Ancient Indian Colonization in South-East Asia c9: Lecture III: Hindu Empires in South-East Asia
Ancient Indian Colonization in South-East Asia c9
- Language
- English
Lecture III: Hindu Empires in South-East Asia
c9.2
I have described in the preceding lecture how a large number of Hindu Colonial kingdoms grew up in different parts of South-east Asia during the first five centuries A.D. Some of these, like Fu-nan and Champā, were big and powerful, while others were quite small. Fu-nan, again, extended her power beyond the frontiers of Cambodia and established what may be called the first Hindu Colonial empire in this region. Unfortunately, we possess no details of its growth and extent. But soon other Hindu empires came into existence and played a notable part in extending the political dominion and culture of the Hindus. I propose to discuss some of these in the present lecture.
c9.3
The oldest of these is Śrī-Vijaya whose capital city, bearing the same name, is usually located in Palembang in South-east Sumatra, though this view has not found general acceptance. As noted in a preceding lecture, it is probable that this kingdom already existed in the fourth century A.D., but we do not know any details of this early period. It is only towards the close of the seventh century A.D. that Śrī-Vijaya comes into prominence. We learn a great deal of this country from the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing who spent a few years in this region and wrote an interesting account of it some time between 689 and 692 A.D. He tells us that the king of Śrī-Vijaya as well as the rulers of the neighbouring States were patrons of Buddhism, and Śrī-Vijaya was a great centre of Buddhist learning. We are further told that Śrī-Vijaya was a centre of trade and possessed ships sailing to India. There was also a regular navigation between Śrī-Vijaya and China.
c9.4
Of the political status of Śrī-Vijaya, I-tsing does not tell us much beyond saying that "the Malayu country is now the country of Śrī-Vijaya." This cryptic sentence has led to much discussion, but it probably means that Malayu, which was originally an independent state, was then included in the dominions of Śrī-Vijaya. This Malayu corresponds to Jambi in Sumatra, which is a coastal region to the north west of Palembang.
c9.5
The subjugation of this region by Śrī-Vijaya is proved by an inscription found in the province of Jambi. It begins with an invocation to the gods who protect the kingdom of Śrī-Vijaya. It then threatens to inflict severe punishment upon the inhabitants of countries, subordinate to Śrī-Vijaya, if they revolt, or even aid, abet, or meditate revolt against the suzerain authority. Punishment was to be inflicted not only upon actual rebels but also upon their families and clans.
c9.6
A copy of this record, which breathes aggressive imperialism from beginning to end, has been also found at Kota Kapur in the island of Banka, separated by a narrow strait from Palembang. There is, however, a post-script added to this latter record, stating that it was engraved in the Śaka year 608 ( =686 A.D. ) when the army of Śrī-Vijaya was starting on an expedition against Java which had not yet submitted to its authority.
c9.7
It would thus appear that by 686 A.D., Śrī-Vijaya was already a powerful kingdom having extended its authority to Jambi, Banka and other regions in the neighbourhood, and had sent a military expedition against the island of Java, separated from it by a narrow strait on the south-east. The king of Śrī-Vijaya at this time was probably Śrī-Jayanāśa¹ who is known from a record dated 684 A.D.
c9.8
¹ The name may be a mistake for Jayanāga. Stutterheim reads it as Jayawaga.
c9.9
The result of this expedition is not known to us, and for nearly a century we do not know much of the political history of Śrī-Vijaya. But there is no doubt that it continued to be a powerful state throughout this period. This is proved by the several embassies which Śrī-Vijaya sent to China during the period between 670 and 741 A.D. It appears from some details preserved in connection with an embassy that Śrī-Vijaya was recognized as a leading and powerful state by the Chinese emperor.
c9.10
It is not till 775 A.D. that we again learn something definite about Śrī-Vijaya. A Sanskrit inscription, dated in that year and engraved on a stele found at Ligor in Malay Peninsula, refers to the mighty prowess of a Buddhist king of Śrī-Vijaya whose name is not mentioned. He is said to be the overlord of all neighbouring states whose kings made obeisance to him.
c9.11
It is clear from this inscription that Śrī-Vijaya, whose imperial career began in the last quarter of the seventh century A.D., had in course of the next century extended her political supremacy over the Malay Peninsula, as far at least as the Bay of Bandon, more than a thousand miles away. But it is not merely the long distance or extent of territory that invests the conquest of Ligor with importance. As already noted above, this region offered a short land-route across the Malay Peninsula from Bay of Bengal to the China Sea and thus served as an important trade-route between India and South-east Asia. Śrī-Vijaya already controlled the two all-sea routes of this trade passing through the Strait of Malacca and the Sunda Strait. The possession of Ligor enabled her to control all the possible routes of the trade between eastern and western countries. This gives us a key to the imperial policy of Śrī-Vijaya which sent a military expedition to Java in 686, and established political supremacy in the Isthmus of Kra by 775 A.D. As hinted by I-tsing, Śrī-Vijaya was a great naval power, and this no doubt dictated the policy of controlling the trade-routes and supplied means to execute it.
c9.12
By successfully carrying out this bold and aggressive imperial design, Śrī-Vijaya gained immense power and influence. But she laid down a policy which others were sure to imitate. As a matter of fact, it was not long before another royal dynasty followed in the footsteps of Śrī-Vijaya and established a mighty empire in this region which, barring the short-lived empire of Majapahit, was not equalled till the foundation of the Dutch empire nearly a thousand years later.
c9.13
This dynasty, known as the Śailendras, played the dominant role in the politics of this region for nearly five hundred years, and as such deserves a careful study. Fortunately, we possess a great deal of information about them from epigraphic records found in India, Java and Malay Peninsula, and also from the accounts of Arab and Chinese writers. There are, however, some doubts and uncertainties in regard to the interpretation of this multifarious evidence, which have given rise to a voluminous discussion, and a vast literature has grown up on this subject during the last twenty-five years. It is not possible here to enter into a full discussion of this question, but a short recapitulation of the main disputed points is necessary for a proper understanding of the subject.
c9.14
Mention has just been made of the inscription on a stele at Ligor, referring to the prowess of the king of Śrī-Vijaya. Now a short record is engraved on the back of the same stele consisting of only a single verse and a few letters of another. It refers to a king called Viṣṇu who belonged to the Śailendra dynasty and was also known by the appellation of Śrī-Mahārāja. These two inscriptions may be referred to as A and B.
c9.15
It was tacitly assumed that the two inscriptions A and B on the two sides of the stele really formed parts of one and the same record, and the conclusion was naturally drawn that the Śailendra Mahārāja named Viṣṇu and the king of Śrī-Vijaya were one and the same person. It was consequently held that the Śailendras were the rulers of Śrī-Vijaya and the mighty empire founded by them was really a development of that of Śrī-Vijaya which formed its nucleus. The history of the Śailendras exercising supremacy over Malay Peninsula, Java and most of the islands of the Archipelago, was thus regarded as a continuous narrative from the foundation of their power in Śrī-Vijaya in Sumatra in the seventh century A.D. No problem concering the origin of the Śailendras or their home-province therefore exercised the minds of the scholars.
c9.16
This complacent view was first challenged by me in 1937. I pointed out that the inscription B begins with *svasti* and was written by a different hand. It was thus a separate record and not a part of the other. Besides, in the long eulogy of the king of Śrī-Vijaya in Ins. A, he is nowhere referred to as belonging to the Śailendra dynasty, while Śrī-Vijaya is not mentioned in Ins. B. There is, therefore, no valid ground to connect the Śailendra with Śrī-Vijaya. On the other hand, the only legitimate conclusion from the comparison of the two records seems to be, that the authority over Ligor region passed from the king of Śrī-Vijaya to the hands of the Śailendra kings who were different persons. As the Ins. B was short and incomplete, it was presumably engraved later than Ins. A for which the stele was originally prepared.
c9.17
At the time when this view was first propounded, it was regarded as revolutionary and there were prolonged controversies and discussions over it. But to-day there is a general consensus in favour of the theory.
c9.18
A recent writer² has remarked, after summing up all the different views on the subject, that whereas no one doubted before 1937 that the Śailendras belonged to Śrī-Vijaya in Sumatra, not a single scholar now locates the original home of the dynasty in that island. The choice now lies between Java and Malay Peninsula, the only two regions where we have got the early records of the dynasty. As we shall see later, the great Buddhist monuments of Java like Barabuḍur and Chaṇḍi Mendut were the creations of the Śailendras, and not only two inscriptions of that dynasty have been found in Java, but a king of this dynasty is called *Yava-bhūmi-pāla*, or king of Java, in an inscription at Nālandā. These have inclined many scholars to locate their original home in Java. Some, however, hold the view that they first conquered Malay Peninsula and then settled in Java. This and further corollaries to it will be discussed later. But having disposed of the supposed connection between the Śailendras and Śrī-Vijaya, I may now proceed to discuss independently the history of the Śailendras.
c9.19
² Briggs in *JAOS*, Vol. 70, p. 76; Vol. 72, p. 37. The article contains an exhaustive and excellent summary of the different views on the origin of the Śailendra dynasty.
c9.20
As already stated, the Inscription B at Ligor proves that some time after A.D., 775, the date of the main Ins. A., the Śailendras had established their authority in Malay Peninsula. About the same time we find them ruling in Java. This is proved by two inscriptions found in Java itself. One records the building of a Buddhist temple, dedicated to the goddess Tārā, at Kalasan, by the Śailendra king Mahārāja Paṇaṁkaraṇa in A.D. 778. Another, found at Kelurak, records the installation of an image of Mañjuśrī in A.D. 782 by Kumāraghoṣa, an inhabitant of Gauḍa (Bengal) and preceptor of king Dharaṇīndra of the Śailendra dynasty. These two inscriptions, found in Central Java, and the incomplete inscription at Ligor testify to the Śailendra rule in Java and Malay Peninsula in the last quarter of the eighth century A.D. The extension of their political authority to other islands of the Archipelago is proved by a copper-plate found at Nālandā and dated in the year 39 (or 35) of king Devapāla of the Pāla Dynasty of Bengal which would roughly correspond to A.D. 850. It records the grant of five villages by Devapāla at the request of Bālaputradeva, king of Suvarṇadvīpa, for the maintenance of a monastery built by the latter at Nālandā.
c9.21
This inscription mentions three generations of Śailendra kings. It refers first to the great king of Yava-bhūmi whose name signified "tormentor of brave foes" (*vīra-vairi-mathanānugat-ābhidhāna*). His son was Samarāgravīra, which may be a proper name or an epithet denoting 'foremost warrior in battle'. By his wife Tārā, daughter of king Varmasetu, he had a son Śrī-Bālaputra.
c9.22
This genealogy raises several historical problems and has provoked much discussion. To deal with all of them in details would be travelling beyond the scope of the present lecture. It is enough to consider only a few essential points.
c9.23
In the first place while the grandfather is called the ruler of Yava-bhūmi, the grandson is introduced as king of Suvarṇadvīpa. Scholars generally take the first to refer to Java and the second to Sumatra, and are consequently at pains to reconcile the discrepancy involved. Thus Coedés³ thinks that Śrī-Vijaya was conquered by the Śailendras of Java, and Bālaputra was ruling in Sumatra, on behalf of his father, the king of Java. He fortifies this conclusion by taking Bālaputra, not as a proper name. but as meaning a young son. K. A. N. Sastri,⁴ on the other hand, takes Bālaputra as an independent ruler of Sumatra. He rejects the idea that the Śailendras of Java spread their sway over Śrī-Vijaya in Sumatra. He thinks it not unlikely that some of the earlier rulers of Śrī-Vijaya were Śailendras also, but in any case “Śrī-Vijaya and Java were on friendly terms and undertook many enterprises together with a view to aggrandize their power and influence in the rest of the Archipelago and over Indo-China.” He thus seems to distinguish two Śailendra dynasties, one ruling in Java, and the other in Śrī-Vijaya in Sumatra. The Ligor Ins. B was, in his opinion, either engraved by Śailendra from Śrī-Vijaya or the work of a Javanese Śailendra king.
c9.24
³ *Etats*, 160, 185-6.
c9.25
⁴ *Sri-Vijaya*, p. 56.
c9.26
These and similar other views rest on the assumption that Suvarṇadvīpa and Yava-bhūmi, mentioned in the Nālandā plate, refer to two distinct localities or kingdoms. I do not think there is any valid reason for this assumption. I have discussed the question at length in my book entitled *Suvarṇadvīpa*, and have tried to show that while this name was applied to different localities like Burma and Sumatra, it was also used as a general designation for the islands of the Malay Archipelago. Thus it is definitely asserted by Alberuni that “the islands of the Zābaj are called by the Hindus Suvarṇadvīpa.” Ibn Said also says that Zābag is an archipelago consisting of a large number of islands which produce excellent gold, and that Sribuza (*i.e.* Śrī-Vijaya) is the greatest of the islands of Zābag. There is no doubt, therefore, that Zābaj or Zābag, by which the Arabs writers denote the Malay Archipelago, was also called by the Hindus Suvarṇadvīpa.
c9.27
If we take Suvarṇadvīpa in the Nālandā Inscription in this general sense there is no contradiction involved by calling Bālaputra as lord of Suvarṇadvīpa and his grandfather, a king of Java. It would imply that starting from their base in Java, the Śailendras gradually made themselves masters of the whole of the Malay Archipelago or the greater part of it, and this was accomplished by the middle of the 9th century A.D.
c9.28
I cannot think of any valid ground why this natural interpretation should not be accepted, and we shall create unnecessary difficulties in the interpretation of the Nālandā charter. As matter of fact, Coedés takes Suvarṇadvīpa to include Sumatra and Malay Peninsula,⁵ and there is as much or as little reason to include the other islands of the Archipelago. Śrī K. A. N. Sastri,⁶ however, positively affirms that Suvarṇadvīpa can only mean Sumatra, as would be apparent from his statement that " Bālaputra is called king of Sumatra in so many words (*Suvarṇa-dvīpādhipa*)." Yet he does not refer in the least to the arguments I adduced in my book in favour of the use of Suvarṇadvīpa as a general designation of Malay Archipelago.
c9.29
⁵ *Etats*, 160.
c9.30
⁶ *Śrī-Vijaya*, p. 56.
c9.31
An additional argument in favour of my view is afforded by the Arab writers who from the middle of the ninth century onwards refer to the great empire of the Mahārājā known as Zābaj or Zābag. All scholars agree that this refers to the empire of the Śailendras. When, therefore, an Indian inscription refers to Bālaputradeva of the Śailendra dynasty as lord of Suvarṇadvīpa, about the middle of the ninth century A.D., nothing is more natural than to suppose that the term was used to denote Malay Archipelago or Zābaj of Arab writers, which, according to Alberuni, was called by the Hindus Suvarṇadvīpa.
c9.32
Having discussed this general question we may now go back to the historical accounts of the Śailendra kings as given in the Nālandā charter. The first Śailendra king mentioned in this charter is referred to as the ruler of Yava-bhūmi or Java. His proper name is not mentioned, but we are told that it meant "tormentor of brave foes." The original Sanskrit expression for this, '*vīra-vairi-mathana*,' immediately recalls the epithet "*vairi-vara-vīra-vimardana*" applied to the Śailendra king Dharaṇīndra in the Kelurak Inscription, dated 778 A.D., and the two may be regarded as identical. As the date of this inscription is only removed by three years from that of Kalasan Inscription issued by the Śailendra king Mahārāja Paṇaṁkaraṇa, he and Dharaṇīndra may be regarded as the same person, the former being the indigenous, and the latter the coronation name. We may thus hold that Paṇaṁkaraṇa Dharaṇīndra of the Śailendra dynasty was king of Java between 778 and 782 A.D. and he was also probably the Śailendra king referred to in Inscription B at Ligor in Malay Peninsula incised shortly after 775 A.D. Whether Paṇaṁkaraṇa first ousted the king of Śrī-Vijaya from Malay Peninsula and then extended his authority to Java, or the case was just the reverse, cannot be decided, and both views may be regarded as equally probable. But there can be hardly any doubt that henceforth Java became the real seat of authority. This seems to follow from the pointed reference to the first king as the ruler of *Yava-bhūmipāla*, and is more definitely proved by the great Buddhist monuments of the Śailendra dynasty in Java like Barabuḍur and Chaṇḍi Mendut to which reference will be made later. It may also be noted that in Javanese inscriptions the name of Paṇaṁkaraṇa heads the list of a series of kings, entitled Mahārāja, who ruled in Central Java after Sañjaya, whose known date is A.D. 732.
c9.33
The son of Paṇaṁkaraṇa Dharaṇīndra is called Samarāgravīra. As already noted, this may be either a personal name or merely an epithet meaning "foremost warrior in battle." The former view seems more probable. He may be identified with king Samarottuṅga, mentioned in a record, dated 847 A.D., found at Kedu in Central Java. Samarāgravīra married Tārā, daughter of a king whose name, mentioned in the Nālandā charter, has been read both as Varma-setu and Dharma-setu. The former reading seems preferable. Those who adopt the latter reading suggest his identification with the great Buddhist emperor Dharmapāla of Bengal. But there seems to be hardly any reasonable ground either for this assumption or the suggestion that the temple of the goddess Tārā, the construction of which is recorded in the Kalasan Ins. of 778 A.D., was built in her honour.
c9.34
Bālaputradeva, at whose request king Devapāla of Bengal granted five villages for the upkeep of his monastery at Nālandā, was the son of Samarāgravīra and Tārā. Everything indicates that the Śailendras had increased their power and prestige during the three quarters of a century that intervened between him and his grand father. The title Lord of Suvarṇadvīpa may be taken as an evidence for his rule over the vast domains of Malay Archipelago, and the very fact that he maintained diplomatic relation with the distant ruler of Bengal is an equally clear indication of his enhanced power and prestige. But the most unambiguous and detailed evidence of the power and glory of the Śailendra empire is furnished by a long series of Arab writers. It is not possible to refer to all of them or give full details of their accounts, but it is necessary to quote a few passages in order to convey an adequate idea of the greatness and grandeur of the empire of the Mahārāja of Zābaj or Zābag, a geographical term by which they denoted Malay Peninsula and Malay Archipelago.
c9.35
Ibn Khordādzbeth (844-848 A.D.) says that the king of Zābag is named Mahārāja. His daily revenue amounts to two hundred *mans* of gold. Sulaymān (851 A.D.) says that Kalah-bar, *i.e.* the country round the Isthmus of Kra in the Malay Peninsula, is a part of the empire of Zābag. Ibn Rosteh (903 A.D.) remarks that "no other king is richer or more powerful than the Mahārāja, *i.e.* king of kings, and none has more revenue." But the most detailed account of Zābag is furnished by Abū Zayd Ḥasan (916 A.D.). He first tells us that Zābag is the name of an island kingdom as well as its capital city. The area of this kingdom is about 900 (square) Parsangs. Then he adds that the king of Zābag is also overlord of a large number of islands extending over a length of 1000 Parsangs or more. Among the kingdoms over which he rules are the island called Sribuza (*i.e.* Śrī-Vijaya) with an area of about 400 Parsangs and the maritime country of Kalah. It is to be noted that here Śrī-Vijaya in Sumatra is clearly distinguished from Zābag, and is said to be merely a dependency of the king of the latter. If Zābag denote Java, as many scholars hold, we find here a corroboration of the view taken above, that Bālaputra-deva, with his seat of authority in Java, was the suzerian ruler of Sumatra and other islands.
c9.36
Maśūdī (943 A.D.) says that the Mahārāja rules over an empire without limit and has innumerable troops. Even the most rapid vessels could not complete in two years a tour round the isles which are under his possession.
c9.37
Both Maśūdī and Abū Zayd Ḥasan recount a curious story hinted at by Khordādzbeth, the earliest Arab writer referred to above. It is said that the king throws every morning a brick of solid gold into a shallow lake connecting the palace with the sea. When the king dies, these bricks are collected and distributed among his relatives, officials and the poor.
c9.38
We also learn from the Arab writers that this immense wealth was derived from his absolute control over trade between China and the western countries. He not only commanded the sea routes, but also the land route across the narrow Isthmus of Kra in the Malay Peninsula. This was commanded by the port of Kalah of which he was the master. Abū Zayd Ḥasan remarks that the town of Kalah is the most important commercial centre for trade in aloe, camphor, sandalwood, ivory, tin, ebony, spices and various other articles. There was a regular maritime intercourse between this port and Oman. The cause of all this is explained by Maśūdī. He says that formerly there was a direct voyage between China and ports like Sīrāf and Oman (in Persia and Arabia), but now the port of Kalah serves as the meeting place for the mercantile navies of the two countries. In other words, the Mahārāja of Zābag reaped an immense profit from the world trade between western and eastern Asia which could only pass through seas and lands controlled by him. We can now understand why Śrī-Vijaya extended its conquests to Ligor, and the Śailendras followed in its footsteps. This probably also explains why the Cholas of Southern India wanted to subjugate the Śailendras and extend their authority over the islands of Sumatra and Malay Peninsula which would transfer to them that effective control over the trade between the east and the west which was at the root of the wealth and power, first of Śrī-Vijaya and then of the Śailendras.
c9.39
The Arab writers generally refer to the power of the Mahārāja of Zābag over the numerous islands of the Archipelago. The location of Zābag, which was the seat of the central authority, is not free from difficulty. Some have identified Zābag with Śrī-Vijaya. Others take Zābag as embracing the entire archipelago, and possibly also the Malay Peninsula, but regard Sribuza, *i.e.* Śrī-Vijaya (Sumatra), as the most important island of Zābag, and the centre of the empire of the Mahārāja. Both these views completely ignore the fact that the Arabs clearly distinguish the island of Zābag from that of Śrī-Vijaya and regard the latter as a dependency of the former. Other scholars therefore identify Zābag with Java and, as stated above, this seems to be the most probable view. But this theory involves some difficulties and cannot be reconciled with the different statements of the Arab writers. Some have therefore proposed to place Zābag in the Malay Peninsula. But, this, too, is not free from difficulties. It is not unlikely that Zābag at first denoted Java, but though the seat of central authority was shifted elsewhere in course of time, the old designation still continued. On the whole Zābag cannot be definitely located and the question must be left open, until more positive evidence is forthcoming.
c9.40
But whether Zābag was identical with Java or not, there is no doubt that Java was an important stronghold of the Sailendras in the second half of the eighth century A.D. It appears from epigraphic evidence in Java that they established their authority there some time after 732 A.D., when the island was being ruled by a king named Sañjaya, and continued to rule probably till at least about the middle of the ninth century A.D.
c9.41
If we remember this fact we can easily assert that the power of the Śailendras was not confined to the Malay Peninsula and Malay Archipelago but was also felt in the mainland *viz.* Kambuja and Champā. As regards Kambuja, an Arab account, probably written by Sulaymān, preserves a long story describing how the Mahārāja of Zābag invaded the Khmer country and killed its ruler. The story undoubtedly belongs to the domain of folklore, but seems to have been based on a real struggle between Java and Cambodia. For we learn from a Cambodian inscription that Jaya-varman, who came from Java and became king of Kambuja in A.D. 802, performed a religious ceremony to ensure that Kambuja might not again be dependent on Java. This undoubtedly shows that Cambodia acknowledged the suzerainty of Java about the close of the eighth century A.D. As this was precisely the time when the Śailendras are known to have ruled in Java, we may conclude that it was under this royal dynasty that Java felt powerful enough to extend her domination over the mainland.
c9.42
The Chinese annals refer to an invasion of a region in Tonkin in 767 A.D. by the people of Co-lon (Kuen-Luen) and of Daba, which has been identified with Cho-po or Java. Again the inscriptions of Java refer to at least two naval raids by foreigners, one in 774 and the other in 787 A.D. In the latter case the raiders are expressly said to be "the army of Java coming by means of ships." The third, certainly, and the other two, most probably, refer to naval expeditions sent by the Śailendra Mahārāja of Zābag whose great empire is described by the Arab writers.
c9.43
It would thus appear that the Śailendras were the dominant power both in sea and land in South-east Asia during the period c. 750-850 A.D. They gave a sort of political unity to Malay Archipelago and Malay Peninsula such as the region never knew before or since, till the advent of the Dutch about a thousand years later.
c9.44
There are grounds to believe that the Śailendras were fresh arrivals from India. In the first place their inscriptions are written in the North-Indian script of the period which is different from the script then in use in Java. Secondly, the Arab writers not only refer to them by the purely Indian title Mahārāja, which actually forms the name-ending of rulers of some Indian dynasties, but also testify to their close connection with India. Thus Ibn Rosteh says that the Mahārāja of Zābag is not regarded as the greatest among the kings of India because he dwells in the islands. Mas'ūdī also observes that Zābag, which separates India from China, is comprised within the former country. These evidences are not of course, conclusive. Much has been written about the origin of the Śailendras, but no definite conclusion is possible at the present state of our knowledge.⁷
c9.45
⁷ *Cf. Suvarṇadvīpa* I, 225 ff. *JGIS*, I. 61 ff.
c9.46
We learn from the *New History of the T'ang Dynasty* and other Chinese texts that the capital of Java was shifted to the east some time between 742-55 A.D. and was again brought back to the old city before the end of the ninth century A.D. This seems to show that when the Śailendras conquered Java the old ruling dynasty maintained its existence, probably as a dependency, in the eastern part of the island, but re-occupied the old capital, either by driving away the Śailendras, or as soon as they lost their power in Java through other causes. The Śailendras lost their dominion over Kambuja after A.D. 802, and we do not hear of their raids in Champā in the ninth century A.D.
c9.47
It appears, therefore, that the decline of the Śailendras began with the ninth century A.D., when they lost their hold over the mainland. Before the century was over, they also lost Java. But inspite of these losses, the Śailendras continued as a great power throughout the tenth century A.D. This is proved by the accounts of the Arab writers who refer to Zābag till the end of that century.
c9.48
From the beginning of the tenth century, for a period of more than three hundred years, the Chinese annals frequently refer to a kingdom called San-fo-tsi, and give many interesting details about it. Though the origin of the Chinese name is obscure, there is no doubt that it refers to the great island-empire called Zābag by the Arab writers. San-fo-tsi had very intimate diplomatic and trade relations with China. The Chinese accounts fully corroborate the Arab testimony about the political and commercial greatness of the Mahārāja's Empire throughout the tenth century A.D.
c9.49
Towards the close of the tenth century A.D., a war broke out between Java and San-of-tsi. We learn from the Chinese chronicles that an ambassador from San-of-tsi to China left the imperial capital in A.D. 990, but learnt, on reaching Canton, that his country had been invaded by Java. The war continued till A.D. 992 when the ambassador of San-fo-tsi, still unable or unwilling to go back to his own country, requested the Chinese emperor to issue a decree making San-fo-tsi a protectorate of China. This expression must not be taken at its face-value, and probably means nothing more than mediation or diplomatic support. But in any case it may be taken for granted that Java, which had so long been ruled over by the Śailendras, not only freed herself from their yoke, but also took the aggressive and even invaded their country. But although Java had some initial success the Śailendras triumphed in the long run. In 1003 A.D., San-fo-tsi recovered her strength sufficiently to send an embassy to China. Three years later we hear of Java being destroyed by a great catastrophe. The capital city was burnt to ashes, the king died, and his successor had to take to flight. Although the exact nature of the catastrophe is nowhere stated, all the known details seem to indicate a successful foreign invasion. It has been accordingly suggested that now San-fo-tsi in its turn invaded Java, completely defeated her king, and dealt a final blow to the hated rival after a prolonged struggle. If this view were accepted we must hold that after a temporary eclipse the great empire of Zābag or San-fo-tsi again revived its power and authority to a large extent.
c9.50
That this great maritime empire was being ruled over by the kings of the Śailendra dynasty at the beginning of the eleventh century A.D. is proved by a comparison of Chinese texts with Chola inscriptions. The former refer to two embassies to China sent by two kings of San-fo-tsi, one by king Se-li-chu-la-wu-ni-fu-ma-tiau-hwa in A.D. 1003 and another by king Se-ri-ma-la-p’i in 100
c9.51
Two inscriptions of Rājendra Chola, dated respectively in 1017-18 and 1022-23 A.D., refer to his conquest of Kaṭāha or Kaḍāram (Keddah) beyond the sea, and several inscriptions of later periods, beginning from A.D. 1024-5, give a detailed account of his over-sea conquests giving a long list of countries over-run by him. It is, therefore, probable that hostilities broke out in or before A.D. 1018⁹ and culminated in the final overthrow of the Śailendras in A.D. 1025 or earlier.
c9.52
⁹ Prof. K. A. N. Sastri observes: "The data on which Majumdar relies for the supposed first expedition are neither reliable nor conclusive (See *Colas* 1, p. 254 and f.n.)". (*History of Śrī-Vijaya*, p. 79, f.n. 13). As noted above, the conquest of Kaṭāha is mentioned in the Tiruvalangadu plates, dated 1017-8 A.D. I do not know what can be more reliable or conclusive evidence than the explicit statement contained in an inscription. Nor do I find anything against it on p. 254 of the *Colas*, Vol. I referred to by Prof. Sastri. I have already discussed (*Suvarnadvipa*, I, p. 171, f.n. 2) the objection that was raised by the Editor of the inscription, but Prof. Sastri has not referred to it. His only argument seems to be that as 'Rajendra Chola was on friendly terms with the Śailendra king for some time after the death of Rājarāja in 1014 A.D., 1017 appears altogether too early a date for a Chola expedition against Sri-Vijaya' (*Ibid*). But the change from friendship to hostility between two great powers in course of two or three years is not so improbable a contingency that we shall reject on this account the positive statement of a contemporary record.
c9.53
We learn from the detailed account that Rājendra Chola sent a big naval expedition and defeated (*lit.* caught) Saṅgrāma-vijayottuṅga-varman, the king of Kaḍāram. Then follow the names of thirteen countries beginning with Śrī-Vijaya and ending with Kaḍāram. Evidently these were successively over-run by the Chola forces. All the localities cannot be identified with certainty, but one of these probably refers to Nicobar islands, and of the rest, some were in Sumatra and others in Malay Peninsula. The detailed list of countries, many of which are included in the empire of San-fo-tsi by later Chinese writers, leaves no doubt that the Chola conquest cannot be taken merely as a conventional or vague boast, but was actually an historical fact.
c9.54
This great oversea victory is a unique event in the annals of Indian history, and speaks volumes about the naval supremacy of the Cholas. It proves the existence of powerful naval forces in ancient India, and though positive evidence is lacking regarding the possession of navy by any other state, since the Mauryas, it is difficult to believe that the revival began and ended with the Cholas.
c9.55
We do not know any specific cause for the hostility between the Cholas and the Śailendras, and probably the ambition of controlling the East-West trade was really at the bottom of it. The monopoly of the Śailendras over this trade was threatened by the growing naval power of the Cholas, and the latter also probably encouraged by the decline in the power of the Śailendras to make a bold bid to take their place. In such circumstances, pretexts would not be wanting for the opening of hostilities by one side or the other.
c9.56
Another equally interesting problem is the net result of the Chola conquest of the Śailendra empire. The king Saṅgrāma-vijayottuṅga-varman is said to have been caught, which presumably means captured. If we take it to be literally true, we do not know whether he was restored. The fact that the Chinese Chronicles refer to an embassy from the king of San-fo-tsi, named Si-li-tieh-hwa (Śrī Deva) in A.D. 1028, shows that Saṅgrāma-vijayottuṅga-varman was either not released, or even if restored, did not long survive his defeat.
c9.57
This embassy also proves the continued existence of San-fo-tsi as a separate political unit.¹⁰ It probably acknowledged suzerainty of the Cholas, but how far or how long it was really effective and not merely nominal, it is difficult to say. Two inscriptions of the Chola king Vīrarājendra inform us that some time before A.D. 1069-70 he conquered Kaḍāram on behalf of a king who had come in search of his aid and protection, and afterwards handed over the conquered kingdom to his protégé who acknowledged him as suzerain. Curiously enough a Chinese Chronicle represents Chola as a vassal state of San-fo-tsi during the period 1068-77. Either this was a deliberate misrepresentation to the Chinese court made by San-fo-tsi, or there might be a basis for it in some temperary success gained by the latter over the Cholas in course of the war with Vīrarājendra or Kulottuṅga (1070-1118 A.D.). For the latter also claims to have destroyed Kaḍāram. It would thus appear that for nearly half a century after the conquest of Rājendra Chola his successors tried to keep their hold on the distant oversea conquests, though with varying degrees of success.
c9.58
¹⁰ I have elsewhere suggested that Śrī-Deva might refer to Rājendra Chola (*Suvarṇadvīpa*, I. 185). In that case San-fo-tsi was still a dependency of the Cholas.
c9.59
But friendly relation seems to have been restored before A.D. 1090. We learn from a Tamil inscription dated in that year that the king of Kiḍāram (*i.e.* Kaḍāram) sent two envoys named Rājavidyādhara and Abhimānottuṅga to the court of Kulottuṅga. At the request of these envoys the Chola king not only renewed the endowment made in the reign of Rājarāja I but also made additions to it which more than doubled the value of the original income. After this friendly gesture we hear no more of the struggle between the Cholas on the one hand and San-fo-tsi or Kaḍāra or Śrī-Vijaya on the other.
c9.60
The kingdom of San-fo-tsi continued for more than three hundred years till it was destroyed by Java in the fourteenth century A.D. We get a reference to it in the Chinese Chronicles, and Arab writers refer to the glory and power of Zābag throughout this period. We have a detailed account of San-fo-tsi from a Chinese text written by Chau-ju-kua, Inspector of Foreign Trade, in 1225 A.D. We learn from it that San-fo-tsi was master of the Strait of Malacca and thus controlled the maritime trade between China and the western countries. The author also gives a list of fifteen states dependent upon it.
c9.61
There is no reason to disregard the views of Arab and Chinese writers that the old empire of Zābag or San-fo-tsi continued in its old glory and splendour till about the middle of the thirteenth century A.D. But we do not know whether the Śailendras still ruled over it. As a matter of fact the name Śailendra passes out of history with Śrī Saṅgrāma-vijayottuṅga-varman, who was defeated and captured by Rājendra Chola's forces about A.D. 1025. What became of him or his successors we do not know. The dynasty might have continued to rule or his successors we do not know. The dynasty might have continued to rule over the empire, even down to its last days, but we have no definite evidence of this.¹¹
c9.62
¹¹ An ingenious suggestion has been made that a lady named Saṅgrāmavijaya-Dharmaprasādottuṅgadevī, who, from A.D. 1030 to 1041, held a very high position in the court of Airlaṅga, king of Java, was his queen, and either a daughter or widow of the Sailendra king Saṅgrāma-vijayottuṅga-varman mentioned above. This marriage is said to have cemented the alliance between the two old rival powers, which henceforth continued friendly relations with each other (Coedés, *Etats*. 247). In spite of the similarity of names we cannot definitely associate the lady in the court of Java with the Śailendra king. Even if the identity be accepted, it does not prove the continuanec of the Śailendras as a ruling power. For if the lady in question were the daughter of the Śailendra king, she might have been married before the Chola invasion. If she were the widow, it might be rather an evidence of the end of Śailendra rule, forcing his widow to take refuge in a neighbouring country, and afterwards marry its king.
c9.63
The Ceylonese chronicles have preserved an interesting account of two invasions of Ceylon by a king of Jāvaka, called Chandrabhānu, about A.D. 1236 and 1256. In an inscription, dated 1264 A.D., Jaṭāvarman Vīra-Pāṇḍya, king of the Pāṇḍya kingdom in South India, claims to have defeated and killed the Śāvaka king, and in another inscription, dated the next year, the king of Kaḍāram is said to have been defeated by him. The Śāvaka is no doubt the same as Jāvaka or Zābag, and its ruler is probably the same as that of Kaḍāram and to be identified with Chandrabhānu. Chandrabhānu, who was powerful enough to have led two expeditions to Ceylon, thus met with a tragic end, for which his ill-conceived expeditions to Ceylon were perhaps mainly responsible.
c9.64
An inscription of Chandrabhānu has been found at Chaiya near Ligor. As it is dated A.D. 1230, the king has been identified with the Jāvaka king of that name. He is said to have been born in the family of lotus and called Lord of Tāmbraliṅga. This seems to indicate that the headquarters of Jāvaka or Zābag were located in Malaya Peninsula, and its rulers did not belong to the Śailendra family in the thirteenth century.
c9.65
As Tāmbraliṅga is included among the dependencies of San-fo-tsi by Chau-ju-kua, Chandrabhānu seems to have usurped the authority of his overlord by a successful rebellion. But, if so, Chandrabhānu was probably the last great ruler of Zābag. The example set by him of rebellion against the overlord was followed by other States. Being hard pressed by the rising power of Java on the one hand and the Thais of Siam on the other, Jāvaka or San-fo-tsi lost her position of supremacy and gradually sank into a local power. She continued this inglorious existence for nearly a century when it was finally conquered by Java, which then stepped into the imperial position so long held by Zābag.
c9.66
The Śailendra Empire was the central pivot of the history of Malaya Archipelago for nearly five centuries. Some idea of its wealth and splendour may still be formed from the monuments like Barabuḍur, Chaṇḍi Kalasan, Chaṇḍi Mendut, and numerous other temples in Central Java, to which reference will be made later. We may now pass on to the history of Java, which succeeded Zābag or San-fo-tsi of the Śailendras as the leading power.
c9.67
Reference has been made above to the early Hindu kingdom in West Java under king Pūrṇa-varman. We next hear of a king Sannāha and his son Sañjaya ruling in the first half of the eighth century AD in Central Java, in a region which was later known as the kingdom of Matarām. Not long after the death of Sañjaya, Central Java was, as we have seen above, conquered by the Śailendras. The old rulers of Central Java shifted to the east and remained there for more than a century, but they again occupied Central Java before the close of the ninth century A.D. Eastern Java, however, never lost the importance it had gained during this interval, and from about 929 A.D., when Siṇḍok ascended the throne, the political centre of gravity was definitely and permanently shifted towards the east. Central Java, which was decorated by the wonderful monuments like Barabuḍur and became a renowned seat of culture under the Śailendras, gradually receded into the background, and ultimately lost all political importance as well as cultural eminence. Various reasons have been put forward to explain this, such as a volcanic eruption, out-break of an epidemic or the ravages by the fleet of the Śailendras. The last-named theory finds a support in the renewed struggle between Java and the Śailendras and the great catastrophe that overwhelmed Java about A.D. 1006. Since then Central Java, with all its splendid monuments, became desolate and deserted, and the new kingdom of Eastern Java under Airlaṅga came into prominence.
c9.68
Airlaṅga was the son-in-law of the Javanese king who died shortly after the great catastrophe of A.D. 1006. There was a complete political disintegration of Java, and Airlaṅga, then aged sixteen, fled and took refuge in a hermitage at Vanagiri. In A.D. 1010 the principal chiefs and Brāhmaṇas of Java approached him with a request to ascend the throne of his father-in-law, and in A.D. 1019 he was formally consecrated to the throne with the title of Śrī Lokeśvara Dharmavaṁśa Airlaṅga Anantavikramottuṅgadeva. By a series of fights, he brought the whole of the island under his control and once more restored its prosperity. His records contain a long list of foreigners who used to come to Java for purposes of trade or other peaceful pursuits of life. The list includes Kliṅg or Kaliṅga, Siṁhala, Draviḍa, Karṇāṭaka, Champā and Kmir, *i.e.* Khmers of Kambuja.
c9.69
Thus Java became once again an international seat of trade and Hindu culture. Airlaṅga abdicated the throne in his old age and took to the life of an ascetic. He was regarded as an incarnation of Viṣṇu, and a fine figure of Viṣṇu, seated on Garuḍa, found at Belahan, is believed to be the actual representation of the king.
c9.70
Before his retirement Airlaṅga divided the kingdom between his two sons. Of the two states that arose in this way Kaḍiri became famous. The capital city Keḍiri still exists under the old name. Its kings were great patrons of literature and to them belongs the credit for the rich Indo-Javanese literature to which reference will be made later.
c9.71
In 1222 A.D. Kaḍiri was conquered by the neighbouring king of Singhasāri named Rājasa who united the whole of Eastern Java under his authority. Kṛtanagara, who succeeded to the throne of Singhasāri in 1268 A.D.,¹² was a remarkable king. According to *Nāgara-Kṛtāgama*, a famous historical poem of Java, he was well-versed in the six-fold royal policy, expert in all branches of knowledge and quite at home in Buddhist scriptures. He revived the imperial policy of the Śailendras and extended the political authority of Java over Bali, Suṇḍa, Sumatra, Malay Peninsula, Borneo and Madura. About this time Kublai Khan, the great Mongol ruler of China, invited the king of Java to come in person to the imperial court and pay homage to the Emperor. After evading the invitation for some time, Kṛtanagara became angry and mutilated the Chinese ambassador in A.D. 1289. This provoked the wrath of the great Mongol and he sent a powerful expedition to Java.
c9.72
In the meantime the governor of Kaḍiri revolted, killed Kṛtanagara and occupied Singhasāri. The supremacy of Kaḍiri, thus restored after seventy years, was, however, of short duration. The Chinese expedition sent by Kublai Khan overran the country and Vijaya, Son-in-law of Kṛtanagara, cleverly turned this formidable force against the ruler of Kaḍiri, who was defeated and killed in A.D. 1293. After the Chinese forces had left Java, Vijaya founded a new kingdom with his capital at Majapahit or Tikta-vilva ( Bitter Vilva fruit ), and assumed the name Kṛtarājasa Jayavardhana. Although the capital was changed, the new kingdom was practically a continuation of the kingdom of Singhasāri and pursued the aggressive imperial policy of Kṛtanagara with great success. During the reign of Rājasanagara, who ascended the throne in A.D. 1350, Java established it suzerainty over almost all the principal islands and a large portion of the there was a hegemony of Malay Peninsula and Malay Archipelago. Roughly speaking, the Majapahit empire comprised the recent Dutch possessions in the East Indies with the addition of a large part of Malay Peninsula, but excluding Northern Celebes. We learn from *Nāgara-Kṛtāgama* that Majapahit had intimate and friendly intercourse with Siam, Kambuja, Champā, North Annam, Dharmanagarī, Martaban and other neighbouring countries. It had also and the Kambuja kingdom comprised, at the beginning of the seventh century A.D., the whole of Cambodia and Cochin-China and also the valley of the Mun river to the north of the Dangrek mountains. This kingdom was ruled by the dynasty of Bhava-varman till about 674 A.D. From that period till the accession of Jaya-varman in 802 A.D. we do not know much of this kingdom. As noted above, it was probably subjugated by the Śailendras of Java. Jaya-varman II freed his native land from the yoke of Java and invited a Brāhmaṇa named Hiraṇyadāma to perform some Tantric rites in order that Kambuja might not again be a dependency of Java. For reasons not known to us, he frequently changed his capital and finally fixed it in the Angkor region which remained the political and cultural centre of Java for more than five hundred years. Jaya-varman ascended the throne in A.D. 802 and ruled till 850 A.D., during which period he laid the foundation of the future greatness of Kambuja.
c9.73
Though we do not know the details of his reign, the fact that for four centuries the epigraphic records of kings of different dynasties refer to Jaya-varman as a great and powerful monarch shows the deep impression that his reign and personality made upon posterity.
c9.74
The reigns of Jaya-varman II and his son and successor cover the period 802 to 877 A.D. According to a Chinese chronicle, written in A.D. 863, the kingdom of Kambuja included the whole of Central Indo-China and touched the frontiers of Yunnan in Southern China. The Arab writers also describe the Khmer kingdom as vast and powerful, the king of which received homage of other kings. Kambuja had thus begun that career of imperialism which made it the dominant power in Indo-China for centuries to come.
c9.75
The aggressive imperial policy was continued by the next king Indra-varman who founded a new dynasty. He claims in his record that his commands were respectfully obeyed by the rulers of China, Champā and Yavadvīpa. His son Yaśo-varman, who ascended the throne in 889 A.D., was one of the greatest kings of Kambuja. He distinguished himself by his military campaigns, both by land and sea, and not only maintained intact the vast empire he had inherited, but also enhanced its glory and splendour. He built many temples and a new capital city called after him Yaśodharapura. It included a large part, and formed the nucleus, of the later city of Angkor Thom, which still stands as the eternal symbol of the glory and grandeur of Hindu culture and civilization in South-east Asia.
c9.76
There is some uncertainty about the date of Yaśo-varman's death. It was generally believed to have taken place at 908 A.D. But a French scholar has shown good grounds for placing it about A.D. 900. If this view be accepted, we must be struck with wonder that Yaśo-varman accomplished so much during a short reign of eleven years. Yaśo-varman strikes us as one of the greatest personalities, and must be regarded as a great king in every sense of the term.
First 75 of 102 passages. Read on