History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.s6: Genealogy of the Valabhi Dynasty

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.s6

Language: English

Genealogy of the Valabhi Dynasty

v1.c14.s6.3

( *Bombay Gazetteer Gujarat p. 93.* )

v1.c14.s6.4

( For this history we have the evidence of copperplate grants of this dynasty found and the history is well collected in the Gujarat Gazetteer. We may also take the help of other inscriptions and Purāṇas specially Skanda Purāṇa ).

v1.c14.s6.5

Valabhi may practically be looked upon as Saurashtra, or modern Kathiawar while Broach may be looked upon as modern Gujarat. The grants of the Gurjara kingdom of Broach disclose that there were six kings of this family with authentic dates as given in the margin. They seem to have ruled in Broach and Nandipur (modern Nandori in the Rajpipla state) from the middle of the sixth century to the middle of the 8th. They call themselves Gurjara and in the last two kings' grants they claim to be descended from one Mahārāja Karna. It does not appear who this Karna is. Most take it to be the Karna of the Mahābhārata. But this does not seem correct, for Karna would never be called Mahārāja and Karna was only a Suta or mixed breed and not a Kshatriya. If a false genealogical descent is to be concocted why should a bastard Kshatriya be chosen? Karna seems to be some famous king of the Gurjaras themselves whose history has been lost to us. How the Gurjaras came so far south it is difficult to know but they must have come from Bhinmal which according to Hiuen Tsang was the Gurjara kingdom pre-eminently so called in his days. The kings of Broach call themselves in their grants Sāmantas and not fully independent kings. They must have been dependent upon the Gurjaras of Bhinmal as no other kingdom can be assigned as their overlord.

v1.c14.s6.6

Gujarat is a border state between north and south; it is in fact a meeting ground for both. The Gurjaras them-

v1.c14.s6.7

v1.c14.s6.8

selves are admittedly northern people; but the Gurjaras of Broach use in their grants the Traikutaka otherwise called the Kalachuri era (starting point 249 A. D.) Their grants are also written in the Gujarati style of the southern Indian character while the royal signature at the end is northern (Bombay Gaz. Gujarat p. 114), thus showing that while the kings were northerners the people were southerners. It is clear that the rule previous to that of the Gurjaras was that of the Traikūtakas who claimed to be Haihayas by descent and whose capital Trikuta not yet well identified is mentioned even in the Rāmāyaṇa and in Kalidāsa's Raghuvaṁśa.

v1.c14.s6.9

We may note here that Gujarat may be divided into three parts (the chief rivers of modern Gujarat being the Tapi, the Nerbudda, the Mahi and the Sabarmati in their later courses as they join the sea). South Gujarat may be taken to extend upto the Nerbudda; middle Gujarat upto the Mahi and north Gujarat beyond the Mahi. In ancient times south Gujarat was first called Parānta as we see in the Mahābhārata and thereafter Lāṭa, as we see in many grants and in Varāhamihira. Middle Gujarat was called Ānarta. This name has disappeared finally. It was first substituted by Bharukachha while northern Gujarat is called Ānandapura by Hiuen Tsang. Now south and middle Gujarat were formerly under the Traikutakas who came from the Deccan and hence they gave their characters and their era to the grants of the Broach Gurjaras. These latter sometimes held sway over south Gujarat also; but the Chālukyas of the Deccan soon conquered this part and established at Navasari a Gujarat Chālukya branch. A copperplate grant of these Chālukyas (also using the Traikutaka era) is very important. It shows that the Arabs having conquered Sind in 712 A. D. made several attempts, as may be expected, to conquer the adjoining kingdoms in succession. And one attempt of this kind was frustrated in a hard fought battle by these Chālukyas near Navasari. This grant of the Gujarat Chālukya branch of Pulakeshin date A. D. 739 (Tr. 390 ) is interesting for the general history of India.* The Arabs were called Tajikas by the Indians. They are said in this grant to have assailed Sind, Kachhella, Saurāṣṭra ( Valabhi ) Chavotaka and Maurya ( to be noticed hereafter ) and Gurjara and then come to Navasari country “ with the object of attacking the Deccan through it and conquering all the Deccan kings.” We have here the kingdoms existing in 738. A. D. between Sind and Navasari. Gujarat in this grant represents very probably the kingdom of Broach including that of the Gurjaras of the north. Middle Gujarat was generally subject to the Broach line of Dadda though parts were sometimes under Valabhi; but Ānandapura and Kachha even were in the time of Hiuen Tsang under Malwa. The rule of the Gurjaras lasted, as we have said, about 200 years and the Broach line disappeared, like Valabhi, somewhere about the middle of the 8th century; how we have no mention yet in historical records. It was certainly not destroyed by the Arabs. It may have been destroyed by the Chālukyas or by the Chāvotakas. It is, however, a mere guess and we find the Gurjara kingdom of Broach finally disappear, leaving its name ineffaceably attached to the country.

v1.c14.s6.10

The names of countries are sometimes inexplicable. England is called after the Angles, though they are an insignificant part of its people, the Britons, the Saxons, the Normans, the Danes being all ignored. India is known now by all its inhabitants as Hindustan and yet this name is not the one which the people gave it. It is a name given by foreigners. The people themselves called it originally Bharata Khanda a name now not used or only rarely used. Panjab again is a foreign name, the original name being Panchanada which remains now only in the Vedas and the Mahābhārata. So it seems that Gujarat is a name given by foreigners and then adopted by the people as Gurjaratrā. But the Gurjaras have left nothing in Gujarat. The common people are not Gurjara by descent, being totally different in character and features from the Gurjaras of the north. The Brahmins are not Gurjaras. The Nāgars are not Gurjaras, though antiquarians tell them that they are Gurjaras and foreigners. The Bhārgavas are also not Gurjaras, nor are the Audichyas Gurjaras for they are declared late-comers and northerners. The Gujarat Brahmins both Nāgars and Bhārgavas are treated as southern Brahmins by themselves. The Kshatriyas too of Gujarat are not Gurjaras. Neither the Valas nor Chāvadas, neither Guhelots nor Jadejas, neither Solankhis nor Chudāsamas call themselves, or believe that they are, Gurjaras. Of course Indian savants call all these people Gurjaras and foreigners in spite of their repudiation, their traditions and history. But their own traditions, as we shall show hereafter, are correct and historical. In fine neither the Kshatriyas nor the Brahmins are or believe themselves to be of Gurjara origin; nor are the common people Gurjaras by ethnology or history. And yet this country has received the name of Gujarat simply because a Gurjara dynasty which in its grants declared itself to be Gurjaras ruled in this part of the country for 200 years from about 550 to 720 A. D. They have left their name supplanting older names viz: Ānarta and Lāta. Their administration seems to have been successful and their rule happy like that of the Valabhis. In fact the very circumstance that there are no details in their history to be recorded shows the happy uneventful character of their rule and hence perhaps the continuous remembrance of their rule as enshrined in the name of the country.

v1.c14.s6.11

∗ दारितोदितसैन्यवकच्छेलसौराष्ट्रचावोटकमौय्यगुर्जरादिराज्ये निःशेषदाक्षिणात्यक्षितिपतिजिगीषया क्षिणापथप्रवेश......प्रथममेवनवसारीकविषयप्रसाधानायागते समरशिरासि विजिते ताजिकानकि etc. ( Bombay Gaz. Guj. p. )

v1.c14.s6.12

But Gurjaras have probably also left their language impressed on the people and hence their name. The language is undoubtedly northern, Gujarati being more akin to Śauraseni than to Mahārāshtri. Yet originally the Mahārāshtri language seems to have been once predominent in Gujarat. Under the Traikutaka rule that language must have impressed itself on the people; the written characters and the era were certainly theirs. In Kathiawar and in Gujarat the Jains used the Mahārāshtri for their sacred writings and they still use it. This fact can only be explained by believing that the language of the common people was then Mahārāshtri or some form akin to it. Or the Deccan Jainas seem in centuries older than the sixth to be the chief and prominent Jains in India and Gujarat may have got its Jainism from them and therefore taken up Mahārāshtri for their sacred literature. Whatever the reason may be, the sacred writings of the Jains are in Mahārāshtri as those of the Buddhists are in Pāli. We will leave this question of the ancient language of Gujarat unsolved and merely observe that the modern Gujerati must have been formed from a language used by the Gurjara kings, brought from the north and hence it is akin to the Śauraseni. The name and the language of Gujarat thus date from the 8th century A. D. though this is a point which is disputed by many Gujarati scholars.

v1.c14.s6.13

The Gurjaras appear to be worshippers of the sun from their grants. This is not strange. There was a temple of the sun in Bhinmal also But this worship of the sun need not indicate the foregin origin of the Gurjaras. In fact sun-worship in India is as old as the Vedas and the most sacred prayer of the Brahmins, the Gāyatri, is addressed to the sun. In later times the worship of Śiva and Vishnu no doubt became predominant, but sun-worship was never entirely supplanted. As early as 400 B. C. Ktesias mentions that there was a place fifteen days' journey from mount Abū where the people worshipped the sun and the moon. (This place must apparently be somewhere in Marwar. Bombay Gaz. Guj. p. 532). Thus we have a mention of sun-worship even before there was any conquest of India by Persians. The temple of the sun in Marwar probably at Bhinmal we may thus look upon as very old. (The worship of the moon at Prabhāsa is also very old). Kings, therefore, are often described to be great worshipers of the sun, and such kings are found in the Vardhana family at Thanesar and the Valabhi family in Kathiawar. Sometimes this family worship is changed in individual kings and some are hence described as Māheśvaras or Bhāgavatas. Sun-worship is even now recognised as a part of the orthodox worship in the Pañchāyatana. That the Magas were specially respected appears simply due to the fact that they were worshippers of the sun only and in a peculiar way and hence they have gained an access to and a position in the Hindu society. But this does not indicate that every sun-worshipper in India is a Maga or foreigner from Persia. The Gurjaras were, as we have shown before, the ancient Aryans of the second horde of invaders i.e. of the moon race and were mostly Vaiśyas i.e. those whose avocation was agriculture and cow-breeding the Kṛishi and Gorakshya of the Gīta. How they moved from the Pañjāb their original home to Bhinmal we shall discuss when speaking of that country.

v1.c14.s6.14

In the Skanda Purāṇa (which we assign to the 8th century A. D.) three or four famous holy places in Gujarat and Kathiawar are mentioned and there-in many ingenious and imaginary stories about the origin of Tirthas are given. We shall notice them in our next volume. But we may say that Bharukachha on the Nerbudda (the hermitage of Bhrrigu) the Mahi-Sāgara-Sangama, and Kumarī Tritha at Stambhapura (Khambayat in Gujarati and Cambay in English), Ānandpura of the Nāgara Brahmins and Prabhāsa near the confluence of the (supposed) Sarasvati with the sea, with the temple of Somanatha or the lord of the moon were very famous in those days and highly venerated.

v1.c14.s6.15

It would be interesting to close this chapter with the mention of the maritime trade carried on at the important seaports of Gujarat viz. Broach, Cambay and Prabhāsa (as noticed by the Gazetteer) even from the most ancient times. The Periplus mentions the following exports and imports of Broach; imports:—wine, bronze, tin and lead, coral and gold stone, cloth of all sorts, variegated sashes, storax, sweet clover, gum, stibium for the eyes, gold and silver coins and unguents; for the kings specially, musical instruments, handsome girls for the harem (Yavanis), high class wine and apparel. The exports of Barygaza were spikenard, costus, odalbium, ivory, onyxes, porcelain, cotton, silk, silk thread, long pepper (chillies) and other wares. This was in about 100 A. D. Let us compare with this what the Arabs say in the 8th century. Gold and silver mines are said to be worked in Gujarat. In spite of India's having plenty of gold and even silver, coins were formerly imported because of their good appearance. For Dinaras were used in Gujarat, a name which is not Indian. Then again teak wood and bamboo of Sindan (Sanjan) were largely exported. Broach lance shafts were famous and prized abroad as also shoes of Cambay (still famous). Emeralds were also exported. (Formerly Yavanis were imported and now Tafan fair girls were exported for the Arab chiefs, a strange vicissitude.) Import of horses must lastly be noticed. They came from Persia and Arabia. Of course, Broach cotton and cottons were famous still as in the days of the Mahābhārata and must have been exported though cloth of other sorts is mentioned among the imported articles.

v1.c14.s6.16

(For this history we have excellent materials viz. copperplate grants and inscriptions and this history has already been compiled by Dr. Bhandarkar. We have added certain observations of our own drawn from the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa and from a study of the inscriptions themselves in the original)

v1.c14.s6.17

The chief kingdoms in the south noticed and visited by Hiuen Tsang were Mahārāshtra, Kānchi, and Konkana, the first having, however, subdued almost all others and established an empire over the peninsula. We shall now go on to describe the history of these kingdoms as far as it is traceable from inscriptions.

v1.c14.s6.18

The kingly families in all these kingdoms according to our view were what are now called Marathas. It may seem strange but it is a fact which cannot be denied. The modern representatives of these families are found among the Marathas alone. The Chālukyas are Chālke or Solankhi. The Pallavas of Kanchi are now represented by the family surname of Pālave and the Kadambas of Konkanapura or Banavāsi are represented by the Kadams. Thus all the three important kingdoms in the south in the beginning of the 7th century were Mahārattis or Marathas or in other words mixed Aryans speaking the Prakrit language Mahārāshtri and originally inhabiting the country round the Godaveri.

v1.c14.s6.19

This is a fact which has not been seen by many. Some think that the Chālukyas of Bādāmi were Kanarese, in other words Dravidians. Pallavas according to most are a riddle, while the Kadambas are supposed to be a Brahmin family probably of Dravidian origin. But this is not correct. All these three families were by origin Aryan and having mixed themselves with the local sovereign Dravidian families of the Deccan they may be said to have become mixed Aryans. But they still preserved their Aryan characteristics, Aryan religion and Aryan language as we shall notice further on. To understand their history properly we must take a short resumé of the ancient history of the south beginning with the very advent of the Indo-Aryans into the southern peninsula.

v1.c14.s6.20

That the Aryans invaded and settled in the Deccan nobody now denies. This event is placed by Dr. Bhandarkar between Pāṇini and Kātyāyana; i. e. approximately between the 9th and 4th centuries B. C. But it is possible even to go earlier. For Pāṇini explains in a sūtra that Aśmaki is the name of the king as well as the king's son and this Aśmaka in Pāṇini is probably the country about Paithana though Aśmaka as a northern country or people does find a mention in ancient books. The first settlement was Vidarbha or modern Berar. And the next settlement was Paithana or Pratisthāna on the Godavery. The region of the Godavery pleased the invading Aryans so much that this land is praised in many Purāṇas as the best in the world. The river struck the Aryans forcibly and was at once likened by them to the Ganges of their old country. The town too was named Pratisthāna after its namesake on the Ganges namely modern Prayāga. Thereafter the new-comers settled in many parts further south and the different countries or districts settled were called by the name of Rāshtras. Their names occur in the Mahābhārata list of kingdoms in the Bhishma Parva chapter 9, namely Pāndu Rāshtra, Gopa Rāshtra and Malla Rāshtra which together with Aśmaka form the modern Mahārāshtra. We shall show further on that Rāshtra was a favourite name with the Mahārāshtras for a district or a small kingdom. Then there was the Kuntala country on the upper course of the Krishna. This country is strangely included both among the countries of the north and the south in the Mahābhārata list i. e. among Aryan countries or countries which had come under Aryan influence and were mixed Aryans in the language of the Mahābhārata as also among the southern mlechchha kingdoms. It was most probably the meeting ground between the Aryans and non-Aryans. The Aryan advance and settlement received a check probably at the lower Krishnā and the Tungabhadrā beyond which the country was more thickly populated by the Dravidians. The Mahābhārata gives all the countries and people to their south, in a separate list and this list is headed as usual by the noted Dravida peoples Chola, Pāndya, Kerala and so on. These were undoubtedly aboriginal peoples and aboriginal kingdoms i. e. kingdoms which in the beginning did not claim to be Aryans.

v1.c14.s6.21

Now the question naturally occurs why was the large tract of the country to the north sparsely populated compared with the tract to the south, of the Tungabhadrā? Answer to this natural question is supplied by the story of the Rāmāyana interpreted historically. The whole of this tract was certainly covered with forest and was called Dandakāranya. From Chitrakūta down to Rishyamūka in the Malaya mountains (i. e. from Rewa down to Mysore) was Dandakāranya clearly enough. For Rāma could not have taken his abode on Chitrakūta if it was not in Dandakāranya. Now it is possible that the hilly portion of this country was covered with forest in those ancient days down to about 1000 B. C. For it was still covered with forests at the beginning of the British rule; the Vindhya, the Satapuda and the Mahendra mountainous tracts were under forest even so late as 1858 A. D. But why should the level country in Berar or about Paithana and in the Deccan be under forest? It should have been and still is an open country. The explanation is that it was infested by Rākshasas or in historical language by cannibals. Sociology tells us that the man-eating tribes do not prosper and hence this country was only sparsely populated. The Mahārs and the Māngs who subsist on carrion, appear also to be other old inhabitants of this land. The invading and settling Aryans felled the jungle and brought the land under cultivation, retaining the Mahārs and the Māngs (Sanskrit Mātangas) as an out-cast people. It may, therefore, be said that the Aryans did not so much conquer the Deccan as settle it. They killed the few cannibals, cleared the forests and founded towns and villages compelling the Māngs to live as out-casts outside each village. It is thus that the cultivating population of the Deccan is Aryan. The significance of this fact we shall notice elsewhere. They were not perhaps pure Aryans but mixed Aryans or Yaduvaṁśi Aryans of the second race of invaders called the Lunar race which first settled in Kurukshetra, and then in Śūrasena, Surāṣṭra etc. These had already taken Nāga women to wife and were therefore mixed to a large extent.

v1.c14.s6.22

A second cause of this difference in populousness which may also be noticed here is that the seaboard of a country is usually more fertile though less healthy than the inner tableland and that it is also more prosperous on account of trade. The Dravidian population therefore on the sea-coast of the Madras Presidency was thriving and denser and more advanced than the population of the tableland of the Deccan and it is hence that we find the real Dravidian peoples (treated as Mlechha even in the Mahābhārata) settled all along the coast viz. Chola, Dravida, Pāndya and Kerala, (Kalabhra ?) on the eastern and western coast upto Malabar. There were Kalinga and Andhra on the eastern coast and Konkan on the western higher up. But the former two had come before the Mahābhārata under Aryan influence though not completely settled by the Aryans and they are included in the list of northern kingdoms or peoples in the Mahābhārata, while Konkana was not yet in the days of the Mahābhārata under Aryan influence and hence is given in the southern list, only a part viz. Aparānta or modern Northern Konkan being mentioned in the north.

v1.c14.s6.23

Such was the condition then about 300 B. C. the date of the Mahābhārata in its last form. The same thing appears to be true of later centuries. The Rāṣṭrikas Peithanikas and Assakas mentioned in Aśoka's edicts are all Deccan Aryan people now being called Mahārathis or Mahārattis as can be seen from the Nasik cave inscriptions. The Periplus and Ptolemy also call this country Ariake or the country of the Aryans and mention three parts of it viz. the western coast, now come under Aryan influence and Aryan speech and the Mahārāshtra and Kuntala presumably, as they are called in later Sanskrit with Paithan and Kolhapur or Karahāta as their chief towns. The kings through all these days i. e. from the earliest settlements down to Aśoka’s time were of course Aryans and Mahārathis. But we come now to the Sātavahanas or Andhrabhrityas from the first century B. C. to the 3rd century A. D. as overlords of all this vast country including Konkan, Mahārāshtra, Kuntala and even further south as far as Banavāsi.

v1.c14.s6.24

Who were these Sātavāhanas? Were they mixed Aryans or non-Aryans, Marathas or Dravidas? That is the next question, difficult yet important, which has not yet been answered. As we solved the first question by the aid of the Rāmāyana, we will try to solve this question by the aid of inscriptions and the Purānas. The latter call them Śudras. The popular tradition which of course is usually absurd with some truth behind it tells us that Sātavāhana or Śalivahana was born of a Brahmin girl from Śesha or the sacred Serpent. The Āndhras appear to be distinct from the other Dravidians. They came under Aryan influence very early and their country is mentioned (as we have seen) in the Mahābhārata among the northern i. e. Aryan or mixed Aryan peoples and not among the southern mlechchhas. Were the Āndhras Nāgas? Apparently the Nāga population is still predominant in the Nagpur division which is contiguous to the Āndhra or Telagu country. The Telagu Brahmins are unquestionably Aryans and have still marriage relations with the Mahārāshtra Brahmins. The Telagu Kshatriyas so to speak have however no marriage relations with the Maratha Kshatriyas*. It may be surmised that the Sātavahana family was a family belonging to the Nāga race which became predominant in the middle country by conquering Pātaliputra about the middle of the 1st century B. C.—and conquered Mahārāshtra also. They made Pratishthāna or Paithana their capital as it must have been the capital already of Mahārāshtra during the times of Aśoka and earlier kings and thus made it the centre of an extensive empire. They called themselves Āndhrabhṛtyas because they still owed allegiance to the Āndhra original seat of power at Dhanakataka. But Paithana was their favourite seat. Being the capital of a vast empire extending from the north to the south of India (from Patna to Mysore) Paithana became famous and a centre of commerce and of rich manufactures. Hence its fame in the days of Ptolemy and hence the name Paithani in Marathi designating a silk gold bordered cloth. The Śātavahanas also appear to have been learned men themselves and patrons of learned men. And Paithana became the chief seat of learning in India next only to Benares. Paithana retained this predominance throughout the succeeding centuries down even to the end of the Mahomedan power. Maratha kingdoms after the Śātavāhanas never ruled in Paithana. But their new capitals Vātāpi or Mānkhed, Kalyān or Devagiri never rose to the importance of Paithana which still remained the chief place in Mahārāshtra for learning and for rich manufactures. Strangely enough, its pre-eminence remained so far recognised that even during Mahomedan and Maratha times complicated cases were settled at Paithana under the Panchayats of its learned men. All this pre-eminence is of course due to its being the capital of the extensive empire of the Śātavāhanas who therefore must have been thoroughly orthodox Hindus although some kings of the family may have extended patronage to Buddhists also.

v1.c14.s6.25

∗ The Āndhra Kshatriyas however were probably the descendants of the same mixed Aryans from whom the Marathas are descended. See note on Aryan Advance in the South added further on.

v1.c14.s6.26

They were, as we have said, originally of the Nāga race but they appear to have married Kshatriya wives. The Śakas of Ujjain a foreign people, yet perfectly Hinduised, were predominant beyond the Nerbudda, and it appears from inscriptions that Rudradāman’s daughter was married to a Śātavāhana king. That is not strange. For Chandragupta married a daughter of a Yavana king. Śūdra, nay even Kshatriya kings may take Mlechha girls in marriage. But it is strange that the Śātavāhana Nāga kings were given Kshatriya daughters, as appears quite clear. For what is the significance of the name Gautamīputra and Vaisthīputra which appear so conspicuously in their inscriptions? The epithets admittedly mean son of a queen born of the Gotama or Vasistha gotra. Was the name of the gotra of the queen mother of importance? They were certainly not Brahmin women for their mention would not be of importance. It therefore seems that they were daughters of well-known Kshatriya kingly families in the Deccan. And the Sātavāhanas lower as they themselves were in the social scale deemed it honourable to mention the gotra of their Kshatriya mothers. The mention of the gotra of the mother was not a new thing to Aryans. We find in the Br̥hadāraṇya Upanishad in the Vamśas so many names given by the gotra of the mother e. g. सांजीवीपुत्र, गौतमीपुत्र, पाराशरीपुत्र and so on. (See बृहदारण्य वंश VIII 5) And even in modern times Rajput kings call their queens by their honoured father's families such as Rāthodani, Chohāni and so on. A queen born of a royal family would insist on her gotra being mentioned and hence we surmise that these Sātavāhanas married Maratha Kshatriya daughters, and honourably mentioned their gotras. It also follows that these Maratha Kshatriya royal families had particular gotras which they then carefully remembered and proclaimed. The Sātavāhana marriage relations thus give a historical basis of very old standing to the generally accepted three Vamśas among the Maratha Kshatriyas viz: Sūrya, Soma and Nāga. There were Nāgavamsī Maratha Kshatriyas in later history of the seventh century also as we shall notice hereafter.

v1.c14.s6.27

We now come to the history of the Chālukyas of Bādāmi. How the Sātavāhana rule came to an end we do not know. By the usual decrepitude which, from history, overtakes every royal family after two or three hundred years, these Sātavāhanas from the 1st century B. C. to the end of the 2nd century A. D. flourished at Paithana and then declined. Before 500 A. D. i. e. during a period of 300 years we do not definitely know what happened in Mahā- rāshtra. Dr. Bhandarkar has held that there must have been petty Marātha kingdoms among whom the Rāshtrakūta family was one. Of this family we shall speak later on.

v1.c14.s6.28

But we can make another surmise.* We believe that the heart of Mahārāshtra at least, viz. Paithana and the country around came under the sway of the Vākātakas. This was a Brahmin family ruling in the present Nāgpur division as appears from their many inscriptions found. Their founder Vindhyaśakti is mentioned in an inscription in the Ajanta caves which Dr. Bhau Daji had the honour to first decipher, though Dr. Bhau Daji’s surmise that this Vindhyasakti was the same as is mentioned in Vishnu Purāna is not correct as we shall show in the chapter on Āndhra history. These Vākātakas held extensive sway over the northern part of Mahārāshtra and Aśmaka was under their suzerainty, a subordinate king of Aśmaka being also mentioned in these cave inscriptions. The original founder of the Vākātaka family and his immediate successors were certainly orthodox Aryans who performed the Aśvamedha and other Vedic sacrifices. But the people of the Vākātaka country and some ministers of the family were Buddhists and these built many caves at Ajanta. This Buddhist tendency of the ministers and the people naturally led to the reassertion of the orthodox religion under Rāshtrakūtas and Chālukyas in the sixth century A. D. For as usual these Chālukyas signalise their rising power by performing the Aśvamedha and other Vedic sacrifices.

v1.c14.s6.29

Coming to our period of Indian history and the Chālukyas in Mahārāshtra, we may first observe that it is difficult to decide whether the Chālukya family was founded by a Kshatriya warrior from Ayodhya as later inscriptions declare or whether it was a local Maratha family. The earliest grants give only the information that the Chālukya family was of the Mānavya gotra and were Hāritīputras. The importance of this latter epithet will appear clear from what we have said above about Gautamiputra and Vasisthīputra. In fact this epithet Hāritiputra connects the Chālukya tradition with the Satavāhana forms of titles. This family was certainly Kshatriya both on the father's side and on the mother's. The gotra of the founder of the family was Mānaya on the father's side and Harita on the mother's side and hence the family takes pride in calling itself Haritiputra as well as Mānavasagotra. It rose to power according to earlier grants by conquering Govinda a Rāshtrakūta king. Its greatest representative Pulakeśin the first performed the Aśvamedha sacrifice so characteristic of the Kshatriya race and power. It also indicates as we have said, that this family came to power by opposing Buddhistic tendencies and by establishing the ascendancy of the Vedic religion much in the same way as the rise of the Guptas in the north may be said to represent the ascendancy of the orthodox Vedic Aryans, against the Buddhists of the north. These Guptas, though Vaiśyas apparently, also performed the Aśvamedha. In the same way the first assertion of power by this Pulakeśin Kshatriya Maratha king was the celebration of the Aśvamedha a fact of which the family appears to have been proud and always made mention.

v1.c14.s6.30

∗ The same surmise is made by G. Jouvean Dubreuil in his book Ancient History of the Deccan recently issued p. 71.

v1.c14.s6.31

That these Chālukyas were not Dravidians or Kanarese as their capital Bādāmi would induce some to believe is quite clear from the fact that Hiuen Tsang states that Pulakeśin was a Kshatriya and that he reigned in Mahārāshtra. In fact, as stated before, when an empire falls the provinces are usually seized by great officers and feudatory chiefs and we may thus explain the rise of the Rāshtrakūtas, the Chālukyas, the Kadambas, and the Pallavas all Mahārāshtra or Marathi speaking Aryan Kshatriya families. The Kadambas were also of the same race as the Chālukyas. They claimed to be of the Mānavya gotra and sons of a Harita-gotra mother. They could have therefore no marriage relations with the Chālukyas, but with other Maratha kingly families. The later legends of both we shall presently discuss. The Kadambas had possession of Banavāsi and Konkanapura. The Pallavas simply called themselves of the Bhāradvāja gotra and had possession of Vengi and other eastern districts of the Sātavāhanas. We shall speak of their rise in the next chapter. And now we may discuss the origin of the Chālukyas as given by their later documents and tradition.

v1.c14.s6.32

This tradition is given in the grants of the Eastern Chālukyas of Vengi. The legend given by Bilhaṇa in the Vikramānkadevacharita in the time of the later Chālukyas we may at once set aside as absurd and imaginary. Bilhaṇa poetically changes the name Chālukya into Chaulukya and says that the first progenitor was born from the chuluka or handful of Brahmā who, as he was giving water-oblations, was approached by Indra and requested to create a warrior to punish irreligious men in the Kali age. The Eastern Chālukya tradition is not poetical but is genealogical and as mentioned in their inscriptions is as follows. (See e. g. Ranastute grant of Vimalāditya No. 36 p. 357 Ep. Ind. Vol VI). First we have the genealogy of the whole lunar vamśa given from the moon through the Pandavas down to Udayana (we will discuss this genealogy in a note) and then we are told:— "After 59 kings (Chakravartis) in unbroken line had ruled in Ayodhya, a descendant by name Vijayāditya came to the south with a desire to conquer the Deccan. He had a fight with Trilochana Pallava and was killed in battle. His queen being pregnant was received by one Viṣṇubhatta Somayāji in a Brahmin Agrahāra. There she gave birth to a prince named Viṣṇuvardhana. The priest performed all the ceremonies necessary on the birth of a Kshatriya of the मानव्यगोत्र and हारितीपुत्र* This prince having learnt everything of his family, performed austerities on the chalukya mountain and having propitiated the goddess Gauri and Kumāra and Nārāyaṇa got through their favour white umbrella, Eka-Śankha, the five great Śabda, Pāliketana, Pratidhakkā, Varāha Lānchhana, Panchakānta Sinhāsana, Makara Toraṇa, Kanakadanda and Gaṅgā Yamunā and other signs of royalty of his family and having conquered Kadamba, Ganga and others ruled the whole of Dakshiṇā-patha, from Setu to the Nerbudda, of 7½ lakhs. Vijayāditya was born of this Viṣṇuvardhana king from a Pallava princess His son was Bollakeshi Vallabha. His son was Kirtivarman.” Here curiously enough the newly added portion ends and the grant begins again with the traditional beginning of Chālukya grants स्वस्तिश्रीमतां सकलभुवन-संस्तूयमान-मानव्यसगोत्राणां etc. to सत्याश्रयवल्लभस्य भ्राता कुब्जविष्णुवर्धनोऽष्टदषावर्षाणि वेङ्गोदेशमपालयत् । Now in this added part at the beginning, the only credible part appears to be that Vijayāditya came from Ayodhyā after 59 generations from Udayana. If Udayana be placed in 600 B. C. we have 59 generations or 1180 years after him, thus assigning Vijayāditya to about 580 A. D. This is late by about a hundred years. Of course the average of 20 years for a king, over 59 generations cannot give us an exact date and hence we may say that Vijayāditya’s coming to the Deccan is probable.

v1.c14.s6.33

∗ मानव्यसगोत्रहारितीपुत्रस्वक्षत्रगोत्रक्रमोचितानि कर्माणि कारयित्वा तमवर्धयत्।

v1.c14.s6.34

All else is fable. The early grants of the Chālukyas do not state whether they were of the Lunar race or Solar race. Eastern Chālukya tradition finally assigned them to the Lunar. But even this tradition as recorded in this grant of 933 Śaka or 1011 A. D. cannot explain the meaning of Haritiputra in the usual formula of the Chālukya kings. Then again the fight between Chālukya and Pallava kings being a hereditary fight in later years may be taken to be reflected back to the first king and so their also marriage relations In fact Chālukyas and Pallavas like England and France in the middle ages were always fighting and always marrying one another’s daughters Lastly, the story of the founder of a dynasty being born fatherless of a mother in adversity and then gaining power by the favour of gods is the usual story in every dynasty and may therefore be treated as imaginary. It is not untrue that Kshatriya warriors often came from the north to seek fortune in the south and founded families like the forefather of Śivaji and others, yet as this theory is given in a later grant we will confine ourselves to the grants of the earlier Chālukyas themselves and give their history as it appears from them.

v1.c14.s6.35

From these the Chālukyas appear to be a Maratha Kshatriya family of the Mānavya gotra. The founder was also a Haritiputra i. e. son of a Kshatriya princess born in the Harita gotra. The Aihole inscription of this family is very detailed. From it and other grant-inscriptions it appears that Jayasinha was the first king who made himself conspicuous by conquering the Rāshtrakūta family. His son was Ranarāga. His son was Pulakesin the first who founded the kingdom of Mahārāshtra and performed an Aśvamedha. He made Vātāpi his capital and conquering many provinces, established an overlordship. He assumed the title of Satyāśraya Prithvīvallabha. This title Vallabha became the patronymic with all Mahārāshtra kings in later times and was also favourite with foreigners. They also called themselves Āśraya of something as Śryāśraya, Janāśraya and so on. The date of Pulakesin's death may be taken to be Śaka 489 or A. D. 567.

v1.c14.s6.36

He was succeeded by his son Kirtivarman who conquered the Kadambas of North Kanara and the Mauryas of North Konkan. He was succeeded (in 591 A. D.) by his brother Mangalīśa. He conquered the Chedis of Tripura near Jubbulpur. He was lord of the country from sea to sea (Western to the Eastern). After him (in 610 A.D.) came Pulakesin the second, the greatest monarch of this line; he was the son of Kirtivarman. His exploits are extolled by the Aihole grant. He conquered the Pallavas of Kāñchi and in fact became the lord of the whole of Dakshināpatha i. e. from the Nerbudda to Cape Kamorin. He was the direct "lord of the three Mahārāshtras containing 99000 villages." And his greatest exploit was that he defeated Harsha Emperor of the North. He was visited by Hiuen Tsang whose most flattering description of him and his Marathas we have already quoted. In fact this was the most flourishing period of ancient Maratha history. He conquered many kings in the West, also, such as kings of Lāta, Gurjara and Mālava. He established his brother Kubja Vishnuvardhan in the Vengi country on the east.

v1.c14.s6.37

coast where these Eastern Chālukyas continued to rule for a long time. And he established his other brother Jayasinha in the Lāta country where the Gujarat Chālukya branch like the Gaikwads in modern Maratha history ruled for a long time. His eldest son Chandrāditya ruled in Sāwantwādi and Goa where the latter's queen made grants recorded on copperplates. Another son of his ruled in Karnatak between the Krishna and the Tungabhadra. A grant of Pulakesin II has been found made at the request of his maternal uncle Senānandarāja of the Sendraka family. This was a well-known family in these parts viz. Chiplun etc. and is probably the same as the modern Scindia family of Gwalior. In fact, the Pulakesin Maratha empire of 736 A. D. was just a prototype of the Shahu Maratha Empire of 1736 A. D., a thousand years later, curiously illustrating the well-known maxim history repeats itself.

v1.c14.s6.38

Pulakesin II's reign has become memorable owing to two events of foreign importance. He received an embassy from Khushru II of Persia in reply to one sent by him. A painting in cave No. 1 at Ajantā represents the scene of the reception of this embassy by Pulakeshin (625 A. D.). The second event was the visit of Hiuen Tsang who has recorded a most flattering description of the Marathas and the power of this king who, as he says, "was obeyed with perfect submission by his many subjects" in (640 A. D.)

v1.c14.s6.39

Sir V. Smith observes that this king was unfortunate in his end. He was conquered eventually by his enemy the Pallava of Kānchi "who took and plundered his capital and presumably put him to death." The authority for this is apparently a record of the Pallavas which may be of doubtful credit, and Dr. Bhandarkar does not relate this event in his history of the Deccan; for he merely states that Pulakesin was succeeded by his son Vikramāditya I. This king Vikramāditya certainly inflicted a crushing defeat on the Pallavas and took their capital Kānchi though he did not plunder it. He even built and repaired certain temples in Kānchi which is still famous for its great temples. He was a valorous conqueror. "Seated on the back of his horse Chitrakantha and sword in hand he vanquished his enemies and established his power like his father between the three seas." He is rightly named Vikramāditya I.

v1.c14.s6.40

He was succeeded by his son Vinayāditya in Śaka 602 or 680, A. D. He has left three grants dated 611, 613 and 616 Śaka in his 10th, 11th and 14th years of reign. Thus his date is certain. He was also a powerful king and a warrior. He had assisted his father in his famous fight with the Pallavas, who were assisted by Pāndya, Chola and Kerala. He in his own time vanquished these and Kalabhra, Haihaya, Nila and Mālava,* and made them steadfast allies as also Ganga and Alūpa and even Sinhala. He defeated likewise a king of the north whose name is not given; (this event we shall try to explain later). These facts are mentioned in the records of his descendants and must have happened after Śaka 616 (694 A. D.) the date of his last grant found (Bhandarkar). He died in 696 A. D.

v1.c14.s6.41

He (Vinayāditya) was succeeded by his son Vijayāditya who also has left many grants which give us an idea of his reign. In one conflict with the Pallavas he was taken prisoner by accident though he had defeated his enemies. He, however, contrived to escape and returning to his kingdom ruled vigorously for a long time. As we have said in the history of Kashmir, this must have happened a little before the digvijaya expedition into the south by Lalitāditya of Kashmir. Lalitāditya did not go to Vātāpi as Vātāpi and Mahārāshtra seem to have been then under the Pallavas during Vijayādityas confinement. The two dates agree. Vijayāditya came to the throne in 696 A. D. and had a long reign of 36 years i. e. upto 732 A. D. Lalitāditya’s expedition happened as we have shown from about 702 A. D. to 710 A. D. Vijayāditya built temples to Brahmā, Vishnu and Śiva at Vātāpi in 621 Śaka (see inscriptions). His grants are dated 622, 627 and 651 Śaka in the 4th, 10th and 34th years of his reign.

v1.c14.s6.42

∗ These Malavas appear to be some south Deccan people whose name survives in the modern Maratha surname 'Mālapa'.

v1.c14.s6.43

Vijayāditya was succeeded in 733 A. D. by his son Vikramāditya II who was an equally successful king. He defeated his old enemies the Pallavas, their king being Nandipotavarman. Kāñchī was again entered and again spared. The king restored on the contrary to the famous temples of Rājasinheśvara and other gods, gold, jewels and other property taken away by many. He married two sisters of the family of Haihayas and these two queens built two temples in their names at Vātāpi. He reigned for 14 years i. e. down to 747 A. D.

v1.c14.s6.44

He was followed by his son Kīrtivarman II who was the last of the early Chālukya kings. He has left one grant dated 679 Śaka. He seems to have been an able prince and as usual defeated the Pallavas their hereditary enemies. But he was overthrown by one of his own vassals a Rāshṭrakūṭa king named Dantigurga. As the Rāshṭrakūṭas did not hereafter reign in Vātāpi, it may be taken that they allowed the Chālukyas to remain as dependents in their own town. This event happened before 675 Śaka, as in a grant by Dantidurga dated 675 Śaka the Chālukyas are spoken of as overthrown. Thus the Chālukya overlordship lasted down to about 753 A. D. and they may be taken to have been supreme in the Deccan for about 200 years from 550 to 753 A. D. All the Chālukya kings appear to have been capable rulers, a fact which is creditable and perhaps singular and we need not wonder that lying dormant for about 200 years, they again gained ascendancy uader the later Chālukyas. An explanation for this downfall of the early Chālukyas will be given in our next volume which we will speak of the rise of the Rāshṭrakūṭas.

v1.c14.s6.45

Dr. Bhandarkar has shown that during the rule of the early Chālukyas Buddhism does not seem to have been prosperous. It was alive no doubt, but it was not the religion of the kings nor generally of the people. In fact according to our view already expressed it was as a rise against Buddhism whose ascendancy is marked by the Ajantā caves under the Vākāṭakas that the Maratha power under the Cālukyas was triumphant. Pulakeshin I signalised his reign and supremacy by the performance of the Aśvamedha. The sacrificial lore was also studied and developed under these kings by learned Brahmins and such learned persons, Dr. Bhandarkar thinks, were specially called Svāmins. Karkasvāmin and others were certainly commentators on sacrificial sutras. But Svāmin need not be a special name for such Brahmins. Dikshita was a title specially given to the Brahmins learned in sacrificial lore and performers of Vedic sacrifices. It does not also appear that sacrificial literature was studied in the Deccan alone. The revival of sacrificial study can be marked all over the country, for Bāṇa himself states that his parents and uncles were great students of Mīmānsa. They were called Bhaṭṭas also. Śabarasvāmin and Kumarilabhatta the well-known writers on Vedic sacrifice belong to the north. We shall have to speak of them later on. Undoubtedly orthodox Brahmins in the Deccan as elsewhere at this time employed their intelligence in the refutation of Buddhism and in the vindication of Vedic sacrifices, and under the sympathetic rule of the early Cālukyas they succeeded in supplanting Buddhism completely.

v1.c14.s6.46

But the influence of the principle of non-sacrifice was again successful latterly in the spread of Jainism. It appears that the Jainas gained an upperhand among the people as well as in the favour of kings towards the end of the Cālukya rule. Jainism is even now prevalent in the population of the southern Maratha country. In the heart of Mahārāṣṭra, Jainism could not prosper, for the heredity and natural patriotism of a people tend towards the religion of their ancestors and hence among the Marathas generally the Vedic Aryan religion still prospered. But in the varied population of the south Jainism spread. Vikramāditya II was partial to the Jaina religion. He repaired a Jain temple and gave a grant of land to a successful Jain Pandit named Vijaya Pandita who was also called Ekavādi or the only disputant (Bhandarkar). The Jain Pandits of those days, drawn of course from renegade Brahmins were very ingenious and learned disputants and they often scored success in religious disputes about the principle of Ahimsa. The modern Jains of the S. M. country are, however, not learned being usually cultivators and recruits from among the Brāhmins do not now join their ranks. But in the days of the early Chālukyas the case appears to have been different and Jainism gradually spead among the people and gained favour in royal courts. The religious tendencies of this period will be discussed in our next volume.

v1.c14.s6.47

Along with the revival of the religion of Vedic sacrifices under the early Chālukyas there was also the revival of the Puranic religion viz. the worship of Śiva, Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Surya, and the Goddess Devi and of Skanda and temples of these gods were built everywhere during the reign of the early Chālukyas. The rule of the next dynasty of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas was to signalise the further progress of Hinduism as it may now be distinctly called.

v1.c14.s6.48

Socially the Chālukyas appear to have been strict Kshatriyas marrying among the families of the Aryans and mixed Aryans. Their marriage relations were with the Haihayas, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, the Pallavas and Sendrakas or Sindas who belonged to the Nāgavaṁśa, perhaps of Śatavahana. They do not appear to have married among the Dravidian families of Pāndya, Chola, Kerala, Kalabhra and others. So far as can be seen, the queens of tho Chālukyas appear to come from Kshatriya families of Mahārāshtra and even North India and they ranked as true Kshatriyas as distinctly declared by Hiuen Tsang himself. They insisted on their being described as Mānavya-sagotra and Haritīputra and they clearly appear to have performed Vedic rites. In short nothing has been discovered which should dissuade us from treating them as Aryans and Kshatriyas and the equals of the northern Kshatriyas, the Rajputs. Why the northerners and the southerners stopped marriage relations hereafter, we shall have to discuss later on.

v1.c14.s6.49

The Chālukyas ruled over the three Mahārāshtras viz. Vidarbha, Mahārāshtra and Kuntala. Their territory thus included Berar and the Marathi districts of C. P., Marathi districts of the Nizam's dominions and those of the Bombay Presidency and curiously enough also included the Kanarese districts of Bombay. These last have always been parts of the Mahārāshtra kingdom with whomsoever it may be and have therefore properly been called Southern Maratha country. Even under Vijapur these districts were with the Mahomedans and not with Vijayanagar. The Eastern coast was under the Vengi Chālukya branch and Āndhra perhaps was independent. Sometimes Āndhra too came under Mahārāshtra. The declared number of villages in the three Mahārāshtras was 99000 (see Aihole inscription) and Āndhra had 12000 villages. These numbers of villages were, as already stated, traditionally fixed and appear to have always been mentioned in records ranging from 600 to 1200 A. D. i. e. the period we are treating of. Pulakeshin II was, however, the master of the whole of the south from the Nerbudda to Cape Comorin, a country of 7½ lakhs as stated in inscriptions. This number is inexplicable. For even adding the probable number of villages in Pallava, Pāndya, Chola, Kerala, Ganga, Kadamba and other kingdoms towards the south, the number cannot come up to 7½ lakhs. To what this figure applies is a mystery as shown in a previous note.

First 49 of 62 passages. Read on

Linked texts (12)

Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Raghuvaṃśa — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit
Śvetāmbara Āgama — Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Purāṇa — Sanskrit
Viṣṇupurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit
Bhagavadgītā — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Skandapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Ajanta