The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s5: Pṛithvisheṇa I
The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s5
- Language
- English
Pṛithvisheṇa I
v1.c8.s5.1
(*c.* A.D. 360-385)
v1.c8.s5.2
Rudrasena I was succeeded by his son Pṛithvisheṇa I in *c.* A.D. 360. He enjoyed a fairly long reign, for the Vākāṭaka inscriptions describe him as a patriarch, surrounded by sons and grandsons. His reign seems to have been a peaceful and prosperous one; for the documents of the dynasty usually describe how a century of prosperous Vākāṭaka rule was completed in his reign, resulting in a great increase both in the numbers of the armed forces and in the wealth stored in the treasury.
v1.c8.s5.3
It does not seem probable that Pṛthivīṣeṇa himself made use of his army and treasure for any aggressive wars; for he is usually compared to Yudhishthira, who was more famous for his regard for truth than for his achievements on the battlefield. It was at one time supposed that Kuntala was conquered by Pṛthivīṣeṇa, but the revised reading of the Ajanta inscription in cave XVI shows that it was King Vindhyasena of the Basim branch who conquered this province, and not Pṛthivīṣeṇa I of the main line. Vindhyasena, however, was a contemporary of Pṛthivīṣeṇa I, and the latter may have aided this military adventure of the branch family with soldiers and money of his own.
v1.c8.s5.4
The identity of the Kuntala king defeated by the Vākāṭakas cannot yet be definitely determined. But very probably he was the Kadamba king Kaṅgavarman,¹ who was ruling over Nothern Karṇāṭak or Kuntala at this time. The fact that the Vākāṭaka rulers began to be described as lords of Kuntala as a result of this victory might suggest that a portion of Kuntala was annexed to the Vākāṭaka kingdom as its sequel. We, however, know that the Kadambas of Hangal continued to rule as far north as the Belgaum District even after the Vākāṭaka victory. It would therefore appear that it was what is now known as the southern Marāṭha country which passed under the Vākāṭaka control as a result of this victory. Very probably the Kadambas had claimed only a nominal overlordship over this territory and did not much regret its loss.
v1.c8.s5.5
¹ The Talgunda inscription (v. 23) describes how this king carried out mighty exploits in terrible wars. The adjective terrible may suggest that the result of these wars was not very favourable to Kaṅgavarman. EC, vii; SK, No. 176.
v1.c8.s5.6
The relations between Pṛthivīṣeṇa I and his cousins of the Basim branch were fairly cordial at this time. The latter seem to have recognized his overlordship in a general way, while enjoying full internal administrative autonomy.² Otherwise we cannot explain the references in literary works to Pravarasena II, the grandson of Pṛthivīṣeṇa, as lord of the Kuntala country.³ The conquest of Kuntala, though originally planned and led by Vindhyasena of the Basim branch, had received material assistance from the government of the main line of the family, and had contributed to the increase of its glory as well. Its rulers therefore also came to be known as the lords of Kuntala.
v1.c8.s5.7
² The land grants made by them did not require the sanction of the rulers of the main line; EI, xxvi, 137 ff.
v1.c8.s5.8
³ Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 60.
v1.c8.s5.9
The relations between the Vākāṭakas and the Western Kṣatrapas during the reign of Pṛthivīṣeṇa I (A.D. 360-85) are not definitely known. We have seen already how during the reign of the Vākāṭaka ruler Rudrasena I, Rudradāman II reasserted his independence and resumed the title of mahākṣatrapa, which had been in abeyance for about thirty-two years. But Rudrasena III, the son of Rudradāman II, had not a peaceful reign. He suffered from a serious reversal in his fortunes, which led to the total eclipse of the Kshatrapa power during the period A.D. 351-64. What was the cause of this catastrophe is not yet definitely known, but it does not seem probable that either Rudrasena I or his son Prithvishena I had anything to do with it. It is possible to argue that the Vākāṭakas may have at this time once more made a successful effort to reassert their overlordship over the Kshatrapas, but there is not much evidence to support this conjecture.¹ The Vākāṭaka charters were first drafted in the reign of Pravarasena II. This ruler knew full well how his maternal grandfather had overthrown the Kshatrapas. If his paternal grandfather, Prithvishena I, also had temporarily occupied the Kshatrapa kingdom and thus in a way paved the way for the Gupta conquest, there is no reason why he should have been silent about this achievement of his house. Of course it is possible to argue that the incident is not referred to in the Vākāṭaka records because the conquest was temporary, but we should not forget that even ephemeral victories are often magnified in the copper plate charters. The indications given by the evidence available at present, however, show that the Vākāṭakas had not much to do with the Kshatrapa misfortunes during A.D. 351-64.
v1.c8.s5.10
¹ Dr. S. K. Aiyangar has argued (ABORI, iv, 49) that the lead currency which was introduced in the Kshatrapa kingdom during the period A.D. 360-72 may indicate that the debacle during A.D. 351-64 was caused by the intervention of the southern Vākāṭaka power, to whom this type of currency was, it is said, familiar. The southern power from whose intervention the Kshatrapas suffered at this time, was, however, not necessarily that of the Vākāṭakas, which in fact, as far as we know, had not then introduced a lead currency into their territories.
v1.c8.s5.11
There are two inscriptions in Bundelkhand, one at Nachne-ki-talai and the other at Ganj,² wherein we find a king named Vyāghrarāja acknowledging himself to be the feudatory of the Vākāṭaka emperor Prithvishena. Unfortunately the record does not give the genealogy of Vyāghrarāja and so a great controversy has arisen about the identity both of this feudatory and of his overlord. We have shown already how this Vyāghrarāja cannot be identified with the ruler of the same name defeated by Samudragupta. Yet it is possible that the overlord of Vyāghrarāja may be not Prithvishena I but Prithvishena II, who ruled from c. A.D. 460 to 480. In that case Vyāghrarāja, his feudatory, may be the Uchchhakalpa ruler of that name. The Uchchhakalpas were certainly Gupta feudatories at this time and were using the Gupta era. It is therefore more likely that Vyāghrarāja of the above records was a feudatory of Prithvishena I. If such was the case, it will follow that Bundelkhand was within the Vākāṭaka sphere of influence during the reign of Prithvishena I. The point, however, cannot be finally settled till more evidence becomes available.
v1.c8.s5.12
² CII, iii, No. 54; EI, xvii, 13.
v1.c8.s5.13
The conquest of Kuntala and the extension of the Vākāṭaka sphere of influence in Bundelkhand naturally resulted in the increase of the prestige of the dynasty. It is therefore no wonder that the Gupta emperor Chandragupta II should have sought a matrimonial alliance with it by offering the hand of his daughter Prabhāvatīguptā to the Vākāṭaka crown prince Rudrasena II. The marriage had a political motive behind it; Chandragupta wanted to facilitate his contemplated conquest of Gujarāt and Kathiāwar by ensuring the presence of a friendly power on his southern flank, which might afford help at least to his commissariat and supplies, even if not with direct military aid. The precise date of this marriage is not easy to determine, but in all likelihood it took place in *c.* A.D. 380.¹ The marriage probably took place at Pāṭaliputra and must have been celebrated with great pomp. It is interesting to note that this marriage was an intercaste *anuloma* marriage; for the bridegroom was a Brāhman and the bride a Vaishya by caste. Such *anuloma* intercaste marriages, where the bridegroom belongs to a caste higher than that of the bride, were permitted by the contemporary *Smṛitis* and seem in practice to have actually taken place even in high and cultured society.
v1.c8.s5.14
¹ The evidence of literary tradition suggests that Pravarasena II, who was perhaps the youngest child of this union, had, for some time after his accession, entrusted the onerous duties of administration to the care of his illustrious maternal grandfather Chandragupta II in order that he might himself enjoy the pleasures of youth. Cf. *Asakalahasitatvāt kshālitanīva Kāntyā mukulitanayanatvād-vyaktakarṇotpalāni pibatu madhusugandhinyānanāni priyāṇām Mayi vinihitabhāraḥ Kuntalānāmadhīśaḥ* Kāvyamīmānsā, pp. 60-1. As Chandragupta II died in *c.* A.D. 414, his grandson should have been about twenty-five at the time of his death in order to render the above tradition feasible. He must therefore have been born *c.* A.D. 390. He was probably the third child of his parents, and so they may have been married about A.D. 380.
v1.c8.s5.15
Prithvīsheṇa died in *c.* A.D. 385 after a fairly long reign of about twenty-five years.