Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7: Chapter III: The Kings and Kingdoms of India in the Time of Harsha

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7

Language
English

Contents

Chapter III: The Kings and Kingdoms of India in the Time of Harsha

v1.c7.2

The detailed information given in the records of the indefatigable Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang who came to India in the beginning of 631 A. D. and who left it about the end of 643 A. D. supplies us with a very full account of the state of this country during the latter half of the reign of Harsha; an account which is strongly corroborated by epigraphic and other evidence available. Hiuen Tsang often gives us the names of particular kings and also invariably the characteristics of the people touching their disposition, religion and history, information which is very useful to the student of early Indian history. The records and his life composed originally in Chinese have been translated by European scholars and are available to us in an English garb. These accounts have also been subjected to scrutiny by noted researchers like Sir A. Cunningham who has succeeded in identifying most of the places and kingdoms mentioned by the Chinese traveller and subsequent scholars have added to the information thus noted by Sir A. Cunningham in his well-known book 'Ancient Geography of India.' All these scholars have thus laid students of India a history under a deep debt of obligation which cannot but be acknowledged at this stage when we proceed to summarise this information in a table specially prepared for the perusal of the general reader. This table gives the name of each kingdom visited by Hiuen Tsang in order, the name of the king if any and in a third column such valuable information about the people and the country as is thought interesting and useful. (See Note.) From this evidence and from the epigraphic evidence available we shall try in this chapter to describe the important kingdoms in India at this time, and the kings who ruled them.

v1.c7.3

To commence from the extreme north-west we have first to notice the country of Kapiśa (Kabul) the king of which was a Kshatriya and a Buddhist. Who this king was we are unable to ascertain, but he held under subjection the adjoining kingdoms of Lampāk, Nagara and Gāndhāra, all beyond the Indus. The ruling family in Gāndhāra is said by Hiuen Tsang to have been destroyed and the country and the capital were in ruins. Probably the Huns who ruled in this country in the days of Harsha's father were, after their defeat by him, conquered by Kapiśa. The next important kingdom mentioned beyond the Indus and along the Suvastu (Swat) was Udyāna or modern Swat, a stronghold of Buddhism even in the days of Hiuen Tsang. Crossing the Indus, the third important kingdom then was that of Kashmir which held under its sway the three minor kingdoms of Taxila, Sinhapura and Uraśa. The king of Kashmir, at this time, was Durlabhavardhana who according to the Rājataranginī inaugurated the Karkota dynasty in Kashmir. Hiuen Tsang also notices that the kings of Kashmir were protected by a dragon. According to Kalhana, this king was a son-in-law of the last king of the Gonardīya dynasty, named Bālāditya. He is said by Kalhana to have come to the throne in 3677 of the Laukika era or 601 A. D. and to have ruled for 36 years, which makes him a contemporary of Harsha almost from beginning to end. The dynasty founded by him was called the Karkota dynasty, Karkota being the name of a dragon by whose favour he was supposed to have risen to importance. He established his sway over the northern portion of the Panjab as well as certain hill states adjoining Kashmir and was thus a powerful king. Probably it was he who, in the difficult Himalayas, was made to acknowledge the nominal suzerainty of Harsha and compelled to pay tribute as mentioned by Bāna. The people of Kashmir as described by Hiuen Tsang were then exactly what they are at present, handsome and fond of learning, but strangely enough Hiuen Tsang describes them as deceitful.

v1.c7.4

The next country of importance is the one which Hiuen Tsang calls Tekka, the former capital of which was Śākala and a former noted king of which was Mihirakula. Both Śākala and Mihirakula are names of note in the ancient history of India but this capital Śākala was now in ruins. The new capital and the name of Tekka have not been identified. It is possible to identify Tekka, however, with the Tāk of the Chachnāma and the Tāk royal family enumerated among the 36 royal families of India. The Tāk according to Todd disappeared from Indian history owing to conversion to Mahomedanism in the 13th century A. D. The Tekka kingdom appears to have held extensive sway, as Mulasthānapura (Multan) and Parvata are said by Hiuen Tsang to have been subject to Tekka in his days. All these countries were not pre-eminently Buddhist and it may be conjectured that they were the places where old Hindu worship then flourished. Mihirakula was a persecutor of Buddhists, and at Multan there was the famous temple of the Sun worshipped by devotees throughout India. Who the Tekka king was, it would be most interesting to discover. He was the most important king of the Panjab so to speak, though as his country lay between Kashmir and Thanesar, his subordination to Harsha may be inferred.

v1.c7.5

Giving up the order of Hiuen Tsang and going a little south-west we find that the next most important kingdom was Sind. The capital was beyond the Indus and it held under subjection two or three kingdoms to the west and south as far as the sea. In fine the kingdom was as extensive as the British province of Sind. Its king though powerful had been defeated by both Prabhākara and Harsha. Who this king was it is somewhat difficult to determine. He was a Śūdra by caste and a Buddhist according to Hiuen Tsang. According to the Chachanāma—a history of the conquest of Sind by the Arabs in the next or eighth century,—there ruled in Sind before Chacha, the Brahmin king, a race of kings whose ancestor was Dewaij and whose last king was Sāhasi Rai. After Sāhasi's death Chacha the Brahmin who was his chamberlain seized the throne and married his widow. When this usurpation took place we can ascertain from the Chachanāma which states that in the 11th year of the Hejira, *i. e.*, in 632 A. D. the first invasion of Sind by Mahomedans took place. "Chacha was then on the throne and 35 years of his reign had passed." The usurpation of Chacha from this statement falls in 597 A.D. He ruled forty years, *i. e.*, till 637 A. D. when his brother Chandra succeeded him and ruled for 7 years, *i. e.*, till 644 A. D. Thus in 641 A. D. when Hiuen Tsang visited the kingdom of Sind, Chandra must have been on the throne and he is said in the Chachanāma to have been a Buddhist. But he was a Brahmin and hence Hiuen Tsang's description that he was a Śūdra does not apply. It is not possible to suppose that Hiuen Tsang made a mistake. It should rather be said that the Chachanāma is mistaken, for much of it is fanciful and it is more a hearsay history for events before the conquest of Sind by the Arabs than the evidence of an eye-witness. Moreover if Chandra died in 644 A. D. his nephew Dahir must be taken to have come to throne in 644 A. D. He was the king when Sind was conquered by Mahamad Kasim in 712 A. D., a date which is certain and reliable. Dahir therefore must thus have been on the throne for 68 years, a somewhat long period. What may be surmised is that Sāhasi was still on the throne of Sind when Hiuen Tsang visited the country in 641 A.D. He appears to have been of the Maurya dynasty as the Chachanāma represents that the ruler of Chitor was his brother or distant relative. Chitor was not yet in the hands of the Sisodias but was ruled by a Maurya family of kings from whom, as the traditions of the Sisodias declare, the kingdom was seized by Bappā Rāval. The Mauryas were of course looked upon as Śūdras. It is not improbable that branches of the Maurya family sprung from Chandra Gupta and Aśoka still ruled in several places in India. We would therefore give greater weight to Hiuen Tsang's statement and hold that the king of Sind at this time was Sāhasi II and he may have been a Buddhist. It is also more consistent to suppose that it was Sāhasi II who was defeated by Harsha and not Chacha who was a peculiarly fortunate king and who extended his sway north, west and south. Chacha is said to have conquered Multan and Parvata and made his boundary conterminous with that of Kashmir. As Hiuen Tsang states that Multan was subject to Tekka and not to Sind when he visited it in 641 A.D. we may take it as a further argument to hold that he visited Sind in the time of Sāhasi II. Some place the usurpation of Chacha in 631 A.D. (see Sind Gazetteer and Gazetteer of Bahawalpur) on the authority of another Mahomedan historian, but we must place it sometime after Harsha's death, i.e., about 648 A.D. Chacha ruled for 40 years or till 688 and his brother Chandra till 695 and his son Dahir must have been on the throne for about 17 years when he was conquered by Kasim in 712 A. D.

v1.c7.6

The divergence between the testimony of Hiuen Tsang and Chachanāma with regard to the caste of the ruling king in Sind leaves us in a doubt as to whether Sāhasi II was then ruling there or Chandra, brother of Chacha. But there is no doubt as to who was then ruling in Valabhi or Eastern Kathiawar, the next most important kingdom in Northern India. Hiuen Tsang describes the ruler of this kingdom very vividly. "He was a Kshatriya by caste and a son-in-law of Harsha. His name was Dhruvabhata. He was hasty of temper and young but a devout Buddhist." He is subsequently described as often accompanying Harsha on his march and he was present at the great alms-giving assemblage held at Prayāga where Hiuen Tsang was the presiding priest in 643 A. D. Epigraphical evidence is amply corroborative in this connection. The ruling family of Valabhi was founded by Senāpati Bhatārka, who came from Ayodhyā, during the troubles of the Huns about the beginning of the sixth century (some place this in 485 A. D.). Their grants testify to their history and power and they were generally worshippers of Siva though Dhruvabhata the son-in-law of Harsha was a Buddhist. It was undoubtedly a premier Kshatriya family, for the premier Kshatriya family of later Indian history, namely, the Sisodiyas of Udaipur derive their descent from this family of Valabhi. It is therefore not improbable that Harsha gave his daughter in marriage to this king because he was a Kshatriya king, as his father had given Rājyaśrī in marriage to Grahavarmā, another well-known Kshatriya king of his days. In fact, then as now, kings tried to give their daughters to kings of unquestioned Kshatriya lineage for as Bāṇa says (H. C., p. 200) सत्स्वप्यन्येषु वरगुणेषु अभिजनमेवानुरुध्यन्ते धीमन्तः “Among other good qualities of a bridegroom wise men look to good lineage alone.”

v1.c7.7

The next important kingdom was that of Gurjara in Rajputana. Its capital was Bhinmāl. It was the principal country of the Gurjaras in those days, though now the country is not Gujarat but Rajputana. “The king was a Kshatriya by caste,” according to Hiuen Tsang, and “a young man celebrated for his wisdom and courage and a firm believer in Buddhism.” This king must have been a son of king Vyāghramukha in whose time the noted astronomer Brahmagupta in 628 A.D. composed his treatise on astronomy. As Hiuen Tsang visited the country about 641 A. D., Vyāghramukha’s successor must have been a young man. Gurjara was defeated by Prabhākara, the father of Harsha as stated in the Harsha-Charita, p. 174 (गुर्जरप्रजागरः प्रतापशील इति प्रथितपरनामा प्रभाकरवर्धनो नाम राजाधिराजः). Though its conquest by Harsha in his digvijaya is not mentioned, it may be easily presumed. But Hiuen Tsang’s description of the king suggests that like Sind and Kashmir, Gurjara was nominally subject to the overlordship of Harsha.

v1.c7.8

There was a Gurjara kingdom to the south of Valabhi also. It was very probably founded by an offshoot from the Gurjara kingdom in the north. This was the first incursion of the Gurjaras into this part of the country which in later times has always borne their name. The kingdom is called Bharukaccha by Hiuen Tsang and its capital was Bharukaccha or modern Broach on the north bank of the Nerbudda at the head of the estuary of that river. It derived its wealth from sea-borne trade. The king who ruled Bharukaccha at this time was Dadda II whose grants found disclose the genealogy of the family and mention it clearly as a Gurjara family*. These kings were worshippers of the Sun, a fact which also connects them with the original Gurjara kingdom of Bhinmāl where there was a well-known temple of the Sun. The tree of the family is as follows:—(1) Dadda I who came into this part about 528 A. D. and founded the kingdom, (2) Jayabhata I, (3) Dadda II, contemporary of Harsha and Hiuen Tsang. He was practically an independent king though his titles are those of a Mahāsāmanta. For this king Dadda is said to have given refuge to a Valabhi king when he was attacked by Harsha. Probably it was Dhruva-bhata himself who subsequently became the son-in-law of Harsha, but perhaps his father if this invasion happened during the early years of Harsha's reign.

v1.c7.9

We next go on to describe the kingdom of Molapo or Malwa as described by Hiuen Tsang. "Its capital" says he "was on the south-east side of the Mahi river. The people were intelligent, of a refined speech and of liberal education. Malwa in the south-west and Magadha in the north-east were the two countries where learning was prized. In this country virtue was esteemed and humanity respected." This flattering description applies to ancient Malwa as a whole, for Malwa throughout Sanskrit literature bears a high reputation for learning. But Molapo must be identified with Western Malwa (as at present constituted politically) as the capital is said to be near the Mahi river, which is even now a river of Western Malwa as well as Gujarat. It may perhaps have been Dhārānagari noted in the next few centuries as the seat of the Paramāras, the liberal patrons of learning and learned men. Dhārā is mentioned in the Jaunpur inscription of Īśvaravarmā (Gupta Ins. Vol. III, plate No. 51, p. 230), and thus must have been in existence even at that time. Whatever the capital may have been, this Malwa of Hiuen Tsang owing to the mention of the Mahi is undoubtedly Western Malwa; Eastern Malwa, separated from it by the Chambal river, being mentioned by him as Ujjain of which we shall speak presently. Who the king of this Western Malwa was it does not clearly appear. Hiuen Tsang mentions that from the records of this kingdom, about sixty years before his arrival, there ruled here a Śīlāditya who was famous for his rare kindness and compassion. He was a Buddhist and had a temple of Buddha built near his palace. "This fine work had been continued for successive generations without interruption." (See Records, Watters, Vol. II, p. 242.) The life adds, "He would not injure even a fly. He caused the water given to the horses and elephants to be strained, unless he should destroy the life of a water-insect. He impressed on the people of the country to avoid taking life. Thus for fifty years he continued on the throne,' p. 148. If this king ruled Western Malwa for fifty years, sixty years before Hiuen Tsang's visit in 640 A. D., he must be taken to have come to the throne in 530 A. D. or somewhere about it and died in 580. At this time, therefore, his grandson or perhaps great-grandson must, have been ruling in Western Malwa. Who this Śīlāditya was we shall discuss in a note.

v1.c7.10

∗ विपुल-गुर्जर-नृपान्वय-प्रदीपतो &c. (Indian Antiquary, Vol. VII., No. 63).

v1.c7.11

Next we come to the kingdom called Ujjain from its capital. This kingdom was pre-eminently Malwa and should have been so called. But Hiuen Tsang coming to Western Malwa first and finding it completely Buddhist, gave it the name of Malwa and gave to the next kingdom which was ruled by a Brahmin and which was not wholly Buddhist the name of Ujjain. Ujjain, however, was Malwa pre-eminently. It was the same Ujjain as is famous in the old Buddhist and Hindu literatures. There is no doubt about its identity for Hiuen Tsang reports that Aśoka in his youth had built outside the city a hell (jail) for the punishment of evil-doers. The ruler of the country when Hiuen Tsang visited it was a Brahmin. He was perhaps appointed by Harsha or had seized the vacant kingdom and had been tolerated by him. Of the Gupta family which appears to have ruled here in the beginning of Harsha's reign we shall speak in a note. It may be stated that the Gupta emperors of Pāṭaliputra and Ayodhyā conquered Malwa and Ujjain about 400 A. D., under Chandra Gupta II. His successors ruled Malwa as well as Kathiawar and Gujarat as their coins testify. With Skanda Gupta the regular Gupta line ceased. It was overthrown as is well-known by the Huns. A Budha Gupta, however, ruled between the Jumna and the Nerbudda about 480-500 A.D. as appears from the Eran inscription and also from his coins. Other branches of the Guptas founded by Gupta chiefs must have established themselves in the several provinces of their empire and we may take it that the family mentioned in the Aphsad plate ruled in Malwa at Ujjain until Deva Gupta the contemporary of Rājya was killed in the battle with him and the kingdom was seized by Harsha in 606 A. D. After that date and between 640 A. D. a Brahmin king may have set himself up or been appointed in Malwa.

v1.c7.12

After the fall of the Gupta power and of Budha Gupta, who ruled between the Jumna and the Nerbudda, other kingdoms might have been formed in this part of the country besides Malwa or Ujjain and Hiuen Tsang mentions two, namely, Chichito or Zajoti in what is now Bundelkhand the capital being probably at Eran and Maheśvarapura which has been identified by many with Gwalior (or perhaps Narwar). All these three kingdoms go by the name of their capitals and were ruled by Brahmin kings who may well be originally only Gupta governors subsequently assuming kingly status.*

v1.c7.13

We have thus far noticed the important kingdoms in the west and south of the empire of Harsha and mentioned the names and other particulars of the kings who ruled them. They were, to repeat, the kingdoms of Kabul, Kashmir, Tekka (Panjab), Sind, Valabhi, Gurjara, Broach, Malwa, Ujjain, Bundelkhand and Gwalior. Durlabhavardhana ruled in Kashmir and Sāhasi II in Sind. At Valabhi the premier Kshatriya king Dhruvabhaṭa ruled and he was the son-in-law of Harsha. In Gurjara north or Rajputana and in Gurjara south or Broach ruled two Kshatriya kings, viz., a son of Vyāghramukha and Dadda II, respectively. In what is Central India as constituted at present three kingdoms, named Ujjain, Zajoti, and Maheśvarapura, besides Molapo or Western Malwa, were ruled by three Brahmin kings. All these were probably actually included in Harsha's empire and Valabhi and Broach were practically so, while Gurjara, Sind, Kashmir and Tekka were nominally under Harsha's suzerainty. In Molapo, which was also practically under the rule of Harsha, a grandson of a Śilāditya ruled with certainty.

v1.c7.14

¹ The king in Chichito might have been a descendant of the Brahmin king Sankhobha of the Parivrājaka family whose inscription is given at 25 in the Corp. Ins., Vol. III, p. 115, or he may have been a descendant of Dhyānavishu whose inscription has been found at Eran.

v1.c7.15

Before going on to describe the kingdoms of Mid-India we must notice a small kingdom not visited by Hiuen Tsang, the ruler of which in the beginning of the next or 8th century laid the foundation of the Mewad kingdom so noted in modern history for its great heroism and its constancy to Rajput traditions. This was the small kingdom of Eder in the south-west of Mewad, founded by a son of Gūhāditya of the Valabhi family of Kshatriyas, in the middle of the sixth century. At this time, i. e., in the first half of the seventh century, the ruler in this family was named Nāgāditya Śilāditya who is mentioned in an inscription dated 646 A. D. (see Rajputana Gazetteer, Mewad Agency, Vol. II) In this family is said to have been born Bappā Rāwal who in the beginning of the 8th century seized Chitod and inaugurated the Mewad family of Rajputs as we shall have to relate hereafter. The origin of the Mewad family thus traced to the Valabhi kings is doubted by many historians, for reasons which we shall have to discuss in our second volume.

v1.c7.16

We now come to Mid-India or what is practically the present United Provinces. The valley of the Ganges and the Jumna has been the seat of Indo-Aryan civilization from ancient times. Indo-Aryan mental and physical power was developed here and from here the Aryans dominated so to speak Northern India or Hindustan as it is usually called. This part in ancient times was called the Madhya Deśa from which Śrī Kṛṣṇa says in the Mahābhārata (Sabhā parva) “the Yādavas were so sorry to be ousted and whither they pined so vehemently to return.” The same name continued down to the time of Hiuen Tsang who also calls it Mid-India and Varāhamihira also makes this part the central division of India. The climate of this part of the country is or rather was remarkably dry and healthy in those days, when it was not cut up by numerous canals taken out from the Jumna and the Ganges, which while they have added to the fertility of the land and insured it against famine, have created a malarial climate and detracted much from its salubrity. The country then was and still is very fertile and hence numerous peoples or kingdoms flourished in this very compact territory and rose to pre-eminence in ancient times. The principal kingdoms here at this time were Thanesar and Kanauj both ruled by one and the same king Harsha. These two kingdoms were in fact the ancient Kuru and Pāñchāla kingdoms united again as they once were under Janamejaya and the combination was naturally so powerful that Harsha like Janamejaya easily became the emperor of Hindustan. As Harsha usually lived at Kanauj that city now rose to the importance, and assumed the status, of the capital of India. This status it retained throughout the mediæval period of Indian history of which we are treating. It had already risen into some importance during the days of the Maukhari kings Īśāna, Śarva and Avantivarmā who ruled there during the latter half of the sixth century and who established overlordship over the eastern portion of the Gangetic valley, while the Vardhanas of Thanesar established overlordship over the western. The union of Thanesar and Kanauj at once raised Kanauj* to the position of the capital of India now lost

v1.c7.17

[^ *]: Kanauj is now a mere Tahsil or Taluka town in the Farukhabad District, U. P. and nothing but debris remains to attest its former greatness.

v1.c7.18

completely by Pāṭaliputra. The latter city when Hiuen Tsang visited it was in ruins and almost deserted. It had finished its rôle. Chandragupta Maurya had raised it to the position of the capital of India and Aśoka had confirmed it. Subsequent dynasties of emperors down to the Guptas respected that position, but when the Guptas moved out of it for the first time to Ayodhyā for a sort of change, its decline began, and when Harsha established the court of his empire at Kanauj, that position was finally lost by it after having thus retained it for about 800 years, *i. e.* from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. Kanauj remained the acknowledged capital of India during the rest of the period of the early history of India. Delhi was almost a village at this time. It had shone once only during the brief reign of the Pāṇḍavas in the beginning of Indian history and had then retired into shade. It came into view again in the 10th century A.D. with Anangapāla who claimed to be a descendant of the Pāṇḍavas but remained inferior to Kanauj till the 12th century when it threw Kanauj into shade with the victory of Pṛithvirāja over Jayachand. The Mahomedans who finally conquered Pṛithvirāja made Delhi the chief seat of their rule and Delhi has since remained the capital of the Indian empire down to this day.

v1.c7.19

This short account of the shifting of the centre of political gravity westward along the Gangetic valley from Pāṭaliputra to Kanauj and from Kanauj to Delhi will be found interesting. In the interval between 600 and 1200 A. D., Kanauj was the accepted capital of India as Arab historians of this time also testify; for when they speak of the capital of Hind they always refer to Kanauj. The halo of the empire of Harsha hovered long over the city and induced each successive aspirant to imperial power to establish his dynasty there during this period as had happened at Pāṭaliputra during the centuries preceding and as happened at Delhi during the centuries following. The city of Kanauj consequently acquired grandeur and accumulated riches commensurate with its dignity. It was at the height of its splendour in the time of Mahmud of Ghazni, who himself observed that it could justly boast to have no equal and that it was full of palaces and temples built of marble. Even when Hiuen Tsang visited it, it was already a great city. It was, says he, five miles long and one mile broad, was very strongly defended and had lofty structures everywhere. "There were beautiful gardens and tanks of clear water and in it were collected rarities from strange lands." Kanauj was so grand in the 8th century that the Chachanāma uses (Trans. p. 52) "You want Kanauj" as a proverb meaning you want the impossible.

v1.c7.20

In this city reigned Harsha the patron of Bāṇa and Hiuen Tsang. Thanesar or Śrikantha as the country is called by Bāṇa, and Kanauj were kingdoms directly under Harsha. Hiuen Tsang mentions many kingdoms in the Gangetic valley besides these two and most of them also must have been directly under Harsha's rule. Pāriyātra or modern Alwar was however under a king of the Vaiśya caste as also Śrughna (about Hardwar) and Matipura where a Śūdra king ruled, and Brahmapura or modern Garhwal. But Ahicchatra and Pilośana, Sānkāśya and Ayodhyā, Allahabad and Kauśāmbi where no kings are mentioned by Hiuen Tsang were probably under the direct sway of Harsha. Along the foot of the Himalayas were small kingdoms like Śrāvasti and Kapilvastu, Rāmagrāma and Kuśinagara where petty chiefs ruled. These places were places of Buddhist worship and hence kept up some population; otherwise strangely enough the country was desolate. Many cultivable and fertile parts of India were indeed in ancient times under jungles which have been cleared only under the British rule. Civilization and prosperity followed in ancient days the course of the Ganges and the Jumna, and away from them were jungles infested by elephants. The incessant internecine fights between opposing kings prevented the growth of overflowing population and the means of communication being limited, the export of grain from India must then have been almost nil. Hence the need for extension of cultivation was not felt and it is no wonder that even the empire of Harsha was bordered, so to speak, on both sides by wide fringes of jungles along the Himalayas on the north and the Vindhyas on the south. These jungles provided the immense number of elephants required for the armies of contending kings. Considering this state of the country, therefore, we need not be surprised that there were 60,000 elephants in the army of the emperor Harsha alone, while there must have been thousands more in those of other kings.

v1.c7.21

We will now proceed to describe the kingdoms to the east of Mid-India, or in what are now the provinces of Behar and Bengal. The first kingdom to notice was that of Magadha. Hiuen Tsang relates that before his time a king named Pūrṇavarmā who was supposed to be a descendant of Aśoka ruled in Magadha where he had rebuilt the wall round the Bodhi tree which had been thrown down by Śaśāṅka king of Karṇasuvarṇa. Magadha was the chief place of Buddhist worship. It contained the Bodhi tree and Buddha's footprint stone. Besides, the Nālandā monastery, the chief seat of Buddhist learning was in Magadha. Beyond Magadha were Hiraṇyaparvata or Monghyr and Champā or Bhagalpur, Kajugal or Rājmahāl and Paundravardhana or Rangpur ruled by kings of whom we have no information. Beyond was Kāmarupa or Assam which was ruled at this time by Bhāskaravarmā whose other name was Kumāra. He was a friend and ally of Harsha from the first as we have already described. Strangely enough the accounts of this king given by Hiuen Tsang and Bāṇa, two contemporary witnesses agree almost to the last detail. At page 186 of the Records, Vol. II, (Watters) we read, "The reigning king who was a Brahmin by caste and a descendant of Nārāyaṇa Deva was named Bhāskaravarmā, his other name was Kumāra. The sovereignty had been transmitted in the family for 1,000 generations. His Majesty was a lover of learning. Men of ability came from afar to study here. The king though not a Buddhist respected accomplished Śramaṇas,” Bāṇa at page 294, H. C., says.—महावराहसंपर्क-संभृतगर्भाया भगवत्या भुवो नरको नाम सूनुः। तस्यान्वये भगदत्त-पुष्पदत्त-वज्रदत्त प्रभृतिषु यक्तेिषु बहुषु महीपालेषु प्रपौत्रौ भूतिवर्मणः पौत्रो चंद्रमुखवर्मणः पुत्रो स्थितवर्मणः सुस्थितवर्मा नाम महाराजाधिराजो जज्ञे। तस्यच भास्करवर्मा नाम तनयः कुमारः समभवत्। Although the name Bhāskaravarmā sounds as that of a Kshatriya his being a Brahmin as mentioned by Hiuen Tsang may be accepted to be correct. Brahmins who followed the Kshatriya profession often took a Kshatriya name and those who followed Vaiśya professions took a Vaiśya name. The fame of Assam for learning continued for some centuries more down to the days of Śankara. The legendary origin of the family is, of course, unhistorical, but that it was a long-continued family may be believed as Assam, being out of the way, must have remained undisturbed by the ambitions of conquering heroes. We shall have to speak of this Kumāra again as we have spoken of him before.

v1.c7.22

We now come to the three kingdoms into which Bengal proper was then divided, namely, Karṇasuvarṇa (Murshidabad), Samaṭaṭa (Eastern Bengal) and Tāmralipti (Midnapur). These were prosperous countries even in Hiuen Tsang’s time. The king in Karṇasuvarṇa before Hiuen Tsang visited it was Śaśāṅka or Narendragupta already mentioned as the man who treacherously murdered Rājyavardhana and was a persecutor of Buddhism. Probably he was pardoned by Harsha, as he is shown by a Ganjam inscription to be alive and reigning in 619 A. D. But after his death his kingdom seems to have been given to the Kumārarāja of Assam. For an undated inscription of Bhāskaravarmā, published in the Dacca Review 1913 (noted by V. Smith), was issued from Karṇasuvarṇa. Hiuen Tsang does not mention the king ruling in Karṇasuvarṇa when he visited it; but the above surmise is supportable also from the statement of Bāṇa, that Harsha anointed Kumārarāja a king (अत्र देवेन अभिषिक्तः कुमारः H. C., p. 139). In Samaṭaṭa or Eastern Bengal a Brahmin family ruled to which belonged a great Buddhist saint visited by Hiuen Tsang. No particulars of the king at Tāmralipti are mentioned. All these kingdoms were, of course, subordinate to Harsha. It is to be noticed that Hiuen Tsang does not asssign the name of Gauda to any of these kingdoms, though the king of Karṇasuvarṇa, Śaśāṅka, is described by Bāṇa as the king of Gauda. Gauda is a noted name in Sanskrit literature for the learned men of Gauda have always maintained a peculiar style and school of thought of their own. Probably the name Gauda applied to all these three kingdoms, as also the name Vanga which is still more ancient and which is not noted by Hiuen Tsang.

v1.c7.23

Lastly in Northern India and in subordination to Harsha we have to mention the kingdom of Odra or Orissa and the kingdom of Kongadu or Ganjam along the coast of the Bay of Bengal. These were Indo-Aryan kingdoms on the border of the Dravidian Kalinga kingdom to the south. With Kongadu Hiuen Tsang notices the change in language. (Curiously enough their written language was the same as that of India.) With Kalinga the change in the language was complete. "In talk and manners they differed from Mid-India" (Watters, Vol. II, p, 198). The kings in these two countries are not mentioned by Hiuen Tsang, nor can we find them out with certainty. According to the palm leaf chronicles of the temple of Jagannath in Cuttuck, Orissa was under the Kesari dynasty from the 7th to the 12th Century A. D., but it is probable that that dynasty established itself there after the time of Harsha. (See Cuttuck Gazetteer.)

v1.c7.24

This completes the list of important kingdoms* in Northern India which constituted the empire of Harsha. As we have already remarked, contemporaneous with this northern empire of Harsha, there was at this time the southern empire of Satyāśraya Pulakeśin II of Mahārāshtra, which included all the kingdoms in the Deccan and South India. These kingdoms were, most of them, visited by Hiuen Tsang and have been described by him. They were Kalinga or Rājamahendri, Kosala or Raipur, Āndhra or Warangal, Dhanakakata or Vengi, Chola or Nellore, Dravida or Kāñchī, Malayakuta or Madura, Konkanapura or part of Mysore and northern part of the western coast (the capital being probably Banavāsi above the Ghats) and lasty Mahārāshtra with its capital at Bādāmi, whose king Pulakeśin appears to have subdued all the other kingdoms noted above, (see Aihole and other inscriptions.) The Pallavas ruled in Kāñchī or Chola and Dravida, their king at this time being Narasinha Varman. In Malayakūta or Pāndya country (Madura and Tinnevelly) ruled the line of kings, called the Pāndyas who like the kings of Assam, ruled therefrom of old. In Vengi was Vishnu Vardhana, brother of Satyāśraya Pulakeśin. Who the king of Banavāsi was we cannot discover. Probably a prince of the Kadamba family ruled there. These kingdoms of the south were all tributaries of and subordinate to the empire of Pulakeśin II who conquered them between about 610 and 620 A. D. By a strange coincidence this southern empire of Pulakeśin which came into being at about the same time as that of Harsha in the north, also came to an end like its northern rival about the middle of the 7th century, Narsinha Varman of Kāñchī conquering and devastating Bādāmi.

v1.c7.25

∗ Nepal is omitted as at this time, it was subordinate to Tibet and it does not clearly appear that it was subordinate to Harsha.

Notes.

1—The Maukharis of Kanauj.

v1.c7.s2.1

Corp. Ins. Vol. III, Aśirgad Seal, No. 47 (page 219), gives us a seal inscription of Śarvavarmā and this contains, in my view, the genealogy, of the kings of Kanauj. Unfortunately in these records the recorders never trouble themselves to mention the kingdom where the particular kings ruled. Perhaps they omit the name of the kingdom because they think it so well known, but this omission causes us at this distance of time a great deal of doubt and difficulty. It is from the Harsha-Charita that we know that the Maukharis ruled in Kanauj; for Grahavarmā came from there and was killed there and Rājyashri was also imprisoned there. This seal gives the following genealogy:—1. Mahārāja Harivarmā; 2. Mahārāja Ādityavarmā; 3 Mahārāja Iśvaravarmā, born of Harsha Guptā; 4. Mahārājādhirāja Iśānavarmā, born of Upaguptā; 5. Parama Māheśvara Mahārājādhirāja Śarvavarmā Maukhari. This line of the seal may be continued by the help of the Aphsad inscription of the later Guptas (p. 203, Corp. Ins., Vol. III); 6. Susthitavarmā, and by the aid of the Deo Barnak inscription (p. 217 ditto); 7 Avantivarmā. This Deo Barnak inscription is of one Jīvita Gupta and mentions the confirmation of the grant of the village of Vārunika (now Deo Barnak), a village about 25 miles south-west of Arrah, the chief town of the Shahabad district of Bengal to a sun-worshipper, first made by Bālāditya and subsequently confirmed by Śarvavarmā and again by Avantivarmā both styled Parameśvara. These two are evidently the kings of the Maukhari line of Kanauj. We may by the help of these inscriptions, give the Maukhari line of kings with the Gupta line as follows:—

v1.c7.s2.2

| The Maukharis. | The Guptas. |
| 1. Harivarmā | 1. Krishna Gupta. |
| 2. Ādityavarmā, married Harsha Guptā. | 2. Harsha Gupta. |
| 3. Iśvaravarmā, married Upaguptā. | 3. Jīvita Gupta. |
| 4. Iśānavarmā | 4. Kumāra Gupta, fought with Iśānavarmā. |
| 5. Śarvavarmā Maukhari. | 5. Dāmodara Gupta, killed in fight with Maukhari. |
| 6. Susthitavarmā. | 6. Mahāsena Gupta, fought with Susthita. |
| 7. Avantivarmā | |
| 8. Grahavarmā. | 7. Mādhava Gupta. |

v1.c7.s2.3

Three generations of the Guptas Kumāra, Dāmodara and Mahāsena are explicitly said in the Aphsad inscription to have fought with three generations of the Maukharis, Īśāna, Śarva and Susthita; the first two names of which we find in the Ashirgad seal inscription of Śarva also. Ādityavarmā is said, in the seal, to have married Harsha Guptā, and she appears to have been a sister of the contemporaneous Harsha Gupta. Mahāsena Gupta must be taken to have lived long or Susthita to have a short reign, hence his generation covers two of the Varmās which is not improbable, Grahavarmā and Mādhava Gupta, son of Mahāsena being contemporaneous with and almost of the same age as Harsha.

v1.c7.s2.4

It is possible to deduce a few salient facts about the history of this line of Maukhari kings from these three records, namely the Aphsad inscription, the Ashirgad seal and the Deo Barnak inscription (Corp. Ins., Vol. III, Nos. 42, 47 and 46). In the first place this line of kings became powerful in the days of Īśānavarmā who for the first time is called Mahārājādhirāja, the three before him being called Mahārājas only in the Ashirgad seal. The seal assigns the title Maukhari for the first time to his son Śarvavarmā. In the Aphsad inscription also while his father Īśānavarmā is mentioned by name, his son is called by the simple name of the Maukhari. Thus Śarvavarmā appears to have been a greater king than his father and he and probably his father also fought with the Huns. His dominions or rather overlordship extended south upto Ashirad where his seal was discovered and also east as far as Bengal where as stated in the Deo Barnak inscription he confirmed a grant given by Bālāditya of Magadha to a sun-temple which indicates that the dominion of Bālāditya's successors had been substituted by that of Śarvavarmā of Kanauj. The same grant was confirmed by the grandson of Śarvavarmā named Avantivarmā, the father of Grahavarmā brother-in-law of Harsha.

v1.c7.s2.5

We have now to consider the inscriptions of the Maukhari king named Anantavarmā given in Corp. Ins. Vol. III. In these the pedigree given extends only over three names and these are Yajñavarmā, Śārdūlavarmā and Anantavarmā. These seem to be a branch of the same family, for they call themselves Maukharis. But they are distinct from the Kanauj family and are of much less importance. For the greatest of the three Śārdūla is no more than a Mahāsāmanta (see Corp. Ins., Vol. III, No. 48: श्री-शार्दूल ऽति प्रतिष्ठित-यशः सामन्तचूडामणिः) while Śarvavarmā and Īśānavarmā are styled in the seal Mahārājādhirāja (see No.47 ibid). These Maukharis appear to be a later branch established in the Gayā district, where their inscriptions have been found and probably belong to a date later than that of Harsha.

2.—Devagupta of Malwa.

v1.c7.s3.1

We have next to determine who Deva Gupta or rather the Mālava king was who attacked Grahavarmā of Kanauj and who was killed in the battle with Rājya. The difficulties in this connection are numerous and troublesome. In the first place Bāṇa in the Harsha Charita distinctly says that it was a king of Mālava who attacked Kanauj: देवो ग्रहवर्मा दुरात्मना मालवराजेन जीबलोकं त्याजितः (H. C., p. 251); also कालायसनिगडनिश्रलीकृत-चरणयुगलं सकलमालवराजलोकम् (H. C., p. 303). Clearly therefore a king of Mālava attacked Grahavarmā, and Bhandi showed Harsha the people of that Mālava king enchained (the king himself being probably killed after his defeat by Rājya.) Now in the Madhubana inscription of Harsha Rājya is said to have punished kings like Deva Gupta. Rājya in his short life fought only two battles, one with the Huns and the other with the Mālava king who had murdered Grahavarmā. Putting the two together the name of this Mālava king, therefore, was clearly Deva Gupta. Now in the Aphsad inscription above mentioned, we have the names of members of a Gupta family who were the hereditary enemies of the Varmās of Kanauj and it contains also the name of Mādhava, the companion of Harsha. This family may, therefore, be taken to be the family of the Guptas of Mālava though in this inscription the country of the Guptas is not mentioned, nor unfortunately the name of Deva Gupta. And we may accept the ingenious guess made by Dr. Hoernle (J. R. A. S. 1904) that Deva Gupta was Mādhava's brother, with some changes to be noted further on.

v1.c7.s3.2.1

The fact is there is no other explanation possible. The Harsha-Charita plainly states that the two princes, Kumāra and Mādhava, called Guptas who were given by Prabhākaravardhana to his sons, Rājya and Harsha, to be their companions were मालवराजपुत्रौ or sons of the king of Mālava. This Mādhava Gupta who was the companion of Harsha is very probably the Mādhava Gupta of the Aphsad inscription for he is expressly described there to be desirous of the company* of Harsha. (श्रीहर्षदेवनिजसंगमवांछया च.) Moreover from the description of Mādhava as a tall imposing fair young man, given by Bāṇa in the Harsha-Charita in detail differing from that of Kumāra one is inclined to infer that Bāṇa had in his mind the fact that this Mādhava subsequently became a well-known king. But a difficulty presents itself here namely, how could the king of Mālava attack Grahavarmā, while the king's own brothers were the attendants of Rājya and Harsha, the brother-in-law of Grahavarmā? The guess of Dr. Hoernle seems to be acceptable that they were on inimical terms and it may be supplemented by the suggestion that Kumāra and Mādhava were not merely the younger brothers of Deva Gupta, but were his half-brothers or sons by another wife of Mahāsena Gupta. There is always ill-filling even in ordinary families between half-brothers, and in royal families in India such brothers are usually at deadly enmity.

v1.c7.s3.2.2

By this suggestion is also removed the difficulty of explaining why the sons of a king were given as companions of the sons of another king. Kumāra and Mādhava had no right to the throne being younger sons and their presence in Mālava was not very palatable to the eldest son and heir-apparent Deva Gupta who was most likely an impetuous man. In fine the story of the Mālavaraja in connection with Harsha may be told thus. A Gupta family starting from Kṛiṣhṇa Gupta reigned at Ujjain or some other place in Mālava and were the hereditary enemies of the Maukharis of Kanauj. They were connected by marriage with the Vardhana family of Thanesar, Prabhākaravardhana’s mother Mahāsena Guptā (mentioned in the Sonpat seal of Harsha) being a sister of Mahāsena Gupta of Malwa. The last had a long reign and had his eldest son Deva Gupta by one wife and two younger sons Kumāra and Mādhava by another wife. These he sent to his sister’s son Prabhākara to seek their fortune. Mahāsena Gupta died a little before, Prabhākara and Deva Gupta became king of Malwa. When Prabhākara died suddenly and Rājya and Harsha and Grahavarmā were left young and inexperienced, Deva Gupta, as usual with his family, suddenly attacked Grahavarmā and killed him. Rājya with Bhandi and Kumāra, half-brother of Deva Gupta, attacked Deva Gupta and defeated him and seized all his treasure and put his men and family in chains for his dastardly treatment of Rājyashrī.

v1.c7.s3.2.3

Rājya and Kumāra both being subsequently killed treacherously by Śaśānka Harsha became king of Thanesar and came and took from Bhandi the charge of the booty and prisoners and the army of elephants of the Mālava king. It seems probable that for the great crime of Deva Gupta the kingdom of Mālava was seized by Harsha for a time at least and not given to Mādhava to whom it properly belonged. It appears so clearly from the Harsha-Charita where Bāṇa says : अथालोच्य तत्सर्वमवनिपतिः स्वीकृत्य यथाधिकारमादिदेशाध्यक्षान् which means that the booty including the throne or सिंहासन was taken possession of by Harsha and handed over to his officers and not to Mādhava who must have been retained by Harsha as his companion during all the time he conquered Northern India and founded his empire. Subsequently, as Emperor, Harsha must have put Mādhava in possession of some eastern kingdom on the bank of the Ganges for the Aphsad inscription of Ādityasena and other inscriptions seems to indicate that Ādityasena’s country lay in Bengal. Since this family in Bengal had nothing to do with Deva Gupta his name does not appear in the genealogy of Ādityasena. For, as Mādhava did not succeed to Deva Gupta, his half-brother, at all, Deva Gupta’s name has properly been omitted. In the kingdom of Ujjain when Hiuen Tsang visited it there was a Brahmin king ruling.

v1.c7.s3.2.4

This Brahmin king may either have seated himself on the vacant throne being tolerated by Harsha or he may even have been appointed by Harsha the Emperor as Mātrigupta was appointed to Kashmir by Yaśodharma Vikramāditya of the Mandsaur inscription. Thus the difficulty created by the mention of a Brahmin king in Ujjain by Hiuen Tsang is also removed and reconciled with the story of the Harsha-Charita. Or we may take Deva Gupta’s capital to be some other town like Vidiśā which is also a portion of Malwa. Both Bāṇa and Hiuen Tsang are contemporary and reliable narrators and their statements can only be reconciled in this way.

v1.c7.s3.3

∗ If we take this, to mean "fight" with Harsha, he is still Harsha's contemporary,

v1.c7.s3.4

The line of Mālava kings so to say became extinct with Deva Gupta and the line of the Guptas of Magadha, as the Cor. Ins., Vol. III styles it, continued in the person of Mādhava. We may give the two lines as follows from the Aphsad and other inscriptions given in this volume and even assign some dates with corroboration, as one inscription contains a date 66, presumably of the Harsha Era. We give the Thanesar and Kanauj lines also for comparison.

v1.c7.s3.5

| Thanesar. (Sonpat seal No. 52) | Malwa. (Aphsad inscription and Deo Barnak inscription) | Kanauj. (Aphsad inscription and Ashirgad seal) |
| | 1 Kṛṣṇa Gupta | |
| | 2 Harsha Gupta | |
| | 3 Jīvita Gupta fights with | 1 Īśvaravarmā |
| 1 Rājyavardhana | 4 Kumāra Gupta ” | 2 Īśānavarmā |
| 2 Ādityavardhana m. Mahāsena Guptā | 5 Dāmodara Gupta ” | 3 Sarvavarmā |
| 3 Prabhākaravardhana | 6 Mahasena Gupta ” | 4 Susthitavarmā |
| | | 5 Avantivarmā |
| Rājyavardhana killed 606 A.D. | Harsha- vardhana king 606 A.D. | Deva Gupta killed 606 A.D. (Malwa kingdom line closed) | Mādhava Gupta of Magadha | 6 Grahavarmā killed 606 A.D. |
| | | Ādityasena A.D. 672 | |
| | | Deva Gupta | |
| | | Viṣṇu Gupta | |
| | | Jivita Gupta | |

v1.c7.s3.6

Corp. Ins. Vol. III, plate No. 42, mentions the erection of an image at Nālandā in the regin of Ādityasena in the year 66 (of Harsha Era presumably) i. e. 672 A. D., which is not inconsistent with the story we have sketched above. Mādhava may either be supposed to have come to power and established himself in Magadha after Harsha's death or during his lifetime as stated before.

v1.c7.s3.7

The theory of Dr. Hoernle about Deva Gupta is objected to by Pandurang Shastri Parakhi in his Marathi Life of Harsha. He thinks that Mahāsena Guptā could not have been the sister of Mahāsena Gupta as in that case the sons of the latter Kumāra and Mādhava become the brothers of Prabhākaravardhana being his maternal uncle's sons and therefore uncles of Rājya and Harsha and could not therefore have bowed to them when introduced, as stated by Bāṇa. But this is not correct. Although seniors, even a king's sons, when they come in a subordinate position, have to bow to the master king. The master king and his sons are above all relations in point of etiquette. I have seen even a grand-father bow to his daughter's son, the latter being the king. Secondly, Parakhi does not believe that Deva Gupta was Mahāsena Gupta's son, but there can be no other person (if we bear in mind the Madhuban inscription of Harsha), intended by Bāṇa when he says that it was a Mālava Rāja who attacked Grahavarmā. Thirdly, Vincent Smith also does not accept Dr. Hoernle's theory as a whole and especially that part of it which brings in Śīlāditya of Malwa mentioned by Hiuen Tsang. This last portion of Dr. Hoernle's theory, no doubt, has to be abandoned as I shall show later on. In fact, Śīlāditya cannot come in to attack Grahavarmā, for his Malwa would be different from the Malwa of Deva Gupta. Bāṇa must be taken to use the word Mālava in one sense only though the Mālava of Hiuen Tsang and the Mālava of Bāṇa may be taken to be different. What I mean is this Bāṇa says that Kumāra and Mādhava were the sons of a Mālava king (मालवराजपुत्रौ) and that Grahavarmā was killed by मालवराज or king of Mālava who was himself subsequently defeated by Rājya in battle. In these two statements of Bāṇa Mālava must mean the same kingdom and not different kingdoms as Dr. Hoernle takes by introducing Śīlāditya along with Deva Gupta. Bāṇa's statements clearly require that Kumāra and Mādhava were brothers of Deva Gupta and that they belonged to the same kingdom, which may be taken to Ujjain or some other town in eastern Malwa. Thus, we have to give up that part of Dr. Hoernle's theory which brings in Śīlāditya. We have also to give up the further portion of his theory which makes Yaśomatī (Queen of Prabhākaravardhana), a sister of Śīlāditya and daugher of Yaśodharma. In the first place we find names of a sister and brother have some portion in common but not of a father and daughter. And, secondly and more particularly when Yaśomatī's brother is described by Bāṇa as bringing Bhandi to Prabhākara he simply says यशोमत्या भ्राता. Had he been a king and a king of so great a fame at Śīlāditya, Bāṇa the contemporary of Harsha would certainly have mentioned the name of the king or at least affixed some epithet indicating his high position. It appears from this plain reference that Yaśomatī was not the daughter of a great king but some Sāmanta king and hence her brother is mentioned without any distinction.* Moreover from Yaśomatī's lamentation at the time of burning herself (in 606 A. D.) her father and mother appear to have been then still alive; see H. C., page 230. Under this view, therefore, Bhandi is not the son of a great king, but a mere Sāmanta and expects not to rise to a higher position than that of a Commander-in-Chief. And further we are not reduced to the necessity of believing that he fought against his own father Śīlāditya and had the hardihood or inhumanity to present to Harsha the family and dependents enchained, and the treasures and even the throne of his own father without any feeling. I think this part of Dr. Hoernle's theory must be abandoned for we avoid a great many difficulties by making Yaśomatī not the sister of Śīlāditya of Malwa but of some Sāmanta ruler. His theory, however, that Deva Gupta was a brother of Kumāra and Mādhava seems to me to be acceptable and explains Bāṇa's references properly as shown above.

First 39 of 86 passages. Read on

Linked texts (7)