THE SUNGAS : THEORIES OF THEIR ORIGIN
Before discussing the origins of the Sungas, let us quickly understand the circumstances and conditions which led to the establishment of Sunga empire. The Mauryan empire which lasted for centuries and achieved its greatest success under the reign of Asoka the great, started showing signs of decay after his demise in 232 BCE. The Yuga Purana section of Gargi Samhita mentions about the decline of the Mauryan empire.It says the Mauryan empire collapsed after the death of its ruler named Salisuka who reigned in the Madhyadesha.
The weakening of the empire resulted in the power vacuum which ultimately gave the fillip to the rise of Sunga Empire in around 187-184 BCE. There are different views regarding the emergence of the Sungas which talk about the social and political factors resulting in the overthrow of the Muaryans. One of the most popular narrative speaks about the coup d' etat.
For the period concerning the Sungas rule we have primary literary evidences such as, the Gargi Samhita, the Mahabhasya of Patanjali, the Duvyavadana, the Malvikagnimitra of Kalidasa and Harshacharita of Bana supply details and facts about the Sungas. There remains however a dearth of epigraphic and numismatic evidences. Information about later Sungas are supplied by the inscriptions found at Ayodhya, Bhilsa, Barhut and coins at Kosmabi, Ayodhya, Ahichhatra and Mathura. Again we observe that numismatic evidences are at times difficult to interpret.
Reason for the coup d'etat
Pushyamitra, who was a Senapati or Commander in the army of Mauryas assasniated the last of the Mauryas and cemented his rule which lasted for 112 yrs. According to Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad Sastri ( 1910, p. 259)" a reaction promoted by the Brahmanas had sapped the foundations of the Maurya authority and dismembered the empire". Further to bolster this, it has been told that Asoka's Edict against the animal sacrifice played a big role as it is believed that it was directed against the Brahmanas. Moreover, it was an edict which was promulgated by the Sudra rulers. ”Having referred to the prohibition of animal sacrifices Pandit Sastri says :"this was followed by another edict in which Asoka boasted that those who were regarded as gods on earth have been reduced by him into false gods. If it means anything it means that the Brahmanas who were regarded as Bhudevas or gods on earth had been shown up by him."
Another narrative speaks about coup d'etat having a different reason concerning the maladministration and feeling of discontent due to the failures of weak Mauryan rulers who were unable to protect the empire against the Greek invasions. According to ‘Yuga- purana’ (a section of Gargi Samhita) that ‘the viciously valiant Greeks over- ran Saketa or Oudh, Panchala, Mathura, and reached Pataliputra.’ This resulted a feeling of chaos in the administration. Fortunately for India the invaders were unable to reap the fruits of their military successes, as they had to hasten back to home on account of ‘a dreadful war having broken out amongst themselves". The memory of the Greek invasion was still green when Pushyamitra’s sacrificial priest, Patanjali, was writing his Mahabhashya on the grammar of Panini, and illustrated the use of the imperfect tense in Sanskrit by referring to an event of recent occurrence and gave the following examples : arunad- Yavanah Saketam ; anmad- Yavanah Madhyamikam. Under these circumstances Pushyamitra seized the opportunity and laid the foundations of a new ruling house.
According to Vincent Smith this dynasty was founded in 183 B.C by Pusyamitra, who was the commander- in-chief of the Maury a king Brihadratha. While his master was inspecting a guard of honour Pushyamitra treacherously brought about his death and usurped his throne and declared himself as the sovereign of the Maurya dominion. Banabhatt has referred to this incident in his Harsacharita.
The Mauryan Descent Theory:
This theory advocates that Pushyamitra (the founder of Sunga dynasty) was a direct descendant of Mauryas. This theory states that there exist no decline of Mauryan empire and hence the empire continued under Pushyamitra. This theory demolishes the narrative regarding the coup d'etat by Pushyamitra and the usurpation of power from the last ruler of Mauryan Empire. Evidently, this theory holds no water and has been discredited. According to Hemchandra Raychaudhary the Mauryan empire experienced a gradual decay. And this decline has been mentioned in the Yuga Purana section of Gargi Samhita.(see above)
Even if we presume that the former assertion is true Pushyamitra Sunga was a descendant of Mauryan empire, we cannot overlook the evidences rendered by the various sources viz; Harshacharita (Banabhatta) and prominently Yuga Purana which has mentioned the decline of Mauryas in its Gargi Samhita. Had it been continued, it seems untenable to mention the decline of the Mauryas. The theory of gradual decline seems reasonable and continuation of the Mauryan rule holds no water. Hence this theory can be easily refuted.
 |
| Man on a relief, Bharhut, Shunga period |
Shungas as Kshatriyas :
A different school of thought asserts that the Shungas were Kshatriyas that assumed the gotras of their Brahmin teachers and initiators. Among the scholars that prescribed this view was JC Ghosh, who elaborated his argument in the IHQ, XV, pp. 629-630 : "Panini says, “The affix 'an' comes after the words Vikarna, Shunga and Chagala, when the sense is a descendant of the family of Vatsa, Bharadvaja and Atri respectively.” (IV. I. 117). There are no rules for the wholesale, or partial elision of this affix in the plural. So the forms, according to this rule, will be Shaungah, and in the plural Shaungaah, when Shunga is a Bharadvaja, when non-Bharadvaja, they will be Saungi and Saungiyah..." "Shaungah in the singular and Shungah in the plural can be, however, supported under vartikah on Panini, IV. I. 168, read with IV. I. 170 and II. 4. 62., if the Shungas are assumed to be Ksatriyas. So the Sunga kings were not Brahmanas, but Ksatriyas." He then goes on to quote verses from the Harivamsa and interprets the "dvija" reviver if the Ashwamedha sacrifice to be a Kshatriya : "The Harivamsa says that the Asvamedha sacrifice fell into disuse among the Ksatriyas after Janamejaya, owing to Brahmasrapa (curse of a Brahmana), but it would be reintroduced by an upstart (audbhijja) commander (senani), a dvija of the Kashyapa gotra, in the Kaliyuga.." (edited)
"The word dvija in the above verse is interpreted as ‘Brahmana’. But doubts have arisen in our mind as to its correctness. The word literally means ‘twice-born', which includes Brahmana, Ksatriya and Vaisya. The verb "pratyaharisyati" i.e. ‘will reintroduce’ can hardly be applicable to a Brahmana here, as the sacrifice already existed among them. The necessity for its reintroduction arose among the Kshatriyas, who were deprived of their right to perform it. So it must have been revived by a Kshatriya king. The word dvija should, therefore, be interpreted accordingly. Whoever this senapati might have been, there is no doubt that he was a Kshatriya. The mention of an arsa-gotra is no bar to this conclusion. In the Srauta-sutras, the pravaras (not gotras) of the purohitas have been prescribed for the Ksatriyas and the Vaisyas. But the custom of mentioning arsa-gotras by the Kshatriyas must have come into vogue earlier than Buddha, for he was called Gautama by his gotra-name"
There are several issues here pointed out by Bela Lahri, among them the fact that contemporary sources such as Patanjali refer to the "Brahmana-rajya", meanwhile Taranatha, refers to him with a similar epithet. Contemporary sources that consciously made the decision to refer to the King by his Brahmin roots. Further more, the quotation used by Ghosh from the Harivamsa, mentions the word "dvija" for a "senani" of the Kashyap lineage who would reestablish the Ashvamedha in the Kali age. The interpretation of the word "dvija" here must necessarily be Brahman, as stated by Lahri.
Lahri opines that ; "The above Harivamsa passage clearly shows that the word dvija there can only signify a Brahmana, not a Kshatriya. For, in connection with the horse-sacrifice, it is said that, after its performance by King Janamejaya, no other Asvamedha would be performed in future by the Kshatriyas. Then it is stated that it would be revived by the ‘Brahmanas’ and that an upstart Brahmana (dvija) senani of the Kashyapa lineage would re-establish it in the Kali age. The Brahmana senani who revived the Ashwamedha is almost certainly Senapati Pushyamitra who is known to have performed two horse-sacrifices. The term audbhijja (literally, ‘plant-born’) is also significant, for 'Shunga', the family-designation ascribed to Pushyamitra by the Puranas, is the name of the fig-tree or hog-plum. That the family of the so-called senani of the Harivarmsa really became an imperial dynasty is indicated by the next verse in which it is said that one of his descendants performed a Rajasuya sacrifice."
Thus, we can safely conclude that the evidences put forth by Ghosh are not sufficient to show that the Shungas were Kshatriyas. On the other hand, counter evidence supporting the prevailing theory that they were Brahmans outweighs the argument in favour of Kshatriya origin.
Sungas As Brahmins
As we have shown that different scholars have opined different opinions regarding the lineage of the Pushyamitra and back in the days it remained a highly debatable controversy. But the modern historians have agreed and concluded that the Sungas were Brahmins. The earliest opinion was pushed forward by Hari Prasad Sastri who earlier pointed out that the Sungas were Iranians as they had their names ending with MITHRA which in Persian means The Sun, however later on he too admitted that his opinion was untenable and he advocated the theory that Sungas were indeed Brahmins. As we read more about the origin of Sungas under the Brahmanical origin, we bump with another major difficulty in assigning the apt Gotra to the Sungas. Till now it is cleared that Sungas were Brahmins but there are two conflicting opinions emanating from the two different primary evidences. Lets see this in some detail.
Firstly, Hemchandra Raychaudhary opines that the name of the family was Baimbika. He draws attention to a verse in the Malavikagnimitra (iv 14) where Agnimitra calls himself a Baimbika. In the Baudhayanasrautasutra, ' Baimbikayah' are mentioned amongst the Kasyapas, and Raychaudhuri connects this with the mention of a Kasyapa Senani in the Harivamsha (Bhavishyat Parva, ch. ii 40). It should however be noted that the form in the Malavikagnimitra is Baimbhika whereas in Baudhayanasrautasutra it is Baimbiki. Raychaudhuri further remarks, ‘It may be remembered in this connection that the dynastic designation Sunga is applied to Pushyamitra and his progeny only in the Puranas. It is not used in reference to the Senani and his son in the Divyavadana, the Malvikagnimitra or even in the Harshacharita which mentions the dynastic revolution involving the overthrow of the last of the Imperial Mauryas.’ (IC. vi p. 410). He concludes, ‘the possibility is therefore not precluded that the Puranas may have included under the name Sunga, two distinct groups of kings, viz. the line of Pushyamitra which is styled Baimbika by Kalidasa and the real Sungas who succeeded this line and are referred to by Bana and the Bharhut inscription of Dhana- bhuti’ (iibid. p. 411). In spite of these forceful arguments we have preferred to designate Pushyamitra as a Sunga for two reasons. Firstly, the word Baimbika in the Malvikagnimitra has been translated as ‘a gallant lover’ by Apte, and there is nothing to show that it was a proper name. Secondly, Dhanadeva of the Ayodhya inscription who is a descendant of the senapati, is apparently a Sunga as he is closely associated with the Sunga branch of Kosala, founded by Muladeva.
The another theory of origin of Sungas as Brahmins is the most plausible due to the evidences found in several texts. These texts mention that Sungas were of Brahmin descent. Alternatively, Panini in his Ashtadhyayi mentions the gotra of Sungas and has assigned them Bharadwaj gotra. The same text was used by Patanjali who was apparently a member of Pushyamitra court meaning Patanjali who composed Mahabhashya . Using earlier work of Panini, it has been clearly stated that Sungas gotra was Bharadwaj and not Kashyapa as mentioned above. This has been mentioned in the Vol IV of 1 chapter in 117th verse by Panini. Hence the Bharadwaj Gotra theory supplied by Panini seems more plausible considering the fact that Patanjali was a contemporary of Pushyamitra.
 |
| Mention of Bharadwaj Gotra |
 |
| Besnagar Pillar Inscription |
Conclusion;
Indian history is replete with examples of unanswered questions and issues that lie in the quagmire of inconclusive arguments and academic back and forth. This is due to a magnanimity of sources. The sources concerning the Shungas, are no different and this has sprouted multiple theories regarding their origins. The Shungas remain an important chapter in the history of ancient India following the collapse of Mauryan power caused by its founder, the senapati Pushyamitra Shunga. After overthrowing his erstwhile Emperor Brihadratha, the last Mauryan ruler, Shunga embarked on campaigns of conquest and reestablished several Royal traditions such as the Ashwamedha yajna, that had fallen out of use under centuries of non-Brahminical rulers. Here we discuss the origins of this house that gave the throne of Pataliputra supposedly 10 kings and for more than a century kept would be conquerors of the middle Gangetic plains at bay.
The origins of certain dynasties being such a topic. This Shungas, have been speculated by academics to be Kshatriyas, by academics such as JC Ghosh as well as successors of the Mauryans. Their gotra has been speculated upon as well, and among other things, the land of their origin is another subject which has been speculated upon based on available evidence and varying interpretations.
Scholarship from KP Jayswal and Bela Lahri however seems to be suggestive of a more definitive answer. Lahri asserts, after countering previous scholarship thoroughly in their work, that the Shungas were Brahmin of Bharadvaja gotra, their founder being a senapati in the army of the Mauryans, who slew the last Mauryan ruler Brihadratha, and proclaimed himself ruler. Albeit he did not assume the Royal title, he was seemingly recognised as Brahman Rajya by his contemporaries such as Patanjali.
Jayaswal looks at the evidence provided from the Harivamsa and Taranatha, showing how the sources when interpreted by application of the context of their rise, shows that the Shungas could not have been Kshatriyas.
SOURCES:
Hemchandra Raychaudhuri,"Political History of Ancient India : From the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty", 1972, pp. 328-329
KP Jayswal, "Revised Notes on the Brahmin Empire", The Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol IV.I, 1918, pp. 256-260
Bela Lahri, "Indigenous States of Northern India", 1974, pp. 29-35
Sircar, Dines Chandra, "Select Inscriptions Bearing On Indian History And Civilization, Vol.1", Ed., 1942, pp. 91
JC Ghosh, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1939, XV, pp. 629-630
Very thorough and well researched. Keep posting.
ReplyDelete