Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Vakataka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c13: Chapter IX. The Imperial Crisis

The Vākāṭaka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c13

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX. The Imperial Crisis

1. Internal Troubles

c13.s1.1

It is impossible, at the present state of our knowledge, to give a definite outline of the history of the Imperial Guptas after the death of Sakanda-gupta. We know the names of a number of kings, and in some cases also their relation to each other and definite dates. But there are kings whose date or relationship to other kings is not known with certainty, and naturally views differ widely about their place in the line of succession. Without discussing these differences in detail¹ we may offer below a provisional reconstruction of the Gupta history as appears to be the most reasonable.

c13.s1.2

¹ Cf. I.C. X, 172-3.

c13.s1.3

A number of royal seals (Nos. 34, 35, 41 and 44) discovered at Nālandā and Bhitari enable us to draw the following genealogy of the successors of Kumāra-gupta I all of whom are also known from their coins.

c13.s1.4

Kumāra-gupta I = Anantadevī

c13.s1.5

Skanda-gupta | Pūru-gupta = Chandradevī

c13.s1.6

Budha-gupta | Narasimha-gupta = Miradevī

c13.s1.7

Kumāra-gupta (II or III)

c13.s1.8

Vishṇu-gupta

c13.s1.9

The last known date of Skanda-gupta is 148 (=467-8 A.D.), and the next known date is 154 (=473-4 A.D.), found in a record of a Gupta king Kumāra-gupta. It does not seem to be very likely that this Kumāra-gupta is identical with the son of Narasimha-gupta bearing the same name. It is more reasonable to regard him as a different king, and he was possibly the son and successor, either of Skanda-gupta, or of Pūru-gupta.

c13.s1.10

Pūru-gupta might have contested the throne after the death of his father Kumāra-gupta I, and in that case we may presume that he was defeated by his brother Skanda-gupta. It is very likely, however, that he seized the throne after the death of Skanda gupta. In this case, and if Kumāra-gupta II, of 473 A.D., be regarded as a successor of Skanda-gupta, it was evidently by dispossessing him that Pūru-gupta could come to the throne. But it is also not unlikely that Kumāra-gupta II was a son of Pūru-gupta and succeeded him after his death.

c13.s1.11

In any case the reigns of Pūru-gupta and Kumāra-gupta II were short, and must have comprised a period of less than ten years between 467 and 477 A.D.

c13.s1.12

Whatever we might think of the alternative views put forward above, it is extremely likely that the years immediately following the death of Skanda-gupta were full of troubles, both internal and external. Reference has already been made to Ghaṭotkacha-gupta, a member of the imperial family, who was Governor of Malwa in 116 (=435-6 A.D.). He, as well as Prakāśāditya, otherwise unknown, issued gold coins which have been assigned to this period. The case of Prabhākara, ruler of Malwa in 467-8 A.D., is also very suspicious as noted above. The claim of the Vākāṭaka king Narendra-sena to have exercised supremacy in Mālava, Kosalā and Mekalā probably also belongs to this period. Due significance should also be attached to the reference in the Mandasor Inscription of 472-3 A.D. to the reigns of many kings between 436 and 472 A.D. and its silence about the contemporary local ruler and also of the emperor (according to the current interpretation), in contrast to the meticulous care with which they are mentioned in regard to a past event. Though vague and indefinite, the cumulative effect of all these circumstances seems to point to a considerable decline in the power of the imperial Guptas, a conclusion strengthened by the lack of epigraphic or other evidence of a positive nature that the emperors Pūru-gupta and Kumāra-gupta II maintained intact the mighty empire inherited by them. Excepting the royal seals, only one short record of Kumāra-gupta II (No. 33) has been found at Benares. This negative evidence of inscriptions is confirmed by the positive evidence of their coins which offer a striking contrast to those of their predecessors. They all belong to only one type and many of them are of very rude execution and debased metal. It has been doubted whether the coins, very few in number, usually attributed to Pūru-gupta really belong to him.¹ The coins no doubt show that Kumāra-gupta II assumed the title Kramāditya, and Pūru-gupta (if the coins really belong to him), that of Śrī-Vikrama (or Vikramāditya), but these are probably more indicative of pride and prestige than real power.

c13.s1.13

¹ Mr. S. K. Saraswati thinks that the gold coins attributed by Allan to 'Pura-gupta' belong really to Budha-gupta (IC. I, 691-92). I have come to the same conclusion on a close examination of a cast of the coin. But the question cannot be finally decided till clear specimens of this type of coins are available.

c13.s1.14

With the accession of Budha-gupta we are on a somewhat firmer ground in respect of the history of the empire. Six of his records (Nos. 36-41) have come to light, and these prove beyond doubt that he ruled over extensive dominions stretching from Malwa to Bengal. We have no positive evidence that the Gupta empire under him extended further west and included Kathiawar Peninsula as it did in the days of Skanda-gupta. But a careful consideration of the records of the Maitraka dynasty of Valabhi seems to indicate that the Gupta supremacy over that region continued during the reign of Budha-gupta.

c13.s1.15

The Maitraka dynasty which ruled over Kathiawar Peninsula with Valabhi as its capital from 500 to 770 A.D., has left numerous records. We learn from them that the founder of the dynasty was Senāpati Bhaṭārka and his son was Senāpati Dharasena. The latter's younger brother was Mahārāja Droṇasiṃha "whose installation in the royalty by besprinkling was performed by the paramount master in person, the sole lord of the circumference of the territory of the whole earth." It is evident from this that Bhaṭārka, a general of the emperor, grew to be an important chief of Surāṣṭra, and was in a position to bequeath his power to his son. But as they both bore the title 'general', it is evident they did not assume the rôle of independent kings. It was not till the time of Droṇasiṃha that the paramount ruler formally invested him with the position of a feudatory ruler. This conclusion is borne out by an inscription of Droṇasiṃha himself dated 183 (= 502 A.D.).¹ This official record begins with the phrase "*Parama-bhaṭṭārakapādānudhyāta*", and shows clearly that Droṇasiṃha still recognised the suzerainty of the emperor. There is hardly any doubt that the imperial power can only refer to the Guptas.² It is, therefore, obvious that although the Maitrakas were gradually growing powerful, and the Gupta authority was declining, still the Gupta emperor was acknowledged as the suzerain in 502 A.D. Droṇasiṃha undoubtedly occupied a higher status than that occupied by Parṇadatta, the governor of Surāṣṭra in 138 (=457-8 A.D.), but the province was not lost to the empire during the reign of Budha-gupta.

c13.s1.16

¹ EI. XVI, 18.

c13.s1.17

² This point has been fully discussed in IC. V, 409-10.

c13.s1.18

In the Sarnath Inscription (No. 36), which is not an official record, the poet describes Budha-gupta as having ruled the earth (*pṛthivīṃ praśāsati*). Two of his governors of Northern Bengal, Brahmadatta (482 A.D.) and Jayadatta, record their allegiance to him (Ins. Nos. 38, 40, in the same phrases as were used before, but it is interesting to note that both of them are styled *Uparika-Mahārāja*, instead of simply *Uparika*, as in the days of Kumāra-gupta I. Another governor, Suraśmichandra, also called *Mahārāja*, was ruling over the extensive territory between the Kālindī (Jumna) and Narmada rivers, and under him, Māṭrivishṇu, also a *Mahārāja*, was governing the district (*Viṣaya*) round Eran in 484 A.D. (No. 39).

c13.s1.19

To the east of the territory under Suraśmichandra lay the feudatory state ruled over by the Parivrājaka Mahārājas, so-called because they were descended from the kingly ascetic (*nṛpa-parivrājaka*) Suśarman. Six copper-plate grants of this dynasty have come to light (Nos. 53-58). They belong to two kings. Hastin (156-198 *i.e.*, from 475 to 517 A.D.) and Saṁkshobha (199-209 *i.e.*, from 518 to 528 A.D.), and begin with the date followed by the phrase '*Gupta-nṛipa-rājya-bhuktau*' *i.e.*, in the enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta kings. Although no individual Gupta emperor is named, there cannot be any doubt that the Parivrājaka Mahārāja Hastin was a feudatory of Budha-gupta.

c13.s1.20

Contiguous to the Parivrājaka kingdom lay another, with Uchchakalpa as the capital. A stone pillar at Bhumara, about 9 miles to the north-west of Uchahara in Nagod (Bundelkhand) marks the boundary between these two kingdoms (Ins. No. 59).¹ We have seven copper-plate grants of this dynasty (Nos. 60-66 which mention two kings, Jayanātha (years 174, 177) and his son Sarvanātha (191-214), and four ancestors of the former. There is, however, no reference to the Gupta sovereignty, as in the grants of the Parivrājaka Mahārājas. There is also some doubt about the era to which the dates of these records should be referred, some taking it to be the Kalachuri, and others, the Gupta era.² The absence of any reference to the Gupta sovereignty in all their grants, in marked contrast to those of the Parivrājakas, makes it likely that they did not acknowledge the supremacy of the Guptas. But as the territory of the Parivrājakas lay beyond them to the south, it is just possible that the Uchchakalpa rulers owed allegiance to the Guptas.

c13.s1.21

¹ This is, however, denied by some who infer from the record on the pillar that the Uchchakalpas were subordinates of the Parivrājakas (IHQ, XXI, 137).

c13.s1.22

² This point is fully discussed in EI. XXIII, 173.

c13.s1.23

Leaving aside the doubtful case of the Uchchakalpa state, Budha-gupta may be regarded as having exercised sway over nearly the whole of the Gupta empire as left by Skanda-gupta. It is obvious, however, that the power and prestige of the Gupta empire was visibly on the decline. The fact that the feudatory Maitrakas and the Parivrājakas refer only in vague general terms to the paramount Gupta emperor is perhaps not without significance. It is also to be noted that the governors of Bengal and Malwa are called *Mahārāja*, and in the first case we definitely know it to be an innovation introduced since the time of Kumāra-gupta I. These tell their own tale. The coins of Budha-gupta support this inference. His gold coins, if they exist at all, are very rare. He issued silver coins current only in the central provinces of the Gupta empire, and discontinued the type current in Gujarat and Kathiawar. In addition to a general decline of power, they prove his hold over the central, but considerable loss of authority in the western, parts of the empire.

c13.s1.24

As noted above, some of the coins of Budha-gupta are dated 175 (494-5). On some of his coins, however, it is possible to read the date as 180 with or without a numeral in the unit's place.¹ We may, therefore, hold that Budha-gupta died about 500 A.D. or shortly after it.²

c13.s1.25

¹ *IA.* XVIII, 227. But the reading of the symbol for 80 is very uncertain (*IA.* XIV, 68).

c13.s1.26

² C. V. Vaidya refers to a passage in *Skanda-Purāṇa* according to which Budha-gupta was ruling in 499 A.D. (*POC.* VII, 576).

c13.s1.27

The death of Budha-gupta seems to have been followed by a disputed succession. We possess an inscription of Vainya-gupta dated 506 A.D. (No. 45) and one of Bhānu-gupta dated 510-11 A.D. (No. 47), found respectively in E. Bengal and Malwa. The copper-plate grant of Vainya-gupta shows that Samataṭa, which was an autonomous feudatory state in the days of Samudra-gupta, had lost that status and formed part of the dominions directly held by the Guptas. This probably took place long before the reign of Vainya-gupta. Although Vainya-gupta is styled merely *Mahārāja* in his grant, he is given the full imperial titles in the Nālandā Seal (No. 46), and he also issued gold coins of the type used by the Gupta emperors after Skanda-gupta. There is, therefore, hardly any doubt that he belonged to the imperial family, and it is not unlikely that he was the son and successor of Budha-gupta, though of this we have no positive evidence.

c13.s1.28

Bhānu-gupta is known from a single inscription (No. 47) at Eran dated 191 (=510-11 A.D.) Neither his coins nor any royal seal mentioning him have as yet come to light. The inscription records how a feudatory chief named Goparāja accompanied 'the mighty king, the glorious Bhānu-gupta, the bravest man on the earth', and fought a famous battle. Goparāja died in this battle and his wife accompanied him on to the funeral pyre. The small pillar, now worshipped as a Śivaliṅga, on which the record is engraved may thus be regarded as a memorial Sati Stone Pillar.

c13.s1.29

It appears from the description that Bhānu-gupta was the suzerain or the Gupta emperor in 510 A.D. Whether he succeeded Vainya-gupta, or the two ruled at the same time respectively over the western and eastern parts of the empire, it is difficult to determine. The latter view seems more probable and this internal dissension perhaps paved the way for the downfall of the empire.

c13.s1.30

The famous battle in which Bhānu-gupta and Goparāja were engaged at Eran was probably fought against Toramāṇa. For at a date, which cannot be long removed from 510-11 A.D., we find Toramāṇa as the overlord of Eran. Two records found at this place unmistakably indicate this transfer of sovereignty. The earlier one (No. 39) dated 165 (=484-5 A.D.) records some pious construction by Mahārāja Mātṛviṣṇu and his younger brother Dhanyaviṣṇu during the reign of Budha-gupta. The later one (No. 68) records the construction of a temple by Dhanyaviṣṇu, after the death of his brother Mātṛviṣṇu, 'in the first year while the Mahārājādhirāja, the glorious Toramāṇa of great fame, is ruling the earth'. It is evident, therefore, that some time after 484-5 A.D., but within one generation of that, Toramāṇa, who had already conquered the Punjab and part of Rajputana, also made himself master of E. Malwa. The battle fought by Bhānu-gupta might have been *either* the unsuccessful resistance offered to Toramāṇa, *or* a campaign for putting an end to Toramāṇa's occupation of Malwa. In the former case Toramāṇa's conquest of Malwa must have taken place in or after 510 A.D., and in the latter case, some time before that date. Unfortunately, the Eran inscription of Gopa-rāja is silent about the result of the battle.

c13.s1.31

Bhānu-gupta, in spite of the high encomiums paid to his bravery in the Eran Ins., remains a shadowy figure, and we do not know what was his position in the Gupta imperial family, or what part he played in the dark days of the Gupta empire. It is not unlikely that he had freed Eran from the yoke of Toramāṇa, for the Gupta sovereignty was acknowledged by the Parivrājaka Mahārājas, who ruled in the adjoining province from 510 to at least 528 A.D. But it is somewhat strange that if he had really achieved such a great victory it should not have been expressly stated in the record while referring to him.

c13.s1.32

In any case, for reasons just stated, we may hold that the Gupta suzerainty in this region was soon re-established and continued till at least 528 A.D. (Ins. No. 58). Fifteen years later, the suzerainty of a Gupta emperor was acknowledged in N. Bengal (Ins. No. 48). It is obvious, therefore, that the Guptas still ruled over the old empire from Bengal at least to Central India or E. Malwa. The phrase ‘Parama-bhaṭṭāraka-pādānudhyāta’ occurs in the records of the Valabhi ruler Dhruva-sena I who ruled till at least 545 A.D. All these indicate that the Gupta empire continued, at least in name, down to about the middle of the sixth century A.D.

c13.s1.33

The genealogy given at the beginning of this chapter shows that Budha-gupta's brother Narasiṃha-gupta occupied the imperial throne, and was followed by his son and grandson. The reigns of these three emperors may thus be placed between 500 and 550 A.D. This half-century saw the decline and downfall of the Gupta empire.

c13.s1.34

We do not know whether Narasiṃha-gupta was the immediate successor of his brother Budha-gupta. In that case we must presume a struggle for succession among two or possibly three rival claimants and a partition, however temporary, of the Gupta empire,—Vainya-gupta ruling in Bengal, Bhānu-gupta in Malwa, and Narasiṃha-gupta probably in Magadha. But it is also possible that Narasimha-gupta ascended the throne after Bhānu-gupta.

c13.s1.35

Narasimha-gupta issued gold coins of a single type which show that he assumed the title Bālāditya. It is possible that he is the king Bālāditya who is mentioned by Hiuen Tsang as a great patron of Buddhism, and the builder of a great saṅghārāma at Nālandā. Hiuen Tsang also describes in a long story how he fought with, and defeated the terrible Hūṇa chief Mihirakula.

c13.s1.36

An inscription found at Nālandā,¹ and belonging to about the middle of the eighth century A.D., also refers to ‘Bālāditya, the great king of irresistible valour’ who, ‘after having vanquished all the foes and enjoyed the entire earth, erected a great and extraordinary temple at Nālandā’. We need hardly doubt his identification with Bālāditya mentioned by Hiuen Tsang. Two independent sources thus confirm the tradition of a great ruler called Bālāditya, noted alike for his prowess and construction of a famous sanctuary at Nālandā. His identification with the Gupta emperor Narasimha-gupta cannot be regarded as certain, but seems to be very plausible. As, in that case, the chief event of his reign is his fight with the Hūṇa chief Mihirakula, it would be convenient, before proceeding further, to describe at length the Hūṇa invasion of India and the political convulsion caused thereby.

c13.s1.37

¹ EI. XX, 43.

2. The Hūṇa Invasion

c13.s2.1

² The general account of the Hūṇas is based on the following authorities—
1. Chavannes—*Documents sur les Toukiue Occidentaux*, pp. 223 ff.
2. Sir Aurel Stein—White Huns and Kindred tribes in the history of the Indian North-western frontier; *IA*. 1905, pp. 73 ff. For the Hūṇa activities in India reference may be made to the following, though many of the statements contained in these articles require modification or are palpably wrong: *IA*, XV, 245 ff; 346 ff; *IHQ*. III, I. ff; *NIA*. IV, 36. For Hūṇa coins cf. *JASB*. LXIII. Part I, pp. 191 ff. For the antiquity of the Hūṇas and their activity in Iran cf. *Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.* pp. 65 ff.

c13.s2.2

The Huns, a band of nomad savages, lived originally in the neighbourhood of China. Advancing towards the west, they divided into two main streams, of which one was directed towards the Volga and the other to the Oxus. The activities of the former find prominent mention in the annals of the Roman empire and need not be referred to here. The other band, originally subject to the Joan-Joan tribe, became powerful in the Oxus valley towards the middle of the fifth century. From the name of their ruler's family they came to be known as Ye-tha, Hephthalites or Ephthalites, and the Greek accounts refer to them also as White Huns.

c13.s2.3

From the Oxus valley these Huns came down upon both Persia and India. Skanda-gupta, as already noted above, inflicted a crushing defeat upon them some time between 455 and 467 A.D., and saved his empire from their ravages. Persia was at first less successful. The Huns proved to be her most redoubtable enemy, and in 484 A.D. their king Akhschounwar defeated and killed Firoz, the Sassanian ruler of Persia. This success raised the power of the Huns to its greatest height, and towards the close of the fifth century A.D. they ruled over a vast empire with their principal capital at Balkh. But when the Western Turks became powerful in the middle of the sixth century A.D. the Sassanian king Anushirwan of Persia made an alliance with them against the Huns. The allied power defeated the Huns and killed their king some time between 563 and 567 A.D. After this the Oxus became the boundary between the Turks and the Persians and the latter conquered most of the Hun possessions to the south of that river.

c13.s2.4

Very little is definitely known of the activities of the Huns in India proper, and in view of the prevailing misconceptions on the subject, it requires a somewhat detailed treatment.

c13.s2.5

Beyond a general reference in a few inscriptions to the defeat inflicted upon the Huns, contemporary Indian records do not throw any light upon their activities. Two kings, Toramāṇa and Mihirakula, known from coins and inscriptions, are regarded as Huns, perhaps correctly, but there is no conclusive evidence as to their nationality.

c13.s2.6

After the defeat inflicted upon the Huns by Skanda-gupta, the earliest information regarding their relation with India is supplied by the account of Sung-Yun, one of the ambassadors sent by the Empress of the Northern Wei dynasty in China in 518 A.D. Passing through Udyāna, Sung-Yun reached Gandhāra in 520 A.D., and gives the following account of the country.

c13.s2.7

"This is the country which the Ye-thas destroyed and afterwards set up a *tegin*¹ (prince or member of the royal family) to be king over the country; since which events two generations have passed. The disposition of this king (or dynasty) was cruel and vindictive, and he practised the most barbarous atrocities. He did not believe the law of Buddha, but loved to worship demons. . . . Entirely self-reliant on his own strength, he had entered on a war with the country of Ki-pin (Kashmir), disputing the boundaries of their kingdom, and his troops had been already engaged in it for three years. The king has 700 war-elephants. . . . The king continually abode with his troops on the frontier and never returned to his kingdom. . . ."

c13.s2.8

¹ Beal, *Records*, I, pp. xv ff; xcix ff. Beal misunderstood the word, but the correct meaning was first pointed out by Marquart, cf. Chavannes, *op. cit.*

c13.s2.9

Somewhat later in date is the account given by Cosmas, surnamed Indicopleustes (Indian navigator),² an Alexandrine Greek, in his *Christian Topography*, which was probably begun in 535 but not put in its final form till 547 A.D. In one place he says: "Higher up in India, that is farther to the north, are the White Huns. The one called Gollas when going to war takes with him, it is said, no fewer than two thousand elephants and a great force of cavalry. He is the lord of India, and oppressing the people, forces them to pay tribute." After narrating some stories about him the same writer remarks: "The river Phison separates all the countries of India from the country of the Huns." Fortunately the author clearly says, elsewhere, that the Phison is the same as the river Indus. The date to which this account refers cannot be exactly determined but may be placed between 525 and 535 A.D.

c13.s2.10

² Tr. in English by J. W. McCrindle (London, 1897), cf. pp. 366, 371-2.

c13.s2.11

As regards Indian records we have first the Eran inscription.

c13.s2.12

(No. 68), referred to above, dated in the first year of Mahārājādhirāja Toramāṇa. Next, there is an inscription at Gwalior, dated in the 15th regnal year of Mihirakula (No. 69). The name of his father is mentioned, but only the first two letters 'Tora' can be read, the rest being utterly lost. It has been restored as Toramāṇa. There is another inscription found at Kura (Salt Range, the Punjab) referring to Rājādhirāja, Mahārāja Toramāṇa-Shāhi-Jaū (bla), whom some scholars identify with the king mentioned in the Eran Inscription, but others regard as quite different.¹ None of these inscriptions calls these kings Huns or contains any reference to that people.

c13.s2.13

¹ Bühler held that they were different (EI. I, 239), but Sten Konow, following Cunningham and V.A. Smith (JASB. LXIII, 186), holds that they were identical (IHQ. XII, 531).

c13.s2.14

We find an interesting account of Toramāṇa in a Jaina work, Kuvalayamālā, composed in 700 Śaka (=778 A.D.).² Toramāṇa (written as Torarāya in one manuscript), we are told, enjoyed the sovereignty of the world, or rather of Uttarāpatha. He lived at Pavvaiyā on the bank of the Chandrabhāgā (Chenab river). His guru was Hari-gupta, who himself was a scion of the Gupta family and lived there.

c13.s2.15

² JBORS. XIV, 28 ff.

c13.s2.16

Hiuen Tsang gives a long account of Mihirakula in connection with the old city of Sākala, which was his capital. "Some centuries ago", we are told, "Mihirakula established his authority in this town and ruled over India. He subdued all the neighbouring provinces without exception." At first he took some interest in Buddhism and ordered that a Buddhist priest should meet him. The priests sent to him one who had been a servant in the king's household. Feeling deeply insulted at this he "issued an edict to destroy all the priests through the five Indies, to overthrow the law of Buddha, and leave nothing remaining."

c13.s2.17

The subsequent defeat of Mihirakula by Bālāditya, as told by Hiuen Tsang, will be referred to later. But the most important point to be noted is that Hiuen Tsang places this defeat "some centuries ago" i.e., several hundred years before c. 633 A.D., when he visited Sākala. This is hardly compatible with the view that the incident referred to by him took place about 530 A.D. As Watters has pointed out, other Chinese authorities also seem to place Mihirakula long before that date. This naturally casts grave doubts on the credibility of Hiuen Tsang's story about Mihirakula.

c13.s2.18

Both Toramāṇa and Mihirakula are referred to in *Rāja-taraṅgiṇī*, but their history, as recorded therein, can hardly be reconciled with that of the two Hūṇa chief.

c13.s2.19

Stray reference to the Hūṇas occurs in Indian literature. A *Sūtra-vṛtti* in the *Cāndra Vyākaraṇa* gives the sentence *Ajayad-gupta (? or Japto) Hūṇān* as an illustration of the use of the imperfect to express an event which occurred within the life-time of the author.¹ This probably refers to the victory of Skanda-gupta over the Hūṇas. Again, the Jaina author Somadeva (10th cent.) refers to a tradition that a Hūṇa king conquered Chitrakūṭa.² Reference here is probably to Mihirakula.

c13.s2.20

¹ Belvalkar, *Systems of Sanskrit Grammar*, p. 58. The emendation of the original *Jato* or *Japto* into Gupta is not, however, accepted by all. Kielhorn read the word as *Jarto*, and took it as the name of a people and its ruler (*NGGW*, 1903, p. 305). Hoernle identified the people with the Jāṭhs and regarded it as a reference to the defeat of the Hūṇas by Yośodharman (*JRAS*, 1909, p. 114). Jayaswal takes it as a reference to Skanda-gupta and relies upon this passage as an evidence that the Guptas were Jāṭhs (*JBORS*, XIX, 115-16). It is difficult to take these conclusions seriously.

c13.s2.21

² *Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume*, p. 216.

c13.s2.22

In the Mandasor inscription of Yaśodharman reference is made both to Mihirakula and to the Hūṇas, but in a manner which far from connecting the two, might even suggest a definite distinction between them. Similarly, we have the coins of Toramāṇa and Mihirakula, and also those bearing the name Tora. Although some of them are barbarous imitations of the Sassanid kings, there is nothing to indicate them definitely as Hūṇa.

c13.s2.23

In these circumstances it might appear as somewhat surprising that scholars have almost unanimously regarded the Hūṇas as having played a decisive part in bringing about the fall of the Gupta empire. This belief rests solely upon the identification to Toramāṇa and Mihirakula (also called Mihira-gul) as Hūṇa leaders. Although this view is generally assumed, there is no definite evidence in support of it, and we cannot altogether rule out the possibility that Toramāṇa was a Kushāṇa chief, and being allied to the Hūṇas, was mistaken as such in India, specially because he led the Hūṇa hordes.¹

c13.s2.24

¹ Sir Aurel Stein (op. cit) and Jayaswal (JBORS. XVIII, 203) held that Toramāṇa was a Kushāṇa. Fleet also held the same view. (IA. XV, 245). Sten Konow holds that Toramāṇa was, in all probability, a Hūṇa, as has usually been assumed, and not a Kushāṇa. (IHQ. XII, 532).

c13.s2.25

King Gollas, mentioned by Cosmas, has been identified with Mihiragul or Mihirakula. This identification is based on the similarity of Gollas with the name-ending Gul, but chiefly rests on the assumption that Mihirakula was a Hūṇa chief. It must be noted, however, that whereas the chief seat of Hūṇa power, according to both Sung-Yun² and Cosmas, was to the west of the Indus, Mihirakula's capital, according to Hiuen Tsang was at Sākala (Sialkot) and that of Toramāṇa, according to the Jaina book, on the river Chenab.

c13.s2.26

² Sung-Yun described the vast extent of the Hun empire and noted its boundaries. It extended from Khotan in the east to Persia on the west. Beal's identification (p. xci) of the northern and southern boundaries with Mālava (or Valabhī) and Tirabhukti is absolutely unfounded. Chavannes describes the extent of the Hūṇa empire in 500 A.C. It included Tokharistan, Kabulistan and Zabulistan, but no part of India proper. Chavannes adds that according to Chinese history (presumably the account of Sung-Yun) the only Indian countries under the Huns were Gandhāra and Chitral (op. cit. pp. 224-5). Evidently he disregarded Beal's fanciful identifications.

c13.s2.27

We may now go back a little and take a comprehensive view of the Hūṇa activities in India. We may trace two distinct waves of this foreign invasion. The first may be dated about 460 A.D. or somewhat earlier, when Skanda-gupta defeated the Hūṇas but they were able to retain possession of Gandhāra and set up a new ruling chief, perhaps a member of the royal family. One or two generations passed before the Hūṇas were on the move again. The leader of this second movement was Toramāṇa, but we cannot say whether he represented the Hūṇa principality of Gandhāra or was ruler of a separate state in the Punjab. Proceeding from his base at Gandhāra or the Punjab he carried his victorious arms as far as Malwa. His success was, however, short-lived, due probable to the defeat inflicted upon him by Bhānu-gupta in 510 A.D.

c13.s2.28

For the time being the Hūṇa advance was checked, but Mihirakula revived the ambitious project of his father. He, too, had some success at first, as we know that his suzerainty was acknowledged in Gwalior in the 15th year of his reign (c. 530 A.D.). Besides, according to Hiuen Tsang he subdued the whole of India and Cosmas also described the Hūṇa chief at this time as the lord of India. But the Hūṇas were not destined to enjoy success for long, and Mihirakula, too, soon met his doom in the hands of two Indian rulers Yaśodharman and Narasiṁha-gupta.

c13.s2.29

In his Mandasor Inscription (No. 70) Yaśodharman claims that "respect was paid to his feet by even the (famous) king Mihirakula". Mihirakula was evidently defeated, but his kingdom or power was not destroyed. With the fall of Yaśodharman, which probably took place not long after, he again came to the forefront.

c13.s2.30

The Gupta king who then occupied the imperial throne was probably Narasiṁha-gupta Bālāditya. He was temporarily overwhelmed by the victorious raids of Yaśodharman (to be referred to later), and Mihirakula evidently took advantage of this imperial crisis to extend his power. Narasiṁha-gupta, far from playing the traditional rôle of his family of checking the Hūṇa aggression was, according to Hiuen Tsang, forced to the humiliating position of paying tribute to Mihirakula. After mentioning Mihirakula's great power and persecution of Buddhism, already narrated above, Hiuen Tsang tells a long story how finally Bālāditya triumphed over his rival. This may be summed up as follows:—

c13.s2.31

Bālāditya-rāja, king of Magadha, profoundly honoured the law of Buddha. When he heard of the cruel persecution and atrocities of Mihirakula, he strictly guarded the frontiers of his kingdom and refused to pay tribute. When Mihirakula invaded his dominions, Bālāditya took refuge with his army in an island. Mihirakula left the main part of his army in charge

c13.s2.32

of his younger brother, embarked on boats, and landed with a part of his troops on the island. He was, however, ambushed by the troops of Bālāditya in a narrow pass and was taken prisoner. Bālāditya resolved to kill Mihirakula, but released him on the intercession of his mother. Mihirakula found on his return that his brother had gone back and occupied the throne. He, therefore, sought and obtained an asylum in Kashmir. Then he stirred up a rebellion there, killed the king and placed himself on the throne of Kashmir. He next killed the king of Gandhāra, exterminated the royal family, destroyed the stūpas and saṅghārāmas, plundered the wealth of the country and returned. But within a year he died."

c13.s2.33

Apart from the fact that the general account of Hiuen Tsang is liable to suspicion, on the ground of his placing Mihirakula several centuries ago, it is difficult to believe many of the details in this story.

c13.s2.34

It has already been noted above, that Kashmir probably and Gandhāra certainly was already a part of the Hūṇa empire in India, and Hiuen Tsang was evidently wrong in describing them as new conquests by Mihirakula. The long account of the defeat and discomfiture of Mihirakula in the hands of Bālāditya, and particularly the manner in which it was achieved, undoubtedly contains a great deal of exaggeration. But in spite of all these we may, in the absence of a better or more satisfactory hypothesis, provisionally regard Bālāditya as having defeated Mihirakula and saved the Gupta empire from the Hūṇa depredations. That would explain why, as noted above, his name and fame as a great hero survived even two centuries later. The defeat of Mihirakula¹ appears to have finally crushed the Hūṇa political supremacy in India. For although the existence of a Hūṇa community, and even of small Hūṇa principalities, is known in later periods, the Hūṇas no longer appear as a great power or even as a disturbing element in Indian history.

c13.s2.35

¹ The way in which Yaśodharman refers to Mihirakula, particularly that his head was never before bent to anybody, is hardly compatible with the view that the latter had already suffered defeat in the hands of Bālāditya. I have therefore accepted the statement of Hiuen Tsang that Mihirakula's power was finally broken by Bālāditya, and consequently Yaśodharman's victory must have preceded it. This view was held by Heras (IHQ. III, I). It is not, however, unlikely as Hoernle suggested (JASB. LVIII, Part I, p. 96) that Yaśodharman, as a feudatory chief, helped Narasimha-gupta in his expedition against Mihirakula, and later asserted independence and carried on victorious raids even against his suzerain.

c13.s2.36

In later and more prosperous days his earlier successful operations against Mihirakula might have been easily construed as an independent victory.

Cites (9)