The Routledge Handbook of the State in Premodern India

Hermann Kulke, Bhairabi Prasad Sahu

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000485202
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Geschichte
• Subtopic: Indische & südasiatische Geschichte

This handbook presents a multilayered and multidimensional history of state formation in premodern India.

It explores dense and rich local and subregional historiography from the mid-first millennium BC to the eighteenth century in South Asia. Shifting the focus away from economic and political factors, this handbook revises the conventional understanding of states and empires and locates them in their quotidian conduct and activity on socio-cultural and concomitant factors.

Comprehensive in scope, this handbook addresses a range of themes connected with the idea of state formation in the subcontinent. It includes discussions and debates on ritual practices and the Brahmanical order in early India; the Delhi Sultanate and role of Sultans among the Hindu kings; the cosmopolitan 'Islamicate' cultural influences on Puranic Hinduism; cultural background of the Mughal state.

The handbook examines new questions and ideologies of state formation, such as:

• facets of violence and resistance;
• the significance of the autonomous spaces and forests;
• regional elites, including 'Little kings'; tribal background of some famous cults;
• trade and maritime commerce;
• royal patronage, courtly manners, lineage formation;
• imperial architecture, monuments, and temple, among others.

Featuring case studies from different part of the India subcontinent, and with contributions by renowned historians, this authoritative handbook will be an indispensable reading for teachers, scholars, and students of early India, medieval India, premodern India, South Asian history, Asian history, historiography, economic history, historical sociology, and South Asia studies.

PART I
Political systems in practice

1
THE TIDAL WAVES OF INDIAN HISTORYBetween the empires and beyond¹
Revised edition with an appendix on The State

Harry Falk

DOI: 10.4324/9781003242062-3

Four phases

The time from the Mauryas to the Guptas can be broadly divided into four phases, which are closely linked to a series of dynasties. The first phase comes with the Mauryas proper. Of their origin nothing much is known;² the Buddhists call them Śākyas, i.e., relatives of the Buddha; the brahmins regard them as inferior. They came to power when Hellenistic culture was spreading widely. Aśoka, in particular, appears to us as a man who was eager to introduce elements of Western culture, be it script or well-maintained road systems. According to one Buddhist tradition, his mother or grandmother was of Greek descent; he is proud of his connections with foreign rulers. This phase lasts from about 320 to about 185 BCE.

The second phase is indigenous, covered by the succeeding dynasties of the Śuṅgas, the Kānvas, the so-called Mitras, Dattas, and others. We know them through their coins (Mangalam 2002), and partly also through inscriptions and seals. They seem to be children of the soil, and little contact with Western cultures is discernible. Their time-bracket may be set to roughly 185 to 50 BCE.

The third phase is dominated by intruding Westerners, be they of Iranian, Scythian, or Kushana stock. Around 50 BCE they start to advance from Gandhara into the Indian mainland; many move further down to east, south, and central India (Falk 2009). The Kṣatrapas start to govern most of the Indus plains and western India. They are followed by the Kushanas, ethnically different, but with identical intentions. They in turn succumb to pressure from the west and east around the middle of the third century.

The fourth phase is another phase of Indian resurrection. We recognize a dispersal of foreign rule and the return to traditional values. The movement culminates in the accession of the Guptas around 320 CE.

Forms of change

When we look at these 600 to 700 years we are witness to a whole series of changes taking place that involve the full framework of social order, economy, and technology. In the following paragraphs I want to show how some well-known inscriptions present evidence for changes of a general nature of two sorts.

One sort of evolution is linear, such as, e.g., the development of the script. After the oldest type of Mauryan Brāhmī, all succeeding phases modify the prototype, never to return to the original state. With regard to the Brāhmī script, this evolution came to a certain halt about 500 years ago, when present-day Nāgarī found its final shape, but is likely to set in again some time. Other examples are the languages, or the forms of the traditional sacrifice, the Vedic yajña. All these linear changes permeate the four phases and are not much affected by political upheavals. All the changes of this sort are indigenous matters.

The second sort of change is of an oscillating nature. The character of society changes twice in the time observed here, from an extroverted attitude, with thriving foreign contacts on an economic as well as scientific level, to an introverted one, where traditional, or “brahmanical” values are preferred to inspiration gained from outside. Roughly speaking, the Mauryas made use of the Hellenistic brain drain; the succeeding Śuṅga Dynasty and its successors shunned intense foreign contacts; instead, traditional grammar and ritual were revived.

The succeeding foreign rulers of Śaka, Pahlava, and Kushana stock neglected the indigenous way of life and built centers of learning, e.g., at Ujjain, and made a living through intensive trade relations with East and West. The succeeding Gupta Dynasty reverted to indigenous values, to sciences of the word; inspiration from foreign sources began to come to a close. This oscillating pattern could be described as an alternation between an interest in the exact sciences and the science of letters; it could be described as a recurring shift between religious plurality and conservative henotheism or monotheism. At least to us, today, the recognition of new foreign elements seems to be an indicator of a positive attitude toward innovation. Twice in the time concerned, those who defeated or succeeded these innovative dynasties reverted to introspective self-containment.

It is tempting to continue thinking along these lines: after the Guptas and their successors, Muslim invasions again changed the country, linking it in many ways to powers and influences from the west and north. When Muslim hegemony dwindled away, British colonialists gained the upper hand. When we look back to the times before the Mauryas, we see other phases of ups and downs: the Indus valley culture had strong trade relations with the Near East; copper was procured from Oman, timber was shipped to the Euphrates. The script has undeniable links to the proto-Elamite script; the weight system seems to reflect the Egyptian gold standard (Falk 2015; 2018). After this period of innovation and exchange we get the Vedic culture, plain-cloth and simple, with pronounced poetical prowess, a predilection for rural settings. The mental sciences are favoured, like astronomy, geometry, the science of ritual, logic, and metrics. Experimental sciences are widely absent – technology is simple and homemade.

Presently, since partition, India seems to be gradually moving back to another phase of introspection. Despite the thriving IT business in Bangalore, the main change observable to an outsider concerns the Hindutva ideology. Traditional values like the caste system are again being cherished as fundamental; foreign religions and attitudes are under attack. On the other side, the Vedic sacrifice in all grades of debasement is spreading rapidly, even into corners which would have been regarded as impure in earlier times. When will the BJP or some other traditional force perform the first national Aśvamedha?

Family structures and titles

The tidal waves of attitudes can best be observed in the forms of self-description of royal donors as they develop over the centuries. These self-descriptions display relationships to the clan, and particularly to female members of the clan.

Aśoka, the first king whom we encounter in texts coming from his own office, called himself a rājā, nothing more than that. He is known to others as Aśoka, but his crown name is devānaṃpriyaḥ priyadarśī, “dear to the gods, pleasant to look at.” Only one relative of his is known to us from inscriptions, i.e., Daśaratha, who handed the caves in Barābar and Nāgārjuni hills over to the donee ascetics. His texts call him devānāṃpriyaḥ, but not rājā. Immediately after his coronation, abhiśeka, he handed over the caves. It looks as if now that the texts are engraved, he is still “dear to the gods,” but no longer a holder of royal dignity.

In Bactria and eastern Afghanistan, the earliest of the Graeco-Bactrian kings to use an Indian term was Agathocles around 180 BCE. On the obverse of his coins we read basileōs agathokleous, and on the reverse he stuck to Indian habits with rajane agathuklayasa (Bopearachchi 1991: 175f.). It was Eucratides I, about ten years later, who changed all these habits. He demonstrated his independence through the heaviest gold coin ever minted in this area. Having a diameter of 58 mm, it weighs 170 g. On this coin Eucratides enlarged the usual basileōs/baseleus with magalou/megas, “great” (Bopearachchi 1991: 202). On some of his coins he also used Indian terms written in Kharoṣṭhī letters. For one issue he spoke of himself as rajasa mahatakasa (Bopearachchi 1991: 210). The next series introduces a plain maharajasa instead. This term is used by all Greco-Bactrian kings for their Indian legends thereafter, whereas most of them retain the simple basileōs for the Greek obverse.³

For the second phase, most Indian rulers stuck to the traditional rājā. One exception is King Kharavela from Orissa, who called himself mahārāja by the first century BCE. At the same time in the west, habits changed again with the advent of the Śakas, who used basileōs basileuōn megalou for themselves from Maues onward, copying an Iranian phrase, implying their own superiority to the Graeco-Bactrians. “King of kings” is also a standard title for the first Kushana in the first century CE, Kujula Kadphises. Apart from this foreign designation, he used the title yavuga in his own language.

In Indian territory, we see the Graeco-Bactrian ambassador Heliodor at Besnagar call his sovereign Antialkidas (ca. 115–95 BCE) a mahārāja and nothing else. He speaks of himself as “the son of Dion” (diyasa putreṇa). The local king is called kosīputra bhāgabhadra trātāra, “Bhagabhadra, son of a [Kevala Aṅgirasa] Kautsī mother, the savior.” Here we encounter for the first time a trait which is to govern native dignity for many centuries to come: whereas the foreigners regard themselves as superior (mahārāja vs. rājan),⁴ they also speak of their male ancestors, whereas in local dynasties it is the mother’s lineage which defines status. It is really remarkable how in Śuṅga times the mothers come to the fore. There must have been a very strong feeling behind this perseverance: it seems as if a ruler without a mother from a traditional brahmin family was lacking something. It can be guessed that this missing trait must have had something to do with purity, ritual, and/or personality. If an Indian ruler mentions his male ancestors it is mandatory to show that they were born from a brahmin mother. The Śuṅgas left a pillar inscription at Bharhut. Here we have a real succession:

raño gāgīputasa visadevasa pauteṇa gotīputasa āgarajusa puteṇa vāchīputena dhanabhūtinā kāritaṃ toraṇam,

This gate was made by Dhanabhūti, son of a mother from the [Bhṛgu] Vātsa gotra and of Āgaraju [Aṅgāradyut], himself son of a mother from the Gaupta gotra and of king (rājā) Viśvadeva, himself son of a mother from the [Bhāradvāja] Gārga gotra.

The earliest generation is represented only by the great-grandmother. Her husband is of no importance.

From the same dynasty another inscription preserved near Ayodhyā speaks of six generations since its founder, the general (senāpati) Puṣyamitra:

kosalādhipena dviraśvamedhayājinaḥ senāpateḥ puṣyamitrasya ṣaṣṭhena

kauśikīputreṇa dhana(?devena?) dharmarājñā pituḥ phalgudevasya ketanaṃ kāritaṃ,

This memorial for his father Phalgudeva was caused to be made by the legitimate king Dhana(?deva?), overlord of Kosala, son of a mother from the [Viśvāmitra] Kauśika gotra, sixth [in generation] from the general Puṣyamitra, who had performed the Aśvamedha twice.

The donor calls only himself rājā; his illustrious forefather is not called “king” at all, but is praised through the performance of the Aśvamedha, a ritual intimately intertwining the interests of brahmins and rulers.

The dynasty after the Śuṅgas is believed to be the Kaṇvas, to which the first inscription in real Sanskrit is attributed.⁵ It was found in Ghoṣuṇḍī, Rajasthan, and near to it in three exemplars on a stone wall. The king calls himself:

bhāgavatena gājāyanena pārāśarīputreṇa sarvatātena aśvamedhayājinā,

adherent of the Lord (bhagavat), belonging to the gotra of the Gājāyanas, son of a mother from the Pārāśara gotra, performer of an Aśvamedha.

He does not mention his father by name; his mother occurs with reference to her brahmanical (Vasiṣṭha) gotra; even as a performer of the most-praised royal ritual he does not use the title rājā.

Five kilometers upstream from Kauśāmbī lies the village of Pabhosā, where a cave high in the cliff contains two inscriptions of about the same period. Their contents are rather similar. In one of them we read:

adhichattrāyā rāño śonakāyanīpūtrasya vaṃgapālasya

putrasya rāño tevaṇīputtrasya bhāgavatasya putreṇa

vaihidarīputreṇa āṣāḍhasenena kāritaṃ

[This cave] was caused to be made by Āṣāḍhasena, son of a mother from the [Bhṛgu]⁶ Vaihidara gotra and of the king, adherent of the Lord, himself son of a mother from the [Vasiṣṭha] Traivarṇa gotra and of Vaṃgapāla, king of Adhichattrā, himself son of a mother of the [Bhṛgu] Śaunakāyana gotra.

It may be that his father is menti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction: The state in premodern India and beyond: recent perspectives
• PART I Political systems in practice
• PART II Early medieval polities
• PART III Into the medieval
• PART IV Beyond the premodern
• Index