Rise & Fall of Kośala

Posted on by Priya Chaturvedi

India in 6th century BCE was brimming with activity, be it religious, political or cultural. The political map of this ancient civilization at the time was dotted with territorial units called the janapada-s. Buddhist sources like Aṅguttara Nikāya inform us about the sixteen major janapada-s of Jambudipa (India) i.e. soḷasa mahājanapada known for some time at that period. These were – Kāśī, Kosala, Aṅga, Magadha, Vajji, Malla, Chetiya (Chedi), Vaṁsa (Vatsa), Kuru, Pañchāla, Machchha (Matsya), Sūrasena, Assaka, Gandhāra, Kamboja. By the time curtain lifts on the sixth century BCE, four out of these sixteen mahājanapada-s had come to prominence and strong monarchies were ruling them. These were Kosala, Magadha, Avanti and Vatsa. With the presence of such powerful kingdoms in such close proximity to each other, it doesn’t come as a surprise that their ambitious monarchs tried to get better of each other. In the struggle, one was about to outmaneuver the others and we all know who was to be the ultimate winner in the race – the kingdom of Magadha.

Introduction

The process of rise of Magadha is also the journey of downfall of the other three very promising kingdoms – the fall of Avanti, Kośala and Vatsa. Activities from the 6th century BCE onwards in these kingdoms present a very exciting tale of wars, political intrigues, ego clashes and all the other spices needed to make a fascinating account. The account of one such struggle, that of Avanti and Magadha has been dealt with on this blog in a previous post titled – Magadha and Avanti: The End of the House of Pradyota-s. In this post, I humbly attempt to narrate the views and theories of various scholars and historians on the kingdom of Kośala and it’s ultimate downfall in the face of the rising power of Magadha. The later history of Kośala and its struggles before gradually being engulfed by Magadh form the core of this post.

Note: As all the events considered here are from before common era, hence the readers are advised to consider all the dates in this post as belonging to that period as it will not be separately mentioned each time.

The Sixteen Mahājanapada-s (Image Credit: indiancontents.com)

Table of Contents & Links

The People & The Territory

Kingdom of Kośala does not find mention in the earliest of the Vedic literature but in some of the later Vedic works like the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Kalpasūtras — major texts of Kalpa Vedāṅga.1 Pāṇini also informs us about the kingdom and Buddhist works include it in one of the sixteen mahājanapada-s. Atthasālini talks about Kośala as one of the great Kṣatriya tribes in the time of the Buddha.2 Some kings of the region are of course mentioned in the literature for the period prior to the 6th century like Āṭanāra Hiraṇyanābha who is told to have performed the famous Aśwamedha sacrifice3 but information on those would require a separate post on its own and do not fall in purview of this particular post.

What is important to note is that the ancient Indian literature across the board is unanimous in ascribing sūrya vaṁśa (the solar dynasty) to the kings of Kośala and they are told to be the descendants of Manu through Ikṣavāku (Law, 1943:117). It is in the Epics – the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata that Kośala comes to prominence. As readers would be well aware that Bhagavān Rāma belonged to this region and therefore, the territory played an important role in the former epic. The Mahābhārata also mentions this kingdom many a times and at one place, a king of Kośala named Bṛhadbala is told to have been conquered by the Pāṇḍava Bhīmasena and he later attended the Rājasūya sacrifice. After this, Karṇa is told to have conquered Kośala instead and that’s why we find Kośala king later in the great war on the side of the Kaurava-s (Law, 1943:120).

The Purāṇa-s give us information about many kings of Kośala – almost all of whom were glorious kings of Bhārata as per our sacred Hindu scriptures. Some of these glorious names are known all too well – Māndhātā, Sagara, Bhagīratha, Raghu etc (Law, 1943:120). The genealogical lists in the Purāṇa-s though containing historical names, still present us with some complications which will be dealt later in the post.

Geography

As to the geographical location of the kingdom, it lay east to the great and famous territories of the Kuru-s and the Pāñcāla-s and to the west of equally famous kingdom of Videha. The river Sadānīrā (identified possibly with the river Gaṅḍaka) formed the boundary between the states of Kośala and Videha.4 In the north it touched hills in Nepāla and had territory contiguous with the realm of the Śākya-s. In the south, river Gaṅgā was its boundary and the area was more or less similar with the later region of Awadh (Oudh).5 Indeed the word Awadh is itself a corrupted form of the original Ayodhyā. As told, Kośala in the west touched the territory of Pāñcāla-s, on the south by Sarpikā or Syandikā (Sai) river, on the east by Sadānīrā and on the north by the Nepāla Hills.6 But scholar Moti Chandra points out an interesting observation with regard to the western boundary of the state of Kośala –

…he states that as Buddhist literature does not mention Uttara Pāñcāla (Bareilly), it is a possibility that in the west, river Gaṅgā formed the boundary line of Kośala and other states within the sphere of its influence.7

Sāvatthi (Śrāvastī) was the capital of the realm and Śrāvasta, the son of Yuvanāśva is said to have founded it.8 The other important cities were Ayodhyā and Sāketa, though both are considered by some as one and the same but not conclusively. Some scholars like Rhys Davids are of the opinion that the two were different cities and point out that both of them are told to have existed in Buddha’s time (Raychaudhuri, 1923:49). According to the Hindu tradition, Kuśa succeeded Bhagavān Rāma in Ayodhyā while Lava got the northern portion of Kośala with Śrāvastī as the capital.9

Ayodhyā seems to have been the earliest capital of the state, Sāketa the next and Śrāvastī the last. By the sixth century, Ayodhyā had seemed to lost its earlier glory and does not come across as a town of much significance at least in the Buddhist texts. But Mahāparinibbāna Sutta mentions Sāketa and Śrāvastī among the six great cities of India (Raychaudhuri, 1923:53). The kingdom was very much part of an essential and flourishing trade of the time and its cities were important centres in the trade route. Kauśāṁbī in the neighbouring kingdom Vatsa was the chief encampment of the caravans and the routes from Rājagṛha to Kośala10 and another route from Uttarāpatha reached the capital of the Kośala kingdom – Śrāvastī (Moti Chandra, 1977:17). This route was on the same course as per Moti Chandra as the railway line from Sahāranpur-Lucknow-Banāras.11

Overview

Before proceeding any further with the detailed analysis of the people and the events involved in the rise and fall of Kośala kingdom as oppose to the rise of Magadha from sixth century onwards, it becomes important to summarize those very people and events to give the readers an overview. In the sixth century, as mentioned above in the introduction of the article, out of the sixteen mahājanpadas, four great monarchies had emerged – Kośala, Magadha, Avanti and Vatsa. Kośala was ruled by the sūrya vaṁśī Ikṣavāku-s or the Aikṣavāka kings, Vatsa was under the domain of the illustrious House of Bharata – the candra vaṁśī Puru-s. Magadha was ruled by the Haryaṅka dynasty and Avanti was under the House of Pradyota-s. The kingdoms evidently had emerged at the cost of their neighbouring janapada-s.

Thus, immediately before the rise of Buddhism, these four great monarchies of ancient India had gained territories by engulfing some of the other important janapada-s. Magadha conquered Aṅga, Kośala took over Kāśī, Vatsa conquered Bharga and Śūrasena was under the influence of Avanti (Law, 1943:140). Magadha and Kośala came together in order to cement alliances between themselves and Mahākośala, the king of Kośala gave his daughter Kośala Devī in marriage to the king of Magadha – Bimbisāra (r. c. 545- c. 493) and revenue of a Kāśī village was given to the daughter. Mahākośala was succeeded by his son Prasenajit (Pkt. Pasenadi) on the throne of Kośala. At this time, it is important to note that Kośala was the biggest kingdom of the four great monarchies of India but that was not to be so for long. Pasenadi also had a son named Virūḍhaka (Pkt. Viḍūḍabha) whose role later becomes very important in the ensuing events. After some time, Bimbisāra was dethroned by his son Ajātaśatru and also possibly killed by him for all our texts consider Ajātaśatru a parricide. Shorty afterwards, Kośala Devī died in grief.

After this tragic event, Prasenajit took away the rights of the Kāśī village from Ajātaśatru, an action to which the Magadhan monarch took serious offence.

Battles were fought between Kośala and Magadha on this pretext and Kośala eventually defeated Ajātaśatru but Prasenajit considered it politically sagacious to let the Magadhan king go and made peace with him. Some sources even say that he gave his daughter Vajjirā to Ajātaśatru in marriage along with the revenue of the very same village of Kāśī. During this time Kośala was one of the prime focus of the religious activities of the period obviously of Hinduism but also of Buddhism, Jainism and even the Ājīvika-s. Siddhārtha i.e. Gautama Budhha was very much involved in preaching his views in Kośala and was also close to Pasenadi.

One time, king Pasenadi decided to march out of his capital with his army but in his absence, his senāpati (commander-in-chief) established Viḍūḍabha on the throne of Kośala. Pasenadi went to Rājagṛha (Rājagīra) the capital of Magadha to seek Ajātaśatru’s help against the usurper but died before anything could be achieved. Viḍūḍabha on the other hand, took his army to the Śākya territory and perpetrated a massacre of the Śākya-s due to a personal grudge. After the massacre, he went back to his realm and encamped near the banks of the river Achiravatī. He however, could not survive for long and perished along with his army in a flood. Taking advantage of the vacuum in Kośala kingdom, Ajātaśatru gradually increased his influence over the Kośalan territory and finally seemed to have even annexed Kāśī.

Unfortunately, the texts do not provide much clarity about Kośala after this period and there are left a lot of unanswered questions. Avanti and Vatsa, the other two rivals and their actions also affected the activities and relations between Magadha and Kośala. Avanti had serious influence over the Śūrasena territory because the king of Śūrasena who was called with metronymic Avantiputta (Avantiputra) was apparently a grandson of the Avanti monarch Canḍa Pradyota Mahāsena. Pradyot was an equally ambitious monarch and had even made attempts to threaten not only Magadha but also Kośala. But his attempt to capture Vatsa territory had resulted between the marriage of his daughter Vāsavadattā with Udayana, the Vatsa king. But this upset doesn’t really affect Pradyota for now through his daughter, he could still have Vatsa under his influence.

These ever changing dynamics and the boiling ambitions of the four great monarchies played a very important role in the downfall of Kośala and emergence of Magadha from a kingdom into an empire. Now we will move towards understanding the nuances behind this summary of events.

Genealogy

As briefly mentioned above, the Purāṇic genealogy with regard to Ikṣavāku kings of Kośala is very confusing for after the Kośalan king Bṛhadbala who died in the great Bhārata War and before Prasenajit, they have included Shuddhodhana the Śākya chief, Siddhārtha (Buddha) his son, and Rāhula, the son of Siddhārth while not mentioning Mahākośala at all. The corroboration from Buddhist sources confirm that Prasenajit was actually a contemporary of the Buddha.12

But this does not mean that the Purāṇic lists cannot be a source for history of the period. They evidently contain names of very much real kings and princes of the family but also with some very visible discrepancies (Raychaudhuri, 1923: 51). Dr. Raychaudhuri’s opinion in this regard is really helpful. He thinks that the Purāṇa-s seem to have placed the names of the Ikṣavāku kings and princes of various branches or territories at one place, thus resulting in the mixed names and the confusion where some contemporaries have been made successors and collaterals as lineal descendants along with some important omissions like that of king Mahākośala.13 After all, various branches of the same Ikṣavāku family of Kośala are said to have been ruling at Viśālā or Vaiśālī  (Rāmāyaṇa I. 47. 11-12), at Mithilā as well according to the Vāyu Purāṇa and at Kuśinārā as per Kuśa Jātaka.14

Kāśī-Kośala Conflicts

In the summary written above, the readers might have noticed that Kośala had control over the territory of another extremely valuable and important kingdom of Kāśī. But how did Kośala achieved the overlordship of Kāśī? How did it come about?

Kāśī-Kośala-Videha seems to have been closely connected throughout their early history. The Śānkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra tells us that Jala Jātūkarṇya was the Purohita of all the three kingdoms in the past (Raychaudhuri, 1923:34). Before the eventual rise of Kośala as the penultimate monarchy in India, preceding the rise of Magadha, the two kingdoms – Kāśī and Kośala were involved in frequent wars with each other for many years with one kingdom defeating the other in turns.15 The importance of the kingdom of Kāśī with its capital Vārāṇasī cannot be underrated. It fired the ambitions of many of the kings of the time and it appears that the Puru-s of Vatsa had conquered it once but Kāśī seems to have again emerged independent when we see the frequent struggles of Kāśī with another power on the scene – the Ikṣavāku-s of Kośala.16

We can ascertain the strength and power of Kāśī through the Assaka Jātaka which informs us that once Poṭalī in the kingdom of Assaka (Aśmaka) also came under its the suzerainty. The reigning prince of Poṭalī at the time must have been a vassal of the ruler of Kāśī (Raychaudhuri, 1923:47). Kāśī was therefore, once a much stronger power than many of its neighbours including Kośala.17 Mahāvagga gives very clear impression that during the rule of the earlier Brahmadatta dynasty, Kāśī achieved great territorial heights and in fact, Kośala was a rather small kingdom but came to prominence again in the seventh and the sixth century.18 The Brahmadatta-s of Kāśī and their history has also been mentioned on this blog in an earlier post titled – Who were the Brahmadatta-s of Kāśī? The conquest of Kośala by Kāśī according to scholar Jayaswal must have happened at least three generations before Mahākośala.19

Buddhist text Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa also gives some information in this regard – One very successful, vigorous and kind king of Vārāṇasī named Brahmadatta whose son was also very pious and son of the latter was Harya (Hayagrīva). Now this does not mean that only one king Brahmadatta made such advancements. We know that many kings of this dynasty were called by this name. By one estimate, Brahmadatta, the king of Kāśī probably conquered Kośala about a century and a half before Buddha’s time.20

In the Gangamāla Jātaka, we are told that a prince named Brahmadatta became king of Benāres and married the beautiful daughter of the king of Kośala and also made her the chief queen (Law, 1943:107). According to the Sona-Nanda Jātaka, a king of Benāres named Manoja is told to have subdued Kośala, Aṅga and even Magadha (Raychaudhuri, 1923:48). The dynasty of Kāśī possibly annexed Magadha in c. 727 (Jayaswal, 1934:13). The conflict with Kāśī which lasted generations finally came to an end when Kāśī was subjugated by the Kośalan king Kaṁsa who probably was a predecessor of Mahākośala.21 That this Kaṁsa had been given the epithet Bārānasiggaho – the conqueror of Benāres in the Jātaka tales confirms the theory that he was the monarch that finally annexed Kāśī to Kośala for good.22

The early Buddhist texts mention people still remembering Kāśī as an independent kingdom, thus implying that the conquest by Kaṁsa could not have been long ago and hence was rather recent.23

The accession of Kāśī in the kingdom of Kośala was therefore an accepted fact during and after the rise of the Buddha. As mentioned above, the Jātaka-s mention that when King Bimbisāra of Magadha married the daughter of king Mahākośala of Kośala, a village of Kāśī (Kasigāma) was given as dowry for the bath money for the bride (Law, 1943:109). The village must have been quite large for it reportedly gave revenue of a hundred thousand for bath and perfume money for Kośala Devī (Raychaudhuri, 1923:81). Now we will consider analyzing the evidence behind that part of the summary where Śākya-s are mentioned as subjugated to Kośala.

Śākya-s Under Kośala

The confirmation of Śākya-s’ subjugation under Kośala comes from Buddhist sources themselves. Buddha says in Sutta Nipāta – “just besides Himavanta there lives a people endowed with the power of wealth, the inhabitants of Kośala. They are Aadichchas by family, Sakiyas by birth; from that family I have wandered out not longing for sensual pleasures.”24 As per Majjhima Nikāya, Pasenadi says, “Bhagavā pi khattiyo, aham pi khattiyo, bhagavā pi kosalako, aham pi kosalako, Bhagavā pi āsītiko, aham pi āsītiko.” (Raychaudhuri, 1923:49). Dr. Raychaudhuri considers this as an evidence for Kośalan suzerainty over Śākya-s.

Though Dr. Law makes an important distinction as to the inherent meaning of these lines told by Pasenadi as per Majjhima Nikāya as oppose to the meaning understood by Raychaudhuri. While Raychaudhuri considers this line as an evidence of Buddha belonging to Kośala, thus clearly implying that the Śākya territories were subjugated under the Kośalan monarch, Law thinks that these lines only imply the following – “the intimate and enduring connection of Kośala with the life and teachings of Buddha”, so much so that “Pasenadi felt himself justified in feelingly saying to him…, ‘The Blessed One is a man of Kosala, as I am’.”25 But this does not mean that the Śākya realm was not under the Kośala kingdom for which there is ample evidence in affirmative, only that these particular lines imply a different meaning to these scholars. It is however not certain that during whose reign did Śākya-s lost their independence. Probably during Mahākośala or during the rule of Pasenadi but the Kośala king did overlord the Śākya.

We will now analyse the very significant reign of king Prasenajit or Pasenadi of Kośala. Important to note is the fact that not only Śākya but some other republics and tribal territories were under Kośala as well. The Buddhist texts do not particularly refer to any major conflict between Kośala and any other tribe or state, quite unlike its constant friction with Kāśī. This hints to the possibility that tribes or clans in the northern part of Kośala were gradually absorbed into it without much hassle.26

Prasenajit-Pasenadi

Dr. Law opines that there is very much clear evidence to suggest that Pasenadi was almost of the same age as Buddha and both of them lived up to their eightieth year – he mentions these lines from the Buddhist texts in his support – “The Blessed One is in his eightieth year, so am I.” It is confirmed that Prasenajit had maintained the dominions inherited by him from his father Mahākośala. Dīgha Nikāya mentions Pasenadi as the king of Kāśī and informs us that he used to collect taxes from inhabitants of the two said kingdoms i.e. Kāśī and Kośala and also used to share the income with his subordinates. (Law, 1943:110). The Lohichcha sutta provides the confirmation for this.27

When Mahāvagga says that a Kāsika-raja once sent a robe to Jīvaka, the famous physician of Bimbisāra, by the authority of Buddhaghoṣa we are told that this king was actually a brother of Pasenadi and son of the same-father. It then becomes clear that Kāśī was being ruled by a viceroy of Kośala in Kāśī who was a brother of Prasenajit of Kośala.28 This is also the reason why Ajātaśatru took Kāśī when he won the contest with Kośala, he got the control of the dominion of Kāśī as well.29 Samyukta Nikāya mentions Pasenadi as the head of the group of five Rājā-s, one of them must have been his brother, the viceroy of Kāśī.

Another of these Rājā-s Dr. Raychaudhuri identifies with Hiraṇyanābha Kauśalya. Another Rājā according to him must have been the Śākya head of Kapilavastu as we have already seen that the Jātakas and other Buddhist texts confirm the Śākya territory as under the subordination of Kośala and also that the Buddha along with his people was called Kośalan. The might of Prasenajit must have been formidable for the Jain literature gives a very exalted epithet to Prasenajita – Jītaśatru i.e. vanquisher of the enemy or the conqueror.30

The Jain list in the Uvāsagadasāo of the five cities in the dominion of Jītaśatru (Prasenajita) can help us to identify the five components of the Kośala kingdom whose head Prasenajita has been told. They were – Sāvatthii of Kośala proper, Baranasī of Kāśī, Ālabhī of Ālabhī, Kampillapura (Kampillanagara) of Uttara Pāñcāla, and Polāsapura of similar integral part.31 Thus Kośala on the west was actually bound by the territory of Śūrasena which was either annexed or under the strong influence of Avanti32 due to the close family relations between the kingdoms of Śūrasena and Avanti.

It can therefore be reasonably surmised that Kośala during the Buddha’s time consisted of almost the whole of the western half of the middle country mentioned in the Buddhist literature.33 This also means that the kingdom of Kośala had much more territory under its influence as compared to the restricted version of the modern area of Avadha. Pasenadi was thus a very influential personality. Dr. Raychaudhuri mentions about his character through the following excerpt from an article titled “Sage and King in Kosala-Samyutta” by Mrs. Rhys Davids –

“He is shown combining like so many of his class all the world over, a proneness to affairs of sex with the virtues and affection of a good ‘family man’, indulgence at the table with an equally natural wish to keep in good physical form, a sense of honour and honesty, shown in his disgust at legal cheating, with a greed for acquiring wealth and war indemnities, and a fussiness over lost property, a magnanimity towards a conquered foe with a callousness over sacrificial slaughter and the punishment for criminals. Characteristic also is both his superstitious nervousness over the sinister significance of dreams due, in reality to disordered appetites, and also his shrewd, politic care to be on the good terms with all religious orders, whether he had testimonials to their genuineness or not.”

H. C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India. pp. 100-101.

As for the good terms with all religious orders, it is confirmed from the Buddhist sources that Pasenadi gave support not only to the heterodox sect of the Buddhists but also that he was equally, if not more a patron of the orthodoxy – the Brāhamaṇa-s and “gave them spots on royal domains with power over them as if they were kings” (Raychaudhuri, 1923:101). The great Brāhamaṇa-s of Kośala are called mahāsāla in Pālī canonical texts, a word which means ‘rich and influential’, the word is treated as a equivalent of mahāsāra, meaning ‘a man of substance’ (Law, 1935:14).  Dr. Law suggests that the richness and power of these Brāhmins of Kośala means that Pasenadi possibly made some permanent land grants and endowments to these Brahmins. The Pālī literature also suggests that each of the great mahāsāla was established in a distinct locality with such control over the given land pertaining to the revenue-judicial-civil administration determined by the terms of royal grants and religious endowments (rañña dinnaṁ Brahmmadeyaṁ) (Law, 1935:15).

But the Kośala monarch was not the only king to provide such support to the orthodoxy as it seems to have been a norm in most of the territories in ancient India. Dīgha Nikāya also gives an example of this from the city of Caṁpā in Aṅga where a Brāhmin named Sonadanḍa was “in the enjoyment of the revenue of the town as it was given to him by Bimbisāra of Magadha.” Though, the text relates that later the Brahmin and some of his people converted to Buddhism after they met with the Buddha. These sources also inform us about some very important officials of the Kośala kingdom like Mṛgadhara, Siri-Vaddha, and also one Dīrgha Cārāyaṇa. Interestingly Kauṭilya also mentions one Dīrgha Cārāyaṇa as an author of treatise on kingly duties and is also mentioned by Vātsyāyana as an author of science of erotics.34 This official played a very important role as per the later Budhdist texts in the ascendance of Viḍūḍabha, the dethroner and successor of Prasenajit.

The Buddhists text mention many other towns of Kośala besides Sāketa and Sāvatthi like Dandakappaka, Nalakapāna, Setavya and Pankadha (Law, 1943:132). The inhabitants of Kośala mentioned in these texts are told to be healthy and powerful. The earlier Buddhist texts refer to King Pasenadi venturing out of Śrāvastī on his royal chariot yoked to the best of the steeds and sometimes even on his royal elephant named Ekapuṇḍarīka.35 The kingdom was clearly a prosperous one. At the time, the city of Takṣaśilā had become the preferred place for the Indian royalty of the period to receive and finish its education. And we find that the Kośalan princes also used to attend Takṣaśilā university (Law, 1943:133).

Kośala & Ajātaśatru

As noted above, Ajātaśatru had important relations with the Kośala royal house. Some Jātaka-s like Thusa and Musika make the Kośalan princess (Kośala Devī) as the mother of Ajātaśatru and the evidence of Samyukta Nikāya confirms that. But, the same Samyukta Nikāya gives us the name of the mother of Ajātaśatru as Maddā (Raychaudhuri,1923:103-104). The Jain writers however, contradict this information and make Chellanā, the daughter of Cetaka of Vaiśālī who was also married to Bimbisāra as the mother of Ajātaśatru and calls him Vaidehiputta. As Vaiśālī, the capital of Licchavi republic was situated in the erstwhile territory of Videha, it makes sense for the Jain writers to give this metronymic to Ajātaśatru. But Buddhaghosha gives a different meaning for Vedehi implying that it comes from Veda-Iha/Vedena Ihati meaning intellectual effort. Interestingly, some of the Kośalan kings like Para Āṭanāra were called both Vaideha and Kauśalya.36

The question of maternity of Ajātaśatru thus remains complicated and unanswered. As mentioned above, after Bimbisāra died, the son and successor of Mahākośala – Prasenajit (Pasenadi) withdrew the gift of Kāśī village from Ajātaśatru, who was now king of Magadha. This Kāśī village became the bone of contention between the two kingdoms and there ensued a protracted struggle and frequent wars. In the start, it was Ajātaśatru that had the upper hand and he once even drove Prasenajit back to Śrāvastī but then the tables turned and Ajātaśatru had to surrender his entire army to the Kośala monarch. But Prasenajit treated the Magadhan king generously and as per Samyutta Nikāya, he let him go after marrying his daughter Vajjirā to Ajātaśatru and gave the disputed village to her as a wedding gift.37

Some scholars are of the opinion that this story of Ajātaśatru being let go by Pasenadi after he is married to the king’s daughter is a later turn in the tale and cannot be taken seriously. The theory is that this cross-cousin marriage is a very Ceylonese/Sri Lankan twist (Dravidian traditions as some scholars call them) in the tale influenced by their traditions and societal norms rather than the north Indian ones. The argument in support of the theory is that the Jain accounts also show Ajātaśatru to have been son of Bimbisāra from his Vaidehan wife and not Kośalan one and even if Pasenadi had decided to marry off his daughter to Ajātaśatru, it evidently could not have been a cross-cousin marriage but only a political decision to end a bloody conflict.38 The texts in which this story is told like Vaḍḍhakisūkara Jātaka and Dhammapadatthakathā are all post-canonical.39

This therefore, is considered by some historians as Ceylonization of Indian history of which the genealogy of the Buddha is the prime instance. Important to note is that the Samyutta Nikāya ends the story at Ajātaśatru being freed by Pasenadi with no talk of a marriage40 and considering the fact that Ajātasattu was given the metronymic vedehiputta, it further confuses the narrative. It is even more conflicting when in Samyutta Nikāya Pasenadi calls Ajātasattu both bhāgineyya and Vedehiputta. Even Vajjirā is not mentioned. Only one Vajiri is told about in the text though she is not daughter of Pasenadi in it. How this narrative can be reconciled? This also then remains an unanswered question. The reason for such confusions is that the Kośalan War between Ajātasattu and Pasenadi is clearly less well attested than comparatively the one between Magadha and the Vajjis because the former conflict is only mentioned in Buddhist literature. Moving ahead, shortly after the victory of Prasenajit over Ajātaśatru and the final truce, Prasenajit went to the fateful march which ultimately ended his life. It is therefore certain that Pasenadi had died before the war of Ajātaśatru with the Vajji-s had began.41 Before Magadha-Licchavi i.e. Magadha-Vajji conflict, Viḍūḍabha had ascended to the throne of Kośala.

Virūḍhaka-Viḍūḍabha

One Kṣūdraka is named as Prasenajit’s son in the Purāṇa-s and it is a possibility that this was one of the name for Viḍūḍabha.42 Viḍūḍabha apparently and interestingly served first as a senāpati (general) of the Kośalan army (Raychaudhuri:1923, 101). When Prasenajit was out of the kingdom, the commander-in-chief of Kośala – Dīrgha Chārāyaṇa (Pkt. Dīgha Kārāyaṇa) who according to one version of the story had gone with Prasenajit, conspired to come back to Kośala and use the absence of the king to make Viḍūḍabha as the king instead (Raychaudhuri, 1923:105). The dethroned king now tried to get help from Magadha and went to Rājagīra, the capital. But there was a practice of the Magadha kingdom in which as per Vinaya Piṭaka –

..the city-gate of Rājagṛha was closed in the evening,..then nobody, not even the king, was allowed to enter the city.

B. C. Law, Tribes in Ancient India. p. 221

Pasenadi could not get the desired help and was utterly exhausted from the exposure to the wind and the sun and then he lay down in a certain rest house and died there in the night. Interestingly, the Pālī Sutta closes on the very peaceful departure of Pasenadi accompanied with his general Dīgha Kārāyaṇa. It is only in the later legends that we find the intrigue by the general to establish Viḍūḍabha, son of Vāsabha Khattiyā on the throne of Kośala instead.43

After Pasenadi’s death, Viḍūḍabha attacked the territory of Śākya-s as mentioned in the summary. The reason is told to be an old grudge –- Pasenadi had once demanded a wife from the Śākya royal house but the Śākya-s had an interesting custom according to which they under any circumstances did not give their girls for marriage outside the tribe. So to find a way out of the conundrum and to not be seen as disrespecting their overlord, they gave the daughter (Vāsabha Khattiyā) of the Śākya chief Mahānāmana from a slave girl to Pasenadi. Viḍūḍabha was born of this alliance. When he came to know about the insult to him and his family, he wanted to avenge it. Therefore, the first act of Viḍūḍabha after gaining the throne was to attack the Śākya-s. He perpetrated a massacre of the Śākya-s and killed everyone. He also took away their women as slave girls and when these women defied his advances, he also had them killed. And then he also perished, as mentioned in the summary along with his forces in a deluge. All this happened when the Buddha was alive, the later texts then continue to narrate the gory tale of Viḍūḍabha’s massacre of the Śākya-s who remained non-violent.44

However, as is with such stories in the Buddhist texts, there is some contradiction here as well. The early Pālī canonical texts neither make Vāsabha Khattiyā a daughter of the Śākya head Mahānāmana from a slave girl nor make Viḍūḍabha Pasenadi’s son but only his general (senāpati), quite like Dīgha Kārāyaṇa. Added to this is the fact that the Śākya-s remained as Dr. Law curiously points out, quite independent at least immediately after the demise of the Buddha in Kuśīnara for they are explicitly mentioned in Mahāparinibbāna Suttānta as demanding a share of his ashes or relics after the fact. But in another strange turn in the tale, these early texts do not mention any one coming from Kośala to claim any share in the Buddha’s relics, something that might have been expected considering the close connection and amount of time spent by the Buddha in Kośala and also his close relations with Pasenadi.45

It is quite likely as per Dr. Law that the two generals might have conspired to usurp the Kośala throne in favour of one of them i.e. Viḍūḍabha and the ensuing confusion and the intrigues of the Kośala court prevented the kingdom from claiming any share in the master’s relics. The first step of Viḍūḍabha after claiming the throne then might have been to conquer the Śākya territories to solidify his rule and not to avenge some personal insult as later Buddhist texts make it out to be. Viḍūḍabha also becomes a reason for another interesting story of another very famous monarch of India – Caṅdragupta Maurya. One of the many origin stories of Caṅdragupta is also related to how Viḍūḍabha treated the Śākya-s. The Mahāvaṁśa Ṭīkā states that some of the Śākya-s troubled from the oppression of Viḍūḍabha fled to the Himālaya-s where they settled and built a beautiful city known as Moriyanagara (Mauryanagara). The city was named as such because it always resounded with the cries of peacocks.46 Though it has to be stated that while the Kṣatriya origin of Caṅdragupta (The Moriya-s of Pipphalivana) is largely accepted among scholars, this particular story related to Viḍūḍabha does not find much traction.47

Confederacy

The famous Magadha-Licchavi conflict is very significant in the history of ancient India. And we also know that Ajātaśatru emerged victorious in this prolonged struggle. The Jain texts give us the information regarding Ajātaśatru and that he attained victory over the powerful confederacy of Eastern India that had 36 republican states as its part: 9 Mallaki, 9 Lichchhavi, and 18 gaṇarājya-s of Kāśī and Kośala.48 This confederacy coupled with the earlier Kośala-Magadha wars as per Raychaudhuri were probably not random events.

They clearly “were not isolated events but parts of a common movement directed against the establishment of the hegemony of Magadha. This struggle reminds us of the tussle of Samnites, Etruscans and Gauls with the rising Roman power.” 49

The head of the confederacy was Cetaka, a Videhan domiciled at Vaiśālī50 whose sister Triśalā or Videhadattā was the mother of Mahāvira and as per Jaina texts, whose daughter Cellanā or Vedehi was mother of the Magadhan monarch Kuṇika Ajātaśatru as mentioned above. Buddhaghoṣa’s Sumaṅgalavilāsinī bearing on the first chapter of Mahāparinibbāna Suttānta mentions the reason for the germination of rivalry between Lichchavi and Magadha – as the output from the mine or a quarry on the boundary of Lichchavi-Magadha was as per an agreed arrangement, supposed to be divided between the two realms but the former broke its  agreement and took away all of the output and thus, there ensued a war between them.51

Interestingly the Jain legends like Bhagavatī and Nirayāvalī bring forth Kuṇika Ajātaśatru as only a viceroy of Aṅga when it is told that the conflict between Lichchavi and Magadha emerged (Law, 1935: 16). But these Jain legends also give a very different reason for the Licchavi-Magadha war implying that the origin of the conflict was that Vaiśālī tried to set up another son of Bimbisāra named Vehalla for the throne of Magadha instead of Ajātaśatru (Law, 1935: 17). Thus the Jain legends suggest that the sheer opposition to the succession of Ajātaśatru to the throne of Magadha prompted a confederacy of the Kāśī-Kośala dominions along  with the Lichchavi-Malla gaṇarājya-s.52

But Basham points out an important question about this theory of Raychaudhuri which doesn’t really explain how Kāśī-Kośala from being monarchy turned into the territory of eighteen gaṇarājya-s? Though he agrees with Raychaudhuri in that the evidence in favour of a widespread tribal confederacy north of the Gaṅgā against the growing ambitions of Kośala and also Magadha is overwhelming. His attempted answer for this is the situation created by Viḍūḍabha’s accession to the throne of Kośala and the subsequent massacre of the Śākya-s and also the eventual death of Viḍūḍabha himself soon after. As per him –

“It may well be that the only motive of the new and ambitious king of Kośala was the desire to impose a tighter and more centralized control on the feudatory tribes to the north and east of his kingdom.”

A. L. Basham, Ajātaśatru’s War With the Licchavis. p. 39

It is important to remember that Malla-s were also feudatories of the Kośala monarch and a wanton attack on the Śākya-s might have roused ‘suspicion and hostility’ of the many feudatory tribes of Kośala kingdom.53 Basham goes on to suggest that these tribes after the attack on Śākya-s and death of Viḍūḍabha and the ensuing confusion in the Kośala court might have decided to free themselves from the suzerainty of Kośala and ally with Lichchavis instead.54

Vatsa & Udayana

Some interesting possibilities about the events after the death of Viḍūḍabha also arise from the drama Svapnavāsavadattā according to which once Udayana, king of Vatsa had to flee from his kingdom to a frontier village called Lāvāṇaka because of an attack by an enemy named Āruṇi who had been ruling north of the Ganges. And Ratnāvali also represents a king of Kośala to be Udayan’s enemy55 Is it therefore a possibility that this Āruṇi was actually a king of Kośala? The attack and the danger from it to the kingdom must have been serious for the prime minister of Udayana – Yaugāndharāyaṇa considered the support of Avanti (Udayana was afterall a son-in-law of Canḍa Pradyota Mahāsena, king of Avanti) insufficient and was keen to have support of Magadha as well, mostly through a matrimonial alliance. In the story, Udayana ends up marrying Padmāvatī, princess of Magadha. By that time, Pradyota Mahāsena had already sent succour and driven away Āruṇi from Vatsa kingdom to the north of Ganges where he is joined by the Udayan and his forces along with the additional forces of Magadha. They are there with the explicit objective of killing Āruṇi and possibly they accomplished the task as well.56

Economy

Economic causes are very powerful reasons for the contestation between any two states and such also seemed to have happened for example between Magadha and Lichchavis whose fight started over the customs duty realised in the hilly region on the frontier of Magadha and Vrijji.57 The same economic reasons were important for the inter-relations of the four great monarchies. Rivalry between Magadha and Avanti was after all for the possession of the Gangetic Valley. In Śaurasena was ruling Avantiputta (Avantiputra) at Mathurā who was the grandson of Pradyota. Kośala was anyway an infuential economy with its city Śrāvastī an important trade centre. Added to this was its possession of the very significant kingdom of Kāśī.

There is then the possibility that Pāñcāla to the west of the Vatsa kingdom was under Vatsa’s influence.58 The Kuru king also was a kinsmen of Udayana and therefore sympathetic to Vatsa. The kingdoms were therefore ruling with increasing influence on other territories as well. Add to these the aftermath of destruction of the Śākya-s and their capital Kapilavastu, the effects were severe on the trade route between Śrāvastī and Kapilavastu. This route lost its earlier importance and the territory of the Śākya-s was gradually swallowed by the forests. After the fall of Vatsa, the route between Mathurā and Ujjain came within the influence of Avanti,59 thus making the political scene as battle ground for Magadha and Avanti.

The route proceeding to Ujjain connecting northern India with the coastal region of western India was in the hands of Avanti, which also exercised influence over the route between Kauśāṁbī and Pratiśṭhāna. In this way, controlling these routes, Avanti could stop the commerce of Magadha with western and south India. In the same way, parts of northern and southern routes in Gangetic valley being under the control of Magadha which could easily stop profitable commerce of the people of Avanti with Kāśī and Magadha.

Moti Chandra, Trade & Trade Routes in Ancient India. p. 53

The Gangetic river system was thus extremely important in ancient India. The aim of controlling as much of the Gaṅgā river system must have played an important role in the minds of these ambitious monarchs. “It may be possible to trace the same objective later, motivating the campaigns of Samudra Gupta, Śaśāṅka, and Dharmapāla – the kings in possession of lower course aiming at control of the whole river system.”60  How important was this or any river system in ancient times India hardly needs any mention. As per all Pālī texts, Aṅga and its capital Caṁpā was a flourishing river port and must have been as per Basham an entrepot for the southern trade and its distribution across northern India. He further argues that acquisition of Aṅga probably paved the way for the much needed wealth required for internal consolidation of Magadha by Bimbisāra and the expansion of the kingdom by Ajātaśatru.61

It needs to be kept in mind that the war with the Licchavis was also over a dispute over river port. His view is that the gradual annexation of Kośala must have given Magadha a control of further length of the river Gaṅgā and a final victory over the Licchavis in the protracted struggle provided a foothold over the north Gaṅgā, thus giving a control over both the banks and paving the way for its hegemony over other kingdoms and republics of ancient India.

Understanding the Dynamic

Now considering all the information just analysed, we are in a position to make some suggestions to the reasoning behind these events and also make some plausible guesses about the undercurrent of some of these political decisions. According to Smith, the battles between Prasenajit and Ajātaśatru could not have started until Bimbisāra was alive and the revenue from the Kāśī village was still flowing. After the king’s death about c. 493 and a break in the revenue by the orders of Prasenajit, the date of the conflict and the battles must be around c. 490 – c. 492.62

Until this time, Vatsa had acted as a sort of a buffer state between Magadha and Avanti at one hand and Kośala and Avanti on the other. If we keep in mind the emerging power of Canḍa Pradyota Mahāsena of Avanti at this time and also the fact that after the marriage of Udayan of Vatsa and the Avanti Princess Vāsavadattā, Vatsa had come under the influence of Avanti, it becomes very clear why Ajātaśatru as per the texts was apprehensive about an attack from Avanti and had to fortify his capital Rājagīr shortly before Buddha’s death in c. 489-87.63 Coupled with this is the fact that Avanti was now also in a position to threaten Kośala as well. All of this information helps us to understand why Prasenajit after defeating Ajātaśatru and virtually arresting him, ultimately decided to let him go.

Smith is of the opinion that Avanti played a catalyst in the peace that Prasenajit made with his defeated foe. Under the scare of an “unforeseen danger from Avanti – kṣatriyāṇām miṣatām – he had no bargaining power and had to set free and restore his enemy for nothing but an alliance.” When Prasenajit was away, it is implied by the texts that he had considerable force with him when he set off from his capital, it was probably due to the next year’s i.e. c. 489 defensive campaign against the danger from Avanti and Smith suggests that it is in this context that Pradyota besieged Rājagīra.64 Though some texts suggests that Darśaka was the Magadhan monarch when Yaugāndharāyaṇa decided to have Udayan married to Padmāvatī, princess of Magadha, Smith goes on suggest that the king might have been Ajātaśatru who very likely had a daughter at a respectable puberty (possibly born around c. 502) around this time.

The marriage was thus an attempt to loosen the hold of Pradyota on Vatsa and thus provide a breathing space to Vatsa and Magadha both.65

After he had repulsed an attack from Pradyota, Magadha was emerging as the prime opponent to Avanti because Kośala – the other major power was in complete disarray after the death of Prasenajit and the intrigues of the Kośalan court. Hence, the actions of Viḍūḍabha were clearly for trying to gain prominence by re-subjugating the Śākya-s (Smith, 1957:268) but he remained Kṣūdraka, small. This thus gives a suggestion or supposition behind the reasoning of Purāṇa-s to give the name of Prasenajit’s successor as Kṣūdraka. His campaign clearly wasn’t that smooth for we do see Śākya-s in the earlier Buddhist texts as mentioned above, among the people who demanded a share in the Buddha’s relic after his death. His campaign might have gone for a bit long probably until after Buddha’s death, till around c. 485 and that’s why the Kośalans weren’t there to demand their share in the relics.

It is probable that Viḍūḍabha ultimately emerged victorious against the Śākya-s and there was therefore defeat but not a massacre of the scale suggested by the later Buddhis texts. But the new Kośala king died soon after. And hence, the confusion in the Kośala kingdom after this makes sense. Another interesting possibility here emerges. As aforementioned, is it possible that the Āruṇi mentioned as the danger from the north of Gaṅgā (Kośala?) to the kingdom of Vatsa was some sort of successor to Viḍūḍabha? This was apparently the danger due to which Vatsa sought a matrimonial alliance from Magadha. And was Āruṇi’s defeat and possibly death in the face of the succour from Avanti and a kind of joint operation by Vatsa-Magadha the reason that Kośala was now not a power on its own but only a territory coveted by the kingdoms of Avanti and Magadha? Vatsa clearly was not that powerful if its defence for a danger from its north depended on the help from Avanti at one hand and Magadha on the other.

Conclusion

The game was set and the two powers that were playing it were Magadha and Avanti. By this time the Magadha-Licchavi protracted war might also have started and that is possibly the reason why in the confederation that was forged against Magadha (the nine gaṇarājya-s of Licchavi and Malla each and eighteen of Kāśī – Kośala) we do not find Kośala as a kingdom but as republics as it clearly was no longer under any powerful monarch. These states in the confederation were now afraid about the ambitions of Ajātaśatru. They clearly had seen by Viḍūḍabha’s actions that the monarchs of these ambitious kingdoms were no longer satisfied with what territories they were ruling and wanted a more firm and direct control over them.

The eventual victory of Magadha also provided it with an advantage over Avanti as now it had the Licchavi and also Kāśī under him. Kośala with no powerful monarch to rule over was turning into an easy prey with each passing year. Gradually by the time of Śiśunāga and his successors, Avanti was finally declining and losing the war at its end. Thus, with no strong power left to confront and oppose Magadha, Kośala gradually passed under the control of Magadha and a strong kingdom lost in front of the new emerging power – the imperium of Magadha. 

References

  • 1 B. C. Law, Tribes in Ancient India. p. 117.
  • 2 ibid.
  • 3 ibid. p. 118.
  • 4 ibid. p. 117.
  • 5 ibid.
  • 6 H. C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India. p. 48.
  • 7 Moti Chandra, Trade & Trade Routes in Ancient India. p. 51.
  • 8 The History and Culture of Indian People – The Vedic Age (Volume I). p. 279.
  • 9 ibid. p. 295.
  • 10 Moti Chandra, Trade & Trade Routes in Ancient India. p. 16.
  • 11 ibid. p. 17.
  • 12 The History and Culture..- The Vedic Age (Vol I). p. 326.
  • 13 Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India. pp. 51-52.
  • 14 ibid. p. 49.
  • 15 Law, Tribes in Ancient India. p. 107.
  • 16 ibid. p. 109.
  • 17 Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India. p. 48.
  • 18 ibid. p. 53.
  • 19 K. P. Jayaswal, An Imperial History of India. p. 13.
  • 20 The History and Culture..- The Vedic Age (Vol I). p. 331.
  • 21 ibid. p. 327.
  • 22 Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India. p. 80.
  • 23 ibid.
  • 24 ibid. pp. 48-49.
  • 25 B. C. Law, Śrāvastī in Indian Literature. p. 16.
  • 26 The History and Culture..- The Vedic Age (Vol I). p. 327.
  • 27 Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India. p. 81.
  • 28 Law, Tribes in Ancient India. p. 110.
  • 29 ibid.
  • 30 Law, Śrāvastī in Indian Literature. p. 11.
  • 31 ibid. p. 12.
  • 32 ibid. p. 13.
  • 33 ibid.
  • 34 Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India. p. 101.
  • 35 Law, Śrāvastī in Indian Literature. p. 21.
  • 36 Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India. p. 102.
  • 37 Law, Tribes in Ancient India. p. 110.
  • 38 Trautmann, Study of Dravidian Kingship. p. 167.
  • 39 Trautmann, Consanguineous Marriage in Pali Literature. p. 162.
  • 40 ibid.
  • 41 Basham, Ajātasattu’s War with the Licchavis. p. 39.
  • 42 Bhandarkar, Lectures on the Ancient History of India. p. 65.
  • 43 Law, Śrāvastī in Indian Literature. p. 18.
  • 44 ibid.
  • 45 ibid.
  • 46 Law, Kṣatriya Clans In Buddhist India. p. 197.
  • 47 ibid. p. 204.
  • 48 The History and Culture of Indian People – The Age of Imperial Unity (Volume II).p. 23.
  • 49 Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India. p. 107.
  • 50 ibid. p. 63.
  • 51 Law, Śrāvastī in Indian Literature. pp. 16-17.
  • 52 ibid. p. 17.
  • 53 Basham, Ajātasattu’s War with the Licchavis. p. 39.
  • 54 ibid. pp. 39-40.
  • 55 Bhandarkar, Lectures on the Ancient History of India. p. 62.
  • 56 ibid. p. 63.
  • 57 Moti Chandra, Trade & Trade Routes in Ancient India. p. 51.
  • 58 ibid.
  • 59 ibid. p. 53.
  • 60 Basham, Ajātasattu’s War with the Licchavis. p. 40.
  • 61 ibid.
  • 62 R. Morton Smith, On the Ancient Chronology of India (II). p. 267.
  • 63 ibid.
  • 64 ibid. p. 268.
  • 65 ibid. p. 268.

Bibliography

Published by Priya Chaturvedi

I am Priya Chaturvedi, a History and Politics enthusiast, trying to learn something new everyday.

2 thoughts on “Rise & Fall of Kośala”

  1. For genealogies discrepancies in Puranas, I can suggest you the works of FE Pargiter & Giacomo Benedetti, very much detailed analysis on this issues, in their works.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment