History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7.s3: 2.—Devagupta of Malwa.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7.s3

Language: English

v1.c7.s3.2 — 4 parts

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

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.

v1.c7.s3.8

∗ Even if the epithet महाभ्रतृकुलोत्पन्ना applied to यशोमती by Bāṇa (H. C., p. 176) be interpreted literally, this brother who brought Bhandi must be taken to be a younger brother not entitled to royal epithets. His plain mention requires this as also his handing over his son to seek his for une

Linked texts (3)

Harṣacarita — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum
Aphsaḍ stone inscription of Ādityasena — Sanskrit

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7.s3: 2.—Devagupta of Malwa.

Contents

2.—Devagupta of Malwa.

Linked texts (3)