Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c9.s2: Dhruva Dhārāvarsha

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c9.s2

Language
English

Dhruva Dhārāvarsha

c9.s2.1

After the overthrow of his elder brother above described, Dhruva ascended the throne. From the Dhulia plates of Govinda II, we find that Dhruva was still professing himself to be a subordinate of his elder brother in 779 A.D. In what year precisely he overthrew his brother and ascended the throne is not definitely known at present. From Jinasena's *Harivans'a*, we learn that in 783 A.D. king Śrīvallabha, son of Kṛṣṇa, was ruling the south. This statement, however, does not enable us to determine the date of the accession of Dhruva, for the description 'Śrīvallabha, son of Kṛṣṇa,' can suit Govinda II as well as Dhruva. It is true that the Paithan plates of Govinda III issued soon after his accession, mention Srīvallabha as an epithet of Govinda II and Kalivallabha as that of Dhruva. But Srāvanbelgola Inscription No. 24, which is an almost contemporary document, describes the father of Stambha, *i. e.* Dhruva, as Srīvallabha.¹³ Another contemporary record from Matakeri in Mysore district¹⁴ refers to Dhārāvarsha Srīvallabha as the overlord of Kambarasa, proving thereby that Dhruva was known both by the epithets of Srīvallabha and Kalivallabha. Since Srīvallabha was thus the epithet of both Govinda II and his immediate successor Dhruva, Srīvallabha mentioned by Jinasena as ruling in 783 A.D. can be either Govinda or Dhruva. But since the latest known date of Govinda II is 779 A.D. which is supplied by the Dhulia plates discussed above, it may be reasonably assumed that Srīvallabha, who is mentioned by Jinasena as ruling over the south in 783 A.D. may have been Dhruva rather than Govinda II. For, if we place the usurpation subsequent even to 783 A.D., say in 784 or 785 A.D., Dhruva will have a short reign of about 8 years. His extensive conquests in the south and north, which will be soon described, will make it abundantly clear that they presupposed a somewhat longer reign.

c9.s2.2

¹³ E. C., I.

c9.s2.3

¹⁴ E. C., IV, p. 93.

c9.s2.4

At the time of his accession in c. 780 A.D. Dhruva was a mature man of about 50; for, when the Dhulia plates were issued in 779 A.D., his son was a grown-up man invested with the *Pañchamahās'abdas*, and taking an active part in the administration. Dhruva's age, however, had not quenched his military ambition as his *biruda* 'Kalivallabha', 'one who loves strife or war,' will show. After his accession Dhruva must have spent some time in consolidating his position by compelling the refractory feudatories, who were about to overthrow his brother's yoke,¹⁵ to recognise his sovereignty. Then he proceeded to punish those of his neighbours who had sided with his brother in the war of succession. We have seen already how the rulers of Talwad, Kanchi, Vengi, and Malva had championed the cause of his brother. It is precisely against these kings that we find the armies of Dhruva operating during the greater part of his reign.

c9.s2.5

¹⁵ See *ante*, p. 51 foot-note No. 10.

c9.s2.6

Dhruva first proceeded to punish his southern neighbours. The first blow was directed against the Ganga principality. The aged Ganga ruler Śrī-purusha Mutta-raśa who was defeated by his father Kṛṣṇa I, was now dead, and was succeeded by his son Sivamāra II. The Manne plates, (16) alleged to have been issued in 797 A.D., are no doubt spurious, but the statement made therein, that Sivamāra was interested in logic, dramaturgy and Pātañjala-Mahābhāshya may well have been founded on good tradition; it would show that he was more a scholar than an administrator. His authorship of a book on war-elephants did not prove to him of much avail against the elephant-phalanx of Dhruva, who managed to defeat and imprison him. The statement in the Rāshṭrakūṭa records that the Ganga ruler was imprisoned (17) is confirmed by some Ganga documents as well. The Manne grant, above referred to, states that Sivamāra was entangled on all sides in difficulties. The Gattiyadpur plates inform us (18) that Sivamāra put his younger brother Vijayāditya upon the throne who, like Bharata, knowing the earth to be his elder brother's wife, refrained from enjoying her. The simile makes it quite clear that Sivamāra was absent from the kingdom in the Rāshṭrakūṭa prison, and that his younger brother was trying to carry on the struggle against the invading forces in the absence of the de jure ruler. Dhruva, however, was completely successful in his expedition; he appointed his eldest son Stambha to govern the newly conquered province.

c9.s2.7

¹⁶ E. C., XI, p. 41. 17 See Wani-Dindori plates, 11, 9—10; I.A., XI, p. 157. 18 E. C., XII, Nanjangad No, 129.

c9.s2.8

After the annexation of the Ganga principality, Dhruva attacked the Pallava ruler and besieged his capital Kanchi. A verse in the Radhanpur plates informs us that the Pallava ruler was defeated and compelled to surrender a large number of war-elephants to the victor.

c9.s2.9

After punishing his southern neighbours for siding with his elder brother, Dhruva turned his attention to Northern India. As Dharmapāla of Bengal is known to have married a Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess, Raṇṇādevī, daughter of king Parabala, ¹⁹ it was once believed that Dhruva had undertaken the northern expedition as an ally of Dharmapāla against their common enemy Vatsarāja, the Gurjara-Pratīhāra ruler. This view is, however, no longer tenable as the v. 14 ²⁰ of the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarṣa I, recently published, distinctly says that Dhruva fought also against the Gauda ruler in his northern expedition. The real motive of the northern campaign of Dhruva seems to have been to teach a lesson to Vatsarāja, ²¹ who had tried to espouse the cause of Govinda II.

c9.s2.10

19. The identity of this Rāṣṭrakūṭa prince is still uncertain. He cannot be Parabala of the Pathari pillar inscription, for the latter's date is 861 A.D. (E. I., IX, p. 248). The reign of Dharmapāla had ended about 50 years at least before that year, and therefore he could not have been Parabala's son-in-law. Fleet had proposed to identify him with Govinda III (*Dynasties*, p. 198), but this ruler is not known to have had this *biruda*.

c9.s2.11

20. Cf. गङ्गायमुनयोर्मध्ये राज्ञो गौडस्य नश्यतः । लक्ष्मीलीलारविन्दानि श्वेतच्छत्राणि योऽहरत् ॥

c9.s2.12

21. The statement of Jinasena पूर्वाम् श्रीमदवन्तिभूभृतिनृपे वत्सादिराजे......। has to be understood to mean that Vatsarāja was ruling at Avanti', especially since we know from the Sanjan plates that there was a Gurjara-Pratīhāra ruler at Avanti in the time of Dantidurga also. The Malava ruler, who helped Govinda II, must, therefore, have been this Vatsarāja or perhaps a local governor of his, and one of the reasons that induced Dhruva to undertake this expedition in the north must have been to punish the Gurjara-Pratīhāra ruler for his partisanship with Govinda II.

c9.s2.13

Later on Dhruva may have attacked Dharmapāla as well, as the latter may have tried to thwart his plans, regarding him as a possible rival in the overlordship of the north towards which he himself was aiming.

c9.s2.14

It is not necessary for us to enter into a detailed discussion of the very complicated history of northern India of this period. Only facts, relevant for our enquiry, need be referred to. The Gwalior inscription of Bhoja I²² of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra dynasty informs us that his great-grand-father Vatsarāja had wrested away the empire from the Bhaṇḍi family. Kanauj in our period was occupying the position of Pataliputra in an earlier age, and we know from the *Harshacharita* that Bhaṇḍi was a maternal-uncle of Harsha. Indrāyudha, who was at this time ruling over Kanauj, may probably have been a descendant of this maternal-uncle of Harsha, and it is possible that his family in that case may have been known as Bhaṇḍikula. The statement in the Gwalior inscription that Vatsarāja forcibly wrested the empire from Bhaṇḍikula may support the view that soon after 783 A.D., Vatsarāja attacked Kanauj and defeated its ruler Indrāyudha. Indrāyudha does not seem to have been immediately deposed; for some time he continued to occupy the imperial throne at Kanauj as a mere puppet in the hands of the conqueror. This must have roused the jealousy of Dharmapāla, who was also an aspirant for the overlordship of northern India. Dharmapāla decided to champion the cause of Chakrāyudha, who was probably a relative of Indrāyudha. The Bengal ruler, however, suffered a reverse in the beginning; for a verse²³ in the Waṇi-Diṇḍori plates states that Vatsarāja was elated by the easy victory that he had scored over the lord of the Gaudas. The Bengal ruler defeated by him could not have been Gopāla, for the latter is not known to have sent any expedition outside the province of Bengal. The Sanjan plates, on the other hand, show that the armies of Dharmapāla were operating in the Ganges-Jumna Doab in the course of his wars with the Gurjara-Pratīhāras.

c9.s2.15

²² A. S. R., 1903-4 p. 280.

c9.s2.16

²³ Cf. हेलास्वीकृतगौडराजकमलमतम्.....वत्सराजम्।

c9.s2.17

At the time of Dhruva's intervention in the northern Indian politics, Dharmapāla had again rallied up his forces and advanced into the Doab with a view to capture Kanauj. Dhruva must have first attacked Vatsarāja, his immediate neighbour, in c. 789 A.D. The latter was probably engaged in meeting the second invasion of Dharmapāla, and so Dhruva could get a decisive victory, capturing the two white umbrellas of the Bengal ruler which Vatsarāja had snatched away from him in a former battle. This defeat of Vatsarāja brought Dhruva into contact and conflict with Dharmapāla, who was already in the Doab. Each must have regarded the other as standing in the way of the realization of his imperial ambition and a conflict was inevitable. We have no details of the military operations, but the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarsha I, distinctly assert²⁴ that the defeat of the Gauda king took place in the Ganges-Jumna Doab. The statement in the Sanjan plates is confirmed by verse 22 of the Surat plates of Karka Suvarṇavarsha, which I am at present editing for the Epigraphia Indica, where Dhruva and God Śiva are both described as 'Gāṅgaughasantatinirodhavivṛddhakīrtiḥ.'24a There is a pun on the expression, and with reference to Dhruva, it can refer both to his imprisonment of the Ganga ruler, as well as to his campaign in Ganges valley. The term ogha is not very happy if taken in connection with the imprisonment of the Ganga ruler. It can be more appropriate with reference to the campaign in the Ganges valley, when the huge southern army, consisting of elephants, horses and soldiers may have, while encamped on the banks of the Ganges, appeared to be obstructing the flow of that river either while bathing in it or crossing it across.

c9.s2.18

²⁴ गङ्गायसुनयोमध्ये राज्ञो गौडस्य नश्यतः । लक्ष्मीलीलाविन्दानि श्वेतच्छत्राणि योऽहरत् ॥

c9.s2.19

24a Likely to be published in E. I., vol, XX or XXI.

c9.s2.20

And finally the verse:—

c9.s2.21

यो गङ्गायमुने तरङ्गसुभगेऽप्युल्लङ्घ्य परेभ्यः समम् ।
साक्षाच्चिह्ननिभेन चोत्तमपदं तत्प्राप्तवानीश्वरम् ॥

c9.s2.22

in the Baroda plates (25) of Karka Suvarṇavarsha has now to be interpreted as referring to Dhruva's occupation of the Ganges-Jumna Doab; the poet imagines that the acquisition of heaven by Dhruva, which is mentioned in the latter half of this verse, was due to his being in possession of the holy Jumna and the Ganges. Prinsep's view that this verse refers to Dhruva's drowning himself in the confluence of the Ganges and the Jumna (26) can no longer be accepted.

c9.s2.23

Dhruva's expedition in northern India was merely of the nature of a digvijaya. It probably brought him no substantial gain, apart from fame and booty, that might have been obtained. Boundaries of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire did not alter as a result of his successes against Vatsarāja and Dharmapāla. It does not seem that he was in a position to follow up his victories in the Doab by marching upon the capital of either of his opponents. He was far away from his base; and perhaps he was too old to press his armies on to Kanauj. It is also possible that he was anticipating some trouble about the succession after his death, and was, therefore, anxious to return to the south in order to abdicate in favour of his favourite son Govinda. Whatever the real causes, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa armies soon retired to the south, enhancing no doubt the military prestige of the empire, but adding very little to its area.

c9.s2.24

Dhruva died some time between April 793 and May 794 A.D. ²⁷ He was one of the ablest of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa rulers. During a short reign of about 13 years he not only reestablished the Rāṣṭrakūṭa ascendency in the south, which was seriously endangered by his predecessor's loose and vicious government, but made the Rāṣṭrakūṭas an *all-India* power. For the first time after the Andhra occupation of portions of Northern India, after a lapse of nearly nine centuries, a Deccanese force crossed the Vindhyas and entered into the very heart of *Madhyades'a*, defeating each of the two rival claimants for the imperial position in the North. His deposition of his elder brother is an unfortunate circumstance casting reflections upon his moral character; but if Govinda was really a weak and vicious ruler, which certainly seems to have been the case, there was more than ample political justification for the step taken by Dhruva. His northern campaigns no doubt did not result in the enlargement of the Empire in that direction, but in the south, after the imprisonment of the Ganga ruler, his dominions were annexed ²⁸ and the boundary of the Empire was pushed to the Kāverī.

c9.s2.25

²⁵ I. A., XII, pp. 157 ff.

c9.s2.26

²⁶ J. A. S. B., 1839, pp. 304 ff.

c9.s2.27

²⁷ Dhruva was living when the Daulatabad plates were issued in April 793 and dead when the Paithan plates were issued by his son in May, 794 A.D.

c9.s2.28

²⁸ From an inscription at Matakeri in Mysore district, we learn that Stambha was the governor of Gangawadi when Dhārāvarsha S'rīvallabha was ruling the earth. E. C., IV, p. 93.

Linked texts (7)