Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c24.s1: The Sunga Dynasty

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c24.s1

Language
English

The Sunga Dynasty

c24.s1.1

PUSHYAMITRA, the commander-in-chief, having slain his master Brihadratha Maurya, usurped the vacant throne, and established himself as sovereign of the now contracted Maurya dominions;¹ thus founding a dynasty known to history as that of the Sungas.²

c24.s1.2

¹ The Puranic account of Pushyamitra's usurpation is confirmed by Bāṇa (seventh century), who evidently had access to documents now lost. His text is: *Pratijñā durbalaṁ cha baladarśanavyapadeśa-darśitāśesha-sainyah senānīr anāryo Mauryaṁ Bṛihadrathaṁ pipesha Pushpamitraḥ svāminaṁ*, which may be translated: 'And reviewing the whole army, under the pretext of showing him his forces, the base-born (*anārya*) general Pushpamitra crushed his master, Bṛihadratha the Maurya, who, was weak in keeping his coronation oath (*pratijñā*).' The rendering combines the versions of Cowell and Thomas (*Harṣacarita*, transl. p. 193), of Bühler (*Ind. Ant.*, ii, 363), and of Jayaswal. The best text of the Purāṇas (Pargiter, pp. 31, 70) states simply that 'Pushyamitra, the commander-in-chief, will uproot Bṛihadratha and will rule the kingdom as king 36 years'.

c24.s1.3

² Manuscripts usually read Pushpamitra, but Pushyamitra is the correct form (Bühler, *Ind. Ant.*, ii, 362). Pushyamitra has been shown to be a synonym of Bahasatimitra or Bahaspati of the Khāravela inscription (K. P. Jayaswal, in *J. B. & O. Res. Soc.*, Part iv, Dec. 1917, pp. 473–80); and in view of the connexion between Brihaspati and the Pushya asterism, we must accept Pushya as correct. As the name of the founder of the dynasty and some of his descendants ended in *mitra*, M. M. Haraparshād Sāstri suggests, in my opinion wrongly, that the Sungas were Persians, worshippers of the sun (Mithra). The Sungas were followers of the *Sāma Veda* which is specially concerned with animal sacrifices, and they and the Kaṇvas appear to have led a Brahmanical reaction against Buddhism (*J. & Proc. A. S. B.*, 1912, p. 287). K. P. Jayaswal (*J. B. O. Res. Soc.*, iv, Sept. 1918) holds that the Sungas were Brahmans and occupied a high position in the theological world at that early date. Pushyamitra belonged to the family of the royal chaplain (*purohit*) of the Mauryas, who though heterodox since Asoka's reign probably retained the family nominally in its old position. According to the author, the later Mauryas were degenerate and politically weak, and Pushyamitra was forced to slay Bṛihadratha in the interests of the empire, which was threatened by the Yāvanas or Bactrian Greeks under Menander. The dynastic name Śuṅga is attested by the Purāṇas, Bāṇa (p. 193), and the Barhut (Bharhut) inscription beginning with *Suga-naṁ raje*, 'during the reign of the Śuṅgas' (*Arch. S. W. I.* v, 73; *Ind. Ant.*, xiv, 138, with facsimile).

c24.s1.4

The capital presumably continued to be, as of old, Pātaliputra, and probably all the central or home provinces of the empire recognized the usurper's authority, which perhaps extended to the south as far as the Narmadā river,¹ and may be assumed to have embraced the territories in the Gangetic basin, corresponding with the modern Bihār, Tirhūt, and the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. It is unlikely that either the later Mauryas or the Śuṅgas exercised any jurisdiction in the Panjāb. Wilson's belief that the arms of Pushyamitra reached the Indus was due to a misunderstanding.²

c24.s1.5

¹ 'The Queen [of Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra] has a brother of inferior caste, Vīrasena by name; he has been placed by the king in command of a frontier fortress on the banks of the Mandākinī' (Introd. to *Mālavikāgnimitra*). Tawney (transl., p. 6) notes that 'the Mandākanī here probably means the Narmadā (Nerbudda). One of the Bombay manuscripts reads the Prākrit equivalent of Narmadā'. But Mr. Pargiter knows only two rivers named Mandākinī, namely, one in the Bānda District of Bundelkhaṇḍ, and the other, a southern tributary of the Godāvarī (*J. R. A. S.*, 1894, p. 260).

c24.s1.6

² Wilson, *Theatre of the Hindus*, ii, 353; Cunningham, *Num. Chron.*, 1870, p. 227.

c24.s1.7

Pushyamitra did not enjoy his dominions unchallenged. In or about 165 B. C. Khāravela, King of Kalinga, who was descended from the Cheta (Chaitra) family, invaded his territory and advanced to within a few miles of Pātaliputra. Pushyamitra made a strategic withdrawal to Mathurā, and Khāravela apparently considered it wise at the moment not to proceed farther than the Barābar Hills (Gorathagiri).

c24.s1.8

The second invasion of Khāravela, four years later, was, however, more successful. Entering Northern India and marching at the foot of the Himalayas, he suddenly appeared before the capital of Magadha on the north side of the Ganges, which he crossed with the help of the famous elephants of Kalinga. Pushyamitra was forced to submit, and the treasures of his capital were seized by the victor, among them being a statue of the first Jina (Rishabhadeva), which had been carried away from Kalinga three centuries earlier by King Nanda I.³

c24.s1.9

³ See K. P. Jayaswal, *J. B. O. Res. Soc.*, vol. iii, Dec. 1917, pp. 425–85; R. D. Banerji, ibid., pp. 486–507. See also J. N. Sikdar, 'A Note on the Cheta Dynasty', *J. B. O. Res. Soc.*, vol. iv, Part i, March, 1918, pp. 99–100.

c24.s1.10

During the latter years of his reign, Pushyamitra was threatened by serious danger. Menander, a relative of the Bactrian monarch Eukratides, and king of Kābul and the Panjāb, having formed the design of emulating the exploits of Alexander, advanced with a formidable force into the interior of India. He annexed the Indus delta, the peninsula of Surāshtra (Kāthiāwār), and some other territories on the western coast; occupied Mathurā on the Jumna; besieged Madhyamikā (now Nagarī near Chitōr) in Rājputāna; invested Sākētam in Southern Oudh; and threatened Pātaliputra, the capital.

c24.s1.11

The invasion was repelled after a severe struggle, and the Greek king was obliged to retire to his own country, but he may have retained his conquests in Western India for a few years longer.¹

c24.s1.12

¹ See Appendix I at end of this chapter, 'The Invasion of Menander, and the Date of Patañjali'.

c24.s1.13

Thus ended the second and last attempt by a European general to conquer India by land. All subsequent invaders from the western continent have come in ships, trusting to their command of the sea, and using it as their base. From the repulse of Menander in or about 153 B. C. until the bombardment of Calicut by Vasco da Gama in A. D. 1502 India enjoyed immunity from attack under European leadership; and so long as the power in occupation of the country retains command of the sea, no attack made from the land side in the footsteps of the ancient invaders can have any prospect of permanent success.

c24.s1.14

During the progress of the war with Menander, the outlying southern provinces extending to the Narmadā river were administered by the Crown Prince, Agnimitra, as viceroy, who had his capital at Vidisā, the modern Bhīlsā on the Betwā in Sindhia's territory. Agnimitra's youthful son, Vasumitra, was employed on active service under the orders of the king, his grandfather. Pushyamitra, who at this time must have been advanced in years, resolved to crown his military successes by substantiating and proclaiming a formal claim to the rank of Lord Paramount of Northern India. His pretensions received confirmation by the success of Agnimitra in a local war with his southern neighbour, the Rāja of Vidarbha (Berār), which resulted in the complete defeat of the Rāja, who was obliged to cede half of his dominions to a rival cousin; the river Varadā (Warda) being constituted the boundary between the two principalities.

c24.s1.15

Pushyamitra determined to revive and celebrate with appropriate magnificence the antique Vedic rite of the horse-sacrifice (*aśvamedha*), which, according to immemorial tradition, could only be performed by a paramount sovereign, and involved as a preliminary a formal and successful challenge to all rival claimants to supreme power, delivered after this fashion:—

c24.s1.16

‘A horse of a particular colour was consecrated by the performance of certain ceremonies, and was then turned loose to wander for a year. The king, or his representative, followed the horse with an army, and when the animal entered a foreign country, the ruler of that country was bound either to fight or to submit. If the liberator of the horse succeeded in obtaining or enforcing the submission of all the countries over which it passed, he returned in triumph with all the vanquished Rājas in his train; but, if he failed, he was disgraced, and his pretensions ridiculed. After his successful return, a great festival was held, at which the horse was sacrificed.’¹

c24.s1.17

¹ Dowson, *Classical Dict.*, s. v. *Aśvamedha*. See also Barnett, *Antiquities of India* (1913), pp. 169–71. The rite was ‘known to the Ṛigveda (2. 161, 162)’ : originally it was ‘not improbably a sacrifice offered to the sun’ (Macdonell in *J. R. A. S.*, 1916, p. 624).

c24.s1.18

The command, at least nominally, of the guard attendant on the consecrated steed liberated by Pushyamitra was entrusted to his young grandson, Vasumitra, who is said to have encountered and routed a band of certain Yavanas, or western foreigners, who took up the challenge on the banks of the river Sindhu, which now forms the boundary between Bundēlkhand and the Rājputāna states.² These disputants may have been part of the division of Menander’s army which had undertaken the siege of Madhyamikā in Rājputāna.

c24.s1.19

² Not the Indus.

c24.s1.20

The Yavanas and all other rivals having been disposed of in due course, Pushyamitra was justified in his claim to rank as the paramount power of Northern India, and straightway proceeded to announce his success by a magnificent celebration of the sacrifice at his capital. The dramatist, who has so well preserved the traditions of the time, professes to record the very words of the invitation addressed by the victorious king to his son the Crown Prince, as follows :—

c24.s1.21

‘May it be well with thee ! From the sacrificial enclosure the commander-in-chief Pushpamitra sends this message to his son Agnimitra, who is in the territory of Vidisā, affectionately embracing him. Be it known unto thee that I, having been consecrated for the *Rājasūya* sacrifice,¹ let loose free from all check or curb a horse which was to be brought back after a year, appointing Vasumitra as its defender, girt with a guard of a hundred Rājpūts. This very horse wandering on the right [or “south”] bank of the Sindhu was claimed by a cavalry squadron of the Yavanas. Then there was a fierce struggle between the two forces. Then Vasumitra, the mighty bowman, having overcome his foes, rescued by force my excellent horse, which they were endeavouring to carry off. Accordingly, I will now sacrifice, having had my horse brought back to me by my grandson, even as Ansumat brought back the horse to Sagara. Therefore, you must dismiss anger from your mind, and without delay come with my daughters-in-law to behold the sacrifice.’²

c24.s1.22

¹ The *rājasūya* was a ceremony of consecration of a king. The full ritual lasted for twelve months. It is explained in detail by R. L. Mitra in *J. A. S. B.*, part i, vol. xlv (1876), pp. 386–98 ; and by Barnett, *Antiquities of India* (1913), p. 167.

c24.s1.23

² *Mālavikāgnimitra*, ‘The Story of Mālavikā and Agnimitra’, Act v, transl. Tawney, p. 78, with the substitution of the word ‘forces’ for ‘hosts’, which is not suitable. Abstracts of the plot are given by Wilson (*Theatre of the Hindus*, vol. i, pp. 348–53, and Sylvain Lévi, *Théâtre Indien*, pp. 166–70). It has been edited by Tullberg (Bonn, 1840), and translated into English by Tawney (Calcutta, 1875), into German by Weber (Berlin, 1856), and twice into French, first by Foucaux, and later by Victor Henry (Paris, 1877, 1889). The historical tradition seems to be authentic. Kālidāsa, the author, probably lived during the Gupta period in the fifth century. H. C. Chakladar places him definitely in the early years of the fifth century during the reign of Chandragupta Vikramāditya (‘Studies in the Kāmasutra of Vatsyayana’, *J. B. & O. Res. Soc.*, 1919, vol. v, Part ii, p. 199). For the Sagara legend see Dowson, *Classical Dictionary*, s. v.

c24.s1.24

The performance of the solemn rite probably was witnessed by the celebrated grammarian Patañjali, who alludes to the event in terms which imply that it occurred in his time.

c24.s1.25

The exaggerated regard for the sanctity of animal life, which was one of the most cherished features of Buddhism, and the motive of Asoka's most characteristic legislation, had necessarily involved the prohibition of bloody sacrifices, which are essential to certain forms of Brahmanical worship, and were believed by the orthodox to possess the highest saving efficacy. The memorable horse-sacrifice of Pushyamitra marked an early stage in the Brahmanical reaction, which was fully developed five centuries later in the time of Samudragupta and his successors.

c24.s1.26

If credit may be given to the semi-mythological stories of Buddhist writers, Pushyamitra was not content with the peaceful revival of Hindu rites, but indulged in a savage persecution of Buddhism, burning monasteries and slaying monks from Magadha to Jālandhar, in the Panjāb. Many monks who escaped his sword are said to have fled into the territories of other rulers. It would be rash to reject this tale as wholely baseless, although it may be exaggerated.¹

c24.s1.27

¹ Tāranāth, Schiefner's transl., p. 81; *Divyāvadāna* in Burnouf, *Introduction*, 2nd ed., p. 384. Tāranāth, probably with truth, represents Pushyamitra as a Brahman, the domestic priest (*purohit*) of a certain king.

c24.s1.28

Although the alleged proscription of Buddhism by Pushyamitra is supported by some evidence, it is true that the gradual extinction of that religion in India was due in the main to causes other than persecution; while it is also true that from time to time fanatic kings indulged in savage outbursts of cruelty, and committed genuine acts of persecution directed against Jains or Buddhists as such. Well-established instances of such proceedings will be met with in the course of this history, and others, which do not come within its limits, are on record. That such outbreaks of wrath should have occurred is not wonderful, if we consider the extreme oppressiveness of the Jain and Buddhist prohibitions when ruthlessly enforced, as they certainly were by some Rājas, and presumably by Asoka. The wonder rather is that persecutions were so rare, and that as a rule the various sects managed to live together in harmony, and in the enjoyment of fairly impartial official favour.¹

c24.s1.29

¹ The reality of religious persecution of Buddhism in India, denied by Rhys Davids (*J. Pāli Text Soc.*, 1896, pp. 87–92), is affirmed by Hodgson, Sewell, and Watters (ibid., pp. 107–10). The instance of Śaśāṅka, described by the nearly contemporary Hiuen Tsang (Beal, *Records*, i, 212, ii, 42, 91, 118, 121), is fully proved. The case against Mihirakula is almost as strong. In ancient times Tibet and Khotan were closely connected with India. Tibetan history records a persecution of Buddhism by king Glang Darma (Langdarma), about *A. D.* 840 (Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, pp. 226, 243), and a similar event is recorded in Khotan annals, shortly before A. D. 741 (ibid., pp. 243–5; Sarat Chandra Dās, *J. A. S. B.*, pt. I, 1886, p. 200). A terrible persecution of the cognate religion Jainism occurred in Southern India in the seventh century (Elliot, *Coins of Southern India*, p. 126; *post*, ch. xvi, sec. 2). Ajayadeva, a 'Śaiva king of Gujarāt (A. D. 1174–6), began his reign by a merciless persecution of the Jains, torturing their leader to death' (*Archaeol. S. W. I.*, vol. ix, p. 16). Several other well-established instances of severe persecution might be cited.

c24.s1.30

When Pushyamitra, some five years subsequent to the retreat of Menander, died, after a long and eventful reign, he was succeeded by his son the Crown Prince, Agnimitra, who had governed the southern provinces during his father's lifetime. He reigned but a few years, and was succeeded by Vasujyeshṭha, or Sujyeshṭha, probably a brother, who was followed seven years later by Vasumitra, presumably that son of Agnimitra who as a youth had guarded the sacrificial horse on behalf of his aged grandfather. The next four reigns are said to have been abnormally short, amounting together to only seventeen years. The inference that the extreme brevity of these reigns indicates a period of confusion during which palace revolutions were frequent is confirmed by the one incident of the time which has survived in tradition. Sumitra, another son of Agnimitra, who was, we are told, inordinately devoted to the stage, was surprised when in the midst of his favourite actors by one Mitradeva, who 'severed his head with a scimitar, as a lotus is shorn from its stalk'.² The ninth king, Bhāgavata, is credited with a long reign of thirty-two years, but we know little about him.³ The tenth king, Devabhūti or Devabhūmi, was, we are assured, a man of licentious habits, and lost his life while engaged in a discreditable intrigue. The dynasty thus came to an unhonoured end after having occupied the throne for a hundred and twelve years.¹

c24.s1.31

² Bāṇa, *Harṣa-carita*, ch. vi; Cowell and Thomas, transl., p. 192.

c24.s1.32

³ There is an inscription of his on the stump of a Garuḍa pillar at Besnagar, 'when he had been crowned twelve years' (*A. S. Rep. I.*, 1913–14, pt. II, p. 190). See *I. M. Catalogue*, p. 146.

c24.s1.33

¹ The 'Mitra' coins, of several kinds, found in Oudh, Rohilkhaṇḍ, Gōrakhpur, &c., probably belong to the Śuṅgas, though only one name on the coins, that of Agnimitra, agrees with the Purāṇic lists. But this may be due to the fact that the Śuṅgas apparently had alternative names (K. P. Jayaswal in *J. B. O. Res. Soc.*, iii). For detailed descriptions see Carlleyle and Rivett-Carnac, *J. A. S. B.*, 1880, pt. i, pp. 21–8, 87–90, with plates; Cunningham, *Coins of Ancient India*, pp. 69, 74, 79, 93; *Catal. of Coins in I. M.*, vol. i, p. 184. The most authentic version of the Śuṅga history, according to the Purāṇas, as translated from the eclectic text, is as follows:— 'Puṣyamitra the commander-in-chief will uproot Bṛhadratha and will rule the kingdom as king 36 years. *His* son Agnimitra will be king 8 years. Vasujyeṣṭha will be king 7 years. *His* son Vasumitra will be king 10 years. Then his son Andhraka (Odraka) will reign 2 years. Pulindaka will then reign 3 years. *His* son Ghoṣa will be king 3 years. Next Vajramitra will be king 9 years. Bhāgavata will be king 32 years. His son Devabhūmi will reign 10 years. These ten Śuṅga kings will enjoy this earth full 112 years. From them the earth will pass to the Kāṇvas' (Pargiter, *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, pp. 30, 70. Variant readings are given in the notes). The details of the length of reigns do not agree with the total, 112.

Linked texts (9)