Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jataka Stories c3.s2.t2: The Pañcālas

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jātaka Stories c3.s2.t2

Language
English

The Pañcālas

c3.s2.t2.1

The curious legend, given in the Cetiya Jātaka about the foundation of Uttarapañcāla by a Ceti Prince, may or may not have any historical value.⁴ The Jātakas, curiously enough, speak of Uttarapañcāla both as a capital city in the Kingdom of Kampilla⁵ and as a kingdom with Kampilla as its capital city.⁶ It is to be noted, however, that not a single gāthā in the whole of the Jātaka book mentions Uttarapañcāla, but that it is Pañcāla simply that finds repeated mention in a number of gāthās.⁷ The two terms must therefore be clearly understood. No trace of such a division of Pañcāla as the northern (Uttara) or the southern (Dakṣiṇa) is to be found in the Vedic or Brāhmaṇic Literature.⁸ They know the Pañcālas,⁹ and the town of Kampilla¹⁰ which is really known in later times to be their capital. It follows, then, that this division must be a later one. Even the Great Epic itself, if we condescend to believe it, clearly says that the division took place sometime before the Great war, when the Pāṇḍavas defeated Drupada king of Pañcāla and handed over the Pañcāla kingdom to their preceptor Droṇa as promised, who, by way of kindliness, kept the northern half of the kingdom for himself and returned the southern half to Drupada, river Bhāgīrathī forming the dividing line.¹¹ The capital of the former was at Ahicchatrā which is unknown to Vedic Literature, and that of the latter at Kāmpilya, Vedic Kampila. Ahicchatrā appears to be a later form of Adhicchatrā preserved in the famous Pabhosā cave Inscription of the second century B. C..¹ It seems probable therefore that the above division is a later product when perhaps Adhicchatrā rose into prominence and succeeded in securing for itself a separate part from out the renowned kingdom of Pañcāla.

c3.s2.t2.2

⁴ J., III, pp. 460-1. Supra.

c3.s2.t2.3

⁵ J., II, p. 213; III, p. 79; IV, p. 430; V, pp. 21, 98; VI, pp. 391-392, 409, 415, 426, 461, 466. It is once a city in Kuru kingdom as already noticed.

c3.s2.t2.4

⁶ J., III, p. 370; VI, p. 405.

c3.s2.t2.5

⁷ J., II, p. 214-G. 154; III, pp. 80-GG. 90-1, 381-G, 94; VI, pp. 397-G. 1455; 424-G. 1491; 477-G. 1677. The name of Dakṣiṇapañcāla is conspicuously absent from the whole of the Jātaka book. Pañcāla roughly corresponds to Bareilly, Budaon, Farrukhabad and the adjoining districts of the United Provinces: Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 47.

c3.s2.t2.6

⁸ Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., pp. 47, 94; Ved. Ind., I, p. 469. The solitary reference in a later Vedic text to the Prācya Pañcālas may perhaps only point to the Eastern inhabitants of the country and it cannot well be taken to refer to a division as such.

c3.s2.t2.7

⁹ Vedic Index, I, pp. 468-9.

c3.s2.t2.8

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 149.

c3.s2.t2.9

¹¹ MBH., I, 104: 168; Harivaṃśa, 20; Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 94.

c3.s2.t2.10

¹ Epigraphica Indica, II. p. 243 and note. See Majumdar, C. A. G. I. pp. 412 ff ; 704-5.

c3.s2.t2.11

How then are we to reconcile this with the Paurāṇic accounts which, actually, give long lists of the two dynasties separately? ² We must admit our inability to decide the precise facts in the present state of our knowledge, especially in view of the fact that we have the confused Paurāṇic accounts as our sole guide in this direction. We should leave this problem for further light that future research may throw.

c3.s2.t2.12

² Cf. Pargiter, op. cit., pp. 146-8 ; Pradhan, op. cit., pp. 83 ff ; 103 ff.

c3.s2.t2.13

There is a very remarkable evidence, as regards the family or dynastic connections of the Pañcāla kings named in the Jātakas, which has not gained the prominence it deserves. As will be seen, most of the Pañcāla kings are connected with, what seems to be their family title, Brahmadatta. And a Brahmadatta is a famous king of south Pañcāla in the Purāṇas.³ Now, to co-ordinate various other facts, two gāthās, at least, in our Jātaka book,⁴ preserve a dim recollection of the dynastic descent of the Pañcāla kings from the Bhāratas of old, as the epithets Bharatūsabha and Bhārata given to these kings clearly show. This latter fact lends valuable confirmation to the Vedic⁵ Epic⁶ and Paurāṇic⁷ evidence.⁸ Thus it seems legitimate to infer that the Brahmadatta Dynasty of Pañcāla was of Bhārata-descent. Then again, as pointed out by Dr. Raychaudhury,⁹ a king of Kāsī named Dhataraṭṭha is represented as a Bhārata prince in the Mahāgovinda Suttanta of the Dīgha Nikāya. "The Bhārata dynasty of Kāsī," adds the learned scholar, "seems to have been supplanted by a new line of Kings who had the family name Brahmadatta and were probably of Videha origin."¹⁰ We may or may no place any great reliance on the solitary reference about the Bhārata connectiot with Kāsī. But as regards Brahmadatta being a family name of the Kān monarchs, our Jātakas are quite explicit, as will appear¹¹. A questionsī naturally arises: had this Brahmadatta dynasty of Kāsī anything to do with the similarly named one of Pañcāla? This is a subtle and an interesting question. Some of the Jātaka passages, as will be shown later on, have led Dr. Raychaudhury,¹² to assign a Videhan origin for the Brahmadattas of Kāśī. Stray, and therefore insufficient, as these references are to warrant such a conclusion,¹ they are not altogether untenable. What is more, as it seems to us, Videha must have acted as a mediator between the two kingdoms of Pañcāla and Kāśī in supplying the title *Brahmadatta* to the latter from the former. By a mysterious process of alliances, unknown to us, the Brahmadatta kings of Pañcāla, very probably through the medium of Videha, transferred, and perpetuated, their dear title to the kings of Benares.²

c3.s2.t2.14

³ Pargiter, op. cit., pp. 42, 64-5, 69, 148, 164-6, 316-7 ; Pradhan, op cit., pp. 106 ff.

c3.s2.t2.15

⁴ J., IV, p. 435-G, 159 ; V, p. 99-G, 306.

c3.s2.t2.16

⁵ See Vedic Index, II, p. 96 ; Oldenberg, Buddha, p. 408.

c3.s2.t2.17

⁶ MBH, I, 94. Dhṛṣṭadyumna of the North Pañcāla line is called Bharatarṣabhah in the Epic. See Pargiter, . op. cit., p. 113 note.

c3.s2.t2.18

⁷ Matsya P., 50, for instance.

c3.s2.t2.19

⁸ Cf. Pargiter, J. R. A. S., 1910, pp. 26, 28 ; 1914, p. 284 ; 1918, pp. 238-9 ; A. I. H. T., p. 113 ; Raychaudhury P. H. A. I., pp, 48-9 ; Dutt Aryanisation of India, p. 108 ; A. Banerji Sastri, op. cit., pp. 65, 69. Keith, in C. H. I., I. pp. 118 ff.

c3.s2.t2.20

⁹ P. H. A. I., p.

c3.s2.t2.21

⁵¹ Cf. J., V, p. 317-G. 94 where a Kāsī king is addressed as Bhārata.

c3.s2.t2.22

¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 51-2.

c3.s2.t2.23

¹¹ See Bhandarkar, Carmichael Lectures, 1918, pp. 56-7.

c3.s2.t2.24

¹² P. H. A. I., pp. 51-2.

c3.s2.t2.25

¹ See Sen, op. cit., p. 51.

c3.s2.t2.26

² That there were wars between the Pañcālas and the Videhas is clear from the *Brāhmaṇas* as well as from the *Jātakas*: See *C. H. I.*, I, pp. 122-3; *J.*, V, pp. 98 *ff*. After the struggle, there must have been matrimonial alliances between the two as is natural and as is in fact proved by the *Jātaka* instance of Pañcālacandī's marriage with the Videha: *ibid*; close relations between Videha—and Kāśī are known from the *Brāhmaṇas*: *C. H. I.*, I, pp. 122-3. Thus there is nothing improbable in this process of transference, though we must take it as hypothetical only.

c3.s2.t2.27

To return to the Pañcālas. The *Jātakas*, as we just saw, know the Pañcāla-Bhārata connection, that old merging of the Vedic Bhāratas into the later Pañcālas. We also saw that most of the Pañcāla kings, mentioned in the *Jātakas*, bear the family title of *Brahmadatta*. As such, they may perhaps be convincingly regarded as kings of South Pañcāla of the *Purāṇas*. We shall now take up the individual kings.

c3.s2.t2.28

Dummukha seems to have been a famous personality. According to the *Kumbhakāra Jātaka*,³ his kingdom was styled Uttara-Pañcālaṭṭha. His capital was Kampillanagara. He is represented to have renounced the world in company with his contemporary kings, viz., Karaṇḍu of Kaliṅga, Naggaji of Gandhāra and Nimi of Videha.⁴ The contemporariety of these four Kings is also attested to by the Jaina *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*⁵ in a similar *gāthā*. The Vedic evidence, as pointed out by Raychaudhury,⁶ also goes in support of this. "Durmukha, the Pañcāla king, had a priest named Bṛhaduktha,⁷ who was the son of Vāmadeva.⁸ Vāmadeva was a contemporary of Somaka, the son of Sahadeva.⁹ Somaka had close spiritual relationship with Bhīma, king of Vidarbha, and Nagnajit, king of Gandhāra".¹⁰ Thus if the above synchronism be accepted as correct, we shall have to hold all these kings to be contemporaneous with one another, viz., Somaka Sāhadevya,¹¹ Durmukha Pañcāla, Bhīma Vaidarbha and Nagnajit Gāndhāra.¹ The Vedic texts do not mention Karaṇḍu or Nimi.²

c3.s2.t2.29

³ *J.*, III, p. 379.

c3.s2.t2.30

⁴ *Ibid*., p. 381-G. 94.

c3.s2.t2.31

⁵ *S. B. E.*, XLV, p. 87. *Cf*. also J. J. Meyer, *Hindu Tales*, p. 121. On the slightly variant forms of the names in different versions Meyer remarks: "So the names speak for the priority, or at least, a greater originality, of the Buddhistic versions." *op. cit.*, and *loc. cit.*, n.

c3.s2.t2.32

⁶ *P. H. A. I.*, pp. 57-8.

c3.s2.t2.33

⁷ *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, VIII, 23; *Ved. Ind.*, I, p. 370.

c3.s2.t2.34

⁸ *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, XIII, 2, 2, 14; *Ved. Ind.*, II, p. 71.

c3.s2.t2.35

⁹ *Rg Veda*, IV, 15, 7-10; Pradhan *op. cit.*, pp. 99-100; Somaka and Sahadeva in the passage of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, referred to above, are connected with the *ṛṣis*, Parvata and Nārada. See *Ved. Ind.*, II, p. 479.

c3.s2.t2.36

¹⁰ *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, VII, 34; the passage names another king-Babhru Daivāvṛdhah also.

c3.s2.t2.37

¹¹ Somaka Sāhadevya is represented in the *Purāṇas* as a king of the North Pañcāla line Pargiter, *A. I. H. T.*, p. 148; Pradhan, *op. cit.*, pp. 87 *ff*. So our Dummukha should naturally be regarded as a king of south Pañcāla.

c3.s2.t2.38

¹ This synchronism agrees, more or less, with the findings of Pargiter except that Durmukha and Nagnajit, are not mentioned in the genealogical list given by him. A. I. H. T., P. 148.

c3.s2.t2.39

² Nimi’s identification with Nami Sāpya of the Vedic texts is, as Raychaudhury points out, more or less, problematical: P. H. A. I., p. 57.

c3.s2.t2.40

Our Jātaka, as has been stated above, depicts Dummukha as renouncing the world on seeing the lustful nature of animals and their consequent ruin.³ The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, describes him as a great conqueror. “This great annointing of Indra,” so declares the Brāhmaṇa, “Bṛhaduktha, the seer, proclaimed to Durmukha, the Pāñcāla. Therefore Durmukha Pāñcāla, being a king, by this knowledge, went round the earth completely, conquering on every side.”⁴ It would seem probable that his renunciation, about which there can be no doubt,⁵ took place towards the end of his glorious career as world-conqueror.

c3.s2.t2.41

³ It is interesting to note that the cause of renunciation is different in the Jaina version. Both the Jātaka and the Jaina versions have the four Gāthās spoken by the four kings but while the Jātaka is reticent about the respective names of the kings, the Jaina story gives them and, as such, may be taken as more correctly informed. According to the latter, Domuha renounced the world when he beheld the banner of Indra fall down. See Hindu Tales, p. 144.

c3.s2.t2.42

⁴ Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, VIII, 23; translation by Keith, Rg-Veda Brāhmaṇas, p. 338.

c3.s2.t2.43

⁵ The Tibetan Tales (Schiefner and Ralston) p. 11 and the Divyāvadāna (Cowell and Neil), pp. 211, 217, remember him as a ṛṣi—a sage.

c3.s2.t2.44

It is difficult to assign to him any particular date or place among the Pañcāla kings known to us. Janaka’s Pañcāla contemporary, as we know,⁶ was the famous Pravāhaṇa Jaivali. If the Nimi mentioned in our Jātaka as a contemporary of Dummukha be the same as the penultimate king of Janaka’s family mentioned in the Nimi Jātaka,⁷ then Dummukha must be placed after Janaka, and hence later than Pravāhaṇa Jaivali.⁸ But this does not seem possible, for it would bring down Dummukha much lower in time, and would thus go against the unquestionable verdict of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa which refers to him as an ancient king. Dummukha, therefore, appears to our mind to have lived prior to Pravāhaṇa Jaivali.⁹

c3.s2.t2.45

⁶ Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., pp. 49 ff.

c3.s2.t2.46

⁷ J., VI, pp. 95 ff.

c3.s2.t2.47

⁸ Cf. Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 49.

c3.s2.t2.48

⁹ Cf. Keith, in C. H. I., p. 121.

c3.s2.t2.49

Another really great king is Culaṇi-Brahmadatta mentioned in the Mahā-Ummagga Jātaka.¹⁰ We may be quite sure that this Culaṇi-Brahmadatta is identical with that mentioned in the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra,¹¹ the Svapnavāsavadattā, a play by Bhāsa¹² and in the Rāmāyaṇa,¹³ though the stories told about him in these works differ from one another. The Uttarādhyayana Sūtra seems to be more correct in interpreting the name of the king as *Brah-madatta*, born of (queen) Cūlaṇī,¹ than the *Rāmāyaṇa* which invents a fanciful story of the sage named Cūli who, through his austerities, bestowed upon a lady a son named Brahmadatta. The fact that he is a popular figure in all the various versions only strengthens our belief that he is a real historical personage. We cannot however ascertain at present whether he can be identical with the Brahmadatta of south Pañcāla found in Pargiter's dynastic list.² The least we can say is that the two, if not identical, were most probably connected with the same dynastic or lineal relation. This may gain confirmation by the fact that some of the direct descendants of the *Paurāṇic* Brahmadatta are, as will be shown, known to the *Jātakas*, though in a different garb.

c3.s2.t2.50

¹⁰ J., VI, pp. 391 ff.

c3.s2.t2.51

¹¹ XLV, 57-61; See also Meyer op. cit., pp. 3. ff., where Bambhadatta is a wicked king “wooden statue of a sensualist.”
12. Svapnavāsavadattā (ed. Gaṇapati Śāstri), Act. V.

c3.s2.t2.52

¹³ I, 33, 18 ff.

c3.s2.t2.53

¹ XIII, 1, “Cūlaṇie Bambhadatto.”
2. A. I. H. T., p. 148.

c3.s2.t2.54

The story as related in the *Mahā-Ummagga Jātaka* embodies in itself a great conflict between this great Pañcāla king and a Videha king. Even if we solely confine ourselves to the *gāthās*, we do visualise the picture of the conflict, with its various aspects, so vividly as to render the account historically probable.

c3.s2.t2.55

On the advice of his Brāhmaṇa minister Kevaṭṭa, so runs the story,³ King Cūlaṇi Brahmadatta started a vigorous career of conquest and succeeded in establishing his sway over the whole of India excepting Videha. Twice, in his attempts to capture Mithilā, the capital of Videha,⁴ he failed, owing to the diplomatic opposition of the Videha minister-Mahosadha.⁵ Baffled in these attempts, Brahmadatta now, again through Kevaṭṭa's advice, offered to marry his daughter Pañcālacaṇḍī to the Videha king, and invited him to the city for the purpose, with the ulterior motive of putting him to death during his stay there⁶. The Videha king was ready. But the unfailing alertness of Mahosadha again saved him from the treacherous design of Kevaṭṭa. He caused an underground tunnel from Mithilā to the Pañcāla city, had 300 ships ready within a short time, and in a most ingenuous manner carried out the safe escape of the king from the enemy's country, with Pañcālacaṇḍī who was now his wife, Pañcālacaṇḍa, the Pañcāla prince, and Nandā, Brahmadatta's wife⁷. Final reconciliation was then arrived at between the two kings. After the demise of his master, Mahosadha, as promised, left the kingdom of Videha and passed the remainder of his life with Cūlaṇi-Brahmadatta, now a sincere appreciator of his.

c3.s2.t2.56

³ J., VI, pp. 396 ff.

c3.s2.t2.57

⁴ Ibid., GG. 1451-8—“Pañcālo sabbasenāya Brahmadatto samāgato;” and then follows the description of the army; “tāya senāya Mithilā tisandhiparivāritā rājadhānī Videhānam samantā parikhañati.”
5. Cf. the characteristic words of the minister—“Pāde deva pasārehi bhuñja Kāme ramassa ca, hitvā Pañcāliyam senam Brahmadatto pamāyati”—Ibid., p. 399-G. 1459.

c3.s2.t2.58

⁶ “Rājā santhavakāmo te ratanāni pavecchati—Pañcālā ca Videhā ca ubhe ekā bhavantu te” Ibid. p. 412-GG. 1460-1 and “ānayitvāna Vedeham Pañcālānaṃ rathesabho tato tam ghātayissati nāssa sakkhi bhavissati ” Ibid., p. 424-G. 1491.

c3.s2.t2.59

⁷ Thus commands the minsiter to the servants: “etha mānavā utthetha mukham sodhetha sandhino, Videho sahayamacchi ummaggena gamissati” Ibid., p. 444-G, 1555; also GG. 1558-61.

c3.s2.t2.60

The story may essentially be legendary. But the easy flowing and the ballad-like *gāthās*, intervening the narrative, could not but force us to reproduce the account in a nutshell, with a view only to have a tentative recognition of its main historical character.¹

c3.s2.t2.61

¹ There is nothing in our *Jātaka* to support the following remarks of Raychaudhury: ‘The Rāmāyaṇic legend regarding the king is only important as showing the connection of the early Pañcālas with the foundation of the famous city of Kānyakubja in Kanauj”. *P. H. A. I.* p. 96.

c3.s2.t2.62

Cūḷaṇi Brahmadatta must really have been a great conqueror as the title of ‘Universal Monarch’ given to him by the *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra* clearly suggests. It seems probable from this, that he lived during the period when the erstwhile powerful kingdom of Videha was on its wane and when Kāsī had not yet raised its head against the powers of the North and the East. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that two *gāthās* in our *Jātaka* seem to say that the kingdom of Kāsī was under the overlordship of Cūḷaṇi Brahmadatta, since the latter was prepared to give away eighty villages in Kāsī to Mahosadha by way of gifts.² This again is not impossible, in view of the fact that Kāsī, during this period, was an easy prey to the more powerful Kuru-Pañcāla kings.³

c3.s2.t2.63

² “*Dammi nikkhasahassam te gāmāsīti ca Kāsīsu*”—J. VI, pp. 462. 464; GG. 1630, 1638

c3.s2.t2.64

³ We know that Dhṛtarāṣṭra of Kāsī was defeated by Śatānīka Sātrājita, a Bhārata prince: *Vedic Index*, I, p. 403; II, p. 352.

c3.s2.t2.65

Finally, we should notice, a king named Saṅkhapāla, ruling over the kingdom of Ekabala, is mentioned in our *Jātakas*⁴ as being contemporaneous with Cūḷaṇi Brahmadatta and busy preparing for some war. The reference is made in a manner which would appear to locate this kingdom somewhere outside India. Neither the king nor his kingdom can however be identified.

c3.s2.t2.66

⁴ J., VI, p. 390.

c3.s2.t2.67

The *Jayaddisa Jātaka*⁵ mentions two kings of Pañcāla, viz., Jayaddisa and his son Aḷinasattu. The story relates an encounter of King Jayaddisa, while on a hunting with a man-eating ogre, Kammāsapāda, and the final taming of the latter by Prince Aḷinasattu.⁶ Little reliance can however be placed on the story, and we have nothing to offer to prove the historical existence of the two Kings named here.⁷

c3.s2.t2.68

⁵ J., V, pp. 21 *ff*.

c3.s2.t2.69

⁶ “*Pañcāla rājā migavaṃ pavuttho, Jayaddiso nāma yadissuto te, carāmi kacchāni vanaṃ cāhaṃ pasādamimam khāda mamajja muñca*” Ibid. p. 23-G. 65—.... “*Ahampi puttosmi Jayaddisassa mamajja khāda pituno pamokkha*” Ibid., p. 30-G. 84.

c3.s2.t2.70

⁷ Does the *Jātaka*, here, refer to the Paurāṇic king Jayadratha and his son Viśvajit of the South Pañcāla line, found in Pargiter’s dynastic list? *A. I. H. T.*, p. 146; does the name Aḷinasattu—the enemy of the Alina—contain something which may connect it with the famous tribe—the Alinas—of the *Ṛg Veda*? See *Vedic Index*, I, p. 39.

c3.s2.t2.71

Such an uncertainty also prevails, we think, as regards the few other unnamed kings of Pañcāla mentioned in the *Jātakas*. A Pañcāla king is mentioned in the *Brahmadatta Jātaka*,⁸ another in the *Sattigumbha Jātaka*⁹ and a third in the *Gaṇḍatiṇḍu Jātaka*.¹⁰ All these kings may be purely legendary, as the stories told about them are too much childish, except, perhaps, the one whose oppressive measures over his subjects and the devastated condition of his kingdom are so vividly and naturally described in the illuminating gāthās intervening the Jātaka as to give a historical tinge to the whole narrative.¹ But what is of more importance and value in this connection is the historical association of these unnamed Pañcāla Kings with Brahmadatta, their family title² and Bhārata their dynastic title.³

c3.s2.t2.72

⁸ J., III, pp. 79 *ff*.

c3.s2.t2.73

⁹ J., IV, pp. 430 *ff*.

c3.s2.t2.74

¹⁰ J., V, pp. 98 *ff*.

c3.s2.t2.75

¹ J., V, pp. 102-7-GG. 316-42.

c3.s2.t2.76

² In J. III, p. 80, G. 89 addresses the king as ‘Brahmadatta’, while the following 90 and 91—address him as ‘the lord of the Pañcālas’; in J., V, pp. 102 ff, from G. 316 onwards the two forms—Pañcāla and Brahmadatta—recur alternatively, and one gāthā—322—has the two forms together—“garayho brahme Pañcālo Brahmadattasya rājino.” The mention of the ‘hundred Brahmadattas’ in the Epic and the Purāṇas, to be intelligible, must include these Pañcāla Brahmadattas: Se MBH., II, 8, 23; Matsya P., 273, 71; Raychudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 51.

c3.s2.t2.77

³ J., V, p. 99, G. 306 addresses the Pañcāla king as ‘Bharatūsabha’, the best of the Bhāratas, while J., IV, p. 435-G. 159 has the appellation ‘Bhārata’.

c3.s2.t2.78

Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar⁴ has identified Vissasena, Udayabhadda⁵ and Bhallāṭiya of the Jātakas⁶ with the Paurāṇic kings Viśvaksena, Udakasena and Bhallāṭa respectively. The identification was based merely on the striking agreement in names, which is after all not a very convincing argument, and doubts as regards these have rightly been entertained.⁷ But several circumstances now tend to go in support of Prof. Bhandarkar's theory. First, the immediate predecessor of the Paurāṇic kings is Brahmadatta of South Pañcāla;⁸ secondly, Udaya of the Gaṅgamāla Jātaka,⁹ but not Udayabhadda of the Udaya Jātaka,¹⁰ as Prof. Bhandarkar has taken him to be, is called by the family name ‘Brahmadatta’¹¹; and thirdly, our above discussion on the relation between Brahamdatta and the Pañcālas results in favour of this identification. In view of this we may be inclined to hold that these three kings, whom the Jātakas regard, possibly through their usual obstinacy, as the kings of Kāsī, should be taken more correctly as kings of South Pañcāla in agreement with the Paurāṇic lists. But here a fresh difficulty faces us as regards Bhallāṭa. A single verse from the Mahābhārata,¹² which mentions the country of Bhallāṭa with the mountain Sūktimat, has been the basis of different theories with regard to the identification of this Sūktimt mountain. Dr. R. C. Majumdar¹³ identifies the mountain with the Sulaiman range and Bhallāṭa with the Ṛgvedic Bhalānas who lived, according to Zimmer, in east Kabulistan and after whom the Bolan pass was named. He is supported by Harit Krisna Deb and Jayaswal.¹⁴ But Dr. Raychaudhury,¹⁵ with good reasons, comes to a different conclusion. According to him the Bhallāṭa country and consequently Sūktimat were situated in Central India. "The evidence of the *Mahābhārata* points to some range between Indraprastha (Delhi) and Lauhitya (Brahmaputra) as the real Sūktimat"¹; and it also seems to locate Bhallāṭa before Kāsī and after Kuru, that is to say, in the region inhabited by the Pañcālas.²

c3.s2.t2.79

⁴ Carmichael Lectures, 1918, p. 57.

c3.s2.t2.80

⁵ See note below.

c3.s2.t2.81

⁶ J., II, pp. 345 ff; IV, pp. 104 ff; IV, pp. 437 ff.

c3.s2.t2.82

⁷ Sen, op. cit., p. 11. Raychaudhury, op. cit., pp. 69-70, keeps the identification as it is

c3.s2.t2.83

⁸ A. I. H. T., p. 148.

c3.s2.t2.84

⁹ J., III, pp. 452 ff.

c3.s2.t2.85

¹⁰ J., IV pp. 104 ff.

c3.s2.t2.86

¹¹ J., III, p. 452 “kiṃ Brahmadatta iti rājānaṃ kulanāmena ālapitvāti” and G. 42. It is this Udaya, and not Udayabhadda of Bhandarkar, who is distinctly associated with Kāsī in J., IV, p. 113-G. 58, and who is to be identified with the Paurāṇic Udakasena.

c3.s2.t2.87

¹² II, 30, 5—“Bhallāṭamabhito Jigye Sūktimantaṃ ca parvatam.”

c3.s2.t2.88

¹³ Proceedings, Second Oriental Conference, 1923, pp. 609 ff.

c3.s2.t2.89

¹⁴ Ibid., preface p. xliii.

c3.s2.t2.90

¹⁵ Studies in Indian Antiquities, p. 120.

c3.s2.t2.91

¹ Ibid., p. 166.

c3.s2.t2.92

² This at least seems to us to be the real solution. Raychaudhury's suggestion that the *Mahābhārata* and the *Jātakas* connect Bhallāṭa with Kāsī is not valid. The epic verse clearly distinguishes Bhallāṭa—Sūktimat from Kāsī whose king it names as Subāhu. As to the *Jātaka*, we have already referred to its usual obstinacy to bring in Kāsī anywhere and everywhere it likes.

c3.s2.t2.93

Thus Prof. Bhandarkar's identification holds good and our inclusion of the three kings among the Pañcālas seems to be justified.

c3.s2.t2.94

The foregoing discussion would appear to show, that some of the Pañcālas referred to above were real historical personages, and must have lived during the period that may be said to range between the 12th and the 10th centuries B. C.³

c3.s2.t2.95

³ Before the time of Kauṭilya *i.e.*, before the 4th century B.C., the Pañcālas seem to have established a *saṅgha* form of government of the *Rājaśabdopajīvin* type: See *Arthaśāstra*, II, I, ; *P. H. A. I.*, p. 96 ; Bhandarkar, *C. L.*, pp. 164-5 ; Majumdar, *Corporate Life in Ancient India*, pp. 205 ff.

Linked texts (15)