Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c24: Appendix B. A Note on the Chronological Relation of Kanishka and Rudradāman I

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c24

Language
English

Appendix B. A Note on the Chronological Relation of Kanishka and Rudradāman I

c24.2

¹ *IHQ*, March, 1930, pp. 149 ff.

c24.3

Some years ago² Mr. Haricharan Ghosh and Professor Jayachandra Vidyalankar contributed two very interesting notes on the date of Kanishka. The latter upholds the theory of Dr. Sten Konow, fortified by the calculations of Dr. Van Wijk, that the great Kushān Emperor began his rule in A.D. 128-29, and criticises the view put forward in this work that Kanishka I's rule in the "Lower Indus Valley" (this and not "Sind," is the expression actually used) could not have synchronised with that of Rudradāman I, who, "did not owe his position as *Mahākshatrapa* to anybody else." The conclusions of Professor Konow and Dr. Van Wijk are admittedly hypothetical, and little more need be said about them after the illuminating observations of Professor Rapson in *JRAS*, 1930, January, pp. 186-202. In the present note we shall confine ourselves to an examination of the criticism of Professor Jayachandra Vidyalankar and Mr. Haricharan Ghosh of the views expressed in the preceding pages.

c24.4

² *IHQ*, V, No. 1, March, 1929, pp. 49-80, and *JBORS*, XV, parts I & II, March-June, 1929, pp. 47-63.

c24.5

The Professor has not a word to say about the contention that Kanishka's dates 1-23, Vāsishka's dates 24-28, Huvishka's dates 31³-60, and Vāsudeva's dates 67-98 suggest a continuous reckoning. In other words, Kanishka was the originator of an era. But we know of no era current in North-West India which commenced in the second century A. D. He only takes considerable pains to prove that Rudradāman's sway over Sindhu-Sauvīra (which he identifies with modern Sind) between 130 and 150 A. D. does not imply control over Sui Vihār and Multān, and consequently Kanishka's sovereignty over Sui Vihār in the year 11 of an era starting from 128-29 A.D., *i. e.*, in or about 140 A.D., is not irreconcilable with the rule of the Great Satrap in Sindhu-Sauvīra at about the same time. He is not oblivious of the difficulty of harmonising this limitation of Rudradāman's power with the known fact of the Great Satrap's campaign against the Yaudheyas in the course of which he claims to have uprooted that powerful tribe "in their country proper which was to the north of Suē Vihār" and, according to the theory advocated by the Professor, "formed part of Kanishka's dominions" at that time. He meets the difficulty by saying that "the pressure of the Kusāna armies from the north had driven the Yaudheyas to the desert of Marwar". Such surmises to explain away inconvenient details, are, to say the least, not convincing, especially in view of the fact that Maru finds separate mention in the inscription of Rudradāman as a territory under the rule of the mighty Satrap.

c24.6

³ The earliest recorded date of Huvishka is now known to be the year 28

c24.7

But is the contention of the Professor that Sindhu-Sauvīra did not include the country up to Multān correct? Alberuni, who based his assertions on the geographical data of the *Purāṇas* and the *Bṛihatsaṁhitā*, made the clear statement that Sauvīra was equivalent to Multān and Jahrāvār.¹ Against this Professor Vidyalankar quotes the evidence of Yuan Chwang who says that in his days "Mou-lo-san-pu-lu," *i.e.* Mūla-sthāna-pura or Multān was a dependency of the "Che-ka" or Takka country in the C. Pañjāb. It should be noted, however, that the Chinese pilgrim is referring to political dependence, and not geographical inclusion. India was a dependency of Great Britain. But geographically it was not a part of the British Isles. On the other band, Alberuni does not give the slightest hint that what he actually means by the equation "Sauvīra, *i,e.*, Multān and Jahrāvār" is political subjection of Multān to Sind. His account here is purely geographical, and he is merely giving the names of the countries, as taken from the *Saṁhitā* of Varāhamihira with his own comments. Far from making Multān a political dependency of Sind he carefully distinguishes "Sauvīra, *i.e.*, Multān and Jahrāvār" from "Sindhu" which is mentioned separately.

c24.8

¹ 302.

c24.9

The view that ancient Sauvīra was confined to Southern Sind and that Sindhu and Sauvīra together correspond to modern Sind, and nothing but Sind, is unsupported by any early evidence. Yuan Chwang went east from Sin-tu above 900 li and, crossing to the east bank of the Indus, came to the Mou-lo-san-pu-lu country.¹ This proves that Sin-tu lay to the *west* of Mou-lo-san-pu-lu (Multān), and was situated on the *west* side of the Indus. The commentator of the *Kāmasūtras* of Vātsyāyana makes the clear statement² सैन्धवानामिति । सिन्धुनामा नदस्तस्य पश्चिमेन सिन्धुदेशस्तत्र भवानाम् । The major part of modern Sind was clearly outside the geographical (as opposed to the political) limits of ancient "Sin-tu" or Sindhu and was, in the days of Yuan Chwang, included in the countries of A-tien-p'o-chih-lo, Pi-to-shih-lo, and A-fan-tu. Part of the modern territory of Sind may have been included in Sauvīra whose southern limits undoubtedly reached the sea, because the *Milinda-Pañho* mentions it in a list of countries where "*ships do congregate*". We are informed by the author of the *Periplus* that "*ships* lie at anchor at Barbaricum" (at the mouth of the Indus). But the evidence of Alberuni leaves no room for doubt that the northern limits of Sauvīra reached Multān. A scholar like Alberuni thoroughly conversant with Purāṇic lore, is not likely to make an unwarranted statement. In fact, the inclusion of Multān within Sauvīra receives striking confirmation from some of the *Purāṇas*. The *Skandapurāṇa*, for instance,³ referring to the famous temple of the Sun at Mūla-sthāna or Multān, says that stood on the banks of the river Devikā (*Devikātaṭa*) :—

c24.10

¹ Watters, II. 254.

c24.11

² Benares edition, p. 295.

c24.12

³ *Prabhāsa-ks etra-Māhātmya*, Ch. 278.

c24.13

ततो गच्छेन्महादेवि मूलस्थानमिति श्रुतम् ।
देविकायास्तटे रम्ये भास्करं वारितस्करम् ॥

c24.14

In the *Agnipurāṇa*⁴ the Devikā is brought into special relations with the realm of Sauvīra:—

c24.15

⁴ Ch. 200.

c24.16

सौवीरराजस्य पुरा मैत्रेयोऽभूत् पुरोहितः ।
तेन चायतनं विष्णोः कारितं देविकातटे ॥

c24.17

According to Yuan Chwang, Sin-tu and Multān were neighbouring countries lying on opposite sides of the Indus.

c24.18

This is quite in accordance with the close association of Sindhu and Sauvīra in early literature.

c24.19

पतिः सौवीरसिन्धूनां दुष्टभावो जयद्रथः ।¹
कश्चिदेकः शिबीनाङ्यान् सौवीरान् सह सिन्धुभिः ।²
शिविसौवीरसिन्धूनां विषादश्चाप्यजायत ।³

c24.20

¹ Mbh., III, Ch. 266.

c24.21

² Mbh., III, Ch. 266.

c24.22

³ Mbh., III, Ch. 270.

c24.23

Rudradāman's mastery over Sindhu and Sauvīra (in the sense in which these terms were understood by the *Purāṇas*, the commentator on the *Kāmasūtras* of Vātsyāyana, Yuan Chwang and Alberuni) is clearly irreconcilable with the simultaneous sovereignty of Kanishka over Sui Vihār.

c24.24

Apart from the identification of Sauvīra with Multān and Jahrāvār, is it unreasonable to hold that a power which exercised sway over ancient Sindhu and Maru, and fought with the Yaudheyas of Johiyawār, had the Sui Vihār region under its control?

c24.25

Mr. H. C. Ghosh asserts⁴ that it cannot be proved that Rudradāman held Sindhu and Sauvīra some time from 136 A.D. at least. He also thinks that the argument that Kanishka started an era "involves a *petitio principii*." Now, we know that by 150 A.D. Rudradāman was "the lord of the whole of eastern and western Ākarāvanti, Anupanīvṛid, Ānartta, Surāshṭra, Svabhra, Maru, Kachchha, Sindhu, Sauvīra, Kukura, Aparānta, Nishāda, and other territories gained by his own valour." The conquest of so many countries must have taken a long time, and the Andhau inscriptions show that one of the countries, at any rate, namely, Kachchha, had come under the sway of the Great Satrap as early as 130 A D. On p. 277 of the *Political History of Ancient India* (second edition) it has been pointed out that "the name of the capital of Scythia (i.e., the Lower Indus Valley) in the time of the Periplus was Minnagara, and this was evidently derived from the city of Min in Sakasthāna mentioned by Isidore. Rapson points out that one of the most characteristic features in the name of the western Kshatrapas of Cashṭana's line, *viz.*, 'Dāman' (-dama) is found also in the name of a prince of the Drangianian house of Vonones. Lastly, the Kārddamaka family, from which the daughter of the *Mahākshatrapa* Rudra claimed descent, apparently derived its name from the Karddama river in Persia."

c24.26

⁴ *IHQ*, 1929, p. 79.

c24.27

The facts noted above indicate that the Saka sept to which Chashṭana and Rudradāman belonged came from Sakasthāna in Irān through the Lower Indus Valley to Cutch and other places in Western India. In view of this and the contiguity of Cutch to the Lower Indus Valley, it is permissible to think that the date of the conquest of Sindhu and Sauvīra could not have been far removed from, and may have even preceded, that of Cutch (Kachchha). As the great Satrap retained his hold on these provinces till 150 A.D. it stands to reason that he was their ruler from *c.* 136 A.D.

c24.28

As to the second contention of Mr. Ghosh, it may be pointed out that Kanishka's dates 1-23, Vāsishka's dates 24-28, Huvishka's dates 28-60, and Vāsudeva's dates 67-98, do suggest a continuous reckoning. To deny that Kanishka started an era is tantamount to saying that the dates of his successors, Vāsishka, Huvishka, and Vāsudeva are regnal years. But no serious student will contend that Vāsudeva's dates 67-98 are to be taken as regnal years.

Linked texts (6)