The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s4.7

v1.c8.s4.7

Additional interesting arguments have been advanced in favour of the above theory by the late Dr. Jayaswal. He argues that Pravarasena I had deliberately thwarted the imperial plans of Chandragupta I by defeating and ousting him from Pāṭaliputra and putting his own nominee Kalyāṇavarmā on its throne. Chandragupta died in exile and while on his death-bed he charged his successor Samudragupta to retrieve the fortunes of his family and to restore it once more to the imperial rank which he himself had previously secured for it. Samudragupta had, however, to bide his time; he was a mere Vākāṭaka feudatory ruling in Oudh during the first few years of his reign. It was during this period that he issued his tiger-slayer coins, on which he does not dare to assume any imperial title; we see him instead contenting himself with the feudatory title of a simple *rājā*. Taking advantage of the death of the emperor Pravarasena, Samudragupta launched his offensive against this monarch's successor Rudrasena I, whom he overthrew and killed in a sanguinary battle fought near Kauśāmbi in A.D. 348. King Rudradeva of Āryāvarta, who figures first in his Allahabad record among the kings of northern India, defeated and overthrown by Samudragupta, is no other than this Vākāṭaka ruler Rudrasena I. Samudragupta eventually brought under his own sphere of influence the different kings in Chota Nagpur, Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand, Chhattisgarh, and the Andhra country, who had formerly been the vassals of the Vākāṭakas. With their emperor killed in battle, and important provinces snatched from their empire, the Vākāṭakas sank into the position of Gupta feudatories; that is the reason why Rudrasena I and his successors are allowed merely the title of *mahārāja*, which indicated the feudatory status, and never the higher style of *samrāṭ* or *mahārājādhirāja*, which could be given only to an emperor.¹