|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
POLITICAL HISTORY That Gupta as a family name was current before 300 A.D. is known to everybody who is conversant with epigraphy. Thus the Ichchāwar Buddhist statuette inscription speaks of the gift of Mahādēvī, queen (rājñī) of Hariḍāsa, sprung from the Gupta race.1 In still earlier times the Gupta figured as prominently as any Brāhmaṇa gōtra, as we have pointed out elsewhere. The celebrated Bhārhut tōraṇa inscription records that it was erected by Vātsīputra Dhanabhūti, son of Gauptīputra Aṅgāradyut (Gōtiputa Āgaraju), and grandson of the king (rājan) Gārgīputra Viśvadēva, while the Śuṅgas were wielding sway.2 As Viśvadēva is here called a rājan, there can be no doubt that his son and grandson pertained to a ruling family. Further, it is worthy of note that whereas Viśvadēva and Dhanabhūti are styled Gārgīputra and Vātsīputra respectively, showing that their mothers belonged to these Vedic gōtras, Aṅgāradyut alone is styled Gōtīputa (Gauptīputra) showing that his mother belonged to the Gupta clan which was anything but a Vedic gōtra. As a Gupta lady could be married into a ruling family, it is no wonder if matrimonial relations prevailed between the Guptas and the nobility. Thus a Kārle cave inscription informs us that the column in front of the cave was set up by one Agimitraṇaka (Agnimitra) who was not only a Mahāraṭhi but also a Gōtiputra. Here also Lüders3 has rightly taken Gōtiputa to mean ‘son of a Gauptī’. And the appellation Mahāraṭhi is a title found borne about this time by some feudal chiefs. The conclusion is irresistible that Gupta, though it was not a Brāhmaṇa gōtra, denoted a clan of high dignity, which could enter into matrimonial alliances with the ruling classes and the nobility. But this is not all, because Gupta is a name which is found among families of lower status also. Thus as inscription4 of Sāñchī Stūpa No. 1 speaks of the royal scribe (rāja-lipikāra) Subāhita as Gōtiputa(=Gauptīputra), “son of a Gōtī (i.e. of a mother of the Gupta family).” Similarly an inscription on a Lucknow Provincial Museum sculpture speaks of one Utara (Uttara), son of a Gōtī (Gauptī) as Sōvaṇika, ‘goldsmith’. Thus, like the Ābhīras and the Gurjaras, the Guptas seem to have originally been a tribe which was merged into the Hindu population leaving a trace of its name in the various castes into which it was lost.
It is not very difficult to surmise how Chandragupta rose to power. It was doubtless
through his marriage with the Lichchhavi princess, Mahādēvī Kumāradēvī. Their son,
Samudragupta, in his Allahabad pillar inscription, calls himself with pride Lichchhavi-dauhitra,
“the daughter’s son of the Lichchhavi (King).” The same epithet has been applied to him
by his successor in their records. The union of Chandragupta with the Lichchhavi clan
was thus considered to be an event of great importance by the members of the Imperial Gupta
dynasty. The same conclusion is pointed to by a series of coins,5 on the obverse of which are
the figures of Chandragupta and his queen Kumāradēvī, known by the names appearing on
them, and on the reverse the legend Lichchhavayaḥ, ‘the Lichchhavis’. As mention is made of
the Lichchhavis on the reverse, the inference is obvious that they were subordinate to both
Chandragupta and Kumāradēvī. And as Kumāradēvī was a Lichchhavi princess, it was
through her that he became a ruler of the Lichchhavis, or, rather, a joint ruler of the Lichchhavi territory. It seems that the father of Kumāradēvī was the last male chief of the
Lichchhavi clan in East India and Kumāradēvī was his only child, and when he died,
Kumāradēvī succeeded him to the kingdom of the Lichchhavis, in which function she was
naturally associated with her husband. The series of coins referred to above has been described 1 Lüders; List, No. 11.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|