NCERT Solutions for Class 7th Social Science Chapter 15 Kalhaṇa and the writing of history (Rājatarangiṇī) — LET’S EXPLORE

Book page 74 Updated on2026-09-19

Q1.

What qualities does Kalhaṇa think a historian should have?

Answer

Four qualities, and he names them himself: completeness, wide reading, accuracy, and fairness.

He should join up the story. “My effort is to give a connected account where the narratives of past events have become fragmentary in many respects.” A historian does not just collect scraps; he makes sense of them as one story.
He should read everything already written. “I have examined eleven earlier works composed by former scholars containing the chronicles of kings.” Eleven — he counted, because being thorough was part of the job.
He should correct errors from evidence. By consulting “inscriptions relating to temple consecrations, royal grants, laudatory records, and other written works, I have overcome many difficulties caused by errors.” He knows earlier books contain mistakes, and he checks them against hard evidence.
He should judge without feeling. “That noble-minded poet is alone worthy of praise whose words, like that of a judge, remain free from love or hatred in relating the facts of the past.”

Why he added a fifth aim: Kalhaṇa also wanted history to teach. His purpose, the chapter says, was “to highlight the rulers’ ethical values — or lack of them”. Hence: “Those who are intent on harassing their subjects perish with their families; on the other hand, fortune waits on even the descendants of those who reinstate order where there is chaos.” A modern historian would call this a moral judgement rather than history — but notice that Kalhaṇa reaches it after the evidence, not before it. He does not hide the crimes of the rulers he admires: he records that Queen Diddā, whose building work he describes, also eliminated rivals ruthlessly, “including her own grandsons”.

Q2.

What do these lines reveal about his method of gathering information? In what ways does it resemble or differ from the way history is currently written?

Answer

His method is recognisably the modern one — gather many sources, compare them, prefer the hard evidence — but his purpose and his form are different.

His method, in his own order. (1) Read the eleven earlier chronicles. (2) Go to primary evidence — temple consecration inscriptions, royal grants, laudatory records. (3) Use that evidence to correct the errors in the books. (4) Write one connected narrative. (5) Keep the judgement free of love and hatred.

	Kalhaṇa, 12th century	A historian today
Resembles	Uses many sources rather than one · treats inscriptions and grants as more reliable than repeated stories · states his method openly so readers can judge it · aims at impartiality
Differs — form	Writes an epic poem in Sanskrit	Writes prose, with footnotes naming every source so anyone can check
Differs — purpose	To draw moral lessons from the conduct of kings	To explain why things happened; moral judgement is kept separate from the evidence
Differs — subject	Mostly kings and dynasties	Also farmers, traders, artisans, women, children — “history from below”
Differs — evidence	Texts, inscriptions, grants, coins	All of those plus archaeology, radiocarbon dating, DNA, climate data, satellite survey

Did you know? Kalhaṇa’s habit of checking a chronicle against an inscription is exactly what this chapter does to Ravikīrti’s Aihole inscription (page 77): it praises Pulakeśhin II in a “highly poetical style”, but “some of the ‘facts’ it presents are contradicted by other inscriptions”. Cross-checking is 900 years old and still the core skill.

Q3.

Kalhaṇa also writes, “That noble-minded poet is alone worthy of praise whose words, like that of a judge, remain free from love or hatred in relating the facts of the past.” What does he mean by ‘free from love or hatred’? How would meeting this condition make a historian more reliable?

Answer

He means the historian must not decide in advance whom to favour. ‘Love’ is the temptation to praise your own king, your own dynasty, your own religion or region; ‘hatred’ is the temptation to blacken an enemy. Kalhaṇa’s comparison is exact: a judge must hear both sides and rule on the evidence even when the verdict goes against someone he likes.

How it makes a historian more reliable

Nothing gets left out. A writer who loves his subject quietly drops the awkward facts. Kalhaṇa does not: he records Diddā’s temples and her killings.
Praise becomes worth something. If a historian praises everyone on his own side, his praise carries no information. If he criticises his own side when the evidence requires it, his praise becomes evidence.
Others can check him. An impartial account can be tested against inscriptions and other chronicles. A partisan account only tells you what its author wanted you to believe.
The reader can think for herself. Given the facts without the author’s feelings attached, a reader can form her own judgement — which is what history is for.

Why this is hard, not obvious: almost every source in this chapter was written by someone with a side. Ravikīrti was Pulakeśhin II’s own court poet, and exaggerated. The Chachnāma tells the Arab conquest of Sindh from the conquerors’ view. Al-Masūdī and Sulaiman wrote as outsiders with opinions of their own — Sulaiman calls a Pratīhāra king “no greater foe of the Muhammadan faith”. Kalhaṇa is asking for something genuinely difficult, and that is why the chapter quotes him.

Try this: take one sentence from this chapter — “bin Qasim kept up the slaughter of the inhabitants for three days” — and ask: who wrote it? (Al-Balādhurī, a 9th-century Arab historian.) Was he on the Arab side? (Yes.) Does that make the account of the slaughter more or less believable? (More — a writer sympathetic to bin Qasim had no reason to invent it.) That is Kalhaṇa’s test in action.

Was this helpful?