Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7.s7: 6.—Śilāditya of Molapo.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c7.s7

Language
English

6.—Śilāditya of Molapo.

v1.c7.s7.1

According to the description of this king given by Hiuen Tsang he began to rule in 530 A. D. and died in 580 A. D., and thus lived about 60 years before his visit in 640 A. D. In the Rājataranginī we have the mention of a Śilāditya of Malwa, son of Vikramāditya, who was driven out of his capital by his enemies but who was restored to his throne by Pravarasena II of Kashmir. (Rāj. Book III, 330.) Was he the same king as mentioned by Hiuen Tsang? It is conceded by Stein that while the history of Kashmir given by Kalhana is reliable from the Karkota dynasty onwards, previous to it the dates and history given by Kalhana are not so. This view is borne out also by the contemporary evidence of Hiuen Tsang. For when he was in Kashmir a Karkota king was evidently ruling there. The Records state: "Being protected by a dragon the kings crowed over their neighbours." From the date of Durlabha Vardhana given by Kalhana this king appears to be on the throne of Kashmir when Hiuen Tsang visited it. His date as given by Kalhana is 3677 of the Laukika era or 602 A. D. Now before this king, Kalhana mentions five rulers upto Pravarasena II as follows proceeding backwards:—

v1.c7.s7.2

| Name. | Laukika Year. | Length of reign |
| 1. Bālāditya ... | 3641 | 36 |
| 2. Vikramāditya ... | 3597 | 42 |
| 3. Ranāditya ... | 3299 | 300 |
| 4. Lakhana ... | 3288 | 13 |
| 5. Yudhishthira II ... | 3246 | 39 |
| 6. Pravarasena II ... | 3186 | 60 |

v1.c7.s7.3

Thus Pravarasena II according to Kalhana came to the throne in 3186 L. E. or 111 A. D. He took the kingdom from Mātrigupta who was sent to rule Kashmir during an interregnum by Vikramāditya of Malwa, on Vikrama's death. Kalhana takes this Vikrama to be the first Vikrama who founded the era of 57 B. C. This makes Vikrama die at least 111 + 57 = 168 years of rule which is an obvious absurdity. There is also the absurdity of Ranāditya ruling for 300 years in this dynasty of kings. All this hopeless confusion has been caused by Kalhana's mistake in giving up the original tradition fortunately pre served by Kalhana himself that Vikramāditya Sakāri or the first Vikrama was a different person from the one who sent Mātṛigupta to rule over Kashmir. The first Vikrama according to the tradition reiected by Kalhana was a relative and a contemporary of a previous king of Kashmir by name Pratāpāditya. If we take the Vikramāditya who sent Mātṛigupta to Kashmir to be Yaśodharma Viṣṇu-Vardhana of Malwa who defeated the Huns in 528 A. D., and established an empire over the whole of Nothern India as stated in his Mandsaur pillar inscription we get at some reliable history and dates and we are supported also by the evidence of Hiuen Tsang. For Hiuen Tsang relates that when he visited Kashmir the capital of that country was newly built and the traveller speaks of the new capital as distinct from the old Now it is certain that Pravarasena II founded the present capital Srinagar called also from him Pravarapura. When Hiuen Tsang visited Kashmir in 631 A. D., we may take it that this new capital was not yet a hundred years old. Thus Pravarasena's coming to the throne must be placed some time after 531 A. D.— a time which is not inconsistent with the date of Vikramāditya Yeśodharma of the Mandsaur pillar inscription of 533 A. D. We must give up the genealogy and history of the later Gonardiya kings given by Kalhana altogether and take two or three salient facts only as certain, namely, that Pravarasena II founded the new capital of Kashmir about 540 A. D., that Vikramāditya Yaśodharma had sent a man named Mātṛigupta to rule Kashmir before this Pravarasena and that Pravarasena assisted Vikramāditya's son Pratāpaśīla, also called Śīlāditya, to regain his kingdom lost owing to his expulsion by enemies. This Pratāpaśīla named also Śīlāditya may thus have been the Śīlāditya of Malwa who is mentioned by Hiuen Tsang as ruling in Molapo.

v1.c7.s7.4

But there is one difficulty. Hiuen Tsang states that the king of Valabhi, son-in-law of Harsha, was a nephew of the Śīlāditya of Malwa. If Śīlāditya of Malwa after a rule of about 50 years, died 60 years before 640 A. D., i.e., about 580 A. D., and was a son of Vikramāditya who must be supposed to have died about 530 A.D., how can his nephew be in 630 A.D. a young man? If we suppose that nephew stands here for a sister's son, even then this relationship cannot be accepted if we bear in mind the disparity of age between a supposed sister of Śīlāditya whose father died say about 530 A. D., and Dhruvabhata of Valabhi who was a young man of twenty-five or thirty in 630 A. D. Of course, if we take Hiuen Tsang's Śīlāditya of Malwa to be a different person from the son of Vikramāditya it is possible to conceive that he had a sister from whom Dhruvabhata was born in the Valabhi family. The conclusion is that the identity of Śīlāditya of Malwa with the Pratāpasīla Śīlāditya, son of Vikramāditya mentioned by Kalhana in the Rājataranginī, is a matter of considerable doubt.

v1.c7.s7.5

If the identity is, however, accepted† the history of the western portion of Malwa becomes very easy and straight and we may believe that the line of the great Emperor who defeated the Huns did not become obscure for a hundred years at least, but ruled in Western Malwa to which country we may properly assign Mandsaur where his Jayastambha was found. At the time of Hiuen Tsang's visit, the grandson of this Śīlāditya must have been ruling, for Hiuen Tsang relates that Śīlāditya who was a most devout Buddhist had built a temple of Buddha near his palace. "The fine work had been continued for successive generations without interruption" (Records Watters, Vol. II, page 242). The temple must have been added to in this way, for at least three generations, when Hiuen Tsang visited Malwa. The dynasty may be, thus, supposed to have ruled Western Malwa from before 528 to 640 A. D., for certain of course, the mention of successive generations of Śīlāditya by Hiuen Tsang makes it impossible to believe with Dr. Hoernle that this Śīlāditya could have been alive in 606 A. D., to attack Grahavarmā. As we have already said the attacker of Grahavarmā was Devagupta alone.

v1.c7.s7.6

† And this may be done by taking the word nephew to mean that Dhruvabhata' father and Śīlāditya of Malwa were brothers in the sense that they were the sons of two full sisters.

v1.c7.s7.7

Dr. Hoernle's idea that Śīlāditya of Molapo was a Pro-Hunic king seems also to be difficult of acceptance. I believe the only basis for this supposition is that he invoked the assistance of Pravarasena II of Kashmir. But Pravarasena II was not a Hunic king. Even if we believe that his father was Toramāna he was not according to Kalhana a son of Mihirakula. I do not think Dr. Hoernle's reference here to the Rājataranginī bears this out. Toramāna was the younger brother of Hiranya, who imprisoned him for striking coins in his own name. His pregnant wife escaped and gave birth to Pravarasena. After Hiranya's death therefore, there was an interregnum for a time during which Mātṛigupta was appointed ruler by Vikramāditya. Pravarasena coming of age, recovered his kingdom on Vikramāditya's death from Mātṛigupta. If we believe Kalhanaj's story, then, Pravarasena was not a Hunic king. And Pravarasena assisted Śīlāditya to regain his kingdom, with the probable object of recovering the throne of Kashmir kings which Vikrama had removed to Malwa as mentioned in Rāj. III, 331.

v1.c7.s7.8

If we keep Kalhana aside we may say that there was in Kashmir an interval of foreign rule, probably under the Huns, which Vikrama broke and Mātṛigupta was appointed by him to rule it, there being no claimant available. Pravarasena hearing of Vikrama's death and claiming the kingdom as a scion of the old reigning family took it back from Mātrigupta. In short, in either case Śilāditya could not have been a Pro-Hun. He was a devout Buddhist and could not have been a bad man also. Of course, his capital was not Ujjain. Kalhana, as we have already said, confounds Vikrama Śakāri,* the legendary hero of Ujjain with Yaśodharma, the conqueror of the Huns, who from his pillar erected at Mandsore may well be taken to have really ruled in Western Malwa, and his son Śilāditya naturally ruled there.

v1.c7.s7.9

On one point, however, I think it is not impossible to accept Dr. Hoernle's idea. His suggestion that the coins of Harśa Pratāpaśīla and Śilāditya found with those of Īśanāvarmā and Grahavarmā at Bhitaura, Fyzabad District, noticed by Mr. Burn in J. R. A. S. 1909 mentioned before, should be attributed to Yaśodharma and his son Śilāditya, deserves to receive more favourable consideration than it has hitherto done. By a strange coincidence the names Harsha, Pratāpaśīla and Śilāditya apply to both Harsha and Pratāpaśīla of Thanesar and to Yaśodharma and his son Śilāditya. Rājtaranginī (III. 125) gives Harsha as another name of Vikramāditya and his son Śilāditya had also another name of Pratāpaśīla (Do. III. 330.)† The years on these coins are as Mr. Burn says regnal. Harsha of Thanesar established an era of his own and his years may be regnal, but his father Pratāpaśīla like Īśāna would rather use the Gupta era or some other era. He was not an emperor nor did he claim to be one. His titles and those of Īśāna are the same and hence it is not probable that he would use his regnal years on his coins. He does not appear to have reigned long and his years, even if regnal, could not have been so many as 33 or 31. Thirdly, it appears from the Harsha-Charita that the coin of Harsha was marked with a bull. This was so in the first year of his rule (वृषाङ्कामाभिनवघटितां हाटक मयीं मुद्रां समुपाविन्त्य H. C., p. 274) and the same would be the case with the coins of his father if they did not copy the Gupta coins. These arguments should induce us to attribute these coins to Harsha Yaśodharma Vikramāditya who was an emperor of India and his son Pratāpaśīla alias Śilāditya who would use his own or his father's regnal years. The name Śilāditya was a favourite one with Buddhists who valued virtue (शील) more than valour (विक्रम) and who thus gavethis title to many kings of Budhist fame. Śīlāditya of Molapo was a staunch Budhist and may have struck coins in that name also besides those issued in the name of Pratāpaśīla.

v1.c7.s7.10

∗ अथ प्रतापादित्याख्यस्तरोनीय दिगन्तरात् । विक्रमादित्यभर्तृज्ञातितरत्रामिषिच्यत ॥ शकारि विक्रमदित्य इति संभ्रमाश्रितैः ॥ अन्यत्रान्यथालोखि विसंवादि कर्थितम् ॥ राज०॥

v1.c7.s7.11

† The following ślokas from Rājata. III are relevant वैरिनिर्यासितं राज्ये विक्रमादित्यजं न्यधात् । पित्र्ये प्रतापशालं स शीलादित्यापराभिधम् ॥ and तत्रानहेस्त्युज्जयिन्यां श्रीमान् हर्षपरामिधः । एकच्छत्रश्चक्रवर्ती विक्रमादित्य इत्यभूत् ॥१२५॥ म्लेच्छोच्छेदाय वसुधां हरेरवतरिष्यतः । शकान् विनाशयं येनादौ कार्यभारो लघुकृतः ॥१२८

Linked texts (2)