Capital of the Later Aulikaras
Summary
In this polemical article, D.C. Sircar challenges the thesis of V.V. Mirashi that Ujjayini was the capital of the later Aulikara kings of western Malwa. Sircar notes that of the many inscriptions of both early and later Aulikaras discovered so far, all but two have been found in and around the site of the ancient city of Dāsapura (modern Mandasor). Even the two inscriptions discovered elsewhere were within the Mandasor region, and none came from Ujjayini. This suggests that the Aulikara kings ruled from Dasapura rather than Ujjayini. Sircar cites verse 20 of the Mandasor inscription which states that the early Aulikara king Bandhuvarman ruled at Dāsapura. A later inscription uses similar language for King Adityavardhana. These verses, he argues, unambiguously refer to Dasapura as the capital. Sircar criticises Mirashi for taking a verse from Varāhamihira’s Bṛhatsaṃhitā (86.2) which calls the later Aulikara king Dravyavardhana an Avanti-ka-nṛpa (lord of Avanti) to mean that Ujjayini was their capital. He points out that Avanti was the name of the broader region (west Malwa) and not synonymous with its capital; thus the verse could refer to Dāsapura. Mirashi’s second argument is based on a passage noting that Yashodharman appointed a rājāsthaniya (governor) with headquarters at Dasapura, which he interprets to mean that the king himself ruled elsewhere. Sircar counters that the presence of a governor at Dasapura does not imply the king’s absence and, furthermore, that the combined evidence of inscriptions overwhelmingly favours Dasapura. Sircar’s broader methodological point is that epigraphic evidence must be weighed more heavily than conjectural interpretations of literary verses. He suggests that historians should avoid prematurely relocating capitals based on ambiguous terminology. The article thus reinforces the importance of Mandasor (Dāsapura) as a major political centre for the Aulikara dynasty and urges scholars to reconsider Ujjayini’s role in the later Aulikaras’ history.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Sircar marshals epigraphic evidence to argue that Dasapura, not Ujjayini, served as the capital of both early and later Aulikara kings. Inscriptions explicitly state that rulers like Bandhuvarman and Adityavardhana ruled from Dāsapura and no Aulikara epigraph has been found at Ujjayini. Sircar contends that Mirashi misreads “Avanti” as denoting Ujjayini, when it may simply refer to the region. He concludes that the concentration of Aulikara records around Mandasor outweighs literary speculation, reaffirming Dasapura’s status as the dynasty’s capital.