The Final Defeat of Mihirakula
By H. Heras
Summary
The debate surrounding Mihirakula's defeat centers on conflicting accounts from the Mandasor inscription of Yasodharman of Malwa and Hiuen Tsiang's pilgrim records. The inscription claims Yasodharman forced Mihirakula into submission, as evidenced by the Huna king's bowed forehead. Conversely, Hiuen Tsiang attributes the victory to Baladitya-raja of Magadha (identified as Narasimha-Gupta), who captured Mihirakula through a strategic ambush. Tsiang's narrative details Mihirakula's shame, his mother's intervention, and his eventual exile to Kashmir after Baladitya spared his life. Modern historians propose three interpretations: (1) rejecting Tsiang's account as later and less reliable, (2) suggesting an alliance between Yasodharman and Narasimha-Gupta representing a single battle, or (3) accepting both accounts as separate defeats—first by Baladitya in the east, then by Yasodharman in the west. The timing gap (one century) between the contemporary inscription and Tsiang's later account complicates resolution. Fleet and others endorse the dual-defeat theory, while Allan and Mookerji align with Fleet, positing Mihirakula's final defeat in Malwa. The controversy remains unresolved, with scholars emphasizing the need for further analysis to reconcile these sources.
Conclusion
This analysis reconciles conflicting accounts of Mihirakula's defeat, demonstrating that the Mandasor inscription and Hiuen Tsiang's testimony are not contradictory but complementary. The Mandasor inscription highlights Yasodharman's role in subjugating Mihirakula through military force, while Hiuen Tsiang's narrative emphasizes Baladitya-raj