Here is the full story of the early history of Rājataraṅgiṇī editions:

It was William Moorcroft, a veterinary surgeon, who had commissioned a

Devanāgarī transcript of a birch-bark codex written in the Kashmirian Śāradā script
during his stay in Srinagar in 1823. He did so on behalf of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,
who had become curious when rumours were heard that a history book should exist
in Kashmir and asked him to go for a search on it on the spot in Kashmir. That was
actually the beginning. Moorcroft was successful. From the Nāgarī transcript of the
manuscript written in Śāradā characters he had brought back to Calcutta, the Bengali
Paṇḍits there prepared the first printed edition in 1835:

The Rája Taranginí; A History of Cashmír; Consisting of Four Separate Compilations:

... Commenced under the Auspices of the General Committee of Public. Instruction;
transferred to the Asiatic Society; with other unfinished oriental works; and
completed in 1835. Calcutta, 1835.

However, neither the Paṇḍits of Kashmir, who made the Nāgarī transcript from the
local Śāradā script they were accustomed to, nor the Bengali Paṇḍits who
subsequently prepared the edition in characters different from their own Bengali
script, had received any training in palaeography or in textual criticism. The printed
result abounds in countless transcriptional errors. The text is distorted to a degree
that scholars (including Śrīkaṇṭh Kaul) pronounced a unanimous verdict on it as
being virtually useless. Even the names of kings and other individuals have at times
become corrupted to such extent that their original form can only be recognized
through consulting later editions or manuscripts. Troyer and Dutt translated from
the distorted Editio princeps. They cannot really be expected to have surpassed a
defective textual basis by their translations. Moreover, what Dutt had actually done
was to paraphrase, but not to translate, his corrupted text. Kaul’s judgement was that
Dutt “should not be used as a source book.” Yet, reprints of Dutt are still on the
market, and historians keep on gullibly referring to his translation as if it was
equivalent to an original source, which it is not. Therefore, these first attempts were a
complete failure. They belong to the prehistory of Rājataraṅgiṇi scholarship.

It was only after Georg Bühler’s discovery of Ratnakaṇṭha’s Rājataraṅgiṇī copy in

Śrīnagar, which was later used by Aurel Stein as codex archetypus for his pathbreaking
work in the shape of a first critical edition (note the difference!) and richly annotated
translation. From this point on the text became comprehensible within its
geographical and cultural contexts. Kalhaṇa was received with much applause by the
world of scholars.

The extant manuscripts and their proveniences are recorded in the introductions to
the respective critical editions by Aurel Stein and Vishva Bandhu:

1) Kalhaṇa's Rājataraṅgiṇī. Chronicle of the kings of Kaśmīr. Sanskrit text with crit.
notes. Ed. by M. A. STEIN. Bombay 1892.

2) Rājataraṅgiṇī of Kalhaṇa. Ed., critically, and annotated ... by VISHVA BANDHU. Pt.
1–2. [Woolner Indological Series. 8.] Hoshiarpur 1963–1965.
Since Vishva Bandhu could collate more manuscripts than Stein had had at his
disposal in the early days and hence reports additional variant readings (including
the important variants of the Lahore manuscript, but omitting the still more
important variants of manuscript M discovered by Eugen Hultzsch in Kashmir), I
recommend Vishva Bandhu’s one. It should ideally be reprinted in India.

Another point:

Manuscripts were copied by commissioned scribes or by the owners themselves and

then kept in princely or private libraries. Gathering dust of the centuries there on the
shelves is one thing, but “reception” is quite another. Reception means the encounter
with a given work, its broader study and discussion, and above all a continued effect
exercised on other literati. From the quotes and references made to an author in
different texts we can tell if a reception of his work has taken place or not. If one just
compares it to the inner-Indian reception of other works authored by outstanding
Kavis it becomes clear that Kalhaṇa was not given the honour of an equal reception.
With the exception of Kashmir, India turned their backs on him.

If it is true that “he who controls the past controls the future”, we might ask
ourselves who actually prevents India from doing the necessary by taking full
control of its past by appreciating their own historians? In the light of numberless
Kāvya texts edited, translated and studied, what has caused this widespread
disinterest in the genii of Kalhaṇa’s kind? While the study of ancient Greek and Latin
historians was until recently a central element in European syllabi, why is Kalhaṇa
not being made compulsory in school and university curricula in India? If history
teaches, one could learn incredibly much from his and his successors’ literary gems,
all going by the name of Rājataraṅgiṇī. Lack of interest has it that more than one
thousand years of historical and eyewitnesses’ accounts of king- and sultanship in
the medieval and early modern eras have passed by largely ignored by the majority
of the people. Obviously it is story (Rāmāyaṇa) which is intended to beat history
(Rājataraṅgiṇī).

Let me close with the concluding remark that Kalhaṇa was a towering figure also in
another respect. His innovative historical poetry builds on affirmed authentic facts
(yathābhūtam), on the basis of which it generates emotional responses on the part of
the reader and thereby aims at prompting liberating effects. Actually, it comes as a
Mokṣaśāstra in didactic disguise: Depicting the fates and deeds of the rulers, Kalhaṇa
and his followers in this literary genre employ suitable suggestive expression
(dhvani) productive of the sentiment (rasa) of equanimity (śānta).
Thus, the Rājataraṅgiṇī deserves special appreciation also from the spiritual seeker:
Liberation through history couched in the words of touching poetry.

I have to ask for your understanding that due to pressing commitments it is

impossible for me to continue this discussion any longer.

Kind regards,
Walter Slaje