|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
POLITICAL HISTORY Kārttikēyapura are mentioned in the Pāṇḍukēśvar copper-plate grant of Lalitaśūradēva, assigned to about the middle of the ninth century A.D.1 Kārttikēyapura is also mentioned in the two Talēśvara charters of Dyutivarman, which have been ascribed to about the sixth century.2 It will thus be seen that a place is still known in the Himālayas namely, Baijnāth which is still called Kārttikēyapura and that it was in existence at least as early as the sixth century A.D. The Imperial Gazetteer3 also says that “Baijnāth lies in the centre of the Katyūr valley, and was formerly known as Kārttikēyapura, a capital of the Katyūri Rājās.” Further, as pointed out above, Katyūr seems indentical with Kartṛipura which is mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta as one of the frontier states that were tributary to him. It is possible that the ruler of Kartṛipura, who was the Preceptor of the Śakas,4 if not, himself, of Śaka extraction, rose in rebellion after the demise of Samudragupta and that it was to quell his revolt that Rāma (Kācha) gupta and his brother Chandragupta with their family repaired to the Himālayas—with what result we have seen.
The second half of the story is thus told by the Mujmal-ut-Tawārīkh. Rawwāl’s Wazir, Safar, that is, the prime minister of Rāmagupta, thereupon excited the king’s suspicions against Barkamāris (=Vikramārka) or Chandragupta, and that the latter was therefore compelled to feign madness. This receives confirmation from the fragment, small as it is, that has been preserved of Act V of the Dēvīchandraguptam. It seems that Chandragupta had to remain in hiding to counteract the malicious intentions of his elder brother, in the house of a courtezan called Mādhavasēnā5 with whom he had apparently fallen in love and came in public in the role of a lunatic presumably to secure information about any plans that may have been formed by Rāmagupta and his prime minister to detect and arrest him. What happened ultimately we know from a stanza from the Sañjān copper plate grant6 which tells us that Chandragupta killed his brother and seized not only his throne but also his queen. A glimpse into the nature of this occurrence is afforded us by the Tawārīkh. No fragment from the above-mentioned play has, however, come down to us to vouch for the correctness of the account. One day in the hot season, the narrative goes on, Barkamāris (=Vikramārka), that is, Chandragupta, was wandering barefoot in the city as a mendicant, and came to the gate of the king’s palace and found him and the queen sitting on a throne sucking sugarcane. When Rawwāl, that is, Rāmagupta, saw him, he took pity on him and gave him a bit of sugarcane. The mendicant took it, and picked up a bit of the cane shell to scrap and clean it with. When the king saw that he wanted to clean the cane, he told the queen to give him a knife. She rose and gave one to Barkamāris, who cleaned the sugarcane with it, and craftily watched until the king was off his guard. Then he sprang upon him, and, plunging the knife into his navel, ripped him up. As regards the Wazir, Barkamāris admitted that although he counselled his brother in
all his dealings against him, he did but his duty and requested him to continue to govern the
kingdom as he did for his brother. But Safar replied that he was with Rawwāl in life, he would 1 Ind. Ant., Vol. XXV, p. 178.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|