The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s4.9

v1.c8.s4.9

There is no doubt that the case for assuming the occurrence of a conflict between the Guptas and the Vākāṭakas, in which the latter were worsted, thus appears to be a very plausible one. But a careful examination of the problem shows that the arguments upon which it is based do not bear very close scrutiny. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that Pravarasena I had ousted Chandragupta I from Pāṭaliputra and put upon its throne his nominee Kalyāṇavarmā. As a matter of fact the incidents mentioned in the *Kaumudimahotsava*, upon which Jayaswal mainly relies for his theory, have no connexion at all with the reign of Chandragupta I. We cannot indentify Caṇḍasena of this drama with Chandragupta, the founder of the Gupta empire; the drama states that Caṇḍasena was killed together with all his children;² but we definitely know that Chandragupta left behind him a number of sons, one of whom succeeded to his throne. In the drama, Caṇḍasena appears as an exile. It is impossible to accept the contention of Dr. Jayaswal that in the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta, Chandragupta appears as an exile on his death-bed. Had Chandragupta been an exile dying in misery and disgrace, his selection of Samudragupta as his successor would not have caused any jealousy in the hearts of other princes. The dejection which we know the formal announcement of Samudragupta as the next successor caused among his brothers, makes it quite clear that the successor of Chandragupta was never faced with the difficult and dangerous task of reasserting the imperial position of his house. Nor is there any evidence to show that Samudragupta was a Vākāṭaka feudatory at the beginning of his career. His coins of the tiger-slayer type do no doubt describe him as a mere *rājā*, but that fact does not necessarily prove that he was only a vassal prince at the time when they were issued. If we follow this line of argument, we shall have to suppose that Chandragupta II had also been reduced to the status of a vassal because on his copper coins we find him using the simple feudatory title *mahārāja*. Nay, on some of his coins the bare name Chandragupta appears without any title whatsoever.³ Are we then to conclude that he had for some time ceased to be even a feudatory chief? In the legends on the Swordsman type of Kumāragupta I, not even the title *rājā* or *mahārāja* appears either on the obverse or on the reverse; are we to conclude that he was not even a feudatory when this type was issued? The simple fact is that the extent of the space available on the Gupta coins usually determines the length of their legends. On copper coins the space was small, and so even emperors like Chandragupta II, who are never suspected of having ever been reduced to the status of vassals, are seen to have contented themselves with the simple title mahārāja. Sometimes they appear without any titles at all. The legend *rāja Samudraguptaḥ* occurs on the reverse of the tiger-slayer type of Samudragupta. The legends on the reverse of Gupta coins are always short; longer legends like *mahārājādhirāja Śrī-Samudraguptaḥ* were not inscribed there simply for want of space. The legend *rāja Samudraguptaḥ*, King Samudragupta, occurring on the tiger-slayer coin of Samudragupta, can prove him to have been a mere feudatory at the time only if the legend *Chandraguptaḥ* occurring on the coins of Chandragupta II is also to be taken as a proof that this monarch was not even a feudatory prince, but only a mere commoner at the time when he issued these coins. Both hypotheses are equally absurd and untenable.