Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c16.s1.t1: Affairs in the Deccan

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c16.s1.t1

Language
English

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.

Cites (5)