Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c22: Chapter XII. The Gupta Empire (continued): The Later Guptas

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c22

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XII. The Gupta Empire (continued): The Later Guptas

c22.1

*Vasvaukasārāmatibhūya sāhaṁ*
*saurājya vaddhotsavayā bibhūtyā*
*samagraśaktau tvayi Sūryavaṁśye*
*sati prapannā karuṇāmavasthām*
—*Raghuvamśaṁ.*

Section I. Survival of the Gupta Power after Skanda Gupta

c22.s1.1

It is now admitted on all hands that the reign of Skanda Gupta ended about A.D. 467.¹ When he passed away the empire declined,² especially in the west, but did not wholly perish. We have epigraphic as well as literary evidence of the continuance of the Gupta empire in parts of Central and Eastern India in the latter half of the fifth as well as the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. The Dāmodarpur plates, the Sārnāth Inscriptions³ and the Eraṇ epigraph of Budha Gupta prove that from A.D. 477 to 496 the Gupta empire extended from Bengal to Eastern Mālwa. The Betul plates of the *Parivrājaka Mahārāja* Saṁkshobha, dated in the year 199 G. E., *i.e.*, 518 A.D., 'during the enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta King,'⁴ testify to the fact that the Gupta sway at this period was acknowledged in Dabhālā, which included the Tripuri *Vishaya* (Jabbalpur region).¹ Another inscription of Saṁkshobha found in the valley near the village of Khoh in Baghēlkhaṇḍ, dated in A.D. 528, proves that the Gupta empire included some of the central districts even in A.D. 528.² Fifteen years later the grant of a village in the Koṭivarsha *Vishaya* (Dinājpur District) of Puṇḍravardhana-bhukti (roughly North Bengal) 'during the reign of *Paramadaivata* (the Supreme Divinity) *Parama-bhaṭṭāraka* (the Supreme Lord) *Mahārājādhirāja* (King of Kings) *Śrī . . . . . Gupta*,'³ shows that the Gupta dominions at this period included the eastern as well as the central provinces. Towards the close of the sixth century a Gupta king, a contemporary of Prabhākara-vardhana of the Pushyabhūti⁴ family of Śrīkaṇṭha (Thānēsar), was ruling in "Mālava."⁵ Two sons of this king, Kumāra Gupta and Mādhava Gupta were appointed to wait upon the princes Rājya-vardhana and Harsha of Thānesar. From the Aphsaḍ inscription of Ādityasena we learn that the fame of the father of Mādhava Gupta, the associate of Harsha,¹ marked with honour of victory in war over Susthitavarman, doubtless a king of Kāmarūpa, was constantly sung on the bank of the river Lohitya or Brahmaputra. This indicates that even in or about A.D. 600 (the time of Prabhākara-vardhana) the sway of kings bearing the name Gupta extended from "Mālava" to the Brahmaputra.²

c22.s1.2

¹ Smith *The Oxford History of India*, additions and corrections, p. 171, end.

c22.s1.3

² For the probable causes of decline, see *Calcutta Review*, April, 1930, p. 36 ff; also post, 626 ff.

c22.s1.4

³ *A.S.I. Report*, 1914-15; *Hindusthan Review*, Jan., 1918; *JBORS*, IV, 344 f.

c22.s1.5

⁴ *Śrīmati pravardhamāna-vijaya-rājye saṁvatsara-śate nava-navaty-uttare Gupta-nṛipa-rājya-bhuktau*. "In the glorious, augmenting and victorious reign, in a century of years increased by ninety-nine, in the enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta King."

c22.s1.6

¹ Ep. Ind., VIII, pp. 284-87. Dabhālā = later Dāhala.

c22.s1.7

² Fleet, CII, III, pp. 113-16; Hoernle in JASB, 1889, p. 95.

c22.s1.8

³ Ep. Ind., XV, p. 113 ff. Corrected in Ep. Ind., XVII (Jan., 1921), p. 193.

c22.s1.9

⁴ This seems to be the correct spelling and not Pushpabhūti (Ep. Ind., I, 68).

c22.s1.10

⁵ "Mālava" was graced by the presence of the Guptas as early as the fifth century. This is proved by the Udayagiri inscriptions of Chandragupta II and the Tumain inscription of Ghatotkacha Gupta. In the latter part of the sixth and the commencement of the seventh century, it seems to have been under the direct rule of a line of Guptas whose precise connection with the Great Guptas is not clear. Magadha was probably administered by local rulers like Kumārāmātya Mahārāja Nandana (A. D. 551-2?) of the Amauna plate, Gayā Dist., Ep. Ind., X, 49, and the Varmans (cf Nāgārjunī Hill Cave Ins., CII, 226; also Pūrṇavarman mentioned by Hiuen Tsang and Deva-varman, IA, X, 110). For a detailed discussion see Ray Chaudhuri, *JBORS*, XV, parts iii and iv (1929, pp. 651 f.). The precise location and extent of the "Mālava" of the "later Guptas" cannot be determined. In Ep. Ind., V, 229, the Daṇḍanāyaka Anantapāla, a feudatory of Vikramāditya VI, is said to have subdued the *Sapta Mālava* countries up to the Himālaya Mountains. This suggests that there were as many as seven countries called Mālava (cf, also Rice, *Mysore and Coorg*, 46). These were probably: (1) The country of the 'Mālavas' in the Western Ghats (*Kanarese Districts*, p. 569), (2) Mo-la-po (Mālavaka *āhāra* of Valabhī grants) on the Mahī governed by the Maitrakas, (3) Avanti in the wider sense of the term ruled by the Kaṭachchuris or Kalachuris of the Abhona plates (sixth century) and by a Brāhmaṇa family in the time of Hiuen Tsang Chinese pilgrim, (4) *Pūrva Mālava* (round Bhilsa), (5) District round Prayāga, Kauśāmbī and Fatehpur in U. P. (Smith, EHI, 4th ed., p. 350n.; IHQ. 1931. 150f.; *cf.* JRAS. 1903. 561), (6) part of eastern Rājputāna, (7) Cis-Sutlej districts of the Pañjāb together with some Himālayan territory. The later Guptas probably held (4) and (5) and at times, Magadha as well. The *Bhāgvata Purāṇa* (xii. 1. 36) whose date is not probably far removed from that of the later Guptas, associates Mālava with Arbuda (Abu) and distinguishes it from Avanti. The rulers of Mālava and Avanti are also distinguished from each other by Rājaśekhara in his *Viddhaśāla bhañjikā*, Act IV (p. 121 of Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara's edition). Early, in the seventh century the Guptas seem to have lost Eastern Mālwa to the Kaṭachchuris. In the Vaḍner plates issued from Vidiśā (Besnagar) in or about A. D. 608, a Kaṭachchuri king, Śaṁkaragaṇa receives epithets that are palpably borrowed from the Allahabad *Praśasti* of Samudra Gupta. The overthrow of the Kaṭachchuris was effected by the early Chalukyas of Badami and South Gujarāt. Fleet points out (CII, 14) that three of the epithets of Samudra Gupta are applied to the Chalukya chieftain Vijayarāja in the Kaira grant of the year 394 (IA. VII. 248). Ādityasena of the later Gupta family, who ruled in the second half of the seventh century A. D., seems to be referred to in Nepalese inscriptions as 'King of Magadha'. Magadha, now replaced Eastern Mālwa as the chief centre of Gupta power.

c22.s1.11

¹ *Cf.* Hoernle in JRAS, 1903, 561.

c22.s1.12

² An allusion to the later Guptas seems to occur in the *Kādambarī*, Verse 10, of Bāṇa which says that the lotus feet of Kubera, the poet's great-grandfather, were worshipped by many a Gupta:—

c22.s1.13

In the sixth century Gupta suzerainty was no doubt successively challenged by the Huns and their conquerors belonging to the Mandasor and Maukhari families. In

c22.s1.14

*Babhūva Vātsyāyana vaṁśa sambhavo*
*dvijo jagadgītaguṇo'granīḥ satām*
*aneka Guptārchita pāda paṅkajaḥ*
*Kubera nāmāṁśa iva Svayambhuvaḥ.*

c22.s1.15

the first half of the seventh century the Guptas lost Vidiśā to the Kaṭachchuris and their power in the Ganges Valley was overshadowed by that of Harsha. But, after the death of the great Kanauj monarch, the "Gupta" empire was sought to be revived by Ādityasena, son of Mādhava Gupta, who "ruled the whole earth up to the shores of the oceans," performed the *Aśvamedha* and other great sacrifices and assumed the titles of *Parama-bhaṭṭāraka* and *Mahārājādhirāja*.

Section II. Puru Gupta and Narasiṁha Gupta Bālāditya

c22.s2.1

We shall now proceed to give an account of Skanda Gupta's successors. The immediate successor of the great emperor seems to have been his brother **Puru Gupta.** The existence of this king was unknown till the discovery of the Bhitarī seal of Kumāra Gupta II in 1889, and its publication by Smith and Hoernle.¹ The seal describes Puru Gupta as the son of Kumāra I by the queen Anantadevī, and does not mention Skanda Gupta. The mention of Puru Gupta immediately after Kumāra with the prefix *tat-pād-ānudhyāta* "meditating on, or attached to, the feet of" (Kumāra), does not necessarily prove that Puru Gupta was the immediate successor of his father, and a contemporary and rival of his brother or half-brother Skanda Gupta.² In the Manahali grant Madanapāla is described as *Śrī-Rāmapāla-Deva-pād-ānudhyāta*, although he was preceded by his elder brother Kumārapāla. In Kielhorn's Northern Inscription No. 39, Vijayapāla is described as the successor of Kshitipāla, although he was preceded by his brother Devapāla.³

c22.s2.2

¹ JASB, 1889 pp. 84-105.

c22.s2.3

² The omission of Skanda's name in the Bhitarī seal of his brother's grandson does not necessarily imply that the relations between him and Puru's family were unfriendly as suggested by Mr. R. D. Banerji (*cf. Annals of the Bhand. Ins.*, 1918-19, pp. 74-75). The name of Pulakeśin II is omitted in an inscription of his brother and Yuvarāja Vishṇuvardhana (Sātārā grant, *Ind. Ant.*, 1890 pp. 227f). The name of Bhoja II of the Imperial Pratīhāra dynasty is not mentioned in the Partabgarh Inscription of his nephew Mahendrapāla II, but it is mentioned in an inscription of his brother Vināyakapāla, the father of Mahendrapāla. Besides, there was no custom prohibiting the mention of the name of a rival uncle or brother. Maṅgaleśa and Govinda II are mentioned in the inscriptions of their rivals and their descendants. On the other hand even an ancestor of a reigning king was sometimes omitted, *e.g.*, Dharapaṭṭa is omitted in his son's inscription (Kielhorn, *N. Ins.*, No. 464).

c22.s2.4

³ Kielhorn, *Ins. No.* 31.

c22.s2.5

Puru Gupta seems to have been succeeded by his son **Narasimha Gupta Bālāditya**. This king has been identified with king Bālāditya whose troops are represented by Hiuen Tsang as having imprisoned the tyrant Mihirakula. It has been overlooked that Hiuen Tsang’s Bālāditya was the immediate successor of Tathāgata Gupta,¹ who was himself the immediate successor of Bud(d)ha Gupta,² whereas Narasiṁha Gupta Bālāditya was the son and successor of Puru Gupta who in his turn was the son of Kumāra Gupta I and the successor of Skanda Gupta. The son and successor of Hiuen Tsang’s Bālāditya was Vajra³ while the son and successor of Narasiṁha was Kumāra Gupta II. It is obvious that the conqueror of Mihirakula was not the son of Puru Gupta but an altogether different individual.⁴ The existence of several kings of the eastern part of the *Madhyadēśa* having the *biruda* Bālāditya is proved by the Sārnāth Inscription of Prakaṭāditya.⁵ Narasiṁha Gupta must have died in or about the year A.D. 473. He was succeeded by his son Kumāra Gupta II Kramāditya by queen Mitradevī.¹

c22.s2.6

¹ *Life of Hiuen Tsang*, p. 111. *Si-yu-ki*. II, p. 168.

c22.s2.7

² *Fo-to-kio-to*. Beal, Fleet and Watters render the term by Buddha Gupta, a name unknown to imperial Gupta epigraphy. The synchronism of his second successor Bālāditya with Mihirakula proves that Budha Gupta is meant. We have other instances of corruption of names, *e.g.*, Skanda is transformed into Skandha in several Purāṇic lists of the so-called Andhra dynasty.

c22.s2.8

³ *Yuan Chwang* II, p. 165.

c22.s2.9

⁴ Drs. Bhaṭṭasāli and Basāk, who uphold the identification of Hiuen Tsang’s Bālāditya with the son of Puru Gupta do not apparently attach due weight to the evidence of the *Life of Hiuen Tsang*, p. 111, which, as we shall see later on, is corroborated by the combined testimony of the Sārnāth inscription of Prakaṭāditya and the *Ārya-Mañju-śrī-mūla-kalpa*. The evidence of these documents suggests that Hiuen Tsang’s Bālāditya was identical with Bhānu Gupta and was the father of Prakaṭāditya and Vajra.

c22.s2.10

⁵ *CII*, p. 285. A Bālāditya is mentioned in the Nālandā Stone Inscription of Yaśovarman (*Ep. Ind.*, 1929, Jan., 38) and also a seal (*Śrī Nālandāyām Śrī Bālāditya Gandhakuṭī*, *MASI*, 66 38).

c22.s2.11

¹ It is suggested in *Ep. Ind.*, xxi, 77 (clay seals of Nālandā) and *ASI, AR*, 1934-35, 63, that the name of Kumāra Gupta's mother has to be read as Mitradevī and not Śrīmatī devī or Lakshmīdevī.

c22.s2.12

The coins of Narasiṁha and his successor belong to two varieties of the Archer type. One class of these coins was, according to Allan, apparently intended for circulation in the lower Ganges valley, and the other may have been issued in the upper provinces. The inclusion of Eastern India within the dominions of Bālāditya (Bālakhya) and Kumāra (II) is vouched for by the *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa*.²

c22.s2.13

² Ganapati Sāstrī's ed., p. 630. *Cf.* Jayaswal, *Imperial History*, 35.

c22.s2.14

*Bālākhya nāmasau nṛipatir bhavitā Pūrva-deśakaḥ*
*tasyāpareṇa nṛipatiḥ Gauḍānāṁ prabhavishṇavaḥ*
*Kumārākhyo nāmataḥ proktaḥ so'pir atyanta dharmavān.*

Section III. Kumāra Gupta II and Vishnugupta

c22.s3.1

Kumāra Gupta II of the Bhitarī seal, son of Narasiṁha Gupta, has been identified with Kramāditya of certain coins of the Archer type that are closely connected with the issues of Narasiṁha Bālāditya. He is also identified with king Kumāra Gupta mentioned in the Sārnāth Buddhist Image Inscription of the year 154 G. E., *i.e.*, A.D. 473-74.¹ Drs. Bhaṭṭasālī, Basāk and some other scholars think that the Kumāra Guptas of the Bhitarī seal and the Sārnāth epigraph were distinct individuals. The former places Kumāra, son of Narasiṁha, long after A.D. 500.² But his theory is based upon the doubtful identification of Narasiṁha, with the conqueror of Mihirakula. According to Dr. Basāk Kumāra of the Sārnāth Inscription was the immediate successor of Skanda. In his opinion there were two rival Gupta lines ruling simultaneously, one consisting of Skanda, Kumāra of Sārnāth and Budha, the other comprising Puru, Narasiṁha and his son Kumāra of the Bhitarī seal. But there is not the slightest evidence of a partition of the Gupta empire in the latter half of the fifth century A.D. On the contrary inscriptions and coins prove that both Skanda and Budha ruled over the whole empire from Bengal to the West. We have already seen that according to the traditional account of the *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa* the kingdom of Bālākhya, *i.e.*, Bālāditya and his successor Kumāra embraced the *Pūrva-deśa* (Eastern India) including Gauḍa (Western and part of Northern Bengal).³ How can we reconcile the rule of these kings with the contemporary sovereignty of a rival line represented by Skanda and Budha?¹ There is no cogent reason for doubting the identity of Kumāra of the Bhitarī seal with his namesake of the Sārnāth inscription.

c22.s3.2

¹ See *ASI, AR*, 1914-15, 124, *Hindusthan Review*, Jan., 1918, *Ann. Bhand. Inst.*, 1918-19, 67 ff. and *JBORS*, iv, 344, 412, for the views of Venis, Pathak, Panday, Pannalall and others.

c22.s3.3

² *Dacca Review*, May and June, 1920, pp. 54-57.

c22.s3.4

³ *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa*, G. Sāstrī's ed., pp. 630 f.

c22.s3.5

¹ The seal of Budha Gupta (*MASB*, No. 66, p. 64) proves conclusively that Budha, far from belonging to a rival line, was actually a son of Puru Gupta. It also negatives the late date for Puru Gupta suggested by Dr. Bhaṭṭasālī.

c22.s3.6

Kumāra II's reign must have terminated in or about the year A.D. 476-77, the first known date of Budha Gupta.² The reigns of Puru, Narasiṁha and Kumāra II appear to be abnormally short, amounting together to only ten years (A.D. 467-77). This is by no means a unique case. In Veṅgī three Eastern Chālukya monarchs, *viz.*, Vijayāditya IV, his son Ammarāja I, and Ammarāja's son, another Vijayāditya, ruled only for seven years and six and a half months.¹ In Kaśmīra six kings, Sūravarman I, Pārtha, Saṁbhuvardhana, Chakravarman, Unmattāvanti and Sūravarman II, ruled within six years (A. D. 933-39); and three generations of kings, *viz.*, Yaśaskara, his uncle Varṇaṭa, and his son Saṁgrāmadeva ruled for ten years (A.D. 939-49). A fragmentary seal discovered at Nālandā refer to Kumāra's son **Vishṇu Gupta** who is probably to be identified with Chandrāditya of the coins.

c22.s3.7

² One of the successors of Kumāra (II), son of Bālāditya, is according to the *Ārya-Mañjuśrī mūla-kalpa*, a prince styled *Ukārākhya*. That appellation may according to Jayaswal apply to Prakāśāditya, for Allan finds the letters *ru* or *u* on his coins. But the identification of a prince whose designation was *u*, (*Ukārākhya*), with Budha Gupta (Jayaswal, *An Imperial History of India*, 38), does not seem to be plausible. The passage in the *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa* suggests a name like Upagupta, Upendra. Though there is no direct epigraphic evidence for the name Upagupta, the existence of such a prince does not seem to be improbable in view of the fact that an Upaguptā is mentioned in Maukhari records as the mother of Īśānavarman [Asīrgaḍh (Fleet, *CII*, p. 220) and Nālandā (*Ep. Ind.*, xxi, p. 74) seals]. *Cf.* Bhānu Gupta and Bhānu Guptā, Harsha Gupta and Harsha Guptā, Mahāsena Gupta and Mahāsena Guptā. On the analogy of these cases it is possible that there was a prince named Upagupta, apparently the brother of Upaguptā. If this surmise be correct Upagupta may have to be placed in the same period as the mother of Īśānavarman, *i.e.*, in the first half of the sixth century A.D., sometime after Budha Gupta. If *u* is the initial of Upendra (Vishṇu or Kṛishṇa) and not of Upagupta, it may refer to Vishṇu Gupta or to Kṛishṇa Gupta, just as Somākhya has reference to the Gauḍa king Saśāṅka. The existence of a son of Kumāra Gupta II named Mahārājādhirāja Śrī Vishṇu Gupta has recently been disclosed by a fragmentary seal at Nālandā (*Ep. Ind.*, xxvi. 235; *I.H.Q.*, XIX. 19). It is difficult in the present state of our knowledge to say whether he was the immediate successor of his father, or had to wait till the death of his great uncle Budha Gupta. Those who place him and his father *after* Budha Gupta, have to dissociate Kumāra of the Bhitarī and Nālandā seals from the homonymous prince of Sārnāth. This is not improbable but must await future discoveries for confirmation.

c22.s3.8

¹ Hultzsch, *SII*, Vol. I, p. 46.

Section IV. Budha Gupta

c22.s4.1

For Budha Gupta, now known to have been a son of Puru Gupta¹ we have a number of dated inscriptions and coins which prove that he ruled for about twenty years (A.D. 477-*c.* 495).

c22.s4.2

¹ Seal of Budha Gupta (*MASB*, No. 66, p. 64).

c22.s4.3

Two copper-plate inscriptions discovered in the village of Dāmodarpur in the district of Dinājpur, testify to the fact that Budha Gupta's empire included Puṇḍravardhana *bhukti* (roughly North Bengal) which was governed by his viceroys (*Uparika Mahārāja*) Brahmadatta and Jayadatta.² The Sārnāth inscription of A.D. 476-77 and Benares Ins.³ of 479 prove his possession of the Kāśī country. In A.D. 484-85 the erection of a *dhvaja-stambha* or flag staff in honour of Janārdana, *i.e.*, Vishṇu, by the Mahārāja Mātṛivishṇu, ruler of Eraṇ, and his brother Dhanyavishṇu, while the *Bhūpati* (King) Budha Gupta, was reigning, and *Mahārāja* Suraśmichandra was governing the land between the Kālindī (Jumna) and the Narmadā (Nerbudda), indicates that Budha Gupta's dominions included part of Central India as well as Kāśī and North Bengal.

c22.s4.4

² To the reign of this Gupta king belongs also probably the Pāhāḍpur (ancient Somapura) (Rājshāhi District) plate of A.D. 478-79 (*Mod. Rev.*, 1931, 150; *Prabāsi* 1338, 671; *Ep. Ind.*, XX, 59 ff.) and also a copper-plate of A.D. 488-9 (*Ep. Ind.*, xxiii. 52), originally found at Nandapura (Monghyr District). For a possible reference to Budha Gupta in Purāṇic literature, see *Pro. of the Seventh Or. Conf.*, 576.

c22.s4.5

³ *JRASB*, 1949, 5 ff.

c22.s4.6

The coins of this emperor are dated in the year A.D. *c.* 495. They continue the peacock-type of the Gupta silver coinage that was meant, according to Allan, for circulation in the central part of the empire.⁴ Their legend is the claim to be lord of the earth and to have won heaven,—found on the coins of Kumāra Gupta I and Skanda Gupta.

c22.s4.7

⁴ *Cf.* also *Mahābhārata*, ii. 32. 4; Kālidāsa, *Meghadūta*, I. 45.

Section V. Successors of Budha Gupta

c22.s5.1

According to the *Life of Hiuen Tsang* Budha Gupta was succeeded by Tathāgata Gupta, after whom Bālāditya succeeded to the empire.¹ At this period the supremacy of the Guptas in Central India was challenged by the Hun king Toramāṇa. We have seen that in A.D. 484-85 a *Mahārāja* named Mātṛivishṇu ruled in the Airikiṇa Vishaya (Eraṇ in Eastern Mālwa, now in the Saugor District of the Central Provinces) as a vassal of the emperor Budha Gupta. But after his death his younger brother Dhanyavishṇu transferred his allegiance to Toramāṇa. The success of the Huns in Central India was, however, short-lived. In 510-11 we find a general named Goparāja fighting by the side of a Gupta king at Eraṇ and king Hastin of the neighbouring province of Ḍabhālā to the south-east of Eraṇ acknowledging the sovereignty of the Guptas. In A.D. 518-9 the suzerainty of the Guptas is acknowledged in the Tripurī *vishaya* (Jubbalpore District). In the year 528-29 the Gupta sway was still acknowledged by the *Parivrājaka-Mahārāja* of Ḍabhālā. The *Parivrājakas* Hastin and Saṁkshobha seem to have been the bulwarks of the Gupta empire in the northern part of the present Madhya Pradeśa. The *Harsha-charita* of Bāṇa recognises the possession of Mālava, possibly Eastern Mālwa, by the Guptas as late as the time of Prabhākara-vardhana (*cir.* A.D. 600). There can be no doubt that the expulsion of the Huns from parts of Central India was final.² The recovery of the Central Provinces was probably effected in the time of Bālāditya whose troops are represented by Hiuen Tsang as having imprisoned Mihirakula, the son and successor of Toramāṇa, and set him at liberty at the request of the Queen Mother. The Hun king had to be content with a small kingdom in the north."¹ It is not improbable that Bālāditya was a *biruda* of the "glorious Bhānu Gupta, the bravest man on the earth, a mighty king, equal to Pārtha" along with whom Goparāja went to Eraṇ and having fought a "very famous battle" died shortly before A.D. 510-11.²

c22.s5.2

¹ Beal, *Si-yu-ki*, II, p. 168; the *Life*, p. 111.

c22.s5.3

² For the survival of the Huns in the Mālwa region, See *Ep. Ind.*, xxiii., 102.

c22.s5.4

¹ Beal, *Si-yu-ki*, I, p. 171.

c22.s5.5

² In a Nālandā Stone Inscription (*Ep. Ind.*, XX, 43-45) Bālāditya is described as a king of irresistible valour and vanquisher of all foes. The last of the Bālādityas mentioned in a Sārnāth Inscription (Fleet, *CII*, 285 f.) had a son named Prakaṭāditya by his wife Dhavalā. In the *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa* (ed. G. Śāstrī, p. 637 ff.) Pakārākhya (Prakaṭāditya) is represented as the son of Bhakārākhya (Bhānu Gupta). Buddhist tradition thus corroborates the identification, first proposed in these pages, of Bālāditya with Bhānu Gupta. *Cf.* now Jayaswal, *An Imperial History of India*, pp. 47, 53. An inscription found at Guṇāighara near Comilla and certain seals at Nālandā disclose the existence of a king named (Vai)nya Gu(pta) who ruled in or about A. D. 507 and must have been also a contemporary of Mihirakula or of his father (*Prabāsī*, 1338, 675; IHQ, 1930, 53, 561). The seals give him the style *Mahārājādhirāja* (*ASI*, *AR*, 1930-34, Pt. I, 230, 249; *MASI*, 66, 67; *IHQ*, XIX, 275) and suggest relationship with the imperial Guptas. Dr D. C. Ganguly identifies him with the *Dvādaśāditya* of coins (*IHQ*, 1933, 784, 989). But owing to damaged condition of the Nālandā seal his parentage cannot be ascertained.

c22.s5.6

Mihirakula was finally subjugated by the *Janendra*³ Yaśodharman of Mandaśor some time before A.D. 533.

c22.s5.7

³ The ascription of the title of Vikramāditya to Yaśodharman of Mandaśor, and the representation of this chief as a ruler of Ujjain, the father of Śīlāditya of Mo-la-po and the father-in-law of Prabhākara-vardhana are absolutely unwarranted. According to Father Heras (*JBORS*, 1927, March, 8-9) the defeat of Mihirakula at the hands of Bālāditya took place after the Hun king's conflict with Yaśodharman. It should, however, be remembered that at the time of the war with Bālāditya Mihirakula was a paramount sovereign to whom the king of Magadha had been tributary, and with whom he dared not fight, being only anxious to conceal his poor person (Beal, *Si-yu-ki*, Vol. I, p. 168). This is hardly possible after the Janendra of Mandaśor had compelled the Hun "to pay respect to his two feet". The victory of Bālāditya over Mihirakula was certainly not decisive. The "loss of the royal estate" was only temporary, and the tyrant soon placed himself on the throne of Kaśmīra and conquered Gandhāra (Beal, *Si-yu-ki*, I, p. 171). To the court-poet of Yaśodharman Mihirakula was pre-eminently a king of the Himālayan region. This is clear from the following passage which was misunderstood by Fleet whose interpretation has been followed by Father Heras (p. 8 n) :— "He (Yaśodharman) to whose feet respect was paid—by even that (famous) king Mihirakula, whose head had never previously been brought into the humility of obeisance to any other save (the god) Sthāṇu (and) *embraced by whose arms the mountain of snow falsely prides itself as being styled an inaccessible fortress*" (Kielhorn in *Ind. Ant.*, 1885, p. 219). Kielhorn's interpretation was accepted by Fleet. [The statement that Mihirakula's head 'had never been brought into the humility of obeisance to any other save (the god) Sthāṇu" shows that he refused to do homage to Bālāditya, and probably accounts for the order, given for his execution by that king.]

c22.s5.8

Line 6 of the Mandaśor Stone Pillar inscription¹ leaves the impression that in the time of Yaśodharman Mihirakula was the king of a Himālayan country ("small kingdom in the north"), i.e., Kaśmīra and that neighbourhood, who was compelled "to pay respect to the two feet" of the victorious *Janendra* probably when the latter carried his arms to "the mountain of snow the tablelands of which are embraced by the Gaṅgā."

c22.s5.9

¹ CII, pp. 146-147; Jayaswal, *The Historical Position of Kalki*, p. 9.

c22.s5.10

Yaśodharman claims to have extended his sway as far as the Lauhitya or Brahmaputra in the east. It is not improbable that he defeated and killed **Vajra**, the son of Bālāditya,² and extinguished the viceregal family of the Dattas of Puṇḍra-vardhana. Hiuen Tsang mentions a king of Central India as the successor of Vajra. The Dattas, who governed Puṇḍra-vardhana from the time of Kumāra Gupta I, disappear about this time. But Yaśodharman's success must have been short-lived, because in A.D. 543-44, ten years after the Mandasor inscription which mentions the *Janendra* Yaśodharman as victorious, the son (?) and viceroy of a Gupta *parama-bhaṭṭāraka mahārājādhirāja pṛithivīpati*, ‘supreme sovereign, king of kings, lord of the earth,’ and not any official of the Central Indian *Janendra*, was governing the Puṇḍra-vardhana-*bhukti*, a province which lay between the Indian interior and the Lauhitya.

c22.s5.11

² If the identification of Bālāditya with Bhānu Gupta first proposed in these pages is correct, his son Vajra may be identified with Vakārākhya, the younger brother (*anuja*) of the Prakaṭāditya of the Sārnāth Inscription (Fleet, CII, 284 ff.)—the Pakārākhya of the *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa* who is represented as the son of Bhakārākhya, i.e., Bhānu Gupta (ed. G. Śāstrī, pp. 637-44). Prakaṭāditya is represented in the inscription named above as the son of Bālāditya by Dhavalā. *Cf.* now Jayaswal, *An Imperial History of India*, pp. 47, 53, 56, 63.

The Early Imperial Guptas

c22.s5.t1.1

[Figure: Gupta

c22.s5.t1.2

Ghaṭotkacha Licbchhavi

c22.s5.t1.3

Chandra Gupta I = Kumāra Devī (?) A.D. 320 | Samudra Gupta = Datta Devī

c22.s5.t1.4

Dhruva Devī = Deva Gupta I (Chandra Gupta II) Vikramāditya = Kubera Nāgā A.D. 376-413

c22.s5.t1.5

Govinda Gupta Kumāra Gupta I Mahendrāditya (1) Devakī ? Guttas of Guttal. Prabhāvatī Crown Prince ? A.D. 415-455 (2) Ananta Devī | Vākāṭaka kings of Bhojakaṭa, etc.,* in the Deccan

c22.s5.t1.6

| | :

c22.s5.t1.7

Skanda Gupta Puru Gupta ?Ghaṭotkacha Gupta, C. India Vikramāditya II = Śrī Chandra A. D. 455-c 467 Levi (?)

c22.s5.t1.8

Narasiṁha Gupta Budha (Bālāditya) Gupta, A. D. 477-c. 495. = Śrī Mitra Devī

c22.s5.t1.9

Kumāra Gupta II, Kramaditya, (? Tathāgata Gupta probably related to (?) A.D. 473-474 Vainya Gupta A.D. 507

c22.s5.t1.10

| :

c22.s5.t1.11

Vishṇu Gupta Bālāditya II (Bhānu Gupta?) A.D. 510

c22.s5.t1.12

Prakaṭāditya (?) Vajra (?)]

Section VI. The Line of Krishna Gupta

c22.s6.1

The name of the Gupta emperor in the Dāmodarpur plate of A.D. 543-44 is unfortunately lost. The Aphsaḍ inscription, however, discloses the names of a number of "Gupta" kings,¹ the fourth of whom, Kumāra Gupta(III), was a contemporary of Īśānavarman Maukhari who is known from the Harāhā inscription to have been ruling in A.D. 554.² Kumāra Gupta III, and his three predecessors, *viz.*, Kṛishṇa, Harsha and Jīvita, should probably be placed in the period between A.D. 510, the date of Bhānu Gupta, and 554, the date of Īśānavarman. It is possible, but by no means certain, that one of these kings is identical with the Gupta emperor mentioned in the Dāmodarpur plate of A.D. 543-44.¹ The absence of high-sounding titles like *Mahārājādhirāja* or *Parama-bhaṭṭāraka* in the *Ślokas* or verses of the Aphsaḍ inscription does not necessarily prove that the kings mentioned there were petty chiefs. No such titles are attached to the name of Kumāra I in the Mandaśor inscription, or to the name of Budha in the Eraṇ inscription. On the other hand the queen of Mādhava Gupta, one of the least powerful kings mentioned in the Aphsaḍ inscription, is called *Parama-bhaṭṭārikā* and *Mahādevī* in the Dēo Baraṇārk epigraph.

c22.s6.2

¹ Although the rulers, the names of most of whom ended in-*gupta*, mentioned in the Aphsaḍ and connected contemporary epigraphs, who ruled over the provinces in the heart of the early Gupta empire, are called "Guptas" for the sake of convenience, their relationship with the early *Gupta-kula* or *Gupta-vaṁśa* is not known. It is, however, to be noted that some of them (*e.g.*, Kumāra Gupta and Deva Gupta), bore names that are found in the earlier family, and Kṛishṇa Gupta, the founder of the line, has been identified by some with Govinda Gupta, son of Chandra Gupta II. But the last suggestion is hardly acceptable, because Govinda must have flourished more than half a century before Kṛishṇa Gupta. And it is surprising that the panegyrists of Kṛishṇa Gupta's descendants should have omitted all references to the early Guptas if their patrons could really lay claim to such an illustrious ancestry. In the Aphsaḍ inscription the dynasty is described simply as *Sad-vaṁśa* 'of good lineage'. The designation *Gupta*, albeit not "Early Imperial Gupta," is possibly justified by the evidence of Bāṇa. The Guptas and the Gupta *Kulaputra* mentioned in Bāṇa's *Kādambarī* and *Harsha-charita* may refer to the family of Kṛishṇa, if not to some hitherto unknown descendants of the early imperial line. One of the princes of the early Gupta line, Ghaṭotkacha Gupta of the Tumain inscription is known to have ruled over Eastern Mālwa and it is not impossible that Kṛishṇa Gupta was, in some way, connected with him. We must, however, await future discoveries to clear up the point.

c22.s6.3

² H. Sāstrī., *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, pp. 110 ff.

c22.s6.4

¹ Mr. Y. R. Gupte (*Ind. Hist. Journal*) reads the name of Kumāra in the inscription of A. D. 543-44, but he identifies him with the son of Narasiṁha Gupta. The ruler whose name is missing may represent one or other of the "Gupta" lines already known to scholars or some new line. *Cf.* the cases of Vainya Gupta and the princes mentioned on pp. 214-15 of *Ep. Ind.*, xx, Appendix.

c22.s6.5

Regarding **Kṛishṇa Gupta** we know very little. The Aphsaḍ inscription describes him as a hero whose arm played the part of a lion, in bruising the foreheads of the array of the rutting elephants of (his) haughty enemy (*dṛiptārāti*), (and) in being victorious by (its) prowess over countless foes. The *dṛiptārāti* against whom he had to fight may have been Yaśodharman. The next king **Deva Śrī Harsha Gupta** had to engage in terrible contests with those who were "averse to the abode of the goddess of fortune being with (him, her) own lord." There were wounds from many weapons on his chest. The name of the enemies, who tried to deprive him of his rightful possessions, are not given. Harsha's son **Jīvita Gupta I** probably succeeded in re-establishing the power of his family in the territory lying between the Himālayas and the sea, apparently in Eastern India. "The very terrible scorching fever (of fear) left not (his) haughty foes, even though they stood on seaside shores that were cool with the flowing and ebbing currents of water, (and) were covered with the branches of plantain trees severed by the trunks of elephants roaming through the lofty groves of palmyra palms; (or) even though they stood on (that) mountain (Himālaya) which is cold with the water of the rushing and waving torrents full of snow." The "haughty foes" on seaside shores were probably the Gauḍas who had already launched into a career of conquest about this time and who are described as living on the sea shore (*samudr-āśraya*) in the Harāhā inscription of A. D. 554.¹ The other enemies may have included ambitious *Kumārāmātyas* like Nandana of the Amauna plate.

c22.s6.6

¹ Ep. Ind., XIV, p. 110 *et seq.*

c22.s6.7

The next king, **Kumāra Gupta III**, had to encounter a sea of troubles. The Gauḍas were issuing from their "proper realm" which was in Western Bengal as it bordered on the sea and included Karṇasuvarṇa² and Rāḍhāpuri.³ The lord of the Andhras who had thousands of three-fold rutting elephants, and the Sūlikas who had an army of countless galloping horses, were powers to be reckoned with. The Andhra king was probably Mādhava-varman (I, Janāśraya) of the Polamuru plates belonging to the Vishṇukuṇḍin family who "crossed the river Godāvari with the desire to conquer the eastern region"⁴ and performed eleven horse-sacrifices. The Sūlikas were probably the Chalukyas.⁵ In the Mahākūṭa pillar inscription the name appears as Chalikya. In the Gujarāt records we find the forms Solaki and Solaṅki. Sūlika may have been another dialectic variant. The Mahākūṭa pillar inscription tells us that in the sixth century A.D., Kīrtivarman I of the "Chalikya" dynasty gained victories over the kings of Vaṅga, Aṅga, Magadha, etc. His father is known to have performed the *Aśvamedha* sacrifice, "the super-eminent touch-stone to test the might of warriors conquering the world and an indication of the conquest of all the warriors." Prince Kīrtivarman may have been entrusted with the guardianship of the sacrificial steed that had to roam about for a year in the territories of the rulers to whom a challenge was thrown by the performer of the sacrifice.

c22.s6.8

² M. Chakravarti, JASB, 1908, p. 274.

c22.s6.9

³ *Prabodha-chandrodaya*, Act II.

c22.s6.10

⁴ Dubreuil, AHD, p. 92 and D. C. Sircar, IHQ, 1933, 276 ff.

c22.s6.11

⁵ In the *Bṛihat-Saṁhitā*, IX. 15; XIV. 8, the Sūlikas and Saulikas are associated with Aparānta (N. Koṅkaṇ), Vanavāsi (Kanara) and Vidarbha (Berar). In *Bṛih. Saṁ.*, IX. 21, X. 7, XVI. 35, however, they are associated with Gandhāra and Vokkāṇa (Wakhan). A branch of the people may have dwelt in the north-west. In *JRAS*, 1912, 128, we have a reference to Kulastambha of the Sulki family. Tāranātha (*Ind. Ant.*, IV, 364) places the kingdom of "Sulik" beyond "Togara" (Ter in the Deccan?).

c22.s6.12

A new power was rising in the Upper Ganges Valley which was destined to engage in a death grapple with the Guptas for the mastery of Northern India. This was the Mukhara or **Maukhari**¹ power. The Maukharis claimed descent from the hundred sons whom king Aśvapati got from Vaivasvata, *i.e.*, Yama² (not Manu). The family consisted of several distinct groups. The stone inscriptions of one group have been discovered in the Jaunpur and Bārā Bankī districts of the Uttara Pradeśa, while lithic records of another group have been discovered in the Gayā district of Bihār. A third family has left inscription at Baḍvā in the Kotah state in Rājputāna. The Maukharis of Gayā, namely, Yajñavarman, Sārdūlavarman and Anantavarman were a feudatory family. Śārdūla is expressly called *sāmanta chūḍāmaṇi*, ‘crest-jewel of vassal chiefs’ in the Barābar Hill Cave Inscription of his son.¹ The Baḍvā Maukharis held the office of general or military governor under some Prince of Western India in the third century A. D. The Maukharis of the Uttara Pradeśa² probably also held a subordinate rank at first. The earliest princes of this family, viz., Harivarman. Ādityavarman, and Īśvaravarman, were simply *Mahārājas*, Ādityavarman’s wife was Harsha Guptā, probably a sister of king Harsha Gupta. The wife of his son and successor Īśvaravarman was also probably a Gupta princess named Upa-Guptā. In the Harāhā inscription **Īśānavarman**, son of Īśvaravarman and Upa-Guptā,³ claims victories over the **Andhras**,⁴ the **Śūlikas** and the **Gauḍas** and is the first to assume the Imperial title of *Mahārājādhirāja*. It was this which probably brought him into conflict with king Kumāra Gupta III.¹ Thus began a duel between the Maukharis and the Guptas which ended only when the latter with the help of the Gauḍas wiped out the Maukhari power in the time of Grahavarman, brother-in-law of Harshavardhana.²

c22.s6.13

¹ The family was called both Mukhara and Maukhari. "*Soma-Sūrya vaṁśā-viva Pushpabhūti* (sic) *Mukhara Vaṁśau*", "*sakalabhuvana namaskṛito Maukhari vaṁśaḥ*." (*Harsha-charita*, Parab's ed., pp. 141, 146). *Cf.* also CII, p. 229.

c22.s6.14

² Mbh., III. 296. 38 ff. The reference is undoubtedly to the hundred sons that Aśvapati obtained as a boon from Yama on the intercession of his daughter Sāvitrī. It is surprising that some writers still identify the Vaivasvata of the Maukhari record with Manu.

c22.s6.15

¹ CII, p. 223. The connection of the Maukharis with Gayā is very old. This is proved by the clay seal with the inscription *Mokhalisa*, or *Mokhalinam* (Fleet, CII, 14), to which attention has already been drawn above. A reference to the *Mokaris* seems also to occur in the Chandravalli Stone Inscription of the Kadamba king Mayūraśarman (*Arch. Survey of Mysore*, A. R. 1929, pp. 50 ff). Dr. Tripathi finds a possible reference in the *Mahābhāshya* (JBORS, 1934, March). For the Baḍvā ins., see *Ep. Ind.*, XXIII, 42 ff. (Altekar).

c22.s6.16

² In literature the Maukhari line of U. P. is associated with the city of Kanauj which may have been the capital at one time. *Cf.* C. V. Vaidya, *Mediaeval Hindu India*, I, pp. 9, 33; Aravamuthan, *the Kaveri, the Maukharis and the Samgam Age*, p. 101. Hiuen Tsang, however, declares Kanauj to have been included within the realm of the House of Pushyabhūti even before Harsha. A Gupta noble was in possession of Kuśasthala (Kanauj) for some time after the death of Rājyavardhana and before the rise of Harsha. (*Harsha-Charita*, Parab's ed., pp. 226, 249).

c22.s6.17

³ Fleet, CII. 220.

c22.s6.18

⁴ The victory over the Andhras is also alluded to in the Jaunpur stone inscription (CII, p. 230) which, according to Fleet, also seems to refer to a conflict with Dhārā, the capital of Western Mālava (?). Dr. Basāk thinks that *Dhārā* in this passage refers to the edge of the sword (*Hist. N. E. Ind.*, 109).

c22.s6.19

¹ Any one acquainted with the history of Europe knows that enumeration as I, II, III etc. need not imply that the kings in question belonged to the same dynasty.

c22.s6.20

² The successors of Grahavarman may have survived as petty nobles. With them a "Later Gupta" king contracted a matrimonial alliance in the seventh century A. D.

c22.s6.21

We have seen that Īśānavarman's mother and grand-mother were probably Gupta princesses. The mother of Prabhākaravardhana, the other empire-builder of the second half of the sixth century, appears also to have been a Gupta princess. It seems that the Gupta marriages in this period were as efficacious in stimulating imperial ambition³ as the Lichchhavi marriages of more ancient times.

c22.s6.22

³ *Cf.* Hoernle, JRAS, 1903, p. 557.

c22.s6.23

Kumāra Gupta III claims to have "churned that formidable milk-ocean, the cause of the attainment of fortune, which was the army of the glorious Īśānavarman, a very moon among kings."⁴ This is not an empty boast, for the Maukhari records do not claim any victory over the Guptas. Kumār Gupta III's funeral rites took place at Prayāga which probably formed a part of his dominions.

c22.s6.24

⁴ Aphsaḍ Ins.

c22.s6.25

The son and successor of this king was **Dāmodara Gupta**. He continued the struggle with the Maukharis⁵ and fell fighting against them. "Breaking up the proudly stepping array of mighty elephants, belonging to the Maukhari, which had thrown aloft in battle the troops of the Hūṇas (in order to trample them to death), he became unconscious (and expired¹ in the fight)."

c22.s6.26

⁵ The Maukhari opponent of Dāmodara Gupta was either Sūryavarman or Sarvavarman (both being sons of Iśānavarman), if not Iśānavarman himself. A Sūryavarman is described in the Sirpur stone inscription of Mahāśiva Gupta as "born *in the unblemished family of the Varmans*, great on account of their ādhipatya (supremacy) over Magadha." If this Sūryavarman be identical with, or a descendant of, Sūryavarman, the son of Īśānavarman, then it is certain that for a time the supremacy of Magadha passed from the hands of the Guptas to that of the Maukharis. The Deo-Baraṇārk Inscription (Shāhābad District) of Jīvita Gupta II also suggests (CII, pp. 216-218) that the Maukharis Śarvavarman and Avantivarman held a considerable part of Magadha some time after Bālāditya-deva. After the loss of Magadha the later Guptas were apparently confined to "Mālava," till Mahāsena Gupta once more pushed his conquests as far as the Lauhitya.

c22.s6.27

¹ Reference to *Mahābhārata* XII. 98. 46-47; *Raghuvaṁśa*, VII. 53; *Kāvyādarśa*, II, 119; *Rājātaraṅgiṇī*, I. 68, shows that the objections raised against the interpretation of Fleet are invalid. The significance of the touch of Surabadhūs as distinct from a human being, is entirely missed by a writer in Bhand. Com. Vol. 181, and a reviewer of Dr. Tripathi's *History of Ancient India*.

c22.s6.28

Dāmodara Gupta was succeeded by his son **Mahāsena Gupta**. He is probably the king of Mālava, possibly Eastern Mālwa, mentioned in the *Harsha-charita*, whose sons Kumāra Gupta and Mādhava Gupta were appointed to wait upon Rājya-vardhana and Harsha-vardhana by their father, king Prabhākara-vardhana of the Pushyabhūti family of Śrīkaṇṭha (Thānesar). The intimate relation between the family of Mahāsena Gupta and that of Prabhākara-vardhana is proved by the Madhuban grant and the Sonpat copper seal inscription of Harsha which represent Mahāsena Guptā Devī as the mother of Prabhākara, and the Aphsaḍ inscription of Ādityasena which alludes to the association of Mādhava Gupta, son of Mahāsena Gupta, with Harsha.

c22.s6.29

The Pushyabhūti alliance of Mahāsena Gupta was probably due to his fear of the rising power of the Maukharis.² The policy was eminently successful, and during his reign we do not hear of any struggle with that family. But a new danger threatened from the east. A strong monarchy was at this time established in Kāmarūpa by a line of princes who claimed descent from Bhagadatta. King Susthitavarman¹ of this family came into conflict with Mahāsena Gupta and was defeated. "The mighty fame of Mahāsena Gupta," says the Aphsaḍ inscription, "marked with honour of victory in war over the illustrious Susthitavarman......is still constantly sung on the banks of the river Lohitya."

c22.s6.30

² And perhaps of other aggressive states mentioned in the beginning of the fourth *Uchchhvāsa* of the *Harsha-charita*. The Lāṭas of that passage may have reference to the Kaṭachchuris who finally ousted the Guptas from Vidiśā in or about A. D. 608. The Kaṭachchuri (Kalachuri) dominions included the Lāṭa country in the latter part of the sixth and the first decade of the seventh century A.D. (Dubreuil, A.H.D., 82).

c22.s6.31

¹ See the Nidhanapur plates. A writer in the JRAS (1928) revives the theory that Susthitavarman was a Maukhari and not a king of Kāmarūpa. But no Maukhari king of that name is known. The association of Susthitavarman with the river Lohitya or Brahmaputra clearly shows that the king of that name mentioned in the Nidhanapur plates is meant.

c22.s6.32

Between Mahāsena Gupta, the contemporary of Prabhākara-vardhana, and his younger or youngest son Mādhava Gupta, the contemporary of Harsha, we have to place a king named **Deva Gupta II**² who is mentioned by name in the Madhuban and Banskhera inscriptions of Harsha as the most prominent among the kings "who resembled wicked horses," who were all punished and restrained in their evil career by Rājya-vardhana. As the Gupta princes are uniformly connected with Mālava in the *Harsha-charita* there can be no doubt that the wicked Deva Gupta is identical with the wicked lord of Mālava who cut off Grahavarman Maukhari, and who was himself defeated "with ridiculous ease" by Rājya-vardhana.³ It is difficult to determine the position of Deva Gupta in the dynastic list of the Guptas. He may have been the eldest son of Mahāsena Gupta, and an elder brother of Kumāra Gupta and Mādhava Gupta.¹ His name is omitted in the Aphsaḍ list of kings, just as the name of Skanda Gupta is omitted in the Bhitarī list.

c22.s6.33

² The Emperor Chandra Gupta II was Deva Gupta I.

c22.s6.34

³ It is difficult to believe, as does one writer, that the Mālava antagonist of Grahavarman and Rājya-vardhana was Buddharāja of the Kalachuri (Kaṭachchuri) family. Had that been the case then it is rather surprising that a shadowy figure like Devagupta, and not Buddha-rāja, would be specially selected in the epigraphic records of the time of Harsha, for prominent notice among "the kings who resembled wicked horses," who received punishment at the hands of Rājyavardhana. It is the 'Guptas' who are associated with Mālava in the *Harsha-* *charita* which deals mainly with events till the rescue of Rājyaśrī. The rulers mentioned in connection with the tragic fate of the last of the Maukharis, the vicissitudes through which Rājyaśrī passed, and the struggles in which Rājya vardhana engaged, include Guptas and Gauḍas but no Kaṭachchuri king.

c22.s6.35

¹ Hoernle, JRAS, 1903, p. 562. The suggestion, however, cannot be regarded as a well-established fact. Devagupta may have represented a collateral line of the Mālava family who continued to pursue a policy hostile to the Pushyabhūtis and the Maukharis, while Kumāra, Mādhava, the Gupta Kulaputra who connived at the escape of Rājyaśrī from Kuśasthala (Kanauj), and Ādityasena, son of Mādhava, who gave his daughter in marriage to a Maukhari, may have belonged to a friendly branch.

c22.s6.36

Shortly before his death, king Prabhākara-vardhana had given his daughter Rājyaśrī in marrige to Grahavarman, the eldest son of the Maukhari king Avantivarman. The alliance of the Pushyabhūtis with the sworn enemies of his family must have alienated Deva Gupta, who formed a counter-alliance with the Gauḍas whose hostility towards the Maukharis dated from the reign of Īśānavarman. As soon as Prabhākara died the Gupta king and the Gauḍa king, Śaśāṅka,² seem to have made a joint attack on the Maukhari kingdom. "Graha-varman was by the wicked *rājā* of Mālava cut off from the living along with his noble deeds. Rājyaśrī also, the princess, was confined like a brigand's wife with a pair of iron fetters kissing her feet and cast into prison at Kanyākubja.” “The villain, deeming the army leaderless purposes to invade and seize this country (Thanesar) as well.” Rājya-vardhana, though he routed the Mālava army “with ridiculous ease,” was “allured to confidence by false civilities on the part of the overlord of Gauḍa, and then weaponless, confiding and alone despatched in his own quarters.”

c22.s6.37

² There is no reason to believe that Śaśāṅka belonged to the Gupta family (*pace* Allan, *Gupta Coins*, *lxiv*). Even if it be proved that he had a secondary name, Narendra Gupta, that by itself cannot establish a connection with the Gupta line in view of (*a*) the absence of any reference to his supposed Gupta ancestry in his own seal matrix ins. or in the record of his feudatories, (*b*) the use of the Nandidhvaja to the exclusion of the Garuḍadhvaja, (*c*) his Gauḍa connection. The epithet '*Samudrāśraya*' applied to the Gauḍas of the sixth century A. D., can hardly be regarded as an apposite characterisation of the Guptas of Magadha, Prayāga or Mālwa.

c22.s6.38

To meet the formidable league between the Guptas and the Gauḍas, Harsha, the successor of Rājya-vardhana, concluded an alliance with Bhāskara-varman, king of Kāmarūpa, whose father Susthita-varman Mṛigāṅka had fought against Mahāsena Gupta. This alliance was disastrous for the Gauḍas as we know from the Nidhanapur plates of Bhāskara. At the time of the issuing of the plates Bhāskara-varman was in possession of the city of Karṇasuvarṇa that had once been the capital of the Gauḍa king, Śaśāṅka, whose death took place some time between A.D 619 and 637. The king overthrown by Bhāskara-varman may have been Jayanāga (*nāgarāja-samāhvayo Gauḍarāja*, the king of Gauḍa named Nāga, successor of *Somākhya* or Śaśāṅka), whose name is disclosed by the Vappaghoshavāṭa inscription.² The Gauḍa people, however, did not tamely acquiesce in the loss of their independence. They became a thorn in the side of Kanauj and Kāmarūpa, and their hostility towards those two powers was inherited by the Pāla and Sēna successors of Śaśāṅka.

c22.s6.39

² *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 60 ff; *Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa*, ed. G. Śāstrī, p. 636. The name Jaya is also given in the Buddhist work.

c22.s6.40

In or about A.D. 608 the Guptas seem to have lost Vidiśā to the Kaṭachchuris. Magadha was held a little before A.D. 637 by Pūrṇavarman. **Mādhava Gupta**, the younger or youngest son of Mahāsena Gupta, remained a subordinate ally of Harsha of Thanesar and Kanauj and apparently resided at his court. In the period 618-27, Harsha "punished the kings of four parts of India" and in 641 assumed the title of King of Magadha.¹ After his death the Gupta sovereignty in Magadha was revived by **Ādityasena**, a prince of remarkable vigour and ability, who found his opportunity in the commotion which followed the usurpation of Harsha's throne by Arjuna (?). For this "Later Gupta" king we have a number of inscriptions which prove that he ruled over a wide territory extending to the shores of the oceans. The Aphsaḍ, Shāhpur and Mandāra inscriptions recognise his undisputed possession of south and part of east Bihār. A Deoghar inscription, noticed by Fleet,² describes him as the ruler of the whole earth up to the shores of the seas, and the performer of the *Aśvamedha* and the other great sacrifices. He renewed contact with the Gauḍas as well as the Maukharis and received a Gauḍa named Sūkshamśiva in his service. A Maukhari chief, Bhogavarman, accepted the hands of his daughter³ and presumably became his subordinate ally. The Dēo-Baraṇārk inscription refers to the *Jayaskandhāvāra* of his great-grandson Jīvita Gupta II at *Gomatīkoṭṭaka*. This clearly suggests that the so-called Later Guptas, and not the Maukharis, dominated about this time the Gomatī valley in the *Madhya-deśa*. The Mandāra inscription applies to Ādityasena the imperial titles of *Parama-bhaṭṭāraka* and *Mahārājādhirāja*. We learn from the Shāhpur stone image inscription that he was ruling in the year A.D. 672-73. It is not improbable that he or his son Deva Gupta (III) is the *Sakalottarā-patha-nātha*, lord of the whole of North India, who was defeated by the Chalukya kings Vinayāditya (A.D. 680-96) and Vijayāditya.¹

First 108 of 132 passages. Read on

Linked texts (16)