North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

seal and of the coin from St. Petersberg collection was one and the same person—the prince who was Governor at first of Airikiṇa,Yuvarāja thereafter stationed at Vaiśālī and the successor to the Gupta throne after the demise of his father Kumāragupta.

        But the extreme paucity of Ghaṭōtkachagupta’s coins shows that his was a very brief reign. And this is supported by the fact that the latest date for Kumāragupta is Gupta year 136 supplied by a coin and that the same is the earliest date for Skandagupta furnished by the Junāgaḍh inscription. What could be the cause of this brief reign of Ghaṭōtkachagupta? Our most important documents for the history of this period are the Bhitarī (No. 31 below) and Junāgaḍh (No. 28 below) epigraphs of Skandagupta. From certain statements in these records, scholars have argued that Kumāragupta’s last years were much troubled. As a matter of fact, they should have argued on this evidence that the fortunes of the family had sunk to a low level, not in the reign of his father, but, rather, of his immediate successor. Let us examine this evidence more searchingly. There are three, distinct allusions to this historical fact in the Bhitarī inscription. From the first half of stanza 4 we learn that while he was “intent upon steadying the tottering Fortune of the House, several nights were spent (by him) on the bed, namely, the earth.” The second half of this stanza is taken by scholars as containing a reference to the enemies who had reduced him to those straits, namely, the Pushyamitras. That was no doubt supported by the reading of Fleet, namely, Pushyamitrāṁś=cha jitvā. Bhagwanlal, however, reads Pushyamitraś=cha jitvā.¹ Some time ago, the reading =Yuddhy=amitrāṁś=cha was suggested on grounds of plausibility by H. R. Divekar.² The damaged condition of the stone does not enable us to arrive at any definite reading. Nevertheless, the ink-impressions supplied to us establish Divekar’s reading as far more probable than that of Fleet or Bhagwanlal Indraji. In fact, they show that this reading is as good as certain.

>

It is true that the existence of the Pushyamitras is attested by both a Mathurā Jaina inscription and the Purāṇas. Nevertheless, it is highly strange that such an insignificant clan as the Pushyamitras should all at once rise to such eminence as to dominate Gupta supremacy for a while, only to sink into perennial oblivion thereafter. We may therefore take it that what stanza 4 of the Bhitarī inscription records is only that when the Fortune of his dynasty was for a time at its lowest ebb, Skandagupta had to spend some nights sleeping on the bare earth. The second reference to this historical fact supplies better information contained in stanza 6 which tells us that when he re-established the Fortune of the Dynasty which had turned adrift when his father had repaired to Heaven, he saw his mother who was in tears just as Kṛishṇa approached Dēvakī when he had slain his foe. If the comparison of Skandagupta and his mother of Kṛishṇa and Dēvakī has any meaning at all, the foe that had arisen against the Gupta power and made it totter to its foundations was some relative of his through his mother, presumably her brother. In this connection we have to take note of another document of his reign, namely, the Junā-gaḍh inscription. The second half of stanza 2 of this record says that “he forged an order with an effigy, namely, Garuḍa, which rendered devoid of poison, the Serpent (bhujaga) Rulers, who had uplifted their hoods in pride and arrogance.” As bhujaga is synonymous with Nāga, both meaning ‘a serpent’, and as royal families of the name of Nāga were in existence in the Gupta period, and as, further, Garuḍa was an insignia or signet of the Gupta dynasty, the conclusion is irresistible that there was a rebellion set up by some Nāga rulers which Skandagupta quelled. Further, we know that some Nāgas were related to the Guptas. Thus one queen of Chandragupta II was Kubēra-Nāgā, who, we are explicitly informed, was of the Nāga family. His son Kumāragupta may similarly have been married to a Nāga princess from whom Skandagupta was born. This line of reasoning can alone explain why Skandagupta
_______________________________________________

¹ JBBRAS., Vol. XVI, p. 349, line 10.
² ABORI., Vol. I, pp. 100-01.