North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

whole of the tableland of the Deccan, which by no means was as significant portion of Dakshiṇāpatha. No part of this vast region is mentioned in any one of the lists, given by Hari- shēṇa, of kingdoms, reduced to subordination, or put under tributary alliance, or brought into diplomatic relations with Samudragupta. This was a flagrant omission which would scarcely be expected of such an accurate historiographer of Samudragupta’s conquests as Harishēṇa. Once, however, the cause of his reticence can be guessed, one can easily understand why no mention is made at all of this vast Deccan plateau held by the Vākāṭakas, who were, no doubt, in secure, but, nevertheless, subordinate, alliance with the Imperial Gupta House.

       We thus obtain a fairly accurate conception of the military achievements of Samudra- gupta. They were of six or seven different types. The first of these was that of prasabh-ōddharaṇa or ‘violent extermination’, which was practised upon eight kings of Āryāvarta. This was absolutely necessary for the preservation and safeguarding of the Gupta empire. As this type of conquest involved also the annexation of the kingdoms of the rulers forcibly uprooted, this automatically led to the enlargement also of the Gupta dominions. The second type consisted of parichārakī-karaṇa which was inflicted upon the rulers of all Āṭavika principalities who were thus made ‘slaves’ of Samudragupta. This was a milder type of conquest than the first, as imposition of slavery is less violent in character than extermination. The third is represented by the payment of tribute (kara-dāna), execution of orders (ājñā-karaṇa) and visits to the Gupta court for offering homage (praṇām-āgamana) which Samudragupta exacted from the princes ruling on the east and north frontiers of Āryāvarta, and from the tribes that formed the west and south-west fringe of the Gupta dominions. By this three-fold measure alone they were able to mollify his stern rule (paritōshita-prachaṇḍa-śāsanasya). They were all states that became part of the Gupta empire though they were situated on its outskirts. This gives us an idea of the extent of that empire. On the north it was bounded by the Himalayas, on the south by the Vindhyas, on the east by a line running from the mouths of the Ganges through Tripura- Cachar-Assam to the Himalayas, and on the west by a line running through East Panjab and East Rajputana down to the Vindhyas.

       The fourth type of Samudragupta’s conquests consisted of grahaṇa-mōksha, ‘capture and release’ which he carried out in Dakshiṇāpatha. It is true that only twelve rulers of South India are mentioned by Harishēṇa. But we have to remember that whereas he speaks of only anēk-Āryāvarta-rāja he speaks of sarva-Dakshiṇāpatha-rāja. The contrast between the words anēka and sarva is worthy of note, and it shows that whereas in the case of Āryāvarta the Gupta mo- narch uprooted only some, in the case of Dakshiṇāpatha he vanquished and set free all kings. But what could be the meaning of this mode of conquest styled grahaṇa-mōksha by Harishēṇa ? This reminds us of a verse in the Raghuvaṁśa, where Kālidāsa describes the dig-vijaya of Raghu. In this expedition of conquest Raghu is represented to have defeated the ruler of the Mahēndra mountain. And his defeat of this king is thus described by Kālidāsa:

Gṛihīta-pratimuktasya sa dharma-vijayī nṛipah |
śriyaṁ Mahēndra-nāthasya jahāra na tu mēdinīm ||
..........................................................(IV. 43)¹

       Gṛihīta-pratimukta of Kālidāsa is obviously identical with grahaṇa-mōksha of Harishēṇa. It is thus quite clear that Samudragupta like Raghu is represented as Dharma-vijayin, ‘the Righte- ous Conqueror’, because neither of these rulers deprived the conquered foe of his dominions. And, in fact, the phrase Dharma-vijayin is not of Kālidāsa’s own coining, and is found used as early as the time of Kauṭalya, for he, in his Arthaśāstra,² distinguishes between three types of
____________________

¹ Our attention to this verse was drawn by Raychaudhury as early as 1927 in his second edition of Pol. Hist. Anc. Ind., p. 339.
² XII. 1. 11.