History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11.232

c11.232

There is an interesting passage in the Nausari copper-plate grant, which contains a reference to Harṣa's fight with the king of Valabhi. We are told of "the illustrious Dadda ......... over whom, with the grace of a white cloud, there hung ceaselessly a canopy of glory, gained by protecting (or rescuing ?) the lord of Valabhi, who had been overpowered by the great lord, the illustrious Harṣadeva."[¹] The Valabhi king, contemporary with Dadda II of Broach was Dhruvasena II, but Yuan Chwang calls the then monarch of this kingdom Tu-lo-po-pa-ta, or Dhruvabhaṭa, so that we may suppose both the names to refer to one and the same person. Putting together the evidence of the Nausari inscription and of Yuan Chwang, we may further infer that Dhruvabhaṭa or Dhruvasena II first sought the protection of Dadda II of Broach after meeting with a reverse against Harṣa, and later on regained his power, being on the throne during the pilgrim's visit. We are, therefore, called upon to explain how a minor king—a mere *Sāmanta*—like that of Broach, could afford protection to Dhruvabhaṭa against the forces of Harṣa, and what was his status after the restoration. The answer to this query probably lies in the Aihole inscription, which informs us that "subdued by his (Pulakeśi's) splendour, the Lāṭas, Mālavas, and Gurjaras became, as it were, teachers of how feudatories subdued by force ought to behave."[²] Commenting on this passage, Dr. Kielhorn remarked that the powers[³] mentioned above, being "impressed by the majesty and power of Pulakeśi had voluntarily submitted to him, or sought his protection."[⁴] This must surely have been when they were threatened by the aggressions of the Kanauj king. Pulakeśi lent a willing ear to their appeal for succour, and as well pointed out by Dr. R. C. Majumdar,¹ the confederacy thus formed was a formidable one, "resulting in Harṣa's complete discomfiture." The fact that the Cālukya inscriptions do not mention any such joint action would not militate against this view, for the inscriptions represent those powers as feudatories, and they would naturally give the whole credit to a ruler of the dynasty. Harṣa gave way against these tremendous odds, and a treaty was arranged, stipulating the restoration of Dhruvabhaṭa II, who (perhaps as a mark of the termination of hostilities) further accepted the hand of Harṣa's daughter.² This matrimonial arrangement was undoubtedly a masterly stroke of diplomacy, as it procured for Harṣa the alliance of his quondam foe, who could henceforth be relied upon to restrain the northern ambitions (if any) of his great southern neighbour Pulakeśi II. But even supposing the suggestion, offered above, to be utterly untenable, we have no grounds for inferring the subordination of Valabhi to Kanauj. There is no trace of it in Yuan Chwang's account, and it is also certain that Dhruvabhaṭa II was on the throne during the time of the pilgrim's visit. He must have, therefore, regained his position by the might of his sword, and his previous defeat, referred to in the Nausari inscription, was no proof of feudatory rank. It might as well be said that by his failure against Pulakeśi, Harṣa was compelled to recognise the southern monarch as his suzerain and overlord. But how utterly wide the mark such a statement would be.