POLITICO-RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AFFLICTIONS OF THE

MAITRAKAS OF VALABHI - A CRITIQUE OF GUHASENA'S STATUS AS THE FIRST

INDEPENDENT MONARCH
Author(s): Pankaj Sharma
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 2013, Vol. 74 (2013), pp. 91-97
Published by: Indian History Congress
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44158803

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:19:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLITICO-RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE AFFLICTIONS OF
THE MAITRAKAS OF VALABHI - A
CRITIQUE OF GUHASENA'S STATUS AS
THE FIRST INDEPENDENT MONARCH
Pankaj Sharma

The humble beginnings of Senapati Bhatāraka who initially worked as

an army commander under the Imperial Guptas before founding the
Maitraka dynasty of Valabhi1 which later ruled for three hundred years
(c. CE 475-775) over Gujarāt-Kāthiāwād region alongside the
coincidental commencement of Guhasena's tenure approximately about
the time of the termination2 of the Imperial Gupta Empire around the
beginning of the second half of the sixth century CE,3 and his projection
as the first sovereign Maitraka monarch on the basis of his adoption of
the epithet of maharaja unaccompanied by that of mahāsāmanta in the
epigraphs,4 several of which even place him immediately after
Bhatāraka omitting the names of intermediate rulers,5 has led to the
formulation of a strong verdict in favour of subordination of the Early
Maitrakas to the Imperial Guptas6, regardless of the divergent opinions7
about the supposed masters of Early Maitrakas or even the efficacy of
such an overlord-subordinate relation.8

The whole argument hinges on three basic political premises, viz.

Guhasena's adoption of the title maharaja unaccompanied by that of
mahāsāmanta for the first time in Maitraka epigraphs;9 the earliest
mention of the grant of right to visti in the inscriptions of Guhasena;10
and the complete absence of the expression tatpãda ãnudhyatah in his
grants.
It has to be strongly asserted here that use of the royal titles by the
Maitrakas is inconsistent and anomalous. The insertion or omission of
the titles like mahāsāmanta' maharaja in his Pālitānā plates11 and
mahāpratihāra, mahãdandanãyaka and mahākartākrtikā in the Vaļā
grant,12 appended either collectively or in isolation to the Maitraka king
Dhruvasena I is without any chronological sequence13 or any perceptible
change in his royal status. The unpredictable and paradoxical nature of
these royal titles from the hierarchical perspective becomes all the more
prominent in the light of the adoption of the designation of mahārāja
(without any reference to the title of samanta) by Dhruvasena I's
immediate predecessor, Droņasimha in his only available grant,14 who
compared to the eminent stature of Dhruvasena I as proved by the

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:19:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92 I HC: Proceedings, 74th Session , 2013
latter's endowment of the maximum number (twenty four)15 of land
grants among the Maitraka kings issued from regions even outside the
traditional Maitraka stronghold of Saurāstra, was relatively weaker.
The fact is further highlighted by the later epigraphs of the dynasty,
where the Vaļā grant (CE 588-589)16 and Prince of Wales Museum plates
(CE 589-590), ,7bestow the Maitraka king Dharasena II with the titles
of mahāsāmanta and maharaja respectively but describe him as
mahārājādhirāja in the royal signatures in both the cases. Similarly,
the appropriation of paramabhattāraka mahārājādhirāja paramešvara
by several insignificant later Maitraka kings18 instantly dilutes the
strength of the argument favouring Maharaja Guhasena as the first
potent monarch of the empire.
The reference to visti in Guhasena's grants creates an elementary
dichotomy. While its traditional use has been arguably construed to
indicate the fragmentation of land and the emergence of infringing land
donees appropriation of the right to extract revenue and taxes; its
application in the present context can simultaneously signify the
absolute authority of Guhasena as king to grant this right to forced
labour to the donees. The obvious contradiction between the two
suppositions makes one wonder that if Maharaja Guhasena had absolute
granting rights over land and visti which he subsequently granted to
the donees then how could he be alternatively so weak to willingly
allow such disintegration thereby paving way for reduction in his own
revenues. This view assumes special significance in the wake of
epigraphic evidences suggesting the replenishment of the royal treasury
under Guhasena19.

The non-linear progression or functionality of tatpāda änudhyatah

or parama bhattāraka pāda änudhyatah makes it impudent to
conceptualize or generalize the use in the context of feudal relations', a
fact which is well established by the analysis of contemporary
epigraphs.20 Since the said expression usually appear in the early
Maitraka grants in conjunction with another compound tat-pāda-rājo-
run-āvanata-pavitrikrta2X (meaning 'whose head was bent before and
purified by the dust of his predecessor's feet') it is not at all
inappropriate to suggest that this expression was used by a succeeding
king to show reverence to his predecessor who was either his father or
brother. Though Bhatāraka, the founder, is not known to have issued
any grant, very interestingly none of the subsequent epigraphs of his
successors, which mention his name and achievements without fail
refer to tat pāda änudhyatah in relation to him while the expression
appears in context of his son Dharasena I whose designation of senapati
is otherwise identical.22 It would be rather preposterous to believe that
the first senapati opted to remain a military commander despite

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:19:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 93

establishing an independent capital

alongside a subordinate feudal positio
to the transformation of Malwa into
and the rapid decline and probable liq
in Western India.25

Simultaneously, a concerted attempt to draw inferences by

providing a distinct religious tinge or angle to the issue is
instantaneously apparent in the suggestion that the desire to depict
themselves as religiously homogeneous forced the Maitraka kings to
deliberately obliterate from their epigraphs the achievements and
eulogistic portions pertaining to those deviating early rulers of the
dynasty who were not paramamahešvaras (followers of Šaivism).26
Since the two predecessors of Guhasena (Dhruvasena I and Dhārapatta)
were paramabhãgavata and parama di ty a b h ak ta respectively,27 it was
obvious that their accomplishments were omitted. The contention can
blend well with the practical problem of finding ample space in the
copper plate grants (which with the exception of the first one were
always in the form of set of two) to record the endeavours and accolades
of all the kings besides giving details of the donation itself, despite the
increase in size of the plates and decrease in size of the alphabets.28
The explanation offered above, nonetheless, remains naïve because
it fails to resolve the basic query that why only the achievements of
the four intermediary kings between Bhatāraka and Guhasena are
ignored when there were other later rulers in the dynasty whose tenures
and regimes were comparatively more inconsequential.29 The cynical
approach that this was done probably due to these four kings being
politically subservient to an overlord has already been challenged above
(as well as in a previous paper)30 where the basis of Guhasena being
the first independent king of the dynasty has been questioned.
Furthermore, the recorded fact of the two immediate successors of
Bhatāraka, viz. Dharasena 1 and Droņasimha being paramamahešvaras*1
has been conveniently overlooked by the scholars forwarding the
ecclesiastical theory to suit their claims.
It needs to be firmly emphasized that despite a consensus among
historians regarding Šaivism being the royal or the personal religion
of the Maitrakas,32 the same cannot mean much in the light of the fact
that the ruler who issued the maximum numbers of grants in the dynasty
was a devout paramabhãgavata ;33 the King who was proclaimed as the
first independent monarch himself issued three out of his four copper
plate grants to the Buddhists34 and is also described as a paramopāsaka 35
along with being paramamahešvara; while a prominent later ruler
(Silâditya I)36 atong with some other kings37 of the dynasty had definite
leanings towards faiths other than Šaivism.

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:19:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 94 IHC: Proceedings , 74th Session, 2013
The most viable argument which could be put forth in this matter
can be deduced from the Maitraka epigraphs themselves which are
amply suggestive of the estranged relations between Guhasena and his
"father Dhārapatta as none of the grants of the former provide even a
mention of the latter in the customary genealogical list.38 The same
Dhārapatta is, however, described glowingly as a ruling maharaja in
the grants of his grandson Dharasena II39 who ascended the throne after
Guhasena. This presents us with the administrative dilemma which the
Maitrakas confronted. It is common knowledge that they drew heavily
in the sphere of polity and administration from both the Western
Ksatrapas and the Guptas, their predecessors in the Gujarāt-Mālwā
region, who were generally the vanguards of the fraternal and paternal
forms of hereditary succession respectively.40 The Maitrakas resorted
to both these forms of succession with frequent shifts. Thus, Bhatāraka
was succeeded by his four sons and the last one was then followed by
his son Guhasena.41 However, the shifts were seemingly unsavoury as
they brought skirmishes42 due to fomenting the dormant feelings of the
interested parties who were rather obfuscated by the frequency,
alternativeness and sudden substitutive nature of these changes.
It was partly the political compulsion and unfeasibility of removing
the founder, Bhatāraka, from the dynastic genealogy which forced
Guhasena and later rulers to retain his name and achievements. But
partially it was also the result of Guhasena's approval of Bhatāraka's
adherence to paternal succession that contributed to the said omission
or exclusion of the intermediary kings. Guhasena's dislike for the
Ksatrapa system of fraternal succession emanated from its possible
denial of a son's ascension to the throne despite his abilities.43 This
also proves why Guhasena's successor who was his son was comfortable
with the reincorporation of the name and achievements of his
grandfather in his grants.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. J.W. Watson, 'Legends of the Earlier Chudāsamā Rās of Junāgadh', Indian

Antiquary , Vol. II, 1873, p. 312 fif.
2. The last known grant of the Imperial Guptas issued from Dāmodarpur in North
Bengal is dated CE 543 - Epigraphia Indica , XV, p. 142; XVII, p. 193, fn. 1;
Journal of Indian History , IV, Pt. Ill, pp. 118-19; while the non reference to the
Guptas in a grant found at Amaunā in Gayā region issued by Kumãramãtya -
Maharaja Nandana in CE 55 1-52 {Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (NS),
V, 1909, p. 164; EI , X, p. 50) shows that their authority had vanished in their home
province Magadha by this date.
3. The earliest known grant of Guhasena is dated VS 240, i.e., CE 559 - IA , VII, p. 66
ff.

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:19:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 95

4. IA , VII, p. 66 ff; El , XIII, p. 338 ff. etc.

5. £/, XI, p. 1 15 f; El , XXI, p. 116 ff. etc.
6. R.C. Majumdar, The Classical Age, Vol.
People , BhSratiya Vidyã Bhavan, Mumb
Jndological Research Papers , Vol. I, Poon
of Imperial Guptas , Allahabad, 1967, pp.
Varanasi, 1970, p. 329); and Devahuti, Hars
p. 47.
7. V.A. Smith, The Early History of India, 3rd edition, Oxford, p. 314); K.J. Virji,
Ancient History of SaurSshtra: Being a Study of the Maitrakas of Valabhi, V to
VIII Centuries A.D, Bombay, 1952, pp. 27-29 and A.M. Shastri, 'Overlord of the
Early Maitrakas*, JESI, Vol. XVI, 1990, pp. 8-13. Similar views by Jackson in
JBBRAS , (NS), I, p. 16 ff and Fleet in IA, XV, 1886, p. 187, declared Toramāņa,
Hariseņa and Yaśodharmana respectively to be the overlords of the Maitrakas.
8. Pankaj Sharma, 'Gupta over lordship of the Western Coast of India in the Sixth
century CE - Substantial, Nominal or Surreal (especially in context of their alleged
domination of the Maitrakas of Valabhi', Proceedings of the Indian History
Congress , 72nd Session, Patiala, 2011, pp. 87-100.
9. I A, VII, p. 66 ff; EI, XIII, p. 338 ff. etc.
10. ibid; Marlene Nijammash, 'The Social Structure of the Villages in Kãthiãwãr in
the 6th and 7th Centuries AD', Social Science Probings , Vol. 9, Numbers 1-4, March-
December 1992, Delhi, pp. 1-7.
11. IA , XXXIX, p. 130 ff; EI, XI, p. 113 ff.
12. G. Bühler, 4 A Grant of Dhruvasena I, dated 216', I A, IV, p. 104 ff.
13. For complete details refer H. G. Shastri, Gujarat under the Maitrakas of Valabhi,
Gaekwad's Oriental Series No. 180, Vadodara, 2000, p. 33 and note 62.
14. Jackson, 'Bhämodra Mohotä Plates,' JBBRAS, XX, p. 1 ff; EI, XVI, 1921-22, p.
17 ff.

15. H.G. Shastri, ibid, 2000, pp. 33. Twenty one according to both K.J. Virji, ibid,
1 952; Nita Verma, Society and Economy in Ancient India - An Epigraphic Study of
the Maitrakas (c. A.D. 475-775), New Delhi, 1992, Appendix 'I', pp. 125-208.
16. I A, VI, 1877, pp. 9-12.
17. JBBRAS, (NS) I, 1925, pp. 66-69.
18. Fleet, CII, III, 1888, pp. 183, 185, 187 etc.
1 9. ibid , p. 165-66, lines 12-14. Here Guhasena is compared to an ocean for possessing
wealth and is designated Dhaneśa.
20. ibid, p. 1 7, fn. 2. Applied in the context of a son giving respect to his father; a
nephew to his uncle; a grandson to his grandfather; a younger brother to his elder
brother; or even a king's reverence to the God.
2 1 . Recurring in many Maitraka epigraphs, e.g. EI, III, 1 894-95, p. 1 07; CU, III, 1 888,
pp. 165, line 3 etc.
22. JBBRAS, (NS), 1, 1925, p. 17 ff; IA, VII, 1878, p. 71 f; I A, XIV, 1885 p. 329; Fleet,
'Maliya copper plate inscription of MahārSja Dharasena II, vs. 252', CU, III, 1 888,
No. 38, pp. 167-68.
23. Supra, Reference no. 1.

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:19:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 96 I HC: Proceedings, 74th Session, 201 3
24. Pankaj Sharma, ibid, Patiala, 2011, pp. 87-100. The Huņas, Aulikāras and the
Vākātakas all challenged the authority of the shaky Guptas during the late fifth
and the early sixth century CE.
25. There is complete absence of Western India type of Gupta coinage after
Skandagupta from the Saurāstra region - A.S. Altekar, Coinage of the Gupta
Empire , Varanasi, 1957, pp. 150 ff, 216 ff, 251 ff.
26. Alexis Sanderson, łThe Śaiva Age - The Rise and Dominance of Šaivism during
the Early Medieval Period', in Shingo Einoo, (ed.), Genesis and Development of
Tantrism , Institute of Oriental Culture, Special Series 23, University of Tokyo,
March 2009, pp. 72-73.
27. EI , III, 1894-95, p. 322; CII, III, p. 165.
28. H.G. Shastri, ibid , 2000, pp. 303.
29. CU , III, 1 888, pp. 1 83, 1 85, 1 87 etc.
30. Pankaj Sharma, ibid , Patiala, 2011 (2012), pp. 87-100.
31. JBBRAS , XX, p. 1 ff; El , XVI, 1921-22, p. 17 ff.
32. H.G. Shastri, ibid, 2000, pp. 208 ff; K.J. Virji, ibid, 1952, p. 165; Nita Verma, ibid,
1992, p 99.
33. CU, III, p. 165; Shastri, H.G., ibid, 2000, pp. 33.
34. H.G. Shastri, ibid, 2000, pp. 41.
35. IA, V, 1876, pp. 206-7. (Bhāvnagar Plates of Guhasena c. CE 567)
36. Arya-Manju-Śri-Mulakalpa (K.P. Jayaswal, An Imperial History of India -
Containing the text and translation of Arya-Maňju-Šri-Mulakalpa , Lahore, 1934,
p. 24) makes a mention of king Śiladitya of Valabhi as a devout Buddhist. Yuan
Chwang states that he convoked an assembly called Mokśa Mahā partead every
year and was known as ' Dharmäditya ' (S. Beai, Hsuan Tsang, Buddhist Records
of the Western World , tr. by Beai, London, 1884, II, pp. 261-262.
37. The Chinese traveller further mentions that emperor Harsavardhana's son-in-law,
Maitraka king Dhruvasena II (c. 629 CE - 642 CE), had "quite recently attached
himself sincerely to the faith of the three precious ones1 ' (ibid, II, p. 267)
38. IA, IV, 1875, p. 174 (Vaļā Plates); IA, V, 1876, p. 207 (Bhāvnagar Plates); IA, VII,
1 878, p. 67 (Sorath Plates). In all these Grants Dhārapatta is not mentioned at all.
39. Fleet, 'Maliya copper plate inscription of Maharaja Dharasena II, vs. 252', CII,
III, p. 165, line 10.
40. When the youngest brother died after having ruled, he was generally succeeded by
the surviving eldest son of the eldest brother. E. J. Rapson, Catalogue of the Indian
Coins in the British Museum - of the Andhra dynasty, the Western K sat rapas, the
Traikutaka dynasty and the Bodhi dynasty , London, 1908, (Āndhras), Introduction,
pp. cliii, 126-140; W. Mirashi, The History and Inscriptions of the Sātavāhanas
and The Western Kshatrapas, Maharashtra State Board for Literature and Culture,
Part II, Section I, Bombay, 1981, pp. 76-79, 85-86; Vākātaka Gupta Age, Delhi,
Reprint 2007, pp. 50, 271. For paternal succession under the Guptas see CII, III,
1888, pp. 26-27, 42-43 and 47 ff.
41. CU, III, 1888, 164-66; 171-75.
42. Succession disputes between brothers were not uncommon among the Maitrakas.
A.K. Forbes (Rāsmālā, Hindu Annals of Western India with Particular Reference
to Gujarat, New Delhi, 1973, p. 255, f.n. 3) suggests a division of the Maitraka

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:19:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 97

Empire after Guhasena with his elder son

younger son Guhäditya ruling from Edar (Id
over leadership and the former conceded t
the empire to the latter - his younger bro
Bhadreniyaka Grant of áilãditya I, G.E. 292
Inscriptions from the Baroda State , Barod
III (younger brother) usurped the throne su
II and eventually the latter had to forcibly t
Hultzsch, 'A Valabhi Grant of Dhruvasena
Plates of Kharagraha U', I A, VII, p. 76 ff.
43. It virtually became impossible for the eld
as the sovereign ruler of the kingdom. M
ibid , 1908, pp. 126-140; JBBRAS , VI, pp. 1
in his grants showcase his great abilities a
III, 1888, 164-66; 171-75; IA , IV, pp. 174 f

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:19:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms