Indianization of Foreign invaders in Ancient India

The assimilative power of Hinduism abosorbed the Greeks, Shakas, Kushanas and the Hunas into the Indian society. We do not know the precise process by which non-Hindus were absorbed in the Hindu fold. Probably they were attracted by the Hindu religion and philosophy and began to worship Hindu Gods. Among other possible reasons for the foreign invaders to adopt Indian religions were the non existence of the religion of Islam and the religion of Christianity being still in its infancy during that period. (It was in 313 A.D. that the Roman Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity and later it became the official religion of the Empire). Also at that time there existed several sectarian faiths like Bhagavata, Pashupata which vied with each other to attract adherents, especially the Buddhist missionaries played an important role in the spread of Buddhism and also received royal patronage it their efforts.

Buddhism the most preferred religion

With regards to the most prefered religion of the foreign hordes, undoubtedly it was Buddhism. The reason was due to the missionary activities of Ashoka. Alberuni writing in the 11^th century A.D. says that earlier Persia, Iraq and the country up to the frontier of Syria was Buddhist and with the coming of Zoroastrianism and Islam it lost its hold over those territories. Earlier Hieuen Tsang had mentioned that Persia had two or three sangharamas with several hundred priests who studied the teachings of Saravastivadin school. The foreign hordes like Yavanas, Shakas and Kushanas who came through the north-western region were naturally attracted towards Buddhism. The architectural remains testify that the Mahayana form of Buddhism enjoyed in India and lower Asia the active support of and patronization from the ruling dynasties like the Greeks, the Scytho-Kushanas and the Parthians.

Shaivism had popular and mass appeal

Megasthenes states that Dionysios or Shiva worship was specially popular in the hill regions where grew the vines. Classical writers maintain that Shiva was worshipped in the west upto Bactria, the present Balkh in Afganistan and in the north as far as Meors or Meru which may be identified with Pamir. The numerous, extensive and widespread representations of Shaivism signify that it was the religion of the masses. This mass and popular appeal accompanied with inbuilt liberalism prompted the Kushanas on their arrival and thereafter to embrace and patronize Shaivism. Hindu temples were flourishing in Mesopotamia and Syria down to the 4^th century A.D. when they were destroyed by St.Gregory. Indian religion was thus a living force in parts of western Asia down to 300 A.D. and may have influenced Christian religous dogmas and practices to some extent.

Orthodoxy inhibited the foreigners from embracing Vaishnavism?

At the same time the rigidity and orthodoxy kept them away from the orbit of the Vaishnava faith. It was only later that kings like Huvishka could demonstrate some inclination to Vaishnavism in his seal motifs. The name itself of a Kushana king Vasudeva may also indicate that the later Kushanas bestowed favour to the Bhagavata cult.

A large number of epigraphic records in comparision with the number of coins available may as well suggest that Vaishnavism during the period was a religion of the upper strata of the society. There is a general acceptance that epigraphs usually associates matter with the enlightened elites while coins represents that of the common people. With regard to the Kushana period, Prof. Rayachaudhury argues that the city of Mathura, the original home of Vaishnavism had ceased to be stronghold of the religion during the Saka-Kushana period because the wave of Buddhism, eclectic and rational in nature, captivated the affiliation of the rulers and Vaishnavism lost the occassion and opportunity to find favour of the court. According to Prof. Rayachaudhury, the Shakas and the Kushana sovereigns of northern India were generally hostile towards the religion of Vasudeva and it was this anti-Bhagavata attitude which probably brought the foreign kings into conflict with the imperial Guptas who were Vaishnava monarchs.

The Bactrian Greeks

The fact that no trace of the separate entity of the Greeks is left is enough proof of the fact that the Greek population in India was absorbed in the Indian social and religious fabric. There are epigraphical evidence of such absorption as the Besnagar inscription of Heliodorus who proclaims his Bhagavata faith and the inscriptions found in the caves at Nasik, Junnar and Karle recording the religious gifts by Yavana donors who bear Indian names.

According to M.V.D.Mohan among the Bactrian Greeks, the house of Euthydemids were driven to espouse the Buddhist cause as the forces ranged against them, (the Shungas) professed Vedic/Pauranic faith. The Buddhist subjects of the Mauryas probably did not favour the Shunga revolution and were willing to support the foreigner (Bactrian Greeks) who in turn welcomed their allegiance and tried to stablise it by accepting their faith first as a matter of policy and later out of conviction. According to Milindapanho, Menander belonging to the house of Euthydemids embraced Buddhism under the influence of Buddhist sage Nagasena towards the end of his life.

On the other hand the members of the house of Eukratides who has seized power in Bactria from the house of Euthydemids favoured the Pauranic faith and it appears they were provided some sort of protection by the Shunga rulers. Heliodorus, the ambassador of Antialkidas belonging to the house of Eukratides was a Bhagavata by faith and set up a Garuda pillar at Besnagar (Vidisha) near Gwalior.

The Kushans

The Kushanas were a branch of the Yueh-Chi tribe who originally inhabitated in the region beyond the north-western frontiers of China and later migrated to Bactria. But B.N.Puri in his work, India under the Kushanas writes that the Kushanas lived somewhere near Bactria or to the south of it and were a part of the ancient Shaka stock. They were known as Tocharians or Tukharas. They owed temporary allegiance to the Yueh-Chi tribe and later asserted themselves and defeated the last Greek ruler Hermaeus and later set foot on India.

Kujala Kadphises the first king of the Kushans adopted Buddhism as his religion. He had developed a great respect for Shaivism and hence the bull, the favourite symbol of Shiva and the monogram, Nandipada made their appearance on a series of his coins. His son Wema Kadphises was an ardent worshipper of Shiva. In the coins of Wema Kadphises either Shiva or one of his emblems is depicted and he himself took the epithet Maheshvara or Mahishvara. The predominance of the Shaiva motifs in the Kushana coins prompted Foucher to suggest that Shiva was a dominant religious factor in the north-west region when the Kushans came to India and that they were first converted to this region. The coins issued by Kushana kings like Kanishka, Huvishka and Vasudeva also has motifs of Shiva. In the coins of Huvishka we find the figure of Uma and also Shiva with a Chakra, the emblem of Vishnu. A study on coins issued by Kanishka shows that he had an eclectic frame of mind and worshipped a vareity of Indian, Iranian and Greek deities. Later he embraced Buddhism and became an ardent Buddhist. He constructed a grand Stupa at Purushavar (present Peshwar) and held the forth Buddhist council at Kashmir under the leadership of Vasumitra.

The Shakas

The Shakas who originally lived in the valley of the Oxus and Jaxartes migrated to India and later established themselves as rulers over Taxila, Mathura and Ujjayini and called themselves Mahakshatrapas. Over a period of time they got assimilated into the Indian society and adopted Indian religions. According to Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya, most of the northern satraps (ruling over Taxila and Mathura) were followers of Buddhist creed; while the names of the western satrapas such as Rudradaman, Rudrasimha and Rudrasena shows that they were Hindus. Nahapana’s son-in-law, Rsabhadatta was tolerant towards both Buddhists and Hindus. We find him making tirtha yatras to sacred places of Hindus and also making donations to the Buddhist monks.

The Hunas

The Hunas lived in Central Asia on the western border of China as far back as the 2^nd century B.C. In course of their migrations to the west, one branch of them known as the Ephthalites or White Huns occupied the Oxus valley and conquered Gandhara. From there they led regular campaigns against India.

The Hunas who dominated the Indian political scene for some times later completely merged into the Indian society forgetting their identity altogether. As they attained power and prestige they also claimed Kshatriya status and succeeded in contracting matrimonial alliances with the ancient ruling classes in the country.

When a foreign tribe became Hinduised its members claimed the status generally as the Kshatriya but they were given a place in the society not as Kshatriya but as degraded Kshatriya (Vratya Rajanya), while the rank and file were characterised as Shudras. The process of Hinduisation that probably started with Toramana was completed by the time of Mihirakula who became a through convert to Shaivism.

Reference

• Kanchan Chakraberti – Society, Religion and Art of the Kushana India, A Historico-Symbiosis, K.P.Bagchi & Company, Calcutta, 1981

• Baldev Kumar – The Early Kusanas, Sterling Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, 1973

• Mehta Vasishtha Dev Mohan – The North-West India of the second century B.C., Indology Research Institute, Ludhiana, 1974

• Upendra Thakur – The Hunas in India, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1967

• Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya – The Shakas in India, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, 1955

• R.C.Majumdar, A.S.Altekar (Editors) – A New History of the Indian People, vol 6, The Vakataka-Gupta Age, 1946

• H.C.Rayachaudhuri – Political History of Ancient India, University of Calcutta, 1972

• B.N.Puri – India under the Kushanas

Yashodharman, the Hindu king who ended the Huna menace

 Yashodharman belonging to the Aulikara dynasty was one of the noblest defender of Indian freedom against the despotism of the Hunas just as Chandragupta Maurya was against the Greek usurpation. He is credited for ending the Huna menace in Central India and for defeating Mihirkula, a Huna tyrant. The Aulikaras kings who ruled from their capital Mandasor were subordinate to the imperial Guptas during the 5^th century A.D. and ruled as independent kings in 6^th century A.D.

Yashodharman predecessors

The Rishtal inscription dated 515 A.D., claims that Prakashadharman of the Aulikara dynasty defeated Toramana in a battle. But it is impossible to determine whether Prakashadharman conquered Dasapura from the Hunas or in the conflict, the Hunas failed to subdue him. The Rishtal inscription also mentions the name of Prakashadharman’s predecessors like Rajyavardana, Vibhisanavardhana, Ajitavardhana, Jayavardhana and Drapavardhana who are identified as later Aulikaras or imperial Aulikaras by historians. Prakashadharman was the predecessor and probably the father of Yashodharman who came to power after 530 and before 533 A.D.

The invasion of the Hunas

The Hunas lived in central Asia on the western border of China as far back as the second century B.C. In course of their migrations to the west, one branch or race of them known as the Ephthalites or the white Huns occupied the Oxus valley and conquered Gandhara. After the accession of Skanda Gupta, his empire was menanced by the onrush of these barbarians who had crossed the Indus carrying devastation and destruction all around. Skanda Gupta thoroughly defeated them and we have no evidence of the Hun depredations east of Gandhara till the close of the 5^th or the beginning of 6^th century A.D.

The accession of Toramana

Toramana was an ordinary soldier who caught the attention of his master due to his dash and courage and was appointed as the viceroy of Gandhara under the control of the Hunas. Toramana was a born fighter and destroyer and swept away everything before him like a surging storm. After Attila he was the only general who reorganized the Hunas under his inspiring leadership and established an empire which lasted for about a hundred years. After the death of Budhagupta, towards the end of the 5^th century A.D., Toraman directed his attack against the mainland of India and conquered Rajasthan, Punjab, Kashmir and eastern Malwa. He also took Magadha, Banaras and Kausambi and these territories were under his control from 502-526 A.D. In 510 A.D. one Bhanugupta (either a Gupta prince or a governor) fought a battle with Toramana without success. After this Toramana forced the reigning Gupta king Narasimha Gupta Baladitya to retire to Bengal. Toramana was the first foreign conqueror in India who built up a vast empire from central Asia to central India. After his death in 515 A.D. , his son Mihirkula succeeded him.

Mihirkula’s defeat, imprisonment and release

After the death of Toramana, the exiled Gupta ruler Narsimha Gupta Baladitya returned to Magadha and Mihirkula recognized him as the king of Magadha in turn Baladitya accepted Mihirkula’s vassalage and agreed to pay him tributes. It is said that Mihirkula began to persecute the Buddhists and ordered that all Buddhist monasteries be destroyed. Baladitya being a devout Buddhist resented this order and refused to pay tribute to Mihirkula. This revolt of Baladitya made Mihirkula to attack Magadha. But due to the heroic efforts of the soldiers of Magadha, Mihirkula was captured and brought before Baladitya. But at the intervention of Baladitya’s mother he was released. This incident took place in 530 A.D.

Mihirkula captures the throne of Kashmir

After his defeat and release, Mihirkula sought refuge in Kashmir as his brother had established himself at Gandhara. But later he led a rebellion and killed the king of Kashmir and enthroned himself as its king. He also recaptured Gandhara and from there he organized a vast army and marched towards Malwa to regain his lost territories.

Yashodharman in the saddle

Mihirkula’s march towards Malwa provoked Yashodharman who had by this time carved out a vast principality at the cost of the Guptas and other powers. The Mandasor pillar inscription claims that Yashodharman conquered all of India from the Brahmaputra river to Mount Mahendra and from Himalaya to the western ocean and to have ruled lands never conquered by the Guptas or the Huns. Probably he ruled over these areas with the help of his feudatories. Yashodharman is believed to have been a ruler of considerable power and importance though it is agreed that his claims are obviously exaggerated. In the words of R.C.Majumdar and A.S.Altekar, such a claim publicly made must have some basis in fact and we need hardly doubt that Yashodharman was a great conqueror.

Yashodharman had built up a formidable army and himself possessed the genius of a general who could face any eventuality with calm and fortitude. He dreamt of reviving and reestablishing an all-India empire. But his efforts were challenged by the Hunas who had upset the political equilibrium of the country, killed the peace of the land and heaped untold miseries on the innocent masses.

End of the Huna menace

Yashodharman marched with his army and met the advancing Hunas under Mihirkula’s leadership in the plains of Malwa or somewhere in central India. The Hunas were routed thoroughly and Mihirkula was compelled to pay homage. This incident took place in 533-534 A.D. Mihirkula retired to his original kingdom of Gandhara and was heard no more.

A brilliant star in the political arena

Yashodharman shot up like a brilliant star in the political firmament of India by completing the task left incomplete by Skanda Gupta who had likewise saved the country from the Huna menace. It is true, Narasimha Gutpa Baladitya had defeated and imprisoned Mihirkula; but his misled act of piety had led the country nowhere. It is possible that in the absence of a powerful monarch like Yashodharman, the Hunas once again might have swept the country off it feet and reestablished the reign of terror which the people had experienced for long.

Yashodharman was also known by the name Vishnuvardhana. According to Gautam N Dwivedi, Vishnuvardhana seems more likely to be his true name and he assumed later after his victory the more glorious name Yashodharman (one whose supreme attribute is glory). He also had titles like ‘Parameshvara’ and ‘Rajadhiraja’.

Saviour of the nation

The Huna invasion had changed the face of northern India and had their power not been broken, they would have still further changed the face of the country. Yashodharman came as a saviour and dealt the final and decisive blow to the Hunas who now disappeared as a great political force, broke up into fragments and soon after completely merged with the Indian population. And for this, the name of Yashodharman had since been remembered by his countrymen with respect and gratitude in the form of the Malava era.

Reference

• Upendra Thakur – The Hunas in India, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1967

• Daniel Balogh – Inscriptions of the Aulikaras and their Associates, 2019

• Richard Salomon – New Inscriptional evidence for the history of the Aulikaras of Mandasore, Indo-Iranian Journal, vol -32, No. 1 (January 1989)

• M.Shama Rao (Edited) – The Indian Heroes, Bangalore, 1922

• Gautam N Dwivedi – Some notes on Yashodharman, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol- 32, 1970

• R.C.Majumdar, A.S.Altekar (Editors) – A New History of the Indian People, vol 6, The Vakataka-Gupta Age, 1946

Pushyamitra Shunga, the expeller of invaders and restorer of Sanatana Dharma

 The Mauryan Empire was founded by a policy of blood and iron and could be maintained by following the same policy. But by eschewing all wars and abandoning the aggressive imperial policy, Ashoka weakened the very foundation of the empire. Lack of all military activity after the Kalinga war and the constant preaching of the great virtue of ahimsa (non-injury) by the emperor in person had a permanent effect, not only on the military organisation of the state, but also on the martial qualities of the people in general. The soldiers lost their skill and discipline and Indians generally became averse to war. This is why the Mauryan army which successfully resisted the onslaught of Seleucus failed against the less powerful Bactrian Greeks.

Rise of Bactria as an independent kingdom

Seleucus and his successors ruled from Syria over the whole of western Asia up to the Hindu Kush mountains. About 250 B.C. Bactria and Parthia, two provinces of this vast empire revolted against the Seleucid dynasty and declared their independence. In 208 B.C. the independence of these provinces were acknowledged by Antiochus III, the Seleucid ruler of Syria, who not only conferred the title king to Euthydemus, to the then ruler of Bactria but also gave his daughter in marriage to his son Demetrius. After the death of Euthydemus in about 189 B.C., Demetrius ascended the throne and he is said to have led an invasion to Pataliputra.

Differences among scholars regarding the Bactrian invasion to Pataliputra

Dr.Bhandarkar and Dr. Rayachaudhuri hold that the siege of Pataliputra was led by Demetrius and its armies were defeated by prince Vasumitra. But W.W.Tarn seems to favour Menander as the leader of the Yavana forces invading Pataliputra. According to N.N.Ghosh there were two Yavana wars under two different Yavana leaders. The first one was the siege of Pataliputra and the Yavana invader was Demetrius I. The ruler who successfully repulsed the Yavana attack was Pushyamitra Sunga who later performed the Ashwamedha sacrifice. The second Yavana invasion was led by Menander or one of his generals and a battle was fought near the river Sindhu in which Vasumitra, the grandson of Pushyamitra commanded the imperial army. We are told in the Sanskrit drama Malavikagnimitra that Pushyamitra Shunga was celebrating the Ashwamedha sacrifice and Vasumitra rescued the sacrificial horse from the Yavanas after a terrible fight on the banks of river Sindhu. But scholars like A.K.Narain and Buddha Prakash deny any Greek invasion led by Demetrius either during the time of Brhadratha or Pushyamitra Shunga.

Two-pronged attack against Magadha

At the time of the invasion of Demetrius, there were two Mauryan kings, Brhadratha ruling from Saketa and Shalishuka ruling from Pataliputra. Demetrius’s invasion of India was two-pronged, one through Panipat and the other through Cutch with the dual objective of reducing the two Indian strongholds, Saketa and Vidisha before advancing to Pataliputra. While Demetrius advanced towards Saketa after capturing Mathura, his brother Apollodotus led the other campaign against Vidisha which was ruled by Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra Shunga. Starting from Sindh, Apollodotus advanced south to Broach and besieged the fortified town of Madhyamika (Nagari near Chittor). Agnimitra organised the defence of Madhyamika and Apollodotus was forced to withdraw. Meanwhile, even after a long siege, Demetrius could not capture Saketa. Instead of wasting more time and energy on this town, he decided to capture Pataliputra. At this junction differences arose in the Mauryan camp about the strategy to be followed.

Assasination of Brhadratha

Pushyamitra, the commander-in-chief of Brhadratha who probably advocated a bolder policy, wanted to break out of Saketa and strike at Mathura thereby disrupting Demetrius lines of communication. Brhadratha probably did not approve of this policy and preferred to hold on to the capital. The besieged city must have been seeting with discontent at what appeared to be timidity and faintheartedness of their king. Pushyamitra Shunga sensed the popular feeling. Brhadratha was invited to a grand military review and there in full view of the royal armies, Pushyamitra Shunga cut off his head.

Pushyamitra Shunga’s action had popular support

This action of Pushyamitra Shunga has been criticized as treachery to his king. But the fact is Brhadratha as a king had failed in his duty and even blocked the efforts of his senapati to save people and hence forfeited the loyalty of his subject. Pushyamitra Shunga did not have any selfish motive behind his action. Even after having earned recognition as Chakravartin by performing not one but two Ashwamedha sacrifices, he was content with the modest title senapati and he never assumed any imperial title. The very fact that he chose to behead the king in full view of his assembled armies proves that Pushyamitra Shunga was assured of their support. The popular feelings can be gauged from the fact that centuries later the great dramatist Kalidasa chose to celebrate in his play the lives of the members of Pushyamitra Shunga’s family.

Pushyamitra Shunga ascends the throne

The origin of Pushyamitra Shunga is wrapped up in obscurity. He was the de facto ruler in the Avanti region and held simultaneously the position of commander-in-chief under the imperial Mauryas. Energetic and enterprising he commanded the confidence of the army and also had maintained his own militia called Pusyamanava. After removing Brhadratha, Pushyamitra Shunga initiated a relentless campaign against the Yavana lines of communication and soon was able to develop a serious threat to their base at Mathura. Demetrius who was pounding the gates of Pataliputra retreated back and Pushyamitra Shunga took control of almost the whole of north India. Shalishuka ruling in Pataliputra appears to have died naturally; the whole of his domain passed on to Pushyamitra Shunga. Turning his attention in pushing back the Yavanas out of the Indian territory, Pushyamitra Shunga is said to have advanced to Jullundur, Shakala and right up to the Indus and Demetrius seems to have lost one battle after another and later met his end.

Instigated Eukratides to revolt?

The news of Demetrius’ defeats in India must have reached Bactria and an ambitious adventurer by name Eukratides seized power in Bactria. It is quite possible that Eukratides or his agent may have met Pushyamitra Shunga near Taxila and may have planned his coup in collaboration with the latter. As a result the territory of the house of Euthydemus shrank to Sindhu-Sauvira (modern Sindh) and possibly a small chunk in Afghanistan. After this success Pushyamitra Shunga undertook his first horse sacrifice as a gesture to proclaim to all and sundry that the rule of law had returned.

Conquest of Punjab

After the death of Ashoka, the Mauryan empire appears to have been divided. The north-western half of India was ruled by Virasena and the eastern and southern parts of the empire passed under the domination of Samprati. After Virasena his successor was Subhagasena with whom the Seleucid monarch Antiochus III renewed his friendship. After coming to power, Pushyamitra Shunga turned his attention to the north-western frontiers and seems to have conquered the Punjab, which formed a part of the kingdom of Subhagasena. From there the armies of Pushyamitra Shunga advanced to the north-west to stem the menace of the Yavanas who were hovering over the frontiers. In 158 B.C. Pushyamitra Shunga celebrated his second horse sacrifice and the horse accompanied by his grandson Vasumitra was probably intentionally driven into eastern Gandhara to challenge Apollodotus (brother of Demetrius who had succeeded him) who had invaded the Shunga territory and had probably occupied Taxila. In the battle that ensued on the banks of river Sindhu, Apollodotus was killed.

Suzerainty over Vidarbha

It appears the foundation of the dynasty of Pushyamitra Shunga almost synchronised with the establishment of a new kingdom in Vidarbha or Berar. The king of Vidarbha was Yajnasena and is represented as a relation of the Mauryan minister of Brihadratha Maurya. When Pushyamitra Shunga organised his coup d’ etat, Yajnasena who was the viceroy at Vidarbha declared his independence. Yajnasena’s cousin, Madhavasena who was his competitor took the help of Agnimitra and saw that Vidarbha was divided into two states and ruled by Yajnasena and Madhavasena respectively, both accepting the suzerainty of the house of Pushyamitra Shunga.

Pushyamitra Shunga’s empire extended from Sakala in the north-west to Pataliputra in the east and southwards to the Narmada. He posted Agnimitra at Vidisha and possibly other sons at Ayodhya, Kaushambi and Ahicchatra.

Did Pushyamitra Shunga persecute the Buddhists?

Majority of scholars are of the opinion that Pushyamitra Shunga was a great persecutor of Buddhism. Their arguments are based on the materials contained in the Divyavadana, Manjusri-Mulkalpa and Taranath’s History of Buddhism. But a careful study of them reveals that Pushyamitra Shunga cannot be identified with Pushyamitra of Divyavadana and Taranath’s History of Buddhism and with Gomimukhya of Manjusri-Mulkalpa. Pushyamitra Shunga is invariably referred to by the title Senani or Senapati in the Puranas, Harshacharita, Malvikagnimitram and in the Ayodhya inscription. He does not seem to have assumed any royal title but was known or liked to be known by the term Senapati or Senani. It was an important epithet of Pushyamitra Shunga by which he could be easily recognized. But in Divyavadana, Manjusri-Mulkalpa and Taranath’s History of Buddhism, he is not mentioned by the title. H.C.Rayachaudhuri has pointed out that Pushyamitra, the persecuting monarch of the Divyavadana is represented as a Maurya, a descendant of Ashoka himself and he belonged to the Maurya dynasty.

Pushyamitra Shunga was a tolerant ruler

Pushyamitra Shunga was a monarch tolerant towards Buddhism. The Buddhist monument at Bharhut erected during the sovereignty of the Shungas does not also bear out the theory that the Shungas among whom Pushyamitra Shunga is included were the leaders of a militant Brahminism. Pushyamitra Shunga did not dispense with the services of the pro-Buddhist ministers and the court of his son was being graced by Pandit Kausiki, a Buddhist. The Buddhist rail pillars at Bodh Gaya of the Shunga period which record the gifts of queens Kurangi and Nagadevi respectively also suggest that Buddhism was looked upon with respect by the Shunga kings in which Pushyamitra Shunga was also included. In the domain of Pushyamitra Shunga there were various Ashokan Buddhist monuments which were not destroyed either by Pushyamitra Shunga or his successors. Hence the conclusion that Pushyamitra Shunga persecuted the Buddhists is largely based on conjectures and surmises rather than on any sound historical material. According to Buddha Prakash, the accounts of the anti-Buddhist activities of Pushyamitra Shunga are highly coloured and exaggerated. It is the renaissance of Vedic sacrifices and extension of imperial patronage to this relgion in preference to Buddhism and Jainism that resulted in the painting of Pushyamitra Shunga as the arch enemy of Buddhists.

The end of Pushyamitra Shunga

According to Buddha Prakash towards the end of his reign Pushyamitra Shunga himself undertook an expedition in the north-west to subdue the Yavanas beyond the Indus in a region called Kosthaka ruled by one Danstranivasin. In the war Pushyamitra Shunga was crushed to death by a rock hurled by one Krmisha who is identified with Demetrius II. The Ayodhya inscription of Dhanadeva shows that after the death of Pushyamitra Shunga his governors declared independence and his descendants remained content with a kingdom in and around Vidisha.

Achievements of Pushyamitra Shunga

Though Pushyamitra Shunga was a powerful ruler who ruled over an extensive empire and fought the Yavanas, historians usually depict him in unfavourable light and he is shown as a military adventurer, an assassin and a usurper. The assasination of Brihadratha took place not as a result of secret conspiracy but at a military turnout in the presence of the whole army. The army remained loyal to Pushyamitra Shunga and public sentiment may have favoured him. If not he could not have ruled for nearly lengthy period of 36 years nor his family for 112 years. As a patriot Pushyamitra Shunga eliminated Brihadratha as he was incapable of defending the empire against foreign danger.

The rule of the emperors of the house of Pushyamitra Shunga marks an important epoch in the history of India in general and of central India in particular. The renewed incursion of the Yavanas, which once threatened to submerge the whole of Madhyadesha received a check and the Greek dynasts of the borderland reverted to the prudent policy of their Seleukidan precursors. But for Pushyamitra Shunga the political unity of India might have been lost at the beginning of the 2^nd century B.C. with far-reaching effects on Indian civilization. Pushyamitra Shunga was an outstanding national leader who led the movement of national resurgences and stimulated parallel creative movements in arts and literature which we know as the Shunga renaissance. The period saw the growing importance and widespread prevalence of the Bhagavata religion and among its adherents we find the Yavanas. Patananjali the greatest literary genius belonged to this period. The famous railing around the stupa at Bharhut was undertaken during the rule of the Shungas.

Reference

• R.C.Majumdar – Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt Ltd, Delhi, 1977.
• Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya – Early History of North India, Progressive Publishers, Calcutta, 1958
• Buddha Prakash – Studies in Indian History and Civilization, Shiva Lal Agrawala & Co, Agra, 1962
• H.C.Rayachaudhuri – Political History of Ancient India, University of Calcutta, 1972
• Mehta Vasishtha Dev Mohan – The North-West India of the second century B.C., Indology Research Institute, Ludhiana, 1974
• Harikishore Prasad - Pushyamitra Shunga was not the persecutor of Buddhism, Proceedings of the Indian Historical Congress, vol- 16, 1953.
• Ram Kumar Mishra - Pushyamitra Shunga and the Buddhists, Proceedings of the Indian Historical Congress, vol- 73, 2012.
• N.N.Ghosh – Do the references to the Yavana invasion of India found in the Yuga Purana, Patanjali’s Mahabhashya and the Malavikagnimitra form the evidence of one single event?, Proceedings of the Indian Historical Congress, vol- 9, 1946.