Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1: Volume 1

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1

Language
English

Contents

Volume 1

Front matter

v1.c1.1

(This image is the front cover of a book and contains no text to transcribe.)

v1.c1.2

THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES 28 crughna 79 aparanta 259 aṣmaka

v1.c1.3

HISTORY

v1.c1.4

MEDIÆVAL HINDU INDIA ( Being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A. D. )

v1.c1.5

VOL. I ( Circa 600-800 A. D. )

v1.c1.6

BY C. V. VAIDYA, M. A., LL. B., HONY. FELLOW BOMBAY UNIVERSITY AND AUTHOR OF MAHABHARATA: A CRITICISM, RIDDLE OF THE RAMAYANA, AND EPIC INDIA

v1.c1.7

THE ORIENTAL BOOK-SUPPLYING AGENCY, POONA CITY

v1.c1.8

Printed at the ‘Aryabhushan’ Press, Poona City, by Anant Vinayak Patvardhan, and published by Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, at Poona.

v1.c1.9

DEDICATED to the beloved memory of Lok. Bal Gangadhar Tilak in token of admiration for his learned researches and affectionate interest in studies relating to the ancient greatness of India.

Contents.

v1.c2.1

BOOK I.

v1.c2.2

HARSHA AND HIS TIMES.

v1.c2.3

| CHAPTER. | | PAGES |
| I | Accession of Harsha | 1—9 |
| II | Harsha's Empire | 10—15 |
| III | The Kingdoms in India in Harsha's Time | 16—32 |
| | NOTES—1 The Maukharis of Kanauj | 33—34 |
| | 2 Devagupta of Malwa | 35—38 |
| | 3 Sir V. Smith on Maukharis and Guptas | 39—40 |
| | 4 The Date of Harsha's Birth | 41—42 |
| | 5 Bāṇa on Harsha's Exploits | 43—44 |
| | 6 Śīlāditya of Molapo | 44—47 |
| | 7 Indian Kingdoms described by Hiuen Tsang | 48—57 |
| IV | The People | 58—75 |
| | NOTE—Jats, Gujars and Marathas | 76—88 |
| V | Social Condition | 89—99 |
| VI | Religious Condition | 100—114 |
| VII | Political Condition | 115—127 |
| VIII | Civil Administration | 128—141 |
| IX | Army, Nobles and Court | 142—155 |
| | NOTES—1 System of Valabhi Administration about | |
| | A. D. 500-700 | 156—157 |
| | 2 7½ Lakhs Rattapāḍi | 158—160 |

v1.c2.4

BOOK II.

v1.c2.5

THE FIRST HINDU KINGDOMS.

v1.c2.6

| CHAPTER. | | PAGES. |
| I | Revolution in Sind | 161—167 |
| II | Conquest of Sind by the Arabs | 168—186 |
| III | Sind down to the end of the 12th Century | 187—189 |
| IV | The Shāhis of Kabul | 190—198 |
| | NOTE—Was the 1st Shahi dynasty Turki? | 199—201 |
| V | The Karkotakas of Kashmir | 202—219 |
| VI | Later History of Kashmir | 220—232 |
| | NOTES—1 Political Condition of Kashmir | 233—235 |
| | 2 Genealogy of Kashmir kings | 236—237 |
| | 3 Some Notable facts about Kashmir | 238—240 |
| | 4 Exactions of Śaṅkarvarman | 241— |

v1.c2.7

VIII The Gurjaras of Broach ... ... 251-257 IX The Chālukyas of Bādāmi ... ... 258-276 NOTE—Flight of Vijayāditya ... ... 276-278 X The Pallavas of Kāñchī ... ... 279-293 NOTES—1 Kuram Pallava grant. 2 Some Nasik Cave Inscriptions ... ... 294-296 XI The Eastern Chālukyas of Vengi and Kalinga ... 397-311 NOTES—1 The Chandravamśa pedigree in later Chālukya grants ... ... 312 2 Āndhra ... ... 313 3 Aryan Advance into South India ... ... 314-317 XII The Kesari dynasty of Orissa ... ... 318-326 XIII The Eastern Kingdoms 1 The Guptas of Gauda ... ... 327-330 2 Vanga ... ... 331 3 Kamarupa ... ... 332 XIV The Varmās of Kanauj ... ... 333-342 NOTE—Gaudavaho, Conquests of Yaśovarman and Pārasīkas ... ... 343 XV The Haihayas of Kośala ... ... 344-347 NOTE—Chhattisgarh or Ancient Kośala ... ... 348-349 XVI The Kainkila Yavanas of Āndhra ... ... 350-354 XVII The Western Kingdoms 1 The Gurjara Chāpas of Bhinmal ... ... 355-358 2 The Vardhanas of Western Malwa ... ... 359 3 Central Malwa ... ... 360 4 Jejākabhukti and Maheśvarapura ... ... 361-362 XVIII Himalayan States ... ... 363-364 Nepal ... ... 365-376 NOTES—1 Lichhavis ; 2 Minor Himalayan States ... 377-381 XIX The Kingdoms of the Panjab ... ... 382-388 NOTE—Why the Panjab remains Indo-Aryan ... 389-394 APPENDIX—Some Inscriptions in the Original ... 395-400

Preface.

v1.c3.1

IN these volumes it is proposed to give the history in detail of India during what may be called the Mediæval Hindu period. The history of India naturally falls into two main portions, the ancient and the modern. It is plain that the modern history of India commences from the establishment of the Slave Dynasty of Mahomedan emperors and is divisible into three periods viz. (1) the Mussalman period from about 1200 A. D. to roughly 1650 A.D. (2) the Maratha period from 1650 A.D. to 1818 A.D., the date of the fall of the Peshwas and (3) the British period from 1818 A. D. down to the present day. The ancient history of India also sub-divides itself into three main periods which may be called the Aryan period, the Aryo-Buddhistic period and the Hindu period. The Aryan period commencing from the most ancient times variously considered to go back to from 4000 to 2000 B. C. comes down to about 300 B. C. and closes with the invasion of India by Alexander. Ancient Aryan Kshatriya kingdoms then disappeared and the Sudra Maurya dynasty, of emperors was established in India, ushering in the supremacy of Buddhism under Asoka. The second period is remarkable for the alternate triumphs of Buddhism and Aryanism politically as well as religiously, and this period may, therefore, be called not Buddhistic but Aryo-Buddhistic. It extends from 300 B. C. to 600 A. D. and closes with the final and greatest triumph of Buddhism under Harsha. The third period of ancient Indian history which it is proposed to treat of in these volumes begins with the fall of Buddhism after Harsha and the rise of new Hindu (not Aryan) kingdoms in India. Hinduism, as it is to-day, was then formed and gathering strength it finally overthrew Buddhism by the aid of the revived Pūrva Mīmāmsā philosophy which re-established the supremacy of the Vedas and the Vedic sacrifices. The long prevalence, however, of the religion of non-salughter had created sentiments among the people too strong to be suppressed; and although Buddhism was extinct in India excepting Magadha, that sentiment feared its head again in the rising popularity of Jainism and Vaishnavism and in the reviving ascendancy of the Uttara Mimāmsā philosophy of the Vedanta. The first Hindu kingdoms established after the death of Harsha about 650 A. D. fell about 800 A. D. both by natural decadence which overtakes kingly dynasties after a period of about 150 to 200 years, and by other causes which will be presently discussed. About this time, however, fresh orthodox Hindu kingdoms of Rajputs arose to withstand the first onslaught of the Mahomedan religion on India under the Arabs and raised Hinduism to its climax. These kingdoms lasted from about 800 A. D. to about 1000 A. D. when they fell before the second onslaught of Mahomedanism under the Turks of Mahmud of Ghazni. He, however, retired from India excepting the Panjab and a third set of Hindu kingly dynasties ruled in India for about 200 years more and these finally fell before the third onslaught of Mahomedanism under Turks and Afgans who now settled in the country and established Mahomedan rule in India on a permanent footing. The principal Hindu period thus ranges from 600 to 1200 A. D. and it may also be called, by reference to time, the Mediæval period of Indian history. But although in Hindustan, or Northern India, the Hindu period thus closed about 1200 A. D. Hindu independent kingdoms continued to rule in the Deccan for a hundred years more and these fell before the conquering expeditions of Allauddin Khilji and his general Malik Kafur in about 1300 A. D. South India rallied again for the last time and reared a strong independent Hindu kingdom viz. that of Vijayanagar, and this kingdom, after a brilliant career of about 200 years, was finally defeated and completely destroyed by the Mahomedan powers of the Deccan at the battle of Talikot in 1561 A. D.

v1.c3.2

The reader will now see that the history of the Mediæval Hindu period which we propose to write in these volumes falls into three sub-periods viz. first from 647 A. D. the date of Harsha's death to about 800 A. D.

v1.c3.3

the date of the fall of the empire of the Varmās of Kanauj, second from 800 to 1000 A. D. that is the period of the supremacy of the Pratihāra emperors of Kanauj and third from 1000 A. D. to 1200 A. D. the date of the fall of the Gaharwar Rathod emperors of Kanauj. It must be mentioned here that during the whole of the Hindu period Kanauj was looked upon universally as the capital of India just as in the previous Aryo-Buddhistic period, Indian kingdoms looked up to Pātaliputra as the Urbs Prima of India. In the Deccan, these three sub-periods were distinguished by three Maratha kingly dynasties viz. the Chālukyas of Bādāmi, the Rāshtrakūtas of Malkhed and the later Chālukyas of Kalyan, brought on in the rear by the Yādavas of Devagiri from 1200 to 1300 A. D. These three sub-divisions of the Hindu period we propose to treat of in three separate volumes to which a fourth volume may be added dealing with the history of the Deccan during the fourteenth century and the history of South India down to the final fall of the Hindus of Vijayanagar in 1561 A. D. In fact our history may well be described as the history of the decline and down-fall of the Aryan empire in India, like the immortal work of Gibbon on the decline and fall of the Roman empire ending with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 A. D. We have, however, called this work of ours by the more modest name of the history of Mediæval Hindu India containing as it does the history of the several Hindu independent kingdoms which ruled in India in mediæval times. This first volume contains the history of the first set of Hindu kingdoms which ruled in India from about 650 to 800 A. D. though in particular cases like that of Kashmir it has been found advisable to bring the history down to the end of the Hindu period i. e. to 1200 A. D. We have, however, followed the example of Gibbon in one important respect and have given in Book I a detailed account of the reign of Harsha which is in a manner the basis of this history, and we have also taken a survey of the political, social and religious condition of the country in the time of that emperor, a condition which furnishes the starting point for the subsequent evolution of the Hindu people. As the reign of the Antonines was the culminating point of the Roman empire so was the reign of Harsha the culminating point of India's evolution, and curiously enough it will be found from these pages that Harsha resembled the two great Roman emperors in many and most marked points. And it is interesting to note that as reliable materials are available for giving an account of the reign of Harsha and the condition of his times, as were available to Gibbon in writing about the age of the Antonines. The records of the travels of Hiuen Tsang and the life of Harsha written by the court-poet Bāṇa, supply us with two most vivid and detailed pictures drawn by eye witnesses, which are invaluable to the historian of ancient India. It is no wonder, therefore, that we have in this volume based most of our remarks on the observations of these two writers who, it is refreshing to find, corroborate each other in the minutest details.

v1.c3.4

The momentous question will here be naturally asked—a question to which the writer of these pages is expected to give a reply—what were the causes which led to the decline and down-fall of the Aryans in India? They had withstood successive invasions by the Greeks, the Śakas, the Kushans and the Huns. They had not only stubbornly resisted these invasions but freed India within a hundred years each time. What is it that made them unable to beat back the Arabs who permanently enslaved Sind in 712 A. D. and the Turks and the Afghans who finally subjected India to Mahomedan rule in 1000 and 1200 A. D.? What was it in the history of India from 500 A. D., when approximately the last foreign rule of the Huns was overthrown, down to about 1000 A.D. that sapped the strength of the Indian people and made their warriors fall like card-board sepoys before the Turks of the Ghaznavide Mahmud? The historian of India who has studied this period of about 500 years of Indian history is bound to throw light on the solution of this momentous question and we proceed to indicate our views succinctly in this matter.

v1.c3.5

The first and the foremost cause of the fall of the Indo-Aryans was the complete ascendancy gained during this period by what may be called the doctrine of the divine right of kings. During the Aryan period Indian kingdoms were looked upon as belonging to the people. In Alexander's days there were even some states where there were no kings and which are described by Greek writers as republics. States and even kings were then known by the names of the peoples and not by the names of kingly families. Gradually during the Aryo-Buddhistic period, owing to the recurrence of foreign invasion and foreign rule, the people were less consulted in governmental concerns, the kingly power gradually became absolute and kingship was eventually looked upon as derived not from the people but from divine favour. It came to be believed that those who had performed severe austerities in their previous births became kings in this. During the Hindu period, therefore, kingdoms came to be known by the names of kingly families or by the names of the capitals they ruled. Instead of the Kurus and the Pāñchālas, the Madras and the Surasenas of the Aryan period we find in Hiuen Tsang, the same kingdoms called by the names of Thanesar and Kanauj, Jālandhara and Mathurā. The mass of the people ceased to care who ruled them and were in fact ready to transfer their allegiance to any new king or kingly family which was strong or fortunate enough to establish his or its power. As explained in Chapter VII Book I at length, under such view the sentiment of patriotism had no scope and in fact never develop in India. The sentiment of loyalty alone could flourish and did develop in this country. But this system of political philosophy conduced to the development of treason also along with loyalty and treason has consequently always been more in evidence in the history of India than in the history of the West. Not only, therefore, did the Indian people as a whole never fight against the Mahomedans but traitors were always found ready to serve as instruments in the hands of foreign invaders. For Hindu superstition looked equally upon foreigners as enjoying divine favour, as is illustrated by the history of Sind recorded in this volume. Where the feeling of nationality is well-developed and strong, not only is there less inclination towards treason, but the whole people offer stubborn resistance at each point in time and space to foreign conquest and make it almost impossible. The case in India during the Hindu period was exactly the reverse of this.

v1.c3.6

The people of India were prevented by another and more important reason from offering resistance as a whole to the Mahomedans. It is our view that one of the three or more main causes of the fall of the Indo-Aryans was the prevalence of Buddhism in this country. As Gibbon has shown that the spread of Christianity was one of the causes of the decline of the Roman Empire, an impartial historian of India cannot help declaring that the prevalence of Buddhism in India operated in a similar manner. Buddhism worked to bring about this downfall of Indian kingdoms in more than one important direction. The high esteem in which Buddhism held sanyāsa and the fact that it allowed people of all castes, men and women, old and young, to flock to the fold of recluses and pass a life of idleness and begging spread among the people a sense of carelessness about their political condition and worldly prosperity, which materially impaired their capacity to offer resistance to foreign invaders. The history of the conquest of Sind as described in these pages will afford the most lamentable illustration of this tendency of Buddhism. Mediæval Hinduism indeed tried to eradicate this morbid feeling of the people towards sanyāsa, but the sentiment was now too deep-rooted in the minds of the people and as we shall have to relate in our second volume, the greatest philosopher of India Śankara had to recognise it and inculcate it as a tenet of the new doctrine he preached, although he tried to restrict Sanyāsa to Brahmins and to males only. The Hinduism of modern days does not respect this restriction and thousands of Sadhus of all castes, young and old, male and female live in temples and Mathas which have practically replaced the Sanghārāmas of the Buddhists so vividly described by Hiuen Tsang, and pass their time, not so much in devotional prayers as in an unceasing struggle to live by begging. Such a philosophy must act prejudicially on a people's capacity to resist and it is no wonder that the Indo-Aryans fell before the Mahomedans in a manner they had never done before.

v1.c3.7

The second direction in which the prevalence of Buddhism impaired the capacity of the people to resist was the remarkable change which the practice of the principle of Ahimsā effected during the Hindu period in the food of the people. Like sanyāsa, Ahimsā too belongs to the old Aryan religion, but Buddhism so completely identified itself with that tenet that Buddhist kings in India's early history often employed their political power to prohibit animal food along with animal sacrifice in their kingdoms. Meghavāhana of Kashmir and Śilāditya of Malwa were two most renowned kings in this respect. The latter, as Hiuen Tsang relates, gave strained water even to elephants and horses "lest insects might be killed." The efforts of Emperor Harsha in this direction were more extensive and more successful and Huien Tsang records that animal slaughter and animal food ceased throughout the Five Indies. Now there can be no question that a nation which adopts and practises abstention from animal food as a high principle deteriorates in its capacity to hold its own in the struggle of nations, unless special efforts are made to keep up the fighting capacities of the people. A non-flesh-eating people cannot possess the physical stamina, the mental grip and tenacity, the restlessness, and even the ferocity so necessary for success in fighting which, unhappily throughout history, characterizes the evolution of the human race. The history of Mediæval Hindu India establishes the same fact. The Hindu kingdoms again and again gave their adhesion to the old Aryan religion of animal sacrifice and again and again the sentiment of Ahimsā asserted itself till at last Hinduism accepted abstention from animal food as one of its foremost tenets, and Hindu India finally fell before Mahomedans as we shall have to relate in our third volume. Even now the fighting portions of the people of India, viz. the Rajputs and the Sikhs, the Marathas and the Jats, not to speak of the outside Gurkhas, are flesh-eating people and these in modern Indian history have certainly proved their capacity for resistance.*

v1.c3.8

Now we yield to none in our conviction that Ahimsā is one of the few highest principles which the Indian Aryans in their spiritual progress have evolved. As we have said in this volume, there is no example in the history of the world of a great people having given up animal food in the pursuit of a high spiritual ideal, involving the loss of so valuable a possession as political independence. The beneficial influence of Buddhism and Jainism cannot but be acknowledged in stopping animal sacrifices in this country. And if we cannot sacrifice animals to propitiate the deity, we cannot, religiously speaking, partake of animal food. The position which Jainism has taken in this respect is the only logical one and Max Muller has properly complimented Indian thinkers on their fearlessness in taking up the position at which they logically arrive. It would, therefore, be both illogical and unspiritual for us to recommend animal food much more animal sacrifices. The Vedas again do not prescribe animal sacrifices only and we can still retain our allegience to the Vedas if we make inanimate offerings to the Vedic deities in the sacrificial fire. We need not, therefore, recede from the high spiritual position at which we in our evolution have arrived. Especially, the Hindus including the Sikhs will never countenance the slaughter of cows which have been sacred to them even from Vedic times and which have become still more sacred in consequence of their association with Shri Krishna. But what we have to emphasize here is that the people of this country have as a matter of history lost their political independence, to a large extent, because of their having given up animal food in obedience to their higher spiritual aspirations. The political danger involved in this change of the food of the majority of the people was not foreseen and as we shall see in our third volume no conscious effort was made to counteract the evil resulting from the change. For, as we have said in the body of the book, we believe that even a non-flesheating people can hold their own in the struggle of nations, if they are inured to arms and lead an abstemious life. Such unfortunately ceased to be the case during the 12th and 13th centuries, and India fell an easy prey to the inroads of the more ferocious and sturdy flesh-eating peoples of the north.

v1.c3.9

∗ Of course flesh-eating cannot supply the want of martial instinct and several flesh-eating peoples are devoid of military qualities.

v1.c3.10

We will lastly refer to the third most important cause which impaired the power of the people of India to resist foreign conquest as a whole. The ramification of the four main castes or varṇas which also took place during the Mediaeval Hindu period contributed, in our view, very largely to weaken the power of the people for resistance. History shows that at the beginning of the Hindu period, there was not any extensive subdivision of the four main castes and these again were not water-tight compartments distinguished by the interdiction of marriage and even of food. By the operation of several causes during the Hindu period main castes began to subdivide themselves into innumerable subcastes not in consequence of any Buddhistic influence, but in spite of it, till at last about the end of the Hindu period that stupendous structure of caste, with its jealousies and its prejudices, with its rigorous restrictions on food and marriage which we see today was completed. The natural result was that the people were divided and could not and did not offer that united opposition which is necessary to successfully resist foreign attempts at conquest.

v1.c3.11

What then is the message we have to give to our Hindu country-men through the pages of this history? It is this:— first and foremost conscious efforts must be made to develop the sentiment of nationality among the people of this country, overriding all the jealousies and differences created by provincial or linguistic separation and even by religion. Secondly, we must recognise more acutely our worldly duties and responsibilities and systematic efforts must be made, especially by those of us who do not eat flesh, to develop our physical and mental capacities for fighting. And thirdly all subcastes must be obliterated by free intercourse in food and gradually even in marriage, though of course it must be admitted that the division of the Hindu society into the four main castes or Varṇas is in-effaceable and its obliteration should not be attempted. Every religious revolution in India attempted it and failed. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Aryanism successively tried to destroy varṇas and so did even Christianity. Each and all not only failed, but eventually succumbed to the influence of caste. Subcastes, however, have no sanction in the Hindu Śāstras and systematic efforts to obliterate them will be successful, especially because they are the growth of recent times only.

v1.c3.12

It remains for us to add a few words with regard to the contents and the printing of this volume. It consists, as stated before, of two books, the first treating of Harsha and his times, and giving the history of India from about 600 to 650 A. D. and the second giving the history of the first set of Hindu kingdoms which ruled in the whole of

v1.c3.13

India from about 650 to 800 A. D., though in particular cases as stated above, the history has been brought down to the end of the Hindu period. At the beginning of each chapter we have indicated the materials on which the account in that chapter is based. Following the example of Sir V. Smith’s Early History of India we have thrown all controversial matter in notes in small type. Further, Sanskrit quotations and words have been avoided as far as possible, translations being usually given. In spelling Sanskrit words, the usual rules of transliteration have been followed (except in words like Brahmin which have become thoroughly anglicised) but mistakes have often crept in such transliteration which the indulgent reader will, it is hoped, overlook. Lastly, we have thought it expedient to give in an appendix certain inscriptions in the original, which will serve as examples and which may be read with interest by those who can read and understand Sanskrit. An index and a religious map of India of the time of Hiuen Tsang have been added and will be found useful and interesting.

v1.c3.14

POONA CITY, 1st January 1921.

v1.c3.15

C. V. VAIDYA.

Book I

v1.c4.1

( *Circa* 600-650 *A. D.* )

Chapter I: Accession of Harsha

v1.c5.2

[THE broad facts mentioned in these Chapters are of course taken from Sir V. Smith's now standard work on the early history of India. I have, however, studied the materials referred to by him in the original and by their help and the help of the Harsha-Charita of Bāṇa have tried to throw additional light on many incidents in Harsha's life. On two points I have ventured, with some diffidence, to put forward views differing from those of Sir Vincent Smith. I have further added a few detailed notes embodying discussion on the most controversial points. And lastly I have attempted to determine, on data supplied by the Harsha-Charita, the exact date of the birth of Harsha.]

v1.c5.3

When the seventh century of the Christian era opened Prabhākaravardhana of Thanesar was undoubtedly the premier king of Northern India. He had defeated and humbled the Huns who, notwithstanding their signal defeat in the previous century by the combined forces of India led by Yaśodharma of Malwa and Bālāditya of Magadha, were still a powerful people in the Panjab and had their kingdoms at Gāndhāra or Peshawar and at Śākala or Sialkot still in existence. He had defeated the ruling kings of Sind and Gurjara, the chief state in Rajputana, and had also conquered the kings ruling in Malwa and Gujarat at the close of the sixth century.¹ In the eastern portion of Northern India the Maukharis of Kanauj held sway very probably as far east as the Brahmaputra called Lauhitya in ancient days and southwards as far as the Vindhya range which extends accross India into Magadha; and they were connected with him by marriage, his daughter Rājyashrī being married to Grahavarmā of Kanauj. Thus Prabhākaravardhana of Thanesar was in 605 A. D. by far the most powerful king in Hindustan and he was well justified in assuming the title of Mahārājādhirāja Paramabhattāraka, whereas his father¹ and grandfather were simply Mahārājas, as the seal of Harsha found at Sonpat shows.

v1.c5.4

¹ See हूणहरिणकेसरी सिन्धुराजज्वरो गुर्जरप्रजागरः गान्धाराधिपहास्तिज्वरो लाटपाटव-पाटच्चरो मालवलक्ष्मीलतापरशुः। H.C., p. 174.

v1.c5.5

¹ Gupta inscripttons (No. 52) Corp. Ins. Ind. Vol III., p. 231 :- परमादित्यभक्तो महाराज-श्रीराज्यवर्धनस्तस्य पुत्रः परमादित्यभक्तो महाराज-श्री-आदित्यवर्धनस्तस्य पुत्रः श्रीमहासनागुप्तदेव्यामुत्पन्नः सर्ववर्णाश्रमव्यवस्थापनप्रवृत्तः श्रीपरमादित्यभक्तो परम-भट्टारक-महाराजाधिराज-श्रीप्रभाकरवर्धनस्तस्यपुत्रः श्रीमत्यांयशोमत्यामुत्पन्नः परमसौगतः (परम-भट्टारक) महाराजाधिराज-श्रीराज्यवर्धनस्तस्यानुजः महादेब्यां यशोमत्यामुत्पन्नः (परम भट्टारकम्) हाराजा (धि) राज श्रीहर्षवर्धनः

v1.c5.6

But within a year there was a sudden change in the fortunes of Prabhākaravardhana though not of his people or country. The Huns suddenly invaded the northern boundaries of his dominions and he had time only to send his elder son Rājyavardhana to oppose and chastise them. The Maukharis of Kanauj also appear to have fought with the Huns often, probably in conjunction with the forces of Thanesar²; but there was no time to call in their aid. Rājyavardhana, the elder son of Prabhākara, was a youthful prince of about nineteen or twenty at this time and must probably have been anxious to save his father the trouble of proceeding against the Huns in person, which he had often done before. Rājyavardhana proceeded with all haste towards the Huns of the Panjab, and his younger brother Harsha followed him as a matter of exercise and hunted in the jungles at the foot of the Himalayas. Rājyavardhana decisively defeated the Huns and drove them away and came back in triumph to Thanesar only to find the capital immersed in grief by the sudden death of his father.

v1.c5.7

² See Aphsad Inscription of Adityasena to be noted more particularly in a note. The words important here are यो मौखरैः समि तिषूद्धतहूणसैन्या वल्गद्धटा विवटयन्बुरुवारणानाम्। translated as follows :-" Breaking up the proudly stepping array of elephants belonging to the Maukhari which had thrown aloft in battle the troops of the Huns" (page 206.) Thus the Maukharis of Kanauj seem to have had fights with the Huns, of course of the Panjab, and must be supposed to be allied in these conflicts with the troops of Thanesar whose country intervened between Kanauj and the country of the Huns.

v1.c5.8

Harsha had already returned from his hunting trip on hearing of his father’s sudden illness and had been by his bedside at the time of his death. His mother Yaśomatī with more than Rajput instinct had preceded her husband by burning herself on a pyre in spite of the implorations of Harsha. Thus, by a sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, Rājyavardhana found himself raised to the throne of Thanesar though rendered inconsolable by the sudden demise of both his parents. The Buddhist Rājya thought of retiring in favour of the astounded Harsha; but all such thoughts were laid aside when just at that moment a messenger arrived with news of the strangest character. The Guptas of Malwa seem to have been the hereditary enemies of the Maukharis of Kanauj.¹ When news spread abroad, and in ancient India, in spite of the absence of railways and telegraphs, news always spread very quickly, that Prabhākara was dead and that his son Rājya had gone on an expedition against the Huns, Deva Gupta of Malwa thought it an opportune moment to attack the young king Grahavarmā of Kanauj. He suddenly marched on that city, killed Grahavarmā in a surprise attack and taking his queen Rājyashrī a prisoner, inhumanly confined her like an ordinary deliquent, loaded with iron fetters, in a prison. He thought himself now strong enough to invade the kingdom of Thanesar itself and commenced his march towards its capital, though his ally and friend Saśānka Gupta of Karnasuvarna or Bengal, who had already marched to his assistance, had not yet arrived. It is not difficult to understand that the Guptas of Bengal like the Guptas of Malwa were smarting under the supremacy of the Maukharis of Kanauj, who had supplanted the power of the Imperial Guptas and established their sway upto the Brahmaputra, and were only waiting for an opportunity to wreak their vengeance on them. It is also possible to conceive that the two Guptas were leagued against Thanesar and Kanauj, because the kings of the latter two were now Buddhists. No doubt religious differences, in ancient India, at least in the seventh century, were not of much animosity but still such differences might accentuate political enmities already existing and the kings of Bengal and Malwa might have been united in harbouring a wish to run down Grahavarmā of Kanauj and Rājyavardhana of Thanesar who were also both young and inexperienced at this time.

v1.c5.9

¹ See note on Maukharis. The enmity of the Guptas and the Maukharis seems to have been hereditary and it is probably this enmity which explains the sudden attack on Kanauj by Deva Gupta. The Maukharis seem to have generally had the upperhand as appears from H. C. (Bom.) p. 252 तिमिरेस्तिरस्कारो रवेः यो मौखराणां मालवैः परिभवः Who Deva Gupta was we will also try to explain in a special note.

v1.c5.10

Such was the grave news which reached Rājya, just raised to the throne of Thanesar and not yet rested from his fight with the Huns. He was, however, a valiant and an undaunted warrior. Setting his grief aside he started immediately, with a view to speedily reach his enemy, with a mobile force of 10,000 horse under the command of his trusted general, Bhandi, who was his compeer and cousin, being a son of his maternal uncle. In spite of entreaties he left Harsha his younger brother behind at Thanesar both as a matter of convenience and precaution. He surprised his enemy Deva Gupta by the suddenness of his movement and totally defeated him, the latter being probably killed in action. He marched on to the relief of Kanauj and met Saśānka of Bengal on the way. The wheel of destiny which was evidently working from the first in favour of Harsha now had a third turn and engulfed Rājya in its working. Saśānka was unequal to face Rājya and resolved to rid himself of his enemy by a bold stroke of treachery. He offered his submission to the youthful king of Thanesar and promised to give his daughter in marriage to him in atonement for his fault.¹ Such was the usual Kshatriya fashion to patch up differences between contending kings. Rājyavardhana, straight and confiding, without arms and with a few followers only, went to the camp of Saśānka and while at a feast was treacherously murdered by that unscrupulous king. He, then, without attempting to try conclusions with Rājya's army commanded by Bhandi, as suddenly marched back from Kanauj to his kingdom as he had marched to it; while a Gupta chief who was in charge of the city of Kanauj quietly released Rājyashrī from confinement¹ and sent her away, in order probably to divert the attention of Bhandi.

v1.c5.11

¹ The commentator on Harsha-Charita makes this suggestion which is very likely तथाहि तेन शशाङ्केन विश्वासार्थं कन्याप्रदानमुक्त्वा प्रलोभितो राज्यवर्धनः स्वगेहे सानुचरो भुञ्जान एव छद्मना व्यापादितः ॥ H. C., p. 241.

v1.c5.12

¹ कान्यकुब्जाद्वौडसंभ्रं गुवितो गुप्तनाम्ना कुलपुत्रेण निष्कासनं निर्गताया राज्यवर्धन-मरण-श्रवणं . . . सर्वमश्रणोत्परिजनतः ।। H. C., p. 332.

v1.c5.13.1

Such were the strange, yet not improbable, circumstances which, within a few months of the year 606 A. D. (about May), placed Harsha on the throne of Thanesar at the early age of 16². They have been very eloquently related by Bāṇa, the most famous prose writer of Sanskrit literature, who was Harsha's contemporary and protege, and they are supported to a considerable extent by the account of Hiuen Tsang, the most famous and trustworthy traveller of China who was honoured for his Buddhist learning and piety by Harsha. Young as he was, Harsha was a man of extraordinary courage, ability and good fortune like his remote successor Akbar who fought his first battle at 14, ascended the throne of Dehli a few months later and assumed absolute power at 18. Harsha resolved at once on punishing the dastardly Gupta of Bengal and on rescuing the unfortunate queen of Kanauj. He harnessed his army of elephants, horses and men with a view not only to conquer Bengal but the whole of India, for he well surmised that the whole country would be arrayed against him, unfriended and inexperienced as he apparently was. To quote the poetic expression of Bāṇa he therefore asked his foreign secretary to write to all the kings of India to proffer either battle or submission. He started immediately on this *Digvijaya* or expedition for the conquest of the four quarters.

v1.c5.13.2

His first camp was pitched on the banks of the Sarasvatī, only a few miles east of Thanesar and the Patel or headman of the village came forward to receive his king at this first halting place and offered the customary *nuzzar* of a gold coin marked with a bull and specially struck anew for the occasion, on the palm of his hand. Harsha, while picking up the coin, accidentally let it go and it fell on the muddy bank of the Sarasvatī imprinting the soft soil with its impression. Persons present stood aghast at this ill omen happening at the very outset of his march for *Digvijaya*, but Harsha, with undaunted courage and wit, remarked that it was a good augur as it plainly indicated that the earth would soon be stamped with the sign of his sovereignty. To a man of such strength and presence of mind no advice was needed, yet his minister implored him to guard himself against possible treachery giving him a score of examples how in past times kings had been murdered by various devices by wily persons, both male and female. Thankfully accepting his minister’s advice and entrusting his kingdom to the proper persons, Harsha set forth on his conquering expedition and now marched towards Kanauj. He met Bhandi on the way and with tears in his eyes heard from him again the story of Rājya’s murder.

v1.c5.13.3

He saw the army of elephants captured from the defeated king of Malwa as also the vast treasure secured and the family and courtiers of the king all put in chains in return for his savage treatment of Rājyashrī. He learned, however, from Bhandi that Rājyashrī had been let off from confinement, that she had taken refuge in the jungles of the Vindhya and that in spite of efforts made, her whereabouts were not still ascertained. In the impetuosity of his affection for Rājyashrī, Harsha bade his army halt on the banks of the Ganges and with a select retinue started off himself in search of his sister. He came by chance to the hermitage of one Divākarmitra, a Buddhist recluse, who turned out to be a close friend of his brother-in-law, Grahavarmā. From one of his disciples he heard that a lady in affliction was going to burn herself on a pyre just in the neighbourhood and with this man's aid Harsha reached in time to save the queen of Kanauj, who, unable to bear her calamities, was going thus to put an end to her life. But the calamities of both the brother and the sister were now at an end, and they joyfully went to take leave of Divākaramitra. Rājyashrī was so impressed with the sanctity and quiet of the Āshrama of the Buddhist hermit, her husband's friend, that she implored her brother to permit her to turn a Buddhist nun.

v1.c5.13.4

But Harsha and Divākaramitra both dissuaded her, Harsha prophetically saying that he and she would both together take the holy order when their life's business was done. Harsha then returned with his sister Rājyashrī to his camp on the bank of the Ganges.

v1.c5.14

² From the Harsha-Charita some idea may be formed of the probable and exact age of Harsha. We have added a note trying to fix his exact age. But it may be noted here that Rājya appears from Harsha-Charita to have been three years older than Harsha and Harsha about two years older than Rājyashrī. When Kumāra and Mādhava were given to them as companions Kumāra is said to be 18 years of age. अष्टादशवर्षवयसम् (H. C., p. 196). Rājyashrī was married about a year after this and Prabhākara's death might have happened a year later. If we take Rājya to be about the same age as Kumāra Rājya seems at this time to be about 19 years of age and Harsha about 16 when he came to the throne of Thanesar.

v1.c5.15

Here ends the romantic, but not unauthentic story of Harsha and Rājyashrī given in the Harsha-Charita of Bāna, who, to the great regret of the historian and the general reader, unaccountably leaves off the story in the middle. But it is of great help to us in understanding the account recorded by Hiuen Tsang. Hiuen Tsang's account has been to my mind misunderstood. It plainly seems that that account relates to what happened subsequently at Kanauj and does not relate to what had already happened at Thanesar. Harsha probably was the sole remnant in the family of the kings of Thanesar, and his brother Rājya, young as he was, had left no issue. Rājya was probably not even married.¹ Harsha, therefore, became king of Thanesar at once and without any doubt. The doubts entertained by Harsha as to whether he should be king or not as related by Hiuen Tsang must be referred to his doubts as to whether he should be king of Kanauj. The whole story becomes intelligible, if we connect these doubts with the kingdom of Kanauj. When Harsha and Rājyashrī reached Kanauj, there must have been some anxious deliberation there as to the disposal of that kingdom. From the Harsha-Charita Grahavarmā appears to have been the eldest son of his father Avantivarmā¹. Should Rājyashrī be set aside and consigned to obscurity and some younger heir of Avantivarmā be raised to the throne? Harsha who had just brought the afflicted Rājyashrī back from a pyre and a hermitage was unwilling to do so. He was also unwilling to sieze the kingdom for himself. Grahavarmā was a Buddhist and presumably Rājyashrī also. Harsha, too, owing to his great and sudden afflictions in early age had Buddhistic inclinations though he was a declared devotee of Shiva.² It was thus naturally and perhaps astutely decided, that the difficulty should be solved by a reference to the Bodhisatva Avalokitesvara whose temple was outside the city of Kanauj, and the Bodhisatva solved the difficulty in a congenial manner. Rājyashrī, it was ordained, should rule and Harsha should be her lieutenant. He should not ascend the throne nor take the title of the king of Kanauj but should style himself only Rājaputra Śiladitya. According to the Chinese work, Fang Chih, Harsha henceforward "administered the kingdom in conjunction with his widowed sister" (page 338, V. Smith's E. History, 3rd edition). To my mind this explanation of the apparent hesitation of Harsha is simple and plain and it also explains why after Harsha's death there was anarchy and disorder again in the kingdom of Kanauj as will be related hereafter. At this stage it is difficult to understand how historians came to confound Thanesar and Kanauj³ and how it is for a moment entertained that the nobles of Thanesar hesitated to offer their allegiance to Harsha. The nobles of Thanesar, as related by Bāṇa, had at once acclaimed him king of Thanesar and it was only at Kanauj where he arrived in his conquering expedition with his widowed beloved sister Rājyashrī that doubts arose with regard to the succession to the throne of that kingdom—doubts which were finally removed as aforesaid. Harsha very naturally hereafter gave up residence at Thanesar and made Kanauj his capital which he ruled in conjunction with his sister. Between the two the fondest attachment subsisted throughout their reign. Their Buddhistic tendencies united them in religious sentiment also and it appears that during their long reign nothing happened to mar their amicable relations.

v1.c5.16

¹ See H. C., p. 253. कलत्रं रक्षात्विति श्रीस्ते निस्त्रिंशेऽधिवसति।

v1.c5.17

¹ See H. C., p. 200. अवन्तिवर्मण सूनुर्यजो ग्रहवर्मा.

v1.c5.18

² The Bankshera inscription of the 9th year of his reign declares Harsha to be Parama Máhesvara still. Bāna also relates that when Harsha started on his Digyijaya from Thanesar, he first worshipped the god Mahesvara, see विरचय्य परमभक्त्या भगवतो नीललोहितस्यार्चाम् ।। H. C. page 273.

v1.c5.19

³ Probably the Records mixed up the two kingdoms and hence the misunderstanding. The words in the Records are: "The statesmen of KANAUJ, on the advice of their leading man Bani invited Harshavardhana, the younger brother of the murdered king, to become their sovereign. He seemed unwilling and made excuses. He then determined to take the advice of Avalokitevara," &c, I think Bâna's account and this must be put together and Harsha's unwillingness to take up the kingdom of Kanauj

v1.c5.20

should be explained as above. It is also probable that Vineent Smith's unwillingness to accept Kanauj as the capital of the Maukhari Grahavarma has increased the difficulty But the fact that the Maukharis ruled at Kanauj cannot, as shown fn a note, be denied, The Imperial Gazetteer, too, under Kanauj unreservedly accepts the theory that the Maukharis ruled at Kanauj before Harsha.

Chapter II

v1.c6.1

With the combined forces of Kanauj and Thanesar, it is not strange that Harsha succeeded in his announced resolve to subjugate Hindustan. The augury was already good. Kumārarāja of Kāmarupa (Assam) who probably was an enemy of Śaśānka sent a messenger to offer his friendship and to present him with a priceless white umbrella the sign of universal sovereignty according to Indian ideas. Harsha was gratified at this voluntary tribute and proffered friendship from Kumāra and accepted them most heartily. He then moved with his army of elephants, cavalry and infantry east and west in a continuous march of conquest, which is said to have lasted for about six years and established his empire over the kings of Northern India. It may be pointed out here that the empire of Harsha was somewhat different from Moslem empires. The idea still remained fixed to the Indian mind that a Chakravarti need not dispossess the subjugated kings of their dominions. In this respect modern empires, at least in Hindustan, differ from ancient and mediæval empires. Then it was thought enough if the conquered king offered his submission, promised to pay a nominal yearly tribute and on occasions of ceremony attended upon the imperial sovereign. Indeed it was never thought allowable to dispossess the native kings of their particular kingdoms where they had long ruled and annex them to the empire. Harsha's empire, it must therefore be remembered, was different from the empire of Mahommad Tughlak or of Aurangzeb or, for that matter, of the British which naturally resembles the Mahomedan empires immediately preceding it. In his digvijaya Harsha only exacted submission from the various kings of India and allowed them to rule their own territories, annexation being resorted to only in exceptionable cases.

v1.c6.2

It is to be regretted that no details of this conquest or subjugation of Northern India are available. It is not even discoverable how Harsha punished Śaśānka of Karṇasuvarṇa or Bengal called Gauḍa by Bāṇa in his Harsha-Charita for treacherously murdering his brother Rājya. Probably he saved himself by another stroke of policy in much the same way as he had saved himself from Rājya. He was alive and ruling in 619 A. D. in which year a vassal king of his gave a village in gift to a Brahmin in Ganjam (Ep. Ind. Vol. VI, p. 144). This inscription plainly shows that he enjoyed the whole of his kingdom including those of his vassals intact. This was of course in consonance with the ideas of empire above described. Perhaps Harsha, in his Buddhistic tendencies, extended forgiveness to Śaśānka and did not exact from him the threatened reparation for murder.

v1.c6.3

The extent of the empire of Harsha can with tolerable certainty be determined. It included probably the whole of Northern India exclusive of Sind, the Panjab and Kashmir, though even over these kingdoms also he established nominal suzerainty, for he appears to have humbled all these three and exacted tribute from them.

v1.c6.4

We shall notice the rulers of different kingdoms who were contemporaneous with Harsha in the next chapter in which we intend to detail the various kingdoms visited by the indefatigable Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang. Here it will suffice to observe that Harsha subjugated almost the whole of Northern India and established a strong and well-ordered empire which lasted till his death. He founded as a memento of his being a Chakravarti, a special era of his own commencing from 606 A. D. in imitation of previous emperors who had founded the Vikrama, the Śaka and the Gupta eras. Indeed the founding of an era was now looked upon as an emblem of empire and Harsha in response to this tradition founded his own era in 612 A. D. after he had completed his Digvijaya dating from his accession in 606 A. D.

v1.c6.5

Harsha hereafter attempted to extend his empire to the south of the Nerbudda like Samudra Gupta who had led a conquering expedition through Southern India. But Southern India remained unconquered owing to the vigilance and valour of Harsha’s great rival Chālukya Pulakeśi II of Mahārāshtra. His capital appears from inscriptions to have been Vātāpi or modern Badami but from Hiuen Tsang’s description it may have been Nasik also. This king, namely, Pulakeśi II was very powerful and appears to have subjugated the whole of Southern India. He came to the throne at about the same time as Harsha i. e., about 608 A. D. and soon extended his sway down to the southern coast. The description which the famous Chinese traveller gives of him, his army and his people deserves to be quoted here in extenso. “The inhabitants of Mahārāshtra) were proud, spirited and warlike; grateful for favours and revengeful for wrongs, self-sacrificing towards supplicants in distress and sanguinary to death with those who treated them insultingly. Their martial heroes went to the conflict intoxicated and their war elephants were also made drunk before engagement. Relying on the strength of his heroes and elephants the king treated neighbouring countries with contempt. The benevolent sway of this king reached far and wide and his vassals served him with perfect loyalty. The great king Śilāditya (Harsha) was invading at this time east and west and the countries far and near were giving him allegiance but Mahārāshtra refused to become subject to him. (Records Vol. II, Watters, page 239.) The Life says, “The king always supports several thousand men of valour and several hundred savage elephants. These in a drunken condition rush against the enemy and without fail put the foe to flight. Śilāditya Rāja in spite of his skill and the invariable success of his generals, marching himself at the head of his troops could not subjugate him.” (Life of H. T., p. 147.) By a strange concommittance thus, India was divided at this time into two empires ruled by two powerful kings who were a match to each other and who came to the throne at about the same time. The dividing line of these southern and northern empires was naturally the Nerbudda which divides India into two portions differing from each other in many characteristics both of country and people.

First 59 of 1,055 passages. Read on

Linked texts (11)