming. Nonetheless, at least we can be content with the fact that some excerpts are known to us from the great Kālidāsa’s work and it is not completely lost to the sands of time.

§ NOTES —

1. To read more about Devīcandraguptam and my analysis of its historical context, read my post — The Elusive Kāca-Rāmagupta 2. To read about the historical context of Mālvikāgnimitraṃ read my analysis — Agnimitra and Conflict with Vidarbha. 3. A late commentary on Setubandha by Rāmadāsa ascribes its composition to Kālidāsa for Mahārāja Pravarasena at the behest of Mahārājādhirāja Vikramāditya. Though, of all the commentaries on Setubandha, only Rāmadāsa’s commentary mentions this connection. Rāmadāsa also mentions that according to some, Pravarasena is Bhojadeva (Handiqui, 1976:16-17). For other arguments against Kālidāsa being the author of Setubandha, see. Handiqui, 1976: 19-21 4. Those who ascribe this view consider Pravarasena as Bhojadeva because they view Vākāṭaka-s as a branch of the Bhoja people; and consider that in the early years of his reign, Pravarasena left the charge of administration in the hands of his maternal grandfather Candragupta II Vikramāditya (Sircar, 1970 :183) and that Bhoja who patronized Kālidāsa is Vākāṭaka king Pravarasena II, author of the Setubandha, in the production of whose work Kālidāsa collaborated (Raghavan, 1946 : 196).

§ BIBLIOGRAPHY —

Published by Priya Chaturvedi

I am Priya Chaturvedi, a History and Politics enthusiast, trying to learn something new everyday.

Leave a comment