North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

meaningless but confusing. We have therefore to translate it by “Mahēndra who is (also) the Sun”. Similarly, Vikramāditya is to be understood in the sense of “Valour who is (also) the Sun.” These are, of course, composite epithets of which the second component is invariably Āditya and the first is a second appellation which is peculiar to the Gupta king. Whether he is Vikrama or Mahēndra, he is uniformly Āditya. Similarly, Narasiṁha is styled Bālāditya or ‘the rising Sun’; and Chandragupta III, Dvādaśāditya, or “the twelve Suns (combined)”, but without any second appellation being conjoined to it. It will thus be seen that every one of these Gupta kings was at least an Āditya, whatever were the other appellations he assumed, If this fact is once admitted, the conclusion is irresistible that they claimed to belong to the solar race. when, therefore, Kālidāsa aspires to describe the life and doings of the Raghu princes, he may have covertly adverted to the exploits of the three Gupta sovereigns whose contemporary he was, as he is suspected to have done. To take one instance, we may turn to the scene of svayaṁvara, or bridegroom selection by the Vidarbha princess, Indumatī, which has been set forth in Canto VI of the Raghuvaṁśa. Sunandā, the maid, takes her from one prince to another who had gathered in the assembly hall. But who is the very first prince to whom Indumatī is introduced? He is the ruler of Magadha which is thus accorded the place of honour. This would not have been possible if Kālidāsa had flourished in the sixth century, as by that time Magadha had lost all its importance. About its king, again, it is said that although there were kings by thousands, the earth was said to be under good rule through him alone.

>

¹ And we are further informed about him that Indra was being continuously invited to the sacrificial performances of this king at Pushpapura, which never ended.² As Sanskrit poets are noted for double entendre in many of their verses, this continuance of sacrificial rites most probably refers to Samudragupta who celebrated the Aśvamēdha, and the Indra invited to attend them is most likely his own son Chandragupta II, whose another name, we have seen, was Dēvarāja, a synonym of Indra. This inference seems to receive some confirmation from the fact that the king mentioned immediately after that of Magadha is the ruler of Aṅga,³ about whom the remarks is made that in him dwelt together the goddess of learning and the goddess of wealth although they had naturally discrepant abodes.⁴ This description can suit Chandragupta best. We have pointed out above that in inscriptions he is described as pratigṛihīta or ‘selected for succession’ by his father. This means that he was Yuvarāja for some time. And the province that had been ear-marked for Yuvarājaship in the Gupta period was Tirabhukti whose headquarters then was Vaiśālī, as is clear from the seals found at Basāṛh which is the modern representative of that place. And this was but natural, because Vaiśālī was the capital of the Lichchhavis with whose help Chandragupta I, as has been shown before, rose to political power. While the Gupta sovereign sat on the throne of Pāṭaliputra, the heirapparent, to begin with, ruled at Vaiśālī then included in Tīrabhukti which practically coincided with the Aṅga country. It is quite possible that while the sacrificial rites of Samudragupta were being performed in Pushpapura, Chandragupta, the Yuvarāja, was invited to his father’s capital to witness them. This is not unlike what took place in the time of Pushyamitra, the founder of the Śuṅga dynasty, who, when he celebrated the Aśvamēdha sacrifice, invited there his son Agnimitra who was then stationed as Viceroy at Vidiśā, as Kālidāsa tells us in the Mālavikāgnimitra. Some such references to the contemporaneous Gupta monarchs are traceable in the Raghuvaṁśa, which, though none of them by itself is of a convincing nature,
_____________________________________________________________

¹ Raghuvaṁśa, vi. 22; also ABORI., Vol. VIII, p. 202.
² Raghuvaṁśa, vi. 23.
³ Ibid., vi. 27.
⁴ Ibid., vi. 29.