Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c20.s3: Section III. Samudra Gupta Parākramāṅka

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c20.s3

Language
English

Section III. Samudra Gupta Parākramāṅka

c20.s3.1

The exact date when Chandra Gupta I was succeeded by his son, Samudra Gupta, is not known. If the evidence of the spurious Nālandā plate (issued from Nṛipura) has any value the event may have happened before the year 5 of the Gupta Era, *i.e.*, A.D. 325. But this is doubtful. It is clear not only from the Allahabad *Praśasti* but from the epithet "*tatpādaparigṛihīta*," applied to Samudra Gupta in the Ṛiddhapur inscription, that the prince was selected from among his sons by Chandra Gupta I as best fitted to succeed him. The new monarch may have been known also as Kācha.²

c20.s3.2

² The epithet *Sarva-rājo-chchhettā* found on Kācha's coins shows that he was in all probability identical with Samudra Gupta. Cf. Smith, *Catalogue*, 96; IA, 1902, 259f. For another view see Smith, *JRAS*, 1897, 19; Rapson, *JRAS*, 1893, 81; Heras, *Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute*, Vol. IX, p. 83f. To us it is unthinkable that the style "uprooter of all kings" could have been assumed by a Gupta monarch other than the one who is actually credited with that achievement by a contemporary inscription, before the events presupposed by the expression had actually happened. In the Poona plates we find the epithet applied to Chandra Gupta II, son of Samudra Gupta, along with many other designations of the latter. But it should be remembered that the plates in question are not official records of the Guptas themselves. In no official epigraph of the Imperial Guptas is the style "*Sarva-rājo-chchhettā*" applied to any other king except Samudra Gupta. The application of the term to Chandra Gupta II in the Poona Plates is due to the same carelessness which led the writer to describe Chandra Gupta I as a mere *Mahārāja* (and not *Mahārājādhirāja*). A comparison of the Āmgāchhi record with the Bāṇagaḍ Inscription shows that writers of *Praśastis* not unoften carelessly applied to a later king eulogies really pertaining to a preceding ruler.

c20.s3.3

It was the aim of Samudra Gupta to bring about the political unification of India (*dharaṇi-bandha*) and make himself an *Ekarāṭ* or sole ruler like Mahāpadma. But his only permanent annexation was that of portions of *Āryāvarta* in the upper valley of the Ganges and its tributaries, together with certain districts in Central and Eastern India. Following his “ *Sarvakshatrāntaka* ”¹ predecessor, this *Sarva-rājo-chchhettā*, “ exterminator of all kings,” uprooted Rudradeva, Matila, Nāgadatta, Chandravarman, Gaṇapati Nāga, Nāgasena, Achyuta, Nandi, Balavarman, and many other **kings of Āryāvarta**, ² captured the scion of **the family of Kota** and made all the kings of forest countries (*āṭavika-rāja*) his servants. Rudradeva has been identified by Mr. Dikshit with Rudrasena Vākāṭaka. But the Vākāṭakas can hardly be regarded as rulers of Āryāvarta, and they were far from being uprooted in the time of Samudra Gupta.³ Equally untenable is the identification of Balavarman with a prince of Assam, a province that was then looked upon as a border state (*Pratyanta*) and not as a part of Āryāvarta. Matila has been identified with a person named “ Mattila ” mentioned in a seal found in Bulandshahr in the **Central Doāb**. The absence of any honorific title on the seal leads Allan to suggest that it was a private one. But we have already come across several instances of princes being mentioned without any honorific. Chandravarman has been identified with the king of the same name mentioned in the Susunia ⁴ inscription, who was the ruler of Pushkaraṇa and was possibly the founder of Chandravarman-koṭa mentioned in the Ghugrahātī grant. Some scholars identify Pushkaraṇa with Pokran or Pokurna in Mārwār, and further equate Siṁhavarman, the name of the father of Chandravarman, with Siṁhavarman of the Mandasor family. But there is very little to be said in support of this conjecture. No mention of Chandravarman, or reference to his exploits, is found in any epigraphic record of the Varman family of Western Mālwa. Pushkaraṇa is really to be identified with a village named Pokharan on the Dāmodar river in the Bankura District, some 25 miles to the north-east of Susunia Hill.¹

c20.s3.4

¹ The titles *Parākrama*, *Vyāghraparākrama*, and *Parākramāṅka* are found on coins (Allan, *Catalogue*, pp. cxi, 1f) and in the Allahabad *Praśasti* (CII, p. 6). Recently a coin has been found with the legend *Śrī Vikramaḥ* on the reverse (Bamnālā hoard, Nimar district, *J. Num. Soc. Ind.*, Vol. V, pt. 2, p. 140, December, 1943).

c20.s3.5

¹ Destroyer of all Kshatriyas, an epithet of Mahāpadma.

c20.s3.6

² Father Heras thinks (*Ann. Bhan. Ins.*, IX, p. 88) that Samudra Gupta undertook two campaigns in *Aryāvarta*. But his theory involves the assumption that Achyuta and Nāgasena were “ violently exterminated ” in the second campaign after being “ uprooted ” in the first. To obviate the difficulty he takes “ uprooted ” to mean “ defeated ”. This is, to say the least, unconvincing.

c20.s3.7

³ *Cf. IHQ*, I, 2, 254. Rudrasena is connected with Deotek in the Chanda Dist. of C. P. *Eighth Or. Conf.* 613 ff. *Ep. Ind.*, xxvi. 147, 150.

c20.s3.8

⁴ “ A sandstone hill 12 miles to the north-west of Bankura.”

c20.s3.9

¹ *Cf.* Dikshit, *ASI, AR*, 1927-28, p. 188; S. K. Chatterji, "*The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language,*" II, 1061; IHQ, I, 2. 255. Paṇḍit H. P. Sāstrī believed that this local ruler who bore the modest title of Mahārāja was identical also with the mighty emperor (*bhūmipati prāpta aikādhirājya*) Chandra of the Meharauli Iron Pillar Inscription who "*in battle in the Vaṅga countries turned back with his breast the enemies who uniting together came against him and by whom having crossed in warfare the seven mouths of the Indus the Vāhlikas were conquered.*" Others suggest the identification of the great Chandra with one or other of the famous Chandra Guptas of the Imperial Gupta Dynasty. But Chandra is never styled either Chandravarman or Chandra Gupta and, unlike the court poets of the Varmans and Guptas, the panegyrist of the mighty Chandra, who is said to have carried his arms to the distant corners of India, never gives the slightest hint about his pedigree. He does not even mention the name of his father. It may be noted here that the Purāṇas represent the Nāgas as ruling in the Jumna Valley and Central India early in the fourth century A.D. We learn from the *Vishṇu Purāṇa* that Nāga dynasties ruled at Padmāvatī and Mathurā. A Nāga line probably ruled also at Vidiśā (Pargiter, *Kali Age*, p. 49). Two kings named Sadā-Chandra and Chandrāṁśa, "*the second Nakhavant,*" are mentioned among the post-Andhran kings of Nāga lineage. One of these, preferably the latter, who was obviously a ruler of note, may have been the Chandra of the Meharauli Inscription. The Vāhlikas beyond "*the seven mouths of the Indus*" are apparently the Baktrioi occupying the country near Arachosia in the time of the geographer Ptolemy (*Ind. Ant.*, 1884, p. 408). An inscription of Mahārājādhirāja Śrī Chandra has been discovered on a Jaina image at Vaibhāra hill (ASI, AR, 1925-26, p. 125). The identity of this Chandra is not clear.

c20.s3.10

Ganapati Nāga, Nāgasena and Nandi seem to have been Nāga princes. That Ganapati Nāga was a Nāga prince is evident. This ruler is also known from coins found at **Mathurā**, ¹ at Pawāyā near Narwar and at Besnagar. ² Nāgasena, who met his doom at **Padmāvatī** ³ near Narwar on the Sindh river between Gwalior and Jhansi, is mentioned as a scion of the Nāga family in the *Harsha-charita* (*Nāga-kula-janmanaḥ sārikāśrāvita mantrasya āsīdnāśo Nāgasenasya Padmāvatyām.* ⁴ Nandi was also probably a Nāga prince. In the *Purāṇas* Śiśu Nandi and Nandiyaśas are connected with the Nāga family of Central India. We know also the name of a Nāga prince named Śivanandi. ⁵ Achyuta was probably a king of **Ahichchhatrā**, modern Rāmanagar in the Bareilly District. To him has been attributed the small copper coins bearing the syllables '*achyu*' found at Ahichchhatrā. ⁶ As to the *Kota-kula* Rapson ⁷ draws our attention to certain coins bearing the inscription *Kota*. These resemble the "Śruta coins" attributed to a ruler of

c20.s3.11

¹ Altekar, *NHIP*, vi, 37.

c20.s3.12

² IHQ, I, 2, 255. Note the importance of the name of this king from the point of view of religious history. *Cf.* Gajamukha of the *Bṛihat Saṁhitā*, 58. 58. A reference to king Ganapati Nāga in the *Bhāva Sataka*, a late work, is more than doubtful. Gajavaktra Śrī of that work is a misreading for Gata Vaktra Śrī (IHQ, 1936, 135ff *Kāvyamālā*, IV, pp. 46f, 60).

c20.s3.13

³ Padamāvatī—"Padam Pawāyā (25 miles n. e. of Narwar) in the apex of the confluence of the Sindhu and the Pārā. Nāga coins have been found here; also a palmleaf capital with an inscription of the first and second century B.C." *EHI*⁴, p. 300, ASI, AR, 1915-16, pp. 101 ff.

c20.s3.14

⁴ "In Padmāvatī Nāgasena, born in the Nāga family, whose confidential deliberations were divulged by a *sārikā* bird, met his doom."

c20.s3.15

⁵ Dubreuil, *Ancient History of the Deccan*, p. 31. It is interesting to note that Garuḍa was the emblem of the Gupta kings who did much to curb the power of the Nāgas. *Cf.* the passage of the Junāgaḍh Inscription of Skanda Gupta:

c20.s3.16

⁶ Allan, *Gupta Coins*, xxii; *CCAI*, lxxix.

c20.s3.17

⁷ JRAS, 1898, 449 f.

c20.s3.18

*Narapati bhujagānāṁ mānadarpot phanānāṁ*
*pratikṛti Garuḍājñāṁ nirvishīṁ chāvakatā*

c20.s3.19

In the *Purāṇas* Kṛishṇa, the deity honoured by the Guptas, crushes the head of the serpent, nāga, Kāliya.

c20.s3.20

Śrāvastī and should apparently be referred to the upper Gangetic region.¹

c20.s3.21

¹ Smith (*Coins in the Indian Museum*, 258) points out that the Kota coins are common in the Eastern Pañjāb and the Delhi bazaar. A Kota tribe is said to exist also in the Nilgiris (*JRAS*, 1897, 863; Ind. Ant., iii, 36, 96, 205). The passage in the Allahabad Inscription that "Samudra Gupta caused the scion of the Kota family to be captured by his armies and took pleasure at Pushpāhvaya" has been taken by some scholars to suggest that the *Kotas* were at the time the ruling family of Pāṭaliputra (*cf*. Jayaswal, *History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.*, p. 113). The identification of the *Kota kula*, with the *Māgadha family* of the *Kaumudī-mahotsava* lacks proof.

c20.s3.22

The conquered territories were constituted as *Vishayas* or Imperial sub-provinces. Two of these *vishayas* are known from later inscriptions of the family, namely, Antarvedī or the Gangetic Doāb and Airikiṇa in Eastern Mālwa. It is significant that a Nāga styled the *Vishayapati* Śarva-nāga, figures as a ruler of Antarvedī as late as the time of Skanda Gupta.

c20.s3.23

The annexation of the northern kingdoms named above was not the only achievement of Samudra Gupta. He made the rulers of the *Āṭavika rājyas*, or forest states, his servants. But his most daring exploit was an expedition to the south, which made his power felt by the potentates of the Eastern Deccan. We perceive, however, a difference between his northern and southern campaigns. In the north he played the part of a "*digvijayī*" or "*conqueror of the quarters*," of the Early Magadhan type.² But in the south he followed the Epic and Kauṭilyan ideal of a "*dharmavijayī*" or "*righteous conqueror*," *i.e.*, he defeated the kings but did not annex their territory. He may have realised the futility of attempting to maintain effective control over these distant regions in the south from his remote base in the north-east of India. His successor tried to maintain his hold on the Deccan by a system of marriage alliances.

c20.s3.24

² This kind of *Vijaya* or conquest is termed *Asura-vijaya* "demon's conquest" in the *Arthaśāstra* (p. 382). The name may have been derived from the Assyrians, the ruthlessness of whose warfare is well-known. For a discussion regarding the possible derivation of Asura from Aššur, see *JRAS*, 1916, 355; 1924, 265ff. Conquest of this type is first met with in India in the sixth century B.C. (*cf*. Ajātaśatru's subjugation of the Lichchhavis and Viḍūḍabha's conquest of the Śākyas) when Persia served as a link between Assyria and India.

c20.s3.25

The **Āṭavika** *rājyas* undoubtedly included the realm of Ālavaka (Ghāzīpur) as well as the forest kingdoms connected with Ḍabhālā or the Jabbalpur territory.¹ The conquest of this region by Samudra Gupta is suggested also by his Eraṇ inscription.

c20.s3.26

¹ Fleet, CII, p. 114; *Ep. Ind.*, VIII, 284-287. In the latter part of the fifth and early part of the sixth century A.D., the Dabhālā country was governed by the *Parivrājaka Mahārājas* as feudatories of the Guptas. The *Mbh.* ii. 31, 13-15, like the Allahabad Praśasti, distinguishes the Āṭavikas from the Kāntārakas. One of the Āṭavika states may have been Koṭāṭavi mentioned in the commentary on the *Rāma-charita* of Sandhyākara Nandi (p. 36). In one epigraphic record, *Ep. Ind.*, VII, p. 126, we have a reference to a place called Vaṭāṭavi, while another, Lüder's *List*, No. 1195, mentions Sahalāṭavi.

c20.s3.27

The **Kings of Dakshiṇāpatha** who came into conflict with the great Gupta were Mahendra of Kosala, Vyāghra-rāja of Mahākāntāra, Maṇṭarāja of Kaurāla, Svāmidatta of Koṭṭūra, a chieftain of Pishṭapura whose precise name is uncertain,² Damana of Eraṇḍapalla, Vishṇugopa of Kāñchī, Nīlarāja of Avamukta, Hastivarman of Veṅgī, Ugrasena of Palakka, Kubera of Devarāshṭra, Dhanaṁjaya of Kusthalapura and others.

c20.s3.28

² For the various interpretations of the passage "*Paishtapuraka Mahendragiri Kauttūraka Svāmidatta*," see Fleet, CII, Vol. 3, p. 7; *JRAS*, 1897, pp. 420, 868-870; *IHQ*, 1925, 252; Barua, *Old Brāhmī Inscriptions*, 224. It is not improbable that Mahendragiri in this passage is a personal name. *Cf.* the name Kumāra-giri given to a chief of Koṇḍaviḍu whose territories included a portion at least of the Godāvari district (Kielhorn, *S. Ins.*, 596). In *JRAS*, 1897, 870, we have reference to Kamtagir, an ally of Sindhia.

c20.s3.29

Kosala in *Dakshiṇāpatha*, *i.e.*, South Kosala, comprised the modern Bilāspur, Raipur and Sambalpur districts, and occasionally possibly even a part of Gañjām.³ Its capital was Śrīpura, the modern Sirpur, about forty miles east by north from Raipur.¹ Mahākāntāra is apparently a wild tract of the Central Provinces (Madhya Pradeśa) which probably included Kāntāra which the *Mahābhārata* places between Veṇvātaṭa (the valley of the Waingaṅgā) and Prāk-Kosala, the eastern part of Kosala mentioned above.²

c20.s3.30

³ Inclusion of Ratnapur, *Ep. Ind.*, X, 26; of Koṅgoda, *Ep. Ind.*, VI, 141, unless Kosala is a misreading for Tosala.

c20.s3.31

¹ Fleet, *CII*, p. 293. *Cf.* *Ep. Ind.*, xxiii, 118f.

c20.s3.32

² *Mbh.* II. 31. 12-13. G. Ramdas (*IHQ*, I. 4, 684) identifies Mahākāntāra with the 'Jhāḍ-khaṇḍ' Agency tracts of Gañjām and Vizagapatam. The sway of the rājā of Mahākāntāra or "Greater Kāntāra", may have extended northwards as far as Nachna in the Ajaygarh (not Jaso) state (*Smith*, *JRAS*, 1914, 320). The identification of many of the southern kingdoms suggested by Mr. R. Sathianathaier (in his *Studies in the Ancient History of Toṇḍamaṇḍalam*) does not carry conviction. His conclusion that Samudragupta "first emerged on the east coast at Piṭhāpuram and conquered the Western Deccan" is based upon evidence that is clearly inadequate.

c20.s3.33

Kaurāla cannot be Kolleru or Colair which must have been included within the territory of Hastivarman of Veṅgī mentioned separately. Dr. Barnett suggests its identification with one of the villages that now bears the name Korāḍa³ in South India. There is a place named Kolāḍa near Russelkonda in Gañjām.

c20.s3.34

³ *Cal. Rev.*, Feb., 1924, 253 n. *Cf.* Kurrālam, Tj. 590 (*A Topographical List of Inscriptions of the Madras Presidency*, by V. Rangacharya). The identification with Yayātinagarī (*Ep. Ind.*, XI. 189), which Dhoyī connects with the sports of the Keralīs, was suggested in some editions of this work. But the reading Keralī in the *Pavanadūta* is not beyond doubt. For Kolāḍa see *Ep. Ind.*, XIX. 42.

c20.s3.35

Koṭṭūra has been identified with Kothoor, 12 miles south-east of Mahendragiri in Gañjām.⁴ Pishṭapura is Piṭhāpuram in the Godāvarī district. Eraṇḍapalla is identified by Fleet with Eraṇḍol in Khandesh, and by Dubreuil with Eraṇḍapali, "a town probably near Chicacole" in the Gañjām district.⁵ But G. Ramdas⁶ suggests the identification of Eraṇḍapalla with Yeṇḍipalli in Vizagapatam or Eṇḍapilli in Ellore Tāluk. Kāñchī is Conjeeveram near Madras. Avamukta cannot be satisfactorily identified. But the name of its king Nīlarāja reminds us of Nilapalli, "an old seaport near Yanam" in the Godāvarī district.¹ Veṅgī has been identified with Vegi or Pedda-Vegi, 7 miles north of Ellore between the Kṛishṇā and the Godāvarī. Its king Hastivarman was identified by Hultzsch with Attivarman (of the Ānanda family).² But the more probable view is that he belonged to the Śālaṅkāyana dynasty.³ Palakka is probably identical with Palakkada, (or Pālatkaṭa) a Pallava royal residence or seat of a viceroy in Guntur or Nellore in South India. Allan and G. Ramdas locate it in the Nellore district.⁴ Devarāshṭra is the Yellamañchili tāluk of the Vizagapatam district.⁵ Kusthalapura is, according to Dr. Barnett, probably Kuttalur, near Polur, in North Arcot.⁶

c20.s3.36

⁴ There is another Koṭṭura 'at the foot of the Hills' in the Vizagapatam district (Vizag., District Gaz., I. 137). See also Koṭṭūru (*IA*, 4, 329) and Koṭtūr-nāḍu, MS. 333, Rangacharya's *List*.

c20.s3.37

⁵ Dubreuil, *AHD*, pp. 58-60. A place called Eraṇḍavalli is mentioned in an inscription of Govinda III (*Bhārata Itihāsa Sam. Maṇḍala*, *AR*, XVI).

c20.s3.38

⁶ *IHQ*, 1, 4, p. 683. There is an Eraṇḍī tīrtha in *Pādma*, Svarga khaṇḍa, 45, 57, 61,

c20.s3.39

¹ Gazetteer of the Godāvari District, Vol. I, p. 213. Curiously enough, the Brahma Purāṇa (ch. 113. 22f) mentions an Avimukta-kshetra on the bank of the Gautamī, i.e., the Godāvarī. *Cf.* Avimukteśvara, Anantapur, 164 of Rangacharya's List.

c20.s3.40

² Attivarman was wrongly assigned to the Pallava race. *Cf.* IHQ, 1, 2, p. 253; *Ind. Ant.*, IX, 102. But he is actually described as born in the lineage of the great saint Ānanda (Bomb. *Gaz.*, I. ii, 334; Kielhorn, S. Ins., 1015; IA, IX, 102; ASI, 1924-25, p. 118).

c20.s3.41

³ The name Hastivarman is actually found in a Śālaṅkāyana Vaṁśāvalī (IHQ, 1927, 429; 1933, 212; Pedavegi plates of Nandivarman II).

c20.s3.42

⁴ IHQ, I. 2, 686. *Cf. Ep. Ind.*, xxiv. 140.

c20.s3.43

⁵ Dubreuil, AHD, p. 160; ASR, 1908-09, p. 123; 1934-35, 43, 65.

c20.s3.44

⁶ *Cal. Rev.*, 1924, p. 253 n. *Cf.* Kutalapaṟṟu, MS. 179 of Rangacharya's List.

c20.s3.45

The capture and liberation of the southern kings, notably of the ruler of Koṭṭūra near Mt. Mahendragiri remind us of the following lines of Kālidāsa's *Raghuvamśam*:—

c20.s3.46

*Gṛihīta-pratimuktasya sa dharma-vijayī nṛipaḥ*
*Śriyaṁ Mahendra-nāthasya jahāra natu medinīm*

c20.s3.47

“The righteous conqueror (Raghu) took away from the lord of the Mahendra Mountain, who was made captive and then released, his glory but not his territory.”

c20.s3.48

It is not a little surprising that the Allahabad *Praśasti* contains no clear reference to the Vākāṭakas who are known to have dominated part of the region between Bundelkhand and the Pengaṅgā in the fifth century A.D. The earliest reference to the Vākāṭakas occurs in certain inscriptions of Amarāvatī.¹ The dynasty rose to power under Vindhyaśakti I and his son Pravarasena I. Pravarasena appears to have been succeeded in the northern part of his dominions by his grandson Rudrasena I. Pṛithivīsheṇa I, the son and successor of Rudrasena I, may have been a contemporary of Samudra Gupta and perhaps also of his son Chandragupta II, inasmuch as his son Rudrasena II married the daughter of the last-mentioned Gupta emperor. Pṛithivīsheṇa I's political influence extended over a fairly wide territory. The Nach-nē-kī-talāî and Ganj regions² were in all probability ruled by *his* vassal Vyāghra-deva. Professor Dubreuil, however, says that the Nāchnā and Ganj inscriptions, which mention Vyāghra, belong, not to Pṛithivīsheṇa I, but to his great-great-grandson Pṛithivīsheṇa II. This is improbable in view of the fact that from the time of Pṛithivīsheṇa II's great-grandfather, if not from a period still earlier, down to at least A.D. 528, the princes of the region which intervenes between Nāchnā and Ganj and the proper Vākāṭaka territory,³ owned the sway of the Gupta empire.

c20.s3.49

¹ Ep. Ind., XV, pp. 261, 267.

c20.s3.50

² Fleet, CII, p. 233; Ep. Ind., XVII, 12. *Cf. Ind. Ant.*, June, 1926.

c20.s3.51

³ This was Berar with the adjoining regions (*cf.* Ep. Ind., xxvi. 147). That Nāchnā and Ganj were in the Gupta Age apparently included within Dakshiṇāpatha is suggested by the *Bṛihat Saṁhitā* (xiv. 13) which places even Chitrakūṭa in the Dakshiṇa or Southern Division. A recent Vākāṭaka Inscription discovered in the Drug District contains an interesting reference to Padmapura which Professor Mirashi identifies with the ancestral home of Bhavabhūti and with the modern Padampur near Amgaon in the Bhaṇḍārā District of the Central Provinces. *IHQ*, 1935, 299; *Ep. Ind.*, xxii, 207 ff. The Basim grant implies control of a branch of the family over the part of Berar south of the Ajanta range.

c20.s3.52

Now as Vyāghra of the Nāchnā and Ganj records acknowledges the supremacy of the Vākāṭaka Pṛithivīsheṇa, this Pṛithivīsheṇa can only be Pṛithivīsheṇa I, who ruled before the establishment of the Gupta supremacy in Central India by Samudra Gupta and Chandra Gupta II¹ and not Pṛithivīsheṇa II during whose rule the Guptas, and not the Vākāṭakas, were apparently the acknowledged suzerains of the Madhya Pradeśa as we learn from the records of the Parivrājaka *Mahārājas*.²

c20.s3.53

¹ The Eraṇ and Udayagiri Inscriptions. For evidence of Palaeography see JRASB, xii. 2, 1946, 73.

c20.s3.54

² *Cf. Modern Review*, April, 1921, p. 475. For Dubreuil's views, see *Ind. Ant.*, June, 1926.

c20.s3.55

The absence of any clear reference to Pṛithivīsheṇa I in Harisheṇa's *Praśasti* is explained by the fact that Samudra Gupta's operations were actually confined to the eastern part of Trans-Vindhyan India. There is no reliable evidence that the Gupta conqueror carried his arms to the central and western parts of the Deccan proper, *i.e.*, to the territory ruled by Pṛithivīsheṇa I himself. Professor Dubreuil has shown that the identification of Devarāshṭra with Mahārāshṭra and of Eraṇḍapalla with Eraṇḍol in Khandesh is probably wrong.³

c20.s3.56

³ *Cf. Modern Review*, 1921, p. 457.

c20.s3.57

Though Samudra Gupta did not invade the Western Deccan it is clear from his Eraṇ Inscription that he did deprive the Vākāṭakas of their possessions in Central India. These territories were not, however, directly governed by the Vākāṭaka monarch, but were under a vassal prince. In the time of Pṛithivīsheṇa this prince was Vyāghra. We should naturally expect a conflict between the Vākāṭaka feudatory and the Gupta conqueror. Curiously enough, the Allahabad *Praśasti* refers to Samudra Gupta's victory over Vyāghrarāja of Mahākāntāra.¹ It is probable that this Vyāghrarāja is identical with the Vyāghra of the Nāchnā inscription who was the Central Indian feudatory of Pṛithivīsheṇa. As a result of Samudra Gupta's victory the Guptas succeeded the Vākāṭakas as the paramount power in parts of Central India. Henceforth the Vākāṭakas appear in fact as a purely southern power.

c20.s3.58

¹ Has the title *Vyāghra-parākrama*, found on a type of Samudra Gupta's coins that represents the king as trampling on a tiger, anything to do with the emperor's victory over *Vyāghra-rāja*? It is not a little curious that the next sovereign, conqueror of Rudrasiṁha III, the last Satrap, assumed the title of *Siṁha-vikrama*.

c20.s3.59

The victorious career of Samudra Gupta must have produced a deep impression on the **Pratyanta**² *nṛipatis* or frontier kings of North-East India and the Himālayan region, and the tribal states of the Pañjāb, Western India, Mālwa and the Central Provinces, who are said to have gratified his imperious command (*prachaṇḍa śāsana*) "by giving all kinds of taxes, obeying his orders and coming to perform obeisance." The most important among the eastern kingdoms which submitted to the mighty Gupta Emperor were **Samaṭaṭa** (part of Eastern Bengal bordering on the sea, having its capital probably at Karmmānta or Baḍ-Kamta near Comilla),³ **Ḍavāka** (not yet satisfactorily identified)⁴ and **Kāmāarūpa** (in Lower Assam). We learn from the Dāmodarpur plates that the major portion of Northern Bengal, then known as Puṇḍravardhana-bhukti, formed an integral part of the Gupta Empire from A.D. 443 to A.D. 543, and was governed by a line of *Uparikas* as vassals of the Gupta Emperor. The identification of Davāka with certain districts of North Bengal is, therefore, probably wrong. The Northern *Pratyantas* were Nepāl and Kartṛipura. The latter principality comprised probably Katārpur in the Jālandhar district, and the territory of the Katuria or Katyur *rāj* of Kumaun, Garhwāl and Rohilkhand.¹

c20.s3.60

² For the significance of the term, see *Divyāvadāna*, p. 22.

c20.s3.61

³ Bhattasali, *Iconography*, pp. 4f. *JASB*, 1914, 85 ff. *Cf.* the position of Mahārāja Rudradatta under the emperor Vainya Gupta early in the sixth century A.D. (Gunaighar Ins.).

c20.s3.62

⁴ *Cf.* Dekaka (Dacca), Hoyland, *The Empire of the Great Mogol*, 14. Mr. K. L. Barua identifies Davāka with the Kopili Valley in Middle Assam (*Early History of Kāmarūpa*, 42 n). For the alleged use of Gupta era in the Dabokā region, see Ep., xxvii, 18f.

c20.s3.63

¹ EHI⁴, 302n; *JRAS*, 1898, 198. *Ep. Ind.*, XIII, 114; *cf.* J. U. P. Hist. Soc., July-Dec., 1945, pp. 217 ff, where Mr. Powell-Price suggests 'some sort of connection between the Kuṇindas and the Katyurs.'

c20.s3.64

The tribal states which paid homage were situated on the western and south-western fringe of Āryāvarta proper. Among these the most important were the Mālavas, Ārjunāyanas, Yaudheyas, Madrakas, Ābhīras, Prārjunas, Sanakānīkas, Kākas and Kharaparikas.

c20.s3.65

The Mālavas occupied part of the Pañjāb in the time of Alexander. They were probably in Eastern Rājaputāna² when they came into conflict with Ushavadāta. Their exact location in the time of Samudra Gupta cannot be determined. In the time of Samudra Gupta's successors they were probably connected with the Mandasor region. We find princes of Mandasor using the reckoning, commencing B.C. 58, handed down traditionally by the *Mālava-gaṇa* (*Mālava-gaṇ-āmnāta*).

c20.s3.66

² *Cf.* Smith, *Catalogue*, 161. Allan, *CCAI*, p. cv. Mālava coins have been found in vast numbers in the Jaipur State (*JRAS*, 1897, 883).

c20.s3.67

The Ārjunāyanas and the Yaudheyas are placed in the northern division of India by the author of the *Bṛihat-Saṁhitā*. They may have been connected with the Pandoouoi or Pāṇḍava tribe mentioned by Ptolemy as settled in the Pañjāb.³ The connection of the Ārjunāyanas with the Pāṇḍava Arjuna, is apparent.¹ Yaudheya appears as the name of a son of Yudhishṭhira in the *Mahābhārata*.² The *Harivaṁśa*, a later authority, connects the Yaudheyas with Uśīnara.³ A clue to the locality of this tribe is given by the Bijayagaḍh inscription.⁴ The hill-fort of Bijayagaḍh lies about two miles to the south-west of Byānā in the Bharatpur state of Rājaputāna. But the Yaudheya territory must have extended beyond the limits of this area and embraced the tract still known as Johiyabār along both banks of the Sutlej on the border of the Bahāwalpur state.⁵

c20.s3.68

³ *Ind. Ant.*, XIII, 331, 349.

c20.s3.69

¹ Their coins are found in the Mathurā region (Smith, *Catalogue*, 160). The *Abhidhāna-chintāmaṇi*, p. 434, identifies a river called Ārjunī with the Bāhudā (Rāmgaṅgā?).

c20.s3.70

² *Ādi.*, 95, 76. Yaudheyas are already known to Pāṇini, V. 3, 117.

c20.s3.71

³ Pargiter, *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, p. 380.

c20.s3.72

⁴ Fleet, *CII*, p. 251, Yaudheya votive tablets have been found in the Ludhiana District (*JRAS*, 1897, 887). Coins have been found in the area extending from Saharanpur to Multan (Allan, *CCAI*, clh.

c20.s3.73

⁵ Smith, *JRAS*, 1897, p. 30. *Cf.* Cunningham, *AGI*, 1924, 281.

c20.s3.74

The Madrakas had their capital at Sākala or Siālkoṭ in the Pañjab. The Ābhīras occupied the tract in the lower Indus valley and western Rājaputāna, near Vinaśana⁶ in the district called Abiria by the *Periplus*⁷ and the geography of Ptolemy. We have already seen that an Ābhīra possibly became *Mahākshatrapa* of Western India and probably supplanted the Sātavāhanas in a part of Mahārāshṭra before the middle of the third century A.D. A section of the tribe apparently settled in Central India and gave its name to the Āhīrwār country between Jhansi and Bhilsa.⁸ The territories of the Prārjunas, Sanakānīkas, Kākas and Kharaparikas lay probably in Mālwa and the Central Provinces. The Prārjunakas are mentioned in the *Arthaśāstra* attributed existence of a Muruṇḍa power in the Ganges valley a couple of centuries before Samudra Gupta is vouched for by Ptolemy.¹ The Jaina *Prabhāvaka-charita* testifies to the control that a Muruṇḍa family once exercised over the imperial city of Pāṭaliputra.²

c20.s3.75

⁶ *Sūdrābhīrān prati dveshād yatra nashṭā Sarasvatī*, Mbh., IX, 37. 1.

c20.s3.76

⁷ *Cf.* *Ind. Ant.*, III, 226 f.

c20.s3.77

⁸ *JRAS*, 1897, 891. *Cf.* *Ain-i-Akbari* II, 165; Malcolm, *CI*, I. 20.

c20.s3.78

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, 377; Allan, xxix; *cf. India Antiqua* (Vogel Volume, 1947), 171 f, Muruṇḍas in the Ganges Valley *c.* 245 A.D. mentioned by the Chinese.

c20.s3.79

² C. J. Shah, *Jainism in N. India*, p. 194; *Cf. Indian Culture*, III, 49.

c20.s3.80

Samudra Gupta's Ceylonese contemporary was Meghavarṇa. A Chinese writer, Wang Hiuen ts'e, relates that Chi-mi-kia-po-mo (*i.e.*, Śrī Meghavarman or Meghavarṇa) sent an embassy with gifts to Samudra Gupta and obtained his permission to erect a splendid monastery to the north of the holy tree at Bodh Gayā for the use of pilgrims from the Island.³

c20.s3.81

³ Geiger, the *Mahāvaṁsa* (trans.), p. xxxix; Lévi, *Journ. As.*, 1900, pp. 316 ff., 401 ff.; *Ind. Ant.*, 1902, 194.

c20.s3.82

Allan thinks that it was at the conclusion of his campaigns that the Gupta conqueror celebrated the horse-sacrifice⁴ which, we are told in the inscriptions of his successors, had long been in abeyance. But it should be noted that the *Aśvamedha* was celebrated by several kings during the interval which elapsed from the time of Pushyamitra to that of Samudra Gupta, *e.g.*, Pārāśarī-putra Sarvatāta, Śātakarṇi, the husband of Nāyanikā, Vāsiśhṭhīputra Ikshvāku Śrī-Chāṁtamūla, Devavarman Śālaṅkāyana, Pravarasena I Vākāṭaka, Śiva-skandavarman Pallava and the Nāga kings of the house of Bhāraśiva. It is probable, however, that the court poets of the Guptas knew little about these monarchs. After the horse-sacrifice Samudra Gupta apparently issued coins bearing the legend *Aśva-medha-parākramaḥ*, 'whose prowess was demonstrated by the performance of the horse-sacrifice.'¹

c20.s3.83

⁴ *Cf.* Divekar, *Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute*, VII, pp. 164-65, "Allahabad *Praśasti* and *Aśvamedha*." In the Poona plates Samudra Gupta receives the epithet *anekāśvamedhayājin*. He was believed to have celebrated more than one horse-sacrifice. Some of the campaigns described in the Allahabad panegyric may have been actually conducted by Princes or officers who kept guard over the sacrificial horse that was allowed to roam at large. In the inscription of Harisheṇa the credit for capturing some of the vanquished chieftains is given to the army. Among the great commanders were men like Tilabhaṭṭaka and Harisheṇa himself, who was the son of Dhruvabhūti.

c20.s3.84

¹ Rapson and Allan refer to a seal bearing a horse and the legend *Parākrama*, and the stone figure of a horse, now in Lucknow, which are probably reminiscent of the *Aśvamedha* of Samudra Gupta. (*JRAS*, 1901, 102; *Gupta Coins*, xxxi.)

c20.s3.85

If Harisheṇa, the writer of the Allahabad *Praśasti*, is to be believed, the great Gupta was a man of versatile genius. "He put to shame the preceptor of the lord of Gods and Tumburu² and Nārada and others by his sharp and polished intellect and choral skill and musical accomplishments. He established his title of *Kavirāja* by various poetical compositions."³ "He alone is worthy of the thoughts of the learned. . . His is the poetic style which is worthy of study, and his are the poetic works which multiply the spiritual treasures of poets." Unfortunately none of these compositions have survived.⁴ But the testimony of Harisheṇa to his musical abilities finds corroboration in the lyrist type⁵ of his coins. Himself a poet like Harsha, Mahendravarman and other kings of a later age, the Gupta monarch associated with men of letters who were none too prosperous and "put an end to the war between good poetry and plenty" (*satkāvyaśrīvirodha*). As a result "he enjoyed in the world of the learned, a far-extending sovereignty whose shining glory endured in many poems."

c20.s3.86

² For Tumburu see *Adbhuta-Rāmāyaṇa*, VI. 7; *EI*, I. 236.

c20.s3.87

³ According to the *Kāvya Mīmāṁsā* (3rd ed., GOS, pp. xv, xxxii, 19) a "*Kavirāja* is one stage further than a *Mahākavi*, and is defined as one who is unrestrained in various languages, various sorts of poetical compositions and various sentiments." For the intellectual activities of the Gupta Age see Bhandarkar, "*A Peep into the Early History of India*," pp. 61-74 and Bühler, *IA*, 1913. The son and successor of Samudra Gupta had the title *Rūpakṛti*, 'maker of plays'.

c20.s3.88

⁴ A poetical work called the *Kṛishṇa-charitam* is attributed to Vikramāṅka Mahārājādhirājā Paramabhāgavata Śrī Samudra Gupta (*IC*, X, 79, etc.). But the ascription has been doubted by competent critics (*cf*. Jagannāth in *Annals, BORI*, and others).

c20.s3.89

⁵ A lute-player (*Vīṇā-gāthin*) plays an important part in the *Aśvamedha*.

c20.s3.90

Samudra Gupta favoured poetry as well as the *Śāstra*, while Aśoka seems to have specialised in scriptural studies alone. The former undertook military campaigns with the object of *sarva-pṛithivī-jaya*, conquest of the whole earth, as known to his panegyrist, the latter eschewed military conquest after the Kaliṅga war and organised missions to effect *Dhamma-vijaya*, conquest of the hearts of men, in three continents. Yet inspite of these differences there was much that was common to these remarkable men. Both laid stress on *parākrama*, ceaseless exertion in the cause in which they believed. Both expressed solicitude for the people committed to their care, and were kind even to vanquished enemies. And both laid emphasis on *Dharma*. Samudra Gupta, no less than Dharmāśoka, made firm the rampart of the true law (*Dharma-prāchīra-bandhaḥ*).

c20.s3.91

The attribution of the coins bearing the name Kācha to Samudra Gupta may be accepted. But the emperor's identification with *Dharmāditya* (sun of the true faith) of a Faridpur grant is clearly wrong. The titles used by this monarch were *Apratiratha*, 'unrivalled car-warrior' *Aprativāryavīrya*, 'of irresistible valour,' *Kṛitānta-paraśu*, 'axe of death,' *sarva-rāj-ochchhettā*,¹ 'uprooter of all kings,' *Vyāghra-parākrama*, 'possessed of the strength of a tiger,' *Aśva-medha-parākrama*, 'whose might was demonstrated by the horse-sacrifice,' and *Parākramāṅka*, 'marked with prowess,' but not *Dharmāditya*. Most of these epithets are connected with particular types of coins issued by the emperor. Thus *Parākrama* is found on the reverse of coins of the standard type, *Apratiratha* on coins of the archer type, *Kṛitānta-paraśu* on coins of the battle-axe type,¹ *sarva-rājochchhetta* on coins of the Kācha type, *Vyāghra-parākrama* (*Rājā*) on the tiger type of coins, and *Aśvamedha-parākrama* on the *Aśvamedha* type.² The appearance of a goddess seated on a lion (*siṁha-vāhinī*, *i.e.*, Durgā or Pārvatī, *Vindhya-vāsinī* or *Haimavatī*) may point to the extension of the Gupta dominions to the Vindhya and the Himavat.³ The tiger and river-goddess (*makaravāhinī*) type may indicate that the sway of Samudra Gupta spread from the Ganges valley to the realm of the ‘Tiger king’ in Mahākāntāra. The figures of Gaṅgā and Yamunā occur frequently in door jambs of the Gupta Age. It has been surmised that they symbolise connection with the Gangetic Doāb.

c20.s3.92

¹ Cf. the epithet "*sarva-kshattrāntaka*" applied to his great fore-runner, Mahāpadma Nanda.

c20.s3.93

¹ The battle-axe appears also on coins of the Udumbaras, *CHI*, 539; and Jayadāman, Rapson (Andhra, etc.), 76.

c20.s3.94

² *Cf.* ‘Horse facing post’ which appears also on a square coin attributed to Chashṭana (Rapson *ibid*, 75) whose dynasty was overthrown by the Guptas.

c20.s3.95

³ Nana on lion of Huvishka’s coins (Whitehead, 207) may have suggested this type.

c20.s3.96

Samudra Gupta’s ‘virtuous and faithful wife,’ possibly Datta Devī, appears to be mentioned in an Eraṇ inscription referable to the period of his rule. We possess no genuine dated documents for the reign of the great emperor. The Nālandā⁴ and Gayā grants profess to be dated in the years 5 and 9 respectively, but no reliance can be placed on them and the reading of the numeral in the Gayā record is uncertain. Smith’s date (A.D. 330-375) for Samudra Gupta is conjectural. As the earliest known date of the next sovereign is A.D.

c20.s3.97

⁴ ASI, AR, 1927-28, p. 138.

c20.s3.98

380-381¹ it is not improbable that his father and predecessor died some time after A.D. 375.² One of the last acts of Samudra Gupta was apparently the selection of his successor. The choice fell on Chandra Gupta, his son by Datta Devī.

c20.s3.99

¹ An inscription of Chandra Gupta II, dated in the year 61, corresponding to A.D. 380-81 was discovered in the Mathurā District (*Ep. Ind.*, XXI, 1 ff.).

c20.s3.100

² Sircar (IHQ, 1942, 272) reads the dated portion of the inscription of the year 61 as *Śrī Chandra Guptasya vijaya-rājya saṁvatsare pañchame*—the fifth regnal year of Chandra Gupta (II). Therefore, his first year may be taken to be A.D. 376-77.

Linked texts (24)