Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11: Chapter IV. Extent of the Kanauj Empire Under Harṣa

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV. Extent of the Kanauj Empire Under Harṣa

c11.1

EXTENT

c11.2

OF

c11.3

THE KANAUJ EMPIRE

c11.5

In discussing the knotty problem of the extension of the suzerainty of Kanauj during the time of Harṣa, we must consider first the limits of his paternal dominion, which with the transference of his seat of government to Kanauj had become united with his new territorial acquisition; and secondly his own campaigns and conquests. Lastly, we have to determine what relation the contemporary kingdoms bore to Kanauj, taking into consideration Yuan Chwang’s testimony as to their political conditions and status.

c11.6

The kingdom of Thanesvar, which had a modest beginning,¹ appears to have been augmented to a certain extent, both in territory and influence, under Prabhākaravardhana, as he is the first to be styled Mahārājādhirāja and Paramabhaṭṭāraka in the family inscriptions (e.g., the Madhuban plate). The *Harṣa-carita* calls him “a lion to the Hūṇa deer, a burning fever to the king of the Indus land, a troubler of the sleep of Gujarat (? Gurjaras), a bilious plague to that scent-elephant the lord of Gāndhāra, a looter to the lawlessness of the Lāṭas, an axe to the creeper of Malwa's glory.”¹ This passage, although significant with regard to the different powers existing at the time, however, hardly warrants our concluding, as has been done by Mr. C. V. Vaidya,² that these states had been actually conquered and annexed by Prabhākaravardhana. On the other hand, there is evidence that the “Hūṇa deer,” instead of being overawed and cowed, was trying to pounce upon the “lion” himself for towards the close of his reign the kingdom was seriously disturbed by the Hūṇa menace, and Prabhākara had to despatch the crown-prince at the head of a strong force to cope with the danger. Hence making allowance for exaggeration, it apears that in the above passage of the Harṣa-carita we have only a poetical description of Prabhākaravardhana's excellence and greatness as compared with the other contemporary rulers.³ According to Bühler,⁴ Prabhākara's possessions did not go beyond the limits of the kingdom of Thanesvar, described by Yuan Chwang, which, as Sir Alexander Cunningham suggests, probably included portions of southern Punjab and of eastern Rajputana. "A state, the circuit of which amounted to 7,000 *li* or 1200 miles, might exercise a considerable influence, keep its neighbours in fear, and afford to a very talented king the means for greater conquests."¹ We may thus conclude that the North-western frontiers of Thanesvar were limited by the Hūṇa territories in the Punjab, and in the north it probably extended upto the hills. In the east it was conterminous with the Maukhari kingdom of Kanauj;² and on the west and south it probably did not go much beyond the Panjab and the Rajputana desert.

c11.7

¹ This is evident from the fact that in the Banskhera and Madhuban plates the two immediate predecessors of Prabhākara are called simply Mahārājas.

c11.8

¹ Hc. C. T., p. 101. Cf. “Hūṇahariṇakesarī Sindhurājajvaro Gurjara-prajāgaraḥ Gāndhārādhipagandhadvipa-Kūṭapākalaḥ. Lāṭapāṭavapāṭaccaraḥ Mālavalakṣmīlatāparaśuḥ” (Hc., Calcutta ed., pp. 243-44).

c11.9

² H. M. H. I., I, p. 1f. See also Dr. R. K. Mookerji, Harṣa, p. 11, where Prabhākara is said to have attained the position of an emperor.

c11.10

³ The following remark of Dr. Fitz-Edward Hall seems to be very pertinent in this connection : “Unquestioning confidence in the representations of Indian panegyrists would entail the conclusion that, in the by-gone days of this country, everybody—above all if a patron—was constantly vanquishing everybody else.” (J. A. S. B., XXXI, p. 3).

c11.11

⁴ Ep. Ind., I, p. 69.

c11.12

¹ *Ibid.*

c11.13

² We have fixed the limits of the Maukhari kingdom in the previous chapter; and we have to bear in mind that Harṣa became master of all these territories subsequently, although it may be possible that he had to fight again and bring to subjection any unruly or malcontent parts that had seized the opportunity to assert themselves during the Gauḍa-Malwa disturbance.

c11.14

Regarding the conquests of Harṣa, we do not seem to stand on certain ground for want of definite details. We admittedly have some vague generalities in the accounts of the admiring Yuan Chwang, e.g., "Proceeding eastward, he invaded the states which had refused allegiance; and waged incessant warfare until in six years he fought the "Five Indias" (according to the other reading: "had brought the Five Indias under allegiance").³ Again, we are told : "He was soon able to avenge the injuries received by his brother, and to make himself *Master of India*. His renown was spread abroad everywhere, and all his subjects reverenced his virtues."⁴ And lastly, speaking of Mahārāṣṭra Yuan Chwang says: "At the present time Śīlāditya Mahārāja has conquered the nations from east to west, and carried his arms to remote districts".⁵ But nowhere does the worthy pilgrim specifically mention how, when and what kingdoms were conquered by Harṣa.

c11.15

³ Watters, I, p. 343; Beal, I, p. 213.

c11.16

⁴ *Life*, p. 83.

c11.17

⁵ Beal, II, pp. 256-57; Watters, II, p. 239.

c11.18

Nor is the evidence of Bāṇa more helpful on this point. We have noted that his account abruptly comes to a stop, and he does not even inform us how Harṣa proceeded against the Gauḍa king, who was the immediate object of his wrath. True, Bāṇa alludes to riders "intently occupied in rehearsing the approaching Gauḍa war."[¹] And the learned translators of the *Harṣacarita* detect an indirect reference to the campaign in the concluding paragraph, in which "the sunset is described in terms suggesting bloody wars and the fall of Harṣa's enemy, followed by the rising of the moon of Harṣa's glory."[²] But there are evidences—to be discussed below—which preclude our drawing any such inference. Śaśāṅka evaded Harṣa's grasp, and continued to flourish till a considerably late date.

c11.19

¹ *Hc.* C. T., p. 209.

c11.20

² *Ibid.*, p. 260, Note 4.

c11.21

We are further informed by Bāṇa that Harṣa, "the greatest of all men, having pounded the king of Sindh, made his wealth his own,"[³] and also "taken tribute from an inaccessible land of the snowy mountains."[⁴] What these statements are worth, we shall consider in connection with the testimony of Yuan Chwang regarding the status of the different kingdoms that he visited.

c11.22

³ *Ibid.*, p. 76. Cf. "Atra Puruṣottamena Sindhurājaṃ pra-mathya Lakṣmīhātmi-kṛtā" (*Hc.* Cal. ed., pp. 210-11).

c11.23

⁴ *Ibid.* Cf. "Atra Parameśvareṇa tuṣāraśailabhuvo durgayā grahītaḥ karaḥ."

c11.24

Lastly, we may note the imperial titles given to Harṣa, which may indicate his widespread power and suzerainty. Bāṇa calls him: "king of kings, sovereign of all continents,"[⁵] and "Śrī-Harṣa, the king of kings, the lord of the four oceans, whose toe-nails are burnished by the crest gems of all other monarchs, the leader of all emperors."[1] Far from urging that these pompous expressions argue Harṣa's paramount status, we might say that these high-sounding titles were sometimes conventional among the courtly panegyrists, and were used in a very loose way.

c11.25

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 75; see also *Ibid.*, pp. 66, 97, etc.

c11.26

As the Harṣacarita stubbornly refuses to give any better clue to the suzerainty of Harṣa, we must now turn to our next guide, the indefatigable Chinese pilgrim, for help in unravelling the apparent indefiniteness of the power and influence of Kanauj over the surrounding territories. It may be noted here that the Records of Yuan Chwang are no political gazetteer. He came to India, defying the difficulties and hardships presented in his progress by both nature and man, on a mission that was primarily Buddhistic in its outlook and purpose. He makes only incidental references to the political status and government of different states, and as such they are all the more valuable and trustworthy. We should, therefore, analyse the testimony of Yuan Chwang in conjunction with that of the Life and indigenous epigraphs, and try to deduce conclusions as to the extent of the kingdom of Kanauj after learning the exact political conditions and status of the kingdoms of the North which Yuan Chwang visited, or of which he had heard. Extravagant claims about Harṣa's jurisdiction have been made; so we make no apologies for this detailed discussion regarding all the kingdoms of the north, beginning from the extreme north-western frontiers.

c11.27

I. Lan-p'o or Lampa: Yuan Chwang begins his description from Lan-p'o (modern Lughman), although the countries described by him from Lan-p'o to Rajpur (Rajauri), both inclusive, were regarded by the people of India as "border lands" inhabited by "barbarians" and not part of their country. Regarding the political position of this region at the time of his visit the pilgrim says : "For several centuries the native dynasty had ceased to exist, great families fought for pre-eminence, and the state had recently become a dependency of Kapiśa."¹

c11.28

¹ Ibid., p. 40. Cf. "Devadevasya catuḥsamudrādhipateḥ sakalarājakracūḍā-maṇi - śreṇi - śāṇa - koṇakaṣaṇa - nirmalikṛta - caraṇanakhamaneḥ sarvacakravartinām dhaureyasya mahārājādhirāja parameśvara-śrī Harṣadevasya" (IIc. Cal. ed., p. 112).

c11.29

¹ Watters, I, p. 181; Beai, I, p. 90.

c11.30

II. *Na-ka-lo-ho* or Nagar : This is represented by the tract called in modern times Nungnehar, and includes the present district of Jelalabad and the valley of the Kabul river. At that time "there was no king and the State was a province of Kapiśa."²

c11.31

² Watters, I, p. 183; Beal, I, p. 91.

c11.32

III. *Kan-t'o-lo* or Gāndhāra : "The royal family was extinct and the country was subject to Kapiśa. The towns and villages were desolate and the inhabitants were very few; in one corner of the city there were above 1,000 families."³

c11.33

³ Watters, I, p. 199; Beal, I, p. 98.

c11.34

IV. *Fa-la-na* or Varana : The identification is doubtful. According to St. Martin it corresponds to modern Vanih, whereas Cunningham identifies it with Bannu : "It was well populated and was subject to Kapiśa."⁴

c11.35

⁴ Watters, II, p. 262; Beal, II, p. 281.

c11.36

Thus *Kia-pi-shi* or Kapiśa was a strong and important kingdom in the north-west with several dependencies. We are unable to ascertain who was the king, but we are informed that he was a Kṣatriya and an adherent of Buddhism. As we are further told that "his power extended over more than ten of the neighbouring lands,"⁵ we may be sure that Kapiśa was absolutely independent, and had nothing to do with the sovereignty of Kanauj.

c11.37

⁵ Watters, I, p. 123.

c11.38

V. *Ta-ch'a-shi-lo* or Takṣaśilā : Cunningham placed the site of the old city at the modern Shah-Dheri, just one mile to the north-east of Kāla-ka-serai.¹ Its ruins cover an extensive area. About its government the pilgrim says: "The chiefs were in a state of open feud, the royal family being extinguished; the country had formerly been subject to Kapiśa but now it was a dependency of Kashmir."²

c11.39

¹ *Anc. Geo. of India* (Calcutta, 1924), pp. 121, 681; see also Marshall's *Guide to Taxila*, pp. 1-4.

c11.40

² Watters, I, p. 240; Beal, I, p. 136.

c11.41

VI. *Seng-ha-pu-lo* or Siṃhapura : identified with Narasimha or Ketas "situated on the north side of the Salt Range."³ "There was no king and the country was a dependency of Kashmir."⁴

c11.42

³ *Anc. Geo. of India*., p. 144.

c11.43

⁴ Watters, I, p. 248; Beal, I, p. 143.

c11.44

VII. *Wu-la-shih* or Urasa : Corresponding with modern Hazara. "There was no ruler and the country was a dependency of Kashmir."⁵

c11.45

⁵ Watters, I, p. 256; Beal, I, p. 147.

c11.46

VIII. *Pan-nu-ts'o* : equivalent with modern Punch.⁶ "The country was a dependency of Kashmir."⁷

c11.47

⁶ *Anc. Geo. of India*., p. 147.

c11.48

⁷ Watters, I, p. 283; Beal, I, p. 163.

c11.49

IX. *Ho-lo-she-pu-lo* or Rājapura : identical with the petty chieftainship of Rajori to the south of Kashmir.⁸ Like Punch, "it had no sovereign of its own and was subject to Kashmir."⁹

c11.50

⁸ *Anc. Geo. of India*., p. 148.

c11.51

⁹ Watters, I, p. 284; Beal, I, p. 163.

c11.52

Thus *Kia-shi-mi-lo* or Kashmir was another powerful state in Northern India holding sway over many outlying kingdoms. Unfortunately the *Life* and the Records of Yuan Chwang's Travels are both silent regarding the name of its king, who treated the pilgrim with marked ceremonious respect and hospitality, and "gave him twenty clerks to copy out manuscripts and five men to act as attendants."¹ The Rājatarangiṇī, however, affords us a clue, for, according to Kalhaṇa, Durlabhavardhana, who inaugurated the Karkoṭa dynasty, came to the throne in 3677 of the Laukika era or 601 A. D. He ruled for 36 years, which makes him exactly contemporary with Harṣa. Dr. R. K. Mookerji, on the other hand, tries to show on the supposed authority of the Life that Kashmir "in a way acknowledged the suzerainty of Harṣa."² To quote its testimony, we are told that "Śīlādityarāja, hearing that Kashmir possessed a tooth of the Buddha, coming in person to the chief frontier, asked permission to see and worship it."³ The congregation was unwilling to accede to this request, and concealed the tooth, but the king of Kashmir fearing the exalted character of Harṣa, had the tooth unearthed and presented to him. Then "Śīlāditya seeing it was overpowered with reverence, and exercising force, carried it off to pay it religious offerings."⁴ The episode, as narrated in the Life, will hardly bear the interpretation put upon it; and the expression that Śīlāditya carried off the tooth by "exercising force" probably means nothing more than that he brought it to Kanauj much against the wish of the people of Kashmir, who were even unwilling to allow Harṣa to see and worship the relic. There could be no question of any fight with the king of Kashmir, as the latter presented the sacred tooth to Harṣa of his own accord.

c11.53

¹ Watters, I, p. 259. ² R. K. Mookerji, Harṣa, p. 40; C. V. Vaidya, H. M. H. I., Vol. I, pp. 17, 206. ³ Life, p. 183; see also Watters, I, p. 279. ⁴ Life, p. 183.

c11.54

Presumably a display of force, or a mere threat helped Harṣa to obtain the prized object; but any conclusions as to his authority being recognised in the valley are totally unwarranted.

c11.55

We may here also consider a passage occurring in the *Rājatarangiṇī*, which runs as follows:—

c11.56

Idaṃ svabhedavidhuraṃ Harṣādīnāṃ dharābhu-jāṃ, Kañcit kālam abhūd bhojyaṃ tataḥ prabhṛti maṇ-ḍalam, i.e. "From that period onwards this country, which had suffered from internal dissensions, was for some time subject to Harṣa and other kings."[¹]

c11.57

¹ Vol. I, Bk, II, verse 7, (Stein, p. 56).

c11.58

Tempting as the identification might seem, this Harṣa should not be confused with the Harṣa of Kanauj, as has been done by Mr. N. Ray.[²] Firstly, the "chronological aberration," as noted by Stein,[³] should preclude any such supposition; and secondly, this Harṣa had a son, who is reputed to have ruled after him, whereas the Harṣa of Kanauj left no successor, and this was probably one of the reasons why the empire collapsed soon after his death. It would thus appear from the foregoing discussion that we have no grounds for believing that Kashmir owed allegiance to Harṣa.

c11.59

² *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, Dec., 1927, p. 780.

c11.60

³ Stein's *Rājatarangiṇī*, p. 56, Note 7.

c11.61

X. From Rājapura the pilgrim proceeded to the *Cheh-ka* (Ṭakka) country, lying between the Indus and the *Pi-po-she* (Beas). It is said to have possessed numerous *Puṇyaśālas* or free rest-houses, where medicine and food were distributed, and where bodily wants and conveniences were looked after.[⁴] It had two dependencies, *Mou-lo-san-pu* or Multan (?),[⁵] and *Po-fa-to*,[⁶] identified with Parvata (Pavvata). *Cheh-ka* was thus another flourishing kingdom outside the pale of Harṣa's jurisdiction.

c11.62

⁴ Watters, I, p. 286; Beal, I, pp. 165-166.

c11.63

⁵ Watters, II, p. 254; Beal, II, p. 274.

c11.64

⁶ Watters, II, p. 255; Beal, II, p. 275.

c11.65

XI. The next important kingdom noticed by Yuan Chwang was *She-lan-ta-lo* or Jalandhara. We are told of a former king of this country, who learning Buddhism from an *arhat*, became a zealous believer. Thereupon the king of "Mid India," appreciating his sincere faith gave him sole control of matters relating to Buddhism in all India. He also travelled throughout India, and erected topes or monasteries at all sacred places.¹ The king of "Mid India" may or may not be identified with Harṣa, but it is certain that the latter did exercise some measure of influence over this kingdom, as we learn from the *Life*² that he charged the king of Jalandhara (named Wu-ti = Wuddhi or Buddhi)³ to escort the pilgrim in safety to the frontiers.

c11.66

¹ Watters, I, p. 296; Beal, I, p. 176.

c11.67

² *Life*, pp. 189-190.

c11.68

³ Watters restores the name *Wu-ti* or *Wu-ti-to* as Udito (See Vol. I, p. 297).

c11.69

XII. Leaving Jalandhara Yuan Chwang visited the *Ku-lu-to* or the Kuluta kingdom, corresponding "exactly with the position of Kullu in the upper valley of the Byas river."⁴ The pilgrim is silent concerning its government.

c11.70

⁴ *Anc. Geo. of India.*, p. 163.

c11.71

XIII. *She-to-t'u-lu* or the Śatadru country, which, according to Cunningham is represented by modern Sirhind.⁵ The pilgrim does not name any ruler.

c11.72

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 166.

c11.73

XIV. *Po-li-ye-ta-lo* : Reinaud identifies this district with Pāryātra or Bairat, and Cunningham subscribes to this view.⁶ Yuan Chwang says : "The king, who was of the *Fei-she* (Vaiśya) stock, was a man of courage and military skill."⁷

c11.74

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 387.

c11.75

⁷ Watters, I, p. 300; Beal, I, p. 179.

c11.76

XV. *Mo-tu-lo* or Mathura : The king is not named, but we are told that "the king and his statesmen devote themselves to good works."¹

c11.77

¹ Watters, I, p. 302; Beal, I, p. 181.

c11.78

XVI. *Sa-t‘a-ni-ssū-fa-lo* or Sthānvīśvara, identical with modern Thanesvar in the Ambala district.² Curiously enough, Yuan Chwang is silent as to its ruler and makes no reference to the Vardhanas.

c11.79

² *Anc. Geo. of India.*, p. 377f.

c11.80

XVII. *Su-lu-k‘in-na* or Srughna, identified with the modern village of Sugh.³ The king is not mentioned, and the capital is said to have been "in a ruinous condition."⁴

c11.81

³ *Ibid.*, p. 396.

c11.82

⁴ Watters, I, p. 318; Beal, I, p. 187.

c11.83

XVIII. *Mo-ti-pu-lo* or Matipura : identified by St. Martin and Cunningham with Madawar or Mandawar, a large town in Western Rohilkhand, near Bijnor.⁵ "The king," says Yuan Chwang, "who was of the Śūdra stock, did not believe in Buddhism, and worshipped the Devas."⁶

c11.84

⁵ *Anc. Geo. of India*, p. 399.

c11.85

⁶ Watters, I, p. 322; Beal, I, p. 190; *Life*, p. 79.

c11.86

XIX. *Po-lo-hih-mo-pu-lo* or Brahmapura : It denoted the hill-country between the Alakananda and Karnāli rivers, "which is now known as British Garhwal and Kumaon."⁷ Yuan Chwang does not give us any information regarding its administration.

c11.87

⁷ *Anc. Geo. of India*, p. 408.

c11.88

XX. *Su-fa-la-na-kiu-ta-lo* or the Suvarṇagotra country : It was said to lie to the north of Brahmapura in the great snow mountains, and was called "the eastern woman's country," because it was ruled by a succession of women. The husband of the queen was king, but he did not administer the government. The men attended only to the suppression of revolts and the cultivation of the fields.¹

c11.89

¹ Watters, I, p. 330; Beal, I, p. 199. This country is probably identical with the Suvarṇabhū in the north-east division of the *Brihat-Saṃhitā*, which Kern regards as "in all likelihood a mythical land." (*Ind. Ant.*, XXII, p. 190).

c11.90

XXI. *Ku-pi-sang-na* or Goviśana : According to Cunningham this "corresponded very nearly with the modern districts of Kashipur, Rampur, and Pilibhit."² Its capital is said to have been a natural stronghold, but no king is mentioned.³

c11.91

² *Anc. Geo. of India*, p. 412.

c11.92

³ Watters, I, p. 330; Beal, I, pp. 199-200.

c11.93

XXII. *Ngo-hi-ch'i-ta-lo* or Ahicchatra : occupying the eastern part of Rohilkhand. Vincent Smith thinks that modern Ramnagar in Bareilly district marks the site of its ancient capital.⁴ We have no mention of any king, but we know from the evidence of the Banskhera inscription that Ahicchatra formed a *bhukti* or division under the direct control of Harṣa.⁵

c11.94

⁴ *Early Hist. of India*, 4th ed., pp 391-92.

c11.95

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, IV, pp. 210, 211.

c11.96

XXIII. *Pi-lo-shan-na* : identified with the ruins called Atranji-Khera on the Kālinadī. Yuan Chwang does not mention any ruler, but its proximity to Kanauj would argue that it must have been under Harṣa.

c11.97

XXIV. *Kah-pi-t'a* (Kapitha) or Saṅkāśya, i.e., modern Sankisa. No king is mentioned. The vicinity of Kanauj may, however, point to its inclusion within that kingdom.

c11.98

XXV. *Ka-no-kü-she* or Kanyākubja i.e., modern Kanauj. It was by far the most important city at that time, and the centre of the empire which the genius of Harṣa had built up.

c11.99

XXVI. After visiting *Na-fa-t'i-p'o-ku-lo* or Navadevakula (modern Nobatganj), the pilgrim reached *A-yu-t'e* or Ayodhyā. Yuan Chwang is silent as to its government, but if the coins found in Bhitaura (Fyzabad district) are attributable to Harṣa in accordance with Sir Richard Burn,¹ we have then direct evidence that it was under Kanauj.

c11.100

¹ J. R. A. S., 1906, pp. 843-50.

c11.101

XXVII. *A-ye-mu-k'a* or Hayamukha : identified with Daundia-Khera on the northern bank of the Ganges.² We have no information respecting its political relations; since Harṣa’s authority extended much further, as we shall presently see, it may be included within his domains.

c11.102

² *Anc. Geo. of India*, p. 443

c11.103

XXVIII. *Po-lo-ya-ka* or Prayāga, i.e., modern Allahabad. The “customary quinquennial great distribution of gifts,” which Harṣa used to hold there, proves beyond doubt that it was within his direct sway and an important centre of the empire.

c11.104

XXIX. *Kiao-shang-mi* or Kosambi : Dr. Vincent Smith thinks that the Satna railway station marks the approximate position of the capital of this country.³ Better opinion, however, regards Kosam on the Jumna as its modern representative⁴. Yuan Chwang is silent about its political relations, but probably its destinies were bound up with Prayāga.

c11.105

³ J. R. A. S., 1898, pp. 503-19.

c11.106

⁴ See Daya Ram Sahni, *Ibid* 1927, p. 689.

c11.107

XXX. *P'i-sho-ka* or Viśoka : It has not yet been satisfactorily identified. The pilgrim omits to mention its government.

c11.108

XXXI. *Shi-lo-fa-si-ti* or Śrāvastī, i.e., modern Sahet-Maheṭh.⁵ Yuan Chwang is reticent regarding its political status, but we know from the Madhuban inscription that like Ahicchatra it formed a *bhukti* of Harṣa’s kingdom⁶.

c11.109

⁵ *Ibid*., 1898, pp. 520-31.

c11.110

⁶ *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 72, 74.

c11.111

XXXII. *Kie-pi-lo-fa-su-tu* or Kapilāvastu¹ : The "royal city" was a complete waste, and as the district had been left desolate for a very long time, it was sparsely inhabited. "The country was without a sovereign, each city having its own chief."²

c11.112

¹ See N. L. Dey's *Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Mediæval India* (1927), pp. 90-91 for its identification.

c11.113

² Watters, II, p. 1; Beal, II, p. 14.

c11.114

XXXIII. *Lan-mo* or Rāma or Rāmagrāma : "This had been waste and wild for a long time, and its area was not defined : its towers were heaps of ruins, and there was a very scanty population."³ We are not told anything about the rule of the country.

c11.115

³ Watters, II, p. 20; Beal, II, p. 26.

c11.116

XXXIV. *Kou-shih-na-ka-lo* or Kuśinagara (modern Kasia).⁴ "The city walls were in ruins, and the towns and villages were deserted."⁵

c11.117

⁴ *Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep.*, XVIII, Pref. and p. 55f.

c11.118

⁵ Watters, II, p. 25; Beal, II, p. 32.

c11.119

XXXV. *Po-lo-na-se* or Vārāṇasi, i.e., modern Benares. "The inhabitants were very numerous and had boundless wealth, their houses being full of rare valuables," but they cared little for Buddhism.⁶ There is no mention of its political status.

c11.120

⁶ Watters, II, p. 47; Beal, II, 44f.

c11.121

XXXVI. Passing then through the *Chan-chu* country, which has not been satisfactorily identified,⁷ the pilgrim arrived in *Fei-she-li* or Vaiśāli country. The pilgrim is silent about the nature of its government.

c11.122

⁷ Beal identifies it with Ghazipur (Vol. II. p 61. see also Cunningham, *Anc. Geo. of India*, p. 503).

c11.123

XXXVII. *Fu-li-chih* or the Vriji country : "The chief city was called *Chan-shu-na*; it was in a ruinous state and the old walled city, which was like a country town, had a population of over 3,000 families."⁸ The name of the ruler is not recorded.

c11.124

⁸ Watters, II, p. 81; Beal, II, p. 78.

c11.125

XXXVIII. Ni-po-lo or Nepal : This is the next important kingdom, about which the pilgrim has unhappily just a few words only to say. "The kings of Nepal were Kṣatriya Licchavis, and they were eminent scholars and believing Buddhists. A *recent king*, whose name is given as Ang-shu-fa-na or Amśuvarman . . . . . had composed a treatise on etymology."¹ It has usually been assumed on the authority of Bühler, Bhagvan Lal Indraji,² Fleet, Vincent Smith that Nepal came under the suzerainty of Harṣa; but this view has also been called to question by Sylvain Lévi, Ettinghausen and others. The problem being so controversial, we must critically examine the available evidence before coming to any conclusion. To begin with the arguments adduced in support of Harṣa's conquest of Nepal :—

c11.126

¹ Watters, II, p. 84; Beal, II, p. 81.

c11.127

² *Ind. Ant.*, XIII, p. 411f.

c11.128

(a) Certain Nepalese inscriptions³ have been discovered, and among them there are some that refer to a king named Amśuvarman; these are dated in the years 34, 39 and 45. He is described in these inscriptions as a mere *Sāmanta* or *Mahāsāmanta*; and since "it is an indisputable axiom that nobody but an anointed king can initiate a *Samvat* of his own",⁴ Amśuvarman has been ruled out as a possible originator of the era in which they are dated. Yuan Chwang calls Amśuvarman a "recent king"; and the characters of the inscriptions are also said to belong to the close of the sixth, or the early part of the seventh century A. D.⁵ Hence, the dates have with some plausibility been referred to the Harsa era, as at this period it was “in widest use”; and “no other known Indian era can meet the requirements of the case.”¹ Granting this circumstance, it necessarily implies the subordination of Nepal to Kanauj, for no other independent monarch would use the era started by another.²

c11.129

³ See *Ibid.*, IX, p. 169f. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 : Kielhorn's Nos. 531-33. The numbers quoted hereafter refer to the list of Indraji and Bühler, *Ind. Ant.*, IX, p. 168.

c11.130

⁴ *Ibid.*, XIII, p. 420.

c11.131

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 418.

c11.132

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 421.

c11.133

² The following remark seems apposite here: “If an Indian prince adopts a new foreign era, especially one found by a contemporary, that may be considered as almost a certain proof that the borrower had to submit to the *Śaka-kartri*, or establisher of the era” (*Ibid.*, XIX, pp. 40-41).

c11.134

(b) That the Harṣa era was used in Nepal is further maintained on the evidence of inscription No. 15, dated *Saṃvat* 153,³ which states that Jayadeva’s mother, Vatsadevī, was the daughter of a Maukhari prince or chief, Bhogavarman, and the grand-daughter of “the great Ādityasena, the illustrious lord of Magadha.” We know Ādityasena of Magadha from the Shahpur stone image inscription,⁴ dated year 66 of an unspecified era, which “from the known facts of Ādityasena’s history . . . . . is that of Harṣavardhana of Kanauj.”⁵ Now, the distance between this date and that of his grandson Jayadeva is 87 years, or slightly above the duration of three Indian generations, which amounts to 78 years approximately⁶. “Under these circumstances,” it is asserted that “it is not in the least doubtful that the great-grandfather and great-grandson used the same era,”⁷ viz. that of Harṣa.

c11.135

³ *Ibid.*, IX, pp. 178, 181.

c11.136

⁴ *C. I. I.*, Vol. III, pp. 209-10.

c11.137

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 210.

c11.138

⁶ Bhagvan Lal Indraji and Bühler assure us that “in India the duration of a generation amounts, as the statistical tables of the life-insurance companies show, at the outside to only 26 years” (*Ind. Ant.*, XIII, p. 417).

c11.139

⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 421.

c11.140

(c) The *Vaṃśāvalī* informs us that immediately before the accession of Amśuvarman, Vikramāditya came to the country, and established his era there. It is argued that this statement preserves a reminiscence of Harṣa's conquest of Nepal, as at this period the name Vikramāditya could have reference to Harṣa only among Indian kings.

c11.141

(d) A "much stronger argument" is found in the existence of the Bais Rajputs in Nepal according to the testimony of the *Vaṃśāvalī*. "Since it is an almost universal rule with Indian princes that on the occasion of conquests they grant a portion of land to their clansmen,"¹ probably we have here a direct proof that Nepal was once in the power of a Bais king, who could be nobody else but Harṣa of Kanauj, as we know on the authority of Yuan Chwang that he belonged to the *Feishe* caste, identified by Sir Alexander Cunningham with the Bais Rajputs.²

c11.142

¹ *Ibid.*

c11.143

² *Anc. Geo. of India*, pp. 432-33; See also Bühler, *Ep. Ind.*, I, p. 68, note 4; Hoernle, *J. R. A. S.*, 1903, p. 557.

c11.144

(e) Lastly, we might mention the oft-quoted passage of Bāṇa that Harṣa "exacted tribute from an inaccessible country of snowy mountains," which has been construed as referring to Nepal.

c11.145

Apparently, there is some force in these arguments, but they are open to serious objections. First, if the dates of the inscriptions of Amśuvarman be accepted as referring to the Harṣa era, the last known date for him according to inscription No. 8 would be A. D. 606 + 45 = 651 A. D. The *Records* on the other hand imply by the word "recent" that Amśuvarman's reign had terminated shortly before the pilgrim's visit in about 637 A. D. And we have, therefore, a discrepancy of about 14 years between the two testimonies. Scholars try to overcome this difficulty by suggesting that the pilgrim did not himself go to Nepal, and his evidence was "mere hearsay liable to be coloured and distorted by misunderstanding or misrepresentation." The assumption, however, is quite gratuitous, for Yuan Chwang was a careful and trustworthy writer, who invariably tried to ascertain facts and note them down correctly. He moved in the highest circles, among powerful potentates and celebrated monks, who could certainly be relied upon to supply correct information.¹ Besides, Yuan Chwang mentions the countries that he did not visit, and as an instance we may cite the case of the six countries beyond Samataṭa, regarding which he speaks only on information gained here and there.² Thus there can be no doubt about the pilgrim's testimony, and so to reconcile the conflicting evidence we must refer the dates in the inscriptions to some other era instead of that of Harṣa. Yuan Chwang's visit to those parts has been fixed at about 637 A. D. We also know from inscriptions Nos. 8 and 9 that Amśuvarman died, and his successor was on the throne between Saṃvat 45 and 48. Hence, assuming that Amśuvarman was dead a couple of years before the pilgrim's visit, and that the date 45 denotes the last year of his reign, we come to the conclusion that the reckoning in the inscriptions began in the year 590 A. D. approximately. The fact that Amśuvarman was a mere Sāmanta or Mahāsāmanta need not present any obstacle in adopting this view. Probably he did not start any era formally soon after his accession, but at first dated the inscriptions in the years of his reign. Later on, when he assumed the supreme power in the land, he converted it into an era dating back to the beginning of his rule, and the same reckoning was continued by his successors. Amśuvarman's earliest inscription is dated *Saṃvat* 34, and *Saṃvat* undoubtedly indicates an era.

c11.146

¹ See also *Journal of the Mythic Society*. Unfortunately I have lost the exact reference to this article, which was available to me in the British Museum, and to which I owe some suggestions.

c11.147

² Watters, II, p. 187.

c11.148

At this point we may be called upon to explain how he could commence an era, when his master was alive in *Saṃvat* 39. It would appear that Śivadeva was only the nominal ruler, whereas the real power was vested in Amśuvarman, who is referred to in inscription No. 5 of Śivadeva as one "who has destroyed the power of all (my) enemies by his heroic majesty" ........ and "whose brilliant fame, gained by the trouble of properly protecting the subjects, pervades the universe."¹ Besides, inscriptions Nos. 6 to 8 of Amśuvarman do not mention any superior lord; and as he himself assumed sovereign powers (for example, appointing Udayadeva as his chief executive officer) we may infer that he had become powerful and independent even during his master's lifetime. That he called himself "*Mahāsāmanta*" was probably due to habit or out of respect for his old lord alive in *Saṃvat* 39. We may recall in this connection the case of Puṣyamitra, who calls himself "*Senāpati*" even becoming king² or of Rudradāman mentioned as a mere "*Mahākṣatrapa*" after the assumption of sovereign status.³ The subordinate titles are dropped in Amśuvarman's inscription of the year 45,¹ and in that of Jiṣṇugupta of *Saṃvat* 48, in which he is referred to as “Bhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhirāja Śri Amśuvarmapādaḥ.”² There is thus nothing to militate against the view propounded above that the inscriptions are dated in an independent era.

c11.149

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, IX, p. 169.

c11.150

² *Mālavikāgnimitra* Act V, p. 131 (S. P. Pandit's Edition, 1889); Cf. also the Ayodhyā inscription (*J. B. O. R. S.*, 1924, pp. 202-08).

c11.151

³ Junagaḍh Rock Inscription of Rudradaman, *Ep. Ind.*, VIII, pp. 40, 44, 45. An analogy to the retention of the feudatory title may also be found in the use of the epithet "Peshwa" by the Mahratta rulers of the Deccan, who instead of being the Peshwas or Ministers of the descendants of Śivājī were in reality their masters.

c11.152

¹ No. 8, *Ind. Ant.*, IX, p. 171.

c11.153

² *Ibid.*, No. 9, p. 172.

c11.154

Secondly, argument (*b*) loses its entire force if it be granted that the reckoning of Amśuvarman’s inscriptions began sometime in 590 A. D. Adding 153 to 590 A. D., we get 743 A. D. as the date of Jayadeva’s inscription No. 15. If the date 66 of the Shahpur inscription is to be referred to the Harṣa era—as has been done by Fleet—the difference between Ādityasena and his great-grandson Jayadeva would be only 743-672 A. D.=71 years, or slightly less than the duration of three Indian generations, which as mentioned above, amounts to roughly 78 years. Thus, according to this proposition also the dates would tally remarkably well.

c11.155

Thirdly, the *Vaṃśāvalī* is worthless for purposes of history, as a few instances will show. It says that Amśuvarman came to the throne in Kali 3000=101 B. C.,³ which is in violent conflict with the testimonies of both Yuan Chwang and the inscriptions. Again, Amśuvarman’s seventh successor, Vīradeva, is said to have ruled in Kaliyuga 3623 or 522 A. D.,⁴ and thus we have the absurdity of seven generations for six hundred years.

c11.156

³ *Ibid.*, XIII, p. 418.

c11.157

⁴ *Ibid.*

c11.158

Besides, Harṣa was never known as Vikramāditya (even Bāṇa or the inscriptions do not bestow on him this title, although it is so commonly adopted by powerful Hindu potentates); and it is stretching the point to say that he was called Vikramāditya by confusion. Probably by using the expression “Vikramāditya came and established his era” the authors of the *Vaṃśāvali* simply tried to connect the current era in Nepal with the renowned name of Vikramāditya, the founder of the Vikrama era.

c11.159

Fourthly, the force of argument (*d*) above lies in the correct identification of the *Fei-she* caste with the Bais Rajputs. It was a casual suggestion of Sir Alexander Cunningham, but we venture to say that it is far from conclusive, as the family suffix Vardhana (usually used after Vaiśya names only) itself would show.¹

c11.160

¹ See *Ante*.

c11.161

Fifthly, the passage in the *Harṣacarita* is not such as to warrant our drawing any definite conclusions. “The inaccessible land of snowy mountains” may not refer to Nepal. Ettinghausen² thought that it referred to some Tukhāra country. Moreover, it is capable of bearing more than one interpretation. “Atra parameśvareṇa tuṣāra śailabhuvo Durgāyā grihītaḥ karaḥ,” might as well mean without violence to the context: “Here the supreme lord has obtained the hand of Durgā born in the snowy mountains,” which in all probability alludes to Harṣa’s marriage with some hill-princess belonging to a very powerful family. That he was married is evident from the following passage put by Bāṇa into the mouth of Harṣa: “Kalatram rakṣatu iti śrīste nistrimsedhivasati,” i.e., “if you would have me watch over my wife, glory resides in your steel.”³

c11.162

² *Harṣavardhana*, p. 47.

c11.163

³ *Hc.* C. T., p. 175. Although, as we have seen above, Bāṇa is quite explicit about Harṣa’s marriage, it is strange that Dr. Beni Prasad observes: “Neither Bāṇabhaṭṭa nor Yuan Chwang nor any of the contemporary inscriptions refers to any wife of Harṣavardhana, or to the fact of his marriage” (*The State in Ancient India*, Chap. XIV, p. 385). Moreover, Yuan Chwang definitely informs us that Dhruvabhaṭṭa, the king of Valabhi, was Harṣa’s

c11.164

The upshot of this lengthy but necessary discussion is that we have no certain evidence pointing to Harṣa's interference in the affairs of the valley, or to the introduction of his era there.¹ It will, therefore, be safer to exclude Nepal from the sphere of the suzerainty of Kanauj.²

c11.165

¹ See also J.B.O.R.S., Septr., 1936, p. 161 f. Mr. K.P. Jayasval, however, considers 595 A. D. to be the initial year of Amśuvarman's era.

c11.166

² We may also note here that at this time Tibet wielded supreme influence over Nepal, which gave its full support to the mission of Wang-hiuen-tse in its punitive expedition against the usurper of Harṣa's throne. Both Watters (Vol. II, p. 85), and Vincent Smith (Early Hist. of India, 4th ed., pp. 366, 375) admit this, but in the description of Harṣa's kingdom the latter includes Nepal (see Ibid., p. 354).

c11.167

son-in-law, and this obviously he could not become without the latter's marriage.

c11.168

Extent of the Empire (continued)

c11.169

We shall now describe the political conditions of the eastern parts of India visited by the Chinese pilgrim.

c11.170

XXXIX. Mo-kie-to or Magadha: Yuan Chwang does not mention in what relation this ancient kingdom stood to Kanauj, nor does he note the nature of its government. All the information he gives is that "in recent times" Śaśāṅka cut down the Bodhi Tree; and "a few months afterwards Pūrṇavarman, the last descendant of Aśoka on the throne of Magadha, brought the Tree back to life."¹ This Pūrṇavarman² must have lived in the beginning of the 7th century A. D., since he is represented here as the contemporary of Śaśāṅka, whose last date according to the Ganjam plate was 619 A.D. After Pūrṇavarman's death, probably Magadha passed under the jurisdiction of Harṣa, as the Chinese documents connected with his embassy to that country seem to style him "king of Magadha."³ Support for this view may further be found in the discovery of Harṣa's seals at Nalanda⁴ and from Yuan Chwang, who, describing the establishments around the Nalanda convent, records “a bronze temple in course of construction by king Śīlāditya,”¹ and we may be sure that this name could only have reference to the great king of Kanauj at this period.

c11.171

¹ Watters, II, p. 115; Beal, II, p. 118.

c11.172

² It is possible that Pūrṇavarman was a Maukhari acting as governor of Magadha on behalf of the penultimate or the last Maukhari king of Kanauj who ruled over it since the days of Sarvavarman. (See chapter II).

c11.173

³ Watters, I, p. 351.

c11.174

⁴ Ep. Ind., XXI (April, 1931), pp. 74-76.

c11.175

¹ Watters, II, p. 171; *Life*, p. 119.

c11.176

XL. *I-lan-na-po-fa-to* country: identified with the modern district of Monghyr. The pilgrim says: “in recent times the king of a neighbouring State had deposed the ruler and given the capital to the Buddhist brethren.”² Its proximity to Magadha perhaps justifies our identifying this generous king of the “border country” with Harṣa.

c11.177

² Watters, II, p. 178; Beal, II, p. 187.

c11.178

XLI. *Chan-po* (Campa) or modern Bhagalpur. Yuan Chwang is reticent about its political relations.

c11.179

XLII. *Ka-chu-wen* (?) *Ki-lo* (or Kajangala): identified by Cunningham with the modern Rajmahal. We are told that “the native dynasty had been extinguished some centuries before the time of the pilgrim’s visit, and the country had come under a neighbouring State, so the capital was deserted and the people lived in towns and villages. Hence when king Śīlāditya in his progress to “East India” held his court here, he cut grass to make huts and burned these when leaving.”³ The fact of Harṣa having held his court there proves beyond doubt that it was included within his wide dominions. That the king’s temporary residence was burnt after his departure should not lead us to the belief that Harṣa merely “carried on a military raid in this direction,” as supposed by Dr. R. C. Majumdar,⁴ for Yuan Chwang himself informs us that the sovereign “made visits of inspection throughout his dominions ……… having temporary buildings erected for his residence at each place of sojourn.”

c11.180

³ Watters, II, p. 183; Beal, II, p. 193.

c11.181

⁴ *J. B. O. R. S.*, 1923, p. 314.

c11.182

XLIII. *Pun-na-fa-tan-na* (or Puṇḍravardhana): identified with modern Pabna. *San-mo-ta-t'a* or *Samaṭaṭa*, regarded as lying in the district of modern Faridpur, south of Dacca.¹ *Tan-mo-lih-ti* (Tāmralipti), corresponding to the modern Tamluk. *Kie-lo-na-su-fa-la-na* i.e., *Karṇasuvarṇa*, equivalent to the modern districts of Burdwan, Birbhum, and Murshidabad.² These constituted in those days the several divisions of Bengal. The king of these regions shortly before the visit of Yuan Chwang was *She-shang-kia* or Śaśāṅka, the enemy and oppressor of Buddhists, who had treacherously murdered Rājyavardhana.³ A king with the same name is known to have been in power about the year 619 A. D., for the Ganjam copper plate of the Gupta year 300 refers to him in pompous expressions: "While the Mahārājādhirāja, the glorious Śaśāṅkarāja, was ruling over the earth, surrounded by the girdle of the waves of the water of the four oceans, together with islands, mountains and cities."⁴ If the Śaśāṅkas of the *Si-yu-ki* and the Ganjam inscription are identical as has been accepted on all hands, it is certain that Harṣa was unable to make any headway against his adversary for at least thirteen years after the murder of Rājya. Yuan Chwang, however, does not mention any reigning king during his visit to these parts, and the manner in which he speaks about Śaśāṅka shows that he had lived not very long before his itinerary. This agrees admirably with the testimony of the Ganjam inscription. We must, therefore, explain what happened to Śaśāṅka's kingdom after his death, which may be tentatively fixed in the year 620 A. D. with a slight margin for error.

c11.183

¹ Watters, II, p. 188.

c11.184

² *Ibid.*, p. 193.

c11.185

³ Yuan Chwang calls Śaśāṅka king of Karṇasuvarṇa; and Bāṇa refers to him as the king of Gauḍa, which designated Bengal in a loose way. Putting these two testimonies together with the Ganjam plate, we know that Śaśāṅka was ruler of a pretty extensive territory, comprising Bengal proper and portions of the eastern coast line.

c11.186

⁴ Śaśāṅka's sovereign status about 619 A. D. is known not only by the title Mahārājādhirāja, but also by the fact that Mahārāja Mādhavarāja, who issued the grant, calls himself a Mahāsāmanta, and was evidently a feudatory of Śaśāṅka.

c11.187

It has been conjectured that the Nidhanpur inscription celebrates the triumphant entry of Bhāskaravarman of Assam into the capital of Karṇasuvarṇa after his victory, for it describes him as a vanquisher of "hundreds of kings" and records a grant made from his camp there.¹ This must have happened after the tumult following Aruṇa's usurpation and Bhāskara's siding with Wang-hiuen-tse, as in spite of the "imperishable alliance" there seems little likelihood that Harṣa would allow him to appropriate those fertile provinces to himself, and thus gain an immense accession of strength. Politics is a game that hardly knows any magnanimity; and especially in ancient India, dominated by the theories of the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Mahābhārata*, which advocate that a king, although apparently showing friendly feelings, should always entertain a deep suspicion of an ally, such growth in the power of a contemporary kingdom would never have been tolerated. Hence, from the silence of Yuan Chwang we may conclude that Harṣa, who was waiting for a favourable opportunity to fulfil the vow taken at the start of his career, gratified his ancient grudge against Gauḍa when the backbone of strength and resistance was broken by the death of Śaśāṅka. Dr. R. G. Basak has, however, brought out a piece of evidence from the *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* (pp. 634-35), according to which Harṣa defeated Śaśāṅka and "caused a great havoc among the Bengali people." But this campaign does not appear to have resulted in the establishment of Harṣa’s supremacy over Gauḍa, and Dr. Basak rightly says that “it was probably after Śaśāṅka’s death that Harṣa could take entire possession of his enemy’s kingdom.”¹

c11.188

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XII, p. 66.

c11.189

¹ *History of North-Eastern India* (Calcutta, 1934), p. 152; *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, March 1932, pp. 14-15.

c11.190

XLIV. *Ka-mo-lu-po* or Kāmarūpa, i.e., modern Assam. Yuan Chwang informs us that “the reigning king, who was a Brahman by caste, and a descendant of Nārāyaṇadeva, was named Bhāskaravarman, his other name being Kumāra. The sovereignty had been transmitted in the family for one thousand generations.”² He was in great fear of his powerful neighbour, Śaśāṅka, and this was probably the reason why he so readily extended the hand of friendship to Harṣa at the initial stage of his campaigns. Dr. R. K. Mookerji, on the other hand, affirms that “the king of distant Kāmarūpa (Assam) offered him allegiance of his own accord and was anointed king by his liege lord.”³ But I find no authority whatsoever for this assertion. Can the conclusion of a treaty by any stretch of imagination be interpreted as “offering allegiance of his own accord”? The learned Professor finds support for the second part of his statement in a dubious passage occurring in the *Harṣacarita*, viz., “*Atra devena abhiṣiktaḥ Kumāraḥ*.”⁴ To my mind, however, it seems to have no bearing upon Bhāskaravarman, for Bāṇa calls him “*Prāgjyotiṣeśvara*” or king of Assam,⁵ at the time when negotiations were opened by his messenger Haṃsavega. I venture to suggest that the passage most probably refers to Mādhavagupta,¹ the youthful friend of Harṣa, to whom he delegated his authority over Magadha. This is evident if the testimony of Bāṇa is taken in conjunction with that of the Aphsad inscription.² This devolution of political power was perhaps a reward for the services that Mādhavagupta had rendered to Harṣa during his early troubles. Or, he was stationed there as a bulwark against any possible encroachment by Śaśāṅka, who had escaped without being punished and was yet powerful.

c11.191

² Watters, II, p. 186; Beal, II, p. 196. Strange to say, in some of the family names Yuan Chwang is remarkably confirmed by Bāṇa and the inscriptions. See *Hc. C. T.*, p. 217; *J. B. O. R. S.*, 1919, p. 302; also 1920, p. 151.

c11.192

³ *Harṣa*, p. 44. See also p. 48, where the author calls Bhāskara “a vassal chief.”

c11.193

⁴ *Hc. C. T.*, p. 76; *Hc. Cal. ed.*, pp. 210-11.

c11.194

⁵ By some slip the term has unfortunately been translated as

c11.195

¹ The term "Kumāra" has probably been used by Bāṇa in its general sense of "prince" without reference to any particular name.

c11.196

² See Infra.

c11.197

The episode of the forced visit of Yuan Chwang would hardly lead us to any conclusion. It is said that when Harṣa sent for the Chinese pilgrim, who was then staying with Bhāskaravarman, he got the reply that Harṣa could have his head, but not his guest—an expression which undoubtedly stressed his reluctance to part with the illustrious visitor. Receiving an unfavourable reply Harṣa is represented to have made the bold demand to "send the head,"³ and ultimately the threat had the desired effect. Obviously it cannot follow from this yielding to the pressure of a valued ally that the king of Assam accepted the suzerainty of Harṣa.

c11.198

³ Life, p. 172.

c11.199

The circumstance of attending both the assemblies at Kanauj and Prayāga also does not help us to determine the political relations of the two potentates. Bhāskara witnessed their proceedings as a friend on an equal footing with Harṣa,⁴ and there is no evidence that it

c11.200

⁴ Compare in this connection the installation ceremony of

c11.201

"Heir-Apparent of Assam" by the learned translators (see Hc.C.T., p. 211).

First 200 of 326 passages. Read on

Linked texts (27)