The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s4: Rudrasena I

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s4

Language: English

Rudrasena I

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?

v1.c8.s4.13

The fact is that there was not much occasion for rivalry between the Guptas and the Vākāṭakas, since their spheres of influence were quite distinct from one another. Even during the southern expedition of Samudragupta, he did not come into any direct conflict with the Vākāṭakas. For had he done so, it is certain that his Allahabad eulogy would have mentioned their name; the absence of any notice of them would be quite inexplicable, since the names of most of the contemporary kings or states are mentioned in this document in one connexion or other. It is true that most probably during the reign of Pravarasena I the rulers of Southern Kośala and the Andhra country came under the Vākāṭaka sphere of influence. But during the interval between the death of Pravarasena and the invasion of Samudragupta, the kings of this territory had renounced their fealty to the Vākāṭakas and had become independent. Their nominal submission to Samudragupta during his southern expedition did not therefore amount to any serious infringement of the vested interests of the Vākāṭakas, who had already lost their suzerainty. Nor can we identify King Vyāghrarāja of the Great Forest who professed allegiance to Samudragupta with King Vyāghrarāja of Ganj, who was a Vākāṭaka feudatory. For the former was a king in the Deccan, ruling somewhere to the south of the Vindhyas, while the latter was a king in Bundelkhand, ruling over a territory to the north of that range of hills.¹

v1.c8.s4.14

¹ It is true that Samudragupta did rule over a portion of the Sagar district in the Madhya Pradesh. But he did not reach this district via Sutna, Katni, and Jabalpur, but through Kauśāmbi, Chitrakūṭa, and Kalinjar. For in the latter territory some Gupta inscriptions are in fact found, but none in the former.

v1.c8.s4.15

There is another important consideration which goes against the theory that Samudragupta had defeated and killed the Vākāṭaka king Rudrasena I. For if he had really done so, and if he had continued the feud in the next generation by compelling Vyāghrarāja, one of the feudatories of Rudrasena's son Pṛthviṣeṇa I, to transfer his allegiance to him, is it likely that Pṛthviṣeṇa would have selected Prabhāvatīgupta, one of the granddaughters of his bitterest enemy, as a bride for his son and successor Rudrasena II? It is true that friendships and enmities in politics are short-lived; still it is extremely improbable, especially in the case of a Hindu royal family, that a king would select as a bride for his son the granddaughter of an enemy, who had killed his own father.

v1.c8.s4.16

But it may be asked: Is it not significant that the Vākāṭakas should have ceased to assume imperial titles just after the digvijaya or conquests of Samudragupta? May not these latter be the cause of the change? The dropping of the imperial title by Rudrasena could hardly have been purely voluntary; it must obviously have been due to a defeat inflicted upon him by Samudragupta. This defeat reduced the Vākāṭakas to the status of feudatories of the Guptas. Their official records are always careful to state that Pravarasena I was a samrāṭ, emperor. But all his successors are given the simple title of mahārāja, which at this time denoted the status of a vassal king. Prabhāvatīguptā describes her father, Chandragupta II, as a mahārājādhirāja, but is content to give the mere title of mahārāja to her husband, Rudrasena II. This is obviously because he was in fact at that time a feudatory of the Guptas.

v1.c8.s4.17

The above argument seems at first sight very convincing, but a careful examination of contemporary documents shows that it is fallacious. The imperial title mahārājādhirāja was a foreign title at the beginning of the fourth century A.D. The Guptas had borrowed it from the Kushānas along with their coinage. But it took several decades for the title to become popular in the Deccan and Southern India. The Ikshvāku king Chantamūla, who had performed several horse-sacrifices in c. A.D. 250, was content with the simple title mahārāja. He never suspected that it would be ever regarded as denoting a mere feudatory status. The Vishnukundin ruler Mādhavavarman I had performed eleven horse-sacrifices; he lived at a time when the title mahārājādhirāja had been assumed by many rulers in Northern India. And yet he was content with the simple title mahārāja. In the vast majority of the official grants of the great Chālukya emperor Pulakeśin II, he is described as a mere mahārāja; it is only from the time of his son Vikramāditya I (c. A.D. 660) that the Chālukyas begin to describe themselves as mahārājādhirājas. The title mahārāja indicated feudatory status only in Northern India, but not in the Deccan or South India, down to the middle of the seventh century A.D. The Pallavas, the Kadambas and the Chālukyas, who were all independent rulers and had a number of feudatories under them, are content to describe themselves in their official documents as mere mahārājas. The simple fact, therefore, that the successors of Pravarasena are described as mahārājas by no means proves that they were no longer independent rulers but had become vassals of the Guptas.

v1.c8.s4.18

It may, however, be asked why the successors of Pravarasena I did not assume the title mahārājādhirāja. If it was for the reason that up to that time the latter title had not yet become popular in the Deccan and Southern India, then why did they give up the imperial title samrāt, which had already been adopted by Pravarasena? The reasons for this change in title from samrāt, emperor, to mahārāja, king, are partly religious and partly political. Vājapeya was one of the sacrifices performed by Pravarasena I. The sacred texts describe this sacrifice as a samrāt-sava,¹ i.e. a sacrifice which entitles its performer to the title of samrāt, emperor. As none of the successors of Pravarasena I had performed this sacrifice, they could not assume the title of samrāt and had therefore to remain content with the title mahārāja, which did not then denote any feudatory status in the Deccan or Southern India. We must further not forget in this connexion that the Vākāṭakas were orthodox Brāhmans, and must therefore have felt that those among them who had not performed the Vājapeya should not presume to use the title of samrāt.

v1.c8.s4.19

¹ Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, v, 1, 1, 13.

v1.c8.s4.20

There were apparently also political reasons which operated to induce the Vākāṭakas to forswear the imperial title *samrāṭ*. The mighty kingdom which Pravarasena I had raised during his lifetime became divided after his death into four sub-states, each governed by one of his sons. This division must have reduced the power and resources of the Vākāṭakas. In the meanwhile a new power, much stronger than any of the sub-states of the Vākāṭakas, had arisen in Nothern India and was claiming imperial position and status. None of the successors of Pravarasena I was strong enough to challenge that power and so to perform the Vājapeya sacrifice in order to assume the title *samrāṭ*. Within a short time the two houses contracted a matrimonial alliance, and a daughter of the Gupta emperor Chandragupta II became the crowned queen of the Vākāṭaka king Rudrasena II in *c.* A.D. 385. This marriage must have put a stop to all feeling of jealousy and rivalry between the two houses. It must be further noted that the text of the Vākāṭaka charters was first determined by the imported Gupta secretariat officers working in the Vākāṭaka administration during the regency of Prabhāvatīguptā; they were naturally disinclined to give the title *mahārājādhirāja* to a protégé of their master. Later on, when Pravarasena II modified this draft on attaining his majority, he may have felt a natural disinclination to claim for his ancestors a title which had been claimed for themselves by his former protector and guide, Chandragupta II and his three predecessors. He decided to give the title *samrāṭ* to his namesake Pravarasena I, because he had become entitled to it by the performance of the Vājapeya sacrifice. It could not be continued in the case of his successors because they had not performed the said sacrifice. Pravarasena saw no objection in describing them as *mahārājas*, because that title still indicated independent status in the Deccan.

v1.c8.s4.21

And finally it may be pointed out that the Purāṇic evidence does not support the view that there was a break in the Vākāṭaka dynasty after the deaths of the four sons of Pravarasena, implying thereby that Rudrasena was killed in a war with Samudragupta. The *Purāṇas* state that Pravira or Pravarasena and others will have four sons who will all rule after them, and then add that when the Vindhyaka, i.e. the Vākāṭaka, family comes to an end, the Bāhlikas, the Pushyamitras, Paṭumitras, will begin to rule.¹ This does not necessarily imply that the Vindhyaka family came to an end after the rule of the sons of Pravarasena; it only means that the *Purāṇas* do not narrate the history of their successors. To give an analogous instance, the *Purāṇas* state that the Guptas will rule over Allahabad, Patna, and Ayodhyā,² a statement which is true of the Gupta kingdom under Chandragupta I. This statement is not contradicted by the historical fact that the Gupta empire subsequently covered practically the whole of Northern India; it only shows that the *Purāṇas* do not themselves narrate the subsequent history of the Guptas. The same is the case about the Vākāṭaka rulers subsequent to the sons of Pravarasena I. There is, however, clear epigraphical evidence to show that there was no sudden break in the Vākāṭaka dynasty subsequent to the death of Rudrasena I. For all the Vākāṭaka records state in speaking of his successor Pṛithvisheṇa that the military and fiscal power of the Vākāṭakas continued steadily to increase and prosper for about a hundred years at the time of his rule.¹ This positive statement renders the above negative inference from the silence of the Purāṇas altogether untenable and shows that the theory that the Vākāṭakas had received a crushing and stunning defeat just before the accession of Pṛithvisheṇa I has no foundation whatever and is in fact quite incredible.

v1.c8.s4.22

¹ Pargiter, *DKA*, p. 50.

v1.c8.s4.23

² Ibid., p. 53.

v1.c8.s4.24

¹ Cf. वर्षशतभिवर्धमानकोशदण्डसाधनसन्तानपुत्रपौत्रः। EI, xxv, p. 264.

v1.c8.s4.25

Very few incidents of the reign of Rudrasena are definitely known. The division of the Vākāṭaka empire into four sub-states and the dispute at the succession of Rudrasena naturally weakened the power and the prestige of the dynasty. The Andhra country and southern Kośala became independent and other kings began to rule in them. In the west the Kshatrapas also repudiated the Vākāṭaka supremacy; from about A.D. 340 onwards Rudradāman II assumed the title *mahākshatrapa*, showing thereby that he had become independent. Rudrasena I had to acquiesce in this new development since he was not powerful enough to prevent it. Southern Berar and the north-western part of the Hyderabad State continued under the rule of Sarvasena, an uncle of Rudrasena. We do not possess any definite information about the relations between the Basim branch and the main line of the Vākāṭakas. It is not improbable that the rulers of Basim offered formal recognition of the overlordship of the direct line after the termination of the struggle for succession.

v1.c8.s4.26

Like his maternal grandfather Bhavanāga, Rudrasena was a staunch Śaivite; he is always described as a devotee of Mahābhairava in the Vākāṭaka records. He is known to have constructed a Śiva temple at Deotek, about fifty miles south-east of Nagpur. He may have constructed many other temples also in honour of his favourite deity.

v1.c8.s4.27

Rudrasena on the whole was a weak ruler. The power and prestige of the Vākāṭakas declined under him. But we cannot regard him as solely responsible for this development. His grandfather had taken the unwise step of dividing his empire among his four sons, which necessarily resulted in the weakening of the central power. Rudrasena tried to make the best of a bad situation and managed to keep under his direct rule most of the districts of the Madhya Pradesha with the exception of those included in Chhattisgarh. His death took place in *c.* A.D. 360.

Cites (2)

Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit
Charala plates of Virarajendradeva: Saka 991 — Sanskrit