History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s21.3

v3.c41.s21.3

The difference again, as noted in Vol. II (p. 226), in soil climate, and nature of land and the language of the people and their provincial peculiarities made the existence of different kingdoms in the country, a normal and perhaps a necessary condition. And the kingdoms arising in this sub-period correspond almost exactly to the different divisions of India according to these circumstances. Thus Kashmir, U. P., Raj-putana, Gujarat, Konkan, Malwa, Bundelkhand, C. P., Bengal, Telangana, Dravida, Kerala, Karnatak and Mahārāshtra were distinct kingdoms with territories naturally distinct throughout this sub-period. The only factor which was favourable for the evolving of an empire combining all these kingdoms was the unity of race, religion and ancient tradition. But as in Mediæval Europe under the Holy Roman Empire, so in Mediæval Hindu India, the kingdoms did not coalesce into one empire for exactly the same reasons as in Europe. The idea of an Indian empire was, however, constantly before Indian kings, an idea which did not involve the destruction of subordinate kingdoms but only their subjugation or nominal acknowledgement of the imperial master, the Samrāt or Chakravartin as he was called And all the wars among Hindú kings were usually waged with the object of establishing the imperial status. For imperial status was not considered as descending hereditarily from father to son but was considered to depend on actual power; and every ambitious and resourceful monarch in the different kingdoms might aspire to imperial honour and attain it by Digvijaya. Rājaśekhara makes a curious distinction between a Samrāt and a Chakravartin and states that he who conquers Bhāratavarsha from the southern sea is called a Samrāt while he who conquers the country from Kumārīpura to Bindusara, beyond the Himalayas, a distance of one thousand yojanas is called a Chakravartin. The obvious difference is that Kashmir and Nepal are to be further conquered by a Chakravartin in the north and the Chola-Pandyas in the south. We, however, find in this sub-period several kings of much smaller importance calling themselves Chakravartin. Thus a Śilāhāra king of the 12th century called himself Konkana-Chakravartin or emperor of Konkan only; and Lakshmanasena called himself कमरूपावनमिंदव्वकः (Pro. Ben. V p. 467). It is not unusual for high names coming down slowly in significance like the title Mahārājādhirāja taken in inscriptions by many minor kings. But the title Chakravartin was well deserved by Bhoja of Malwa (1000-1040) whose word was respected even in Kashmir. Aśoka and Samudragupta in ancient Indian history and Lalitāditya in mediæval history were indeed Chakravartins according to the definition of Rājaśekhara and in modern historty Aurangjeb. However in this sub-period, Chola, Chālukya, Gāhadavāla and Pāla kingdoms were ordinary empires or Sāmrājyas, as there were many feudatory princes under subjection to each of them.