North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

be with him in death also. Barkamāris, however, told him to write a book on the duties of kings. Safar consented, and wrote a book called “Instruction of kings”. Could it be the Nītisāra of Kāmandaka? It is a mistake to identify Safar with Śikharasvāmin who was a Mantrin and Kumārāmātya of Chandragupta II (No. 21 below). Because Kāmandaka, or, more accurately, Kāmantaka is, like Kauṭalya,¹ a gōtra name, and, as a matter of fact, is a branch of the Viśvāmitra gōtra, but Śikharasvāmin belonged to the Aśvavājin gōtra. Besides, Safar does not appear to have served Chandragupta II. When the book was finished, read and praised, Safar, says the Tawārīkh, burnt himself.

       The story of the Dēvīchandraguptam raises three questions of importance. The first is: What was the degree of moral turpitude involved in Chandragupta murdering his brother and marrying his wife? That question is fairly well answered by the Mujmal-ut-Tawārīkh, which tells us that Dhruvasvāminī had really chosen Chandragupta in a svayaṁvara ceremony for his wisdom and handsome form, but that when he brought her home, his brother snatched away the girl from him, so that he was forced to give himself to study and associate with the learned. Besides, Chandragupta was already a favourite with the people. He became much more so, when he killed the preceptor of the Śakas and saved Dhruvasvāminī from insult and ignominy. That made his elder brother intensely jealous of him and carry on machinations against his life. It is therefore no wonder if Chandragupta killed him and married her, though she was then his brother’s wife, for, as a matter of fact, she had already chosen Chandragupta but was compelled to marry his brother instead. This is a straight reply to the first question, namely, the moral aspect of Chandragupta’s course of conduct. The second question is something like this. When Chandragupta married Dhruvasvāminī, she was a widow; and how could he marry a widow. Nothing is more shocking than this to an orthodox Hindu of the modern day. This, however, is a purely social question and will be discussed in the chapter which describes the social life of the Gupta period. The third is the historical question, namely, whether Rāmagupta represents the correct form of the name of the Gupta sovereign who was the elder brother of Chandragupta II. This question arises, because this name is not yet traceable in any of the inscriptions and coins of the Imperial Gupta dynasty.² It is true that this is an argument ab silentio, and, as such, is not always to be relied upon. Nevertheless, we have to remember here that up till now so many epigraphic records, above all, coins, of the Gupta sovereigns have been found that it cannot but be considered strange that the name Rāmagupta has not yet been traced. On the other hand, of just about the time of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II, we have found coins issued by a ruler who calls himself Kācha. This Kācha has been taken as a title of Samudragupta, because on his coins we notice the epithet Sarvarājōchchhēttā, which in inscriptions had been associated with Samudragupta and Samudragupta alone. This was the view which was once propounded by V.A. Smith³ and has been endorsed by Allan. There was no doubt some force in this argument before the plates of Prabhāvatiguptā came to light. She was, we know, the Chief Queen of the Vākāṭaka king Rudrasēna II, and daughter of Mahārājādhirāja Chandragupta II from his queen Kubēranāgā. Now, these plates, while describing this Gupta sovereign, coupled with his name just those four epithets which, according to Smith, are coupled with Samudragupta alone in inscriptions. And one of these is Sarvarājōchchhēttā. If Sarvarājōchchhēttā thus becomes an epithet not only of Samudragupta but also of Chandra-
___________________________________________________

¹ D. R. Bhandarkar, Some Aspects of Ancient Hindu Polity, pp. 40-41. Kauṭalya or Kauṭilya is a branch of both Bhṛigu and Aṅgiras gōtras.
² [See the editorial note below, p. 52-Ed.]
³ Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXI, p. 259.