North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

as remarked aboves, was adopted by Kāchagupta as his epithet. Any way, these were not the distinctive appellations of any one of the Gupta sovereigns, and seem to have used by them and made so common that they were adopted later, that is, in the beginning of the seventh century, by kings of the Kaṭachchuri family, as we have seen above.

       Chandragupta had at least two wives, one Dhruvadēvī and the other Kubēranāgā. The first of these is known to us from four inscriptions, in three of which (Nos. 16, 31 and 41 below) she has been called Dhruvadēvī and in one (No. 13 below) Dhruvasvāminī. We do not know to which family she belonged. We have seen, however, that she was a bone of contention between Chandragupta whom she had selected and to whom she was affianced and his elder brother Kāchagupta who forcibly espoused her. We know further how Chandragupta afterwards seized and killed Kāchagupta and married Dhruvadēvī who was rightfully his own. She was the favourite queen of Chandragupta, who had from her the two sons, Gōvindagupta and Kumāragupta. One seal of this queen (No. 13) was exhumed by the late Bloch during his excavations at Basāṛh in the Muzaffarpur District, Bihar, which has been identified with the ancient Vaiśālī. Its legend means: “The Great Queen (Mahādēvī), the prosperous Dhruvasvāminī wife of the Mahārājādhirāja, the prosperous Chandragupta (and) mother of the Mahārāja, the prosperous Gōvindagupta.” The names Chandragupta and Dhruvasvāminī mentioned in the seal are doubtless Chandragupta II and his wife Dhruvadēvī, well-known from Gupta inscriptions. As the names of Chandragupta and his son Gōvindagupta occur in the seal, both must be supposed to be living when the seal of Dhruvasvāminī was impressed in the clay piece. Chandragupta, as he is called Mahārājādhirāja, was, of course, the paramount sovereign, and Gōvindagupta, being Mahārāja, was holding some province under him, most probably as Yuvarāja in the district of Vaiśālī. This was natural, as Vaiśālī was originally the capital of the Lichchhavis through whose active help, as pointed out above, Chandragupta I raised himself to power. It was thus fit and proper that if the seat of the Gupta sovereign was Pāṭaliputra, that of the crown prince should be Vaiśālī. It thus seems that Gōvindagupta was stationed there as Yuvarāja. And further it seems that Dhruvasvāminī was at the time of the seal staying there with her eldest son.

       The existence of the second wife of Chandragupta is attested by the Poona plates of Prabhāvatiguptā referred to above. There, she is described as the daughter of Chandragupta II, from his wife, the great queen (Mahādēvī), Kubēranāgā, who belonged to the Nāga family. It seems tempting to connect Kubēranāgā with king Kubēra of Dēvarāshṭra in South India whom Samudragupta vanquished and thereafter reinstated. But there is nothing to show that this ruler of Dēvarāshṭra was a Nāga by extraction. On the other hand, we know that there were no less than three Nāga families ruling over Dhārā, Padmāvatī and Mathurā in North India in the time of Samudragupta. It is true that the Nāga princes of these dynasties are represented to have been destroyed by this Gupta monarch, but there is nothing to show that he extinguished these royal lines and annexed their kingdoms to his own empire. The inference is more probable that Kubēranāgā pertained to one of these Nāga families. Whether Chandragupta had any son from her we do not know, but this much we know for certain that the two had a daughter called Prabhāvatiguptā who was the agramahishī or chief Queen of the Vākāṭaka Mahārāja Rudrasēna (II). She is also described in the Poona plates as “the mother of the Yuvarāja, the prosperous Divākarasēna.” And the seal attached thereto records: “this is the enemy-chastising command of the mother of the Yuvarāja who is the ornament of the Vākāṭakas and who has obtained royal dignity in course (of succession).” This clearly shows that Divākarasēna was a minor and continued to be Yuvarāja, whereas his mother Prabhāvatiguptā played the role of Queen-Regent. The year 13, the date of these plates must therefore denote the year of the regency. Whether Divākarasēna ever be-