|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
POLITICAL HISTORY has been handled at length a little further in the sequel, and an attempt has been made to show that the Vākāṭakas not only had been in subordinate alliance, but had also established blood relationship, with the Imperial Guptas; and that, though the founder of this dynasty, Pravarasēna I, was a paramount sovereign himself, they soon lost all their power till Rudrasēna I revived it in a modified form because in his time the Vākāṭakas were not a suzerain power but were feudatories; and that most probably he owed his rise to Samudragupta, whose grand-daughter Prabhāvatī was married to his grand son, Rudrasēna II. This explains why Samudragupta’s invasion of Dakshiṇāpatha was confined to the eastern and south-eastern parts of the Deccan only.
The next passage in the Allahabad pillar inscription sets forth a list of the rulers of Āryāvarta whom, we are told, Samudragupta forcibly uprooted. They are (1) Rudradēva, (2), Matila, (3) Nāgadatta, (4) Chandravarman, (5) Gaṇapatināga, (6) Nāgasēna, (7) Achyutanandin and (8) Balavarman. It has been customary to divide Achyutanandin into the two names, Achyuta and Nandin, and assume that not eight but nine princes of Āryāvarta have been specified here. But surely Nandin like Nāga is still a surname among the Kāyasthas of Bengal. And that Nandin formed the second component of a name even in ancient times may be seen from Bhūtinandin and Śiśunandin, mentioned in the Purāṇas as the names of two rulers of Vidiśā who flourished between the Śuṅga and Gupta epochs.1 Achyutanandin looks exactly analogous to Gaṇapatināga that occurs in this passage, where Nandin and Nāga are doubtless to be taken as the names of the clans or families to which these kings belonged. This point we have already dwelt upon. We have also noted above that three of these Āryāvarta kings, namely, Gaṇapatināga, Nāgasēna and Achyutanandin, have been mentioned in the verse portion of the praśasti as co-operating with a Kōta prince to form a confederacy against Samudragupta. We have, in that connection, made an attempt to identify them and locate their kingdoms. Here and now, we shall say something about the remaining five. As regards Rudradēva, the late Rao Bahadur Dikshit identifies him with Rudrasēna I of the Vākāṭaka dynasty.2 This seems improbable, as the Vākāṭakas belonged to Dakshiṇāpatha, and not to Āryāvarta. The second name, Matila, may be identical with the Mattila of the seal found in Bulandshahr, and published by F. S. Growse,3 “but the absence of any honorific on the latter,” says Allan, “suggests that it is a private seal and not one of a royal personage.”4 But instances are not unknown of princes being named on their seals without any title. Thus the well-known Gañjam plates of Śaśāṅka dated Gupta year 300 bear a seal with the legend Śrī-Sainyabhītasya.5 Similarly, the seal of the Lār plates of the Gāhaḍavāla king, Gōvindachandra has the legend Śrīmad-Gōvindachandradēvaḥ.6 The mere absence of the honorific on the Bulandshahr seal should not thus preclude us from identifying the name Mattila on it with Matila, the Āryāvarta ruler, exterminated by Samudragupta. Nothing is known about the third ruler of Āryāvarta, namely, Nāgadatta. But as regards
the fourth, that is, Chandravarman, Smith7 at first correctly proposed that he was the Mahārāja of that name who is mentioned in the rock inscription of Susuṇiā8 in the Bankura District
of West Bengal. Chandravarman is therein called “lord of Pushkaraṇa”. He, however, gave
1 Pargiter, Dyn. Kali Age, p. 49, lines 6-7 and note 15.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|