The Vakataka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c14: Chapter X. The Disintegration of the Gupta Empire

The Vākāṭaka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c14

Language: English

Chapter X. The Disintegration of the Gupta Empire

c14.2

About the time of the inroads of Toramāṇa and Mihirakula, and largely as a direct consequence of them, we notice a steady progress of the forces of disintegration within the empire itself. Feudal chiefs and high officials gradually assumed great power and authority and finally set up as independent kings. The dwindling resources of the empire are shown by the poor and scanty coinage of a single type. The inscriptions of different chiefs such as the Maukharis and Later Guptas refer to battles in all directions, and although we cannot always locate them, they unerringly indicate a period of unrest and excitement. Taking advantage of this situation Hariṣeṇa, the Vākāṭaka ruler, invaded Malwa. According to the Vākāṭaka records he conquered or extended his political authority over Mālava, Gujrat and other countries (see *ante* Ch. V). Although the exact date of Hariṣeṇa is not known, he flourished towards the close of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century A.D. It is probable, therefore, that it was during the trouble and confusion following the invasion of Toramāṇa that he invaded the distracted province of Mālava and obtained some success. But his triumph was short-lived. Soon an ambitious and enterprising hero appeared on the scene. This was Yaśodharman, who not only established independent authority in Mālava but was soon in a position to hurl open defiance against the emperor.

c14.3

Little is known of Yaśodharman's origin save that he had probably some connection with the family to which belonged the long line of rulers ending with Bandhu-varman who governed Mālava or a part of it, as a feudatory chief under Kumāra-gupta I with Daśapura (Mandasor) as his capital. But nearly a century intervened between Bandhu-varman and Yaśodharman, and we do not know anything about the history or activities of this family during this period. (Suddenly, some time about 530 A.D., Yaśodharman appears as a meteor in the political horizon, carries his victorious arms far and wide, and sets up a big empire. Like a meteor again, he suddenly vanishes, and his empire perishes with him.

c14.4

All that we know of the achievement of Yaśodharman by way of military conquests is derived mainly from an inscription (No. 70) engraved in duplicate on two stone pillars at Mandasor. It is a *praśasti* of the type of Samudra-gupta's Allahabad Pillar Inscription, but unlike the latter it does not specify the countries conquered by Yaśodharman. Instead we find only a somewhat vague and boastful assertion that "spurning (the confinement of) the boundaries of his own house", he conquered 'those countries which were not enjoyed (even) by the Gupta Lords and which the command of the chiefs of the Hūṇas failed to penetrate', and, further, that to his feet bow down chiefs "from the neighbourhood of the river Lauhitya up to the mountain Mahendra, and from Himālaya up to the Western Ocean". The only specific reference to any conquest is that over Mihirakula, referred to above.

c14.5

Such a general and conventional description of universal conquest (*digvijaya*), so familiar to us in Sanskrit poetry and royal *praśastis*, cannot of course be taken at its face value, and we shall hardly be justified in regarding Yaśodharman, on the basis of this record alone, as the sole monarch of Northern India. At the same time such a claim, publicly made, must have some basis in fact, and we need hardly doubt that Yaśodharman was a great conqueror. It seems also to be quite clear that his arms were mainly directed against, and his conquests were mostly accomplished at the cost of, the Hūṇas and the Guptas, though probably some other powers also had to feel the weight of his power.

c14.6

The fact that the region round Mandasor formed the centre of Yaśodharman's empire and the principal seat of his authority makes it probable that he first rose to power and distinction by freeing the country from the Hūṇa yoke. He probably completed the task which Bhānu-gupta failed to accomplish or only partially succeeded in doing. It was probably in course of this struggle with the Hūṇas that he came into conflict with Mihirakula and defeated him. By this great victory he must have risen to power and distinction, and then he made a bold bid for the imperial power. The Gupta emperor, Narasiṃhagupta, was unable to check his growing power, and for some time Yaśodharman seemed to have carried everything before him. But in spite of his brilliant military success he failed to achieve any permanent result. This is demonstrated by the fact that in 543 A.D. a Gupta emperor, and not Yaśodharman, was invoked as suzerain in a land-grant in N. Bengal.¹ As we have noted above, the Parivrājaka rulers acknowledged Gupta suzerainty as late as 528 A.D. Yaśodharman's short-lived triumph may, therefore, be reasonably placed during the interval between these dates. This is confirmed by the only other inscription (No. 71) that we possess of the time of Yaśodharman, also found at Mandasor, dated in 533-4 A.D.

c14.7

¹ This point will be further discussed in the next chapter.

c14.8

How Yaśodharman's power came to an end still remains a mystery. It may be due to his natural death, or the assertion of centrifugal forces in the empire which he had himself brought into being. His dazzling success probably led others, such as the Maukharis or the Later Guptas, to imitate his example, and there was perhaps a general uprising among the feudatories of the Gupta empire. The bond that had hitherto knit together, however loosely, the vast dominions from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea was cut by the cruel sword, not of the Hūṇa chiefs, but of the ambitious Yaśodharman, and he was probably the first victim to perish in the resulting chaos and conflagration.

c14.9

Shortly after the great coup of Yaśodharman, and perhaps as an inevitable consequence thereof, several powerful fedual principalities were established in the very heart of the Gupta empire. The most powerful of them were the Maukharis and the Later Guptas. The history of both these dynasties will be treated in greater detail in the next volume, and here we shall only briefly notice their activity during the first half of the sixth century A.D.

c14.10

The Maukharis¹ were a very ancient family, but did not come into prominence as a political power till the sixth century A.D. Two branches of this family ruled as feudatory chiefs under the Guptas, one in Bihar and the other in U.P. Of the first we know only the names of three kings from three inscriptions engraved on the Barabar and Nagarjuni Hills, about 15 miles to the north-east of Gaya. These were Yajñavarman, who probably founded this family, his son Śārdūlavarman, and his grandson Anantavarman. We hardly know anything about them.

c14.11

¹ For the Maukhari inscriptions cf. CII, III, Nos. 47-51.

c14.12

The other branch of the Maukharis ultimately bacame more powerful. The founder of this family, Harivarman, was succeeded by his son Ādityavarman, and the latter by his son Īśvaravarman. All these three bear the title Mahārāja and nothing definite is known about them. But Īśanavarman, the son of Īśvaravarman, assumed the title Mahārājādhirāja, and we know from his record² that he defeated the Gauḍas, the Andhras and the Śūlikas. The Gauḍas, whom he is said to have forced to take shelter towards the sea-shore, were undoubtedly the people of Western Bengal. The Andhras probably refer to the Viṣṇukuṇḍins of Eastern Deccan; but the Śūlikas cannot be identified with certainty. It would thus appear that Īśanavarman was the first Maukhari chief to set up an independent kingdom. He was undoubtedly a powerful king, for he not only assumed the title Mahārājādhirāja, but also issued coins in his own name. These coins very closely resemble those of Toramāṇa, and as the Maukharis are expressly mentioned in a Later Gupta record as having defeated the Hūṇas, that great achievement might also be probably set to his credit. One of his known dates is 611 Saṃvat or 554 A.D., and there is thus no doubt that his rise to power and greatness synchronises with the downfall of the Gupta empire.

c14.13

² EI. XIV, 111.

c14.14

The Later Guptas were also at first feudatories of the Imperial Guptas. As Kumāra-gupta, the fourth king of this family, defeated Īśānavarman, the fourth Maukhari king, we may hold that the Later Guptas rose into prominence about the same time as the Maukharis. We know very little of the three predecessors of Kumāra-gupta viz., Kṛiṣhṇa-gupta, Harsha-gupta and Jivita-gupta. Reference is made in the Aphsad Inscription,¹ a late seventh century record of the family, to the military campaigns of Jivita-gupta both in the Himalayan region and on the sea-shore; but as no earlier record of the family is available, we cannot say whether these campaigns were undertaken by him as a feudatory on behalf of the Imperial Guptas, or as an independent king on his own behalf. The same uncertainty prevails, to a certain extent, in regard to the defeat inflicted by the next king Kumāra-gupta upon Īśānavarman. But whether Kumāra-gupta fought with Īśānavarman on behalf of his imperial master, or on his own behalf for the spoils of the empire, his success must have paved the way to the fortunes of his own family. When we remember that there is no reference in any record to a Gupta emperor after 543 A.D., we may well believe that from the time of Kumāra-gupta, if not before, the Later Guptas had, to all intents and purposes, assumed an independent position. That the success attained by Kumāra-gupta was both great and permanent is proved by the fact, recorded in the Aphsad inscription, that he had advanced up to Prayāga where he died, and that his son Dāmodara-gupta again defeated the Maukharis though he himself probably died or was seriously wounded in the battle.²

c14.15

¹ *CII.* III, 200.

c14.16

² Fleet's translation of the passage, conveying the idea that the king expired in the fight, is generally accepted. Mr. K. C. Chattopadhyaya, however, argues that the passage does not refer to Dāmodaragupta's death, but only speaks of his swoon and of his subsequent awakening, *i.e.*, regaining consciousness. (*D. R. Bhandarkar Volume*, pp. 181 ff.) He has also pointed out that the inscription refers to the victory and not defeat of Dāmodara-gupta, as supposed by Dr. Basak (*HNI.* p. 123).

c14.17

The subsequent history of the Later Guptas does not concern us here. But we have to discuss two questions of great importance concerning them which have a bearing on the history of the Imperial Guptas. In the first place, the name-ending Gupta of all the kings, save one, raises the question whether this family was in any way related to the Imperial Guptas. The contemporaneity, the similar name-ending, and the possession of a part of the Gupta empire no doubt raise a strong presumption in favour of this view. But on the other hand, considering the usual tendency of the court-writers to exaggerate the importance of the royal families even to the extent of giving them pedigrees reaching not only to epic heroes but also to the sun and the moon, it must be regarded as very surprising that no allusion should have been made in their inscriptions to any connection with the Imperial Guptas if there were even any remote basis for it. In the Aphsad Ins., for example, Kṛṣṇa-gupta, the first king, is simply said to belong to a good family (*sad-vaṁśaḥ*), and one wonders whether the author of this long *praśasti* would have omitted to refer to the Gupta lineage if there were even any tradition to that effect current in his time. This evidence, though negative in character, at least raises great doubts about any connection whatsoever between the Imperial Guptas and the Later Guptas. In the absence of any positive corroborative evidence, it is difficult to accept the view that the Later Guptas were related by blood to the Imperial Guptas, although they inherited the family-title and part of their territories.¹

c14.18

¹ IC. VIII, 33.

c14.19

Far more difficult is the question of the original home of the Later Guptas. Ādityasena, the first king of the family of whom we possess contemporary records, undoubtedly ruled in Magadha towards the close of the seventh century A.D., and so did all his successors. But although all their inscriptions, so far discovered, have been found in Magadha, doubts have been entertained whether originally they were rulers of this province.

c14.20

It has been suggested by some that the Later Guptas were rulers of Mālava till Ādityasena founded a kingdom in Magadha. The main argument in favour of this view seems to be that as the Imperial Guptas certainly ruled in Magadha up to 530 A.D. and the Maukharis held sway over it in the latter half of the sixth century A.D., the early rulers of the Later Gupta family could not rule in that province, and as Mahāsena-gupta is said to be king of Mālava in the Harsha-Charita, all his predecessors, too, presumably ruled in that province.¹

c14.21

¹ JBORS. XIX, 402.

c14.22

This view is based on the assumption that Kṛiṣhṇa-gupta, Harsha-gupta and Jīvita-gupta all ruled as independent sovereigns from the latter part of the fifth century A.D. Of this there is no evidence whatsoever. They might have been provincial governors or other high officials who, as we have seen above, assumed the titles of Mahārāja, and their military campaigns described in Aphsad Inscription might have been undertaken on behalf of the Imperial Guptas. There are at least two important considerations which militate against the view that they were originally rulers of Mālava. In the first place, it is incompatible with the history of Yaśodharman whose centre of authority was Mālava. Secondly, Jīvita-gupta, of the Later Gupta family, who flourished about the same time, is said to have fought on the sea-shore which indicates the eastern region of the Gupta empire.

c14.23

The probability, therefore, is that the Later Guptas had not founded any distinct kingdom until after the overthrow of the Gupta empire and then they fought with the Maukharis and other powers for a share of the spoil. They probably retained as much of it as they could and may be regarded as the residuary legatee of the Gupta empire. Magadha² and Northern Bengal, which were the last strongholds of the Gupta emperors, were probably seized by them. They also probably laid claims to other parts of the empire including Malwa, of which they might have got possession even somewhat earlier, after the downfall of the short-lived empire of Yaśodharman. Later, when Śaśāṅka established an independent kingdom in Gauḍa, the Later Guptas were confined to Mālava. Although this view cannot be supported in all details by positive evidence, it reconciles all that we know about the Later Guptas and is not contrary to any known fact. But a detailed discussion of this topic takes us beyond the period under review and must be reserved for the next volume.

c14.24

² Even if we assume that two Maukhari kings were in possession of the village of Vāruṇikā (Shahabad district) in the latter half of the sixth century A.D. it does not necessarily follow that the Later Guptas could not hold sway in any part of Magadha. Mahāsena-gupta must have been in possession of at least a part of Magadha before he could reach the Lauhitya (Brahmaputra river. Portion of Magadha might have frequently changed hands in the long struggle between the Maukharis and the Later Guptas.

c14.25

The Maukharis and the Later Guptas were not the only powers that came into prominence by the decline of the Gupta Empire. Vaṅga (South and East Bengal) also finally shook off the suzerainty of the Guptas, and at least from the second quarter of the sixth century A.D., if not before, ranked as an independent kingdom.¹

c14.26

¹ For detailed discussion of this topic cf. HER. pp. 51 ff.

c14.27

Reference has already been made above to Vainya-gupta ruling over this region in 506 A.D. His status and position in the Imperial Gupta family are unknown. A copper-plate (No. 45) found at Gunaighar, 18 miles to the north-west of Comilla in E. Bengal, records a grant of land in that neighbourhood to a Buddhist monk by Mahārāja Vainya-gupta, who mediates on the feet of Mahādeva, in the current year 188 (=506 A.D.). The grant was made at the instance of his vassal Mahārāja Rudradatta, and another vassal-chief, Mahārāja Vijayasena, who held several high offices, was its dūtaka. Although Vainya-gupta is styled Mahārāja, he had more than one vassal-chief under him bearing the same title, and there is no doubt that he held a fairly high position, even though he was not the suzerain ruler at that time. That he certainly occupied this position, either then or later, is indicated by his gold coins and the Nālandā Seal referred to above. Whether in that capacity he ruled over the whole empire or merely a portion of Bengal, if not the whole of it, cannot be determined, but the latter view seems more probable. In other words, it is just possible that he proclaimed himself the rightful emperor, but his actual authority was confined to Bengal or a part thereof. If this were the case, we may trace from this time the existence of an independent kingdom in Bengal. But, in any case, not long after his death, Vaṅga rises into importance as an independent kingdom under local rulers who assumed the title *Mahārājādhirāja*. The first of them, Gopachandra, had a vassal-chief *Mahārāja* Vijayasena ruling over Vardhamāna-*bhukti*, i.e. Burdwan division in W. Bengal. It is probable that this Vijayasena is identical with the chief of the same name who served as *dūtaka* in the Grant of Vainya-gupta. In that case we may consider it as highly probable, that Gopachandra succeeded to the dominions of Vainya-gupta, not long after 506-7 A.D. and that these extended from Burdwan to Comilla. But be that as it may, Gopachandra and two other kings, Dharmāditya and Samāchāradeva, must be regarded as independent kings, as they all assumed the title *Mahārājādhirāja*. Samāchāradeva also issued gold coins resembling those of the last Gupta emperor and assumed the title Narendrāditya. The records of these kings refer to two important provinces, Vardhamāna-*bhukti* and Navyāvakāśikā (or Suvarṇavīthi), as being ruled by their governors. It may thus be held that they ruled over South Bengal and at least a portion of Eastern and Western Bengal during the second and third quarters of the sixth century A.D.

c14.28

It has been stated above that Īśānavarman defeated the Gauḍas and forced them to take shelter in the sea-shore. It is not unlikely that this refers to a conflict with Gopachandra or one of his successors. For Gauḍa denoted in a vague way both Western and Northern Bengal, and Gopachandra's dominions certainly included territories in Western Bengal. It is worthy of note that no record of the two successors of Gopachandra has been found in Western Bengal. It is not impossible, therefore, that Īśānavarman succeeded in driving these kings from Western Bengal, and as they were forced to fall back on the marshy and deltaic lands of Southern Bengal, the Maukhari king could fittingly describe them as *samudrāśraya* (sheltered by the sea). It may be recalled that Jivita-gupta of the Later Gupta family is also said to have fought against enemies who lived on the sea-shore. Here, too, the reference might be to the people of Lower Bengal who had declared independence of the Gupta empire. The probability is not altogether excluded that the military campaigns of Īśānavarman and Jivita-gupta were undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord. But in view of the very meagre data that we possess, these conclusions are very uncertain. If the Gauḍa-enemy of Īśānavarman were different from Gopachandra or his successor, we have to presume that the people of West Bengal, too, were asserting their authority and had come to be recognised as an important political entity. But we have no definite information of its political status at this period.

Cites (2)

Harṣacarita — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit
Mandasor