Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c22.s5.7

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c22.s5.7

Language
English

c22.s5.7

³ The ascription of the title of Vikramāditya to Yaśodharman of Mandaśor, and the representation of this chief as a ruler of Ujjain, the father of Śīlāditya of Mo-la-po and the father-in-law of Prabhākara-vardhana are absolutely unwarranted. According to Father Heras (*JBORS*, 1927, March, 8-9) the defeat of Mihirakula at the hands of Bālāditya took place after the Hun king's conflict with Yaśodharman. It should, however, be remembered that at the time of the war with Bālāditya Mihirakula was a paramount sovereign to whom the king of Magadha had been tributary, and with whom he dared not fight, being only anxious to conceal his poor person (Beal, *Si-yu-ki*, Vol. I, p. 168). This is hardly possible after the Janendra of Mandaśor had compelled the Hun "to pay respect to his two feet". The victory of Bālāditya over Mihirakula was certainly not decisive. The "loss of the royal estate" was only temporary, and the tyrant soon placed himself on the throne of Kaśmīra and conquered Gandhāra (Beal, *Si-yu-ki*, I, p. 171). To the court-poet of Yaśodharman Mihirakula was pre-eminently a king of the Himālayan region. This is clear from the following passage which was misunderstood by Fleet whose interpretation has been followed by Father Heras (p. 8 n) :— "He (Yaśodharman) to whose feet respect was paid—by even that (famous) king Mihirakula, whose head had never previously been brought into the humility of obeisance to any other save (the god) Sthāṇu (and) *embraced by whose arms the mountain of snow falsely prides itself as being styled an inaccessible fortress*" (Kielhorn in *Ind. Ant.*, 1885, p. 219). Kielhorn's interpretation was accepted by Fleet. [The statement that Mihirakula's head 'had never been brought into the humility of obeisance to any other save (the god) Sthāṇu" shows that he refused to do homage to Bālāditya, and probably accounts for the order, given for his execution by that king.]