Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Vakataka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c8: Chapter I

The Vākāṭaka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c8

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I

c8.1

THE PUNJAB, SINDH AND AFGHANISTAN (c. 180 A. D. to c. 450 A. D.)

c8.2

Owing to the dearth of original sources, the history of the Punjab, Afghanistan and Sindh, subsequent to the death of Vāsudeva I (in c. 180 A.D.), is shrouded in considerable obscurity. There are no contemporary inscriptions to throw light upon the events in the political history of these provinces during the 3rd century A. D. The Purāṇas no doubt refer to Śaka, Yavana and Tuṣāra rulers ruling in the north-west during this period, but do not give their names or the duration of their reigns. Foreign sources supply us with some more definite information, but it is meagre and often difficult to interpret. Coins of the kings ruling in these provinces and their contemporaries in Iran and Bactria are almost the only reliable source of information. These, however, are not dated, and their legends also are often incomplete or illegible. It will be thus seen that we can at present reconstruct the history of this period only in broad outline; subsequent discoveries may modify our present tentative conclusions.

1. Kanishka III

c8.s1.1

(c. 180-210 A.D.)

c8.s1.2

According to the chronology accepted for this history, the accession of Kanishka III took place in c. 180 A.D.¹ The coins of this ruler are numerous, and so we can reasonably assume that he had a fairly long reign, and may have ruled for about 30 years down to c. 210 A.D. They are found in the Punjab, Seistan and Afghanistan, which must, therefore, have been included in his kingdom. It also extended over Kashmir and Bactria¹; the latter province was the homeland of the Kushāṇas for several centuries. Towards the south-east the kingdom probably continued to include Mathura down to c. 200 A.D. But soon after that date the south-eastern Punjab and the United Provinces slipped out of the Kushāṇa control owing to the revolt of the Yaudheyas and the Nāgas. How these powers along with some of their neighbours succeeded in driving the Kushāṇas from their own homelands will be narrated in Chapter II.

c8.s1.3

¹ The latest known date for Vāsudeva I is 98 (of the Śaka era). He was then on the throne for at least 24 years and so we may place the accession of Kanishka III in c. 102 or 180 A.D. The existence of Kanishka III as distinguished from Kanishka I and II is proved by numismatic evidence only, which, however, is conclusive. The monogram on the coins of this ruler is that of Vāsudeva I and not of Kanishka I, and so he must have succeeded Vāsudeva I and not preceded him. The Greek script on his coins is quite corrupt; Brāhmī letters are introduced on them, which was not done on the coins of Vāsudeva I or those of any of his predecessors. It is, therefore, certain that Kanishka, whose coins

c8.s1.4

¹ The view that Vāsudeva I had lost his hold over Bactria and Afghanistan because his inscriptions are found only near Mathura is disproved by the findspots of the coins of his successor Kanishka III.

c8.s1.5

Kanishka III governed his kingdom through the agency of Satraps or governors, the names of some of whom appear in abbreviated forms in Brāhmī characters on the obverse side of his coins. Vāsu(deva), Virū(pāksha) (Pl. I, 1) and Mahi(śvara) or Mahi(dhara) were some among them. Of these Vāsu(deva) was probably his son, who succeeded him as Vāsudeva II.² It is not unlikely that either Mahiśvara or Virūpāksha or both may have been brothers of Vāsudeva. Vāsudeva was ruling in Seistan, for the coins of Kanishka III with the name of this governor are obtained mostly from that province.³ Virūpāksha and Mahiśvara were probably ruling parts of the Punjab and Afghanistan. Letters *Vi*, *Si* and *Bhri*, which appear on the obverse of the coins of Kanishka III to the right side of the standing king are also most probably the initial letters of other governors ruling some other parts of the extensive

c8.s1.6

² Banerji distinguished Vāsu from Vāsudeva II (JASB. N.S. IV, 87-88), but without much justification.

c8.s1.7

³ Ibid. 83-86.

c8.s1.8

show corrupt Greek script and Brāhmī letters, was a successor of Vāsudeva I. He is, therefore, described as Kanishka III to distinguish him from the earlier rulers of the same name.

c8.s1.9

kingdom. The names of the Kushān emperor and most of his governors are all Hindu; this shows that the Hinduisation of the Kushāns had become almost complete by this time.

c8.s1.10

Apart from the initials or portions of the names of the governors, there appear on the coins of Kanishka III some additional letters like *Pa*, *Na*, *Ga*, *Chu*, *Khu*, *Tha*, *Vai*, etc. whose exact significance is not yet known. It is, however, likely that some of these may stand for the initials of the names of cities from which the coins were issued, and others for the initials of the names of the provinces or tribes among whom they were current. Thus *Pa* may be standing for Purushapura (Peshawar), *Na* for Nagarahāra (Jalalabad), *Ga* for Gandhāra country, and *Chu* and *Khu* for the tribes of the Chutsas and the Kshudrakas living in the upper and the middle Indus valley.¹ If we had more accurate information about the history and the geography of the period, it would have been possible to propose more confident interpretations for these letters making their mysterious appearance on the coins of the later Kushāns and their successors.

c8.s1.11

¹ *Ibid.* 84.

c8.s1.12

Kanishka III issued coins of two types. The first of these is a continuation of the type of his predecessor, Vasudeva I, where we have Siva by the side of his bull on the reverse. In the second type (Pl. I, 1) the Roman goddess, seated Ardoksho, takes the place of Siva. The coins of the first type are usually found in Bactria and Afghanistan and those of the second type in Gandhāra, Seistan and the Punjab. It is important to note the provenance of these types, because it helps us to unravel some of the incidents of the history of the period.

c8.s1.13

The appearance of the initials or portions of the names of satraps or governors on the coins of Kanishka III is a new departure in the Kushāna coinage, for earlier emperors of the dynasty never permitted such liberty to their governors. It is clear that during the reign of Kanishka III, the provincial satraps were getting more assertive even in the Punjab, and that the Central Government found it necessary to appease them by allowing their initials on the imperial coinage. Many of them must have aspired to establish independent kingdoms at the occurrence of a suitable opportunity. That opportunity presented itself at the death of Kanishka III.

2. Vāsudeva II

c8.s2.1

(c. 210 to c. 230 A. D.)

c8.s2.2

Kanishka III was succeeded by Vāsudeva II, who was probably his son, governing the important and turbulent province of Seistan. His existence also is known only from numismatic evidence.¹

c8.s2.3

¹ Coins of Vāsudeva II have to be differentiated from those of Vāsudeva I, because they show greater degeneration in Greek script and permit the initials of the names of governors. The monogram is also different.

c8.s2.4

During the reign of Vāsudeva II, the Kushān empire seems to have been partitioned among the provincial governors, who were already aspiring for independence during the preceding reign. Coins of Vāsudeva II are rather rare and show only the Śiva and Bull type (Pl. I, 2), which was prevailing in Bactria and Afghanistan. It is thus probable that Vāsudeva II could control only these provinces and his governors in the Punjab and Seistan had become independent. Letters *Radha*, *Phri* and *Ha* which appear on some of his coins may be portions of the names of some of his governors, who were still loyal to him.

c8.s2.5

The position of the Kushāns towards the end of the reign of Vāsudeva II became very critical. The Gangetic plain had been already lost² and provincial governors had become independent in the Punjab. A tribe named Jouan-Jouan was threatening them from the north-east from beyond the Oxus.³ The Sassanians, who had now founded a powerful kingdom in Persia, were casting their covetous eyes on the fair valley of the Oxus, which used to form part of the Persian empire under the Achaemenians. Under such circumstances, therefore, it was but natural for Vāsudeva II to try to enlist help from outside quarters. We would not be, therefore, wrong in identifying him with P'o-tiao, the king of the great Kushāṇas, who is known to have sent an embassy to Chinese court to ask for help in *c.* 230 A.D. No outside help could, however, save the Kushāṇas. Their days were now numbered. They had to fight hard against the Jouan-Jouans, and were weakened by the struggle. They had lost their rich Indian provinces, which replenished their treasury. Ardeshir I took advantage of the situation and succeeded in establishing his own supremacy over Bactria in *c.* 238 A.D. He started the practice of sending the crown-prince as governor over the new province, as was often done by the Achaemenians also six hundred years earlier. The crown-prince so deputed had the privilege of issuing his own coins with the title *Kushān Shāh*, the king of the Kushāṇas. From 252 A.D. onwards this title was changed into *Kushān-Shahān-Shāh*, the King of the kings of the Kushāṇas.¹

c8.s2.6

² Chap. II will show how the Yaudheyas and the Nāgas reasserted their independence in this region.

c8.s2.7

³ Num. Supp. XLVII, 25.

c8.s2.8

¹ Herzfeld, *Kushāṇo-Sassanian Coins*, p. 39.

c8.s2.9

That the Kushāṇa prince overthrown by the Sassanians was Vāsudeva II is made fairly certain by the evidence of the Kushāṇo-Sassanian coinage, which was issued by the royal governors of Bactria. The coins of this series have on the reverse Śiva and the Bull, which was the only type issued by Vāsudeva II, and which is known to have been current in Bactria. Following the usual practice of conquerors in ancient Bactria and India, the Sassanians imitated the coinage of the king whom they supplanted. He must, therefore, have been Vāsudeva II and none else.

3. The Period of Sassanian Ascendancy

c8.s3.1

The Kushāṇo-Sassanian coinage² issued by the Sassanian viceroys was current only in Balkh, Merv and Samarkand; its specimens are not to be found in Afghanistan, Seistan or the Punjab (Pl. I, 3). It is, therefore, clear that for some time the Sassanians were content to occupy only the home provinces of the Kushāṇas. Their titles on the coins, ‘the king of the Kushāṇas’ and ‘the king of kings of the Kushāṇas’ would further indicate that the Sassanians did not drive the Kushāṇs out of Bactria, but only established their suzerainty over that province. Very probably some Kushāṇa chiefs may have continued to rule as their feudatories.

c8.s3.2

² These coins are called Kushāṇo-Sassanian because the obverse is n imitation of the Sassanian coins and the reverse of the Kushāṇa coins. Cunningham had described them as Scytho-Sassanian, but Kushāṇo-Sassanian is no doubt a more accurate term.

c8.s3.3

The conquest of some Indian provinces of the Kushāṇa empire was attempted and accomplished by the Sassanian emperor Varahran II. This ruler succeeded in annexing Afghanistan, North-Western Frontier Province, Seistan and Sindh to the Sassanian empire by *c.* 284 A.D. Varahran II now transferred the crown prince Varahran III to Seistan as its Governor with the privilege of issuing coins with the title *Sakān Shāh*, the king of the Sakas. We can understand the significance of this title of the crown-prince when we remember that Saka chiefs were in power in Sindh and Seistan for about two hundred years. The Punjab was not conquered by the Sassanians; their coins are but rarely found in that province.

c8.s3.4

Afghanistan and the Indus valley continued to be under the Sassanian rule for about 80 years down to *c.* 360 A.D. There were frequent wars of succession during this period and therefore it was at one time thought that the Sassanian rule in the Indus valley must have been very short-lived. Inscriptions recently discovered at Persepolis show, however, that even in 310-1, A.D., when the reigning Sassanian emperor Shapur II was only a baby, his elder brother continued to rule in Seistan enjoying the titles, King of Sakastān, Minister of ministers of Sindh, Sakastān and Tukhāristān. The Sassanian rule in these regions was well established and organised ; for the Persepolis inscription discovered by Herzfeld refers to a High Judge at Kabul and a Minister of Public Instruction in Sakastān (*Sakastān andarzbed*).¹

c8.s3.5

¹ Herzfeld, *Op. cit.* pp. 35-6.

c8.s3.6

We must, however, note that during the period of Sassanian ascendancy in Afghanistan and the Indus valley, some Śaka and Kuṣāṇa chiefs continued to rule as petty feudatories. Thus there was a feudatory Kuṣāṇa family ruling at Kabul; for the wife of the Sassanian emperor Hormuzd II (303-309 A.D.) was a Kuṣāṇa princess belonging to that family. It is quite possible that there may have been other Kuṣāṇa and Śaka feudatories in the Indus valley as well.

4. The Punjab During c. 230 to c. 340 A.D.

c8.s4.1

We have seen already that the Sassanian conquests in the east did not extend to the Punjab proper. The conquest of this province is not explicitly claimed for any Sassanian ruler, nor does the coinage of the province of the 3rd century A.D. show any Sassanian influence. It is, however, difficult to state who precisely were the successors of Vāsudeva II in the land of the Five Rivers. There are no inscriptions to enlighten us on the point and coins again are our only source of information.

c8.s4.2

The numismatic evidence shows that the Western and Central Punjab was being governed during this period by three Scythian houses. The western part of the province was being ruled by a dynasty, which may be described as the Śāka (not Śaka) dynasty, as the term Śāka appears on the obverse of most of the coins issued by its rulers. Peshawar was the capital of this house; a large hoard of its coins was recently discovered there. The coins of the rulers of the Śāka family so closely resemble those of Kanishka III and Vāsudeva II¹ that we may safely presume that it immediately succeeded Vāsudeva II in c. 230 A.D. Śayatha, Sita and Sena are either the names or portions of the names of three rulers of this house. Pra, Mi, Bhṛi, and Bha are probably the initials of four other members. The dynasty ruled for about 100 years and may well have consisted of seven kings thus known to us from its coinage.

c8.s4.3

¹ Cunningham, *Later Indo-Scythians*, Pl. II, 11.

c8.s4.4

The numismatic evidence shows that the Śiladas and the Gaḍaharas were holding sway over the Central Punjab at this time. Kings Bhadra, Bacharṇa and Pāsana of the former dynasty and Peraya and Kirada of the latter are known from coins. There may have been other rulers as well, whose coins may not have come down to us. Both these dynasties were ruling in the Central Punjab down to the days of Samudragupta; for a Gaḍahara chief is seen putting the name of that emperor on his coins. They however lost a portion of their kingdom when the Madras re-established their republic at Sialkot sometime before 325 A.D.

c8.s4.5

From the Purāṇas we learn that 8 Yavana, 14 Tushāra and 13 Muruṇḍa chiefs ruled, presumably in the Punjab, after the fall of the Andhras.¹ It would appear that the Puranic writers had the Shāka, Shilada and Gaḍahara dynasties in view when they wrote this account. *Prima facie*, it appears strange that the Purāṇas should have described one of these dynasties as Yavana; Greek rule had become extinct long ago. It is however likely that the term may be referring to the tribe Jouan-Jouan of the Chinese writers, who were threatening the Kushāṇs in c. 320 A.D. and who may have eventually penetrated to the Punjab during the confusion subsequent to the overthrow of the Kushāṇs.

c8.s4.6

¹ DKA. p. 45.

c8.s4.7

It may be pointed out that the coins of the above Scythian families (Pl. I, 4) are never found outside the Punjab. Coins and inscriptions on the other hand show that the Yaudheyas, the Arjunāyanas and the Mālavas had risen to power and become independent in the Eastern Punjab, Northern U. P. and Rajputana during the 3rd century A.D. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the Scythians were driven out from these territories early in the 3rd century A.D. The part played by Hindu chiefs in this episode will be discussed in chapter II.

5. The Kidāra Kushāṇas

c8.s5.1

The rule of the Shākas and the Shiladas came to an end in c. 340 A.D. with the rise of a tribe, which is sometimes described as the Little Kushāṇa and sometimes as Kidāra Kushāṇa. Its chief Kidāra,¹ whose capital was at Peshawar, was originally a feudatory of the Sassanians, who were then supreme in Afghanistan and the Indus valley. On his early coins, the bust of Kidāra is seen facing right, a convention which had to be followed by all the feudatories of the Sassanian empire. In course of time, however, Kidāra conquered Kashmir and the Central Punjab.² He now felt himself strong enough to assume independence and began to issue coins with the bust facing to the front, which was the privilege of the Sassanian emperor only (Pl. I. 5). This step, probably taken in c. 355 A.D., evoked imperial anger and reprisal. We find Shapur II encamped at Kabul in 356-57 A.D. and pursuing operations against his rebellious feudatory.³ He was successful in this venture; Kidāra was compelled to acknowledge his suzerainty. We find him sending assistance to his liege lord in 359 A.D. when he was engaged in his Mesopotamian campaign.

c8.s5.2

¹ Cunningham had placed Kidāra in c. 425 A.D. (Later Indo-Scythians, p. 185) but Major Martin has now adduced fairly conclusive numismatic evidence to show that this chief must have flourished about a century earlier. See Num. Supp. XLVII, 30 ff.

c8.s5.3

² The Purāṇas mention a Mlechchha king ruling over these territories contemporaneously with the Guptas; DKA. p. 55. Most probably he is the Kidāra king.

c8.s5.4

³ Num. Supp. XLVII, 31.

c8.s5.5

The closer association with the imperial army probably enabled Kidāra to realise its weak points and he began to mature plans for reasserting his independence. He secured the good-will of Samudra-gupta, who had by this time extended his sphere of influence to the Punjab, by sending him presents along with professions of allegiance, and delivered his blows against Shapur II in 367-8 A.D. Kidāra was successful in his undertaking; he annihilated one Sassanian army and drove away another, though it was being led by Shapur himself. These victories enabled Kidāra to consolidate his power in Gandhāra, Kashmir and the Western and Central Punjab. He appointed a number of Satraps to rule these provinces. Varo Shāhi, Piroch and Buddhabala, whose names are preserved on his coins,¹ were three among them; there may have been others as well.

c8.s5.6

¹ Ibid. 41-2.

c8.s5.7

Kidāra was succeeded by his son Piro in *c.* 375 A.D. He must have naturally attempted to extend his power further eastward in the Punjab when the strong arm of Samudra-gupta was removed by death at about this time. To check this growing menace, Rama-gupta, the successor of Samudra-gupta, seems to have undertaken an expedition against him in the Punjab, but was signally defeated and compelled to conclude an ignoble peace, requiring the surrender of the Gupta crowned queen. A glance at the features of Piro² shows that he was a cruel and lascivious ruler, who could well have imposed the above condition on his vanquished adversary.

c8.s5.8

² Num. Supp. XLVII, Plates I and II, Nos. 15-21.

c8.s5.9

The success of Piro was, however, short-lived. Shapur III (383-88 A.D.) took steps to avenge the defeat inflicted upon his predecessor and broke Piro's power. He was compelled to acknowledge the Sassanian suzerainty and issue coins as a feudatory, with the bust facing to right instead of facing to front. Chandra-gupta II also seems to have hammered Piro from the east³; we do not know, however, whether his attack was before or after the defeat inflicted by Shapur III. The Gupta armies seem to have pursued him right up to the Indus.

c8.s5.10

³ This is on the assumption that king Chandra of the Meharauli Pillar inscription is Chandra-gupta II. This assumption is the most probable one, but it has not yet been accepted by a few scholars.

c8.s5.11

The Guptas do not seem to have followed their victories in the Punjab to their logical conclusion by annexing the province and stationing their garrison in the Khyber pass. In fact we have very little evidence of the Gupta influence in the Punjab apart from that of the Shorkot inscription, which seems to have been dated in the year 83 of the Gupta era. Nor was the province under the Sassanian sphere of influence, for no coins of Sassanian emperors or their feudatories who ruled later than Shapur III have been found in the *stūpas* of the Punjab or Afghanistan.

c8.s5.12

Numismatic evidence shows that a number of petty rulers like Kṛtavīrya, Śilāditya, Sarvayaśas, Bhāsvan, Kuśala and Prakāśa were ruling in the Punjab during the first half of the 5th century A.D. They were probably Kidāra Kuṣāṇa rulers, for the name Kidāra appears on their coins on the obverse. Their names would show that they had been completely Hinduised by this time. They were probably professing allegiance to the Guptas, when it became necessary to do so. It must be admitted that neither Chandra-gupta II nor Kumāra-gupta showed keen interest in securing an effective hold over the Punjab. The expedition of Chandra-gupta II to the Indus appears to have been a mere raid, for it does not seem that he took any steps to occupy the Punjab or to garrison the north-western frontier in an effective manner. The local Kidāra chiefs, referred to above, were swept away easily and completely when the Hūṇa avalanche broke in its full fury by the middle of the 5th century.

c8.s5.13

CHAPTER II

c8.s5.14

NEW INDIAN STATES IN RAJPUTANA AND MADHYADEŚA (c. 200 to c. 350 A.D.)

c8.s5.15

The history of the United Provinces during the 3rd century A.D. is still shrouded in considerable mystery. Kanishka was most probably ruling over Benares in 81 A.D. but no inscription of his successors has been found east of Mathura. It is, however, not unlikely that *Madhyadeśa* or the upper Gangetic plain continued to be under the Kushāṇa sphere of influence, if not under Kushāṇa administration, down to the death of Vāsudeva I in *c.* 180 A.D.; for seventeen coins of Huvishka and a coin-mould of Vāsudeva were found at Bhita in the Allahabad district.¹ It was during the reign of Kanishka III, the successor of Vāsudeva I, that the upper Gangetic plain slipped out of the Kushāṇa control; coins of neither this ruler nor those of any of his successors are found in this region.

c8.s5.16

¹ *ASI.* 1911-12, pp. 63-5.

c8.s5.17

There is, however, no unanimity of views as to the causes and circumstances that led to the disintegration of the Kushāṇa empire in its eastern portion. Which powers drove out the Kushāṇas from the United Provinces and Rajputana, what part did each of them play in this achievement, and where precisely they were ruling, are questions upon which there is a sharp difference of opinion among the scholars.

1. Did the Bhāraśivas Drive Out the Kushāṇas?

c8.s6.1

The credit for the overthrow of the Kushāṇa power in the Gangetic plain was once given to the Guptas,² but this view can no longer be upheld. There is no evidence to show that the Kushāṇa empire continued to include the Gangetic valley after c. 180 A.D. The Allahabad inscription of Samudra-gupta makes it certain that there was no Kushāṇa rule in Magadha or U. P. when the Guptas were laying the foundation of their empire. The kings of Āryāvarta, whom Samudra-gupta forcibly uprooted, were all Indians; none of them was of Kushāṇa or Śaka extraction.

c8.s6.2

² Banerji, *The Age of the Imperial Guptas*, p. 5.

c8.s6.3

The late Dr. Jayaswal advocated the view that the Kushāṇa empire collapsed owing to the onslaughts of the Bhāraśivas, whose work in this connection was later completed by the Vākāṭakas under the leadership of the emperor Pravara-sena I.¹ It will be shown in Chapter V how the Vākāṭaka emperor never came into contact with the Kushāṇas. Nor is there any evidence to show that the Bhāraśivas were the leaders of the movement to emancipate the country from the foreign rule. They had no doubt celebrated ten horse-sacrifices, but these were often performed in our period by even small rulers with no claims to imperial achievements or conquests.²

c8.s6.4

¹ Dr. Jayaswal's Bhāraśiva theory is based almost entirely on numismatic evidence; the present writer has shown in details elsewhere how the numismatic data do not support the theory at all. See JNSI. V, 111-134.

c8.s6.5

² The Ikshvāku king Śāntamūla, who had performed an Aśamedha sacrifice in c. 225 A. D., did not rule over more than two or three districts. Kadamba king Kṛiṣṇa-varman, who had celebrated it in c. 450 A. D., was not even an independent king. The Viṣṇukuṇḍin king Mādhava-varman I, who had performed 11 of them in c. 425 A. D. was ruling over a very small kingdom.

c8.s6.6

According to Jayaswal, the Bhāraśiva family is identical with the Nava-nāga family of the Purāṇas and that its founder was king Nava, whose capital was at Kāntipurī, modern Kantit, in Mirzapur District, U. P. There is nothing to indicate that any Nāga family was ever ruling at Kāntipurī or that king Nava of coins was a Nāga ruler who belonged to it. His coins are not found at Kāntipurī and bear no resemblance whatsoever to any known Nāga coinage. Nāga rulers invariably attach the epithet nāga to their names on their coins, though they are very small; king Nava never does so, though his coins are relatively much larger in size. The assumption that Vira-sena, the successor of Nava, was the real founder of the three Nāga families ruling at Kāntipuri, Padmāvatī and Mathura, has yet to be proved. Since his coins are found in Mathura, it is quite likely that he was an independent Nāga ruler. But there is nothing to show that he had ousted the Kushāṇas from the eastern Punjab, for his coins are but rarely found beyond the Jumna. The view that the successors of Vīra-sena—Traya-nāga, Haya-nāga and Barhiṇa-nāga—pressed the Kushāṇas so hard that they were compelled to seek the protection of the Sassanian emperor Shapur I, has absolutely no shred of evidence to support it. The coins of these rulers are never found in the Punjab, which is said to have been the scene of their military exploits; nay, it is very doubtful whether we have got their coins at all, for the legends on the coins, attributed to them, are very blurred and cannot be read with certainty.

c8.s6.7

When considering the question of the disintegration of the Kushāṇa empire, we must therefore disabuse our mind of the notion that it was the Bhāraśivas of Kāntipuri who annihilated the Kushāṇa empire. The riddle of the disappearance of the Kushāṇa power from the Gangetic plain can be solved only by carefully studying the coins and inscriptions of the contemporary powers. If we do so, we shall find that the Yaudheyas, the Kuṇindas, the Mālavas, the Nāgas and the Maghas¹, who began to strike coins as independent powers in the 3rd century, all played their own part in driving out the Kushāṇas.

c8.s6.8

¹ The Maghas asserted independence earlier in c. 160 A. D., as will be shown later in this chapter; but the Kushāṇas probably connived at their rebellion as the Magha homelands lay in the jungle tracts of Rewa, not easily accessible.

c8.s6.9

Like most other dynasties in Indian history the Kushāṇas also began to decline after a career of about 150 years in c. 200 A.D. They had no doubt been indianised by this time, but nevertheless, it was probably felt that they belonged to a different ethnic stock and the Yaudheyas and their neighbours, with their age-long republican traditions, were not prepared to lose a golden opportunity to regain their political independence, when they detected that the imperial Kushāṇa power had become weak. Evidence available at present does not favour the view that any big federation consisting of all the above powers and working under a common leadership was formed in order to overthrow the Kushāṇa empire. The Yaudheyas were the strongest and probably the first to inflict an effective blow, perhaps in co-operation with their immediate neighbours, the Kuṇindas and the Arjunāyanas. The success of this move emboldened the Nāgas of Padmāvati and the Mālavas of Rajputana to follow their example and to reassert their independence. We shall now proceed to narrate how all these events took place in the first half of the 3rd century A.D.

2. The Yaudheya Kuṇinda and the Arjunāyana Republics

c8.s7.1

The credit of giving the first blow to the Kushāṇa empire really belongs to the Yaudheyas, and it is rather strange that their achievement in this connection should have escaped the notice of most of the modern historians. Before the rise of the Kushāṇa empire the Yaudheyas were a great power ruling over a wide stretch of territory covering northern Rajputana and the south-eastern Punjab.¹ Soon afterwards however the Kushāṇas under the leadership of Kanishka smashed their power and succeeded in penetrating right up to Benares, if not beyond.

c8.s7.2

¹ *Mbh.* II, Chap. 35, vv. 4 ff.

c8.s7.3

The Kushāṇa power was at its zenith during the reigns of Kanishka and Huvishka, and so the Yaudheyas could not raise their head for about half a century. They were, however, too martial and freedom-loving to brook the foreign yoke and raised their standard of revolt in *c.* 145 A. D. somewhere in the north-eastern Rajputana. The task of crushing their rising was entrusted to Śaka Mahākshatrapa Rudra-dāman I and he proudly states in his Junagadh record how he forcibly overthrew the Yaudheyas, who had become insubordinate owing to their pride due to their valour being respected by all the Kshatriyas. The Yaudheyas were not dismayed by this initial reverse. They bided their time for a few decades and made a second bid for independence towards the end of the second century A. D. This time they were successful in their venture and succeeded in freeing their homeland and ousting the Kushāṇas beyond the Sutlej.

c8.s7.4

Though the above view relies almost exclusively on the evidence of coins, it is fairly conclusive. It is true that there is no evidence directly referring to the conflict between the Yaudheyas and the Kushāṇas, but the evidence supplied by numismatics conclusively shows that the former could have succeeded in re-establishing their power only by overthrowing the latter. The coins of Kanishka III (c. 180 to c. 210 A. D.) and Vāsudeva II (210 to 240 A. D.) are not found to the east of the Sutlej ; it is thus clear that they had lost all cis-Sutlej territories. On the other hand, the post-Kushāṇa coins of the Yaudheyas having legends in the characters of the 3rd or 4th century A. D. are found in large hoards between the Sutlej and the Jumna, the homeland of the Yaudheyas, in the districts of Saharanpur, Dehra Dun, Delhi, Rohtak, Ludhiana and Kangra.¹ It is therefore quite clear that they were ruling over this territory as an independent power from the beginning of the 3rd century A.D., obviously after ousting the Kushāṇas who were previously holding it. The territory on the banks of the Sutlej right up to the borders of the Bahawalpur state is still known as Johiyawar after the Yaudheyas ; it is therefore clear that the state of Patiala and the greater part of northern Rajputana must have been included within the dominions of the resuscitated Yaudheya republic.

c8.s7.5

¹ ASC, II, 14, 77.

c8.s7.6

The above achievement of the Yaudheyas was a remarkable one. It was no easy thing to challenge a power whose empire extended from Bactria to Bihar, whose resources were practically limitless, and whose kings enjoyed the prestige of being revered as the Sons of Heaven for more than a century. The Kushāṇas must have probably thrown all their select reserves from the North-Western Frontier and Central Asia in their effort to put down the Yaudheya rising, but they proved of no avail against the bravery and patriotism of the revolting republic.

c8.s7.7

The Yaudheya victory over the imperial Kushāṇas naturally increased their prestige and reputation. They were already known as Kshatriyas *par excellence*; now it began to be believed that they possessed a mystic formula (*mantra*) ensuring victory in all circumstances and against all odds.¹

c8.s7.8

¹ A Yaudheya clay-seal found near Ludhiana along with Yaudheya coins has the legend यौधेयानां जयमंत्रधराणाम् ; PASB. 1884, p. 139.

c8.s7.9

The Yaudheyas naturally celebrated their independence by issuing a new currency (Pl. I. 6).² As it was intended to replace the coinage of the Kushāṇas, it bore a striking resemblance to it in weight and general fabric. The foreign Greek and Kharo-shṭhī scripts were however replaced by the national Brāhmī one and the legend, *Yaudheyagaṇasya jayaḥ* proudly proclaimed the victory of the new republic. Kārtikeya, the generalissimo of the gods, occupies the place of honour on the coinage and naturally; for he was also the tutelary deity of the Yaudheyas since the days of the *Mahābhārata*.³

c8.s7.10

² As to the dates of these coins, see Allan, *Catalogue of Indian Coins Ancient India*, Introduction, para 184.

c8.s7.11

³ *Mbh.* II, Chap. 35, vv. 4 ff.

c8.s7.12

The Yaudheyas very probably received valuable support and co-operation in their bid for independence from the Kuṇindas, their northern neighbours, who were occupying the region between the upper courses of the Sutlej and the Beas. The Kuṇindas, like the Yaudheyas, were an independent republic before the middle of the first century A. D., and they also had to submit to the Kushāṇa hegemony at *c.* 70 A. D. The coins of a Kuṇinda ruler Chhatreśvara bearing the titles *Mahātman* and *Bhāgavata* have been found with a legend in characters of *c.* 200 A. D. They bear close resemblance in type, fabric and size to the contemporary coinage of the Yaudheyas with Kārtkeya on the obverse.¹ This remarkable resemblance in coinage will, to some extent, support the hypothesis that Kuṇindas and Yaudheyas were contemporary powers and worked hand in hand in regaining their independence towards the beginning of the 3rd century A. D. As compared to the Yaudheyas, the Kuṇindas were a small state and it seems that they eventually coalesced with them. For, we do not find their coinage subsequent to *c.* 250 A. D. ; nor do they figure among the republics mentioned in the Allahabad inscription of Samudra-gupta.

c8.s7.13

¹ Allan, *CAI.* Pl. XXIII, 11-16 with Pl. XXXIX, 22 & XL 10-14.

c8.s7.14

To the south-east of the Yaudheya country lay the territory of another republic, the Arjunāyanas, who were occupying the Agra-Jaipur area. There is no doubt that they also rebelled against the Kuṣāṇas and established an independent state ; it continued to flourish down to the middle of the 4th century, as it figures among the tributaries of Samudra-gupta. It is rather inexplicable that we should have so far found no coins of the Arjunāyanas issued during the post-Kuṣāṇa period.

c8.s7.15

On some of the Yaudheya coins issued at this time, we have the mysterious words, *dvi* (two) and *tri* (three) after the legend *Yaudheyagaṇasya jayaḥ*. No satisfactory explanation of these terms can at present be proposed. According to the traditional belief, the Arjunāyanas and Yaudheyas were the descendants of the Pāṇḍava brothers, Dharma and Arjuna.² It is likely that this belief may have facilitated the formation of a kind of loose union between the two neighbouring republics. We have seen already how the Kuṇindas also appear to have coalesced with the Yaudheyas after *c.* 250 A. D. In course of time a kind of loose confederation seems to have been formed between these three republics, the move being also due to the realisation of the necessity of having a strong state which would effectively meet the Scythian menace, if it occurred again. The terms 'two' and 'three' occurring on some of the later Yaudheya coins, may perhaps refer to the second and third members of the Yaudheya confederation, *viz.*, the Kuṇindas and the Arjunāyanas.

c8.s7.16

² *Mbh.* I, Chap. 95. v. 75 (Bom. Ed.).

c8.s7.17

The Yaudheyas continued to be a powerful republic down to the third quarter of the 4th century A. D. Their coins in the characters of the 3rd and 4th centuries A. D. are found in large numbers, in northern Rajputana and the south-eastern Punjab, thus showing that they continued to be a formidable power throughout this period. Unfortunately we possess no information about the details of their republican administration. As shown above, it was probably a confederation of three republics, the Yaudheyas, the Arjunāyanas and the Kuṇindas. The federating units, it seems, enjoyed complete autonomy and did not lose their separate existence. The foreign policy and the military operations were probably under the direction of a council of the presidents of the three republics, elected by the federating units. The presidents enjoyed the titles of Mahārāja and Mahāsenāpati. A fragmentary inscription of such a Mahārāja-Mahāsenāpati, elected by the Yaudheya republic, has been found in the Bharatpur state.¹ Had the name and the genealogy of this dignitary been preserved, we might have known whether the post was hereditary or depended on election.

c8.s7.18

¹ *CII.* III, 252.

3. The Madra Republic

c8.s8.1

Towards the beginning of the 4th century A.D. the Gaḍaharas lost a portion of their kingdom in the central Punjab to the Madras. Emboldened by the success of the Yaudheyas, the Madras also made a bid for independence at this time and eventually succeeded in establishing their independent republic in the Ravi-Chenab doab; Sialkot was probably their capital. The Madras seem to have issued no coins; at least none have been found so far. The successful establishment of their republican state is however proved by the evidence of the Allahabad inscription of Samudra-gupta in which the Madra republic appears as the most north-western one.

c8.s8.2

Before the rise of the Kuṣāṇa empire there was an Audumbara republic occupying the districts of Kangra, Gurdaspur and Hoshiarpur in the Punjab. Numerous coins of this republic have been found issued in the pre-Kuṣāṇa period but none in the post-Kuṣāṇa epoch. This circumstance may probably be explained on the assumption that the Audumbaras did not succeed in emerging as an independent state in the 3rd or the 4th century A.D. Probably they were merged in the Madra republic.

4. The Mālava Republic

c8.s9.1

The Mālavas, who were occupying the Ravi-Sutlej doab in the days of Alexander the Great, later moved southwards, probably due to foreign pressure. In course of time they occupied Ajmer-Tonk-Mewar area, where they flourished as an independent republic till about the end of the 1st century A.D. With the rise of the Kuṣāṇas and their feudatories, the Western Kshatrapas, the power of the Mālavas was eclipsed for about a century. They were defeated and their territory was annexed to the dominions of the Western Kshatrapas.

c8.s9.2

The Mālavas, however, did not permit the Kshatrapas to rule over them peacefully. They were rising in rebellion or making furtive attacks on the allies of their conquerors. Nahapāna had to send his son-in-law Uṣavadāta to relieve his allies, the Uttamabhadras, who were being molested by the Mālavas. The Mālavas, however, could not hold their own against the Śakas and had to submit to the Śaka rule till the end of the 2nd century A.D.

c8.s9.3

At this time there arose a prolonged war of succession in the Śaka kingdom between Jīva-dāman and his uncle Rudra-siṃha I, which considerably weakened the Kshatrapa power (see Chap. III). This gave a golden opportunity to the Mālavas to reassert their independence. A Mālava leader named Śri(?)soma raised the standard of revolt and celebrated in c. 225 A.D. the Ekashashṭi sacrifice to proclaim the independence of his republic.¹ Curiously enough the record which describes this victory does not mention the name of the enemies defeated, but it is clear that they could have been none others than the Western Kshatrapas. Henceforward neither the Western Kshatrapas nor the Kushāṇas were able to impose their hegemony over the Mālavas.

c8.s9.4

¹ This statement is based on the evidence of Nāndsā Yūpa inscriptions, which are being edited by the present writer in the *Epigraphia Indica*. They may be published in 1946.

c8.s9.5

From c. 225 A.D. the Mālavas continued to flourish as an independent republic down to the time of Samudra-gupta. Their rise was also due to national fervour, for we find Śri(?)-soma proudly referring to his descent from the Ikshvākus, probably in contrast to the pedigree of the foreign Śakas. Like the Yaudheya republic, the Mālava one also was administered by elected chiefs, who sometimes became hereditary. Śri(?)-soma, who liberated the Mālavas, is described as supporting the *ancestral* yoke of public administration. It is, however, noteworthy that neither he nor his father nor grandfather is given any royal or military title like Mahārāja or Senāpati. It is clear that the republican traditions were strong among the Mālavas; even the glorious hero who rescued their country from the foreign yoke did not dare to arrogate to himself any royal title, not even in the record which was primarily intended to proclaim his signal achievement.

c8.s9.6

The Mālavas issued a copious currency (Pl. I, 7) during the 3rd and the 4th centuries A.D. proving their continued existence as an independent state.²

c8.s9.7

² It is held by some scholars that the names like Magaja, Mapojaya, Magajaya, etc., which occur on these coins, are the names of Mālava kings, proving their foreign extraction. The Mālavas were, however, claiming a descent from the Ikshvākus at this time. These mysterious legends cannot be satisfactorily explained at present.

c8.s9.8

It is usually held that the careers of the Yaudheya, the Madra, the Arjunāyana and the Mālava republics mentioned in Samudra-gupta's Allahabad inscription came to an end owing to the imperialistic ambition and expansion of the Guptas. There is, however, no definite evidence to support this view.

c8.s9.9

Samudra-gupta only claims that these republics accepted his overlordship and paid him tribute. This is quite compatible with internal autonomy, and it is quite possible that the republics may have continued their existence during the reigns of Chandra-gupta II and Kumāra-gupta I. It is important to note in this connection that we have no evidence whatsoever to show that the homelands of these republics were ever annexed to the Gupta empire. The fact that no monuments of the Gupta rule have been found in Rajputana or beyond Mathura shows that the Guptas could hardly exercise any effective control over these republics. They may well have continued their semi-independent existence down to the middle of the 5th century A.D., when they appear to have been engulfed in the Hūṇa avalanche.

5. The Nāgas of Padmāvati and Mathura

c8.s10.1

During the 3rd and the 4th centuries A.D. two Nāga families were ruling in Western U. P. and Gwalior state; the capital of the one was Mathura and that of the other, Padmāvati, now represented by the small village Padam-Pawaya in Gwalior state, about 125 miles to the south of Mathura. It is possible that the two Nāga houses ruling at these places were related to each other, but we have no definite evidence on the point.

c8.s10.2

According to the Purāṇas seven kings had ruled at Mathura and nine at Padmāvati when the Guptas were rising to power by *c.* 325 A.D.¹ This would show that these houses started their career in the latter half of the 2nd century. The early rulers must have been the feudatories of the Kushāṇas.

c8.s10.3

¹ *DKA.* p. 53.

c8.s10.4

Of the two Nāga families, the one ruling at Padmāvati seems to have been the more important one, and its rulers were most probably known also as the Bhāraśivas. It is well known how the Bhāraśivas were very particular to carry always a *Śivaliṅga* on their shoulders; the Nāgas of Padmāvati give a prominent position to Śiva's emblem *Triśūla* and vehicle *Nandi*, on their coins. Bhava-nāga, the only individual Bhāraśiva ruler known to us, has a Nāga-ending name, suggesting his Nāga extraction. His coins also are known to be found along with those of the other members of the Nāga family of Padmāvatī. Their palaeography shows that Bhava-nāga, the Nāga ruler of the coins, must have flourished in the first half of the fourth century; the Vākāṭaka history shows that Bhava-nāga, the Bhāraśiva ruler, also must have flourished at exactly the same time. It is thus almost certain that the Bhāraśiva rulers, who are known to have conquered the territories right up to the Ganges and performed ten Horse-sacrifices, were none others than the Nāga kings of Padmāvatī.¹

c8.s10.5

¹ See *JNSI.* V, 21-27 for a more detailed discussion of this topic.

c8.s10.6

The Purāṇas state that there were nine rulers in the Nāga family of Padmāvatī, but do not give either their names or their order of succession. Coins disclose the existence of ten Nāga rulers, Bhīma-nāga, Vibhu-nāga, Prabhākara-nāga, Skanda-nāga, Bṛihaspati-nāga, Vyāghra-nāga, Vasu-nāga, Deva-nāga, Bhava-nāga (Pl. I, 8) and Gaṇapati-nāga; the *Harshacharita* refers to an 11th ruler named Nāgasena, who also figures in the Allahabad inscription of Samudra-gupta, which possibly mentions further a 12th Nāga king, named Nāgadatta.² Padmāvatī and Mathura are separated by about 125 miles only; it is therefore not improbable that some of the coins may belong to the Nāga family of Mathura as well. The coins of Gaṇapati-nāga are much more common at Mathura than at Padmāvatī, and he very probably belonged to the Mathura dynasty.

c8.s10.7

² It is possible that Virasena, whose coins (Pl. II, 1) are found at Mathura, may have been a 13th Nāga ruler.

c8.s10.8

As the order of the above Nāga rulers is not known at present, it is futile to conjecture as to who among them were the feudatories of the Kushāṇas, and as to who were the distinguished heroes who got the Ganges water by their valour for coronation and performed ten Horse-sacrifices. These last-mentioned incidents must have occurred during the first half of the 3rd century A. D. when the Kushāṇas are known to have lost the upper Gangetic plain. The Maghas in the south and the Yaudheyas in the north were making successful efforts at about this time to reassert their independence, and the Nāgas or the Bhārasivas also must have followed their example. The Kushāṇa empire was already reeling under the blows inflicted by the Yaudheyas, as shown above, and the Nāgas therefore could not probably have found it difficult to establish their authority right up to Mathura in the north and the Ganges in the east by displacing the local Kushāṇa governors. They celebrated their victory by performing as many as ten Horse-sacrifices. This large number of Horse-sacrifices need not, however, be taken as proving that they were the leading power to oust the Kushāṇas; for Horse-sacrifices were often performed by petty rulers in our period. The fact is that the Kushāṇa empire lost its eastern provinces by the almost simultaneous risings of the Yaudheyas, the Mālavas and the Nāgas; the leading role however was played by the Yaudheyas, as already shown above.

c8.s10.9

Among the Nāga rulers of Padmāvati, definite historic information is available only of Bhava-nāga, who was ruling from c. 305 to c. 340 A. D. His daughter was married to the Vākāṭaka crown prince Gautamiputra in c. 300 A. D. The Vākāṭaka records never fail to mention that Bhava-nāga was the maternal grandfather of Rudra-sena I. Maternal grandfathers are usually introduced in royal genealogies either when they are distinguished rulers or when they happen to have rendered material assistance to their maternal grandsons. In the present case both the reasons seem to be operating. After a career of nearly a century, the Nāga kingdom of Padmāvati had become a fairly strong power. Pravara-sena, therefore, naturally felt that he would strengthen the position of his rising dynasty by marrying his crown-prince to a daughter of Bhava-nāga. We do not know whether Bhava-nāga participated in any of the campaigns of Pravara-sena or the latter's son Gautamiputra, but there is nothing improbable in his having done so.

c8.s10.10

Bhava-nāga's son-in-law Gautamiputra predeceased his father and so the crown passed on to the latter's son Rudrasena I. The new king found himself in a sea of troubles soon after his accession and received material assistance from his experienced maternal grandfather, which enabled him to maintain his hold upon the throne. The situation will be fully elucidated in Chap. V.

c8.s10.11

At the death of Bhava-nāga in *c.* 340 A. D. the Nāgas had become fairly powerful in U. P. The successful help which Bhava-nāga had given to the Vākāṭakas had increased their prestige. The two Nāga houses, among themselves, were ruling over the territory which included Mathura, Dholpur, Agra, Gwalior, Cawnpore, Jhansi and Banda.

c8.s10.12

Nāgasena and Gaṇapati were the two Nāga rulers ruling by the middle of the 4th century. The first of them seems to have been the king of Padmāvatī and the second, of Mathura.¹ They could not maintain themselves against the rising power of the Guptas; they were both defeated by Samudra-Gupta, who annexed their kingdoms.

c8.s10.13

¹ The *Harshacharita* definitely states that Nāgasena was ruling at Padmāvatī; but its commentator states that he lost his life and kingdom due to the machinations of a minister, and not owing to the invasion of an outsider. His coins also are not yet found in the hoards of Nāga coins. One cannot be therefore certain whether he was ruling at Padmāvatī. The coins of Gaṇapati are still very common in the markets of Mathura. I myself have seen hundreds of them there.

c8.s10.14

Padmāvatī, the Nāga capital, became a flourishing city under the Nāga rule. It was situated near the confluence of the Sindhu and the Pārā and thus had natural protection from three sides. It could boast of a number of magnificent palaces and temples. It was also a famous centre of culture and education. Its reputation in this respect did not diminish even after the fall of the Nāga dynasty; we find ministers from Berar sending their sons for higher education to this city even during the 8th century A. D.²

c8.s10.15

² *Mālatīmādhava*, Act IV. Bhavabhūti, no doubt, describes the city of the 8th century A. D., but the ruins and their stratifications show that it was flourishing from the 2nd century A. D. *ASI.* 1915-16. pp. 100 ff.

c8.s10.16

A king named Achyuta had risen to power in Ahichchhatra (Rohilkhand) by the middle of the 4th century A. D. His cointype (Pl. II, 2) bears a close resemblance to that of some Nāga coins and it is not improbable that he was himself a Nāga ruler, perhaps a scion of a collateral branch of the Mathura family. He offered stubborn resistance to Samudra-gupta but it proved of no avail (see Chap. VII). His kingdom was incorporated in the Gupta empire.

c8.s10.17

To judge from the name, king Nāgadatta of Āryāvarta, overthrown by Samudra-gupta, was also a Nāga ruler. But where precisely he was ruling, we do not know. Probably he was a member of a collateral branch of the Nāga house of Mathura, ruling somewhere in the upper Doab.

First 109 of 157 passages. Read on

Linked texts (13)