North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

touching his feet with the forehead—Mihirakula who had bowed his head to none but the God Sthāṇu (Śiva) and, on account of whom, even the Himālaya bore the pride of the appellation: Durga ‘Inaccessible’. It is worthy of note that it was Mihirakula who had made the Himālaya proud of the appellation of Durga, ‘Inaccessible’. This shows that the Hūṇa monarch had then established himself as the ruler of Kashmir. The defeat of Mihirakula by Yaśōdharman must have happened fairly long after his defeat by (Narasiṁha-) Bālāditya of Magadha. But what was the date of Yaśōdharman? We have already referred to his inscriptions on the victory pillars found at Mandasōr. There is another inscription¹ of his from the same place which commemorates the construction of a well by a Naigama named Daksha, brother of a provincial governor Vishṇuvardhana in Vikrama 589=532-33 A.D. Its interest for us there is centered on the fact that it mentions two names, one Yaśōdharman, and the other Vishṇu-vardhana, who is spoken of as pertaining to the Aulikara family. The latter is also described as having acquired the titles rājādhirāja and paramēśvara by subjugating kings of the east and the north. Hoernle² takes Yaśōdharman and Vishṇuvardhana as denoting one and the same person.

>

Fleet,³ however, takes them as two separate names, and R. G. Bhandarkar agrees with him.⁴ The former seems to be the more natural view to take, because we are not informed how Vishṇuvardhana was related to Yaśōdharman. This is rather unusual. In ordinary circumstances the former should have been mentioned either as a brother or a son of the latter. And further, immediately after the mention of Yaśōdharman, Vishṇuvardhana is described as narādhipatiḥ sa ēva. This makes it all but certain, nay, certain, that they are one and the same person. It seems that Yaśōdharman-Vishṇuvardhana was a king of the Aulikara family of Daśapura and that the date 589=532-33 A.D. refers to one single individual ruler. This date therefore is equivalent to Gupta year 214 and is just three years later than 211, the date of (Vishṇu)gupta who is supposed to be the Gupta king that issued the fifth Dāmōdarpur plate and was, in all likelihood, the last of the Early Gupta dynasty. Tōramāṇa was probably in possession of North India as far as Ēraṇ from circa 495 to circa 503 A.D. The first of these dates, namely 495 A.D., falls after Gupta year 175=493-94 A.D., the last known date for Budhagupta. And the second date, namely 503 A.D., is prior to Gupta year 191=509-10 A.D., the date of Bhānugupta (=Narasiṁha-Bālāditya) when there was an attempt on the part of the chieftains of the Gupta house to re-establish its power. The period from 503 to 510 certainly fell in the reign of Mihirakula, and it is not unreasonable that about 510 A.D. the Gupta sovereign (Narasiṁha-) Bālāditya, who was in hiding for some time, made his appearance and asserted himself with the help of his vassals and expelled Mihirakula from the Magadha kingdom, as appears from the account of Yuan Chwang summarized above. But though about 510 A.D. Mihirakula was ousted from the Magadha dominions, his power remained unshaken in Central India till about 518 A.D., the fifteenth year of his reign, when Yaśōdharman dealt a death blow to the Hūṇa supremacy in India.

        The above conclusions receive support from the records of the Parivrājaka family. With the years ranging between 163 and 209 and specified in their documents is coupled the significant expression Gupta-nṛipa-rājya-bhuktau, ‘during the enjoyment of the sovereignty of the Gupta kings.’ “This expression is of importance,” says Fleet, “in showing clearly that the Gupta dynasty and sway were still continuing.”⁵ Now we have to note that for Mahārāja Hastin we have two dates, 163 and 191 and for his son Saṁkshōbha 199 and 209. It is thus
____________________

¹ CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 35, pp. 150 ff.
² JASB., Vol. LVIII, pt. i, p. 96; and JRAS., 1903, p. 550.
³ CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 35, pp. 150 ff ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 227.
⁴ JBBRAS., Vol. XX, p. 392.
⁵ CII., Vol. III, 1888, Intro., pp. 20-21.