Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c21.s3: Section III. Skanda Gupta Vikramāditya

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c21.s3

Language
English

Section III. Skanda Gupta Vikramāditya

c21.s3.1

According to the evidence of the *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa*, confirmed by epigraphic testimony, the immediate successor of Mahendra, *i.e.*, Kumāra Gupta I, was Skanda Gupta. In an interesting paper read at a meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Dr. R. C. Majumdar suggested that after Kumāra's death, which apparently took place while the struggle with the Pushyamitras was still undecided, there was a fratricidal war in which Skanda Gupta came off victorious after defeating his brothers including Puru Gupta, the rightful claimant, and rescued his mother just as Kṛishṇa rescued Devakī.¹ Dr. Majumdar observed that the omission of the name of the mother of Skanda Gupta in the genealogy given in the Bihār and Bhitarī Stone Pillar Inscriptions indicated that she was not the chief queen and Skanda 'had no natural claim to the throne'. The rightful heir of Kumāra was Puru Gupta, the son of the *Mahādevī* Anantadevī.

c21.s3.2

¹ *Cf.* the Bhitari Inscription, *JASB*, 1921 (N. S. XVII), 253 ff. In *IC*. 1944, 171, Dr. Majumdar modified his views regarding the omission of the name of the queen mother in the Bihar ins. and finds the names of Mahādevī Anantadevī and her son Purugupta in the inscription.

c21.s3.3

We should, however, remember that there was no rule prohibiting the mention of ordinary queens in inscriptions. The mother of Princess Prabhāvatī, Kuberanāgā, was not the chief queen of Chandra Gupta II.² No doubt the title *Mahādevī* is once given to her in the Poona plates of her daughter in the year 13, but it is not repeated in the Riddhapur plates of the year 19, where she is called simply Kuberanāgā *devī* without the prefix *Mahādevī*, whereas Kumāra-devī, Datta-devī and even her own daughter, Prabhāvatī-guptā are styled *Mahādevīs*. The contrast is full of significance and we know as a matter of fact that the real *Mahādevī* (chief queen) of Chandra Gupta II was Dhruva-devī or Dhruva-Svāminī. Though Kuberanāgā was not the principal consort (*agramahishī*) of her husband, she is mentioned in the inscriptions of her daughter. On the other hand the names of queens, the mothers of kings, are sometimes omitted.¹ In the genealogical portion of the Banskhera and Madhuban plates the name of Yaśomatī as *Harsha's mother* is not mentioned, but in the Sonpat and the Nālandā *seals*² she is mentioned *both as the mother of Rājya-vardhana and as the mother of Harsha*. Therefore it is not safe to draw conclusions from a comparison of genealogies given on seals and those given in **ordinary praśastis.** From a comparative study of the seals and plaques referred to above on the one hand and ordinary panegyrical epigraphs on the other, two facts emerge, *viz.*, (*a*) genealogies given by the records of the former class are *fuller* than those given in the others, and (*b*) names of mothers of reigning kings that are invariably given (even though this meant repetition) in documents of the first group are sometimes omitted by the writers of *praśastis*, even though they be the names of the chief queens. There is no real analogy between the genealogy on the Bhitarī seal and that in the **Pillar** Inscriptions. *A seal should be compared to another seal and an ordinary praśasti with another document of the same class.*³

c21.s3.4

² *JASB*, 1924, 58.

c21.s3.5

¹ The name of the father of a reigning king is also sometimes omitted (*cf.* Kielhorn's N. Ins. Nos. 464, 468).

c21.s3.6

² A. R. of the ASI. Eastern Circle, 1917-18, p. 44; *Ep. Ind*, XXI, 74 ff.; *MASI*, No. 66, 68 f.

c21.s3.7

³ We have already seen that in the opinion of Sewell the name of Skanda's mother is actually mentioned in one epigraph. According to that scholar her name was Devakī. The comparison with Kṛishṇa's mother (who, with all her misfortunes, did not experience the pangs of widowhood) in the Bhitarī Inscription would be less explicable, if not altogether pointless, if Devakī was not the name of the mother of Skanda Gupta as well as that of Kṛishṇa. Why were Kṛishṇa and Devakī thought of in connection with the victory over hostile powers, instead of, say, Skanda (Kārttikeya) and Pārvatī, Indra or Vishṇu and Aditi,

c21.s3.8

As to the question of rightful claim to the succession, we should remember that the cases of Samudra Gupta and Chandra Gupta II suggest that the ablest among the princes was chosen irrespective of any claim arising out of birth.

c21.s3.9

There is nothing to show that the struggle at the end of Kumāra's reign, referred to in the Bhitarī Pillar Inscription, was a fratricidal conflict. The relevant text of the inscription runs thus:

c21.s3.10

*Pitari divam upētē viplutāṁ vaṁśa-lakshmīṁ*
*bhuja-bala-vijit-ārir-yyaḥ pratishṭhāpya bhūyaḥ*
*jitam-iti paritoshān mātaraṁ sāsra-nettrāṁ*
*hata-ripur-iva Kr̥ishṇa Devakīm-abhyupetaḥ*

c21.s3.11

"Who, when (his) father had attained heaven (*i.e.*, died), vanquished (his) enemies by the strength of (his) arm, and steadied once more the drifting fortunes of his family; and then exclaiming 'the victory has been won' betook himself, like Kr̥ishṇa, when his enemies had been slain, to his weeping mother, Devakî"¹

c21.s3.12

¹ For the reference to Devakī, see Vishṇu Purāṇa, V, 79.

c21.s3.13

The hostile powers (*ari*), who made the *Vaṁsa-lakshmī*, goddess of family fortune, of Skanda Gupta "*vipluta*," 'convulsed,' after the death of his father, were apparently enemies of the Gupta family, *i.e.*, outsiders not belonging to the Gupta line. As a matter of fact the antagonists expressly mentioned in the Bhitarī Pillar by the panegyrist of Skanda Gupta who is compared to Śakra (*Sakropama*, Kahaum Inscription) and Vishṇu (*Śrīparikshiptavakshā*, Junāgaḍh epigraph)? A possible explanation is that the name of his mother coupled with her miserable plight suggested to the court-poet comparison with Kr̥ishṇa and Devakī. *Cf.* Ep. Ind. I, 364; xiii. 126, 131 (Hampe and Conjeeveram ins. of Kr̥ishṇadeva Rāya) where we have a similar play on the name Devakī:—

c21.s3.14

*tadvamśe Devakījānirddidipe Timma bhūpatiḥ*
*yaśasvī Tuluveṁdreshu Yadoḥ Kr̥ishṇa ivānvaye...*
*sarasādudabhūttasmān Narasāvanipālakaḥ*
*Devakīnaṁdanāt* (var. *°nandanaḥ*) *Kāmo Devakī naṁdanādiva*.

c21.s3.15

The problem, however, is not free from difficulties and its final solution must await fresh discoveries.

c21.s3.16

Incription were outsiders, *e.g.*, the Pushyamitras¹ and the Hūṇas. There is not the slightest reference to a fratricidal war. There is no doubt a passage in the Junāgaḍh Inscription of Skanda which says that "the goddess of fortune and splendour (Lakshmī) of her own accord selected (Skanda) as her husband (*svayaṁ varayāṁchakāra*)...having discarded all the other sons of kings (*manujendra-putra*)." But "*Svayameva śriyā gṛihīta*" "accepted by Śrī or Lakshmī of her own accord" is an epithet which is applied by Prabhākara-vardhana, shortly before his death, to Harsha whose devotion to his elder brother is well-known. That Skanda Gupta like Harsha was considered to be the favourite of the Goddess of Luck is well-known. Attention may be invited to the Lakshmī type of his coins² and the epithet *Śrī-parikshipta-vakshāḥ* ("whose breast is embraced by Śrī, *i.e.*, Lakshmī"), occurring in the Junāgaḍh Inscription. The panegyrist of the emperor refers to a *svayambara* in the conventional style.³ A *svayambara* naturally presupposes an assemblage of princes, not necessarily of one particular family, in which all the suitors are discarded excepting one. But there is no inseparable connection between a *svayambara* and a fight, and, even when it is followed by a fight, the combatants are hardly ever princes who are sons of the

c21.s3.17

¹ Even if the reference be merely to "*amitras*" (see *ante*, p. 568), these *amitras* could not have included an elder brother, as the passage "*kshitipa-charaṇapīṭhe sthāpita vāma-pādaḥ*," "placed (his) left foot on a foot-stool which was the king (of that hostile power himself)" clearly shows. The expression *samudita bala kosha* ("whose power and wealth had risen") would be singularly inappropriate in the case of the rightful heir to the imperial throne of the Guptas with its enormous resources existing for several generations, and can only point to a *parvenu* power that had suddenly leaped to fame.

c21.s3.18

² Allan, p. xcix.

c21.s3.19

³ Cf. Ep. Ind., I. 25.

c21.s3.20

*Gūrjjareśvara-rājya-Śrīr*
*yasya jajñe svayambarā*

c21.s3.21

The *Svayambara* of Lakshmī forms the subject of the drama which Urvaśī acts before Indra with her sister nymphs (JASB, 59, 32).

c21.s3.22

same king. The epigraphic passage referring to Lakshmī's *svayambara*, therefore, does not *necessarily* imply that there was a struggle between the sons of Kumāra, in which Skanda came off victorious. It only means that among the princes he was specially fortunate and was considered to be the best fitted to rule because of the valiant fight he had put up against the enemies of the family and empire. In the Allahabad *praśasti* we have a similar passage:—"who (Samudra Gupta) being looked at with envy by the faces, melancholy through the rejection of themselves, of others of equal birth...was bidden by his father,—who exclaiming 'verily he is worthy' embraced him—to govern of a surety the whole world." It may be argued that there is no proof that Skanda was selected by Kumāra. On the contrary he is said to have been selected by Lakshmī of her own accord. But such was also the case with Harsha. Skanda like Harsha was called upon to save the empire of his forbears at a time when the fortunes of the imperial family were at a low ebb, and both these eminent men owed their success to their own prowess. The important thing to remember is that the avowed enemies of Skanda Gupta mentioned in his inscriptions were outsiders like the Pushyamitras, Hūṇas,¹ and Mlechchhas.² The *manujendra-putras* of the Junāgaḍh Inscription are mentioned only as disappointed suitors, not as defeated enemies, comparable to the brothers of Samudra Gupta who were discarded by Chandra Gupta I. We are, therefore, inclined to think that as the tottering Gupta empire was saved from its enemies (*e.g.*, the Pushyamitras) by Skanda Gupta it was he who was considered to be the best fitted to rule. There is no evidence that his brothers disputed his claim and actually fought for the crown. There is nothing to show that Skanda shed his brothers' blood and that the epithets "*amalātmā*," 'pure-souled,' and "*parahitakārī*," 'the benefactor of others,' applied to him in the Bhitarī Inscription and coin legends,¹ were unjustified.

c21.s3.23

¹ Bhitarī Ins.

c21.s3.24

² Junāgaḍh Ins.

c21.s3.25

¹ Allan, *Gupta Coins*, cxxi.

c21.s3.26

The view that Skanda Gupta was the immediate successor of Kumāra Gupta I seems to be confirmed by a verse in the *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa*² which runs thus: —

c21.s3.27

² Vol, I, ed. Ganapati Sāstrī, p. 628. *Cf.* the Rewa Ins. of 141 = A.D. 460/61. Attention was drawn to this record by Mr. B. C. Chhabra at the Oriental Conference, Twelfth (Benares) Session, Summaries of Papers, part II, p. 39, and later by Drs. Majumdar and Sircar.

c21.s3.28

*Samudrākhya nṛpaśchaiva*
*Vikramaśchaiva kīrtitaḥ*
*Mahendranṛpavaro mukhyaḥ*
*Sakārādyam ataḥ param*
*Devarājākhya nāmāsau yugādhame*

c21.s3.29

It is impossible not to recognise in the kings (*nṛpa*) Samudra, Vikrama, Mahendra and "Sākārādya" mentioned in the verse, the great Gupta emperors Samudra Gupta, Chandra Gupta II, Vikramāditya, Kumāra Gupta I Mahendrāditya, and Skanda Gupta.³

c21.s3.30

³ *IHQ*, 1932, p. 352.

c21.s3.31

Skanda Gupta assumed the titles of *Kramāditya* and *Vikramāditya*.⁴ The passage from the *Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa* quoted above refers to his appellation *Devarāja*. The titles Vikramāditya and Devarāja were apparently assumed in imitation of his grandfather. The latter

c21.s3.32

⁴ Allan, *Catalogue*, pp. 117, 122; *cf.* Fleet, CII, p. 53:—

c21.s3.33

"*Vinaya-bala-sunitair-vvikrameṇa krameṇa*
*pratidinam-abhiyogād īpsitaṁ yena labdhvā*."

c21.s3.34

The epithet Kramāditya is found on certain gold coins of the heavy Archer type as well as on silver issues of the Garuḍa, Bull and Altar types. The more famous title of Vikramāditya is met with on silver coins of the Altar type.

c21.s3.35

epithet reminds one further of the name Mahendra given to his father. It is also to be noted that in the Allahabad Pillar Inscription Samudra Gupta is extolled as the equal of Indra and other gods and in the Kahāum record Skanda Gupta is called *Śakropama*.

c21.s3.36

From the evidence of coins and inscriptions we know that Skanda ruled from A.D. 455 to *c.* 467. The first achievement of the monarch was the resuscitation of the Gupta Empire and the recovery of lost provinces. From an inscriptional passage we learn that while preparing to restore the fallen fortunes of his family he was reduced to such straits that he had to spend a whole night sleeping on the bare earth. Line twelve of the Bhitarī Inscription tells us that when Kumāra Gupta I had attained heaven, Skanda conquered his enemies by the strength of his arms. From the context it seems that these enemies were the Pushyamitras "whose power and wealth had (suddenly) gone up."

c21.s3.37

The struggle with the Pushyamitras was followed by conflicts with the Hūṇas¹ and probably also with the Vākāṭakas in which the emperor was presumably victorious in the end. The invasion of the Hūṇas took place not later than A.D. 458 if we identify them with the *Mlechchhas* or barbarian uitlanders of the Junāgaḍh Inscription. The memory of the victory over the *Mlechchhas* is preserved in the story of king Vikramāditya, son of Mahendrāditya of Ujjain, in Somadeva's *Kathā-sarit-sāgara*.² Central India and Surāshṭra seem to have been the vulnerable parts of the Gupta empire. The Bālāghāṭ plates³ refer to Narendrasena Vākāṭaka, son of Skanda Gupta's cousin Pravarasena II (III?) as "*Kosalā-Mekalā-Mālav-ādhipatyabhyarchitaśāsana*" 'whose commands were treated with respect by the lords of Kosalā (Upper Mahānadī Valley), Mekalā (Upper Valley of the Nerbudda and the Śon), and Mālava (probably Eastern Mālwa).' The Junāgaḍh Inscription tells us that Skanda "deliberated for days and nights before making up his mind who could be trusted with the important task of guarding the lands of the Surāshṭras." Allan deduces from this and from the words "*sarveshu deśeshu vidhāya goptṛīn*" 'appointing protectors in all the provinces' that the emperor was at particular pains to appoint a series of Wardens of the Marches to protect his dominions from future invasion. One of these Wardens was Parṇadatta,¹ governor of Surāshṭra. In spite of all his efforts Skanda Gupta could not, however, save the westernmost part of his empire from future troubles. During his lifetime he no doubt, retained his hold over Surāshṭra, the Cambay coast and the adjoining portions of continental Gujarāt and Mālwa.² But his successors do not appear to have been so fortunate. Not a single inscription or coin has yet been discovered which shows that Surāshṭra and Western Mālwa formed parts of the Gupta empire after the death of Skanda Gupta. On the contrary Harisheṇa Vākāṭaka, cousin of Narendrasena, claims victories over Lāṭa (South Gujarāt) and Avanti (district around Ujjain) besides Trikūṭa in the Koṅkaṇ, Kuntala (the Kanarese country), Andhra (the Telugu country), Kaliṅga (South Orissa and some adjoining tracts), and Kosala (Upper Mahānadī Valley), while the Maitrakas of Valabhī (Wala in the peninsular portion of Gujarāt) gradually assume independence.

c21.s3.38

¹ The Hūṇas are mentioned not only in inscriptions, but in the *Mahābhārata*, the *Purāṇas*, the *Raghuvamśa* and later in the *Harsha-charita* and the *Nītivākyāmṛita* of Somadeva. The *Lalita Vistara* (translated by Dharmaraksha, d. A. D. 313) mentions the *Hūṇalipi* (*Ind. Ant.*, 1913, p. 206). See also W. M. McGovern, *The Early Empires of Central Asia*, 399ff, 455ff, 485f.

c21.s3.39

² Allan, *Gupta Coins*, Introduction, p. xlix.

c21.s3.40

³ *Ep. Ind.*, IX, p. 271.

c21.s3.41

¹ Persian Farna-dāta seems, according to Jarl Charpentier, to be the form underlying the name Parṇadatta (*JRAS*, 1931, 140; *Aiyangar Com. Vol.*, 15).

c21.s3.42

² The inclusion of Surāshṭra within his empire is proved by the Junāgaḍh Inscription and that of the Cambay coast by silver coins of the 'Bull type'. The type was imitated by Krishṇarāja (Allan, ci), who is to be identified with the king of that name belonging to the Kaṭachchuri family. Krishṇa's son and successor, Śaṁkaragaṇa appropriates the epithets of the great Samudra Gupta His son Buddharāja effected the conquest of Eastern Mālwa early in the seventh century A.D. (c. 609 A.D.: Vadner plates, *Ep. Ind.*, xii, 31 ff.; see also Marshall, *A Guide to Sānchi*, p. 21n). The dynasty was overthrown by the early Chalukyas and it is interesting to note that three of the characteristic epithets of Samudra Gupta are applied to the Chalukya Vijaya-rāja in the Kaira grant; Fleet, *CII*, 14.

c21.s3.43

The later years of Skanda seem to have been tranquil.¹ The emperor was helped in the work of administration by a number of able governors like Parṇadatta, viceroy of the west, Sarvanāga, District Officer (*Vishayapati*) of Antarvedī or the Gangetic Doāb and Bhīmavarman, the ruler of the Kosam region.² Chakrapālita, son of Parṇadatta, restored in A.D. 457-58 the embankment of the lake Sudarśana at Girnar which had burst two years previously.

c21.s3.44

¹ *Cf.* the Kahāum Ins. of 141=A.D. 460-1.

c21.s3.45

² The inclusion within Skanda’s empire of provinces lying still further to the east is proved by the Bhitarī and Bihār Pillar Inscriptions and possibly by gold coins of the Archer type struck on a standard of 144·6 grains of metal. Allan, p. xcviii, 118.

c21.s3.46

The emperor continued the tolerant policy of his forefathers. Himself a *Bhāgavata* or worshipper of Kṛishṇa-Vishṇu, he and his officers did not discourage followers of other sects, *e.g.*, Jainas and devotee of the Sun. The people were also tolerant. The Kahāum inscription commemorates the erection of Jaina images by a person “full of affection for Brāhmaṇas.”³ The Indore plate records a deed by a Brāhmaṇa endowing a lamp in a temple of the Sun.

c21.s3.47

³ *Cf.* The Pāhāḍpur epigraph of the year 159 (A.D 479) which records a donation made by a Brāhmaṇa couple for the worship of the Divine Arhats, *i.e.*, the Jinas.

Linked texts (9)