History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c10.s3.42

c10.s3.42

And, besides, there was no other reason why Harṣa should refuse to assume the royal duties. Watters' statement that Harṣa "in the early part of his life had joined the Buddhist church and perhaps taken the vows of a Bhikṣu, or at least a lay member of the communion,"⁴ merits no credence. Harṣa began as a Śaivite and continued to be so till late in his life, as the Banskhera inscription of the year 22, and Madhuban plate dated year 25, which call him a “Paramamāheśvara,” definitely show.¹ Moreover, it was probably due to his original Śaiva tendencies that he complimented the king of Assam through the latter’s envoy, saying, “to whom save Śiva need he pay homage? This resolve of his increases my affection.”² Vincent Smith thinks that “the nobles seem to have hesitated before offering the crown to his (Rājyavardhana’s) youthful brother.”³ K. M. Panikkar also conjectures that the inheritance was not “a comfortable one,” as the feudatories had shown themselves “refractory and rebellious;” or perhaps Rājya had “left an heir,”⁴ in which case Harṣa scrupled to disinherit him. But I humbly submit that such assumptions are quite unwarranted. C. V. Vaidya is doubtful if Rājya was married,⁵ and even supposing it was a fact, there is nothing to prove that he left a son. Besides, from Bāṇa’s description we know it for certain that the feudatories were loyal to Harṣa. When Kuntala delivers the tidings of Rājya’s murder in the audience-hall, the feudatories are represented as being in attendance on Harṣa. We are further told that “at the hour of marching the front of the king’s residence became full of chieftains from every side.”⁶ Thus, if they had been turbulent from the beginning, they would have given greater trouble to young Harṣa after his brother’s murder. But instead of revolting or creating disturbance they gave their unstinted help and loyal support to their royal master, who was now confronted with the difficult task of bringing the culprit to book.