Note 20 — Chapter V · THE KSHATRAPAS (b.c. 70–a.d. 398.)

It might be supposed that the Málavas who gave its name to the Málava era were the kings of the country now called Málwa. But it is to be noted that no reference to the present Málwa under the name of Málavadeśa occurs in any Sanskrit work or record earlier than the second century after Christ. The original Sanskrit name of the country was Avanti. It came to be called Málava from the time the Málava tribe conquered it and settled in it, just as Káthiáváḍa and Meváḍa came to be called after their Káthi and Meva or Meda conquerors. The Málavas, also called Málayas,20 seem like the Medas to be a foreign tribe, which, passing through Upper India conquered and settled in Central India during the first century before Christ. The mention in the Mudrárákshasa21 of a Málaya king among five Upper Indian kings shows that in the time of the Mauryas (b.c. 300) a Málaya kingdom existed in Upper India which after the decline of Maurya supremacy spread to Central India. By Nahapána’s time the Málavas seem to have moved eastwards towards Jaipur, as Ushavadáta defeated them in the neighbourhood of the Pushkar lake: but the fact that the country round Ujain was still known to Rudradáman as Avanti, shows that the Málavas had not yet (a.d. 150) entered the district now known as Málava. This settlement and the change of name from Avanti to Málava probably took place in the weakness of the Kshatrapas towards the end of the third century a.d. When they established their sway in Central India these Málavas or Málayas like the ancient Yaudheyas (b.c. 100) and the Káthis till recent times (a.d. 1818) seem to have had a democratic constitution.22 Their political system seems to have proved unsuited to the conditions of a settled community. To put an end to dissensions the Málava tribe appears to have framed what the Mandasor inscription terms a sthiti or constitution in honour of which they began a new era.23 It may be asked, Why may not Nahapána have been the head of the Málavas who under the new constitution became the first Málava sovereign and his reign-dates be those of Chapter V. Western Kshatrapas, a.d. 70–398. The Málava Era, b.c. 56. the new Málava era? Against this we know from a Násik inscription of Ushavadáta24 that Nahapána was not a Málava himself but an opponent of the Málavas as he sent Ushavadáta to help a tribe of Kshatriyas called Uttamabhadras whom the Málavas had attacked. Further a chronological examination of the early ruling dynasties of Gujarát does not favour the identification of the Kshatrapa era with the Málava era. The available information regarding the three dynasties the Kshatrapas the Guptas and the Valabhis, is universally admitted to prove that they followed one another in chronological succession. The latest known Kshatrapa date is 310. Even after this we find the name of a later Kshatrapa king whose date is unknown but may be estimated at about 320. If we take this Kshatrapa 320 to be in the Vikrama Samvat, its equivalent is a.d. 264. In consequence of several new discoveries the epoch of the Gupta era has been finally settled to be a.d. 319. It is further settled that the first Gupta conqueror of Málwa and Gujarát was Chandragupta II.25 the date of his conquest of Málwa being Gupta 80 (a.d. 399). Counting the Kshatrapa dates in the Samvat era this gives a blank of (399 - 264 = ) 135 years between the latest Kshatrapa date and the date of Chandragupta’s conquest of Gujarát to fill which we have absolutely no historical information. On the other hand in support of the view that the Kshatrapa era is the Śaka era the Káthiáváḍa coins of the Gupta king Kumáragupta son of Chandragupta dated 100 Gupta closely resemble the coins of the latest Kshatrapa kings, the workmanship proving that the two styles of coin are close in point of time. Thus taking the Kshatrapa era to be the Śaka era the latest Kshatrapa date is 320 + 78 = a.d. 398, which is just the date (a.d. 399) of Chandragupta’s conquest of Málwa and Gujarát. For these reasons, and in the absence of reasons to the contrary, it seems proper to take the dates in Ushavadáta’s and Ayáma’s inscriptions as in the era which began with Nahapána’s conquest of Gujarát, namely the Śaka era whose initial date is a.d. 78.