http://ijssrr.

com
International Journal of Social [email protected]
Volume 5, Issue 5
Science Research and Review May, 2022
Pages: 67-72

A Comprehensive Study of Huna Invasion in India during the Reign of Skandagupta

Sakir Hossain Laskar

Aligarh Muslim University, India

Email: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v5i5.236

Abstract

The Gupta age was considered the golden age of ancient Indian history. However, during the reign
of Emperor Skandagupta the stability of the Empire was threatened by the invasion of a Central Asian tribe,
The Huna. Emperor Skandagupta was at that time dealing with the rebellion of Pushyamitra’s. and The
Huna after ravaging Persia thought that time was ripe to invest in India. Even though the imperial fabric of
the Gupta’s was in a decaying stage, nevertheless Skandagupta defeated the Hunas. The conquest of the
Hunas is mentioned particularly on the Bhitari pillar inscription, and the conquest of the Mlechcchas is
mentioned in more general terms on the Junagadh rock inscription, albeit the Mlechcchas cannot be
definitively identified as the Hunas. The Hunas were thoroughly defeated by Skandagupta, according to the
inscription on the pillar. This article is aimed to highlight the nature and outcome of the conflict between
Skandagupta and The Hunas.

Keywords: Bhitari; Huna; Mlechchha; Pushyamitra; Skandagupta

Introduction

The famous Bhitari Stone Pillar Inscription is carved on a red sandstone pillar outside the present-
day village of Bhitari in the Sayyidpur Tahsil of the Ghazipur district of Uttar Pradesh by the Gupta
monarch Skandagupta (Vajpeyi, SKANDAGUPTA’S BHITARI GRANT TO VISNU-SARNGIN AND
BHITARI EXCAVATIONS 1983, 70). The Bhitari inscription is one of the most vital epigraphic sources
which gave us a clear-cut idea about the genealogy of Imperial Gupta family and also vividly describes the
menace of Pushyamitras and the Hunas, which nearly destroyed the empire. The Bhitari inscription also
inform us about the brave role played by Skandagupta while repealing the invasions of the Mlechchhas. S
R Goyal observed that the victory which Skandagupta attributed to his mother alludes not just to the
Pushyamitras, but also to other opponents with whom he may have battled concurrently, rather than
sequentially (Goyal 1967, 235-36). According to B P Sinha, Skandagupta conquered the Pushyamitras
when he was still a prince, and he defeated the Hunas after becoming the emperor, as described in the
Bhitari inscription where his victory over the Hunas were after it is declared that he saved the stumbling
lineage and controlled the land with his own hands (Sinha 1954, 2). Furthermore, the fact is that there was
only one coin of Kramaditya, i.e. Skandagupta, was discovered in the Bayana trove suggests that he
ascended the throne when the empire was at a critical juncture due to the panic created Huna (Thaplyal

A Comprehensive Study of Huna invasion in India during the Reign of Skandagupta 67

 International Journal of Social Volume 5, Issue 5
Science Research and Review May, 2022

2012, 260). The inscription claims that the combat between the invaders and the Guptas was so fierce that it
"made the earth shake" (dhara kampita) during the Huna invasion (Fleet, Inscriptions of the Early Gupta
Kings & Their Successors 1960, 56). Skandagupta’s campaign against them was such a success that they
were crushed and fled, carrying tales of Skandagupta's incredible prowess with them, and for another half-
century there was no major scale invasion (A. Agrawal 1989, 212).
Controversy Over the Location of the Famous Battle
The location of the fight between Skandagupta and the Huna’s not been determined reliably. Fleet
reads the sentence as rotreshu Ggadhvani near the end of line 16 of Skandagupta's Bhitari epigraph. Some
historians believe the fight was fought on the banks of Ganga, based on Fleet's interpretation (Thaplyal
2012, 260). The reading Ggadhvani was rejected by Jagannath Agrawal because, according to him, the
Hunas were never able to infiltrate India as far as the nearby area of gangetic plain (J. Agrawal 1986, 29).
He looked at the inscription's stampage and noticed that what was interpreted as ga was actually sa, and the
following word was not nga but rnga (J. Agrawal 1986, 59). Agrawal renamed the word sarnga-dhvani, or
"twang of the bow", and interpreted it as a war scene (J. Agrawal 1986, 29). While describing the conflict
between Raghu and the Yavanas, Chhabra compares it to sarnga-kujita in the Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa
(Thaplyal 2012, 260). On the other hand, K.K. Thaplyal agrees with Sohoni that the Huna’s overran the
Gangetic plain up to Bhitari and that Kumaragupta was killed in the conflict (Sohni 1967, 105); otherwise,
there is no explanation why Kumaragupta was honored in this particular location. R.P. Tripathi also
observed that, “The reference to Ganga here has been made merely as a clever poetical device and not an
expression of geographical locality” (Tripathi 1978, 10). Circumstantially, as Atreyi Biswas has already
demonstrated, it is difficult to accept that Skandagupta could only stop the first Huna invasion of India after
they penetrated as far as the bank of the Ganges in the Gupta empire (Biswas 1973, 50). The hypothesis
that Skandagupta and the Huna’s battled at Bhitari doesn't seem plausible, because the Guptas wouldn't
have sat about waiting for the Hunas to run across their land and get as far as Ghazipur. J Agrawal noted
that The Hunas entered India via Bolan pass, and the battle was fought in Surashtra, the province for which
Skandagupta is claimed to have searched long and hard to find a capable ruler (J. Agrawal 1958, 160-61).
This viewpoint has been thoroughly explored and agreed upon by Ashvini Agrawal (A. Agrawal 1989,
214). Cunningham however established this battle place in the lower Indus (Cunningham, LATER INDO-
SCYTHIANS. ‘EPHTHALITES, OR WHITE HUNS 1894, 245). Raghavendra Vajpeyi was also pretty
skeptical about accepting the above theory about Huna invasion during the time of Skandagupta. He argued
that “Whether Skandagupta's conflict with the Huna’s was an isolated event or it was sparked off by some
unprovoked invasion of the Huna’s on the Gupta empire are matters of conjecture” (Vajpeyi, A CRITIQUE
OF THE HUNA INVASION THEORY 1978, 62). To support his finding Raghavendra Vajpeyi citeed
Bhitari inscription aided by the translation of Fleet, where he highlights a line from the inscription ––
Hunairyyasya samagatasya samare dorbhyam dhara Kampita bhimavartta-karasya
Which translate as,
“By whose two arms the earth was shaken, when he, the creator of a terrible whirlpool, joined in
conflict with the Huna’s"-Fleet's translation)” (Fleet, Corpus Inseri ptionum 1888, 54). In its current form,
samagatasya is an adjective compound of bhimavartta-karasya, and it has been used to Skandagupta rather
than the Huna’s. However, if it is modified to samagataih and prefixed with the Hunaih, it is certain that it
refers to the Huna’s who have arrived. Because the inscription's author has not done so, it is impossible to
conclude that the verse alludes to the Huna invasion. He suggested that The Huna invasion theory should
be dismissed because it is unsupported by evidence, and evidence from fifth-century Gupta-Vakataka
inscriptions and Kalidasa demonstrates that Gupta-Huna contacts stretch back to the reign of Gupta
emperor Candragupta II.

A Comprehensive Study of Huna invasion in India during the Reign of Skandagupta 68

 International Journal of Social Volume 5, Issue 5
Science Research and Review May, 2022

Analysis of the Conflict

From Chndravykarana, KP Jayaswal interprets ajayad Jato (Gupto) Hunan, which means Gupta
king, who is to be identified with Skandagupta, defeated the Huna (Thaplyal 2012, 259). In a story about
king Vikramaditya recorded in Somadeva's Kathasaritsgara, Allan detects an echo of Skandagupta's
victory against the Huna’s (Allan 1914). According to the legend Vikramditya, son of Mahendrditya, king
of Ujjain, took to the throne after his father abdicated, and efficiently put a stop to the activities of the
Mlechchhas who were ravaging the land. Although this account cannot be trusted totally, it is plausible to
believe that the Kathasaritsgara's Mahendrditya and Vikramditya are the Gupta rulers Kumaragupta I and
Skandagupta, because they did adopt those titles (A. Agrawal 1989, 212). Thus, Hunas can, of course, be
associated with the mlechchhas (A. Agrawal 1989, 212).
After giving the account regarding the demise of Skandagupta's father, The Junagarh rock
inscription claims that defeated opponents whose pride had been humbled by him sang eulogies of
Skandagupta in the Melchchha country. Some historians assume that this Mlechchha desa was located in
Bactria during the Gupta period because Kalidasa recalls Hunas dwelling on the riverside of Vankshu
(Goyal 1967, 226). Mlechchha is a term that is commonly used to refer to all foreigners, but in this context,
it appears to relate to the Huna’s (Allan 1914, xlvi). However, numerous researchers have since questioned
this identification. According to S. Chattopadhyaya, the Mlecchas are not the Hunas, but rather a mixed
horde of people comprising Persians, Greeks, and others. They may have attacked the Gupta realm soon
after Kumaragupta died (Chattopadhyaya 1958, 218-219). Chattapodhyaya's argument has been
successfully contested by Ashvini Agrawal, who points out that the Persians could never have considered
invading India because they were themselves defeated by the Hephthalites in 454 CE, when they were
forced to protect their own house from a dangerous enemy (A. Agrawal 1989, 212-213). In terms of the
Greeks, they were insignificant, both in terms of numbers and in terms of military training that qualified
them as mercenaries, let alone possessing any political significance (A. Agrawal 1989, 213). Bactria had
been lost to the barbarians for centuries. B.N. Mukherjee associates the Mlechchhas with the Sassanians,
providing numismatic evidence to back up his claim (Raychaudhuri 2011, 781). According to Mukherjee,
Skandagupta's 'bust:altar' type silver coins could have been minted in a region where Sassanian coins of a
similar design have been in circulation for a long time. This realm could have been near Kathiawad in the
lower Indus valley, which would have been under Skandagupta's control (as indicated by the Junagadh
inscription) (Raychaudhuri 2011, 781-782). Even if we disregard the lack of supporting evidence for the
Skandagupta-Sassanian competition, Mukherjee's theory is undermined by Altekar's description of the
'bust:altar' type coinage. While making notes on these silver coins, Altekar observed that “It appears to
have been borrowed from the gold coins, where it figures on the obverse of the Standard type of
Samudragupta and the Chhattra type of Chandragupta II” (Altekar 1957, 254-255). The art, on the other
hand, is rather poor, and we cannot rule out the idea that the device was intended for Tulasi-vrindavana,
especially as the legend on the obverse proclaims the emperor's Vaishanava faith, which places significant
value on the Tulasi plant. The connection of the Mlechchhas with the Kidara Kushanas by P.L. Gupta is
likewise implausible (Gupta, Gupta Sāmarājya 1972, 324), for the simple fact that the
Kidara Kushanas had lost all power before Skandagupta's reign began (A. Agrawal 1989, 213). As a result,
the only acceptable option is to link these mlechchhas to the Huna’s, as J. Allan, H.C. Raychaudhuri, and
Ashvini Agrawal, among others, have done (A. Agrawal 1989, xlvi, 510, 219).
According to McGovern, the Huna’s defeated Skandagupta numerous times, and the Gupta Empire
nearly disintegrated as a result of their recurrent assaults (Mcgovern 1939, 416). Skandagupta died a third
time fighting the Huna’s, as per R.D Banerji (R. Banerji 1933, 52). He claims that during the Huna
invasion, Purugupta established himself as a rival monarch (R. D. Banerji 1918-19, 79-80), Skandagupta,
on the other hand, was defeated and slain by the Hunas. According to V.A. Smith, reseeded Huna raids
occurred in the latter part of Skandagupta's reign, and Skandagupta wasn’t able to hold them as he had done
earlier, and thus lost to them (Smith 1999, 310). However, K.K. Thaplyal notes that some scholars were so

A Comprehensive Study of Huna invasion in India during the Reign of Skandagupta 69

 International Journal of Social Volume 5, Issue 5
Science Research and Review May, 2022

taken aback by the Huna’s' combat prowess, as well as their track record of victory in conflicts beyond
India, that they declared them victorious over Skandagupta despite the lack of evidence (Thaplyal 2012,
261). The belief that there were multiple Huna invasions under Skandagupta's reign appears to be founded,
at least in part, on the assumption that there was debasement of that king's currency, which was resorted to
because of the terrible economic situation produced by the Huna invasions. However, the idea of monetary
debasement was based on Cunningham's chemical examination of Skandagupta's coinage, which was not
entirely credible (Cunningham, Coins of Ancient India from the Earliest Times Down to the Seventh
Century A.D. 1891, 16). Among two Classes of Skandagupta’s coins, Class I is based on a weight standard
of around 132 grains, and because it is closer to the weight of Kumaragupta I's coins, it may be considered
early issues of that king. The weight of Class II coins is approximately 144 grains. Althoughh
Skandagupta's heavyweight coins have more debasement than his predecessors, they according to a recent
chemical examination conducted in the British Museum laboratory, contains the same amount of pure gold
as those of his predecessors (Thaplyal 2012, 261).
There appears to be a lack of evidence to support D.R. Bhandarkar's claim that the Naga king
invited the Huna chief to arrive to his aid (Thaplyal 2012, 81). The Nagas and the Huna’s were vanquished,
according to him, though the Gupta prince Ghaotkachagupta died in the battle. On the other hand, the
Ramtek inscription reveals that the Gupta prince perished earlier when he rebelled against Kumargupta I.
According to numismatic evidence in the shape of two coins, this prince declared himself king and struck
coinage (Thaplyal 2012, 259). The ‘serpent kings’ mentioned in Skandagupta's Junagarh inscription could
have been identified with the Naga king but it is difficult to believe that the Nagas could have posed such a
serious challenge to the Gupta dynasty, given that their kings ruling in Matuhura, Vidisa, Padmavati, and
other areas had been uprooted by Samudragupta and their kingdoms merged into the Gupta Empire. A
Naga princess, Kuberanaga, was married to Chandragupta II, the Guptas and the Nagas were linked by
matrimony (Thaplyal 2012, 259). The prospect of a Naga chief revolt can be ruled out altogether, because
the Nagas would not have been able to build up a powerful military machine and revolt during the strong
rule of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya and Kumaragupta Mahendraditiya (A. Agrawal 1989, 210). The term
"serpent kings" appears to be a generic term for all of Skandagupta's foes in the traditional meaning.
Skandagupta and Prakasaditya
Pankaj Tandon’s study here suggest another theory, aided by Robert Göbl’s finding he suggested
that Skandagupta had to fight with certain Prakasaditya, whom he identifies as the Huna king, for the
control of the empire. According to him, “the Huņas were the enemies of the Guptas, that Skandagupta
struggled against them, and that he identified ‘mlecchas’ as his enemies at the time of his accession. So, it
seems natural to conclude that Skandagupta struggled against Prakasaditya” (TANDON 2014, 571).
Skandagupta's repeated assertions in his inscriptions that he “established again the ruined fortunes of (his)
lineage” and “lineage that had been made to totter” could be explained by his theory, which suggests that
his rival was not a member of his own lineage, but rather an outsider who threatened the lineage's
destruction. Prakasaditya thus fit into it. In his Bhitari inscription, Skandagupta particularly lists the Hunas
as an enemy he defeated. The fact that Prakasaditya's coins are often fairly heavy and look to belong to the
suvarna standard, or perhaps a standard even heavier than the suvarna is one reason against this
conclusion. Should the same argument be used if the Ghato coins are rejected as Skandagupta's main rival's
coins due to their weight and size? This is, without a doubt, a serious objection, but there are at least three
ways to overcome it. First, while Prakasaditya's coins are weighty, they are not particularly huge. Rather,
they are all roughly the same size, measuring around 19-20 mm in diameter. Like the majority of
Kumaraditya I's coins, Second, the Ghato coins certainly belong to the Gupta series, as evidenced by their
design; consequently, it would be rare for them to deviate much in weight from the rest of the series. The
Prakasaditya coins, on the other hand, did not belong in the Gupta series. Despite the fact that they have
been categorized as Gupta coins thus far, there are a number of features, as noted before, that imply they
are Huna coins. If this is the case, a major change in weight standard for these coins seems more likely than

A Comprehensive Study of Huna invasion in India during the Reign of Skandagupta 70

 International Journal of Social Volume 5, Issue 5
Science Research and Review May, 2022

for the Ghato coins. Third, coins of Prakasaditya have been discovered alongside coins of Skandagupta,
implying that they were in circulation at the same time. As a result of these three factors, it appears that the
Prakasaditya coins were produced around the period of Skandagupta's accession. If they were published
later, the theory that Skandagupta's main competitor was Prakasaditya would be refuted. Here Tandon
suggest that the rival could have been a predecessor of Prakasaditya (TANDON 2014, 572).
Conclusion
After conquering the Sassanians in 454 CE, the Huna’s would have considered Skandagupta's
conflict with the Pusyamitras as an opportunity to launch their own invasion against the Guptas. They were
defeated by the ruler of Gupta lineage named aika-virah (Fleet, Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings &
Their Successors 1960, 53), and had to retire to their homeland with tales of Skandagupta's incredible
prowess. After defeating the Huna Skandagupta “established a stable administration by appointing able
wardens .in the Northern and Western marches” (Prakash 1946, 127). The Kahaum stone pillar inscription
refers to the year 141 (Gupta period) as a sante varshe, indicating that Skandagupta won in eradicating the
threat to the empire and had created serenity throughout his dominion by 460 CE (Bhandarkar 1968, 360).
Skandagupta was not the true heir to the throne, as per most scholars. While he declares himself to
be Kumaragupta I's son on his inscriptions, his mother is not named in any known scripture or inscription,
implying that he was at best the son of a minor queen of Kumaragupta I, or more likely the son of a woman
who was not a queen at all. His mother according to P.L. Gupta, “had an extremely low rank, not unlikely
of a mistress, concubine or a slave-girl in the royal harem” (Gupta, The Imperial Guptas 1974, 330).
Bakker even goes to the length by calling him “a bastard son of Kumaragupta” and “a boy from the harem”
(Bakker 2006, 178). In any case, it appears that he was not entitled to the throne simply because of his
birth. Even when he was not destined to rule by birth, he defended the empire on his father’s behalf. He
crushed the insurrection of Pusyamitras, repel the invasion of Mlechchhas, who were probably were the
Hunas. Thus, Skandagupta truly made his mark on the pages of history.
References
Agrawal, A. 1989. Rise and Fall of the Imperial Guptas. Delhi.
Agrawal, J. 1986. Researches In Indian Epigraphy and Numismatics. Delhi.
Agrawal, J. 1958. "The route of Hūṇa Invasion." Proceedings of the Indian History 160-61.
Allan, J. 1914. "Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasties, and of Śaśāṅka, the King of Gauḍa, in the
British Museum." London, xlix.
Altekar, A.S. 1957. The Coinage of the Gupta Empire. Varanasi.
Bakker, Hans. 2006. "A Theatre of Broken Dreams: Vidisa in the Days of Gupta Hegemony." In
Interrogating History: Essays for Hermann Kulke, edited by Martin Brandtner and Shishir Kumar
Panda. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors.
Banerji, R. D. 1918-19. "THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE IMPERIAL GUPTAS." Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 1 (1): 67-80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41702257.
Banerji, R.D. 1933. The Age of the Imperial Guptas. Benaras.
Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna. 1968. Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population. Calcutta:
Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta.
Biswas, Atreyi. 1973. The Political History of the Hūṇas in India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal
Publishers.

A Comprehensive Study of Huna invasion in India during the Reign of Skandagupta 71

 International Journal of Social Volume 5, Issue 5
Science Research and Review May, 2022

Chattopadhyaya, Sudhakar. 1958. Early History of North India, from the Fall of the Mauryas to the Death
of Harsa, C. 200 B.C.-A.D. 650. Calcutta.
Cunningham, Sir Alexander. 1891. Coins of Ancient India from the Earliest Times Down to the Seventh
Century A.D. London: B Quaritch.
Cunningham, Sir Alexander. 1894. "LATER INDO-SCYTHIANS. ‘EPHTHALITES, OR WHITE HUNS."
The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Numismatic Society 14: 243-93.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42681734.
Fleet, John Faithful. 1888. Corpus Inseri ptionum. Vol. III. Calcutta.
—. 1960. Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings & Their Successors. Varanasi: Indological Book House.
Goyal, S.R. 1967. A History of the Imperial Guptas. Allahabad.
Gupta, P.L. 1972. Gupta Sāmarājya. Varanasi.
—. 1974. The Imperial Guptas. Varanasi: Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan.
Mcgovern, W.M. 1939. The Early Empires of Central Asia. Chapel Hill.
Prakash, Budha. 1946. "LAST DAYS OF THE GUPTA EMPIRE." Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute 27 (1/2): 124-41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41784870.
Raychaudhuri, H.C. 2011. Political History of Ancient India with Commentary by B.N. Mukherjee.
Calcutta.
Sinha, B.P. 1954. Decline of the Kingdom of Magadha. Delhi.
Smith, V.A. 1999. Early history of India. 3rd. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors (P) Limited.
Sohni, S.V. 1967. "Notes and queries on Bhitari pillar inscription of Skandagupta." Journal of Bihar
Research Society LIII: 105.
TANDON, PANKAJ. 2014. "The Succession after Kumāragupta I." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 24
(4): 557-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43307326.
Thaplyal, K.K. 2012. The Imperial Guptas : A Political History. New Delhi.
Tripathi, R. P. 1978. "BHITARI PILLAR INSCRIPTION OF SKANDAGUPTA—A NOTE ON GANGA-
DHVANIH." Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 39: 10-14.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44139451.
Vajpeyi, Raghavendra. 1978. "A CRITIQUE OF THE HUNA INVASION THEORY." Proceedings of the
Indian History Congress 39: 62-68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44139333.
Vajpeyi, Raghavendra. 1983. "SKANDAGUPTA’S BHITARI GRANT TO VISNU-SARNGIN AND
BHITARI EXCAVATIONS." Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 44: 70-78.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44139823.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

A Comprehensive Study of Huna invasion in India during the Reign of Skandagupta 72