North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

[About the beginning of 1969, three jaina images, containing inscriptions on their pedestals, were discovered at a village named Durjanapura in the Vidisha District of Madhya Pradesh. Two of these inscriptions are fairly well preserved and mention Mahārājādhirāja Rāmagupta as responsible for making the images of Chandraprabha and Pushpadanta respectively (No. 5 below). Since the characters of these inscription have to be referred to the 4th century A.D. and since Rāmagupta is endowed with the imperial titile Mahārājādhirāja, the king is identified with his name-sake mentioned in the Sanskrit drama Dēvīchandraguptam and with the son of Samudragupta and elder brother of Chandragupta II. Thus these Vidisha image inscriptions furnish the first epigraphical reference to Rāmagupta and establish the existence and historicity of this king. The question regarding his identity with Kācha of the gold coins and with Rāmagupta of the copper-coins found in the Vidisha region has to be left open until further and more definite evidence is made available.—Ed.]

Chandragupta II

       Chandragupta was the son of Samudragupta by Dattadēvī. He was one among his many sons and was not even the eldest. This is the reason why in some inscription he is described as parigṛihīta or selected as Yuvarāja by his father. In spite of his selection, there was opposition to his accession after the demise of his father. We have pointed out what exactly were the circumstances connected with this case. We have seen above how his elder brother Kāchagupta interloped, seizing the Gupta throne and snatching away even the bride affianced to him. How his machinations were foiled and how ultimately Chandragupta ascended the throne rightfully his own and won back the damsel, also his own through svayaṁvara, are details which have also been narrated above.

       For his reign we possess a number of inscription. The earliest of these is the Mathura pilaster inscription which is dated Gupta year 61, and the latest is the Sañchi railing inscription, giving the year 93. He must have thus enjoyed a reign of at least thirty-two years. The first of these again contained the specification of the regnal year, but unfortunately that part of the record which comprised this detail has been obliterated. It thus seems that Chandragupta must have reigned for more than thirty-two years.

       Two inscriptions of his time have been found engraved in two different caves of Udayagiri near Besnagar. One of these records the excavation of a cave and dedication of it to the god Śambhu by a hereditary minister (anvaya-prāpta-sāchivya) of Chandragupta II. The minister is named Virasēna and surnamed Śāba. He belonged to the Kautsa gōtra and was thus a Brāhmaṇa by caste. But the most noteworthy point about the inscription is that we are told that Vīrasēna had come to that part of India in the company of his sovereign when he was seeking to conquer the whole of the earth (kṛitsna-pṛithvī-jay-ārthēna). This is confirmed
______________________________________________________

Contd. from page 51.
reverted in 1902 to his original opinion which was that of Fleet (Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXI, p. 259 and note 9; see also Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Vol. I, p. 96). He and Fleet were followed by Allan in his Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasty in 1914. But, in the same year, that is, in the 3rd ed. of his Early History of India (p. 281, note 1 and p. 331, note), Smith remarks: “Some authors suppose Kācha to be identical with Samudragupta, but the better opinion regards him as a rival brother of that king.” (See also 4th ed. revised by S. M. Edwardes, p. 297, note 1.). “the better opinion’ referred to here is apparently that of Rapson. At any rate, it is refreshing to find that even before the discovery of extracts from Dēvīchandraguptam Kācha was taken to be a Gupta ruler, almost contemporaneous with, but different from, samudragupta. [For a recent article on the Kācha problem wherein he is regarded as a feudatory of Samudragupta, see Journ. Ep. Soc. Ind., Vol. I, pp. 75-84.—Ed.]