The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c17.12.2

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.