Sambodhi 1977 Vol 06

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 44

38
S. K. Sharma
a Dharma Vijaya' of the Caulūkya monarch who might have vanquished and restored the kingdom to Harsa as such.
Nisar Ahmed has given some conclusive remarks on the Harsa-Pulakesin war and established some points regarding the extent of empire of Harsa in THQ Dec. 1961,54 He has examined the evidence of of Heiun-Tsang. Inscriptions such as those of Valabbi monarchs, Hyedarabad grant dated 612 A.D., Lolaneta plate (630 A.D.), Aihole insc. (634 A.D.), Nausari
grant of Jayasimha lll, records of the Pallavas, works of Dr. R.K. Mookarji, K. M. Panikkar and R. S. Tripathi, and concluded by the remarks that Harsa was never defeated by Pulakesin II though a war ensued between the two and hcavy losses were sufferred on both the sides. On the basis of the Aihole Insc. (Versc 24)86 Nisar Ahmed says that Pulakesin checked the progress of Harsa. The Prasasti is silent about the defeat of Harsa. Nausari grant of Jayasimha III corroborates the same point. Hicun Tsang never says that Harşa was defeate by the King of Mahārāşįra which on the other hand were under the suzerainty of Pulakesin 1136. Bāņa is silent about it. Had Harsa been defeated by Pulakesin his vassals would have raised their heads during his life-time. But it never happened so. Pulakesin was surrounded by several powerful enemies and was not in such a position as to defeat Harșa who had subjugated nearly the whole of Northern India and defeated a powerful king like Sašarka. 37
Nisar Ahmed's following remarks regarding the Harsa-Pulkesin war covertly allude to the facts narrated in the Udayana plays. According to the Aihole insc. the place of the battle was somewhere near the Vindhyas on the bank of Revā (Narmadā) where after having encamped they checked the progress of Harsa. As stated earlier Harsa had to bear a heavy loss which has been eloquently described in the prasasti of Pulakesin but the poet passed over the loss of his master. 38 It seems very probable that both the parties were paralysed due to the destruction in the field. And forced by the calamitous-circumstances they reached some sort of settlement. According 34 Vol. XXXXII, No. 1 pp, 246-252. 35 Bhuvamuribhirani kaik śāsato yasya Revāvividhapulina-sobhā-vandhya-vindhyopakanthal
adhikataramarajat svena tejomalimlla. Sikharibhirabhivarjyo varsmanā spardhayeva, p. 117, Dr. B. Upadhyaya also Historical and literary Inscriptions by Dr. Rajbali Pandeya, p, 243
36 agamadadhiparvam yo mahärris rakaldri. Aihole insc. verse 25. p. 243 HLI : Dr. R.B.
Pandaya. 37 IHQ. 1961 DEC XXXXII No. 1, pp 249-250. 38 aparimimitavibhūtisphilasämanlasenāmukușamanimayi khāvakrāntapādaravindah. yudhi patitugajendrānikabibhatsabhato bhayavigalitaharşa yena crkäri Harsal. HLI Dr. R. B.
43 verse 23 Aihole Insc.