Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9.s1.t11: Avantivarman

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c9.s1.t11

Language
English

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

c9.s1.t11.2

² Fleet, C. I. I., III, *Introd.*, p. 15; C. V. Vaidya, *H. M. H. I.*, vol. I, p. 34; Dr. R. K. Mookerji, *Harṣa*, p. 55; Cowell and Thomas, *Harṣacarita*, Trans. Preface, p. xi. note 3. For the opposite view see Dr. Raychaudhuri, *Pol. Hist. of India*, 3rd. ed., p. 408; R. D. Banerji, *J. B. O. R. S.*, June, 1928, p. 254f; Aravamuthan, *Sangam Age*, pp. 93-94.

c9.s1.t11.3

¹ C. I. I., III, pp. 203, 206.

c9.s1.t11.4

It is contended that as two generations of the Later Guptas, viz., Kumāragupta and Dāmodaragupta, were on terms of enmity with two successive Maukhari rulers—Īśānavarman and Sarvavarman—the opponent of the third Gupta king Mahāsena must necessarily have been a Maukhari. The conclusion, however, seems to be rather oversanguine, and even unwarranted for several reasons. In the first place, none of the epigraphs mentions Susthitavarman as a Maukhari, and the Aphsad inscription also does not say a word indicating that he belonged to the Maukhari lineage. Secondly, the description of Mahāsena’s victory as “still constantly sung on the banks of (the river) Lohitya” or Brahmaputra shows beyond doubt that the reference here is to his rivalry with some king of Assam, and not to a Maukhari ruler, as the Maukharis were never masters of the Brahmaputra valley. But it is not clear from the passage whether the Brahmaputra is mentioned as the farthest limit of Mahāsenagupta’s conquest or simply refers to the place where the actual battle was fought. In my humble opinion the latter interpretation seems more convincing.

c9.s1.t11.5

‘Curiously enough, the Nidhanpur plates mention a Susthitavarman² as the father of Bhāskaravarman contemporary with Harṣa. He is perhaps identical with the king called in the *Harṣacarita* Susthiravarman.¹ That Susthiravarman and Susthitavarman were one and the same person is also proved by the identity of the names of his son and of his three immediate ancestors, as furnished by the *Harṣacarita*, the Nidhanpur plates, and the Nalanda seals.²

c9.s1.t11.6

² Ep. Ind., XII, pp. 74, 77.

c9.s1.t11.7

¹ *Hc.* C. T., p. 217.

c9.s1.t11.8

² J. B. O. R. S., V, pp. 302-04.

c9.s1.t11.9

Thirdly, the Deo-Baranark inscription omits the name of Susthitavarman, and makes Avantivarman confirm a grant previously made by Sarvavarman.³ This probably shows that Avantivarman was considered to be the successor of Sarvavarman.

c9.s1.t11.10

³ C. I. I., III, pp. 216, 218.

c9.s1.t11.11

Fourthly, no coins of Susthitavarman have been found associated with those of the other Maukhari rulers. On the other hand, coins of Avantivarman have been discovered in Bhitaura along with those of Īśānavarman and Sarvavarman. Thus, the trend of evidence favours the elimination of Susthitavarman from the Maukhari genealogy, and proves that it was Avantivarman who succeeded Sarvavarman.

c9.s1.t11.12

Very little is known about Avantivarman. We do not even know what relationship he bore to Sarvavarman, but considering the fact that he came to the throne after the latter, and there is no case in the Maukhari dynasty of a brother succeeding a brother, it may be tentatively assumed that Avantivarman was a son of Sarvavarman. Bāṇa calls him the pride of the Mukhara race, which stood “at the head of all royal houses,” and was “worshipped, like Śiva’s footprint, by all the world.”⁴ There are also indications that he was a patron of Viśākhadatta, the celebrated author of the *Mudrārākṣasa*. This hypothesis is based on the reading Rantivarma or Avantivarman, instead of "Candraguptaḥ," in the *Bharatavākya*, which occurs in some manuscripts, as is noticed by Mr. Telang in his edition of the play¹. That the Maukhari rulers were patrons of literature is evident from the introductory stanza of the *Kādambarī* in which Bāṇa represents his *guru* Bhatsu or Bharva as being "honoured by crowned Maukharis."²

c9.s1.t11.13

⁴ *Hc.* C. T., p. 122. Cf. “Dharaṇidharāṇāṁ ca mūrdhni sthito Māheśvaraḥ pādanyāsa iva sakala-bhuvana-namaskrito Mau-kharo vaṁśaḥ” (Hc., Cal. ed., p. 298).

c9.s1.t11.14

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XLIII, p. 67; *J. R. A. S.*, 1900, p. 535; Aravamuthan's *Sangam Age*, p. 95. Mr. K. P. Jayaswal, however, believes that the true reading in the *Bharatavākya* is "Candraguptaḥ," whom he identifies with Candragupta II (*Ind. Ant.*, XLII, p. 265; *J. R. A. S.*, 1923, pp. 586-87).

c9.s1.t11.15

² *Kādambarī*, Trans. by Ridding, p. 1. Cf. "Saśekharaiḥ Maukharibhiḥ kṛtārcanam."

Linked texts (3)