Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c26.4

c26.4

² The identity of the supreme lord (Parama-*svāmin*) mentioned in connection with the consecration of the early Valabhī king Droṇasiṁha, is unknown. The surmise that he was a Gupta, though plausible lacks convincing proof. Some scholars lay stress on the fact that the era used is the Gupta era (IC, V. 409). But the use of an era instituted by a dynasty does not *always* indicate political subordination to that line. It may simply have a geographical significance, a continuation of a custom prevailing in a particular locality. Even undoubted Gupta vassals used the *Mālava-Vikrama Saṁvat* in Mandasor. Conversely the Gupta era is found used in regions, *e.g*., Shorkot, beyond the proper limits of the Gupta empire. Tejpur, too, should possibly come under the category, as we are not sure as to whether it formed a part of the state of Kāmarūpa in the fourth century A. D. Equally conjectural is the identification of the ruler in question with a Hun or a sovereign of Mandasor. Theories and speculations in the absence of clear data are at best unprofitable. Some connection of the later kings of the Gupta line with the Mandasor region in W. Mālwa in the first quarter of the sixth century A. D. may possibly be hinted at by the expression *Guptanāthaiḥ* 'by the Gupta lords' used in the Mandasor *praśasti* or panegyric of Yaśodharman. The term *nātha* may have reference to the fact that the Guptas were once overlords of Mandasor. But the analogy of *Hūṇādhipa* occurring in the same record may suggest that *nātha* simply means 'lord' or 'king' without reference to any special relations subsisting between Mandasor and the Guptas in or about 533 A.D.