Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Naga–Vakataka Imperial Period c15.s1: VII. The Vākāṭakas

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Nāga–Vākāṭaka Imperial Period c15.s1

Language
English

VII. The Vākāṭakas

c15.s1.1

52. From the Vākāṭaka inscriptions the following facts are well-established. A dynasty, which took for its name Vākāṭaka, came into existence about a century before Samudra Gupta’s conquests. The first king of the dynasty was Vindhyaśakti², a Brahmin. Their gotra was Viṣṇu-vṛddha—a subdivision of the Bhāradvājas. The second king of the dynasty was Pravarasena; the kings coming after him all assume their regnal names ending in °sena. Pravarasena, son of Vindhyaśakti, to be known hereafter as Pravarasena I, not only performed four aśvamedha sacrifices but also assumed the title of Samrāṭ, i.e. the Emperor of India. He had a long reign, so much so that his eldest son Gautamīputra could not succeed him, but his grandson Rudrasena I succeeded him. His son Gautamīputra was from a Brahmin lady, which is clear from his name. But Gautamīputra himself was married to the daughter of the Bhāraśiva king Bhava Nāga—a Kshatriya. The son of this union was Rudrasena, grandson of Pravarasena I and Bhava Nāga. We have to call him Rudrasena I, as names were repeated in consonance with the orthodox Hindu law—a practice also followed by the Guptas. Rudrasena’s son was Pṛthivīsheṇa I, by whose time the family had existed for 100 years:

c15.s1.2

² This seems to be an assumed name, an abhiṣheka-nāma, after the name of the country of his rise.

c15.s1.3

1 ‘Varsha-śatam-abhivardhamāna-kośa-daṇḍa-sādhana-’ meaning:

c15.s1.4

‘—whose treasure and means of government had been accumulating for a hundred years’—(Fleet, G. I., p. 241). This Pṛithivīsheṇa, whose political wisdom, heroism and good government are praised, subjugated the king of Kuntala, which was the name for a part of the Karṇāṭaka country and the Kadamba kingdom, with which we shall deal later. Rudrasena II, son of Pṛithivīsheṇa I, was married to the daughter of Chandra Gupta II, Vikramāditya, whose name was Prabhāvatī Guptā, born of the Empress Kubera Nāgā, a princess of the Nāga dynasty. Prabhāvatī Guptā ruled as regent after the death of her husband Rudrasena II, as guardian to her minor son Yuvarāja Divākarasena who was in his thirteenth year when the Poona Plates were issued by the Queen-Mother, and subsequently to another son called Damodarasena-Pravarasena who succeeded Divākarasena and who issued a charter in his nineteenth year, which has come down to us.² The double name Damodarasena-Pravarasena proves the practice that these kings had two names, one the pre-coronation, and the other the coronation name which in the Champā (Cambodia) inscription is called the Abhisheka-nāma.³ Similarly the Gupta Emperor Chandra Gupta II had two names, one Deva Gupta and the other Chandra Gupta.⁴ Damodarasena-Pravarasena would have assumed kingship when 25 years of age, as that is the age laid down by the Śāstras for obtaining coronation.⁵ Prabhāvatī Guptā had thus a regency of about 20 years during the minority of her two sons. Neither Prabhāvatī Guptā nor her son when he came of age, ever used the Gupta Era. We may, therefore, conclude with certainty that the position of the Vākāṭakas was such as the Gupta Era was not required to be used in the Vākāṭaka dominions during the reigns of Chandra Gupta II and his successors. Although the Vākāṭakas after Samudra Gupta were in the Empire of the Guptas, they were full sovereigns. From the Ajaṇṭā inscriptions and the Bālāghāṭ plates it is also clear that they had their own feudatories and they made war and peace on their own account. They subdued the kings of Trikūṭa, Kuntala, the Andhras, etc. and kept them as their feudatories. Their kingdom commenced in the western portion of Bundelkhand where Bundelkhand begins, in Ajaygarh and Pannā, and covered the whole of the Central Provinces and Berars, and with the Trikūṭa territory which was situated in northern Konkan, they were also masters of the northern part of the Maratha country, up to the sea. They were next-door to Kuntala, i.e. Karṇāṭaka, and the Andhra country. Their direct rule covered all the land on the table-land of the Vindhyas and the valley between the Vindhyas and the Satpura with the Maikal range. They controlled the passage through the Ajaṇṭā ghats to the South. Their empire included S. Kosala and Andhra, Western Malwā and Northern Hyderabad (§§ 73 ff.), apart from their Bhāraśiva inheritance. They had thus a very large kingdom under their direct control, which in the reign of Samudra Gupta had been reduced, but which in the next reign was fully restored and revived, and very likely it was so restored in the reign of Samudra Gupta himself, as Pṛthivīsheṇa I waged war against the newly constituted Kadamba kingdom and reduced its king to a subordinate position (§§ 82, 203).

c15.s1.5

¹ The Chamak, Dudia, and Bālāghāṭ plates (See § 61A.).

c15.s1.6

² Second Poona plates. I.A., 53, p. 48.

c15.s1.7

³ Champā, by Dr. R. C. Majumdar, p. 157.

c15.s1.8

⁴ J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, p. 38.

c15.s1.9

⁵ Hindu Polity, II, p. 52.

c15.s1.10

53. Their history remains mostly uninterpreted without the aid of the Purāṇas and without reference to the history of India under the Bhāraśiva empire. With their aid we shall now relate the Vākāṭaka history. It is really the history of India for over half a century which we have to call the Vākāṭaka Period. Its importance is very great, both for the period and as explaining the rise and course of the next imperial period, i.e. of the Gupta Empire. The Guptas merely took over the empire already established by Pravarasena I, both territorially and culturally. If there had been no Vākāṭaka Empire, there would have been no Gupta Empire.

c15.s1.11

54. Pravarasena I was the first king who superseded the old orthodox imperial title of Dviraśvamedha-Yājin, ‘Performer of Two Aśvamedhas,’ which had been revived some five centuries before, after a lapse of several centuries, by P u ṣ y a m i t r a Ś u ṅ g a, Emperor of Āryāvarta, and by Śrī Sātakarṇi I, Emperor of Dakṣiṇāpatha. The Emperor Pravarasena performed Four Aśvamedhas, and also Bṛihaspati-sava—a ritual open only to Brahmins. Along with them he performed Vājapeyas and several other Vedic sacrifices. Unlike the Bhāraśivas, he assumed the title of Samrāṭ, to which he was fully entitled as he seems to have brought the South also under his control (§§ 82, 176), and achieved a result which had been unachieved after the imperial Mauryas. A great portion of northern Dakṣiṇāpatha, we find, becoming integral part of his dominions.

c15.s1.12

55. It is possible, though strange, that the empire of the Vākāṭakas should not receive up to this time even a line in modern text-books on Indian history, but it is not possible for the Purāṇas not to include the dynasty of Vindhyaśakti and Pravarasena in their chronicles. It was not a small thing to perform Four Aśvamedhas, and assume the title of S a m r ā ṭ bringing oneself in line with Māndhātā and Vasu. The Purāṇas, which register even the foreign dynasties in India, could not have missed Pravarasena and his family. And, as a matter of fact, they have not missed them. After registering the fall of the Tukhāra, i.e. the Kushan dynasty they immediately give the dynasty of the V i n d h y a k a s, of which they give the founder's name as V i n d h y a ś a k t i, whose son is called P r a v i r a. That name is described as a ‘popular name’ and it literally means ‘the great hero’. His Vājapeya sacrifices are recorded by them and one edition of the Vāyu Purāṇa which is really the original Brahmāṇḍa,¹ instead of reading Vājapeya reads Vājimedha, i.e. ‘Horse-Sacrifice’, and the word is put in the plural [*Vājimedhaiś cha*]¹ which means, according to Sanskrit grammar, that he performed three or more Horse-Sacrifices. His reign is given as one of 60 years, which as being long, stands corroborated by the Vākāṭaka inscriptions and by the fact of his four aśvamedhas which must cover, on account of the protracted nature of the sacrifice and the intervals necessary, 40 to 50 years. Three facts completely establish the identity, viz. (1) the period of the rise of Vindhyaśakti and Pravīra which comes in the Purāṇas before the Guptas and after the Tukhāras, (2) the name of the founder of the dynasty being identical, (3) the vājimedhas (Horse-Sacrifices) and the long reign of Pravīra. Add to this, the inter-connection which the Purāṇas establish between the Nāga dynasty and Pravarasena through the grandson which I have already discussed above. In the light of this identification we gain the whole history of the Vākāṭakas from the Purāṇas which the inscriptions by themselves fail to impart.

c15.s1.13

¹ e Vāyu of Pargiter agrees fully with the Brahmāṇḍa of Dr. Hall. The present printed text of the Brahmāṇḍa is an amended edition. Brahmāṇḍa MSS. are so rare that neither Mr. Pargiter nor I could find any.

c15.s1.14

¹ Pargiter, P.T., p. 50, n. 35.

c15.s1.15

56. That the Vākāṭakas were Brahmins admits of no doubt. They did *Bṛihaspati-sava* sacrifices, which are intended for and open to Brahmins only. About the exclusive character of *Bṛihaspati-sava* the tradition never changed. Their gotra, *Viṣṇu Vṛiddha*, is a Brahmin gotra, still surviving in the Maratha country.² Then, Vindhyaśakti is expressly called *dvija* or Brahmin [*dvijaḥ prakāśo bhuvi Vindhyaśaktiḥ*].³ As to the place of their origin, the Purāṇic description—the ‘Vindhyaka’ or ‘the Vindhyan’ dynasty—limits the problem to the Vindhyan country, and their further localization fixes the exact spot. The Vindhyakas, i.e. the Vākāṭakas, arose on the river or in the country called Kilakilā (*Kilakilāyām*). One might have thought of identifying this river with the Kiyān, the Ken of the maps, but no room for speculation is left, as my friend Rai Bahadur Hiralal has himself seen the Kilakilā—a small river near Panna—having a bad reputation for its unhealthy water.⁴ We are thus brought to the very area, Ajaygarh-Pannā where the earliest Vākāṭaka inscriptions are found, that is the district of Ganj-Nachnā. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa, in describing the Vidiśā Nāgas and Praviraka, calls the whole group ‘the Kilakilā kings’—that is, it treats Eastern Malwā [Vidiśā] and Kilakilā as one tract, or Eastern Malwā as included in Kilakilā. The location of the dynasty in Bundelkhand is thus unanimous.

c15.s1.16

² I am thankful to Professor D. R. Bhandarkar for this information.

c15.s1.17

³ A.W.S.R., Vol. IV, pp. 125 and 128 fn.—Plate LVII.

c15.s1.18

⁴ A full description of the river is now supplied to me by Mr. Śaradā

c15.s1.19

57. Let us now take up the history of the word Vākāṭaka. The phrase ‘Vākāṭakānāṁ Mahārāja Śrī—so-and-so,’ does not mean that the king so-and-so is the king of a people called Vākāṭakas, but only means the Mahārāja so-and-so ‘of the Vākāṭaka Dynasty’. The plural form Vākāṭakānāṁ simply means ‘of the Vākāṭaka dynasty’,¹ as in the case of the Kadambas the expression Kadambānāṁ and in the case of the contemporary Pallavas, Pallavāṇa² (Pkt. ‘of the Pallavas’)—‘Bhāraddāyo Pallāvaṇa Sivakhaṁḍa-vamo’—where ‘of the Pallavas’ stands quite independently.³ This is, therefore, not a tribal but a personal dynastic name. The form Vākāṭaka means ‘of the place “Vākāṭa” or “Vakāṭa”’, as in Samudra Gupta’s inscription, Māhā-Kāntāraka, Kausalaka, Paiṣṭhāpuraka, etc. signify (‘of Mahakāntāra’, ‘of Kosala’, ‘of Piṣṭhapura’).⁴ The dynastic name Traikūṭaka is an exact parallel. I found an ancient village called Bāgāṭ, in the northernmost part of the Orchhā State, 6 miles E. of Chirgaon of the British district of Jhansi. Its neighbouring village—a village called Bijaur—is often mentioned with Bāgāṭ, as Bijaur-Bāgāṭ. It is situated in the Tahrauli tahsil of Orchhā. It is between two rivulets, Kaynā and Ḍugraī, which fall into the Betwā. It is a large and ancient Brahmin village, mainly peopled by Bhāgaur Brahmins. The village is believed to be of Droṇāchārya, the famous military Brahmin mentioned in the Mahā-Bhārata.

c15.s1.20

¹ I.A., Vol. VI, p. 26.

c15.s1.21

² E.I., Vol. I, p. 5.

c15.s1.22

³ In editing the Balaghat plates of Prithivishena II, Kielhorn emphasized this point. E.I., Vol. IX, p. 269.

c15.s1.23

⁴ G.I., p. 234.

c15.s1.24

Prasad of Satna, Rewah, from which I find that I crossed the river twice in its search without knowing its name. It runs through Pannā. One crosses it on the way from Nāgaudh to Pannā. It is a thin stream. [See p. 8, n.]

c15.s1.25

There are two large caves there which were described to me to be about 25 yds. × 30 yds., and I was told that there were also sculptures there, which from the description given to me would appear to belong to what we call the Gupta age. The place has never been visited by any archæologist. A thorough exploration may result in the find of inscriptions and other valuable relics.

c15.s1.26

57A. It seems that the Brahmin who according to the Purāṇas was the first anointed king and the founder of the dynasty and who assumed the appropriate appellation of V i n d h y a ś a k t i, adopted the name of his town as his dynastic title. That the town of Vākāṭa is of ancient origin is proved by a pilgrim’s inscription at Amarāvatī where a common citizen, about 150 B.C., describes himself as a Vākāṭaka, i.e. as an original inhabitant of Vākāṭa.¹ The town might have borne even in those days the proud military tradition claiming association with D r o ṇ ā c h ā r y a, who, like the V ā k ā ṭ a k a s, was a B h ā r a d v ā j a Brahmin.

c15.s1.27

¹ E.I., Vol. XV, p. 267 (Inscription No. 27).

c15.s1.28

58. The older Purāṇas do not mention the caste of the Vindhyakas, but the Viṣṇu Purāṇa has fallen into a confusion by a misreading of the Matsya text. The Matsya Purāṇa after closing the Āndhra list and giving the dynasties contemporary with the Āndhras, says in Chapter 272, verse 24,— teshūtsanneshu Kālena tataḥ Kilakilā nṛipāḥ. With this line the Matsya closes its chronicles and then enters from verse 25 onwards on a description of the ‘Yavana’ rule, which means here the Kushan rule (Yauna, Yauvan²). The Viṣṇu reads the first line of that description along with the Kilakilā kings, the next line of the Matsya being bhavishyantīha Yavanā dharmato kāmato’rthataḥ. The author of the Viṣṇu paraphrases these two lines in these words—‘teshūchhanneshu Kailakilā Yavanā bhūpatayo bhavishyanti mūrdhābhishiktas teshām Vindhyaśaktiḥ’. In this the Viṣṇu is not followed by the Bhāgavata, and the commentator of the Viṣṇu gives another reading and explains it correctly that Vindhyaśakti, according to that

c15.s1.29

² J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, 201.

c15.s1.30

‘Kilakilā Yavanaḥ’
a wrong reading.

c15.s1.31

reading, was a Kshatriya (i.e., Hindu) chief. The other reading is thus given by the commentator—‘Vindhyaśakti-mūrdhābhi-shikta iti pāṭhe Kshatriya-mukhya ityarthah’. This variant reading did not make Vindhyaśakti a member of ‘the Kailakilā Yava-nas’. The mistake is obvious, being caused by reading the word Yavanāḥ of the next line of the Matsya along with the Kailakilāḥ. It should be noted that it is not a consistent, but only an occasional, reading. The commentator did not find the statement that the Kailakilas were Yavanas in all the manuscripts of the Vishnu Purāṇa. He found it omitted in some, as Mr. Pargiter has found it omitted in his h. Vṣ.¹ It seems that making the Kailakilas into Yavanas was a later emendation by some reviser of the text of Vishnu who consulted the Matsya text. Evidently the original edition did not have Yavanas here, and it is a later addition.

c15.s1.32

¹ P.T., page 48, f.n. 82.

c15.s1.33

59. The Purāṇas in detailing the rise of Vindhyaśakti state that Vindhyaśakti arose from the Kilakilā kings. Here it is clear that the Purāṇas mean the Nāgas who at that time were prominently connected with Kilakilā, as their name changes from ‘Vidiśā Vṛishas’ to ‘Kilakilā Vṛishas’, e.g. Vāyu:

c15.s1.34

tach-chhanena cha Kālena tataḥ Kilakilā-Vṛishāḥ
tataḥ K(a)ilakilebhyaś cha Vindhyaśaktir bhavishyati
* * * * *
Vṛishān Vaideśakāṁś chāpi bhavishyāṁś cha nibodhata ²

c15.s1.35

² Vāyu, verses 358-360; cf. Brahmāṇḍa, verses 178-179.

c15.s1.36

The Bhāgavata similarly describes the later Nāgas, commencing with Bhūta Nandi, as the kings of Kilakilā:

c15.s1.37

Kilakilāyāṁ nṛipatayo Bhūta-Nando’tha Vaṅgiriḥ
Śiśunandiś cha tad-bhrātā Yaśo-Nandiḥ Pravīrakaḥ ³

c15.s1.38

³ Verses 32-33. The Bhāgavata omits the statement of there having been kings between Yaśaḥ Nandi and Pravīra.

c15.s1.39

The Purāṇas treat Pravīra as coming in the line of the Kilakilā Vṛishas, i.e. the Bhāraśivas of Eastern Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand.

c15.s1.40

The meaning of the statement that Vindhyaśakti arose from the Kilakilā kings is that he arose first as their recognized feudatory or a full-fledged member of their confederacy. That he was constitutionally in a subordinate position is proved by the fact that the official deeds of the Vākāṭakas omit him and begin the line of their independent kings with Pravarasena. It is only in the family history [kshitipānupūrvi] given in the Ajanṭā cave inscription [Cave no. XVI], that Vindhyaśakti is described as the founder of the Vākāṭaka vaṃśa (Vākāṭaka-vaṃśa-ketuḥ). From the description it appears that Vindhyaśakti, whose strength grew in great battles and who by the valour of his arms gained (a kingdom) and became the banner of the Vākāṭaka dynasty and who remained a strict Brahmin throughout his career (chakāra puṇyeshu paraṃ prayatnam), was primarily a general of the Kilakilā Vrishas. His adoption of the name of his native town as his dynastic title shows that he had been an ordinary citizen and had no royal pedigree behind him. He takes patriotic pleasure in connecting himself with the Vindhyas and with Vākāṭa, his home. ‘Vindhyaśakti’ itself is obviously an assumed regnal name. He seems to have made large conquests in Andhra and Naishadha-Vidūra countries (§§75, 76A).

c15.s1.41

60. The capital from which Pravarasena I ruled was Chanakā (§24), and the Purāṇas imply that it had been in existence already; he is not called its founder. It seems that it was founded by Vindhyaśakti, if not by the Nāgas [§ 24, n.]. I am inclined to identify the connected site of the ancient fortified town now known as Ganj-Nachnā with the Chanakā or Kāñchanakā of the Vākāṭakas. Its strategic position implies that it was built by a newly-founded power, and may justify the assertion conveyed by the name Vindhyaśakti that the Vindhya was really his strength. The position of Ganj-Nachnā as described by General Cunningham is as follows:

c15.s1.42

The small village of Nāchna is situated 2 miles to the west of the town of Ganj, which is 25 miles to the S.-E. of Panna, and 15 miles to the S.-W. of Nāgodh ......... The spot [Nachnā] is covered with bricks, and there are

c15.s1.43

many remains of brick buildings on the road from Ganj to Nāchna. The people say that Kūthara [the name of the fort at Nāchnā] was a great city in former times, and that it was the capital of the king of the country. The site of Nāchna is still called Khās Kūthara . . . . . There is said to be a tunnel from the fort of Kūthara to the Satna or Gorena-nala which flows past Nāchna, and joins the Kiyān or Ken river, 11 miles to the S.-W. of Ganj . . . . . The position in the entrance of a valley had the great advantage of offering a safe retreat into the recesses of the Vindhya Hills on the east, west, and south, in case of attack.'¹

c15.s1.44

¹ Cunningham, A.S.R., vol. XXI, p. 95. The correct spelling is Nāchanā, not Nāchnā.

c15.s1.45

The site is distinguished by the two temples, described already, of Pārvatī and Chaturmukha, which have the figures of Gaṅgā and Yamunā on their doorways. Gaṅgā and Yamunā come to be peculiarly Vākāṭaka motifs inherited from the Bhāraśivas. The site is also known for three inscriptions of the reign of Pṛithivīsheṇa I. The temples are unique in the history of Indian architecture and sculpture, marking the beginning of what we call the Gupta Art. All these inscriptions are in Sanskrit.

Linked texts (8)