Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Tribes in Ancient India c64: Chapter LXII. The Surāṣṭras

Tribes in Ancient India c64

Language
English

Chapter LXII. The Surāṣṭras

c64.2

The Surāṣṭras as a tribe must have existed at least as early as the period represented by the Epics. The tribe, together with its country, is mentioned in more than one connection in Vālmīki’s *Rāmāyaṇa*.¹ The *Kiṣkindhyā Kāṇḍa* locates the tribe in the west; for, in sending the retinue of monkeys in the western direction in quest of Sītā, Sugrīva asked Suṣena to send his unit to Surāṣṭra (among other countries). There are a number of countries and peoples in this list, e.g. the Kaliṅgas, Andhras, Cholas, Vidarbhas, etc. that cannot be located in the west; but the fact that the Surāṣṭras were included in the west division of India is upheld not only by a reference in the *Mahābhārata*,² where they are associated with the countries of the Kuntis and Avantis, but also by the evidence of the Purāṇas. According to the *Viṣṇupurāṇa*,³ they are definitely located in the extreme west, and associated with the Sūras, Ābhīras, Arbudas and Mālavas, all of whom dwelt along the Pāripātra mountains. The *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*⁴ includes them in W. India (Aparānta), while the *Brahmapurāṇa* associates them with the Aparāntas, Śūdras, Ābhīras and Mālavas, and describes them as dwelling along the Pariyātra (= Paripātra) hills. This geographical location of the tribe is also supported by the evidence of the *Kāvyamīmāṃsā*⁵ of Rājaśekhara who includes the Surāṣṭra country in the Paścāddeśa or west division along with Dasoraka, Travana, Bhṛgukaccha, Kacchīya, Ānartta, Arbuda and other countries. At the time of the *Mahābhārata*, the Surāṣṭra country was ruled by the Yādavas.

c64.3

¹ Ādi Kāṇḍa, Canto XII; Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa, Canto X; Kiṣkindhyā Kāṇḍa, Canto XLI.

c64.4

² Virāṭaparvan, Chap. I, 12.

c64.5

³ Book II, Chap. III, 132-5.

c64.6

⁴ Chap. 57, 52.

c64.7

⁵ Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, pp. 93-4.

c64.8

The Surāṣṭra country is referred to in Baudhāyana’s *Dharmasūtra*, where it is coupled with Dakṣiṇāpatha (Deccan). The country came to be included in the Maurya empire as early as the reign of Candragupta; for the Junāgaḍh Rock Inscription of Rudradāman refers to Candragupta’s Rāṣṭrīya (= Viceroy) Puṣyagupta the Vaiśya, who constructed the Sudarśana lake. It was included in Aśoka’s dominions, for the same inscription refers to Tuṣāspha, a Persian contemporary and vassal of Aśoka, who carried out supplementary operations on the lake. This Tuṣāspha was Rājā of the Surāṣṭra Samgha (community). That Surāṣṭra enjoyed the democratic form of government implied by the use of the word ‘Samgha’ is also testified to by Kauṭilya¹ (*Arthaśāstra*, p. 378), who refers to a number of Samghas, among which were included Kamboja and Surāṣṭra.

c64.9

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, p. 378.

c64.10

The records of Greek historians establish that after Aśoka and his successors, Surāṣṭra passed into the hands of the Bactrian Greeks. According to Strabo,² the Bactrian conquests were achieved partly by Menander (middle of second century B.C.) and partly by Demetrios, son of Euthydemos (*c.* 190 B.C.). They gained possession not only of Patalene, but of the kingdom of Saraostos and Sigerdis³ which constitutes the remainder of the coast. Patalene is to be identified with the Indus delta, while Saraostos must certainly be identical with Surāṣṭra (Syrastrēnē of Ptolemy).

c64.11

² Strabo, Bk. XI, sec. XI, 1, in Falconer’s version. (Strabo, Hamilton and Falconer, Vol. II, pp. 252-3, vide also Ray Chaudhuri, *Political History of Ancient India*, 4th Ed., p. 317.)

c64.12

³ Prob. = Sāgaradvipa of *Mahābhārata*, II, 31, 66.

c64.13

Ptolemy⁴ refers to a country called Syrastrēnē, which must be identical with Surāṣṭra (= mod. Sorath in Kathiawar) on the Gulf of Kanthi (= Gulf of Kaccha or Cutch). Syrastrēnē, which extended from the mouth of the Indus to the Gulf of Cutch, was one of the three divisions of Indo-Scythia in Ptolemy’s time, —the other two being Patalene and Abiria. Syrastrēnē is also mentioned in the *Periplus of the Erythraean Sea* as the sea-board of Aberia (= Abiria = Ābhīra), which is to be identified with the region to the east of the Indus, above the insular portion formed by its bifurcation (McCrindle, p. 140). Pliny, in his enumeration of the tribes of this part of India, mentions the Horatae, —evidently a corruption of Surāṣṭra or Sorath (Lib., VI, c. XX).

c64.14

⁴ See McCrindle’s *Ptolemy*, pp. 35-6, 136, 140.

c64.15

The Indo-Scythian or Śaka rule was interrupted by a member of the Āndhra dynasty, Viliyavākura II (Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi, 113–138 A.D.). In the Junāgaḍh Rock Inscription, Rudradāman is stated to have extended his rule over East and West Avanti, Ānartta, Surāṣṭra, Anupa, Sindhu-Sauvīra, Maru, Kaccha, Kukura, Aparānta, etc. Of these, Surāṣṭra, Kukura, Anupa and Aparānta, which formed parts of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi’s dominions, must have been conquered either from him or from one of his sons.

c64.16

After the Scythian occupation, Surāṣṭra seems to have passed into the hands of the Guptas. It is not improbable that Surāṣṭra was one of the countries whose rulers hastened to buy peace by establishing diplomatic relations with Samudragupta (*c.* 326–375

c64.17

A.D.). The Saka-Muruṇḍas alluded to in the Allahabad Pillar Inscription (C.I.I., Vol. III) were probably the Kṣatrapas of Indo-Scythia who came to do homage to the great conqueror. His successor Candragupta II (375-413 A.D.) also seems to have led a successful campaign against the Western Kṣatrapas of Surāṣṭra.¹ The fall of the Saka Satrapa is alluded to by Bāṇa, and also proved by coins; while we find decisive evidence of the Gupta occupation of Surāṣṭra in the Junāgaḍh Inscription of Skandagupta (c. 455-480 A.D.) which tells us that he (Skanda) ‘deliberated for days and nights before making up his mind who could be trusted with the important task of guarding the lands of the Surāṣṭras’.² He finally appointed Parṇadatta as governor.

c64.18

¹ C.I.I., Vol. III—Udaygiri Cave Inscription.

c64.19

² Ibid.

c64.20

The rule of the Guptas in this territory does not seem to have long survived Skandagupta. Soon the Maitrakas of Valabhi asserted their independence, and established their supremacy over West Malwa, Baroda, Gujrat, Kathiawar and the adjoining region.³ Accordingly, when Hsüan Tsang visited Su-la-ch’a or Suratha in the seventh century A.D., it was included in the kingdom of Valabhi. According to the pilgrim, Su-la-ch’a touched the river Mo-hi (= Mahi) on the west, and its capital lay at the foot of Mt. Yuh-shan-ta (= Prakrit Ujjanta, Skr. Urjayat of the Junāgaḍh Inscriptions of Rudradāman and Skandagupta), which is to be identified with the Girnar hill near Junāgaḍh.⁴

c64.21

³ Ray, Maitrakas of Valabhi, I.H.Q., Sept., 1928.

c64.22

⁴ C.A.G.I., Mazumdar’s Ed., pp. 372-4, 697-8.

c64.23

When the Maitrakas of Valabhi became extinct about the middle of the eighth century A.D., the Surāṣṭras seem to have suffered a reverse at the hands of the Tājikas who are generally identified with the Arabs. Already, during the early years of the eighth century, the Arabs had taken possession of Sind, and it is certainly not unlikely that they attempted a conquest of the neighbouring Surāṣṭra country. In a Nausari Copperplate grant of the Gujarat Cālukyas, Pulakesirāja (eighth century A.D.) is credited with having defeated the Tājikas who are therein reported to have destroyed the Saindhavas, Kacchelas, Surāṣṭras, Cāvotakas, Gurjaras and Mauryas, before they were themselves defeated by the Cālukya king.⁵

c64.24

⁵ Bomb. Gazetteer, Vol. I, Pt. I, p. 109.

Linked texts (9)