________________
126
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XV.
when Bhanu-gupta was enjoying imperial sovereignty in the central and eastern provinces of the Gupta empire, during the first quarter of the sixth century. The contents of these three inscriptions have been thoroughly discussed by Mr. Allan, according to whom Yasodharman was the suzerain of Vishnuvardhana, and this is, according to that scholar, the natural explanation of the occurrence of both the names in verses 5 and 6 respectively of the inscription (No. 35) dated in the year 589 (expired) of the tribal constitution of the Mälavas, i.e. in expired Gupta era 213. Bereft of rhetorical embellishments, verse 5 simply states in substance that Yasodharman was a janendra ("chief among men ") who had begun to acquire fame in battle by himself plunging into the army of his enemies, whose reputations were eclipsed by his valorous dee is. The next verse again describes the other king as naradhipatiḥ ("king of men"), conqueror in war (ajau jiti), who had already acquired the supreme titles of rajadhiraja-parameśvara, so difficult of attainment, by subjecting, by policy peaceful and warlike, the very mighty kings of the east and many other kings of the north. This king's minister, Abhayadatta, is described as having formerly held office in the tract of country bounded by the Vindhyas and the Pariyātra mountain and the (western) ocean. From this panegyric of Vishnuvardhana it seems plausible that Yasodharman was then rising into prominence under the supremacy of Vishnuvardhana, who is to be regarded as the former's suzerain and not vice versa as supposed by Mr. Allan. Some of the enemies opposed by both Vishnuvardhana and Yasodharman were certainly the Hunas, who could not any longer retain the tracts of land (in the west) over which they had some time before established their power and in which they ruled also for some time as kings. But the kings of the east who were brought under subjection by Vishnuvardhana were, probably, feudatories of Bhanu-gupta, who was still ruling in the eastern provinces. The Vishnuvardhana-Yasodharman inscription (No. 35) comes, it seems, a little earlier in time than the other two duplicate inscriptions (Nos. 33-34), which state in a most exalted manner the heroic actions of Yasodharman, who is said to have compelled even King Mihirakula to pay homage by touching his feet with his (the Huna chief's) forehead. If this statement is taken as being literally true, Yasodharman may have completely humbled the power of the Hana chief some time after 533-34 A.D., and then proceeded even towards the east up to perhaps the eastern province, where the supremacy of Bhanu-gupta (or his successor, if he had any) was still continuing. It may be not quite unlikely that Vishnuvardhana and Yasodharman at first combined together to drive away the Hunas under Mihirakula from the tracts of the western provinces which were under Hana sway, and then brought under subjection some of the Gupta feudatories in the east. But by the excessive and superior strength of his arms Yasodharman, keeping under subjection perhaps his own former suzerain, Vishnuvardhana, acquired the title of a universal sovereign (samrat, V. 3, Nos 33). Hence it may be supposed that it was Yasodharman who usurped all the Gupta territories and brought about the actual downfall of the Gupta empire. It would be difficult in any other way to justify the panegyric which contains Yasodharman's boasting (V. 4, No. 33) that he enjoyed those countries which were not in the possession of the all-powerful Gupta sovereigns and which the power of the Hana Kings, who kept many a tributary king under subjection, could not penetrate, or the most high-sounding expressions (V. 5, No. 33) that the samantas (fendatories) of the different parts of the land, from the Lauhitya (the Brahmaputra) in the east to the Western Ocean, and from the Himalayas in the north to the Mahendra Mountain in the south, did him honour. It is, therefore, not improbable that Yasodharman overthrew Mihirakula some time after 533-34 A.D. and declared himself independent sovereign of Northern India. But the conflicting account of the overthrow of Mihirakula given by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang, according to whom his tyranny
1 Allan, Indian Coins, Gupta Dynasties, Introduction, pp. lv-lx.
