Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c15.s2.78

c15.s2.78

In conclusion Paṇḍit Śāstrī refers to the assassination of the last Maurya Emperor of Magadha by Pushyamitra Śuṅga and says, “We clearly see the hands of the Brāhmaṇas in the great revolution." But the Buddhist remains at Bhārhut erected "during the sovereignty of the Śuṅgas" do not bear out the theory which represents them as the leaders of a militant Brāhmaṇism. Are inferences deduced from uncorroborated writings of late authors like the compiler of the *Divyāvadāna* and perhaps Tāranātha, to be preferred to the clear testimony of contemporary monuments? Even admitting that Pushyamitra was a militant Brāhmaṇist we fail to see how the decay and dismemberment of the Maurya empire can be attributed primarily to him or to his Brāhmaṇist followers. The empire was a shrivelled and attenuated carcase long before Pushyamitra's *coup d'etat* of *c.* 187 B.C. We learn from the *Rājataraṅgiṇī* that immediately after the death of Aśoka one of his own sons, **Jalauka,** made himself independent in Kaśmīra and conquered the plains including Kanauj. If Tāranātha is to be believed another prince, Vīrasena, apparently wrested Gandhāra from the hands of the feeble successor of the great Maurya at Pāṭaliputra. The virtual secession of Vidarbha or Berar is vouched for by the *Mālavikāgnimitram* of Kālidāsa. The loss of the northern provinces is confirmed by Greek evidence. We learn from Polybius that about 206 B.C., there ruled over them a king named Sophagasenus, **Subhāgasena,** probably a successor of Vīrasena). We quote the passage referring to the king below:—