The Nature of Pusyamitra Sunga’s Rule
Summary
The article examines the nature of the rule of Pusyamitra Sunga, who assassinated his master, Brhadratha Maurya, around 185 B.C. and ruled for thirty-six years, yet never assumed an imperial title. The author notes that all sources, including the Puranas, the Malavikagnimitra, the Harsacarita, and the Ayodhya inscription of Dhana (bhuti?), mention him merely as senapati or senani. The article investigates whether Pusyamitra wielded sovereignty in his own name or that of a phantom sovereign. A passage from the Purana text, "karayisyati evam rajyam," leads to the presumption that legal sovereignty resided in another person. The author dismisses the possibility that this person was a Maurya, suggesting instead that public opinion or the Mantriparisad might have advised against assuming the crown. The author then refutes Dr. R.C. Tripathi's theory, derived from the Pauranic text "Pusyamitrasutascastan bhavisyanti sama nrpa," that Pusyamitra created a feudal division of his territories with his eight sons. The author argues that the reading of the Vayu Purana relied upon by Tripathi is faulty, as pointed out by H.E. Pargiter, and that the correct reading is "Pusyamitrasutascastan bhavisyati sama nrpa." Furthermore, the interpretation of "sama" as "simultaneously" is deemed incorrect, as the word is invariably used in Pauranic texts and the Dynasties of the Kali Age in the sense of "successively." The best evidence comes from Kalidasa's Malavikagnimitra, which gives Pusyamitra's son, Agnimitra, the title of king, even though Pusyamitra was alive and enjoyed political power. Pusyamitra is designated merely as senapati. Agnimitra's chief consort, Dharini, is addressed as queen, indicating that Agnimitra was the legal ruler of the country, the person through whom Pusyamitra carried on the government of the empire. The author concludes that Agnimitra was not a mere provincial governor but a constitutional and legal sovereign, most probably anointed by his father.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This article concludes that Pusyamitra Sunga’s rule, though dominant for thirty-six years, operated through a constitutional framework rather than direct imperial sovereignty. Despite wielding actual power, Pusyamitra deliberately refrained from assuming royal titles, consistently being referred to as a general. The analysis refutes the hypothesis that he divided the empire among his eight sons, demonstrating that the textual evidence for this claim is flawed. Instead, the evidence points to Pusyamitra’s son, Agnimitra, as the legitimate legal sovereign. Supported by Kalidasa’s *Malavikagnimitra* and other sources, this study establishes that Agnimitra functioned as the anointed king, possessing his own council and exercising true sovereignty, while his father managed the empire's administration. This constitutional arrangement resolves the historical ambiguity regarding the nature of early Sunga rule.