History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11.s1: Conclusion

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11.s1

Language: English

Conclusion

c11.s1.1

We have now finished our critical survey of Yuan Chwang’s description of contemporary kingdoms, along with the evidence of other relevant authorities, in regard to their government and the nature of their political status. There are indeed some very striking features in the narrative of the pilgrim. It is to be noticed that he is very careful to mention the governments of the countries he visited, and to name the dependencies of certain kingdoms, like Kapiśa, Kashmir, Mālava and Sindh. In case of certain countries he even notes the transfer of allegiance, as we learn about Taxilla that it “had been formerly subject to Kapiśa, but now it was a dependency of Kashmir.”² About Lang-kie (ka)-lo he observes: “It had no supreme government, each valley having a separate government of its own, but it was subject to Persia.”³ Again, in the case of A-tien-po-chih-lo the pilgrim notes: “The country had latterly been without a sovereign and was under Sindh.”⁴

c11.s1.2

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

c11.s1.3

³ Watters, II, p. 257; Beal, II, p. 277.

c11.s1.4

⁴ Watters, II, p. 256; Beal, II, p. 276.

c11.s1.5

Similarly, as regards Lampa or *Lan-po* he 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 but he does not, strange to say, name one kingdom or territory as being subject to Kanauj, although he generally calls its king “lord of the Five Indias,” and one who had “conquered all the nations from east to west, and carried his arms to the remote districts.”² Thus, if we take Yuan Chwang’s account too literally we shall have to say with Dr. R. C. Majumdar that “so far at least as these accounts are concerned, Harṣavardhana was merely king of Kanauj.”³

c11.s1.6

¹ Watters, I, p. 181; Beal, I, p. 90.

c11.s1.7

² Beal, II, pp. 256-7; *Life*, p. 83.

c11.s1.8

³ J. B. O. R. S., 1923, p. 318.

c11.s1.9

But such a conclusion would indeed be entirely wide the mark as Yuan Chwang himself credits Harṣa with extensive conquests and protracted military campaigns. The *Life* also describes him as a powerful monarch attended by numerous feudatories during the assemblies at Kanauj and Prayāga. Hence, however difficult it might be to determine the exact limits of the kingdom during his time, it is clear that by his military skill Harṣa enlarged them, thus winning for himself a high reputation for valour, to which the pilgrim bears eloquent testimony. Is it then to be assumed that the territories in Northern India, about the governments of which Yuan Chwang maintains silence, were included within Kanauj? Probably he thought that Harṣa’s dominions were too well-known to need any explicit mention, and relying on this assumption we may well suppose that the following parts were under his authority :—

c11.s1.10

*Ku-lu-to* or Kullu. *She-to-t'u-lu* or Śatadru country, i.e., modern Sirhind. *Sa-ta-ni-ssu-fa-lo* or Sthānviśvara (Thanesvar). *Su-lu-kin-na* or Srughna (Sugh). *Po-lo-hih-mo-pu-lo* or Brahmapura. *Ku-pi-sang-na* or Govisāna (modern districts of Kashipur, Rampur and Pilibhit). *Ngo-hi-chi-ta-lo* or Ahicchatra (eastern part of Rohilkhand). *Pi-lo-shan-na* or Atranjikhera. *Kah-pi-t'a* (Kapittha) or Sankāsya, i.e., modern Sankissa. *A-yu-te* or Ayodhyā. *A-ye-mu-k'a* (Hayamukha) i.e, Daundiakhera. *Po-lo-ya-ka* or Prayāga. *Kiao-shang-mi* or Kosambi. *Pi-sho-ka* or Viśoka (?) *Shi-lo-fa-si-tu* or Srāvasti. *Lan-mo* (Rāma) or Rāmagrāma. *Kou-shih-na-ka-lo* or Kuśinagara. *Po-lo-na-se* or Vārāṇasi. *Chan-chu* country or Ghazipur district (?). *Fei-she-li* or Vaisali. *Fu-li-chih* or the Vriji county. *Mo-kie-t'o* or Magadha. *I-lan-na-po-fa-to* or Monghyr. *Chan-po* (Campa) i.e., Bhagalpur. *Ku-chu-wen* (Kajangala) i.e., Rajmahal. *Pun-na-fa-tan-na* or Pauṇḍravardhana. *San-mo-ta-ch'a* or Samataṭa. *Tan-mo-lib-ti* or Tāmralipti. *Kie-lo-na-su-fa-la-na* or Karṇasuvarṇa. *Wu-tu* (Odra) or Orissa. *Kung-yu-to* (Kongodha) i.e., modern Ganjam.

c11.s1.11

That some of these portions were actually within the empire of Harṣa can be proved by means of independent evidence. We have already discussed above that his ancestral kingdom comprised Sthānvīśvara (Thanesvar), the valley of the Saraswati river and parts of eastern Rajputana. The findspots of the Banskhera,¹ and Madhuban plates,² recording grants of land, show that Ahicchatra and Śrāvastī formed bhuktis or divisions of his empire. If the Śīlāditya coins found in the Bhitaura hoard (Fyzabad district) are to be attributed to Harṣa, as has been done by Sir Richard Burn,³ we have then direct proof that Ayodhyā was under Harṣa. Likewise, Prayāga was certainly included, since it was the scene of his great charitable distribution. We may also add that Harṣa’s title “King of Magadha,” found in the Chinese documents connected with his embassy, unmistakably points to the same conclusion. Again, the fact that Silāditya held his court at Kajangala in his progress to East India is conclusive proof, as has been shown above, that his empire extended so far. We further know that Harṣa was carrying on military operations in Kongodha as late as the year 643 A. D. Lastly, regarding Orissa it is clear from the *Life*¹ that he exercised his authority there.

c11.s1.12

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, IV, pp. 208-11. ² *Ibid.*, I, pp. 71-74. ³ *J. R. A. S.*, 1906, pp. 843-50. See also Dr. R. K. Mookerji’s *Harṣa*, pp. 116-17 for this ascription. Dr. Hoernle, however, doubts this attribution, although the views of Sir Richard Burn were evidently known to him (*J. R. A. S.*, 1909, pp. 446-48). He bases his opposition on the following grounds:
(a) Śīlāditya was not the official title of Harṣa, as both the inscriptions and Bāṇa are unaware of it. He thinks that Harṣa was known by this title among Buddhist monks only, from whom Yuan Chwang adopted it.
(b) The *Rājatarangiṇī* (Vol. I, Bk. III, verse 330, Stein’s Trans., p. 98) knows of another Pratāpaśīla, surnamed Śīlāditya. Speaking of Pravarasena it says that “he replaced Pratāpaśīla, also called Śīlāditya, the son of Vikramāditya, who had been dethroned by enemies, in the kingdom of his father.” This Vikramāditya is identified with Yaśodharman of Malwa, who is credited in the Mandasor inscription (*C. I. I.*, III, No. 33, pp. 145, 148) with extensive conquests as far as the Himalayas; and Śīlāditya with his son of the same name (See *J. R. A. S.*, 1903, pp. 545 f.).

c11.s1.13

¹ *Life*, p. 154; see *Supra*.

c11.s1.14

Negatively, the Chinese pilgrim indicates what states lay beyond the pale of Harṣa’s jurisdiction by mentioning the ruling sovereigns of each. These were:— Kia-pi-shi or Kapiśa; Kia-shi-mi-lo or Kashmir; She-lan-ta-lo or Jālandhara; Po-li-ye-ta-lo or Bairāt; Mo-tu-lo or Mathurā; Mo-ti-pu-lo (Matipura); Su-fa-la-na-kiu-ta-lo or the Suvarṇagotra country; Kie-pi-lo-fa-su-tu or Kapilāvastu; Ni-po-lo or Nepal; Ka-mo-lu-po or Kāmarūpa; Mo-ha-la-ch‘a or Mahārāṣṭra; Po-lu-ka-cha-po (Bhrigukacchapa) or Broach; Fa-la-pi or Valabhī; Ku-che-lo or Gurjara country; Wu-she-yen-na or Ujjain; Chih-chi-to (Jajhoti) or Bundelkhand; Mo-hi-ssu-fa-lo-pu-lo or Māheśvarapura; Sin-tu or Sindh.

c11.s1.15

We may, therefore, on the strength of Yuan Chwang’s testimony and other epigraphic and literary evidences, roughly define the Kanauj kingdom of Harṣa in modern geographical terminology as consisting of portions of Eastern Panjab, almost the whole of the present United Provinces (excepting Mathura and Matipura), Bihar, Bengal and Orissa including Kongodha or the Ganjam region.

c11.s1.16

That this was the view of Yuan Chwang is further evident from the fact that all the places mentioned in connection with Harṣa’s tours of inspection lie eastward;¹ and moreover he calls Harṣa “lord of the five Indias,” which has been explained as comprising Svarāṣṭra or the Panjab (i.e., eastern parts of the Panjab in this case), Kānyakubja, Mithila or Bihar, Gauḍa or Bengal, and Utkala or Orissa.²

c11.s1.17

¹ See Infra.

c11.s1.18

² Havell, *Aryan Rule in India*, p. 191, note 1; D. C. Sen, *History of Bengali Language and literature*, p. 385; Smith, *Early History of India*, 4th ed., p. 353.

c11.s1.19

Thus the whole evidence harmonises remarkably well, and it is high time to give up all exaggerated notions of Harṣa’s sovereignty or political jurisdiction extending up to Kashmir and Sindh, Gujrat and even the far South, Kāmarūpa (Assam) and Nepal. Such a view is flagrantly opposed to the unimpeachable contemporary testimony of Yuan Chwang. Besides, there is nothing in the inscriptions or literature to support it. These territories themselves were of sufficiently imposing dimensions, being much larger than any other individual state in Northern India; and this was the reason why the power and majesty of Harṣa made such a deep impression upon the illustrious Master of the Law.³

c11.s1.20

³ Before concluding we must note the phenomenon of small kingdoms like Matipura, Maheśvarapura, and Jejākabhukti etc., almost adjacent to Kanauj. Several explanations may be postulated for this circumstance.

c11.s1.21

(a) These states in order to save themselves from being swept away by the war-frenzy of Harṣa must have offered their alliance at the very beginning. And Harṣa, who stood in dire need of allies then, astutely tolerated their continued existence. We may cite Jalandhara here as an

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11.s1: Conclusion

Conclusion

Linked texts (5)