Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c7.s1: I. Pre-Sātavāhana Period

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c7.s1

Language
English

I. Pre-Sātavāhana Period

v1.c7.s1.2

THE early inhabitants of the Deccan had developed a distinct form of civilization long before they came into contact with the Āryans. At first the advent of the latter into the Deccan was perhaps peaceful. It was the work of the Vedic Rishis who in quest of peace and solitude ventured to enter the Daṇḍakāraṇya to establish hermitages on the banks of rivers in the thick of the forests. The local inhabitants, called ‘Asuras and Rākshasas’ by the Āryans, may have committed forays against their settlements, destroyed their sacrifices, and interrupted their penance. The memory of these episodes is preserved in the tradition regarding the advent of Agastya, or a namesake of his, into the south. It is told in the *Rāmāyaṇa* that Agastya met Rāma during his exile in the Daṇḍakāraṇya and narrated to him how he had reclaimed the forest regions; how the hermitages of Rishis had sprung up in the wake of his pioneering work; how the Rākshasas oppressed the Rishis; and how Rāma could help them by destroying the Rākshasas. The *Rāmāyaṇa*, when purged of all exaggerations, interpolations, and anachronisms, is evidence of the solid central fact that Rāma championed the cause of Āryan culture, that he fought against the Rākshasas, and that he gave an impetus to the spread of Āryan ideals and institutions in the Deccan. The different legends regarding the origin of the Andhras, Puṇḍras, Śabaras, Pulindas, and Mutibas, are not without significance. According to the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, they were the descendants of the fifty sons of Viśvāmitra condemned by his curse to live on the borders of the Āryan settlements. The *Mahābhārata* regards them as created by Vasiṣṭha from his divine cow to be enemies and opponents of Viśvāmitra. *Śaṅkhāyana Śrauta-Sūtra* treats the Śabaras as degenerate people. Shorn of all myth, what lies behind the legends is probably the separation of a section of the Āryan community from the main stock and their fusion with the non-Āryans—the ‘Dasyus’.¹ Such a cleavage in Āryan society was not without precedent. In earlier ages the Iranians had followed a similar path of schism and had become the progenitors of the Persians. The Andhras, Śabaras, and Pulindas are known from the *Mahābhārata* and the *Purāṇas* to have been tribes of the Deccan. Typical among the Āryan tribes which for the first time conquered portions of the Deccan were the Ikṣvākus in Dakshiṇa Kosala, the Bhojas (Yādavas) in Vidarbha, and the Haihayas in Mahiṣmati. Vidarbha (or Western Berar) is mentioned in the *Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa*, and a Bhīma, prince of Vidarbha, in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*. From these references it may be inferred that the Āryans had during the Brāhmaṇa period pushed their conquests into the Deccan as far as Berar.¹ Pāṇini, who flourished about the seventh century B.C., makes mention of Aśmaka which was in the interior of the Deccan watered by the Godāvarī, that is, the south-east portion of the Hyderabad State. Kātyāyana’s explanations of the terms Pāṇḍya, Chola, and Kerala show that the Āryans had made contact with these peoples of Southern India during the period subsequent to Pāṇini. Tradition refers Kātyāyana to the time of the Nandas.

v1.c7.s1.3

¹ Dasyus, Rākshasas, Asuras, Vānaras, Nāgas, &c., were the names given by the Āryans to the Muṇḍas, Dravidians, and other early inhabitants of India.

v1.c7.s1.4

¹ Prof. Martin Haug assigned the composition of the bulk of the Brāhmaṇas to the years 1400-1200 B.C.; Sir R. G. Bhandarker was for placing them in 1200-900 B.C. (See his Report on Sans. MSS., 1885.)

v1.c7.s1.5

The caste system accompanied the spread of Brāhminism from its stronghold in the Gangetic Doab into the Deccan and South India. Those who were opposed to the Āryan system retreated to mountain caves and forests, where they have kept up their primitive customs, habits, and languages to the present day.

v1.c7.s1.6

There is hardly any definite information regarding the early history of the Āryan states which arose in the Deccan; but there is sufficient evidence to show that two forces hastened the pace of the Āryanization of the lands south of the Vindhyas: the imperialism of the Nandas and the Mauryas, and the missionary activities of the followers of the protestant creeds of Jainism and Buddhism.

v1.c7.s1.7

The concept of imperialism in India, which had its origin in the age of the Brāhmaṇas, aimed at political integration of the country under the adhirāṭ or ekarāṭ (sole monarch). The custom of celebrating its achievements by elaborate rituals of vājapeya, rājasūya, and aśvamedha sacrifices had also come into vogue in this age. At first this imperialism was confined to Northern India, but later it came to embrace as much of the Deccan and South India as possible. This was achieved by the Nandas and the Mauryas who held their court at Pāṭaliputra, the modern Patna, in the province of Bihār. The Purāṇas say that Ugrasena-Mahāpadma of the Nanda dynasty up-rooted all the Kshatriyas, brought the whole earth under one royal umbrella and established himself as ekarāṭ.² An inscription of the early thirteenth century A.D. shows that first the Nandas and then the Mauryas ruled over Kuntala which included the Western Deccan and Northern Mysore.³ Another inscription of the eleventh century A.D. found in the Hyderabad State indirectly hints about the prevalence of the Nanda era in South India, which would not have been possible if Nanda rule had not been established over the Deccan.⁴ That there was a Nanda era is made certain by the Hāthigumphā inscription of Khārvela.⁵ A passage in this inscription also states that King Nanda carried away to Magadha as a trophy the statue of the first Jina. In view of the certainty of Nanda’s conquest of Kaliṅga, the subjugation of the territories lying farther south does not seem to be altogether improbable. The existence on the Godāvarī of a city called ‘Nau Nanda Dehrā’ (Nander) also suggests that the Nanda empire included a large portion of the Deccan.¹ From a commercial point of view also the south began to grow in importance at this time. Kauṭilya wished to maintain communications with the Dakṣiṇāpatha ‘for the sake of its diamond and gold mines, pearl and chank fisheries, and numerous opulent marts’.²

v1.c7.s1.8

² c. 375-350 B.C.

v1.c7.s1.9

³ EC, vii, pt. i, no. 225; Bomb. Gaz., i, pt. ii, p. 284.

v1.c7.s1.10

⁴ IA, viii, 187; Bomb. Gaz., i, pt. ii, p. 447.

v1.c7.s1.11

⁵ EI, xx, 79-80.

v1.c7.s1.12

¹ Macauliff’s Sikh Religion, v, 236.

v1.c7.s1.13

² Arth., vii, 12.

v1.c7.s1.14

But Ugrasena Mahāpadma Nanda and his sons were unpopular because of their low origin and their oppressive government. Discontent gathered strength, and the outlying parts of the empire appear to have declared their independence. Finally the Nanda dynasty itself was overthrown by Chandragupta Maurya aided by Kauṭilya about 322 B.C. Traditional accounts of this sanguinary conflict are preserved in the Purāṇas, the Mudrārākṣasa, the Mahāvaṃsa-Ṭīkā, and the Jaina Pariśiṣṭaparva. According to Plutarch, Chandragupta overran and subdued the whole of India with an army of 600,000 men.³ The Junagadh Rock inscription of Rudradāman, which records the construction of the famous Sudarśana lake by an officer of Chandragupta, shows that the first Mauryan emperor pushed his conquests as far as Surāṣṭra (Kathiāwar).⁴ Jaina references in literature and epigraphs associating his name with Śravaṇa Belgola in Mysore may be accepted as proof of his acquisition of this part of the peninsula as well.⁵ At the same time a large portion of the Cis-Vindhyan lands appears to have remained unsubdued. For according to Megasthenes the king of the Kaliṅgas had in his service 60,000 foot-soldiers, 1,000 horsemen, and 700 elephants in ‘panoply of war’, while the Andhras possessed numerous villages, 30 fortified towns, and an army of 100,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry, and 1,000 elephants.⁶ Kaliṅga was conquered by Aśoka after a terrible war in which ‘one hundred and fifty thousand were slain and many times that number died’.⁷ No other conquest is attributed to this great sovereign. Some parts of the Deccan may have been taken by force of arms during the reign of his father, Bindusāra (297-272 B.C.), who was known to the Greeks as Amitrochates which, in its proper Sanskrit form, Amitraghāta, means ‘slayer of the foe’.⁸ According to Tāranāth, the kings of sixteen towns were destroyed by Bindusāra, and ‘he made himself master of all the territory between the eastern and western seas’.⁹ Tamil literature contains vague allusions to Mauryan invasions of South India which occurred most likely in the time of this monarch.¹⁰ Rapson seems to think that the Deccan lay beyond Aśoka’s dominions, and that the people of the plateau were not his subjects, though regarded as coming within his sphere of influence.¹⁰ But according to some scholars this surmise is untenable in view of the fact that Aśoka's *Dharmamahāmātras* were employed amongst them to revise and modify judicial sentences in deserving cases.¹ In the Raichur Doab his Minor Rock Edicts have been found at Maskī and Kopbal, at the latter place, on the Gavimaṭh and Palkigunda hills. His Rock Edicts I to XIII were brought to light at Yerragudi in Kurnool District.² A considerable portion of the Deccan was indeed ruled by the vice-regal princes of Suvarṇagiri and Tosali, the *Mahāmātras* of Isila and Samapa, and the officers in charge of the *Āṭavi* or forest country.³ The southern frontier of Aśoka's empire did not extend much beyond the locality of the southernmost group of his inscriptions discovered at Siddāpur, Jaṭinga-Rāmeśwara, and Brahmagiri in the Chitaldrug district of Mysore. Roughly speaking, it touched the line which may be drawn along the north latitude 14°. Beyond this line to the south lay the independent states of the Cholas, Pāṇḍyas, Keralaputras, and Sātiyaputras.⁴

v1.c7.s1.15

³ Plutarch’s Alexander, lxii.

v1.c7.s1.16

⁴ EI, viii, 46-7.

v1.c7.s1.17

⁵ Lewis Rice, Sravana Belgola, Mysore and Coorg.

v1.c7.s1.18

⁶ M’Crindle, Ancient India (Megasthenes and Arrian), pp. 137-41.

v1.c7.s1.19

⁷ RE, xiii.

v1.c7.s1.20

⁸ Jayaswal, ‘The Empire of Bindusāra’ in the JBORS, ii, 82.

v1.c7.s1.21

⁹ Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, Beginnings of South Indian History, pp. 81-103; Mr. S. S. Desikar in the IHQ, iv, 135 ff.

v1.c7.s1.22

¹⁰ CHI, i, 514, 515.

v1.c7.s1.23

¹ RE, v. ² Dines Chandra Sirkar, *Select Inscriptions*, i, 52. ³ Suvarṇagiri = Kanakagiri in the Hyderabad State. Isila = Siddāpur. ⁴ RE, ii and xiii. ⁵ Geiger, *Translation of Mahavamsa*, p. 82. ⁶ After the second Buddhist council at Vaisāli in 386 B.C., the church divided itself into two schools: the Sthaviras and the Mahāsānghikas. A section of the latter appears to have attached great importance to the worship of the *stūpa* or *chaitya* and got the name of Chaityakas. See N. Datta, 'Notes on Nāgārjunakonda Inscriptions' in *Ind. Hist. Quart.* vii, 468 ff.; B. Bhattacharya, *Buddhist Iconography*, p. x.

v1.c7.s1.24

The Nanda and Maurya imperialism must have exerted enormous influence on the lives of the people of the Deccan. It may have given them a uniform system of administration based upon Āryan polity which served as a model for the future indigenous governments in the south. More than this, the ideas of the Cis-Vindhyan peoples were gradually moulded in the cast of Vedic, Jaina, and Buddhist creeds. A strong Jaina colony was established at Śravaṇa Belgola in Mysore about the end of Chandragupta Maurya's reign. In due course of time the Jaina influence in the Deccan manifested itself in their early religious and secular works which are composed in what is known as Jaina Mahārāshṭri, a vernacular closely allied to early Marāṭhi. After his conversion to Buddhism Aśoka sent missions to various places in and outside India. In order to implement his scheme of evangelism, Mahādeva worked in Mahiṣamaṇḍala and Mahādharmarakṣita in Mahārāshṭra.⁵ The former established his school of Buddhism known as Chetyavāda at Amarāvati.⁶ The Deccan also served as a cauldron in which Āryan and non-Āryan languages were fused to create a Prākṛit dialect which obtained wide currency even in those parts where Dravidian languages are spoken to-day. The direct manner in which Aśoka addressed the peoples of the south indicates widespread literacy among them. The failure of Aśoka's successors to maintain their hold on the Deccan for any considerable length of time not only checked this progress of Āryanization but even caused the loss of some vantage-ground which had been won under their great predecessors.

v1.c7.s1.25

The vast empire of Aśoka disintegrated soon after his death. He himself had initiated the process, though unconsciously, by outlawing war in remorse for the horrors involved in the conquest of Kaliṅga. He called upon his sons and grandsons to avoid fresh conquests, and to take pleasure in patience and gentleness.¹ Such a policy of pacifism must have seriously impaired the military efficiency of the empire. At any rate it proved inadequate to maintain cohesion in the time of his successors when disruptive forces were let loose by the insubordination of vassal states, the disloyalty of ambitious ministers, and the aggression of foreign foes.

v1.c7.s1.26

¹ RE, xiii.

v1.c7.s1.27

It is unnecessary here to wade through the uncertain genealogy, chronology, and history of the later Mauryan kings who reigned during the interval between the death of Aśoka and the final overthrow of his dynasty.² The *coup-de-grâce* to the Mauryan empire was given at a military review by Puṣyamitra Śuṅga, the Commander-in-Chief, who there slew his master Bṛhadratha. It was merely the last scene of the drama which closed the Mauryan epoch and installed the Śuṅgas on the throne of Pāṭaliputra. According to the *Purāṇas* this revolution took place 137 years after the accession of Chandragupta, i.e. *c.* 185 B.C. Pushyamitra acquired by his bloody deed only an apology for an empire. His efforts to extend the kingdom over wider regions are described in the drama *Mālavikāgnimitra* by Kālidāsa. Therein is also related the story of the bitter struggle between Pushyamitra and the ruler of Vidarbha from which the former emerged victorious. But the very existence of the struggle itself clearly signifies that Magadha was no longer the overlord of the Deccan, which appears to have seceded from the empire soon after the demise of Aśoka. Both the Sātavāhana or the Andhra kingdom of Dakṣiṇāpatha and the Cheta or Cheti kingdom of Kaliṅga figure prominently among the Cis-Vindhyan lands at this time.

v1.c7.s1.28

² *CHI*, i, 511-13.

Cites (16)