Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India c5.s1: 1. A Hyperbolic and Conventional Element in the Description of Indian Rulers

Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India c5.s1

Language
English

1. A Hyperbolic and Conventional Element in the Description of Indian Rulers

c5.s1.1

It is well known that the poets at the courts of medieval Indian rulers often grossly exaggerated the achievements and status of their patrons. Sometimes even a small landlord enjoying the right of collecting taxes from a few villages only was endowed with epithets befitting an emperor. Thus several manuscripts copied about the beginning of the 18th century for Rājanārāyaṇa, the insignificant zamindar of Kāśijorā in the Midnapur District, West Bengal, represent the landlord as दोर्दण्ड-प्रबल-प्रताप-परम, प्रबलप्रतापान्वितराजाधिराज and महाराजाधिराज.¹ To illustrate the tendency to exaggerate in the court poets of the early-medieval kings of India, one may refer to the description of Candella Dhaṅga (c. 950-1002 A. D.) in an inscription from Khajuraho.²

c5.s1.2

¹ Cf. Vaṅgīya Sāhitya Pariṣat Patrikā, Vol. LVIII, pp. 17-18. Similarly Rājā Kṛṣṇacandra of Nadia is described as bhūp-augh-ārcita-caraṇa, kṣamāpati-vṛnda-sevita, etc. (K. C. Ray, Kṣitiśavaṃśāvalicarita, pp. 227 ff.).

c5.s1.3

² Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 145, verse 46 :

c5.s1.4

It is implied that the Candella king crushed the rulers of Kāñcī, Andhra, Rāḍhā and Aṅga and had the queens of the defeated monarchs imprisoned in his capital. The claim is, however, absurd on the face of it. In the first place, it is extremely doubtful whether Dhaṅga at all came into conflict with the four kings mentioned, even if we take the rulers of Aṅga and Rāḍhā to have been merely viceroys of the mighty Pāla emperor of Eastern India. Secondly, if Dhaṅga actually came into con-

c5.s1.5

का त्वं कांचीनृपतिवनिता का त्वमंधाधिपस्त्री
का त्वं राढापरिवृढवधूः का त्वमंगन्द्रपत्नी ।
इत्यालापाः समरजयिनो यस्य वैरिप्रियानां
कारागारे सजल नयनैर्दीवराणां बभूवुः ॥

c5.s1.6

flict with the above-mentioned kings, it is more doubtful that he came off victorious in all the four cases. Thirdly, even if he may have succeeded in defeating the four kings, it is really impossible to think that he succeeded also in carrying off their wives. Fourthly, supposing that he actually captured the queens of Kāñcī, Andhra, Rāḍhā and Aṅga, he would have naturally placed them in his own harem instead of his prison.

c5.s1.7

It may, however, be admitted that such hopeless exaggeration is less noticeable in the description of the Indian rulers of the earlier period of history. For this reason, the earlier the king is, the greater is our reliance in his claims, in spite of the obvious fact that there is always a considerable amount of exaggeration in the royal praśastis composed by the court poets of Indian monarchs. But definite statements such as the mention of the personal names of adversaries are generally more trustworthy than vague claims. Whatever be the nature of exaggeration, there is certainly an amount of truth in the claims put forward in such records as the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta and the Tirumalai inscription of Rājendrachola I.¹

c5.s1.8

¹ Select Inscriptions, pp. 254 ff.; Ep. Ind., vol. IX, pp. 229 ff.

c5.s1.9

Although exaggeration with reference to the achievements of Indian kings is a remarkable feature of royal praśastis of the medieval period, it is by no means absent even in the earliest records, both literary and epigraphic. There are the following two gāthās in the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, XIII, 5, 4, 11 and 13 : (1) अष्टासप्ततिं भरतो दौःषन्तिरयमुनामनु गङ्गायां वृत्रघ्नेऽबधनात् पञ्चपञ्चाशत् हयान् इति । (2) परःसहस्रान्निन्द्रयाश्वान् मेध्यान् य आहरद् विजित्य पृथिवीं सर्वामिति । According to the first gāthā, Bharata, son of Duṣyanta,² performed seventyeight Aśvamedhas on the Yamunā and fiftyfive on the Gaṅgā, i.e. one hundred and thirtyfive horse-sacrifices in all. But according to the second gāthā, Bharata celebrated more than one thousand Aśvamedhas after having conquered the whole earth. Critics can hardly fail to note the difference between the definite nature of the statements in the first gāthā and the vagueness of the number ‘more than one thousand’ and of the expression ‘after having conquered the whole earth’ in the second *gāthā*.

c5.s1.10

² Duṣyanta is an older form of Duṣyanta.

c5.s1.11

In connection with the tradition regarding Bharata’s conquest of the whole earth, attention may be drawn to the Purāṇic legends according to which the dominions of Bharata and his descendants, the Bhāratas, extended over that tract in the south of Jambudvīpa, which later came to be called Bhāratavarṣa after that monarch.¹ Again, the great Maurya emperor Aśoka (c. 272-232 B.C.) claims in the Dhauli version of his Fifth Rock Edict to have employed the Superintendents of the Religious Department, called Dharma-mahāmātra, throughout the earth (*sava-puṭhaviyaṃ*), although all the other versions of the above Rock Edict read *sarvatra vijite* (i.e. everywhere in the dominions of Aśoka) in that context.² It is interesting to note in this connection that Aśoka’s Minor Rock Edict I seems to refer to his empire as Jambudvīpa while he is described in Buddhist tradition as a *Dvīpa-cakravartin*, i.e. the ruler of the entire Jambudvīpa.³ As is well known, Aśoka’s empire included India with the exception of Assam and certain small kingdoms to the south of Mysore but together with parts of Afghanistan, and was no doubt only a small portion of the earth. In the fourth and fifth centuries A. D. , the Gupta emperors, who held sway over the major part of Northern India but succeeded in extending their political influence over parts of Southern India as well claimed to have either conquered or ruled over ‘the whole earth’. Thus the prosperity of Samudragupta (c. 340-76 A. D.) is mentioned as *sarva-pṛthivī-vijaya-janita*;¹ them inister of Candragupta II (c. 376-414 A.D.), who accompanied his master in the latter’s campaign against the Śakas of Malwa, describes the monarch as having the aim of *kṛtsna-pṛthvī-jaya*;² Kumāragupta I (c. 414-55 A.D.) is said to have ruled over the *pṛthivī* that was encircled by the four seas;³ Skandagupta (c. 455-67 A.D.) is described as the conqueror of the whole earth (*pṛthivīṃ samagrāṃ*);⁴ and Budhagupta (c. 576-95 A.D.) is represented as the ruler of the earth.⁵

c5.s1.12

¹ Cf. *Mahābhārata*, I, ch. 73, 131 ; *Vāyu*, ch. 45, 76 ; *Viṣṇu*, II, 3, 1. There are diverse traditions regarding the origin of the name Bhāratavarṣa. According to many of the Purāṇas, it was derived from Bharata, son of Ṛṣabha and grandson of Nābhi who was a descendant of Vaivasvata Manu (*Bhāgavata*, XI, 2, 15 ff. ; *Brahmāṇḍa*, 34, 44 ; etc.). In certain Purāṇic passages (*Matsya*, 114, 5 ; *Brahmāṇḍa*, 49, 10), however, the name Bhāratavarṣa is said to have been derived from Bharata which was just a second name of Manu himself. But the *Bhārati-prajā*, *Bhārati-santati*, etc., of the Purāṇic passages appear to refer to the Bhārata people (probably the Bhāratas of the Vedic literature ; cf. Raychaudhuri, *Studies in Indian Antiquities*, p. 79) represented clearly as the descendants of Bharata Dauṣyanti in the *Mahābhārata*. Traditions, moreover, represent Bharata Dauṣyanti as a *cakravartin* or *sārvabhauma*, i.e. a universal monarch or emperor (*Mahābhārata*, I, 73, 129 ; cf. *Bhāgavata*, IX, 20, 33).

c5.s1.13

² *Select Inscriptions*, p. 24.

c5.s1.14

³ Ibid., p. 50 ; Malalasekera, *Dictionary of Pali Proper Names*, s.v. Asoka.

c5.s1.15

¹ *Select Inscriptions*, Vol. I, p. 259.

c5.s1.16

² *Ibid.*, p. 272.

c5.s1.17

³ *Ibid.*, p. 293.

c5.s1.18

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 301.

c5.s1.19

Although often the word ‘earth’ was used to indicate the dominions even of a petty ruler, the expression ‘whole earth’ was used to signify the kingdom of an imperial, or at least an independent, monarch.

c5.s1.20

2. Imperial Rulers of India and their Sphere of Influence.

c5.s1.21

The word *cakravartin* means an imperial ruler, often also called *samrāṭ* (literally ‘paramount ruler’), *eka-cchatra* (literally, ‘one who alone enjoys the umberella or the insignia of sovereignty’), or *sārvabhauma* which literally means ‘the ruler of all land (i.e. the whole earth)’ but actually indicates a paramount ruler of a territory without owing allegiance to any overlord. The literal meaning of *cakravartin* is likewise ‘one rolling everywhere without obstruction’ or ‘a ruler, the wheels of who schariot roll everywhere without obstruction’. Two types of this class of rulers are indicated by the words *diśām-pati*, i.e. ‘the ruler of the quarters’, and *dig-vijayin*, i.e. ‘the conqueror of the quarters’, the word *diś* being used to signify the territories lying in all the four sides of the capital or original kingdom of the monarch in question. The distinction between the *dig-vijayin*, i.e. the ruler who acquired an empire by means of conquest, and the diśām-pati, i.e. one who inherited an empire from his forefathers is, however, not clearly maintained in literature.¹

c5.s1.22

¹ Three classes of the cakravartin are mentioned in Pali literature, viz. (1) cakravāla-cakravartin, (2) dvīpa-cakravartin and (3) pradeśa-cakravartin. The first is the ruler of all the four dvīpas or continents constituting the earth according to the Buddhists, the second of only one of the dvīpas and the third merely of a portion of a dvīpa. The classification is, however, apparently theoretical.

c5.s1.23

According to the Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra ‘the land which extends north to south from the Himālaya to the sea and measures east to west a thousand yojanas is the kṣetra (i.e. the sphere of influence) of a cakravartin (i.e. an imperial ruler of India)’.² Rājaśekhara’s Kāvyamīmāṃsā says that a samrāṭ (practically the same as a cakravartin) is one who conquers the whole land from the southern sea (the Indian Ocean ) to the Himavat (Himālaya).³ In the same breath, Rājaśekhara also says that the sphere of influence of a cakravartin is the land measuring one thousand yojanas and lying between Kumārīpura (Cape Comorin) and Bindusaras (in the Himālayas according to the Purāṇas) and that the conqueror of the above kṣetra is a cakravartin.⁴ Thus the sphere of influence of an Indian imperial ruler was the Purāṇic Bhāratavarṣa which is described as lying ‘between the Himālaya and the sea (Himālayādā samudram)’ or as ‘bounded in the south, west and east by the sea and in the north by the Himavat resembling the string of a bow’.⁵ is sometimes referred to as the country extending ‘from the Himālaya to Rāma’s bridge’¹ or ‘from the Himālaya to the seashore’.² In some Purāṇic passages, e.g., in Kūrma, I, 35, 41, as well as records like some versions of Minor Rock Edict I of Aśoka, the same land seems to be called Jambudvīpa, although according to other popular conceptions Bhāratavarṣa was merely a part of Jambudvīpa.

c5.s1.24

² IX, 1 : देश: पृथिवी । तस्यां हिमवत्समुदान्तरमुदीचीनं योजनसहस्रपरिमाणमतियंक चक्रवर्तिक्षेत्रम् ।

c5.s1.25

³ G. O. S. ed., p. 92: तत्रेदं भारतं वर्षम् । अस्य च नव भेदा: । इन्द्रद्वीप: कसेरुमान् ताम्रपर्णी गभस्तिमान् नागद्वीप: सौम्यो गन्धर्वो वरुण: कुमारीद्वीपश्चायं नवम: । पञ्चशतानि जलं पञ्च स्थलमिति विभागेन प्रत्येकं योजनसहस्रावधयो दक्षिणत्समुद्रादद्रिराजं हिमवन्तं यावत्परस्परमगम्यास्ते । तान्येतानि यो जयति स सम्राडित्युच्यते ।

c5.s1.26

⁴ Loc. cit. : कुमारीपुरात्प्रभृति बिन्दुसारोऽवधि योजनानां दशशती चक्रवर्तिक्षेत्रम् । तां विजयमानश्चक्रवर्त्ती भवति ।

c5.s1.27

⁵ Raychaudhuri, Studies in Indian Antiquities, pp. 77-79. Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, LVII, 59 : दक्षिणापरतो ह्यस्य पूर्वेण च महोदधि: । हिमवानुत्तरेणास्य कार्मुकस्य यथा गुण: ।। Cf. Vāyu, XLV, 75-76 : उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमवद्दक्षिणं च यत् । वर्षं तद्भारतं नाम यत्रेयं भारती प्रजा ।।

c5.s1.28

¹ Ray, D.H N.I., Vol. II, p. 1171.

c5.s1.29

² Corp. Ins. Ind., Vol. III, p. 205.

c5.s1.30

³ Sel. Ins., p. 50.

c5.s1.31

That the sphere of influence of an Indian imperial ruler did not extend beyond the limits of Bhāratavarṣa, seems to be supported by a statement of Arrian that ‘a sense of justice, they say, prevented a king from attempting conquest beyond the limits of India.’⁴

c5.s1.32

⁴ M'Crindle, Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian, p. 209.

c5.s1.33

The conception of a mighty king or his generals performing dig-vijaya, that is to say, conquering ‘the whole earth’, permeates the entire body of the epic and Purāṇic literature. Epic heroes like Karṇa and the brothers of Yudhiṣṭhira are described as conquering the quarters or the whole earth. Karṇa completed his dig-vijaya by conquering all the countries in the north, east, south and west and is described as returned to Nāgasāhvaya (Hastināpura, capital of his patron Duryodhana) ‘after having subdued the whole earth’.⁵ It is, however, interesting to note that the lists of countries lying in the four different directions and conquered by the epic dig-vijayins are practically the same as the lists of countries and peoples of Bhāratavarṣa as found in the geographical sections of the epics, Purāṇas and other works. Stories of the epic dig-vijayins were no doubt very popular in the age of the Gupta emperors. This is proved not only by the references to epic heroes in records dating from the second century A.D. but also by epigraphic and literary records of the Gupta period. Epigraphic references to the Gupta monarchs either as rulers or as conquerors of ‘the whole earth’ have already been indicated above. Raghu’s conquest of all the quarters in the Raghuvamśa (Canto IV) of Kālidāsa who lived in the fourth-fifth century A.D. is obviously modelled on the epic description of the *dig-vijayas* of Karṇa, the Pāṇḍava brothers and others. Mallinātha in his commentary on the *Raghuvamśa*, IV, 85, rightly explains the conquest of quarters as indicating *eka-cchatratva* or universal sovereignty. Raghu began his conquest in the eastern countries on the eastern sea or the Bay of Bengal. Thence he marched towards the south and conquered the Pāṇḍya king. He moved then towards the west and subdued the Pārasīkas or Persians. Then he reached the north where he conquered the Hūṇas on the Vaṅkshu or Oxus and the lord of Prāgjyotiṣa or Kāmarūpa (modern Assam, in the Himālayas). The description of Raghu’s *dig-vijaya* in the *Raghuvamśa* was imitated by a *Praśastikāra* at the Paramāra court, who describes the Paramāra king Lakṣmadeva as having defeated Aṅga and Kalinga in the east, Cola and Pāṇḍya as far as the Tāmraparṇī river in the south, and the Turuṣkas on the banks of the Vaṅkṣu in the north.¹ The substitution of the Hūṇas by the Turuṣkas is interesting to note. The ‘whole earth’ in such cases, it may be pointed out again, does not mean the entire land between the North Pole and the South Pole. It simply refers to Bhāratavarṣa regarded as the sphere of influence of an imperial monarch. But even that is also in a conventional sense.

c5.s1.34

⁵ Mahābhārata, III, 253, 22; cf. II, 26-32.

c5.s1.35

¹ See Bhandarkar's List, No. 170.

c5.s1.36

Although the *cakravarti-kṣetra* comprised the whole of Bhāratavarṣa, the claim of the conquest or rule over it on behalf of a historical monarch must naturally be regarded as conventional. Numerous Indian rulers are actually known to have made the claim; but, in none of the cases, the king in question can be taken as the lord of the whole of Bhāratavarṣa extending from the Himālayas to the Indian Ocean. These kings were rulers directly of only a part of India, although they conventionally claimed suzerainty over the whole of the country. Sometimes contemporary monarchs are found to make similar claims. There is, therefore, no doubt that the kings claiming conquest of or rule over the whole earth or all the quarters were merely imperial rulers as opposed to those of the subordinate rank. It is also to be remembered that a ruler was often regarded as a *dig-vijayin* type of *cakravartin* even if he succeeded in conquering a petty rival. The frequent representation of a prince inheriting his father’s kingdom as one who conquered the kingdom by the prowess of his own arms is a convention of the same type. By way of illustration, it may be pointed out that, in the Omgodu grant¹ of Skandavarman II, his grandfather Skandavarman I, son and successor of Kumāraviṣṇu described as the performer of an Aśvamedha sacrifice, is called *sva-vīrya-adhigata-rājya* probably owing to the fact that Skandavarman I succeeded in overcoming an obstacle that stood in his way to his paternal throne.

c5.s1.37

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XV, pp. 249 ff.

c5.s1.38

3. Boundaries of the Cakravarti-kṣetra.

c5.s1.39

We have seen above that the *kṣetra* (sphere of influence) of a *cakravartin* (an imperial ruler of India), often mentioned as ‘the whole earth’, was regarded as bounded by the Himālaya or Bindusaras (in the Himālayas) in the north and by the Indian Ocean, Cape Comorin or Rāma’s bridge in the south. It has also been shown that sometimes it was described as bounded by four seas on all the four sides. The conception of the *catuḥ-samudra* is no doubt conventional, as Bhāratavarṣa is bounded only on the east, south and west by seas (viz. the Bay of Bengal, the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea respectively). There is no sea in the north of this land. Prof. Raychaudhuri suggests that any lake or lakes to the north of India in Central Asia may have been wrongly conceived as a sea and this fact may have been responsible for the conception of India having four seas in four directions. The northern sea, however, may have actually been the deserts of Central Asia often represented in literature as ‘the sea of sand’.² The conception of the *catuḥ-samudra* is also found in the Vedic literature where the expression is usually explained by the word *antarikṣa*, i.e. sky in the four directions. According to the Purāṇas,³ the world consists of seven concentric *dvīpas* or islands each of which is encircled by a sea, the central island called Jambudvīpa being surrounded by the salt sea.¹ Bhāratavarṣa was the southernmost part of this Jambudvīpa, although, as we have seen, sometimes the two names are used almost synonymously. The mythical conception of the seven seas may have owed its origin to the Vedic *sapta-sindhu*, i.e. the seven rivers of north-western Bhāratavarṣa. Whatever that may be, the Purāṇic conception of the earth being encircled by the sea coupled with the Vedic idea of the *catuḥ-samudra* may have been responsible for the later conception of the *cakravarti-kṣetra* (called ‘the whole earth’) bounded by the seas on all the four directions. In the literary and epigraphic records, often definite localities (which are mythical in some cases) are mentioned in the north, east, south and west of ‘the whole earth’ or *cakravarti-kṣetra* and, as expected, they practically correspond to the boundaries of ancient Bhāratavarṣa.

c5.s1.40

² The suggestion is supported by the *Rājatarangiṇī*, IV, 172, 279, 294; VIII, 2763. See also Stein’s trans., Vol. I, p. 75.

c5.s1.41

³ Cf. *Mārkaṇḍeya*, 54, 6-7.

c5.s1.42

¹ There is another Purāṇic conception according to which the earth consists of four great *dvīpas* resembling four petals of a lotus. The pericarp of this earth-lotus is the Meru or Sumeru mountain. Similar is the conception of the Buddhists as found in the Pali literature: ‘In each *cakravāla*, between the *cakravāla-parvata* and the outermost of the rocky circles which environ Meru, lies a vast ocean. In this ocean are situated, equidistant from each other, four *mahā-dvīpas*, ‘great islands’ or continents. On the north is Uttarakuru, on the south Jambudvīpa, on the east Purvavideha and on the west Aparagoyāna. Of these, Jambudvīpa is larger than the rest, being a hundred thousand *yojanas* in diameter, and includes India.’ Cf. *Vāyu Purāṇa*, ch. 34; Childers’ Dictionary, *s.v. mahādīpo*.

c5.s1.43

Bāṇa’s *Kādambarī*² gives the following boundaries of the kingdom of an imaginary emperor named Candrāpīḍa: Gandhamādana (on which Badarikāśrama in the Himālayas is situated) in the north, Setubandha in the south, the mythical Udaya or Sun-rise mountain in the east and the mythical Mandara (apparently located here in the western or Arabian sea just as the mythical Sun-set mountain in a similar context in the *Harṣacarita*) in the west. In the *Harṣacarita*³ of the same author, the boundaries given in connection with king Harṣavardhana’s attempt to conquer the quarters are: Gandhamādana in the north, Suvela (the hill on which the city of Laṅkā was believed to have been situated) in the south, the mythical Sun-rise mountain in the east and the mythical Sun-set mountain in the west.

c5.s1.44

² Ed. Siddhāntavāgīśa, Calcutta, pp. 194-195.

c5.s1.45

³ N. S. Press ed., p. 217.

c5.s1.46

Similarly, in the colophon of Vijñāneśvara’s *Mitākṣarā*, commentary on the *Yājñavalkyasmṛti*, the dominions of the author’s patron, the later Cālukya monarch Vikramāditya VI (c. 1076-1127 A.D.) of Kalyāṇa, are described as bounded by Rāma’s bridge in the south, Himālaya in the north, western sea (Arabian Sea) in the west and the eastern sea (Bay of Bengal) in the east.¹

c5.s1.47

¹ आ सेतोः कीर्त्तिराशे रघुकुलतिलवस्य च शैलाधिराजाद् आ च प्रत्यक्पयोधेस्तटतिमिकुलोत्तुङ्गिङ्गत्तरङ्गात् । आ च प्राचः समुद्रान्नृपतिशिरोरत्नभासुराङ्घ्रिः पायादाचन्द्रतारं जगदिदमखिलं विक्रमदित्यदेवः ।।

c5.s1.48

We have also a large number of inscriptions supporting the same traditions. The Meharauli inscription² of Candra, who is apparently no other than the Imperial Gupta monarch Candragupta II (c. 376-414 A.D.), describes the king as having conquered the Vaṅgas (of Southern Bengal) in the east, crossed the seven mouths of the Sindhu (or Indus, all of which fall into the Arabian Sea) in the west, defeated the Bālhikas (inhabiting the Balkh region on the Oxus) in the north and subdued certain people on the shores of the southern sea (Indian Ocean). A Mandasor inscription³ describes king Yaśodharman (532 A.D.) of Malwa as having subdued the whole land bounded by the Lauhitya (Brahmaputra) in the east, the Mahendra (i. e. Mahendragiri in the Tirunelveli District) in the south, the Himālaya in the north and the western sea (Arabian Sea) in the west.

c5.s1.49

² *Sel. Ins.*, p. 276 : यस्योद्वर्त्तयतः प्रतीपमुरसा शत्रन्समेत्यागतान् वङ्गेष्वाहववर्त्तिनोभिलिखिता खड्गेन कीर्त्तिर्भुजे । तीर्त्त्वा सप्त मुखानि समरे येन सिन्धोर्जिता वाह्लिका यस्याद्याप्यधिवास्यते जलनिधिर्वीर्यानिलैर्दक्षिणः ।।

c5.s1.50

³ *Ibid.*, p. 394 : आ लौहित्योपण्ठात्तलवनगहनोपत्यकादामहेन्द्राद् आ गङ्गाश्लिष्टसानोस्तुहिनशिखरिनः पश्चिमार्द्रा पयोधेः ।

c5.s1.51

Both the above records belong to the age of the Imperial Guptas when the convention of the *cakravartin* and his *kṣetra* appears to have developed its popularity. There are numerous similar references in later records.

c5.s1.52

King Devapāla (c. 810-50 A.D.) is described in his records¹ as the only lord of the whole land bounded by the source of the Gaṅgā (Himālaya) in the north, Rāma’s bridge in the south, Varuṇa’s abode (western sea) in the west and Lakṣmī’s abode (eastern sea) in the east. A similar list of the boundaries of the *cakravarti-kṣetra* seems to be quoted in connection with the victories of the army of Devapāla’s father Dharmapāla (c. 770-810 A.D.) where mention is made of Kedāra (in the Himālayas) in the north, the Gaṅgā-sāgara confluence in the east and Gokarṇa (in the North Kanara District of Mysore) and other holy places in the south and west.² The Karhad plates³ of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Kṛṣṇa III (c. 939-67 A.D.) of Mānyakheṭa (Malkhed in the former Hyderabad state) say that he subdued the rulers of the whole land bounded by the eastern sea in the east, the western sea in the west, the Himāśaila (Himālaya) in the north and Siṃhaladvīpa (i.e. Ceylon) in the south. In the records⁴ of the Paramāra kings of Malwa, king Bhoja (c. 1010-55 A.D.) is said to have enjoyed the earth extending from the Kailāsa (in the Himālaya) in the north, the Malaya mountain (Travancore hills) in the south, the mythical Sun-set mountain in the west and the mythical Sun-rise mountain in the east. In the inscriptions of the Vijayanagara rulers, Vīranarasiṃha (c. 1506-09 A.D.), elder brother of the celebrated Kṛṣṇadevarāya (1509-29 A.D.), is described as having ruled over a kingdom bounded by the Setu (i.e. Rāma's bridge) in the south, the mythical Sumeru mountain (to the north of Bhāratavarṣa) in the north, the mythical Sun-rise mountain in the east and the western mountain (the mythical Sun-set mountain) in the west.¹ The boundaries of the cakravarti-kṣetra given in connection with the achievements of Kṛṣṇadevarāya himself, often in the same inscription, are the eastern mountain (i.e. the mythical Sun-rise mountain) in the east, the mythical Sun-set mountain in the west, the Himācala in the north and the Setu in the south.²

c5.s1.53

¹ *Gauḍalekhamālā*, p. 38 : आ गङ्गागममहितात्सपत्लशून्याम् आ सेतोः प्रथितदशास्यकेतुकीर्त्तेः । उर्वीमा वरुणनिकेतनाच्च सिन्धोर् आ लक्ष्मीकुलभवाच्च यो बुभोज ॥

c5.s1.54

² *Ibid*., p. 36, verse 7.

c5.s1.55

³ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. IV, pp. 284-85 : अनमन्ना पूर्वापरजलनिधिहिमशैलसिहलद्वीपात् । यं जनकाज्ञावशमपि मडलिनश्चदंडदंभयात् ॥

c5.s1.56

⁴ *Ibid*., Vol. I, p. 235 : आ कैलासान्मलयगिरितस्तोदयाद्रिद्वयादा मुक्ता पृथ्वी पृथुनरपतेस्तुल्यरुपेण येन ॥

c5.s1.57

¹ Mys. Arch. Surv., An. Rep., 1941, pp. 185-86 :

c5.s1.58

² Ibid., p. 187 :

c5.s1.59

It should be remembered that, whenever a king is described as the ruler or conqueror of a territory indicated by four boundaries that may be placed about the borders of Bhāratavarṣa, the claim has to be regarded as merely conventional. There is usually no truth in the claim beyond that the king in question regarded himself as an imperial, or at least an independent, ruler. The conventional nature of such claims is further demonstrated clearly by a verse describing the victories of the Pāla army in the whole area bounded by the eastern land in the east, the valley of the Malaya (Travancore hills) in the south, in the Maru country (Marwar or the Rajaputana Desert) in the west and the Prāleyādri (Himālaya) in the north, as found in the records of different monarchs of the Pāla family of Bengal and Bihar.³

c5.s1.60

³ Gaudalekhamālā, p. 95 :

c5.s1.61

आ सेतोरा सुमेरोरवनिसरनुतः स्वैरमा चोदयाद्रेर्
आ पाश्चात्याचलादखिलहृदयमावर्ज्य राज्यं शशास ।

c5.s1.62

आ पूर्वाद्रैरथास्तक्षितिधरकटकादा च हिमाचलान्ताद्
आसेतोरथिसार्थश्रियमिह सफलीकृत्य कीर्त्त्या समिद्धः ॥

c5.s1.63

देशे प्राचि प्रचुरपयसि स्वच्छमापीय तोयं
स्वैरं भान्त्वा तदनु मलयोपत्यकाचन्दनेषु ।
कृत्वा सान्द्रैर्मरुषु जडतां शीकररभ्रतुल्याः
प्रालेयाद्रेः कटकभजनस्य सेनागजेन्द्राः ॥

c5.s1.64

cf. Ep. Ind., vol. XXIX, p. 4. Cf. the following passage in an inscription of the Somavaṁśis of Kosala and Utkala (IHQ, Vol. XXII, p. 301) :

c5.s1.65

सेतुप्रान्तवनान्तरे हिमवतः पर्यन्तभूसीमनि
प्रागम्भो तटवविषु कटके पूर्वैरक्षामृतः ।

c5.s1.66

Now exactly the same verse is found to have been employed by the Pāla court poets in describing the achievements of no less than four monarchs, viz. Gopāla II (middle of the tenth century), his son Vigrahapāla II (end of the tenth century) and the latter’s son Mahīpāla I (biginning of the eleventh century) and great-grandson Vigrahapāla III (middle of the eleventh century).

c5.s1.67

It will be seen that the following boundaries of the *cakravarti-kṣetra* are indicated by the epigraphic and literary records discussed above : (1) north—Himālaya, Bindusaras, Gandhamādana, Kailāsa, Kedāra, the mythical Sumeru mountain, Prāgjyotiṣa or Kāmarūpa, Vaṅkṣu or Oxus and Bālhīka ; (2) south—Indian Ocean, Cape Comorin, Mahendragiri, Setubandha-Rāmeśvara, Suvela, Siṃhala dvīpa and Malaya ; (3) east—Vaṅga, Lauhitya, the mythical eastern or Sun-rise mountain, Bengal, the eastern country and Gaṅgā-sāgara-saṅgama ; (4) west—the mouths of the Sindhu, Arabian Sea, the mythical Mandara, western or Sun-set mountain, the Rajaputana Desert and Pārasīka (Persia). As already pointed out above, these were the traditional boundaries of Bhāratavarṣa, conceived as the sphere of influence of an imperial ruler of India, and they had really nothing to do with the actual territories of the king who is described as the lord or conqueror of the land within the above boundaries.

c5.s1.68

4. *Conception of two Cakravarti-kṣetras.*

c5.s1.69

Besides the above *cakravarti-kṣetra* comprising the whole of Bhāratvarṣa, sometimes North India and South India were regarded as separate spheres of influence of the imperial monarchs respectively of Northern and Southern India. In view of the conventional nature of the claim of the status of a *cakravartin*, it is interesting to note that sometimes the same king is represented as the lord of the whole of the *cakravarti-kṣetra* in one case but of the partial *cakravarti-kṣetra* comprising either North or South India in another. We have referred above to the description of the Pāla king Devapāla of Bengal and Bihar as the only lord of the whole land bounded by the Himālaya, Rāma’s bridge, the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. Elsewhere¹, however, the same monarch is said to have subdued the whole land bounded by the father of the Revā (Narmadā), i.e. the Vindhya, in the south; the father of Gaurī, i.e. the Himālaya, in the north; and the two seas (eastern and western, i.e. the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea) in the east and west. These boundaries of North India are no doubt based on Manu’s celebrated definition of Āryāvarta.² Similar claims are known to have been made on behalf of many other imperial rulers of Northern India. Thus Vīsala or Vigraharāja IV (c. 1053-64 A.D.) of the Cāmana dynasty of Ajmer and Śākambharī is described as having subdued Āryāvarta lying between the Vindhya and the Himādri.³

c5.s1.70

¹ *Gauḍalekhamālā*, p. 72 :

c5.s1.71

² *Manusmṛti*, II, 22.

c5.s1.72

³ *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XIX, pp. 215 ff.

c5.s1.73

The Sātavāhana kings of the Deccan claimed to have been the lords of Dakṣiṇāpatha, a name often applied to the whole of South India lying beyond the Vindhyas and the Narmadā. The great Sātavāhana monarch Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi (c. 106-30 A.D.) actually ruled over the western part of South India from the Kṛṣṇā in the south to Ākara and Avanti in Malwa in the north. But he claims at the same time to have been the lord of the Vindhya, Ṛkṣavat, Pāriyātra, Mahendra and Malaya mountains which covered practically the whole of the Vindhyan range as well as the Eastern and Western Ghats. That Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi claimed a sort of vague suzerainty over the whole of South India is further indicated by the claim that his chargers drank the waters of the three seas, no doubt meaning the eastern, southern and western seas, i.e. the Bay of Bengal, the Indian Ocean and the Arbian sea. A Sātavāhana king is mentioned in Bāṇa’s *Harṣacarita* as the ‘lord of the three seas’.⁴

c5.s1.74

⁴ See *Sel. Ins.*, pp. 196 ff. : *Harṣacarita*, *op. cit.*, p. 351.

c5.s1.75

आ रेवाजनकान्तगजमदस्तिभ्यच्छिलासंहतेर्
आ गैरीपितुरीश्वरेन्दुकिरणैः पुष्यत्सितम्नो गिरेः ।
मार्त्तण्डस्तमयोदयारुणजलादा वारिराशिद्वयान्
नीत्या यस्य भुवं चकार करदां श्रीदेवपालो नृपः ॥

c5.s1.76

South India conceived as a separate *cakravarti-kṣetra* is mentioned as bounded by the three seas also in the inscriptions of a later date. The Cālukyas of Badami claimed to be lords of the land lying within the three seas: त्रि-समुद्र-मध्यवर्ति-भुवन-मण्डलाधीश्वर.¹ The Mulgund inscription of Pañcāla similarly represents him as the lord of the whole country bounded by the eastern, western and southern seas.² The inscriptions of the Eastern Cālukyas, however, refer to the southern *cakravarti-kṣetra* as the land between the Narmadā and the Setu.³

c5.s1.77

¹ Cf. *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XIX, pp. 64, etc.

c5.s1.78

² *Bombay Gazetteer*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 307,432.

c5.s1.79

³ Venkataramanayya, *The Eastern Cālukyas of Vengi*, p. 7.

c5.s1.80

Among other epigraphic references to South India as the special sphere of influence of South Indian monarchs, mention may be made of a Kadamba inscription⁴, in which the Kadamba king Ravivarman (c. 490-538 A.D.) is represented as the lord of the earth as far as the Narmadā in the north.

c5.s1.81

⁴ Srikanta Sastri, *Sources of Karnataka History*, p. 24.

Linked texts (18)