Political History of the Guptas – Discussed!

The beginnings of the Gupta dynasty are shrouded in mystery. As very little is known about their ancestors, various speculations are made regarding their original home and ancestors.

The rise of the Guptas as political masters and their acceptance as an imperial power strongly suggests that the Sastric dictum that only the people of Kshatriya Varna are eligible to be the rulers was not a binding condition.

Further, the epigraphs of the Sunga and the Satavahana dynasties refer to the name Gupta, in particular reference to Sivagupta that led some to postulate they are as ancient as the Satavahanas.

However, it is certainly conceded that the Guptas are not of royal origin. This becomes clear from Chandragupta I’s attaching importance to his marriage alliance with the Lichchavi princess Kumaradevi and the first two rulers not recording any details except their titles. If they were of royal origin, the first two rulers would have claimed royal ancestry and Chandragupta I need not have attached much of significance to his matrimonial alliance with the Lichchavis, who were a well-known tribal royal family by that time.

Hence, it is clear that the Guptas are of uncertain origin and rose to prominence taking advantage of the prevailing political uncertainty with the decline of Kushan power in northern India. Different theories have been offered about the original home of the Guptas. Some scholars placed their original home in North Bengal, while some placed it in Magadha in Bihar and U.P. Nevertheless, many historians now tentatively accept that their original home lay in Eastern Uttar Pradesh.

The advocates of this theory point out that they come to this conclusion based on the following:

(a) The Puranas, in particular the Vayu Purana refered to allude to eastern Uttar Pradesh as early Gupta territory,

(b) A number of coin hordes are found in this region, and

(c) The earliest epigraph of the Guptas recording the achievements of Samudragupta, the Allahabad pillar epigraph also comes from this region.

Further, it is said that of the fifteen inscriptions that refer to the first one hundred and fifty years of the Gupta rule, eight come from Uttar Pradesh, two from Magadha and five, which belong to a later period come from Bengal.

The Gaya inscription, indirectly clinches the issue by stating the intimate relations of the Guptas with Eastern Uttar Pradesh. All the above evidence conclusively proves that the Prayaga region of eastern Uttar Pradesh was the core area of the early Guptas. Though the literary and archaeological sources clearly reveal that the Guptas started their independent rule in the second decade of 4th century AD, it may be surmised that they were vassals of the later Kushans in north-western India in the closing decades of the 3rd century AD.

Epigraphs inform us that Srigupta was the first king of the Gupta dynasty followed by Ghatotkacha Gupta. Prabhavati Gupta’s two records from Poona and Rithpur refer to Ghatotkacha Gupta as the first king and the recently discovered Rewa epigraphs refer to him as the founder of the Gupta family. Perhaps, compared to Srigupta, Ghatotkacha made some notable conquests that have yet to come too light that led him to be considered as the founder by the Rewa record. He appears to have assumed the title of ‘Maharaja’ which however does not imply that he was ruling independently.

Ghatotkacha’s son and successor, Chandragupta I ascended the throne of the Guptas in AD 319-320 and commenced the Gupta era. In 1887, J.F. Fleet propounded the theory that Chandragupta was the founder of the Gupta dynasty and started ‘the Gupta era’. He assumed the title of ‘Maharajadhiraja’, which clearly indicates that he started the independent rule of the Guptas. Beyond his marriage with Kumara Devi, the princess of the Lichchavi clan, nothing much is known about his rule.

His successors record this matrimonial alliance with pride, and this makes us believe that this matrimonial alliance undoubtedly helped him in consolidating his kingdom. This can be further proved by the fact that Samudragupta, the successor of Chandragupta I, proudly declares himself as Lichchavi Dauhitra, the son of the daughter of the Lichchavis. Chandragupta I issued a coin with the figures of himself and Kumara Devi on the obverse with their names and on the reverse, a goddess seated on a lion along with the legend Lichchavanyah.

The specific issue of a gold coin by Chandragupta I proclaiming his marriage with Kumaradevi, and the legend Lichchavanyah definitely indicates that this marriage had political significance. The Guptas in general and Chandragupta I in particular were benefited by this marriage. This marriage brought both respectability and legit­imacy to the Guptas as rulers because they contracted a matrimonial alliance with one of the age-old and well-established ruling dynasties of Northern India.

We may safely presume that by this marriage, the incipient Gupta state power and the Lichchavi state power merged, leading to the emergence a strong power in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Magadha. There are no definite evidences t determine the boundaries of the kingdom of Chandragupta I. But, it is believe( that his kingdom covered parts of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Bengal Chandragupta is also credited with initiating the Gupta era, immediately after his accession to the throne in AD 319-320.

The spatial extent of the use of this term ‘Gupta era’ by the non-Gupta rulers is an indication of the power wielded by the Guptas. Likewise, the non-mention of this era in later dated epigraphs would point out to the decay and decline of the Gupta power. The solid founda­tions laid by Chandragupta I appear to have made the middle Ganga Valley and the region around Pataliputra, a political centre of importance.

The Gupta political power and polity were firmly rooted in the central sector of the Ganga Valley. Chandragupta successfully placed the Guptas in firm control of the middle Ganga Valley to both the north and south of the river. Samudragupta, the son of Chandragupta I and Kumaradevi, succeeded his father, and ruled for a period of five decades from AD 325 to AD 375 or from AD 330 to AD 380.

Samudragupta had been acclaimed as the greatest of the Gupta lineage as well as one of the illustrious sovereigns of early Indian history. He has been praised as the real founder of the Gupta Empire. Allahabad Prasasti epigraph, inscribed on the original Asoka edict, by Harisena, the minister for war of Samudragupta vividly describes in detail the achievements of Samudragupta as a warrior as also his other qualities as a person and administrator.

The Allahabad Prasasti specifi­cally mentions that Smudragupta was specially chosen by Chandragupta I to succeed him among many aspirants for the throne. From this, we may infer that Chandragupta I had more than one son and he had chosen Samudragupta to succeed him.

It is suggested that Samudragupta did succeed peacefully without opposition from his other brothers who aspired for the throne. It is believed that one of the disgruntled brothers, Kacha declared himself as ruler of the Gupta Empire, and ruled for some time as coins bearing the name of Kacha are found. Based on the evidence of the coins of Kacha, it is suggested that a civil war had taken place, though there is no direct or indirect evidence either way this. Samudragupta must have driven Kacha away and occupied the Gupta throne. This theory gained currency as the gold coins of Kacha are similar to those of Samudragupta but interestingly, the Gupta epigraphs are silent about Kacha.

After successfully establishing himself on the throne, Samudragupta appears to have started his invasions against the powerful contemporary rulers to expand and consolidate the Gupta hegemony. From the undated Allahabad Prasasthi, we come to know of his policy of conquests.

Believed by some was the minister for war under Samudragupta. What the epigraph narrates is a faithful record in the order of the happenings. However, R. Sathianath Iyer opines that the order of events given in the inscription is not representing the chronological order. Further, the said inscription is silent about the Aswamedha sacrifice; so this inscription must have been composed immediately after his victorious campaigns and there must be a considerable gap between the issue of the said epigraph and performance of the Aswamedha sacrifice.

First, let us take Samudragupta’s campaign in Aryavarta. The question of the number of campaigns he supposedly led has been questioned by scholars. Some historians hold that Samudragupta uprooted his opponents of Aryavarta in one campaign but some others, relying on the authenticity of the record argue that he campaigned twice against the rulers of Aryavarta.

We are not sure whether they were undertaken successively or whether there was any gap between these two campaigns. By his successful campaigns in Aryavartha, Samudragupta became the master of the whole of Gangetic Valley and of Eran in the central part of India. Samudragupta employed the diplomatic technique of encircling the valley with a ring of tributary states, which are Atavika or forest tribes, to make this core territory secure and safe, and adopted a mild policy towards these states.

The tribal frontier states of Malawas, the Arjunayanas, the Yaudheyas and the Madrakas, accepted the sovereignty of Samudragupta. Further, the Abhiras, the Ararjunas, the Sanakanikas, the Kakas and the Kharaparihas; tribes that ruled in the north and east of Bhilsa also acknowledged his sovereignty. Now let us consider campaigns in Dakshinapatha. There is a controversy regarding the number of his invasions against Dakshinapatha and about the route followed by Samudragupta.

The Allahabad Prasasti clearly states that he defeated all the kings of Dakshinapata. There is a view that he invaded the South twice, but the Allahabad Prasasti gives no hint to that effect. It clearly gives a list of twelve names of the rulers along with the names of the kingdoms. The kings and kingdoms defeated by Samudragupta are Mahendra of Kosala, Vyaghraraja of Mahakantara, Mantaraja of Korala, Mahendra of Pistapura, Swamidatta of Kottura, Damana of Erandapalli, Vishnugopa of Kanchi, Nilaraja of Avamukta,” Hastivarman of Vengi, Ugrasena of Pallakka, Kubera of Devarastra and Dhananjaya of Kusashtalapura: The Allahabad Prasasti clearly mentions that with regard to the kings of Dakshinapatha, Samudragupta followed a policy of Grahana or capture of the enemy, Moksha or liberation and Anugraha or reinstating him.

This policy of “grahana-moksha-anugraha” reveals the diplo­matic skill and foresight of Samudragupta, as he knew that in those days when there was no proper and speedy communication network it would be very difficult to have a constant control on these distant areas, and decided to be satisfied with their acknowledging his overload ship rather than bringing them under his direct control.

R.K. Mukherjee rightly observes, “This policy may be taken to be the only policy that a conqueror could pursue in distant South where he was only anxious that his position as the paramount sovereign of India should be recognised”. Samudragupta’s not trying to annex these southern kingdoms clearly reveals his farsighted wisdom and realistic approach.

There are historians who believe that the list of kingdoms and kings given in the Allahabad Prasasti is the route of the southern campaign of Samudragupta. Very recently, P.V.P. Sastri came out with a theory that Samudragupta’s expedition to South India was merely prompted more by a desire to establish Sanatana Dharma in the south, than to gain any wealth or political advantage. Whatever the reason, the southern expedition of Samudragupta was a reality and established him as a victorious warrior.

The Allahabad pillar Prasasti also states that independent or semi-independent principalities also acknowledged his supremacy. But, it is very difficult to identify these except Simhala or Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). The epigraph refers to a term “Daivaputra Shahi-Shahanushahi-Saka-Murundas”. Out of this compound term, we are very well aware that Daivaputra-Shahi-Shahanushahi is the titles of the Kushan rulers who were divided into three small principalities by that time. But, we are not sure of the names of the principalities of the Kushan rulers who are supposed to have accepted the suzerainty of Samudragupta.

A critical examination of the conquests of Samudragupta and the policy adopted by him towards his enemies reveals him as a political realist who had the geopolitical interests of the Gupta kingdom at heart. While he followed a policy of Unmulya or annihilation towards the rulers of Aryavarta, he followed a policy of “Grahana, Anugraha and Moksha” towards the southern rulers.

His decision to annihilate his enemies in Aryavarta was motivated by his ambition to make himself the unquestioned master of the core area. As already indicated, his southern conquests were undertaken to prove his prowess as a warrior and a general striking awe in the minds of the contemporary rulers. His decision to create a ring of dependencies around the core area of his territory and maintaining friendly relations with distant frontier tribes and rulers was a masterstroke of diplomacy.

The view of some of the scholars that Samudragupta had in his mind an international system of goodwill and peace, through violence, aggression and war appears to be far-fetched. Further, the opinion of R.K. Mukherjee that he earned fame as one who vanquished kings whom he reinstated in their kingdoms in a new order of peaceful partnership does not appear to be an overstatement. Samudragupta was not a bloodthirsty general but only a pragmatic imperialist. His pragmatic imperialism made him follow a policy of peaceful partnership with distant southern kingdoms, frontier tribes and frontier kings but not with enemies in the neighbourhood of his core area.

Samudragupta should be credited with raising the fortunes of the Gupta kingdom and establishing himself as a ruler of the entire Aryavarta and laying solid foundations for the military prowess of the Guptas. He is undoubtedly a good warrior and a capable general, equally interested in the fine arts of music and literature. None of his poetry is available, but he had the title of Kaviraja. That Samudragupta was also a patron of Sanatana Dharma could be deduced from his revival of Asvamedha sacrifice.

It is also true that he is a typical repre­sentative of the ideology of the age that king is the image of God on earth. However, a patron of Sanathana Dharma, he was not obsessed with that ideology. This is proved by placing his son under the tutorship of Vasubandhu, a great Buddhist scholar. His coins bear testimony to the fact that he was of robust build. In one of his recently found coins, we come across the title of Srivikramah indicating his great prowess as victor and suggesting that he was as great as the legendary Vikramaditya.

Some scholars hold the opinion that the Gupta era starts not from the year of the accession of Chandragupta I, but from the accession of Samudragupta, because the copper plate grants of Samudragupta from Nalanda and Gaya are dated in the fifth and ninth years of the Gupta era. However, the most accepted view is that it was Chandragupta I who started the Gupta era and not Samudragupta.

We can say that it was Chandragupta I who started the independent rule of the Guptas and it was Samudragupta who made the Gupta independence a reality by making the Guptas the real masters of northern India. Though family details of Samudragupta are not available in any source, the availability of some coins bearing the name Ramagupta and references to a fratricidal war between Chandragupta and Ramagupta in works like Natyadarpana, Kavyamimamsa, Harshacharita and Devi Chandraguptam, have prompted scholars to postulate a hypothesis that Ramagupta, his elder son, succeeded Samudragupta.

On the basis of the available epigraphic and literary evidence, it is suggested that immediately after the death of Samudragupta, Gupta state was attacked by Sakas and that the Guptas had to face political humiliation and agree to handover Dhruvadevi, who is known from the Gupta epigraphs as the wife Chandragupta II, as demanded by the Sakas. But literary evidence indicates that Dhruvadevi was the wife of Ramagupta, who was supposed to have succeeded Samudragupta.

The story in the literary evidence is as follows:

Chandragupta, the brother, of the king disgusted at the meek surrender of his brother, went in the disguise of Dhruvadevi to the Saka king and killed him. His elder brother did not like this action of Chandragupta and hence Chandragupta killed his brother and married Dhruvadevi. Scholars of the stature of H.C. Raychaudhari rejected the above literary and numismatic evidence as untrustworthy and belonging to a later date. For some scholars, Chandragupta II, was chosen by Samudragupta as a worthy successor to him.

At this juncture, we can only say that Chandragupta became heir to the Gupta throne at a time when their political fortunes and state power were at stake due to the rise of their enemies and this is supported by the fact that Chandragupta II had to wage wars again to re-establish the Gupta hegemony. Chandragupta II like his grandfather Chandragupta I entered into matrimonial alliances with Nagas by marrying Kuberanaga and their offspring Prabhavati Gupta was given in marriage to Rudrasena II of the Vakataka family.

Chandragupta’s policy of matrimonial alliances must have strengthened his position as the Nagas and the Vakatakas were powerful ruling lineages in North India and the Deccan and by making them his allies, he could wage war against the Sakas of Gujarat and Kathiawar.

The details of the conquests and campaigns of Chandragupta II are not known as any record like the Allahabad pillar, Prasasti of Samudragupta has become known. However, the Udayagiri hill epigraph of Virasena, his minister for peace and war, the epigraph of Sanakanika Maharaja near Bhilsa and the Sanchi epigraph of Amrakardeva, a military commander, testify to his camping at Malwa with his retinue to attack the Saka territories. In this conquest, Chandragupta defeated and killed the last Saka king Rudrasimha III.

His total success against the Sakas is proved by the absence of Saka coins minted after this period, and the positive evidence of Chandragupta minting Saka type of silver coins and the legend of Sakari Vikramaditya, i.e., Vikramaditya who was an enemy of the Sakas. The victory against the Saka and the annexation of Gujarat-Kathiawar region was a very significant event, as he not only ousted foreign rule but also obtained access to the Arabian Sea and important ports and trading centres on the western coast. By this conquest, Chandragupta II improved the resource base of the Gupta kingdom, as he secured an advantage in the field of internal and external trade with the western world.

Chandragupta is also said to have extended his empire in the east by his conquest of Vanga or eastern Bengal. The Mehrauli pillar inscription, of one Chandra who is identified as Chandragupta II, proves this. There is a contro­versy regarding the identification of Chandra of the Mehrauli epigraph. Various scholars have identified this Chandra of Mehrauli with Chandragupta Maurya, Chandragupta I and Chandragupta II. However, the most persuasive identifi­cation is with Chandragupta II.

We are already aware that his father Samudragupta had conquered Vanga or eastern Bengal and made it a tributary state, so the reason for his invasion appears to be a rebellion at Vanga or the desire of Chandragupta II to bring eastern Bengal under his direct rule. Whatever the reason that Vanga was brought under the area control of the Guptas is proved by the rule of the Guptas in the early years of the 6th century AD.

Chandragupta is also believed to have crossed the Sindh region and defeated Vahika, which is identified with Bactria, based on the exploits mentioned in the Mehrauli iron pillar inscription. The Kushan type of coins bearing Chandra’s name further proves this fact. It is now established, based on available epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidence that Chandragupta II extended the frontiers of the Gupta Empire to western, north-western and eastern India.

Chandragupta is compared to the illustrious legendary ruler Vikramaditya of Ujjain and to the hero of Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa. Undoubtedly, Chandragupta II occupies a place of eminence among the Gupta rulers and among the great rulers produced in early historic period. Chandragupta II is unquestionably a worthy son, who was a conqueror of reputation and a patron of letters.

It is also said that Chandragupta II patronized the Navaratnas, one of whom is the great poet and dramatist Kalidasa. Another important event of this era is the visit of Fahien, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, who stayed in his court for a period of nearly six years. Curiously, Fahein is silent about the name of the ruler who patronized him, though he gives a vivid account of the social and administrative aspects of his patron’s reign. Chandragupta II ruled from 380 to AD 415-416.

Kumaragupta, the son of Chandragupta II, succeeded his father and ruled for forty years from AD 415 to AD 455. Nothing eventful occurred in his reign to be remembered by posterity, except keeping intact the vast empire bequeathed by his father. The cracks began to appear in the solid foundations of the state power of the Guptas in the form of the attack of Pushyamitras, a barbaric hoard from Mekala in the Narmada valley along with the foreigners, the Hunas.

The Bilsad epigraph portrays his reign as one of ever-extending victory and says that he performed Asvamedha sacrifice and issued coins commemorating that event. However, we are not certain of his victories. He also proudly styles himself as Mahendraditya. He is said to have founded the Nalanda University and patronized Kalidasa.

It is also learnt from one of the epigraphs that a group of silk weavers migrated to his territory and prospered there. His son Skandagupta is said to have played a crucial role in quelling the attacks of the Pushyamitras and the Hunas. The important epigraphs that refer to Kumaragupta are the Bilsad inscription, the Damodarpur copper plate inscriptions of AD 433 and AD 477, a stone inscription from Mandasor and the Karamdand epigraphs dated AD 436. While the Karamdand epigraph mentions that his fame spread to the four oceans, a stone inscription from Mandasor mentions Kumaragupta as reigning over the whole earth. The Damodarpur inscription refers to his tide Maharajadhiraja. He appears to have maintained cordial relations with the Vakatakas with whom he had matrimonial relations.

Skandagupta succeeded his father Kumaragupta and ruled for a period of twelve years from AD 455 to AD 467. He was perhaps the last powerful Gupta emperor. His reign witnessed the attacks of the Hunas and AD 467 appears to be the last known date of his reign. Romila Thapar correctly observes, “Skandagupta battled valiantly, but he faced domestic problem as well, such as the breaking away of his feudatories, and there are indications of an economic crisis which would explain the debasing of the coinage”.

It is to be noted that in comparison to the gold coins of the earlier rulers, the gold coins minted by Skandagupta are fewer in number. It is also an established fact that though his gold coins are heavier in weight, the gold content in them is less than that of the earlier coins.

In spite of the economic crisis faced by the kingdom and constant attacks of the Hunas, his Junagadh epigraph informs us that he undertook public works during his reign. We have come to know from the said epigraph, that when the Sudarsana Lake was damaged due to heavy rains, his governor Purnadatta got it repaired. Some scholars hold the view that the Gupta territory was partitioned between him and his half-brother Purugupta. Skandagupta assumed the title of Vikramaditya and ‘Kramaditya’. After his death, the central authority of the Guptas appears to have declined fast. The succession of the various kings that followed him is uncertain.

A number of administrative seals have been discovered with the names of the same kings, but following a varied order of succession, which points to a confused end to the dynasty. Epigraphs record that after Skandagupta, Budhagupta, Vainyagupta, Bhanugupta, Narasimhagupta, Baladitya, Kumaragupta II and Vishnugupta succeeded as rulers. Though we come across so many names, it is not very clear in what order these kings ruled the Gupta territories.

Though epigraphs inform us that the Guptas ruled until AD 550, gradual disintegration of the empire started from the end of Skandagupta’s rule. It is believed that the Guptas lost Kathiawar and portions of Malwa by AD 477. The repeated Huna invasions under Toramana and Mihirakula from AD 500 further weakened their rule. This gave scope for the subordinate kings of the Valabhi to rise in revolt and the rise of Yasodharman of Malwa and finally the Maukharis eclipsed the main Gupta line, which lingered on in eastern India for some more time.