The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s3: The Emperor Pravarasena I

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s3

Language: English

The Emperor Pravarasena I

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.