History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11.s5: Note D. Chronology of Harṣa's Campaigns
History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11.s5
- Language
- English
Note D. Chronology of Harṣa's Campaigns
c11.s5.2
There is a remark of Yuan Chwang that "Harṣa waged incessant warfare until in six years he had brought the Five Indias under allegiance,"² which has unfortunately been the source of some error in history. Relying on it Dr. R. K. Mookerji states that "we may assume that all his (Harṣa's) conquests were over by about A. D. 612, and that he had become king six years earlier (the period of his conquests) in A. D. 606.”¹ He adds further : “it is thus reasonable to conclude... that Harṣa’s wars with Valabhi and Pulakeśi took place within A. D. 612.” This assumption, however, seems gratuitous and open to several objections. First, it is quite needless and baseless to suppose that Yuan Chwang’s “six years” began in A. D. 606, the year of Harṣa’s accession, and ended in A. D. 612. Secondly, it would involve a discrepancy since the term “Five Indias,” as explained above, implies sovereignty over Gauḍa and Orissa also, but we have on the other hand positive evidence in the Ganjam inscription that his inveterate enemy Śaśāṅka was flourishing in these regions as late as the year 619 A. D. Thirdly, we know that Pulakeśi II came to the throne about the year 609-10 A. D., and it would indeed be almost a miracle if at the very start of his career and with his position still unconsolidated at home, the Cālukya monarch inflicted a crushing defeat on Harṣa, who already had—as alleged—become “lord of the Five Indias.”
c11.s5.3
² Watters, I, p. 343; Beal, I, p. 213.
c11.s5.4
¹ Harṣa, p. 36, Note I; see also C. V. Vaidya, H. M. H. I., I, p. 13.
c11.s5.5
The learned Professor cites the authority of Dr. Fleet who was of opinion that the Haidarabad grant, dated in the third year of Pulakeśi’s Rājyābhiṣeka or installation in the sovereignty in the Śaka saṃvat 534 expired or 612 A. D., implied “by the title which Pulakeśi acquired by his victory over him (Harṣa), that that victory had then already been achieved.”² Now, what does the Haidarabad grant testify? It informs us that Pulakeśi II acquired the title of Parameśvara “by defeating hostile kings, who had applied themselves (or a hostile king who had applied himself) to the contest of a hundred battles.”¹ Since the subsequent records state more specifically that he acquired it “by defeating the glorious Harṣavardhana, the warlike lord of all region of the North,” it is with some plausibility argued that the conflict, which according to the Haidarabad grant won this title for Pulakeśi, was against Harṣa himself, and that it occurred about A. D. 612, the date of the epigraph. If this, however, were a fact, would it not be inexplicable why Harṣavardhana’s name is not mentioned in the earlier Haidarabad grant, and finds specific mention—with legitimate pride too—in the Aihole inscription of A. D. 634-35, and other later documents. In my opinion this omission goes against Dr. Fleet’s theory, for it appears hard to believe that any of Pulakeśi’s earlier inscriptions would ignore the name of so great and formidable an adversary, and particularly when the victory was achieved just at the start of the Cālukya monarch’s career.
c11.s5.6
² Fleet, Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, pp. 351, 356.
c11.s5.7
¹ Ibid.
c11.s5.8
The title Parameśvara was very commonly assumed by kings in those days after gaining the paramount or the imperial status. It was; for instance, adopted by Sarvavarman and Avantivarman Maukhari,² Dharasena of Valabhi,³ and a host of other rulers. Presumably Pulakeśi II at first assumed it as a regal title only after certain preliminary successes against his rivals and the consolidation of his power at Badami. But when he subsequently scored a brilliant triumph over Harṣa he felt special pride in its possession, and thenceforth it became a sort of a secondary name or a substitute for a name to him (aparanāmadheyaḥ).
c11.s5.9
² Deo-Baranark inscription, C. I. I., III, pp. 214-18.
c11.s5.10
³ Ibid. Introduction, p. 41; J. B. B. R. A. S., X, p. 79.
c11.s5.11
At this point we must also explain the other statement of Yuan Chwang that Harṣa “reigned in peace for thirty years without raising a weapon."¹ This is how Watters has translated the passage, but the text does not appear to be quite clear, as Beal renders it thus : "After thirty years his arms reposed, and he governed everywhere in peace."² If Beal's interpretation were accepted, it would convey the sense that Harṣa carried on warfare for thirty years, after which his authority was established and he reigned in peace. If Watters' rendering be correct, how are we to reconcile this statement of Yuan Chwang with his other information that Harṣa had made an attack on the Kongoda (Ganjam) region as late as A. D. 643? I, therefore, venture to throw out a suggestion. The Chinese pilgrim probably meant that at the time of his visit Harṣa's reign had been peaceful internally, and the home-provinces had enjoyed the blessings of orderly government for thirty years. We know that when Harṣa was called upon to occupy the throne, both the kingdoms of Thanesvar and Kanauj were passing through an acute crisis. Prabhākara and Rājyavardhana had died within a short space of time, and there were perhaps some fears of a recrudescence of the Hūṇa danger. The Maukhari dominions had also suffered serious losses and reverses owing to the combined attack of Devagupta of Malwa and Śaśāṅka of Gauḍa. Kanauj itself had fallen and the political conflagration threatened even to consume his ancestral kingdom. Harṣa, however, instead of losing nerve at that juncture acted promptly and decisively, and by his energy and military courage succeeded in overawing Śaśāṅka and recovering the lost ground. Soon the storm subsided and Harṣa established internal security and stability of government within a comparatively short period. It was to this protracted quiet in the kingdom that Yuan Chwang makes pointed reference, since we also know on his authority that rebellions and internal upheavals were not of rare occurrence in those days.¹ But the success of his internal government did not mean any peace to him in his foreign relations. He was frankly imperialistic in his outlook, and the Kongoda campaign in 643 A. D. proves beyond doubt that he had to undertake military expeditions intermittently almost till the close of his momentous reign. It is difficult to determine with certitude how long he took to annex Orissa and Bengal, but from the fact that Śaśāṅka was in power till A. D. 619, it seems reasonable to conclude that the event must have occurred after that date—say, sometime between 620 A. D. and 625 A. D., the exact year of Śaśāṅka's death being unknown.²
c11.s5.12
¹ Watters, I, p. 343.
c11.s5.13
² Beal, I, p. 213.
c11.s5.14
¹ Watters, I, p. 170. Cf. "Rebellion and regicide have occasionally arisen."
c11.s5.15
² Cf. also Ma-twan-lin, the Chinese encyclopædist; "In the years 618 and 627 there were great troubles in the kingdom. The king Śīlāditya made war and fought such battles as had never been before" (J. R. A. S., N. S. IV, (1869-70), p. 86; see also J. A. S. B., VI, p. 68).
c11.s5.16
Regarding the date of Harṣa's conflict with the mighty southern monarch, we stand on no less uncertain ground. It must have, however, happened before 634-35 A.D., the date of the Aihole inscription in which the great clash finds unmistakable mention.³ Yuan Chwang's statement that the engagement took place when Harṣa was invading remote countties further shows that it was probably after his eastern campaigns and conquests. Thus the earliest and the latest limits may be fixed between 625-634 A. D., and we may, therefore, take in round numbers the year 630 A. D. as the date of the event.¹
c11.s5.17
³ Curiously enough, Prof. Jouveau Dubreuil does not detect any allusion to the repulse of Harṣa by Pulakeśi II in the Aihole inscription. He says, "It is noteworthy that the Aihole inscription, which bears the date 634 A. D., makes no mention of king Harṣavardhana" (Anc. Hist. of the Deccan, Eng. Trans., p. 113; see also K. M. Panikkar, Śrī Harṣa of Kanauj, p. 23). But this view is clearly erroneous (see Kielhorn, Ep. Ind., VI, p. 6, verse 23, line 11).
c11.s5.18
¹ See also Dr. A. S. Altekar, *Ann. Bhand. Res. Inst.*, XIII (1932), pp. 300-06. Dr. Vincent Smith, however, conjectures 620 A. D. to be the approximate date for the fight (*Early Hist. of India*, 4th ed., p. 353; see also C. V. Vaidya, *H. M. H. I.*, I, p. 13). On the strength of the supposed omission in the Aihole inscription, Prof. Jouveau Dubreuil wrongly assigns the date 637-38 for this event (*Anc. Hist. of the Deccan*, Eng. Trans., p. 113).
Linked texts (1)
- 玄奘 — Classical Chinese