The Second Indo-Hunnic War

Posted on by Priya Chaturvedi

Ancient India in the early 6th century was riveting with socio-political and religious churning. In the political sphere, one of the catalysts for this churning were the Huns or the Hūṇa-s as they were called in India. As stated in previous post of this blog, the timeline of the Indo-Hunnic relations can be divided into three main phases. The first phase saw Hunnic defeat against the Gupta army of Skandagupta in ~ 457 CE (For detailed analysis, read – Gupta-Hūṇa Relations: A Study). In the second phase, fifteen years into the sixth century, the Hunnic storm had ravaged the entire political set up of northern India under their ruler Toramāṇa. The Gupta dynasty was entangled in a period of prolonged struggle – internal struggle due to dynastic troubles and external due to the climatic factors (Read – The Climatic Factors in the Gupta Decline and After).

The fact that there was no ruler of Skandagupta’s calibre to arrest the Hunnic advance into mainland India certainly contributed to the invaders’ achievements. Bhānugupta, the Gupta governor of Mālwā (possibly along with other parties in the region) tried to stop the Hūṇa ruler Toramāṇa’s penetration any further but was seemingly unsuccessful. Rising to the occasion, by ~ 515 CE, the later-Aulikara king Prakāśadharman had turned the tables on the Hūṇa, thus weakening his ascent (Read the in-depth study of the second phase here – The First Indo-Hunnic War). The third and the last important phase started right after the end of second. In this post, I am going to discuss and analyze the facts of the matter, opinions and theories of historians relating to the third phase i.e. the Second Indo-Hunnic War. The characters had changed but the dynasties involved in this round of struggle were still the same – the Gupta-s, the Alkhan Hūṇa-s and the Later-Aulikara-s but this time with one significant addition i.e. the Maukhari-s.

Mihirakula silver drachm, c. early-6th century [Credit – CoinIndia]

Table of Contents & Links

§ Background

If we are to summarize the events till the rise of Mihirakula, we learn that Toramāṇa started his surprise attack on mainland India in ~ 495 CE, gaining a quick victory in the battle of Eraṇ. By the time, the Gupta Emperor Buddhagupta (r. ~ 476 – 495 CE) was no longer on the throne and the empire seems to have gotten stuck in the succession struggle between Narsiṁhagupta Bālāditya on one hand and Vainyagupta on the other, both claiming themselves as the next Gupta Emperor. With Eraṇ as his foothold in Mālwā, Toramāṇa initiated his plan of conquering the western regions of India. His aim was to get hold of the lucrative trading centres like Mathurā and ports in Gujarāt, which he did succesfully, evident from the Sañjelī Copper Plates. Controlling these regions provided the Hūṇa-s sufficient funds for further conquests deeper in India; the Alkhans now coveted the prestigious throne of the Gupta Empire. However, this was not to be without resistance from the Indians.

By ~ 510 CE, it seems Narsiṁhagupta had the upper hand in the East and Vainyagupta was either out of the picture or was not strong enough to present any threat to Narsiṁhagupta. Bhānugupta, the Gupta governor in Mālwā was probably ordered by Narsiṁhagupta to secure his position and not allow Toramāṇa’s ingress any further. Bhānugupta with his commander Goparāja, (possibly the local ruler of Gopagiri i.e. Gwālior) strongly resisted the Hūṇa-s. Interestingly, in this battle of the year ~ 510 CE, Bhānugupta and Goparāja seem to have been supported by other regional powers like the Later-Aulikara-s and the Naigama-s. These families grew under the auspices of the Gupta-s and they were also probably related to Bhānugupta, the governor of Mālwā.

Thus, in a seemingly concerted effort, Toramāṇa was given strong resistance but the result was not favourable as we also learn that Goparāja lost his life in this battle. The entire expanse of the vast plains of northern India was now open to the invading armies of the Hūṇa-s.

At this point, the Gupta-s had recently came out of a succession struggle. On top of this, a series of climatic calamities had further reduced their strength. In these circumstances, it is no surprise that Toramāṇa stormed his way to the heart of the Gupta Empire, ravaging prosperous cities like Kauśāmbī and Kāśī in the process. One Prakaṭāditya (Pra., son of Bha. as mentioned in AMMK i.e. Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa),1 the young unruly son of Bhānugupta who had been lodged in the jail in Pāṭaliputra was hastily crowned the Gupta ruler by Toramāṇa as their puppet.

Knowing that the Gupta-s were not in a situation to be able to gain victory over these invaders, Narsiṁhagupta Bālāditya decided to wait and watch. During this time, the Later-Aulikara-s had been making preparations as well. It is possible that the westward march mentioned in AMMK was related to the battle with the Later-Aulikara ruler Prakāśadharman.2 In an extremely significant battle, Prakāśadharman defeated Toramāṇa as confirmed by the Rīsthal Inscription dated ~ 515 CE. A defeated Toramāṇa3 returned to Kāśī in the East, and fell seriously ill (Jayaswal, 1934; 53). Realizing that he did not have much time, Toramāṇa declared Mihirakula, his son as his successor in ~ 515 CE4 and died.

We learn from the Uruzgan Inscription from central Afghānistān that being a governor of Zabul area, Mihirakula had experience of administration while his father was conquering western regions in India. And now he suddenly found himself in control of the very vast albeit unstable Hunnic dominions. The Hunnic army had been constantly engaging in war for the last twenty years and had recently faced defeat in the west. Toramāṇa’s death was a sign that Mihirakula firstly needed time to stabilize himself and his father’s conquests. The Alkhan chiefs in the north could create problems and thus, as a priority, they were to be subdued and reminded that death of Toramāṇa would not result in any change in the power structure of the Alkhan Huns. Narsiṁhagupta decided to use this situation to his advantage and ousted the puppet Prakaṭāditya. Mihirakula was not in a position to oppose this and accepted Narsiṁhagupta Bālāditya as the Gupta king. He then moved north to control his dominions and decided not to have another head on struggle with the Gupta-s.

Though now on the throne, the Gupta king Narsiṁhagupta was still not strong enough to claim his empire free of the Hūṇa-s. Thus, he accepted the Hunnic vassalage by paying tribute to Mihirakula. This was a sagacious move to bide his time until he could successfully remove the yoke of invaders.

It was thus a mutual settlement due to strategic compulsion by both the parties.

The Later-Aulikara-s of Daśapura had been watching these developments keenly and situation became even more interesting with the rise of the Maukhari-s in the North, which will be discussed in detail in sections below. The stage for the next struggle was set and everyone waited for their chance.

§ Mihirakula – The New Hūṇa Ruler

Mihirakula, as mentioned above was the son and successor of the Alkhan Hūṇa ruler Toramāṇa. His real name was ‘Mihiragula’ as found on his Standing King Type and Sassanian Bust Type coins as well as in his inscriptions from central Afghānistān (Thakur, 1967: 132-133). This name seems to be Irānian in meaning – Mithra’s Begotten and Mihirakula probably was an Indianised version of the same. Two inscriptions are known to us that mention him – two from Uruzgan in central Afghānistān (in the heart of the Zabulistān region) and the other is the Gwālior Inscription which is dated ~ 530 CE. The Uruzgan Inscriptions are in Hephthalite script and the second one of them appears to be identical with the first but for the omission of certain letters. They mention Mihirakula as – bo(g)o ssaho zovolovo mihroziki – the Divine and Glorious King of Zabul – Mihira(kula). They are dated to the early years of the sixth century between the periods of ~ 500 – 515 CE (Bivar, 1954: 116-117) and confirm the occupation of Zabulistān by the Hūṇa-s under Toramāṇa and Mihirakula (Thakur, 1967: 145-146).

Thakur is of the opinion that these were probably engraved when Mihirakula was governor of these provinces while Toramāṇa, his father, was busy with his Indian conquests.

In the early period of his reign, Mihirakula had to start from consolidating his power in the northern regions. Through numismatic evidence we learn that Mihirakula was the head of a federation of the Alkhan chiefs but of a lesser stature than his father (Bakker, 2020: 93) — the reasoning for this conclusion will be discussed shortly. As mentioned above, he started by governing the Zabul region of Afghānistān. But he seems to have stabilized himself by the time we hear from Song Yun, the Northern Wei envoy to the ‘King of the Huns’. For Song Yun, meeting with Mihirakula in ~ 520 CE was an unpleasant experience (Bakker, 2020: 93). The Northern Wei or Toba dynasty (~ 386 – 535 CE) of which Yun was a representative, was a powerful and the longest-lived of the northern Chinese dynasties that ruled after the period of fall of the Han dynasty and before the Sui and Tang dynasties that reunified China. They were ardent supporters of Buddhism and therefore it is not surprising that their ambassador to the Hunnic court did not have any pleasant words for Mihirakula.

Song Yun met him in ~ 520 CE and described the king (the word Yun uses is Chiqin i.e. Teqin. See Taishan, 2017: 421)5 having a fierce and brutal nature, and as someone who had committed massacres (Bakker, 2020: 92). Yun said that the king did not believe in the Buddha-dharma but indulged in worshiping ghosts and spirits (Taishan, 2017: 420).6

During the years ~ 517–520 CE, it seems Mihirakula was trying to expand his rule to Kashmīra: “Relying on his military power, [the king] had been fighting with Jibin 罽賓 for more territory for three years (Jibin refers to Kāshmīra). The king attacked his enemy [with a force of] seven hundred combat elephants, each carrying ten men armed with swords and clubs. Swords to strike the enemy were attached to the trunk of each elephant. The king stayed at the frontier all day long without returning. His army grew weary and his people overburdened. [As a result] the masses sighed with resentment (Taishan, 2017: 420).”

From the Gwālior Stone Inscription, it is learnt that by the 15th year of his reign i.e. ~ 530 CE, Mihirakula had succeeded in re-securing many of his father’s dominions as situation of this inscription in Central India suggests (Thakur, 1967: 132-133). The inscription was found between the Chambal and Betwā rivers, ‘built into the wall in the porch of a temple of the Sun in the fortress of Gwalior (Bakker, 2020: 92).’ Bakker suggests that the fort might have been a garrison and most of the force situated there was possibly of Irānian background.7 The inscription mentions establishment of a Sun temple on top of the Gwālior hill (fort) by one Mātṛceta. In this inscription, Mihirakula’s religious affiliations are stated in the following words –

tasyoditakulakīrteḥ putro ’tulavikramaḥ patiḥ pṛthvyāḥ | mihirakuletikhyāto ’bhaṅgo yaḥ paśupatim (a) [vanataḥ ] || 4 || – “He (i.e. Toramāṇa), who had raised his family to fame, had a son of unequaled prowess, a lord of the earth whose name was Mihirakula, and who, (though) unbent, [was bending to] Paśupati. (Bakker, 2014: 37-38).”

Thus at the time of Mihirakula’s accession, his territory had its limits from Bālkh to central and northern India i.e. at least up to Kauśāṁbī (Thakur, 1967: 132-133) and if we are to believe Xuanzang, he even had Narsiṁhagupta Bālāditya under his vassalage. The Hūṇa was controlling a broad corridor from his base in Siālkoṭ (Śākala) in the northern Panjāb to Eastern Mālwā, and as Bakker suggests, it was this corridor in which Gwālior Hill served as one of his strongholds.

This corridor bordered in the south-west on the Aulikara kingdom of Yaśodharman and in the north-east on the territories of the Maukharis, who had already annexed parts of the Gaṅgā-Yamunā Plain by this time.

(Bakker, 2020: 92)

He thus had his hold over a vast area that included Afghānistān, Gāndhāra, Kaśmīra, Panjāb, some regions of Sindh-Rājpūtānā and areas up to Central India. Coming to the point of considering Mihirakula a ruler of somewhat lesser stature than his father – a conclusion that Bakker makes consistently, it seems odd that someone who was in  control of such vast expanse did not claim any grand imperial titles like his father. But as its explanation, we get indications from the very inscriptions of these rulers. In both the Schøyen Copper Scroll and the Khurā Stone Inscription, Toramāṇa has been called Rājādhirāja. The Eraṇ Boar (Varāha) Inscription mentions him as Mahārājādhirāja (the supreme lord) Toramāṇa (Bakker, 2020; 28). The three Sañjeli Copper Plates from North Gujarāta also mention Toramāṇa as the supreme lord (mahārājādhirāja) (Bakker, 2020; 80). But from the Gwālior Inscription, we learn that Mihirakula did not bear imperial titles and his position as ‘lord of the earth’ (patiḥ pṛthvyāḥ) and ‘foremost among kings’ or ‘bull among kings’ (nṛpavṛṣasya) is clearly less exalted than that of his father (Bakker, 2020: 93).

What exactly had happened by the time of the Gwālior Inscription? We know that from the expanse of his territory just mentioned that even though Mihirakula was vulnerable in initial period of his rule (the Hūṇa-s were probably still trying to come to terms with their defeat by the Aulikara army and Toramāṇa’s death), he nevertheless seems to have strengthened his position in a few years. So what changed?

Here comes the role of the Gupta ruler Narsiṁhagupta Bālāditya. Mihirakula’s continuing streak of expansion was to be challenged very soon as the Indians were about to throttle his plans. It seems that Mihirakula was defeated by Narsiṁhagupta Bālāditya by the time the Gwālior Inscription was recorded and that’s why unlike his father King Toramāṇa, we do not notice use of any grand titles like mahārājādhirāja for Mihirakula. Limited in the east by rejuvenated Gupta-s and emerging Maukhari-s, Mihirakula at this time was keen on keeping a good eye on his western possessions for he knew that there was another power that was waiting to rid India of the Hūṇa-s, just as they had done a few years before – the Aulikara-s and the Gwālior fort garrison was significant in this regard.

Sometime in ~ 521-522 CE, it appears that soon after Song Yun and others returned home, Mihirakula chose Bālkh for his capital (Mihirakula was the king of the Heda i.e. the Hephthalites – Taishan, 2017: 421). Probably this was done to keep his northern dominions secure from any kind of revolt. However, Xuanzang tells us that Mihirakula’s capital was Śākala in west Punjāb. It is possible that after securing his territory in the northern regions, Mihirakula in years following ~ 522 CE made Śākala his second but more important capital to which he gradually shifted his political activities from Gāndhāra (Thakur, 1967: 157). In my opinion, this was done to set base for his next round of moves in India – the first of which might have been to put Narsiṁhagupta in his place and confirm his vassalage to the Hūṇa power.

§ Mihirakula and Narsiṁhagupta Bālāditya

Narsiṁhagupta seems to have understood the situation very well. By early 520s, he had gained enough strength to finally throw away the so-called vassalage once and for all. If not now then Mihirakula would have only increased his power with time and it would have been very difficult to claim independence of the Gupta-s from the Hūṇa-s. The date of this conflict is not clear but important to note that between the Betul plate of ~ 518 CE which refers to the Gupta-s and the Khoh plates (~ 529-30 CE) which again refer to their rule, we have a gap of about ten years when there is no record from central India mentioning the imperial dynasty of the Gupta-s. Thus, it seems that Narsiṁhagupta battled with Mihirakula sometime before ~ 529 – 530 CE, probably around ~ 522 – 525 CE. If this estimate is correct, it would mean that Narsiṁhagupta had a short but absolute rule (niḥsapatnamakaṅṭakam as mentioned in Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa) of about eight to ten years when he was succeeded by his son Kumāragupta III (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol.3, 1981: 355) in ~ 530 – 532 CE.

Sometime after ~ 522/523 CE, Mihirakula initiated his campaign to confirm vassalage of Narsiṁhagupta Bālāditya and marched against him with his army. Xuanzang attributes Narsiṁhagupta’s defiance to his religious beliefs and Mihirakula’s persecution of Buddhists.

“When Bālāditya-rāja, king of Magadha heard of the cruel persecution and atrocities of Mihirakula, he strictly guarded the frontiers of his kingdom and refused to pay tribute” (Thakur, 1967: 125).

To support this claim of Narsiṁhagupta being Buddhist, another historian mentions Paramārtha, a Buddhist scholar of the period, who stated that the king Vikramāditya sent his queen and prince Bālāditya to study under the tutelage of the famous Buddhist monk and scholar Vasubandhu. “It is possible that this refers to Skandagupta and Narsiṁhagupta I Bālāditya (son of Purugupta) (Singh, 2009).” Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa also depicts Bālāditya as a Buddhist.

However, it is significant that in his Nālandā seals, Narsiṁhagupta declares himself as a Vaiṣṇava (Paramabhāgavata Mahārājādhirāja) (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol.3, 1981: 354). It is possible that he might have supported Buddhism in his empire like other Indian kings and might even have had sympathy towards them but it is more prudent to give weight to his own proclamations about his religious beliefs rather than of Buddhist scholars who unsurprisingly preferred to present him as a Buddhist. This does not mean that there was no persecution of Buddhists by the Hunnic kings, for which we possess archaeological evidence – for example, the Ghositarāma monastery in Kauśāmbī was destroyed in the Hūṇa attack of Toramāṇa. But in my opinion, the decision of Narasimhagupta seems to have been determined by political sagacity rather than anything else.

“Xuanzang says that Mihirakula started from his capital to Magadha, and on his way to Magadha, he passed through Madhyadeśa and destroyed everything that he could lay his hands on. It was a ferocious campaign of untold miseries and unheard of destruction. The Buddhist monasteries were looted and razed to the ground. The Kāsiā monastery fell (Thakur, 1967: 176).”  

All the information that we have regarding this struggle comes from Xuanzang. He says that when the Hūṇa-s reached the capital of the empire (Pāṭalīputra?), Narsiṁhagupta was nowhere to be found. Probably seeing that the Hunnic army outnumbered his forces, he retreated to a swampy country, the location of which was probably in Bengal, perhaps to the Deltaic region (Thakur, 1967: 176). Leaving his younger brother in charge, Mihirakula marched against Narasimhagupta (Thakur, 1967: 125). But the Gupta king was guarding the narrow passes, “whilst the light cavalry were out to provoke the enemy to fight, sounded the golden drum, and his soldiers suddenly rose on every side and took Mihirakula alive as a captive and brought him into the presence of Bālāditya” (Thakur, 1967: 179). Mihirakula was thus defeated and taken prisoner.

“Mihirakula, when defeated and imprisoned by Bālāditya, observed that the subject and the master have changed places (Thakur, 1967: 125).”

Again, as per Xuanzang, Mihirakula was later released at the intervention of Bālāditya’s mother. Was it really the reason that Narasimhagupta released Mihirakula? Could there have been some other considerations involved? We cannot be sure but the situation for the Hūṇa king had definitely taken a turn for the worse. According to Xuanzang, apparently Mihirakula was later treated with ‘extreme courtesy’ and escorted from ‘the island’ by the troops and a guard (Thakur, 1967: 179-180).  

Narasimhagupta Bālāditya had successfully regained his throne and thrown away the vassalage of the invaders. As Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa says, Bālāditya had his reign (rājyam) niḥsapatnamakaṅṭakam i.e. without any rival or obstacle (Jayaswal, 1934: 37).

Thakur mentions an interesting piece of evidence corroborating Narasimhagupta’s victory from Candragomin’s grammar. It speaks of the defeat of the Hūṇa by the Jarta or Japta in illustrating an event which occurred during the author’s lifetime and must have been well known to his readers. Some scholars believe that the reference is regard to the Jarta or Jāṭs of the Panjāb. Most historians however interpret this in other away. As Candragomin wrote in Bengal, it is doubtful that the Jāṭ victory over the Hūṇas in the Panjāb created any impression on the minds of the people of distant Bengal. It is instead suggested that Japta and Jarta is a copyist’s errors for Gupta. Thus, Candragomin’s reference may really refer to Bālāditya’s struggle with Mihirakula nearer home in Magadha (Thakur, 1967: vii-viii D. C. Sircar foreword).

§ The Aftermath of Defeat

After reaching the capital of the Gupta-s, Mihirakula found to his utter shock that taking advantage of his absence and discomfiture, his brother had usurped the Hūṇa throne (Thakur, 1967: 141-142) and the state of Kaśmīra had also declared itself independent. Mihirakula finding no other way was now compelled to seek asylum in Kaśmīra. However, pretty soon he in turn killed the king of Kaśmīra and usurped its throne. From here started his campaign to regain his dominions from his brother (Thakur, 1967: 141-142).  About six to seven years passed since Mihirakula was ousted by Bālāditya from core Gupta region of Magadha. In the meantime, the Hūṇa had taken over Kaśmīra and had successfully reclaimed Gāndhāra. To Mihirakula, it seemed that he would be able to turn the tables in mainland India as well. As Bālāditya had closed the possibility of reaching the heart of the Gupta lands in the East, Mihirakula now eyed the western region of Mālwā. This gave him the twofold opportunity of expanding his territory and avenging the defeat of his father. As mentioned earlier, it is possible that the Gwālior garrison at the entrance of the Betwā valley was probably stationed with this very purpose in mind. A battle for Mālwā was around the corner. But this time, the Aulikara-s would not be alone.

§ The Indian Coalition

The following inscriptions furnish us information related to the last major Indo-Hunnic battle – the Later-Aulikara Inscriptions, the Maukhari Inscriptions and one Later-Gupta Inscription. The Aulikara Inscriptions are the Mandasor Stone Inscription of Yaśodharman, Year 589 (532 CE) and the Mandsor (Sondhni) Pillar Inscriptions dated ~ 534 CE (Bakker in Balogh, 2020: 355). The Maukhari Inscriptions include the Jaunpur Inscription and the Harahā Inscription and lastly, the Later Gupta Inscription of Ādityasena.

The Aulikara Inscriptions – The Mandsor Inscription of 532 CE describes the defeat of Mihirakula in emphatic language and hints how this victory was obtained. Bakker has analysed this inscription for details of how this was achieved – It seems that Yaśodharman was leading a coalition of Indian kings against the alliance of what this inscription mentions as ‘many very powerful northern kings’. These ‘northern kings’ refers to the Hūṇa-s and their allies i.e. the Alkhan chiefs and their leader Mihirakula. The inscription also mentions the ‘eastern kings’ (prāco nṛpān) who were won over by ‘peaceful means’ by Yaśodharman (Bakker, 2020: 93). According to Bakker, these were most likely the Maukhari-s of Kannauj. He is also of the opinion that the two powers i.e. the Aulikara-s and the Maukhari-s may have come together somewhere in the Betwā Valley, since the inscription describes how Yaśodharman’s army crossed the Vindhya Mountains (Bakker, 2020: 93-94). The Maukhari adversary of Mihirakula and ‘eastern’ ally of Yaśodharman was Īśvaravarman (the Jaunpur Inscription).

“The Mandsor (Sondhni) Pillar Inscription dated ~ 534 CE is engraved on a victory column (raṇastambha) found near a village known as Sondhni at 2.7 km south-east of Mandasor Fort. This site preserves two such columns, both containing an inscription. Due to damage, the text of the second inscription is only partly preserved but from what remains of it (Fleet 1888, 149ff), it is clear that it consists of exactly the same text…; it is also engraved by Govinda. Both columns are made of sandstone and therefore must have come from elsewhere. One of the columns may have been meant for another location, but this plan was not executed for reasons unknown (Bakker in Balogh, 2020: 355).”

The Maukhari and the Later Gupta Inscriptions – By 530 CE, the House of Maukhari-s had emerged as a powerful dynasty that now controlled the centre of the Gupta territories in the Gaṅgā-Yamunā plains as the Imperial Gupta-s were confined to the eastern regions of their empire (Bakker, 2014: 50). An interesting hint for the involvement of the Maukhari-s in the Indo-Hunnic conflict is found from the Aphsād Inscription of the Later Gupta ruler Ādityasena (r. ~  655 – 680 CE) (Bakker, 2014: 51). This inscription belongs to a period more than a century later the events we are concerned with.

“In the Aphsād Inscription of the Later Gupta Ādityasena, reporting on the subsequent conflict between the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, the elephant troops of the former are said to have thrown aloft the army of the Hūṇa-s. The troops of which Maukhari king is not specified and this vagueness may indicate that the event had taken place in the more remote past but ever since had been the pride of the Maukhari army.” (Bakker, 2014: 51)

The Jaunpur Inscription, as mentioned above seems to support this and provides us a name for this Maukhari ruler. This inscription states that Īśvaravarman, son of Maukhari ruler Ādityavarman ‘brought happiness into the world and alleviated the distress caused by the arrival of cruel people (krūrāgama) through compassion and love.’ The ‘cruel people’ mentioned here could be none other than the Hūṇa-s. Interestingly, Īśvaravarman was also married to a Gupta princess Upaguptā thus suggesting that like their contemporaries the Later-Aulikara-s, the Maukhari-s were also possibly an old powerful ruling clan that grew under the patronage of the Gupta Empire. The Maukharis were, in all likelihood, the ‘eastern ally’ of the king of Daśapura, as we suggested above, and the king who was ‘won over by peaceful means’ must have been Īśvaravarman (Bakker, 2014: 52). Important to note that one more Maukhari inscription (the Harahā Inscription) praises Īśvaravarman as the king whose deeds eradicated the very nature of the Kali (age) (Bakker, 2014: 51-52).

Thus, to summarise the situation on the eve of the penultimate battle –  in the span of these seven or eight years post his defeat by Narasimhagupta and usurpation by his own brother, Mihirakula had successfully recouped himself and his northern kingdom. He was now preparing to expand it to Mālwā from his base in Śākala. Yaśodharman understood that in order to finish the perennial threat of the Hūṇa-s, a much stronger attack was needed. Thus, it appears from his inscriptions that he won over his eastern allies with ‘peaceful means’. The Aulikara – Maukhari Alliance had been forged. The Hūṇa territory was now surrounded by a coalition of its north-east and their south-western neighbours.

§ The Final Battle

Sometime between the years ~ 530 – 532 CE, the final battle between the Indo-Hunnic forces was fought. If the Indians had forged an alliance, it was done knowing that Mihirakula was not fighting alone. Ever since the time of the decisive battle with Skandagupta in ~ 457 CE, it had been known to the Indians that the Hūṇa-s always fought with their powers combined. And this time was not going to be any different. The Alkhan chiefs would fight as one under their leader Mihirakula. As mentioned above, we get confirmation of this from Yaśodharman’s inscriptions which mention their adversaries as the alliance of ‘many very powerful northern kings’ (Bakker, 2020: 93-94). The final battle commenced. From Yaśodharman’s Sondhni Pillar Inscription we learn that his army crossed the Vindhya Mountains. Thus as Bakker mentions, it seems that to attack the Hūṇa position in the corridor, the two powers (the Aulikara-s and the Maukhari-s) may have come together somewhere in the Betwā Valley and here the decisive battle may have been fought (Bakker, 2020: 93-94).

“The military operation of the Aulikara–Maukhari forces may thus have resembled a successful pincer movement (Bakker, 2014: 52). The Aulikara Inscription states – “… At the time that his (i.e. Yaśodharman’s) forces marched through the jungle with their banners raised, and the infuriated elephants of the army tossed the Lodhra trees about with their tusks, (producing) a noise that made the crevices of the Vindhya Mountains resound, then, by the dust—grey like the skin of an ass—that was thrown up by (his forces), the rays of the sun became dimmed and the orb seemed blotted out, as if it were the eye in a peacock’s tail reversed (Bakker, 2020: 94-95).”  

Bakker also gives an interesting suggestion based on a finding reported by John Faithfull Fleet (Bakker, 2014: 54). Yaśodharman wrote on his victory column that he went to war under ‘the flying banner of ̍Śūlapāṇī’ (Bhagavān Śiva). Importantly, the Mandsor Stone Inscription actually had an illustration on its back which was noticed by Fleet (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol. III, Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors. 1960, 3rd Edition).8

This back was divided into two compartments by what seems to be either a spear [śūla, H.T.B] with a curved handle, or a shepherd’s crook, there are engraved in outline, very roughly,—at the upper corners, the sun on the proper right, and the moon on the proper left; and, lower down, on each side, a man on horseback, facing toward the central dividing figure; the horseman on the proper right side carries in his left hand either a chaurī or fly-flap made of the bushy tail of the Bos Grunniens, or a śaṅkha or conch-shell; the other horse-man caries something in his right hand, but I could not distinguish the object.

(Bakker, 2014: 54)

Based on this information, Bakker suggests that the Aulikara cavalry could have played an important role in defeating the Hunnic forces. In his words, ‘the lancers of the Aulikara-s may have beaten the Huns at their own game.’ So, if we can be allowed to interpret the sun and the moon in the upper corners of the illustration as something more than just auspicious signs, then this could be the emblem of the Aulikara-s i.e. the aulikaralāñchana (attributed to Yaśodharman-Viṣṇuvardhana in the inscription) (Bakker, 2014: 54).

The illustration thus could be signifying a coat of arms of the lancers’ battalion of the Aulikara army – the Śūlikas (Bakker, 2014: 54).

From the Mandsor Stone Inscription, we also learn that in the battle the Naigama viceroy (Rājasthānīya) of the Aulikara-s Abhayadatta, may have lost his life as the inscription is mainly concerned with his sudden death. This would then explain ‘the muffled tone’ as compared with the ‘jubilant Sondhni inscription’ (Bakker, 2020: 95). The lancer’s emblem that we just discussed was inscribed on the back of this inscription. Is it possible that Abhayadatta was intimately connected with this battalion?

The Mandsor Stone Inscription “was found (in 1885 CE) in an old well within the fort of Mandasor, ancient Daśapura. It may thus have been at or near the site where it originally was placed to memorize the pious act of Nirdoṣa who had a well excavated in 532 for his deceased uncle, the Naigama rājasthānīya Abhayadatta (Bakker in Balogh, 2020: 351).”

The inscription eulogizes Abhayadatta in the following words – “… (struck down) by mighty Death, like a tree is pulled down by an elephant, (although) it (still) gives wholesome and sweet fruits when ripened and its shade is a pleasant place to be.” Dharmadoṣa, elder brother of Nirdoṣa succeeded Abhayadatta to the office of rājasthānīya to Yaśodharman ~ 532 CE.

“The monuments in Sondhni are datable to a time when Yaśodharman’s victory festivities had subsided and Dharmadoṣa was in office.”

The Gwālior Inscription of 530 CE mentions Mihirakula and his devotion to Bhagavān Śiva (Paśupati) – “… and who, (though) unbent, [was bending to] Paśupati.” In what Bakker calls an interesting case of intertextuality, it seems that the Aulikara-s were very much aware of this claim written regarding Mihirakula and they boasted their victory over the Hūṇa in the Sondhni pillar inscription in the following words –

“… Mihirakula, whose head had never been forced to bow in humility by anyone save Sthāṇu (i.e. Paśupati/ Śiva), and the embrace of whose arms gave the Himālaya Mountain the illusion of being ‘impregnable’, even by that king the feet of this (Yaśodharman) were humbly worshipped with an offering of flowers (fallen from) his crest, when the strength of his arms bent that (Hūṇa) monarch’s head painfully down into deference (Bakker, 2020: 93).”

This victory must have been important enough that Yaśodharman claimed grand imperial titles and boasted of his achievements: “… He had rescued the earth from ‘kings of the present (Kali) age of blatant haughtiness who lacked any love for the good, whose delusion made them violate the path of proper conduct and who were cruel due to a total lack of decency’—he Yaśodharman, ‘who now reigns over countries that were not (even) controlled by the Gupta emperors, [. . . ] and countries that the command of the Hūṇa captains (adhipa) had not reached, though it had affected many a royal crown” (Bakker, 2020: 94). Yaśodharman went on to claim having kings from the Lauhitya (Brahmaputra) River in the north-east to the western ocean and from the Himālaya in the north-west to the Mahendra mountains in the south-east, bowing to his feet (Bakker, 2014: 40). He bore as his second name ‘rājādhirāja parameśvara’ (Bakker, 2020: 93). To Bakker, it seems possible that the Aulikara-Maukhari coalition against Mihirakula could have been quickly broken as Yaśodharman claimed himself the paramount sovereign of the subcontinent (Bakker, 2014: 54). There is no doubt that such a claim could not have been easily accepted by the Maukhari-s who had imperial ambitions as well and had been expanding their dominions in the Gaṅgā-Yamunā plains.

Did Yaśodharman actually win such vast expanse or was it just a traditional proclamation of digvijaya of a cakravartīn samrāṭa? This definitely needs more study before coming to any conclusions. Bakker is of the opinion that an armed conflict with the rising power of the Maukharis of Kannauj may therefore have been inevitable, once the intervening Hūṇa-s were out the way (Bakker, 2014: 54).

“This also suggests that the rise of Kannauj (Maukhari-s) and the enmity with the Later Guptas of Magadha may date back to those days of victory, whereas the seeds of a conflict with the Aulikara-s were sown at the same time” (Bakker, 2014: 53).

We do not have any information regarding Yaśodharman after the initial years of his victory in the Indo-Hunnic War. The end of Yaśodharman and the House of Later Aulikaras of Daśapura does seem ‘abrupt’ indeed. Bakker based on the unfinished character of the Sondhni site suggests the possibility that the region might have been struck by a calamity at the pinnacle of its power – possibly earthquake (Bakker in Balogh, 2020: 353). And this might explain such complete break in any information on this dynasty. This is also possible if we take the climatic changes of the period into consideration.

One significant factor in the outcome of this battle was the changing circumstances of the Hunnic chiefs in central Asia. The Hunnic forces in India had always been dependent on support from the Hephthals in Central Asia and when they came under heavy pressure from ‘a regenerated Sasanian Empire led by Khusraw in the 530s, and the natural dynamics of the Hunnic Peoples on both side of the Hindu Kush was disrupted, the Indian Hūṇa-s, i.e. the Alkhan-s led by Mihirakula, lost their capacity to recuperate from defeat (Bakker, 2020: 98).

As the inscriptional evidence does not support the possibility of Mihirakula getting killed in these battles, it seems that Mihirakula retreated back to his base in the fortified town of Śākala in Western Panjāb, the area from where Toramāṇa had started his campaigns (Bakker, 2020: 99-100). The Alkhan Hūṇa-s indeed had now lost any chance of dominating over mainland India forever. Instead, they concentrated themselves in the northern regions of Kaśmīra, Gāndhāra and their possessions in Central Asia. They nevertheless remained ‘a fearsome adversary throughout the 6th century’ and the Indian powers kept constant vigil on their frontiers to keep them at bay. Through the Harṣacarita of Bāṇa, composed in 7th century, we learn of some interesting interactions between the Indians and the Hūṇa-s. The text styles Prabhākaravardhana, the Puṣyabhūti King of Thanesar, and Harṣa’s father as ‘a lion to the Hūṇa deer (hūṇahariṇakesarī)’ (Bakker, 2020: 99-100). Prabhākaravardhana sent Harṣa’s elder brother Rājyavardhana for an expedition against the Hūṇa-s in the north. The King did not consider it necessary to march in person against them and only considered the job easy enough for his son to handle –

“… As the lion [i.e. Prabhākaravardhana], master of the deer, dispatches his cub [i.e. Rājyavardhana] against the deer.”

§ The Atonement

Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī, the Sanskrit chronicle of Kaśmīra, composed in the 12th century gives some rather interesting hints regarding Mihirakula’s activities in the region. Important to note that even though Mihirakula figures as a potent ruler of Kaśmīra from this text, the chronological order in which he is mentioned is wholly erroneous (Thakur, 1967: 141) and provides us with details which are difficult to corroborate. While his religious policies and his persecution of Buddhists do find corroboration from various other Budhdist sources like Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa (Thakur, 1967: 141-142) and some important Chinese sources like the account of Xuanzang, Fufazangyinyuanzhuan and Lianhuamianjing (Balogh, 2020: 98-100), but the extent of his persecution of the Bauddha Dharma is open for discussion.

Taishan points out that the places visited by Song Yun, such as Yutian, Zhujubo, Wuchang, and even Qiantuoluo (current Afghānistān) were mostly within the sphere of influence of the Heda (Hephthalites), but the temples and other Buddhist sites there were in perfect condition (Taishan, 2017: 421). Thus, even though we know from the evidence regarding the Hūṇa invasions in India that since the time of Toramāṇa, Buddhist establishments had been attacked, there is still a valid possibility that the Hunnic persecution might have been exaggerated by Buddhist writers.

The following verses from Rājataraṅgiṇī criticize Mihirakula in quite a scathing manner –  

[atha mlecchagaṇākīrṇe maṇḍale caṇḍaceṣṭitaḥ | tasyātmajo ‘bhūn mihirakulaḥ kālopamo nṛpaḥ || 1.289] [dakṣiṇaṃ sāntakāmāśāṃ spardhayājetum udyatā | yanmiṣād uttaraharid babhārānyam ivāntakam || 1.290] [sāṃnidhyaṃ  yasya sainyāntara hanyamānāśanotsukān | ajānan gṛdhrakākādīn dṛṣṭavāgre dhāvato janāḥ || 1.291] [divārātraṃ hataprāṇisahasraparivāritaḥ | yo ‘bhūd bhūpālavetālo vilāsabhavaneṣv api || 1.292] [bāleṣu karuṇā strīṣu ghṝṇā vṛddheṣu gauravam | na babhūva nṛśaṃsasya yasya ghorākṛter ghnataḥ || 1.293]

Then his [Vāsukula’s, whose father was Hiraṇayakula] son Mihirakula, a man of violent acts and resembling Kāla [Death], ruled in the land which was overrun by hordes of Mlecchas. [In him the northern region brought forth, as it were, another god of death, bent in rivalry to surpass the southern region which has Yama as its gurardian]. The people knew his approach by noticing the vultures, crows and other [birds], which were flying ahead eager to feed on those who were being slain within his armies’ [reach]. This royal Vetāla was day and night surrounded by thousands of murdered human beings, even in his pleasure-houses. This terrible enemy of mankind had no pity for children, no compassion for women, no respect for the aged [1.289-1.293] (Bakker in Balogh, 2020: 303).

However, in the verses following the above mentioned, we learn of an interesting change in his actions –  

[sa varṣasaptatiṃ bhuktvā bhuvam bhūlok bhairavaḥ | bhūrirogārditavapuḥ prāviśaj jātavedasam || 1.309] [so ‘yaṃ trikoṭihā mukto yaḥ svātmany api nirghṛṇaḥ | dehatyāge ‘sya gaganād uccacāreti bhāratī || 1.310] [ity ūcur ye mate teṣāṃ sa eva parihāradaḥ | khaṇḍayan vītaghṛṇatāṃ agrahārādikarmabhiḥ || 1.311] [ākrānte dāradair bhauṭṭair mlechhair aśucikarmabhiḥ | vinaṣṭadharme deśe ‘asmi puṇyācāravartanam || 1.312] [āryadeśyān sa saṃsthāpya vyatanod dāruṇaṃ tapaḥ | saṃkalpya svavapurdāḥaṃ prāyaścittakriyāṃ vyadhāt || 1.313] [ata evāgrahārāṇāṃ sahasraṃ pratyapādayat | gāndhāradeśajātebhyo dvijebhyo vijayeśvre || 1.314] [kṣurakhaḍgāsidhenavādipūrṇe ‘yaḥphalake tadā | vahnipradīpte sahasā parayante svāṃ tanuṃ jahau || 1.315] [ity etasmiñ janāmnāye ke cid avyabhicāriṇi prāhuḥ puruṣasiṃhasya krauryaṃ tasyāvigarhitaṃ || 1.316] [ye nāgena ruṣā pluṣṭe  nagare prabhāvan  khaśāḥ | teṣāṃ nāśāya vṛttāntaṃ pūrvoktaṃ jagaduḥ pare || 1.317]

After ruling the land for seventy years this terror of the earth became afflicted in his body with many diseases, and immolated himself in the flames [1.309]. When he sacrificed his own body, there issued from the sky a voice which declared: “This destroyer of the three crores [of human beings] has attained salvation, since he has shown no mercy for his own person either [1.310] (Bakker in Balogh, 2020: 304).” In the opinion of those who report this, he figures as a liberal patron who has made amends for his cruelties by gifts of agrahāras and similar deeds [1.311].

Some excuse the cruelty of this lion among men by [reffering to] a tenacious popular tradition, which maintains : “After killing the inhabitants of Āryadeśa, he performed terrible penance, and re-established pious observances in this land which, overrun by impure Dāradas, Bhauṭṭas and Mlecchas had fallen off from the sacred law. When determined to burn himself in the flames he offered an atonement. It was on this account that he bestowed a thousand agrahāras on Brāhmans from the Gāndhāra land at Vijayeśvara. Then finally he gave up his body to the flames on an iron board which was studded with razors, swords, knives and other [sharp instruments] (Bakker in Balogh, 2020: 304). Others have declared that his above described acts were intended for the destruction of the Khaśas, who had obtained predominance when the city [of Nara] had been burned through the wrath of the Nāga [1.312– 1.317] (Bakker in Balogh, 2020: 305).

These verses are significant because they inform us that in the last years of his life, Mihirakula apparently tried to do pious deeds. The words that Kalhaṇa uses like ‘terrible penance’ and ‘atonement’ help us to understand that he wanted to leave behind a legacy of ‘a liberal patron’, something different from what he had done till then.

The Agrahāra-s for the Gāndhāra Brāhmins and him ‘re-establishing pious observances in this land (Central Asia?) which, ‘overrun by impure Dāradas, Bhauṭṭas and Mlecchas had fallen off from the sacred law’ were indeed an attempt to absolve himself from the path of wanton destruction that he had followed in his life.

§ Conclusion

With the defeat of Mihirakula, there ended an important era in the history of ancient India. The Hūṇa-s had been a constant source of trouble for the Indians. They had been successful in establishing their dominions in north-west India up to Punjāb but their invasions in the mainland were always strongly resisted by the Indian rulers. The first major invasion was halted by the Gupta Emperor Skandagupta, driving them away for a period of fifty years. The second one under Toramāṇa was a lot more successful but again found a defender of the land in the Aulikara ruler Prakāśadharman. Mihirakula in his turn found not one but many defenders in the Gupta ruler Narsiṁhagupta Bālāditya, the Aulikara Yaśodharman and the Maukhari Īśvaravarman. Time and again during this century long struggle, the Indian rulers ultimately ended up getting the better of the Hunnic chiefs. In the following centuries, the Hūṇa-s were still seen on the Indian political landscape but never reached the stage the Alkhan rulers Toramāṇa and Mihirakula had. The Hūṇa-s also ended up getting absorbed by the gigantic Indian civilization like every other invader until the arrival of Islam on its frontiers.

Notes

1Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa is a Mahāyāna Buddhist text in Sanskṛit and narrates important historical events of India till the 8th century CE. 2It is a valid possibility as sometimes Buddhist texts deliberately omit achievements of non-Buddhist rulers. 3The Rīsthal Inscription provides no evidence for the death of Toramāṇa in this battle. 4See the Gwālior Inscription of Mihirakula ~ 530 CE. 5Taishan mentions that Chiqin is a textual error for Teqin, a common official title of the northern nomadic tribes which was granted to the Khan’s close relatives. 6For detailed report of the meeting see – Taishan, 2017: 420-421. 7“The Sun Temple at the Sūraj Kuṇḍa in which the inscription had been found no longer exists today; it may have been the successor of the original temple dedicated to the Sun (Bhānu) founded by Mātṛaceta. Mātṛaceta was one of the people who were said to reside there owing to (prasādena) King Mihirakula. These people are mentioned as the beneficiaries sharing in the merit of the foundation. The newly founded Sun Temple may therefore have been a place of worship of the Hūṇa garrison in the fort. In view of the Iranian connections of the Alkhan — instanced by the very name of the king, Mihirakula, ‘Family (?) of Mihira’ that is of Mithra—I consider it not unlikely that a contingent of the garrison had an Iranian background, whose religious needs were served by a temple that housed a blend of the sun gods of Iran, Mithra, and India, Bhānu just as Mithraea are found in Roman legionary stations (Bakker, 2020: 92).” 8Unfortunately, Bakker confirms that the present whereabouts of this slab of stone are unknown.

Bibliography

Published by Priya Chaturvedi

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

One thought on “The Second Indo-Hunnic War”

  1. Pingback: The Ancient Maukharis: An Analysis – C'est la vie Priyā

Leave a comment