Thread by @vakibs

This would be under the Peshwas just prior to the British colonization of India.

https://twitter.com/hulo_1/status/1489193958412816385

But anyway, the Indian concept of Chakravarti is not similar to the Chinese concept of Heaven’s throne, or the Islamic concept of the Caliph, or the European concept of Ruler of Christendom. They are all different. We must understand how the Indian kings called themselves.

See this example of Raghu’s Digvijaya, that is narrated by Kālidāsa in his Raghuvamśa. The Chakravarti typically reinstates the same kings as rulers in the territory that is conquered by him. See the examples of Raghu’s exploits in Vanga and Kalinga.

This method of conquering a vast territory by Digvijaya, but then allowing the local kingdoms to resort to their native lineages of Kshatriya rulers is very common in Dharmic civilization. This is why, for example, the Chōla emperor reinstated Śrī Vijaya after defeating it.

But the status of Chakravarti is without any ambiguity. Kālidāsa’s narrative on Raghu’s exploits is widely believed to be a reference to the exploits of Vikramāditya, in his court he served. This would be either Chandragupta or Kumāragupta, who were also Chakravartins of India.

This is a wrong assessment. We know the phenomenal influence of Gupta Empire on India. Which other empires had such long lasting influence, anywhere in the world? I say Indian institutions and culture are far more robust, able to live even after centuries of foreign occupation.

https://twitter.com/hulo_1/status/1489226427140812802

By the way, the identification of Dēvānāmpiya Piyadassi of the epigraphic Brahmi inscriptions as Aśoka Maurya doesn’t tally with Indian literary sources (Kāvyas and Purānas which carry kings’ lists and cross attested with Jyōtisha astronomical references).
indiafacts.org/kumaragupta-i-…

We cannot say for ceryain that these inscriptions refer to Kumāragupta. But we have literary references of Kumāragupta’s win over Kalinga in various Purānas. Kumāragupta’s Kalinga war is also arguably alluded to in Kālidāsa’s poem above, where Kalingans did put up a great fight.

The word Dēvānāmpiya is possibly a reference to being Yajamāna of a Yajña that was conducted there (hence beloved of the gods). The stone inscription is likely a commemoration of Yajña. Piyadassi could simply mean beloved king/Chakravarti (who is looked favorably by his people).

https://twitter.com/yajnadevam/status/1489234270946271235

The thing is, if we look at Indian literary sources, we have many many kings who claimed to have conquered the vast expanse of India, and who were coronated as Chakravartins. The British did not accept those claims, because it is inconvenient for their rule.

We do have a fairly reliable anchoring of the kings’ lists on Indian Panchānga calendar. There are several kings who will stand out as Chakravartins. Their mapping onto the Christian (Gregorian) calendar is very questionable. It was done during British times, must be reassessed.