South Indian Inscriptions

THE MAIN BRANCH

powerful neighbours to the west. It is not known if Rudrasēna lent him any aid in resisting the aggression of the Gupta Emperor, but Mahēndra was ultimately defeated¹ and had to allow Samudragupta to pass through his territory for invading the kingdoms of Vyāghrarāja of Mahākāntāra (the Great Forest Country, now called the Bastar District of Madhya Pradesh) and other southern kings.

...These Gupta conquests dealt a severe blow to the power and prestige of this senior branch of the Vākāṭaka family. Vyāghrarāja of Mahākāntāra, who probably belonged to the Nala family, Maṇṭarāja of Kurāḷa, Mahēndragiri of Pishṭapura (modern Piṭhāpuram) and a host of other princes who were ruling in Kaliṅga and Andhra, threw off the Vākāṭaka yoke and submitted to the Gupta Emperor. The kingdom of this Senior branch, therefore, came to be confined to Northern Vidarbha which lay between the Narmadā and the Indhyādri range.

...Though Rudrasēna I’s kingdom was thus much reduced in size, he maintained his independence and did not submit to the mighty Gupta Emperor. Perhaps Samudragupta, like Alexander, grew wiser by the resistance he encountered in his southern campaign, and avoided a direct conflict with the Vākāṭaka king. He may also have thought it prudent to have friendly relations with his southern neighbour who occupied a strategic position with regard to the kingdom of the powerful Western Kshatrapas, whom he had not yet subdued. In any case, there are no signs of Gupta supremacy in the Vākāṭaka records of the age.² The Vākāṭakas did not adopt the Gupta era, but throughout dated their grants in regnal years. As they had no coins of their own, they were no loth to use Gupta currency as they had used Śaka coinage before, but that was certainly no indication of Gupta suzerainty. Their relations with the Guptas seem to have been very friendly.

...Rudrasena I was succeeded in circa 350 A.C. by his son Pṛithivīshēṇa I, who is eulogised in the grants of his successors as a fervent devotee of Mahēśvara and is endowed with such noble qualities as truthfulness, compassion, self-restraint and charity as well as with heroism and political wisdom. He is compared with Yudhishṭhira, the great Pāṇḍava hero of yore, who was famous for such virtues. Pṛithivīshēṇa I appears to have pursued a peaceful policy which brought happiness and contentment to his people. Across the northern frontier of his kingdom, the Gupta Emperors Samudragupta and Chandragupta II were following an aggressive policy, subduing their neighbours and annexing their territories. Pṛithivīshēṇa wisely refrained from being entangled in these wars and devoted himself to the consolidation of his position in the south and the amelioration of the condition of his subjects. The results of his policy are summed up in official Vākāṭaka records in the following words :- Pṛithivīshēṇa I had a continuous supply of treasure and army which had been accumulating for a hundred years.³

...Pṛithivīshēṇa I had probably a long reign, which seems to have terminated in circa 400 A.C. Some years before the close of it, in circa 395 A.C., Chandragupta II, who had
_______________________

¹ That Gupta supremacy was acknowledged in South Kōsala is shown by the use of the Gupta era by the descendants of Mahēndra. See Āraṅg plates of Bhīmasēna II, Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, pp. 342 f., with the correction of their date by me in ibid., Vol. XXVI, p. 228.
² Rudrasēna I mentions his title Rājan in the Dēoṭēk inscription. In the records of his descendants he is styled Mahārāja. These titles, as contrasted with that of Samrāṭ assumed by his grandfather Pravarasēna I, may be supposed to indicate a feudatory status. But, as Dr. Altekar has shown, this distinction was not observed in South India. The title Mahārāja was adopted by paramount sovereigns as well as feudatory princes in South India. It was, for instance, assumed by the Vishṇukuṇḍin Emperor Mādhavavarman I, who performed as many as eleven Aśvamēdhas as well as by the rulers of Valkha who ‘meditated on the feet of their Great Lord’. C.I.I., Vol. IV, pp. 5 f.
³ No. 3, lines 11-12.