The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c17.12.3

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.