The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c14.20

Language: English

v1.c14.20.1

The rise of Aṁśuvarman is one of the most interesting incidents in the history of Nepal. It seems likely that the Ṭhākuris, to which tribal group Aṁśuvarman belonged, held ministerial offices before the reign of Śivadeva. In the reign of the latter we find the *Mahāsāmanta* Aṁśuvarman’s name associated with that of his sovereign in several charters, three of which are dated in the Licchavi era 518, 519, and 520.² All these inscriptions are issued from *Mānagṛha*, the royal residence of the Licchavi kings built by Mānadeva. During this period he must have gradually assumed the position of the ‘mayor of the palace,’ and according to the Vaṁśāvalīs, strengthened his position by marrying the daughter of his sovereign. By the time the Harigaon inscription was issued, the revolution that was slowly taking place was complete. Śivadeva has disappeared from the inscriptions, which are now dated in a fresh era, and are issued from *Kailāsakūṭabhavana*, no doubt a new palace constructed by the usurper. Like the Nizāms and Peshwas of Mughul history, he however still retained his humble title of *Mahāsāmanta*, and is sometimes even given the simple honorific of *Śrī*.

v1.c14.20.2

In an inscription of his successor, however, his sovereign power is recognised by the title of *Mahārājādhirāja*.³ The inscriptions of Aṁśuvarman are dated in years from 30 to 39 of the new era.⁴ Though there is unanimity amongst scholars about the age of Aṃśuvarman, the latter being identified with the Nepalese ruler who was dead shortly before the itinerary of Yuan Chwang in Northern India in about the middle of the 7th century A.D., yet there are considerable differences of opinion when it comes to determining the exact epoch of the era used in his inscriptions.¹ In his ‘Considerations on the History of Nepal,’ Bhagwanlal Indraji definitely rejected the possibility of Aṃśuvarman founding a new era, and offered plausible arguments for the belief that the era used was the Harṣa era. This view was accepted by Fleet in his critical examination of the ‘Chronology of the Early Rulers of Nepal.’ But the strength of their arguments were much weakened when Prof. Lévi showed that the passage of the *Harṣacarita* which had so long been accepted as an allusion to the conquest of Nepal by Harṣa is capable of another interpretation.² A more serious objection to the acceptance of the view of Bhagwanlal is probably the fact that it seems to involve a contradiction of the statement of Yuan Chwang that Aṃśuvarman was dead when he visited Northern India (606-07+45=651-52 A.D.).

v1.c14.20.3

Lévi has shown from Tibetan and Chinese sources that Nepal during Aṃśuvarman's reign was a vassal of the powerful Tibetan king Srong-btsan Sgam-po, to whom the Nepal king was compelled to give his daughter in marriage. In a note contributed to the *Journal Asiatique* the same scholar has tried to show that the year 34 of Aṃśuvarman corresponds to 629 of the Christian era. Thus, he came to the conclusion that the era used by the usurper started from 595 A.D., and as Aṁśuvarman was a vassal of the Tibetans, the era he uses is probably Tibetan in origin and possibly dates from the first king of Tibet, Lun-tsang so-lung-tsan. The fact that Aṁśuvarman celebrated his *Abhiṣeka* in the year 30 of the era seems to confirm the opinion that the era was a borrowed one.¹ Whatever might be the exact epoch of his era, there is no doubt that he was a successful king. The distribution of his inscriptions at Katmandu, Patan, Deo-Patan and Bagmati demonstrates that he exercised his sovereignty in the very centre of the valley of Népal. The fact that his name is registered by the Chinese annals and is joined with the Tibetan legends shows that he produced a profound impression on his contemporaries. But after his death, which must have happened some time before the year 48 (643 A.D. ?), the date of his successor Jiṣṇugupta,² Nepal enters upon a period of confusion. There is unquestionable evidence that the ancient dynasty of the Licchavis was again restored to power.

v1.c14.20.4

The Licchavi era and the names of Licchavi kings again appear on the charters of Jiṣṇugupta.³ It seems likely that, taking advantage of the confusion that followed the death of Aṁśuvarman, this adventurer, who was probably sprung from an indigenous family, seized the royal power and raised a scion of the Licchavis as his nominal sovereign. From the fact that he mentions his great-grandfather Mānagupta without any honorific, and that the ending of his name is *Gupta*, which is absent in the names of the Licchavi princes, and occurs only in the legendary lists of Gopāla kings, Lévi concluded that Jiṣṇugupta was an Āhīr (Ābhīra = Gopāla = Goāl) of plebeian rank.⁴ By the time his reign ended, the Licchavis, the legitimate sovereigns of Nepal, had fully recovered their power. From the time of Narendradeva, who succeeded Jiṣṇugupta sometime before the year 657 A. D., the date which marks, according to Lévi, the introduction of the cult of Matsyendranātha in Nepal, down to the time of Jayadeva *Paracakrakāma* whose Katmandu inscription is dated in 153 (=748 A.D. ?), the Valley appears to have remained under the control of the Licchavis.¹ Śivadeva, the father of Jayadeva, whose Lagantol inscription is dated in 119 (=714 A. D. ?), married Vatsadevī, the daughter of the Maukhari Bhogavarman and the granddaughter of the *Magadhādhipa*, Ādityasena. This last prince is certainly the later Gupta ruler of that name whose Shahpur image inscription is dated in the Harṣa year 66 (=672-73 A.

v1.c14.20.5

D.).² I-tsing, who visited India during 673-85 A. D., mentions a pious foundation of this Gupta prince.³ Jayadeva himself married Rājyamatī, daughter of Harṣadeva, who is described as belonging to the *Bhagadatta-rāja-kula* and king of Gauḍa, Oḍra, Kaliṅga, Kośala and other lands. Kielhorn has identified this prince with Śrī-Hariṣa (Harṣa) of a Tejpur epigraph in Assam.⁴