Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s7: The Regency of Prabhāvatiguptā

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s7

Language
English

The Regency of Prabhāvatiguptā

v1.c8.s7.1

(c. A.D. 390-410)

v1.c8.s7.2

At the time of her sad bereavement, Prabhāvatiguptā, the crowned queen of Rudrasena, was a young and inexperienced widow of less than twenty-five. She was, however, a courageous lady; she took the reins of administration firmly into her hands as regent for the infant king and steered the ship of state safely past all rocks and shoals during a long regency lasting about twenty years. Vindhyasena and Pravarasena II of the Basim branch were her contemporaries during this period, but it does not seem that she relied upon their help during the trying years of her regency. She may even have suspected that the rulers of the Vākāṭaka branch at Basim would try to exploit the years of regency in order to aggrandize themselves at her cost. As was natural for a woman in her condition of widowhood, Prabhāvatiguptā relied exclusively on the help of her illustrious father Chandragupta II. The latter must obviously have paid her a personal visit of condolence after her bereavement and have then made special arrangements for the efficient administration of the Vākāṭaka kingdom during the regency of his daughter. A number of civil, military, and secretariat officers were transferred to Nandivardhana, the Vākāṭaka capital, from Pāṭaliputra;¹ they were doubtless invaluable and reliable counsellors for the dowager queen in all administrative affairs.

v1.c8.s7.3

¹ This is proved by the text of the Poona copper plate grant of Prabhāvatiguptā, which begins with the Gupta genealogy instead of that of the Vākāṭakas, as is the case with other Vākāṭaka charters. No ancestors of Rudrasena are mentioned, while the names of the three ancestors of Prabhāvatiguptā are given. This can be explained only on the assumption that the grant was drafted by a Gupta officer from Pāṭaliputra. The occurrence of the forms of the eastern variety of the Gupta alphabet on the Poona plates of Prabhāvatiguptā can also be explained only on the hypothesis that it was transcribed by a clerk from Pāṭaliputra, for these characters were not normally current in the Vākāṭaka kingdom.

v1.c8.s7.4

Prabhāvatiguptā had two sons, Divākarasena and Dāmodarasena.² The former was the elder of the two and was formally declared to have ascended the Vākāṭaka throne on the death of his father. Both the princes, however, were very young; the elder was about five and the younger about three at the death of Rudrasena. It appears that Chandragupta not only made arrangements for the efficient administration of the Vākāṭaka kingdom, but also for the proper training and education of the young princes. Most probably the famous poet Kālidāsa was one of the tutors sent to Nandivardhana by Chandragupta II. This is suggested by the literary tradition according to which the Prākṛit poem *Setubandha* was composed by Pravarasena, a king of Kuntala, soon after his accession and was later improved by Kālidāsa at the instance of Vikramāditya, i.e. Chandragupta II.¹ Rāmagirisvāmin, the deity at Rāmtek, about thirteen miles from Nagpur, was the family deity of the Vākāṭakas; Prabhāvatīguptā gave her last grant, recorded in the Rithpur plates,² from the holy precincts of the temple of this god. When tutor to the young Vākāṭaka princes, Kālidāsa doubtless visited Rāmatek many times in the company of the dowager queen in order to pay his respects to Rāmagirisvāmin. And it may well have been during one of these visits that the idea occurred to him to make the hermitage at Rāmagiri the place of banishment of his Yaksha, the hero of his *Meghadūta*. The literary tradition which associates Kālidāsa with King Bhojarāja can also be satisfactorily explained if we assume that he was first a tutor and then a protégé of Pravarasena II. The Vākāṭaka kingdom included Bhojadeśa or Bhojakaṭaka, which figures as a province of the kingdom in the Chammaka copper plates. Just as Pravarasena

v1.c8.s7.5

² There has been some uncertainty about the number of the sons of Prabhāvatiguptā. In the

v1.c8.s7.6

¹ The *Harshacharita*, i, 14, ascribes the authorship of the *Setubandha* to Pravarasena. That this is not the king of Kashmir of that name becomes clear from *Bharatacharita*, i, 4, which describes the author of the poem as the king of Kuntala; cf. *Lokeshvalakāntam-apurvasetum babandha kīrttyā saha Kuntateśaḥ*. *Setubandha*, i, 9, shows that the poem was composed by a king soon after his accession and was later revised and improved. It is a sixteenth-century commentator Rāmadāsa who states that the work of revision was done by Kālidāsa at the request of Vikramāditya.

v1.c8.s7.7

² The Rithpur plates were issued on the occasion of the visit of the old dowager queen to the temple of Rāmagiri. This temple is situated on a hill at Rāmtek, thirteen miles north-east of Nagpur and quite close to the Vākāṭaka capital Nandivardhana, if we identify it with Nagardhan. If Nandivardhana is to be identified with Nandpur, about thirty-four miles north of Nagpur, Rāmtek would then be about twenty miles to the south of the Vākāṭaka capital.

v1.c8.s7.8

Poona plates issued during the 13th year of the regency of Prabhāvatīguptā, Divākarasena figures as the *yuvarāja* or the heir-apparent. In the Rithpur plates, Prabhāvatīguptā is described as *Mahārāja-Dāmodarasena-Pravarasena-jananī*. This expression may mean that she was the mother of Dāmodarasena and Pravarasena or Dāmodarasena *alias* Pravarasena. If we accept the former interpretation, Divākarasena, Dāmodarasena, and Pravarasena become the three sons of Prabhāvatīguptā; if we accept the latter one, Divākarasena and Dāmodarasena *alias* Pravarasena become the two sons of the queen. The latter interpretation is, however, the correct one. The order in which the two names Dāmodarasena and Pravarasena occur in the expression *Mahārāja-Dāmodarasena-Pravarasena-jananī* suggests that if Dāmodarasena and Pravarasena had been two different princes, the former would be the elder one, and the ruling king at the time when the plates were issued. The plates were, however, issued in the 19th year of Pravarasena and not of Dāmodarasena. It is therefore clear that Dāmodarasena is the same as Pravarasena, the latter being his *abhisheka* or coronation name. The use of the title *mahārāja* before the expression Dāmodarasena-Pravarasena would also suggest that it refers to one person, for in a kingdom there is usually only one *mahārāja* or ruling king at a time.

v1.c8.s7.9

was known as Kuntaleśa, because of the recent conquest of Kuntala, he may also have been known as Bhojapati, because of the inclusion of Bhojakaṭaka in his kingdom. Very probably the Bhoja country or Berar was the home province of the Vākāṭakas. Later on literary tradition confused Pravarasena, the king of Bhojadeśa, with king Bhoja, the king of Malwa, a confusion which led to the mistake of Kālidāsa being regarded as a protégé of the Paramāra ruler Bhoja, who was indeed both a celebrated writer himself and also a famous patron of men of letters, but lived about six centuries later than Kālidāsa.

v1.c8.s7.10

The misfortunes of Prabhāvatiguptā did not end with the death of her husband. For Divākarasena, her eldest son, also died before attaining his majority and ascending the throne, some time after the 13th year of the regency of his mother.¹ This heavy domestic affliction added to the grief of Prabhāvatiguptā and increased the duration of her regency. Her younger son Dāmodarasena then became the crown prince and eventually ascended the throne when he came of age in *c.* A.D. 410 as Pravarasena II.

v1.c8.s7.11

¹ At the time of the Poona plates, issued in the 13th year of the regency, Divākarasena was the Yuvarāja. We find no subsequent reference to him in the Vākāṭaka records. On the other hand his younger brother Dāmodarasena alias Pravarasena begins to figure as the Vākāṭaka king. It is possible but not probable that Divākarasena may have ascended the throne soon after the 13th year of the regency, and died after a short reign without leaving any issue; the crown may thus have passed to Pravarasena, who may have omitted the name of his elder brother in his charters as he was not in the direct line of descent.

v1.c8.s7.12

Prabhāvatiguptā died at a fairly advanced age. She was living in the 19th year of her son Pravarasena’s reign (*c.* A.D. 430), when she is known to have visited the temple at Rāmagiri and to have made a grant on that occasion. Four years later we find her son making a grant for the spiritual welfare both of himself and his mother in this and the after life.² It is therefore clear that the dowager queen lived up to at least *c.* A.D. 435, when she must have been more than seventy years of age.³

v1.c8.s7.13

² EI, xxii, 170.

v1.c8.s7.14

³ An expression in the Rithpur plates, *sāgravarṣaśatadi(jī?)vaputrapautrā*, JASB, (N.S.) xx, p. 56, which cannot be read with certainty, seems to suggest that she was then more than 100. But this is an obvious exaggeration. Even her father Chandragupta II was not born in A.D. 335.

v1.c8.s7.15

It was during the regency of Prabhāvatiguptā that the Gupta conquest of the Kṣatrapa dominions was accomplished. The Vākāṭakas were the south-eastern neighbours of the Kṣatrapas, and we have shown already how they had at one time extended their sphere of influence over them during the period A.D. 304 to 332. When the plans of invasion were being matured in the lifetime of Rudrasena II, the latter must have agreed to take an active part in the adventure. The situation must have been changed by his premature death. But Prabhāvatiguptā was also an enthusiastic admirer of her father and doubtless extended to him all the assistance that she could afford in her relatively helpless condition. There is, however, no actual evidence to support this supposition.

Linked texts (5)