Re: A Das Gupta Mcq.pdf
Fabulously Favuzza
Conceding the importance of his wife, Chandragupta issued gold coins in the joint names of himself, his queens Kumaradevi and the Lichchhavi nation. Emboldened by his success, he established a new era.
Question 1.
Write about Chandragupta II.
Answer:
Chandragupta II expanded his kingdom through various means. He defeated the Sakas and made western India a part of the Gupta empire. Through marriages, he extended his relationships with most of the kings.
He earned the title of Vikramaditya. His reign is memorable more for the encouragement given to literature, and art, rather than for its battle. Many writers of Sanskrit and other languages adored the court of Chandragupta II.
(a) A conflict between Gods and Demons of ancient Hindu lore.
(b) A romantic story of an aryan prince and a tribal woman.
(c) The story of the power struggle between two Aryan tribes.
(d) The court intrigues at the time of Chandragupta Maurya.
He performed the Ashvamedha sacrifice to prove his imperial sovereignty and remained undefeated in battle. His gold coins and inscriptions suggest that he was an accomplished poet, and also played musical instruments such as the veena. His expansionist policy was continued by his son and successor Chandragupta II.
The inscriptions of the Gupta kings are dated in the Gupta calendar era, whose epoch is generally dated to c. 319 CE. However, the identity of the era's founder is a matter of debate, and scholars variously attribute its establishment to Chandragupta I or Samudragupta.[5][6] Chandragupta I probably had a long reign, as the Prayag Pillar inscription suggests that he appointed his son as his successor, presumably after reaching an old age. However, the exact period of his reign is uncertain. For these reasons, the beginning of Samudragupta's reign is also uncertain.[4]
The end of Samudragupta's reign is also uncertain.[6] Samudragupta's granddaughter Prabhavatigupta is known to have married during the reign of his son Chandragupta II, in c. 380 CE (assuming c. 319 CE as the epoch of the Gupta era). Therefore, the end of Samudragupta's reign can be placed before this year.[8]
Samudragupta was a son of the Gupta emperor Chandragupta I and Queen Kumaradevi, who came from the Licchavi clan.[10] His fragmentary Eran stone inscription states that his father selected him as the successor because of his "devotion, righteous conduct, and valour". His Allahabad Pillar inscription similarly describes how Chandragupta I called him a noble person in front of the courtiers, and appointed him to "protect the earth". These descriptions suggest that Chandragupta I renounced the throne in his old age, and appointed his son as the next emperor.[11]
According to the Allahabad Pillar inscription, when Chandragupta I appointed him as the next emperor, the faces of other people of "equal birth" bore a "melancholy look".[12] One interpretation suggests that these other people were neighbouring kings, and Samudagupta's ascension to the throne was uncontested.[13] Another theory is that these other people were Gupta princes with a rival claim to the throne.[12] If Emperor Chandragputa I indeed had multiple sons, it is likely that Samudragupta's background as the son of a Lichchhavi princess worked in his favour.[14]
The coins of a Gupta ruler named Kacha, whose identity is debated by modern scholars, describe him as "the exterminator of all kings".[15] These coins closely resemble the coins issued by Samudragupta.[16] According to one theory, Kacha was an earlier name of Samudragupta and the emperor later adopted the regnal name Samudra ("Ocean"), after extending his empire's dominion as far as the ocean.[17] An alternative theory is that Kacha was a distinct king (possibly a rival claimant to the throne[15][17]) who flourished before or after Samudragupta.[16]
The Gupta inscriptions suggest that Samudragupta had a remarkable military career. The Eran stone inscription of Samudragupta states that he had brought "the whole tribe of kings" under his suzerainty, and that his enemies were terrified when they thought of him in their dreams.[18] The inscription does not name any of the defeated kings (presumably because its primary objective was to record the installation of a Vishnu idol in a temple), but it suggests that Samudragupta had subdued several kings by this time.[19] The later Allahabad Pillar inscription, a panegyric written by Samudragupta's minister and military officer Harishena, credits him with extensive conquests.[20] It gives the most detailed account of Samudragupta's military conquests, listing them in mainly geographical and partly chronological order.[21] It states that Samudragupta fought a hundred battles, acquired a hundred wounds that looked like marks of glory, and earned the title Prakrama (valourous).[22] The Mathura stone inscription of Chandragupta II describes Samudragupta as an "exterminator of all kings", as someone who had no equally powerful enemy, and as a person whose "fame was tasted by the waters of the four oceans".[19]
Modern scholars offer various opinions regarding Samudragupta's possible motivations behind his extensive military campaigns. The Allahabad Pillar inscription suggests that Samudragupta's aim was the unification of the earth (dharani-bandha), which suggests that he may have aspired to become a Chakravartin (a universal ruler).[22] The Ashvamedha performances by the Nagas, whom he defeated, may have influenced him as well. His southern expedition may have been motivated by economic considerations of controlling the trade between India and South-East Asia.[23]
The early portion of the Allahabad Pillar inscription mentions that Samudragupta "uprooted" Achyuta, Nagasena, and a ruler whose name is lost in the damaged portion of the inscription. The third name ends in "-ga", and is generally restored as Ganapati-naga,[14] because Achyuta-nandin (presumably same as Achyuta), Nagasena, and Ganapati-naga are once again mentioned in the later part of the inscription, among the kings of Aryavarta (northern India) defeated by Samudragupta.[24][25] These kings are identified as the rulers of present-day western Uttar Pradesh (see below).[23] According to the inscription, Samudragupta reinstated these rulers after they sought his forgiveness.[26]
It is not clear why the names of these three kings is repeated later in the inscription. According to one theory, these three kings were vassal rulers who rebelled against Samudragupta after the death of his father. Samudragupta crushed the rebellion, and reinstated them after they sought his forgiveness. Later, these rulers rebelled once more, and Samudragupta defeated them again.[26] Another possibility is that the author of the inscription thought it necessary to repeat these names while describing Samudragupta's later conquests in Aryavarta, simply because these kings belonged to that region.[27]
Samudragupta dispatched an army to capture the scion of the Kota family, whose identity is uncertain. The Kotas may have been the rulers of present-day Punjab, where coins bearing the legend "Kota", and featuring a symbol of Shiva and his bull, have been discovered.[26]
The inscription states that the Gupta army captured the Kota ruler, while Samudragupta himself "played" (or pleased himself) in a city called Pushpa[28] (the name Pushpa-pura referred to Pataliputra at Samudragupta's time, although it came to be used for Kanyakubja in the later period).[29] Modern scholars have interpreted the word "played" in various ways: According to one theory, this portion describes Samudragupta's achievements as a prince.[14] An alternative interpretation is that Samudragupta dispatched his army on these campaigns, while he himself stayed at the capital.[26] It is also possible that the poet intended to convey that these campaigns were minor affairs that did not require the king's direct involvement at the battlefront.[28]
The exact identification of several of these kings is debated among modern scholars,[30] but it is clear that these kings ruled areas located on the eastern coast of India.[31] Samudragupta most probably passed through the forest tract of central India, reached the eastern coast in present-day Odisha, and then marched south along the coast of Bay of Bengal.[32]
The inscription states that Samudragupta later released these kings, and favoured (anugraha) them. Most modern scholars theorize that Samudragupta reinstated these rulers as his tributaries. M. G. S. Narayanan interprets the word anugraha differently based on its occurrence in the Arthashastra; he theorizes that Samudragupta gave "protection and aid" to these kingdoms in order to secure their alliances.[33]
Some scholars, such as J. Dubreuil and B. V. Krishnarao, theorized that Samudragupta only advanced up to the Krishna river, and was forced to retreat without fighting a battle, when the southern kings formed a strong confederacy to oppose him. According to these scholars, the claim that Samudragupta released these kings is an attempt by Samudragupta's courtier to cover up the emperor's failure.[34] However, there is no evidence of the southern kings forming a confederacy against Samudragupta. Historian Ashvini Agrawal notes that setting free a captured king is inline with the ancient Indian political ideals. For example, Kautilya defines three types of conquerors: the righteous conqueror (dharma-vijayi), who restores the defeated king in exchange for his acknowledgment of the conqueror's suzerainty; the covetous conqueror (lobha-vijayi), who takes away the possessions of the defeated king but spares his life; and the demoniac conqueror (asura-vijayi), who annexes the territory of the defeated king and kills him.[34] Such political ideals existed in the Gupta period too, as evident from Kalidasa's statement in Raghuvamsha that "the righteous victorious monarch (Raghu) only took away the royal glory of the lord of Mahendra who had been captured and released, but not his kingdom." Therefore, it is likely that Samudragupta acted like a righteous conqueror, and restored the defeated kings as his vassals.[35][33]
aa06259810