Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c16: Chapter VI. The Baimbika-Śuṅga Empire and the Bactrian Greeks

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c16

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI. The Baimbika-Śuṅga Empire and the Bactrian Greeks

Section I. The Reign of Pushyamitra

c16.s1.1

*Satataṁ kampayāmāsa Yavanāneka eva yaḥ*
*balapaurushasampannān kṛitāstrānamitaujasaḥ*
*yathāsurān Kālakeyān devo vajradharastathā.*
—*Mahābhārata.*¹

c16.s1.2

¹ II. 4. 23.

c16.s1.3

*Audbhijjo bhavitā kaśchit senānīḥ Kāśyapo dvijaḥ*
*aśvamedhaṁ Kaliyuge punaḥ pratyāharishyati.*
—*Harivaṁśa*²

c16.s1.4

² III. 2. 40.

c16.s1.5

The Mauryas had done much for Indian unity by bringing the greater part of the country under "one umbrella," by defending it against the generals of Alexander and Seleukos, by establishing a uniform system of administration, by using Prākṛit for official purposes throughout the length and breadth of the empire and attempting to knit together the different sections of its composite population by the strong tie of a common *Dharma*. With the fall of the dynasty Indian history for the time being loses its unity. The command of one single political authority is no longer obeyed from the snowy heights of the Hindukush to the verdant plains of Bengal and the Upper Carnatic. Hordes of outlanders pour through the north-western gates of the country and establish aggressive monarchies in Gandhāra, Western Mālwa and neighbouring regions. The Pañjāb is seized by foreigners and the Deccan by local dynasts. The political connection of the *Madhya-deśa* with the valleys of the Indus and the Godāvarī is temporarily snapped, and the splendour of the Magadhan metropolis is dimmed by the rising glory of Sākala, Vidiśā, Pratishṭhāna and other cities. Brāhmaṇism gains ground in the Ganges valley and the Deccan, while Jainism flourishes in Orissa. The sects of the *Māheśvaras* and the *Bhāgavatas* become powers to reckon with. The study of Sanskrit receives an impetus at the hands of the grammarians of the Madhyadeśa, while Prākṛit literature enjoys the patronage of the courts of Pratishṭhāna and Kuntala in Southern India.

c16.s1.6

Bṛihadratha, the last Maurya Emperor of Magadha, was, according to the *Purāṇas* and the *Harsha-charita*, assassinated by his general, Pushyamitra, who usurped the throne, and founded a new line of kings.

c16.s1.7

The origin of the usurping family is wrapped up in obscurity. According to the *Divyāvadāna* Pushyamitra was lineally descended from the Mauryas. The *Mālavikāgnimitram*, on the other hand, makes Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra, a scion of the **Baimbika** family,¹ while the *Purāṇas*, and apparently the *Harsha-Charita*² represent these kings as Śuṅgas. One writer suggests that the Śuṅgas whose names ended in Mitra were Irāṇians, worshippers of Mithra (the Sun).¹ Others, regard them as Indian Brāhmaṇas. Curiously enough, Pāṇini² connects the Śuṅgas with the well-known Brāhmāṇa family of the Bhāradvājas. Śauṅgīputra, "son of a female descendant of Śuṅga," is the name of a teacher in the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad*.³ Śauṅgāyani, "descendant of Śauṅga" is the name of a teacher in the *Vaṁśa Brāhmaṇa*. Macdonell and Keith point out that the Śuṅgas are known as teachers in the *Āśvalāyana Śrauta Sūtra*.⁴ In view of the conflicting statements in the *Mālavikāgnimitram*, the *Purāṇas*, etc., it is difficult to say whether Pushyamitra and his known descendants (down to Vasumitra) were Śuṅgas of the Bhāradvāja *Gotra* or Baimbikas of Kaśyapa lineage. The historic "Śuṅgas" of the time of Dhanabhūti are assigned by competent scholars to the period B.C. 100-75. This accords with the testimony of the *Harsha-charita* which, while denying this dynastic epithet to Pushyamitra, applies it to the latest kings of the Purāṇic list, the immediate predecessors of Vasudeva Kāṇva.

c16.s1.8

¹ In the *Mālavikāgnimitram* (Act IV. Verse 14; Tawney's translation, p. 69) Agnimitra claims to belong to the *Baimbika-kula*. A king named Bimbaki is mentioned in *The Ocean of Story*, Penzer I, 112, 119. Mr. H. A. Shah suggests (*Proceedings of the Third Oriental Conference*, Madras, p. 379) that the Baimbikas were connected with the family of Bimbisāra. It is more probable that the epithet 'Baimbika' (in the passage *dākshiṇyaṁ nāma bimboshṭhi Baimbikānāṁ kulavratam*) is connected with *bimbikā*, a kind of plant (*IC*, 1938, Jan. 365) and also perhaps with the river Bimbikā mentioned in the Bharhut Inscriptions (Barua and Sinha, p. 8). *Cf*. *Pādma*, *Bhūmikhaṇḍa* 90, 24; *Baimbaki* in Patañjali, IV, 1. 97. In the *Harivaṁśa* (*Bhavishya*, II, 40) the Brāhmaṇa *Senānī* who is to restore the *Aśvamedha* in the Kali yuga is represented as an *Audbhijja*, 'Plant-born', and a Kāśyapa. Jayaswal identifies him with Pushyamitra. Curiously enough, the *Baudhāyana Srauta Sūtra* (ed. Caland, Vol. III, p. 449) represents the *Baimbakayaḥ* as Kaśyapas.

c16.s1.9

² It is, however, to be noted that the *Harsha-charita* never applies the designation Śuṅga to Pushyamitra himself, but only to one of the latest kings in the Purāṇic list. The Purāṇas may have combined the Baimbikas and Śuṅgas under the common name of Śuṅga.

c16.s1.10

¹ JASB, 1912, 287. *Cf.* 1910. 260.

c16.s1.11

² In Sūtra IV, 1, 117. Also Kramadīśvara, 763.

c16.s1.12

³ VI. 4. 31.

c16.s1.13

⁴ XII. 13. 5, etc. The *Vaṁśa Brāhmaṇa* seems to associate the Śuṅgas with the Madra country. *Ved. Index*, II, p. 123. For Tāranātha's reference to Pushyamitra, see JBORS, IV, pt. 3, 258. For Bhāradvājas as champions of autocracy and of ministerial usurpation, see *Kauṭilīya*, 31, 316.

c16.s1.14

It is not known for certain when and why the family of Pushyamitra, like the Kadambas of a later date, exchanged the quill for the sword. There is no reason to think that Aśoka tyrannised over the Brāhmaṇas and that his oppression forced them to engage in non-priestly pursuits. Brāhmaṇa Senāpatis were by no means rare in ancient India.¹ The fact that officers of this class found employment under the Later Mauryas proves conclusively that the latter could not have pursued an anti-Brāhmaṇic policy.

c16.s1.15

¹ *Cf.* the cases of Droṇa, Kṛipa and Aśvatthāman in the *Mahābhārata* in ancient times, of Ravideva in the *Indian Antiquary*, VIII. 20, of Kholeśvara, the commander of Yādava kings, and of Someśvara, the Brāhmaṇa general of the Pāla kings.

c16.s1.16

The **Dominions of Pushyamitra** extended to the river Narmadā, and included the cities of Pāṭaliputra, Ayodhyā, Vidiśā, and, if the author of the *Divyāvadāna* and Tāranātha are to be believed, Jālandhara and Śākala.² It appears from the *Divyāvadāna*,³ that the Emperor himself continued to reside in Pāṭaliputra. The *Mālavikāgnimitram* tells us that Vidiśā (Besnagar in Eastern Mālwa) was governed by Prince Agnimitra, probably as his father's viceroy (*Goptṛi*).⁴ Another viceroy, also a relation of the emperor, may have governed Kosala.⁵ Agnimitra's queen had a brother of inferior caste, named Vīrasena. He was placed in command of a frontier fortress on the banks of the Narmadā (*Atthi devīe vaṇṇāvaro* *bhādā Viraseṇo nāma, so bhaṭṭiṇā antav* (p) *āladugge Nammadātīre* ¹ *ṭhāvido)*.

c16.s1.17

² Jaina writers, *e.g.*, Merutuṅga, include Avanti within the dominions of Pushyamitra. This province was lost to the Sātavāhanas, and Śākala to the Greeks.

c16.s1.18

³ P. 434.

c16.s1.19

⁴ *Mālavikāgnimitram*, Act V, pp. 370, 391 of G. Vidyānidhi's ed. esp. verse 20. *Saṁpadyate na khalu Goptari nā Agnimitre.*

c16.s1.20

⁵ The possible existence of this viceroyalty is disclosed by an inscription discovered at the door of a temple at Ayodhyā, which records the erection of a "ketana" (abode) by a *Kosalādhipa* who was the sixth (brother or descendant?) of *Senāpati* Pushyamitra, the performer of two horse-sacrifices (*Nāgarī Prachāriṇī Patrikā*, Vaiśākha, Sam. 1981; *JBORS*, X (1924) 203; XIII (1927) facing 247. *Mod. Review*, 1924; October, p. 431; *IHQ*, 1929, 602f.; *Ep. Ind.* XX. 54ff). It is interesting to note that the title, 'Senāpati' clung to the *deva* (king) Pushyamitra even after the performance of the *Aśvamedha*. *Cf.* the epithet *Vāhinīpati* applied to king Virāṭa in the *Mahābhārata* and the title *Yavuga* applied to Kushān emperors besides other epithets. *Cf.* also the style *Mahārāja Mahāsenāpati* in *CII.*, Vol. 3, p. 252, and the title *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* applied to Bijjala and others even after the assumption of the full royal style (*Bomb. Gaz.*, II. ii. 474ff).

c16.s1.21

¹ Act I. Some manuscripts mention Mandākinī as the name of the river (cf. *IHQ*., 1925, 214). A stream called Mandākinī lies 5 miles south of the Tāptī (*Ind. Ant.*, 1902, 254). Another Mandākinī flowed near Chitrakūṭa (*Rām.* 92. 10-11). Lüders' Inscriptions, Nos. 687-688, seem to suggest that Bharhut (in Baghelkhand) was governed by a Śuṅga feudatory. If Pushyamitra was a Śuṅga Baghelkhand must have formed part of the empire of his family. In the *Monuments of Sāñchī*, I. iv. 271, the author does not agree with Bühler in assigning the ins. to the middle of the second century B.C. He prefers B.C. 100-75. Palaeographically the epigraphs are classed with the ins. of Indrāgnimitra, Brahmamitra and Vishṇumitra.

Affairs in the Deccan

c16.s1.t1.1

It appears from the *Mālavikāgnimitram* that the foundation of the dynasty of Pushyamitra almost synchronised with the establishment of a new kingdom in the Deccan, viz., **Vidarbha** or Berar. Agnimitra’s *Amātya* (Minister) refers to the kingdom as "*achirādhishṭhita*" (established not long ago) and compares its king to a tree which is newly planted and, therefore, not firm (*navasaṁropaṇa-śithilastaruḥ*). The king of Vidharbha is represented as a relation (sister’s husband) of the Maurya minister (*Sachiva*) and a natural enemy (*Prakṛityamitra*) of the family of Pushyamitra. It appears that during the reign of Bṛihadratha Maurya there were two parties or factions in the Magadha Empire, one headed by the king’s *Sachiva* or minister, the other headed by his *Senāpati* or general. The minister’s partisan Yajñasena got the rulership of Vidarbha, while the general’s son Agnimitra obtained the viceroyalty of Vidiśā. When the general organised his *coup d'etat*, killed the king, and imprisoned the minister, Yajñasena apparently declared his independence and commenced hostilities against the usurping family. This is why he is called *achirādhishṭhita-rājya* and *prakṛity-amitra* by Agnimitra and his *Amātya*.

c16.s1.t1.2

The *Mālavikāgnimitram* says that when *Kumāra* Mādhavasena, a cousin of Yajñasena and a partisan of Agnimitra, was secretly on his way to Vidiśā, he was captured by an *Antapāla* (Warden of the Marches) of Yajñasena and kept in custody. Agnimitra demanded his surrender. The Vidarbha king promised to give him up on condition that his brother-in-law, the Maurya minister, should be released. This enraged the ruler of Vidiśā who ordered Vīrasena to march against Vidarbha. Yajñasena was defeated. Mādhavasena was released and the kingdom of Vidarbha was divided between the two cousins, the river Varadā (Wardha) forming the boundary between the two states. Both the rulers seem to have accepted the suzerainty of the House of Pushyamitra.

c16.s1.t1.3

In the opinion of several scholars an enemy more formidable than Yajñasena threatened Pushyamitra's dominions from Kaliṅga (Orissa). In his *Oxford History of India*¹ Dr. Smith accepts the view that **Khāravela, king of Kaliṅga**, defeated Pushyamitra who is identified with Bahapatimita or Bahasatimita, a prince supposed to be mentioned in the *Hāthīgumphā* Inscription of the Kaliṅga monarch. Prof. Dubreuil also seems to endorse the view that Khāravela was an antagonist of Pushyamitra, and that the Hāthīgumphā Inscription is dated the 165th year of *Rāja-Muriya-kāla* (era of king Maurya) which corresponds to the 13th year of the reign of Khāravela.

c16.s1.t1.4

¹ Additions and corrections, and p. 58n. *Cf.* also S. Konow in *Acta Orientalia*, I. 29. S. Konow accepts Jayaswal's identification, Bahasatimita = Pushyamitra.

c16.s1.t1.5

Dr. R. C. Majumdar, however, points out² that of the six letters of the Hāthīgumphā Inscription which have been read as *Bahasati-mitam*, the second letter seems to have a clear *u* sign attached to it, and the third and fourth letters look like *pa* and *sa*. Even if the reading *Bahasati-mitam*, or *Bahapati-mitam*, be accepted as correct, the identification of Bahasati (Bṛihaspati-mitra) with Pushyamitra merely on the ground that Bṛihaspati (Jīva) is the regent, *nakshatrādhipa*, of the *nakshatra* or zodiacal asterism Pushya, also named Tishya, in the constellation Cancer or the Crab, cannot be regarded as final in the absence of more convincing evidence.¹ In this connection we should note that the *Divyāvadāna*² distinguishes between a king named "Vṛihaspati" and king Pushyamitra,³ and represents Pāṭaliputra as the residence of the latter whereas the Magadhan antagonist of Khāravela is possibly called "*Rājagahanapa*"⁴ and apparently resided in the city of Rājagṛiha.

c16.s1.t1.6

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1919, p. 189. *Cf.* Allan *CICAI*, p. xcviii.

c16.s1.t1.7

¹ *Cf.* Chanda in *IHQ*, 1929, p. 594ff.

c16.s1.t1.8

² Pp. 433-34.

c16.s1.t1.9

³ It is not suggested that Vṛihaspati of the *Divyāvadāna* is necessarily to be identified with any king named Bṛihaspatimitra mentioned in inscriptions, though the possibility is not entirely excluded. What we mean to point out is that the name "Bṛihaspati" is not to be equated with Pushyamitra, simply because Bṛihaspati is the "regent" of the asterism *Pushya*, because in literature 'Vṛihaspati,' 'Pushyadharman' and 'Pushyamitra' occur as names of distinct individuals. Regarding the proposed identification of Pushyamitra with Bṛihaspatimitra, see also *IHQ*, 1930, p. 23.

c16.s1.t1.10

⁴ *Cf.* Lüders' reading, Ep. Ind., X, App. No. 1345. With Jayaswal, S. Konow (*Acta Orientalia*, I. 26) reads "*Rājagahaṁ upapīḍāpayati*," though he admits that "*Rājagahanapa* (*ṁ*) *pīḍāpayati*" is also possible.

c16.s1.t1.11

The date "165th year of the *Muriyakāla*" was deduced from a passage of the Hāthīgumphā Inscription which was read as follows:⁵—"*Pānaṁtariya-saṭhi-vasa-sate Rāja-Muriya-kāle vochchhine...*". There is another passage in the same inscription which runs thus:—*Paṁchame cha* (or *che*) *dānī vase Naṁda-rāja ti-vasa-sata* (*m* ?)—*oghāṭitaṁ Tanasuliya-vāṭā-panāḍiṁ nagaraṁ pavesayati*.⁶ If *Pānaṁtariya-saṭhi-vasa-sate* be taken to mean "in the 165th year", *ti-vasa-sata* should be taken to mean 103 years, and we shall have to conclude that Khāravela flourished some 165 years after a Maurya king, and only 103 years after Nandarāja, which is impossible as the Nandas preceded the Mauryas. If, on the other hand, *ti-vasa-sata* be taken to mean 300 years, *pānaṁtariya-saṭhi-vasa-sata* should be taken to mean not 165 but 6,500 years. In other words Khāravela will have to be placed 6,500 years after a Maurya which is also impossible. Jayaswal himself subsequently gave up the reading “ . . .*Pānaṁtariya-saṭhi-vasa-sate Rāja-Muriya-kāle vochchhine cha chhe-yaṭhi Argasi ti kaṁtāriyaṁ upādīyati* ” in line 16, and proposed to read “*Paṭāliko chatare cha veduriyagabhe thaṁbhe patiṭhāpayati pānatariyā sata-sahasehi. Muriya kālaṁ vochhiṁnaṁ cha choyaṭhi agasatikaṁtariyaṁ upādāyati.*” He translated the passage thus:—“on the lower-roofed terrace (*i.e.*, in the verandah) he establishes columns inlaid with beryl at the cost of 75,00,000 (*Paṇas*), he (the king) completes the Muriya time (era), counted and being of an interval of 64 with a century.”¹ With regard to this new reading and translation Mr. R. P. Chanda observed² “the rendering of *vochhine* as ‘counted’ is even more far-fetched than ‘expired’. The particle *cha* after *vochhine* makes it difficult to read it as *vochhinam* qualifying the substantive *Muriyakālam*. Even if we overlook *vochhine*, the passage appears to be a very unusual way of stating a date. Still more unusual is the statement of a date as an independent achievement in a *praśasti*." According to Fleet the use of the term "*vochchhina*" which is applied to sacred texts which have been 'cut off,' 'interrupted'—quite prohibits the existence of a date. It may be added that there is no reliable evidence of the existence of a *Rāja-Muriya-kāla* in the sense of an era founded by the first Maurya. The use of regnal years by Aśoka points to the same conclusion.¹ Jayaswal himself admits in the *Epigraphia Indica*,² that "there is no date in a Maurya era in the 16th line," of the Hāthīgumphā inscription.³

c16.s1.t1.12

⁵ *Cf.* Bhagwanlal Indraji, *Actes du sixiéme congrés international des Orientalistes*. Pt. III, Section 2, pp. 133 ff.; Jayaswal *JBORS*, 1917, p. 459.

c16.s1.t1.13

⁶ *Ibid*, p. 455. For the interpretation of the passage, see p. 229 *supra*. S. Konow translates it differently:—"And now in the fifth year he has the aqueduct which was shut (or opened) in the year 103 (during the reign of) the Nanda king, conducted into the town from Tanasuliya Vāṭa.”

c16.s1.t1.14

¹ JBORS, Vol. IV, Part iv, p. 394f. For Dr. Barua’s suggestions see IHQ, 1938, 269.

c16.s1.t1.15

² M. A. S. I., No. 1. p. 10. *Cf.* also S. Konow in *Acta Orientalia*, I, 14-21. Like Fleet S. Konow finds no date in the passage but regards the reading *Rāja Muriya kāla* as certain. According to him Khāravela restored some texts missing in the time of the Maurya king Chandragupta. Dr. Barua does not regard the reading *Muriya* as certain,

c16.s1.t1.16

¹ An era of Samprati, grandson of Aśoka, is however, mentioned in an ancient Jain MS. (EHI 4, p. 202n). If we refer the year 164 to this era, the date of Khāravela must be brought down to (*cir* 224-164=) 60 B.C. In "*A note on the Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela*" Barnett suggests the following rendering of the passage which is supposed to contain the words *Muriya-kāla*: "And when the Mauryan (?) time-reckoning ..... which consisted of lustres (antara) of five (years) each, had broken down, he found (a new time-reckoning) consisting of lustres of 7 years each (*saptikāntariyam*) and mounting up to the 64th year (*chatuh shashtyagram*)." To reform the calendar Khāravela introduced a new cycle of 64 years consisting of 9 *Yugas* of 7 years each. According to Dr. F. W. Thomas (JRAS, 1922, 84) antara=antargriha=cell. The passage means that cells which had been left unfinished during the time of the Maurya kings were constructed by Khāravela.

c16.s1.t1.17

² XX. 74.

c16.s1.t1.18

³ His latest reading of the inscriptional passage is as follows:— "*Paṭalako chaturo cha veḍūriya-gabhe thambhe patiṭhāpayati, pānātariya satasahase(hi); Muriya-kāla-vachhinam cha choyath(i) Aṁga satika(ṁ) turiyaṁ upādayati.*" "*Paṭalaka(?).....* (he) sets up four columns inlaid with beryl at the cost of seventy-five hundred thousands; ... (he) causes to be compiled expeditiously the (text) of the sevenfold *Aṁgas* of the sixty-four (letters)." *Ep. Ind.*, XX, pp. 80, 89.

c16.s1.t1.19

Dr. Jayaswal at one time took *ti-vasa-sata* to mean 300 years and placed Khāravela and Pushyamitra three centuries after Nandarāja whom he identified with Nandavardhana.

c16.s1.t1.20

But we have already seen that Nandavardhana or Nandivardhana was a Śaiśunāga king and that the Śaiśunāgas do not appear to have had anything to do with Kaliṅga. "It is not Naṇdivardhana but Mahāpadma Nanda who is said to have brought 'all under his sole sway' and 'uprooted all Kshatriyas' or the old reigning families. So we should identify '*Naṁdarāja*' of the Hāthīgumphā inscription, who held possession of Kaliṅga either with the all-conquering Mahāpadma Nanda or one of his sons."¹ Professor Barua objects to the identification of "*Naṁdarāja*," the conqueror of Kaliṅga, with a king of the pre-Aśokan Nanda line on the ground that in the Aśokan inscriptions it is claimed that Kaliṅga was *not* conquered (*avijita*) before Aśoka. But such claims are on a par with the Gupta boast that Samudra Gupta was *ajita-rājajetā*, conqueror of unconquered kings,² and that the *Aśvamedha* sacrifice had been revived, after a long period of abeyance, by him. We know that as a matter of fact the claims, if taken too literally, had very little substance in them. The suggestion in the *Cambridge History of Ancient India* that Nandarāja may have been a local ruler of Kaliṅga is negatived by the internal evidence of the Hāthīgumphā Inscription.³ A post-Aśokan "neo-Nanda" line of Magadha is also unknown to sober history.⁴

c16.s1.t1.21

¹ M. A. S. I., No. I, p. 12.

c16.s1.t1.22

² Allan, *Gupta Coins*, p. cx. *Cf.* Jahāngīr's boast that "not one of the mighty emperors has conquered" Kangra. (*ASI, AR*, 1905-6, p. 11). *Avijita* may simply refer to the fact that Kaliṅga was not included within the limits of Aśoka's *Vijita* (empire) or *Rāja-vishya* (Royal Dominions).

c16.s1.t1.23

³ *Cf.* the passage—"*Naṁdarāja nītaṁ cha Kaliṁga Jinasamnivesaṁ*" which proves clearly that Nanda was an outsider.

c16.s1.t1.24

⁴ A late Nanda or Nandodbhava line is known to epigraphy. But it ruled in Orissa. See R. D. Banerji. Orissa, I. 202; Kumar Bidyādhara Singh Deo, Nandapur, I. 46; Ep. Ind. xxi, App. Ins. No. 2043.

c16.s1.t1.25

As Mahāpadma Nanda and his sons ruled in the fourth century B.C., Khāravela is to be assigned either to the third century B.C., (taking *ti-vasa-sata* to mean 103)¹ or to the first century B.C. (taking *ti-vasa-sata* to mean 300). In neither case could he be regarded as a contemporary of Pushyamitra who ruled from about 187 to 151 B.C.

c16.s1.t1.26

¹ Konow (*Acta Orientalia*, Vol. I, pp. 22-26) accepts the date 103, but refers it (along with another date, 113, which he, with Fleet, finds in line 11) to a Jaina era. This era he is inclined to identify with that of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa. Apparently he is not aware of the existence of another Jaina reckoning, *viz.*, the era of Samprati. Dr. K. P. Jayaswal (*Ep. Ind.*, XX. 75) now assigns the date 103 to a Nanda era and says that the date refers to the time when the Tanasuliya Canal, which Khāravela extended to the capital in the 5th year of his reign, was originally excavated.

The Yavana Invasion

c16.s1.t2.1

The only undoubted historical events of Pushyamitra's time, besides the *coup d' etat* of *c.* 187 B.C., and the Vidarbha war, are the Greek invasion from the North-West referred to by Patañjali or a Predecessor and Kālidāsa, and the celebration of two horse-sacrifices.

c16.s1.t2.2

Patañjali is usually regarded as a contemporary of Pushyamitra. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar draws our attention to the passage in the *Mahābhāshya*—*iha Pushyamitram yājayāmaḥ*: "here we perform the sacrifices for Pushyamitra"—which is cited as an illustration of the *Vārttika* teaching the use of the present tense to denote an action which has been begun but not finished.² The instances given by Patañjali of the use of the imperfect to indicate an action well-known to people, but not witnessed by the speaker, and still possible to have been seen by him, are, "*arunad Yavanaḥ Sāketam: arunad Yavano Madhyamikām*." This, says Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, shows that a certain Yavana or Greek chief had besieged Sāketa or Ayodhyā and another place called Madhyamikā ¹ when Patañjali wrote this. It is, however, possible that the instances cited by the great grammarian are stock illustrations (*mūrdhābhishikta udāharaṇa*) which are simply quoted by him from earlier authorities. But a war with Greeks in the days of Pushyamitra is vouched for by Kālidāsa. In his *Mālavikāgnimitram* the poet refers to a conflict between prince Vasumitra, grandson and general of Pushyamitra, and a Yavana on the southern (or right) bank of the Sindhu.² Unfortunately the name of the leader of the invaders is not given either in the *Mahābhāshya* or in the *Mālavikāgnimitram*. There is considerable divergence of opinion with regard to his identity. But all agree that he was a Bactrian Greek.

c16.s1.t2.3

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1872, p. 300.

c16.s1.t2.4

¹ Nāgari near Chitor; *cf. Mbh.*, II. 32.8; *Ind. Ant.*, VII, 267.

c16.s1.t2.5

² The Indus or possibly a stream of the same name in Central India (*Cf. IHQ*, 1925, 215).

c16.s1.t2.6

The Bactrian Greeks were originally subjects of the Seleukidan Empire of Syria (and Western Asia). We learn from Strabo, Trogus and Justin that "about the middle of the third century B.C. when the Seleukid rulers were pre-occupied in the west" Diodotos, "Governor of the thousand cities of Bactria" (Balkh region to the south of the Oxus), revolted and assumed the title of king. He was succeeded, according to Justin, by his son Diodotos II who entered into an alliance with Arsakes who about this time (c. 247 B.C.) tore Parthia in Northern Irān from the Seleukidan Empire.

c16.s1.t2.7

The successor of Diodotos II was Euthydemos. We learn from Strabo ³ that Euthydemos and his party occasioned the revolt of all the country near the province of Bactriana. We are told by Polybius that Antiochos III (223-187 B.C.) of Syria made an attempt to recover the lost provinces but afterwards made peace with Euthydemos.

c16.s1.t2.8

³ H. & F.'s Tr., Vol. II, p. 251.

c16.s1.t2.9

The historian says, "Antiochos the Great received the young prince (Demetrios, son of Euthydemos) and judging from his appearance, conversation and the dignity of his manners that he was worthy of royal honour he first promised to give him one of his daughters,¹ and secondly conceded the royal title to his father. And having on the other points caused a written treaty to be drawn up and the terms of the treaty to be confirmed on oath, he marched away, after liberally provisioning his troops, and accepting the elephants belonging to Euthydemos. He crossed Caucasus (Hindukush) and descended into India; renewed his friendship with Sophagasenos, the king of the Indians; received more elephants, until he had 150 altogether, having once more provisioned his troops set out again personally with his army, leaving Androsthenes of Cyzicus, the duty of taking home the treasure which this king had agreed to hand over to him."

c16.s1.t2.10

¹ Tarn's scepticism (*Greeks in Bactria and India*, 82, 201) about the marriage is not warranted by cogent evidence. His arguments are in part of a negative character. He seems to prefer his own interpretation of certain coins of Agathokles to the clear testimony of Polybius.

c16.s1.t2.11

Not long after the expedition of Antiochos the Great, the Bactrian Greeks themselves formed the design of extending their kingdom by the conquest of the territories lying to the south of the Hindukush. Strabo says, "the Greeks who occasioned its (Bactria's) revolt became so powerful that they became masters of Ariana and India, according to Apollodoros of Artemita.² Their chiefs, particularly Menander (if he really crossed the Hypanis³ to the east and reached the Isamus⁴) conquered more nations than Alexander. These conquests were achieved partly by Menander, partly by Demetrios, son of Euthydemos, king of the Bactrians. They got possession not only of Patalene (the Indus Delta), but of the kingdoms of Saraostos (Surāshṭra or Kāṭhiāwār), and Sigerdis (probably Sāgaradvīpa)¹ which constitute the remainder of the coast. Apollodoros in short says that Bactriana is the ornament of all Ariana. They extended their empire even as far as the Seres and Phryni.''²

c16.s1.t2.12

² Artemita lay to the east of the Tigris. The books of Apollodoros are assigned to a date between C. 130 B.C. and 87 B.C. (Tarn, *Greeks*, 44ff.).

c16.s1.t2.13

³ *I.e.*, the Hyphasis or Vipāśā (the Beas).

c16.s1.t2.14

⁴ The Trisāmā? In the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* (V. 19, 17) a river of this name is mentioned in conjunction with the Kauśikī, Mandākinī, Yamunā, etc. Sircar prefers the Ikshumatī.

c16.s1.t2.15

¹ *Mbh.*, II. 31. 66, Cutch? *Bom. Gaz.*, I, i. 16f; *cf.* Tarn, *GBI*, 2nd ed. 527.

c16.s1.t2.16

² *Strabo*, Hamilton and Falconer, Vol. II, pp. 252-53. The Chinese and peoples of the Tarim basin are apparently meant.

c16.s1.t2.17

Strabo gives the credit for spreading the Greek dominion furthest to the east into India partly to Menander and partly to Demetrios, son of Euthydemos and son-in-law of Antiochos the Great.

c16.s1.t2.18

**Menander** has been identified with the king Milinda who is mentioned in the *Milinda-pañho* as a contemporary of the Buddhist Thera (Elder) Nāgasena, and also in the *Avadāna-kalpalatā* of Kshemendra.³ This monarch was born at Kalsigrāma⁴ in the “Island” of Alasanda or Alexandria⁵ and had his capital at Sāgala or Sākala, modern Siālkoṭ, in the Pañjāb,⁶ and not at Kābul as Dr. Smith seemed to think.⁷ The extent of his conquests is indicated by the great variety and wide diffusion of his coins which have been found over a very wide extent of country as far west as Begram near Kābul and as far east as Mathurā.⁸ The author of the Periplus states that small silver coins, inscribed with Greek characters and bearing the name of Menander were still current in his time (*cir.* 60-80 A.D.) at the port of Barygaza (Broach). Plutarch tells us that Menander was noted for justice, and enjoyed such popularity with his subjects that upon his death, which took place in camp, diverse cities contended for the possession of his ashes. The statement of Plutarch is important as showing that Menander's dominions included many cities. The recently discovered Bājaur Relic Casket Inscription confirms the numismatic evidence regarding the westward extension of his empire.¹

c16.s1.t2.19

³ *Stūpa avadāna* (No. 57); Smith, *Catalogue of Coins, Indian Museum*, p. 3; *SBE*, 36, xvii.

c16.s1.t2.20

⁴ Trenckner. *Milindapañho*, p. 83.

c16.s1.t2.21

⁵ *Ibid*, p. 82 (*CHI*, 550). The identity of this "Alexandria" is uncertain. Tarn (p. 141) seems to prefer Alexandria in the Kābul Valley. The *Milinda*, VI. 21, seems to suggest location on the sea unless a different Alexandria is meant.

c16.s1.t2.22

⁶ *Milinda*, pp. 3, 14.

c16.s1.t2.23

⁷ *EHI.*, 1914, p. 225.

c16.s1.t2.24

⁸ *SBE.*, Vol. XXXV, p. xx. Tarn, 228.

c16.s1.t2.25

¹ Ep. Ind. XXIV. 7 ff, XXVI, 318f, XXVII, ii, 52f. The King's name is given as Mina-edra.

c16.s1.t2.26

**Demetrios** has been identified by some with king Dattāmitra mentioned in the *Mahābhārata*,² the "great Emetreus, the king of Inde" of Chaucer's *Knightes Tale* and Timitra of a Besnagar seal.³ The wide extent of his conquests is proved by the existence of several cities named after him or his father in Afghanistān as well as India. Thus in the work of Isidore of Charax⁴ we have a reference to a city named Demetriaspolis in Arachosia. The *Vyākaraṇa* (grammar) of Kramadîśvara mentions a city in Sauvîra called Dāttāmitrî.⁵ Ptolemy the Geographer mentions the city of Euthymedia (? Euthydemia¹) which was identical with Sākala,² and was, according to the *Milinda-pañho*, the capital of an Indo-Greek kingdom in the time of Menander.

c16.s1.t2.27

² I, 139, 23. Krimisa, the Yaksha (AIU, p. 107) with whom he is identified by Dr. Bagchi belongs to the domain of folklore.

c16.s1.t2.28

³ EHI⁴, p. 255n.

c16.s1.t2.29

⁴ JRAS, 1915, p. 830. *Parthian Stations*, 19.

c16.s1.t2.30

⁵ Ind. Ant., 1911. *Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population*; Bomb. Gaz., I. ii. 11, 176, Kramadîśvara, p. 796. The reference is probably to a Demetrias in the lower Indus Valley. Johnston differs from the view (JRAS, April, 1939; IHQ, 1939). We should, however, not ignore the evidence of *Mbh*. I. 139, verses 21-23, which clearly refer to a Yavanādhipa and Dattāmitra in connection with Sauvīra. If Dattāmitra is not Demetrios and Dāttāmitrī not a city founded by him, it will be interesting to know with whom Dattāmitra and the Yavanādhipa of the epic are proposed to be identified. A Nāsik (Deccan) Inscription (No. 1140 Lüders' List) makes mention of a Yoṇaka from the north (Otarāha), a native of Dattāmitri. Thus epic and epigraphic evidence together with that of Sanskrit grammarians clearly establishes the connection between the Yonas or Yavanas (Greeks), Dattāmitrī and Sauvīra.

c16.s1.t2.31

¹ We are hardly justified in rejecting the reading 'Euthyde' (Tarn, p. 486) simply on the grounds urged by Tarn (p. 247) which do not appear to be convincing, and accept a reading which is "meaningless and wrongly accentuated." See also Keith in *D. R. Bhandarkar Volume*, 221f.

c16.s1.t2.32

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, pp. 349-50.

c16.s1.t2.33

It is permissible to conjecture that one of the two conquering kings, viz., Menander and Demetrios, was identical with the Yavana leader who penetrated to Sāketa in Oudh, Madhyamikā near Chitor, and the river Sindhu possibly in Central India, in the time of Pushyamitra. Goldstücker, Smith and many other scholars identified the invader with Menander who crossed the Hypanis (Beas) and penetrated as far as the Isamus (Trisāmā³?). On the other hand, Dr. Bhandarkar suggested, in his *Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population*, the identification of the invader with Demetrios. We learn from Polybius that Demetrios was a young man at the time of Antiochos III's invasion (between 211 and 206 B.C.). Justin says that Demetrios was "king of the Indians" when Eukratides was king of the Bactrians and Mithradates was the king of the Parthians. "Almost at the same time that Mithradates ascended the throne among the Parthians, **Eukratides** began to reign among the Bactrians; both of them being great men...Eukratides carried on several wars with great spirit, and though much reduced by his losses in them, yet, when he was besieged by Demetrios, king of the Indians, with a garrison of only 300 soldiers, he repulsed, by continual sallies, a force of 60,000 enemies."

c16.s1.t2.34

³ As already stated, Trisāmā is a river mentioned in the *Bhāgāvata Purāṇa*. Note the absence of any reference to the Ganges in Strabo's account of Menander's conquests.

c16.s1.t2.35

Dr. Smith assigns Mithradates to the period from 171 to 136 B.C. (to 138/37 B.C. according to Debevoise). Eukratides and Demetrios must also be assigned to that period, that is the middle of the second century B.C.¹

c16.s1.t2.36

¹ The activity of Mithradates I began after the death of Antiochus IV in 163 B.C. See Tarn, pp. 197 ff. According to Debevoise, *A Political History of Parthia*, p. 20 ff. Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, crossed the Euphrates in 165 B.C. Mithradates I died in 138/37 B.C., the first Parthian date fixed by numismatic and cuneiform evidence. Eukratides assumed the title "Great" before 162 B.C. (date of Timarchus) (*The Cambridge Shorter History of India*, p. 64). His coins are copied by Plato (165 B.C.) as well as Timarchus.

c16.s1.t2.37

We have seen that Demetrios was a young man and a prince in or about 206 B.C. We now find that he ruled as king of the Indians about the middle of the second century B.C. He was, therefore, the Indo-Greek contemporary of Pushyamitra who ruled from *c.* 187 to 151 B.C. Menander, on the other hand, must have ruled over the Indo-Greek kingdom much later, as will be apparent from the facts noted below. Justin tells us that Demetrios was deprived of his Indian possessions by Eukratides.² Eukratides was killed by his son with whom he had shared his throne.³ The identity of the parricide is uncertain but no one says that he was Menander.⁴

c16.s1.t2.38

² Watson's tr., p. 277.

c16.s1.t2.39

³ *Ibid.*, p. 277.

c16.s1.t2.40

⁴ According to Cunningham and Smith the parricide was Apollodotos. But Rapson shows good reasons for believing that Appollodotos did not belong to the family of Eukratides, but was, on the other hand, a ruler of Kāpiśa who was ousted by Eukratides (JRAS, 1905, pp. 784-85). Rawlinson points out (*Intercourse between India and the Western World*, p. 73) that Appollodotos uses the epithet Philopator, and the title would be somewhat incongruous if he were a parricide. It may be argued that the parricide was Apollodotos Soter and not Apollodotos Philopator, but we should remember that the titles Soter and Philopator sometimes occur on the same coin (Whitehead, *Catalogue of Coins*, p. 48) and therefore it is impossible to justify the separation of Apollodotos Soter and Apollodotos Philopator as two entities.

c16.s1.t2.41

Justin furnishes the important information that the prince who murdered Eukratides was a colleague of his father. We know that Greek rulers who reigned conjointly sometimes issued joint coins. Thus we have joint coins of Lysias and Antialkidas, Agathokleia and Strato, of Strato I and Strato II, and of Hermaios and Kalliope. The only Greeks whose names and portraits appear on a coin or medallion together with those of Eukratides are **Heliokles** and his wife Laodike. Cunningham and Gardner suggested that Heliokles and Laodike were the father and mother of Eukratides. But Von Sallet¹ proposed an entirely different interpretation of the coins in question. He thought that they were issued by Eukratides, not in honour of his parents, but on the occasion of the marriage of his son Heliokles with a Laodike whom Von Sallet conjectured to have been daughter of Demetrios by the daughter of Antiochos III. If Von Sallet's conjecture be accepted then it is permissible to think that Heliokles was the colleague of Eukratides referred to by Justin, and the murderer of his father.

c16.s1.t2.42

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1880, p. 256.

c16.s1.t2.43

It is clear from what has been stated above that Demetrios was succeeded by Eukratides, who, in his turn, was probably followed by Heliokles. Menander could not in that case have reigned earlier than Heliokles. It may, however, be argued that after Demetrios the Indo-Greek kingdom split up into two parts: one part which included the Trans-Jhelum territories was ruled by Eukratides and his son, the other part which included "Euthymedia" (Euthydemia?) or Śākala was ruled by Menander who thus might have been a younger contemporary of Eukratides (*cir.* 171-165 B.C.) and consequently of Pushyamitra (*cir.* 187-151 B.C.).

c16.s1.t2.44

Now, the disruption of the Indo-Greek kingdom after Demetrios may be accepted as an historical fact. The existence of two rival Greek kingdoms in India and their mutual dissensions are proved by literary and numismatic evidence. The Purāṇas say:

c16.s1.t2.45

*Bhavishyantīha Yavanā dharmataḥ kāmato'rthataḥ*
*naiva Mūrdhābhishiktās te bhavishyanti narādihpāḥ*
*yuga-dosha-durāchārā bhavishyanti nṛpās tu te*
*strīṇām bāla-vadhenaiva hatvā chaiva parasparam.*

c16.s1.t2.46

"There will be Yavanas here by reason of religious feeling or ambition or plunder; they will not be kings solemnly anointed but will follow evil customs by reason of the corruptions of the age. Massacring women and children¹ and killing one another, kings will enjoy the earth at the end of the *Kali* age."²

c16.s1.t2.47

¹ *Cf.* Cunn. *AGI.* Revised Ed. 274; *Camb. Hist. Ind.*, I. 376. "The Macedonians... gave away to a fury of blood-lust, sparing neither woman nor child."

c16.s1.t2.48

² Pargiter, *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, pp. 56, 74.

c16.s1.t2.49

The *Gārgī Saṃhitā* informs us:

c16.s1.t2.50

*Madhyadeśe na sthāsyanti Yanvanā yuddha durmadāḥ*
*teshām anyonya saṃbhāvā (?) bhavishyanti na saṁśayaḥ*
*ātma-chakrotthitaṃ ghoraṃ yuddhaṁ parama-dāruṇam.*

c16.s1.t2.51

"The fiercely fighting Greeks will not stay in the *Madhyadeśa* (Mid-India); there will be a cruel, dreadful war in their own kingdom, caused between themselves."³

c16.s1.t2.52

³ Kern, *Bṛihat Saṃhitā*, p. 38.

c16.s1.t2.53

Coins bear testimony to struggles between kings of **the house of Eukratides** and rulers of the **family of Euthydemos.** But the evidence which we possess clearly indicates that the contemporaries and rivals of Eukratides and Heliokles were **Apollodotos, Agathokleia and Strato I,** and not Menander. A square copper⁴ coin of Eukratides has on the obverse a bust of the king and the legend "*Basileus Megalou Eukratidou.*" On the reverse there is the figure of Zeus and the legend "*Kavisiye nagara-* *devatā.*" They are often coins (?) of Apollodotos restruck.¹ From this it is probable that Apollodotos was a rival of Eukratides, and was superseded in the rule of Kāpiśa, which lay in the district identified with Kāfiristān and the valleys of Ghorband and Panjshir, by the latter. Rapson further points out² that Heliokles restruck the coins of Agathokleia and Strato I ruling conjointly and also of Strato I reigning alone. Further, the restriking is always by Heliokles, never by Agathokleia and Strato I. From this it is clear that Agathokleia and Strato I ruled over an Indo-Greek principality either before, or in the time of Heliokles, but probably not after him.

c16.s1.t2.54

⁴ *CHI*, 555, 690; Whitehead, *Indo-Greek Coins*, 26.

c16.s1.t2.55

¹ Rapson, JRAS, 1905, p. 785. According to some 'overstriking in itself is no evidence of conquest' but simply of commercial relationship (JAOS, 1950, p. 210).

c16.s1.t2.56

² JRAS, 1905, pp. 165 ff. CHI, p. 553.

c16.s1.t2.57

We have seen that according to the evidence of Justin and the Kāpiśa coins Eukratides probably fought against two rivals, namely, Demetrios and Apollodotos; his son Heliokes also fought against two rivals, namely, Agathokleia and Strato I. As Demetrios and Apollodotos were both antagonists of Eukratides and used similar coin-types, the inevitable inference is that they were very near in time as well as in relationship to one another, in fact that one immediately followed the other. Now Demetrios was beyond doubt the son and successor of Euthydemos, consequently Apollodotos must have been his successor.

c16.s1.t2.58

As Heliokles was in all probability a son of Eukratides, the rival of Apollodotos, he must have been a younger contemporary of Apollodotos. Consequently, Heliokles' antagonists, Agathokleia and Strato I, whose coins he restruck, were very near in time to Apollodotos. Strato I later on ruled conjointly with his grandson Strato II. There is no room for the long and prosperous reign of Menander in the period which elapsed from Demetrios to Strato II. According to the Buddhist tradition recorded in the *Milinda-pañho*, Milinda or Menander flourished "500 years," *i.e.*, not earlier than the fifth century¹ after the *Parinirvāṇa*, *parinibbānato pañchavassa sate atikkante ete upajjissanti*.² This tradition points to a date not earlier than the period 144-44 B.C. according to Ceylonese reckoning, *or* 86 B.C.-14 A.D. according to Cantonese tradition, for Menander. Thus both according to numismatic evidence and literary tradition Menander could not have been the Indo-Greek contemporary of Pushyamitra.³ It is Demetrios who should, therefore, be identified with the Yavana invader referred to by Patañjali and Kālidāsa, one of whose armies was defeated by Prince Vasumitra.⁴

c16.s1.t2.59

¹ *Cf.* the interpretation of somewhat similar chronological data by Franke and Fleet (JRAS, 1914, pp. 400-1); and Smith EHI, 3rd Edition, p. 328.

c16.s1.t2.60

² Trenckner, the *Milinda-pañho*, p. 3. Tarn is not quite right in saying (134 n) that Apollodoros makes Menander contemporary with Demetrios, Trogus with Apollodotos, and some coin indications (CHI, p. 551) with Eukratides. Strabo following Apollodorus and possibly other authorities simply says that extensive Bactrian conquests in the Indian interior were achieved *partly* by Menander and *partly* by Demetrios. It is nowhere *clearly* stated that the two conquerors were contemporaries. The book of Trogus on which another conclusion is based, is lost. Coin indications are not clear enough. *E.g.*, the imitation of certain coins of Demetrios by Maues does not prove chronological proximity.

c16.s1.t2.61

³ *Cf.* 445n *infra.*

c16.s1.t2.62

⁴ S. Konow (*Acta Orientalia*, 1. 35) points out that there is no *evidence* that Menander *transgressed the river Yamunā*, and that Demetrios was the ruler who besieged Sāketa and Madhyamikā. In IHQ, 1929, p. 403, Mr. R. P. Chanda regards Strabo's attribution of the Indian conquests to Demetrios as doubtful. But the cities in the Pañjāb and the Lower Indus Valley, named after Demetrios and possibly his father leave no room for doubt that Strabo is right.

The Aśvamedha Sacrifices

c16.s1.t3.1

After the victorious wars with Vidarbha (Berar) and the Yavanas Pushyamitra completed the performance of two horse-sacrifices. These sacrifices are regarded by some scholars as marking an early stage in the Brāhmaṇical reaction which was fully developed five centuries later in the time of Samudra Gupta and his successors. Buddhist writers are alleged to represent Pushyamitra as a cruel persecutor of the religion of Śākyamuni. But the probative value of the *Divyāvadāna*, on which some modern writers place their chief reliance in regard to the matter, is seriously impaired by the representation of the "persecuting" monarch as a Maurya, a descendant of Aśoka himself.¹ Moreover, the prime motive which is said to have inclined the king to a vicious policy is, according to this Buddhist work, *personal glory and not religious fanaticism*. Pushyamitra did not dispense with the services of pro-Buddhist ministers, and the court of his son was graced by Paṇḍita-Kauśikī.² The *Mahāvaṁsa*³ admits the presence, in Bihar, Oudh, Mālwa and adjacent provinces, of numerous monasteries with thousands of monks in the age of Duṭṭhagāmaṇi of Ceylon (C. 101-77 B.C.) which is partly synchronous with the Baimbika-Śuṅga period. The Buddhist monuments at Bhārhut erected "during the sovereignty of the Śuṅgas" do not also bear out the theory that the Śuṅgas, among whom Pushyamitra is included by the *Purāṇas*, were the leaders of a militant Brāhmaṇism. Though staunch adherents of orthodox Hinduism, kings of the line of Pushyamitra do not appear to have been as intolerant as some writers represent them to be.

c16.s1.t3.2

¹ *IHQ*, Vol. V, p. 397; *Divyāvadāna*, 433-34.

c16.s1.t3.3

² *Mālavikāgnimitram*, Act I.

c16.s1.t3.4

³ Geiger, trans., p. 193.

The Mantri-parishad in the days of Pushyamitra

c16.s1.t4.1

Patañjali refers to the *Sabhā* of Pushyamitra. But it is uncertain as to whether the term refers to a Royal *Durbar*, a tribunal of justice, or a Council of Magnates. The existence of Councils or Assemblies of Ministers (*Mantri-Parishad*) is, however, vouched for by Kālidāsa. If the poet is to be believed the Council continued to be an important element of the governmental machinery. He gives us the valuable information that even viceregal princes were assited by *Parishads*.¹ The *Mālavikāgnimitram* refers in clear terms to the dealings of Prince Agnimitra, the Viceroy of Vidiśā (in Eastern Mālwa), with his *Parishad*:

c16.s1.t4.2

¹ Bühler (*Ep. Ind.* III. 137) points out that Aśoka's *Kumāras* were also each assisted by a body of *Mahāmātras*. These may have corresponded to the *Kumārāmātyas* of the Gupta period.

c16.s1.t4.3

"*Deva evam Amātya-parishado vijñāpayāmi*"²
"*Mantri-prishado' pyetad-eva darśanam*
*dvidhā vibhaktāṁ śriyam-udvahantau*
*dhuramṁ rathāśvāviva saṁgrahītuḥ*
*tau sthāsyatas-te nṛpater nideśe*
*paraspar-āvagraha-nirvikārau*"³

c16.s1.t4.4

² "King! I will announce this decision to the Council of Ministers."

c16.s1.t4.5

³ "This is also the view of the (Council of Ministers). Those two kings, upbearing the fortune of their superior lord divided between them, as the horses upbear the yoke of the charioteer, will remain firm in their allegiance to thee, not being distracted by mutual attacks." Act V, verse 14.

c16.s1.t4.6

*Rājā* : *tena hi Mantri-parishadaṁ brūhi senānye Vīrasenāya likhyatām evaṁ kriyatām iti.*"⁴

c16.s1.t4.7

⁴ "King: Tell the Council then to send to the General Vīrasena written instructions to this effect." (Tawney, *Mālavikāgnimitra*, pp. 89-90.)

c16.s1.t4.8

It seems that the *Amātya-parishad* or *Mantri-parishad* was duly consulted whenever an important matter of foreign policy had to be decided upon.

Section II. Agnimitra and his Successors

c16.s2.1

Pushyamitra died in or about 151 B.C., probably after a reign of 36 years,¹ and was succeeded by his son **Agnimitra**.² The name of a prince named Agnimitra has been found on several copper coins discovered in Rohilkhand. Cunningham³ was of opinion that this prince was probably not to be identified with the son of Pushyamitra, but belonged to a local dynasty of North Pañchāla (Rohilkhand). He gave two reasons for this conclusion :

c16.s2.2

¹ Only thirty years according to a Jaina tradition—"*aṭṭhasayaṁ Muriyāṇaṁ tisa chchia Pūsamittassa*" (*IA*. 1914. 118 f. Merutuṅga).

c16.s2.3

² The commentary on the *Amarakośa* seems to suggest that Agnimitra is the original of king Sūdraka of tradition (Oka, p. 122; *Ann. Bhand. Or. Res. Inst.*, 1931, 360). On the other hand Keith refers to a tradition recorded in the *Vīra charita* and by the younger Rājaśekhara which represents Sūdraka as a minister of a Sātavāhana king. We are further told by another writer that Sūdraka defeated prince Svāti and ruled for a long time. A tale alluded to in the *Harshacharita* represents him as an enemy of Chandraketu, lord of Chakora, apparently in South India (Keith, *The Sanskrit Drama*, p. 129; *Sanskrit Literature*, p. 292; Ghosh, *History of Central and Western India*, pp. 141 f.). The story of Sūdraka is essentially legendary and it is difficult to extract any historical truth out of it. The abeyance of Sātavāhana power in the Upper Deccan for a long period is a fact. But it is due to the irruption of foreign tribes from the north. Disloyal ministers may have helped to bring in the invader.

c16.s2.4

³ *Coins of Ancient India*, p. 79. *Cf.* Allan, *CICAI.*, p. cxx.

c16.s2.5

1. Agnimitra's is the only coin-name found in the Purāṇic lists. The names of the other "Mitra" kings occurring on coins of the so-called "Pañchāla series," do not agree with those found in the *Purāṇas*.

c16.s2.6

2. The coins are very rarely found beyond the limits of North Pañchāla.

c16.s2.7

As to the first point Rivett-Carnac⁴ and Jayaswal⁵ have shown that several coin-names besides that of Agnimitra can be indentified with those found in the Purāṇic lists of Śuṅga and Kāṇva kings; for example, Bhadra-ghosha may be identified with Ghosha, the seventh king of the Purāṇic list of Śuṅga kings. Bhūmimitra may be identified with the Kāṇva king of that name. Jethamitra, who is identified with the successor of Agnimitra, viz., Vasu-Jyeshṭha or Su-Jyeshṭa, who is called simply Jyeshṭha in the *k Vishṇu* manuscript,¹ no doubt left coins that belong to a different series. But even he is closely connected with an Agnimitra. Several names indeed cannot be identified, but they may have been names of those Śuṅgas who survived the usurpation of Vasudeva Kāṇva and the remnant of whose power was destroyed by the so-called Andhras and Śiśunandi.²

c16.s2.8

⁴ *JASB*, 1880, 21 ff.; 87 ff.; *Ind. Ant.*, 1880, 311.

c16.s2.9

⁵ *JBORS*, 1917, p. 479. *Cf.* 1934, pp. 7 ff.

c16.s2.10

¹ *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, p. 31, n. 12. Pace Allan, *CICAI.*, p. xcvi.

c16.s2.11

² *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, p. 49.

c16.s2.12

As to the second point we should remember that "Mitra" coins, even those which undoubtedly belong to the so-called Pañchāla series, have been found in Oudh, the Basti district, and even Pāṭaliputra, as well as in Pañchāla. Names of two "Mitra" kings, Brahmamitra and Indramitra, of whom the latter undoubtedly belonged to the Pañchāla group, are found engraved on two rail pillars at Bodh Gayā as well as on coins discovered at Mathurā, Pañchāla and Kumrahar.³ In the face of these facts it is difficult to say that the "Mitras" in question were a local dynasty of North Pañchāla. The matter, however, must be regarded as *subjudice*.

c16.s2.13

³ Cunningham, *Coins of Ancient India*, pp. 84, 88; Allan, *CICAI*, pp. cxix, cxx; Marshall, *Archaeological Survey Report for 1907-8*, p. 40; Bloch *ASR*, 1908-9, p. 147; *IHQ*, 1930, pp. 1ff. The name *Im……tra* occurs in a mutilated inscription on a rail pillar at Bodh Gayā with the title *Rāño* added before it. Marshall, Bloch and Rapson agree in identifying king *Im……tra* with Indramitra of coins. Bloch further identifies him with Kauśikīputra Indrāgnimitra, husband of Āryā Kuraṅgī, whose name occurs on certain pieces of coping. The epithet Kauśikīputra reminds one of Paṇḍita-Kauśikī of the *Mālavikāgnimitram* (Act 1). The Kuśika family was apparently intimately associated with the rulers of the age. Kauśikī mentioned in the *Mālavikāgnimitram* was sister to the minister of a prince of Berar. The sister of the prince herself was one of the queens of Agnimitra. King Brahmamitra is the husband of Nāgadevī, another prominent donor mentioned in the epigraphs.

First 134 of 158 passages. Read on

Linked texts (36)