State formation and political integration: Subordinate rulers under the Guptas in central India

The Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta claims that among other feats of his all forest kings (ātavika-rājas) were reduced to the status of servants (parichārakīkrita) and frontier rulers (pratyanta-nripati) and (heads of) the gana-sanghas (tribal states) were made to pay tribute (kara), obey his orders, visit the royal court for obeisance (pranām-āgamana) and execute royal orders. At the same time, rulers like the Kushānas (Dēvaputra-Shāhi-Shāhānushāhi) and Shakas (of Gujarat) were allegedly made to provide ‘services through such measures as self-surrender, offering (their own) daughters in marriage (kanyōpāyanadāna) and pleading for the administration of their own districts and provinces through the Garuda badge’. ¹ Clearly, there were different levels at which contemporary rulers of varying status were dealt with. ²

The frontier rulers and gana-sanghas were made to obey royal orders, pay tribute and attend the paramount ruler’s court. It implies that though treated as subordinates they were still politically powerful, and therefore, a constant and firm control over them was required. It would seem that a direct intervention of the Guptas stimulated a transformation of the political gana-sanghas into monarchies. For instance, the Allahabad Pillar inscription mentions the name Sanakānīka along with the names of gana-sanghas such as Mālava, Ārjunāyana and Yaudhēya. ³ Sanakānīka therefore was a gana-sangha, which had accepted Gupta authority. In the Udayagiri cave inscription of Chandragupta II, Sanakānīka Mahārāja (name not clear) is mentioned as the grandson of Mahārāja Chhagalaga, and the son of Mahārāja Vishnudāsa. ⁴ The designation Sanakānīka Mahārāja clearly shows that the Sanakārīka gana-sangha had been transformed into a monarchy by the time of Chandragupta II.

In the Allahabad prashasti, Samudragupta is said to have conquered the whole world (sarvva-prithivī-vijaya), and to have assumed the title of Mahārājādhirāja (king of the kings). Likewise, Skandagupta has also been called Mahārājādhirāja in the Junagadh rock inscription (455–56 ad). He is declared to have ‘forged an order with an effigy, namely, Garuḍa, which rendered, devoid of poison, the Serpent (bhujaga) Rulers who uplifted their hoods in pride and arrogance’. ⁵ The Serpent Rulers were possibly the Nāga royal families, who, when they challenged the Gupta crown, were subdued by Skandagupta. ⁶ In his Kahaum stone pillar inscription (459–60 ad), it is mentioned that the audience hall of Skandagupta was ‘fanned by the breezes caused by the throwing down (in obeisance) of the heads of hundreds of kings’. ⁷ Skandagupta thus claims to have maintained the political hierarchy that had evolved during the reigns of his predecessors.

A perusal of the Gupta inscriptions shows that a distinct set of vocabulary had been created to define the power and status of the king of kings vis-à-vis the lesser rulers, and chiefs. ⁸ The king of kings was invariably a person like Samudragupta who was able to conquer and rule over a large realm. ⁹ Likewise, Chandragupta-II in Udayagiri cave inscription is said to have ‘bought by the purchase-money of (his) prowess’ the earth, ‘in which the princes have become humbled with slavery’. ¹⁰ According to his Tumain inscription, Kumāragupta-I ‘protected the whole earth, holding her with arms, namely, valour, as if she was (his) chaste lawful wife’. ¹¹ Skandagupta, in the Supia pillar inscription (460–61 ad), is called a Chakravartin ¹² and in Bhitari stone pillar inscription, as the lord of the earth. ¹³

In order to distinguish the king of kings from lesser kings and chiefs, superhuman qualities were attributed to him. These superhuman qualities in fact raised him to the status of a god. ¹⁴ For instance, in the Allahabad prashasti, Samudragupta is depicted as a superhuman being having phenomenal expertise in the art of warfare and in poetic and literary arts, which made him equal to several Hindu divinities such as Kubēra, Varuna, Indra and Yama. He is depicted as having a superior intellect and greater musical accomplishments than Brihaspati, Tumburu and Nārada. Samudragupta’s depiction as one of a superhuman stature becomes more explicit when Harisena describes him as a god (dēva) dwelling on earth, who is ‘a human being, only as far as he performs the rites and conventions of the world’. ¹⁵ He is, indeed ‘Purusha (Supreme Being), being the cause of the prosperity of the good and the destruction of the bad …’ and yet one whose tender heart can be captured by ‘devotion and humility’. ¹⁶ The personification of Samudragupta seemingly was more like a benevolent Bhakti god, that is, Vishnu, ¹⁷ who in spite of having power to destroy, readily bestowed grace, protection and prosperity upon his devotees, who had readily surrendered themselves and all their wealth to him. ¹⁸

The study of the inscriptions of the contemporary central Indian dynasties of the Valkhās, the Aulikaras, the Parivrājakas and the Uchchakalpas also reinforces the impression of a political hierarchy that is put forward so grandly in the Allahabad prashasti from the side of the paramount power. (See Map and Appendix for the sites of the inscriptions of these dynasties.)

The inscriptions of the Valkhā rulers of Bagh, invariably begin with a statement that the reigning Mahārāja ‘meditates at the feet of the Paramabhattāraka’, ¹⁹ a formula which clearly displays their acceptance of Gupta paramountcy. In the first inscription of Mahārāja Bhulunda, first in the royal line, he is described as a devout servant of the god Vishnu (svāmi-Nārāyanadāsasya Mahārāja-Bhulunda), and also to have meditated at the feet (pādānuddhyātēna) of his overlord the Gupta king. ²⁰ We know from other sources that the Gupta rulers were Vaishnavites, a fact that ‘is demonstrated by their standard dynastic epithet Paramabhāgavata and the regular depiction of the garudadhvaja’. ²¹

The Parivrājaka rulers in their inscriptions similarly explicitly acknowledge their subordination to the Guptas. In all the inscriptions the expression, Gupta-nripa-rājya-bhuktau the Gupta kings (nripa), who were enjoying (bhuktau) their territories or sovereignty, has been used. They projected themselves as Brahmanas and the rulers of a territory comprising the kingdom of Dabhālā/Dahālā and the eighteen forest kingdoms (ashtādash-ātavī-rājya). The near contemporary Uchchakalpas do not express their allegiance to the Guptas as clearly. While, none of their inscriptions explicitly acknowledge the paramountcy of the Guptas, the presence of the Uchchakalpas in an area adjacent to that of the Parivrājakas in central India, makes their subordination to the Guptas highly likely. ²² Here it is noticeable that both the Parivrājakas and the Uchchakalpas emerged at a time when Gupta authority had practically withdrawn from Mālava and Gujarat. Nevertheless, the inscriptions of the Valkhās, and the Parivrājakas, as well as the Uchchakalpas, are dated in the Gupta era (epoch, 319 ad), ²³ which indicates that these local rulers, while organising the administration of their own petty kingdoms, acknowledged their association with Gupta polity. ²⁴

In their inscriptions the Aulikaras of Dashapura (Mandasor) explicitly acknowledge their allegiance to the Guptas. Naravarman is described in his inscription (404/5 ad) as a siṁha-vikrānta-gāmini (follower of Chandragupta II). ²⁵ The next Aulikara ruler Prabhākara (c. 467 ad) was a contemporary of Skandagupta (c. 454–67 ad), and he is mentioned in his inscription as a ‘fire to the trees in the form of the enemies of the race of the Guptas’. ²⁶ The Mandasor inscription of Kumāragupta I and Bandhuvarman (437–38 and 473–74 ad) records that while Kumāragupta was ruling over the earth (prithivīm prashāsti), Bandhuvarman, son of Vishvavarman, was the ruler of Dashapura. ²⁷ In this way, Bandhuvarman acknowledges Kumāragupta I’s position as his overlord. However, in order to portray Vishvavarman and Bandhuvarman, who are each designated nripa (king), as possessed of sovereign authority in their own territory, both are credited with several types of skills in arms and arts. ²⁸ Yet like the Valkhās, the Parivrājakas and the Uchchakalpas, none of the Aulikara rulers claimed divine status.

Unlike the rulers of other dynasties mentioned above, the Aulikaras employed in their inscriptions the Mālava/Krita era (epoch 57–58 bc) and not the Gupta era. In the political hierarchy of the kings under the Guptas, the Aulikaras, who had emerged from the Mālava gana-sangha, were thus placed above the other contemporary ruling houses of central India. This seems to explain the fact that none of the inscription of the Valkhās, the Parivrājakas and the Uchchakalpas, seemingly as an act of courtesy, mention their Gupta overlord by name. But among the inscriptions of the Aulikara rulers, those of Prabhākara and Bandhuvarman actually record the name of the reigning Gupta monarch. In fact, Prabhākara’s military commander Dattabhata was the son of Vāyurakshita, who is described as a commander under Govindagupta, son of Chandragupta II. ²⁹

The position of forest rulers, possibly accompanying the transformation of gana-sanghas into monarchical states, was largely well established by the fourth–fifth centuries ad. ³⁰ It was precisely the time when we begin to find inscriptions of the Valkhās (c. 357/487 ad), the Aulikaras (c. 397/534 ad), the Parivrājakas (c. 475/529 ad) and the Uchchakalpas (c. 493/534 ad) in different parts of central India. After their transformation into monarchies, the characters of these polities remained different from one another. For instance, unlike the Aulikaras, other rulers issued grants of lands or villages to Brahmanas and temples. While Valkhā inscriptions do not provide any genealogy of the rulers, inscriptions of other ruling houses contain elaborate royal genealogies. While the inscriptions of both the Aulikaras and the Parivrājakas explicitly inform us about their allegiance to Gupta monarchs, this is not the case with the Valkhās and Uchchakalpas.

The changing fortunes of the Guptas in central India also naturally shaped the nature of their relationship with their subordinates. It is true that whatever information, regarding changes in this relationship we are able to obtain is from the inscriptions of the local dynasties, with no Gupta inscriptions referring to them, if one omits the Kumaragupta-Bandhuvarman inscription of Mandasor. None of these polities in central India was apparently in existence before the arrival of the Guptas, for no inscription has been found emanating from these dynasties that predates the Guptas. An inscription of Samudragupta found at Eran ³¹ (Sagar district, Madhya Pradesh) recording the construction of a Vishnu temple, attests by its very site the inclusion of eastern Mālava in the realm of the Guptas. ³² However, parts of western Mālava were apparently yet to be conquered by him. It is generally believed that eastern Mālava served as the base for Chandragupta II’s annexation of the Shaka-ruled territories of western Mālava and Gujarat. ³³

It is possible though not proven that the forest area, in and around Bagh (Dhar district, Madhya Pradesh), underwent extensive clearing under the Valkhā rulers. The earliest known ruler of the Valkhā dynasty was Mahārāja Bhulunda (c. 357/8 to 378/9 ad), who recognised his subordination to Parambhaṭṭaraka, now unanimously assumed to be the contemporary Gupta emperor. ³⁴ Mahārāja Bhulunda’s reign possibly started at a time when Samudrgupta had already established his authority in eastern Mālava. His successors were Mahārāja Svāmidāsa (c. 382/3–386/7 ad) and Mahārāja Rudradāsa (c. 386/7–389/90 ad). They were thus contemporaries of the Gupta monarch Chandragupta II (c. 375–414 ad). Inscriptions of Chandragupta II are found at sites in eastern Mālava. A fragmentary Udayagiri inscription (date not legible) mentions the presence of Chandragupta II, with a minister Virasēna (Shāba) at Udayagiri (near Vidishā), while he was ‘seeking to conquer the whole world’ (prithivī-jay-artthēna). ³⁵ Another inscription (411–12 ad) of Chandragupta II has been found at Sanchi in the same area. It records the establishment of palaces (rājakulas), seemingly at Vidishā, by Chandragupta II. ³⁶ Apparently, Chandragupta II had established his camp at Vidishā possibly as a base for his campaign against the Shaka rulers of western Mālava and Gujarat, which he successfully carried out. ³⁷

Chandragupta II was succeeded, c. 414 ad, by Kumāragupta I, who reigned until 454 ad. Two Valkhā rulers, viz. Mahārāja Bhattāraka (c. 421/448 ad) and Mahārāja Nāgabhata (c. 453/454 ad) were his contemporaries. Thus, during the reigns of three Gupta rulers (viz., Samudragupta, Chandragupta II and Kumāragupta I) at least five Valkhā kings successively ruled the area in and around Bagh. It shows that this region remained under the Valkhā rulers during the military expeditions of Chandragupta II against the Shaka rulers of western India. The last inscription from Valkhā (Bagh) that acknowledged the overlordship of the Gupta suzerain (always without naming him) was issued in 453/454 ad, which is also the last known date of Kumāragupta I. Inscriptions of the last known Valkhā ruler Mahārāja Subandhu were issued from Māhishmatī, suggesting a shift of the capital from Valkhā. One inscription of his is dated in 486/487 ad, while due to textual mutilation the date of another is not legible. It makes him a contemporary of Gupta ruler Budhagupta (c. 476–96/500 ad). In his inscriptions Mahārāja Subandhu, unlike his predecessors, does not refer to the Parambhattaraka and so displays no acknowledgement of Gupta paramountcy. ³⁸

The twin facts of shift of capital and the omission of acknowledgement of allegiance to Gupta suzerainty suggest that a military crisis might have been behind both these changes. The Bhitari stone pillar inscription of Skandagupta (c. 454–67 ad) shows that towards the end of Kumāragupta I’s reign Gupta suzerainty was challenged by several enemies such as Pushyamitras (whose identity is not clear) and the Hūnas. Skandagupta defeated the Pushyamitras, while the Hūnas were also successfully checked for the time being. ³⁹ The Gupta king Budhagupta ruled c. 475–96/500 ad and, to judge from the sites of his inscriptions, still controlled eastern Mālava around Eran besides the Ganga valley and the region of north Bengal. ⁴⁰ But no evidence is available for his maintaining any authority over Gujarat and western Malwa, the last attestation of it being Skandagupta’s Junagarh inscription of 457–58 ad. As Gupta control over Gujarat was lost, the Valkha court seems to have retreated southward, ceasing to hope for any protection from the Gupta suzerain, and so becoming independent. But it could not now long survive, for Subandhu, its first independent ruler, seems also to have been its last.

The Valkhā rulers had emerged from an obscure tribal background, established a monarchical form of polity in the southern parts of western Malava and assumed the title of Mahārāja. ⁴¹ Their tribal background is suggested by the first ruler of Valkhā having borne a non-Sanskrit name, viz. Bhulunda, the names of the succeeding rulers being clearly Sanskritised. His reign seems to have thus represented a first step in the transition from a tribal to a formal state society. ⁴² As noted above, none of Valkhā inscriptions provide a genealogy of the rulers. Therefore, it is not possible to define accurately the relationship between different rulers, who ruled from Valkhā. The mention of several royal officials such as Dauvārika, Arakshika, Prēshanika, bhata, bhōjika, amātya, āyukta, dūtaka and rājyādhikrita in Valkha inscriptions suggests the emergence of a complex bureaucracy. It seems that they tried to emulate the model of a complex polity in the realms of the Gupta and the Vākātakas. ⁴³ Thus the term rāshṭra, used for an administrative division in inscriptions of the Vākātaka rulers, is frequently met with in the inscriptions of the Vālkhā rulers. ⁴⁴ It is therefore probable that in their construction of a state apparatus, the Valkha rulers could have been influenced by what they saw around them in the Guptas and Vākātaka administrative structures, as well as possibly the state of Shaka kshatrapas of Gujarat.

We now turn to north-western Mālava. The area in and around Dashapura (Mandasor district, Madhya Pradesh) was under the Aulikara rulers, Mahārāja Naravarman of this dynasty issued the earliest known inscription of the dynasty in 397/398 ad. It makes him a contemporary of Chandragupta II. The inscription names Siṃhavarman as the father, and Jayavarman as the grandfather of Naravarman. Jayavarman was apparently the founder of the Aulikara dynasty. The Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta refers to the overthrow of the Mālava gana-sangha, to which the dynasty of Aulikaras belonged. We may suppose that after the Mālava gana-sangha was overthrown, a clan of it established itself in Dashapura, where it ultimately accepted Gupta suzerainty. ⁴⁵ Naravarman was followed by Vishvavarman (c. 423–24 ad) and his son Bandhuvarman (c. 437/438 ad), both being designated raja in their inscriptions. The Aulikara rulers, Vishvavarman and Bandhuvarman, were contemporaries of Kumāragupta I (c. 414–54 ad). ⁴⁶ The next Aulikara ruler was Prabhākara (c. 467/8 ad), a contemporary of Skandagupta (c. 454–67 ad). ⁴⁷

Prabhākara was apparently succeeded by Narēndra Ādityavardhana: his reign belonged to the last quarter of the fifth century. ⁴⁸ Thus, he was a contemporary of the Gupta monarch Budhagupta (c. 476–96/500 ad), who, to judge from the sites of his inscriptions, had managed to retain large parts of the Gupta Empire except western India. However, after Budhagupta, the Gupta rulers failed to keep their empire intact. Prakāshadharman in his Risthal inscription (515–16 ad) omits all reference to the Guptas while designating Tōramāna as ‘the Huṇa overlord’ (Hūṇādhīpasya), whom he claims to have successfully resisted. ⁴⁹ Prakāshadharman’s successor Yashodharman (also known as Vishṇuvardhana) famously claims to have overthrown the Hūna king Mihirakula, son of Tōramāna, and even to have conquered those regions that had not been enjoyed by the Guptas. ⁵⁰ Apparently, by the time of Prakāshadharman and Yashodharman, the Aulikaras of Dashapura had established themselves as an independent entity in parts of western Mālava. Yashodharman’s boasts of extensive conquests, however, remain unverified, and Aulikara power itself does not seem to have long survived Yashodharman.

The Aulikara rulers’ inscriptions suggest the presence of a hierarchy of officials/subordinate to them. According to the inscription of Vishvavarman (423–24 ad), a city (pūra), on the bank of the Gargarā River (i.e., Chhoti Kali Sind), was administered by one Mayūrākshaka, who was ‘the third eye of the king’ (rājňas-tritīyam-iva chakshu). ⁵¹ Besides Mayūrākshaka, the Mānavāyani kula of Choti Sādrī region, and the Naigama family of Dashapura seem to have been in service of the Aulikaras. ⁵² None of the Aulikara inscriptions records a land grant, though temple construction is often recorded. The rise of the Aulikara dynasty of Dashapura was an important historical development as it seems to mark a final stage in the transition from pre-state society (i.e., gana-sangha) to state society in northern parts of western Mālava. Unlike Valkhā epigraphs, inscriptions of the Aulikaras provide us with lengthy genealogies, containing lists of successive rulers of the dynasty.

Unlike the Aulikaras, we do not have much information regarding the antecedents of the Parivrājakas, and the Uchchakalapas. The region where Parivrājakas and Uchchakalpa states emerged is presumably the one designated in Ashoka’s Kalinga edicts as that of ātavikas (forest folk). By the time of Samudragupta, there had emerged the ātavika-rājas that are mentioned in his Allahabad inscription. But the Parivrājaka rulers themselves traced their origin from a kingly ascetic Susharman, of the Bharadvāja gōtra. He is mentioned as an expert in all the fourteen sciences, like the sage Kapila. ⁵³ In Romila Thapar’s view, land grants possibly big enough to establish a kingdom, comprising some parts of a forest in Bundelkhand (in eastern Madhya Pradesh), had been made to this ancestor of Parivrājakas. Moreover, in her view, such emergence of a kingdom in forest refers to ‘the conversion of the Vindhyan region from forest to kingdom, from vana to kshetra’. ⁵⁴ Hastin’s ‘royal ascetic’ (nripati-parivrājaka) lineage has been similarly interpreted by D. D. Kosambi, who opines that ‘some ascetic’ who had gone ‘into the wilderness’ gradually ‘acquired special respect from the tribesmen, married into the tribe, aggrandized its power as king, and so founded the dynasty’. ⁵⁵ But for such a development to occur some political institutions including segments of administration should have already come into existence within the tribal order. ⁵⁶

Sometime before 475–76 ad, the Parivrājaka rulers enter history. The inscriptions discovered so far belong to two Parivrājaka rulers, viz. Hastin and Saṁkshōbha. The earliest known inscription (dated 475–76 ad) of the Parivrājaka dynasty, found at Khoh (M.P.) belongs to Mahārāja Hastin, who had inherited eighteen forest kingdoms along with Dāhala from his ancestors. ⁵⁷ The date makes Hastin a contemporary of the Gupta king Budhagupta (c. 476–496/500 ad). Parivrājaka inscriptions inform us of a line of at least three rulers (Mahārājas), viz. Dēvādhya, Prabhaňjana and Dāmōdara prior to the accession of Hastin. Mahārāja Samkshōbha succeeded Hastin in 518/19 ad. ⁵⁸ From the inscription of Vākātakas it appears that king Pravarasēna II was present at Tripurī (near Jabalpur) in 443 ad ⁵⁹ during the reign of Kumāragupta I. Furthermore, inscriptions from Nachnē-kī-talāī and Ganj record the presence of Prithivīshēna II’s subordinate Vyāghradēva not far from Khoh, the site of two Parivrājaka inscriptions (see our Map). ⁶⁰ Not only this, the Bālāghāt inscription of Prithivīshēna II (c. 470–90 ad) claims that the commands of Narēndrasēna, father of Prithivīshēna II, were respected by the kings of Kōsalā, Mekalā and Mālava. According to this inscription, Prithivīshēna II had ‘rescued his sunken family’. ⁶¹ A later possible extension of the Vākātaka’s power over Baghelkhand region of central India may thus be inferred.

Apparently, some kind of struggle between the Guptas and the Vākātakas began during the reign of Kumāragupta I, and continued during the reign of Skandagupta for mastery over central India. The Bhitari pillar inscription of Skandagupta informs us about a political crisis towards the end of Kumāragupta I’s reign, when Gupta supremacy was challenged by the Pushyamitras and the Hūnas. Skandagupta claims to have successfully defeated the Pushyamitras and thwarted the incursions of the Hūnas. He also kept in check the advances of Narēndrasēna in Mālava and Mekalā. After Skandagupta, whose reign ended in 467, Prithivīshēna II seems to have occupied parts of eastern Madhya Pradesh, where, as just mentioned, inscriptions of his subordinate Vyāghradēva are found. ⁶² The brief period, after the death of Skandagupta and before the accession of Budhagupta in 476 ad, witnessed a quick succession of Gupta rulers, suggesting the absence of a firm central authority. ⁶³ Perhaps this situation provided an opportunity to Prithivīshēna II to expand his influence, for a brief period, in eastern Madhya Pradesh.

The earliest known inscription of Parivrājaka Mahārāja Hastin, as we have already mentioned, belongs to 475–76 ad. This inscription, like all other Parivrājaka inscriptions, acknowledges Gupta supremacy. ⁶⁴ It suggests that some time prior to 475/76 ad the Vākātakas had lost control over eastern Madhya Pradesh to the Gupta rulers. An inscription from Eran of Budhagupta (484–85 ad) refers to one Mahārāja Surashmichandra as a governor (lōkapāla), on his behalf governing the country lying between Yamuna and Narmada Rivers. ⁶⁵ Budhagupta’s reign ended sometime in the last decade of the fifth century. Due to the invasions of the Hūnas, parts of Mālava must have gone out of Gupta control and into Huna hands. The Eran and Sanjeli inscriptions of Tōramāna and the Gwalior inscription of Mihirkula, son of Tōramāna, offer firm evidence of this. ⁶⁶ However, by 510/11 ad, the Gupta king Bhānugupta seems to have managed to recover Eran. ⁶⁷ The inscriptions of Parivrājaka king Samkshōbha (reigned from 518/19 to 528/29 ad) proclaim his allegiance to the Gupta throne. ⁶⁸ He thus recognised at least the nominal suzerainty of the Guptas. ⁶⁹

The Uchchakalpa kingdom was established adjacent to that of the Parivrājakas. The two dynasties emerged in eastern Madhya Pradesh, when the Gupta authority was permanently shaken in western Mālava and Gujarat, due probably mainly to Hūna incursions. However, the Guptas retained at least nominal control over the region in the last quarter of the fifth century, by recognising these two local dynasties in the region. The inscriptions of only two Uchchakalpa rulers, viz. Mahārāja Jayanātha and Mahārāja Sharvanātha, have been found so far. However, according to the genealogical list recorded in these inscriptions, four rulers (Mahārājas), viz. Ōghadēva, Kumāradēva, Jayasvāmin and Vyāghra, preceded Jayanātha. The earliest inscription of Mahārāja Jayanātha is dated 493/94 ad, making him a contemporary of Budhagupta (476–96/500 ad).

The Uchchakalpa Mahārāja Vyāghra, father of Mahārāja Jayanātha, has been identified by V.V. Mirashi with Vyāghradēva, a subordinate of the Vakataka ruler Prithivīshēna. ⁷⁰ However, there is no conclusive evidence, in support of this identification. The last known inscription of Mahārāja Jayanātha is dated 501/502 ad, ⁷¹ while those of his son Mahārāja Sharvanātha are dated 508–09 (Bhumara), ⁷² 510–11 (Sohawal), ⁷³ 512–13 (Kosh), ⁷⁴ 516–17 (Kosh) ⁷⁵ and 533–34 (Kosh). ⁷⁶ Curiously, the ‘three generations of ancestors of Vyāghra, father of Mahārāja Jayanātha, were named after their mothers’. This practice was not pursued from Vyāghra onwards, but the mother’s name in the case of each ruler continued to be given. In Suranjit K. Saha’s view, such genealogical change refers to a ‘social change from a matrilineal to a patriarchal family line’. ⁷⁷ This is, however, an unlikely proposition: More likely is the fact that in a polygamous royal family, it was found important to give the mother’s name to show that the ruler was born of a noble wife, and this did not cease with Vyāghra. ⁷⁸

It is also noticeable that Jayanātha was married to Mahādēvī Murundadēvī or Murundasvāminī, and from her was born Sharvanātha. ⁷⁹ Her name was surely derived from the term Murunda. Now the Allahabad pillar inscription records Samudragupta’s claims of precedence over ‘Daiva-putra-Shāhi-Shāhānushāhi-Shaka-Murunda’. ‘Shaka Murunda’ seems to refer to western Mahākshatrapas of Gujarat. The satraps of the Kushānas were titled ‘Murunda’ (a Scythian term meaning ‘lord’, Sanskrit ‘svāmin’); later this title became ‘a family name’. ⁸⁰ The Uchchakalpas seem thus to have forged a marriage alliance with what could have been a well-reputed Shaka ruling lineage. ⁸¹

The inscriptions of the Parivrājakas and the Uchchakalpas provide us with a long list of officials and administrators: Bhōgika, amātya, dūtaka, mahāsāmdhivigrahika, mahābalādikrita and uparika, who looked after different state functions. Under the Parivrājakas, one family appears to have occupied state offices hereditarily at least between 475–76 and 510–11 ad. The Amātya Vakra was father of Bhōgika and Amātya Naradatta. His grandson was Bhōgika Ravidatta, and his great-grandson. Sūryadatta’s son was one Mahāsāmdhivigrahika Vibhudatta. Likewise under the Uchchakalpas, we find a family of state officials heard of from about 496–97 ad to 533–34 ad. Bhōgika and Amātya Phalgudatta was the father of Bhōgika Varāhadinna. Varāhadinna had two sons, viz. Sāmdhivigrahika Gallu and Mahāsāmdhivigrahika Manōrattha. Manōrattha had a son, Sāmdhivigrahika Nātha. ⁸² A single official, apparently, often held more than one position in the administrative offices of the Parivrājakas and the Uchchakalpas, a practice that was also prevalent under the Guptas. ⁸³

OPEN IN VIEWER

Source: Drawn by Faiz Habib.