Chandragupta II is named after Samudragupta in the dynasty table mentioned in the Gupta inscriptions, so earlier historians thought that this was the successor of the Gupta Empire after Samudragupta. But after coming to the light of new archaeological and literary evidence, some historians have started to believe that between Samudragupta and Chandragupta, a ruler named Ramgupta ruled for some time. First Rakhaldas Banji gave 'Manindra Chandra Nandi lecture series of Banaras Hindu University in 1924 AD. ’ had drawn the attention of scholars towards the historicity of Ramgupta. This was followed by Anant Sadashiv Altekar, Dr. Historians like Bhandarkar, Winternitz, Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi etc. have done extensive research in this regard and have tried to prove the historicity of a ruler named Ramgupta.
Creation of the History of Ramgupta
Various sources reveal that Samudragupta had two sons- Ramgupta and Chandragupta. Ramgupta ascended the throne after his father's death, but he was weak and cowardly. He was married to Dhruva Devi, but she was not satisfied with her husband as he was impotent and weak. Taking advantage of the weakness of Ramgupta, Shakraj attacked the Gupta Empire. A battle took place in the Himalayas, in which Ramgupta was defeated. Shakraj demanded from him his wife Dhruvadevi, which was accepted by Clive Ramgupta in the interest of the state and the people. But his younger brother Chandragupta II found this demand against the prestige of his clan and disguised as Dhruvadevi, went to Shakraj's camp and killed her. After that he also killed his elder brother Ramgupta and married his wife Dhruvadevi and became the ruler of the Gupta dynasty. Information about this historical event is found from both literary and archaeological sources.
Literary Sources of the Historicity of Ramgupta
Devichandraguptam: The existence of Ramagupta first came to light from the play called Devichandraguptam by Visakhadatta. Although this book is not available in its original form, some of its quotes are found in many texts like the Natyadarpan of Ramchandra-Gunchandra. Silvan Levy first drew the attention of historians to these quotes. The protagonist of this play was the Gupta dynasty Chandragupta II. This text was probably written during the period of Chandragupta II, so its citations are historically useful.
According to Devichandraguptam, Ramagupta was a stigma to his clan (patyuh klevajanochitten charitenananenpunsah sat , Shakraj defeated him and demanded his wife Dhruvadevi (Dhruvswamini). Ramgupta agreed to offer to Dhruvadevi in the interest of the people , But Chandragupta, a junior brother, disguised Dhruvadevi, went to Shakraj's camp and killed her. After this he started leading a frantic life and in this form he killed Ramgupta and married Dhruvadevi and himself ascended the throne.
Harshcharit: In the Harshacharita of Baan, this story has been directed by writing that the sensual Shakpati Kamini-vested towards the wife of another was killed by Chandragupta - 'aripure cha parakalatram kaminiveshgupta:Chandragupta:Shakpatim ashatayat From the context in which Banabhatta has mentioned this incident, the veracity of this incident cannot be doubted.
Poetics: This incident is mentioned in the Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara, composed in the tenth century, in which Ramgupta is called Sharmagupta and Shakadhipati as Khasadhipati. According to the verse, 'A king named Sharmgupta, having been defeated, agreed to dedicate his wife Dhruvaswamini to the Khasadhipati. In the same Himalaya mountain, Kartikeya killed his enemies, due to which the city-bride started singing his fame.' Here Kartikeya refers to Chandragupta-
Datva Ruddhagati:Khasadhipataye Devi Dhruvaswaminim,
Yasmatkhandit sahaso nivvrute srisharmagupto nripa.
Tasminnav Himalayas Guruguhakonkwnitkinnare,
Geante tava Kartikeya! Nagarastreen ganaih kirtayah..
makeup: Some of the quotes from Devichandraguptam are found in the composition of the eleventh century writer Bhoja, such as Chandragupta, disguised as a woman, reached Alipur, the enemy's military camp with the intention of killing Shakpati (Striveshanihanah Chandragupta:Shatro Skandhavaram Alipurum Shakpativadhayagamat , The evidence of Devichandraguptam is corroborated by the quote of Shringarprakash.
Harshacharit Commentary: Harshacharita's commentator Shankararya has written that 'Shakadhipati, the teacher of the Shakas, who was attached to Dhruvadevi, the wife of Chandragupta's brother, was killed by Chandragupta, dressed in the form of a beautiful woman, along with women dressed in women (Shakanamacharya:Sakadhipati:Chandraguptabhatrijayan Dhruvadevi). Prarthyaman:Chandragupten Dhruvadeviveshadharina Streeveshajanparivruten business: , Here Shankararya has called Ramagupta's rival Shakraj, both the Acharya of the Shakas and the ruler of the Shakas.
Abhinav Bharati: A short quote from Devichandraguptam is also found in Abhinavbharti by Abhinavagupta- 'Just as Chandragupta while addressing Madhavasena in Devichandraguptam said, 'O Sumukhi! Who filled both your eyes with joyful tears wearing the beauty of Nilkamal? Who has reflected the drops of sweat in your pulsating limbs? Why have your bulging buttocks become more advanced now? What is the reason that without anyone's touch, your kati-sutras (bonds of nevi) have become loose? ?' The same quote is also found in Natyadarpan and Shringarprakash of Bhoj. It is clear from this that the quotes of Devichandraguptam have been given in their original form.
play-symptom-gemstone: The credit of bringing this book composed by Sagaranandi to light goes to Silvan Levy. The quotation received in this book confirms Chandragupta's masquerading as fake madness.
Ayurveda-Deepika Commentary: This book was composed by Chakrapani in the twelfth century. It is in the form of a commentary on Charaka Samhita. In this, Chandragupta wearing a guise has been indicated towards both the murders - the murder of Shakraj by impersonating Dhruvadevi and the killing of Ramgupta by masquerading as a maniac. This mention appears to be based on Devichandraguptam.
Majmal-ut-Tawarikh: In the twelfth century, Abdulhassan Ali (1126 AD) wrote 'Majmal-ut-Tawarikh' in Persian, which seems to be a Persian translation of a Sanskrit work like Devichandraguptam translated into Arabic. In this Rawwal and Barkmaris There is a story of two brothers named, which is similar to the story of Ramagupta and Chandragupta of Devichandraguptam. The author of Majmal-ut-Tawarikh seems to have represented the main parts of the plot of Devichandraguptam in this story.
Rajavali: The chaotic mention of the Ramgupta story is written by Mrityunjay Pandit 'Rajavali ’ (1808 AD). In this, Rajpal, a ruler of the Mayur dynasty of Indraprastha, was defeated by Shakraj of Kumaun. Later Vikramaditya defeated Shakraj and got his coronation done. Rajpal can be compared with Ramgupta (Rawwal) of Majmal-ut-Tawarikh and Vikramaditya with Chandragupta Vikramaditya (Barkmarias).
Archaeological Sources of Ramagupta's Historicity
The instructional volume of the historical story of Ramgupta is available not only in ancient poetry, but also in inscriptions. Although no inscription of Ramagupta has been found, but the Sanjan, Kambe and Sangli inscriptions of the Rashtrakuta dynasty point to the story of Devichandraguptam.
Sign text: The story of Devichandraguptam has been directed in the Sanjan Tamrapatra of Rashtrakuta king Amoghavarsha of 871 AD, according to which 'in Kaliyuga, a noble Gupta king killed his brother and kidnapped his kingdom and Bharya and instead of the number of one lakh there was one. The number of crores was mentioned-
Hattvabhratramev rajmahadevi f dinstatha.
Laksham kotimlekhayankil kalaudata sa Guptanavayah.
This verse refers to Chandragupta II, who had taken away both his kingdom and his kingdom by killing his elder.
poster text: Rashtrakuta king Govind IV was compared with another famous ruler named Sahasank in the Khambhat copper inscription of Saka Samvat 852 (930 AD) Is. According to the article, the Rashtrakuta king Govind IV and Sahasanka were similar only in charity and courage, not in bad deeds; Because even after having the power, Govind did not behave mercilessly with his ancestor, nor did brother-female, nor forgetting the distinction of toilet and adopting Paishaya-
Samartyye sati blasphemy pravirhita naivagrje cruelty
bandhustrigamnadibhih kucharitairavarjjitam nayash.
Shouchauchparangmukham na cha bhya paishaymangikritam
tyagenasamsaahasach bhuvane yaha sahasankoऽbhavat.
Khambhat article to ‘Courage Chandragupta II is Vikramaditya. In poetry, Vikramaditya has been called 'Sahasanka'.
Sangali text: In this inscription of Shaka Samvat 855 (933 AD) also Rashtrakuta ruler Govind IV was called Sahasank And the verse of Khambhat's article is quoted in which the rival Sahasank of Rashtrakuta king refers to Chandragupta II itself.
Blind column-text: This article proves the historicity of Dhruvadevi, the main female character of Devichandraguptam. In this, Kumaragupta I is said to be the son born to Chandragupta II's wife Dhruvadevi (Maharajadhiraja Srichandraguptputrasya Mahadevyan Dhruvadevyamutpanasya Maharajadhiraja Srikumaraguptasya ).
Vaishali's text: In the Vaishali inscription, Dhruvadevi has been called Dhruvaswamini, who was the wife of Chandragupta and the mother of Govindgupta (Maharajadhiraja Srichandragupta wife MaharajShrigovindgupta Mata Mahadevi Dhruvaswamini). In Rajasekhar's poetry, Dhruvadevi has also been called Dhruvaswamini.
Jain Statues: Three Jain idols have been found in 1969 AD from village Durjanpur near modern Vidisha. Of these, the first idol is of the eighth Jain Tirthankara Chandraprabha and the second of the ninth Jain Tirthankara Pushpadanta. The third idol is in a fragmented state which is probably of Acharya Chandraprabha. The idol-making style of the Guptas has been used in the making of these statues. Inscriptions are engraved in Gupta script on the foot-posts of the idols in which 'Maharajadhiraj Ramgupta' Name of the king named. This ruler appears to be the Gupta dynasty Ramgupta who was a Jain believer. It seems that Chandragupta has been criticized for showing sympathy for Ramgupta in the writings of Rashtrakuta ruler Amoghavarsha for being a supporter of Jainism.
Monetary Evidence: Apart from this, some copper-currencies of a ruler named Ramgupta have also been received from Bhilsa and Eran of Malwa, which proves the historicity of Ramgupta. Numismatic Parameshwarilal Gupta has found six such coins from Bhilsa, on one of which the full name of the ruler is 'Ramgupta' and on the rest some letters of the name 'Ram', 'Magu', 'Gut' etc. are readable. These mudras have been related by Gupta to Ramagupta. These have the figure of a lion, the script is of the Gupta period and even in weight-measure these coins are similar to the copper coins of Chandragupta II. The figure of a lion is also engraved on the Vaishali-mudra of Dhruvadevi. From this Ramgupta appears to be the Gupta dynasty ruler.
Prof. Krishnadatta Bajpayee has received some coins of Ramgupta from Eran, on which the figures of lions and Garuda are inscribed. The letters of the ruler's name like Rama, Ramgu, Magupta are residing on the coins. The script of these mudras is of Gupta period. The marking of Garuda on the coins is a strong proof of the historicity of Ramgupta because Garuda was the state symbol of the Gupta dynasty. The use of Garudadhwaja by Ramgupta is proof of the fact that he was a Gupta dynasty ruler.
Some historians consider Ramgupta of these postures to be the local ruler of Malwa, not the Gupta ruler, but it is not logical to oppose his historicity by considering Ramgupta as fictional.
battle-space
रामगुप्त और शकराज के मध्य युद्ध कहाँ हुआ था, इस संबंध में निर्णायक रूप से कुछ कह पाना संभव नहीं है क्योंकि हर्षचरित के अनुसार शकराज ‘अरिपुर’ में मारा गया था, जबकि भोज के शृंगारप्रकाश में ‘अलिपुर ’ में। मजमल-उत-तवारीख से भी पता चलता है कि युद्ध किसी पहाड़ी पर हुआ था। कुछ इतिहासकारों के अनुसार पंजाब के कांगड़ा जिले में अलिपुर नामक एक पहाड़ी किला है और इसी स्थान पर रामगुप्त और शकों के साथ युद्ध हुआ था। काव्यमीमांसा में युद्ध का स्थान ‘कार्तिकेयनगर ’ बताया गया है जिसकी पहचान भंडारकर ने अल्मोड़ा जिले के आधुनिक बैजनाथ गाँव से किया है जिसका नाम आज भी कार्तिकेयनगर है। कार्तिकेयनगर वस्तुतः प्रयाग-प्रशस्ति का कर्त्तपुर (कतुरियाराज) है जो समुद्रगुप्त का प्रत्यन्त राज्य था।
शकपति की पहचान
शकराज की पहचान भी विवादग्रस्त है। राखालदास बनर्जी, आर.एन. दंडेकर, दशरथ शर्मा जैसे इतिहासकार शकराज की पहचान दैवपुत्रषाहि-षाहानुषाहि जैसे किसी उत्तरवर्ती कुषाण नरेश के रूप में करते हैं। किंतु अल्तेकर के अनुसार आरंभिक गुप्तकाल में शक और कुषाण दोनों विद्यमान थे और रामगुप्त का शक प्रतिद्वंद्वी कोई शक शासक ही रहा होगा। स्रोतों से पता चलता है कि चौथी शताब्दी ई. में पश्चिमी भारत में शक-सत्ता का उत्थान हो रहा था, इसलिए अधिक संभावना यही है कि रामगुप्त का प्रतिद्वंद्वी कोई शक शासक ही रहा होगा। चंद्रगुप्त द्वितीय के उदयगिरि गुहालेख तथा उसकी रजत मुद्राओं से पता चलता है कि उसने पश्चिमी भारत के शकों का उन्मूलन किया था। संभवतः चंद्रगुप्त का यह अभियान ध्रुवदेवी की माँग का बदला लेने के लिए ही किया गया था।
ऐतिहासिकता की समीक्षा (Review of the Historicity of Ramgupta)
कुछ इतिहासकार रामगुप्त की ऐतिहासिकता पर विश्वास नहीं करते हैं। सिलवां लेवी के अनुसार रामगुप्त उपाख्यान ऐतिहासिक यथार्थ से कोसों दूर है। स्मिथ का मानना है कि देवीचंद्रगुप्तम् का वर्णन कलंकपूर्ण कथामात्रा है, जिसे ऐतिहासिक नहीं माना जा सकता है। रायचौधरी के अनुसार देवीचंद्रगुप्तम् जैसे नाटकों को किसी ऐतिहासिक निष्कर्ष का आधार बनाना उचित नहीं है। रमेशचंद्र मजूमदार भी रामगुप्त की ऐतिहासिकता को सन्दिग्ध मानते हैं।
रामगुप्त की ऐतिहासिकता का विरोध करने वाले इन विद्वानों के अनुसार रामगुप्त का न तो कोई लेख मिला है और न ही कोई स्वर्ण या रजत मुद्रा। साहित्यिक प्रमाण भी परस्पर विरोधी हैं। गुप्तवंशीय लेखों में चंद्रगुप्त को समुद्रगुप्त को ‘तत्परिगृहीत ' Having said. इससे लगता है कि वह अपने पिता द्वारा उत्तराधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया था।
किंतु गुप्तलेखों में रामगुप्त का उल्लेख न मिलने का कारण यह है कि इनमें मात्रा मूलवंश का ही नाम मिलता है। रामगुप्त के कोई पुत्र नहीं था, इसलिए रामगुप्त के भाई या उसके वंशजों के लेखों में उसका नाम नहीं मिलता है। अब तो रामगुप्त के लेख भी मिल गये हैं। जहाँ तक रामगुप्त के स्वर्ण तथा रजत मुद्राओं की अनुपस्थिति का प्रश्न है, संभवतः इसका कारण रामगुप्त का अल्पकालीन शासन था, इसलिए उसे स्वर्ण और रजत मुद्रा के प्रचलन का अवसर नहीं मिला। अल्तेकर जैसे विद्वान् मानते हैं कि काच नामक शासक के सिक्के वस्तुतः रामगुप्त के ही सिक्के हैं। काव्यमीमांसा को छोड़कर सभी साहित्यिक प्रमाण विरोधी न होकर एक-दूसरे के पूरक हैं। इतिहासकारों ने स्मृतियों के आधार पर चंद्रगुप्त द्वारा रामगुप्त की हत्या और उसकी भार्या ध्रुवदेवी से विवाह को भी शास्त्रसंगत माना है। गुप्तकालीन रचना नारद स्मृति के अनुसार पाँच परिस्थितियों में स्त्री पुनर्विवाह कर सकती है- पति का पता न होने, मृत हो जाने, संन्यास ग्रहण कर लेने, क्लीव हो जाने एवं समाज बहिष्कृत हो जाने पर-
नष्टे मृते प्रवजिते च क्लीवे पतिते पतौ।
पंचस्वापत्सुनारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते।।
देवीचंद्रगुप्तम् के अनुसार रामगुप्त का आचरण क्लीवजनोचित था, इसलिए चंद्रगुप्त का ध्रुवदेवी के साथ विवाह शास्त्रसंगत और न्यायोचित था। लेखों में प्रयुक्त ‘तत्परिगृहीत’ और ‘तत्पादानुध्यात’ जैसे शब्द मात्र सम्राट के प्रति निष्ठा के सूचक हैं और इनका प्रयोग कभी-कभी सामंत भी करते थे।
इस प्रकार अब रामगुप्त की ऐतिहासिकता को असंदिग्ध रूप से स्वीकार कर लिया जाना चाहिए। एरण लेख से पता चलता है कि समुद्रगुप्त के कई पुत्र (मुदिता-बहुपुत्र-पौत्र) थे। रामगुप्त समुद्रगुप्त का बड़ा पुत्र था, जो चंद्रगुप्त द्वितीय के पहले कुछ समय तक शासन किया था।
रामगुप्त को कायर और क्लीव मानकर उसके व्यक्तित्व का मूल्यांकन करना उचित नहीं है। संभवतः वह समुद्रगुप्त की भीषण रक्तपात की नीति की स्वाभाविक प्रतिक्रिया का शिकार हो गया। उसकी परिस्थितियाँ निंदनीय थी, न कि पुरुषरूप में वह स्वयं। वह महत्त्वाकांक्षी चंद्रगुप्त द्वितीय की कूटनीति का शिकार हो गया और विशाखदत्त ने जानबूझ कर उसके चरित्र को कमजोर और निर्बल सिद्ध किया ताकि चंद्रगुप्त के अनुचित कार्यों का औचित्य सिद्ध किया जा सके। श्रीराम गोयल का अनुमान है कि रामगुप्त अपने पिता के समय में पूर्वी मालवा का शासक था। समुद्रगुप्त की मृत्यु के बाद चंद्रगुप्त ने साम्राज्य के शेष भाग पर अधिकार कर लिया और रामगुप्त मात्र मालवा का ही शासक रह गया। इसी समय शकों ने रामगुप्त पर आक्रमण किया, जिसका लाभ उठाते हुए चंद्रगुप्त ने पूर्वी मालवा पर आक्रमण कर दिया और रामगुप्त को मारकर चंद्रगुप्त संपूर्ण गुप्त साम्राज्य का स्वामी बन बैठा।