(Harya entière et lui permet de s'y établir en conquèrant now waged an incessant warfare against his neighbours which, after a few years of hard warfare and constant efforts, assured him the sovereignty of the whole of Northern India and he governed it as a conqueror.) The same scholar further remarks: "Le lourd fardeau de l'empire que Harṣa avait su s'imposer et qu'il avait supporté pendant plus de quarante ans, ne devait plus revenir sur les epaules d'un seul homme........ ............La mort de Harşa laisse leur libre essor a une foule de petites dynasties locales et l'histoire de l'Inde n' offre plus d'intérêt jusqu' a l'apparition des Musulmans. " (The heavy burden of empire which Harṣa took upon himself and maintained for more than forty years was not to be borne in future by a single man........ ....................The death of Harṣa gave free scope to a host of petty local dynasties and we cease to feel interest in the history of India till the appearance of the Musalmans.) Mr. Panikkar observes in a similar strain" Harsha seems to have brought the whole of Northern India under his control." "His empire extended at his death from Kamarupa on the east to Kashmir on the west, with the Himalayas as the northern and Vindhyas as the southern boundary," "After his death the country was destined never entirely to recover till the invasion and conquest of India by the followers of the Arabian prophet. "" Let us first of all examine the extravagant claims put forward by the above writers on behalf of Harşavardhana that he was the master of the whole or very nearly the whole of Northern India. We may start with V. Smith's theory as it is the most moderate, for he excludes Kasmir, Punjab, Sind, Rājputānā and Kamarupa from the territories of Harsa. 10 $ Op. Cit., Op. Cit., p. 52. Op. Cit., p. 22. Op. Cit., p. 27. Op. Cit, p. 28. 10 Op. Cit., map facing p. 310. Larg les et The Now of the remaining territories that V. Smith looked upon as belonging to Harsa there is certainly an element of doubt about Nepal. M. Ettinghausen admits it 11 but Mr. Panikkar observes" that the kingdom of Nepal had accepted him (Harsa) as suzerain." 12 Mr. Panikkar admits that "there is still considerable difference of opinion among scholars" 13 on this point, but after carefully considering the different points of view he concludes that " Harsha era was used in Nepal and that Harsha's supremacy was recognized even in that distant and inaccessible kingdom. "14 Mr. Panikkar's view that "there is no other era but Harsha's possibly in the beginning of the seventh century " 15 is sufficiently refuted by the elaborate discussions of Sylvain Lévi which have established at least the possibility of the era being of local or Tibetan origin. 18 As to the "statement in Harsha Charita which implies that Harsha conquered an Himalayan territory difficult of access "17 M. Ettinghausen has shown that this country need not be looked upon as Nepal as most scholars have done on the authority of Bühler, but that it most probably refers to a Tukhāra country. Thus the "mass of evidence" in favour of the hypothesis. that Harṣavardhana conquered Nepal is by no means "almost conclusive" as Mr. Panikkar thinks 19 and it is hardly fair at the present state of our knowledge to include Nepal within the empire of Harṇa. 18 As in the case of Nepal, there is no reason to credit Harşavardhana with the conquest of territories east of Magadha. The first kingdom in this direction was I-lan-na-po-fa-to, identified 10 Journal Asiatique, 1894; Juillet Aout, pp. 55 ff, Le Nepal, Vol. II, pp. 145, 152. 17 Panikkar, Op. Cit., p. 18. 18 Op. Cit., p. 47. with Monghyr district. Hiuen Tsang tells us that "lately the king of a border country deposed the ruler of this country and holds in his power the capital. "20 About Kie-chu-hobkhi-lo or Ka-chu-wen (?)-kil (Kajangala) which is identified with Rajmahal district Hiuen Tsang remarks that the country had come under a neighbouring state. This neighbouring state cannot of course refer to Harṣavardhana's empire for he is mentioned immediately after "as having built a temporary palace in this place which was burnt on his departure." Thus according to Hiuen Tsang's express statement these states were outside the limits of Harṣa's empire. It is true that he passed through the last named place, and, as we know from the life of Hiuen Tsang, he proceeded as far as Kangoda or Ganjam district in course of a military campaign. 22 But these do not mean permanent conquests and Hiuen Tsang's express statements that I-lan-na-po-fa-to and Kie-chu-hoh-khi-lo were ruled by a different state and that Harṣavardhana's temporary residence at the lastnamed place, built of branches and boughs, was burnt on his departure, leave no doubt that the emperor only carried on a military raid in this direction. Vincent Smith did not include Kongoda in the empire of Harșa and there is no more reason why the other kingdoms should be looked upon as forming part of it. Then there are other states within the limits assigned by V. Smith which were independent at the time when Hiuen Tsang visited them. Thus according to Hiuen Tsang Mo-hi-ssu-fa-lopu-lo, Ujjayini and Chi-ki-to or Chih-chito (Bundelkhand) were ruled over by Brahman kings 23 Ma-ti-pu-lo or Mo-ti-pu-lo east of haneswar was ruled over by a Sudra king, 24 while Su-fa--na-kiu-ta-lo was ruled over by a woman. 25 Evidently 20 Feal's Translation, Vol. II., p. 187. 21 Ibid, p. 193. 22 Beal's Life of Hiuen Tsang, p. 172. 28 Beal's Translation, Vol. II., pp. 270, 271; Watters' Translation, Vol. II, pp. 250, 251. 24 Beal's Translation, Vol. I., p. 190; Watters, Vol. I., p. 322. 25 Beal, Vol. I., p. 199. Harṣavardhana cannot be meant as the ruling king in any of these places. As regards Kapilavastu Hiuen Tsang observes: "There is no supreme ruler; each of the towns appoints its own ruler" 26 This shows that Kapilavastu was independent of the Kanauj empire. Again, two states K'ie-ch'a or K'i-T’a (Cutch ?) and 'O-nan-to-pu-lo or A-nan-t-o-pu-lo (Vadnagar) are said to be dependencies of Mālava " which shows that Mālava and these two states formed an independent group. Similarly Valabhi and Surashtra formed another independent group. 28 It has indeed been taken for granted that Valabhi was a feudatory state under Harṣa. But there does not seem to be adequate reason for this assumption. In a copperplate grant found at Broach we meet with the following passage: "Parameş varaŚrī-Harṣa-devābhibhūta-Valabhīpati-pati (ri)—trāṇopajāta... .....Yaso-vitānaḥ-Śrī-Daddas," i. e. Dadda who had acquired renown by rescuing the king of Valabhi who had been overpowered by Harṣadeva.” Now this passage simply shows that Valabhi king was defeated by Harṣa but regained his power with the help of Dadda. The fact that he was son-in-law of Harṣa or that he attended the religious assembly of Harṣa at Prayaga proves nothing about his status. For an independent chieftain could well have married the daughter of Harșa and a son-in-law might attend a religious assembly of his father-in-law without being his vassal, as even the king of Kamarupa, who was an independent potentate, did the same. Besides, the Valabhi king is described in connection with that very religious assembly as the "king of south India. " 30 On the whole the available facts can hardly justify the conclusion of V. Smith that "Harsha's war with Vala bhi resulted in the complete defeat of Dhruvasena (Dhruvabhata) II and the flight of that prince into the dominions of the Raja of 26 Beal, Vol. II., p. 14. 27 Ibid, pp. 266, 268; Watters, Vol. II., pp. 245, 247. 28 Beal, Vol. II., pp. 226.7, 269; Watters, Vol. II., pp. 246, 248. 29 Ind. Ant., Vol. XIII., p. 70ff. 30 Beal's life of Hiuen Tsang, p. 185. Bharoch" and further that the Valabhi king was compelled to sue for peace, to accept the hand of the victor's daughter, and to be content with the position of a feudatory vassal."31 But when V. Smith goes still further and remarks that the campaign against Valabhi which took place between 683 and 641 or 642 A. D." may be presumed to have involved the submission of the kingdoms or countries of Anandapura, ki-c'ha or (?) Cutch, and Soratha, or Southern Kathiawar, all of which in 641 a. D. were still reckoned to be dependencies of Mo-la-p'o, or Western Malava, formerly subject to Valabhi " 32, one can only put this down to a vague general notion which the late lamented scholar shared with others about the vast North Indian empire of Harsa. This general notion is apparently based upon the statements of Hiuen Tsang and Baņa, and it is therefore necessary to subject them to a critical examination. Banabhaṭṭa nowhere describes the extent of Harsa's empire but merely gives him general highsounding epithets like the following:-Devasya catuḥ-samudr adhipateḥ Sakala-raja-cakra-cŭḍāmani-śreņi--sāṇa-koṇa-kaṣaṇa nirmali-kṛta-caraṇa-nakha-maṇeḥ sarva-cakravartināṁ dhaureyasya "" of the king of kings, the lord of the four oceans, whose toenails are burnished by the crest gems of all other monarchs, the leader of all emperors. 9933 Scholars acquainted with the convention of Sanskrit literature and particularly of the Sanskrit inscriptions know the real value of such statements. Hiuen 31 Op. Cit., p. 340. Dharasena IV of Valabhi issued charters from the victorious camp at Broach in 648 or 649 A.D. Fleet thinks that these grants were made while Dharasena was simply residing at Broach enjoying the hospita lity of Dadda II, after his defeat by Harṣavardhana. This is probably the origin of the theory that the Valabhi king fled to Broach. But the fact may also lead to another conclusion which is generally held, viz., that Broach belonged for a time at least to the Kingdom of Valabhi (Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I., part II, p. 316). But even if we hold Fleet's interpretation V. Smith's conclusion is hardly right. For according to the grant in question the Valabhi king was in Broach as late as 648 or 649 A.D. and could hardly have sued for peace and accepted the position of a vassal king when Hiuen Tsang visited him. 32 Op. Cit., p. 340. 38 Cowell-Harṣa-Carita, p. 40. |