Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.s5: V—Exactions of Śankaravarman (883-902 A. D.)

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.s5

Language
English

V—Exactions of Śankaravarman (883-902 A. D.)

v1.c14.s5.1

We have already stated that the exactions of this king were most oppressive and that they will be noticed separately. They are described by Kalhaṇa in V. 167-183. The translation of the ślokas concerned is as follows (Stein Vol. II page 298-9).

v1.c14.s5.2

167—This robber of the temples possessed in villages and other property two new officers called Attapatibhāga (share of the lord of the market) and Gṛhakṛtya (domestic affairs).

v1.c14.s5.3

168—He took from the temples the profits arising from the sale of incense, sandal-wood, and other articles of worship under the pretext that they were the king's legal share of the price.

v1.c14.s5.4

169—Then again he plundered straightway 64 temples through special officers placed under pretence of supervision.

v1.c14.s5.5

170—The king resumed the villages belonging to the temples against compensatory assignments (pratikara) and then cultivated the land himself as if he was an agriculturist.

v1.c14.s5.6

171—He reduced the weight in the scales by one-third and still made out that he gave more to the temple corporation (parishad) than the due annual allowance, pretending that the deductions were due to food-supply, price of woolen clothes and the like.

v1.c14.s5.7

172—When he was in another region he fined those villagers who did not come and carry their loads for one year by the value of the load according to higher prices.

v1.c14.s5.8

173—In the next year he fined without any fault all villagers in the respective villages by the value of the load according to the same calculation.

v1.c14.s5.9

174—Thus he introduced that well-known system of forced carriage of loads which is the harbinger of misery for the villagers and which is of thirteen kinds.

v1.c14.s5.10

175—By levying contributions for the monthly pay of the skandhakas, village clerks (grāmakāyasthas) and the like and by other exactions he drove the villagers into poverty.

v1.c14.s5.11

176—Thus by deducting or adding to the weights, by fines on the villagers and similar imposts, he amassed revenue for Gṛihakṛitya.

v1.c14.s5.12

177—He appointed in this special office five secretaries (divira) and the sixth the treasurer (Gañjāvara Śakana who was also called Lavata ?)

v1.c14.s5.13

178—Thus this foolish ruler accepted hell for himself in order to benefit by his acts future kings or functionaries.

v1.c14.s5.14

The above description will give an idea of the many imposts introduced by Śankaravarman. The Rūḍhabhārodhi or begār of villages has, Stein says, remained to this day. The ways of plundering temples and villagers are, however, usually the same with all rapacious kings in India.

v1.c14.s5.15

( Before taking up the history of the Panjab, Rājputana and Mid-India which constitute India par excellence, we shall first relate the history of the surrounding kingdoms and first those in the west which are of importance. These are of course Valabhi and Broach mentioned by Hieun Tsang. For the history of Valabhi we have only inscriptional records to rely upon, in fact copperplate grants only; but these are numerous enough and they supply very valuable information which has already been collated and given at length in the Bombay Gazetteer Volume on Gujarat. We shall rely mostly on this and give the history of Valabhi or Eastern Saurashtra. The only question in dispute is about the origin of this dynasty and we shall have to insist upon our own opinion in contradiction to the almost unanimous voice of Western antiquarian scholars supported by that of many Indian).

v1.c14.s5.16

The kingdom of Valabhi was situated in Eastern Kathiawar or ancient Saurashtra. The old town of Valabhi has been discovered recently, a few miles to the north-west of Bhavnagar. The kingdom, though small, was important enough to be visited by Hiuen Tsang in 640 A. D. Nov. 1. (see itinery in Cunningham). He states two facts in connection with it viz. that the king was a Kshatriya his name being Dhruvasena, and that he was son-in-law to Harsha the Emperor of India and king of Kanauj. These particulars tally well with what we find in the inscriptions and copper-plate grants themselves; as also with the tradition about the origin of the Valabhi kings as current among the Sesodias of Udepur who trace their origin to them and who are by common consent of India, considered to be the best and most ancient Kshatriyas being the direct descendants of Rama of the premier solar race of Ayodhya.

v1.c14.s5.17

Now European Scholars impelled by a strange bias have tried latterly to show that the Valabhi kings belonged to the Gujar race and were therefore foreigners who are alleged to have come with the Huns in about 500 A. D. and founded this kingdon on the ruins of the Gupta empire. But there are no grounds whatever for this strange opinion. The Valabhi grants usually begin with the words* quoted below which show that Valabhi kings were descended from one Batārka of the Maitraka family. Now what is meant by the word Maitraka? Western scholars seem to say that Mitra is the sun and therefore is equivalent of Mihira and therefore Maitrakas were Mihirás !!! A strange theory indeed. The simple explanation is that Maitraka was the name of the family like Maukhari, Chalukya etc. and that it must be left untranslated, and no conjectures should be hazarded about its meaning. But if any are to be made, why not say that Maitraka means Mitra-born or solar? It would be best, however, to leave these scholars to their biassed opinions and to explain our theory. The Valabhi kings were certainly known to be the best Kshatriyas in Harsha's time i. e. about 620 A. D. Hiuen Tsang calls him straightly so while he distinctly declares that Harsha was a Vaiśya. That he was of the best family of Kshatriyas may be believed in from the fact that Harsha gave him his only daughter in marriage. We have already seen that Kshatriyas in those days married Vaiśya girls especially if they were daughters of kings. It must have been an ambition with Vaiśya kings to give their daughters to the best Kshatriya princes in marriage. We have seen how Rājyaśrī, Harsha's sister, was for this reason given to Grahavarman Maukari of Kanauj. We have already quoted Bāṇa's words in this connection‡ "Wise men look for noble descent only in the bride-groom among his other qualifications." We may, therefore, well believe that Harsha gave his daughter to Dhruvasena because in his days (in the 7th century) Valabhi kings were looked upon as best Kshatriyas. It seems also perfectly certain that kingly families in the days of Harsha sought to assign themselves to the ancient solar or lunar races

v1.c14.s5.18

* स्वस्ति श्री प्रसभप्रणतमित्राणां मैत्रकाणामतुलबलसम्पन्नमण्डलाभोगसंसक्तप्रहारशतलब्धप्रतापात् प्रतापोनतदानमानार्जवोपार्जितानुरागात् अनुरक्तमौलिमृतश्रेणीबलावाप्तराज्यश्रियः परममाहेश्वरश्रीभटार्कात् (Epi. Ind. VIII p. 190.)

v1.c14.s5.19

सत्स्वापि अन्येषु वरगुणेषु अभिजनमेवाभिरुध्यन्ते धीमन्तः described in the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata. We have quoted Bāṇa’s evidence on this point also. “Show me if you find such a resplendent king (like Harsha) in your vaunted solar and lunar lines.” It is clear, therefore, that the belief that certain families of Kshatriyas were solar and certain others lunar in decent is as old as Bāṇa and Harsha of 620 A. D. It is on the other hand impossible to believe that foreigners or mlechhas who came to India about 500 A. D. could have, within a hundred years, so palmed themselves off upon the people as to be looked upon as the best Kshatriyas in India. Powerful kings in India like Pratāpavardhana and others were very careful to prevent mixture of Varnas and such an event was therefore, impossible. They might have succeeded in getting into Kshatriya fold with Kshatriya names. But as Hindu society always did, they would be looked upon as one more branch of Vrātya Kshatriyas added to the hundred and one Kshatriya sub-castes guarded by marriage restriction.

v1.c14.s5.20

Nor does the history of Valabhi kings as given by tradition seem inconsistent with the natural course of events and require a conquest by foreigners. Their tradition is that one Kanakasena of the solar family from Ayodhya came first to Lohakot which need not be Lahore, and from thence to Birnagar in Saurastra. There he took possession of it from a local prince in A. D. 144. Four generations later, Vijayasena founded Vijayapur (now Dholka) and subsequently the family founded Valabhipur (Todd). Now this tradition does not contradict known history or the inscriptions. Kshatriya adventurers were always ready to go where they could found a kingdom and Kanakasena might have found opportunity to become a Thakur under the Saka kings of Kathiawar of A. D. 144. Later on when the Guptas conquered the country the Senas might have been the sub-lords of the Guptas. Now Bhatārka is styled Senāpati in early copperplates. He was probably a general of the Gupta forces in Saurashtra and must have fought their battles with invaders either in Saurashtra or in the Panjab and elsewhere. When the Gupta empire fell, he must have become independent in his own small state of Valabhi, still preserving the title Senāpati as one of honour. Such things have constantly happened in Indian history from the most ancient times to the modern. When empires fall, the governors of provinces become independent and still preserve their former titles of honour, witness the Vazier of Oudh or the Nizam of the Deccan. These titles are of those offices which they actually filled under the Moghals, and when they became independent they still kept them as honourable ones. This will suffice to explain the title Senāpati, and others taken by Bhatārka of the Maitraka family. (The word Maitrakānām had wrongly been interpreted previously as applying to his enemies. It has been rightly now explained as belonging to Bhatārka; but it is indicative of his family and as we have shown above it does not make him a meher. ) The epithet अनुरक्त-मौलभृतश्रेणी-बलावप्तराज्यश्री shows that Bhatārka was born in a kingly family and had many Kshatriya followers who were servants of the state for many generations. This proves that it was not Bhatārka who first rose to royal dignity.*

v1.c14.s5.21

Having thus dispelled the clouds that have gathered about Bhatārka’s family and race, we proceed to sketch in short the history of the family onwards which can be gathered from the inscriptions in a continuous stream down to about the middle of the 8th century. This history is undisputed and we copy it from the Bombay Gazetteer Gujarat Volume. It may be added that the Valabhī copperplate grants use invariably the Gupta era, so much so, that it has come to be called also the Valabhi era (see Alberuni). They were originally subjects of the Guptas or they use this era because it was then prevalent in Saurāṣṭra. Secondly the seal of all these grants is the same, viz. a bull with the legend under it Śrī Bhaṭārka (in Prakrit) showing that the family never lost its respect for its founder Bhaṭārka.

v1.c14.s5.22

∗ It is curious to note that this theory of ours turns out to be not a new one and that it was propounded years ago by Major Watson and accepted by Cunningham. It seems that it has been left out in later histories in consequence of the new theory started that the Valabhi kings were Gujars by race This is what Cunningham writes in Arch S. R. Vol. XIX Central Provinces p. 28 "I am willing to accept Major Watson's traditonal account that he (Senapati Bhatārta) was the governor of Surashtra under Skandagupta As his son Dharasena takes only the same simple title I conclude he remained tributary to Budhagupta. His second son however not only bears the title Mahārāja but records that he was installed by the king of the whole world. As I have pointed out, this was probably the last act of supreme sovereignty performed by Budhagupta" " The coins which I now notice also confirm the same state of things. No. 23 Rev. Legend in modified Gupta character " Mahārājno Mahākshatra parama Sāmanta Mahā Sri Bhattarakasa " One of Mr Newtons coins and several of my own read " Rājno Mahākshatra, Paramāditya Rājno Sāmanta Mahāsri Bhattarakasa. No. 24 Rev. Legend in modified Gupta character " Mahārājno, Mahākshatra Sāmanta Mahesha Paramadityā Dhara senasa " The word Mahākshatra on these coins distinctly proves that theee Senas prided themselves on being true Kshatriyas.

v1.c14.s5.23

No copperplate comes from his time but we have one from his son Dhruvasena. Bhaṭārka is therein styled Senāpati. He had four sons who seem to have successively ruled viz. 1 Dharasena. 2 Dronasiṅha 3 Dhruvasena and 5 Dharapatta. Dharasena is called Senāpati like his father, and Dronasiṅha is styled Mahārāja "invested with royal authority by the great Lord of the whole world." The Gazetteer looks upon this as ambiguous but this is plain enough as it shows that the kingship was formally acknowledged by the declining Gupta Emperors. The Valabhi family appears during the first reigns to have also recognised the Guptas as their overlords, and when that line was extinct then only they styled themselves Mahārājādhirāja. They till then also took the title of Mahasāmanta as Dhruvasena's grants still declare. Dharasena probably ruled from 526 A. D. to 535 A. D. His two brothers ruled before him and probably Dharapatta younger brother ruled after him. Gūhasena a son of the last, (539-569 A. D.) has left three copperplate grants and an inscription. He seems to have become the first independent sovereign and later grants mention his name first after Bhaṭārka Indeed we find the last Gupta Emperor Kumāragupta II ruled about 535 A. D. V. S. E. H. p. 312. Gūhasena is also called Gohila and according to Rajput fashion his descendents in collateral branches called themselves Gehlots (Gohila putra, Prakrit Gehlot).

v1.c14.s5.24

Gūhasena was succeeded by his son Dhruvasena II. Five of his grants have been found. In two he is called Mahasāmanta; this may be by habit or the Gupta Empire still survived in a moribund condition like the Mogul empire. He may be supposed to have ruled from 569 to 589 A. D. He was succeeded by his son Śiladitya I. His grants have also been found. He is as usual Parama Māheśvara or great devotee of Śiva though he gives donations to Buddhists also. He may be placed between 590 and 609 A. D. He was succeeded by his brother Kharagraha (610-615) He has left no grants. He was succeeded by his son Dharasena III (615-620). His successor was his brother Dhruvasena (620-640). He is the famous son-in-law of Harsha who accompanied him on his many expeditions and was present at his great alms-giving ceremony at Prayāga as described by Hiuen Tsang. Hiuen Tsang gives his name as Dhruvapotta which is the same as Dhruvabhata. From a Broach grant it appears that this king had been defeated by Harsha and had sought refuge with the Broach king Dadda. This must have been before his marriage. (He may have refused to marry Harsha's daughter but in Rajput fashion consented after defeat). He was latterly entirely Buddhist perhaps for his father-in-law's sake.

v1.c14.s5.25

He was succeeded by his son Dharasena IV "perhaps the most powerful of the Valabhi kings." His copperplate grant dated Gupta 330 or 649 A. D. shows that he assumed even the title of Chakravarti along with other high sounding titles. This may be a reality for his successors omit this title for themselves and use only Mahārājādhirāja. It was during the reign of this king that Bhatti composed his Bhattikāvya at Valabhi as is stated at the end of the poem.

v1.c14.s5.26

Dharasena IV had no son and therefore a son of a collateral and chief of some district in Khaira near the Vindhya mountains succeeded him as Dhruvasena III (650-656). A copperplate grant of his has been found recording the grant of Pedhapadra in Vanthali (the modern Vanthali in Navanagar). He was succeeded by his elder brother Kharagraha who has also left one grant. He was succeeded by his son Śiladitya III (666-675). His titles are Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja and Parameśa which are now always taken by his successors as also the name Śiladitya which is henceforth like Vallabha of the Chālukyas the nick-name of the Valabhi kings. We have thus in succession Śiladitya IV and V and VI and VII the last being also called Dhruvabhaṭa. One grant of his dated 766 A. D. has been found.

v1.c14.s5.27

The story of the destruction of Valabhi which probably occurred during this king's reign is told by Alberuni. Ranka a disaffected subject of Valabhi called the Arabs of Mansura, the new capital of Sind founded by Mahamad Kasim's son (now not in existence). They sailed in ships down the Indus and came by sea suddenly into the estuary of Bhavnagar and made a night attack on Valabhi which was not then far from the head of the estuary. The town was sacked and destroyed. The king was killed and the population dispersed. Thus was the usual cause viz. treachery, responsible for the destruction of a flourishing kingdom. Valabhi town continued for some centuries more, in a dilapidated condition and is mentioned by Arab writers of the 10th century even. But the kingdom no longer existed and the town too disappeared finally, to be discovered quite recently in ruins near Bhavnagar which in modern history has taken the place of Valabhi.

v1.c14.s5.28

Thus the Valabhi dynasty lasted from about 509 to 775 A. D. in which year this event is usually placed. For 275 years thus, Northern Gujarat and Eastern Kathiawar were in a prosperous and happy condition. This was due both to the people and the ruling dynasty. The people of Gujarat appear to have been then as now peaceful, industrious and thrifty. The kings appear to have been simple, straightforward and unavaricious. They tried to please the people as a king ought to do (see *rajanad rāja* of Kālidāsa and the grant quoted at the end, of these Valabhi kings.) The administration seems to have been most orderly and systematic. We have already noted the names of officers which appear from the grants of these kings viz. Āyuktaka, Drānghika, (Dranga-town), Mahattara, Chātabhata (Policeman), Dhruva (hereditary accountant of the village, a name still current in Gujarat), Ādhikaraṇika (Judicial officer), Daṇḍapāśika, Chaurodharaṇika, Rājasthānīya, Amātya, Shaulkika (toll officer), Bhogika (revenue collector), Vartmapāla, Pratisāraka, Viṣayapati (Mamlatdar), Rāṣṭrapati and so on. (Bombay Gazetteer Gujarat p. 182). The land was fully cultivated, every field being measured and named. The collection of revenue was in kind and called Bhoga as everywhere else a word still surviving in Gujarat. The kings have signed the grants with their own hand being usually learned men. And the kings do not appear to have been licentious or oppressive as in Kashmir. In fact it may be said that they were not unmindful of their duties as descendants of Rāma, the ideal good king of ancient India.

v1.c14.s5.29

The extent of the dominion of Valabhi was not wide. It included, however, a great part of Kathiawar and of Gujarat, Kaira district and some portion of Western Malwa also, as is apparent from some of their grants. The smallness of the kingdom may explain to some extent why Valabhi fell so easily before the Arabs. Of course the immediate explanation is the treachery of Ranka. But we may also add a third explanation viz. the unwarlike character of the people and even the rulers which must have resulted from the wide spread of the Buddhistic principles, chiefly the principle of Ahimsa of which Gujarat is even now the stronghold. Gujarat appears to have imbibed this principle during the rule of many kings including the Śīlāditya of Molapo described by Hiuen Tsang.

Linked texts (6)