The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s12: The Disintegration and Disappearance of the Vākāṭaka Empire
The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s12
- Language
- English
The Disintegration and Disappearance of the Vākāṭaka Empire
v1.c8.s12.1
W E have seen above how in *c.* A.D. 510 at the death of Harisheṇa the Vākāṭaka empire was at the zenith of its power and prestige and extended over practically the whole of the Deccan. Within fifty years of this date the Deccan passed under the sway of the Chālukyas, who in *c.* A.D. 565 were masters of the greater part of the territory that had been included in the Vākāṭaka empire. How the Vākāṭakas came to disappear from the scene is, however, not yet definitely known. The mystery is rendered still more inexplicable by the fact that neither the records of the Vākāṭakas themselves nor those of the Chālukyas refer to any conflict between the two powers.
v1.c8.s12.2
It has been recently argued with great ingenuity and plausibility that the Vākāṭaka empire was supplanted not by the Chālukya empire but by an early Rāshṭrakūṭa empire, which continued to include practically the whole of the Deccan during the sixth century A.D.¹ The Rāshṭrakūṭa king Mānamātra or Mānaṅka laid the foundation of this empire in *c.* A.D. 475 by conquering Aṅga, Aśmaka, and Vidarbha, i.e. Bihar, the southern Madhya Pradesha, and Berar. His home was in the Chhattisgarh division of the Madhya Pradesha and his capital Śarabhapura. This Rāshṭrakūṭa kingdom expanded farther during the reign of Sudevarāja, the son of Mānamātra, but was eventually divided into three portions over which his three sons Jayarāja, Bhavishya, and Avidheya ruled separately. The kingdom of the first was in Chhattisgarh, that of the second in Berar and the western Madhya Pradesha, and that of the third in central and southern Mahārāshṭra. These three kingdoms formed a kind of Rāshṭrakūṭa confederation, which governed the whole of Mahārāshṭra down to the beginning of the sixth century, when they were overthrown by the Chālukya king Pulakeśin II.
v1.c8.s12.3
¹ See M. H. Krishna, in *MASR*, 1929, pp. 197 ff.; and the *K. V. Aiyangar Commemoration Volume*, pp. 55 ff.
v1.c8.s12.4
This theory of the Rāshṭrakūṭa empire existing during the sixth century would indeed have been very convenient to explain the sudden disappearance of the Vākāṭaka power, but unfortunately it does not bear any close examination.² We have about half a dozen charters of the so-called Chhattisgarh branch of this assumed Rāshṭrakūṭa family, but in none of them is it given the epithet of Rāshṭrakūṭa. The southern Mahārāshṭra branch is known to us by a single charter, and there too the giver of the grant is not described as a Rāṣṭrakūṭa. It is only in a single grant of Abhimanyu, who belonged to the Berar branch, that he is mentioned as the crest-jewel of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. This epithet was never taken by his predecessors who ruled in Chhattisgarh; he seems to have adopted it himself, since it is clear that he was for some time a provincial or district governor (rāṣṭrakūṭa) before he became independent.
v1.c8.s12.5
² See *ABORI*, xxiv, 149-55 for a more detailed discussion of this topic by the present writer.
v1.c8.s12.6
But even if we suppose that the cousins of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa ruler Abhimanyu ruling in Chhattisgarh and southern Mahārāṣṭra were known as Rāṣṭrakūṭas, the theory of a Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire of the sixth century embracing the whole of the Deccan does not become acceptable. In Chhattisgarh the rule of the so-called Rāṣṭrakūṭas came to an end with Sudevarāja, the great-uncle of Abhimanyu. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that any of his descendants were ruling over this part of the country after c. A.D. 510. The province had then passed under the rule of the Somavaṁśī kings, as we know from the charters of Tivaradeva, who describes himself as the lord of the whole Kośala country. No descendants either of Abhimanyu of the western Madhya Pradesha or Avidheya of southern Mahārāṣṭra are known to have held sway in the territories concerned from c. 530 onwards.
v1.c8.s12.7
There is in fact no evidence at all to support the theory that the descendants of Sudevarāja, Abhimanyu and Avidheya were ruling over an empire extending from Chhattisgarh to the Khandesh, and from Malwa to the Karṇāṭak during the latter part of the sixth century. If such a formidable empire had really existed, its overthrow would have been the most memorable achievement of the Cālukyas, and would have been described in the most exaggerated language in their records. The Aihole eulogy describes every military achievement of Pulakeśin II and of each of his predecessors; it tells us how Pulakeśin I captured Vātāpi, how his successor overthrew the Naḷas, Mauryas, and the Kadambas, how the next king exterminated the Kaḷachuris, and so on. Pulakeśin II himself defeated a large number of kings, and the eulogy gives the names of every one of them in full detail. Is it not then strange that this eulogy, which mentions specifically even the most insignificant kings defeated by the Cālukyas during the sixth century, should be silent about this most glorious achievement of the family, consisting of the overthrow of the mighty Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire, which had embraced practically the whole of the Deccan? The eulogy, in fact, does not refer to this empire for the simple reason that it never had any historical existence.¹
v1.c8.s12.8
¹ It is argued that Āppāyika and Govinda, who attacked Pulakeśin II in the Bhīmā valley, were Rāṣṭrakūṭa rulers, and thus it has been attempted to prove that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire existed at the beginning of the sixth century A.D. It must therefore be pointed out that these rulers are not described as Rāṣṭrakūṭas in the Aihole eulogy, and that there is no other evidence to show that they bore that epithet. And even if we concede that they were Rāṣṭrakūṭas, the eulogy makes it absolutely clear that they were ruling over a petty principality in the Bhīmā valley and not over a vast empire embracing the whole of the Deccan. The defeat by the Cālukya king Jayasiṁha, of a Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Indra, son of Kṛṣṇa, is mentioned for the first time in the records of the later Cālukyas composed more than five centuries after the alleged event. If this defeat really took place, why should not a single record of
v1.c8.s12.9
The supposed rise of a mighty Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire in the sixth century cannot therefore be used to explain the disintegration of the Vākāṭaka kingdom. The mystery of its disappearance can be satisfactorily solved only if and when we obtain fresh historical evidence bearing on the point. At present we can offer only tentative suggestions.
v1.c8.s12.10
No successor of either Hariṣeṇa of the Basim branch or of Pṛthviṣeṇa II of the main branch is so far known to us. We may, however, assume that on his death, Hariṣeṇa was succeeded by his son, who may well have ruled from c. A.D. 510 to 530. The Viṣṇukuṇḍin king Mādhavavarman I (c. A.D. 525-70) had married a Vākāṭaka princess, and most probably she might have been a daughter of the successor of Hariṣeṇa.
v1.c8.s12.11
In the reign of this king, the disintegration of the empire proceeded apace. Chhattisgarh slipped from Vākāṭaka control and passed under the rule of Tivaradeva, a Somavaṁśī king, who ruled also over the Chanda district.¹ In Malwa and the northern Madhya Pradesha a Rāṣṭrakūṭa king named Abhimanyu set up an independent kingdom. The same thing happened in southern Mahārāṣṭra where a king named Avidheya, a cousin of Abhimanyu, established an independent principality. These Rāṣṭrakūṭa kingdoms did not last long. That in the northern Madhya Pradesha was eventually overthrown by the Kalachuris, who were rulers of Malwa and northern Mahārāṣṭra during the latter half of the sixth century. The southern Rāṣṭrakūṭa kingdom was soon absorbed by the Kadambas. In the east the Naḷas once more became powerful and repudiated the Vākāṭaka overlordship.
v1.c8.s12.12
¹ It seems that Mādhavavarman I, the Viṣṇukuṇḍin king and brother-in-law of the Vākāṭaka ruler, tried to help him by attacking Tivaradeva. Tivaradeva was defeated but Chhattisgarh did not come under Vākāṭaka control.
v1.c8.s12.13
The Vākāṭaka empire had thus disappeared by c. A.D. 540 since the Kadambas of Karṇāṭak, the Kalachuris of northern Mahārāṣṭra, and the Naḷas of the former Bastar State managed to absorb most of its territories during the weak rule of the successor (or successors) of Hariṣeṇa. None of these powers, however, were able to succeed in building up an empire embracing the whole of the Deccan. Quite unexpectedly there arose a new ruling house in Karṇāṭak, that of the Chāḷukyas, which soon managed to defeat each of these powers in turn and to annex their territories. How this happened will be narrated in Part IV.
v1.c8.s12.14
the early Chāḷukyas mention it? Why should this most glorious achievement of Jayasiṁha have been suppressed in all the early Chāḷukya records? The later Chāḷukyas could not conceal the fact that their ancestors had once been overthrown by the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. In order to magnify their importance, they invented a tradition that Jayasiṁha, the founder of the early Chāḷukya family, had defeated a Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Indra, a feat actually performed by Tailapa, the founder of the new Chāḷukya dynasty centuries later.