Historicity of Tribhuvanapaladeva and Kumarapaladeva in the Dutangada of Subhata - A Critical Review
By Sudarshan Kumar Sharma
Summary
Sudarshan Kumar Sharma’s paper provides a critical review of the historical references embedded in the Dutāngada, a one‑act Sanskrit play attributed to the otherwise unknown poet Subhata. The play, consisting of fifty‑six verses and a prologue, narrates a dramatic performance commissioned by Maharajadhiraja Tribhuvanapaladeva in honour of Kumarapaladeva. Scholars have long debated whether these figures correspond to historical kings of the Kalachuri, Paramara or Guhila dynasties, or whether they are fictionalised archetypes. Sharma reviews previous scholarship, including work by Sushil Kumar De, A. B. Keith and G. V. Devasthali, and examines manuscript variants to clarify the play’s historical allusions. He notes that the poet calls his work a “chāyā‑nāṭaka” (shadow play), suggesting that it may dramatise legendary narratives rather than record actual events. The article analyses the titles and epithets used for Tribhuvanapaladeva and Kumarapaladeva and compares them with epigraphic records. Sharma finds that certain honorifics—such as “Maharajadhiraja Śrīmat” and references to campaigns and conquests—echo inscriptions of the Western Chalukyas and Chauhans, but the combination of names does not match any known sequence of rulers. He also discusses the socio‑political context of Subhata’s time, arguing that poets often employed composite royal names to flatter patrons or to convey moral messages. The play’s setting during a spring festival, with a procession and a drama performed for the king, fits the ceremonial culture of many medieval Indian courts and cannot be tied to a single dynasty. Sharma concludes that while the Dutāngada reflects contemporary royal ideology and aesthetic norms, it cannot be used as a reliable historical document for identifying specific kings. Instead, it should be appreciated as a literary creation that blends elements of history and myth. The paper underscores the importance of cautious reading of literary texts for historical purposes and advocates for more interdisciplinary work combining textual criticism, epigraphy and cultural history.
Conclusion
Sharma’s examination of the Dutāngada shows that Subhata’s play weaves historical motifs into a fictional narrative and that its characters, Tribhuvanapaladeva and Kumarapaladeva, cannot be confidently identified with documented rulers. By comparing titles and epigraphic evidence, the author demonstrates that the play reflects royal ideals rather than literal events. The study reminds historians that literary works often appropriate historical names for aesthetic or didactic purposes and warns against using them uncritically as sources. It advocates for collaborative research that places texts within their cultural and political contexts.