|
ADMINISTRATION
administration of the kings, but the description they give of Pṛithivīsheṇa I is significant,
He was marked out not only for his personal bravery, intelligence and political widsom but
also for such virtues as truthfulness, straightforwardness and compassion. He took pride
in being Dharmavijayin i.e. a righteous conqueror.1 This means that he never waged any
war for self-aggrandisement. He conferred his gifts on worthy recipients. He strove to
follow in his life the example of Yudhishṭhira, the well-known Pāṇḍava king of yore, whose
name has been held in great veneration throughout the ages. We have no account of the
lives of other kings of this dynasty, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we may
suppose that they also tried to rule in the same manner. Pravarasēna II in particular is said
to have established Kṛita-Yuga (Golden Age) by his wise rule. It may also be noted
in this connection that Harishēṇa, the last known Vākāṭaka king, is described in an Ajaṇṭā
inscription of his feudatory as one who secured the well-being of his subjects,2
...Unlike the Kushāṇas and the Guptas of North India, the Vākāṭakas did not assume
high-sounding titles like Shāhānushāhi or Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja, Paramēśvara, etc.,3 but contented themselves with the older modest style of Mahārāja.4 They did not also claim
any divine origin,5 but believed that they owed their royal fortune to the grace of their
ishṭa-dēvatā. Thus, Rudrasena II is described as one whose royal fortune was due to
the grace of the god Chakrapāṇi (Vishṇu).6 His son Pravarasēna II is said to have obtained his weapon of Śūla by the special favour of the god Śambhu (Śiva).7 Their feudatories,
the Pāṇḍava kings of Mekalā, however, who had come into contact with the Guptas, describe
themselves in their grants as parama-guru-dēvat-ādhidaivata-viśesha8 i.e. highly venerable
personages, deities and supreme divinities. They thus claimed superhuman power. Again,
Lokaprakāśā, the queen of the Pāṇḍavaṁśī king Bharatabala, is described as born in a family
descended from gods.9 The Vākāṭakas did not claim for themselves descent from any
god or eponymous hero, but these feudatories of Mēkalā proudly proclaimed their
birth in the venerable Pāṇḍava-vaṁśa descended from the Moon. The contemporary
rulers of Mahākāntāra (modern Bastar District and the adjoining territory) similarly claimed that they were descended from the king Nala of epic fame10.
...
The Vākāṭaka grants mention three kinds of feudatories, viz., (i) those who submitted
to the Emperor when they came to know of his resolve to subdue them ; (ii) those who
______________
1 Cf. No. 4, line 8; No. 6, line 10 etc. His ancestor Pravarasēna I and some members of the
Vatsagulma branch assumed the title of Dharmamahārāja indicative of their piety and their support to
the Vedic religion.
2 No. 27, line 21.
3 C.I.I., Vol. III, No. 1, line 8 ; No. 5, lines 2-3 etc.
4 It has been supposed that the title Mahārāja assumed by the Vākāṭakas as contrasted with
Mahārājādhirāja mentioned in connection with the Gupta Emperors indicates the inferior political status
of the former. H.C.I.P., Vol. III, p. 180. It should, however, be noted that the kings of the Vatsagulma
branch had assumed the same title even before the time of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II,
when there could have been no question of subordination to the Guptas. See No. 22, line 1-3.
Pravarasēna I’s title samrāṭ was due to his perforamance of Vājapēya sacrifices. His title Mahārāja is also sometimes mentioned along with it.
5 The epithet Hāritīputra applied to Pravarasena I in the Bāsim plates (No. 23, line 3) perhaps
originally meant ‘a son of (i.e. favoured by) 6the Buddhist goddess Hāritī.’ Later, it came to mean a
descendant (or disciple) of the sage Hārīti. Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, p. 31; Vikramāṅkadēvacharita, I, 58.
6 No. 3, line 13.
7 No. 15, line 1.
8 No. 19, line 9 and 14. The Guptas assumed the title of Paramadaivala also. See Ep. Ind., Vol.
XV, p. 130.
9 No. 19. line 29.
10 Ep. Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 102.
|
