The Elusive Kācha – Rāmagupta

Posted on by Priya Chaturvedi

Of the many mysteries of Indian history, the illustrious Gupta Empire can claim to have a fair share of them. One of these mysteries had been the elusive personalities of Kācha and Rāmagupta. For those who do not know about it – a quick summary is needed. Over the past century, we learned about various rulers of the Gupta Empire and various other personalities associated with them. The information that was discovered and then researched upon regarding some of these Gupta monarchs was clearer vis-à-vis other rulers of this dynasty. Of the relatively lesser known personalities – two names emerged – Kācha and Rāmagupta. These names had been the topic of big discussions and even debates, some of which continue to this day. But from the very start, one of the many floated theories was of them being the names of one ruler i.e. these were not Kācha and Rāmagupta but Kācha – Rāmagupta. The new find, though not exactly new as this has been known for a few years, confirms this theory and this is going to be the topic of this post.

Table of Contents & Links

Background

For a very long time, historians have battled even with the idea of the existence of Kācha – Rāmagupta and have also debated the positioning of Kācha – Rāmagupta in the Gupta genealogy. Many ideas had been promulgated but as mentioned above, with each passing decade, some new information has contributed in making the picture a tad clearer than earlier. I am now writing this post after another fascinating discovery has provided a much needed clarity and as a result has brought us closer to understanding the personalities or rather one personality of Gupta king Kāchagupta – Rāmagupta.

The new research of an independent researcher and numismatist Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (also known as Shivlee Kumar Gupta, fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland) has been seminal in this regard where Kācha and Rāmagupta have been proved to be one and the same person.

This post is a humble attempt to discuss various developments in this mystery, the opinion of various scholars and what can now be understood about this intriguing and elusive figure of our ancient past. At first we will learn about the sources for our information and then we will discuss briefly the theories that had been suggested prior to the research of Kumar and then we will discuss the possibilities in light of the latest discovery. Why am I still using the word ‘possibilities’? It’s because even though the new information might have solved the mystery of the ‘who’, the ‘why’ around Kācha – Rāmagupta still remains because even now, there are multiple possibilities how the events might have progressed when Kācha – Rāmagupta reigned or even before and after the fact.

Note – Some abbreviations used in the post are CII for Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum; AMMK for Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa and SPA for Sectional President’s Address in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 2016.

The sources from which we have come to know about Kācha or Rāmagupta can be divided into three kinds – numismatics, epigraphy and literary which we will discuss in the following sections.

Numismatic Sources

§ Kācha Coinage

The coinage of Kācha consists of his gold coins which usually have been found associated with those of Chandragupta I and Samudragupta in the Gupta hoards (Altekar, 1954; xvi). The Bayana Hoard yielded a total of 16 coins of Kācha; of these 15 were of the Variety A, as Kumar calls them with cakra standard but one coin belonged to a rather new Variety B with a Garuḍa standard in the left field on the obverse. According to Kumar, based on its design, it seems that the Variety B coin is a product of one of the premier royal mints of its time (Kumar, 2013). The Garuḍa standard confirms that Kācha belonged to the Gupta dynasty. There is another Variety C which also seems to have been minted by a royal mint as confirmed by the appearance of a Garuḍa Standard (Kumar, 2013). Though it is different from the Variety B in that the goddess on the reverse holds a flower in her right hand instead of a diadem fillet (Kumar, 2013). As per Kumar, the fact that Kācha ruled long enough to issue coins with the Garuḍadhvaja which were also minted at a royal mint helps us prove that he indeed ruled the Gupta Empire and should therefore be rightfully included in the Gupta dynasty genealogy (Kumar, 2013). The gold coins are also found with the legend of sarvarājocchetta i.e. the exterminator of all kings, an epithet that has been associated mainly with Emperor Samudragupta and thus has been one of the main points behind the theory of some scholars that considered Kācha to be just another name for Samudragupta. But this suggestion has been counter-argued and will be addressed separately later in this post.

Figure 1 – Chakrādhvaja Type Coinage of Kāchagupta. [Credit – WikiMedia Commons]

Figure 2 – Kāchagupta Garuḍa Standard Coinage. [Credit – Shivlee Collections – Kumar, 2013]

§ Rāmagupta Coinage

A good number of Rāmagupta copper coins have been found, particularly in Eraṇ and Vidiśā District in Madhya Pradesh – many of them bear the figure of a lion usually with an upraised tail (Bajpai, 1961; 54) on the obverse and the name of Rāmagupta on the reverse. Another significant point to note is that these are very similar to the coinage of the Nāga-s and the local Mālava rulers who issued them prior to the Gupta-s (Bajpai, 1961; 54). For this reason, some scholars have tried to attribute them to Rāmagupta who, in their opinion was merely a local ruler. But we also have to consider another important find i.e. some Rāmagupta coins also bear the Garuḍa emblem of the Imperial Gupta Dynasty (Bajpai, 1961; 54). Thus, the coins of Rāmagupta according to Bajpai neither seem to be the issues of any local officer nor of any feudatory king named Rāmagupta because importantly, during the 3rd-4th century CE, we do not know of any other ruler, petty or not, named Rāmagupta except of course the one belonging to the Gupta dynasty (Bajpai, 1961; 54). Rāmagupta, according to Bajpai simply tried to follow the local tradition in numismatics like Chandragupta did after he had conquered the Śaka-s in this region. That’s why the silver and copper coins of Chandragupta are also in similar pattern to that of the Western Kshatrap-s (Bajpai, 1961; 54-55). Substantiating the claim of Rāmagupta belonging to the Imperial Gupta Dynasty is also the fact that the garuḍa type coins of this king outnumber the lion-type coins (Bajpai, 1961; 55) and some coins clearly bear even the Garuḍadhvaja (Bajpai, 1961; 55).

And in the new seminal find of Sanjeev Kumar that was alluded to in the beginning of this post, recently there were found two unique copper coins of King Rāmagupta in the Vidiśā region and these can now help prove Rāmagupta and Kāchagupta as one and the same King (Kumar, 2013).

Literary Sources

§ Devīchandraguptam  

Our most significant literary source for the king named Rāmagupta has been the now lost drama called Devīchandraguptam which as we now know, narrates a story involving a king Rāmagupta, his wife Dhruvadevī, brother Chandragupta and a conflict with the Śaka lord. During the course of 1920s, the extracts of this drama were discovered in various other literary sources that helped us to learn about this fascinating story, albeit in fragments.

§ Śṛingāraprakāśa

The first hints of this drama were found when Mr. Ramakrishna Kavi discovered fragments of it cited in the famous 11th century anthology of King Bhoja — Śṛingāraprakāśa (CII, 1981; 46; Jayaswal, 1932; 17). In it, it was noted by Bhoja that Chandragupta, concealed in a female disguise, went to the enemy’s camp — Aḷipuraṁ — to kill the Śaka king (Jayaswal, 17). But in these fragments, there was no mention of any Rāmagupta or Dhruvadevī by name.

§ Harṣacarita

In connexion with the discovery of the fragments of the play in Śṛingāraprakāśa, Mr. A. Rangasvami Sarasvati cited the commentary of Śaṅkara on Harṣacarita, the famous 7th century work of Bāṇabhaṭṭa (Jayaswal, 1932; 17). Harṣacarita mentions that Chandragupta, in the guise of a female, killed the Śaka king possessed of lust for another’s wife at the very city of the enemy (aripure) (Mookerji, 1966; 64). However, there was again no mention of Rāmagupta or Dhruvadevī by name in Harṣacarita. Śaṅkara’s commentary repeated the story of Chandragupta taking the guise of a female but for the first time mentioned Dhruvadevī by name (Jayaswal, 1932; 17) while Rāmagupta still remained unnamed. Mr. Sarasvati dismissed the evidence from this commentary as ‘a mistake in the statement of the commentator’ (Jayaswal, 1932; 17).

§ Nāṭyadarpaṇa

Few months later after these discoveries, Prof. Sylvain Lévi published six passages of Devīchandraguptam from a manuscript of Nāṭyadarpaṇa, a newly discovered work on dramaturgy written by Rāmachandra and Guṇachandra (Mookerji, 1966; 64) who were pupils of Hemachandra, the well-known Jain preceptor of the Chaulukya king Kumārapāla (r. 1145-71 CE) (CII, 1981; 46). The manuscript had been sent to Lévi by a Jain Sādhu at Śivapurī, Śri Vijayadharma Sūri (Jayaswal, 1932; 17) and as Jayaswal noted, it established the statement of Śaṅkara that at the time of the Gupta attack on the Śaka king, Dhruvadevī was actually the queen of Chandragupta’s elder brother. The identity of this brother had been unknown hitherto, but now was revealed as Rāmagupta. Along with it we also finally learnt the name of the author of this play – Viśākhadatta who had already been known until then as the author of another famous classical drama called Mudrārākṣasa (Jayaswal, 1932; 17). But Lévi refused to take the information seriously, especially with regard to Rāmagupta being the elder brother of Chandragupta and Dhruvadevī being Rāmagupta’s wife. (Jayaswal, 1932; 17). These fragments mentioned a conflict raging between an unnamed Śaka king and King Rāmagupta. The Śaka demanded Dhruvadevī, the wife of Rāmagupta as the price for raising the siege and allowing Rāmagupta to retire and quite shockingly, the king had agreed to this unjust demand. But Chandragupta heroically saved Dhruvadevī by disguising himself in female attire in order to impersonate her (Altekar, 1954; xxii). In one of the extracts of Devīchandraguptam from Nāṭyadarpaṇa, it appears that Dhruvadevī had began to feel disgusted of her husband because of his cowardice. It is also stated that later Chandragupta had to feign madness in order to save himself, probably from his elder brother (Altekar, 1954; xxi-xxii).  

§ Kāvyamimāṁsā

Another important mention of this story has been in the text Kāvyamimāṁsā of Rājaśekhara which alludes to the surrender of Dhruvasvāminī (Altekar, 1954; xxii) and was first noticed by scholar A. S. Altekar (CII, 1981; 48). The text is about Mahipāla, the Gurjara Pratihāra king of the 10th century and gives a contrast between the Pratihāra king’s great performance and an ignominious failure of Rāmagupta (Sohoni, 171). The said verse is as follows –

dattvā ruddhagatiḥ khaśakādhipataye  devīṃ dhruvasvāminīṃ (here khaśa = śaka)

yasmāt khaṇḍitasāhaso nivavṛte śrīśarmagupto  nṛpaḥ (here śarma = rāma)

tasminneva himālaye guruguhākoṇakvaṇatkinnare (here guruguhā = giriguhā)

gīyante tava kārttikeyanagarastrīṇāṁ gaṇaiḥ kīrtayaḥ (Sohoni, 170).

The stanza is addressed to the Pratihāra king and says that his praises are sung by the women of Karttikeya-nagara just in that Himālaya from where Śarma(Sena)gupta i.e. Rāmagupta, being besieged, was found to surrender his queen Dhruvasvāminī to the king of the Khaśas i.e. Śakas (CII, 1981; 48). Jayaswal is of the opinion that Rājaśekhara quotes the verse as an instance of an allusion to a historical fact and its implication [vṛitt—etivṛittdḥ kathtthaḥ] (Jayaswal, 1932; 19). He is of the opinion that as this verse in the text is ‘addressed by some poet to some king’… it ‘by implication shows that the addressee was greater than the great Gupta emperor in respect of his deeds in the Himālaya where the Gupta king had left such a bad record (Jayaswal, 1932; 19-20)’. What this means is that at least for Rājaśekhara, what he mentioned was a historical fact.

§ Majamal-ut-Tawārīkh

The Majamal-ut-Tawārīkh is a Persian work by an unknown author. The part of the text we are concerned with “was not written by the author of the Majamal himself, but was borrowed by him from an older work, of which he thus speaks, —

‘I have seen an ancient book of the Hindus which Abu Salih bin Shu’aib bin Jami’ translated into Arabic from the Hindwáni language (Sanskrit). This work was translated into Persian in 417 a.h. (1026  A.D.) by  Abu-l Hasan ’Ali bin Muhammad al Jílí, keeper of the library at Jurjan for a chief of the Dílamites” (Elliot & Dowson, 1867; 100).

The story we are concerned with is of Rawwāl and Barkamāris (CII, 1981; 46), identified with Rāmagupta and his brother Vikramāditya (Chandragupta). How this story reached Arabia is an interesting question. According to one scholar, the travelers i.e. the sailors and traders could have carried it to Arabia (Sharma, 1989; 119) and that is why we see the story narrated in this text with some variations that are inevitable in loose oral transmission through travelers. But, per Jayaswal, the original Arabic work would have belonged to the period of the Arab conquest of Sindh or thereabout, and has to be placed about 800 A.D. Jayaswal also suggested the theory that the original Hindu source for the Arabic translation must be independent from Devīchandraguptam as its passages does not know Chandrgupta but Vikramāditya from which it derives Barkamāris, while the drama mentions Chandragupta. This coupled with the fact that Vikramāditya is a title assumed later and not at the stage where the Devīchandraguptam ends, suggests according to Jayaswal that the source for the Arabic translation must be independent from this drama. However, these are only theories at this point because we do not have any definitive information regarding what this Hindu source was. Though, it is still, I believe safe to be used as a source because its information can be corroborated from sources other than Devīchandraguptam as well. Jayaswal mentions that the datum ruddhagatiḥ (besieged) in Rājaśekhara’s quote is fully confirmed when we learn that the Arabic translation also mentions similar siege –

“Rawwāl with his brothers and nobles all went to the top of a mountain where a strong fortress had been built. Then they set guards on the summit and felt secure. But the enemy got possession of the mountain by stratagem, and besieged the fort, and was near upon taking it. Rawwāl then sent to sue for peace and his enemy said—Send me the girl [i.e., the newly married queen] and let every one of your chiefs send a girl. I will give these girls to my officers—then I will withdraw.”

As it has astounding resemblance to the plot of Devīchandraguptam, many scholars therefore consider it safe to use this judiciously in order to learn about the lost extracts of Devīchandraguptam. (CII, 1981; 46-47). This text also informs us about a very interesting detail in the story that the Śakādhipati i.e. the enemy was actually a vassal of the previous ruler i.e. Samudragupta and that he later revolted (Sohoni, 172). Altekar also points out other additional quips in the story like Dhruvadevī was originally betrothed to Chandragupta, but was eventually married to his elder brother against her wish. There is also mention of a Prime Minister of Rawwāl i.e. Rāmagupta named Safar who some scholars like Jayaswal and Mookerji identify with Śikharaswāmi, the Minister of Chandra Gupta II mentioned in the Karamdāṇḍā inscription of 436 CE (Mookerji, 1966; 65). Later in the story, Barkamāris saved the situation by approaching the enemy in the dress of the queen and killing him. He then as per the Arabic translation killed his cowardly brother and married the widowed queen (Mookerji, 1966; 65).

§ Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa

The Buddhist text from c. 8th CE, Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa also mentions some interesting following points.

“…Samudra, of good fame, will be nṛipatiḥ (sovereign). His younger brother, Bhasmama [Bhasma, Tibetan] by name, that man of low intelligence and wicked mind, will have the government (of Gauda?) for 3 days [3 years?]. He (Samudra) was lordly, shedder of excessive blood, of great powers and dominion….He marched systematically and reached the West and in the North reached the gate of Kashmir. He was victorious on the battle-field even in the North. He ruled after that (conquest) for 22 years…. On this earth on account of a disease he fainted several times (at his death), and in great pain he died, and went down (Jayaswal, 1934; 48).”

Scholars like S. R. Goyal suggest that this Bhasma could be identified with Kācha whom he considered to be a brother of Samudragupta. We will discuss this theory in detail in later sections of the post.

§ Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa

This text in its Kaliyuga rāja vṛttānta mentions a son of Chandragupta I named Kācha, born of a Licchavi princess and is told to have helped his father in supplanting the Āndhra-s on the throne of Magadha (Ganguly, 1987; 63). According to it, Kācha rules conjointly with his father, and Samudragupta is described as parricide and quite strangely is given the title of Aśokāditya (Ganguly, 1987; 65). With such discrepancies, most scholars consider this portion to be very unreliable. However, some information form this source can be carefully considered.

§ Rājāvalī

A 19th century work called Rājāvalī describes a tale that might reflect that of Rāmagupta. According to it, a ruler named Rājapāla or Rakshapāla was defeated by a Śaka lord (Sharma, 1989; 119) of Kumāon. After this Vikramāditya is said to have defeated the Śaka lord and then himself became the king. Samudragupta and Chandrapāla are told to be his successors in the text  (Sharma, 1989; 119).

§ Kirātārjunīya

Though how accurate this point might be, I have not yet confirmed but scholar Bajpai points out an allusion to the tale of Chandragupta (in the form of Arjuna) and Dhruvadevī in Bhāravi’s Kirātārjunīya (Bajpai, 1961; 57).

Overview – From various Indian sources, we can now form a story that tells us that hostilities were going on between Rāmagupta and a certain Śaka ruler, at a place called Aḷipura, in which Rāmagupta suffered defeat (CII, 1981; 47). Firstly, the enemy apparently wanted Rāmagupta to surrender his younger brother Chandragupta, but the Gupta king refused due to fear of ‘causing grave dissatisfaction among his people (prakṛitīnām—āśvāsanāya)’ — however, this particular phrase of prakṛitīnām—āśvāsanāya is interpreted by some other scholars like Raghavan following Jayaswal as referring to the ‘Council of Ministers’ or his Prime Minister (Jayaswal, 1932; 22; CII, 1981; 47) who refused to give their assent to send Chandragupta. But other historians prefer to interpret it as to give satisfaction to his ‘people’. The reason is that if the Council of Ministers was so mindful of the interests of Chandragupta, then why did they allow Rāmagupta i.e. Kācha to set aside Chandragupta in the first instance and usurp the Gupta throne? (CII, 1981; 47). However, it is possible that Chandragupta himself might have given the throne to Rāmagupta to avoid a war of succession in the empire and thus to keep the stability of the empire intact. This might explain both the interpretations of prakṛitīnām—āśvāsanāya: why Rāmagupta feared the adverse impact of this decision in the populace because Chandragupta was seen as the more morally upright and or deserving brother between the two who had given up his throne or even the other interpretation of why the decision was not acceptable to the council of ministers. It then resulted in a compromise – the queen Dhruvasvāminī was to be given over to the enemy. The main thing to consider is the continuous secondary mentions of the story of Rāmagupta, Chandragupta and Dhruvadevī in various literary texts since the 7th century at the least.

§ The Date for Viśākhadatta

The date for Viśākhadatta has been a subject of debate amongst historians and scholars. Scholar Winternitz at first had considered him a contemporary of the Gupta Emperor Chandragupta and therefore assigned him to a period of fourth to early fifth century but later retracted on this assessment and considered him to have worked under King Avantivarman (CII, 1981; 47) because Avantivarman’s name had been substituted for Chandragupta in some MSS. Avantivarman mostly is understood by scholars as the Maukhari King Avantivarman; the matter is undecided as of now.

Those who favour Chandragupta II as Viśākhadatta’s patron argue that in the colophon of the play, there is mention of pāthivaścandraguptaḥ, who most likely was Chandragupta Vikramāditya. The argument is strengthened when we notice the association of Bhagavān Viṣṇu with his avatāra Varāha in the play and also reference to the character Chandragupta in the play saving the earth from mlecchas like saving of Pṛthvī by Varāha. This also supports the identification of his patron with Chandragupta II during whose reign the worship of Varāha avatāra i.e. incarnation of Viṣṇu was at its peak as is evident from the Udaygiri caves built in the Gupta period. If this is considered as the true date then it would mean that the drama was a propaganda work, commissioned most probably by Chandragupta himself. Those who argue in favour of Avantivarman suggest that some of his plays refer to avativarman or rantivarman or dantivarman which would make him a contemporary or even a few decades senior to Bāṇa.

If the former approach is taken for identification, which I also tend to favour, then it certainly provides more credence to the contents of the play. According to some scholars, as the name of the king is always mentioned in a verse which is a praśasti of the king, it is either possible that the play Devīchandraguptam was composed under the patronage of Maukhari king Avantivarman few decades before Bāṇa by Viśākhadatta (Bakker, 2022; 3) or it is also possible that the play was composed under the patronage of Chandragupta II and whenever it was performed in front of a new patron, the name of the king was changed in the praśasti. This would explain why some MSS contain the name of Chandragupta and some of Avativarman as the play might have been performed in front of Maukhari king Avantivarman. This would also explain the knowledge of its contents to Bāṇa. As the mention of Avantivarman in the MSS is far less frequent than that of Chandragupta, it seems that the patron was indeed Chandragupta.

We also learn about Viśākhadatta that his grandfather was a sāmanta and his father was probably a local governor who by then had earned the title of mahārāja. If the patron is considered to be Chandragupta, then it is possible that Viśākhadatta’s father might even have been a governor of a province during Chandragupta’s reign who might also have been at his side throughout the reign of Rāmagupta or even after. And therefore, it was a conscious choice on the king’s part to be a patron to Viśākhadatta and have a propaganda work commissioned.

Epigraphic Sources

§ Durjanpur Jain Image Inscription

Found in 1968, these inscriptions confirm that there was a Gupta ruler named Rāmagupta. The inscriptions on the pedestals of these three Jain images (Bakker, 2010; 463), found inside old Besnagar (Durjanapur), 1.5 km from Udayagiri state that they were by Mahārājādhirāja Śrī Rāmagupta. The inscription on the images is as follows:

‘This image of the Lord, the venerable Puṣpadanta/Chandraprabha, was commissioned by Mahārājādhirāja Śrī Rāmagupta, at the instigation of Celukṣamaṇa, son of Golakayāntī, who is the pupil of the preceptor Sarpasenakṣamaṇa and the grand pupil of the pāṇipātrika Candraṣamaṇa, preceptor (ācārya) and the forbearing monk (kṣamaṇśramaṇa) (Bakker, 2010; 463).’

“The combined testimony of gupta-ending name, the title of mahārājādhirāja, the Gupta script of the Jain image inscriptions and the Gupta art style of the images established that he was an Imperial Gupta king” (SPA, 2016).

§ Rāṣṭrakūṭa Copper Plates

We have some very interesting details from the copper-plates of the Rāśṭrakūta kings Amoghavarṣa I and Govind IV (Sharma, 1989; 119-120). The Sanjan copperplate inscription of 871 CE of ruler Amoghavarṣa I states:

“hatvā bhrātarmeva rājyamaharddevīmścha dīnastatha,

lakshaṁ koṭimalekhahyan kil kalau dātā saḥ guptānvayaḥ,

yenātyājitmusvarājyamsakriḍbāhyārthakai kā kathā,

hrīstasyonnati-rāṣṭtatilako dāteti kīrtyāpi !!” (Sharma, 1989; 120).

“The donor of the Kali age who was one of the Gupta lineage, who had killed (his) brother, seized (his) kingdom and wife and who wrote the gift of a lac as of a crore (in documents) was a despised donor. But his glory is ashamed before his (the Rāśṭrakūta Amoghavarṣa), who gave away more than once his own kingdom, what to speak of (donation) of material objects. Even after being exalted as a donor, he, the ornament of the Rāśṭrakūta family, blushed at his praise (Sharma, 1989; 120).”  

Sharma points out that the author of this inscription has twisted the evidence of the Gupta records mentioning different figure of donations in favour of Samudragupta (one lac of cows as mentioned in the Prayāga Praśasti – go-śatasahasra pradāyinaḥ) with that of ‘the donor of one crore of cows’ – nyāyāgatakoṭihiraṇyapradasya in the Mathurā Inscription of Chandragupta II in favour of his patron (Sharma, 1989; 120). There is another copper plate of the ruler of the Rāśṭrakūta-s that mentions the Gupta monarch. The Cambay Copperplate of 930 CE has an interesting verse that highlights achievements of the Rāśṭrakūta king Govinda IV in comparison to sahasāṅka Chandragupta II (Sharma, 1989; 120). It states:

sāmarthye sati ninditā pravihitā naivāgrajekrūrtā,

bandhūstrīgamanādibhih, kucharitairāvirjjitam nāyaśaḥ !

śauchāśauchaparāṅmukhaṁ na cha bhiya paiśāchamaṅgikṛitam

tyāgenasamasāhasaiścha bhuvane yaḥ sāhasāṅkoऽbhavat ” !! (Sharma, 1989; 121).

“He Govinda IV became sahasāṅka only by virtue of his sacrifice and by his unparalleled heroic deeds. Even having his might, he neither behaved with ignominious cruelty towards his elder brother nor earned ill fame by his evil deeds of having intercourse with wife of his elder brother; he did not resort to diabolical conduct out of fear by becoming indifferent to what is pure or impure.” (Sharma, 1989; 121) The Sāngli Copper plate inscription of 933 CE also mentions similar points.” (Sharma, 1989; 121)

A Religious Angle? – These inscriptions are a very scathing attack on the character assessment of the Gupta ruler Chandragupta II for some reason unbeknownst to us. Curiously many of the literary sources that we have considered by now were a scathing assessment of the character of Rāmagupta for his cowardice and his acceptance of giving up his queen to the mleccha enemy but the Rāśṭrakūta copper plates turns it against Chandragupta instead. Could it be that religion was a cause for this? The Durjanpur Jain Images were commissioned by Rāmagupta himself which at least suggest that he was symapthetic to their cause or he could even have been a Jain himself. And if there is any truth to the story that Chandragupta sat on the Gupta throne by removing Rāmagupta at the best and by killing him at the worst, then in both the scenarios, the Rāśṭrakūta king Amoghavarṣa, who himself was a great patron of Jainism, would have reason to be this negative in their assessment about Chandragupta. After all, as mentioned above, Nāṭyadarpaṇa, from which the extracts of Devīchandraguptam were discovered was also a work by Rāmachandra and Guṇachandra, pupils of Hemachandra, the Jain preceptor of the Chaulukya king Kumārapāla. And the manuscript had also been sent to Prof. Lévi by a Jain Sādhu at Śivapurī. Are we seeing a pattern emerging here?

Earlier Theories

Now that we have learnt about the information from our sources, old and new, physical and literary; we are going to discuss various theories that had been suggested; in the first section we will discuss the theories before the latest discovery of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and later the theory that confirms the identification of Kācha and Rāmagupta as one and same. We will also analyze and discuss various possibilities regarding Rāmagupta, not only of his short reign but also before and after it, especially keeping in mind the confirmed indentification of Kācha – Rāmagupta.

§ Kācha and Samudragupta: One and Same

This was one of the earliest theories and according to it Kācha and Samudragupta were the same personalities. One of the strongest arguments made in the favour of this theory was that the coins of Kācha had the epithet sarvarājoccheta – the exterminator of all kings on them and this epithet had been associated with Samudragupta. Thus, Kācha had to be another name of Samudragupta. But, it is important to remember that Samudragupta himself is not known to have assumed this title and it was in fact, used for him in the records of his successors (Goyal, 1967; 192). The Bilsad Stone Pillar Inscription of Kumāragupta I and the Bhitari Stone Pillar Inscription of Skandagupta contains earliest definite reference to this epithet (Ganguly, 1987; 59). It is thus a possibility that the epithet was a later coinage by a grateful descendant to pay tribute to Samudragupta’s military adventures (Ganguly, 1987; 59). The absence of any mention of this epithet in Samudragupta’s own inscriptions and coins coupled with conspicuous silence of the records of the subsequent reigns point towards the same (Ganguly, 1987; 62). Absence of any other evidence that can corroborate this identification has also made this theory redundant.

§ Kācha: A Brother of Samudragupta

This theory has had quite a bit of traction over the years with big historians like S. R. Goyal to back it. He was of the opinion that on the basis of purely numismatic evidence, there was at least a theoretical possibility of Kācha to be a near contemporary of Samudragupta. And according to his theory, Kācha was actually one of the rebellious brothers of the emperor (Goyal, 1967; 194). Goyal stated that verse 4 of Prayāga Praśasti of Samudragupta, composed by Hariṣeṇa says — ‘…he was being looked up with sad faces by others of equal birth, (but) while the courtiers were breathing cheerfully’ (CII, 1981; 216); the ‘others of equal birth’ in the verse can be interpreted to refer to the other princes or other brothers of Samudragupta (Goyal, 1967; 124). He believed that Kācha could have been one of the disheartened brothers. Goyal continues, in the fragmentary verses 5 and 6, Hariṣeṇa refers to a war of Samudragupta which was most likely fought against his close relatives ; for, phrases such as “repentance with minds filled with contentment” and “much clearly displayed pleasure and affection” used to describe it could have hardly been employed in the case of ordinary enemies (Goyal, 1967; 194). Hence, he suggested that the hostility of the princes of equal birth hinted in the 4th verse probably assumed the form of actual rebellion which Harishena had described in the 5th and 6th verses (Goyal, 194).

He also took cognizance of the information from AMMK that gave a name for a brother of Samudra – Bhasma who was anti-Buddhist (Goyal, 1967; 125). He believed that as the word Kācha, according to lexicographers means ‘alkaline ashes’ among other things and Bhasma also has the same meaning, therefore Kācha was a brother of Samudragupta. According to this theory, the initial years of the reign of Samudragupta were disturbed by the revolt of his brothers who were led by Kācha (Goyal, 1967; 195). Goyal then mentions the testimony of Hieun Tsang /Yuan Chwang. He mentioned about an anti-Budhist king of Śrāvastī who was later succeeded by a king who unlike his predecessor showed respect to men of eminence (Goyal, 1967; 126) and who permitted Vasubandhu, the Buddhist philosopher to avenge the insult inflicted on his Master Manoratha by that anti-Buddhist king (Goyal, 1967; 127).

Goyal believed that Samudragupta was the good king of this narration and Kācha was the anti-Buddhist king ousted by Samudra. This is because according to Goyal, Samudragupta is usually considered the patron of Vasubandhu (Goyal, 1967; 126). Goyal believed in the theory of the existence of two Vasubandhus and stated that the elder Vasubandhu was patronized by Samudragupta (Goyal, 1967; 215-216). He was also of the opinion that the attitude of Samudragupta may, very reasonably, be connected with his association with the Lichchhavis and Magadha while the harder approach of Kācha may be regarded as a result of his reaction against the prospects of the predominance of the Vrātya Lichchhavis in the Gupta court (Goyal, 1967; 127) and this probably could have been because Kācha was not the son of Kumāradevī but of another wife of Chandragupta I (Goyal, 1967; 124).

And as the coins of Kācha have been found mainly from the eastern Uttar Pradesh (from Ballia, Tanda, Jaunpur etc.), Goyal assumed that the revolt against the authority of Samudragupta took place in the central regions of the Gupta state itself (Goyal, 1967; 128). Kācha coins are found only in the hoards of the Gupta coins and are usually associated with those of Chandragupta I, Samudragupta and Chandragupta II (Goyal, 1967; 191) and as per their metrology, which closely follows the 115 and 118 grain standards, this for Goyal was the proof that their issuer cannot have been later than Chandragupta II when the weight of the Gupta gold coins went up to 124 grains (Goyal, 1967; 191). Therefore, Kācha coins had to belong to a period prior to Chandragupta II.

As promising as these probabilities sounded when Goyal suggested them, they were after all written before the confirmation of Kācha-Rāmagupta’s identity and even then, they faced criticism because they too had their shortcomings. The term kulya-tulaja doesn’t necessarily mean brothers or princes but could also easily imply born of families of equal rank (Ganguly, 1987; 64). That Kācha might have been a brother of Samudragupta who might have been born to a queen other than Kumāradevī was also purely speculative. And as for the weight of the gold coins of Kācha, they are mostly in the range of 111 to 118 grains and that’s why, they were assumed to belong to a time before Chandragupta II who then later issued coins of more weight. However, since the short reign of Rāmagupta who is now identified with Kācha, preceded the illustrious reign of his younger brother Chandragupta II, this also easily explains why the gold coins of Kācha are in the weight category of Gupta kings of pre-Chandragupta II era. The short and unstable reign of Rāmagupta-Kācha also explains why his coins are on the lighter side of even these early Gupta sovereigns. Though as Ganguly points out that the process of Indianisation may not always be a positive determinant in fixing the relative chronology of different coin types issued by the Gupta kings (Ganguly, 1987; 64), it is nonetheless interesting to note that the coins of Samudragupta’s Standard type have far more similarity to Kuṣāṇa archetypes as compared to the the Kācha’s coins suggesting that coins of Kācha could be ascribed to a period after Samudragupta.

Even Ārya Mañjuśrī Mūla Kalpa does not seem to be very reliable in this connexion as in the text, sometimes Samudragupta is said to have been followed by Kācha but at other place Vikramāditya is said to be the successor of Samudragupta (Ganguly, 1987; 65). Even Jayaswal was not sure how to interpret the information contained in AMMK as he wondered whether Bhasmama disputed the succession, or was he a governor of Gauḍa? (Jayaswal, 1934; 49).

Interestingly, this statement from AMMK could make sense in the case of identification of Kācha with Rāmagupta. Therefore, Samudragupta was followed by Kācha – Rāmagupta and as his infamous reign was exteremely short [three years? as suggested by AMMK], therefore at other place in AMMK, Samudragupta is said to have directly followed by Vikramāditya Chandragupta. Even Rāmagupta’s anti-Buddhist character could be more due to him being sympathetic to Jainism rather than him being a Vaiṣṇava like other Gupta rulers. In fact, Rāmagupta being a Jain could also be one of the other reasons why he was not chosen by Samudragupta to be his successor. As far as the Vasubandhu point is concerned, the date for Vasubandhu is also disputed and it is a concensus among the scholars that there were not two but only one Vasubandhu (Pereira & Tiso, 1987) and that his patron was not Samudragupta but the famous Vikramāditya who could either be Chandragupta II or Skandagupta.

§ Rāmagupta: A Local Governor

This theory maintained that the Copper coins of Rāmagupta that were found in Besnagar did not belong to any Gupta ruler by that name but to a local Mālwā ruler. This theory was rendered redundant when the Jain image inscriptions of Rāmagupta with the title of maharājādhirāja were found confirming that he was a Gupta king, as mentioned previously in the post. But even if we keep this proof aside, Altekar also pointed out that we anyway do not come across any other rulers with Gupta-ending names in contemporary times, nor was Rāmagupta a particularly popular proper name (Altekar, 1954; xxv). There used to be an argument that as Rāmagupta was not involved in any of the genealogical lists of the Gupta-s therefore, Rāmagupta had to have been only a petty local ruler but as Altekar points out, we need to remember that a dynastic list of the house had to mention all the collaterals, who had ascended the throne, but not so the genealogical list, which was intended to show only the descent (Altekar, 1954; xxiv). And as Rāmagupta ruled for a short period with no known descendants, it was simply not considered necessary to include his name in the list.

§ Rāmagupta: An Elder Brother of Chandragupta Vikramāditya

The assumption of this theory was that Rāmagupta was an elder brother of Chandragupta II. Now, this is what we already agree with in this post but the difference is that this theory assumed Kācha and Rāmagupta as completely different personalities which have been proved to be false.  

Kācha and Rāmagupta – One and Same

In this section we will finally discuss the details and probabilities after the discovery of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar that proved the existence of a Gupta king named Kācha or Rāmagupta. Many scholars earlier had actually pondered over this possibility before the discovery of presence of name of Kācha on a Rāmagupta coinage. Altekar was one of them but he rejected it later on the basis of discovery of copper coins of Rāmagupta in Mālwa. In his opinion, ‘one and the same ruler could not have issued the coins with the name of Rāmagupta on copper coins and Kācha on gold ones, even if he had these two names (Altekar, 1954; xvi).’

However, the latest coins that we have repeatedly mentioned in the post till now, do use both the names. For further information regarding them we will discuss the seminal find of Kumar in his own words.  As mentioned above, the two unique copper coins of King Rāmagupta were found recently in the Vidiśā region and these can now help prove King Rāmagupta and King Kācha are but one and the same ruler. (Kumar, 2013).

Figure 3 – [Left] Rāmagupta Aśvamedha Type with a Horse on the Obverse and a legend rāmagupta ma[hāraja] on the Reverse. [Right] Kāca or Kācha written below the Horse on the Obverse of the same Aśvamedha Type of Rāmagupta [Shivlee Collections – Kumar, 2013]

Kumar states about the new copper coins found, the first of these features the royal Gupta symbol of the Garuḍa on the obverse and the reverse has a legend that reads Rāmagupta (Kumar, 2013). The second coin found alongside the Garuda Type coin is shown in Figure 3 [left] above. This coin is of the Aśvamedha Type (Horse Sacrifice Type) (Kumar, 2013) and as per Kumar, is very similar in design to the gold Aśvamedha coins issued by his father Samudragupta I. The legend on the reverse is Rāmagupta ma[hāraja] (Kumar, 2013). This coin records an Aśvamedha sacrifice done by Rāmagupta. Kumar also points that as the horse sacrifice was a very important event in proclaiming the power of a King, so this coin firmly establishes that Rāmagupta was a powerful enough Gupta King to stage and celebrate such an event. Only two other Gupta Kings –Samudragupta I and Kumaragupta I, are known to have done the Aśvamedha sacrifice from the coins found so far (Kumar, 2013). Kumar now explains his seminal find –

“The second reason is that on the obverse of this coin, there is a compound letter below the horse, which reads Kāca. The presence of this on a Rāmagupta coin can only mean that Kāca was another name of King Rāmagupta. We see similar letters on the obverse of the gold Aśvamedha coins of his father Samudragupta I as well as Gold coin Archer types of later Gupta Kings (Kumar, 2013).”

It is also true that Rāmagupta-Kācha was not the only one in the Gupta dynasty with more than one name. Even Chandragupta II was also known by the name of Devarāja or Devagupta or Devaśrī. Also important to remember that it was Chandragupta II who started the assumption of the famous ‘āditya’ epithets with his Vikramāditya. The other famous Gupta monarch with known case of more than one name was Skandagupta who interestingly also had the name Devarāja and the epithet of Vikramāditya which seems to have been a conscious effort on his part to emulate his great ancestor Chandragupta II.  In fact, there is every reason to hold that Kācha was a ruler separate from Samudragupta or Chandragupta II for on Gupta gold coins the name which appears on either side of the standing figure of a king on the obverse, especially below his left arm, is the personal name of the king who issues them (CII, 1981; 51). Similarly Kācha was the proper, and Rāma the familiar, name (CII, 1981; 51). The new find corroborates this as on the new find of the Aśvamedha Type of Rāmagupta, the name of Kācha appears on the obverse with ‘Rāmagupta ma[hāraja]’ on the reverse. Evidently, he wanted to use Kācha as his proper name after he ascended the throne and that is why in his much more important gold coins, we only find Kācha and not Rāmagupta. But why not just assume Rāmagupta as a proper name? There are some possibilities which we will discuss shortly.

Kumar interprets his new find as a possibility that the copper coins were issued primarily while he was a governor in the Vidiśā region under his father Samudragupta and upon ascending the imperial throne Rāmagupta assumed the name Kācagupta and proceeded to issue his gold coins (Kumar, 2013).

The argument that we discussed above regarding the title of Sarvarājochchettā is also pertinent here. Kumar says that many scholars and historians have come to errant conclusions based on the assumption that a single title belonged to a single king (Kumar, 2017; 34). The Sarvarājochchettā epitaph has also been used for Chandragupta II in Poona Copperplates of Prabhāvatīguptā in the line 5 of which she uses this to refer to her father Chandragupta II. Though some scholars like Altekar argue that these were not official Gupta records and hence should be rejected but Kumar is of the opinion that this is a weak argument and the official Vākāṭaka inscriptions are as reliable as the official Gupta records especially when they are attributed to Chandragupta’s own daughter (Kumar, 2017; 34).

The often repeated claim that the names of Kācha and Rāmagupta are not found on any of the genealogical list of the Guptas has also been discussed in the sections above. Jayaswal has also put his views on the subject that the only role of inscriptions is to give the line of a particular king for example of Chandragupta II, Kumāragupta, Skandagupta and as the son and the descendants of Chandragupta II succeeded, there was therefore no necessity or even possibility for mentioning Rāmagupta. (Jayaswal, 1932; 23-24).

Neither Chandra-Gupta nor his descendants would go out of their way to bring in Rāmagupta in the official records: the descent from father to son was complete in itself.

Jayaswal, 1932; 24

We learn from the inscriptions of Chandragupta that his succession was specifically by the wishes of his father Samudragupta. The fact was mentioned to justify the unusual succession of the younger son, which became probably necessary on account of the existence of some other brother elder than Chandragupta (Jayaswal, 1932; 24). The Eraṇ inscription of Samudragupta mentions the existence of several sons and grandsons of Datta-Devī and Samudragupta. This detail has also been mentioned in the Majamal-ut-Tawārīkh that states about Rawwāl (identified with Rāmagupta) who had his ‘brothers’ with him, with possibly Barkamāris (identified with Chandragupta) being one of the younger ones. (Jayaswal, 1932; 24). Usually primogeniture has been the rule and not the exception but the Guptas seems to have given priority to talent. Jayaswal points to a rather continuous succession of young sons in the dynasty—e.g. in the known cases of Samudragupta, Chandragupta and Skandagupta and this also explains, according to him the high average of reigns in the dynasty (Jayaswal, 1932; 24).

§ Rāmagupta as Governor or Viceroy

Samudragupta had conquered eastern Mālwā as we learn through his inscription found in Eraṇ (Arikeṇa) and made this place his pleasure town i.e. svabhoganagara (Bajpai, 1961; 55). Bajpai, writing in 1961 suggested that Samudragupta may have appointed Rāmagupta at Eraṇ during his last days to look after the region of eastern Mālwā citing other later examples from the Gupta history where princes were appointed as governors (Bajpai, 1961; 56). Ghaṭotkaca, who evidently was a very younger brother of Kumāragupta I was appointed as the viceroy in the western region i.e. eastern Mālwā (Bakker, 2022; 10-11). In another example, on a sealing from Vaiśālī, Dhruvasvāminī is mentioned as a wife of Mahārājādhirāja Chandragupta (II) and the mother of Mahārāja Govindagupta. Thus, prince Govindagupta was also a governor of the province with headquarters at Vaiśālī. The title mahārāja may thus designate the status of a governor or a viceroy, where as the fact that the queen-mother mentions Govindagupta explicitly on her seal seems to suggest that he might even have been heir-apparent (Bakker, 2022; 7). This substantiates the claim that Rāmagupta was indeed appointed a governor or a viceroy in Vidiśā.

Vidiśā had been for a long time under the hold of the Nāga-s along with Padmāvatī, Pawaya, Kāntipurī, Kutwar and western Mālwā had not yet been directly annexed by the time of Samudragupta (Bakker, 2022; 2) though the Śaka king, probably mahākṣatrapa Rudrasena III, is said to have acknowledged Samudragupta by paying his respects (sevākṛta) in the Prayāga Praśasti (Bakker, 2022; 2). Vidiśā was thus a very significant frontier town. As an important frontier, it was a seat befitting a Gupta prince who was perfectly authorized to use the title of mahārāja as he was not only a governor but also a royal. As mentioned above, Ghaṭotkacagupta who was later appointed as governor in Vidiśā, also used the title of mahārāja, unlike the monarch who was instead called mahārājādhirāja, ever since Chandragupta I. Thus, the many copper coins of Rāmagupta, found from this region which uses the title of mahārāja for him, were probably issued when he was the governor of this region.  And as this was probably the first time in the history of the Gupta-s that the region was brought under a royal prince as governor, the position might have seemed a good stepping stone to Rāmagupta, an elder son of illustrious Samudragupta, until his ultimate ascent to the throne. But, it is also possible that Samudragupta might always have wanted to choose another son of his as the successor for Rāmagupta might have underperformed in his role as a governor. His religious policy could also have played a role in Samudragupta’s ultimate decision. Keeping these possibilites in light, Samudragupta might have considered it prudent to keep Rāmagupta out of the state centre and capital and posted in a frontier station , albeit an important one.

The Eraṇ inscription of Samudragupta might be of this time when he used to visit the place as his personal pleasure town in his old age. Rāmagupta, as a viceroy or governor might also have been in charge of his father’s troops of the western region and that’s why, was at the top for the struggle of the throne (Bakker, 2022; 5). Thus, Rāmagupta might have considered his ascension quite sure – he was an elder son, who probably even accompanied his father in various campaigns since his young age. He was then rewarded with an important position of viceroy of an important frontier station with western troops under his command. His father also used to frequent the place as his leisure town. Everything might have looked peachy but, probably within a few years of Rāmagupta governing Vidiśā, Samudragupta, who was already in his old age declared the young and vibrant Chandragupta II as his heir instead of Rāmagupta. In previous paragraph, we alread discusees why the dicision might have been taken.

§ Ascent to the Throne

The selection by the father implies, as in Chandragupta’s own case, that there was an elder son or there were elder sons who were not considered to be competent by the father (Jayaswal, 1932; 25). In the Prayāga Praśasti of Samudragupta, we get to learn that his selection by his father was done with the assent of the Council of Ministers [sabhyeshūchchhvasiteshu]. But interestingly, mention of any such assent is conspicuous by its absence in the case of Chandragupta II (Jayaswal, 1932; 25) where he only mentions the wishes of his father. Is it possible that the council of ministers was not in favour of the young Chandragupta and favoured Rāmagupta instead? According to the tale that we know from Majamal-ut-Tawārīkh, a very able authority on Hindu Politics was the chief minister at the succession of Rawwāl and that he remained his faithful supporter throughout and was opposed to Barkamāris and that on the latter’s accession he wanted to retire instead (Jayaswal, 1932; 25). But if Chandragupta was already chosen as heir-apparent by his father, even if we assume that he was not the choice of the Council of Ministers, he must have succeeded him directly. Then how is it possible that Rāmagupta succeeded the throne?  

The Gupta monarchs have always had a good eye in choosing their successor, even if it meant going against the grain. Samudragupta must have considered that the Śaka-s, who had occupied the imperial position for the last three centuries, even though had accepted his suzerainty earlier, were still in the country and would probably raise their head again, and that there were at the time the powerful and ambitious Vākāṭaka-s who also had been dreaming of acquiring the imperial position for themselves. Samudragupta thus had made a right estimate of the political situation and of his eldest son’s character (Jayaswal, 1932; 25) that was as proved by later events, found lacking to govern an empire.

There are two possibilities as to why Rāmagupta issued his copper coins. An earlier theory suggested by Altekar was that the coinage in ancient India was local and it is quite likely that a need for small copper currency, similar to the Nāga coinage current earlier there, may have been felt by the Gupta administration after the region was conquered by Samudragupta. And Rāmagupta on his accession may have decided to meet it by issuing coins of the type which we have now found, which closely imitate the Nāga coinage. But this theory has its limits because if Rāmagupta issued these coins after his ascension, then why were they not issued with the title of a Gupta emperor i.e. mahārājādhirāja, rather than a simple mahārāja. The second possibility is that Rāmagupta issued these coins when he was a governor. But minting currency in their name is not something associated with the princes of the Gupta-s in this early Gupta history as currency was only issued under the name of the monarch. Though there are some later examples like that of Ghaṭotkaca. The other possibility is that rather than an armed revolt, Rāmagupta might have expressed his displeasure at the decision of not accepting him as the heir by issuing his own copper coins with his title Rāmagupta ma[hāraja], signaling to his father, that the succession would not go uncontested.  

To mark his position and to finance it, he had begun issuing his own coinage, for which he used the local mints that earlier struck the copper coins of the Nāga kings.

Bakker, 2022; 5

This also explains why his copper coins are so much similar to the coins of the Nāga kings. Therefore, it is possible that the copper coins with his title Rāmagupta ma[hāraja] title, one of which also includes his other name Kācha were issued prior to the announcement of the new heir Chandragupta, only to bolster his position and not as a revolt. It was instead a revolt on his part when he issued his Aśvamedha Type coins writing for the first time both his personal name Kācha on the obverse below the Horse and Rāmagupta ma[hāraja] on the reverse. The Aśvamedha Type coins were prerogative of the monarch and not the prince. Though princes can accompany the Horse when it was set free to roam before the sacrifice but issuing coins with specifically the name of a mere prince-governor i.e. ma[hāraja] without mentioning the sovereign could be a serious sign of revolt. Another example discussed previously was of the Jain images where his name was written as ‘Rāmagupta mahārajādhirāja’ on the Jain images which were ordered (kārita) by the ‘emperor’ himself (Bakker, 2022; 5).

“The imperial mints still beyond his reach, at home, in his own power base Vidiśā, Rāmagupta could adorn himself with the grand titles to which he claimed the right ”

Bakker, 2022; 5

However, it is also possible that the Jain image inscription is of the time when was able to ascend the throne and not before it. Though, if his name on these images was inscribed after his ascension, then the name should have been Kācha, which he clearly wanted to be his royal personal name. But the region in which these images were issued i.e. Vidiśā had known the king for a good amount of time as a viceroy Rāmagupta mahāraja, thus using the name the locals were much more familiar with would make sense, especially when it is certain that he anyway didn’t rule long enough to make his royal name Kācha popular.

Other possibility is that that when Samudragupta died, Chandragupta was far from the capital either in charge of a remote province or engaged in invading some foreign territory, or for some other reason and that Kācha-Rāmagupta, being on the spot, was in a position to seize the throne, of which he maintained possession for a brief space. Considering the fact that Samudragupta considered the Vidiśā region and the town of Eraṇ his pleasure town when he was old, it is possible that Smaudragupta took his last breath here in the presence of Rāmagupta and Chandragupta was not present. This would provide a good opportunity to Rāmagupta to usurp the throne against the wishes of his father to make Chandragupta the emperor.

Chandragupta, possibly, out of goodness of his heart, willingly decided to gave away the throne to Rāmagupta, knowing very well that being an elder son and a governor, Rāmagupta had wanted and even expected to be the successor for a long time, and if Chandragupta succeeded, an open armed revolt was a possibility. And this certainly wouldn’t be in favour of the stability of the empire, when one revolt might have given a green signal to others, who only a few decades ago had submitted to his father. Thus, it might have been a good pragmatic decision on Chandragupta’s part to let his elder brother ascend for the stability of the empire. The Jain images were quickly issued under the new mahārājādhirāja Rāmagupta in Vidiśā.

This earlier acceptance by Chandragupta to subvert any possibility of open revolt also explains why in the texts like Majamal-ut-Tawārīkh and Devīchandraguptam, whatever we know of, it does not look like that there had been any war of succession. Chandragupta, as per these texts, remained with his eldest brother and was present with him at the time of the impending disaster and was on good terms with his brother, for he offered to risk his life for the king (Jayaswal, 1932; 26). Rāmagupta then proceeded to formally proclaim himself the emperor when Chandragupta had also accepted his decision – promptly issuing the gold coinage with his name Kāchagupta. It is possible that as the name Rāmagupta has been associated with his governorship, he now wanted his othern name to signal his rule.

Thus taking the epithet sarvarājocchetta was his conscious decision to proclaim that he was the legitimate successor of his father. As previously mentioned in the post, Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa states that Kācha ruled conjointly with his father [which as per the text was Chandragupta I]. Even though, this text is considered unreliable by scholars, and rightfuly so, it could still be hinting at something interesting. Considering Kācha as Rāmagupta, it is possible that Rāmagupta had served on various campaigns with his father and thus he considered himself rightful inheritor of the title sarvarājocchetta which might have been famous in the court laurels of Samudragupta, even though it was not used by him in his own inscriptions. There is no way that such an insignificant time of reign of Kācha or Rāmagupta was ever enough for him to have actually committed the deeds befitting that title. It was always to be more of a political sign rather than signifying his actual accomplishments.

But even after he was able to become a Gupta ruler, Rāmagupta could only hold on to power for a few years. The Śaka homage to Samudragupta must not have been sincere since it was not tendered to Chandragupta and he had to conquer the Śaka-s once again (Sharma, 1978; 163) which means that situation must have been quite similar in the time of Rāmagupta as well.  Thus, directly before or after Samudragupta’s death i.e. ~ 376 CE would have the optimum time for the Śaka-s to get rid of their sub-ordinate status (Bakker, 2022; 3).

§ Identity of the Śaka Lord

Note: One important caveat we have to keep in mind while proceeding with these sections that rely heavily on literary sources is that we do not have any kind of corroboration from any physical evidence that can confirm the stories regarding Rāmagupta. And most of the discussion from this point forward would thus only be a discussion of possibilities and nothing more at this point.

Who exactly was the Śaka lord that supposedly battled with Rāmagupta and was then humbled by Chandragupta. Śaṅkara, the commentator of Harṣacarita mentions one curious title for the Śaka ruler – Śakānāṁ ācāryaḥ. Based on this, Jayaswal suggested that the king was not only the ruler of the Śaka-s but also their religious leader which is probably an attempt to give value to Daivaputra i.e. the Son of Heaven (Jayaswal, 1932; 29 ) suggesting their identity with the Kuṣāṇa remnants in Indian west. The reason these scholars give is that as by this time, the word Śaka was used by the Indians to identify with all western foreigners, therefore, it is very much possible that it was the these Kuṣāṇa who were the enemy. But were these remnants of Kuṣāṇa so powerful as to rebel against or even challenge the might of the Gupta Empire? Altekar believed that the enemy here actually were the Kidara Kuṣāṇa-s who were gradually increasing their power. And as impelled by the desire to excel his famous father by achieving fresh conquests, Rāmagupta seems to have invaded the territories of Piro (Piroz), the Kidara Kuṣāṇa king of the Western Punjab (Altekar, 1954; xxv). The other option is of course the Western Kṣatrap-s who as stated by Bakker, wanted to rebel against their subordinate status.

§ Place of the Conflict

It is unsure whether it was Rāmagupta who attacked the Śaka lord or the Śaka lord rebelled as our sources are unsure in this regard. Either way, Rāmagupta was defeated and compelled to flee. It is a very genuine doubt presented by the scholars on this point. The mighty Gupta Empire could not have succumbed so easily. But, considering our literary sources, and as the later events proved, Rāmagupta was certainly not the best of the Gupta talent, which probably had been the reason along with other factors that he was not chosen as a successor for the throne. As per the literary sources, which we have to rely on, it appears that during the course of his retreat, he took shelter in a Himālayan fort, where he was besieged by the pursuing conqueror. But the enemy got possession of the mountain by stratagem, besieged the fort, and was near upon taking it. It is a possibility that the Śaka [or Kidara Kushana?] rebeled after Rāmagupta ascended the throne. Rāmagupta might have considered it unnecessary to take a large force for a smaller enemy, thinking that a smaller force along with the king himself was more than enough but tables turned and then there was a Himālayan blunder, quiet literally. It is also a possibility that the Western Kṣatrapa-s might have provided material support to the rebels in the Himālaya-s. Hence, the literary source used the combined word of Śaka to designate the enemy.

According to Majamal-ut-Tawārīkh, “Rawwāl then sued for peace and the enemy asked him to send his queen for himself and compel his chiefs to send their girls for his officers. This account shows that Rāmagupta and his brother were hemmed in and defeated, not on the plains in their capital at Pāṭalīputra, but on some mountain where they had gone on an expedition of conquest to punish some rebel king (Jayaswal, 1932).”

Chandragupta then volunteered to save the situation by going to the harem of the conqueror disguised as Dhruvadevī (Altekar, 1954; xxv-xxvi).” These texts do suggest that the besieged place was a hill-fortress from which the soldiers of the enemy could be hurled down as corroborated by the independent testimony of the verse in Rājaśekhara (Jayaswal, 1932; 22). Sharma on the authority of U. N. Roy states that from this evidence of Kāvya Mimāṁsā of Rājaśekhara, it seems like Rāmagupta was defeated by the Śaka chief in Kārttikeyanagara which according to Bhandarkar, can be identified with Baijnāth in Almora District of Kumaon Division (Sharma, 1989; 119).

It is not only mentioned in the Devī-Purāṇa but the town and district of Kārttikeyapura are mentioned in the Pāṇḍukeśvara copper-plate grant of Lalitasuradeva, assigned to about the middle of the ninth century CE. Kārttikeyapura is also mentioned in the two Taleśvara charters of Dyutivarman, which have been ascribed to about sixth century CE (CII, 1981; 48-49). The Imperial Gazetteer of North Western Provinces also states that “Baijnath lies in the centre of the Katyūr valley, and was formerly known as Kārttikeyapura, a capital of the Katyūri Rajas.” (CII, 1981; 48-49). Further, as pointed out above, Katyūr seems identical with Kartripura which is mentioned in the Prayāga Praśasti of Samudragupta as one of the frontier states that were tributary to him. It is possible that the ruler of Kartripura, who was the Preceptor of the Śaka if not, himself of Śaka extraction, rose in rebellion after the demise of Samudragupta and that it was to quell his revolt that Rāma(Kācha)gupta and his brother Chandragupta with their family repaired to the Himālayas (CII, 1981; 48-49).

Another possibility is suggested by Sohoni who interprets the phrase giriguhākoṇa (giriguhākoṇa) in the verse of Rājaśekhara as a hint of the location of the terrain which according to him could be the Kābul and Peshāwar region near Jalālābad i.e. the ancient Nagarāhār (Sohoni, 170). Jayaswal concluded that the place was in the hills in the Jallundhar Doāb, somewhere in or about the Sabathu Hill of the Himālayas where in the Moghul times Guru Govind Simha founded his military base (Jayaswal, 1932; 28). According to Jayaswal, Aripura of Bāṇa where the conflict seems to have happened, if a proper-name, was the area which like Kartripura, extended up to the Himalayan Hills, viz., to the Simla and Sabathu Hills. King Bhoja reads it as Aḷipura (transcribed in the southern manuscript as Aḷipura). The old village of Aliwal in the Jallundhar District which became a battle-field in the first Sikh War might be retaining that ancient name. (Jayaswal, 1932; 29 ). In fact, there is a hill-fortress Alipur in the Kangra District (Jayaswal, 1932; 29 ).

Altekar, however considers the whole story quite improbable. According to him, “it is difficult to believe that the fortunes of the great Gupta Empire should have sunk so low within a decade of the death of Samudragupta as to compel his successor to agree to the surrender of his crowned queen (Altekar, 1954; xxiv).

§ The End of Rāmagupta

The second half of the story is told by the Majamal-ut-Tawārīkh. After Barkamārīs i.e. Vikramāditya or Chandragupta had defeated the enemy, Rawwāl’s Wazir, Safar, that is, the prime minister of Rāmagupta, thereupon excited the king’s suspicions against his brother and that the latter was therefore compelled to feign madness. This receives confirmation from the small fragment from Devīchandraguptam.  

“It seems that Chandragupta had to remain in hiding to counteract the malicious intentions of his elder brother, in the house of a courtezan called Mādhavasenā with whom he had apparently fallen in love and came in public in the role of a lunatic presumably to secure information about any plans that may have been formed by Rāmagupta and his prime minister to detect and arrest him. What happened ultimately we know from a stanza from the Sanjan copper plate grant which tells us that Chandragupta killed his brother and seized not only his throne but also his queen (CII, 1981; 49).”

But was Rāmagupta really killed by Chandragupta?  Jayaswal suggests that the end of Rāmagupta came in the form of a popular rising. He even cites the example of Mahābhārata that says the king who does not protect can be treated like a rabid dog by his subjects. For Jayaswal, it is a certainty that Rāmagupta had a violent end. But there is no evidence yet to connect it directly or indirectly with Chandragupta (Jayaswal, 1932; 26-27) and he does not believe that Chandragupta killed his brother. In face of his known character, Jayaswal says, we cannot accept the story attributing his brother’s murder to him, in the absence of positive and reliable evidence (Jayaswal, 27).  

“He is called a Rājarshi at Udyagiri cave inscription and Viśākhadatta in Mudrārākṣasa bharatavākya describes Chandragupta as bandhubhṛityaḥ (loyal to his brother ̍) (Jayaswal, 1932; 27).”

Altekar mentions on the testimony of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa copper plates that Chandragupta may have connived at his brother’s murder by the infuriated army (Altekar, 1954; xxii).’ The Rāṣṭrakūṭa inscriptions seems to suggest that not only Chandragupta killed the Śaka lord but also killed his own brother, married his wife and then usurped the throne but we have no evidence to corroborate this as the end of Devīchandraguptam is not known. Bakker points out on the authority of Warder that for Viśākhadatta it would have been difficult to arrange his play in such a manner and instead would have wanted to free the hero Chandra from the guilt (Bakker, 2022; 4). Altekar thinks that Rāmagupta could have died rather abruptly by the sheer feeling of utter shame, and later scandal may have suspected foul play, especially because Chandragupta married his brother’s widow (Altekar, 1954; xxiv).  

It may be that Rāmagupta may have been killed by the infuriated army and Chandragupta may have only connived at the murder, as he could not prevent it. The marriage with an elder brother’s widow was, however, permitted by Dharmaśāstra writers and Chandragupta’s conduct in marrying Dhruvadevī, though now appearing strange to us, would not have excited much comment in contemporary times (Altekar, 1954; xxiv).

Fascinatingly, there even has been a suggestion that the famous poet and philosopher Bhartṛhari was actually Gupta king Rāmagupta and therefore Rāmagupta later turned into a poet and philosopher –  

“…the most legends depicting Bhartrihari’s life mention him as the king of Ujjain, who has renounced his throne in favor of his younger brother, mentioned as Rajā Vikramāditya. The first written mention that Bhartrihari was the older brother of the king Vikramārka has appeared in the Sanskrit work Simhāsana Dvātriṃśikā around the 12-14th centuries A.D. It is well known fact that the word ‘Vikrama’ is the shortened form of ‘Vikramāditya’. However, the compound word Vikramāditya, which means ‘the Sun (āditya) of Valor (vikrama)’, traditionally was used not as a proper name, but as a title of glory (biruda), and in the Indian history, there appeared few great kings, to whose names were appended the same titles; probably there were more than twenty of them. Nevertheless, out of all of them, the King of Gupta Dynasty Chandra Gupta II, who ruled the Gupta Empire from 375 to 415 A.D. is quite distinct as the most probable candidate for the position of the legendary brother of Bhartrihari mentioned as Vikramāditya.”

So there is a possibility, that Rāmagupta renounced his throne after the shame of the defeat in front of the enemy. The ignominy associated with his conduct and his brother outperforming him might have been enough that for him to give up his previous life and take a different path. But this might contradict with what we have until now considered about Rāmagupta – i.e. he had sympathies towards Jainism. Is it possible that the events might have led to disenchantment of Kācha – Rāmagupta from Jainism. However, as interesting as this may sound, without any other kind of corroboration, this theory also remains nothing but a mere suggestion, like so much else connected with Rāmagupta.

§ Chandragupta Marries Dhruvadevī

The fact that Chandragupta re-married Dhruvadevī, the widow of his brother, is certain. If Majamal-ut-Tawārīkh is to be trusted, then Dhruvadevī was betrothed to Barkamārīs i.e. Chandragupta and it was against her wish that she was married to Rawwāl i.e. Rāmagupta instead. According to Viśākhadatta, Dhruvadevī was burning with shame, indignation, sorrow, asceticism and fear (Jayaswal, 1932; 26) after what has transpired. Therefore, it makes sense that Chandragupta would want to marry her, especially when such an alliance was not a taboo back at the time.

The Matrimonial Alliances

Matrimonial alliances have always played an important role in consolidating power by securing allies. And this was all the more true in case of the Gupta-s right from the time of Chandragupta I who married the Licchavi princess and gained their support and territory. But conduct of Rāmagupta where he agreed for exchanging his wife, who most likely was a princess of a prominent royal house, could have put serious strain on reputation of Gupta-s and therefore, could be dangerous to the stability of the empire. Hence, it was pertinent that the mistake about to be made by surrendering Dhruvadevī should be rectified promptly. The role that matrimonial alliance might have played in capturing the Śaka territory is also understated. There is no doubt that Rāmagupta was not successful in consolidating his power in war against the Śaka-s (Bakker, 2022; 5). But Chandragupta was different, not only by his own virtue but by the support that he could expect from his allies, particularly those with whom he was in a matrimonial alliance.

“Candragupta was in a better position to hold on to the enemies defeated by his father, because he was married to one of their princesses, Kuberanāgā, on whom he conferred the title of Mahādevī. These Nāgas remained a local force to be reckoned with, despite their subjugation, and their help against their former arch-enemies, the Śakas, may have been a decisive factor” (Bakker, 2022; 6).

The marriage between Chandragupta’s daughter Prabhāvatī Guptā and Rudrasena II took place around 388 CE (Bakker, 2022; 6) gaining very useful allies and a secure frontier in the south. It seems plausible that especially Chandragupta’s relation with the Nāgas through his wife secured him victory over the Śaka-s at long last, whereas his alliance with the Vākāṭaka-s may have provided the necessary backing, as has been argued by Kulke. The alliance was therefore a display of strength rather than of weakness, confirmed by the fact that in all her inscriptions Prabhāvatī took great pride in her Gupta and Nāga ancestry (Bakker, 2022; 6). In view of matrimonial alliances being such an important element of the Gupta polity, no wonder Rāmagupta had to give way to Chandragupta after he saved not only his brother from a terrible defeat, his wife from a terrible fate but also the Gupta empire and its reputation.

Conclusion

If this study teaches us anything, it is that the role archaeological finds play in providing the much needed confirmation regarding ancient history is extensive. Both the names of Rāmagupta and Kācha had been known for some time but without any physical evidence to back the theory that they actually were one and the same person, it remained only a theory. However, the appearance of the name of Kācha on a Rāmagupta coins should at least put an end to this mystery. But as stated above in the article, a lot of other details about the reign of Rāmagupta and even his end only remain in the realm of possibility with no surety. What we can do is to hope for some corroboration from future researches in this field to clear our doubts.

Bibliography

Published by Priya Chaturvedi

I am Priya Chaturvedi, a History and Politics enthusiast, trying to learn something new everyday.

One thought on “The Elusive Kācha – Rāmagupta”

  1. Pingback: ‘Kuntaleśvaradautya’—A Study – C'est la vie Priyā

Leave a comment