| Chandragupta I | |
|---|---|
| Maharajadhiraja | |
 A coin depicting Chandragupta andKumaradevi. The name   (  )Chandra(-gupta) appears vertically under the left arm of the emperor. This unique coin type of Chandragupta I was probably issued by his successorSamudragupta as a commemorative issue.[1][2][3] | |
| Maharajadhiraja of the Gupta Empire | |
| Reign | c. 319–335 CE |
| Coronation | 26 February 320[4] |
| Predecessor | Ghatotkacha |
| Successor | Samudragupta |
| Died | 335 CE |
| Consort | Kumaradevi |
| Issue | Samudragupta, PossiblyKacha |
| House | Gupta Empire |
| Dynasty | Gupta |
| Father | Ghatotkacha |
| Religion | Hinduism |
Mahārājadhirāja Shrī Chandragupta ("Great King of Kings, Lord Chandragupta") in theGupta script, in theSamudragupta inscription on theAllahabad pillar.[5]| Gupta Empire 320 CE–550 CE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chandragupta I (Gupta script:Cha-ndra-gu-pta, r. c. 319–335 CE) was a monarch of theGupta Empire, who ruled in northern and central India. His title Mahārājadhirāja ("Great king of kings") suggests that he was the first suzerain ruler of the dynasty. It is not certain how he turned his small ancestral kingdom into an empire, although a widely accepted theory among modern historians is that his marriage to theLicchavi princess Kumaradevi helped him extend his political power. Their sonSamudragupta further expanded the Gupta Empire.
Chandragupta was a son of the Gupta kingGhatotkacha, and a grandson of the dynasty's founderGupta, both of whom are calledMaharaja ("great king") in theAllahabad Pillar inscription. Chandragupta assumed the titleMaharajadhiraja ( "great king of kings") and issued gold coins, which suggests that he was the first imperial ruler of the dynasty.[6][7]
Chandragupta certainly reigned in the first quarter of the 4th century CE, but the exact period of his reign is uncertain.[8] His assumption of the titleMaharajadhiraja has led to suggestions that he founded theGupta calendar era, and that the epoch of this era marks his coronation.[9] Based on this argument, several historians, includingV. A. Smith and P. L. Gupta, date Chandragupta's ascension to 319–320 CE, which they believe to be the beginning of the Gupta era.[10] However, this is merely an assumption, and the identity of the founder of the Gupta era is not certain.[11] Some historians, such asD. C. Sircar andR. C. Majumdar, theorize that the Gupta era marks the coronation of his son Samudragupta.[12]S. R. Goyal theorizes that the era was started by the later kingChandragupta II, but its beginning was dated to Samudragupta's ascension.[9]
Chandragupta I probably had a long reign, as the Allahabad 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 debated.[13]
Various estimates for Chandragupta's reign include:
Chandragupta married the Lichchhavi princess Kumaradevi.Licchavi is the name of an ancient clan that was headquartered atVaishali in present-dayBihar during the time ofGautama Buddha. ALichchhavi kingdom existed in the present-dayNepal in the first millennium CE. However, the identity of Kumaradevi's Lichchhavi kingdom is not certain.[16]
An 8th-century inscription of the Lichchhavi dynasty of Nepal claims that their legendary ancestor Supushpa was born in the royal family of Pushpapura, that is,Pataliputra inMagadha. According to some historians, such asV. A. Smith, the Lichchhavis ruled at Pataliputra during Samudragupta's time. However, this inscription states that Supushpa ruled 38 generations before the 5th-century kingManadeva, that is, centuries before Chandragupta's period. Therefore, the claim made in this inscription, even if true, cannot be taken as concrete evidence of the Lichchhavi rule at Pataliputra during Chandragupta's time.[16]
The Lichchhavi kingdom of Kumaradevi is unlikely to have been located in present-day Nepal because Samudragupta'sAllahabad Pillar inscription mentions Nepala (that is, Nepal) as a distinct, subordinate kingdom. Given the lack of any other evidence, historianR. C. Majumdar assumed that during Chandragupta's time, the Lichchhavis ruled at Vaishali, which is the only other base of the clan known from the historical records.[16]
The gold coins attributed to Chandragupta bear portraits of Chandragupta and Kumaradevi, and the legendLichchhavayah ("the Lichchhavis").[6][17] Their son Samudragupta is described asLichchhavi-dauhitra ("Lichchhavi daughter's son") in the Gupta inscriptions.[17] Except Kumaradevi, these inscriptions do not mention the paternal family of the dynasty's queens, which suggests that the Gupta family considered Kumaradevi's marriage to Chandragupta an important event.[7]
NumismatistJohn Allan theorized that Chandragupta defeated a Lichchhavi kingdom headquartered at Vaishali, and that Kumaradevi's marriage to him happened as part of a peace treaty.[6] He suggested that the Guptas considered this marriage a prestigious one simply because of the ancient lineage of the Lichchhavis.[7] However, the ancient textManusamhita regards the Lichchhavis as "unorthodox and impure" (vratya). Therefore, it is unlikely that the Guptas proudly mentioned Samudragupta's Lichchhavi ancestry to increase their social prestige.[17] Also, it is unlikely that the Guptas allowed the name of the Lichchhavis to appear on the dynasty's coins after defeating them.[18]
It is more likely that the marriage helped Chandragupta extend his political power and dominions, enabling him to adopt the titleMaharajadhiraja.[7] The appearance of the Lichchhavis' name on the coins is probably symbolic of their contribution to the expansion of the Gupta power.[19] After the marriage, Chandragupta probably became the ruler of the Lichchhavi territories. Alternatively, it is possible that the Gupta and the Lichchhavi states formed a union, with Chandragupta and Kumaradevi being regarded as the sovereign rulers of their respective states, until the reign of their son Samudragupta, who became the sole ruler of the united kingdom.[17]
Little is known about Chandragupta other than his ancestry, his marriage, and his expansion of the Gupta power, as evident from his titleMaharajadhiraja.[8] The territorial extent of Chandragupta's kingdom is not known, but it must have been substantially larger than that of the earlier Gupta kings, as Chandragupta bore the titleMaharajadhiraja.[20] Modern historians have attempted to determine the extent of his kingdom based on the information from thePuranas and theAllahabad Pillar inscription issued by his son Samudragupta.[22]
The Allahabad Pillar inscription names several kings subjugated by Samudragupta. Based on the identity of these kings, several modern historians have tried to determine the extent of the territory that he must have inherited from Chandragupta. For example, since the king of the northern part of theBengal region is not mentioned among the kings subjugated by Samudragupta, these historians theorize that northern Bengal was a part of Chandragupta's kingdom. However, such conclusions cannot be made with certainty, as the identity of several of the kings subjugated by Samudragupta is a matter of debate.[20] Nevertheless, the information from the inscription can be used to determine the territories that were not a part of Chandragupta's kingdom:[23]
A passage in theVayu Purana states that the Guptas ruled over Saketa (modernAyodhya),Prayaga, andMagadha. Based on this, multiple modern scholars have theorized that Chandragupta ruled over these territories.[20] However, this conclusion is not certain, as theVayu Purana does not mention the name of a specific ruler.[26] Scholars critical of this theory argue that the passage describes the territories of either the dynasty's founderGupta or its 6th century rulers who oversaw the kingdom's decline.[27] Critics also point out that the corresponding passage in theVishnu Purana states that the Guptas and the Magadhas jointly ruled over Prayaga and Magadha, and does not mention Saketa at all. The corresponding passage in the various manuscripts ofBhagavata Purana either does not mention the word "Gupta", or uses it as a common noun meaning "protected" instead of using it as the name of a specific dynasty. Even somes manuscripts of theVayu Purana use the words "Guhya", "Sapta" or "Manidhanyaka" instead of "Gupta".[20] Supporters of the theory dismiss these as scribal mistakes. Historian Ashvini Agrawal argues that theVayu Purana passage cannot be a reference to the Gupta territories during the empire's period of decline, as it does not mention Bengal, which formed a part of the Gupta kingdom during this period.[23]
According to historianR. C. Majumdar, Chandragupta's kingdom may have included the whole of present-day Bihar, and a part of present-dayUttar Pradesh andBengal.[20] Historian Dilip Kumar Ganguly believes that he ruled a large kingdom extending fromAllahabad in the west to the Ganga river in Bengal in the east; the kingdom excluded south-eastern Bengal (Samatata), southern Bengal (Vanga), eastern Bengal, and western Bengal (the kingdom ofChandravarman).[21] Historian Ashvini Agarwal states that his kingdom included central and eastern Uttar Pradesh (includingPrayaga andAwadh), and Bihar; but not Bengal.[24]
/Cha-ndra/gu-pta vertically.
𑁊Li-ccha-va-yah.[28]Gold coins bearing portraits of Chandragupta and Kumaradevi have been discovered atMathura,Ayodhya,Lucknow,Sitapur,Tanda,Ghazipur, andVaranasi inUttar Pradesh;Bayana inRajasthan; andHajipur inBihar. The obverse of these coins depicts portraits of Chandragupta and Kumaradevi, with their names in theGupta script. The reverse shows a goddess seated on a lion, with the legend "Li-ccha-va-yah" (𑁊, "the Lichchhavis").[17][6]
Various scholars, including numismatistJohn Allan, have considered that the gold coins bearing the portraits of Chandragupta and Kumaradevi were issued bySamudragupta to commemorate his parents,[1][29] while others have attributed the issue of these coins to Chandragupta himself,[17][30] or even suggested that these coins were issued by the Lichchhavis.[31]
V. S. Pathak theorized that the coins show the royal couple in thevaivahika (nuptial) pose, but there is no concrete evidence that the coins depict the royal wedding.[32]S.V. Sohoni theorized that the coins depicted Chandragupta taking leave of Kumaradevi while going on a military campaign, but this is doubtful given the lack of a phrase indicative of military prowess (unlike the coins of their son Samudragupta).[31] The coins probably simply depict Chandragupta and Kumaradevi as joint rulers.[22]
The identity of the female figure appearing on the reverse of these coins is uncertain.[33] It is unlikely that she was a Gupta queen, as the depiction of a female figure seated on a lion is characteristic of a goddess in historical art of India. Some historians, such asA. S. Altekar, have identified the goddess asDurga.[34] However, although Durga is often represented as seated on a lion, this attribute is not unique to her:Lakshmi has also been depicted as seated on a lion. For example,Hemadri's works mentionSimha-vahini ("having lion as hervahana") Lakshmi, and images fromKhajuraho depictSimha-vahiniGajalakshmi.[35] Some scholars, such asJohn Allan, have identified the goddess on the coins as Lakshmi, who is the goddess of fortune and the wife ofVishnu. She may have been featured on the coins as a symbol of the Guptas' royal prosperity, or as a mark of theirVaishnavite affiliation, but this cannot be said with certainty.[34] The goddess may also have been a tutelary goddess of the Lichchhavis, whose name appears below her image, but this cannot be said with certainty either.[35][36]
TheAllahabad Pillar inscription and theEran stone inscription ofSamudragupta state that his father Chandragupta selected him as the next king. The Allahabad Pillar inscription states that Chandragupta appointed him to "protect the earth", which suggests that Chandragupta renounced the throne in his old age, and appointed his son as the next king.[37]
The discovery of the coins issued by a Gupta ruler namedKacha have led to some debate about Chandragupta's successor. According to one theory, Kacha was another name for Samudragupta. Another theory is that Kacha was the elder brother of Samudragupta, and succeeded their father Chandragupta.[38]
TheKaliyuga-raja-vrttanta section of theBhavishyottara Purana mentions that Kacha was a son of Chandragupta I from aLicchavi princess.[39] It describes Kacha as jointly ruling with his father, and states that Samudragupta killed their father.[40] However, these passages (and possibly the entire text) are a modern forgery.[41]
