|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
the Gupta kings styled Vikramāditya led to the growth of the Śakāri Vikramāditya saga and to the
tradition ascribing the foundation of the Mālava era to the Vikramāditya of Indian folklore.[1] The
inscriptions[2] of the Aulikara king Naravarman (described as a follower or subordinate of Siṁhavikrānta identified with Chandragupta II, styled Siṁhavikrama), son of Jayavarman and grandson
of Siṁhavarman, are dated in the Mālava years 461 (404 A. D.) and 474 (417 A. D.). His son Viśvavarman is known from an inscription[3] of the Mālava year 480 (423 A. D.), while both Viśvavarman
and his son and successor Bandhuvarman are mentioned as feudatories of the Gupta emperor
Kumāragupta I (414-55 A. D.) in an inscription[4] recording the construction of and repairs to a
temple at Daśapura respectively in the Mālava years 493 (436 A. D.) and 529 (473 A. D.). King
Prabhākara, mentioned in another record[5] of the Mālava year 524 (467 A. D.), seems to have
belonged to the same family and to have been a successor of Bandhuvarman. While all these
rulers appear to have owed allegiance to the Imperial Guptas, the only known Aulikara king of
a later date, viz. Yaśōdharman Vishṇuvardhana, one of whose records is dated in the Mālava
year 589 (532 A. D.)[6] was an independent ruler. This monarch claims to have ruled over
territories that even the Hūṇas and the Guptas failed to conquer. This shows that Western
Mālwa passed from the Guptas to the Hūṇas and from the Hūṇas to Yaśōdharman. King
Yaśōdharman also claims to have subdued the famous Hūṇa king Mihirakula. That the whole
of Mālwa passed from the Guptas to the Hūṇas about the close of the fifth century seems to be
suggested also by the fact that a ruler of Airikiṇa (Eran in the Saugor District, Madhya
Pradesh) acknowledged the supremacy of Budhagupta (477-95 A. D.) in the Gupta year 165
(484 A. D.) while his younger brother and successor acknowledged the suzerainty of the Hūṇa
king Tōramāṇa, an inscription of whose son Mihirakula was found at Gwalior.[7]
The question is : what happened to the Aulikaras ofDaśapura, who were the feudatories of the
Guptas, when Gupta suzerainty was extirpated from Mālwa by the Hūṇas ? As the Eran inscription of the time of Tōramāṇa is dated in his first regnal year and Mihirakula’s Gwalior inscription
is dated in his fifteenth regnal year, Hūṇa occupation of Mālwa must have lasted at least for more
than a decade and a half. This period has to be placed between 484 and 532 A. D. It is interesting
to note that the Mānavāyani king Gauri was ruling over the district around Chhōṭi Sādrī in 491
A. D. falling exactly in this period of the Hūṇa occupation of Mālwa. He therefore may have been
a feudatory of the Hūṇas and not of a king of Daśapura, although the use of the Mālkava era in the
Chhōtī Sādrī inscription may point to his Mālava origin or association. As Ādityavardhana does
not appear to be a secondary name of the Hūṇa monarchs Tōramāṇa and Mihirakula who moreover
may not have their residence at Daśapura, it is possible to think that it was a second name of
Gauri himself and that the Aulikaras were ousted from Daśapura and the Mānavāyanis established
there as a result of the extirpation of Gupta suzerainty and the establishment of Hūṇa supremacy
in West Mālwa. Another possibility is that Ādityavardhana was a hitherto unknown Aulikara
king of Daśapura, of whom Gauri was a relation or feudatory. In this connection, the secondary
name of Yaśōdharman, viz. Vishṇuvardhana, which is rather peculiar for the Aulikara family,
is interesting to note. Did he get it from his association with the Mānavāyanis ? Since, however,
his principal name, viz. Yaśodharman, is also equally peculiar for the earlier Aulikaras with names
ending in varman, it is not possible to be definite on this point.
________________________________________________
[1] Cf. The Age of Imperial Unity, p. 165.
[2] Select Inscriptions, p. 377 ; above, Vol. XXVI, p. 131.
[3] Sel. Ins., p. 379.
[4] Ibid., pp. 288 ff.
[5] Bhandarkar’s List, No. 7 ; above, Vol. XXVII, pp. 12 ff.
[6] Select Inscriptions, pp. 386 ff. Some scholars suggest that Yaśōdharman and Vishṇuvardhana were different
persons and that the latter was a feudatory of the former. But of op. cit., p. 386, note.
[7] See ibid., pp. 326 f., 296 f., 400 f.
|
