South Indian Inscriptions

EARLY KALACHURIS OF MAHISHMATI

Malava king who killed Grahavarman was Devagupta, and Hoernle thought that the latter was a brother of Kumaragupta and Madhavagupta, and had usurped the throne of Malwa.1 It is unlikely that Devagupta was responsible for the destruction of Grahavrman. He was probably ruling over Eastern Malwa with Vidisa as his capital; for, according to Yuan Chwang’s testimony, Western Malwa was then under the rule of Siladitya I-Dharma ditya. Buddharaja cannot, therefore, be identified with the Malva king mentioned by Bana, Besides, in 605 A. C. when the aforementioned events took place, Mangalesa was still supreme in the south. Only four years before, Buddharaja had sustained a crushing defeat at his hands and though for some reason Mangalesa did not follow up the victory, the danger of his invasion could not have passed altogether. It is, therefore, doubtful if Buddharaja would have dared to carry his arms as far north as Kanauj, leaving the southern frontier of his own kingdom exposed to the attack of his powerful neighbor.

When Harsha swore to avenge the treacherous murder of his brother Rajyavardhana by Sasanka. the king of Gauda, he must have proceeded to make political alliances to achieve his object. His two powerful foes were Sasanka, the king of Gauda, and the king Malava. His alliance with Bhaskaravarman, the prince of Kamarupa (Assam), was obviously intended to hold the Gauda king in check on his eastern frontier.Unfortunately, Bana’s narrative comes to an abrupt close. It does not, therefore, tell us what measures Harsha adopted against the Malava king, who, though defeated by Rajyavardhana, was not completely crush- ed. It is possible to conjecture that he sought the help of Buddharaja, who was the southern neighbor of the king of Malwa. Buddharaja’s victorious campaigns in Eastern Malwa and northern Gujarat were evidently directed against Devagupta and Sitiditya I. The latter may have been one of Devagupta’s allies who are referred to in a general way in the inscriptions of Harsha. These expeditions were undertaken in 610 A. C. when, owing to the civil war in the Chalukyan kingdom, there was no danger of Buddharaja’s territory being invaded by the Chalukya. As we shall see later on, harsha himself made war on the king of Valabhi probably after he and subdued the kings of the North.

The Vadner and Sarsvni grants of Buddharaja indicate that notwithstanding the crushing defeat he sustained at the beginning of his career, Buddharaja tetained his hold over the whole country from Gujarat to Maharashtra. with the accesstion of Pulakesin II, however, matters took a different turn. After consolidating his position in the Kanarese country and subjugating his immediate southern neigbours, the Gangas and the Alupas, Pilakesin seems to have turned his attention to the north. He stormed Puri, the capital of the Mauryas, which he captured after a hard-fought battle. He also became the lord of the three Maharashtra2, comprising the Marathi-speaking districts in the States of Bombay Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad. The Aihole inscription does not name his adversary but there can be little doubt that he was Buddharaja. The record says that Pulakesin used all the three royal powers (viz., energy , counsel and royal position) to gain his object Diplomacy seems, therefore, to have played as great a part as actual fight in the defeat of Buddharaja, which may have taken place about 620 A. C.

History does not know the names of Buddharaja’s successors. They probably continued to rule at Mahishmati with more or less independence. It seems that one of them made a last effort to regain the kingdom of his ancestors, but the attempt was not crowned with success, and the Haihayas were reduced to a state of servitude similar to that of the Aluvas (i. e., Alupas), Gangas and others who had already become the Hereditary servants of the Chalukyas. As this event is referred to in Vinayaditya’s grant³ of Saka 609,
____________

¹J. R. A. S., (1903), 9. 592.
² Ep. Ind., Vol. VI, p. 6.
³ Ibid., Vol. XIX, p. 64.