North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

gupta II, there is no reason why it should not be an epithet of a third Gupta king also. Nothing is, therefore, more absurd now than to suppose that Kācha is the same prince as Samudragupta, simply because Kācha assumes the epithet of Sarvarājōchchhēttā on the reverse of his coins, On the contrary, there is every reason to hold that Kācha was a ruler separate from Samudragupta or Chandragupta II. For on Gupta gold coins the name which appears on either side of the standing figure of a king on the obverse, especially below his left arm, is the personal name of the king who issues them. This is how the names Samudra, Chandra, Kumāra and Skanda are found on the obverse, and if these are considered the individual names of separate Gupta kings, for the same reason we ought to take Kācha also as separate from those just mentioned. All evidence thus points to Kācha being regarded as the personal name of a king distinct from samudragupta. On the grounds of type and fabric, numismatists connect his coins in time with those of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II. The conclusion is, therefore, not unreasonable that Rāmagupta, the elder brother of Chandragupta II, is a misreading for or another name of Kāchagupta. Many Gupta kings seem to have had at least two names: one, proper name, and the other, familiar name. Thus Chandragupta (II), Kumāragupta (I) and Skandagupta were proper names and appeared on coins. But they had familiar names also, namely, Dēvagupta, Gōvindagupta and Purugupta. Similarly Kācha was the proper, and Rāma the familiar, name.

       The existence of Kācha or Kacha is known to us solely by means of his gold coins, which, as remarked above, are found with, and closely related to, those of Samudragupta. One hoard, that of Tāṇḍa in Oudh, consisted of twentyfive coins, only two of which belonged to the ‘King and Queen’ type of Chandragupta I, the remainder being divided between the ‘Standard’ type of Kācha and the ‘Aśvamēdha’ and ‘Battle-axe’ types of Samudragupta. The fact that the coins of Kācha are closely related in weight, fabric and type to those of Chandragupta I and Samudragupta shows that he not only was a Gupta ruler but also was not long separated from either. This agrees with the fact that, according to Dēvīchandraguptam, Samudragupta was succeeded by Rāmagupta, which, as pointed out before, must be a mislection for Kāchagupta. Two objections may, however, be raised to this view. The first is the omission of Kācha’s name from the genealogies. But this is explained by the fact that he left no son, as he was murdered by his brother Chandragupta II, who immediately succeeded him to the throne. The name of Kācha was omitted from the dynastic list, as being irrelevant, as that of Skandagupta was from the Bhitarī seal inscription of Kumāragupta III, as we shall see later on. Secondly, it may be argued against the view that as Chandragupta II is represented to have been selected as heir-apparent by his father, he must have succeeded him directly. But the adage: “there is many a slip between the cup and lip” is as true in the political world as in ordinary life, if not even truer. It is quite possible that when Samudragupta died, his chosen heir was far from the capital in charge of a remote province or engaged in invading some foreign territory, and that Kācha, being on the spot, was in a position to seize the throne, of which he maintained possession for a brief space. The paucity of Kācha’s coins, and their occurrence in only one type, indicate that his reign was brief. This further agrees with the fact that his coins are the lightest and are inferior in purity of mental to those of Chandragupta I and Samudragupta.¹
________________________________________________________

¹ The coins of Kācha were at first attributed by Princep and Thomas to Ghoṭōtkacha, the second prince of the Gupta dynasty, and in 1884 V. A. Smith followed them (JASB., Vol. LIII, 1888, p. 2, note 4). Thereafter Fleet pointed out good reasons to show that they could not have been struck by Ghaṭōtkacha and that they must be assigned to Samudragupta (Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 95; CII., Vol. III, 1888, p. 27, note 4). And Smith agreed with him (JRAS., 1889, pp. 74-76). Rapson threw out the suggestion that Kācha or Kacha was not, as Fleet. and Smith supposed, identical with Samudragupta, but was, in all probability, his predecessor and brother (N. Chr., Vol. XI, 3rd series, pp. 48-64). And, in 1893, Smith veered round to this view (JRAS., 1893, p. 81), but