Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Vakataka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c10: Chapter VI. The Rise of the Guptas

The Vākāṭaka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI. The Rise of the Guptas

c10.2

Gupta families or clans existed in India from very early times. The names of officials ending in Gupta are found in the records of the Sātavāhanas, and even a queen of Gupta family (*Gupta-vaṃśoditā*) is referred to in an old Brāhmī inscription. The well-known Bharhut Pillar inscription of the Śuṅga period also refers to the son of Rājan Visadeva as *Gotiputa*, indicating thereby that his queen was a *Gaupti* (i.e., belonging to the Gupta clan). The same surname, *Gotiputa*, occurs in many other ancient records.¹ These instances show the importance and antiquity of the Gupta family or clan. Whether there was one parent clan from which all others branched or there were different families, without any connection, who adopted this name at different times, cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. But the latter seems more probable in view of the wide spread of the name all over North India and the Deccan.

c10.3

¹ For the inscriptions referred to, cf. Lüder's List, Nos. 1105, 1125, 11, 687, 92a, 94, 96, 156, 194, 271, 442, 663, 680-2, 1088. In No. 681 the Gotiputra is said to be of the Kauṇḍinya *gotra*.

c10.4

We possess very little information regarding the early history of the Gupta family that was destined to raise the name to an imperial dignity. Practically all that *definitely* known is contained in the conventional genealogical account given in several Gupta records. According to this Samudra-gupta was "the son of the son's son of the Mahārāja, the illustrious (*Śrī*) Gupta; the son's son of the Mahārāja, the i lustrious (*Śrī*) Ghaṭotkacha; the son of the Mahārājādhirāja, the illustrious (*Śrī*) Chandra-gupta, and the daughter's son of Lichchhavi (*Lichchhavi-dauhitra*) begotten on the Mahādevī Kumāradevī".

c10.5

This brief account not only gives the names of the first three kings of the dynasty, but indirectly also supplies very valuable information about them. In the first place, the contrast between the titles *Mahārāja* of the first two kings and the *Mahārājādhirāja* of the third (and his successors) cannot but be regarded as deliberate, indicating a difference in rank and status. There nca be little doubt, therefore, that Chandra-gupta was a more powerful king than his father and grandfather. The latter are generally regarded as feudatories, for it has been held that "in the early Gupta and subsequent periods the title *Mahārāja* was applied only to feudatories, not to independent sovereigns". This view can, however, hardly be accepted as correct.¹ Further, even assuming that they were feudatories, we cannot say who was the paramount sovereign to whom they might have owed allegiance. We must, therefore, leave undecided the question whether the first two Gupta kings were really independent rulers or feudatory chieftains.

c10.6

¹ The examples of the Lichchhavis (Nepal), the Maghas, the Bhārasivas and the Vākāṭakas are sufficient to prove that the title *Mahārāja* does not necessarily indicate a feudatory rank.

c10.7

The epithet *Lichchhavi-dauhitra* (daughter's son of the Lichchhavi) applied to Samudra-gupta in the Gupta records down to the latest period seems to suggest that the marriage of Chandra-gupta I with the Lichchhavi (princess) Kumāradevī was an event of considerable importance. V. A. Smith expressed the view that Kumāradevī brought to her husband as her dowry valuable influence, which in the course of a few years secured to him a paramount position in Magadha and the neighbouring countries.² He even went so far as to suggest that 'the Lichchhavis were masters of Pāṭaliputra and Chandra-gupta, by means of his matrimonial alliance, succeeded to the power previously held by his wife's relatives. On the other hand Allan thinks that "the pride of the Guptas in their Lichchhavi blood was probably due rather to the ancient lineage of the Lichchhavis than to any material advantages gained by this alliance".³ It is to be remembered, however, that the *Mānava-dharmaśāstra* (X. 20, 22) regards the Lichchhavis as descendants of Vrātya Kshatriya, and Vrātyas are defined as those who, not fulfilling their sacred duties, were excluded from the Sāvitri. As purity, in the orthodox sense, counted far more than the antiquity of a family in ancient times, it may be doubted whether the Guptas laid so much stress on their Lichchhavi descent merely for the sake of social prestige. It appears more probable, therefore, that the marriage alliance of Chandra-gupta I was highly important from a political rather than social point of view.

c10.8

² *EHI*s. 279.

c10.9

³ CGD. p. xix.

c10.10

This view gains considerable strength if we carefully weigh the evidence of a class of coins (Pl. II, 7), which have "on the obverse the figures and names of Chandra-gupta and Kumāradevī, and on the reverse a goddess seated on a lion, along with the legend Lichchhavayaḥ (the Lichchhavis)." Mr. Allan's contention that these were struck by Samudra-gupta to commemorate the marriage of his parents is hardly convincing. The view, held by the old numismatists, that these coins were issued by Chandra-gupta jointly with the Lichchhavis and their princess Kumāradevī, who was his consort, has been very ably defended by Dr. Aiyangar and Dr. Altekar.¹ Altekar has rightly deduced from these coins "that Kumāradevī was a queen by her own right, and the proud Lichchhavis, to whose stock she belonged, must have been anxious to retain their individuality in the new imperial state." Indeed, it is difficult to offer any other reasonable explanation for the occurrence of the name 'Lichchhavayaḥ' on these coins. The use of the tribal name in plural number seems to imply that a vestige of the old republican constitution still persisted among the Lichchhavis, but the position of Kumāradevī indicates something like a hereditary monarchical constitution in actual practice. In any case, on the basis of the available evidence, we may reasonably assume that the marriage of Chandra-gupta and Kumāradevī led to the amalgamation of the Gupta principality with the Lichchhavi state, and the epithet Lichchhavi-dauhitra was deliberately given to Samudra-gupta to emphasise his right of succession to the dual monarchy.

c10.11

¹ Num. Suppl. XLVIII, 105 ff ; JIH. VI, Suppl. 10 ff.

c10.12

So far we are on tolerably sure grounds. But the location of the two states is a matter of considerable difficulty. Both the Gupta and the Lichchhavi kingdoms have been located by different scholars in Magadha, with Pāṭaliputra as capital, but these views are not supported by any positive evidence. Some light is thrown on this question by I-tsing. This Chinese pilgrim, who travelled in India during the period 671-695 A.D., refers to a king Śrī-Gupta (Chi-li-ki-to) as having built a temple for the Chinese priests and granted twenty-four villages as an endowment for its maintenance. This temple, known as the "Temple of China", was situated close to a sanctuary called Mi-li-kia-si-kia-po-no which was about forty *Yojanas* to the east of Nālandā, following the course of the Ganges. Allan proposed to identify this king Śrī-Gupta with Gupta, the founder of the Gupta dynasty.¹ Unfortunately, this identification is by no means certain. For I-tsing places Śrī-Gupta about 'five hundred years before his time', whereas the founder of the Gupta dynasty cannot be placed more than four hundred years before he wrote. Allan does not take this as a serious objection against the proposed identification in view of the "lapse of time and the fact that the Chinese pilgrim gives the statement on the authority of a tradition handed down from ancient times by old men." While there is a great deal of force in this argument, the chronological difficulty cannot be altogether ignored, and the identification of I-tsing's Śrī-Gupta with the founder of the Gupta dynasty, although highly probable, cannot be regarded as absolutely certain. We may, however, accept it as a provisional hypothesis and regard the original kingdom of Gupta as having comprised a portion of Bengal.²

c10.13

¹ CGD, p. xv.

c10.14

² HBR, pp. 69-70.

c10.15

As regards the Lichchhavis, they are known to have been settled in Vaiśālī (modern Basarh in Muzaffarpur district) in the time of Gautama Buddha, and, though conquered by Ajātaśatru, they continued as an important clan, as shown by references in Kauṭilya’s *Arthaśāstra* and *Manu Smṛti*. The Lichchhavis founded a kingdom in Nepal probably as early as the first or second century A.D. Whether they still continued to occupy Vaiśālī and the neighbouring region is not definitely known, but it is not unlikely, for reference to Nepāla in Samudra-gupta’s inscription proves that it was different from the Lichchhavi kingdom which he had inherited from his mother. On the whole, as in the case of the Guptas, although nothing is definitely known, the Lichchhavi kingdom of Kumāradevī may be provisionally located in North Bihar with Vaiśālī as its centre.

c10.16

It is very likely that the Guptas and Lichchhavis ruled over two contiguous states which were amalgamated by the marriage of Chandra-gupta and Kumāradevī. In view of what has been said above, we may regard a portion of North and West Bengal as forming a part of the Gupta territory, and North Bihar as that of the Lichchhavis. We do not know how far the former extended towards the west and the latter towards the south, but it seems probable that a considerable part of Bihar and Northern and Western Bengal was included in the joint kingdom. Beyond this it is impossible to say anything more even with a tolerable degree of plausibility.

c10.17

A strict and literal interpretation of the expression ‘five hundred years’, in the passage of I-tsing, would go to establish the rule of a king Śrī-Gupta (or Gupta with honorific Śrī, as is the case with the founder of the Gupta family) in Bengal in the last quarter of the second century A.D. Even if such a king really existed, we do not know his relationship, if any, with his namesake who flourished about a century later. A daughter of Chandra-gupta II, married to a Vākāṭaka prince, is said to have belonged to *Dhāraṇa-gotra* which must consequently have been the *gotra* of the Gupta family. It has been suggested from this that they may have been related to queen Dhāriṇī, the chief consort of Agnimitra.¹ But this is highly problematical. On the whole it is impossible, at the present state of our knowledge, to say anything about the antecedents of the royal family founded by *Mahārāja* Gupta. Reference may be made in this connection to two seals, one with the legend *Gutasya* (in mixed Sanskrit and Prākṛit) and the other with the Sanskrit legend “*Śriguptasya*”.¹ Both of these, or at least the latter, might belong to the founder of the Gupta family, but this is by no means certain.

c10.18

¹ PHAI. 443 fn.

c10.19

¹ *JRAS*, 1901, p. 99 ; 1905, p. 814.

c10.20

The third king Chandra-gupta I is undoubtedly the first powerful king of the family who extended its power and prestige to a considerable extent. But beyond his marriage with the Lichchhavi princess, and the assumption of the title *Mahārājādhirāja*, we hardly possess any definite information about him. It is generally assumed that he founded a new era, dating from his coronation, which took place on December 20, 318 A. D., or February 26, 320 A.D., according to different calculations of the exact epoch of the Gupta Era. But there is nothing to prove definitely that it was he who founded this era. It merely rests on the belief that he was a very powerful king and his two predecessors were too insignificant to found an era. Both these assumptions are highly probable but lack convincing proof.

c10.21

At the same time we should not lose sight of the possibility that the era commemorates the accession of Samudra-gupta who is definitely known to have established a vast empire. This theory finds support in the two copper-plate grants of Samudra-gupta found at Nālandā and Gayā and dated respectively in the years 5 and 9. The genuineness of these two plates is certainly not above suspicion, but it is difficult to assert positively that at least the first of these is a forged one.² If, therefore, we believe that it was issued in year 5 of Samudra-gupta, it would be more reasonable to regard the Gupta era as commemorating the year of Samudra-gupta's accession, rather than that of his father. In any case we should not forget that the almost unanimously accepted view that Chandra-gupta I founded the Gupta era is at best a reasonable and probable hypothesis, but by no means an established fact.

c10.22

² *IC*. XI, 225.

c10.23

² Jayaswal's reconstruction (ABORI. XII, 50 ; JBORS. XIX, 113) of the origin and early history of the Guptas, on the basis of the drama Kaumudī-mahotsava, though supported by some (JBORS. XXI, 77 ; XXII, 275) has been justly rejected by most other scholars (Aiyangar Comm. Vol. pp. 359-362 ; IC. IX, 100 ; IHQ. XIV, 582 ; Thomas Comm. Vol. p. 115 ; JAHRS. VI, 139). Still more illusory is a recent attempt (JBRS. XXX, 1) to write the Gupta history in detail with the help of a passage in Bhaviṣyottara-Purāṇa, which is a palpable modern forgery (IHQ. XX, 345). It is impossible to take these views seriously and notice them in a sober historical work.

c10.24

It is difficult to form an exact idea of the extent of the Gupta kingdom under Chandra-gupta I. It almost certainly included the greater part of Bihar and also very probably a portion of U. P. and Bengal. But any attempt to define it more precisely is beset with difficulties. (See Appendix).

c10.25

The foregoing discussion would make it clear that we possess very little definite information regarding the origin and early history of the Guptas. It would be idle to speculate further on this subject until more facts come to light. It has been suggested that Chandra-gupta I liberated "the people of Magadha from the thraldom of the hated Scythian foreigner." The history of the Kushāṇas has been dealt with in a preceding chapter, and there is not a particle of positive evidence to support the view that Chandra-gupta I "simply drove out the Scythians and gave independence to the province of Magadha after three centuries of subjection and foreign oppression."[1] Such speculations are useless,[2] and for the present we may sum up the position somewhat as follows :-

c10.26

Towards the close of the third and the beginning of the fourth century A.D. there was no paramount political power in Northern India, and it presented the spectacle which usually follows the disintegration of an empire. The whole country was divided into a number of independent states both monarchical and non-monarchical. Two of these in Eastern India, viz., the Lichchhavi state and the principality founded by Gupta, were united by a marriage alliance, and Chandra-gupta I, grandson of Gupta and son of Ghatotkacha, ruled over a powerful kingdom which probably included not only the modern province of Bihar but also parts of U. P. and Bengal. He signalised his increased power and prestige by changing the title *Mahārāja* used by his father and grandfather for the higher imperial title *Mahārājādhirāja*, and probably also by founding an era. )

c10.27

¹ AIG. pp. 3, 5.

c10.28

It is a pity that nothing is known of the heroic deeds by which Chandra-gupta paved the way for the future greatness of his kingdom. But one of his last acts, which perhaps contributed more than anything else in this direction, was the selection of his son Samudra-gupta as his successor, who built on the foundation, so well laid by him, a noble structure that has immortalised his family.

Appendix: The Extent of the Kingdom of Chandra-gupta I

c10.s1.2

(The idea that Chandra-gupta's dominions comprised Sāketa (Oudh), Prayāga (Allahabad) and Magadha (South Bihar) is widely accepted. It rests upon a Purāṇic verse which is restored as follows by Pargiter ;

c10.s1.3

*Anu-Gaṅgā Prayāgaṃ cha Sāketam Magadhāṃs tatha |*
*Etān janapadān sarvān bhokshyante Gupta-vaṃśajāḥ ||*

c10.s1.4

He translates it as follows :—"Kings born of the Gupta race will enjoy all these territories, namely, along the Ganges, Prayāga, Sāketa and the Magadhas." The expression *anu-Gaṅgā* (along the Ganges) is somewhat vague, and may be connected with the next word to mean all the territories along the Ganges, from its mouth to Prayāga. Some have taken it as a qualifying epithet to the three other place-names, but then Sāketa can hardly be regarded as a territory along the Ganges. But this is not all. Some Purāṇic texts substitute 'Gupta' 'Guhya' 'Sapta' or 'Maṇidhānyajāḥ' for 'Gupta-vaṃśajāḥ' of the above passage. The corresponding prose passage is *Vishṇu* is "Anu-Gaṅgā Prayāgaṃ Māgadhā Guptāś-cha bhokshyanti " *i.e.*, the territory along the Ganges (up to) Prayāga will be enjoyed by the people of Magadha and the Guptas.¹ This considerably modifies the extent of the Gupta kingdom.

c10.s1.5

¹ DKA, p. 53 fn. 8.

c10.s1.6

These discrepancies render it a difficult task to reconstrue from the Purāṇic passage the extent of territory ruled over by the Guptas. But many scholars go even further and identify the territories, as enunciated in Pargiter's emended text, as those of Chandra-gupta I. It should be remembered that the passage in the Purāṇa is followed by a description of other kingdoms, and at least two individual rulers are mentioned. In the particular passage the Guptas, in plural number, are described as the rulers. It is *prima facie* unreasonable, therefore, to think that the author of the passage had specifically the kingdom of Chandra-gupta I in view. Even taking the extended territory of the emended text of Pargiter, it may describe equally well the territory of Chandra-gupta I or that of Samudra-gupta at a certain stage of his victorious career. Some have even taken it as the Gupta dominions in the period of decline after Skanda-gupta. In any case, considering the various difficulties of interpretation and uncertainties in the texts, it is hardly justified to assign too great an importance to the Purāṇic passage, and far less to rely upon it in deducing the extent of territory ruled over by Chandra-gupta I.

Cites (5)