Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c25: Appendix C. A Note on the Later Guptas

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c25

Language: English

Appendix C. A Note on the Later Guptas

c25.2

¹ Mainly an extract from an article published in *JBORS*, Sept.-Dec., 1929, pp. 561 ff.

It was recently urged by Professor R. D. Banerji that Mahāsena Gupta of the Aphsaḍ inscription, father of Mādlıava Gupta, the associate of Harsha, could not have been a king of East Mālava, and secondly, that Susthitavarman whose defeat at the hands of Mahāsena Gupta, in the Lohita or Lauhitya region, is mentioned in the Aphsaḍ inscription, was not a Maukhari, but a king of Kāmarūpa.

c25.4

The second proposition will be readily accepted by all careful students of the Aphsaḍ epigraph and the Nidhanapur plate inscription, though some western scholars are still, I know not why, of a contrary opinion.² As to the first point, *viz.*, whether Mahāsena Gupta was a direct ruler of East Mālava or of Magadha, a student will have to take note of the following facts :—

c25.5

² *JRAS*, 1928, July, pp. 689f.

c25.6

(i) In the Dêô-Baraṇārk Inscription of Jīvita Gupta II, which records the continuance of the grant of a village³ in South Bihar, we have reference to Bālāditya-deva, and after him, to the Maukharis Sarva-varman and Avanti-varman. Not a word is said about their later Gupta contemporaries in connection with the previous grants of the village. The inscription is no doubt damaged, but the sovereignty of Sarva-varman and Avanti-varman undoubtedly precludes the possibility of the direct rule of their contemporaries of the later Gupta line.

c25.7

³ Dr. R. C. Majumdar's suggestion that the village in question may have been situated in U. P. has been commented upon by Dr. Sircar who points out that Fleet's reading of the name of the village (on which Dr. Majumdar bases his conclusions) is tentative and unacceptable.

c25.8

(ii) Inscriptions discovered in the Barābar and Nāgārjuni hill caves disclose the existence of another line of Maukhari "Varmans" who were feudatory (*sāmanta*) chiefs of the Gayā district in the time of the later Guptas.

c25.9

(iii) Yuan Chwang who visited Magadha in the time of Harsha mentions Pūrṇa-varman as the occupant of the throne of Magadha.¹ He does not say a word about Mādhava Gupta or his father in connection with Magadha.

c25.10

¹ Watters, III, 115.

c25.11

(iv) Bāṇa indeed, refers to Mādhava Gupta, the associate of Harsha, but he expressly mentions his father as the king of Mālava, and not of Magadha. The existence of two associates of Harsha, each bearing the name of Mādhava Gupta, one of whom was the son of a king of Magadha, is not known to the biographer of the great emperor.

c25.12

From the evidence adduced above two facts emerge, *viz.*, that the father of the only Mādhava Gupta whom the biographer of Harsha knew to be the associate of his royal patron, was a king of Mālava, and that before Harsha's conquest of the province in A. D. 641,² direct control over Magadha was exercised, not by the Guptas, but by the "Varmans". The memory of "Varman" *ādhipatya* (supremacy) over Magadha had not died away even in the time of the Sirpur stone inscription of Mahāśiva Gupta.

c25.13

² *Ind. Ant.*, IX, 19.

c25.14

The only relevant argument that Professor Banerji urged against the view that Mahāsena Gupta, the father of Mādhava Gupta, the associate of Harsha, was "*probably*"³ a king of Mālava, is that "*it was impossible for a king of Mālava to reach the banks of the Lauhitya without strenuous opposition from the kings*" who governed the intervening region. But how did Professor Banerji solve the problem? By making Mahāsena Gupta king of Magadha, and assuming that "*Assam* very probably lay on his frontier and Rādhā and Vanga or Mithilā and Varendra were included in his kingdom." Anything in the nature of a proof he failed to give, but we were asked to accept his surmise because "in this case only is it possible for Mahāsena Gupta to have fought with Susthitavarman of Assam."

c25.15

³ *Political History of Ancient India, Second Edition*, p. 373.

c25.16

Regarding the possibility of a king of Mālava carrying his arms to the banks of the Lauhitya, attention may be invited to the Mandasor inscription of Yaśodharman. In the case of Mahāsena Gupta a careful student of the Aphsaḍ inscription cannot fail to note that the way before him had been prepared by his immediate predecessors. Kumāra Gupta, his grandfather, had pushed to Prayāga, while Dāmodara Gupta, father of Mahāsena Gupta, claims to have "broken up the proudly stepping array of mighty elephants, belonging to the Maukhari"¹—the same power which we have already seen, held control of Magadha a little before Harsha's conquest of the Province. The Gauḍa expansion had already been stopped for a time by the victories of Iśānavarman Maukhari. What was there to prevent the son of Dāmodara Gupta (who must have assumed command after the *death* of his father on the battle-field)' from pushing on to the Lauhitya?

c25.17

¹ *Cf.* Fleet *Corpus III*, pp. 203, 206. *Cf.* also Viraśayyā motif *ante*, 606 n 1.

Linked texts (1)

Harṣacarita — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit