Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9: Chapter II. The Maukharis of Kanauj

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. The Maukharis of Kanauj

Section A

Decline of the Guptas and its effect

c9.s1.t1.1

The latter half of the fifth century A. D. was a period of great ferment in Northern India, as it saw the beginning of that process which ultimately undermined the stability of the Imperial Gupta dynasty. The empire became involved in a disastrous war with the Puṣyamitras or Puṣpamitras who “had developed great power and wealth”,¹ and although the danger of immediate subversion was averted by the energy and military strategy of Skandagupta, the shock of the struggle, during the course of which he was reduced to such straits that he had to spend “a whole night on the bare ground,” was none the less serious. It was closely followed by a greater menace to the safety of the empire; this was the “irruption of the savage Hūṇas,” who at this time began to pour down the North-Western passes like an irresistible torrent. At first Skandagupta, “by whose two arms the earth was shaken, when he ……… joined in close conflict with the Hūṇas,”¹ succeeded in stemming the tide of their advance into the interior; but the repeated attacks of these nomadic hordes eventually broke the stubborn resistance, and the Gupta dynasty began to totter to its fall.² History undoubtedly records the continuance of the rule of the Guptas till long afterwards,³ but the Hūṇa onrush appears to have brought to the surface the latent disruptive forces, which readily operate in India at the least manifestation of a slackening of the grip of the central power upon the outlying provinces.

c9.s1.t1.2

¹ *Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum*, vol. III, pp. 54, 55: Bhitari stone pillar inscription. Fleet locates the Puṣyamitras in Central India “somewhere in the country along the banks of the Narmada” (*Ind. Ant.*, 1889, p. 228), but Smith places them in the North (*Early Hist. of India*, 4th ed., p. 326, Note 2). Mr. H. R. Divekar, on the other hand, suggests a different reading (*Ann. Bhand. Res. Inst.*, 1919-20, p. 99 f).

c9.s1.t1.3

¹ C. I. I., III, pp. 54, 55. Cf. “Hūṇair-yyasya samāgatasya samare dorbhyāṃ dharā kampitā bhīmāvarttakarasya.........”

c9.s1.t1.4

² *Early Hist. of India*, 4th ed., p. 328.

c9.s1.t1.5

³ Raychaudhuri, *Pol. Hist. of India*, 3rd ed., p. 391f.

c9.s1.t1.6

The earliest defections from the empire were evidently Saurāṣṭra and Western Malwa. There is a curious break in the silver currency after Skandagupta, and we have no inscriptions to prove that his successors, had any direct connection with these regions.⁴ Besides, it is almost certain that towards the last quarter of the fifth century the Maitrakas rose to power in Valabhī under the leadership of Senāpati Bhaṭṭāraka. This is obvious from the fact that the first known record of this family belongs to Mahārāja Dhruvasena I, the third son of Bhaṭṭāraka, and bears the Gupta-Valabhi date 206 = 525 A. D. Between them there intervened the other two sons of Bhaṭṭāraka-Senāpati Dharasena I and Mahārāja Droṇasiṃha. If we, therefore, roughly assign 40 to 45 years for the first three reigns, the kingdom must have been founded in *circa* 480-85 A. D. We know from the inscriptions that the first few Maitraka rulers were not absolutely independent,⁵ but it is not clear whose suzerainty they acknowledged. Possibly they owed allegiance to the Hūṇas, who gradually overwhelmed the western and central parts of India. Or perhaps, for sometime they nominally kept alive the tradition of Gupta paramountcy.

c9.s1.t1.7

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 390; see also Allan’s *Gupta Coins*, Introd., p. xlix.

c9.s1.t1.8

⁵ We learn, for instance, from the Maliya copperplate that

c9.s1.t1.9

Presumably about the same time the Maukharis also, who, as we shall see below, originally governed as feudatories certain parts of Magadha, taking advantage of the weakness of the central government established themselves at Kanauj, and initiated a line which was destined to play a very important rôle in the politics of Northern India.

c9.s1.t1.10

We learn from the Madhuban plate¹ that in Thāneśvar Naravardhana became the founder of a dynasty immortalised by the deeds of Harṣa. The latter is definitely known to have ascended the throne in A. D. 606, and as he represented the fifth generation in descent, we may well feel certain that Naravardhana must have carved out the kingdom about the close of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century.

c9.s1.t1.11

¹ *Ep. Ind., I*, pp. 72, 73. According to Bāṇa the founder of the house was the shadowy Puṣyabhūti or Puṣpabhūti.

c9.s1.t1.12

But the greatest disturbing factors were doubtless the Hūṇas, who by the year 510 A. D. advanced into the heart of India under the leadership of Toramāṇa,² and established their settlements in Central India, where they

c9.s1.t1.13

² This date rests on the evidence of three inscriptions:
(a) Fleet, *C. I. I., III*, No. 19, pp. 88-90; Eran stone pillar inscription of Budhagupta, dated Gupta year 165.
(b) *Ibid.*, No. 20, pp. 91-93; Eran posthumous inscription of Goparāja, dated Gupta year 191.
(c) *Ibid.*, No. 36, pp. 158-61; Eran inscription dated in the first year of Toramāṇa. See also *Gupta Coins*, p. lxii, where Mr. Allan rightly remarks that “it was in resisting the invader (Toramāṇa) that Goparāja fell.”

c9.s1.t1.14

Mahārāja Droṇasiṃha was installed as king “by the paramount master in person.” (*C. I. I., III*, pp. 165, 168).

c9.s1.t1.15

ruled practising the most horrible cruelties till a new chief arose to deliver the land from an intolerable foreign thraldom. This was the *Janendra* Yaśodharman, who won a powerful position for himself by inflicting a crushing defeat on the tyrannical Hūṇa chief, Mihiragula, “the Attila of India.” His Mandasor inscription¹ further claims that he brought under his sway lands which even the Guptas and the Hūṇas could not subdue, and made himself master of India from the Brahmaputra to the western ocean, and from the Himalayas to the Mahendragiri, i.e., Kaliṅga (cf. the Allahabad Pillar Inscription. According to Smith, however, it denotes the southernmost peak of the Travancore Ghats; *E. H. I.*, 4th ed. p. 339). Making due allowance for hyperbole in this contemporary epigraph, it appears that Yaśodharman exercised some sort of loose hegemony over the north during the heyday of his power, but his success was short-lived and the Guptas soon emerged from their temporary eclipse. For, the Khoh inscription of Saṃkṣoba, dated in the Gupta year 209=528 A. D. “in the enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta kings”,² and according to Mr. R. G. Basak, another record of Ucchakalpa Mahārāja Sarvanātha of the Gupta year 214=533 A. D.,³ show that at that time Gupta authority was recognised, even though nominally, in Central India. Besides, Dr. Raychaudhuri has well pointed out that “in A. D. 543-44, ten years after the Mandasor inscription, which mentions the *Janendra* Yaśodharman as victorious, the son (?) and Viceroy of a Gupta Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhirāja Prithivipati, and not any official of the Central Indian *Janendra*, was governing the Puṇḍravardhana *Bhukti*—a province which lay between the Indian interior and the Lauhitya."¹

c9.s1.t1.16

¹ C. I. I., vol. III, No. 33, pp. 146, 148.

c9.s1.t1.17

² Ibid., pp. 114, 115.

c9.s1.t1.18

³ Ibid., No. 31, pp. 135-39; *Ep. Ind.*, XV, p. 125.

c9.s1.t1.19

¹ *Pol. Hist. of India*, 3rd ed., p. 403. Compare the Damodarpur Copper-plate inscription of 543-44 A. D., (*Ep. Ind.*, XV, p. 113f.).

c9.s1.t1.20

Thus, amid these political convulsions the Later Guptas tried to revive their lost glories, but what they achieved was only the ghost of their former existence, as the process of disintegration had gone too far, and fresh complications had arisen owing to the growth of new powers. The Maukharis, who had grown rich and prosperous by their possession of the fertile Doab, were also at this time bidding for supremacy in the north, and they had now to be reckoned with before the Guptas could reclaim the allegiance of the greater part of Northern India. This contest for overlordship between the Maukharis and the Later Guptas forms the most arresting feature of the major portion of the sixth century A. D. It was a struggle between the waning glories of Magadha and the rising power of Kanauj. It ended in transferring the political centre of gravity to the latter; and the credit for effecting this mighty change is due to the Maukharis, who reaped a rich harvest out of the prevailing confusion, and suddenly leaped from obscurity to great importance.

Sources

c9.s1.t2.1

Unfortunately, our data for the history of Kanauj under the Maukharis² are very meagre, and so we have to depend mainly on guesswork supported by a few coins, epigraphic documents, and casual literary references.

c9.s1.t2.2

² The records of the dynasty use the term Mukhara and Maukhari in a loose way. The Jaunpur (*C. I. I.*, III, pp. 229, 230) and the Haraha inscriptions (*Ep. Ind.*, XIV. pp. 115, 119) call its kings "Mukhara," whereas Bāṇa uses both terms indiscriminately (see *Hc.* C.T., pp. 122, 194; *Kādambarī*, ed. Peterson (Bombay, 1900), p. 1, verse 4.

c9.s1.t2.3

(a) The first record of some value is the seal of Sarvavarman found in Asirgaḍh, which is a hill-fort (formerly belonging to the Scindia) in the Burhanpur tahsil of the Nimad district of Central Provinces.¹

c9.s1.t2.4

¹ C. I. I., III, No. 47, pp. 219-21.

c9.s1.t2.5

(b) Next, we have what are known as the Nālandā seals.² They are several in number, and were discovered in the ruins of Nālandā in the Patna district of the Bihar Province. These records are preserved in a fragmentary state, and the lacunæ are evidently too many to yield us any substantial information. A seal of Sarvavarman, which Dr. Hīrānanda Śāstrī calls “a replica of the Asirgaḍh seal,” is, however, almost entire.

c9.s1.t2.6

² Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep., Eastern circle, 1917-18, p. 44; Ep. Ind., XXI (April, 1931), pp. 73-74.

c9.s1.t2.7

(c) The third inscription was found in the Juma Masjid of Jaunpur in the United Provinces.³ It is supposed to detail the victories achieved by Īśvaravarman, but its value is somewhat vitiated by the dubious character of its testimony.⁴

c9.s1.t2.8

³ C. I. I., III, No. 51, pp. 228-30.

c9.s1.t2.9

⁴ See Infra.

c9.s1.t2.10

(d) The most important epigraph, however, is the one found at Haraha in the Bara Banki district of the United Provinces.⁵ Its object is to record the reconstruction of a dilapidated temple of Śiva by Sūryavarman, son of Īśānavarman, the reigning king of the Maukhari dynasty. It not only enumerates the achievements of Īśānavarman, but also contains a date which we shall discuss further at length, as it offers certain difficulties in interpretation.

c9.s1.t2.11

⁵ Ep. Ind., XIV; pp. 110-20, edited by Hīrānanda Śāstrī; Ind. Ant. XLVI, pp. 125-27, commented upon by Mr. N. G. Majumdar.

c9.s1.t2.12

(e) The history of the Maukhari dynasty is also supplemented by inscriptions of a line known to historians as that of the Later Guptas. One of them was found at Aphsad in the Nawada subdivision of the Gaya district.¹ It throws a flood of light on Gupta-Maukhari relations, and without its help we should have been left to grope in the dark about these points.

c9.s1.t2.13

¹ C. I. I., III, No. 42, pp. 200-08.

c9.s1.t2.14

(f) Another inscription, belonging to the time of Jivitagupta II, was found in Deo Baranārk in the Shahabad district.² It is the only epigraphic record in which the name of Avantivarman occurs.

c9.s1.t2.15

² Ibid., No 46, pp. 213-18. Also see *Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep.*, XVI, pp. 73-75.

c9.s1.t2.16

(g) We may also mention here the hoard of Maukhari coins discovered in Bhitaura in the Fyzabad district of the United Provinces.³ It is considered that they furnish certain dates, and we shall try to determine later on how far we can fix the chronological position of these Maukhari kings by their help.

c9.s1.t2.17

³ *J. R. A. S.*, 1906, pp. 843-50.

c9.s1.t2.18

(h) Further, we may take into account the evidence of Bāṇa. The *Harṣacarita* narrates the last stages of the Gupta-Maukhari feud, and tells how eventually the young Maukhari ruler was engulfed in the political whirlpool of the times.

c9.s1.t2.19

(i) Lastly, the *Mañjusrī-Mūlakalpa* alludes to the Maukharis and their contemporary powers. This late Buddhist work, however, demands cautious and critical use.

Antiquity of the Maukharis

c9.s1.t3.1

It appears from these records that the Maukharis came into prominence during the sixth century A. D., but there are certain indications which enable us to trace their existence to much earlier times. First, Kaiyaṭa’s commentary on the *Mahābhāṣya* “which may belong to the 12th century A. D., but which tradition places earlier,”⁴ gives us only three illustrations:

c9.s1.t3.2

⁴ Keith’s History of Sanskrit Literature (1928), p. 429.

c9.s1.t3.3

Paunikyā, Bhaunikyā, and Maukharyā, under the aphorism (Pāṇini, IV. I. 79) explaining the formation of the words with the *syan* suffix. The *Kāśikāvṛtti* of Jayāditya and Vāmana, “written before I-tsing visited India,”¹ again cites the term, under the same rule of Pāṇini, as an instance of *Gotrāvayava*, i.e. non-famous *gotras* or names, *kulas* or families. From these references it has been conjectured that the term Maukhari was “possibly known to Pāṇini and also Patañjali”² who have been assigned to about the sixth century B. C. and *circa* 150 B. C. respectively.

c9.s1.t3.4

¹ *Ibid.* The itinerary of I-tsing falls between the years 671-695 A. D.

c9.s1.t3.5

² *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 112. The term Mukhara actually occurs in Patañjali’s *Mahābhāṣya*, *Adh*. V. II., *Sūtra* 107, Kielhorn’s ed., p. 397.

c9.s1.t3.6

Fleet further pointed out the antiquity of the Maukharis by the Pāli legend “*Mokhalīnam*,” written in Mauryan Brāhmī characters on a clay-seal, which was secured by Cunningham at Gaya.³ This is evidently an equivalent of the Sanskrit word “*Maukharīṇām*,” which is a derivative of Mukhara and signifies “of the Maukharis.” The use of the Mauryan characters unmistakably shows that they were well-known in the 3rd and 4th centuries B. C., and Sir Alexander Cunningham even tried to prove some connection between the Maukharis and the Mauryas.⁴ In his opinion the term Maukhari is only a variant form of Maurya, and that “in fact Maurīya would be a legitimate contraction of Maukhariya.” But there does not seem to be any substantial ground for this view except the mere similarity in sound.

c9.s1.t3.7

³ *C. I. I.*, III, *Introd.*, p. 14. Recently Dr. A. S. Altekar of the Benares Hindu University has discovered three short inscriptions of a Maukhari family with the title Mahāsenāpati in the Kotah State. They yield us the date 294 of the *Krita* era, and if it stands for the Mālava *Saṃvat*, we have got definite epigraphic reference to the political importance of the Maukharis in the middle of the third century A.D.

c9.s1.t3.8

⁴ *Arch. Surv. Ind.*, *Rep.*, XV, p. 166.

c9.s1.t3.9

*Who were the Maukharis?*

c9.s1.t3.10

Both Vāmana and Kaiyaṭa—the famous expositors of the Pāṇinian system of grammar—take the term Mukharyā as “a patronymic, signifying the descendants of Mukhara, who must have been the Ādipuruṣa or the first to bring his family into prominence and thereby caused it to be known after his name.”¹ It is not possible to determine whether Mukhara was a proper or an attributive name. Dr. Hīrānanda Śāstri, however, definitely assumes that it was a surname, and that the man was “so called for his being a ‘leader,’ or for his fighting in the forefront of the armies, which he led into action, as it is such characteristics only which would go to make a man the founder of a line.”²

c9.s1.t3.11

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 111.

c9.s1.t3.12

² *Ibid.*

c9.s1.t3.13

It is interesting to note that Bāṇa also considers Mukhara to be the progenitor of Grahavarman’s line, as Puṣyabhūti was of the Thānesvar dynasty.³

c9.s1.t3.14

³ *Hc. C. T.*, p. 128.

c9.s1.t3.15

But the Haraha inscription appears to trace their origin to another remarkable personage, since it informs us that “the Mukhara princes, who have vanquished their foes and checked the course of evil, are the descendants of the hundred sons, whom king Aśvapati got from Vaivasvata (Manu), and who were conspicuous on account of their excellences.”⁴ Ancient Indian literature doubtless knows of many individuals with the name Aśvapati,¹ but it is difficult to ascertain whom the author of the *praśasti* had in view. The learned editor of the Haraha inscription further connects this dynasty with the Solar race. He thinks that Vaivasvata, from whom Aśvapati obtained the hundred sons, is the seventh Manu, “supposed to be born of the Sun and to preside over the present age.”²

c9.s1.t3.16

⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 119, verse 3. Cf. “Sutaśatam lebhe nṛpaḥ Aśvapatiḥ Vaivasvatādyaguṇoditaṃ, Tat prasūtā durita-vṛttirudho Mukharāḥ Kṣitīśāḥ Kṣatārayaḥ” (*Ibid*, p. 115).

c9.s1.t3.17

¹ See Monier-Williams’ *Sans-Eng. Dictionary*, p. 101.

c9.s1.t3.18

² *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 111. Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri is of opinion that Vaivasvata is Yama, and not Manu (*Pol. Hist. of India*, 3rd ed., p. 406).

c9.s1.t3.19

On the other hand, Mr. N. Ray tries to prove in the *Calcutta Review* that the Maukharis belonged to the *Somavaṃśa* or Lunar race.³ He draws this conclusion from the following passage in the *Harṣacarita*: “Rājyaśrī has at length united the two brilliant lines of Puṣpabhūti and Mukhara, whose worth, like that of the Sun and Moon houses, is sung by all the world to the gratification of wise men’s ears.”⁴ The learned writer argues that the Puṣpabhūtis were of the Solar race, as they were mostly Sun-worshippers (*paramā-dityabhakta*), and they had such names as Ādityavardhana and Prabhākaravardhana. Granting this—it is contended—Bāṇa’s manner of description would necessarily imply that the Maukharis belonged to the *Somavaṃśa*. But the hypothesis is gratuitous, since there are grounds to hold that the Vardhanas were not of the Solar line. Besides the suffix *bhūti*, indicating that Puṣpabhūti, the founder, was a Vaiśya, we have the explicit testimony of Yuan Chwang that Harṣa was a Vaiśya (Fei-she caste). Curiously, this obtains confirmation from the *Mañjuśrī-* Mūlakalpa, which describes the Thanesvar ruling family as Vaiśya.¹ It appears, therefore, that in the above passage Bāṇa was not actually connecting the two dynasties with the Sun and Moon respectively, but he was merely comparing them with the two well-known Kṣatriya houses, that are famous in history and legend alike. Thus though we cannot be certain as to who was the progenitor of the Maukharis, at least this much seems probable from the evidence of the Haraha inscription, as also from the termination varman, that they were Kṣatriyas. But in after times they appear to have gone down in the social scale, for in an interesting letter, quoted by Mr. Aravamuthan, Mr. K. P. Jayaswal observes, "I think that the modern Mauhari caste, almost solely located in the Gaya district, are their representatives. They are Baniyas, i.e. Vaiśyas now."² Was this degradation due to loss of sovereignty and subsequent change of occupation?

c9.s1.t3.20

³ February, 1928, vol. XXVI, No. 2, p. 203. See also C. V. Vaidya’s *H.M.H.I.*, vol. I, p. 335.

c9.s1.t3.21

⁴ *Hc.* C. T., p. 128. Compare the Sanskrit passage: Somasūrya Vamśāviva Puṣpabhūti-Mukharavamśau.

c9.s1.t3.22

¹ Gaṇapati Śāstrī's ed. (Trivandrum, 1925), pp. 626, 634.

c9.s1.t3.23

² The Kaveri, the Maukharis and the Sangam Age, p. 80, Note 1.

Their original status and territories

c9.s1.t4.1

The Maukhari seal, written in Mauryan Brāhmī characters, to which we have referred above, contains the earliest epigraphic notice of the Maukharis. Regarding its importance Mr. Jayaswal says, "The Maukhari seal probably denotes that they were a political (republican) community in origin; they must have been bereft of power in B. C. (3rd century) as there is no room for a secondary, real political power near Gaya and Rājagṛiha in those days when the Mauryas were ruling. The seal may refer to a social (Jātisangha) organisation only at the time. I feel that their seat has always been the district of Gaya."³ Besides this seal there are three other inscriptions which give us a clue to the original territory and dignity of the Maukharis. They are inscribed in characters of the same type, which Indraji and Bühler think are “a little later than those of the Guptas, and hence probably belonging to the fifth century A. D.”¹ Kielhorn was also of opinion that on palæographic grounds they cannot be placed later than the first half of the sixth century.² Mr. C. V. Vaidya, on the other hand, suggests for these inscriptions “a date later than that of Harṣa.”³ But there does not seem to be any warrant for this assumption. As is well pointed out by Mr. N. G. Majumdar, the script used in these inscriptions is far more archaic than that of the Haraha inscription of 554 A. D. clearly indicating that “they are of a considerably earlier date.”⁴ They were discovered in the Barabar and Nagarjuni hills, two of the easternmost parts of the Vindhyas, abutting on the Gaya district.⁵ These inscriptions mention a set of three rulers, viz. Yajñavarman, Śārdūlavarman, and Anantavarman, who belonged to the Maukhari lineage, since one of them describes Anantavarman having “adorned by his own (high) birth the family of the Maukhari kings.”⁶ These Maukharis are given the unassuming general title of “nṛipa” or ruler;⁷ and in one of the records Śārdūla is specifically called a “Sāmanta-cūḍāmaṇi,” the best among “chieftains.” Considering, therefore, the date and find-spots of these documents, it does not seem unreasonable to hold that about the close of the fifth century A. D. the Maukharis were still settled in Magadha round the Gaya region, and that they were feudatories to some power—very possibly the Later Guptas—as even at this time they were powerful enough to curb the rise of an independent state in the very heart of their home-territories.¹ But owing to the Hūṇa invasions and perhaps family feuds the hold of the Guptas was gradually being sapped in the outlying provinces, and this must have afforded a splendid opportunity for bold spirits to seek fresh fields and pastures new. Probably Harivarman, the first king in the Kanauj line, was one such daring adventurer, who in the prevailing confusion migrated westwards and succeeded in carving out a kingdom in the fertile Doab with his seat of government at Kanauj.²

c9.s1.t4.2

³ Ibid.

c9.s1.t4.3

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XIII, p. 428, Note 55.

c9.s1.t4.4

² *Ep. Ind.*, VI, p. 3.

c9.s1.t4.5

³ *H. M. H. I.*, vol. I, p. 34.

c9.s1.t4.6

⁴ *Ind. Ant.*, XLVI, p. 127.

c9.s1.t4.7

⁵ *C. I. I.*, III, Nos. 48-50, pp. 221-28.

c9.s1.t4.8

⁶ *Ibid.*, No. 48, pp. 222, 223.

c9.s1.t4.9

⁷ See on Nṛipa, *Amarakoṣa*, VIII, 2—(Nṛipo ’nyo Maṇḍaleś-varaḥ).

c9.s1.t4.10

¹ Mr. N. Ray, however, thinks that these three Maukhari chiefs “ruled in the Bihar region as governors of the Kanauj Maukharis. They were perhaps charged with the viceroyalty of the Magadhan region after its loss by Dāmodaragupta” (*Cal. Rev.*, Feb., 1928, p. 210). But in view of the archaic character of the script of their inscriptions this conclusion seems unjustified.

c9.s1.t4.11

² The fact that the Gaya line of feudatory chiefs ends with Anantavarman, and Harivarman founded his power about the close of the fifth century (see *Infra*), may lend additional support to this theory of westward migration during the decline of the Gupta power.

Was Kanauj the capital of the Maukharis?

c9.s1.t5.1

It is unfortunate that the records of the Maukharis do not mention the kingdom over which they ruled, and at such a distance of time this omission, coupled with the scantiness of known details about them, causes us a good deal of doubt and difficulty. Saṅkar Pāṇḍurang Pandit was the first to express his scepticism as regards accepting Kanauj as the Maukhari capital;¹ and sharing this diffidence Dr. Vincent Smith remarked that the "assumption is a natural and legitimate inference from Bāṇa’s narrative, but not a necessary one."² He further adds that the Pandit may be right in the view which he "definitely adopted that up to the time that Rājyaśrī’s husband was murdered, Kanauj was the capital of the Mālava kings."³ Elsewhere Smith summarises his views on the Maukhari territories in these words: "These ‘Later Guptas of Magadha’, as they are called by archæologists, shared the rule of that province with another dynasty of Rājās, who had names ending in *varman*, and belonged to a clan called Maukhari. The territorial division between the two dynasties cannot be defined precisely, but the Maukhari dominion in the middle of the sixth century included Oudh. Their relations with one another were sometimes friendly and sometimes hostile, but the few details known are of little importance."⁴

c9.s1.t5.2

¹ *Gauḍavaho*, Introd., pp. cxxix, note, cxxxiii. (*Bom. Skt. Series*, 1887).

c9.s1.t5.3

² *J. R. A. S.*, 1908, p. 771.

c9.s1.t5.4

³ *Ibid.*, p. 772.

c9.s1.t5.5

⁴ *Early Hist. of India*, 4th ed., pp. 330-31.

c9.s1.t5.6

On the contrary, there are other scholars who definitely affirm that Kanauj was the Maukhari capital. Dr. Hoernle calls Iśānavarman the Maukhari chief of Kanauj,⁵ and in another place refers to the attack of the Mālava king in 606 A. D. on Kanauj, which he captured after killing the king Grahavarman.⁶ We are again told in the *Imperial Gazetteer* that "when the Gupta Empire fell to pieces it (Kanauj) became the capital of the Maukharis, one of the petty dynasties, which arose in its place.¹

c9.s1.t5.7

⁵ *J. R. A. S.*, 1903, p. 554.

c9.s1.t5.8

⁶ *Ibid.*, pp. 557-58.

c9.s1.t5.9

¹ Vol. XIV, p. 370 (new edition). See also Hc. C.T., Preface pp. xi-xii: C. V. Vaidya, H. M. H. I., p. 39f; Peterson, Kādambarī, Introd., p. 53; F. E. Hail. Vāsavadattā, p. 52; Bühler, Ep. Ind., 1, p. 69, for this view.

c9.s1.t5.10

Opinion being so divided, let us examine how far our original authorities justify us in concluding that Kanauj was the Maukhari seat of government. In the first place, the testimony of Bāṇa seems to be very valuable in this connection. He makes Saṃvādaka, the servant of princess Rājyaśrī, deliver the following sad tidings to Harṣa and Rājyavardhana: “On the very day on which the king’s death was rumoured, His Majesty Grahavarman was by the wicked lord of Malwa cut off from the living along with his noble deeds. Rājyaśrī also, the princess, has been confined like a brigand’s wife with a pair of iron fetters kissing her feet, and cast into prison at Kānyakubja.”² If Kanauj was the capital of Grahavarman’s adversary, as Ś. P. Pandit and Smith would have us believe, does it not appear incomprehensible why Bāṇa should call him “the wicked lord of Mālava?” Besides, the statement in the Harṣacarita that Kānyakubja was “seized by the man named Gupta”³ clearly proves, it was in the possession of some other power, which could be no other but the Maukharis at this time. Thus, in my humble opinion, the evidence of Bāṇa naturally leads to the conclusion that Rājyaśrī was residing in Kanauj when it was attacked by the “wicked lord of Malwa,” and it was there that she was imprisoned after her husband’s murder. This tragedy was followed by the relief of Kanauj by Rājyavardhana, but its effects were soon counteracted by the recapture of the Maukhari capital by Śaśāṅka, the king of Gauḍa, who had come all the way from Bengal to assist the Mālava king in his aggressive designs against the allied houses of Thānesvar and Kanauj.¹

c9.s1.t5.11

² Hc. C. T., p. 173.

c9.s1.t5.12

³ Ibid., p. 224. “Devabhūyaṃ gate deve Rājyavardhane Gupta-nāmnā ca gṛhīte Kuśasthale” (Calcutta ed., p. 603). Does the man named Gupta here refer to Śaśāṅka? Bühler at any rate noted that in one Ms. of the Harṣacarita he is called Narendragupta (Ep. Ind., I, p. 70). See also Allan’s Gupta Coins, Introd., p. lxiv on this point.

c9.s1.t5.13

¹ That Kānyakubja was first annexed by the king of Malwa after Grahavarman’s death seems also implied in the statement, “There is moreover a report that the villain purposes to invade and seize this country (Thānesvar) as well (Hc. C.T., p. 173).

c9.s1.t5.14

Moreover, our authorities indicate that Rājyaśrī returned to Kanauj after her wanderings in the Vindhyas, and the vacant throne was offered by the statesmen to Harṣa.² If Kanauj had not been the Maukhari capital there is no reason why she should have settled there, and administered the government in conjunction with her brother according to the *Fang-chih*.³ Our conclusion probably gains additional support from the provenance of the Maukhari inscriptions and coins. Considering the portability of the latter this evidence is of course flimsy, but here it gains some weight when taken in conjunction with that of Bāṇa. As stated above, a large number of coins was found associated with those of Śīlāditya Pratāpaśila in Bhitaura in the district of Fyzabad. Some were found by Rivett Carnac at Ayodhyā and others were obtained in Ramnagar, in Rohilkhand, the ancient Ahicchatra.⁴ The two chief inscriptions of Harivarman’s line were discovered in the city of Jaunpur and Haraha in the Bara-Banki district, near Lucknow. All these findspots lie in the United Provinces, and are not situated far from Kanauj too. Besides, we know that except the Nalanda seals all the Maukhari inscriptions discovered in Magadha belong to the line of Yajñavarman. The records of the Later Guptas, in which we have incidental notices of some Maukhari kings, further show that the Maukharis could not possibly flourish in Magadha side by side with them. We may, therefore, say in conclusion that the available evidence and the consensus of opinion of scholars point to Kanauj as the capital of Harivarman’s line, and there is nothing to prove the contrary.

c9.s1.t5.15

² Beal, *Buddhist Records of the Western World*, vol. I, p. 211; Watters, I, p. 343. See for a detailed discussion, *Infra*, Chapter III.

c9.s1.t5.16

³ *Ibid*., p. 345; Smith, *Early Hist. of India*, 4th ed., p. 351.

c9.s1.t5.17

⁴ *Arch., Surv. Ind.*, Rep., IX, p. 27.

Harivarman

c9.s1.t6.1

Harivarman appears to have been the founder of the Maukhari house of Kanauj, as he is the first to be named in the known records of this dynasty. Probably he or one of his immediate ancestors moved westwards to Kanauj during the decline of the Guptas, but with the materials at hand it is impossible to guess what relation this successful adventurer bore to the line of the Maukharis mentioned in the Barabar and Nagarjuni hill cave inscriptions. The Haraha inscription gives him the proud epithet of Jvālāmukha, or flame-faced; and the Asirgaḍh seal further testifies that “his fame stretched out beyond the four oceans; who had other kings brought into subjection by (his) prowess, and by affection (for him)”.¹ He bears, however, only the subordinate title of Mahārāja, which perhaps shows that the use of laudatory expressions in the inscriptions is due not to any considerable power wielded by him, but to the simple fact that he was the first Maukhari to attain distinction.

c9.s1.t6.2

¹ C. I. I., III, pp. 220, 221; also see Ep. Ind., XIV, pp.11:, 119, verses 4-5.

Ādityavarman

c9.s1.t7.1

Harivarman was succeeded by his son, Ādityavarman, “begotten of the Bhaṭṭārikā and Devī Jayasvāminī.” He seems to have been a staunch follower of the Brahmanical cult, and the Haraha inscription describes his “sacrificial performances” in very eloquent terms.¹ The anonymous predecessor of Iśvaravarman, who is represented in the Jaunpur inscription as acquiring “religious merit arising from sacrifices”,² may therefore be identified with Ādityavarman. He is also called merely Mahārāja, and is recorded to have married Devī Harṣaguptā. She was probably the sister of the Later Gupta king, Harṣagupta, as it was a common practice in those days for brothers and sisters to bear such identical names, of course with variation of gender in the ending to indicate the sex³.

c9.s1.t7.2

¹ Ibid., pp. 116, 119, verse 7.

c9.s1.t7.3

² C. I. I., III, pp. 229, 230.

c9.s1.t7.4

³ Ibid., Introd., p. 14.

Iśvaravarman

c9.s1.t8.1

The fragmentary condition of the Jaunpur inscription unfortunately causes some difficulty in the correct attribution of the exploits recorded therein. The lacunæ being extensive, Fleet remarked that “it is impossible to say whether the historical information given in them refers to Iśvaravarman, or to one of his descendants.”⁴ Let us, therefore, closely follow the evidence of the extant portion. Iśvaravarman is described in it as having “allayed the trouble (caused) by the approach of cruel people, and which affected the happiness of mankind,” and as being “a very lion to (hostile) kings.”⁵ Immediately after this description occurs an account of some of his victorious engagements. We are told that “a spark of fire that had come by the road from (the city of) Dhārā ... the lord of the Andhras, wholly given over to fear, took up (his) abode in the crevices of the Vindhya mountains ......... went to the Raivataka mountain ...... among the warriors of the Andhra army who were spread out among the troops of elephants (and) whose arms were studded with the lustre of (their) swords drawn out.”¹ The specific mention of these achievements in the very next passage after a tribute in general terms to Iśvaravarman for his heroic qualities probably shows that the author intended to ascribe them to the same king. But the damaged condition of the inscription does not make it clear whether the claims of instilling fear in the minds of the “lord of the Andhras” and the adversary who “went to the Raivataka mountains” are mere rhodomontade, or actually refer to some victories achieved by Iśvaravarman against these southern monarchs. One thing, however, appears certain from the description that “a spark of fire,” i.e., the king of Dhārā, undertook an aggressive campaign against Iśvaravarman, and the latter probably emerged triumphant in this trial of arms². His successful resistance against these odds must have considerably enhanced Iśvaravarman’s power and prestige, and we may therefore consider him as the first Maukhari king who really brought the family into prominence. He did not, however, attain to imperial dignity, as the Asirgaḍh seal gives him the unostentatious title of Mahārāja only. This seems an additional reason to hold that the Jaunpur inscription simply registers Iśvaravarman’s successful defence of the kingdom, and has no bearing on any of his “imperial ambitions,” or the extension of his “conquests towards the west up to Dhārā, to the Vindhya and Raivataka (Girnar) mountains in pursuit of the Andhras,” as Dr. R. K. Mookerji would have us believe.¹ Like his predecessors, Iśvaravarman was also a Brahmanist, and he is said to have “invoked Indra in many a sacrifice” performed “in accordance with the canons.”

c9.s1.t8.2

⁴ Ibid., No. 51, p. 229. See also Hīrānanda Śāstrī, Ep. Ind., XIV, p. 112, note 6; Aravamuthan, The Kaveri, Maukharis and the Sangam Age, p. 90..

c9.s1.t8.3

⁵ C. I. I., III, p. 230.

c9.s1.t8.4

¹ Ibid.

c9.s1.t8.5

² Was there any confederacy formed by these southern powers against the rising state of Kanauj?

c9.s1.t8.6

¹ *Harṣa* (Rulers of India Series), p. 54.

Iśānavarman

c9.s1.t9.1

Iśvaravarman was succeeded by his son, Iśānavarman, whose mother was the Bhaṭṭārikā and Devī Upaguptā. Presumably the second element of her name indicates that Upaguptā was also a Gupta princess. Thus, the marriages of two successive Maukhari kings—Adityavarman and Iśvaravarman—with Gupta princesses clearly show that the two houses were at first on very cordial terms. Indeed, the subordinate title Mahārāja given to the first three Maukhari rulers may even lend some colour to the view that they recognised the suzerainty of the Later Guptas, who were yet powerful in the north.

c9.s1.t9.2

It appears that Iśvaravarman did not long survive the disturbances that had occurred during his reign, and so his successor was called upon to avert the falling fortunes of his dynasty like a second Skandagupta. This fact seems to be metaphorically alluded to in the following statement of the Haraha inscription: “By whom the earth was forcibly upheld, like a broken boat, after fastening it on all sides by hundredfold virtues (or, strings), when it was sinking below the invisible ocean of the nether regions, being shaken by the storm of Kali.”² Fortunately, the record also makes specific mention of the foes against whom Iśānavarman had to contend before he could feel his position secure, or exercise any power effectively. We are told that Iśānavarman occupied the throne after :—

c9.s1.t9.3

² *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, pp. 117, 120, verse 15.

c9.s1.t9.4

(a) “conquering the lord of the Andhras, who had thousands of threefold rutting elephants;

c9.s1.t9.5

(b) vanquishing in battle the Sūlikas who had an army of countless galloping horses;

c9.s1.t9.6

(c) causing the Gauḍas, living on the seashore, in future to remain within their proper realm.”¹

c9.s1.t9.7

¹ Ibid., verse 13. Cf. “Jitvā Āndhrapatiṁ sahasragaṇita-tredhākṣaradvāraṇaṁ, Vyāvalgan-niyutāsaṁkhyaturagān bhaṁkhāraṇe Śūlikāṁ (n), Kritvā cāyatimocita-sthalabhuvaḥ Gauḍān samudrāśrayān, Adhyāsiṣṭha natakṣitīśacaraṇaḥ siṁhāsanaṁ yaḥ jiti.”

c9.s1.t9.8

Unhappily the data for the history of the period are very scanty, and this makes it difficult for us to identify the kings over whom Iśānavarman is recorded to have achieved victories. It is not clear who is signified here by the tile of “lord of the Andhras.” The old Andhra empire had crumbled to pieces long ago, and the country had been partitioned among three or more dynasties (see Prof. K. R. Subramanian’s *History of Andhra between 225 to 610 A. D.*). The Viṣṇukuṇḍins were the dominant power in the sixth century A. D., and so Iśānavarman’s Andhra opponent must have belonged to this family. It appears probable that he was either Indravarman or Vikramendravarman, but until their chronological position is more definitely established the identification cannot be regarded as beyond doubt. Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri, however, thinks that the Andhra king probably was Mādhavavarman II of the Viṣṇukuṇḍin family,² who “shortly before the invasion of Pulakeśi II ...crossed the river Godāvarī with the desire to conquer the eastern region.”³ Whoever he might be, it appears certain that he was particularly active about this time, since the Jaunpur inscription also records warlike relations between the Maukharis and the ndhras during the reign of Īśvaravarman, and it is possible that both the father and the son had to fight against the same Andhra king. Nor are we in a better position to identify the Sūlikas and locate them correctly. Possibly they are identical with the Saulikas of the Bṛhatsaṃhitā (xiv, 8) and the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, and are to be located in the south-east, near Kalinga, Vidarbha, and Cedi.¹ But Mr. B. C. Mazumdar makes the suggestion that the Sūlikas lived on the sea-coast near the modern district of Midnapore (Bengal).² According to Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri, on the other hand, they are to be identified with the Cālukyas. He argues that "Sūlika may be another dialectic variant"³ since in the Mahākūṭa pillar inscription⁴ the name appears as "Calikya," and in the Gujarat records we find the forms Solaki and Solanki.⁵ The Mahākūṭa pillar inscription further informs us that about this time the Cālukyas were extending their power on all sides, and one of their kings Kirtivarman I, claims to have made conquests in Aṅga, Vaṅga, Magadha, Madraka, and Kaliṅga, etc.¹ Probably in their northward progress they came into conflict with Iśānavarman, and suffered a defeat at his hands.

c9.s1.t9.9

² *Political Hist. of India*, 3rd ed., p. 405; J. A. S. B., 1920, p. 391 note 5.

c9.s1.t9.10

³ Jouveau Dubreuil, *Anc. Hist. of the Deccan*, p. 92.

c9.s1.t9.11

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XXII, p. 189. Fleet, however, connected them with the Mūlikas mentioned in the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* (XIV, 48, 23) as a people living in the north-west division (*Ind. Ant.*, XXII, p. 186). See also Rapson's *Catalogue of Coins of the Andhra Dynasty*, p. xxxi; and *Ind. Ant.*, 1917, p. 127.

c9.s1.t9.12

² *Orissa in the Making*, p. 105.

c9.s1.t9.13

³ *Pol. Hist. of India*, 3rd. ed., pp. 405-06; *J. A. S. B.*, 1920, p. 319, n. 6.

c9.s1.t9.14

⁴ *Ind. Ant.*, XIX, pp. 16-20; *Bom. Gaz.*, vol. I, pt., II. p.336.

c9.s1.t9.15

⁵ *Ibid.*, vol. I, pt. I, p. 156. Father Heras identifies the Sūlikas with the Coḷas (*Jour. And. Hist. Res. Soc.*, I, pp. 130-31). In support of this view attention may be drawn to a Tamil work, *Kalingattupparani*, by Jayagoṇḍān, which according to Mr. Aravamuthan (*The Kaveri, the Maukharis, and the Sangam Age* p. 14f.) narrates the circumstance of the Coḷa king's conflict with Mukari. But I venture to say that the identification of the latter with a Maukhari ruler does not at all appear to be convincing. Presumably it was the name of a place in the South, and as Mr. Aravamuthan himself points out elsewhere (*Ibid.*, p. 72; see also pp. 24-26), a 6

c9.s1.t9.16

¹ *Bom. Gaz.*, Vol. I, pt. II, p. 345; *Ind. Ant.* XIX, pp. 17, 19.

c9.s1.t9.17

Regarding the Gauḍas as a political power, we get the earliest definite epigraphic reference in the Haraha inscription. It appears from the term *Samudrāśrayān* applied to them that they occupied the seaboard of western Bengal, but we do not know with certainty what local dynasty was ruling there at that time.² They had now distinctly entered upon a career of aggrandisement, since not only does this record represent them as "issuing forth from their proper realm", but the Aphsad inscription also mentions Jivitagupta I's struggles against these "haughty foes" who "stood on seaside shores."³ Considering this, and the fact that between the kingdoms of Gauḍa and Kanauj intervened the Gupta dominion of Magadha, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that both Iśānavarman and his Gupta contemporary may have co-operated to check the advance

c9.s1.t9.18

² See the Faridpur copper plates for a set of three kings of Gauḍa. Perhaps they were slightly later in date than the one referred to in the Haraha inscription (*Ind. Ant.*, XXXIX, p. 193f; *J. A. S. B.*, *N. S.* X, p. 425f; *Ibid.*, *N. S.* VII, p. 289f). Dr. R. G. Basak conjectures—(see *The History of North-Eastern India*, p. 113) that the Gauḍa opponent of Iśānavarman was possibly Jayanāga, referred to in the Vappaghoṣāvaṭa grant (*Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, 1925, pp. 60f) and the Buddhist work *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa*, (see p. 636, ed. Gaṇapati Śāstri).

c9.s1.t9.19

³ *C. I. I.*, III, no. 42, pp. 202, 205.

c9.s1.t9.20

Tamil inscription of Ceylon mentions a certain Mukari-Nāḍāḷvan, and the *Kaṇakkadhikāram* refers to a chief of Mukari on the banks of the river Poṇṇi (Kāveri).

c9.s1.t9.21

of the Gauḍas towards the north. These successes spurred on the ambitions of Iśānavarman, and he began to claim imperial dignity by assuming the title of Mahārājādhirāja. But the Guptas could not long tolerate Iśānavarman’s pretensions to supremacy or any growth in his strength, and so an appeal to arms became inevitable. This open rupture between the two houses is one of the most important events of Iśānavarman’s reign, and is thus recorded in the Aphsad inscription: “By whom playing the part of the mountain Mandara, there was quickly churned that formidable milk-ocean, the cause of the attainment of fortune, which was the army of the glorious Iśānavarman, a very moon among kings.”¹ This passage occurring in a record of a different dynasty is indeed remarkable, as besides testifying to the defeat of Iśānavarman it also implies his great power.² It must have been a severe blow—although only temporary—to the rise of the Maukharis, and probably after this victory Kumāragupta even pushed his territories as far west as Prayāga, for there are indications that his funeral rites took place there.³

c9.s1.t9.22

¹ *Ibid.*, pp. 203, 206.

c9.s1.t9.23

² Dr. R. K. Mookerji, on the other hand, seems to think that Kumāragupta was the vanquished party in this duel. He says: “Iśānavarman, who achieved three important victories in three different regions and according to inscription No. 1 (his number)—a fourth victory over the Malwa king Kumāragupta ......” (*Harṣa*, pp. 54-55; see also N. Ray, *Cal. Rev.*, Feb., 1928, p. 207, for the same view).—But if one reads between the lines of the verse, this conclusion seems utterly unwarranted. It may be remarked that the view adopted in the text is also endorsed by Fleet.

c9.s1.t9.24

³ *C. I. I.*, III, p. 206. note 3.

c9.s1.t9.25

Lastly, we may mention that, like his predecessors, he was also a Brahmanist, and during his reign it is claimed that “the three Vedas were born afresh.”

Sarvavarman

c9.s1.t10.1

Iśānavarman was succeeded by his son, Sarvavarman, whose mother was the Bhaṭṭārikā and Mahādevī Lakṣmivatī. The Haraha inscription discloses to us that Iśānavarman had another son named Sūryavarman, who during the lifetime of his father caused a dilapidated temple of Andhakārī, Siva, to be "raised at his wish and made an ornament of the earth." He is not mentioned in any other record, which probably shows that either he predeceased his father, or there was a struggle for succession, and Sūryavarman being worsted in the fight was ousted or put to death. Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri, on the other hand, tries to identify the Maukhari Sūryavarman with the ruler of the same name mentioned in the Sirpur stone inscription of Mahāśivagupta.¹ He is there described as "born in the unblemished family of the Varmans, great on account of their supremacy (ādhipatya)." But there seems little reason to uphold this identification, since according to the learned editor of this undated inscription its characters "belong to the 8th or 9th century A. D.," which indicates that Sūryavarman "must have flourished about the 8th century A. D."²

c9.s1.t10.2

¹ *Pol. Hist. of India*, 3rd ed., p. 407, note 3. See for the inscription, *Ep. Ind.* XI, p. 185f.

c9.s1.t10.3

² *Ep. Ind.*, XI, p. 185.

c9.s1.t10.4

Sarvavarman turned out to be a chip of the old block; and he thoroughly avenged his father's defeat by his successful engagements with the Guptas. We are told in the Aphsad inscription that Dāmodaragupta "breaking up the proudly-stepping array of mighty elephants, belonging to the Maukhari became unconscious (and expired in the fight)."³ Although the poet appears to make the conventional claim for his hero's victory, the result of the struggle was in effect certainly adverse to Dāmodaragupta, as he is reported to have been killed on the battlefield itself. Now, who was this rival of the Guptas with the unassuming epithet of “Maukhari”? There seems little doubt that it refers to Sarvavarman, for in the Asirgaḍh seal he alone is specifically mentioned as “Sarvavarman, the Maukhari.” The significance of this term, occurring in an inscription of the dynasty, would be lost unless we do suppose that owing to some reason it had become specially associated with Sarvavarman’s name. Besides, we have already seen that the rivalry between the Guptas and the Maukharis in the preceding generation had ended against Īśānavarman, and this must have made his successor smart keenly under the blow. Sarvavarman, therefore, tried to retrieve the disaster, and his efforts against his Gupta contemporary met with conspicuous success.¹

c9.s1.t10.5

³ *C. I. I.*, III, pp. 203, 206.

c9.s1.t10.6

¹ Cunningham thinks that this rivalry is indicated in the coins as well. He says: “As a curious proof of the antagonism between the Guptas and the Maukharis, I may cite the fact that on the coins the Maukhari king has his face turned to the left, in the opposite direction to that of the Gupta kings. This opposition is also seen on the coins of Toramāṇa, the successor and probable supplanter of Budhagupta” (Arch. Surv. Ind., Rep. XVI, p. 81; also see J. R. A. S., 1906, pp. 849-50).

c9.s1.t10.7

Perhaps after the defeat and death of Dāmodaragupta, Magadha or at least its western portion was annexed by Sarvavarman. This conclusion seems evident from the Deo-Baranark inscription in which one Sarvavarman, identified with the Maukhari king of the same name, confirms a grant that was previously made by Bālāditya, the famous conqueror of the Hūṇas². We can explain this grant in the modern Shahabad district of Bihar Province only on the assumption that the supremacy over Magadha had passed to the Maukharis after this victory. What happened to the Later Guptas cannot be ascertained definitely, but the Harṣacarita probably gives a faint trace of their movements. Bāṇa calls Kumāragupta and Mādhavagupta, Mālavarājaputra (sons of the king of Malwa); and as the latter has been accepted on almost all hands as identical with Mādhavagupta of the Aphsad inscription, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that Mahāsenagupta, the son of Dāmodaragupta, retired to some part of Malwa, which continued to acknowledge the Gupta supremacy even after the downfall of the Imperial family.¹ This was probably Eastern Malwa, corresponding to the Bhilsa district on the Vetravatī, for we are told in the commentary of the Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana (Adhikaraṇa, III) that Ujjayinī or Ujjain denoted Western Malwa, and where only Malwa is mentioned it should be taken to mean Eastern Malwa.² It appears that Mahāsenagupta established himself in this region after being ousted from Magadha in order to pursue his schemes to regain the lost possession with greater vigour and unhampered by the enemy's proximity.³

c9.s1.t10.8

² C. I. I., III, pp. 216, 218.

c9.s1.t10.9

¹ Raychaudhuri, Pol. Hist. of India, 3rd ed., pp. 391-92; see the Betul plates of Parivrājaka Mahārāja Saṃkṣoba dated G. E. 199 = A. D. 518 (Ep. Ind., VIII, pp. 284-87); Khoh inscription of the year 209 G. E. = 528 A. D. (C. I. I., III, pp. 113-16) etc. Also consult Ep. Ind., XV, p. 124f.

c9.s1.t10.10

² Ujjayinīdeśabhavyāstā evāpara.nālavyah Mālavya iti pūrvamālava-bhavāḥ (Ind. Ant., 1878, p. 259, footnote 4; see also Cal. Rev. Feb., 1928, p. 210).

c9.s1.t10.11

³ It is only by this assumption that we can reconcile the testimonies of the Harṣacarita and the Deo-Baranārk and Aphsad inscriptions.

c9.s1.t10.12

The same passage, which records Sarvavarman's successful encounter with his Gupta rival also informs us that the "proudly stepping array of mighty elephants belonging to the Maukhari ... had thrown aloft in battle the troops of the Hūṇas (in order to trample them to death).”¹ Now, who were the Hūṇa opponents of Sarvavarman? There are indications in the *Harṣacarita* that the Hūṇas had retained their hold in the north-west, in spite of their expulsion from Central India. Prabhākaravardhana had fought against them and towards the close of his reign he had to send the crown-prince again to defend the frontiers of the kingdom against their attack. Probably these Hūṇas began their movements during the time of Sarvavarman, and being a great power in Northern India the Maukharis were then called upon to hold these nomads in check. The Vardhanas were not strong in this generation, and, as Thānesvar lay between Kanauj and the Hūṇa territories in the south-east of the Punjab, it may not be unreasonable to suppose that Sarvavarman’s undertakings against the Hūṇas were a sort of help given to the Vardhanas to repel their depredations and save northern India from another Hūṇa upheaval.

c9.s1.t10.13

¹ It appears from the manner of description that Sarvavarman inflicted a defeat on the Hūṇas before he came into conflict with Dāmodaragupta.

Avantivarman

c9.s1.t11.1

Unfortunately we do not stand on firm ground in regard to Sarvavarman’s successor owing to a curious break in the records. Scholars are at variance, but the general opinion appears to be that Susthitavarman wore the Maukhari crown after Sarvavarman.² This is usually assumed on the strength of the following passage in the Aphsad inscription: “The illustrious Mahāsenagupta ...... whose mighty fame, marked with the honour of victory in war, over the illustrious Susthitavarman, (and) (white) as a full-blown jasmine flower or water-lily, or as a pure necklace of pearls pounded into little bits (?) is still constantly sung on the banks of (the river) Lohitya the surfaces of which are (so) cool, by the siddhas in pairs, when they wake up after sleeping in the shade of the betel-plants, that are in full bloom.”¹

First 141 of 228 passages. Read on

Linked texts (22)