POLITICAL HISTORY
Bṛihaspati was the counsellor of Indra, the ruler of the gods. Bṛihaspati was also the reputed
founder of a school of Daṇḍanīti.1 Consequently, when Harishēṇa compares his lord and
master to Bṛihaspati, what he apparently means is that Samudragupta surpassed the counsellor
of Indra in point of diplomacy and state-craft. This is obviously indicated by the differences
noticeable in the nature of his conquests and invasions. This we have expatiated upon above,
but these we may briefly recapitulate here. In regard to some kings, he followed the policy of
prasabh-ōddharaṇa, ‘violent extermination’. These were the rulers of Āryāvarta, whose dominions
were conterminous with those of the Gupta family which he had inherited from his father.
In regard to the tribes and princes who formed the outer fringe of the Gupta kingdom, his
policy was that of prachaṇḍa-śāsana, that is, of exacting tribute, obedience and obeisance of
various kinds. So far, in regard to North India. It was, however, absolutely necessary for him
to conquer also, as his aspiration was that of a Chāturanta, or Chakravartin, the ideal set before
a king by the Arthaśāstra. He therefore subjugated Dakshiṇāpatha by means of grahaṇa-mōksha, which, as we have seen above, was the policy of a dharma-vijayin. Pari passu with these modes
of conquest he adopted the policy of utsanna-rāja-vaṁśa-pratishṭhāpana, ‘the re-establishment
of the royal families (already) overthrown’. This naturally involved a reshuffling of kingdoms
which must have made the Gupta government much stronger than it was ever before. This
was one great triumph of his foreign policy. When, in this manner, he succeeded in making
himself master of practically the whole of India, the distant independent monarchs, who were
ruling over provinces on the outskirts of this country, became panicky and entered into various
kinds of alliances with the Gupta sovereign. It was by these multifarious policies that Samudragupta raised himself to the indisputable rank of the Supreme Ruler of India. He was thus an
adept in state-craft and foreign policy. It is but just and proper that he should be compared
to Bṛihaspati by Harishēṇa. The keynote to his phenomenal success was ‘severity tempered
with mercy’. This is clear from another statement of Harishēṇa where he informs us that
Samudragupta’s “Āyukta Officers were always occupied with the restoration of the wealth
(vibhava) of many of the kings conquered by the strength of his own arms.” His policy was
thus that of a foresighted ruler with an iron hand in velvet glove.
Let us, however, return to the consideration of the varied gifts of imagination that he
possessed. One of these was certainly the musical sense that had been developed in him to
an eminent degree. This trait of his artistic calibre we have already touched upon. He displayed proficiency also in another fine art. He was an ardent devotee not only of the Muse
of Music but also of the Muse of Poetry. In the verse portion of the Allahabad inscription,
Harishēṇa tells us that the king’s “poetry outdistances the glory of the genius of the poets.”
In the prose portion (line 27) we are informed that the monarch’s title to Kavirāja was established through many poetic compositions which would be a source of living to the literate
class.” Kavirāja literally means ‘a king of poets’, but is also a technical term.2 It has been
defined by Rājaśēkhara as follows: Yas=tu tatra tatra bhāshā-viśēshēshu tēshu tēshu prabandhēshu,
tasmiṁs=tasmiṁs=cha rasē svatantraḥ sa kavirājaḥ | tē yadi jagaty=api katipayē,3 “But that
(person) is a Kavirāja who is a master of manifold specific languages, of manifold forms of
composition, and of manifold sentiments. If they (exist), they are very few in the world.”
The specific languages here referred to denote apparently Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhraṁśa.
As regards the various forms of composition and the various sentiments with which a Kavirāja ____________________________________________
1 D. R. Bhandarkar, Some Aspects of Ancient Hindu Polity, pp. 6, 12, 25, etc.
2 Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Studies in Gupta History, (University Supplement of JIH.), p. 42.
3 Kāvyamīmāṁsā (G.O.S., No. 1) ed. by C. D. Dalal, p. 19. See also Intro., p. xiv, where
Dalal informs us that
“Rājaśēkhara calls himself not a Mahākavi, but a Kavirāja” and quotes in support of it bāla-kaï kaī-rāō from
Karpūramañjarī, I. 9.
|