CHAPTER II SUNGA- KANVA RULE IN MAGADHA Pushyamitra rose to the power at Pataliputra by c. 187 B.C. The Matsya PuriitJa says 1 -, ( Pushyamitras-tu senanlr-udhritya Sa B,rihadratham-Karishyati Sa Vai raivam- Shaurims'ati sama n,ripah that is, 'Pushyamitra, the Commander -in - Chief, will uproot and rule for 36 years.' The Vishnu Purar:a says 2 , (" Tatah Pushvamitrah Senapatih Svaminarn hatwi r(yyam Karishyati that is, 'Senapati Pushyamitra will rule having killed his master.' The Bhagavata PuraiJ.a makes the same statement' while the Harsacharita of Ban a states 4 : . 'Pratij iUi durbalam cha-bala-dars'ana-Vyapadesa darsitaiesha- sainyah-seniinir-aniiryam Mauryam-B!ihadratham pipesha Pushpamitrah swiminam that is, 'And reviewing the whole army under the pretext of showing him his forces the mean general Pushyamitra crushed his master Brihadratha, the Maurya, who was weak of purpose'(who is too weak to keep his promises 5 or who is weak in keeping his coronation oath 6 ). From the above it is clear that Pushyamitra, the Commander-in- Chief of the Maurya empire, occupied the Magadhan
80
Embed
SUNGA-KANVA RULE IN MAGADHAshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/66072/6/06_chapter 2.pdf · SUNGA-KANVA RULE IN MAGADHA ... by endeavouring to give a different colour to the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CHAPTER II
SUNGA- KANVA RULE IN MAGADHA
Pushyamitra rose to the power at Pataliputra by c. 187 B.C.
The Matsya PuriitJa says 1-,
(
Pushyamitras-tu senanlr-udhritya Sa
B,rihadratham-Karishyati Sa Vai raivam- Shaurims'ati
sama n,ripah ~
that is, 'Pushyamitra, the Commander -in - Chief, will uproot B~ihadratha
that is, 'And reviewing the whole army under the pretext of showing him
his forces the mean general Pushyamitra crushed his master Brihadratha,
the Maurya, who was weak of purpose'(who is too weak to keep his
promises5 or who is weak in keeping his coronation oath6).
From the above it is clear that Pushyamitra, the
Commander-in- Chief of the Maurya empire, occupied the Magadhan
29
throne atlcr killing his master Brihadratha, the last imperial Maurya who
was too weak to protect his inherited throne. Thus Pushyamitra
established the rule of a new dynasty at the centre of the empire that had
been under the Imperial Mauryas.
The constant threat of Greaco-Bactrian invasion in the North
- Western frontiers of the empire seems to have paved the way towards
Pushyamitra's accession to power. Because, the last Maurya had failed
to offer an effective resistance due to his personal and territorial
limitations. Further the king's pass1ve policy created a sense of
insecurity among his subjects at a time when various power- centres and
provincial units of the empire had shaken otT their allegiance to the
feeble central authority and the secession of regions of the erstwhile
empire reduced the imperial bodypolitic to the status of a mere kingdom.
In the background of emergence of small independent states and threat of
foreign invasions Pushyamitra's coup d'etat may be considered.
Pushyamitra's title Senani: Justification
In most of the texts7 Pushyamitra 1s styled as senZmi or
senapati, that is the Commander-in-Chief of the Maurya army. In such a
way much stress was laid upon his military strength or on the control
and command over the basic pillar of strength of the Kautilyan state that
is a force behind active policy. Although Pushyamitra dispossessed his
master of his crown he refrained from appropriating royal title to himself
and remained content with the military statusx. One thinks'~ that
Pushyamitra may have wanted to atone for his crime (assassination of his
master) by endeavouring to give a different colour to the whole shO\v and
30
thus refrained from taking the people to understand that he had no
hankering for it, hut that his aim was only to save them from foreign
domination and misrule. At this juncture of Indian history, the time
forced the senapati Pushyamitra to play vital role which was the need of
the time. He was a product of the age 10• The s'uriga ruler rose equal to
the occasion and had to kill his master B~ihadratha Maurya. The tirst and
the foremost task hefore the new ruler was to invigorate the body politic
with a new spirit. His successful revolution can be much better
accounted for by his hold over the army than his headship of a band of
discontented Brahmanas''.
Pushyamitra's role as a champion of Bnihma~ical Revolution
Pushyamitra was regarded as a champion of Brahmaryical
reaction against the pro-Buddhist policy of Asoka and pro-Jaina policy of
his successors 12• The utter dissatisfaction and reaction culminated in the
usurpation of the throne of Magadha by Pushyamitra s'unga, a Bn1hmana
by origin. Against this theory of brahmanical revolution headed by
Pushyamitra a large number of arguments have been put forward by
scholars". Inspite of these counter arguments it can hardly be denied
that Pushyamitra was a Bnihmana himself (whether he took the
leadership or not) and rose to the power resorting to a kind of revolt or
coup (either organised by the discontented Bnihmat:tas or not) We have
also numismatic evidence from Kaus'ambi, Jagatgram, Yaudheya etc
territories I-t of the time concerned to prove that Pushyamitra's action
might have been an expression of Brahmat~ical revivalism after a long
period of pro-Buddhist and pro-Jaina policy ofthe Mauryas.
31
I-I is rise as a leader of one of the partisans among the bureaucracy
The coup-d'-etat which placed Pushyamitra in power 1s
presented as a palace coup''. The organisation of the state was, by now,
at such a low ebb that subordinates were willing to accept any one who
could promise them a more efficient organisation. It is stated'" that
during the reign of Brihadratha Maurya there were two partisans or
factions in the capital rather in the palace, one headed by senapati or
Commander-in-Chief of the Maurya army, the other headed by the king's
sachiva. when the senapati organised his coup, he killed the king and
imprisoned the minister.
Rise as a leader or representative of revolting region of the empire
(Vidisa)
However, it appears from the above that the basic of
strength behind Pushyamitra's coup-d'-etat and rise to the imperial thr0rH'
was his generalship that is his control and command over the military
force, confidence and support of a major section of the imperial
bureaucracy and of the people in general, the weakness of the emperor in
person and the situation created by the threat of foreign invasion. In such
a state of things, it \\·ould not be unreasonable to assume his action as an
ambitious representative of the revolting rrovincial centres of power of
the declining empire, a person who proceeded step by step to fulfil his
aim of controlling the imperial power as the supreme head by utilising
the suitable situation. We have ample evidence to prove that
Pushyamitra followed the due course.
Thcoritical and practical basis of Pushyamitra's action
Pushyamitra's coup or snatching of the imperial power had
its support from political bases and \vas no exception to the historical
tradition of Magadha. Apart from the extant ancient literary sources the
Manusmriti (8.349-350) allows a Brahma~a to raise sword on different
crucial occasions. Again his action had lot of precedence. The early Pali
texts like the Malu:ivwhsa 17 state that Bimbisara, the real founder of
Magadhan imperial tradition, had been appointed king by his father who
was a petty chief of south-Bihar. Young Bimbisara bore the epithet of
· ( ·k ) I K semya srem a . It has been opined 1'1 that Bimbisara was either
installed on the throne of Magadha by his father or he himself effected a
military coup with the help of his father who \Vas a general retired. f
Whi lc accordin12. to the Mahavwiz.w/ 1', Sis'una12.a the founder of the
~ ~
dynastic rule of Magadha was a minister worthy of being elected by the
people who had banished Nagadasaka of Bimbisara's family. The
Pur[qws state21 that 'hatwi tesam yas'ah krtsnam Sfs'unago Bhavisyati,' I
which means that 'Sisunaga (might be an amatya) had the military under
his centro), may be he was the last Commander-in-Chief of the last king
and seized the throne by a coup with the tacit support of the
bureaucracy22• Curtius K. Rufas23
, contemporary Classical historian of
Alexander, states that the father of Agrammes (that is Ugrasena
Mahapadma Nanda, founder of the Nanda dynasty at Magadha) was a
barber who was a paramour of the queen and through her influence
gained the confidence of the reigning king, treacherously murdered him
and then under the pretence of acting as the guardian of the royal
children usurped the supreme authority putting the young princes to
,-, _) _)
death. The Har:\·ucharita of Bana~~ has most probably alluded to the
event when it states that Kakavarna s'is'unaga had a dagger thrust into his
throat in the vicinity of his city. Even the A4ahavamsatika has cited a
description which proves that the first Nanda captured Magadhan throne
by force 2'. By the combined testimony of the Classical writers, the
Mahavamsa (V -15-18) and the Purc11Jas. we are informed that the last
Nanda king of Magadha was detested by his subjects for his low origin
and tyrannical misrule and young Chandragupta, with the help of
Chanakya, might have hatched a plot against him and taking advantage
of the situation had slain the king and captured the power.
I
Origin of the Surigas
An attempt may be made to examme the possibility of
Pushyamitra's rise. step by step, as the leader of one of the revolting
regions of the empire. A number of conflicting opinions have been put
forward by scholars as to the origin and place of origin of Pushyamitra
and his successors. Accordidng to the A!j[cidhyr ~vi of Pat;til)i 26 the SGrigas
are connected with the Vedic Brahmarya family of Bharadvaja, as much
the same narrated in the Puniryic genealogies of the chief Brahma~a - I I
family. In the As·~·a/ayana Srauta Szitra and the Katyayana Srauta Siitra /
the Surigas are referred to as teachers. It should be mentioned here that
the Punipas only apply the name Sunga to the sovereigns constituting the
dynasty which Pushyamitra founded. The Malavikagnimitram of
Kalidasa27, on the other hand, makes Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra, a
scion of the Baimbika family. The BauJiulyana s/auta Szitra2x represents
the Baimbikas as K<l.s~·apas, In the flarivamsa 2'1 the Brahmana senani
restoring the As'vamedha sacrifice i~ mentioned as a Kasyapaya. This
Brahmana Sl.!!l(llli is identified by some scholars''' as Pushyamitra. It is
interesting to note here that neither the .\hllm·ik(lgnimitram nor the
Din·avadima used the name Sunga for the dynasty, whereas the
Harsacharita used this desiQ.nation SurH!a to onh one of the latest kin12.s . .._ .._ .. -in the Puranic list. l {owe\·er, the Brahm ana ori12.in of the S
1
wigas is . ~ ~
almost certain' 1• Of course their gotra may he either Kas'yapa or
Bharadvaja.
Pushyamitra is presented as lineally descended from the
Mauryas on the basis of the Dt\y(n·odcilw which makes Pushyamitra as
the last king of the .\1aurya dynast:. This theory seems to support the
llarsaclwrita account. While according to the Br:1hmanical tradition the . ~ . ' Mauryas were Sudras. But the Sudra ongtn of the Mauryas is not
definitely proved.
It ha::, been SUg!!eSted'' that the s'ul112.d Jvnastv Wd::, Pet sian . .._~ \ .._ .; ,.,
worshippers of the Sun,'Mitra', there by they are of foreign origin. But
this suggestion is abandoned later on by the author himself and the
s'uri.gas are considered as brahmar_1a;;. Likewise some scholars'~ have
connected the Su~1gas with the family of Bimbisara and thereby indicated
their Kshatriya origin.
Pushyamitra hailed from the West
As to the place of s'unga origin. some scholars-'' locate it, on
the basis of the versions of the Matsya Pur(11.w and of the analysis of the
place of action of Pushvamitra, to eastern India for, according to the . ~
.\!arsya Puru~w ( 163.h6-67) S{uiga \\as a Janapada of eastern India. But
35
it is now generally accepted by most of the scholars'6 that it is with the
kingdom of Vidis'a that the S/ungas \\ere especially associated in
literature and inscriptions. It is more probable that the epithet, Baimbika
given to Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra. in the Malavikagnimitram is
connected with the river Bimbika mentioned in the Bharhut inscription of
Dhanabhuti". We arc also informed by the Mcilarikagnimitram that the
crown prince served as the father's viceroy at Vidis'a where he was
afterwards given the epithet, R4ia~ Even a1ler the death of his father he
did not move to Pataliputra to become king there and stayed on at Vidisa.
The Bharhut Inscription of Ohanabhuti points to eastern
Malawa as the locality with which the S1
urigas of the I st century B.C. are
to be especially connected. One scholar suggests'~ that Vidisa- was the
hereditary kingdom of Pushyamitra. The importance of Vidisa is also
attested by the Besnagar Garuqa Pi! br Inscription which records the
coming of the Greek ambassador I devotee Heliodorus to the court of ;
Suriga king Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, sent by Greek king Antialkidas, and
the erection of Garu9advaja of Vasudeva by him. It has been pointed
out'9 that numismatic history of central India to some extent proves that /
Vidisa should have been the orginal home of the Surigas. We may now
conclude that Pushyamitra was a sGriga whom Paryini connected with the
Vedic Brahmarya family of Bharadvaja. As the two peoples, Vitahavya
and Yitihotras, being of the Bharadvaja gotra, belonged to the territory
which, under the Maurya empire, was included in the viceroyality of
Ujjainl, it is with the kingdom of Vidisa forming a part of this region
that the Surigas were especially associated in the literature and epigraphic
sources. It is not known for certain when and whv the famil\ ol
36
Pushymitn exchanged the quill for S\,vord 411 like the Kadamhas of u later
date. But it is known from the Epic-Puriir)ic tradition that the Bharadvaja
could assert either Kshatriva or Brahmana ori1!in and continue the status - . ,_
and functions of Kshatriya and Brahma~a. In view of all these, it is quite
possible that Pushyamitra belonged to one Brahma-Kshatra family and
his military profession was due to his family tradition than to anv
extraodinary circumstances. The incident in which Brihadratha was
assassinated shows that already Pushyamitra was carefully preparing the
ground for his coup-d-etat by seducing the army from its loyality to the
Maurya king41• It was obviously a part of such a scheme that a minister
of the late Maurya king B_rihadratha was imprisoned4='.
It might have been that Pushyamitra found a place in the
Maurya administration under the viceroyal ity of A vantl in the latter part
of the post-Asokan period. In a growing situation created by the mutual
bickering among the scions of the imperial MaL!f)'3 famil~:, h) the
secession and revolting attitude of the different regions of the empire
and the constant threat of foreign aggression, Pushyamitra began to
cherish his ambitions and to step up to the power ladder. That is why,
most probably, in the Harivamsdn, the Brahmarya senani identified with
Pushyamitra is given the epithet Audbh[jjo means one who suddenly rises
from underground44, though it also means one who has taken his dynastic
name from vegetation (Tree totem). In this connection it should be
mentioned that while the Purar:tas attribute a period of 137 years to the
Mauryas, the Thenivalr of Meruturiga, Jain author, splits the period into
two-parts : I OR years for the Mauryas and 30 years for Push: amitra.
lntcrestingly enough in the A:(okavwl£inu 1'. Pushvamitra is stated to be
37
the sixth successor to Asoka and fifth successor to Samprati. The fact
remains that the Jain account is written from the point of view of Avant),
while the Pural)a account is written from the view point of Pataliputra.
Thus it seems that Pushyamitra had acquired considerable power before
he seized the Mauryan throne and his final coup-d-etat was to bring the
whole Mauryan dominion under his control. We may conclude that for
the last few years of the Maurya rule Pushyamitra was the de-facto ruler
in the Avanti region and held simultaneously the position of Commander
- in Chief uner the Mauryas. For this reason only when the Vayu and
Bramanda PuriuJas state that Pushyamitra ruled for 60 years, they take
into account a portion of his rule in the Avant! region prior to his
accession to the throne at Pataliputra.
Significance of the horse-sacrifices
Having thus, usurped the imperial throne Pushyamitra tried
to achieve his mission of consolidating his power for unifying the whole
country once again, fighting against the forces from within and without.
The group of the rival partisans among the bureaucracy was either
imprisoned or suppressed by show of arms at his command and by
generating confidence with a prospect of better and efficient government
(service security and salary security). Though in that age the empire and
the imperial power rested mainly upon the military power, the popular
support to the goverment for its long duration was no negligible matter
and an astute ruler was expected to attract the confidence among his
subjects. Pushyamitra was popularly known as seniipati. The Purar:tas
refer to him as senimi. The Malavikagnimitram calls him senapati. while
38
it gives the epithet Riijan to his son Agnimitra. The Har~acharita also
styles him only a seniini. It is only in the Divyavadana that Pushyamitra
is called as a rajan46. The Buddhist writer Taramitha also refers to him as
a Brahmal}a king. This reference to Pushyamitra as king in the Buddhist
literature which alleged him as the persecutor of Buddhism and the
absence of this eithet rather presence of the epither senapati in most of
the Brahma~ical literature related to him may be explained by the fact
that Pushyamitra might have intended to show that what he did was in
the interest of the motherland. Very soon after his accession to the
throne of Magadha Pushyamitra restored the time-honoured Vedic rite of
horse sacrifice after its long abeyance. It is known from the Mahabha~ya
of Patanjali and the Ayodhya Inscription of Dhanadeva. The
horse-sacri flee, no doubt, exposed the undisputed sovereignty of a king.
But in the case of Pushyamitra it had other significance, for it brought
under his canopy a major section of old fashoined people who clung to
bloody sacrifices, cow-killing and meat-eating. The sentiment in favour
of respecting animal life, technically called the 'Ahimsa doctrine', had a
large share in the people; burdensome rules of conduct. The propagation
of 'Ahimsa' by Asoka necessarily produced a sharp conflict of ideas and
principles of conduct between the adherents and the old fashioned
people47• This brought a reaction against the sancity to animal life, from
the highest to the lowest, all tuned against it48 Pushyamitra might have
utilised that sentiment.
Pushyamitra's dominions
Pushyamitra, after occupying the throne, established himself
as the sovereign of the erstwhile Maurya dominion. He tried his best to
unify the fast disintegrating empire by bringing as much as possible all
the power centres of the Maurya empire within the sub-continent. The
dominions of Pushyamitra extended to the river Narmada and included
the cities of Pataliputra, Ayodhya, Vidisa and if the anthors of the
Divyavadana and 'History r~l Buddhism in India' of Taramitha are to be
believed, Jalandhara and Sakala44• It appears from the evidence of
Divyavadana that he continued to reside in Pataliputra which still
remained, as of old, the capital of the new dynastic rule The
Ma!avikagnimitram proves that Vidisa was given in charge of crown
prince Agnimitra who served as his father's viceroy. While a cousin of
Agnimitra, namely Vlrasena was given the charge of frontier fortress on
the bank of the Narmada in order to check the unwillingness of the South
- West regions to acknowledge the suzerainty of the S~riga monarch.
The Malavikiignimitram50 (Act-V) also refers to Agnimitra's war with the
adjoining state of Vidarbha which resulted in the acknowledgement of
the suzerainty to the house of Pushyamitra by the ruler of Vidarbha. In
the Ayodhya Inscription, Dhanadeva, king of Kosala, claims to be the
sixth in descent from senapati Pushyamitra. In that case it is not unlikely
that Dhanadeva's forefather, a near relative of Pushyamitra was the
governor of Kosala under his suzerainty and thus the region seems to
have been included in the dominions of Pushyamitra. And as the local
dynastic coinage of Kausambi, Mathura and Panchala did not start on a
regular basis before the latter half of the 2nd century B.C. these kingdom
40
are also likely to have been included within Pushyamitra's empire' 1 • In
the Act V of the Af(i/avikagnimitram. Kalidasa refers to a contlict
between prince Vasumitra who escorted. as the Commander-in-Chief of
the am1y of Pushyamitra along with other hunderd princes, the sacrificial
horse for the second horse-sacrifice and a Yavana on the south bank of
the Sindhu. Though there is controversv as to the identification of this ~ .
river Sindhu, we may accept the generally accepted view that this Sindhu
was the famous river Indus of the Punjab'2. We are also infonned that
Vasumitra returned safely with the sacrificial horse after defeating the
Yavanas. If the testimony of the Rajatarangil:zr is to be believed, it is
proved that Pushyamitra's sword took him to the gate of Kashmir, that is
Darabh i sara.
In the Ayodhya Inscription of Dhanadeva, Pushyamitra is
credited with the performance of two horse-sacrifices. It is held53 that the
first horse-sacrifice was celebrated after the victorious war with Vidarbha
and the second after the defeat of the Yavanas. While others believe54
that the first sacrifice was performed immediatey after the coup-d-etat
and the second durings the closing years of Pushyamitra, referred to in
the Miilavikiignimitram. It is also interesting to note that while one
scholar has suggested55 that Pushyamitra performed the second horse
sacrifice to vindicate his position after he had suffered at the hands of
Kaliriga king Kharavela, the first sacrifice coincided with the siege of
Saketa and Madhyamika56• It is opined by a scholar57 that the Yajiia
being performed by Patanjali mentioned in the Mahahha.\ya was the first
horse sacrifice which was celebrated after the Yavanas had left the
41
country. That the second horse sacrifice, which wa:-; performed atkr the
defeat of Menander was more glorious.
However, on the basis of epigraphic evidence we may
undoubtedly accept that Pushyamitra I ,
Sunga performed two
horse-sacrifices. But it can hardly be admitted that they were performed
to celebrate either Pushvamitra's victorv in the Vidarbha war or after the - -
Yavanas had left the country or after the defeat of Menander by
Vasumitra on the bank of the Sindhu or to vindicate his position after he
had sutTered at the hands of Kharavela or the first sacrifice coincided
with the siege of Saketa and Madhyamika. We have no evidence to
prove that Pushyamitra performed these two horse sacrifices with such
intentions behind it. Though it is true that such incidents occurred before
or after the first and the second horse sacrifices it was not pre-destined
that Pushyamitra would let loose the second sacrificial horse with a large
army and armed princes under the charge of his grandson Vasumitra and
expected its arrival near the south bank of the Indus and safe return to
Pataliputra after the victorious war with the Yavanas. Again, the
palaeography of the Hathigumpha Inscription definitely proves that
Kaliriga king Kharavela could not be a contemporary of Pushyamitra.
Pushyamitra who performed the two horse sacrifices just to claim that he
was the undisputed master of North India at a time when the country was
suffering from utter disintegration and insecurity from foreign
aggression. In order to proclaim his sovereignty he undertook the
performance of the time honoured Vedic rite which was regarded as a
symbol of royal glory 511• One may find in it the revival of Hinduism or a
way to satisfy the sentiment of the old-fashioned people who clung to
42
bloody sacrifice, cow-killing and meat eating as against the ethics of
Ahitil.w1 propagated by the Mauryan emperors. BY these two
horse-sacrifices he demonstrated that he had thoroughly consolidated his
position over a greater part of the empire for no monarch could let loose
the sacrificial horse without making sure of its safe return.
Greek Phenomenon in Pushyamitra's reign
The most important single factor that repeatedly challenged
the supremacy of Pushyamitra from outside was the Yavana invasions as
referred to in both the indigenous and foreign literary sources and proved
by the numismatic evidence. In this connection we like to examine the
role of the Greek phenomenon in the history of Magadha and the part
played in this context by Pushyamitra. Both the Greek intruders and
Pushyamitra were helped by each other. We are informed bv the
accounts of the Classical writers and the Yuga Purc1t.w section of the
Gargi Smnhita that the Yavana (Indo-Greeks in this context) invasion of
India actually started after c. 206 B.C. and their regular attacks and
inroads into the heart of the sub-continent must have created a sense of
insecurity (political,social,economic and cultural) and constant threat
among the people of the Mauryan empire. This factor naturally led to the
assassination of the last Maurya emperor Brihadratha who failed to check I
the Yavana inroads and the rise of Pushyamitra Suriga.
There is great disagreement among the scholars about the
number, date and leader of the Yavana invasion. While one believe54 in
only one Greek invasion in India in about 150 B.C. under the leadership
of Menander, there are scholars who believe60 that there was more than
4J
one Greek incursions in India. The 1irst one referred to in the
A1ahahha.\Ta of Patarijal i and Yw.;a Purana occurred he fore Pushvamitra - ~ ~ ( .. ..
actually ascended the throne~> 1 under the leadership of Demetrius I. son of
Euthydcmus , while the second invasion, referred to in the
Malavikagnimitram. took place during the last years of Pushyamitra's
retgn.
However. \\e know from the Puranic evidence that
Pushyamitra ruled at Pataliputra for 36 years from C-187 B.C.to 15 I B.C.
Then if any foreign invasion or invasions had taken place upto
Pataliputra or within the dominion of Pushyamitra.it must have taken
place within this time-period. From the description of Polybius it
appears that Euthydemus got a free hand to acquire and control virtually
all land-routes between India and the West probably after 200 B.C.62• It
is almost universally accepted that it was Demetrius I who crossed the
Hindukush and made himself master of the Kabul and the Indus valley"<
It has been assertedM that 'he ruled from the Jaxartes to the Gulf of
Cambay, from the Persian desert to the Middle Ganges'. The extension
of his rule to the south east of the Hindukush (or the north-western
regions) is also supported by the numismatic evidence, if the bilingual
coins of Indian standard (other than the bust wearing a flat cap or Kausia
coins of Demetrius 11~>5 ) are attributed to him. After ascending the throne
in c. 189 B.C. ~>~>Demetrius I might have utilised a few years to
consolidate his position in Bactria and made incursion into the Gangetic
valley (Madhyadcsd) upto Patalilputra by about 180 B.C.07 (others place
the date in between c. I 73 -167 B.C.('"'or189-170 B.C."9). However. the
Indian invasion of the Indo-Greeks under Demetrius I ended just
44
sometime before he sieged Eucratidcs bv about 170 l3.C. What the ~ ~
A1dlavikagnimitram of Kalidasa mentioned of the victor\· of
Pushyamitra's army under Yasumitra on the south bank of the Sindhu
over the Yavana was the second Greek incursion probably under
Menander and it is not referred to in the Puninas or in the Mahahll(i:'Ya.
the 3rd chapter of which \Vas written between c. 144-142 B.C. 70 There has
been some controversy regarding the identification of the river. Rapson
thinks70a that "the choice seems to lie between the Kalisindhu, a tributary
of the Cham1anvatl (Chambal) tlowing within a hundred miles of
Madhyamika (near Chiter) and the Sindhu, a tributary of the Jumna
which would naturally be passed by the invading forces on the route
between Mathuni and Prayaga. A third alternative, suggested bv
R.C.Majumder 70h , ts also possible and the river Sindhu may be
identified with the great river Indus which is most important in Indian
history by its popular tradition.
Pushyamitra and the Greek invasions
Being the Commander-in-Chief of the army of the Maurya
emperor for a long time, Pushyamitra observed the situation very well
and he might have fought the Yavanas. Subhagasena, a successor of
Asoka, or Jalauka of Kashmir, also a son and successor of Asoka might
have checked the Yavana (mlechchha) inrush by entering into an alliance
with the Yavana leader Antiochus III or by military force. Thereafter,
the Indo-Greeks under Demetrius I found no power on the borderland or
in the interior to make alliance of the previous nature or to be resisted
actively. The last Maurya ruler Brihadratha failed to keep his coronation
45
oath of protecting his subjects by checking the Ya\ ana inroads. It is very
likelv that Brihadratha was slain bv his amw chief. The sudden . . .
disappearance of the king at centre must ha\·e created a bit of uneasiness
and uncertainty among the people. It was under such political condition
that the Bactrian Greeks invaded the country, sieged the power centres of
the tast disintegrating empire and finally knocked at the gate of the
capital. Pushyamitra got an opportunity to consolidate his power and
position and to unify the breaking empire once again. But in which way?
The Indo-Greek incursions had a great impact upon the political, social
and cultural life of the Indian people. Inspite of state patronage,
Buddhism did not have the same popular base as the traditional
Brahmaryism had upon the Indian people.
We have already stated in the first chapter that during the
post · Asokan period there emerged a clash of interest between the
adhcrenb of 'Ahimsa' \that IS protection and respect of animal life) and
old fashioned people who clung to Brahmanical rites of cow killing and
meat-eating. The Buddhist population might not have readily reconciled
itself to Pushyamitra's action in overthrowing a dynasty which had come
to be looked upon as the bulwark of Buddhism. They sought for
aspiration and help from the Yavana invaders in the north-west. In the
Punjab, Buddhism seems to have openly allied itself with the Greek
invaders, and this must have given Pushyamitra sufficient cause for
meting out to them the treatment which all traitors deserve 71• On the
other hand, it is claimed 72 that the aim of Demetrius was to restore the
huge derelect empire of the Mauryas but under the Greek rule and with
himself on the throne of Asoka. The Indo Greek advance to Magadha
46
mieht have been caused bv their intention to save their brother-in-!~1ith ~ ~
(mainly the Buddhist) from the hands of the Brahm ana kine. Thev were. . ~ . by that time. more influenced by Buddhist religion as proved by the
bilingual coins of Agathocles (Demetrius's son) bearing' Stupa : Tree'
symbol.
In almost all the Pura1_1as the panicky condition of the
Madhyadesa created by the Yavana invasion is depicted in a detailed
description of the 'Kali Age' which represents a deviation from the
established order of things. 'Kali' means the neglect of rituals.
predominance and influence of heretical sects and of foreign
non-brahmanical rulers, non-performance of the functions assigned to
different social varf!as by the Dharmasastras etc. 7' The Age or period is
characterised by foreign invasions. instability. social tensions, contlicts.
and heterodox sects and teachings. 7 ~ The Yuga PurdiJa says :