Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Naga–Vakataka Imperial Period c16: Part III. Magadha (31 B.C. to 340 A.D.) and the Gupta India at 350 A.D.

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Nāga–Vākāṭaka Imperial Period c16

Language
English

Contents

Part III. Magadha (31 B.C. to 340 A.D.) and the Gupta India at 350 A.D.

c16.2

‘Rājādhirājaḥ prithivīmavitvā
Divam jayaty-aprativārya-vīryaḥ’.
‘The King of Kings of irresistible prowess, having protected the Country (thereby) wins Heaven’. [Aśvamedha Coin of Samudra Gupta.]
ā-Samudra-kshitīśānām =ā-Nāka-ratha-vartmanām [Kālidāsa].

XI. History of Magadha from 31 B.C. to 250 A.D. and the Rise of the Guptas [275 A.D. to 375 A.D.]

c16.s1.1

109. Magadha, after the fall of the Kāṇvas, according to the Purāṇas, passed on to the Āndhras and Lichchhavis at Pāṭaliputra. This statement is corroborated by the find of Sātavāhana coins in the excavation of Bhiṭā [Allahabad District]. I read one Sātavāhana coin excavated in my presence by Dr. Spooner at Kumhrār [Patna]. The Sātavāhanas, however, could not have been for more than fifty years at Pāṭaliputra and in Magadha after the fall of the Kāṇvas (31 B.C.). The Nepal inscription of Jayadeva II of the Lichchhavi dynasty, dated in Śrī-Harsha Saṃvat 153 (=758 A.D.),¹ states that 23 successions before Jayadeva I, his ancestor Supushpa Lichchhavi was born at the city of Pushpapura. The date of Jayadeva I is about 330 A.D. to 355 A.D. as worked out by Dr. Fleet.² Now, giving an average of about 15 years to this long list of 23 kings we may place Supushpa in the beginning of the Christian Era. The Lichchhavis in occupying Pāṭaliputra might have taken a mandate for doing so from the Sātavāhana Emperor, or they might have independently captured the capital, which they had aspired to do for centuries. The disturbance caused to the Sātavāhana Emperor by the appearance of Kadphises and Wema Kadphises in Northern India afforded an ample opportunity to the Lichchhavis to fill up the vacuum at Pāṭaliputra. We may also take it that their occupation of Pāṭaliputra would have ended with the advance of Vanaspara, viceroy of Kanishka, to Magadha about the close of the century.¹

c16.s1.2

¹ I.A., Vol. IX, p. 178. Fleet, G.I., Introduction, pp. 184-185.

c16.s1.3

² Fleet, G.I., Introduction, 135, 191; I.A., XIV, 350.

c16.s1.4

¹ See Part I (§ 33) above.

c16.s1.5

110. The Lichchhavis, having once occupied Pāṭaliputra for about a century, must have felt a sort of claim to re-possess Magadha on the liberation of the Gangetic valley by the Bhārasivas. But when the Bhārasiva reorganisation comes into play, we find Magadha not in the possession of the non-Brahmanical Lichchhavis but of an orthodox Kshatriya family. This family is called 'the Magadha family' in the Kaumudi-mahotsava, and by Samudra Gupta it is called 'the Dynasty of Kota' (Kota-kula). The founder's name seems to have been Kota; the descendant of Kota who was a contemporary of Samudra Gupta and whose name is lost in the earlier part of the Allahabad inscription, is called Kota-kulaja. The names of these Magadha kings ended in varman.² This family must have come into existence about 200-250 A.D.

c16.s1.6

² See in Bhandarkar Annals, 1930, XII, pp. 50 ff., 'Historical data in the drama Kaumudī-Mahotsava' by the present author.

c16.s1.7

111. The Guptas appear about 275 A.D. somewhere in Magadha. Gupta, the first Rājā,³ rises as a feudatory prince. As later, we find the early Guptas connected with Allahabad [Prayāga] and Oudh [Sāketa], Mahārāja Gupta's fief seems to have been near about Allahabad. His son was Ghaṭotkacha, and Ghaṭotkacha's son was the first prince who turned the name of his ancestor Gupta into a dynastic title. His name was Chandra. At the time of the rise of Chandra, called by the Prakrit name Chaṇḍa-sena⁴ in the Kaumudi-mahotsava, the king of Magadha at Pāṭaliputra was Sundara-varman, ruling from his palace called Su-Gāṅga. This palace is named in the inscription of Khāravela as the Su-Gaṃgīya and in the Mudrā-Rākshasa as the Su-Gāṅga. The capital city of Pāṭaliputra thus came down with its ancient palace intact to the period of king Sundara-varmā and Chandra. King Sundara-varman was an old man, having a child of a few years of age yet in charge of a nurse. Chandra or Chandra-sena had been adopted as his son by the king of Magadha, evidently before the birth of the young prince. Chandra regarded himself as the heir, being the elder, though a Kritaka son. He entered into a marriage alliance with the Lichchhavis who are described as the enemy of the Magadha dynasty in the same drama Kaumudī-mahotsava.¹ The Lichchhavis with a large army and Chandra laid a siege to Pāṭaliputra. A battle was fought in which the old king Sundara-varman died. The young prince Kalyāṇa varman was carried away to the Kishkindhā hills by the faithful ministers. Chandra founded a royal dynasty (rāja-kula). The angry authoress of the drama calls the Lichchhavis ‘Mlechchhas’ and Chaṇḍa-sena a Kāraskara, implying a casteless or a low-caste man, not fit for royalty.²

c16.s1.8

³ Prabhāvatī Guptā [Poona Plates, E.I., xv] appropriately calls him ādīrāja.

c16.s1.9

⁴ For Chandra becoming Chaṇḍa in Prakrit see the inscription of Chaṇḍasāti, the Sātavāhana king, published in E.I., Vol. XVII, p. 317,

c16.s1.10

¹ The drama is published in the Quarterly Journal of the Andhra Research Society, Vols. II and III.

c16.s1.11

² कचिं एरिस-वणस्स से राच्चसिरी ?—K.M., Act. IV, p. 30.

c16.s1.12

112. Before we enter on the subsequent history of the fortunes of Chandra Gupta I, let us see if we can find out the caste of the Guptas which has remained a mystery up to this time. The data which we obtain from the contemporary inscriptions are:

c16.s1.13

(a) that nowhere they disclose their origin or caste status, as if they have purposely concealed it; and,

c16.s1.14

(b) that their caste sub-division was Dhāraṇa.

c16.s1.15

and coins of Śrī Chandra Sāti where ‘Chandra’ becomes ‘Chaṇḍa’—Rapson, Coins of Andhras, p. 32. For the dropping of sena, cf. the case of Vasanta-sena and Vasantadeva of the same king (G.I., Introduction, p. 186 ff.); Dahrasena on his coins adopts the style Dahra-gaṇa (C.A.D., p. clxiv).

c16.s1.16

From the inscription of the Gupta Princess, Prabhāvatī Guptā¹ we know that she belonged to Dhāraṇa gotra. She is evidently giving here her father's gotra, as her husband's gotra was different (Viṣṇu Vṛddha). Our knowledge, however, is expanded by the Kaumudī-mahotsava which gives the caste of Chandra as Kāraskara. The Kāraskaras are mentioned by Baudhāyana as a low community, to whom the Brāhmaṇas should not go and on return from whom they should perform a ceremony of purification.² The Kāraskaras in Baudhāyana are joined with the Punjābī community Āraṭṭas [which literally means 'the republicans']. Their exact location is given by Hema-chandra, who in explaining the Sālvas calls them the people of the Kāra valley.³ The place Kārapatha or Kārāpatha was at the foot of the Himalayas.⁴ The Sālvas were a division of the Madras and were at Sialkot where their name as Siāl, derived from Sālva which is also spelt as Sālya⁵, survives. The Kāraskaras were therefore a Punjab people, a subdivision of the Madras. We know that the Madras were called Vāhikas and Jārtikas⁶. The Madraka⁷ community was thus made up of several subdivisions, comprising Sālvas, Yartris or Jārtikas [whom we call to-day Jaṭs] and others. Now, we may recall here the grammatical illustration of Chandra-gomin: 'the Jārta (king) defeated the Hūṇas.' This is pre-eminently referable to Skanda Gupta⁸. We have thus evidence from different sources converging at one point, that is, that the Guptas were Kāraskara Jāts—originally from the Punjab. Kakkar Jāts¹ in my opinion are the modern representatives of the original community of the Guptas. Amongst the Kāraskaras the particular subdivision to which Guptas belonged was evidently Dhāraṇa. The word gotra in Prabhāvatī Gupta’s inscription (Poona Plates) would mean a caste-subdivision. Dhanri, the Jāt clan found in Amritsar,² may be compared with the Sanskrit Dhāraṇa of Prabhāvatī Guptā. The Kaumudī-mahotsava is in full agreement with and is in fact supported by Chandra-gomin, who is undoubtedly a Gupta author.

c16.s1.17

¹ E.I., XV, 41; cf. ibid., p. 42, n.

c16.s1.18

² Baudhāyana, Dh. S., I, i. 32.

c16.s1.19

³ Hemachandra, A-Ch. IV, p. 23 (Sālvas tu Kāra-kukṣīyāḥ).

c16.s1.20

⁴ Raghuvamśa, XV, 90. Wilson's Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Vol. III, p. 390.

c16.s1.21

⁵ Wilson and Hall, V.P., Vol. V, p. 70.

c16.s1.22

⁶ Rose, Glossary of Punjab Tribes and Castes, i. 59; Grierson, L.S.I., IX., Pt. 4, p. 4, n. 8. M. Bh., Karṇa P., (verse 2034).

c16.s1.23

⁷ Cf. on 'Madraka', my Hindu Polity, i, pp. 120-121. It means 'one owing allegiance to the Madra State'.

c16.s1.24

⁸ G.I., 54 (l. 15), 59 (l. 4). The two inscriptions (Bhitarī and Junāgarh) describe a decisive and famous battle; while Yaśodharman's was a mere raid into Kashmir (G.I., 147, l. 6) and the Hūṇas' submission to Yaśodharman was practically without a war.

c16.s1.25

¹ Cf. Rose, Glossary, ii. 363, n. The name is pronounced as Kakkar also.

c16.s1.26

² Glossary of Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and N.-W. Frontier, Vol. II, p. 235.

c16.s1.27

113. The position of the Madraka Jāts was probably not very low at the time, for had it been very low, King Sundara-varman would not have thought of making Chandra-sena his adopted son. His original intention seems to have been to bequeath the kingdom to Chandra. And it was only due to the birth of Kalyāṇa-varman from some younger queen (Kalyāṇa-varmā is said to have several step-mothers—‘mātaraḥ’) that the breach between the adoptive father and the adopted son occurred. The real cause of the opposition from the public, which was very pronounced, seems to be a dislike for the social system of the Kāraskaras who were not subject to the fourfold-varṇāśramism of the orthodox system. It is the same dislike which is expressed in the Mahā-Bhārata against the Madrakas. They had one caste amongst them with social equality and freedom, which did not agree with the settled rules of the Gangetic society. The compliment was mutually exchanged: the Kaumudī-mahotsava taunted at the Kāraskara caste as rulers; the Guptas replied—‘we shall abolish the Kshatriyas’.

c16.s1.28

114. Now we know from the Purāṇic history that in the reign of Kanishka (and probably also of his successor), Vanaspara imported some Madrakas for administrative purposes. But the Punjab military dress of Chandra Gupta I on his coins would suggest that the family had migrated recently in the Bhāraśiva period after the liberation of the Madraka country by the latter. Very likely a Bhāraśiva king gave Gupta a fief, having border-land between Bihar and Kauśāmbī, for it was to suppress a rebellion of the Śavaras that Chandra Gupta I had gone to his frontier when the City Council of Pāṭaliputra pronounced a decree of deposition against him.

c16.s1.29

115. Chandra Gupta I having his caste against him and being somewhat of a usurper, was disliked by the Magadhans of his day, particularly as he failed to adapt himself to the traditional Hindu way of government. He showed a hostile, repressive attitude to the people of Magadha. The Kaumudīmahotsava records that Chaṇḍa-sena¹ had put leading citizens into prison. The people of Magadha looked down upon him as something like a parricide. Chandra Gupta I had thus several elements arrayed against him. A cry was raised that he was not a Kshatriya, he had practically killed his aged adoptive father on the battlefield, he had called in the aid of the hereditary enemies of Magadha—the Lichchhavis, he had married a lady who was neither a Magadhan nor a Brahmanical Hindu. To this we should add that he had defied the imperial authority of the Brahmin Emperor Pravarasena I.

c16.s1.30

¹ There are other known examples, as cited above, of new kings changing the second member of their name on coming to the throne. Chandra-sena similarly changed his name into Chandra Gupta. But the hostile contemporaries persisted in calling him by his original, humbler name, and insisted on the vernacular pronunciation for its obvious pun [Chaṇḍa=‘fierce’].

c16.s1.31

116. With the aid of the Lichchhavi power and protection he trampled upon the liberties of the people of Magadha and put the leading citizens into prison. Alberūnī therefore recorded a true and historical tradition when he said that the king or kings associated with the Gupta-kāla [-era] were cruel and wicked. The Hindus had the constitutional law laid down in their codes to destroy the king who acted as a tyrant or whose hands had the marks of the blood of his parents.² They planned and rose, called in Prince Kalyāṇa-varman from the Vākāṭaka territory (Pampāsara) and crowned him king at the Su-Gāṅga Palace at Pāṭaliputra. The authoress of the Kaumudi-mahotsava exultantly said—'the law of Varna is restored; the royal family of Caṇḍa-sena is abolished.'¹ This happened while Chandra Gupta was on his campaign somewhere between Rohtas and Amarkantak fighting the rebellious Śavaras. The outlandish monarch was ousted in or about 340 A.D., for Kalyāṇa-varmā was of full age to receive Hindu royal coronation at the time.² In the year of his coronation Kalyāṇa-varmā was married to the daughter of the king of Mathurā.

c16.s1.32

² Hindu Polity, ii, 50, 189.

c16.s1.33

¹ प्रकटित-वर्णाश्रमपद्यसुखित-चण्डसेनराजकुलम् ।—K.M., Act V. ² Taking the capture of Pāṭaliputra at 320 A.D., and the coronation age being 25, the prince having lived in exile for about 20 years, the date of restoration would be c. 340 A.D.

c16.s1.34

117. Guptas in Exile and their Moral Transformation. The years 340 A.D. to 344 A.D., the period of exile of the Guptas from Bihar was not very long but it was full of consequence and future, which produced entirely a new history—a new history not only for Bihar but for the whole of India. It turned the Guptas from outlandish usurpers into a dynasty of the Hindu of Hindus, Magadhan, and protectors and upholders of the Dharma, Brahmin and cow, literature and sculpture, national culture and national civilisation of Hindu India. Beginning as a feudatory ruler under the Vākāṭakas with their imperial insignia of the goddess Gaṅgā on his coin and the title of Rājā only and with no marks of royalty on his person (as portrayed on his Tiger-type coin), Samudra Gupta ended with a proud satisfaction as recorded on his imperial gold coins marked with his Garuḍadhvaja, a satisfaction which is a rare luck of a king in history: on his coins which he published after he had built up his empire, he registered the realisation of the ideal of Hindu hero and Hindu king that he after winning the whole country governed it so well that he won the heaven thereby (p. 112). He made Sanskrit, after the fashion of the Vākāṭaka Emperor, his court language; he undertook and performed aśvamedhas, having made good his restoration to the imperial throne of Pāṭaliputra.

c16.s1.35

A. Chandra Gupta I who was dying either of wounds or of a broken heart on his expulsion from Pāṭaliputra, addressed Samudra Gupta, one of his younger sons, with tears in his eyes, and with the tacit consent and approval of his Council of Ministers,—'you now, my noble sir, be the king ("protect the kingdom"),' and expired.¹ The death must have taken place on the other side of the Ganges, in the territory of his relations, the Lichchhavis. As a Lichchhavi subordinate and relation, his son at this moment would have obtained the province of Sāketa, i.e. the adjoining territory of Oudh, where at Ayodhyā we find in the next reigns the Gupta Emperors residing as at their second and favourite capital. It was a centre of culture. Ayodhyā had been the home of the poet Aśvaghosha, the Kālidāsa of the preceding epoch. To Ayodhyā belonged the great scholar Sikhara Svāmin who became the Prime Minister of Rāma Gupta and Chandra Gupta II.² Ayodhyā had the orthodox imperial tradition of Rāma's name, a name which was given to the eldest son of Samudra Gupta,³ a name which embodied the whole of the past Hindu civilisation. Samudra Gupta fully imbibed that tradition. Hindu learning became a part of the political cult of Samudra Gupta and his descendants. The rājasa (kingly) bhakti in Viṣṇu moulded their national actions and their political character. Like Viṣṇu they stood solidly to support the kingdom of India. Their bhakti (faith) is intense. They think of Viṣṇu and they think in Viṣṇu. Samudra Gupta and Chandra Gupta II become practically one with their God. Any one who has seen the Viṣṇu image enshrined by Samudra Gupta at Eran, would be reminded of Samudra Gupta himself and see the King's figure and dress in that statue. One who would see the Viṣṇu-Varāha at the Chandra Gupta Cave at

c16.s1.36

¹ G.I., p. 6.

c16.s1.37

² J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, 37.

c16.s1.38

³ The popular name Rama-pāla='Rawwāl', retained by the Arab author Abu Saleh (J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, p. 21) may be compared with the Rājāvali names of the Guptas which Cunningham found at Ayodhyā. They end in pāla instead of °gupta, e.g. Samudra pāla, Chandra pāla, etc. A.S.R., Vol. XI, p. 99.

Ayodhyā and its Influence

c16.s1.t1.1

Udayagiri will be reminded of Chandra Gupta II himself rescuing Dhruva-devi.¹ Without understanding the spiritual and religious currents of the time which bring about royal and national rebirth, one cannot truly appreciate any political reformation. It is for that reason that a proper appraisement of the Gupta cult becomes here necessary.

c16.s1.t1.2

¹ Cf. J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, 35.

c16.s1.t1.3

118. You would never be able to decipher the dedication of their victories to Vishnu, e.g. at Bhîtari and at Mehrauli, and at the same time the magnificence and munificence conveyed by the aśvamedhas and the Garuḍadaṅka coins, without that key. You would not be able to unlock the mystery of these Hindu Moghuls minus Moghul cruelty and debauchery. You will not get the secret how could Chandra Gupta II abolish capital punishment,² how he could raise the majesty of Hinduism to the very pinnacle of glory, and how he drew the limits of good government which no sceptre could extend further.

c16.s1.t1.4

² Fa-Hien, ch. XVI.

c16.s1.t1.5

119. From the Bhārasivas up to the Vākāṭakas there was the rule of that God of social asceticism, that aspect of the Almighty which undertakes destruction, the God who though a giver, keeps no wealth, possesses no material splendour, the God who is austere and sombre. But, on the other hand, the second Gupta king and the first Gupta Emperor—Samudra Gupta—invokes that aspect of God whose function is royal and rājasa, who wears gold, not ashes, who builds and reigns, protects and rejoices in plenty, who is the traditional God of Hindu sovereignty. Vishnu is the king amongst gods, is magnificently dressed, stands erect and solid and upholds the kingdom of His men, is a hero and conquering lord in battle—whose emblem is Chakra—the symbol of Empire—which irresistibly destroys the forces of evil against that Empire of Lord Vishnu. There is the conch in one of His hands for announcing battle and for announcing triumph. There is, in the third, the sceptre of rule, and finally there is the lotus in the fourth, the symbol of prosperity, growth and rejoicing for His subjects. The belief in the God-in-royalty, Samudra Gupta made the belief of his dynasty and the belief of his country. His devotion to Vishnu is so great that his personality almost merges in Him:

c16.s1.t1.6

साधुसाधूदय-प्रलय-हेतु-पुरुषस्याचिन्त्यस्य भक्तवनतिमान्पायमृदुहृदयस्य¹

c16.s1.t1.7

¹ G.I., p. 8, *l.* 25.

c16.s1.t1.8

is a description in the language of the Bhagavad-Gita, and a description which, according to the literary practice of the age, has to give a double meaning. The devotee and his God are both described by the same language. This might appear to a non-Hindu reader or to a reader who has not entered into the Hindu mystery of *bhakti* as a blasphemous assumption of God's attributes. But it is not so; there is in the cult of *bhakti* its highest doctrine that there should be unity (*ananyatā*) between the deity and the devotee. The devotee begins to partake of the nature of his deity until he is spiritually fully transformed and finally become one with the deity. He becomes the missionary and the agent of the Lord. He works as the medium, and all his works are dedicated to his Lord. The Guptas felt and believed that they were Vishnu's servants and agents, that they had a mission from Vishnu, that like Vishnu they should conquer the unrighteous and rightless sovereigns, and that like Vishnu they should rule in full sovereignty and bring happiness promised by the lotus in Vishnu's hand, to the people of India. They fully executed this mission and Samudra Gupta felt the consciousness that he had executed that mission well and won the Heaven thereby. Like Vishnu, Samudra Gupta and his successors filled their kingdom of India with gold and plenty, with propserity, elegance and culture.

XII. Political India at 350 A.D. and Samudra Gupta's Empire

c16.s2.1

120. We have no doubt that the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudra Gupta which is his imperial biography written and published in his life-time,² gives details of the kingdoms and rulers which existed at the time of the foundation of the Gupta Empire. Yet we have probably a richer description of political India at the period in the Purāṇas. They, in fact, give us a complete picture of Samudra Gupta's India with which they close their chronicles. As their details have not been studied and the significance of this part of the Purāṇic history has been entirely missed, it is necessary to have an analysis of the Purāṇic materials which, as we shall see, are very valuable.

c16.s2.2

² It is not posthumous as Fleet wrongly supposed. See Bühler, J.R.A.S., 1898, p. 386. It was published before his *aśvamedha* or *aśvamedhas*. [Fleet's mistake misled many including myself.]

c16.s2.3

121. The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa continue the threads of Indian history where the Matsya stops, i.e. at the fall of the Andhras, which, according to their calculation, happened in or about 238 A.D. (J.B.O.R.S., XVI, p. 280).¹ The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa take up the imperial history again and begin it with Vindhyaśakti of the Vindhyaka dynasty. They, parenthetically under Vindhyaśakti—to explain the rise of the dynasty of Vindhyaśakti and particularly his son Pravira—give the history of the Vidiśā Nāgas and their successors, the Nava Nāgas,² i.e. the Bhāraśivas. Then they give a full account of the Vākāṭaka (‘Vindhyaka’) empire, with its component parts, giving the number of the rulers and their totals. In other words, they treat the history up to the reign of Vindhyaśakti's son Pravira along with the Nava Nāgas, whose period they give as past history. And then they begin contemporary history: from the Guptas onwards they neither give the number of rulers nor their rule-periods. From the Guptas onwards, the families were still ruling and those families were therefore contemporaries with the Guptas. As we shall presently see, the Purāṇas undoubtedly imply that they were subordinates and component parts of the Gupta Empire. To this they make a few exceptions, i.e. they note also those contemporaries who were not integral parts of the Gupta Empire. Their details are accurate and territorially specific. They are, therefore, invaluable to the history of the period. And they stop at that, they are to be treated as a Contemporary record, contemporary with the empire of Samudra Gupta. The Purāṇas have taken up the Gupta line as an imperial dynasty as coming after Pravīra the son of Vindhyaśakti. Up to and including the Vākāṭakas, they have dealt with only imperial lines. The Viṣṇu and the Bhāgavata here give some data which are exclusive to them. Here they seem to have preferred some independent materials.

c16.s2.4

¹ Their contemporaries the Tukhāra-Muruṇḍas, etc. close about 243 or 247 A.D.—J.B.O.R.S., XVI, 289.

c16.s2.5

² Alternative spelling: Nava Nāka. Does Kālidāsa intend a double meaning by his ā-Nāka° in the verse cited at p. 112? If ā-Samudra° refers to the Guptas, ā-Nāka° will refer to the Nākas, i.e. Nāgas.

c16.s2.6

122. The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa place the beginning of the Guptas after closing the Nāgas who were rulers in Bihar up to Champāvatī or Bhagalpur, but the Viṣṇu places their beginning in the period of the Nāgas whereby it implies the rise of Gupta and Ghaṭotkacha:

c16.s2.7

नवनागाः पद्मावत्यां कान्तिपुर्यां मथुरायामनुगङ्गाप्रयागं मागधा गुप्ताश्च भोक्ष्यन्ति ।

c16.s2.8

which means, that while the Nava Nāgas ruled at Padmāvatī, Kāntipurī and Mathurā, the Māgadha Guptas ruled at Prayāga-on-the-Ganges. This shows that their first fief was in the district of Allahabad and that at that time they were considered to have been natives of Magadha. The plain meaning of this datum is that the Early Guptas were rulers at Allahabad, not on the Jumna side but on the Ganges side, i.e. on the side of Oudh and Benares. The Viṣṇu reads anu-Gaṅgā-Prayāga as one word, which it gives as the name of a capital like Padmāvatī, Kāntipurī and Mathurā. It is not anu-Gaṅgā by itself, an indefinite regional term. Neither the Bhāgavata nor the Viṣṇu mentions here Sāketa. The Viṣṇu by putting the plural form ‘the Guptas’ and qualifying them with the adjective the ‘Magadhan’, refers to a period when the Guptas had been dispossessed from Magadha, the pre-imperial years of Samudra Gupta.

c16.s2.9

123. The other Purāṇas, on the other hand, give another set of facts about the Gupta dynasty. The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa say that the descendants of the Gupta dynast (Gupta-vaṁśajāḥ), i.e. the Guptas later than the founder of the family, will rule (bhokṣyante):

c16.s2.10

(a) the provinces of Anu-Gaṅgā-Prayāga,¹ Sāketa and the Magadhas;²

c16.s2.11

¹ Or, ‘Anu-Gaṅgā and Prayāga’ [अनुगङ्गं प्रयागं च, P.T., 53, n. 5.]

c16.s2.12

² अनुगङ्गं प्रयागं च साकेतं मगधांस्तथा। एतान् जनपदान् सर्वान् भोक्ष्यन्ते गुप्तवंशजाः॥

c16.s2.13

(b) [will rule, bhokhyante, or ‘will rule over’, bhokhyanti] the Maṇidhānya provinces of the Naishadhas, Yadukas, Śaiśitas and Kālatoyakas;³

c16.s2.14

³ नैषधान् यदुकांश्चैव शैशितान् कालतोयकान्। एतान् जनपदान् सर्वान् भोक्ष्यन्ते [’न्ति, Vāyu] मणिधान्यजान्॥ [Brahmāṇḍa.]

c16.s2.15

(c) [will rule bhokhyante, or ‘will rule over’, ‘nti] the Kosalas, Āndhras, (‘Oḍras’, per Viṣṇu) Pauṇḍras, the Tāmraliptas with the sea-coast people and the beautiful capital of Champā protected by Deva (Deva-rakṣitām);⁴

c16.s2.16

⁴ कोसलांश्चान्ध्र-पौण्ड्रांश्च ताम्रलिप्तान् स-सागरान्। चम्पां चैव पुरीं रम्यां भोक्ष्यन्ते [’न्ति] देवरक्षिताम्॥ [Vāyu.]

c16.s2.17

(d) [will rule] the Guha provinces (Guhān, Viṣṇu), the provinces of Kaliṅga, Māhishika and Mahendra,⁵ [or, ‘Guha will be governor (pālayiṣyati, as against bhokhyati) of Kaliṅga, Mahisha and Mahendra.’⁶]

c16.s2.18

⁵ कलिङ्गान् द्राविडान्-माहेन्द्रभोमान् गुहान् भोक्ष्यन्ति। [Viṣṇu.]

c16.s2.19

⁶ कलिङ्गा अधिपाश्चैव महेन्द्रनिलयाश्च ये। एतान् जनपदान् सर्वान् पालयिष्यन्ति वै गुहाः॥ [Br., Vā.]

c16.s2.20

That the last three Imperial Provinces were under the governorships respectively of a Maṇidhānyaka (Viṣṇu) or a Maṇidhānyāja [a descendant of Maṇidhānya (Brahmāṇḍa)], Deva, and Guha is proved by the Viṣṇu’s treatment which makes them rulers respectively of these Provincial Governments. In the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa text which was here one and the same, they are all put in the accusative, the nominative being the Gupta-vamśajāḥ; the name of the sub-rulers are taken to be qualifying the provinces, viz. Maṇidhānyajān (Br.), Devarakṣitām [qualifying Champā], and Guhān [which survives in the Viṣṇu].

c16.s2.21

Independent States. 124. Then the following contemporaries are given who are not under the Gupta dynasty:

c16.s2.22

(A) The dynast called K a n a k a ruling S t r i r ā s h t r a, B h o j a k a (Br.), T r a i r ā j y a (V i s h ṇ u) and M ū s h i k a (V i s h ṇ u).

c16.s2.23

(B) The A b h i r a s of S u r ā s h t r a and A v a n t i.

c16.s2.24

(C) The Ś u r a s.

c16.s2.25

(D) The M ā l a v a s of the A r b u d a.

c16.s2.26

B, C, and D, according to the Bhāgavata, were non-sacramental, though twice-born, Hindus (vrātyā dvijāḥ), and their national rulers (janādhipāḥ) were ‘almost Śūdras’ (śūdra-prāyāḥ).

c16.s2.27

(E) Sindhu [the Indus valley] and the C h a n d r a-b h ā g ā, K a u n t ī (Cutch), and K a s h m i r were under the M l e c h c h h a s who were non-Brahmanical Śūdras [or according to some manuscripts, antyāḥ or the lowest, untouchables]. They were M l e c h c h h a Ś ū d r a s, i.e. those Mlechchhas [e.g. Śakas] who according to Hindu Law had acquired the status of Śūdras but were Mlechchhas all the same, i.e. foreigners (§ 146 B). The Purāṇas are here distinguishing these Mlechchha Śūdras from the Hindu Śūdras. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa actually calls them ‘the Mlechchha-Śūdras’.¹ The Viṣṇu Purāṇa adds after S i n d h u-t a t a ‘the D ā r v ī k a country’, i.e. Eastern Afghanistan which is now inhabited by the Darveshkhel and the Dauras, from the Khyber Pass westwards. Instead of Dārvīka, we have the form Dārvīcha in the Mahā-Bhārata.²

c16.s2.28

¹ P.T., 55, n. 30.

c16.s2.29

² Hall, Wilson's Viṣṇu Purāṇa, II, 175, n.

c16.s2.30

125. There were, thus, apart from the provinces in Āryāvarta, three imperial provinces, according to the Purāṇas, constituted by the Guptas which they caused to be ruled by their governors. The last two (c, d, p. 124) were in ‘Southern’ India. And the second (b) was also below the Vindhyas, just at its gate in the West. From the Hindu point of view this was also situated in Dakṣiṇāpatha, to the south of the Vindhyas, but following the modern Terminology we shall call it here (1) the Deccan Province. The Vishnu Purāṇa mentions it as the third province amongst the provinces ruled through governors, while the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa place it as the first amongst the three provinces. The Vishnu Purāṇa begins with (2) the Province of Kosala-Orissa-Bengal-and-Champā, while the other two Purāṇas place the Province of Kosala, etc. as the second. And the next, according to all the authorities, is (3) the Province of Kalinga-Māhishika-Mahendra. The Bhāgavata stands by itself. It does not give the three provinces, and originally it seems to have included the whole empire in the words medinî: ‘Goptā bhokshyanti medinîm,’ ‘the descendants of Gupta (Goptāḥ, Pkt. for Gauptāḥ) will rule the Earth.’ The Purāṇas in general employ the word medinî, mahî, prithivî, vasundharā or any other synonymous word for the Earth, when they mean an empire.¹ If we follow the order given in the Vishnu we almost follow the Allahabad inscription. Kosala-Odra-Paundra, Tāmralipti, and Samudraṭaṭa would correspond to the inscriptional Kosala and Mahā-Kāntāra on the one hand² (line 19) and Samataṭa on the other [in line 22]. It seems that a province was constituted by Samudra Gupta, the capital of which was at Champā and which extended from the south-east of Magadha, through Chota-Nagpur, the tributary states of Orissa and Chhattisgarh, right down to Bastar and the Chanda District. Both the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa place Andhra next to Kosala. To the old Vākāṭaka province of Kosalā and Mekalā was added by Samudra Gupta Orissa and Bengal and the government thereof was controlled from Champā, from which the routes to Bengal and Kosala emanated and also the river-highway was available to go right down to Tāmralipti. Champā is qualified as ‘Devarakshitā’ which probably signifies that it was under Prince Deva (Deva was the pre-coronation name of Chandra Gupta II, J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, p. 37). Chandra Gupta II on the Mehrauli pillar is credited to have conquered the Vangas, which may mean that as the Viceroy of the East-South he had to wage a war. Samatata seems to have been annexed by Samudra Gupta soon after his expedition.

c16.s2.31

¹ This use is confirmed and made clear by Samudra Gupta's use of prithivî and dharaṇî for ‘All-India’ in his Allahabad inscription (line 24). It means ‘the Country’, ‘the whole Country’. In the present text of the Bhāgavata, however, [अनुगङ्गाप्रयागं गोप्ता भोक्ष्यन्ति मेदिनीम् ।] anu-Gaṅgā stands as if qualified by medinî. Probably the intention was to signify that the Guptas who were rulers originally of anu-Gaṅgā Prayāga, enjoyed the whole empire or enjoyed anu-Gaṅgā-Prayāga and the Empire.

c16.s2.32

² The Mahā-Bhārata locates the State of the Kāntārakas in the direction from Bhojakaṭa-pura [Berar]-to-E. Kosala, beyond the kingdom of the Veṇā valley [Waingaṅgā] and before ‘Eastern Kosala’ [Southern text: Prākoṭaka]—Sabhā, 31,13. Kāntāraka corresponds with Kanker and Bastar. The other Kosala [Southern Kosala] covered Chanda District.

c16.s2.33

126. The Province of Kalinga-Māhishika¹. Mahendra (or, -Mahendrabhūmi) was made into one unit, according to the Purāṇas. This corresponds with the inscriptional divisions in line 19. After Mahā Kāntāra, Kaurāla, which is ‘the Kaunāla water’ of Pulakeśin II, is the Kolleru lake to the south of Pithāpuram between the rivers Godāvarī and Krishnā². Pishtapura, Mahendragiri and Koṭṭūra are the hill-fortresses in Ganjam³. This corresponds roughly with what we now call the Eastern Ghats or the Northern Circars of the E. I. Company, i.e. the territory between the river Krishnā and the Mahānadī. Pishtapura was the capital of Kalinga, as noted in almost a contemporary inscription of ‘the Magadha dynasty’ ruling at Pishtapura and Simhapura⁴.

c16.s2.34

¹ One copy of the Vishnu, in place of Māhishika, gives ‘the banks of (the river) Mahā’ (Māheya-kachchha). This was probably ‘the valley of the Mahānadī.’

c16.s2.35

² E.I., Vol. VI, p. 3. ‘Kolanu’ in Telugu means a ‘lake’.

c16.s2.36

³ V. Smith, E.H.I., p. 300 [4th ed.].

c16.s2.37

⁴ E.I., Vol. IV, 142; Vol. XII, p. 4; Vol. IX, p. 56 and I.A., Vol. V, p. 176.

c16.s2.38

The ‘Magadha Dynasty’ of Kalinga. One of the earliest rulers of this Magadha dynasty was Śaktivarman and probably the next ones were Chandravarman and his son Vijayanandivarman. Vijayanandi-varman changed the dynastic name from ‘the Magadha family’ into ‘the Śālaṅkāyana dynasty’. This must have happened in or after Skanda Gupta’s time. We find a successor of Vijayanandi-varman Vijayadeva-varman) even performing a horse-sacrifice, i.e. declaring his full independence. It is almost certain that the later Vākāṭakas, when they conquered Kaliṅga, were asserting their rights as relations or successors of the Guptas, as well as their old right of overlordship over this part of the country, and their assertion must have been against the Śālaṅkāyanas. This ‘Magadha kula’ was evidently the ruling feudatory family set up by Samudra Gupta or his successor. They were Brahmins taken from Magadha. Their early kings issue their charters in Sanskrit. The name of the first ruler must have been Guha which the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa give. Its form as Guhān or Guham, [given in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa] is a remnant of the original accusative which is here lost in the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa. That a ruler over Kaliṅga with the name Guha (‘Guha Śiva’) was a feudatory under the Emperor of All-India and beyond (Jambudvīpa) ruling from Pāṭaliputra, who was Brahmanical in faith, is described in the legendary History of the Tooth Relic of Ceylon¹, which is believed to belong to the fourth century A.D. It seems to have its foundation in the fact of Guha’s governorship under Samudra Gupta.

c16.s2.39

¹ Dāṭhā-vaṃso, J.P.T.S., 1884, p. 109, verses 72-94 ff. “Guha-Śivāhvayo rājā” (72); “taththa rājā mahātejo Jambu-dīpasya issaro” (91); “tuhyaṃ sāmanta-bhūpālo Guha-Śīvo panādhunā, nindato tādise chhavatthiṃ vandate iti”. The complaint was made to the Emperor at Pāṭaliputra that his feudatory of Kaliṅga was worshipping a piece of ‘dead bone’, and reviling Brahmanical gods!

c16.s2.40

§ 126 A. The third unit of the Gupta Empire was the tract to the south of the Vindhyas, consisting of the Naiṣadha, Yaduka, Śaiśika and Kālatoyaka provinces. Śaiśika was next-door to Māhishmatī.² Taking Naiṣadha to be Berar, and Yaduka to be Devagiri (Daulatabad), we may fix this imperial province as being between the Bālāghāṭ range and the Sātpura, the valley of the Tāptī river. Kālatoyā is placed in the Mahā-Bhārata between the Ābhīras (Gujarat) and Aparānta.³ The ruler of this province, which was created at the cost of the Vākāṭaka Empire, was a Maṇidhānyaka, a son or a descendant of Maṇidhānya.¹ The province thus created was probably handed over to Pṛithivīsheṇa on conclusion of better relations, for Pṛithivīsheṇa must be ruling over this portion to be in direct contact with the king of Kuntala, whom he conquered.² We find in the reign of Chandra Gupta II the Vākāṭakas ruling in and from Berar.

c16.s2.41

² Wilson, Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Vol. II, pp. 166, 167.

c16.s2.42

³ Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 167, 168.

c16.s2.43

¹ Vāṭadhānya and Maṇidhānya were neighbours according to the Mahā-Bhārata—Wilson, V.P., Vol. II, p. 167. [Vāṭadhāna=Pāṭahāna=Pāṭhān.] ² E.I., Vol. IX, p. 269; A.S.W.R., Vol. IV, p. 125. ³ According to the Vishnu, bhokṣyati ‘will make others rule’ or ‘rule over’. ⁴ See Fleet, J.R.A.S., 1905, p. 293—‘Chola-Pāṇḍya-Kerala-dharaṇī-dhara-traya’. ⁵ Strīrājya and Kuntala are probably translations of Tamil words.

c16.s2.44

127. Then follows a unit in the South, the ruler of which is a man named K a n a k a, which like G u h a is a personal name and not that of a dynasty:

c16.s2.45

“Strīrāṣṭraṁ Bhojakāṁś chaiva bhokṣyate K a n a k ā h-vayaḥ” (V. and Br.).

c16.s2.46

‘The ruler of the name of K a n a k a will rule³ S t r i-r ā ṣ ṭ r a and the B h o j a k a s.’ The provinces here are more fully set out by the Vishnu:

c16.s2.47

“Strīrājya-Trairājya-Mūshika-janapadān Kanakāhvayaḥ bhokṣyati.”

c16.s2.48

M ū s h i k a is the country of the M ū s ī river which flows by Hyderabad to the south. Bhojaka seems to be a part of the Southern Maratha country. T r a i r ā j y a is the well-known group of the three traditional countries of the South.⁴ S t r ī r ā j y a which is always placed in the Purāṇas next to the Mūshika country and in association with Vanavāsa, I take to be identical with Karṇāṭa or Kuntala.⁵

c16.s2.49

128. Now, who could this great ruler be, who is the overlord of the three Tamil kingdoms at the time and who is causing his rule from the Mūshika country up to the Southern Konkan? Who is this man called Kanaka? The Pallavas are evidently superseded at this moment by this new dynast. This Kanaka, according to the Purāṇic description, is nearly the emperor of the South. The only ruling family to whom the description can refer was the newly founded Kadamba dynasty. Mayūraśarman, the Brahmin general of the Pallavas, had got a feudatory state from the Pallava Emperor [Pallavendra]. On the defeat of the Pallavas of Kāñchī, who were the leading power of the South, at the hand of Samudra Gupta, Mayūraśarman probably declared his independence. His son Kaṅga-varman seems to defied Samudra Gupta to be the Emperor of both the North and the South. The date of Kaṅga-varman is about 350 A.D.¹

c16.s2.50

¹ In the Kadamba Kula [pp. 13–18] dates are given on the assumption that Mayūraśarman began his rule as a result of Samudra Gupta’s southern conquests. But this is not correct. Mayūra, according to the Talagunda record, started his career as a political bandit and was given a fief by the ‘Pallava Emperor’ whose service he entered as a general and who anointed him as his Senāpati [paṭṭa-bandha-sampūjām, E.I., VIII. 32. Senāpatis received paṭṭabandha (‘pagree’-binding ceremony), according to the Rājā-Niti-mayūkha]. No aśvamedha by him is recorded in the Talagunda inscription of his great-grandson. It was probably in his last years that he assumed kingship. Cf. A.R.S.M., 1929, p. 50. His son Kaṅga was the first to assume the royal designation °varman. Mayūraśarman’s time should be regarded as 325-345 A.D. and that of his son Kaṅga, 345-360 A.D. This is confirmed by the date of Kākusthavarman on his plate which he issued as yuvarāja. It is dated in the 80th year. The Kadambas never founded any era of their own. We do not find there the era in which the 80th year is given, before or after any more. Prithiviṣeṇa conquered the king of Kuntala, i.e. the Kadamba king who could be no other than Kaṅga. Prithiviṣeṇa himself at the time was under Samudra Gupta, and Kākustha gave a daughter in marriage to the Guptas. The era used by the Yuvarāja Kākustha must be the Gupta era. In 400 A.D. [80 G.E.] Kākustha was the Yuvarāja to his elder brother Raghu. The time of his great-grandfather would thus be about 320-340 A.D. or 325-345 A.D.; that of Kaṅga who abdicated, about 340-355 or 345 to 360 A.D.; and of Kākustha, about 410-430 A.D. The dates proposed by Mr. Moraes in his Kadamba Kula for the Early Kadambas should go higher up by some 20 years.

c16.s2.51

See on Mayūraśarman’s newly discovered Chandravalli (Chitaldrug) lake inscription where he is registered merely as ‘Kadambāṇam’ (without any title) [A.S.R. Mysore, 1929, 50], and a corrected reading of the inscription, App. B (below). There is no ‘Mokari’, ‘Pāriyātrika’ or ‘Saka’ in the insc.

c16.s2.52

to the Talagunda inscription [E.I., 8, 35] Kaṅga performed ‘lofty great exploits in terrible wars and his diadem was shaken by the Chauris of his provincial feudatories’. Kaṅga was defeated by the Vākāṭaka king Pṛithivīsheṇa I and he abdicated.¹ Kanaka here seems to be a Sanskritisation of the Tamil Kaṅga. Another reading of the Purāṇic name, in the Viṣṇu, is Kāṇa.² It seems that on assumption of imperial power he was by Pṛithivīsheṇa, who was at that time a feudatory of Samudra Gupta, brought to book, and his abdication was evidently a consequence of his imperial ambition and failure.

c16.s2.53

¹ Kadamba Kula, p. 17.

c16.s2.54

² Wilson's Viṣṇu, Vol. IV, p. 221, note by Hall.

c16.s2.55

§ 129. The Purāṇas help us to fix the period of the rise of Kāṇa or Kanaka, i.e. Kaṅga. Let us see what is the exact point of time at which the Purāṇas are describing here the Guptas and their contemporaries. This is the last section of their chronicles. The Mālavas, the Ābhīras, the Āvantyas and the Śūras [=Yaudheyas]³ had not yet come under the imperial sway. They are mentioned as independent states by the Bhāgavata; the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa do not give them in their list of Samudra Gupta's provinces. Nor do they include the Punjab. They assign, in Āryāvarta, only the valley of the Ganges, Oudh, and Bihar to the Guptas. With their definite date—100 years from Vindhyaśakti—the Purāṇas take 348-349 A. D. as the landmark for the close of their chronicles, that is, the date of the death of Rudradeva or Rudrasena Vākāṭaka as their exact point of time. The way the Purāṇas show fullness about the Nāga history, the Vākāṭaka Empire, and its successor, the Empire of Samudra Gupta [covering the same area of Kosalā, Mekalā, Andhra, Naishadha, etc.], indicates that this part of the chronicles closing with the death of King Rudrasena was composed in the Vākāṭaka kingdom and with the help of the Vākāṭaka royal records. The death of Rudrasena—348-349 A.D., being the date of the Purāṇic history of Gupta India, it naturally does not give a full picture of Samudra Gupta's empire, and it records the Śakas or Yaunas still ruling in Sindh the Western Punjab and Afghanistan. The date of the rise of Kaṅga therefore will also be c. 348-349 A.D.

c16.s2.56

³ See § 146 below.

c16.s2.57

130. Samudra Gupta after his first war in Āryāvarta was really going over the empire of the Vākāṭakas, commencing his campaign from Bihar via Chota Nagpur to Kosala, etc., the South-Eastern parts of the Vākāṭaka Empire and then back into Āryāvarta. At this moment it would be convenient to trace and follow the course of Samudra Gupta's conquests. We would, therefore, put off the discussion on the Republics and the Mlechchha State of Sindh, Kashmir and Afghanistan, and take up in the next chapter the wars of Samudra Gupta.

XIII. Samudra Gupta's Wars in Āryāvarta and in the South

c16.s3.1

§ 131. According to the Allahabad inscription, Samudra Gupta's wars in Āryāvarta were in two parts—one before the Southern expedition and the other after the Southern expedition. The result of these wars was the Gupta Empire as portrayed in the Purāṇas, almost with exactitude, in the shape of its three imperial provinces (§ 125) along with the home province of Anu-Gaṅgā-Prayāga-Sāketa-and-Magadha.

c16.s3.2

132. The first act of Samudra Gupta, which turned the scales of his political fortunes in his favour, was a pitched battle at some place where he defeated two, or rather three, kings—Achyuta, Nāgasena and Gaṇapati Nāga. The immediate result of this was that the Prince of the family of Koṭa (whose name is not given in the verse) was captured by his armies, and Samudra Gupta had the pleasure of re-entering Pushpapura. The verse 7, lines 13 and 14, of the Allahabad pillar inscription describes this as follows:

c16.s3.3

udvelodita-bāhu-viryya-rabhasād-ekena yena kṣaṇād
unmūly-Achyuta-Nāgasena-Ga……
daṇḍair grāhayat-aiva Koṭa-kulajaṁ Pushp-āhvaye krīḍatā,
sūryyene….taṭa………

c16.s3.4

The letters after *Ga* are lost but probably the name of Gaṇapat....was there which is suggested by the remaining letter *ṇa* and the requirement of the metre. This we can gather from the grouping in line 21 which is in prose and which begins the Nāgasena-Achyuta group with Gaṇapati-Nāga:

c16.s3.5

Gaṇapati-Nāga-Nāgasena-Achyuta-Nandi-Balavarma—The most important personality of the group is Gaṇapati Nāga. The great result of the battle being avowedly an easy capture of Pāṭaliputra and of the Prince of the family of Kota, the battle must have been intimately connected with the question of the recovery of Magadha. Samudra Gupta himself did not capture ‘Kota’s descendant’ who was the ruler of Pāṭaliputra at the time. We may take it, therefore, that one army had attacked or laid siege to Pushpapura, and that Samudra Gupta gave battle to Nāgasena and Achyuta and also probably to Gaṇapati at a place other than Pāṭaliputra, and at some distance from Pāṭaliputra. Now, we know from coins and from the *Bhāvaśataka*, a work written under the reign of Gaṇapati Nāga (§ 31) that Gaṇapati Nāga was the ruler of Malwā (*Dhārādhīśa*) with his capital at Padmāvatī and probably a second capital at Dhārā. The name of Achyuta Nandi as set out in full in line 21, and the coin of ‘Achyuta’ found at Ahichhatra which has the same symbols as on the Nāga coins of Padmāvatī and also has the same fabric, suggest that he was a scion of the Nāgas. Nāgasena was probably the son of Kirtisheṇa of Mathurā,¹ father-in-law of Kalyāṇavarman king of Magadha and Pāṭaliputra.² As Kalyāṇavarman who had dispossessed Chaṇḍasena of Pāṭaliputra was related to the king of Mathurā and thus belonged to the confederacy of the Nāga-Vākāṭakas, we find Nāgasena and Achyuta Nandi, in all probability led by Gaṇapati who was a noted soldier and the leader of the Nāgas according to the Bhāvaśataka, meeting Samudra Gupta in a pitched battle. They might have been on their way to the relief of Pāṭaliputra. The convenient place upon which the kings or rulers from Ahichchhatra, Mathurā and Padmāvatī could have converged was Kauśāmbī or Allahabad, more likely the former, as the old royal route to Pāṭaliputra lay through Kauśāmbī. The proclamation of this victory on the Kauśāmbī Pillar seems to convey that meaning. The praśasti was meant to be engraved on this very pillar, as line 30 expressly mentions:

c16.s3.6

¹ This Nāgasena is to be distinguished from the Nāgasena of Padmāvatī, a member of the Nāga family, mentioned by Bāṇa in the *Harsha-Charita*, for the latter had met with his end not on a battle-field, but on account of some political intrigue at Padmāvatī. No coin of his is found. He seems to have been a Gupta subordinate.

c16.s3.7

² *Kaumudī-mahotsava*, Act IV.

c16.s3.8

bāhurayam-uchchhhritaḥ stambhaḥ.

c16.s3.9

All the three rulers or sub-kings were killed in one day (kṣaṇāt) on the battlefield.

c16.s3.10

133. This war may be dated in or about 344-45 A.D. immediately after the death of Pravarasena I, the Vākāṭaka Emperor. This war gave the large tract of the Gangetic valley to Samudra Gupta. From Oudh which already belonged to him and had been his base, his territory extended up to Hardwar and the Siwalik, and to the east, from Allahabad up to Bhagalpur at least, if not up to Bengal which seems to be included by the Purāṇic reference to Pauṇḍra. Leaving probably the valley of the Yamunā for the time being, Samudra Gupta consolidated his power in Magadha and decided upon attacking the south-eastern end of the Vākāṭaka empire. It was far from the centre of the Vākāṭaka seat of power which, up to that time, was in the Kilakilā region. To Samudra Gupta it was nearer from Chota Nagpur. The Vākāṭakas evidently governed their provinces of Kosalā-Mekalā through and from the Central Provinces. Samudra Gupta, therefore, could cause successfully, apart from other military considerations, not only confusion but almost helplessness to the Vākāṭaka Emperor by attacking the Vākāṭakas in Kosalā, Mekalā and Andhra. The Pallavas who occupied an important position in the South at the time were in subordinate alliance with the Vākāṭaka Emperor, being their branch. The four Aśvamedhas of the late Vākāṭaka samrāṭ had given him dominion over all the four quarters of India. In the South Samudra Gupta had a policy more of conciliation than of aggression. He captured rulers and released them, and except for the territories which were integral parts of the Vākāṭaka Empire—Kosalā and Mekalā—he did not annex any southern territory. In Kaliṅga he set up a new feudatory. His progress, consequently, in the South must have been swift. At the same time it was very profitable. The whole of Northern India was soon flooded with gold presumably imported from the South. Samudra Gupta coined only gold money, and at his aśvamedha at a later stage, he struck gold coins to such a volume that he could distribute them to an unprecedented extent.

c16.s3.11

§ 134. It cannot be entertained that the enumeration of the names of the Southern kings and chiefs in the Allahabad record is made at random. The writer Harisheṇa, who was one of Samudra Gupta's marshals and a man intimately associated with the emperor and who held the portfolio of the Minister of Peace and War, must be expected to follow an accurate record of his master's conquests. He was composing history which was intended to be published on an Aśokan pillar for all ages to come. He divided the conquests and submission of All India into Southern, Northern, Western and North-West groups, where he was following a geographical plan with accuracy. The string of names could not have been put in by haphazard. Further, we may assume that the composition must have found approval of the Emperor who was alive when the record was published.¹ Kāñchī, Avamukta, Veṅgī and Palakka are one division. Palakka as Palakkada appears several times in Pallava inscriptions² which refer to grants in the Guntur District, and also to Veṅgorāshṭra which here corresponds with Samudra Gupta's Veṅgī between the Godāvarī and the Krishṇā.

c16.s3.12

¹ Ante, p. 121, n. 2. See Bühler's opinion, J.R.A.S., 1898, p. 386, with which I fully agree.

c16.s3.13

² I.A., Vol. V, pp. 51, 52, 155, consult also E.I., Vol. VIII, p. 159 [kada='place', p. 161.]

c16.s3.14

135. This Southern or the ‘Dakshiṇāpatha’ campaign was not undertaken, as generally supposed, as a digvijaya. It was a military move against the Vākāṭaka power, necessitated by the result of Samudra Gupta's first battle in Āryāvarta in which Gaṇapati Nāga, Achyuta Nandi and Nāgasena fell. The second centre of the Vākāṭaka power was rooted in the Andhra country, where, from the capital Daśanapura¹ the junior branch of the Vākāṭakas had been ruling as 'the Pallava emperors' ('Pallavendra'²) of the South, and had penetrated as far south as Kāñchī, the capital of the Cholas—the most important Tamil State. Samudra Gupta's sole objective in the South was the Pallava army. If, to avenge the destruction of the Vākāṭaka military leaders (Gaṇapati Nāga and others) in the North, the Pallavas with their generals and feudatories from the South and Rudrasena from Bundelkhand invaded Bihar, Samudra Gupta would have been placed between two fires. To avoid this junction, Samudra Gupta would have thought of taking them and dealing with them in detail. He descended swiftly via Chota Nagpur, Sambhalpur and Bastar straight into Veṅgi, the original seat of the Pallavas, and reached the battlefield on the Colair Lake. It is the old route which takes one direct into Andhra-deśa. Samudra Gupta did not follow the East-Coast route, as none of the lower Bengal and Orissa towns is mentioned by his secretary Harisheṇa. The Colair Lake in the seventh century again became the arena of a sanguinary fight in the time of Pulakeśin II.³ If we consider the list of the rulers enumerated by Samudra Gupta's secretary and prince-marshal, we see at once that all these rulers belonged to the regions of Andhra and Kaliṅga lying within the range of the Kurāla or Colair Lake. They were all, evidently, assembled together (§ 135 A) and a decisive battle was fought,⁴ and owing to some clever movement and strategy on the part of Samudra Gupta all the leaders were enveloped, a débâcle followed and they surrendered. Samudra Gupta restored them to liberty on terms. Samudra Gupta returned from this place—the region between Bezwada and Rajahmundry. He had no necessity to go to Kāñchī. Nor was he interested at the time in any other Southern state either on the East Coast or the West Coast. He hurried back to Bihar, having defeated and generously and diplomatically won over the Pallava group and having detached them from the Vākāṭaka allegiance. When back, he marched against Rudra Deva who fought bravely as every one of his northern subordinates did, and was killed with them on the battlefield, probably at Eran (§ 137).

First 118 of 234 passages. Read on

Linked texts (33)