The Importance of Valabhi.The discovery of its lost site; the natural but mistaken identification of its rulers with the famous eighth and ninth century (a.d. 753–972) Balharas of Málkhet in the East Dakhan;[50] the tracing to Valabhi of the Rána of Udepur in Mewáḍ the head of the Sesodias or Gohils the most exalted of Hindu families[51]; and in later times the wealth of Valabhi copperplates have combined to make the Valabhis one of the best known of Gujarát dynasties. Except the complete genealogy, covering the 250 years from the beginning of the sixth to the middle of the eighth century, little is known of Valabhi or its chiefs. The
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Importance of Valabhi, a.d. 750–770. origin of the city and of its rulers, the extent of their sway, and the cause and date of their overthrow are all uncertain. The unfitness of the site, the want of reservoirs or other stone remains, the uncertainty when its rulers gained an independent position, the fact that only one of them claimed the title Chakravarti or All Ruler are hardly consistent with any far-reaching authority. Add to this the continuance of Maitraka or Mer power in North Káthiáváḍa, the separateness though perhaps dependence of Sauráshṭra even in the time of Valabhi’s greatest power,[52] the rare mention of Valabhi in contemporary Gujarát grants,[53] and the absence of trustworthy reference in the accounts of the Arab raids of the seventh or eighth centuries tend to raise a doubt whether, except perhaps during the ten years ending 650, Valabhi was ever of more than local importance.

Valabhi and the Gehlots.In connection with the pride of the Sesodias or Gohils of Mewáḍ in their Valabhi origin[54] the question who were the Valabhis has a special interest. The text shows that Pandit Bhagvánlál was of opinion the Valabhis were Gurjjaras. The text also notes that the Pandit believed they reached south-east Káthiáváḍa by sea from near Broach and that if they did not come to Broach from Málwa at least the early rulers obtained (a.d. 520 and 526) investiture from the Málwa kings. Apart from the doubtful evidence of an early second to fifth century Bála or Valabhi three considerations weigh against the theory that the Valabhis entered Gujarát from Málwa in the sixth century. First their acceptance of the Gupta era and of the Gupta currency raises the presumption that the Valabhis were in Káthiáváḍa during Gupta ascendancy (a.d. 440–480): Second that the Sesodias trace their pedigree through Valabhi to an earlier settlement at Dhánk in south-west Káthiáváḍa and that the Válas of Dhánk still hold the place of heads of the Válas of Káthiáváḍa: And Third that both Sesodias and Válas trace their origin to Kanaksen a second century North Indian immigrant into Káthiáváḍa combine to raise the presumption that the Válas were in Káthiáváḍa before the historical founding of Valabhi in a.d. 526[55] and that the city took its name from its founders the Válas or Bálas.

Whether or not the ancestors of the Gohils and Válas were settled in Káthiáváḍa before the establishment of Valabhi about a.d. 526
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Valabhi and the Gehlots. several considerations bear out the correctness of the Rájput traditions and the Jain records that the Gohils or Sesodias of Mewáḍ came from Bála or Valabhi in Káthiáváḍa. Such a withdrawal from the coast, the result of the terror of Arab raids, is in agreement with the fact that from about the middle of the eighth century the rulers of Gujarát established an inland capital at Aṇahilaváḍa (a.d. 746).[56] It is further in agreement with the establishment by the Gohil refugees of a town Balli in Mewáḍ; with the continuance as late as a.d. 968 (S. 1024) by the Sesodia chief of the Valabhi title Śíláditya or Sail[57]; and with the peculiar Valabhi blend of Sun and Śiva worship still to be found in Udepur.[58] The question remains how far can the half-poetic accounts of the Sesodias be reconciled with a date for the fall of Valabhi so late as a.d. 766. The mythical wanderings, the caveborn Guha, and his rule at Idar can be easily spared. The name Gehlot which the Sesodias trace to the caveborn Guha may as the Bhávnagar Gehlots hold have its origin in Guhasena (a.d. 559–567) perhaps the first Valabhi chief of more than local distinction.[59] Tod[61] fixes the first historical date in the Sesodia family history at a.d. 720 or 728 the ousting of the Mori or Maurya of Chitor by Bappa or Sail. An inscription near Chitor shows the Mori in power in Chitor as late as a.d. 714 (S. 770).[62] By counting back nine generations from Śakti Kumára the tenth from Bappa whose date is a.d. 1038 Tod fixes a.d. 720–728 as the date when the Gohils succeeded the Moris. But
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Valabhi and the Gehlots. the sufficient average allowance of twenty years for each reign would bring Bappa to a.d. 770 or 780 a date in agreement with a fall of Valabhi between a.d. 760 and 770, as well as with the statement of Abul Fazl, who, writing in a.d. 1590, says the Rána’s family had been in Mewáḍ for about 800 years.[63]

The Válas of Káthiáváḍa.The Arab accounts of the surprise-attack and of the failure of the invaders to make a settlement agree with the local and Rájputána traditions that a branch of the Valabhi family continued to rule at Vaḷeh until its conquest by Múla Rája Solaṇkhi in a.d. 950.[64] Though their bards favour the explanation of Vála from the Gujaráti valvu return or the Persian válah[65] noble the family claim to be of the old Valabhi stock. They still have the tradition they were driven out by the Musalmáns, they still keep up the family name of Selait or Śíláditya.[66]

The local tradition regarding the settlement of the Válas in the Balakshetra south of Valabhi is that it took place after the capture of Valabhi by Múla Rája Solaṇkhi (a.d. 950).[67] If, as may perhaps be accepted, the present Válas represent the rulers of Valabhi it seems to follow the Válas were the overlords of Balakshetra at least from the time of the historical prosperity of Valabhi (a.d. 526–680). The traditions of the Bábriás who held the east of Sorath show that when they arrived (a.d. 1200–1250) the Vála Rájputs were in possession and suggest that the lands of the Válas originally stretched as far west as Diu.[68] That the Válas held central Káthiáváḍa is shown by their possession of the old capital Vanthali nine miles south-west of Junágaḍh and by (about a.d. 850) their transfer of that town to the Chúḍásamás.[69] Dhánk, about twenty-five miles north-west of Junágaḍh, was apparently held by the Válas under the Jetwas when (a.d. 800–1200?) Ghumli or Bhumli was the capital of south-west Káthiáváḍa. According to Jetwa accounts the Válas were newcomers whom the Jetwas allowed to settle at Dhánk.[70] But as the Jetwas are not among the earliest settlers in Káthiáváḍa it seems more probable that, like the Chúḍásamás at Vanthali, the Jetwas found the Válas in possession. The close connection of the Válas with the earlier waves of Káthis is admitted.[71] Considering that the present
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Válas of Káthiáváḍa. (1881) total of Káthiáváḍa Vála Rájputs is about 900 against about 9000 Vála Káthis, the Válas,[72] since their loss of power, seem either to have passed into unnoticeable subdivisions of other Rájput tribes or to have fallen to the position of Káthis.

The Válas and Káthis.If from the first and not solely since the fall of Valabhi the Válas have been associated with the Káthis it seems best to suppose they held to the Káthis a position like that of the Jetwas to their followers the Mers. According to Tod[73] both Válas and Káthis claim the title Tata Multánka Rai Lords of Tata and Multán. The accounts of the different sackings of Valabhi are too confused and the traces of an earlier settlement too scanty and doubtful to justify any attempt to carry back Valabhi and the Válas beyond the Maitraka overthrow of Gupta power in Káthiáváḍa (a.d. 470–480). The boast that Bhaṭárka, the reputed founder of the house of Valabhi (a.d. 509), had obtained glory by dealing hundreds of blows on the large and very mighty armies of the Maitrakas who by force had subdued their enemies, together with the fact that the Valabhis did and the Maitrakas did not adopt the Gupta era and currency seem to show the Válas were settled in Káthiáváḍa at an earlier date than the Mers and Jetwas. That is, if the identification is correct, the Válas and Káthis were in Káthiáváḍa before the first wave of the White Huns approached. It has been noticed above under Skandagupta that the enemies, or some of the enemies, with whom, in the early years of his reign a.d. 452–454, Skandagupta had so fierce a struggle were still in a.d. 456 a source of anxiety and required the control of a specially able viceroy at Junágaḍh. Since no trace of the Káthis appears in Káthiáváḍa legends or traditions before the fifth century the suggestion may be offered that under Vála or Bála leadership the Káthis were among the enemies who on the death of Kumáragupta (a.d. 454) seized the Gupta possessions in Káthiáváḍa. Both Válas and Káthis would then be northerners driven south from Multán and South
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
The Válas and Káthis. Sindh by the movements of tribes displaced by the advance of the Ephthalites or White Huns (a.d. 440–450) upon the earlier North Indian and border settlements of the Yuan-Yuan or Avars.[74]

Descent from Kanaksen, a.d. 150.The Sesodia or Gohil tradition is that the founder of the Válas was Kanaksen, who, in the second century after Christ, from North India established his power at Virát or Dholka in North Gujarát and at Dhánk in Káthiáváḍa.[75] This tradition, which according to Tod[76] is supported by at least ten genealogical lists derived from distinct sources, seems a reminiscence of some connection between the early Válas and the Kshatrapas of Junágaḍh with the family of the great Kushán emperor Kanishka (a.d. 78–98). Whether this high ancestry belongs of right to the Válas and Gohils or whether it has been won for them by their bards nothing in the records of Káthiáváḍa is likely to be able to prove. Besides by the Válas Kanaksen is claimed as an ancestor by the Chávaḍás of Okhámandal as the founder of Kanakapurí and as reigning in Kṛishṇa’s throne in Dwárká.[77]. In support of the form Kanaka for Kanishka is the doubtful Kanaka-Śakas or Kanishka-Śakas of Varáhamihira (a.d. 580).[78] The form Kanik is also used by Alberuni[79] for the famous Vihára or monastery at Pesháwar of whose founder Kanak Alberuni retails many widespread legends. Tod[80] says; ‘If the traditional date (a.d. 144) of Kanaksen’s arrival in Káthiáváḍa had been only a little earlier it would have fitted well with Wilson’s Kanishka of the Rája Tarangini.’ Information brought to light since Tod’s time shows that hardly any date could fit better than a.d. 144 for some member of the Kushán family, possibly a grandson of the great Kanishka, to make a settlement in Gujarát and Káthiáváḍa. The date agrees closely with the revolt against Vasudeva (a.d. 123–150), the second in succession from Kanishka, raised by the Panjáb Yaudheyas, whom the great Gujarát Kshatrapa Rudradáman (a.d. 143–158), the introducer of Kanishka’s (a.d. 78) era into Gujarát, humbled. The tradition calls Kanaksen Kośalaputra and brings him from Lohkot in North India.[81] Kośala has been explained as Oudh and Lohkot as Lahore, but as Kanak came from the north not from the north-east an original Kushána-putra or Son of the Kushán may be the true form. Similarly Lohkot cannot be Lahore. It may be Alberuni’s Lauhavar or Lahur in the Káshmir uplands one of the main centres of Kushán power.[82]

Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Mewáḍ and the Persians. Mewáḍ and the Persians.One further point requires notice, the traditional connection between Valabhi and the Ránás of Mewáḍ with the Sassanian kings of Persia (a.d. 250–650). In support of the tradition Abul Fazl (a.d. 1590) says the Ránás of Mewáḍ consider themselves descendants of the Sassanian Naushirván (a.d. 531–579) and Tod quotes fuller details from the Persian history Maaser-al-Umra.[83] No evidence seems to support a direct connection with Naushirván.[84] At the same time marriage between the Valabhi chief and Maha Banu the fugitive daughter of Yezdigerd the last Sassanian (a.d. 651) is not impossible.[85] And the remaining suggestion that the link may be Naushirván’s son Naushizád who fled from his father in a.d. 570 receives support in the statement of Procopius[86] that Naushizád found shelter at Belapatan in Khuzistán perhaps Balapatan in Gurjaristán. As these suggestions are unsupported by direct evidence, it seems best to look for the source of the legend in the fire symbols in use on Káthiáváḍa and Mewáḍ coins. These fire symbols, though in the main Indo-Skythian, betray from about the sixth century a more direct Sassanian influence. The use of similar coins coupled with their common sun worship seems sufficient to explain how the Agnikulas and other Káthiáváḍa and Mewáḍ Rájputs came to believe in some family connection between their chiefs and the fireworshipping kings of Persia.[87]

Válas.Can the Vála traditions of previous northern settlements be supported either by early Hindu inscriptions or from living traces in the present population of Northern India? The convenient and elaborate tribe and surname lists in the Census Report of the Panjáb, and vaguer information from Rájputána, show traces of Bálas and Válas among the Musalmán as well as among the Hindu population of Northern India.[88] Among the tribes mentioned in Varáha-Mihira’s sixth century (a.d. 580)[89] lists the Váhlikas appear along with the dwellers on Sindhu’s banks. An inscription of a king Chandra, probably Chandragupta and if so about a.d. 380–400,[90] boasts of crossing the seven mouths of the Indus to attack the Váhlikas. These references suggest that the Bálas or Válas are the Válhikas and that the Bálhikas of the Harivaṃśa (a.d. 350–500 ?) are not as Langlois supposed people then ruling
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Válas. in Balkh but people then established in India.[91] Does it follow that the Válhikas of the inscriptions and the Bálhikas of the Harivaṃśa are the Panjáb tribe referred to in the Mahábhárata as the Báhikas or Bálhikas, a people held to scorn as keeping no Bráhman rites, their Bráhmans degraded, their women abandoned?[92] Of the two Mahábhárata forms Báhika and Bálhika recent scholars have preferred Bálhika with the sense of people of Balkh or Baktria.[93] The name Bálhika might belong to more than one of the Central Asian invaders of Northern India during the centuries before and after Christ, whose manner of life might be expected to strike an Áryávarta Bráhman with horror. The date of the settlement of these northern tribes (b.c. 180–a.d. 300) does not conflict with the comparatively modern date (a.d. 150–250) now generally received for the final revision of the Mahábhárata.[94] This explanation does not remove the difficulty caused by references to Báhikas and Bálhikas[95] in Páṇini and other writers earlier than the first of the after-Alexander Skythian invasions. At the same time as shown in the footnote there seems reason to hold that the change from the Bákhtri of Darius (b.c. 510) and Alexander the Great (b.c. 330) to the modern Balkh did not take place before the first century after Christ. If this view is correct it follows that
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Válas. if the form Bahlika occurs in Páṇini or other earlier writers it is a mistaken form due to some copyist’s confusion with the later name Bahlika. As used by Páṇini the name Báhika applied to certain Panjáb tribes seems a general term meaning Outsider a view which is supported by Brian Hodgson’s identification of the Mahábhárata Báhikas with the Bahings one of the outcaste or broken tribes of Nepál.[97] The use of Báhika in the Mahábhárata would then be due either to the wish to identify new tribes with old or to the temptation to use a word which had a suitable meaning in Sanskrit. If then there is fair ground for holding that the correct form of the name in the Mahábhárata is Bálhika and that Bálhika means men of Balkh the question remains which of the different waves of Central Asian invaders in the centuries before and after Christ are most likely to have adopted or to have received the title of Baktrians. Between the second century before and the third century after Christ two sets of northerners might justly have claimed or have received the title of Baktrians. These northerners are the Baktrian Greeks about b.c. 180 and the Yuechi between b.c. 20 and a.d. 300. Yavana is so favourite a name among Indian writers that it may be accepted that whatever other northern tribes the name Yavana includes no name but Yavana passed into use for the Baktrian Greeks. Their long peaceful and civilised rule (b.c. 130–a.d. 300 ?) from their capital at Balkh entitles the Yuechi to the name Baktrians or Báhlikas. That the Yuechi were known in India as Baktrians is proved by the writer of the Periplus (a.d. 247), who, when Baktria was still under Yuechi rule, speaks of the Baktrianoi as a most warlike race governed by their own sovereign.[98] It is known that in certain cases the Yuechi tribal names were of local origin. Kushán the name of the leading tribe is according to some authorities a place-name.[99]
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Válas. And it is established that the names of more than one of the tribes who about b.c. 50 joined under the head of the Kusháns were taken from the lands where they had settled. It is therefore in agreement both with the movements and with the practice of the Yuechi, that, on reaching India, a portion of them should be known as Báhlikas or Bálhikas. Though the evidence falls short of proof there seems fair reason to suggest that the present Rájput and Káthi Válas or Bálas of Gujarát and Rájputána, through a Sanskritised Váhlika, may be traced to some section of the Yuechi, who, as they passed south from Baktria, between the first century before and the fourth century after Christ, assumed or received the title of men of Balkh.

One collateral point seems to deserve notice. St. Martin[100] says: ‘The Greek historians do not show the least trace of the name Báhlika.’ Accepting Báhika, with the general sense of Outsider, as the form used by Indian writers before the Christian era and remembering[101] Páṇini’s description of the Málavas and Kshudrakas as two Báhika tribes of the North-West the fact that Páṇini lived very shortly before or after the time of Alexander and was specially acquainted with the Panjáb leaves little doubt that when (a.d. 326) Alexander conquered their country the Malloi and Oxydrakai, that is the Málavas and Kshudrakas, were known as Báhikas. Seeing that Alexander’s writers were specially interested in and acquainted with the Malloi and Oxydrakai it is strange if St. Martin is correct in stating that Greek writings show no trace of the name Báhika. In explanation of this difficulty the following suggestion may be offered.[102] As the Greeks sounded their kh (χ) as a spirant, the Indian Báhika would strike them as almost the exact equivalent of their own word βακχικος. More than one of Alexander’s writers has curious references to a Bacchic element in the Panjáb tribes. Arrian[103] notices that, as Alexander’s fleet passed down the Jhelum, the people lined the banks chanting songs taught them by Dionysus and the Bacchantes. According to Quintus Curtius[104] the name of Father Bacchus was famous among the people to the south of the Malloi. These references are vague. But Strabo is definite.[105] The Malloi and Oxydrakai are reported to be the descendants of Bacchus. This passage is the more important since Strabo’s use of the writings of Aristobulus Alexander’s historian and of Onesikritos Alexander’s pilot and Bráhman-interviewer gives his details a special value.[106] It may be said Strabo explains why the Malloi and Oxydrakai were called Bacchic and Strabo’s explanation is not in agreement with the proposed Báhika origin. The answer is that Strabo’s explanation can be proved to be in part, if not altogether, fictitious. Strabo[107] gives two reasons why the Oxydrakai
Chapter VIII.
The Valabhis, a.d. 509–766.
Válas. were called Bacchic. First because the vine grew among them and second because their kings marched forth Bakkhikôs that is after the Bacchic manner. It is difficult to prove that in the time of Alexander the vine did not grow in the Panjáb. Still the fact that the vines of Nysa near Jalálábád and of the hill Meros are mentioned by several writers and that no vines are referred to in the Greek accounts of the Panjáb suggests that the vine theory is an after-thought.[108] Strabo’s second explanation, the Bacchic pomp of their kings, can be more completely disproved. The evidence that neither the Malloi nor the Oxydrakai had a king is abundant.[109] That the Greeks knew the Malloi and Oxydrakai were called Bakkhikoi and that they did not know why they had received that name favours the view that the explanation lies in the Indian name Báhika. One point remains. Does any trace of the original Báhikas or Outsiders survive? In Cutch Káthiáváḍa and North Gujarát are two tribes of half settled cattle-breeders and shepherds whose names Rahbáris as if Rahábaher and Bharváds as if Baherváda seem like Báhika to mean Outsider. Though in other respects both classes appear to have adopted ordinary Hindu practices the conduct of the Bharvád women of Káthiáváḍa during their special marriage seasons bears a curiously close resemblance to certain of the details in the Mahábhárata account of the Báhika women. Colonel Barton writes:[110] ‘The great marriage festival of the Káthiáváḍa Bharváds which is held once in ten or twelve years is called the Milkdrinking, Dudhpíno, from the lavish use of milk or clarified butter. Under the exciting influence of the butter the women become frantic singing obscene songs breaking down hedges and spoiling the surrounding crops.’ Though the Bharváds are so long settled in Káthiáváḍa as to be considered aboriginals their own tradition preserves the memory of a former settlement in Márwár.[111] This tradition is supported by the fact that the shrine of the family goddess of the Cutch Rabáris is in Jodhpur,[112] and by the claim of the Cutch Bharváds that their home is in the North-West Provinces.[113]