The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c17.12

Language: English

c17.12.1

Yuan Chwang, whose knowledge of the country was close and thorough, says that Yin-tu, as the Chinese called India, was divided into more than seventy kingdoms.¹ Such is likely to have been the number of states which were worth counting. But not all of them were perfectly independent. And besides them there seems to have been a yet larger number of feudatory domains. Putting the evidence of Yuan Chwang, Bāṇa-bhaṭṭa and the Inscriptions together, it appears that there were several circles of suzerainty, each comprising a suzerain and some feudatories, that within each circle there may be smaller circles of sub-infeudation, that Harṣa and Pulakeśin, who represented the two biggest and most important circles, claimed some sort of hegemony over less powerful suzerains and sometimes imposed their will on them. Thus, Kapis, probably modern Kāfiristān, was an independent state with ten dependencies. Its king celebrated the Mokṣapariṣad, the quinquennial Buddhist assembly, in the style of Harṣa.² Kashmir was also independent and had a number of dependencies such as Rājapur, Taxila and Siṃhapur. Yet Harṣa once compelled the king of Kashmir to part with a Buddha relic.³ Another independent state was Cheka with its capital at Sākala and with its circle of dependencies which included Multān. The praśasti of the temple of Lakkhā Maṇḍal at Maḍhā in Jaunsār (Bāwar) shows the royal race of Siṃhapur reigning in the modern district of Jalandhar.

c17.12.2

It is probably identical with the Sang-ho-pu-lo of the Chinese.⁴ The dynasty is said to have conquered many rulers (Kṣitipaḥ dāpitaḥ) and appears to have been practically independent. Yet in some measure it recognised the suzerainty of Harṣa. Here the line between autonomy and complete independence was faintly drawn.¹ Matipura near Harwâr was ruled by a Śûdra king and does not seem to have formed part of Harṣa’s empire. Thus, practically the whole of the north-west lay outside the limits of the Vardhana regime. Yet Harṣa could arrange that Yuan Chwang should be escorted by a military guard to the frontier, and that the north-western princes should see him safe to the borders of China.² Sindh was ruled by a Śûdra king. We know little about its political conditions in the age of Harṣavardhana but the Arab accounts prove that at the dawn of the eighth century A.D., it was dominated by federal-feudalism which is likely to have existed in the seventh century as well. It is remarkable that the tribal oligarchies which the Allâhâbâd Inscription of Samudragupta notices are no longer met with in the seventh century. It seems they had been swept off in the turmoils which followed the decline of the Gupta empire. It may be mentioned that Pâryâtra (Bairât) had a Vaiśya king.³ Towards the east, epigraphic evidence shows Śaśâṅka as a Mahârâjâdhirâja in Bengal in 619-20 A.D.

c17.12.3

He had under him some feudatories, one of whom an hereditary Mahârâja Mahâsâmanta issues a grant and acknowledges Śaśâṅka’s suzerainty.⁴ Yet this Mahârâjâdhirâja had been defeated by Harṣavardhana twelve years before. In Yuan Chwang’s account of Bengal he appears no longer on the throne. It is probable that Harṣa, though victorious, failed at first to impose his suzerainty definitely on Śaśâṅka but that, later, he reduced him or his descendants completely to vassalage or exterminated the dynasty. Perhaps it had been assailed both from the west and the east. Bâṇa has it that the king of Kâmarûpa in Âssâm voluntarily offered his allegiance to Harṣa and sent a priceless white umbrella to him. Probably, he wanted to safeguard his position against the common enemy, Śaśâṅka of Bengal. Kumâra retained his practical independence, but he suffered himself to be anointed by his new liege-lord. He attended Harṣa’s court and Mokṣapariṣad and took precedence of all feudatories. He was expected to obey Harṣa. When the latter asked him to send the Chinese master, Yuan Chwang, to him, he had the hardihood to reply, “I would rather send my head than let your majesty have the master of the law.” But when Harṣa proposed to take him at his word, Kumâra volunteered to bring Yuan himself to Harṣa.¹ Such was one of the forms of the tenure of vassalage which is removed only a step from independence.

c17.12.4

From the fact that Kumâra’s position is definitely regarded as higher than that of other feudatories, it appears that the powers of the latter were more circumscribed. Towards Central India, Mâlwâ appears from Harṣacarita to have acknowledged the overlordship of the Vardhanas. But in the account of Yuan Chwang it is not only independent but counts the rulers of Vadnagar and K’ie-ch’a or K’i-T’a probably Cutch, as its vassals.² It is probable that Mâlwâ was really the centre of a political circle and was practically independent but it acknowledged Vardhana hegemony in a rough and ready manner. The position of Valabhī is difficult to unravel. Its ruler is said to have been the son-in-law of Harṣa though there is nowhere any mention of Harṣa having married. He was certainly defeated by Harṣa; he attends the latter's Mokṣapariṣad. But in the account of Yuan Chwang he is practically independent. His position seems to resemble that of the rulers of Kāmarūpa and Mālwa.¹ The grant of Dhruvasena III from Valabhī of the year 633-34 A.D. speaks of him as having wooed the assembly of kings (Kṣitipasaṃhati), that is, having established his suzerainty over a number of rulers.² A proclamation which, as Bāṇa says, Harṣa caused to be engraved soon after his accession, is interesting for the whole subject. It seems to refer both to feudatories and independent princes. "Let all 'kings' prepare their hands to give tribute, or grasp swords; to sieze the realms of pace or chowries;

c17.12.5

let them bend their heads or their bows, grace their ears with my commands or their bowstrings; crown their heads with the dust of my feet or with helmets."³ Such was the formula of the Digvijaya or conquest of all the quarters, which was a time-honoured institution. Harṣa performed his Digvijaya with 5,000 elephants, 20,000 cavalry and 50,000 infantry. There is no mention of any Aśvamedha sacrifice anywhere. The Digvijaya might well have resulted in some annexations but it left numerous rulers semi-independent within the region which generally acknowledged the suzerainty of Harṣa. Their existence, indeed, is regarded as part of the order of the day. The size of their domains and their prestige varied enormously. Numbers of them appear on many occasions in Harṣacarita.

c17.12.6

In their very childhood the Princes Rājyavardhana and Harṣavardhana are given the sonsof the ‘king’ of Mâlwâ as their companions.¹ A little later, we are told that the eyes of “all kings” fell on the Imperial princess Râjyaśrî and that they sent envoys to request her hand.² Here independent sovereigns are certainly meant but by implication the great feudatories are also included in the expression ‘all kings.’ The marriage of the princess was attended by many “kings” and “queens.”³ There is a clearer reference to feudatories when we are told that ‘kings’ decorated the palace, polished mosaic flowers, erected posts, etc., and that their “queens” enlivened the occasion by their songs.⁴ On his death-bed Prabhâkaravardhana charged Harṣa, *inter alia*, to “make prize of feudatory kings.”⁵ When preparing for his campaigns, Harṣa receives exhortations from princes who already acknowledged the suzerainty of his dynasty and were faithful to it. When actually starting on his campaigns, he was accompanied by a number of Sâmantas.⁶ In the encounter between Harṣa and Pulakeśin, in which the former probably suffered a defeat, both the sovereigns were accompanied by a number of feudatories.⁷ In Harṣacarita a number of feudatories are seen waiting for an audience of the suzerain.⁸ Among others there was a forest chief who had earlier assisted Harṣa in the search for his sister.

c17.12.7

Bâṇa brings numerous tributary hill-chiefs on the scene.⁹ Relating his own experiences, he describes the camps of ‘subject kings.’ When called for an interview, he has to pass through three courts, crowded with “ subject kings,” before he meets Harṣa in the fourth.¹ The ranks of feudatories seem to have merged insensibly into those of aristocrats who were only large landowners. Thus, in his bereavement Harṣa is attended closely by many young nobles whose families had long enjoyed the favour of the Vardhana court.² The body of the dead king Prabhâkaravardhana was taken by nobles and townsmen headed by the family priest to the Saraswatt.³