Published in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 24 (1961), pp. 68-71
Though the Sung-Shu (chapter 97) [A.D. 420-478] vaguely alludes to maritime trade between India and China as early as the first two decades of the third century A.D., definite information regarding such contact can be had only from the middle of the third century A.D. The Shui-Ching-Chu (section 55) on the basis of Fu-Nan-Chuan of Kang Tai states that, “Travelling to the North West (from Chu-li) for more than a year, one reaches the mouth of the river of India, which is called the river Ganges. At the mouth of the river there is a kingdom called Tan-Mei which belongs to India. Its ruler sent letters to the Yellow Gate (the Chinese Court), and was appointed (by China) king of Tan-Mei”.
Tan-Mei has been taken by the author of the Shui-Ching-Chu as identical with To-Mo-Li-Chien i.e., Tamralipti. Now K'ang Tai came to the court of Fan-Che-Man, king of Fu-Nan some time between A.D. 240 and 245. There he met the ambassador from India. So it is likely that the king of Tamralipti sent an embassy to China some time after A.D. 245. Bengal thus took a definite initiative in fostering India-China maritime relation, which was necessarily of a mercantile character. It must, however, be noted that ‘no such embassy is registered in the annals (Pen-Chi) of the Wu in the San-Kuo-Chih.’
On his return journey Fa-Hsien (A.D. 399-414) embarked for Ceylon from Tamralipti. When he set sail for Canton, there were on board the merchantman two hundred Po-Lo-Man, Sanskrit Brahmana, (more properly adherents of the Brahmanical religion) from the West Coast of India, or as Legge takes, from Kulam to the mouth of the Indus. It is therefore likely that people from all parts of India participated in this trade when the Gupta emperors established their supremacy over the seas. This is corroborated from what we know of such famous Buddhist monks as Gunavarman (Kiu-Na-Pa-Mo) of Kashmir and Gunabhadra (Kiu-No-Po-To-Lo) of central India. It is interesting to note that the ship which took Gunavarman to China was owned by an Indian named Nandin. Gunabhadra also first came to Ceylon and then reached Canton in A.D. 435.
The decline of the Imperial Guptas in India, depredation of pirates around the Ton-Kin coast and political unrest in China during the 6th century A.D. retarded the growth of this trade. Inspite of these unfavourable human factors the trade did not die away. Thus, a South Indian king is said to have sent an embassy to China between A.D. 500 and 516. The Buddhist savant Paramartha reached China by sea in A.D. 546. But above all Cosmas Indicopleustes (A.D. 535) mentions a lively India-China maritime trade via Ceylon.
It has been assumed by Hirth and Rockhill that Hiuen-tsang was ignorant of the India-Java-China trade. But it may be pointed out that Emperor Harsha suggested to the Master of the Law that royal officers could accompany him should he like to take the southern sea-route i.e., by way of Java and Sumatra. The learned translators of Chu-fan-Chi mention that later in the 7th century sea-route came to be almost exclusively used; thus I-tsing (A.D. 671-695) embarked from Kuang-Chu (Canton) for India in a Po-Sse ship. In his biography he mentions no less than 37 Chinese pilgrims who went to India by sea.
Early in the 8th century (A.D. 717) an Indian is said to have reached Canton but whether in a Po-sse ship is not known. Pallava Narasimhavarman II (Che-Li-Ma-Lo-Sen-Kia) sent an embassy to China in A.D. 720. Some months later, the Chinese emperor sent a return embassy. Such diplomatic activity between these two countries presupposes close trade relations. In fact the Hwi-Chao mentions Brahmana (West Indians) ship-owners on the river at Canton in A.D. 748.
After the sack of Kwang-Chu (Canton) in A.D. 758 by Ta-Shi (Arab) and Po-Sse merchants Canton was closed to the foreigners, and Tonkin henceforth became terminus for foreign ships. Canton was reopened in A.D. 792. But the Sailendra rulers of Srivijaya henceforth acted as the sole intermediaries between Indian and Chinese merchants. India-China trade came to a violent end in A.D. 878 by rebel Huang-Cha's sack of Canton and indiscriminate murder of foreign merchants.
Direct regular maritime contact was revived at the initiative of the Cholas and Palas. The Cholas sent embassies to China in A.D. 1015, in 1020 and 1033 (Sung-Shi and Ma-Tuan-Lin) and in 1077 and 1106 (Chu- Fan-Chi). These so-called 'embassies' offering tribute to the Chinese Emperors, however, practically were nothing but so many mercantile delegations, which sought the favour of the Emperors for trading facilities. The P’ing-Chou-K’o-T'an, (eleventh century A.D.) mentions large Kia-Ling ( = Kling-Kayinga) sea-going merchant ships and organization of such, merchants. That India-China maritime trade during this period, however, was at a low ebb can be guessed from the rather humiliating status accorded to the Chola envoys in A.D. 1015 and also in A.D. 1106.
How far was this trade the result of Indian enterprise vis-a-vis the Perso-Arabs and the Chinese?
I-Tsing first mentions the Po-Sse ( = Persian) ships. Hourani has pointed out that it was not possible for the Persians to undertake such adventurous undertaking immediately after their defeat at the hands of the Arabs. Hence the beginnings of Perso-Chinese maritime activity goes back to pre-Islamic days. Even if that be so, it must, how-ever, be accepted that the Indians retained control over the Eastern Oceanic trade till the middle of the 7th century A.D. The earliest Arab narratives concerning the China trade are by Suleiman (A.D. 851) and ibn Wahab. But Suleiman noted that ‘the goods of China are rare (in Persia and Mesopotamia).’ From Buzurg's story of ‘Abharah, however, it appears that Arab mercantile activities in the China sea began somewhat later. Then in the time of al-Mas'udi Arab enterprises in China proper ceased. Thus the state of Indian initiative during c. A.D. 750-1000 cannot be definitely ascertained. But if any thing can be argued from the unusual efflorescence of Indian culture in Java, Sumatra, Cambodia and Champa during the period, it may be stated that at least indirect maritime contact between India and China continued.
The extent of Indian initiative in the years following A.D. 1000 may be known from the activities of such mercantile corporations like the Manigraman Cettis (Takua-Pa Inscription, Malay Peninsula) and Nanadesa-Tisaiyayirattu-Ainnurruvur Loboe Toewa Inscription, Sumatra, A.D. 1088. Indeed, the daring enterprises of such mercantile organisations have been brought to relief by the Baligami inscription (Mysore). Shall we be far wrong to think that such organisations carried on trade directly with China, particularly after Java's secession from Srivijaya and Sung rulers of China offering special privileges toforeign merchants?
The theory that the Indians fared badly in maritime competition with the Arabs has no basis in fact. Hourani has, of late, conclusively shown that the Arabs did not come to develop any speciality on their own in the art of boat-building. On the other hand, he points out that before the days of ibn-Battutah, the Arabs and Persians even used 'to go and build their ships on the spot. The Maldives and Laccadives were the scene of a remarkable ship-building activity . . . .' Indians therefore maintained their supremacy, usually naval and sometimes even political, over the Bay of Bengal till the collapse of the Cholas and decline of Srivijaya in the 13th century A.D.
Beazley holds the view that the Chinese used the mariner's compass in making voyages from Canton to Malabar as early as the first century A.D. But it may be recalled that neither Fa-Hsien nor I-Tsing makes any mention of Chinese navigation to India. The Tang-Kuo-Shi Pu by Li-Chan (A.D. 713 to 825) mentions foreign (Fan) traders at Canton. They were registered in the office of the Inspector of Maritime Trade. Hourani has shown that the alleged Chinese participation in the Western trade before Islam does not stand scrutiny. He takes such expression as Sufun min al-Sin of al-Tabari, Sufun Siniyah or Markab Sini to mean Moslem ships on the China run. The Chinese prisoners at the battle of Talas river, however, returned home in Chinese Junks in A.D. 762. Hirth and Rockhill believe that these ‘may have been built in China, but it seems highly improbable that they were owned or navigated by the Chinese.’ Their view, however, is somewhat contradictory. Early in 12th century A.D., the Chinese traders frequented India as far as Quilon. (Ling-Wai-Tai-Ta, 11.13 of Chou-Ku-Fei). The decline of the Cholas and of Srivijaya undoubtedly helped them but their supremacy over the Bay of Bengal in the following centuries was primarily due to their superior boat-building technique and invention of the mariner's compass.
Published in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 24 (1961), pp. 68-71