The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

Preface

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Additions and Corrections

Images

Introduction

Political History

Administration

Social History

Religious History

Literary History

Gupta Era

Krita Era

Texts and Translations

The Gupta Inscriptions

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

POLITICAL HISTORY

namely, Vasubandhu.1 But Vasubandhu was a Buddhist mendicant. He could not have been spoken of with favour by a Brahmanical Hindu writer on rhetoric; above all, he could hardly be described as ‘a minister’ of any sovereign, as this, no doubt, is the primary signification of sachiva.2 As we shall see later on, most of the big officers in the Gupta period were men of letters. This suits Subandhu admirably, as his work Vāsavadattā is looked upon as a literary production of great merit. He must have begun to rise in the time of Samudragupta and attained fame in the reign of his successor Chandragupta II. This agrees with the note of wail which he strikes in verse 10 of his introduction to the Vāsavadattā-wail at the passing away of Vikramāditya.

       The late V. A. Smith remarks that Samudragupta “was in fact a man of genius, who may fairly claim the title of the Indian Napoleon.” Krishnaswami Aiyangar, however, says: “It should be the most inappropriate description of him to call him ‘a Napoleon who regarded kingdom-taking as the duty of kings’.” Samudragupta was not only a fearless warrior and astute general like Napoleon but also a statesman like Bṛihaspati who conceived and carried through a scheme of political reconstruction which evolved an empire and kept it together. He thereby not only secured peace and tranquility but utilised the same for fostering and preserving culture by developing his own poetical genius and musical talents and distributing unstinted patronage to arts and literature. He thus endeavoured to realise the old ideal to which the kings and ministers of Ancient India constantly aspired,-the ideal of bringing about a unison between Śrī (Wealth-Power) and Sarasvatī (Learning-Wisdom).

Kachagupta3

       Samudragupta had up till now been supposed to have been succeeded to the throne by his son Chandragupta II. But evidence has recently come to light which shows that not Chandragupta, but his elder and co-uterine brother, Rāmagupta, or, rather Kāchagupata, as we shall soon see, was really the immediate successor. This evidence consists of some extracts from a Sanskrit drama called Dēvīchandraguptam, a production of Viśākhadatta, apparently the same as author of the Mudrārākshasa. Three extracts from this play are contained in the Śṛiṅgāraprakāśa of Bhōja, and were brought to light by Ramakrishna Kavi and A. Rangasvami Sarasvati.4 Five more were traced by Sylvain Levi5 in a new work on dramaturgy, called the Nātyadarpaṇa,6 a joint production of Rāmachandra and Guṇachandra, pupils of Hēmachandra who was the well-known Jaina preceptor of the Chaulukya king Kumārapāla (1145-71 A.D.). No systematic attempt, however, was made at reconstructing the history of the time until A. S. Altekar wrote and published a most informing article7 on the subject, which was followed by another,8 in which he drew the attention of scholars to the story of Rawwāl and Barkamāris as narrated in the Mujmal-ut-Tawārīkh by Abul Hassan ‘Ali (1126- 93 A.D.) This Arab writer, we are told, translated a Hindu book into Arabic, which was
____________________ ________________________________

1 JPASB., Vol. I, p. 253; Ind. Ant., Vol. XL, p. 312, and Vol. XLI, p. 15, where the third reading, Vastubandhu, is also considered. This is obviously a scribe’s error for Vasubandhu.
2 The word sāchivya in Vāmana’s comment upon the couplet is taken by Hoernle to mean ‘companionship’ or ‘friendship’ (Ind. Ant., Vol. XL, p. 264). See, however, H. P. Sastri’s reply to it (ibid., Vol. XLI, p. 16).
3 The account of Kāchagupta given here is practically identical with the contents of our paper New Light on the Early Gupta History published in the Malaviya Commemoration Volume, pp. 189-211.
4 Ind. Ant., Vol. LII, pp. 181 ff.
5 Jour. Asiatique, Vol. CCIII, 1923, pp. 193-218.
6 Since published in Gaekwad’s Or. Series, No. XLVIII. For the necessary extracts, see pages 71, 84, 86, 118, 141-42 and 193-94.
7 JBORS., Vol. XIV, pp. 223 ff.
8 Ibid., Vol. XV, pp. 134 ff.