Maharaja Jaychandra Gahadavala

Maharaja Jayachandra (also spelled Jaichand, ruled 1173–1193 CE) was the last ruler of the Gahadavala (Gaharwar) dynasty, which governed significant parts of the Gangetic Doab from 1090 CE. He succeeded his father, King Vijayachandra, and was the grandson of Govindachandra. His kingdom extended from Kanauj and Benares in the east to Gaya and Patna.

Despite his significant contributions to Hindu society and his death while resisting Muslim invasions, Maharaja Jayachandra has been erroneously remembered in popular culture as a traitor. This misconception, unsupported by contemporary sources, has led to widespread misinformation about his character and reign. He is now frequently used as a symbol of betrayal, though evidence shows he was a valorous and virtuous monarch.

Legacy and Misconceptions

Jayachandra is often wrongly portrayed as a traitor who aided the Ghurid invasion against Maharaja Prithviraj Chauhan, but historical research and contemporary records do not support this narrative. The distortion appears to have originated from later works such as the Ain-i-Akbari, written four centuries after his reign by Abul Fazl, a Mughal courtier. This account fabricated the claim that Jayachandra allied with the Ghurids against Prithviraj.

Even Prithviraj Raso, the legendary epic attributed to Chand Bardai, does not assert that Jayachandra invited Ghori. The earliest and shortest version of the Raso mentions only the rivalry caused by the alleged abduction of Jayachandra’s daughter Sanyogita, not betrayal. However, historians have discredited the Raso as historically unreliable due to its multiple and contradictory recensions.

Military Resistance and Rule

Maharaja Jayachandra maintained the Gahadavala dynasty’s legacy of resisting foreign invasions. The dynasty is known to have levied a tax called Turushkadanda, which funded military campaigns against Turkic invaders. Texts like Rambhamanjari (1400 CE) by Nayachandra Suri and Purusha-Pariksha by Vidyapati document Jayachandra’s repeated victories against Muslim forces.

Muslim chroniclers such as those behind the Kamil ut-Tawarikh refer to him as the “Rai of Banaras,” and note that his forces included 700 elephants and over a million soldiers. Firishta also recorded his powerful cavalry and large number of elephants.

He is described as brave, devout, and benevolent, with inscriptions from his time indicating frequent land grants to Brahmins. The Naishadhiya Charita, one of the five traditional Sanskrit Mahakavyas, was composed in his court.

Final Battle and Martyrdom

Jayachandra’s last stand came at the Battle of Chandwar in 1194 CE, where he faced the Ghurid forces. Although the battle initially favored his side, he was struck by an arrow in the eye. Mortally wounded, he heroically rode his elephant into the Ganga River and attained samadhi.

Following his fall, Turkish invaders allegedly destroyed hundreds of temples in Banaras, as recorded in Taj-ul-Ma'asir. Though the figure of a thousand temples may be exaggerated, it underlines the Gahadavalas' deep engagement in temple construction and religious patronage.

Temple Construction and Cultural Patronage

An inscription discovered at the Treta Ka Thakur Temple in Ayodhya credits its construction to Maharaja Jayachandra. German Indologists working with the Archaeological Survey of India made this discovery. Additionally, the Vishnu Hari Inscription, found at the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi, attributes the building of the original Ram Temple to his grandfather Govindachandra.

Refuting the Traitor Narrative

No Evidence of Betrayal

There is no reference in contemporary Indian or Persian records of Jayachandra allying with Muhammad Ghori. Neither the Prithviraj Raso nor works like Prithviraj Vijaya, Hammira Mahakavya, Rambhamanjari, or Prabandh Kosha contain any such accusations. If Jayachandra had truly assisted Ghori, it would have been widely recorded by Muslim historians of the era.

Furthermore, Jayachandra and Prithviraj Chauhan are not recorded to have ever fought directly. The claim that Jayachandra sought Ghori’s help against Prithviraj lacks any corroboration from contemporary documentation.

Sanyogita and the Raso Legend

The romantic narrative involving Sanyogita—Jayachandra’s supposed daughter—and Prithviraj Chauhan originates from later interpolations in the Prithviraj Raso. The earliest versions of the Raso make no mention of Sanyogita. Scholars such as Roma Niyogi, Dasharatha Sharma, H.B. Sarda, and R.C. Majumdar have all rejected the Raso’s historical reliability.

The Raso also contains various anachronisms and factual errors:

• Lists Jayachandra’s father as Vijayapala instead of Vijayachandra.
• Attributes false lineage to Prithviraj’s mother.
• Claims that Jayachandra and Prithviraj were cousins—an implausible and socially forbidden union in Hindu tradition.
• Provides conflicting numbers of Prithviraj’s wives across four different recensions.

Moreover, events such as Swayamvaras and Rājasūya ceremonies, central to the tale of Sanyogita’s abduction, were extravagant and rare, and would have been widely recorded had they truly occurred.

Historical Significance

Maharaja Jayachandra ruled a strong and culturally rich kingdom. His dynasty had, for generations, resisted foreign incursions. He himself was known as “Nikhil-Yavana-Kshaykarta”, or the destroyer of Yavanas (foreigners), for his victories over the Ghurid forces. According to Vidyapati, he defeated the Yavana king multiple times.

Despite later attempts by Mughal chroniclers and certain ideological narratives to paint him negatively, there is no historical evidence to support claims of treachery. In fact, his life and death signify courage, sacrifice, and devotion to dharma.

In Popular Misrepresentation

The narrative of betrayal associated with Maharaja Jayachandra was popularized centuries after his death, mainly through Muslim chroniclers like Abul Fazl and perpetuated in colonial and later Hindutvavadi interpretations. These unfounded stories have led to deep-rooted misconceptions, unfairly tarnishing the legacy of a just and heroic ruler.

Conclusion

Maharaja Jayachandra was not a traitor but a patriot who died defending his land and people. His character, leadership, and sacrifice deserve honor and remembrance, not misrepresentation. Rectifying this distortion is essential to preserving the dignity of India’s historical truth.