A Comprehensive History of Kangra District for Competitive Examinations

Section I: Ancient Kangra: The Trigarta Kingdom and Early Inhabitants (Up to c. 1000 CE)

The Kangra region, a land of significant antiquity, was known in ancient times as Trigarta, a name also associated with Jalandhara. the kingdom of Trigarta is believed to have been established around 1000 BCE , with the Katoch Dynasty traditionally credited as its founders and rulers. The etymology of “Trigarta” is popularly understood as “the land of the three rivers,” generally referring to the Sutlej, Ravi, and Beas in the plains of Punjab. However, an alternative interpretation, particularly relevant to the Kangra region itself, suggests it denotes the area watered by the three main tributaries of the Beas river in the Kangra district, specifically the Lower Beas Valley. This geographical nuance is important, reflecting the kingdom’s dominion over both hill and plain territories. Besides Trigarta, the region of Kangra was also known historically by names such as Kiraj and Bhimagar. Legend attributes the founding of Bhimagar to Raja Bhim, the younger brother of the Kuru Emperor Yudhishthira of Mahabharata fame.

The administrative nucleus of Trigarta was primarily Jalandhar, with Kangra town, historically known as Nagarkot, serving as another significant capital. At its peak, the kingdom’s influence stretched across the hill territories from the Sutlej to the Ravi rivers. Prior to the Muhammadan incursions, Trigarta encompassed the outer hills between these two rivers, extending southwards into the Jalandhar Doab. During the Vedic period, the kingdom’s reach was even more extensive, including Multan (originally Mulasthan) as a third capital. However, this westernmost possession was relinquished following the events of the Kurukshetra War. The existence of multiple capitals—Jalandhar on the plains, Kangra in the hills, and formerly Multan—indicates a kingdom of considerable size and strategic depth, capable of administering diverse geographical zones and adapting its administrative focus based on prevailing political and military conditions.

The earliest significant monarch of Trigarta, according to the genealogical records of the Kangra State, was Raja Susarman (also Susharman). He is renowned for his participation in the Kurukshetra War, fighting as an ally of the Kauravas, an event dated to the early Iron Age. Susarman is also credited with the construction of the formidable Nagarkot Fort at Kangra, which would become the dynastic seat for centuries. In recognition of its founder, Kangra was also referred to as Susarmapura.

Trigarta finds its earliest documented mention in the 5th century BCE Sanskrit grammatical treatise, the Ashtadhyayi by Pāṇini. He characterized Trigarta as a martial republic, an “Ayudhjeevi Sangha,” and described it as a confederation of six states, known as ‘Trigarta-Shashthas’. This early reference to a martial character and a confederate political structure is significant. The epic Mahabharata, compiled between the 4th century BCE and 4th century CE, also features Trigarta prominently in its Sabha Parva, mentioning Raja Susarma and the Trigarta warriors as allies of Duryodhana. Interestingly, the Mahabharata refers to seven ganas (constituent units) of Trigarta, suggesting a possible evolution or expansion of the confederation from Pāṇini’s time. This points towards a complex political organization that was more than a simple monarchy, likely involving allied or subordinate principalities.

The Vishnu Purana connects the Audumbara tribe, inhabitants of the region around modern Nurpur, with the Trigarta kingdom. The Greek geographer Ptolemy, in his accounts, referred to Kangra as “Kalindarine”. During Alexander the Great’s invasion of India in 326 BCE, Greek chroniclers mentioned the Kshatriaioi (Kshatriyas) as the rulers of Trigarta. Evidence of Alexander’s presence in the broader region includes altars reportedly erected near modern-day Indaura in Kangra.

Further historical mentions include Trigarta’s subjugation during Samudragupta’s military campaigns in the 4th-5th century CE. In 635 AD, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Hiuen Tsang (Xuanzang) visited Jalandhar (She-lan-ta-lo), then a part of the Trigarta kingdom, which he described as being about 1000 li (approximately 267 km) in breadth from north to south. He recorded that it was ruled by Raja Udito (also referred as Utito or Adima Chandra).¹ The Katoch royal genealogy lists Raja Adam Chandra, a contemporary of Emperor Harsh Vardhan of Kanauj, as being visited by Hiuen Tsang around 643 AD.

In the 8th century CE, Kalhana’s Rajatarangini, the chronicle of Kashmir, notes that the rulers of Trigarta acknowledged the supremacy of the Karkota dynasty of Kashmir. A 10th-century copper plate inscription from Chamba records that Sahilavarman, the Raja of Chamba, subdued the Trigarta Raja, who subsequently became an ally. The Audumbaras, a significant ancient tribe, inhabited the northeastern region of Punjab, particularly the area around Nurpur. Their association with Trigarta, as mentioned in the Vishnu Purana, and J. Ph. Vogel’s suggestion of their eventual fusion with Trigarta (evidenced by Abu Rihan’s reference to “Dahamala,” a corrupted form of Audumbara, as the capital of Jalandhar during the early Ghaznavid period) point towards processes of cultural and political amalgamation in the region.

Archaeological evidence from this early period in Kangra includes the Pathiar and Kanhiara rock inscriptions. These inscriptions, dating to the 1st-2nd century CE, are inscribed in both Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts. The Kanhiara inscription mentions a garden (arama) belonging to Krishnayasas. The Pathiar inscription refers to a Vyakrana (possibly a rest house or shrine) established by a Yavana (a term often used for Greeks or other foreigners). These inscriptions attest to the use of multiple scripts, the establishment of public amenities like gardens, and the presence of diverse cultural influences in ancient Kangra.⁶ While specific archaeological findings of tools or pottery from extensive excavations across Kangra are not detailed in the available records, stone age implements have been noted near Nadaun on the Beas river , and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has conducted explorations in the Banganga valley.

The consistent portrayal of Trigarta as a martial state, from Pāṇini to its involvement in the Mahabharata, underscores a deeply ingrained military tradition that likely played a crucial role in its long-term survival and ability to withstand numerous external pressures over centuries.

Table 1: Ancient Trigarta: Key Mentions and Rulers

Period/Text	Key Figure/Event	Significance/Date	Source Snippet(s)
c. 1000 BCE	Establishment of Trigarta Kingdom	Foundation of the kingdom	1
Early Iron Age (Mahabharata era)	Raja Susarman/Susharman	Participated in Kurukshetra War; credited with building Nagarkot (Kangra Fort)	1
c. 5th Century BCE (Pāṇini)	Ashtadhyayi mentions Trigarta	Described as a martial republic (‘Ayudhjeevi Sangha’), confederation of 6 states	1
Mahabharata (epic)	Trigarta mentioned	Confederation of 7 ganas; allies of Kauravas	1
Ptolemy (Geographer)	Referred to Kangra	Called “Kalindarine”	2
326 BCE	Alexander’s Invasion	Kshatriaioi rulers in Trigarta; altars near Indaura	2
c. 4th-5th Century CE	Samudragupta’s Invasion	Trigarta among invaded kingdoms	2
635 AD	Hiuen Tsang’s Visit	Visited Jalandhar, ruled by Raja Udito/Adam Chandra	2
8th Century CE (Rajatarangini)	Trigarta’s status	Acknowledged supremacy of Karkota rulers of Kashmir	1
10th Century CE (Chamba Insc.)	Trigarta and Chamba	Trigarta Raja subdued by Sahilavarman of Chamba, became an ally	1
1st-2nd Century CE	Pathiar & Kanhiara Inscriptions	Evidence of Brahmi & Kharosthi scripts, public gardens, possible Yavana presence	6

Section II: The Katoch Dynasty: Ascendancy and Consolidation (c. 4th Century BCE – Early 18th Century)

The Katoch dynasty, a Chandravanshi (Lunar dynasty) Rajput clan, holds the distinction of being one of the oldest continuously ruling royal families in the world. Their history is inextricably linked with the Kangra region and the ancient Trigarta Kingdom. While the Mahabharata names Raja Susarman as the founder of Trigarta and the builder of Nagarkot Fort , clan records often cite Rajanaka Bhumi Chand as the progenitor of the Katoch line and the founder of the sacred Jwalamukhi temple. The Katoch family tree commences with Bhumi Chand as the first ruler. This apparent discrepancy might reflect different traditions or refer to distinct phases in the dynasty’s establishment. The very name “Katoch” is believed to be a derivative of “Kot Kangra” (Kangra Fort), signifying “those within the fort” (Kot’ch), emphasizing the deep connection between the dynasty and its principal stronghold. The Katoch clan further branched into several sub-clans, including the Jaswal, Sibaia (Sipaiah), Guleria, and Dadwal dynasties, which established their own principalities in the region. Traditionally, Katoch rulers appended the suffix ‘Chandra’ to their names.

The Kangra Fort, also known as Nagarkot or Kot Kangra, served as the formidable seat of the Katoch dynasty for centuries. Attributed to the Katoch rulers tracing their lineage to ancient Trigarta, it is acclaimed as the largest fort in the Himalayas and potentially the oldest dated fort in India. Strategically positioned on a precipitous hillock at the confluence of the Manjhi and Banganga rivers, amidst the foothills of the Dhauladhar range, the fort’s natural defenses and massive ramparts made it a coveted and often contested prize throughout history. Its enduring strength and the dynasty’s long rule from this seat underscore the Katoch’s resilience and deep-rooted legitimacy.

The annals of the Katoch dynasty are marked by a long succession of rulers, many of whom left their mark through military exploits, administrative measures, and cultural patronage. The consistent construction of forts and founding of new towns and states by various Katoch rulers over centuries indicates a continuous drive towards consolidating power, defending their territories, and expanding their influence.

Several Katoch rulers prior to the 18th century played significant roles:

Raja Bhim, believed to be the younger brother of the Pandava Yudhishthira, is credited by some traditions with founding Bhimagar, an ancient name for Kangra.3 Around 150 AD, Tripur Chandra is recorded as having fought Ram Deo of Kanauj and established a marriage alliance with the Kanauj kingdom. Adam Chandra (c. 643 AD) was a contemporary of Emperor Harsh Vardhan of Kanauj and was reportedly visited by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang.

In the medieval period, Padam Chandra (c. 1170 AD) is a notable figure; his descendants are credited with founding the Jaswan and Dattarpur states. He is also said to have aided Prithviraj Chauhan against Muhammad Ghori, reflecting the dynasty’s involvement in broader North Indian power struggles. Jai Sinha Chandra reigned from approximately 1200 to 1221 AD. During the reign of Prithvi Chandra II (c. 1330 AD), whose “Pithana Coins” are mentioned, Kangra faced an attack by Muhammad Bin Tughlaq in 1333 AD.⁵ The issuance of distinct coins by rulers like Prithvi Chandra II, Purab Chandra (c. 1341 AD, “Bul Asharfi coin”), Rup Chandra V (c. 1360 AD, “Rupmundra Coins”), Shringar Chandra IV (c. 1375 AD, “Singa coins”), Megh Chandra II (c. 1391 AD, “Meghmudra”), Karm Chandra II (c. 1420 AD, “Karam mudra coins”), Sansar Chandra I (c. 1429 AD, “Sansar mudra coins”), and Devnagga Chandra (c. 1450 AD, “Avtar coins”) suggests periods where they asserted economic and political sovereignty.

Rup Chandra V is particularly noted for his daring military expeditions, reportedly looting villages as far as the gates of Delhi. It was during his time, around 1360 AD, that Firoz Shah Tughlaq led a force against Kangra. Shringar Chandra IV is noted for receiving the title of ‘Miyan’. Megh Chandra II is recorded as having fought against the invading forces of Timur around 1391-1398 AD.

Hari Chandra I (c. 1405 AD) founded the Guler state, whose rulers were an offshoot of the Katoch dynasty, with further branches like Dada-Siba emerging from Guler. Karm Chandra II received the title of ‘Bada Raja’.

The Katoch rulers navigated complex and often fraught relationships with the rising Mughal power. Dharam Chandra II (c. 1528 AD), associated with the “Dharam Mudra,” is said to have received the title of ‘Maharaja’ from Emperor Akbar and formally submitted to Mughal authority in 1556. However, this submission did not always translate into complete subservience. Bidhi Chandra (c. 1585 AD) later revolted against Akbar and formed an alliance of hill states to resist Mughal dominance.⁵ His son, Trilok Chandra III (c. 1607 AD), also asserted his autonomy by starting his own coinage (“Trilok Mudra”) and revolting against the Mughals.

The direct Mughal conquest of Kangra Fort occurred during the reign of Hari Chandra II (c. 1615 AD). He lost the fort to Emperor Jahangir’s forces in 1620 AD and was subsequently killed by Jahangir. Despite the loss of their main fort, the Katoch spirit of resistance continued. Chander Bhan Chandra II (c. 1627 AD) waged guerrilla warfare against the Mughals, built the Chandra Bhan Ka Qila, and ultimately died in Mughal captivity in Delhi.

Later rulers focused on consolidating their remaining territories and asserting their local authority. Vijayram Chandra (c. 1658 AD) built the palace at Bijapur Fort. Bhim Chandra (c. 1691 AD) is noted in the Katoch family tree for receiving the title of ‘Dharam Rakshak’ from Guru Gobind Singh. However, it is crucial to note a historical complexity here: while the Katoch genealogy lists a Bhim Chandra of Kangra, the Bhim Chand who famously allied with Guru Gobind Singh in the Battle of Nadaun (1691 AD) against Mughal forces was Raja Bhim Chand of Kahlur (Bilaspur). In that battle, Raja Kirpal Chand Katoch of Kangra actually supported the Mughals. This distinction is vital for exam aspirants.

Towards the close of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th, rulers like Alam Chandra II (c. 1697 AD), who built Alampur, and Hamir Chandra (c. 1700 AD), who founded Hamirgarh fort and the town of Hamirpur, continued the dynastic legacy of building and administration. These activities demonstrate a persistent effort to maintain political relevance and control over their territories, even when overshadowed by larger imperial forces. The dynasty’s ability to survive for millennia, adapt to changing political landscapes, and maintain a distinct cultural identity in the Kangra valley is a testament to its enduring strength.

Table 2: Prominent Katoch Rulers of Kangra (Pre-18th Century) and Key Events

Ruler Name	Approx. Reign Period	Significant Event/Contribution	Associated Coinage/Title (if any)	Source Snippet(s)
Bhumi Chand	Founder (as per clan records)	Originator of clan, founder of Jwalamukhi temple	–	9
Susarman	Mahabharata Era	Founder of Trigarta (Mahabharata tradition), built Nagarkot Fort, fought in Kurukshetra War	–	1
Tripur Chandra	c. 150 AD	Fought Ram Deo of Kanauj, marriage alliance with Kanauj	–	5
Adam Chandra	c. 643 AD	Contemporary of Harsh Vardhan; visited by Hiuen Tsang	–	5
Padam Chandra	c. 1170 AD	Descendants founded Jaswan & Dattarpur; Aided Prithviraj Chauhan against Mohd. Ghori	–	5
Prithvi Chandra II	c. 1330 AD	Muhammad Bin Tughlaq’s attack (1333 AD)	“Pithana Coin’s”	5
Rup Chandra V	c. 1360 AD	Looted villages till Delhi; Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s invasion (1360 AD)	“Rupmundra Coins”	4
Shringar Chandra IV	c. 1375 AD	Received title of ‘Miyan’	“Singa coins”	5
Megh Chandra II	c. 1391 AD	Fought against Timur (Timur’s invasion 1398 AD)	“Meghmudra”	5
Hari Chandra I	c. 1405 AD	Founded Guler State	–	5
Karm Chandra II	c. 1420 AD	Received title of ‘Bada Raja’	“Karam mudra coins”	5
Dharam Chandra II	c. 1528 AD	Submitted to Akbar (1556 AD)	“Dharam Mudra”, Title ‘Maharaja’	5
Bidhi Chandra	c. 1585 AD	Revolted against Akbar; formed alliance of hill states	–	5
Trilok Chandra III	c. 1607 AD	Started own coinage; revolted against Mughals	“Trilok Mudra”	5
Hari Chandra II	c. 1615 AD	Lost Kangra Fort to Mughals (1620 AD); killed by Jahangir	–	5
Chander Bhan Chandra II	c. 1627 AD	Fought guerrilla war against Mughals; built Chandra Bhan Ka Qila; died in Mughal captivity	–	5
Vijayram Chandra	c. 1658 AD	Built palace Bijapur Fort	–	5
Bhim Chandra	c. 1691 AD	Received title ‘Dharam Rakshak’ from Guru Gobind Singh (as per Katoch tree)	–	5
Alam Chandra II	c. 1697 AD	Built Alampur	–	5
Hamir Chandra	c. 1700 AD	Built Hamirgarh fort & Hamirpur town	–	5

Section III: Era of Invasions and Shifting Dominions (c. 1009 CE – c. 1750 CE)

The strategic location and reputed wealth of Kangra, particularly its ancient fort and temples, made it a recurrent target for invaders from the 11th century through the early 18th century. This period witnessed significant incursions by Turkic and Mughal forces, profoundly impacting the political landscape of the region and the fortunes of the ruling Katoch dynasty.

A. Mahmud of Ghazni’s Invasion (1009 AD)

In 1009 AD, Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni, drawn by the legendary riches of the Nagarkot temple (Vajreshwari Temple), launched an invasion of Kangra. After defeating the Hindu Shahi rulers in the plains, Mahmud’s forces besieged and captured the Kangra Fort, plundering an immense booty of gold, silver, and jewels. Ferishta, a later historian, provides a vivid, though possibly exaggerated, account of the treasures seized, including vast quantities of gold dinars, gold and silver plates, ingots, and precious stones. The ruler of Kangra at this time is generally identified as Raja Jagdish Chandra , although some accounts suggest he might have been away on an expedition against Kullu, leaving the fort vulnerable.

A point of historical debate, pertinent for critical understanding, is the identification of “Bhimnagar,” a fort Mahmud of Ghazni attacked in 1008 CE after the Battle of Waihind (Ohind), with Nagarkot (Kangra). While Ferishta equates the two , scholars like Al-Utbi and Al-Biruni, contemporary or near-contemporary to Mahmud, provide differing perspectives. Arguments against this identification include the considerable distance between Waihind and Kangra, making it unlikely for a defeated army to retreat there, and the fact that the Shahi dynasty later sought refuge in Kashmir, not Kangra. Furthermore, Al-Biruni’s accounts do not explicitly state that Ghazni conquered Nagarkot or carried away its main idol, but rather mention the idol of Chakrasvamin from Thanesar being taken to Ghazni. Jahangir, in his memoirs (Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri), also implied that Kangra Fort had not been conquered by any Muslim ruler before him. While the 1009 AD plunder of the Nagarkot temple by Mahmud is a widely cited event, the extent of his control over the fort itself and the precise circumstances remain subjects of scholarly discussion.

B. Delhi Sultanate Period

Kangra faced further incursions during the Delhi Sultanate era:

• Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1333 AD / 1337 AD): The Tughlaq Sultan launched an ambitious expedition against Kangra Fort. The reigning Katoch ruler was Raja Prithvi Chand II.⁵ Despite the numerical strength of the Tughlaq army, reported by some sources as 100,000 men, the campaign was largely a failure in the difficult hill terrain, with accounts stating that only a handful of soldiers managed to return to Delhi.
• Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1360 AD / 1351 AD): Decades later, Firoz Shah Tughlaq personally led another force against Kangra. The Katoch ruler at this time was Raja Rup Chandra V (also known for his own raids into the plains). After a siege, Raja Rup Chandra V submitted to the Sultan, and the Nagarkot temple was once again plundered.

These invasions by the Delhi Sultans, though not resulting in permanent annexation, underscored the continued strategic importance of Kangra and the persistent efforts of plains-based empires to subdue the hill chiefs.

C. Mughal Suzerainty

The rise of the Mughal Empire brought a new and more sustained challenge to the autonomy of Kangra.

• Sher Shah Suri (c. 1540 AD): Prior to Akbar’s consolidation of Mughal power, Sher Shah Suri dispatched his general Khawas Khan to capture the Kangra hills. Hamid Khan Kakar was subsequently placed in charge of the area.
• Akbar (reign 1556-1605 AD):
  • Raja Dharam Chand Katoch (identified as Dharam Chandra II in the Katoch genealogy) submitted to Akbar in 1556 AD. He agreed to pay tribute and, significantly, renounced his claims to the Kangra Fort.
  • Following this submission, Akbar’s forces occupied the Kangra Fort in 1556 AD. The fertile Kangra valley was declared an imperial demesne (crown land), directly administered by the Mughals. The local chiefs, including the Katoch Rajas, were left in possession of the relatively less productive barren hilly tracts. This policy was famously summarized by Akbar’s minister, Todar Mal, who stated that Akbar “cut off the meat and left the bones”.
  • Despite the formal occupation, the remoteness of the imperial capital and the natural strength of the hill fortresses encouraged periodic resistance. Some accounts suggest Akbar failed to decisively conquer the Katoch rulers despite a long siege , or that the fort resisted a siege in 1615 AD (though this date falls in Jahangir’s reign and might be a confusion). During Akbar’s time, Raja Bidhi Chand (who acceded in 1585 AD) revolted and formed an alliance of hill states against Mughal authority.
• Jahangir (reign 1605-1627 AD):
  • Emperor Jahangir was determined to bring Kangra Fort under firm Mughal control. After initial failed attempts – one in 1615 AD led by Raja Suraj Mal of Nurpur (Dhameri) and Sheikh Farid (Murtaza Khan), which was marred by internal discord – Jahangir entrusted the command to Prince Khurram (later Emperor Shah Jahan).
  • After a prolonged siege lasting 14 months, during which the garrison faced starvation, Kangra Fort finally surrendered to the Mughal forces in November 1620 AD. The Katoch king at the time, Raja Hari Chand II (son of Trilok Chandra), was killed. Raja Jagat Singh of Nurpur, younger brother of Suraj Mal, played a role in assisting the Mughals in this final capture.
  • Following the conquest, Nawab Ali Khan was appointed as the first Mughal Governor (Qiladar) of Kangra Fort. The fort remained under direct Mughal administration until 1783 AD.
  • Jahangir visited Kangra in 1621 AD (some sources say 1622 AD). During his visit, he ordered the slaughter of a bullock within the fort (a symbolic act in a Hindu stronghold) and commissioned the construction of a mosque inside the fort premises. One of the fort’s gates was named ‘Jahangiri Darwaza’ in his honor. Jahangir also reportedly intended to build a summer palace in the Kangra valley, with the village of Gargari identified as a possible site, but this plan was apparently abandoned, perhaps due to the greater attractions of Kashmir, which he visited subsequently.
• Shah Jahan (reign 1628-1658 AD) and Aurangzeb (reign 1658-1707 AD): During Shah Jahan’s reign, the hill Rajas, including those of Kangra, largely settled into their roles as tributaries, and imperial commands were generally obeyed. Under Aurangzeb, notable Mughal governors of Kangra Fort included Sayeed Husain Khan, Hasan Abdullah Khan, and Nawab Sayeed Khalilullah Khan.
• Mughal Administration in Kangra:
  • The fertile valley areas were treated as imperial demesne, directly contributing revenue to the Mughal treasury.
  • The Mughals appointed officials such as Kazis (judges), Kanungos (revenue record-keepers), and Chaudhris (local headmen) through imperial sanads (letters patent) to manage judicial and revenue affairs.
  • Despite the loss of their primary fort, the hill princes were, to a degree, treated with liberality. They retained considerable power within their remaining territories, built their own forts, engaged in local warfare, and performed functions of petty sovereigns. Loyal hill Rajas were often entrusted with important assignments and hazardous expeditions in the service of the Mughal Empire. This pragmatic Mughal policy of allowing limited autonomy while maintaining strategic control over key assets like Kangra Fort and the fertile valleys helped in managing this difficult and often restive region.
  • The last significant Mughal Qiladar (Governor) of Kangra Fort was Nawab Saif Ali Khan. He held the fort until his death in 1783 AD.¹² The Ahani and Amiri Darwazas (gates) within the Kangra Fort are attributed to him. His son, Jiwan Khan, briefly succeeded him but soon surrendered the fort to the Sikh Misl leader Jai Singh Kanhaiya.
• Decline of Mughal Authority: As the Mughal Empire weakened in the 18th century, particularly due to internal strife and external invasions like those of Ahmad Shah Durrani, the Katoch kings and other hill chiefs grew bolder. They began to reassert their independence, and Mughal control, especially in the remote hill areas, diminished significantly. By 1752, the Katoch principalities were nominally included in the territories ceded to Ahmad Shah Durrani by the declining Delhi court, but in practice, local chieftains resumed their autonomy, leaving little actual control to the Durrani monarch or the Mughal deputy who still held the isolated Kangra Fort. This period of flux set the stage for the resurgence of local powers like Raja Ghamand Chand.

The resilience of the local hill chiefs is a recurring theme throughout this era. Despite facing formidable imperial armies, they often mounted stiff resistance, necessitating prolonged sieges and strategic compromises from the invaders. The capture of Kangra Fort was always a significant military and symbolic achievement for any invading power, highlighting its central role in the control of the surrounding hill territories.

Table 3: Major Invasions and Mughal Governors of Kangra Fort

Invader/Governor	Year(s)	Ruling Katoch Raja (if known)	Key Outcome/Significance	Source Snippet(s)
Mahmud of Ghazni	1009 AD	Raja Jagdish Chandra	Fort plundered, immense wealth taken	2
Muhammad bin Tughlaq	1333/1337 AD	Raja Prithvi Chand II	Largely unsuccessful Tughlaq expedition	9
Firoz Shah Tughlaq	1351/1360 AD	Raja Rup Chandra V	Fort submitted after siege, temple plundered again	4
Akbar	1556 AD onwards	Raja Dharam Chand	Fort occupied, Mughal suzerainty established over Kangra	12
Jahangir (led by Prince Khurram)	1620 AD	Raja Hari Chand II	Kangra Fort captured by Mughals after 14-month siege	12
Nawab Ali Khan	From 1620 AD	–	First Mughal Governor of Kangra Fort	12
Sayeed Husain Khan, Hasan Abdullah Khan, Nawab Sayeed Khalilullah Khan	Aurangzeb’s Reign	–	Chief Mughal Governors of Kangra Fort	15
Nawab Saif Ali Khan	Until 1783 AD	–	Last significant Mughal Governor of Kangra Fort; died in 1783	12

Section IV: Raja Ghamand Chand and the Resurgence of Kangra (c. 1751 – 1774 AD)

The mid-18th century marked a period of significant political flux in northern India, characterized by the decline of the Mughal Empire and the repeated invasions of Ahmad Shah Durrani (Abdali). It was in this environment of shifting power dynamics that Raja Ghamand Chand Katoch emerged as a formidable leader, steering Kangra towards a notable resurgence. He ruled Kangra from approximately 1751 AD to 1774 AD.

Ghamand Chand astutely capitalized on the weakening Mughal authority and the ensuing anarchy. A pivotal moment in his career came in 1758 AD when Ahmad Shah Durrani appointed him as the Nazim (Governor) of the Jullundur Doab.⁴ This appointment also included administrative control over the hill country situated between the Sutlej and Ravi rivers. As a reward for his alliance and capabilities, he was bestowed with the hereditary title of “Nizam-i-Jalandhar”.⁵ This was a significant recognition, making him a prominent Hindu Rajput Nizam under Afghan influence, a testament to his political acumen and military strength.

A brave and capable ruler, Ghamand Chand dedicated himself to restoring the prestige of the Kangra state. His military efforts led to the recovery of most of the territories that Kangra had previously lost to Mughal control or during the intervening period of instability. One of his notable military and administrative actions was the rebuilding of the Pathiar fort.

However, despite his successes in reclaiming ancestral lands, the main Kangra Fort (Nagarkot) remained elusive, as it was still held by a Mughal deputy, Nawab Saif Ali Khan. Unable to capture this historic seat of his ancestors, Ghamand Chand made a pragmatic decision to establish a new capital. He constructed a strong fort at Tira Sujanpur, strategically located on the left bank of the Beas river, almost opposite Alampur, on a hill overlooking the town. This act of building a new fortified capital demonstrated his resolve to consolidate his rule and provide a secure administrative center for the revitalized Kangra kingdom.

Raja Ghamand Chand’s reign was thus a period of significant restoration and strengthening for the Katoch kingdom. His ability to reclaim territories, secure a high administrative position under the Afghans, and establish a new capital laid a crucial foundation for the subsequent glories achieved by his grandson, Maharaja Sansar Chand II. Ghamand Chand passed away in 1774 AD and was succeeded by his son, Tegh Chand. Tegh Chand’s reign was brief, as he died in 1775 AD, paving the way for the accession of the young and ambitious Sansar Chand II. The period of Ghamand Chand’s rule clearly illustrates how regional powers could skillfully navigate the complexities of declining imperial structures to carve out and consolidate their own spheres of influence.

Section V: Maharaja Sansar Chand II: The Zenith and Decline of Katoch Power (c. 1775 – 1823 AD)

Maharaja Sansar Chand II, who ascended the throne of Kangra in 1775 AD at a young age, following the brief reign of his father Tegh Chand, is arguably the most celebrated ruler of the Katoch dynasty. His reign witnessed both the zenith of Kangra’s power and glory, and the beginnings of its decline. An ambitious and able ruler, he harbored the grand vision of restoring Kangra to its ancient eminence.

A pivotal achievement early in his reign was the recapture of the historic Kangra Fort. The fort had been under Mughal control, with Saif Ali Khan as its Qiladar. After Saif Ali Khan’s death in 1783 AD, his son Jiwan Khan controversially surrendered the fort to the Sikh Misl leader, Jai Singh Kanhaiya, through negotiation or bribery, thereby initially thwarting Sansar Chand’s ambitions. Undeterred, Sansar Chand forged alliances with other Sikh Misl leaders, notably Maha Singh Sukerchakia (father of Maharaja Ranjit Singh) and Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, and besieged the fort then held by Jai Singh Kanhaiya. Finally, around 1786 AD (some sources cite 1783, 1785 or 1789 AD), Sansar Chand succeeded in gaining possession of Kangra Fort, reportedly through a peaceful treaty with Jai Singh Kanhaiya, possibly involving territorial concessions in the plains. The recovery of this ancestral stronghold was a monumental victory and the cornerstone of his subsequent rise.

With Kangra Fort as his base, Sansar Chand embarked on a vigorous campaign of expansion. He successfully established his supremacy over almost all the surrounding hill states, including Chamba, Suket, Mandi, Bilaspur, Guler, Jaswan, Siba, and Datarpur, compelling them to pay tribute. For approximately two decades, from around 1786 AD to 1805 AD, he reigned supreme in the hills, a period often referred to as the “golden age” of Kangra. He earned the popular title of “Pahari Badshah” (Emperor of the Mountains). However, his dominance was not without resentment; he is said to have kept neighboring kings jailed, which fostered conspiracies against him. While he dominated the hills, his ambitions to expand into the plains of Punjab, with military expeditions in 1803 and 1804, were decisively repelled by the rising power of Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore. This indicated the limits of his power and foreshadowed future conflicts.

Beyond his military and political achievements, Maharaja Sansar Chand was a renowned patron of the arts, particularly the Kangra school of miniature painting, which reached its zenith under his patronage. He commissioned a multitude of paintings, with themes often revolving around the life and loves of Lord Krishna (drawing from the Bhagavata Purana and Jayadeva’s Gita Govinda), as well as romantic tales like Nala-Damayanti and poetic depictions of seasons (Baramasa).³⁰ Kangra became a major hub for artists, and the distinctive style developed during this period is celebrated for its lyrical lines, delicate colours, and refined naturalism. The Maharaja Sansar Chand Museum, located near the Kangra Fort, today preserves many masterpieces from this era.

Despite his successes, Sansar Chand’s aggressive policies ultimately sowed the seeds of his downfall. His expansionist tendencies, particularly his attack on the state of Bilaspur (Kahlur) in 1805 AD, aggrieved the ruler of Bilaspur and other hill chiefs who had been subjugated by him. This coalition of disgruntled hill rulers took the fateful step of inviting the Gorkhas of Nepal, under the command of Amar Singh Thapa, to intervene against Sansar Chand. This invitation marked the beginning of the Gorkha invasion of Kangra and the subsequent decline of Sansar Chand’s power, fundamentally altering the political landscape of the Himalayan foothills. His ambition, which fueled Kangra’s rise and cultural efflorescence, also became the catalyst for external intervention and the eventual erosion of his hard-won supremacy.

Table 4: Key Events in the Reign of Maharaja Sansar Chand II

Event	Approximate Date(s)	Significance	Source Snippet(s)
Accession to the throne	c. 1775 AD	Beginning of an influential reign
Recapture of Kangra Fort	1783/1786/1789 AD	Consolidated power, became base for expansion
Supremacy over surrounding hill states	c. 1786–1805 AD	Became “Pahari Badshah”; levied tribute from many states
Zenith of Kangra School of Miniature Painting	Reign Period	Major cultural achievement; Kangra became a renowned art center
Attack on Bilaspur (Kahlur)	1805 AD	Led to an alliance of hill chiefs inviting Gorkha intervention
Defeat by Gorkhas at Mahal Mori	May 1806 AD	Sansar Chand took refuge in Kangra Fort; Gorkhas occupied surrounding territories
Treaty of Jawalamukhi with Ranjit Singh	20th July 1809 AD	Alliance to expel Gorkhas; Kangra Fort ceded to Ranjit Singh in return for aid
Loss of Kangra Fort to Ranjit Singh	August 1809 AD	End of Katoch control over their primary fort
Death	1823 AD	End of an era; succeeded by Anirudh Chand

Section VI: The Gorkha Invasion and Sikh Ascendancy (c. 1805 – 1846 AD)

The early 19th century witnessed a dramatic shift in the political equilibrium of the Kangra region, primarily triggered by the aggressive expansionism of Maharaja Sansar Chand II, which led to the Gorkha invasion, followed by the decisive intervention of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the establishment of Sikh dominion.

A. Causes of Gorkha Invasion

Two primary factors contributed to the Gorkha invasion of Kangra. Firstly, the Gorkhas of Nepal were themselves pursuing an expansionist policy, having already annexed Kumaon (by 1791), Garhwal (by 1804), and the hill states of Sirmour and Shimla. Secondly, and more immediately, Maharaja Sansar Chand II’s subjugation of neighboring hill states and his attack on Bilaspur (Kahlur) in 1805 AD created widespread resentment. The aggrieved Raja Mahan Chand of Bilaspur, along with other disaffected hill chiefs, formed an alliance and invited the formidable Gorkha commander, Amar Singh Thapa, to invade Kangra and curb Sansar Chand’s power.

B. Battle of Mahal Mori (May 1806 AD) and Gorkha Occupation

In response to the invitation, the Gorkha forces, numbering around 40,000 and bolstered by the support of various local hill states (bringing the total allied force to approximately one lakh men), crossed the Sutlej river under the command of Amar Singh Thapa In May 1806 AD, they decisively defeated Maharaja Sansar Chand’s army at the Battle of Mahal Mori, located in present-day Hamirpur district. Following this defeat, Sansar Chand was forced to take refuge within the strong walls of the Kangra Fort. The Gorkhas subsequently overran a large portion of the Kangra hill country and laid siege to the Kangra Fort itself. This siege lasted for about four years, from 1806 to 1809 AD.While they controlled the surrounding territories, the Gorkhas were unable to capture the Kangra Fort.

C. Socio-Economic Impact of Gorkha Rule (1806-1809)

The period of Gorkha occupation (1806-1809) is remembered as one of extreme hardship and devastation for the people of Kangra. Contemporary accounts describe it as a time of “horrors” and anarchy. The Kangra valley was extensively plundered by the Gorkha forces for four years. Villages were deserted as people fled to the plains as refugees to escape the violence and scarcity. Cultivation ceased, leading to widespread famine and economic collapse. It is said that “the country ran with blood, not a blade of cultivation was to be seen, and grass grew and tigers whelped in the streets of the deserted towns”. The disorder was further aggravated by minor local princes who indulged in their own acts of lawlessness. This period of intense suffering left a lasting scar on the collective memory of the region.

D. Treaty of Jawalamukhi (20th July 1809 AD) and Ranjit Singh’s Intervention

After enduring nearly four years of siege within Kangra Fort and witnessing the devastation of his kingdom, Maharaja Sansar Chand sought assistance from the rising power of Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore. The two rulers met at Jawalamukhi, and on 20th July 1809 AD, they concluded the historic Treaty of Jawalamukhi. Under the terms of this treaty, Ranjit Singh agreed to help expel the Gorkhas. In return for this crucial military aid, Sansar Chand consented to cede the strategically vital Kangra Fort and 66 villages (constituting the fort’s ancient jagir or estate) to the Sikh ruler. This treaty marked a strategic masterstroke by Ranjit Singh, allowing him to gain a strong foothold in the hill region.

E. Expulsion of Gorkhas (August 1809 AD)

Following the treaty, Maharaja Ranjit Singh dispatched his forces, with notable commanders like Diwan Mokham Chand, against the Gorkhas. The Sikh army, well-equipped and organized, confronted the Gorkha forces, which had been weakened by the prolonged siege, desertions, and disease. In August 1809 AD, the Sikhs decisively defeated the Gorkhas, compelling them to abandon their conquests beyond the Sutlej River and retreat eastwards. This victory effectively ended the Gorkha occupation of Kangra.

F. Kangra under Sikh Rule (1809 – 1846 AD)

The expulsion of the Gorkhas ushered in an era of Sikh dominance over Kangra, which lasted until the British annexation in 1846.

• Annexation of Kangra Fort (24th August 1809 AD): As stipulated by the Treaty of Jawalamukhi, Kangra Fort was formally surrendered to Maharaja Ranjit Singh on 24th August 1809. This gave the Sikh Empire control over the most formidable stronghold in the Punjab hills.
• Initial Arrangement and Full Annexation of Kangra State: Initially, Ranjit Singh guaranteed Sansar Chand possession of his remaining dominions, excluding the fort and its associated 66 villages. However, true to his expansionist nature, Ranjit Singh gradually encroached upon the territories and authority of all the hill chieftains, including Sansar Chand, who became an obsequious tributary of Lahore. After Sansar Chand’s death in 1823 AD (some sources say 1824 AD) , he was succeeded by his son, Anirudh Chand. In 1828 AD, Anirudh Chand chose to abdicate his throne and retire to Hardwar rather than submit to Ranjit Singh’s demand for his sister’s hand in marriage to Hira Singh, the son of the Sikh Prime Minister Dhian Singh. Following Anirudh Chand’s departure, Ranjit Singh annexed the entire remaining territory of the Kangra State, bringing the once-powerful Katoch kingdom completely under Sikh possession. Some sources mention an earlier date of 1810 for the annexation of Kangra state , but this likely refers to the broader establishment of Sikh suzerainty after acquiring the fort, with the final absorption of the state occurring in 1828.
• Sikh Administration:
  • Nazims (Governors): Ranjit Singh appointed capable administrators to govern the strategically important Kangra region.
    • Sardar Desa Singh Majithia was appointed as the first Sikh Nazim (Governor) of Kangra and the adjoining hill districts in 1809 AD. He also held the crucial post of Qiladar (Commandant) of the Kangra Fort. He took over from Wazir Naurang, who had been Sansar Chand’s governor. Desa Singh Majithia is credited with establishing a “mild and humane administration” and fostering cordial relations between the Sikhs and the local Rajput populace, which was beneficial for regional stability and cultural interactions, including the development of the Guler style of Sikh painting. He served as Nazim until his death in 1832 AD.
    • Sardar Lehna Singh Majithia, the eldest son of Desa Singh, succeeded his father as the Nazim of Kangra and the hill districts in 1832 AD. He was renowned for his wisdom, administrative skills, and scientific acumen, and continued the governance of the region until March 1844, when he left Punjab due to political turmoil at the Lahore Darbar.
  • Kardars: The Sikh administrative structure, similar to the Mughal system, involved dividing provinces into Parganas, each managed by a Kardar. The Kardar was a multifaceted official responsible for revenue collection, maintaining law and order, and acting as a local magistrate and representative of the central authority. While specific names of Kardars serving directly under the Majithia Nazims in Kangra are not extensively detailed in the available sources, their presence was integral to the functioning of the provincial administration.
  • Qiladars of Kangra Fort: Desa Singh Majithia was explicitly appointed as the commandant of Kangra Fort in 1809. Given the Nazims’ overall responsibility for the region, it is probable that they directly managed the fort’s security and administration or appointed trusted deputies, rather than having independent Qiladars of high rank. No other specific Sikh Qiladars for Kangra Fort during this period are named in the provided information.
  • Revenue System: The Sikh land revenue system generally followed patterns established by the Mughals, with modifications.
    • The most common methods of assessment were Batai (actual division of the harvested crop between the state and the cultivator) and, increasingly, Kankut (appraisement of the standing crop to estimate the state’s share). Revenue was collected in both cash and kind.
    • The state’s demand could be substantial, reportedly as high as 50% of the produce on fertile lands, and varying between two-fifths to one-third on less productive lands. Jagirdars, who were granted estates, often collected about one-third of the grain (known as Bhusa) from the cultivators.
    • Kardars were the primary officials responsible for revenue collection at the Pargana level, assisted by local functionaries like Muqaddams (village headmen), Patwaris (village accountants), and Qanungos (revenue record-keepers).
    • While the land tax was often heavy, Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s administration generally aimed to avoid excessive oppression of the peasantry to ensure continued agricultural production and stability. Local customs were likely taken into account to some extent in the assessment and collection processes, as was typical for pragmatic pre-modern states, though specific details for Kangra are not extensively documented.
  • Judicial System: The judicial system under Sikh rule was relatively simple and often decentralized, without a formal codified body of laws.
    • Panchayats continued to function in villages, administering justice based on local customs and traditions.
    • Kardars and Nazims also exercised judicial powers, hearing cases within their jurisdictions.
    • The Adalat-i-Ala (Supreme Court) was established in Lahore, and the Maharaja himself served as the final court of appeal.
    • Common punishments for criminal offenses primarily included fines and, in some cases, mutilation. Imprisonment was rare, and capital punishment was uncommon.
    • Local customs, such as those pertaining to marriage and social practices, continued to hold sway in the hill regions like Kangra. It is plausible that the Sikh administration allowed these customs to govern civil disputes and social matters that did not directly impinge upon state authority or involve major crimes.
  • Impact on Local Chiefs and Katoch Dynasty: The establishment of Sikh rule led to the displacement or subjugation of the traditional Rajput ruling families, including the Katochs of Kangra, who lost their sovereign status and control over their ancestral fort and territories.⁹ They were largely reduced to the status of tributaries or jagirdars under the Sikh Empire.

The period of Gorkha invasion, though brief, was a watershed moment, marking the end of Kangra’s independent trajectory under Sansar Chand II and paving the way for its incorporation into the expanding Sikh Empire. The Sikh rule, particularly under the administration of the Majithia Sardars, brought a degree of stability after the Gorkha depredations, but also firmly established external control over the region.

Table 5: Transition of Power in Kangra: Gorkha and Sikh Periods

Event	Date(s)	Key Figures Involved	Outcome/Significance	Source Snippet(s)
Sansar Chand II attacks Bilaspur (Kahlur)	1805 AD	Sansar Chand II, Raja of Bilaspur	Led to hill chiefs inviting Gorkha intervention
Battle of Mahal Mori	May 1806 AD	Sansar Chand II vs. Amar Singh Thapa (Gorkhas)	Gorkha victory; Sansar Chand takes refuge in Kangra Fort
Gorkha Occupation of Kangra region	1806–1809 AD	Amar Singh Thapa	Widespread devastation; Kangra Fort besieged but not captured
Treaty of Jawalamukhi	20th July 1809 AD	Sansar Chand II & Maharaja Ranjit Singh	Alliance against Gorkhas; Kangra Fort and 66 villages ceded to Ranjit Singh
Expulsion of Gorkhas from Kangra	August 1809 AD	Ranjit Singh’s forces vs. Amar Singh Thapa	Sikhs gain control of Kangra Fort; Gorkhas retreat east of Sutlej
Desa Singh Majithia appointed Nazim of Kangra	1809 AD	Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Desa Singh Majithia	Beginning of Sikh administration in Kangra; Desa Singh also Qiladar of Kangra Fort
Death of Sansar Chand II	1823 AD / 1824 AD	Anirudh Chand succeeds	End of Sansar Chand’s era
Full Annexation of Kangra State by Ranjit Singh	1828 AD	Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Anirudh Chand	End of Katoch rule; Kangra fully incorporated into Sikh Empire
Lehna Singh Majithia succeeds as Nazim	1832 AD	Lehna Singh Majithia	Continuation of Sikh administration under Majithia family

Section VII: Kangra Under British Dominion (1846 – 1947 AD)

The period of Sikh rule in Kangra concluded with the advent of British power in the Punjab. Following the First Anglo-Sikh War (1845-1846), the political map of the region was redrawn, bringing Kangra and other hill territories under British dominion.

A. Annexation after the First Anglo-Sikh War (1846 AD)

As a consequence of the Sikh defeat in the First Anglo-Sikh War, the Jalandhar Doab and the hill territories situated between the Beas and Sutlej rivers, which included Kangra, were ceded to the British East India Company under the terms of the Treaty of Lahore, signed on 9th March 1846. The British did not restore these hill territories to their original Rajput rulers who had been displaced or subjugated by the Sikhs. The formidable Kangra Fort itself was taken by the British forces after a siege lasting about six weeks, from mid-April to 28th May 1846. Sir Henry Lawrence, a key British official, reached the fort on 3rd May 1846.

B. Kangra as a District of British India: Administrative Setup

With the annexation in 1846, Kangra became a district of British India. The newly formed British district was extensive, initially encompassing the territories of present-day Kangra, Hamirpur, Kullu, and Lahul and Spiti districts. Kangra District was incorporated into the British province of Punjab. The administrative headquarters of the district were first located at Kangra town. However, in 1855, the headquarters were shifted to Dharamshala, a hill station whose cantonment had been established in 1849. Under British rule, the Katoch dynasty and other surrounding hill Rajas were assigned small jagirs (land grants) over which they retained rights of revenue collection and limited magisterial authority. In a gesture of recognition, the title of ‘Maharaja’ was restored to the head of the Katoch clan in 1870.

C. Land Settlements

The British administration undertook comprehensive land settlement operations to establish a systematic revenue system and record land rights. These settlements had a profound and lasting impact on the agrarian structure and socio-economic fabric of Kangra.

• 1. G.C. Barnes’ Settlement (Summary Settlement c. 1846-1849, Regular Settlement c. 1850-1852; Report published 1855, reprinted 1862, 1871):
  George Carnac Barnes was entrusted with the initial land settlement of Kangra district.
  
  • Objectives: The primary aims were to replace the often arbitrary Sikh revenue system with a more predictable one, clearly demarcate village and fiscal unit boundaries, create a comprehensive record of existing land tenures and rights, and fix a fair and sustainable revenue demand for a period of twenty years. The broader goal was to promote agricultural stability and prosperity by providing security of tenure. The Kangra District Gazetteer of 1883-84 notes that Barnes’ initial Summary Settlement aimed for a 10% reduction on the Sikh revenue demand and commuted traditional grain rents to cash payments in the Kangra pargana, a move reportedly welcomed by the populace.
  • Methodology: Barnes’ methodology involved a combination of utilizing existing Sikh revenue records (initially provided by Ranjodh Singh Majithia) and conducting new surveys. For valuable irrigated lands, particularly in the Kangra valley, measurements were done by chain survey by trained Ameens. For the less productive, unirrigated hilly tracts, the local land measurement system based on the ‘Ghoomao,’ ‘Kunal,’ and ‘Mundla’ was adopted, with measurements carried out by local experts (Kanbahs) under Patwari supervision. Land was broadly classified as irrigated or unirrigated, avoiding overly detailed soil distinctions. Revenue assessment was based on average past collections (especially for irrigated areas), general rates fixed for each Talooqua (sub-division), and consideration of local factors like land quality, irrigation, market access, and cultivator caste. Significant reductions in revenue demand were made, particularly on unirrigated lands, which had often been over-assessed during the Sikh period.
  • Impact on Land Rights: The settlement had a significant impact on land rights. While existing Jageers held by descendants of former rulers were largely maintained (though conditions of service were removed), the British recognized the Warisee or hereditary right of cultivation held by those who originally reclaimed wasteland. This right was generally transferable by gift or mortgage but not typically by sale. The Gazetteer (1883-84) clarifies that Barnes’ arrangements led to the government recognizing the village landholders (zamindars) as proprietors of the soil in the waste lands, while the state retained rights over valuable timber. This marked a shift towards individual proprietary rights.
  • Revenue Assessment: Revenue rates varied by Talooqua and land type. For the Kangra valley (irrigated), assessment was based on the cash value of historical grain payments. For unirrigated areas, Barnes aimed for a reduction of about 12% from the summary settlement. The total revised revenue demand (Juma) for the Kangra district was fixed at Rs. 6,83,793, representing a net reduction of about 6% (or 8.73% including earlier remissions) from the summary settlement rates.
  • Records Created: Key records generated included: Hudbust (outline maps of villages/Tupas), Field Registers (Khusra detailing individual field measurements), a Settlement Note Book (describing each Talooqua, cultivation, assessment rates, etc.), the Village Khewut (a record of individual revenue liabilities, analogous to a preliminary Misl-i-Haqiqat or Record of Rights), and an Administration Paper or Ikrarnama (a code of village by-laws concerning revenue payment, village officials, and local customs, analogous to the Wajib-ul-Arz or Village Customary Law). These records formed the bedrock of British land administration. Barnes’ influential settlement report was published in 1855 and reprinted later.
• 2. J.B. Lyall’s Revised Settlement (1865-1872; Report published 1874):
  James Broadwood Lyall conducted a revised settlement operation a couple of decades after Barnes.
  
  • Reasons for Revision & Objectives: The primary impetus for Lyall’s revision was the acknowledged imperfection and incompleteness of the record of rights created during Barnes’ settlement. Therefore, the main objectives were to perfect the Misl-i-Haqiqat (Record of Rights), collect accurate statistics on cultivation and resources, standardize land measurements, create proper village maps (shajrahs), improve field records (khasrahs), and meticulously document rights related to grazing lands (kharetars) and forests. Crucially, this revision did not involve a reassessment of the land revenue rates, as the term of Barnes’ settlement had not yet expired.
  • Changes from Barnes’ Settlement and Methodology: Lyall’s settlement was designed to be supplementary to Barnes’ work. A significant methodological innovation was the detailed demarcation of hamlet boundaries (tikabandi) within larger mauzas (villages).⁵⁴ This aimed to provide landholders with a clearer sense of property in the waste lands associated with their respective hamlets. The revision led to the creation of accurate village maps and more precise field records. The Zaildari system of rural intermediaries was also extended.
  • Impact on Land Rights: Lyall’s settlement further solidified the proprietary rights of cultivators, recognizing them as subordinate proprietors of their holdings and as joint owners of the waste lands within their demarcated hamlets or mauzas. The status of Jagirdars was clarified, often defining them as lessees of certain state rights rather than absolute proprietors in place of the Raja. Rights of occupancy tenants were also more clearly defined and recorded.
  • Records Created: The most important outcomes were a thoroughly revised and more accurate Misl-i-Haqiqat (Record of Rights) and Wajib-ul-Arz (Record of Village Customs/Administration Paper). These documents provided a more robust legal basis for land ownership, usage rights (including complex grazing and forest rights), and dispute resolution. Lyall’s report was published in 1874.

The British land settlements fundamentally reshaped Kangra’s agrarian society. They introduced concepts of fixed, individual proprietary rights and a systematic, cash-based revenue system, which, while aiming for order and predictability, also had complex long-term consequences for traditional land relations, community structures, and the authority of the erstwhile ruling chiefs.

• Kangra District Gazetteers: Several District Gazetteers were compiled during the British period, which serve as invaluable sources for the history and administration of Kangra. These include the Gazetteer of the Kangra District, 1883-84 (largely based on Barnes’ and Lyall’s settlement reports) , and later editions/volumes such as those for 1897 (covering Kulu, Lahul & Spiti), 1904, 1917, and 1924-25. These gazetteers provide detailed information on land revenue administration, local customs, and socio-economic conditions.

D. Revolts against British Rule

The transition to British rule was not entirely smooth. Several instances of resistance occurred after the 1846 annexation. Notably, Ram Singh Pathania, a Rajput from Nurpur, led a significant revolt, invading the British garrison at Shahpur before being eventually subdued. During the Great Revolt of 1857, some disturbances were reported in the Kulu subdivision (then part of Kangra district), but these were effectively suppressed by the local authorities. The disarming of native troops stationed in the forts of Kangra and Nurpur was carried out quietly and without major opposition. Most hill rulers in the Kangra region remained either loyal to the British or aloof during the 1857 uprising, with the notable exception of the ruler of Bushahr.

E. The Devastating Earthquake of 4th April 1905

A catastrophic earthquake struck Kangra on 4th April 1905, causing immense devastation. The town of Kangra, the historic Kangra Fort, and the revered Vajreshwari Temple suffered extensive damage. The earthquake resulted in a tragic loss of life, with an estimated 1,339 deaths in Kangra town alone and around 20,000 fatalities in the wider affected region. The heavily damaged Kangra Fort was subsequently returned by the British authorities to Maharaja Jai Chandra Katoch. This natural calamity was a major historical marker, profoundly impacting the region’s demography, heritage, and socio-economic conditions.

F. Kangra’s Role in the Indian Freedom Struggle

The people of the Kangra hills actively participated in India’s struggle for independence.36 Praja Mandals (people’s associations) launched agitations against British rule in directly administered areas and for social and political reforms in the princely states.36 The Indian National Congress party also had an active presence and influence in the freedom movement within the Kangra region.

Prominent freedom fighters from the Kangra region who made significant contributions include Comrade Ram Chandra, Thakur Panchan Chandra, and especially Baba Kanshi Ram. Baba Kanshi Ram dedicated his life to the liberation movement in the hills. For his tireless efforts and patriotic songs, he was honored with the title “Pahari Gandhi” by Jawaharlal Nehru and “Bulbul-e-Pahar” (Nightingale of the Hills) by Sarojini Naidu.

The British period in Kangra was thus characterized by the establishment of a new administrative and revenue framework, significant socio-economic changes brought about by land settlements, natural calamities like the 1905 earthquake, and the growing tide of the nationalist movement, which eventually led to India’s independence.

Table 6: British Land Settlements in Kangra: A Comparison

Feature	G.C. Barnes’ Settlement (Regular: c. 1850-1852)	J.B. Lyall’s Revised Settlement (1865-1872)
Primary Objective(s)	Establish a new revenue system, define boundaries, record rights, fix fair revenue for 20 years, simplify revenue collection.	Perfect the Record of Rights (Misl-i-Haqiqat) from Barnes’ settlement, collect accurate statistics, standardize measurements, create maps, document grazing/forest rights.
Revenue Reassessment	Yes, fixed cash assessment, aimed for reduction from Sikh era rates.	No reassessment of revenue rates. Focused solely on record correction as Barnes’ term was unexpired.
Methodology Highlights	Chain survey (irrigated), local ‘Ghoomao’ (unirrigated), broad land classification, assessment based on past collections & local factors.	Detailed demarcation of hamlet boundaries (tikabandi), creation of accurate village maps (shajrahs), improved field records (khasrahs).
Impact on Land Rights	Recognized hereditary cultivation rights (Warisee); village landholders recognized as proprietors of waste (state retained timber rights).	Solidified cultivators’ rights as subordinate proprietors and joint owners of waste within hamlets; clarified Jagirdars’ status as lessees.
Key Records Created	Hudbust (outline maps), Khusra (field registers), Settlement Note Book, Village Khewut (Record of Rights precursor), Ikrarnama / Wajib-ul-Arz (Village Customs).	Perfected Misl-i-Haqiqat (Record of Rights) and Wajib-ul-Arz (Record of Customs); detailed hamlet boundary records.
Source Snippet(s)

Section VIII: Kangra in Independent India (Post-1947)

The independence of India in 1947 marked a new chapter in the long history of Kangra. The district underwent significant administrative and developmental transformations as it became part of the newly formed Indian Union and later, the state of Himachal Pradesh.

A. Merger with Himachal Pradesh and Statehood

Following India’s independence, the princely state of Kangra, under its then ruler Raja Druv Dev Chand Katoch, merged with the Dominion of India in 1948. For several years thereafter, Kangra remained part of Punjab state. A major administrative reorganization occurred on 1st November 1966, when, based on the recommendations of the Shah Commission for the linguistic reorganization of Punjab, Kangra district along with other hill areas of Punjab (including Kullu, Lahaul & Spiti, Shimla, and Una tehsil) were merged with Himachal Pradesh, which at that time was a Union Territory. Subsequently, Himachal Pradesh was granted full statehood on 25th January 1971, becoming the 18th state of the Indian Union.

B. Administrative Reorganization

The most significant administrative restructuring concerning Kangra district took place on 1st September 1972. On this date, the then expansive Kangra district was trifurcated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Two new districts, Una and Hamirpur (which were then tehsils of Kangra), were carved out as separate administrative entities. The present-day Kangra district, with its current boundaries, came into existence as a result of this reorganization.

• Evolution of Tehsils and Sub-Tehsils (Post-1972):
  • Prior to its merger with Himachal Pradesh in 1966, Kangra district (as part of Punjab) comprised six tehsils: Nurpur, Kangra, Palampur, Dehragopipur, Hamirpur, and Una. Historically, Kullu was also a tehsil of Kangra district until 1962, and Lahaul & Spiti, which also formed part of Kangra, was constituted as a separate district in 1960.
  • Over the decades since the 1972 reorganization, the number of administrative units within Kangra district has increased to cater to developmental and administrative needs. As of May 2025, the official website of Kangra district indicates that it comprises 14 Sub-Divisions, 19 Tehsils, and 15 Sub-Tehsils. This is an increase from an earlier period (data likely from around 2001 or before) which mentioned 8 Sub-divisions, 14 Tehsils, and 5 Sub-tehsils.
  • The current list of Tehsils and Sub-Tehsils (ST) includes: Kangra, Nurpur, Jawali, Indora, Dehra, Shahpur, Baroh, Khundian, Dadasiba, Jaswan, Rakkar, Fatehpur, Baijnath, Jaisinghpur, Thural, Dharamshala, Multhan, Palampur, Jawalamukhi, Nagrota Bagwan, Dheera, Haripur, and Nagrota Surian. Sub-Tehsils include Pragpur (ST), Kotla (ST), Gangath (ST), Panchrukhi (ST), Chadhiar (ST), Alampur (ST), Darini (ST), Majheen (ST), Bhawarna (ST), Lagru (ST), Sullah (ST), Raja ka Talab (ST), Thakurdwara (ST), Rey (ST), Sadwan (ST), and Harchakiyan (ST).
  • The precise timeline for the creation of each of these newer tehsils and sub-tehsils after the 1972 reorganization is not consistently available in the provided materials. However, the increase in their numbers clearly indicates progressive administrative decentralization and efforts to bring governance closer to the people.
  • The district is further divided into Development Blocks for rural development planning and implementation. As of May 2025, there are 16 Development Blocks. An earlier source mentioned 14 CD Blocks , and another mentioned

C. Key Development Projects and Institutions (Post-1971)

After becoming part of Himachal Pradesh and especially after HP attained statehood, Kangra district has witnessed significant developmental activities aimed at improving infrastructure, agriculture, education, and industrial growth.

• 1. Shahnehar Irrigation Project:
  
  • This is the only major irrigation project in Himachal Pradesh and is located in Kangra District.
  • The project received its original administrative approval and estimate sanction in June 1997 for Rs. 143.90 Crores. The estimate was subsequently revised upwards, with a re-revised approval in March 2012 for Rs. 387.17 Crores. The project was completed at a cost of Rs. 387.22 Crores, and the completion report was submitted in September 2013.
  • The Shahnehar project provides irrigation to a Culturable Command Area (CCA) of 15,287 hectares, directly benefiting farmers in 93 villages located in the Fatehpur and Indora tehsils of Kangra district. It has played a crucial role in transforming barren lands into productive agricultural belts.
  • The project infrastructure includes a Right Bank Canal (45.305 km), a Left Bank Canal (26.009 km), 4 distributaries (33.695 km), 23 minors (77.367 km), 23 sub-minors (62.386 km), extensive watercourses, and 46 Tubewells (22 on RBC, 24 on LBC) for lift irrigation.
• 2. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (CSK HPKV), Palampur:
  
  • Established on 1st November 1978, CSK HPKV is a prominent agricultural university located in Palampur. It was formed by the expansion and amalgamation of the existing College of Agriculture (established in May 1966) and the Himachal Agricultural Research and Extension Education (HAREE). It was later renamed in honor of Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar, an agricultural scientist from the region.
  • Initial Objectives and Role: The university’s primary focus is on hill agriculture. Its objectives include providing education in agriculture and allied sciences, conducting research tailored to the needs of the hill farming community, and disseminating agricultural technology and knowledge through extension services.
  • Impact: CSK HPKV has played a pivotal role in transforming the agricultural landscape of Kangra and Himachal Pradesh. It has developed and released numerous improved varieties of cereals, pulses, vegetables, oilseeds, fodder crops, and tea suitable for hill conditions. The university’s research has facilitated crop diversification, promoted sustainable and organic farming practices, improved livestock management (leading to healthier cattle and increased milk production), and enhanced the livelihoods of farmers through training and skill development. It houses eight Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs), including one in Kangra, and several off-campus research and extension centers to directly support farmers. The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) ranked it 19th among agricultural institutes in India in 2024.
• 3. Industrial Development:
  
  • Industrialization in Himachal Pradesh, including Kangra, gained momentum primarily after the attainment of statehood in 1971. The state government has periodically announced Industrial Policies (1971, 1980, 1984, 1991, 1996, 1999, 2004, with amendments) offering incentives to attract investment.
  • Established Industrial Areas in Kangra District: Several industrial areas and estates have been developed in Kangra district to promote industrial activity. Notable among these are:
    • Sansarpur Terrace (S/Terrace): This is a significant industrial area with 66 Hectares of developed land, 395 plots (361 allotted), and 34 units reported in production (data from a DIPS report, undated but likely post-2011). It hosts a cluster of about 20 pharmaceutical units.
    • Nagrota Bagwan (N/Bhagwan): This area has approximately 4.9 hectares of developed land, 71 plots (all allotted), and 48 units in production. The town of Nagrota Bagwan itself is ancient, but its development as an industrial area is a post-independence phenomenon.
    • Other industrial areas include Bain Attarian, Nagri, Dhaliara, and Raja Ka Bag.
  • Types of Industries Promoted: The focus has been on a diversified base, including rural and traditional handlooms/handicrafts, cottage industries, MSMEs, and modern sectors like textiles, telecommunication equipment, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and engineering. Food processing linked to agro-horticulture is also a priority sector.
  • Major Industrial Units: Specific names of early major units post-1971 are not extensively detailed in the snippets, but M/S Met trade India Limited (non-ferrous metals) at Damtal and M/S Steel Authority India Limited (SAIL) (CPU for TMP) at Kandrori are mentioned as significant investments, though their exact establishment dates post-1971 are not provided. HRA Paper Mill and Deepak Power are listed as medium-scale units. Clusters of iron & steel (wire drawing) units at Damtal and steel furniture units at Kangra also exist. Tea cultivation and processing, though started in the British era (around 1850), saw renewed efforts with cooperative tea factories post-1964, though only one in Palampur remains operational from that initiative. Several private tea estates like Dharmsala Tea Company, Raipur Tea Estate (Himalayan Brew), and Wah Tea Estate continue to operate and modernize.
• 4. Tourism Development:
  
  • Kangra district, with its scenic beauty, historical sites, and spiritual centers, has always been a significant tourist destination. Post-1971, efforts have been made to develop tourism infrastructure.
  • Key tourist destinations include Dharamshala (especially McLeod Ganj, the seat of His Holiness the Dalai Lama since 1966), Kangra town, Palampur, Baijnath, Jawalamukhi, and Masroor.
  • Government initiatives have focused on improving connectivity (roads), accommodation, and promoting new and unexplored areas to diversify tourist inflow.
  • The Infrastructure Development Investment Program for Tourism (IDIPT), supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), included projects in Himachal Pradesh aimed at environmentally and culturally sustainable tourism. Specific proposals for Kangra under this program involved the development of an interpretation center and tourist amenities at Pong Dam, infrastructure improvements at Ranser and Karu islands (jetties, watchtowers, trails, camping sites).
  • Adventure tourism, including grass skiing and artificial rock climbing, has also been promoted in the broader Himachal region, with potential spillover benefits for Kangra.

The post-independence period has thus seen Kangra district evolve significantly, with major administrative reorganizations shaping its current form and substantial investments in irrigation, agriculture, education, and industrial and tourism infrastructure aimed at its socio-economic development.

Table 7: Administrative Setup of Kangra District (as of May 2025)

Organizational Unit	Number(s)	Source Snippet(s)
Sub Divisions	14
Tehsils	19
Sub-Tehsils	15
Revenue Villages	3908
Development Blocks	16
Gram Panchayats	748
Parliamentary Constituency	1
Assembly Constituencies	15

Section IX: Important Historical and Cultural Sites in Kangra District

Kangra district is exceptionally rich in historical and cultural heritage, boasting ancient forts, unique temples, and significant archaeological sites that attract pilgrims, tourists, and scholars alike.

• A. Kangra Fort (Nagarkot):
  
  • Historical Significance: One of India’s oldest and largest forts, traditionally founded by Raja Susarman of the Katoch dynasty during the Mahabharata era. It served as the main seat of the Katoch rulers for centuries and witnessed numerous sieges and conquests by invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni (1009 AD), Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1337 AD), Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1351 AD), the Mughals (captured by Jahangir in 1620 AD), the Gorkhas (besieged 1806-1809 AD), Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1809 AD), and finally the British (1846 AD). The fort’s strategic location and reputed wealth made it a constant focal point of regional power struggles. It was heavily damaged in the 1905 earthquake.
  • Architectural Features: The fort stands on a hillock at the confluence of the Banganga and Manjhi rivers. Its extensive ramparts are over three miles in circuit, covering an area of 463 acres. Key gateways include the Ranjit Singh Gate, Ahani Darwaza, Amiri Darwaza (attributed to Nawab Saif Ali Khan), and the Jehangiri Darwaza. Inside, it housed palaces (now largely in ruins), and important temples like the Ambika Devi Temple (patron goddess of Katochs), Lakshmi Narayan Temple, and a Svetambara Jain temple with a large idol of Rishabhanatha, which has an inscription in Sharada script. A mosque was also built by Jahangir.
• B. Masroor Rock-Cut Temples:
  
  • Date and Architecture: An early 8th-century complex of monolithic rock-cut Hindu temples, unique in North India. Carved out of a single sandstone outcrop, these temples exemplify the Nagara style of architecture, with prominent shikharas (spires).¹⁰⁶ The complex is symmetrically laid out on a square grid, with the main temple surrounded by smaller shrines in a mandala pattern.
  • Deities and Iconography: Dedicated to Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, and Saura traditions of Hinduism.¹⁰⁶ The main sanctum likely housed a Shiva Linga. Surviving iconography includes images of Shiva (including a Trimurti face on the main shikhara), Parvati, Kartikeya, Vishnu, Indra, Agni, and other Puranic deities.
  • Builders and Patronage: Traditionally believed to have been built by the Pandavas during their exile. Historical records also suggest construction under the Katoch dynasty. Some scholars attribute their construction to the early 8th century, possibly under the influence of King Yashovarman of Kannauj, based on stylistic similarities with Central Indian temples and architectural features suggesting Gupta classicism.
  • Inscriptions: While some inscriptions are reported to exist within the temple complex, they have not been definitively deciphered to reveal information about the patrons or exact period. However, the architectural style itself strongly points to the 8th-century timeframe.
  • Discovery and Condition: First reported by Henry Shuttleworth in 1913 and surveyed by Harold Hargreaves of the ASI in 1915. The complex suffered damage in the 1905 earthquake, and some parts remain unfinished. A large rectangular water tank in front of the temples enhances their visual appeal.
• C. Baijnath Temple:
  
  • Date and Builders: Located at Baijnath (originally Kiragrama), this ancient Shiva temple was extensively renovated or rebuilt in 1204 AD by two local merchants named Ahuka and Manyuka. Two long inscriptions on the walls of the mandapa (hall) provide this historical information. A Shiva Linga (Vaidyanatha) existed at the site even before this renovation.
  • Significance: The temple has been in continuous worship since its construction in 1204 AD. It is a fine example of early medieval North Indian temple architecture.
• D. Jawalamukhi Temple:
  
  • Significance: One of the most revered Shakti Peethas in India, dedicated to Jwala Ji, the goddess of flaming mouth. The physical manifestation of the goddess is a set of eternal flames fueled by natural gas seeping from fissures in the rock.
  • Historical Accounts: Legend associates the temple with the Pandavas, who are said to have built a magnificent temple here after Goddess Durga appeared in their dream. The Mughal Emperor Akbar is said to have visited the shrine and, after failing to extinguish the flames with an iron disk and water, made offerings. The temple was plundered multiple times by Muslim invaders, including Mahmud of Ghazni (according to local legends, though this is debated for Nagarkot itself). It was destroyed in the 1905 earthquake and subsequently rebuilt by the government. Rajanaka Bhumi Chand, the traditional founder of the Katoch clan, is also credited with founding the Jwalamukhi temple.
• E. Other Important Sites:
  
  • Nurpur Fort: Located in Nurpur town (anciently Dhameri), this fort has a history of over 1,000 years, founded by the Tomaras of Delhi and later ruled by the Pathania Rajputs. It reached its peak under Raja Basu Dev (1580-1613) and his son Raja Jagat Singh Pathania (1618-1646), who renamed Dhameri to Nurpur in honor of Empress Nur Jahan. The fort complex houses the unique Sri Brijraj Swami temple, where Lord Krishna’s idol is placed alongside Meerabai. The temple walls have faded frescoes. The fort is now largely in ruins but its facade and gates are impressive. ASI has undertaken some excavation and restoration work.
  • Pathiar and Kanhiara Inscriptions: As discussed in Section I, these 1st-2nd century CE rock inscriptions in Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts are significant archaeological findings, attesting to early literacy, public works, and cultural interactions in the Kangra valley. The Pathiar inscription is located near Pathiar fort, and the Kanhiara inscription near Khanyara. Both are Monuments of National Importance.
  • Kotla Fort: Another ancient fort in the Kangra district, listed as a Monument of National Importance. While it holds historical significance, detailed excavation reports or findings are not readily available in the provided snippets.
  • Bhagsunag Temple and Waterfall: Near Dharamshala, associated with a legend of King Bhagsu and the serpent king (Nag Dal).
  • Chamunda Devi Temple: An important Shakti temple in the district.
  • Pragpur Heritage Village: Founded in the late 16th century by the Patials in memory of Princess Prag Dei of Jaswan, Pragpur, along with nearby Garli, was notified as a “Heritage Village” in 1997. It is known for its traditional architecture, cobblestone streets, and havelis like the Lala Rerumal Haveli.
  • Haripur-Guler: Twin townships carrying the heritage of the Guler Riyasat, which was an offshoot of the Kangra state and famous as the cradle of Kangra paintings. A ruined fort built by Raja Hari Chand Katoch exists on the hills of Haripur.

These sites, among others, collectively narrate the rich and multifaceted history of Kangra district, from its ancient origins to its medieval glory and subsequent transformations.

Section X: Kangra School of Miniature Painting

The Kangra School of Miniature Painting is one of the most refined and celebrated schools of Indian art, flourishing in the Pahari hill states, with Kangra as its principal center of patronage and development.

• A. Origin and Development:
  
  • The Kangra painting style emerged in the mid-18th century, evolving from and eventually overshadowing the earlier Basohli school of painting.
  • Its genesis is traced to Guler, a small hill state in the Lower Himalayas (an offshoot of the Kangra kingdom), in the first half of the 18th century. Around this time, a family of Kashmiri painters, trained in the Mughal painting style, including the notable Pandit Seu and his talented sons Manaku (Manuku) and Nainsukh, sought patronage at the court of Raja Dalip Singh of Guler (r. 1695–1741).
  • These artists, mingling with local traditions and influenced by the serene atmosphere of the hills, adapted their themes and styles. Instead of focusing solely on flattering court portraits, they increasingly depicted themes of eternal love, particularly the romance of Radha and Krishna. This early phase in Guler is considered the foundational stage of the Kangra Kalam (style).
  • The artistry was significantly advanced by Nainsukh (c. 1710-1778) and Manaku. Other important artists who contributed to the development and proliferation of this art form between the 18th and 19th centuries include Gaudhu (son of Nainsukh), Kama, Nikka, Ranjha, Khushala, Kishan Lal, Basia, and Purkhoo
• B. Patronage of Maharaja Sansar Chand II:
  
  • The Kangra school of painting reached its zenith during the reign of Maharaja Sansar Chand Katoch of Kangra (r. 1775/1776–1823/1824). He was an ardent devotee of Lord Krishna and a great patron of the arts.
  • Painters working at his atelier received generous commissions and land grants, making Kangra the most important center of Pahari painting. So voluminous was the output that the Pahari painting school itself came to be widely known as the Kangra painting school.
  • The Maharaja Sansar Chand Museum, adjoining the Kangra Fort and founded by the former Royal Family of Kangra, houses numerous masterpieces of this art form.
  • Even after the Gorkha invasion in 1805 disturbed the atelier, Sansar Chand tried to revive the art at Tira-Sujanpur, though the earlier vibrancy was somewhat diminished.
• C. Themes and Subjects:
  
  • The predominant theme of Kangra painting is Shringara Rasa (the Erotic Sentiment or sentiment of love), often expressed through the divine love of Radha and Krishna. These paintings frequently portray incidents from the life of the young Krishna, set against the idyllic backdrop of Brindavan forests or the banks of the river Yamuna, inspired by texts like the Bhagavata Purana and Jayadeva’s Gita Govinda.
  • Other popular themes included romantic tales like those of Nala and Damayanti, and illustrations from Keshavdas’s Baramasa (depicting the twelve months and associated emotions).
  • Portraits of rulers and court scenes were also created, especially in the earlier phases.
• D. Stylistic Features:
  
  • Lyrical and Naturalistic Drawing: The Guler-Kangra art is fundamentally an art of drawing, characterized by precise, fluid, lyrical, and naturalistic lines.
  • Delicate and Fresh Colors: Artists used a palette of cool, fresh colors extracted from minerals and vegetables, possessing an enamel-like luster. They employed various shades of primary colors, using delicate and fresher hues. For instance, light pink was often used on upper hills to indicate distance. The colors were meticulously prepared, sometimes involving rigorous grinding or boiling of natural materials.
  • Depiction of Nature: Verdant greenery of the landscape, flowering plants, creepers, brooks, and springs are recurrent and beautifully rendered images.
  • Feminine Charm: Kangra paintings are renowned for their graceful and delicate depiction of feminine charm. Facial features are soft and refined, and female figures are portrayed with exceptional beauty.
  • Composition: Paintings were often large and featured complex compositions with many figures and elaborate landscapes. Towns and house clusters were frequently depicted in the distance.
  • Later Developments: Later Kangra paintings also incorporated nocturnal scenes, storms, and lightning, showcasing the artists’ versatility.
  • A natural poison, often derived from smoke gathered from places with continuous holy fire, was used to protect the paintings from decay.
• E. Differentiation from other Pahari Schools (e.g., Basohli):
  
  • While both are part of the broader Pahari tradition, Kangra painting is distinguished from the earlier Basohli style by its greater naturalism, subtlety, and refinement. Basohli paintings are often characterized by bold lines, intense, hot colors (like deep reds and yellows), and a more vigorous, less delicate approach. Kangra painting, in contrast, emphasizes softer contours, cooler and more pastel-like shades, and a more lyrical and romantic mood. The depiction of faces and figures in Kangra art is more naturalistic and less stylized than in Basohli.
• F. Spread and Legacy:
  
  • From Guler and Kangra, the style spread to other hill states like Mandi, Suket, Kullu, Arki, Nalagarh, and Tehri Garhwal (represented by Mola Ram), contributing to the broader Pahari painting tradition patronized by Rajput rulers between the 17th and 19th centuries. Other main centers included Chamba and Nurpur.
  • The Kangra painting style was registered under the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, on 2nd April 2012, recognizing its unique origin and characteristics.
  • Today, efforts are made to preserve this art form, with the state patronizing some of the few remaining masters.

The Kangra School of Miniature Painting represents a high point in Indian artistic achievement, celebrated for its exquisite beauty, emotional depth, and technical finesse. Its development under the Katoch rulers, especially Maharaja Sansar Chand II, transformed Kangra into a vibrant cultural center whose artistic legacy continues to be admired globally.

Section XI: Conclusion

The history of Kangra district is a rich tapestry woven with threads of ancient kingdoms, resilient dynasties, transformative invasions, colonial administration, and post-independence development. From its origins as the ancient Trigarta kingdom, a martial confederacy mentioned in epic texts, through the long and distinguished rule of the Katoch dynasty, Kangra has consistently held a position of strategic and cultural significance in the Himalayan foothills. The Katoch rulers, particularly figures like Susarman, Ghamand Chand, and the celebrated Maharaja Sansar Chand II, shaped the political and cultural contours of the region, their reigns marked by periods of ascendancy, conflict, and remarkable artistic patronage, most notably the Kangra school of miniature painting.

The formidable Kangra Fort, a silent sentinel through millennia, stands as a testament to the region’s turbulent past, having witnessed the ambitions of numerous invaders, from Mahmud of Ghazni and the Delhi Sultans to the Mughals, Gorkhas, and Sikhs. Each conquest and period of suzerainty left its imprint on the administrative and socio-cultural fabric of Kangra. The Mughal era brought a policy of strategic control, while the brief but devastating Gorkha occupation led to significant hardship. The subsequent Sikh rule under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, administered by capable Nazims like Desa Singh Majithia and Lehna Singh Majithia, brought a new political order before the region was annexed by the British in 1846.

British dominion ushered in an era of systematic land settlements under officials like G.C. Barnes and J.B. Lyall, which fundamentally altered land rights and revenue administration. This period also saw the devastating earthquake of 1905 and the rise of the Indian freedom struggle, in which Kangra played its part with notable contributions from figures like Baba Kanshi Ram.

Post-independence, Kangra’s merger with Himachal Pradesh in 1966 and the subsequent administrative reorganization in 1972, which led to the formation of the present-day district, marked new phases of development. Key projects like the Shahnehar irrigation scheme and the establishment of institutions like the CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya in Palampur have been pivotal in the socio-economic advancement of the district. The steady development of industrial areas and tourism infrastructure further underscores Kangra’s journey towards modernity.

For aspirants of competitive examinations in Himachal Pradesh, a thorough understanding of Kangra’s multifaceted history – its ancient roots, the lineage and achievements of its rulers, the impact of various invasions and administrative systems, key dates, significant cultural contributions like the Kangra paintings, and post-independence developments – is indispensable. The district’s enduring legacy, from the martial prowess of Trigarta to the artistic finesse of its painters and the resilience of its people, continues to shape its identity within the vibrant mosaic of Himachal Pradesh and India.