________________
100
KUVALAYAMĀLĀ
that Uddyotana tells us that Harigupta came from Guptavaṁśa and Devagupta was a Mahakavi (who elsewhere is assigned to Guptavamsa and is called Rajarși): but there is no sufficient evidence before us to connect them with one or the other namesake from the Gupta dynasty known to us. What was a conjecture put in a question form has been taken almost as a fact by MITRA and elaborately refuted. This all belongs to the realm of conjecture and probability. We must wait for more positive evidence. There might have been many persons belonging to the Gupta family, and we have hardly any contemporary census to come to positive conclusions. We should not hesitate to accept what is plainly stated by Uddyotana.
Though the Indian capital of Mihiragula was known to be Sakala or Sialkot, Uddyotana is the first to tell that Toramaņa ruled from Pavvaïya and it was on the bank of the river Candrabhāga. The Candrabhāga is the modern Chinab, the Asikni of the Vedic literature and the Acesines of the Greeks. Ptolemy calls it Sandabala or Sandabal.' It sometimes stands for the united stream of the Jhelum and Chinab. The location of Pavvaïya is to be sought on the bank of this river. A territory in Punjab to the north-west of Multan between the Ravi and the Sutlej was called Parvata:3 may be Pavvaïyā= Pārvatikā1 was located in that area, down the stream where Sutlej conflows into Candrabhāgā. Pt. DASHARATH SHARMA has drawn our attention to a very good context that Siharas had established four maliks, or governors, in his territories. The first at Brahmanābād and the forts of Nīrun, Debal, Lohāna, Lakha and Samma, down to the sea (darya), were placed in his charge. The second at the town of Siwistān: under him were placed Būdhpur, Jankān, and the skirts of the hills of Rujhan to the borders of Makran. The third at the fort of Askalanda and Pabiya, which are called Talwar and Chachpur; under him were placed their dependencies to the frontier of Budhpur etc. According to ELIOT Māībar and Chachpur still exist, under the modernised names of Mīrbar and Chachar, close together at the very junction of the Acesines and Indus, on the eastern side of the river, opposite to Mittankot.' All this means that Pabiya is possibly our Pavvaïya and identical with modern Chachar.
The
1 D. C. SIRCAR: Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India, p. 40, 44, Varanasi 1960.
2 N. L. DEY: The Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval India, p. 47, Calcutta Oriental Series, No. 21. E. 13, 1927.
3 Ibidem, p. 150.
4 Muni JINAVIJAY and N. C. MEHTA had observed that this might be Po-fa-to or Po-la-fa-to of Hiuen Tsang, but left its modern equivalent to future investigation.
5 Bharatiya Vidya (Hindi), Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 62-3, Bombay 1941-2. J. P. JAIN in The Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient India, Delhi 1964, p. 195, equates Pavvaiya to mod. Chachera, but he does not give any evidence of his source. The Prakrit passage quoted on p. 193 is very badly printed and some names are wrongly written. He adds in a foot-note on p. 195: Another plausible identification of Pavvaïya may be with Padmavati (or Pawaya near Gwalior) and in that case Candrabhaga might be identical with river Chambal. Is Chambal called Candrabhāga anywhere?
• ELIOT and DowSON: History of India as told by its own Historians, Vol. I, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, pp. 138, 366, also p. 140.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
