Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c18: Chapter XIV: The Eastern Kingdoms

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c18

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XIV: The Eastern Kingdoms

(1) The Guptas of Gauda

v1.c18.s1.1

We now turn to the kingdoms of the east. This eastern portion of India naturally divides itself into three parts, Behar with Magadha, western Bengal and Eastern Bengal. The ancient names of eastern countries in India were Anga, Vanga and Kalinga; but Magadha and Odra are also ancient names and all these were usually subject to one and the same great power. When the name Gauda first came into use for this part cannot well be determined. That it was a new name we have not the smallest doubt. The Mahābhārata does not mention it nor even, it seems, Varāhamihira of the 5th century A D. Gauda or Guda is strangely enough mentioned by him as the name of the country round Thanesar,[*] but we had forgotten this fact so completely that it was a discovery indeed of Jackson. Gauda according to our present notions is nothing but Bengal. We must, however, recognise the fact that Gauda is a name which originally belonged to the country to the north-west of Delhi. The Brahmins of that part of the country still call themselves Ādigauda or the original Gaudas. It seems probable that some time about the 5th or 6th century A. D. many of these Brahmins, probably under the stress of the Huns, migrated eastward and settled in Western Bengal. The country thus came to be called Gauda. In the inscriptions of the seventh and eighth centuries this part is certainly called Gauda. Bāṇa for instance (620 A. D.) in the Harsha Charita calls Śaśānka king of Gauda while Hiuen Tsang calls him king of Karṇasuvarṇa. Karṇa-Suvarṇa then was certainly Gauda in about 600 A.D. And Gupta kings probably a branch of the Gupta imperial line ruled here. Śaśānka’s rule continued for a long time even after 606 A. D. i. e. after he had killed Rājyavaradhana by treachery and it seems probable that Harsha though he must have conquered Śaśānka pardoned him and married his daughter who had been offered to Rājya. When Hiuen Tsang visited it, Śaśānka was probably dead. He describes the people of Karṇasuvarṇa (modern Murshidabad) as fond of learning, with 50 monasteries and 100 Deva temples, showing that Buddhism was in a minority in western Bengal even then.

v1.c18.s1.2

∗ Varāhamihira mentions Guda among middle countries while among eastern countries he mentions Bhadra Gaudaka along with Paundra and others.

v1.c18.s1.3

The next mention we have of Gauda in ancient records found so far is that of the Gupta family of Ādityasena. This must be another Gupta branch. According to our view already detailed it was a branch Gupta line which had come from Malwa, after Deva-gupta the enemy of Grahavarman had been slain. Mādhava Gupta, his half brother, was a friend and follower of Harsha and during or after Harsha's rule, his own Mālava kingdom having been seized and forfeited, he founded a kingdom in Magadha. The Aphsad inscription describes Ādityasena the donor as a son of Mādhava-gupta "a friend of Harsha" in 66 H. E. or 672 A. D. The inscription was drawn out by a Gauda named Sūkshma Śiva. The literary excellence of the Gaudas may be seen even at that time in this inscription an excellence which coutinues down to this day. Magadha and Gauda or western Bengal appear then to have been under one ruler and the same thing appears from the Gaudavaho which we next proceed to notice. In this poem, as we have said before, Yaśovarman of Kanauj is said to have invaded Gauda and killed the Gauda king in battle. The king is said to be Magadhādhipa also. Who was this king? We have placed Yaśovarman between 675 and 715 A.D. following S. P. Pandit. From the Deo-Barnak inscription of Jivita-gupta we get the following line from Mādhava-1 Madhava 2 Ādityasena (672 A. D.) 3 Devagupta 4 Vishnugupta and 5 Jivitagupta. The date of the latter is not given and we have to surmise it. The king killed in the battle with Yaśovarman is said by some to be Jivitagupta himself This battle was fought before Yaśovarman was conquered by Lalitāditya of Kashmir in about 700 A. D. Hence according to our dates the king killed in Gauda must have been Devagupta. Of course as there was no annexation of kingdoms practically in those days his son succeeded. And perhaps it may have been his son Vishnugupta who was conquered by Lalitāditya and who in some year later than 700 having again taken up arms against the distant Lalitāditya was again conquered and taken a prisoner to Kashmir where, inspite of an oath to the contrary, he was murdered as related in Kashmir history. He was succeeded by Jivitagupta whose record, the Dev-Barnak inscription, has been found. This line of the Guptas we have identified as the Mālwa branch for many reasons and two names properly recur Devagupta and this name Jivitagupta. (See Gupta pedigree given in Book I). The date of Jivitagupta approximately may be taken to be 732 A.D. taking 20 years for each generation and Muktāpīda’s reign Kalhana has rightly assigned as lying between 699 and 735 A. D. (see Kashmir pedigree Chap. I). We take it as very probable that Jivitagupta was not the king murdered in Kashmir. From the Dev-Barnak inscription of this king we find that Ādityasena was a worshipper of Vishnu (परमभागवत) and his queen was Kônadevī (both facts appear from the Apsad inscription also), that their son Devagupta was a worshipper of Śiva (परममाहेश्वर) and his queen was Kamalādevī, that his son was Vishnugupta also a worshipper of Śiva and his wife was Ijyādevī and that their son Jivitagupta was probably a worshipper of the sun (the word here after parama is unfortunately not readable) for he made or rather confirmed a grant for the worship of the sun. Thus it will appear that these Guptas were not Buddhists. Perhaps Mādhava may have been a Buddhist like and following Harsha, but as after Harsha’s death Buddhism was everywhere supplanted, in Gauda too we have a revival of Hinduism or Aryanism and the worship of Śiva, Vishnu and the sun was re-established. The story of the vengeance which according to the Rājataranginī the loyal servants of the Gauda king murdered in Kashmir took on the god Parihāsa-Keshava whose oath was violated is touching and illustrative of the great love and personal affection which loyal servants often bore towards their royal masters in India.

v1.c18.s1.4

The next reference to the Guptas of Gauda is in an inscription of the Nepal king Jayadeva dated Harsha era 153 equivalent to 769 A. D. (Ind. Ant. IX p. 178). This inscription gives two important facts. Jayadeva’s father Śivadeva had married a daughter of king Bhogavarman of the warlike Maukhari line and she was “the grand-daughter of the great Magadha king Ādityasena” Now this mention of the grand-father shows that the Magadha king was the greater of the two. We think that this was the same Gupta line continued, the name Ādityasena recurring in 769 A. D. from 672 A. D. This further shows that there was a line of Maukhari kings contiguous to Magadha probably in Bihar to whom the Guptas usually gave their daughters in marriage and this Maukhari king gave his daughter in marriage to the Kshatriya Lichhavi king of Nepal which is contiguous to Bihar. This Maukhari king Bhogavarman probably belonged to the same subsidiary line as gave the kings Śardūla and others already mentioned and was an offshoot very probably from the chief Maukhari line of Kanauj (see Book I). We have as yet discovered no further mention of the Guptas of Gauda in inscriptions. Probably these later Guptas, descendants of Mādhava of about 650 A. D. disappeared about 800 A. D. when a new line of kings appeared in Magādha as we shall show in our next volume.

(2) Vanga

v1.c18.s2.1

Vanga was distinct from Gauda in the 7th and 8th centuries. But Vanga is an ancient name, Anga (Bihar) and Vanga (Bengal) being always mentioned together. The name Vanga was in fact applicable to the whole province and the word Bengal which is derived therefrom is properly applied to it as a whole. But Vanga was in these two centuries denotative of Eastern Bengal. When Yaśovarman conquered Gauda in battle he is said in the Gaudavaho to have gone further east and conquered Vanga. Again in two Rāshtrakūta inscriptions it is said that the ruler of Kanauj had invaded and conquered Bengal and seized two white royal umbrellas and that these were taken from him by the ruler of the Deccan. This shows that Gauda and Vanga were two kingdoms about 700 as also about 800 A. D. When Hiuen Tsang visited Bengal there were five or six kingdoms there, according to the account given in his Travels. These were 1 Hiranyaparvata (Monghir) 2 Champā (Bhagalpur) 3 Kajugal (Rajmahal) to the south 4 Paundravardhana (Rangpur) to the north of the Ganges and 5 Karnasuvarna or Murshidabad to the west of the Ganges with 6 Samatata (Eastern Bengal Decca etc.) to the east of the Ganges and 7 Tāmralipti or Midnapur to the south on the Bengal coast. From the directions given in the Travels, we find Hiranyaparvata, Champā and Kajugal were on the south of the Ganges but these must have been under Karnasuvarna. Paundravardhana was on the north while Samatata was on the east of the Ganges lower down and Midnapur or Tāmralipti was on the west. Hiuen Tsang specially mentions that the ruler of Hiranyaparvata was deposed recently by another ruler while in the others no kings are mentioned. In Samatata or Eastern Bengal or Vanga as it was also called, he mentions a Brahmin family of rulers. In Midnapur or Tāmralipti no king is mentioned. This kingdom was sometimes included in Bengal and sometimes in Odra or Orissa. Thus we see that even in Hiuen Tsang's time there were two chief kingdoms only in Bengal viz. Gauda (Karnasuvarna) and Vanga (Samatata). The word usually used in modern languages for this province is Gauda-Bangāla which also suggests that there were two kingdoms connected together. Why these kingdoms became specially known throughout India for magic and sorcery cannot be surmised. But the reputation of these parts in these arts cannot be denied and perhaps magic was beleived in and practised most extensively among the lower population of these two countries even then.

v1.c18.s2.2

The supremacy over the smaller kingdoms in Bengal seems to have been enjoyed now by one king and now by another during this period viz. from 600 to 800 A. D. We have already related the story of the Kashmir king Jayā- pīda going alone and unattended to Paundravardhana where a king Jayanta ruled. He gave him his daughter and the latter is said to have conquered 5 neighbouring kings in behalf of his father-in-law. The years of Jayāpīda’s reign are 751-782 A. D. (see Kashmir chronology). King Harshadeva of Kāmarupa (Assam) mentioned in an inscription of Jayadeva of Nepal dated 769 A. D. noticed before is said to have conquered Gauda, Odra, Kalinga and Kosala (गौडौ- द्रादिकलिङ्गकोसलपतिः ). This shows that none of these Bengal kingdoms were strong during this period and that they were constantly subject to foreign invasions.

(3) The Bhagadatta Line of Kāmarupa or Assam

v1.c18.s3.1

We have already noticed this line of kings of Assam when Hiuen Tsang visited it, Kumāra or Bhāskaravarman was the king. The same line of Brahmin kings continued through the two centuries herein treated of. We have above noted the name of Harshadeva who is said to have given his daughter to Jayadeva of Nepal ( भगदत्तराज-कुलजा ). This line though Brahmin, as usual, gave daughters to and married daughters from Kshatriya families. The Assam kings were sometimes powerful enough to conquer Gauda, Vanga, Odra etc. They themselves owing to their mountain-girdled territory continued undisturbed. Or is tradition only beguiling us in showing that there was only one line of kings for thousands of years? Such exceptional lines no doubt are to be seen in the Himalayan regions. But even here we may be mistaken and different dynasties may have succeeded one another as usual after a duration of 150 or 200 years. The traditions, however, usually give one continuous line for thousands of years. One fact at least may be admitted; these countries in the inaccessible Himalayan regions continued to enjoy independence, undisturbed by the ambitions of conquering races, which usually overspread the plains. How long this Bhagadatta (of the Mahābhārata fame) line continued we cannot say. It certainly was ruling in Assam about 800 A. D. with which our first period of mediæval Hindu history closes.

v1.c18.s3.2

We now came to Mid-India and the most important kingdom of Mid-India was of course Kanauj. The whole of Northern India or rather the present U. P. was then under the direct control of Kanauj and the rest of Hindustan was often under its nominal suzerainty. When Harsha died about 647 A. D. he left this vast empire without a claimant. He had no son. It is not clear whether Rājyaśri was then alive; even if she were, she too was not the proper heir and had no male issue. The kingdom or empire therefore at once plunged into anarchy and it is natural that usurpers should have found room for satisfying their ambition. But the story which Sir V. Smith and other historians here set forth about the usurpation of the whole kingdom by a minister named Arjuna or Aruṇāśva and his defeat by a Chinese envoy is unreliable and has most probably been misunderstood. It is from Chinese authorities that this story is taken and in that story the natural desire of the Chinese to exaggerate their own importance and valour is so evident that the story has only to be related to be at once rejected as unreliable. The Chinese envoy insulted by Arjuna, escaped into Tibet, it is related, and returned with 1200 picked Tibetan soldiers supported by a Nepalese contingent of 7000 horsemen (Nepal being at this time subject to Tibet). "With this small army the envoy Wang-hiuen-tse descended into the plains and after a siege of three days succeeded in storming the chief city of Tirhut. Three thousand of the garrison were taken prisoners and 10000 were drowned in the river Bāgmati. Arjuna fled and having collected a fresh force offered battle. He was again defeated and taken prisoner. The victor promptly beheaded a thousand prisoners and obtained more than 30000 horse and cattle. Five hundred and eighty walled towns offered their submission and Kumāra the king of Eastern India who had attended Harsha's religious assemblies sent abundant supplies of cattle and accoutrements. Wang-hiuen-tse took the usurper prisoner to China and Tirhut remained subject to Tibet for some time."—(Smith's Early Hist. of India 3rd Edn. p. 353).

v1.c18.s3.3

The absurdity of this exaggerated story is so apparent that it is a wonder that historians like Smith have not seen it in its true proportions. The difference between Indian and Chinese or Tibetan civilizations and armaments was then not great—was in fact nil—and it is impossible to believe that a few hundred Tibetans could defeat several thousand Indians and annihilate them as the English did the Mahomedans at Plassey or the Hindus at Assaye. Moreover, if Arjuna had usurped Harsha's throne, where was the mighty military machine which Harsha had reared and by which he had conquered and kept in subjection the whole of Northern India? And why was the fall of Tirhut sufficient to humble the usurper and why was not Kanauj itself besieged? The scene is laid at Tirhut and not at Kanauj and the story may easily be reduced to its true proportions. What really happened must have been something like the following.

v1.c18.s3.4

Who succeeded Harsha at Kanauj is not known. But natural it is that his death was a signal for a political as well as a religious revolution. Buddhism under Harsha's imperial encouragement had had its last lustre, all the effulgence which preceeds death and it may be believed that the forces of Hinduism which were already gathering strength even during the life time of Harsha (as evidenced by the attempt on Hiuen Tsang's life at Prayāga) became supreme after his death and it may be surmised that both Harsha and Rājyaśrī being gone, an orthodox Hindu claimant of the original Varmā family seated himself on the throne of Kanauj. In the provinces of the empire dependent states and even governors must have become independent. These, at the same time, being strongly inclined towards the reviving Hinduism were opposed to Buddhism. Arjuna was one such petty governor or ruler of Tirhut or modern Bihar. The Chinese Buddhistic mission probably to Buddha Gayā which came to India in 647 A.D. had to pass, on leaving Nepal, through the territory of this Tirhut governor and it was probably set upon by this orthodox Hindu petty Raja who might have entertained a deadly hatred towards these Chinese Buddhistic missions, now that Harsha no longer lived. The envoy escaped, went back to Tibet, obtained some aid from that country and Nepal and fought with this petty Raja of Tirhut and perhaps even took him prisoner; Kumāra who was friendly to Hiuen Tsang and to Harsha and to Buddhism may have assisted the Chinese envoy with supplies. In short it was a purely local affair and Arjuna cannot be supposed to have seized the throne and power of Harsha himself.

v1.c18.s3.5

Who succeeded Harsha? As we have said above, it must have been some Varmā king of the Maukhari line. There is not the least doubt that about the end of the 7th century there was a Varmā king named Yaśovarman on the throne of Kanauj and he held extensive sway and had great power. He was a great patron of letters and he had at his court the celebrated poets Bhavabhūti and Vākpatirāj. In the Gaudavaho, a Prakrit poem by Vākpatirāj in praise of his exploit in conquering a Gauda king we are told that he was a Somavamśi Kshatriya. The Maukhari Varmās, we have already remarked, were probably lunar line Kshatriyas. This Yaśovarman aimed at the suzerainty of the whole of Northern India like Harsha and began his digvijaya by conquering the Gauda king who was as we have also seen before, a hereditary enemy of the Varmās of Kanauj. Whether this Ganda king was a Gupta, what city he ruled in and how he was killed we are not told in the Gaudavaho. Probably the poem as we have it is only an introductory chapter to a bigger poem which the poet intended to write. But the later reverses of Yaśovarman put a stop to the composition of this greater work. For we know from contemporary records that Yaśovarman was certainly defeated by the Kashmir king Muktāpida Lalitāditya who also aspired to the empire of India, and that Yaśovarman was also *very probably* defeated by a Chālukya king of the Deccan. The story of Lalitāditya’s conquest of Yaśovarman we have already detailed in the history of Kashmir and we may merely refer to the fact that this defeat must have happened about the close of the 7th century, only a few years after the accession of Lalitāditya in 697 A. D. i. e. about 700 A. D., notwithstanding the difficulty created by Chinese accounts which we have already discussed in a note. The defeat of Yaśovarman by a Chālukya king must have happened before this event as we now go on to relate. Here it must first be stated by way of closing the previous history, that Yaśovarman must have conquered the Gauda king about 680 or 690 A. D. at the latest and must therefore have come to the throne in about 675 A. D. Between Harsha’s death in 647 and Yaśovarman’s accession i. e. between 647 and 675 A. D. two kings of the Varmā line must have reigned. Who they were history has not yet discovered for no inscriptions have yet been found which throw a light on this point. But Yaśovarman’s power and ambition seem consistent with the usual course of history wherein we usually find the third king in a new line rising to the greatest glory (witness Pulakeshin II, Akbar, Nana Saheb Peshwa, Lalitāditya himself and many others.)

v1.c18.s3.6

To turn to the defeat of Yaśovarman by the Deccanese we have seen in the history of the Chālukyas of Bādāmi that Vinayāditya, son of Vikramāditya and grandson of the famous Pulakeshin II who defeated Harsha is mentioned in many inscriptions to have defeated a northern king. This point has remained a riddle and has not yet been solved. We find that this Vinayāditya ruled from 680 A. D. to 696 A. D. In his grants found dated up to 616 Śaka or 694 A. D. there is no mention of his having defeated a northern king. Hence it must follow that he defeated a northern king between 694 and 696 A. D. a date which tallies well with our theory that Yaśovarman in his *digvijaya* attacked the south like Harsha after his conquest of the east; but like Harsha himself sustained a signal defeat at the hands of the grandson of Pulakeshin II. This fact is mentioned in more than one Chālukya grant and is also mentioned in later Eastern Chālukya grants. It must indeed have been a memorable victory over Yaśovarman like that of Pulakeśin over Harsha. The grants declare that Vinayāditya obtained certain insignia of empire such as Pālidhvaja, Makara Torana, the sun and the moon and Gaṅgā and Yamunā etc. The earliest mention of this victory and the acquistion of imperial insignia is found in a grant of Ś. 622 of Vijayāditya (Ind. Ant. Vol. XX p. 127). The battle was fought between his father Vinayāditya and a northern king, but the son Vijayāditya was himself present at this battle and was a great leader and by valour acquired the imperial insignia (उत्तरापथविजिगीषोर्गुरोर्मतः गङ्गायमुना-पालिध्वजढक्कामहाशब्दचिह्नाणिक्यमतङ्कजादीन् पितृसात्कुर्वन्). This grant is dated 622 Ś. or 700 A. D. and this defeat must have happened some years before and certainly before 696 A. D. the date of his father's death i. e. in 695 A. D. as said above. The insignia mentioned are very important. They include Gaṅgā and Yamunā the significance of which is not understood by many as we have already remarked. These two may be taken as showing that the sovereignty of Mid-India with its two principal rivers the Ganges and the Jumna was considered to be the sovereignty of the empire of India; and this mention also makes it certain that the king of the north who was defeated was Yaśovarman king of Kanauj and lord of the chief Indian kingdom the region of the Ganges and the Jumna (see also the epithet applied to his father Vinayāditya in this very grant (सकलोत्तरापथनाथमथनपार्जितोजित-पालिध्वजादि-समस्त-पारमेश्वर्यचिह्नस्य). There is thus no doubt left that Yaśovarman aspired to be or was paramount lord of north India and being defeated by Chālukya Vinayāditya I was deprived in 695 A. D. of the insignia of paramountcy.[*] This same grant mentions the captivity of Vijayāditya by a bad stroke of fate and this incident may have happened even in this very war with the king of the north though as has been held already it may have happened in a war with the Pallavas of the south. That it must happened before 700 A.D. or Ś. 622 the date of the Nerur plate inscription in which it is first mentioned cannot be denied. It must probably have happened after 696 A. D. and before 700 A. D. and Vijayāditya owing to this event must have remained unmolested or uncared for in the digvijaya of Lalitāditya who came to the south and to the Vengi kingdom as stated in the chapter on Vengi about 703 A. D.

v1.c18.s3.7

∗ These insignia are detailed in many later grants also. What is Palidhvaja cannot be determined. Sun, Moon, and Makaratorana or Fish Torana are strangely enough the insignia of royalty even now. They were taken by the Mogul kings also and are enjoyed by the Maharaja Scindia at the present day. It is strange how things stick. To find the Sun, Moon, and fish among the insignia of paramount kingship, so early as the Chālukyas of Bādāmi of 700 A. D. is indeed wonderful.

v1.c18.s3.8

Yaśovarman’s scheme of digvijaya failed first in the south and finally when he met king Lalitāditya of the north. The details of this later defeat have already been noticed. Yaśovarman was not killed in that campaign though certain words in the Rājatarangiṇī would lead us to believe it. He remained in nominal subjection to Lalitāditya as usually happened in all histories of Indian empires as they were conceived before the Mahomedan conquest. Previous Indian empires, as we have often said, did not mean the annexation of territory and subdued states lived in practical independence subject to payment of tribute only. Yaśovarman must have lived till about 710 or later. One may be in entire agreement on this point with the late S. P. Pandit who in his introduction to Gauḍavaho asssigns to Yaśovarman a reign from 675 to 710 A. D.

v1.c18.s3.9

The greatest thing to be remarked about Yaśovarman is that his reign synchronised with and marked the final ascendency of revived Hinduism. Indeed this revival began even during Harsha’s reign. Orthodox Hinduism at this time rallied round the sanctity of the Vedas and the efficacy of Vedic sacrifices, two tenets on which Buddhism was most opposed to it and Pūrva Mīmānsā or the philosophy of Vedic ritual was studied most zealously even during the reign of Harsha. Bāṇa describes his own uncles as great students of the Mīmānsā Śāstra and as performers of Vājapeya, Agniṣṭoma and other Vedic sacrifices. The great apostle of Pūrva Mīmānsā, Kumārila Bhatta, according to S. P. Pandit was the Guru or teacher of Bhavabhūti and grand-teacher of Vākpatirāj as is evidenced by a colophon of Bhavabhūti's drama Mālatī-Mādhava and we may provisionally accept the dates approximately assigned to these great men by S. P. Pandit (Intro. to Gaudavaho p. ccix). as follows :—

v1.c18.s3.10

Kumārila Bhatta b. 590 d. 650 A. D. Bhavabhūti his pupil b. 620 d. 680 A. D. Vākpati his pupil and admirer b. 660 d. 720 A. D. Yaśovarman their patron reigned 675-710 A. D.

v1.c18.s3.11

These are of course conjectural dates but they are supported well by the proved facts in Indian ancient history and we may well believe that the fame of Kumārila had been established in the later days of Harsha and it was his followers who offered a stout resistance to the preachings of Buddhism in Harsha's last assemblies. Of course we reject here the popular belief that Kumārila was the immediate predecessor of Śankara the next grand figure in the history of the revival of Hinduism. The story of Kumārila's defeat by Śankara is like the story of Vikrama's defeat by Śalivāhana or Kalidāsa's defeat in poetry by Bhavabhūti,—absurd and evident anachronisms. After Harsha's death, under the re-established or later Varmās, the Pūrva Mīmānsā philosophy became supreme and Buddhism was finally expelled from the centre of the Hindu empire, the valley of the Ganges and the Jumna. Naturally under Yaśovarman, Kanauj the capital of the Hindu Central Empire became the centre of orthodoxy and attained great religious importance which it retained as we have said, down to the Mahomedan conquest. The Kanaujia Brahmins became the leading Brahmins in the whole of India and they were subsequently placed properly enough at the head of the five Brahmin chief subcastes of northern India as they are now enumerated. The sub-division of Brahmins into five Gaudas and five Dravidas had yet, no doubt, to arise as we shall have to relate later on. But it is worth remarking here that the pre-eminence of Kanaujia Brahmins began from this reign. Gauda or Kurukshetra and Thaneser had already sent Brahmins and Kshatriyas into Bengal but later tradition in Bengal relates that five Kanaujia Brahmins and five Kāyasthas were about this time or a little later after this, invited to and settled in Bengal by the first orthodox king of Bengal Ādisura; about whom we shall have later on to speak. This revival of the Vedas and the science of its interpretation Pūrva Mīmānsā was indeed not confined to the north but was zealously carried on in the south also i. e. in the Deccan under the Chālukyas as we have already seen. By the efforts of both, Buddhism was finally extinguished in India with the exception of Magadha its birth-place where it survived a few centuries more.

v1.c18.s3.12

The power of the Varmās declined towards the end of Yaśovarman’s reign and still more after him. One of his successors was Vajrāyudha (the change in the name-ending from Varmā to Āyudha does not necessarily indicate change in family though it raises a presumption of it,) and he was again defeated by a Kashmir king named Jayāpīda who wished to imitate Lalitāditya in his foreign conquests but who only approached him from a distance. The date of Jayāpīda according to the Rājataranginī is 751-782 A. D. and this date is according to our view correct and not subject to alteration by the addition of 25 years as has been shown in the chapter on Kashmir. Jayāpīda was a grand-son of Lalitāditya and apparently Vajrāyudha was also a grand-son of Yaśovarman conquered by Lalitāditya. Yaśovarman’s reign ended about 710 A. D. and in 751 A. D. his grand-son Vajrāyudha may properly enough have been on the throne of Kanauj. The minister of Jayāpīda was also a Brahmin named Devaśarman a grand-son of the famous foreign minister Agniśarman of Lalitāditya. This Vajrāyudha is mentioned in the Karpura Manjari of Rājaśekhara (Konow and Lenman p. 266) as a king of Pānchāla reigning in Kanauj.

v1.c18.s3.13

The next mention of a king of Kanauj of this line is Chakrāyudha mentioned in the Bhagalpur copperplate grant of a Pāla king of Bengal. (Ind. Ant. Vol. XV p. 304.) The relevant verse is as follows: जित्वेन्द्रराजप्रभृतीन्रातीन् उपार्जिता येन महोदयश्रीः । दत्ता पुनः सा बलिनार्थयित्रे चक्रायुधायानतिवामनाय ॥. This is remarked of king Dharmapāla who is said to have obtained the wealth of Mahodaya (Kanauj) by conquering Indrāyudha or Indrarāja and to have returned the same to Chakrāyudha (perhaps his son) who had humbled himself, as the Pāndavas and Śri Krishna gave the kingdom of Magadha after killing Jarāsandha to his son Sahadeva. In fact this was the usual practice in India upto the Mahomedan conquest. In the Khalimpur grant of Dharmapāla himself (Ep. Ind. Vol. IV) it is said that the king of Pānchāla was restored with the consent and to the delight of Bhoja, Matsya, Madra, Kuru, Yadu, Yavana, Avanti, Gāndhāra and Kīra (भोजैर्मत्स्यैः समद्रैः कुरुयदुयवना-वन्तिगान्धारकीरैः । भूपैर्व्यालोलमौलिप्रणतिपरिणतैः साधु सङ्गृह्यमाणः ।). This verse is very important. It conclusively proves that the empire or suzerainty of Kanauj was acknowledged even in its decline over a very large extent of territory. Bhoja means probably Gwalior (Kunti-Bhoja of the Mahābhārata), Matsya is Jaipur, Madra is eastern Panjab, Kuru is Thanesar or Śri Kantha of the Vardhanas, Yadu is Mathurā, Yavana is doubtful, but it may be taken to be the Yavana king of Āndhra of whom we shall speak later on. Gāndhāra is certainly Peshawar, Avanti is Malwa or Ujjain and Kīra is the Vindhya or Himalayan hilly region. Thus almost the whole of Northern India west of Prayāga was under the suzerainty of the Varmās of Kanauj while east of Prayāga was the newly established kingdom of the Bengal Pālas. The date of this grant is about 800 A.D. Now this great shock given by the Pālas to Kanauj could not but shake its tottering Varmā dynasty which pulled on hereafter for a little longer only. The subordinate kingdoms' ambition could not be long restrained nor that of neighbours and the Varmā dynasty of Kanauj fell in 816 A. D. the empire of Kanauj passing to a Pratihāra king of Bhinmal named Nāgabhatta who in Rajputana was either a subordinate king or a neighbouring king of Kanauj. This new line of imperial kings of Kanauj will be described in our second volume.

v1.c18.s3.14

The Varmā kings of Kanauj thus were supreme from the beginning of the sixth century i. e. 500 A. D. down to 800 A. D. Under Harsha there was an interruption so to speak. But Harsha too ruled in the name of Rājyaśrī and therefore of her husband Grahavarman. If we divide the line of Maukharis into two parts we may do so by taking the earlier Maukharis from 500 to 606 and the later Varmās from 647 A. D. to 816 a period of about 175 years which as history shows is the usual period for a dynasty of kings ranging generally from 150 to 200, sometimes rising to 300 and rarely to 400. But the great event of these Varmā kings' rule was the final extinction of Buddhism or the religion of non-slaughter of animals. The Kanaujia Brahmins to this day are flesh-eaters and not flesh-abstainers like most of the other Brahmins of India.

v1.c18.s3.15

GAUDAVAHO, THE CONQUESTS OF YASOVARMAN AND THE PĀRASĪKAS.

v1.c18.s3.16

This poem by Vākpātirāj is in Prākrit Mahārāshtrī and gives a detailed description of a digvijaya so to speak of his patron king Yaśovarman of Kanauj. But this digvijaya seems to be of doubtful authenticity. As the poem is called Gaudavaho, or the killng of the Gauda king, that may be taken to be the central fact and as such to be historically true. But did Yaśovarman go on a world-conquering expedition east, south, west and north as famous kings in India from the mythical Raghu down to historical Samudragupta and Lalitāditya went? There is no confirmation of this in other historical documents. On the other hand Vākpatirāj was a contemporory poet and his poem contemporary as it is cannot entirely be disbelieved. Perhaps the non-completion of the chief poem shows that the poet conceived the digvijaya as a probable event and not an actual fact. The fact is that Yaśovarman was defeated by a Chālukya king in the south and a Kashmir king in the north. However we think it necessary to give details of this digvijaya as they are given in this poem Gaudavaho. Some facts are indeed valuable as historical evidence.

v1.c18.s3.17

Yaśovarman then according to this poem first came to the Soṇa river (which probably was the western boundary of the Gauda kingdom v. 240-246). He on his way visited the Vindyavāsinī goddess (before whom even then human sacrifice was still made) and roamed in the Vindhya hills (285). The Gauda king hearing of his approach fled. Here the Gauda king is also called king of Magadha (348-354). Yaśovarman, however, entered his territory and encamped there for the rainy season. The Gauda king who had fled returned with his auxiliaries and a battle was fought and the Gauda or Magadha king was killed in battle (414-417).

v1.c18.s3.18

This should have ended the Gaudavaho poem. But it proceeds to detail Yaśovarman's further conquests. He proceeded further as far as the sea and conquered the king of Vanga. He then moved along the sea-coast as far as the Malaya mountain and conquered the Pārasīkas. Now these Pārasīkas in the south are a riddle to many. But they appear to be a reality. In fact in a Chālukya inscription of about this time, the Chālukya king is said to have conquered along with Chola and Pandya both Sinhala and Pārasīka. These Pārasīkas must not be confounded with Pahlavas. For the names are distinct and the Parsis seem to have first gone to the further south in their flight from the Arabs about this time i. e. 700 A. D. before their coming to and finally settling on the Gujarat coast.

v1.c18.s3.19

Yaśovarman went to the southern-most point where the east and west-oceans meet. Thence he is brought to the Narmadā to the place where it falls into the sea. It was here that the pot of nectar was seen by the gods when the ocean was churned. Thence he went to the Marudeśa or Rajputana desert and thence to Thanesar or Śrīkantha. Having conquered the west he went to the north and conquered Ayodhya. In the city of Rāma and Harischandra, he built a temple in one day. He then went to the Mandāra mountain a part of the Himalayas (the commentator by mistake calls it the Mahendra mountain which lies to the south of Kanauj on the eastern coast) and thence to the Himalayas. This finishes his digvijaya and Yaśovarman returns to Kanauj to enjoy his conquest.

v1.c18.s3.20

As no kings are mentioned by name any where not even the Gauda king and as no kingdoms are mentioned in the south, west and north, this description is of very doubtful historical value. Were it not for the mention of the Pārasīkas in the south so strangely corroborated by contemporary Chālukya inscriptions we would not have given it at all in this note. Of course Gaudavadho is a historical fact and has been so treated by S. P. Pandit and many others.

Linked texts (9)