Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Age of the Imperial Guptas c4: Chapter I

The Age of the Imperial Guptas c4

Language
English

Chapter I

c4.1

The century which preceded the final rise of Magadha as the leader of the nations of Northern India is yet one of the darkest periods of Indian History. The series of epigraphs which illustrate the history of the Imperial Great Kuṣāṇas at Mathuāa end abruptly towards the close of the second century A.D. For Western India we possess an almost complete series of dated coins of the later Western Kṣatrapas, for the Panjab we have the coins of the Later Great Kuṣāṇas and the Kidāras, but for Eastern India we possess nothing. In the beginning of the fourth century A.D., a strong flood of light is suddenly thrown on the history of North Eastern India with the rise of the Gupta dynasty. Nothing is known about the antecedents of Candragupta I except that his ancestors were petty landholders with the rank of *Mahārāja*. In the fourth century A.D., this title had ceased to denote the Imperial rank or even that of an independent prince and had been bestowed on provincial governors by the later emperors of the Gupta dynasty. Some writers even suppose that the ancestors of Candragupta I were people of humble origin and even the humble title of *Mahārāja* had been bestowed upon them as an act of courtesy by the subordinates and officials of Candragupta’s son Samudragupta.

c4.2

What was the condition of Magadha when under the leadership of Candragupta I the people of that country attained independence and later on suzerainty? Magadha had been annexed to the Kuṣāṇa empire in the first century A.D., by the generals of Kāniṣka I and the venerated alms-bowl of the Buddha taken away from Vaiśālī to Puruṣapura or Peshawar. In the year 3 of the era of Kāniṣka, *i.e.*, in 81 A.D., a Kuṣāṇa Great-Satrap (*Mahākṣatrapa*) named Kharapallana was ruling over North Eastern India and under him there was a governor or Satrap (*Kṣatrapa*) named Vanaspara,¹ probably in charge of the provinces of the extreme North East, extending from Benares to Eastern Bengal. It is, therefore, quite probable that even in the opening decades of the fourth century A.D., North Eastern India was being ruled by a Scythian Great Satrap and Magadha by a Satrap. The coinage, both gold and copper, of the Later Great Kushans is still extremely abundant in the markets of Patna, Gaya and Benares and on this evidence alone, in the absence of others, it would be pertinent to assume that the Later Great Kushans continued to rule over North Eastern India. The foundation of an independent kingdom in Magadha by Candragupta I, therefore, amounted to the liberation of the people of Magadha from the thraldom of the hated Scythian foreigner.

c4.3

¹ *Epigraphia Indica*, Vol. VIII, pp. 176, 179.

c4.4

We can assume that Candragupta, the son of Ghaṭotkacagupta, and the grandson of Śrigupta, assumed the leadership of the citizens of Pāṭaliputra and the people of Magadha in this war of independence. The different steps are not known to us but some of them may be guessed with a certain amount of accuracy. It is certain that neither Śrigupta nor his son Ghaṭotkacagupta were people of much importance in the country. Hariṣeṇa, one of the ministers of Samudragupta, calls them Mahārājas but the title had declined very much in importance. It had ceased to be an Imperial title. The Great Aśoka was content with the title of Rājan. The Greeks introduced the first change when they translated the title “Basileus Basileuon” and the Persian “Shāhanshāh” into Mahārāja-Rājātirāja. Under the Imperial Great Kushans several additions were made to the Imperial title such as Devaputra in imitation of the title “Son of Heaven” of the Emperors of China. Early in the fourth century the Imperial title expanded into Parameśvara-Paramabhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja. In the reign of Kumāragupta I we find that the governors of Northern Bengal, though not of royal descent and holding the rank of Uparika, are styled Mahārājas.¹ Therefore we may assume that the ancestors of Candragupta I were people of no very great importance in Magadha. Whether they were subordinate chiefs with the title of *Mahārājas* or mere nonentities to whom Hariṣeṇa gave the rank of *Mahārājas* out of courtsey, need not trouble us. We learn from the coins of Candragupta I or those ascribed to him, but really issued by his son and successor Samudragupta, that Candragupta acquired importance by his marriage with the Licchavī princess Kumāradevī. So much emphasis is given to the Lichchhavī connection by Samudragupta that there cannot be any doubt about its importance. On the coins of Candragupta I, which Allan takes to be memorial medals struck by Samudragupta in honour of his parents, we see Candragupta I and Kumāradevī standing side by side with their names struck separately. On the reverse we find the word “*Licchavayaḥ*,” in the plural number, which cannot be explained unless the Guptas are also taken to be descended from Licchavi oligarchs. The Licchavis were, originally, inhabitants of Northern Bihar or Tirabhukti, with their capital at Vaiśālī. They were ruled by a number of oligarchs selected from certain families only. They were a powerful nation whose depredations in the country to the south of the Ganges compelled the kings of Magadha to build a strong fort at the confluence of that river with the Son, which became the nucleus of the great city of Pāṭaliputra. The independence of the Licchavī oligarchy was subsequently destroyed by Ajātaśatru, king of Magadha. Subsequently the Licchavīs migrated to or conquered Nepal in the early mediæval period.

c4.5

¹ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XV, pp 138.

c4.6

Strengthened by the Licchavī alliance Candragupta I was able either to drive out the Scythian Satrap of Magadha or to throw off the loose allegiance of the chiefs of Magadha to the Later Great Kuṣāṇas of Mathurā or the Panjab. Candragupta I was most probably advanced in years at the time of the revolution or the war of independence in Magadha and we have positive proof of his short rule in the date of the Gaya copper plate inscription of his son, Samudragupta. He simply drove out the Scythians and gave independence to the province of Magadha after three centuries of subjection and foreign oppression.

c4.7

The restoration of independence to Magadha was no doubt due to a revival of national spirit in that province and Candragupta I was merely the leader of the band of heroes who accomplished the feat. Prior to the Sātavāhana conquest of Magadha in the first century B.C., that country was the predominant power in India. From the time of the kings of Nanda dynasty the lead of Magadha had been unquestionably recognised by all nations of Northern India and its capital, Pāṭaliputra had become the metropolis of India. The power of its kings had struck terror into the hearts of the victorious legionaries of Alexander the Great and the Greek phalanxes with their myriads of auxilliaries had retired from the western frontier of the empire of Magadha before risking an engagement. Another Magadhan Emperor had caused Seleukos Nikator to retire with humbled pride after ceding the fairest Asiatic provinces of Alexander's Empire. A third emperor, the successful Brāhmaṇa general, Pushyamitra had tried in vain to stem the tide of repeated Greek invasions from Bactria and Afghanistan. The repeated treachery of the Brāhmaṇa ministers of Magadha at last laid the people of Magadha prostrate at the feet of Dravidian conqueror and after the Sātavāhana conquest Magadha ceased to be the leader of Indian nations and Pāṭaliputra, the metropolis of India.

c4.8

Magadha rose after four centuries of slumber, once more to take its place in the vanguard of national armies and its rise again brought independence, self-realization and glory to the people of Northern India. Once again Magadha became the mistress of an empire which extended from the Western to the Eastern sea and from the foot of Himalayas to the banks of Narmadā.

c4.9

Even after a century of discussion scholars are not yet agreed about the correct date of the war of independence in Magadha. The late Dr. J. F. Fleet came to the conclusion that Magadha became independent in 319-20 A.D., and the era, which is now known to us as the Gupta or the Gupta-Valabhī era was founded by the Licchavis of Nepal,¹ Candragupta I. Subsequently the late Dr. Bühler proved that the era which became subsequently known as the Gupta era was really founded from the date of the coronation of Candragupta I.² There cannot be any doubt about the fact that the initial year of the Gupta era corresponds to 319-20 A.D. In the absence of fresh data it is impossible to decide finally what was the real cause of the foundation of this era. It is quite possible that the Licchavīs who were close relations of the Guptas, used the era counted from the liberation of the people of Magadha.

c4.10

¹ Gupta Inscriptions, Introduction, p. 22.

c4.11

² Vienna Oriental Journal, Vol. V, 1891, pp. 217-29.

c4.12

One important factor was lost sight of at the time of the decision of the point. The Gaya copper plate of Samudragupta, issued in the 9th year of his reign was regarded as spurious by the late Dr. J. F. Fleet. When his work was published our knowledge of Indian Epigraphy was not so extensive as it is now. Our knowledge of the form of Imperial Gupta land-grants was limited to the Indor-khera inscribed copper plate of the time of the emperor Skandagupta in 1883. The Natore or Dhanaidaha plate of Kumāragupta I, the six Damodarpur plates of the emperors Kumāragupta I, Budhagupta and Bhānugupta and finally the three Faridpur plates of the kings Dharmāditya and Gopachandra have thrown a flood of light on the procedure of issuing grants of land or deeds recording transfers of the same. In the face of this mass of new evidence it is impossible to believe at the present day that the Gaya copper plate grant of the 9th year of Samudragupta is forged. It cannot be regarded as spurious in the same light as the Sudi plates and in the writer's opinion it is genuine. According to the established custom to be found in Gupta inscriptions, we should regard the date of this inscription as one expressed in the Gupta era; *i.e.*, it was issued in 328-29 A.D. If Samudragupta was reigning in the 9th year of this era then it would be more natural to suppose that this era was counted from the date of the accession of Samudragupta's father, Candragupta I, the liberator of the people of Magadha, who, according to a consensus of opinion amongst scholars, died after a very short reign.

c4.13

According to the latest interpretation of the numismatic evidence Samudragupta struck a number of commemorative medals during his reign and the coins which were hitherto regarded as the regular issues of Candragupta I are now regarded as medals struck in memory of his parents by Samudragupta. Numismatists have not been able to account for gold coins issued by a king or prince named Kāca. In execution these coins are allied to the group of memorial medals issued by Samudragupta and therefore Mr. J. Allan of the British Museum is inclined to regard them as issues of Samudragupta. But up to this time coins of the same Gupta king bearing two different names in addition to the *birudas* or the *Āditya*-name have not been discovered. The established practice of Gupta coins is to put the real name of the king on the margin of the obverse or at the foot of the royal figure in a vertical line and his *birudas* on the reverse or elsewhere. All different types of the coins of Samudragupta, Candragupta II, Kumāragupta I and Skandagupta show the actual name of the king on the obverse either in the margin or at the foot of the royal figure on gold coins. Regarded in this light the group of extremely rare gold coins bearing the name Kāca are either issues of some other prince of that name or memorial medals struck by Samudragupta for a relative of that name. Who this prince was we do not know. Was he another son of Candragupta I whose reign had intervened between those of Candragupta I and Samudragupta? If the coins bearing the name of Kāca are real coins and not medals then Kāca was most probably the elder brother of Samudragupta whose rule was very short. But if they are medals struck in the memory of a relative by Samudragupta then Kāca was most probably another son of Candragupta I, who had lost his life in the war of independence. Gupta inscriptions generally omit the name of a prince who is not in the direct line of succession. The Bhitari seal of Kumāragupta II omits the name of the emperor Skandagupta, the elder brother of Puragupta. For this reason it is easier to account for the omission of the name of Kāca in the genealogical tables of Gupta inscriptions. It is more probable that coins bearing the name of Kāca are memorial medals because Hariṣeṇa, the official historiographer of the reign of Samudragupta, states in the Allahabad pillar inscription that he (Samudragupta) was elected the heir-apparent (yuvarāja) during the life time of his father. Kāca, therefore, appears to be a son of Candragupta I who had lost his life during the life time of his father very probably in the war of independence.

c4.14

Candragupta I left Magadha independent but a minor power in the political arena of Northern India in the 4th century A.D. Either in his life-time or shortly afterwards a king of the Indian Desert, Candravarman of Puṣkaraṇā, overran the whole of Northern India from Eastern Bengal to the seven mouths of Indus. The statements of the inscription on the iron pillar now standing in the Masjid Qūwwat-ul-Islām at Meherauli¹ have been partly corroborated by the discovery of another inscription on the Susunia rock in the western part of the Bankura district.² In this inscription Candravarman calls himself a king of Puṣkaraṇā, and informs us that his father's name was Mahārāja Siṃhavarman. Hariṣeṇa in his Allahabad pillar inscription tells us that Candravarman was one of the kings of Northern India vanquished by Samudragupta. Candravarman’s younger brother Naravarman was ruling over Mandasor, the ancient Daśapura, as an independent ruler in V.S. 461=404 A.D.,¹ i.e., even after the conquest of Mālava by Candragupta II. Naravarman’s son and successor Viśvavarman did not acknowledge the suzerainty of the emperor Kumāragupta in V.S. 480=424 A.D.,² but Naravarman’s grandson Bandhuvarman openly acknowledged the suzerainty of Kumāragupta I in his Mandasor inscription of V.S. 493=436-37 A.D.³ The campaign of Candravarman in Northern India appears to have taken place before Samudragupta’s conquest of the same region. We do not know what happened in the newly founded kingdom of Magadha during this campaign. It is also possible that Candravarman’s campaign took place before the accession of Candragupta I and at the same time it is quite probable that Candragupta I was defeated by Candravarman because in order to reach Susunia in Western Bengal the latter must have passed through Magadha.

c4.15

¹ Fleet—Gupta inscriptions; Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III, p. 141.

c4.16

² Epi. Ind. Vol. XIII, p. 133; Vol. XIV, pp. 367-71.

c4.17

¹ Ibid. Vol. XII, pp. 315-21.

c4.18

² Gupta Inscriptions pp. 72-78.

c4.19

³ Ibid. pp. 79-88.

c4.20

Samudragupta, one of the younger sons of Candragupta I was marked out for his abilities and selected as the heir-apparent by his father. Soon after the death of Candragupta I, Samudragupta started to consolidate his power by conquering the small principalities into which Northern India had become divided at that time. The Allahabad pillar inscription of Hariṣeṇa mentions two kings named Acyuta and Nāgasena, at first along with a chief of the Koṭa tribe, whose name has been lost. We do not know who Nāgasena was but Acyuta¹ and the Koṭa² tribe are both known from small copper coins issued by them. Nāgasena and Acyuta are mentioned once more among a number of kings of Āryāvarta or Northern India, who were totally destroyed by Samudragupta; proving thereby that both Acyuta and the Koṭa tribe belonged to Northern India. The coins of Acyuta are to be found only at Ramnagar near Aonla in the Bareilly district, the site of the ancient Ahicchatra, the ancient capital of Northern Pañcāla. Therefore Acyuta may be taken to be a king of the Pañcāla country. The little known coins of the Koṭa tribe are said to be very common in Delhi and the Eastern Panjab and the Kotas therefore may be taken to be a tribe of North Eastern Rajputana. Hariṣeṇa in his Allahabad pillar inscription introduces the kings of Southern India defeated by Samudragupta after mentioning Nāgasena, Acyuta and the Koṭa tribe but before bringing in the kings of Northern India uprooted by that monarch. The kings of Āryāvarta mentioned in l.21 of Allahabad pillar inscription are:—1. Rudradeva, 2. Matila, 3. Nāgadatta, 4. Candravarman, 5. Gaṇapatināga, 6. Nāgasena, 7. Acyuta, 8. Nandin, and 9. Balavarman. Out of these nine chiefs Rudradeva, Nāgadatta, Nāgasena, Nandin and Balavarman are not known to us from any other source. Matila is known from a clay seal discovered in Bulandshahr.¹ Candravarman is known to us from the Meherauli iron pillar inscription and the Susunia rock inscription. Gaṇapatināga is known from his coins² and appears to have been a king of the Nāga tribe of Nalapura, modern Narwar in Gwalior State. Rapson has proposed to identify Nāgasena with a prince of the same name mentioned in the Harṣacarita of Bāṇa.³ The identification of Rudradeva, Nāgadatta and Nandin is not possible without fresh materials. Balavarman may be the king of Assam of that name who was ninth in ascent from Bhāskaravarman, the contemporary of Harṣavardhana and Yuan Chwang, and the grandson of Puṣyavarman, the founder of the dynasty.⁴ If we except Balavarman and the unidentified princes then we find that the kings of Āryāvarta defeated by Samudragupta were mostly rulers of North Western and Central India. Acyuta belonged to the Bareilly district, Matila to the Bulandshahr district, Gaṇapatināga to Narwar or Pawāyā or Padmāvatī in the Gwalior State, the Koṭas to North Eastern Rajputana and Candravarman to Pokharan in Southern Rajputana. Only the district around Agra and Delhi and Panjab are not mentioned. So also are omitted the kings of the different parts of Bengal, if there were any left after the foundation of the Gupta kingdom by Candragupta I.

c4.21

¹ J.R.A.S. 1897, pp. 420, 862; Indian Museum Catalogue Vol. I. pp. 185, 188-89.

c4.22

² Ibid. pp. 258, 264.

c4.23

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XVIII, 1889, p. 289.

c4.24

² Indian Museum Catalogue Vol. I. pp. 164; 178–79.

c4.25

³ J.R.A.S. 1898, p. 449.

c4.26

⁴ Epi. Ind. Vol. XII. p. 69.

c4.27

The mention of the kings defeated by Samudragupta in his southern campaign before those of Āryāvarta or Northern India may indicate that the Southern campaign was undertaken immediately after the defeat of Nāgasena, Acyuta and the Kotas; but it would perhaps be difficult to believe that a great general like Samudragupta departed for Southern India leaving so many powerful enemies in his rear. The kings defeated by him in his southern campaign are :—

c4.28

1. Mahendra of Kośala or the Bilaspur and Raipur districts of the Central Provinces.

c4.29

2. Vyāghrarāja of Mahākāntāra or the great forest (Eastern Gondwana).

c4.30

3. Maṇṭarāja of Koraḷa.

c4.31

4. Mahendra of Piṣṭapura or modern Pittapuram in the Godavari district of the Madras Presidency.

c4.32

5. Svāmidatta of Giri-Koṭṭura.

c4.33

6. Damana of Eraṇḍapalla.

c4.34

7. Viṣṇugopa of Kāñcī or Conjeeveram in the Chingleput district.

c4.35

8. Nilarāja of Avamukta.

c4.36

9. Hastivarman of Veṅgī.

c4.37

10. Ugrasena of Pālakka.

c4.38

11. Kubera of Devarāṣṭra.
12. Dhanañjaya of Kusthalapura.

c4.39

Even in 1883 there could not be any doubt about the identification of Kośala, Piṣṭapura, Kāñcī, and Veṅgī. The late Drs. Fleet and V. A. Smith proposed to identify Pālakka with Palghat on the Malabar coast. Smith subsequently found out that Pālakka was the name of a place in the Nellore district.¹ Devarāṣṭra and Eraṇḍapalla have all along been identified by both of these scholars with Mahārāṣṭra and Erandol in the East Khandesh district of the Bombay Presidency. The earlier theory that Pālakka was Palghat was feasible at that time, but with the discovery of Pālakka in the Nellore district it became difficult to understand how Samudragupta could conquer Mahārāṣṭra and Khandesh without passing through and conquering the intervening Kanarese districts. It remained for a French scholar to clear up the mystery about the places and kings of Southern India mentioned in the Allahabad Pillar inscription. M. Jouveau-Dubreuil of the Colonial College, Pondicherry² identified these places correctly. He has proved that Eraṇḍapalli is the name of a place mentioned in the Siddhantam plates of Devendravarman of Kaliṅga.³ Devarāṣṭra is mentioned as the name of a district or province in Kaliṅga in a set of copper plates discovered in Kasimkota in the Vizagapatam district. With Pālakka in the Nellore district and Eraṇḍapalli and Devarāṣṭra on the Eastern Coast, the probability of a wide southern conquest by Samudragupta became almost impossible. But though Palakka is acknowledged to be in the Nellore district writers on Ancient Indian History have not yet given up their original ideas.¹

c4.40

¹ *Early History of India. 4th Edition p. 301.*

c4.41

² *Ancient History of the Deccan, Eng. Trans. Pondicherry 1920, pp. 58-61.*

c4.42

³ *Epi. Ind. Vol. XII pp. 212.*

c4.43

¹ V. A. Smith’s *Early History of India, 4th Edition* p. 301.

c4.44

Among the twelve places mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription, the princes of which were vanquished by Samudragupta, Koraḷa, Avamukta and Kusthalapura cannot be identified even now. But the position of the remaining nine clearly indicates the route of Samudragupta’s march. He passed through the Rewah State and the Jubbulpur district, defeated Mahendra of Mahakośala, entered the Eastern Gondwana forest, where he defeated a chief named Vyāghrarāja and emerged on the eastern coast in the Vizagapatam district. The Vyāghrarāja mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription appears to be the same as that mentioned in the Nachne-ki-talai ² and Ganj ³ inscriptions of the Vākāṭaka Mahārāja Pṛthivīseṇa I. Mr. K. N. Dikshit, Superintendent of the Archæological Survey of India, Eastern Circle is certainly wrong in ascribing these two inscriptions to Pṛthivīsena II.⁴ The Poona plates of the 13th year of the queen Prabhāvatiguptā are written in a different script altogether, which does not show the use of the box-headed type of the seriff.¹ This particular variety of the 5th century alphabet appears to be the South-Western variety. The Ganj and Nachne-ki-talai inscriptions and the Chammak² and Siwani³ plates belong to the North-Eastern variety of the Central Indian alphabet of the same century. The Ganj inscription shows well-marked box-heads on the top of letters but the Nachne-ki-talai record shows an incipient stage in the formation of the boxes. In the Balaghat plates of Pṛthivīṣeṇa III⁴ we find completely developed boxes. For these reasons it is not possible to agree with M. Jouveau-Dubreuil.⁵

c4.45

² *Gupta Inscriptions*, p. 234.

c4.46

³ *Epi. Ind. Vol. XVII. p. 13.

c4.47

⁴ *Ibid.* p. 362.

c4.48

¹ *Ibid*, Vol. XV. pp. 41-42.

c4.49

² *Gupta Inscriptions*, pp. 236-40.

c4.50

³ *Ibid.*, pp. 245-47; see also *Ind. Ant.* Vol. LV, 1926, pp. 103, 323-27.

c4.51

⁴ *Epi. Ind.* Vol. IX, pp. 270-71.

c4.52

⁵ *Ancient History of the Deccan*, pp. 72-73.

c4.53

After emerging from the forest Samudragupta defeated Maṇṭarāja of Koraḷa and another Mahendra of Piṣṭapura; then he proceeded south and defeated Svāmidatta of Koṭṭura hill, modern Kothoor in the Ganjam district. Ugrasena of Pālakka in the Nellore district, Hastivarman of Veṅgī and Viṣṇugopa of Kāñcī were still far away, but Damana of Eraṇḍapali and Kuvera of Devarāṣṭra in the Vizagapatam district were close neighbours of Svāmidatta of Kothoor and Mahendra of Pittapuram. It appears that Samudragupta was opposed by a confederacy of Pallava kings headed by Viṣṇugopa of Kāñcī, and Hastivarman of Veṅgī. M. Jouveau-Dubreuil is of opinion that “Samudragupta first subjugated some kings, but that very soon he encountered superior forces and was therefore obliged to relinquish his conquests and return rapidly to his own state.”¹ It is not possible to corroborate this statement. Samudragupta’s southern campaign was of the nature of a *Dig-vijaya* and therefore the question of the capitulation of conquered territories does not arise. On the other hand it is quite probable that Samudragupta advanced as far as Veṅgī and Kāñcī and defeated Hastivarman and Viṣṇugopa. M. Jouveau-Dubreuil has succeeded in proving that Samudragupta never went beyond Kāñcī and his supposed conquest of the Coimbator and Malabar districts of the Madras Presidency and the Mahārāṣṭra and Khandesh are myths. The Allahabad pillar inscription does not supply us with any other materials except the names of Samudragupta’s neighbours and some traits of his personal character. This inscription does not mention one important event of the king’s reign. After his conquests the great king performed the Aśvamedha ceremony; but we know of this event from his coins and one inscription of one of his successors. Special coins or medals were struck by Samudragupta, more probably for distributions among the Brāhmaṇas attending or taking part in that ceremony. On these coins the king styles himself *Aśvamedha-parākramaḥ*,¹ “Powerful enough to have performed the ceremony of the sacrifice of the horse.”

c4.54

¹ *Ibid*, p. 60.

c4.55

¹ *British Museum Catalogue of Indian Coins : Gupta dynasties, p. 21.*

c4.56

We can deduce the limits of Samudragupta's kingdom from the Allahabad pillar and other inscriptions. No part of Southern or Western India was included in his dominions. The discovery of the Poona plates of Prabhāvatīguptā has established the fact that the Ganj and Nachna inscriptions cannot be assigned to the 7th century A.D. The mention of Vyāghra proves that Pṛthivīṣeṇa I, the grandfather of Pravarasena II, was the contemporary of Samudragupta. Nachna and Ganj are both situated in the heart of ancient Ḍabhāla or Ḍahala and therefore it seems certain that the country to the south of the Jumna was not included in the dominions of Samudragupta. The districts lying to the south Vindhyas were included in the Vākāṭaka kingdom. There is one exception to this. The Eran inscription of Samudragupta proves that the north-eastern corner of Malwa, at least, was in his occupation. According to this inscription Samudragupta established some monuments at this place, then known as Airakiṇa, now a village in the Sagar district of the Central Provinces.² We have no proof of the extension of Samudragupta's kingdom into the heart of Mālava. The countries and tribes mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta indicate the limits of the zone of Samudragupta’s influence pretty accurately. Kings of Samaṭaṭa, Ḍavāka, Kāmarūpa, Nepāla and Karṭṛpura are mentioned as princes on the frontiers (*pratyanta-nṛpati*). Of these names only Ḍavāka cannot be definitely located; Samaṭaṭa is South-Eastern Bengal, Kāmarūpa is lower Assam, Nepāla is the valley of the same name and Karṭṛpura the Kangra valley. Therefore the empire of Samudragupta was bounded on the East by the Delta of the Ganges and Assam and on the North by the valleys of Nepāl and Kangra. Ḍavāka is generally taken to be Dacca. But according to another theory it may be the ancient kingdom of Tagaung in upper Burma. Therefore the Northern part of the Ganges Delta may have been included in the empire of Samudragupta. In the same place of the Allahabad pillar inscription a number of tribes are mentioned.—1. Mālavas, 2. Arjunāyanas, 3. Yaudheyas, 4. Mādrakas, 5. Ābhīras, 6. Prārjunas, 7. Sanakānīkas, 8. Kākas and 9. Kharaparikas. Among these tribes the Mālavas and Yaudheyas can be located correctly but others cannot be properly identified or located. The Mālavas are decidedly the Malloi of Alexander’s historians; they have given their name to more than one district and country in India, *e.g.*, Mālava and Malwa. To-day there is a Malwa in the South Eastern Punjab and the ancient Mughal Ṣubah of Mālwa is now included in the dominions of the Śindes of Gwalior and the Hoḷkars of Indore. The Mālavas are known from their copper coins to have continued to exist as a tribal republic for nearly four centuries. These copper coins are to be found over a very large area beginning from a valley of the Sutlej down to the banks of Narmadā. According to Cunningham the age of these coins range from 250 B.C., to 350 A.D. The earliest of them were issued in the name of the tribal republic of the Mālavas with the legend *Mālavānāṁ jayaḥ*¹ “Victory to the Mālavas.” Some of them use the word *Gaṇa*² denoting that they were tribal coins of the Mālava republic. Later on they seem to have elected oligarchs or tribal kings whose names only are to be found on some of their coins. Some of these coins are assigned by Smith and Rapson to 150 B.C. Some coins bear the name of the king as well as the word *Gaṇa* indicating thereby that these kings were tribal kings or executive officers of the republic.³ The Mālava tribal coinage suddenly comes to an end at the end of the 4th century.⁴

c4.57

² *Gupta Inscriptions, pp. 18-20.*

c4.58

¹ Smith—Indian Museum Catalogue, Vol. I, pp. 170-73.

c4.59

² Ibid, pp. 173-74.

c4.60

³ Ibid, p. 175. No. 72 a.

c4.61

⁴ Ibid. p. 162.

c4.62

The Yaudheyas still survive in the Pañjab and Sindh. They have become Musulmans and inhabit the banks of the Indus from Bahāwalpur and Multan to the Kohistān *tāluqa* of the Karachi district. Parts of the Bahāwalpur State and the Multan district are still called Johiyāwār. Remnants of the tribe still inhabit the Kohistān tāluqa of the Karachi district under their own chief who is known as the Johiyā-jo-Jām.¹ The yaudheyas were defeated by the Mahākṣatrapa Rudradaman I sometime before 150 A.D.² At one time the Yaudheyas inhabited Eastern Rajputana and one of their inscriptions of the 3rd century A.D. , has been discovered at Bayana ³ in the southern part of the Bharatpur State. They are also known from their tribal coins. Some of them were issued in the name of the Yaudheya tribal republic,⁴ while others bear names of kings.⁵ Like the Mālava tribal coinage, the Yaudheya coinage also comes to a sudden end in the 4th century A.D.

c4.63

¹ An extensive cemetery of the Johiyā-jams was discovered by me at Landhi in the Karachi district. Annual Report of the Arch. Survey of India, Western Circle for the year ending 31st March 1920, p. 79. pl. viii.

c4.64

² Epi. Ind. Vol. VIII, p. 44.

c4.65

³ Gupta Inscriptions p. 252.

c4.66

⁴ Indian Museum Catalogue Vol. I, pp. 182-83.

c4.67

⁵ Ibid., pp. 181-82.

c4.68

The remaining tribes mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta are not so well known to us. The Arjunāyanas are known from their coins only, which are exceedingly rare.⁶ The joint cabinets of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Indian Museum contain two coins only. Their habitat is also unknown. But as their coins resemble those of the Northern Satraps and the Yaudheyas, they may tentatively be taken to be inhabitants of Northern Rajputana.⁷ The Ābhīras are known to be inhabitants of Western India and some of their kings ruled over Kathiawad.¹ Very little is known about the Madras unless they are the same as the Madras of the Vedic and Epic texts.² Nothing is known about the Prārjunas and the Kharaparikas. The Kharaparas are mentioned in a Damoh inscription of the 13th century.³ The Sanakānīkas are known from an inscription of the time of Candragupta II. In the year 82 of the Gupta era a chief of this tribe caused a cave temple to be excavated in a low rock near Bhilsa in the Gwalior State.⁴ The Kākas are known from tribal surnames in modern Kashmir. It appears therefore that the tribes mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta inhabited the Southern Panjab and Northern Rajputana in the 4th century A.D.

c4.69

⁶ Ibid., p. 166..

c4.70

⁷ Ibid., p. 160.

c4.71

¹ British Museum Catalogue of Indian Coins, Andhras. W. Kṣatrapas etc., p. cxxxiii.

c4.72

² Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, pp. 121, 274.

c4.73

³ Epi. Ind. Vol. XII, p. 46.

c4.74

⁴ Gupta Inscriptions, p. 25.

c4.75

The Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta contains only one other point of interest. In line 23 it is stated that "The Daivaputras, Shāhis, Shāhānushāhis, Śakas and Muruṇḍas" as well as the people of Siṃhala submitted to Samudragupta. This particular passage cannot be properly understood as yet. We know from Kuṣāṇa inscriptions that the titles Devaputra, Ṣāhi and Ṣāhānusāhi were used by the Imperial Great Kuṣāṇas. In the inscription of the year 8 from Mathurā Kāṇiṣka I uses the titles Mahārāja, Rājātirāja and Ṣāhi.¹ He uses the title Devaputra in a number of inscriptions.² This title is also used by Huviṣka.³ While Vāsudeva I is known to have used this title at least once.⁴ The title Ṣāhanuṣāhi appears to be the result of an attempt to translate or transliterate the Persian word Šāhānšāh. So far it has not been found in any Indian inscription but it is extremely familiar to us from Kuṣāṇa coin-legends from the time of Kāṇiṣka I to that of Vāsudeva I.⁵ It is also to be found in a corrupt form on the coins of Vāsudeva II and Kāṇiṣka II.⁶ The general tendency of scholars is to take each of the names in the compound Daivaputra, etc., in the Allahabad pillar inscription to denote a separate chief. But the use of the first three titles, Devaputra, Ṣāhi and Ṣāhanuṣāhi indicate that they were used by the Imperial Great Kuṣāṇas only and it is extremely probable that in the time of Samudragupta also they were used by the one and the same prince, the successor of Kāṇiṣka I and Vāsudeva I who ruled over Mathurā and the Panjab. The Śakas may be taken separately to denote the later Western Kṣatrapas of Kathiawad. The Muruṇḍas are certainly a different tribe who are known from literary sources as well as inscription. It is clear therefore from 1.23 of the Allahabad pillar inscription that a descendant of the Imperial Great Kuṣāṇas continued to rule in some parts of North-Western India and was not destroyed by Samudragupta. The full significance of their existence in the 4th century A.D., will be understood when we come to Rāmagupta.

c4.76

¹ *Epi. Ind.* Vol. XVII, p. 11.

c4.77

² *Ibid.* Vol. I, p. 381 ; Vol. IX, p. 240.

c4.78

³ *Ibid.* Vol. VIII, p. 182.

c4.79

⁴ *Ibid.* Vol. IX, p. 242.

c4.80

⁵ *Indian Museum Catalogue*, Vol. I, pp. 69-86.

c4.81

⁶ *Ibid*, pp. 87-83.

c4.82

Samudragupta was a great king, perhaps the greatest of his dynasty. He succeeded to a small kingdom but left a large empire to his successor. He reorganised the system of government and administration. He reformed the official system by rejecting the Scythian terms. Henceforth the ranks of officials, their gradations, powers and titles are altogether different. This system continued to be used with slight changes till the final conquest of Northern India by the Musalmans. The bureaucracy was totally unlike that of the Mauryas. He reformed the currency by issuing pure gold coins instead of the base gold of the later Great Kushans and a series of fine copper coins. He struck a new line in numismatics by issuing, if Allan is correct, memorial medals of his father and another relation named Kāca as well as the new type of coins for distributions to Brāhmaṇas, who attended his Aśvamedha ceremony. Like the Imperial and the later Great Kuṣāṇas, Samudragupta did not issue any silver coins.

c4.83

With the exception of the date in the Gaya copper plate inscription we do not know any other date of this great king. His reign appears to have been very long and very probably he ruled from *circa* 425 to 475 or 480 A.D. We know now that he was succeeded by his son Rāmagupta, though he had selected one of his younger sons, Candragupta as the heir apparent. Samudragupta was very fond of music as Hariṣeṇa has recorded in the Allahabad pillar inscription and as the great king himself has recorded for us in his unique Lyrist coins. We know from the inscriptions that Dattadevī was his queen, perhaps the chief queen (*Agra-Mahiṣī* or *Paṭṭa-Mahādevī*). Like his successors he was also fond of hunting and has commemorated his fondness for tiger huntings in a series of coins. He had not reached regions where the Indian lion was still extant like his second son and grandson.

c4.84

Rāmagupta, the son and successor of Samudragupta is known to us from a new work on dramaturgy called the *Nāṭyadarpaṇa* by Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra, which mentions and contains fragments of a long-lost historical drama by the celebrated Viśākhadatta, the famous author of *Mudrārākṣasa*. The information was published for the first time by M. Sylvain Levi in a masterly monograph entitled “Deux nouveaux traites de dramaturgie Indienne.”¹ From the fragments preserved in the *Nāṭyadarpaṇa* we know that Rāmagupta had become king while Candragupta was still a prince and that the lady Dhruvadevī or Dhruvasvāminī, who later on married Candragupta II and became the mother of the emperor Kumāragupta I and prince Govindagupta, had first married Rāmagupta. This is the earliest instance of a widow marriage among kings of the historical period in Indian history. That Candragupta II had married his brother's widow was definitely remembered even in the 9th century. In the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarṣa I, dated 871 A.D., it is stated "That donor, in the Kali age, who was of the Gupta lineage, having killed (his) brother, we are told, seized (his) kingdom and queen." ¹ The extracts from Viśākhadatta's new historical drama *Devī-Candragupta* begin with the second act, where it is stated that Rāmagupta agreed to give away Dhruvadevī to the Śakas in order to remove the apprehensions of his subjects. It appears that the Śaka king had demanded his legally married wife Dhruvadevī of Rāmagupta and that coward had actually consented to send her. The extracts contain a long dialogue between Rāmagupta and Dhruvadevī in which Rāmagupta states that he is sending Dhruvadevī for the sake of the people. ² Dhruvadevī complains of her husband's heartlessness. Later on Prince Candragupta speaks of the cowardice of her husband, ³ and determines to go to the Śaka king in the guise of Dhruvadevī. ⁴ Candragupta's raid on the Śaka capital and his slaughter of the Śaka king was known to Bāṇa, who says in his *Harṣa-Carita* that Candragupta disguised as a female killed the king of the Śakas, who was desirous of the wife of another, in the city of the enemy.¹ Śaṅkara, the commentator of the *Harṣa-Carita* makes the reference more explicit by stating that the king of the Śakas was killed in private by Candragupta disguised as Dhruvadevī and surrounded by men dressed as women because the former wanted Dhruvadevī, the brother's wife of Candragupta; *Candraguptabhrātṛjāyām Dhruvadevīm prārthayamānaś=Candraguptena Dhruvadevī-veśadhāriṇā strīveśa-janaparivṛtena rahasi vyāpāditaḥ.*² The subsequent history of Rāmagupta is not known to us from any other source. Evidently after his return to Pāṭaliputra Candragupta succeeded his brother, who was either killed or deposed.³ The statement of the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarṣa I proves that even in the 9th century, more than two hundred years after Bāṇa, the story of Rāmagupta's deposition and the marriage of his widow with Candragupta II were well remembered. No coins of Rāmagupta have been discovered and it is extremely improbable that he ruled for more than a few months.

c4.85

¹ *Journal Asiatique*, Tome CCIII, 1923 pp. 193-218.

c4.86

¹ *Verse 48—Epi. Ind., Vol. XVIII, p. 255.*

c4.87

² *Journal Asiatique, Tome CCIII, 1923, p. 203.*

c4.88

³ *Ibid., p. 286.*

c4.89

⁴ *Ibid., p. 203.*

c4.90

¹ Cowell & Thomas, *Harṣa-carita*, Eng. Trans. p. 194.

c4.91

² *Journal Asiatique*, Tome CCIII, 1928 pp. 207-8.

c4.92

³ The entire available material has been collected and discussed by Prof. A. S. Altekar of the Benares Hindu University—*Journal of the Bihar & Orissa Research Society*, Vol. XIV. pp. 223-253.

c4.93

Rāmagupta was succeeded by his younger brother Candragupta II, who assumed the title of *Vikramāditya* and is very probably the famous king of that name of Indian folklore. He married his brother’s widow Dhruvadevī or Dhruvasvāminī and had by her at least two sons, the emperor Kumāragupta I and Govindagupta. As Kumāragupta succeeded Candragupta II on the throne Dhruvadevī must have been legally married to her first husband’s younger brother. Up to this time the emperors of the Gupta dynasty have been regarded as models of propriety by the most conservative Hindus of the present day. But this instance of widow marriage is bound to shock them. The marriage of Dhruvadevī only strengthens our belief that widow marriages or remarriage, according to the legal principles laid down by Nārada and Parāśara were prohibited later than the 5th century A.D.¹

c4.94

¹ Nārada, *XII*, 97; Parāśara, *IV*, 27.

c4.95

Who was this Śaka king, who had suddenly become bold enough to demand of the successor of Samudragupta his legally married wife? Viśākhadatta calls him a Śaka. In the 19th and 20th centuries we have grown accustomed to identify the later Western Satraps as Śakas in the 3rd and 4th century A.D. But towards the close of the 4th century the power of the Western Satraps had declined very considerably and it is extremely doubtful whether it was possible for any of them to send an open challenge to the Gupta king of Pāṭaliputra, the successor of Samudragupta, in the form of a demand for his legally married queen. We know from the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta that a scion of Kāniṣka I was still ruling somewhere in North Western India and it is more probable that it was he who, emboldened by the weakness of Samudragupta’s successor, had made this last bold bid for the recovery of the lost Imperial position of his house. It is also more probable that Mathurā was still the capital of the Great Kuṣāṇas and the last great Kuṣāṇa emperor was killed in his palace at Mathurā by Candragupta II disguised as Dhruvadevī and his band of faithful adherents dressed as women.

c4.96

Candragupta II seems to have spent the first few years after his accession in consolidating his conquest of Mathurā and is the first emperor of the Gupta dynasty whose record has been discovered in that city. His coins, specially his silver coins, are very plentiful all over the Eastern Panjab as far as the banks of the Chenab. There cannot be much doubt about the fact that the final extension of the western frontier of the Gupta empire was due to Candragupta II. His inscriptions prove that he conquered the whole of Mālava and his silver coins indicate that he destroyed the later Western Satraps of Kathiawad. His earliest inscription is a record in a cave near Udaygiri in the Bhilsa district of the Gwalior State, which was excavated in the year 82 by his subordinate, a chief of the Sanakānīka tribe with the title of *Mahārāja*. This record proves that practically the whole of North Eastern Mālava had been conquered by Candragupta II before 401-2 A.D. The third inscription comes from Gadhwa in the Allahabad district and adds nothing to our knowledge except a date in the reign of Candragupta II. Two other inscriptions also come from Mālava, only one of which is dated. The Sanchi inscription of the year 93=412-13 A.D., records a donation by Amrakārdava, a dependant of Candragupta II at Kākanādaboṭa. But it supplied us with an important detail that the more familiar name of Candragupta was Devarāja,¹ Another inscription in a cave at Udaygiri near Bhilsa records its excavation by one Vīrasena alias Śāba, who was one of the ministers of Candragupta II. The year 93 of the Sanchi inscriptions is the last known date of Candragupta II. He died and was succeeded by his eldest son Kumāragupta I some time between G. E. 93 and 96 (413-16 A.D.)

c4.97

¹ *Gupta Inscriptions* pp. 31-32.

c4.98

From the accession of Candragupta II the Gupta kingdom becomes a vast empire extending from the Kathiawad peninsula to the confines of Eastern Bengal and from the Himalayas to the Narmadā. It is known to have included Bengal, Bihar, United Provinces, Eastern half of the Panjab, portions of the Central Provinces and practically the whole of Central India including the famous and fertile province of Mālava, Northern Gujarat and Kathiawad, including the famous ports of Cambay, Ghogha, Verawal, Porbandar and Dvārakā. The effect of this extension of the Western Frontier was immense on the trade and commerce as well as the culture of Northern India. The European and African trade received immense impulse with the Gupta conquest of the Kathiawad ports. Once more the road from Pāṭaliputra and the great manufacturing cities of Northern and Central India was open right up to the sea. The fine cotton cloths of Eastern Bengal, the silks of Western Bengal, Indigo from Bihar, the golden embroideries and *kinkhwabs* of Benares and Aṇahilapāṭaka or Anhilwāḍā-Pāṭan, the scents and unguents of the hill states of the Himalayas, camphor, sandal and spices from the South were brought to these ports without much interference or the payment of vexatious imposts from each petty chief through whose jurisdiction it passed before the foundation of the Gupta empire. The Western traders poured Roman gold into the country in return for Indian products and the effect of this great wealth on the country is still noticeable in the great variety and number of the coins of Candragupta II. More gold and silver coins of Candragupta II have been discovered than those of his father Samudragupta or his son Kumāragupta I. The most important innovations introduced by Candragupta II were in the currency of the country. He issued gold coins of three different weights. The first of them corresponds to the Kuṣāṇa standard of 121 grains, the second is of 126 grains and the third of 132 grains. The Kushan standard of 121 grains was an imitation of the standard of the Roman Aureus and Candragupta II appears to have been approaching the ancient Indian Standard of the *Suvarṇa* of 146 grains. To meet the demand of the newly conquered provinces of Gujarat and Kathiawad, Candragupta II issued a new silver coinage. Evidently the gold and copper coinage of Northern India was not acceptable to the local people of Western India, where the silver coinage of the Greek kings Menander and Apollodotos were in circulation even in the first and second century A.D. and where the early and late Western Kṣatrapas issued silver coins only for nearly four hundred years. The silver coinage of Candragupta II was a close copy of that of the Western Kṣatrapas having the king's head and a date in numerals on the obverse with traces of the degenerate Greek legend. The reverse was entirely changed and in the place of the Scythian *Caitya* or *Meru* was placed the celebrated Garuḍa with outspread wings, the family crest or *Lāñchana* of the Imperial Guptas.

c4.99

Candragupta II allied himself with the only rival power in India of which he was probably afraid, the Vākāṭakas of Central India and the Deccan. By a second queen named Kuberanāgā he had a daughter named Prabhāvatīguptā. This princess was married to the Vākāṭaka king Rudrasena and had at least two sons, Divākarasena and Pravaraṣeṇa II. By this alliance Candragupta II protected his left flank and most probably the marriage took place during Candragupta II's campaign in Mālava.

c4.100

Besides Prabhāvatīguptā, Candragupta II had at least two other issues; Kumāragupta I and Govindagupta. Besides Dhruvadevī the only other known queen of Candragupta II is Kuveranāgā, the mother of the Vākāṭaka queen Prabhāvatīguptā. Candragupta II was also known as Devagupta or Devarāja. This is known in the first place from the Sanchi inscription of the year 93 where Candragupta is specially mentioned as being called Devarāja¹ and in the second place from Vākāṭaka Land Grants in which the father of Prabhāvatīguptā is invariably called Devagupta.²

c4.101

¹ *Gupta Inscriptions* p. 32.

c4.102

² *Ibid.*, pp. 237, 246; *Epi. Ind.* Vol. IX, pp. 267-71.

c4.103

The names of several officers of Candragupta II are known to us from the inscription of his time. The Sanakānīka chief, whose name has been lost in the Udaygiri inscription of the year 82 was evidently an officer of the Gupta empire as he held the rank of a *Mahārāja*. Virasena alias Śāba of the undated Udaygiri Cave inscription was another minister (*Anvaya-prāpta-sācivyo*) evidently hereditary.³ The name of another minister is known to us from the Karamdanda inscription of the year 117. A Brāhmaṇa named Śikharasvāmin was a second minister of Candragupta II, but held the rank of a *Kumārāmātya*.¹ The only other point worth notice in the reign of Candragupta II is the seal of his queen Dhruvasvāminī, discovered at Basarh, the ancient Vaiśālī. In this seal the queen calls herself "The Great Queen, the illustrious Dhruvasvāminī, the wife of the Mahārājādhirāja, the illustrious Candragupta, the mother of the Mahārāja, the illustrious Govindagupta."² It is impossible to understand now why the great queen calls herself the mother of Govindagupta only and not that of her eldest son the emperor Kumāragupta I. She is acknowledged as the mother of Kumāragupta I in the Bilsad pillar inscription of the year 96,³ and the official seal of the infant emperor Kumāragupta II⁴ as well as the semi-official inscription on the pillars at Bihar⁵ and Kahaon.⁶

c4.104

³ *Gupta Inscriptions* p. 35.

c4.105

¹ *Ep. Ind. Vol. X, p. 71.*

c4.106

² *Annual Report of the Archæological Survey of India 1903-4, p. 107, pl. XL. 1.*

c4.107

³ *Gupta Inscriptions p. 43.*

c4.108

⁴ *J.A.S.B., 1889, Part. I, pp. 89.*

c4.109

⁵ *Gupta Inscriptions, p. 50.*

c4.110

⁶ *Ibid., p. 53.*

c4.111

The Chinese pilgrim Fa Hsien visited India during the reign of Candragupta II. The Chinese monk has forgotten even to name the ruling emperor though he describes Pāṭaliputra, the Imperial capital, as one of the most flourishing cities. Gaya and the neighbouring district, the Mecca of Buddhism, was covered with jungle.

c4.112

We can obtain tolerably reliable information about the condition of Northern India at the beginning of the 6th century A.D. from Fa Hsien’s travels.

c4.113

Candragupta II, the third emperor of the dynasty, raised the kingdom left by his father to the status of an empire. He became the virtual master of Northern India by destroying the Scythians of the Panjab and Western India. He was unquestionably the paramount sovereign of India at the time of his death. By the marriage alliance with the Vākāṭakas he had neutralised the only rival power in India. Like all great kings he was totally unscrupulous, which is proved by his deposition or murder of his eldest brother Rāmagupta. Like Akbar and Śivāji he was brave to the point of rashness, which is proved by his adventure in disguise with a chosen band of followers in the city or camp of the Scythian kings. He was an ambitious man and a good general and therefore succeeded in annexing the Eastern Panjab, Mālava, Gujarat and Kathiawad to his inherited dominions. He also issued a varied gold coinage like his father. The most significant type of his gold coins is the Lion-slayer type which perhaps indicates his lion hunting either in the deserts of Rajputana or in Kathiawad.

First 113 of 183 passages. Read on

Linked texts (38)