North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

Kubēra of Dēvarāshṭra and Dhanañjaya of Kusthalapura. Samudragupta, being repulsed by the kings of the Eastern Deccan, abandoned the conquests he had made in the coast of Orissa, and returned home.

       Let us first consider Dubreuil’s estimate of the expedition Samudragupta in Dakshiṇāpatha. His remarks may be summed up as follows: Samudragupta did at first achieve conquests on the coast of Orissa, but when he encountered the superior forces of the confederacy of Eastern Deccan kings headed by Vishṇugōpa, he was repulsed and had to relinquish his former Orissan conquests and return to his capital forthwith. The only statement in the Allahabad inscription that bears on the point is in lines 19-20 which enumerate the names of the rules of Dakshiṇāpatha and further inform us that they were at first captured but were afterwards released by Samudragupta. And if it is this statement which has enabled Dubreuil to say that Samudragupta subjugated the kings of Kōsala, Mahākāntāra and also of countries on the coast of Orissa, it is not at all clear why it should not enable him to say further that the Gupta monarch subjugated also the kings of the Eastern Deccan headed by Vishṇugōpa. And when, instead of drawing this natural and perfectly logical inference, he deduces the conclusion that Samudragupta, not himself conquered, but was himself conquered by these rulers of the Eastern Deccan, we confess that our amazement knows no bounds.

>

Surely, there is absolutely nothing in this epigraphic record which makes this invidious distinction between the kings of Orissa and those of Eastern Deccan, whether in lines 19-20 or any other lines of this inscription. And we are perfectly justified in asserting that Samudragupta vanquished not only the kings of Kōsala, Mahākāntāra, Kurāḷa, Pishṭapura, Kōṭṭūra and Ēranḍapalla, but also those of Kāñchī, Avamukta, Vēṅgī, and so on. Again, we are quite unable to understand what Dubreuil means when he says that Samudragupta seized the kings of Dakshiṇāpatha and afterwards released them and that it is confirmed by the fact that none of the kingdoms ever remained in the possession of the Guptas. What he probably implies is that his capture of the Deccan princes was of an ephemeral character, that they were released because they had to be released, and that this explains why no part of their territories was incorporated in the Gupta empire. He is probably not aware that many modes of conquest were known in ancient India, of which one is that of the Dharma-vijayin or Righteous Conqueror, who conquers his enemies but does not seize their territory and liberates them on the receipt of some rich spoils. This mode of conquest has been described not only in works of Arthaśāstra but also in other books of Sanskrit literature. This point we shall soon have occasion to expatiate upon. Even then, that some such conquest was intended by the Allahabad pillar praśasti is clear from the phrase grahaṇa-mōksh-ānugraha which occurs in line 20. And, as a matter of fact, it was this interpretation which V. A. Smith has put upon it, though it did not suggest itself to Dubreuil. “No attempt,” says Smith, “was made to effect the permanent annexation of these southern states; the triumphant victor admitting that he only exacted a temporary submission and then withdrew. But beyond doubt he despoiled the rich treasures of the south, and came back laden with golden booty, like the Muhammadan adventurer who performed the same military exploit nearly a thousand years later. Malik Kāfūr, the general of Alā-ud-dīn, Sultan of Delhi, during operations lasting from 1309 to 1311 A.D., repeated the performance of Samudragupta, and penetrated even farther south than his Hindu predecessor seems to have done.”¹

       It will thus be seen that there are absolutely no grounds to suppose that Samudragupta’s expedition to the south was an ignominious failure. What was it then like ? Did he bring his triumphant march to a finish, returning homewards through Dēvarāshṭra or the modern Maharatta country via Ēraṇḍapalla or Ēraṇḍōl in Khandesh as Smith describes it ? Un-
____________________

¹ Early History of India (4th edn.), p. 301.