Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8: Part III. The Vākāṭakas

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8

Language
English

Contents

Part III. The Vākāṭakas

v1.c8.1

THE HISTORY OF THE VĀKĀṬAKAS *by* DR. A. S. ALTEKAR

v1.c8.2

I The Vākāṭakas: chronology. II The home of the Vākāṭakas. III The Rulers of the dynasty: Vindhyaśakti and Pravarasena; Rudrasena I; Gupta-Vākāṭaka relations; Pṛthivīsheṇa I; Rudrasena II and Prabhāvatīguptā; Pravarasena II; Narendrasena; Pṛthivīsheṇa II. IV The Basim Vākāṭaka branch. V The Disintegration and Disappearance of the Vākāṭaka Empire.

v1.c8.3

CHAPTER I

v1.c8.4

THE STATE OF EUROPE

Chronology

v1.c8.s1.1

CHRONOLOGY and geography are the two eyes of history; let us therefore first proceed to determine the chronology of the Vākāṭakas, without which no orderly narration of their history is possible. There is, however, very little conclusive evidence on which to base this important investigation.

v1.c8.s1.2

It has been recently argued that the confused state of our information regarding the Vākāṭaka chronology can be solved by using our knowledge of the Chedi era as a sort of magic wand.¹ It is contended that the Chedi era of A.D. 248–9 was initiated by the Vākāṭakas to commemorate the accession of the founder of their house, Vindhyaśakti. No plausible case can be made out in support of this theory. The most convincing evidence to prove that it was the Vākāṭakas who began the Chedi era would be to show that they used it themselves in their own official records. In support of this contention it is argued that the Bhita seal of the (Vākā)ṭaka Mahārājādhirāja (Pravarasena) is dated in the year 37 of this era, that he has used it on a coin of his, which is said to have been issued in the 76th year of the Chedi era, and that his successor Rudrasena I has also used it on some of his coins, which were issued in the Chedi year 100. The arguments advanced to support the above contentions are very flimsy and do not bear any minute scrutiny. As to the Bhita seal being dated in the 37th year of the Chedi era, it may be pointed out that seals are normally not dated at all. The seal in question is, however, fragmentary; it merely refers to a king of kings (Mahārājādhirāja), without giving his proper name at all. There is thus no evidence for ascribing it to Pravarasena I. And even supposing that we do so for the sake of argument, it has to be pointed out that it does not bear the date 37; the peculiarly shaped branches of the tree on the seal were in fact mistaken for the symbols for 30 and 7.²

v1.c8.s1.3

¹ Jayaswal, *History of India*, 108-11: Pai in his paper: The Genealogy and the Chronology of the Vākāṭakas, in *JIH*, xiv, 184 ff., argues that the era was begun by Pravarasena I in A.D. 248 to commemorate his assumption of the title *samrāṭ* after the fourth horse-sacrifice.

v1.c8.s1.4

² Sir R. Burn in *JIH*, xiv, 269; Altekar in *JNSI*, v, p. 132.

v1.c8.s1.5

The theory that the coins of Pravarasena and Rudrasena I were issued in the years 76 and 100 respectively of the Chedi era is equally untenable. Pravarasena I issued no coins at all as far as we know, and the same is the case with regard to Rudrasena I. The coins attributed to Pravarasena I are really those of a ruler named Virasena, who ruled to the south of Mathura. Had they been issued by Pravarasena I, they should surely have been found within his kingdom, and not far away from it in the Mathura region. As it is, not a single coin of this type is found in the Madhya Pradesha, the centre of the Vākāṭaka kingdom. And finally, what is most important, these coins have no dates at all. What have been taken to be the symbols for the numerals 70 and 6 are actually merely parts of the palm-tree.¹ Coins attributed to Rudrasena I were issued at least 500 years before his time by some ruler of Kauśāmbī. They bear no name or date whatsoever; portions of Dharmachakra and Triratna symbols were wrongly supposed to stand for the letters Rudra and the symbol for the numeral 100.² It may be also pointed out that these so-called coins of Rudrasena are never found outside Kauśāmbī anywhere within the home-provinces of the Vākāṭaka kingdom.

v1.c8.s1.6

¹ Altekar in *JNSI*, v, 132.

v1.c8.s1.7

² *Ibid.*, 133.

v1.c8.s1.8

Nor is there any force in the argument that the Vākāṭakas must have started the Chedi era because it is supposed to have been used by their feudatories, the Magha rulers of Kauśāmbī. This assumption that the Maghas were using the Chedi era leads us in fact to impossible conclusions. Recent discoveries have shown that these kings were ruling over South Kośala also (Rewa State and Bundelkhand). The assumption that they were using the Chedi era leads to the conclusion that kings Vaiśravaṇa and Bhīmavarman were ruling at Kauśāmbī and in South Kośala from *c.* A.D. 355 to 377. Why then do they not figure in the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta among the kings subdued or overthrown by that mighty conqueror? These kings issued a copious currency; the Guptas are not known to have permitted any feudatory to have his own independent coinage. They could not therefore have been their contemporaries. Therefore the era used by them cannot have been the Chedi era.

v1.c8.s1.9

The theory then that the Vākāṭakas initiated the Chedi era does not bear close examination. There is no evidence to show that they have used it on any seals or coins. There is further another fact almost fatal to this theory. The Vākāṭakas officially issued a large number of charters, but none of these used the Chedi or any other era; they are all dated in the regnal years of the kings issuing them. If the Vākāṭakas were the founders of the Chedi era, if they used it on their coins and even on their seals, it is not very strange that they should have uniformly and consistently avoided its use in their own official charters, which were intended to be referred to as deeds of titles as long as the sun and the moon endured?³ It is true that the Vākāṭakas rose to power within a few years of the beginning of the Chedi era, but there is as yet no evidence to connect them with it. We have to solve the problems of Vākāṭaka chronology without the assistance which such evidence, had it existed, might have afforded.

v1.c8.s1.10

³ Pai has argued that a dynasty which starts an era need not necessarily use it, and refers to the Sātavāhanas who did not use the Śaka era begun by them (*JIH*, xiv, 26). The argument has no force, for it is certain that the Sātavāhanas did not begin the Śaka era. It was more than a thousand years after the collapse of the Sātavāhanas that popular fancy connected these rulers with the Śaka era. Jayaswal's argument that Pravarasena I must have started an era because he took the title emperor (*samrāṭ*) has not much evidential force; Maukhari, Cālukya, and Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings who took the title of Emperor, did not initiate any eras.

v1.c8.s1.11

The marriage of princess Prabhāvatīguptā, a daughter of the Gupta emperor Chandragupta II (c. A.D. 375 to 414), with Rudrasena II, the sixth king of the Vākāṭaka dynasty, supplies the only reliable clue in determining its chronology. Rudrasena II died young and there is clear evidence to show that his wife relied upon the assistance of her illustrious father during the trying years of a long regency which terminated in c. A.D. 410, when her surviving son Pravarasena II became old enough to take the reins of administration into his own hands. The birth of this prince may be placed in c. A.D. 390 during the short reign of Rudrasena II, c. A.D. 385 to 390. The father of Rudrasena II, Pṛthivīṣeṇa I, had a successful reign, which may be placed during the years c. A.D. 360 to 385. An expression used in connexion with this king shows that the Vākāṭaka dynasty had been ruling prosperously for about a century before his accession.¹ We may place its rise to power in c. A.D. 260. The founder of the dynasty, Vindhyaśakti, therefore probably ruled from c. A.D. 255 or 250 to c. 275. His son and successor, Pravarasena I, is identical with King Pravīra of the Purāṇas, which credit him with a long rule of sixty years.² There is sufficient evidence to show that the various statements which the Purāṇas make about this ruler are substantially correct; we can therefore accept the Paurāṇic tradition and assume that he ruled for sixty years, from c. A.D. 275 to 335. Gautamīputra, the eldest son of Pravarasena I, died before the long reign of his father came to an end; the latter therefore was succeeded by his grandson Rudrasena I, who may be presumed to have ruled from A.D. 335 to 360. We have already stated that Rudrasena’s son and grandson, Pṛthivīṣeṇa I and Rudrasena II, ruled from c. A.D. 360 to 385 and 385 to 390 respectively. Then followed the regency of Prabhāvatīguptā, the queen dowager, from c. A.D. 390 to 410, at the end of which her surviving son Pravarasena II assumed the full responsibility of administration. It may, however, be pointed out that the periods assigned to each of these six reigns are only tentative and it is not unlikely that future discoveries may lead to modifications, but these will not in any case be considerable. The chronology of the successors of Pravarasena II will be discussed later in the course of our account of their reigns.

v1.c8.s1.12

¹ Cf. Samudita-varṣaśatam-abhivardhamāna-kośa-daṇḍa-sādhana-santāna-putra-pautriṇaḥ, Dudia, Plates, EI, III, 160, ‘Who had sons and grandsons living and (adequate) implements of sovereignty consisting of army and treasury, continuously prospering and increasing for a hundred years’.

v1.c8.s1.13

² Vindhyaśaktisutaścāpi Pravīro nāma Vīryavān Bhokṣyate cha samāśśatīm samāptavaradakṣiṇaiḥ. Pargiter, DKA, p. 50.

The Home of the Vākāṭakas

v1.c8.s2.1

SEVERAL problems connected with early Vākāṭaka history would be satisfactorily solved if we could determine their original home and the scene of their early military activity. Unfortunately we are not yet able to do so with definite certainty. The formation of the name Vākāṭaka suggests that the family originally hailed from a place called Vākāṭa or Vakāṭa, but there is as yet no certain knowledge concerning the whereabouts of this place.

v1.c8.s2.2

Dr. Jayaswal has suggested that the Vākāṭakas were inhabitants of Bundelkhand and hailed from the village of Bijaur-Bāgāṭ, situated in the Tahrauli Tehsil of the former Orchha state, about six miles east of Chiragaon in the Jhansi District.¹ The obvious phonetic resemblance between Vākāṭa and Bāgāṭ lends plausibility to this suggestion, and Dr. Jayaswal has adduced three more arguments to support it.

v1.c8.s2.3

¹ Jayaswal, History of India, A.D. 150-350, pp. 66-68 and App. A.

v1.c8.s2.4

1. There is a pillar at Dureha, four miles south of Jaso in Bundelkhand, with the inscription Vākāṭakānām, accompanied by a wheel, showing that the wheel was the insignia of the Vākāṭakas and that they were ruling in Bundelkhand at the time when the pillar was set up.

v1.c8.s2.5

2. The Kilakila country with which the Purāṇas connect the earliest Vākāṭaka ruler, Vindhyaśakti, is the territory drained by the river of the same name in Punna State in Bundelkhand.

v1.c8.s2.6

3. Nāchnā, where the inscription of Vyāghradeva, a feudatory of the Vākāṭaka king Pṛthivīsheṇa, has been found, is also in Bundelkhand and is to be identified with Chaṇakā, which figures as a Vākāṭaka capital in the days of Pravarasena I.²

v1.c8.s2.7

² Ibid.

v1.c8.s2.8

All the above arguments are unconvincing. A glance at the facsimile of the inscription on the Dureha pillar, as published by Jayaswal himself, shows that it cannot possibly be read as Vākāṭakānām.³ The Purāṇas state that Vindhyaśakti came after the Kilakila kings, and did not come from Kilakila territory. To identify Nāchnā with Chaṇakā is questionable; if it was indeed a Vākāṭaka capital, how can we explain the presence of a feudatory ruler at the same place as his sovereign? It is important to note that we have no records of the early Vākāṭakas in Bundelkhand. This would be rather difficult to explain if their original home was actually at Bijaur-Bāgāṭ.

v1.c8.s2.9

³ The reading is clearly Vaṅkattrikānām, which cannot be interpreted.

v1.c8.s2.10

The phonetic resemblance of Bijaur-Bāgāṭ with Vākāṭa is very striking. It would have supplied very strong evidence for placing the home of the Vākāṭakas at that place, had we not come across a Vākāṭaka householder in a third-century votive inscription at Amraoti⁴ in Andhra country. It is very improbable, though not impossible, that a householder from Bijaur-Bāgāṭ in Bundelkhand should have gone to distant Amraoti to make a votive donation. It is more likely that the place Vākāṭa may have been nearer to Amraoti, somewhere in the Eastern Deccan, rather than to the north of the Vindhyas. It cannot, however, be identified in our present state of knowledge, and we must await further discoveries.

v1.c8.s2.11

⁴ ...gāme vāthavasa gahapatisa Vākāṭakasa. EI, xv, 267.

v1.c8.s2.12

Whatever may have been the home of the Vākāṭakas, the sphere of their early military activity seems to have been rather in the Western than in the Eastern Deccan. The name of the founder of the family, Vindhyaśakti, obviously suggests that his early military exploits resulted in the establishment of his rule over a portion of the Vindhya territory. Purikā, which was one of the early Vākāṭaka capitals,¹ eventually gave its name to a province which has been coupled with Daśārṇa by the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*² and mentioned along with Vidarbha and Aśmaka by the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*.³ Nay, the *Purāṇas* place Vindhyaśakti himself among the kings of Vidiśā in Eastern Malwa. The nucleus of the original Vākāṭaka principality must therefore have been somewhere in the eastern Madhya Pradesha or in Berar, and the exploit of Vindhyaśakti must have consisted in incorporating in it a portion of the Eastern Malwa after crossing the Vindhyan passes.

v1.c8.s2.13

¹ Pargiter, *DKA*, 49-50.

v1.c8.s2.14

² xiv, 10.

v1.c8.s2.15

³ lvii, 48.

v1.c8.s2.16

Vindhyaśakti c. A.D. 255-75

v1.c8.s2.17

IN the third quarter of the third century A.D., when the Vākāṭakas rose to power, political conditions were favourable for the rise of a central and powerful state in the Deccan. The Sātavāhanas, who had been ruling over the Deccan, had fallen, and none among the new states which had subsequently risen to power in the territories they had dominated had shown the capacity to take over their imperial responsibilities. The Ikshvākus had carved out a kingdom for themselves in a portion of the Andhra country, but they were not able to extend their rule much to the north of the Krishṇā. The Chuṭu Sātakarṇis of Mysore were mere local chiefs, who had neither the ability nor the resources to rise to the imperial position. In the Northern Koṅkaṇ, the Ābhīras had founded a principality and had for a short time succeeded in ousting the Western Kshatrapas from their capital. They, however, soon sank into insignificance and abandoned any effort to expand over the Deccan. The Western Kshatrapas had once defeated the Sātavāhanas and had annexed a part of the Deccan to their kingdom; but during the latter half of the third century their power too was on the decline, and they had lost all hope of controlling the politics or the destinies of Southern India. In Northern India, the Nāgas of the Uttara Pradeśa and the republics of Rajputana and the Punjab had reasserted their independence and repudiated the Kushāṇa supremacy. Their interest was, however, confined to their own homelands¹ and they had no ambition to bring the Deccan under their hegemony. The political situation was thus quite favourable for an adventurous chief to attempt to found a new house, which might eventually take the place of the great Sātavāhanas as the paramount power of Southern India.

v1.c8.s2.18

¹ The theory that the Bhāraśiva Nāgas of Bundelkhand had founded an empire embracing Madhya Pradeśa and Central or Eastern U.P. during c. A.D. 180-250 is altogether unfounded. The Bhāraśivas were the Nāga rulers of Padmāvatī near Gwalior and their kingdom never included any part of the Deccan. It is doubtful whether Virasena, who is said to have founded this empire, was a Nāga ruler at all. His coins are found only in the northern Uttara Pradeśa and never in the Madhya Pradeśa and Central or Eastern U.P.; this fact shows that the Deccan was never included in this kingdom.

v1.c8.s2.19

Vindhyaśakti, the founder of the Vākāṭaka family, undertook this enterprise in about A.D. 255.² As with the founders of many other dynasties, we do not possess much information about him personally. It is an irony of fate that even his descendants should have usually omitted his name from the genealogy of the house. He is mentioned only in the Ajanta record as the founder of the family;¹ all the copper plates of the house begin the family genealogy with his illustrious son, emperor Pravarasena I. At one time, therefore, even the historic existence of Vindhyaśakti was doubted by some scholars. There is, however, no longer any doubt that it was in fact Vindhyaśakti who first carved out the Vākāṭaka principality somewhere in the western Madhya Pradesha. The *Purāṇas*, like the Ajanta record, expressly mention him as the founder of the family and the father of the illustrious emperor Pravarasena I.² His name is omitted in the genealogy of the Vākāṭaka copper plates, probably because throughout his life he was a mere general and was never consecrated to kingship by any formal religious coronation. The draft of the Vākāṭaka charters was determined in the reign of Pravarasena II, and it is but natural that he should have started the genealogy with his namesake Pravarasena I, who indeed first raised the family to an undisputed imperial position in the Deccan.

v1.c8.s2.20

² For the determination of this date, see *ante*, pp. 151 ff. Pai's view that Vindhyaśakti asserted independence in c. A.D. 185 after the death of Gautamīputra Yajñaśrī Sātakarṇi pre-supposes that he assumed the title of *mahārājādhirāja*, for which in fact there is no evidence; the Ajanta record gives him no regal title at all.

v1.c8.s2.21

¹ *Vākāṭaka Inscription in Cave XVI, HAS, No. 14.*

v1.c8.s2.22

² The identity of the Vindhyaśakti of the *Purāṇas* with the ruler of the same name in the Ajanta record was first pointed out by Dr. Bhau Daji, but doubted by Bühler. It is now accepted by all. The *Purāṇas* give Pravīra as the name of the son of Vindhyaśakti; he is obviously the same as the Pravarasena of the inscriptions.

v1.c8.s2.23

Vindhyaśakti was a Brāhman of Viṣṇuvṛddha *gotra*. This was not, however, the first time that Brāhmans had exchanged sacrificial implements for weapons of war. The Śungas, the Kaṇvas, and the Sātavāhanas had done the same a few centuries earlier and the Kadambas were soon to emulate the example of the Vākāṭakas. Whether personal ambition alone was the guiding motive of Vindhyaśakti, or whether he desired to found a purely Hindu state in order to encourage the Vedic or the Brāhmanic faith and practices, we simply do not know.

v1.c8.s2.24

It was somewhere in Berar or in the western Madhya Pradesha that Vindhyaśakti first carved out a small principality. His capital Purikā was certainly situated somewhere in this part of the country, but has not yet been identified. Probably Vindhyaśakti was originally a local officer or *zamindār*, who gradually increased his sphere of influence, taking advantage of the absence of any strong central power. No specific exploits of his are, however, known. It is unfortunate that the Ajanta record, while growing eloquent over the bravery of this ruler, which, we are told, extorted the admiration of gods and made him the oriflamme and hero of his family, should have kept us in the dark about the names of the enemies defeated or the territories annexed by him. His name Vindhyaśakti, however, suggests that his military activities resulted in giving him control over a portion of the Vindhyan territory. The *Purāṇas* mention him among the kings of Vidiśā, the capital of Eastern Malwa. We may therefore safely conclude that the warlike achievements of Vindhyaśakti resulted in the annexation of the districts of Betul and Itarsi and Hoshangābād to his kingdom, which probably comprised a portion of Berar only in the beginning. The districts annexed by Vindhyaśakti were a kind of no-man's-land in his time, and he had probably to encounter no serious opposition during his career of expansion. Vindhyaśakti, however, did not, it would seem, assume any regal titles during his lifetime and received no formal religious consecration. His achievements were soon completely eclipsed by the more glorious exploits of his illustrious son. His name therefore was omitted from the genealogy of the family, when it was first formally set out and written down 125 years after his death.

v1.c8.s2.25

In spite of his military preoccupations, Vindhyaśakti retained the Brāhmanic traits in his character. We are told that he was always anxious to undertake meritorious religious works, probably of the nature of the performance of sacrifices, the construction of temples, wells, and *serais*, and the endowments of schools and colleges. He ruled for about twenty years and we may place the end of his reign in *c.* A.D. 275.

The Emperor Pravarasena I

v1.c8.s3.1

c.* A.D. 275-335

v1.c8.s3.2

Vindhyaśakti was succeeded by his son Pravarasena I in *c.* A.D. 275. The Puranic tradition, which is unanimous in crediting him with a long reign of sixty years, seems to be well founded. He performed as many as four horse-sacrifices, which we may legitimately suppose marked the ends of four long campaigns. He alone among the Vākāṭaka rulers is given the title of *samrāṭ*, emperor, and it is but reasonable to assume that this could have been earned only by a long and successful military career. And finally we have to note that he was succeeded not by his eldest son but by a grandson: this happens only when a king has a very long reign. We can therefore accept the Puranic statement and credit Pravarasena I with the long reign of sixty years assigned to him, which terminated in *c.* A.D. 335.

v1.c8.s3.3

According to inscriptional evidence Pravarasena I was one of the great rulers of India, although his political achievements are but imperfectly known to us. The composers of the *Purāṇas* and the drafters of copper plate charters were more anxious to enumerate his numerous Vedic sacrifices than to specify the various exploits which justified his assumption of the imperial position and the performance of as many as four horse-sacrifices. The historian can therefore offer only a few probable suggestions about the main incidents in his long career.

v1.c8.s3.4

Since Pravarasena I is the only Vākāṭaka ruler who assumed the title of emperor, we may presume that most of the territories included in the Vākāṭaka empire were in fact annexed by him, with the exception of those districts which are definitely known to have been added to it in later times.¹

v1.c8.s3.5

¹ e.g. Kuntala or Southern Mahārāṣṭra, which is known to have been conquered by Vindhyasena of the Basim branch.

v1.c8.s3.6

In his father's time his principality consisted of a few districts in the western Madhya Pradesha and in Berar. At the end of his career the Vākāṭaka empire included the whole of the Madhya Pradesha and Berar, Malwa, Northern Mahārāṣṭra, a considerable portion of the modern Hyderabad State, and portions of South Kośala or Chhattisgarh.

v1.c8.s3.7

It will thus be seen that Pravarasena increased his patrimony nearly tenfold by his military achievements. It is really unfortunate that we should not know either their chronological order or the names of most of the kings overcome by him. After the downfall of the Sātavāhana dynasty the territory previously under its sway was parcelled out among the numerous district and provincial officers of the defunct empire, who eventually established their own local small kingdoms. An ambitious and resourceful military leader like Pravarasena would not have found it very difficult to conquer them or to compel them to accept his overlordship.

v1.c8.s3.8

At the outset of his career Pravarasena turned his attention to the south and south-east and added northern Mahārāṣṭra, portions of the modern Hyderabad State, and the eastern districts of the Madhya Pradesha to his kingdom. The findspots of inscriptions and the names of the villages donated in some of them make it quite clear that this block of territory continued to form part of the Vākāṭaka kingdom down to the end of its existence. There is some uncertainty as to the precise territories in Hyderabad State which were included in the Vākāṭaka empire. There is no doubt that its Marāṭhi-speaking districts were part of the Vākāṭaka dominions.¹ It seems not improbable, however, that most of Hyderabad State was included in the Vākāṭaka empire. The Kadamba kingdom of Karṇāṭak is not known to have included any territory to the north of the Kṛṣṇā. The same is the case with regard to the Pallava kingdom of Kāñchī. It is therefore but natural to assume that the Vākāṭaka empire, which is definitely known to have included the Marāṭhi-speaking districts of Hyderabad State, must have also incorporated all the territories to the north of the Kṛṣṇā. This view gets further support from a tradition recorded in Śrīśaila-sthala-māhātmya of a daughter of King Chandragupta named Chandrāvatī having offered a garland of jasmine flowers every day to the god Mallikārjuna at Śrīśaila.² Chandrāvatī may have been the pre-marriage name of Queen Prabhāvatīguptā, the daughter of Chandragupta II and the wife of Rudrasena II; and if she daily offered a garland to Mallikārjuna at Śrīśaila, the tīrtha may as well have been situated in the Vākāṭaka empire. In that case all the territory right up to Karnul District must have been included in the Vākāṭaka sphere of influence, even if not actually under Vākāṭaka administration. The question regarding the exact southern boundary of the Vākāṭaka kingdom can, however, be satisfactorily solved only by future archaeological discoveries in Hyderabad State.

v1.c8.s3.9

¹ There are several Vākāṭaka inscriptions at Ajanta in the Aurangābād District, and the Basim plates of Sarvasena grant a village in the Nander District.

v1.c8.s3.10

² SIER, for 1914-15, p. 91.

v1.c8.s3.11

With his resources considerably augmented by the absorption of extensive territories in the south, Pravarasena began to look for fresh adventures. A golden opportunity for further expansion presented itself to him as the result of a revolution in the kingdom of the Western Kshatrapas of Gujarāt and Kathiāwar, which put an end to the career of the house of Chashtana and placed on the throne a new ruler named Rudrasimha II. The revolution was not a peaceful one; it was attended by bitter internecine fighting, which rendered life and property unsafe at the capital, inducing the citizens to bury their valuables and flee for safety.¹ Rudrasimha, however, soon secured effective control over the capital and we find him and his son ruling the Kshatrapa kingdom down to *c.* 332.

v1.c8.s3.12

¹ A hoard of 520 coins hidden underground towards the end of the reign of Bhartridāman, who was supplanted by Rudrasimha II, was found buried in Junāgaḍ. *Numismatic Supplement*, No. xlvii, p. 97.

v1.c8.s3.13

Neither Rudrasimha II nor his son Yaśodāman II, however, assume the title of *mahākshatrapa* like their predecessors. Both of them are content with the lower title *Kshatrapa*, which at this time indicated a subordinate or feudatory status. Some scholars hold that the imposition of Sassanian overlordship was responsible for these two rulers remaining content with the feudatory status. This view does not seem to be correct. The Sassanian emperor Narseh, who ruled from A.D. 293 to 303, was signally defeated by the Roman emperor Galerius, to whom he had to cede extensive territories in order to recover his family, which had fallen into the hands of the conqueror. Narseh therefore was not in a position to help Rudrasimha II in his effort to oust Bhartridāman. His successor Hormuzd II had only a short reign of seven years (A.D. 303-10), and is not known to have undertaken any expedition in the east. The next ruler, Shāpūr II, was a baby of less than a year at the time of his accession in A.D. 310, and so the Sassanians were not in a position to take any effective part in Kshatrapa politics down to *c.* A.D. 330. The Sassanian overlordship therefore does not seem to have been the cause for the reduction of the status of Rudrasimha II and his son Yaśodāman to that of mere Kshatrapas.

v1.c8.s3.14

Though there is no direct evidence, it seems almost certain that the imperialism of the Vākātaka emperor Pravarasena I was responsible for the Western Kshatrapas being reduced to feudatory status during the period A.D. 304 to 332. His father Vindhyaśakti had already annexed part of Malwa to his principality before A.D. 275, and Pravarasena must have been on the lookout for a pretext to extend his sphere of influence over Gujarat as well. An opportunity presented itself to him when in *c.* 304 Rudrasimha tried to oust the reigning monarch Bhartridāman and secure the throne for himself. Pravarasena must have followed the age-old imperial policy of supporting the claims of an upstart agai st the legitimate ruling sovereign, and therefore helped Rudrasimha in his efforts to dethrone Bhartridāman. In return for this help, Rudrasimha agreed to be content with the feudatory title of *Kshatrapa*, to renounce the title *mahākshatrapa* (which indicated an independent status at this time), and to acknowledge himself a vassal of the Vākāṭaka overlord. The armies of Pravarasena must have taken an active part in putting Rudrasimha on the Kshatrapa throne. When his position had become secure, they may have retired to their own country. It is likely that Pravarasena got Western Malwa in return for his help. He must also have received occasional tributes in cash. Most of the coins in the big hoard of 633 Kshatrapa coins found at Sonpur in the Chhindwada District of Madhya Pradesha in the heart of the Vākāṭaka kingdom might originally have come as part of the tributes paid to the emperor Pravarasena I by his feudatories Rudrasimha II and Yaśodāman II. Only three coins of this hoard belonged to Mahākshatrapa Rudrasena III, who came to the throne after A.D. 348; they might have come by way of trade.¹

v1.c8.s3.15

¹ *JASB*, 1937, N.S., pp. 95-99. The account of this important hoard given by Mr. Acharya is confusing and self-contradictory. On p. 96 he refers to *six* dated coins of Rudrasena III found in this hoard, but he gives their number as only *three* in the analysis of the hoard given on p. 99. In this short paper Mr. Acharya has given an account of several hoards of Kshatrapa coins which he examined together, and he seems to have confused their contents.

v1.c8.s3.16

The history of the Eastern Deccan during the reign of Pravarasena is imperfectly known. The Ikshvāku dynasty had come to an end by *c.* A.D. 275. The Sālaṅkāyāna dynasty rose into importance only after *c.* A.D. 325. The Nalas of Chhattisgarh and Bastar began their career a little later still. During the latter part of the reign of Pravarasena there was thus no strong power in the Andhra country and Chhattisgarh, and it is quite likely that the Vākāṭaka ruler may have brought this territory under his sphere of influence. The same may perhaps have been the case with Baghelkhand. The Vākāṭaka supremacy over these districts did not last long, for soon after the death of Pravarasena we find independent kings like Mahendra of Kośala, Vyāghrarāja of Mahākāntāra, Kubera of Devarāṣṭra, and Mahendragiri of Piṣṭapuri ruling over most of this territory.

v1.c8.s3.17

The patrimony which Pravarasena had inherited included only a few districts; he expanded it into an empire which covered practically the whole of the Deccan between the rivers Narmadā and Kṛṣṇā. The northern Mahārāṣṭra, Berar, the Madhya Pradesha and Hyderabad State were certainly included in his empire. His sphere of influence extended over Malwa and Gujarat, Andhradeśa and southern Kośala. He gave to the Deccan the political unity which it had lost since the downfall of the Sātavāhanas, and welded it into a powerful state whose strength and resources were much greater than those of any other contemporary kingdom, whether in the north or the south. It was but natural that he should have assumed the imperial title *samrāṭ*, emperor, to which no contemporary of his is known to have laid a claim.

v1.c8.s3.18

Pravarasena belonged to an orthodox Brāhman family and was a staunch follower of the Vedic religion. He performed a number of Vedic sacrifices. Of these, Agniṣṭoma, Aptoryāma, Ukthya, Shoḍaśin, and Atirātra were the normal varieties of the Soma sacrifice, which was so popular in the Vedic age. Pravarasena must have celebrated these several times through his official priests. He is stated to have performed the famous horse-sacrifice four times; probably he performed it at the end of each of his four memorable campaigns, which finally resulted in his securing the overlordship over the whole of the Deccan.

v1.c8.s3.19

At the end of his career, when he had become the most powerful sovereign in India, Pravarasena celebrated the Vājapeya sacrifice and formally assumed the title of samrāṭ or emperor. Being a Brāhman by caste, he was not eligible to offer the Rājasūya sacrifice, which Kshatriya kings alone could carry out to celebrate their universal sovereignty. He therefore performed the Vājapeya sacrifice, which according to the sacred texts is a samrāṭ-sava, celebrated at the consecration of a king to the dignity of paramount sovereign. The Bṛihaspati sacrifice, which also was performed by the emperor, was probably a sequel to this Vājapeya sacrifice. This emperor was eligible to perform it because he was a Brāhman by caste.

v1.c8.s3.20

We have stated above that Pravarasena I was the most powerful ruler of the time and that he had brought practically the whole of the Deccan under his sovereignty. Some recent writers indeed have credited him with much more extensive conquests, and have declared that he was the lord paramount of the whole of India. Such, however, was not the case. The theory that he controlled Southern India through one of his sons, who founded the Andhra-bhṛitya or Pallava dynasty is a mere hypothesis that has yet to be proved. The view that he conquered the Uttara Pradesha and drove out the Kushānas into Afghanistan is based upon the assumption that the coins of Virasena, which are found in the upper Uttara Pradesha, are really the coins of Pravarasena. But this is not the case.¹ What Jayaswal takes to be the letter Pra in the left-hand lower corner of the coin is really a part of the Nandipada symbol. What he takes to be the symbols for 76 are parts of the symbol tree within the railing.² The coins in question were issued by Virasena and not by Pravarasena. And even if we assume for the sake of argument that Pravarasena I of the Vākāṭaka dynasty issued them, we cannot explain why they should be found only in the northern Uttara Pradesha and never in the Madhya Pradesha and Berar, which were the home provinces of the Vākāṭaka empire. There is no evidence whatsoever to prove that Pravarasena I had conquered the Punjab and driven out the Kushānas into Afghanistan. Even the coins of Virasena are found but very rarely in the Punjab. Jayaswal's theory is based upon the assumption that it was the pressure of Pravarasena which induced the Kushānas to accept willingly the overlordship of the Sassanians during the first decade of the fourth century A.D. There is, in fact, no shred of evidence whatsoever to support this view. The Sassanians had conquered the Kushānas and imposed their suzerainty upon them as early as c. A.D. 250, when Pravarasena was probably not even born. Further there is no evidence to show that the Kushānas welcomed the Sassanian sovereignty as a means of preserving their kingdom in India against the pressure of any indigenous power. They had to accept it as the natural corollary of a defeat in the battlefield. The theory therefore that Pravarasena I was lord paramount of the whole of India cannot be accepted. He was, however, lord paramount of the Deccan and ruled a kingdom much more extensive than that of any of his contemporaries. This was itself a great achievement and fully justified his assumption of the title *samrāṭ* or emperor.

v1.c8.s3.21

¹ Jayaswal, History of India, A.D. 150-350, pp. 82-94; Pai in JIH, xiv, 180 ff.

v1.c8.s3.22

² Altekar in JNSI, v, 132.

v1.c8.s3.23

According to the *Purāṇas*, Pravarasena had four sons, all of whom became kings in the course of time. This statement suggests a division of the empire after their father's death, a division which must have weakened the power of the Vākāṭaka dynasty. As the kingdom began to expand by the additions of new territories, Pravarasena may well have appointed his sons as viceroys over the different provinces of his empire; and these would then have become independent kings at his death.

v1.c8.s3.24

Of the four sons of Pravarasena I, Gautamiputra was the eldest. He, however, ruled only as crown prince, for he predeceased his father;¹ the latter was succeeded by Gautamiputra's son Rudrasena II. Sarvasena was another son of Pravarasena, whose name has become known to us very recently.² He was the viceroy ruling over Southern Berar and the north-western districts of Hyderabad State. He eventually founded a branch dynasty at Vatsagulma or Basim, which continued to flourish down to the end of the fifth century A.D.

v1.c8.s3.25

¹ It has been argued that Gautamiputra Vrishadhvaja, whose seal has been found at Bhita, is identical with Gautamiputra, the eldest son of Pravarasena I, and was viceroy ruling over the Gangetic valley (Pai in *JIH*, xiv, pp. 180 ff.). Impressions of clay seals accompanied confidential letters sent to even distant countries; the mere fact that they are found at a particular place does not prove that the persons concerned were ruling over that place. Would it be reasonable to argue that because a seal of the British government is to be found in Washington, therefore the U.S.A. must be presumed to be a part of the British empire? The personal name of the Gautamiputra of the Bhita seal was Vrishadhvaja; Gautamiputra the son of Pravarasena is not known to have ever had this name. The Gautamiputra of the Bhita seal was a full-fledged ruling prince, who described his kingship as due to the grace of Mahāsena; Gautamiputra the son of Pravarasena died as only a crown prince. The two therefore cannot be identical.

v1.c8.s3.26

² *EI*, xxvi, 137 ff.

v1.c8.s3.27

The names of the remaining two sons of Pravarasena are not so far known to us; nor do we know where they ruled as viceroys. It is possible that their territories may have been somewhere in the eastern parts of the empire, possibly in the Kośala and Andhra country; there is, however, no definite information on the point. It is very likely that these branches had a short career either because they were absorbed in the parent line or because the lands concerned were eventually wrested from the Vākāṭakas. The main branch continued to rule in Northern Berar, Bombay Mahārāṣṭra, and most of the districts of the Madhya Pradeśa.¹

v1.c8.s3.28

¹ It has been argued that the third son of Pravarasena was Gautamīputra Śivamagha, whose seal has been found at Bhita and whose coins are found at Kauśāmbi. It is claimed that he was the founder of the ‘Magha’ line, which was thus merely a branch of the Vākāṭakas (Pai in JIH, xiv, 16 ff.). Gautamīputra Śivamagha had three predecessors, Bhadramagha, Poṭhasiri, and Bhīmasena, who ruled over the upper Narmadā valley from c. A.D. 150. His relationship with his predecessors is not known, but the fact that his seal is identical with that of Bhīmasena shows that he belonged to the line of this king and not to the line of Pravarasena I. On the seals of both these rulers we have a standing woman and a bull with a crescent below his neck. The legend on Bhīmasena’s seal is above these symbols, while that on the seal of Śivamagha is below them. Such a striking resemblance in the seals of the two rulers would be difficult to explain if they belonged to different dynasties. Yet this supposition becomes inevitable if we assume that Gautamīputra Śivamagha was a Vākāṭaka ruler. The imperial Vākāṭakas never issued any coins; it is therefore difficult to understand how a viceroy like Śivamagha could have issued them.

Rudrasena I

v1.c8.s4.1

(c. A.D. 335-60)

v1.c8.s4.2

According to the chronology already explained, Rudrasena I succeeded his grandfather Pravarasena I in c. A.D. 335. The Vākāṭaka records give the name of Rudrasena’s father Gautamīputra in the family genealogy, but do not attach any regal title whatsoever to his name. It is therefore clear that he did not become a king, but was merely a sub-king or viceroy to the end of his life. Gautamīputra’s death before that of his father need not cause us any surprise, for the latter had an unusually long reign of sixty years. Pravarasena must obviously have been an octogenarian at the time of his death; and his grandson Rudrasena, who succeeded him, may thus well have been at least thirty at the time of his accession.

v1.c8.s4.3

The Vākāṭaka records usually introduce the Bhāraśiva king Bhavanāga in the family genealogy as the maternal grandfather of Rudrasena I. In Indian dynastic genealogies a maternal grandfather is introduced either when his kingdom happens to be inherited by his daughter’s son or when he happens to have afforded material assistance to his grandson at a critical period. It is now definitely proved that Bhavanāga belonged to the Nāga dynasty of Padmāvatī in the former Gwalior State. Rudrasena did not inherit this kingdom after Bhavanāga; it passed on to his son Gaṇapatināga. Bhavanāga thus appears to have been introduced into the Vākāṭaka genealogy because he afforded some valuable assistance to his grandson Rudrasena I.

v1.c8.s4.4

What this assistance was and when and why it had to be offered is not yet definitely known. It is probable that the enemies against whom Bhavanāga had to offer assistance to his grandson were some among the latter’s three uncles, who may have sought to oust their nephew from the main Vākāṭaka kingdom. But we have no definite evidence upon the point; future discoveries alone can prove or contradict this suggestion.

v1.c8.s4.5

The period between *c.* A.D. 325 and 360, which included the closing years of the rule of Pravarasena I and practically the whole of the reign of Rudrasena I, is very important in the history both of the Deccan and of Northern India. It was during this period that the Vākāṭakas lost and the Guptas acquired imperial status among the kings of India. To the end of *c.* A.D. 335 Pravarasena I was ruling as a *samrāṭ* or emperor; but neither his successor Rudrasena I nor any one among his descendants is ever given the title of an emperor even in the official records of the Vākāṭaka dynasty. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar has therefore argued with great plausibility that the dropping of the imperial title by Rudrasena must have been due to his having received a severe defeat from a neighbour who claimed that title for himself. And this neighbour could have been no other than Chandragupta I or his son Samudragupta, both of whom assume the title Mahārājādhirāja, King of kings, which had not been employed by earlier Gupta rulers. The rise of Chandragupta to the imperial position must be vitally connected with the fall of Rudrasena from that high status. The Vākāṭakas were the only obvious obstacle in the schemes for the imperial expansion of the Guptas, and Chandragupta must have gained the upper hand either by actual victories in the field or by slow expansion.¹

v1.c8.s4.6

¹ ABORI, v, 39-40.

v1.c8.s4.7

Additional interesting arguments have been advanced in favour of the above theory by the late Dr. Jayaswal. He argues that Pravarasena I had deliberately thwarted the imperial plans of Chandragupta I by defeating and ousting him from Pāṭaliputra and putting his own nominee Kalyāṇavarmā on its throne. Chandragupta died in exile and while on his death-bed he charged his successor Samudragupta to retrieve the fortunes of his family and to restore it once more to the imperial rank which he himself had previously secured for it. Samudragupta had, however, to bide his time; he was a mere Vākāṭaka feudatory ruling in Oudh during the first few years of his reign. It was during this period that he issued his tiger-slayer coins, on which he does not dare to assume any imperial title; we see him instead contenting himself with the feudatory title of a simple *rājā*. Taking advantage of the death of the emperor Pravarasena, Samudragupta launched his offensive against this monarch's successor Rudrasena I, whom he overthrew and killed in a sanguinary battle fought near Kauśāmbi in A.D. 348. King Rudradeva of Āryāvarta, who figures first in his Allahabad record among the kings of northern India, defeated and overthrown by Samudragupta, is no other than this Vākāṭaka ruler Rudrasena I. Samudragupta eventually brought under his own sphere of influence the different kings in Chota Nagpur, Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand, Chhattisgarh, and the Andhra country, who had formerly been the vassals of the Vākāṭakas. With their emperor killed in battle, and important provinces snatched from their empire, the Vākāṭakas sank into the position of Gupta feudatories; that is the reason why Rudrasena I and his successors are allowed merely the title of *mahārāja*, which indicated the feudatory status, and never the higher style of *samrāṭ* or *mahārājādhirāja*, which could be given only to an emperor.¹

v1.c8.s4.8

¹ Jayaswal, *History of India, A.D. 150-350*, pp. 80-2.

v1.c8.s4.9

There is no doubt that the case for assuming the occurrence of a conflict between the Guptas and the Vākāṭakas, in which the latter were worsted, thus appears to be a very plausible one. But a careful examination of the problem shows that the arguments upon which it is based do not bear very close scrutiny. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that Pravarasena I had ousted Chandragupta I from Pāṭaliputra and put upon its throne his nominee Kalyāṇavarmā. As a matter of fact the incidents mentioned in the *Kaumudimahotsava*, upon which Jayaswal mainly relies for his theory, have no connexion at all with the reign of Chandragupta I. We cannot indentify Caṇḍasena of this drama with Chandragupta, the founder of the Gupta empire; the drama states that Caṇḍasena was killed together with all his children;² but we definitely know that Chandragupta left behind him a number of sons, one of whom succeeded to his throne. In the drama, Caṇḍasena appears as an exile. It is impossible to accept the contention of Dr. Jayaswal that in the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta, Chandragupta appears as an exile on his death-bed. Had Chandragupta been an exile dying in misery and disgrace, his selection of Samudragupta as his successor would not have caused any jealousy in the hearts of other princes. The dejection which we know the formal announcement of Samudragupta as the next successor caused among his brothers, makes it quite clear that the successor of Chandragupta was never faced with the difficult and dangerous task of reasserting the imperial position of his house. Nor is there any evidence to show that Samudragupta was a Vākāṭaka feudatory at the beginning of his career. His coins of the tiger-slayer type do no doubt describe him as a mere *rājā*, but that fact does not necessarily prove that he was only a vassal prince at the time when they were issued. If we follow this line of argument, we shall have to suppose that Chandragupta II had also been reduced to the status of a vassal because on his copper coins we find him using the simple feudatory title *mahārāja*. Nay, on some of his coins the bare name Chandragupta appears without any title whatsoever.³ Are we then to conclude that he had for some time ceased to be even a feudatory chief? In the legends on the Swordsman type of Kumāragupta I, not even the title *rājā* or *mahārāja* appears either on the obverse or on the reverse; are we to conclude that he was not even a feudatory when this type was issued? The simple fact is that the extent of the space available on the Gupta coins usually determines the length of their legends. On copper coins the space was small, and so even emperors like Chandragupta II, who are never suspected of having ever been reduced to the status of vassals, are seen to have contented themselves with the simple title mahārāja. Sometimes they appear without any titles at all. The legend *rāja Samudraguptaḥ* occurs on the reverse of the tiger-slayer type of Samudragupta. The legends on the reverse of Gupta coins are always short; longer legends like *mahārājādhirāja Śrī-Samudraguptaḥ* were not inscribed there simply for want of space. The legend *rāja Samudraguptaḥ*, King Samudragupta, occurring on the tiger-slayer coin of Samudragupta, can prove him to have been a mere feudatory at the time only if the legend *Chandraguptaḥ* occurring on the coins of Chandragupta II is also to be taken as a proof that this monarch was not even a feudatory prince, but only a mere commoner at the time when he issued these coins. Both hypotheses are equally absurd and untenable.

v1.c8.s4.10

² Act V.

v1.c8.s4.11

³ Allan, *Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasties*, pp. 54-60.

v1.c8.s4.12

The theory that Samudragupta overthrew and killed the Vākāṭaka ruler Rudrasena I is based upon the assumption that the king Rudradeva who figures first among the kings of Northern India (*Āryāvarta*) defeated by Samudragupta, is identical with the Vākāṭaka ruler Rudrasena I. The superficial resemblance between the names of the two rulers by no means proves their identity. The Rudradeva overthrown by Samudragupta was a king in *Āryāvarta*, or Northern India; Rudrasena, the Vākāṭaka king, was a king of the Deccan. We must further remember that the Allahabad inscription is a eulogy (*praśasti*) of Samudragupta, describing his achievements in the most lively and striking colours. To heighten the effect on the reader’s mind of the prowess of Samudragupta, it gives the full imperial title of the Kushāna ruler who had offered him only a nominal submission. If then Samudragupta was actually a mere Vākāṭaka vassal prince, who had later avenged himself on his feudal lord for the humiliations inflicted upon him and his father by the Vākāṭaka emperors Pravarasena I and Rudrasena I, is it likely that the eulogy would have summarily dismissed this most glorious achievement of Samudragupta by merely including the name of Rudradeva among the nine kings of Northern India overthrown by the hero? The defeat of Achyuta and Nāgasena, who were among the important opponents of Samudragupta but infinitely less powerful than the Vākāṭaka emperors, is described twice in the eulogy, once in poetry and once in prose. Why then should the most glorious achievement of Samudragupta, the defeat of the Vākāṭaka emperor, who, according to Jayaswal, was ruling at the time over practically the whole of India from Peshawar to Kāñchī and Dvārakā to Patna, have been summarily dismissed in only four letters? Why should not even the name of the dynasty of Rudradeva have been given? If Samudragupta had really defeated the Vākāṭaka emperor, there would certainly have been several verses in the Allahabad eulogy describing the great might of the Vākāṭakas and the skilful generalship by which Samudragupta defeated and this most deadly enemy of his family. If the imperial titles of the Kushāna emperor, who offered merely a nominal submission, are given in order to heighten the effect of the prowess of Samudragupta, would not the imperial title of Rudradeva have been given in order to emphasize the greatness of the achievement of his conqueror?

First 82 of 264 passages. Read on

Linked texts (31)