History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7.s3.7

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.