The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c17.12.4

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;