Expansion of the Gupta Empire

About the year 335 A.D. the founder of the Gupta Empire, Chandra-Gupta I, died, leaving a small territory extending along the Ganges from the borders of modern Bihar to the confines of Oudh. During the next hundred years, this small area was the nucleus of an empire which extended over the major portion of Hindustan and which rendered everlasting service to Hindu culture and civilization. During these 100 years, three great sovereigns –Samudragupta, Chandragupta Vikramaditya I, and Kumaragupta–wielded the destinies of the empire and, we may add, of Hinduism. At the end of this period, about the beginning of the latter part of the 5th century, the magnificent empire over which these sovereigns ruled began

to decline for various reasons; and though the dynasty continued to hold power for nearly two centuries after it, the greatness of the empire had become a mere memory. In the present article and the next, the progress of the empire is rapidly traced.

SAMUDRAGUPTA (Circa 335-80).

The immediate successor of Chandra-Gupta I was his son Samudragupta. From the expression ‘tatparigrahitah’ found in almost every inscription referring to Samudragupta, and from the express statement that his father was specially delighted at his achievements as a prince, we have reasons to believe that Samudragupta was not the eldest son, but selected from among several brothers by his father for the crown, in recognition of his valour and distinction. It has also been suggested that the expression ‘Samudragupta’ was a later imperial title assumed by the new monarch and that his earlier name was ‘Kacha’. A number of coins bearing the name ‘Kacha’ and exactly resembling the ‘Archer’ type of coins in legends, designs and scripts, issued by Samudragupta, are believed to indicate this identity. Very probably, as Alan suggests, Kacha adopted the imperial title of ‘Samudragupta’ after his conquests, the ending Gupta having been adopted in imitation of his father's name. In this case, what had been originally a mere accidental or clan designation, became a proud imperial one.

It may be pointed out here that it has been suggested by Dr. Hoernle that a Maharajadhiraja Sri Dharmaditya who figures in an inscription at Faridpur¹. in East Bengal was also Samudragupta, the title being analogous to ‘Vikramaditya’ wielded by his successor. The argument in favour of this view are: (1) the appropriateness of the title when applied to Samudragupta who is always described as a great ‘dharmika’ and master of the ‘sastra-tattvartha’, and (2) the use of the epithet ‘apratirathah’; but it is now agreed that the identification cannot stand. Mr. Alan points out that the seal of the Faridpur inscription–the ‘abhisheka’ of Lakshmi, indicates a later dynasty and date. He further infers, from the analogy of later reigns, that the epithet ‘parakramaditya’ would be more suitable to Samudragupta than ‘Dharmaditya.’ Above all, Dr. Hoernle himself² later on preferred to attribute the inscription to Yasodharman. We may therefore conclude that Samudragupta was quite distinct from Dharmaditya. With regard to the duration of Samudragupta's reign, we have already seen that Chandra-Gupta I was on the throne till perhaps about 335. Samudragupta, we know, was on the throne for a considerable period. The terminal dates assigned to him vary from 375 to 385. Vincent Smith has argued that Chandra-Gupta's marriage with the Lichchhavi princess took place probably about 308 A.D., in which case we may suppose that Samudragupta was less than 27 years of age when he carne to the throne. However it might be, there is no doubt that Samudragupta had a long reign of nearly fifty years, during which period he made himself the greatest emperor of the period. We may attribute the end of his reign to between 380 and 385.

SAMUDRAGUPTA'S INSCRIPTIONS

The history of Samudragupta's reign has been entirely constructed from inscriptions and coins. One of the greatest figures in Indian history owes his name thus to modern research in entirety. Of the inscriptions, two only are available, directly concerning him.³ The first of these is a posthumous record and inscribed on a pillar at Allahabad, which was discovered in 1834. The column is 35 feet in height and as old as the 3rd century B.C.; for it also contains an edict of Asoka. It is now a conspicuous monument in the Allahabad fort. From the fact that the Asokan edict is addressed to the rulers at Kausambi, it has been suggested by Cunningham that the pillar was originally at Kausambi and later on removed to Allahabad, just as the Asokan columns at Merut and Sewalik hills were removed in Mohammedan times to Delhi. If this were the case, the, removal must have taken place after the 7th century; for Hiouen- Tsang, who was for such a long time at Allahabad, does not mention the column there. It is possible, however, to argue that it might have been omitted by him. The Gupta inscription is in the North Indian alphabet of the 4th century A.D., and of course in Sanskrit. It is not dated; but it describes Samudragupta, whom it panegyrises, as already dead. It was evidently, therefore, issued by his son and successor Chandra-Gupta II. The inscription is one of the most unique and valuable records in Indian history; for it gives a detailed list of the countries and peoples conquered by the emperor. The list is neither chronological nor geographical; but there is some scheme in the arrangement which, as will be shown presently, is very instructive in regard to the character and constitution of the Gupta Empire. The record, moreover, is a kavya by itself and, as pointed out by Buhler⁴, is one of the earliest examples of the style in which Kalidasa was a past master. The author of the prasasti was Harisena, who was by no means a mean poet.

The other inscription of Samudragupta is that of Eran, ancient Arikina, a village in Sagar District, Central Provinces. This record, which is unfortunately fragmentary, belonged to a local Varaha temple. It is in the Southern style of alphabet, –the box-headed style, as it is generally called. It also is in Sanskrit. The portion naming the monarch is spoiled, but from the terms of eulogy, we can easily identify him with Samudragupta. The record refers to Arikina as the city of his delight, and apparently commemorates the erection of the Varaha temple. As has been already said, Samudragupta's name is not available; but the record is exactly like Harisena's Allahabad prasasti. It has been suggested that the lavish distribution of gold referred to in it indicates the performance of the Asvamedha sacrifice and the engraving of the inscription at the end of the reign. In lines 12, 13 and 17, we have references to Samudragupta's conquest of all kings of the earth and his provision, by his own valour, of a dowry for his queen.

Mention should be made here of a spurious inscription of Samudragupta which was discovered at Gaya in 1883. This inscription⁵ is now regarded as a forgery of about the 8th century A.D., though the seal (which contains the figure of a ‘garuda’ with outstretched wings and a legend in five lines read as ‘Samudraguptah’) is a genuine one. This record was issued from the royal camp at the city of Ayodhya. It purports to be dated in the year 9 (328-329 A.D.), on the tenth solar day of an unspecified fortnight in the month of ‘Vaisakha’, that is, in April-May. It gives a brief recital of the genealogy of the dynasty and records the grant to a Brahman (Gopasvamin of the ‘Bharadhvaja-Gotra’ and ‘Bahvricha-Sakha’) of the ‘agrahara’ of ‘Revatika’ in the ‘Gaya- Vishaya’. The deed is said to have been written by the order of Dyuta Gopasvamin, the Akshapataladhikrita, the officer in charge of legal documents.

It has been already pointed out that the Faridpur inscription of Dharmaditya cannot be attributed to Samudragupta.

SAMUDRAGUPTA'S COINS.

Next to inscriptions, coins form the chief materials for the construction of the reign of Samudragupta. Thanks to his great conquests, Samudragupta was able to issue a varied and plentiful currency in gold. There can be no doubt that Samudragupta acquired enormous riches and spoils in the course of his victorious career. There are at least eight types of gold coins (he issued no silver coins) struck by him. The earliest of them, which has been usually styled the ‘standard’ type, shows the immediate transition from, and imitation of, the Kushana type of coinage. We find in the obverse of this ‘standard’ type the figure of a standing king as in the Kushan coins. In the presence of the nimbate over the king's head, the close-fitting cap, the coat and trousers, the ear-rings and neck-lace, the possession of a standard (bound with fillet) by the left hand, the dropping of incense on an altar with the right hand, –in all these we find the Kushan coins imitated. The only change is that, in place of the trident, there appears a ‘Garudadhvaja’, which is quite natural in a monarch who was a devotee of Vishnu. There is also the figure of a ‘garuda’ with crescent above it. The reverse of the Gupta coin also reproduces theKushana symbol of Lakshmi seated on a throne, with a nimbate over her head and with a loose robe, necklace and armlets. There is a fillet in her outstretched right hand; and a cornucopia ⁶ in her left .hand. Her feet rest on a lotus, and the whole is surrounded by a border of dots. The Gupta coin is superior in workmanship to the Kushana coin. The ‘dhvaja’ type of coins has got, besides the above figures, legends both on the obverse and reverse. The obverse contains the expressions Samudragupta and Samara suta-vitata-vijayo jita-ripu-rajato divam jayati in the upagiti metre. The reverse contains the legend Parakramah (the valiant).

Besides the ‘standard’ type, Samudragupta issued as many as seven other types of coins. The first of these is known as the ‘Archer’ type. This became the commonest and most characteristic of the Gupta coins, as it was struck in imitation of Samudragupta, by his successors. It was a natural development of the ‘Garudadhvaja’ type. The king is standing. There is a nimbate above his head. He is dressed as in the ‘standard’ coin, but instead of the ‘dhvaja,’ he holds a bow in his left hand and an arrow in the right hand. The head of the bow rests on the ground. The reverse contains the figure of Lakshmi as in the ‘standard’ type. The legends in the obverse are Samudra beneath the left arm and the expression Apratiratho vijitya kshitim. sucharitaih divam jayati (the unrivalled charioteer, having conquered the earth, conquers heaven), in the upagiti metre. The reverse contains the legend Apratirathah, (the unrivalled charioteer).

The third type of Samudragupta's coins is usually styled the ‘battle-axe’ type. Here, in the place of the archer or the standard, there is a battle-axe, parasu. In the obverse, the king stands with a nimbate, cap, coat and trousers, ear-rings, necklace and sword, and holds a parasu (axe) in the left hand. His right hand rests on the hip. To his left, there is a second attendant figure or dwarf, behind whom there is a crescent-shaped standard. The reverse contains the figure of Lakshmi as in the types already described. The legends in the obverse are (1) Samudra, (2) kr (Krtanta); (3) Samudragupta and (4) the expression krtanta-parasur-jayat-yajita-rajajeta-ajitah (the deadly axe conquers; the conqueror of invincible kings; the invincible), in prithvi metre. The reverse contains the legend Krtanta-Parasu. In a variety of this type, the king wears a sword and the boy something like a sword, and the standard has two fluttering ribands at the top.

A fourth type of Samudragupta's coins is the one bearing the name Kacha, to which reference had already been made. This is also a development of the ‘standard’ type. The obverse contains the usual figure of the standing king holding a standard in the left hand and sprinkling incense on an altar with the right hand. There is the legend Kacha as well as the expression {Kacho-gamavajitya-divam-karma-bhir-uttamair-jayati (Kacha, having won over the earth, conquers heaven by the best deeds), in the upagiti metre. In the reverse there is, unlike in the coins we have thus far studied, a standing instead of the seated Lakshmi. She wears a loose robe, holds a flower in her right hand and cornucopia in the left. Sometimes she stands on a lotus. There is also the legend ‘Sarvarajochchhetta’ (the uprooter of all kings).

The fifth type of Samudragupta's coinage is known after the figure of the tiger in it. The king stands wearing a turban, waist cloth, necklace, ear-rings, and armlets; and tramples on a tiger which falls ward on account of his shooting it with a bow in the right hand. The left hand draws the bow behind the ear. Behind the tiger there is a crescent standard as in the battle-axe coin. The legend in the obverse is ‘Vyaghra-parakramah’ (valiant like tiger). The reverse contains the figure of a standing Lakshmi or Ganga on a makara (elephant-headed fish), wearing ear-rings, necklace, anklets and armlets. She holds a lotus in the left hand, but the right hand is empty and outstretched. There is also a crescent-standard to the left. The legend on the reverse is ‘Raja-Samudraguptah’.

The sixth is the celebrated ‘lyrist’ type. This represents the king with a ‘veena’ in his right hand. He is seated cross-legged wearing a waist cloth, necklace, ear-rings and armlets, on a high-ed couch, playing on the ‘veena’. Beneath the couch is a pedestal, with the inscription Sri-Maharajadhi-raja Sri-Samudragupta. The reverse contains the figure of Lakshmi seated on a stool. She has a cap and jewels, besides fillet and cornucopia in her hands. Beneath, there is the inscription Samudraguptah. There are also three slight varieties of this type. The ‘lyrist’ type is of unique interest for the fact that the emperor is completely orthodox or Indian in dress, posture and environment. As Brown, Allan and others point out, the excellent modelling of the king's figure, the skilful delineation of his features, the ornate design and the careful attention to details, make this type the highest expression of the Gupta numismatic art.

In the seventh or ‘Asvamedha’ type of coins which were issued probably after ‘the world conquest’ of Samudragupta, the obverse contains the standing figure of a horse before the sacrificial post, which is surmounted by flags. Sometimes, there is a low pedestal below. Beneath the horse, there are the inscriptions ‘Sri’ and the expression Rajadhirajah prithvim vijitya divam jayatyaprativarya-viryah in upagiti metre. The reverse contains the figure of the queen standing. She wears a loose robe and jewels. Her right hand holds a chowry which goes over the right shoulder. Her left hand simply hangs by her side. To the left of her figure is a sacrificial spear bound with fillet. There is the legend Asvamedha-parakramah.

Lastly, the coins bearing the figure of Chandra-Gupta I and his queen (to whom he hands over a ring) in the obverse and seated Lakshmi in the reverse and the legends Chandragupta, Sri Kumaradevi, in the obverse and Lichchavayah in the reverse, might have been issued by Samudragupta; but more probably they were issued by Chandra-Gupta himself.

Such are the coins of Samudragupta. One peculiarity in them is the growing nationalism of the designs. In Garuda, Lakshmi and Asvamedha, we find the growing tribute to pauranic Hinduism. The monarch becomes more and more dressed in the orthodox fashion. In the ‘tiger’ type, he is already seen in waist-cloth and turban. In the ‘lyrist’ type he is completely Indian in dress, in his cross-legged posture and his play on the ‘veena’. In the ‘Asvamedha’ type, he figures as the complete supporter of the orthodox clergy; for the coins themselves, it has been suggested, were medals made for presentation to them. The scripts, the language, the subject-matter and other details indicate the Gupta pride in all the ideals and

practices associated with the ‘kshattra-dharma.’

SAMUDRAGUPTA AS DESCRIBED IN INSCRIPTIONS

Before analysing the inscriptional records, it is advisable to see what they say in regard to Samudragupta in general, so that we can understand what sort of man he was. Samudragupta is described in very eloquent terms. He was a world-conqueror, whose fame spread everywhere. He was always accustomed to associate with learned people. He was the supporter of the real scriptural truths. By commanding the collective merits of learned men, he removed obstacles to beautiful poetry. He himself enjoyed, in the world of the wise, supreme fame acquired by poetic composition. He enjoyed the deep affection and regard of his father. His noble nature gave protection to the weak and the distressed. Doers of wrong were humiliated by his powers and made contented and loyal. His building was that of religion. His fame had the witness of the moon. His wisdom pierced the essential nature of things. As a compound of all virtues, he was a worthy subject of contemplation by the worthy. He was a hero of hundreds of battles, and had a body full of the marks of battle-axes, arrows, spears, pikes, darts, swords, lances, javelins, iron arrows, vaitastikas (?) and many other weapons. He restored numerous royal families after conquering them and got from them presents in the form of maidens, ‘garuda’ tokens, and territories. He rubbed out the.fames of other kings with the soles of his feet. His spirit caused the production of good and the destruction of evil. He could al ways be won over by devotion and obedience. He was a giver of hundreds of thousands of cows. A glorious personification of kindness, he was ever inspired by the desire to lift up the Poor, the miserable, the helpless and the afflicted. He employed his officers in restoring the wealth of the kings conquered by his arms. He was a Dhanada, Varuna, Indra and Antaka rolled into one. He put to shame Indra's preceptor and Tumburu and Narada, his sharp and polished intellect, his choral skill and musical accomplishments. He established a claim to the title of Kaviraja by composing poetry which could have given subsistence for the learned. He was a mortal only in observing the human duties. Otherwise he was a god. His wealth in elephants, horses, grain and money was endless. He was emperor, ‘Paramabhattaraka’, ‘Parameswara’, ‘Maharajadhiraja’, ‘Apratiratha’, the ruler of the sea-girt world. He was in short an ideal monarch.

ANALYSIS OF THE INSCRIPTIONS

We shall now analyse the inscriptional materials, of which the Allahabad pillar prusasti is the most indispensable. Though a large portion of the beginning of this inscription is lost, there is enough of it to show that, besides panegyrising the emperor in the terms described above, it gives accurate details of his political conquests and the extent of the empire. It opens with an eloquent description of the qualifications of the young emperor and of his selection as yuvaraja by his father in the presence of the whole court. It then proceeds to enumerate his conquests. First, he is said to have uprooted the chiefs Achyuta and Nagasena (line 13). He had him, who was born in the Kota family or dynasty, to be captured by his troops. He delighted, as a result of this, in the city which bore the name of Pushpa (Pushpapura). He then captured and released (line 19):

(1) Mahendra of Kosala; (2) Vyaghraraja of Mahakantara; (3) Mantaraja of Kurala; (4) Mahendra of Pishtapura; (5) Svamidatta of Giri-Kouttura; (6) Damana of Erandapalla; (7) Vishnugopa of Kanchi; (8) Nila-raja of Avamukta; (9) Hastivarma of Vengi; (10) Ugrasena of Palakka; (11) Kubera of Devarashtra; (12) Dhananjaya of Kusthalapura and other Dakshinapatha kings.

He then (line 21) exterminated, we are told, the following, besides many other kings of Aryavarta:

(1) Rudra-deva; (2) Matila; (3) Naga-datta; (4) Chandravarma; (5) Ganapati-Naga; (6) Naga Sena; (7) Achyuta; (8) Nandin; (9) Balavarma.

The emperor then made all the kings of the forest countries (Atavika-rajas) his servants. He then compelled (line 24) these ‘Pratyanta-nripatis’ (frontier or neighbouring kings):

(1) Samatata; (2) Davaka; (3) Kamarupa; (4) Nepala; (5) Kartripura; and ‘other countries’

He then reduced:

(1) The Malavas;(2)The Arjunayanas; (3) The Yaudheyas; (4) The Madrakas; (5) The Abhiras; (6) The Prarjunas; (7) The Sanakanikas; (8) The Kakas; (9) The Kharapatikas; and other tribes.

He was paid (line 23) various respectful tributes like personal service, presentation of maidens and ‘garuda’ tokens, the entrustment of their own territories for his enjoyment, and willing obedience by (1) The Daivaputras; (2) The Shahis; (3) The Shahanushahis; (4) The Sakas; (5) The Murandas; (6) The Simhalas; and (7) other islanders.

Lines 26-7 and 30 give the panegyrics of the emperor, already mentioned. Line 29 gives his genealogy and describes the pillar erected by him as an arm, as it were, of the earth proclaiming his fame as a conqueror of the world as one who departed to Indra's world to enjoy its pleasures. Lines 31-33 conclude the whole with a reference to the ‘Sandhivigrahika Maha-Dandanayaka' Kumaramatya HariGena (the son of Dhruvabhuti Khadyatapakika, the devoted servant of the emperor) who composed the verses. It also refers to another executive officer, Maha-Dandanayaka Paramabhattaraka Tila-Bhattaka.

DR. FLEET ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENT

This very important record has naturally attracted the attention of the scholars engaged in the study of the dynasty. Dr. Fleet, with characteristic erudition, tried to identify some places and kings, but left the majority alone on account of the difficulty which they presented. For example, he acknowledged that, with regard to Achyuta and Nagasena, nothing was known. With regard to Pushpapura, he surmised that it might be either Pataliputra or Kanyakubja (which was also known as Kusumapura); he would surely identify it with the former but for the facts: (1) that no inscriptions of the dynasty have been found there till Skandagupta's time; (2) that Pataliputra is not expressly mentioned as the capital even in inscriptions of Chandra-Gupta II (which mention it) and (3) that the earlier inscriptions of the dynasty are seen more in the vicinity of the latter place. With regard to the Kota family, tribe or dynasty, again, Fleet was able to make no suggestion. With regard to Kaurala, he changed it into ‘Kairala’ and then corrected it into ‘Kerala’ on the ground that he knew of no place or city of the name of Kairala. By changing Kauralaka into Kairalaka and Keralaka, Fleet postulated the conquest of Kerala by the king. Pishtapura he identified correctly with Pithapuram in Godavari District. With regard to ‘Giri-Kautturaka,’ Fleet identified it with Kailas-Kotta on the Mahendragiri hill; but as, by this interpretation, Svamidatta would have to be made the king of two localities whereas the inscription uniformly mentions one, he was disposed to believe that Kottur was a Dravidian place ⁷ and that it was probably Kottur in Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District. The forest countries he identified with the lands between Madhura and Narmada, –practically modern Central India. ‘Pratyantanripatis’ he doubtfully interpreted as the frontier or neighbouring states. Lastly⁸ he identified Erandapalla with Erandol in Khandesh district. To this list of identifications, we may add Kielhorn's equation of Kaurala with Kurala, that is, the Colair Lake.⁹

DR. VINCENT SMITH'S ELABORATION

Dr. Vincent Smith gave flesh and blood to the theory on the basis of the identifications made by Dr. Fleet. Taking his identification of Kerala, Kottur and Khandesh, he added to the list by regarding Palakka as Palghat, Devarashtra as Maharashtra. As a result of this, he was able to make a connected theory of Samudragupta's conquests and raise him to the position of an Indian Napolean whose arms were felt from the Himalayas to the extreme south of the peninsula. After subduing as many as eleven chiefs and kings of the Gangetic plain, as well as many forest tribes, monarchies and republics within and beyond the frontier, in short, after reducing North India, Samudragupta, says Vincent Smith, started on a splendid campaign to the land south of the Vindhyas. Marching through the area now forming Chota Nagpur, he continues, Samudragupta first attacked and reduced King Mahendra of Southern Kosala, then subdued the chiefs of the forest area between Orissa and the Central Provinces, one of whom was called Vyaghra-raja, and then advanced southward along the coast. Vanquishing the chief of Pishtapuram (Pithapuram in the Godavari District) and the hill-forts of Mahendragiri and Kottura (Ganjam District), Samudragupta next reduced Mantaraja on the banks of the Colair lake (in regard to which he accepted Kielhorn's view) and the Pallava king of Vengi between the Krishna and the Godavari as well as the Pallava king of Kanchi, whose name was Vishnugopa. After subduing another Pallava chief named Ugrasena at Palakka (Palghat), Samudragupta turned to the north and began his homeward march along the West Dakkan, subduing on the way the kingdoms of Devarashtra (Mahratta country) and Erandapalli (Khandesh). "This wonderful campaign which involved more than 3000 miles through difficult and unknown country", surmised Vincent Smith, "must have occupied a number of years." And he assigned it to the period ending with A.D. 340.

A DEFECTIVE INTERPRETATION

This roseate account has been found to be defective in several respects.¹⁰ In the first place, the relative chronology of the conquests of the Gupta emperor as laid down by Vincent Smith is not supported by the inscription itself. He believes that the Southern campaign began after the conquest of North India; but the inscription mentions the Southern campaign first. And though there is nothing in the inscription to show that it adopted a chronological order, yet the presumption must be in favour of the priority of the Southern campaign in case other evidences do not conflict with it; and scholars like Prof. Dubreuil and Dr. Bhandarkar do in fact favour the theory of an earlier date for the march against the South.

Secondly, the interpretations of some of the geographical terms given by Dr. Fleet, Kielhorn and Vincent Smith, do not stand scrutiny. The expression ‘Paishtapuraka- mahendragirikautturaka-Svamidatta’ was interpreted by Dr. Fleet and Smith as mentioning Pithapuram, Mahendragiri and Kottur; but Prof. Dubreuil¹¹ points out there is no reference to Mahendragiri at all, and that the term should be translated as ‘Mahendra of Paishtapura’ and ‘Svamidatta of Giri-Kotturaka’ (that is, the fort of Kottura on the hill). The result of this interpretation would be that some of the perplexing elements in the political geography of Vincent Smith would be removed. Again, Erandapalla (or Airandapalla) was identified with Erandol in Khandesh by Dr. Fleet–a fact which was instrumental for the enunciation of the theory that Samudragupta visited Khandesh on the way to his capital from his supposed conquests. And this was confirmed by the identification of Devarashtra with Maharashtra. But Prof. Dubreuil points out that, as the Allahabad inscription mentions Airandapalla next to the Kauttura ¹² hill, it should be looked for on the coast of Orissa; and that, as a town of the name is referred to in later inscriptions near Chicacole, it must be located there.¹³ In fact, Devarashtra is proved by later Eastern Chalukya inscriptions to be the country which included Elamanchi Kalingadesa,¹⁴ that is the country round Elamanchili in Vizagapatam District. Again, the identification of Kaurala with Kerala, Kauttura with Kottur (Pollachi Taluk) in the Coimbatore District and Palakka with Palghat, points out Prof. Dubreuil, is wildly speculative and incorrect. Kerala, it has been suggested, might be the modern railway station of Khurda¹⁵. Kauttura has been identified with Kothoor in Ganjam District; and Palakka¹⁶ with the Pallava capital of that name south of the Krishna, which figures in the early Pallava plates of the Nellore District. The logical result of this is that the theory of Samudragupta's going to the extreme South of the peninsula and turning westward as far as Palghat and Coimbatore, etc, vanishes into air. All places belong to the eastern coast of the Dakkan.The reference to Palakka and Vishnugopa, surmises Prof. Dubreuil, must have been to a confederacy of chiefs under the lead of Vishnugopa, the Pallava king of Kanchi, whose territory extended beyond the Nellore District as far as the Krishna. Samudragupta, therefore, probably did not evengo as far as Conjeeveram,

SAMUDMGUPTA'S REAL ACHIEVEMENTS

IN THE SOUTH

From all these facts, it is clear that Samudragupta's campaign did not cover 3000 miles at all; that, on the contrary, it comprised only the province of Kalinga or Orissa as far as the Pallava kingdom. The Allahabad inscription does not at all "speak of Kerala, Pollachi, Palghat, Mahendragiri, Colair lake, Erandol in Khandesh and Maharashtra. All the kingdoms mentioned in the inscription are situated on the east coast of the Dakkan. The expedition was solely confined to the coast." Further, even this limited undertaking was not quite a success. It was in fact tantamount to failure, due either to the successful resistance of the Pallavas or to Samudragupta's necessity to go to the North in order to meet the rising of the Northern kings. In other words, the Southern campaign was not for establishing an empire after conquering Hindustan, but a preliminary and unfortunate attempt to reduce Kalinga, interrupted untimely by a rising in the North. "After all those rectifications that we have just made, the expedition of Samudragupta presents itself before our eyes in quite another form. It is no more a new Alexander marching victoriously through South India; it was simply the unfortunate attempt of a king from the North who wanted to annex the coast of Orissa but completely failed."

Prof. Dubreuil thus sums up his view of Samudragupta's achievements in the South:

"About 340 A.D. Samudragupta left his capital Pataliputra and marched directly towards the South. First he conquered Southern Kosala, where King Mahendra was reigning in the vicinity of Sirpur and Sombalpur. He then crossed the forests that are to the south of Sonpur and found there the small kingdom of Mahakantara, which means ‘the great forest’, and where the Vyaghraraja, the tiger king, was reigning. Then he reached the coast of Orissa. Mantaraja, king of korala, Mahendra of Pishtapura, Svamidatta of Kottura, a citadel on the top of a hill, and Damana of Erandapalli tried to stop him, but were captured. Samudragupta now prepared to make new conquests, when he was opposed by a confederacy of all the kings that reigned near the mouths of the Godavari and Krishna, the most powerful of them being Vishnugopa, the Pallava king of Kanchi. The other kings were Nilaraja of Avamukta (unidentified), Hastivarman of Vengi, Ugrasena of Palakka, Kubera who reigned in Devarashtra, and Dhananjaya whose capital was Kosthalapura. Samudragupta being repulsed by the kings of the Eastern Deccan, abandoned the conquests he had made in the coast of Orissa and returned home."¹⁷

It may be added that the places mentioned in the inscription are not in geographical order. The Mahakantara on the borders of Orissa and Bundelkhand was apparently the northernmost territory in this list. Inscriptions of kings named Vyaghrarajas have been obtained in the 5^th century from the vicinity of Ganj and Dachne in Bundelkhand. Its reduction by the Gupta forces earlier than the other parts is natural. But Korala (or Khurda station) Pishtapura, Kottura, Erandapalli, Kanchi and Devarashtra, are all mentioned promiscuously without any geographical order. Consequently it is difficult to say where the places Avamukta and Kasthalapura, unidentified as yet, have to be located. Kasthalapura, it has been suggested, might be connected with Kusasthali, a river south of the Krishna mentioned in the Tamil poem Kalingattupparani.¹⁸It might be either Koradala, eleven miles west of Sompeta in the Ganjam District, or any of the Kotapalles figuring in Ganjam (six miles south of Sompeta) Krishna and Nellore Districts, if the philological variation of ‘Kosthalapura’ into ‘Kotapalli’ in the course of ages is possible. With regard to Avimukta, it is only another name for Kasi and it must be some place in the coast named after the great centre of Hinduism. As the name of its local king is given to be Nila, and as Niladri is another name for Puri, one is tempted to connect Avimukta with that celebrated place in an earlier stage of its legendary greatness. But there is no definite warrant to place the Avimukta of King Nila so far North, though it is not impossible.

With regard to the kings who, according to Prof. Dubreuil, formed a confederacy under the Pallava king of Kanchi, one or two facts may be noticed. Mahendravarman of Pishtapura¹⁹, Hastivarman of Vengi and Ugrasena of Palakka, have been distinctly mentioned by different writers to be Pallavas. A different version is that they were not Pallavas but feudatories of the Pallava empire which had its capital at Conjeeveram. Mahendra, it is now certain, was not a Pallava at all. He was not improbably the last of the ‘Brihatpalayana’ kings who was shortly after overthrown by the Salankayanas. Hastivarman might be a Salankayana, not improbably the immediate predecessor of Vijayadevavarman with whom began a list of four kings whose inscriptions, from about 350 to 450 A. D. are well known. Ugrasena might be a Pallava chief, as we distinctly know that Palakka was a Pallava capital; or he might be the local governor under the Pallava rule. It is quite possible .that all these chiefs were rallied by the Pallava king of Kanchi and made to oppose the Gupta invader. This surmise of Prof. Dubreuil is very probably correct; but it has to be distinctly proved that Samudragupta did not visit Conjeeveram.

SAMUDRAGUPTA IN ARYAVARTA

It is probable that Samudragupta's return to Aryavarta from the Dakshinapatha was caused by the rise of some kings against him there. It is the belief of some writers that it might be due to the fact that he was a younger son, but this is yet to be proved. It is also believed by some that it might have been led by Chandravarman of Pushkarana who, it is maintained, was also the issuer of the Susiniya rock inscription and according to some, of the Miharauli pillar inscription too. It is true that the name ‘Chandra’ occurs in the list of opponents of Samudragupta, but there is no evidence to distinctly connect him with Miharauli. But it is quite possible that Chandravarman, who was either the local king of Pokarna or Susiniya or both, rose against Samudragupta together with the others. Rudradeva has been indentified by some with Rudrasena of the Vakataka dynasty, but this is yet to be proved. With regard to the other chiefs–Matila, Nagadatta, Ganapatinaga, Nagasena, Achyuta, Nandi, Balavarman, etc.–we have reasons to believe that the majority of them were Nagas. The Puranas refer to Naga rulers at Padmavati (indentified with Padam Pavaya, 25 miles to the north-west of Narwar) and Muttra. Nagabhatta and Ganapatinaga are clearly Nagas. They might have been subordinate to Chandravarman of Susiniya. Nagasena and Achyuta seem to be repetitions. The coins of a chief named Achyuta have been discoverd at Ahichchatra, and Samudragupta's opponent might be identified with him. We cannot say whether Samudragupta's victories against these were due to his own offensive or to their provocations. From the fact that he is said to have defeated Achyuta and Naga and taken Pushpapura, we have reasons to believe that he began as a defender of his heritage, but passed on subsequently to the career of a victorious imperialist.

Samudragupta's reduction of Aryavarta under his sole imperial ‘umbrella’ can be divided into distinct stages. During the first stage, he dealt with the Naga and other chiefs who might have formed a confederacy against him, and carried the Gupta arms beyond the Jumna river in the west and across the forest lands, till the Vindhyan border in the south. During the second stage, Samudragupta engaged himself in the conquest of the frontier chiefdoms. These were Samatata in the Gangetic delta; Kamarupa further north; Davaka now forming the districts of Bhogra, Dinajpur and Rajshahi north of the Ganges; and the sub- Himalayan States of Nepala and Kartripura (which included Kumaon, Almora, Garhwal and Kangra). The third stage was the conquest or rather conciliation of the tribes–mostly Republican–beyond the Chambal, in modern Rajputana and the Punjab, like the Abhiras of Rajputana, the Madrakas of the Central Punjab etc. The same was the case with the Shahs or Kushans of Kabul; the Daivaputras or the later Kushans; the Shahanushahis of Bactria; the Murundas of Sindh valley; and so on. All these were in friendly terms with the Gupta monarch. They were not subordinate chiefs, but were interested enough to be in very friendly terms with the new and growing empire.

It is thus obvious that the component States of the Gupta Empire did not belong to the same status. The empire proper extended from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas and from beyond the Chambal to the eastern basin of the Brahmaputra. The central portion of this was directly under the emperor; but some parts at least were feudatory chiefs paying tribute. Thirdly, there were the frontier or border States nominally paying tribute, but for all practical purposes independent. Still further beyond, were peoples and tribes who only had friendly communications with the emperor and who were in no way politically connected even in a subordinate capacity with him. The Western Satraps, the Kushans and Sakas of the West Punjab, Kabul and Bactria, the Vakatakas of the Dakkan and the Simhalas of Ceylon, seem to have been in this position. Even taking the parts of India which were directly and definitely subject to the emperor, it is clear that the empire of Samudragupta was extensive enough, though not so extensive as that of Asoka. Though much of the glamour of the ‘Indian Napolean’ has been made dim by the iconoclastic character of later research, there still remains to his credit an achievement sufficient to give him the title of a magnificent empire-builder.

SAMUDRAGUPTA AS AN INTERNATIONAL PRINCE

From the fact that Samudragupta had diplomatic relations with the rulers of Gandhara, Kabul, Bactria and Ceylon, we are able to say that he had an international reputation. The communication with Ceylon is said to have begun in this way. King Meghavarna of that country, who²⁰ it is certain, was on the throne about A. D. 350, sent two Buddhistic monks to Gaya, but they did not find convenient places to stay therein. Meghavarna therefore sent pearls and other tributes to Samudragupta and won his sanction for building an excellent three-storied monastery for the benefit of Ceylon pilgrims to Buddha Gaya. The structure, which is now in the form of a mound, occupied the site north of the Bodhi tree under which Siddhartha became the Buddha. It is remarkable to note that Samudragupta, who seems to have had no direct dealings with the Tamil States, was in close touch with Ceylon. This seems to have been due to direct communication between the Dakkan and Ceylon. The story of the Kalinga Princess Hemamala and the tooth-relic of the Buddha, which is described in the Mahavamsa as having taken place in the 9th year of Meghavarna, seems to illustrate this. This Princess, we are told, fled from her country and her father's capital, Dantapura, in consequence of the invasion of a Yavana named Raktabahu; and after staying for sometime in the diamond sands near the mouth of the Krishna, sailed away to Ceylon, where Meghavarna welcomed her and built for her tooth-relic a shrine in the Maha-vihara which, together with the Abhayagiri Vihara, to which it was taken in procession, was ever after a scene of grand festivities lasting for three months every year. Fahien describes this festival in 412. We do not know who the Yavana invader was, but he might have been an officer of Samudragupta. In this case, we may suppose that Samudragupta's conquest of Kalinga led, thanks to the Kalinga Princess and the tooth-relic, to the establishment of friendly relations with Ceylon. The very embassy of Meghavarna might have been due to it.

The want of reference in Samudragupta's inscription to the Vakatakas of the Dakkan and the Tamil States further south gives rise to some interesting problems. Did he establish suzerainty over the Vakatakas? We have seen how, according to Prof. Dubreuil, he did not go

to the Dakkan in his ‘dig-vijaya.’ One strong evidence in proof of this is the great power possessed by the Vakatakas in this period. Dr. Krishnaswami Aiyangar suggests that Samudragupta might have been either on friendly terms with the Vakatakas or even conquered²¹ them. He points out that, while Samudragupta performed Asvamedha, the contemporary Vakataka King Rudrasena I or rather his son Prithvisena I had no imperial titles which their predecessor Pravarasena I had professed, thus indicating the transfer of imperial power from the Vakataka to the Gupta dynasty. Again, it has been maintained by some that Rudradeva of the Allahabad pillar inscription might be Rudrasena, the Vakataka; for, in a sense, the Vakataka king might be included among the Northern princes. On the whole, however, the exact relation between Gupta and Vakataka rulers in the period is obscure. The want of reference to Prithvisena I is perplexing. The material at our disposal is yet too scanty to throw much light on the matter. Samudragupta might have regarded the Vakataka kingdom as a buffer state between the empire and the region of the Western Satraps, We know that there were marriage relations between the two dynasties later on, and there might have been an equally friendly understanding in the time of Samudragupta. It is quite probable that the Vyaghrarajas of Bundlekhand acknowledged the rule of one or the other as convenience dictated.

So far as the Tamil States are concerned, we have already seen that no inscriptions refer to them. Some scholars have seen in the celebrated campaigns of Raghu, as described in the ‘Raghuvamsa’, an echo of the campaigns of Samudragupta. But we have seen that Samudragupta never went to the Kaveri region or the West Dakkan. The theory of Kalidasa's reproduction of Samudragupta's campaign was formulated at the time when Samudragupta was regarded as having conquered South India. We have, therefore, now to conclude that Kalidasa's description is not quite literal; that it was rather a poetic license; that the reference to the Kaveri, the Parasikas, etc., must be attributed to his geographical knowledge rather than treated as a fact of history.

SAMUDRAGUPTA'S GREATNESS

The new theory of Samudragupta's conquests, however, does not take away from him much of his greatness. The empire over which he directly ruled and the high international fame he had, made him eminently fitted to perform the Asvamedha, the great symbol of imperialism, the memorials of which we have got in his coins and in his imperial titles. As a temporal conqueror and as the supporter of ‘Dharma’, Samudragupta was undoubtedly the greatest man of his day. A great patron of religion and literature, an eminent artist and patron of arts, he must have impressed his contemporaries as much by the beauty of his character as by the efficiency of his valour. At once soldier, statesman, organiser, artist and man of letters, he was indeed a versatile genius. He must have been to the Brahmanical advisers of his court the very embodiment of Dharma. Samudragupta's achievements in the realm of peace in all its multifarious aspects cannot be dealt with here; but it should be stated that to him, more perhaps than to any other sovereign, must be given the proud and privileged position of the saviour of the Hindu culture at a critical time. His pre-eminent place in history is the discovery of archeology and epigraphy; and though the information afforded by these is substantial, till one feels very much dissatisfied with what is available and hungers for more knowledge of one who is so great and so elusive.

We cannot exactly say when Samudragupta's reign ended. As he came to the throne about 335 and as he ruled for a long period –45 or 50 years, to judge from his coins–his death may be assigned to sometime between 380 and 385. Samudragupta's chief queen was named Datta Devi; and he seems to have had a number of sons by her and others; for we are told that he specially chose one of them, the later Chandra-Gupta II, to succeed him. This seems to indicate that this prince was not the eldest son. Unfortunately we have no details. But if Chandra-Gupta was in reality chosen by his father in preference to his elder brother or brothers, we must infer that Samudragupta added to his other talents a fine faculty for judging character; for Chandra-Gupta, proved an excellent monarch and did no mean service for the empire created so skilfully and so efficiently by his father.

1 See Ind. Antq., Vol. XXI, pp 43-44. Dr. Hoernle gives the example of ya and sha to show the early date of the inscription, which resembles Gupta records in its beginning. It records a gift of land to Somasvamin of the Lauhitya-gotra and Vajasaneya-Sakha by a Vasudevasvamin for erecting apparently a dharmasala.

2 J. R. A. S., 1909, p. 136.

3 Fleet's Gupta Inscriptions, Nos I and II A.

4 In a Vienna Journal, 1890.

5 Fleet's Gupta Inscriptions, No. 60.

6 The cornucopia is an ornamental vase (kalasa) from which corn, fruit and flowers overflow. Lakshmi, as the goddess of Plenty, is naturally represented with it. The term cornucopia means ‘the goat's corn’ which, as the corn of plenty, figures in the legend of Zeus.

7 Sewell's Antiquities, I, p. 222.

8 J. R. A. S. 1898, p. 369.

9 Ep. Ind., VI (1900-1) p. 3, foot note.

10 These criticisms are found in Prof. Dubreuil's Ancient History of the Deccan (English version. 1920), p. 58 ff and D.R. Bhandarkar's article in the Indian Historical Quarterly.

11 Ancient History of the Deccan, p 59, para (2).

12 Ancient History of the Deccan P. 59, para (4)

13 See Ep. Ind., vol XII, p 212, for a grant to an inhabitant of Erandapalli in the Chicacole region. The inscription is the same as C.P. No 4 of 1912-13 which is noticed in my Topographical list as VG. 68-A, where the correct identification of Erandapalli is noticed.

14 See VG.I in my Topo. List., which is the same as C.P., No 14 of 1908-9,

and Madr. Ep. Rep., 1909, p.p. 108-9.

15 By Dr. S. K. Aiyangar in his Studies in Gupta History, p. 27.

16 The Uruvupa.lli grant was issued from here. See Ep.Ind., Vol VIII, p 161.

17 Ancient History of the Deccan, p. 61.

18 Dr. Krishnasami Aiyangar in his Studies in Gupta History, p. 27, note I.

19 Godavari Gazetteer, p. 18 and p. 233.

20 The chronology of Meghavarna has given rise to some confusion. The Mahavamsa says that he came to the throne in 808 A.B. This would fall in 325 A.D., if the Buddha's Nirvana took place in 483 B.C. In this case, Meghavarna would have ruled from 325 to 352 A.D. But there would be difficulty if the theory of the Buddha's Nirvana in 543 is accepted. Dr. Sylvain Levi would place the reign from 352 to 379. In his Studies in Gupta History Dr. S. K. Aiyangar is inconsistent and confused. Compare pp.30–1 and 33. He seems to accept both the views, though later on he distinctly is for 352to 379. The acceptance of this would place Meghavarna's embassy to Samudragupta about 361. The question cannot be considered to be free from doubt.

21 Dr. S. K. Aiyangar would place Prithvisena I from the last year of Chandra-Gupta I to a few years at least of Chandra-Gupta II, This seems to err on the side of exaggeration–at any rate in regard to the commencement.