Indian Antiquary Vol 48

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 50

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ APRIL, 1919
family.15 The presumption is therefore natural that he is the same as Buddhasena, father of Jayasena of our inscription. It is interesting to note that before the family of Buddhasêng.came to power in Pithî, there ruled in this part of the country another family of Pitht lords called the Chhikkôras. They were connected, through matrimony, as.we know from the Sârnâth inscription of Kumaradevi, with the Gâhadavals kings of Benares, and Bodb-gayâ must have been under them, at least in the time of Govindachandra, whose dates range from A.D. 1114 to 1168.16 These Chhikkôras seem to have been dispossessed of their territory towards the end of the 12th century A.D. by a new family of Pithi rulers, viz. the family of Buddhasêna. It is very likely, that it was he who first established the greatness of the Chhinda line; because, in his inscription, there is no mention of his predecessors and in the inscription of his son Jayasena too, the genealogy is carried back to his father only. It has, however, been assumed that these individuals, viz. Buddhasêna and Jayasêna, represent, though indirectly, the family of the Sênas who for about a century and a half ruled the political destinies of Bengal. Thus Mr. Jayaswal writes: ! "This! inscription now proves that the neighbouring district of Gaya remained under a scion of the Sêna family in the time of Muhammad ibn Bakhtyar." But let us see if this inference is logical, Considering the fact that these kings have their names ending in Séna and that Târanatha in his list of the later Sêna kings mentions one Buddhasêna, it no doubt seems tempting to suppose that they belonged to the Sena dynasty; but, acoording to Tåranátha himself, this Buddhasena was succeeded by his son, whose name is not Jayasena but Haritasêna,18 Thus no other evidence can be put forward to connect this family of rulers with the Sena dynasty save and except the name-ending Sena on which, however, we cannot lay much stress. Moreover, there is absolutely no proof that the Sena rule really survived in the heart of Magadha immediately after the Muhammadan invasion. On the other hand, in the Tab kati-Nasiri (p. 668 ) there is a definite assertion to the effect that the Sênas continued to rule for a considerable period after the passing away of Lakshmanasêna, in the country of Bang.' i.e. Eastern Bengal, and not on the Bihar side. Again, at the time of the Muhammadan invasion, as it follows very clearly from the same authority, there was absolutely no trace of the Séna power in Bihar. As a matter of fact, Bakhtiyar passed through it and came upon Bengal where only he could find the Senas ruling. At any rate, even if a portion of Magadha were under the successors of Lakshmanasêna during this period, their central power rested not in Bihar but in Bengal. Again, only the use of the Lakshmanasena era at Bodhgaya or Tirhut is not in itself any definite proof of the continuance of the Sêna rule in Bihar. Under these circumstances, therefore, it cannot be maintained that at a later period, the Sênas became masters of Magadaa and called themselves Pithîpatis-a title which they did not adopt even during their palmy days when they actually carried their victorious arms through Magadha. Then again, we never find the title Acharya attached to the name of any Sena king in the whole range of Sêna inscriptions. Another important point, however, on which I should lay special stress, is that the Muham
15 This inference is based on the following verse : Prakhyatan ni Sapadalaksha-sikhari-kshma pala chudamanim slai Srimad = Ašokochallam = api yo natra vintya svayam attra - Chchhinda-narindram = Indra-sad risan bhrash mune) sasand sthity-oddharam = asou chakdra param = décharyyan kalau durjjayd -Above, X, 342, v. 11.-of. also Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar's remarks, ibid, 1913, 84, 8 8
16 See Kielhorn's Synchronistic Table for Northern India. 17 JBORS., IV, 266.
18 Above, IV, 357.