The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s9: Narendrasena
The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s9
- Language
- English
Narendrasena
v1.c8.s9.1
(*c.* A.D. 440-60)
v1.c8.s9.2
Till recently there was considerable confusion and uncertainty about Vākāṭaka history and genealogy subsequent to the death of Pravarasena II. The Bālāghāṭ plates of his grandson showed that he was succeeded by his son Narendrasena and the latter by *his* son Pṛthivīsheṇa II. Narendrasena had to re-establish the sovereignty of his family and Pṛthivīsheṇa II had twice to make a determined effort for the same purpose. It was once held that the misfortunes of this line were due to disputed successions, and the fragmentary inscription in cave XVI at Ajaṇṭā was believed to be evidence in support of this theory. Bhagwānlāl and Bühler, who edited this record in the nineteenth century, thought that it contained the genealogy of the main line and showed that Pravarasena II was succeeded not by Narendrasena and Pṛthviśeṣa II, as stated by the Bālāghāṭ plates, but first by a prince only eight years old, and then by his son and grandson, Devasena and Hariṣeṇa respectively. It was therefore naturally held by all scholars that after the death of Pravarasena II there was a long feud between his sons, and the catastrophes which befell the family, referred to in the Bālāghāṭ plates, were usually attributed to the disputes between the sons of Pravarasena II and their descendants. There were different theories in the field about the identity of the young prince of eight years, whose name has not been preserved in the Ajanta record, and of the relative seniority as between him and Narendrasena.
v1.c8.s9.3
The happy discovery of the Basim plates of Vindhyaśakti II in 1939, and the revised edition of the inscription in cave XVI at Ajanta by Prof. V. V. Mirashi in 1941 have now simplified the whole problem. It has now become quite clear that the Ajanta inscription does not refer to the main Vākāṭaka line at all. It gives the genealogy of the Basim branch of the Vākāṭaka family, which had separated from the main stock not after the death of Pravarasena II in *c.* A.D. 440, but after the demise of Pravarasena I about a century earlier. There is therefore no longer any room for speculating as to whether Narendrasena was a younger or elder brother of the prince whose name is lost in the Ajanta record, or to whether this prince was eight years old at the time of his accession or whether he ruled for eight years, as to whether Narendrasena had not to fight with another brother, whose existence is not yet known to us, and so on. The two branches had been ruling side by side for more than a century at the time of the accession of Narendrasena, and there is no evidence whatsoever to show that he had to fight with his cousins ruling at Basim owing to bitter feelings engendered by a recent partition forced upon him.
v1.c8.s9.4
The accession of Narendrasena took place in *c.* A.D. 440. We have no records of his reign and we have to rely upon a few expressions in his son’s Bālāghāṭ grant for the reconstruction of the history of his times.
v1.c8.s9.5
One of these expressions informs us that he regained his family’s fortunes owing to the confidence created by the qualities inherited by him from his predecessors.¹ It had long been held that this notice referred to the successful termination of the war of succession between Narendrasena and his brother (the father of Devasena). This view has now been rendered untenable by the new discoveries mentioned above. It is true that a dynastic dispute may arise not merely between brothers but also between very distant cousins separated several decades before. During the fairly long minority of the son of Pravarasena II of the Basim branch, Pravarasena II of the main line was most probably at the head of the Basim administration. It is not impossible that like Maṅgaliśa of the Chālukya family, Pravarasena II of the main branch may have refused to hand over the administration to the young prince even after his attaining his majority, and that the latter may have exploited the situation created by the death of Pravarasena II by rebelling against his son Narendrasena and even ousting him for some time from his ancestral throne. This, however, does not seem to be the catastrophe from which Narendrasena suffered. Had the boy prince of the Ajanta record succeeded in securing such a victory over Narendrasena, it would have been described in that record. As it is, it contents itself by saying simply that though he was eight years old, he ruled well. About his successor Devasena we are told that he spent his life in the enjoyment of its pleasures and entrusted the government entirely to the care of his minister Hastibhoja. It is thus clear that neither of these princes was engaged in any military activities and thus they could not have been the cause of the misfortunes of Narendrasena.
v1.c8.s9.6
¹ Pūrvādhigata-guṇavishvāsāpahṛtavāmalairiyaḥ. EI, ix, p. 267.
v1.c8.s9.7
The expression *apahritavamśaśriyaḥ*,¹ ‘who carried away the fortune of his own family’, suggests that this fortune had for a time got into the possession of one who was not the rightful heir. The enemy of Narendrasena would thus be a ruler who was not a scion of the Vākāṭaka stock. There is now sufficient evidence to show that a king named Bhavadattavarman, belonging to the Naḷa family ruling in Bastar state and part of the Chhattisgarh division, had temporarily succeeded in occupying a large part of the Vākāṭaka kingdom and penetrating right up to Nandivardhana, the former Vākāṭaka capital. For the Rithpur plates of this king were issued from Nandivardhana and record the grant of a village located in the Yeotmal District. The precise date of these plates cannot be determined, but palaeography suggests that they may have been issued by the middle of the fifth century A.D. It is thus certain that the Naḷa king Bhavadattavarman had succeeded in inflicting a signal defeat on the Vākāṭakas, which compelled them to abandon their capital city Nandivardhana, situated in the heart of their kingdom. That this victory was a sensational one is suggested also by the description of the victor as one to whom royal glory was granted by Mahāsena, the generalissimo of the gods. After annexing a part of the Vākāṭaka kingdom, Bhavadattavarman visited Prayāga, apparently as an act of thanksgiving. It was at the confluence of the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā that, according to his charter, he granted the village in the Yeotmal District, and the locality of the grant is a proof of the extent of his dominions in this direction at the time.
v1.c8.s9.8
¹ The view of Dr. Jayaswal that this expression does not at all suggest any disputed succession or any calamity which had fallen on the family, is untenable. He relies upon the line in *Vikramorvaśīyam*, iii, 1: *Paścātputrairapahṛtabhāraḥ kalpate viśramāya*, to support his view. Kālidāsa, however, uses the expression *apahṛtabhāraḥ* with reference to the person who is being relieved; the Bālāghāṭ plates use the corresponding phrase *apahṛtavamśaśriyaḥ* with reference to the person relieving. The former expression denotes the obtaining of much desired relief, the latter suggests a forcible seizure.
v1.c8.s9.9
The theory of the Naḷa conquest of the Vākāṭaka kingdom as being the catastrophe from which Narendrasena suffered can be regarded as definitely proved only when the date of Bhavadattavarman will be fixed with certainty in the middle of the fifth century. It is nevertheless very likely that this dating will after all be shown by later discoveries to be correct. For we can think of no other possible cause that would account for the misfortunes of the Vākāṭaka family at about A.D. 450. The Hūṇas had not then succeeded in penetrating into the Deccan and so could have inflicted no defeat on the Vākāṭakas. The Puṣyamitras, who had for a time brought even the Gupta empire to its knees, are not known to have launched any expedition against the Vākāṭakas. It therefore seems certain that no power other than the Naḷas of the former Bastar State could have been the cause of the humiliation of the Vākāṭakas.
v1.c8.s9.10
The precise time of the Vākāṭaka débâcle is not known, but we shall not be far wrong in placing it between *c.* A.D. 440 and 445, the first five years of the reign of Narendrasena. The Naḷas were not in a position to occupy the Vākāṭaka territories for a long time. Soon after the death of Bhavadattavarman, Narendrasena succeeded in reoccupying the home provinces of his kingdom. Arthapati, the son and successor of Bhavadattavarman, had a short reign and (Skanda)varman, his brother, is described as regaining the family throne and repopulating the capital.¹ It therefore seems probable that after regaining his patrimony Narendrasena carried the war into the enemy's territory and devastated his capital. Arthapati, the immediate successor of Bhavadattavarman, probably soon lost his life in war and was then succeeded by his brother (Skanda)varman, who retrieved the fortunes of his family and repopulated the capital. For some time, however, the Naḷas were apparently the feudatories of the Vākāṭakas; for Narendrasena is described as the lord of Mekala or the Amarakantaka mountain, which was near, if not within, the kingdom of the Naḷas.
v1.c8.s9.11
¹ Cf. Śrī Naḷānwayamukhasya vikramakṣapitadviṣaḥ Nṛpater-Bhavadattasya satputreṇyāsamsthitām Bhraṣṭāmākṛishya rājyardhim śūnyāmāvāsya Puṣkarim. EI, xxi, 155.
v1.c8.s9.12
The Vākāṭaka records give the entire credit for restoring the fortunes of the family to Narendrasena, but it is very probable that he may have received some assistance from his father-in-law, the Kadamba prince; otherwise it is inexplicable why Pṛthivīṣeṇa II, son of Narendrasena, should have referred to his maternal grandfather in his own family genealogy. It does not seem that Kumāragupta I helped his grand-nephew in the hour of his misfortune. By *c.* A.D. 450 he was himself already in great difficulties and could not have afforded to send any help to Narendrasena, even if he had desired to do so.
v1.c8.s9.13
Narendrasena is described in his son's record as being the overlord of Malwa. This province had been included in the Gupta empire since the beginning of the fourth century; does it then follow that Narendrasena sided with the Puṣyamitras, the enemies of Kumāragupta and Skandagupta, and secured a temporary overlordship over Malwa during the period of confusion following the defeat of Kumāragupta I? Though possible, this does not seem actually to have been the case. Narendrasena’s hands were too full with the Naḷa invasion to permit any offensive alliance with the Pushyamitras. The Guptas were besides near relations of the Vākāṭakas, and Narendrasena is not likely to have exploited their difficulties by stabbing them in the back. Had the Vākāṭakas sided with the Pushyamitras, the Bhitari inscription would have described the defeat not only of the Pushyamitras but also of their allies. It would then appear that when the Gupta empire was for a time reeling under the blows of the Pushyamitras, the king of Malwa may have for a time transferred his allegiance to the Vākāṭakas, who were related to the Guptas, in the hope that they might help him in the task of maintaining his own position. We should remember that at this time the prestige of the Vākāṭakas had been increased by the defeat of the Naḷas. Malwa, however, did not long remain within the Vākāṭaka sphere of influence; for it came under Gupta overlordship during the reign of Skandagupta and Budhagupta.
v1.c8.s9.14
Narendrasena’s reign terminated in *c.* A.D. 460. He was a moderately efficient ruler. He was not only able to retrieve the misfortunes of his family, but even to extend its power by conquering, though temporarily, a large part of the Naḷa kingdom in the former Bastar State. His relations with the branch family ruling at Basim seem to have been normally peaceful and cordial.