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

king retired, and met Chandragupta, dressed as Dhruvasvāminī, the latter ripped his belly with the knife and sounded the trumpet. When the other youths heard it, they did their work similarly in an instant. All the officers of the army were thus slain. On hearing the trumpet, Rāmagupta’s soldiers also sallied forth and exterminated the foe. Chandragupta’s ruse succeeded wonderfully.

>

       The first question that now arises here is: Where could these hostilities have taken place between Rāmagupta and Śakāchārya ? The enemy’s camp, as we have already stated, was stationed at Aḷipura, which has wrongly been changed once into Aripura. But where was this Aḷipura ? No such place has yet been known to us. Perhaps some help is forthcoming from the Mujmal-ut-Tawārīkh, where, we are told, a former rebel of his father attacked Rawwāl, that is, Rāmagupta, and put him to flight. Rawwāl with his brother and nobles went to the top of a mountain where a strong fortress had been built. But the enemy got possession of the mountain by stratagem, besieged the fort, and was near upon taking it. Rawwāl then sued for peace and the enemy asked him to send his queen for himself and compel his chiefs to send their girls for his officers. Just at this juncture his brother Barkamāris came in and proposed to go to the enemy’s camp dressed like the queen, in accordance with his scheme which was explained and approved. This account shows that Rāmagupta, and his brother were hemmed in and defeated, not on the plains in their capital at Pāṭaliputra, but on some mountain where they had gone on an expedition of conquest to punish some rebel king. Further light is thrown upon this point by a stanza in Rājaśēkhara’s Kāvyamīmāṁsā which Altekar was the first to bring to our notice.1 The stanza is addressed to a king and says that his praises are sung by the women of Kārttikēya-nagara just in that Himālaya from where Śarma (Sēna) gupta, being besieged, was found to surrender his queen Dhruvasvāminī to the king of the Khaśas. The name Dhruvasvāminī, and the incident of a king being compelled to give up his queen to the enemy leave no doubt as to its being the political episode dramatized in Dēvīchandraguptam. There is, however, difference of name to be accounted for namely, Śarma (Sēna) gupta instead of Rāmagupta. But both of these seem to be a misreading for Kāchagupta, as we shall see later on. As regards Khaśa, it is almost the letters Śa-ka reversed. And as Khaśas were perhaps known better than Śakas, especially in the Himālayan region, the letters which were originally Śa-ka came naturally to be reversed and turned into Kha-śa with a slight change. Unfortunately, Altekar separates Kārttikēya from nagara and takes the former to denote Kumāragupta, who, in his opinion, is the person addressed in this stanza. But why Kārttikēya should stand for Kumāragupta, and not for Skandagupta, is far from clear. Secondly, why should the Himālayan caves be taken to reverberate with the exploits of Kumāragupta or Skandagupta about which we know nothing ? On the other hand, the stanza attains to its fullest significance if we take it as addressed, not to Kumāragupta or Skandagupta, but to Chandragupta II. For, in that case, we can easily understand why the praises of this Chandragupta are sung just in those Himālayan caves from where his brother had to think of an ignominious retreat by promising to surrender Dhruvasvāminī who was then his wife. This seems to be the natural sense of this stanza. It is therefore advisable to take Kārttikēyanagara as one word. Now, gazetteer, N.W.P., 2 tells us that Kārttikēyapura lay in the valley of the Gōmatī and near the present village of Baijnāth which is comprised in the Almora District of U.P. and thus situated in the Himālayas. It is mentioned in the Dēvī-Purāṇa.3 The town and district of
_________________________________________________

1 Dattvā ruddha-gatiḥ Khaś-ādhipatayē dēvīṁ Dhruvasvāminīṁ yasmāt khaṇḍita-sāhasō nivavṛitī
.....................................................................................................Śrī-Śarma(Sēna)guptō nṛipaḥ | tasminn=ēva Himālayē guru-guhā-kōṇa-kvaṇat-Kinnarē gīyantē tava Kārttikēya-nagara-strīṇāṁ gaṇaiḥ kīrtayaḥ ||
.............................................................................................Kāvyamīmāṁsā
(G.O.S., No. 1), P. 47.
2 Vol.XI, p. 463 and pp. 48 ff.
3 Chap. IX.

>
>