Ramagupta (IAST: Rāma-gupta; r. c. late 4th century CE), according to the Sanskrit play Devichandraguptam, was an emperor of the Gupta dynasty of northern India. The surviving fragments of the play, combined with other literary evidence, suggest that he agreed to surrender his wife Dhruvadevi to a Indo-Scythians enemy: However, his brother Chandragupta II killed the Shaka enemy, and later dethroned him, marrying Dhruvadevi.
The official Gupta genealogy does not mention Ramagupta, and therefore, the historicity of the Devichandraguptam narrative is debated. Several other sources refer to the events mentioned in the play, but these sources do not mention Ramagupta by name, and may be based on the play itself. Three undated inscriptions, written in a variety of the Gupta script and discovered in central India, mention a king called Ramagupta: this seems to attest the existence of a Gupta emperor named Ramagupta, although it does not conclusively prove the historicity of the Devichandraguptam story. Some coins discovered in central India have also been attributed to Ramagupta, but this attribution has not been unanimously accepted by modern historians.
Ramagupta is mentioned in the Sanskrit-language play Devichandraguptam. The original text of the play is now lost, but its extracts survive in other works. Several later literary and epigraphic sources corroborate the narrative of Devichandraguptam, although they do not mention Ramagupta by name (see ).
After the extracts of Devichandraguptam were first discovered by Sylvain Levi and R. Saraswati in 1923, Ramagupta's historicity became a matter of debate among historians. Some scholars, including Levi, dismissed Devichandraguptam as unreliable for the purposes of history. Others, such as RD Banerji and Henry Heras argued that the additional literary evidence was too strong to dismiss Ramagupta as a fictional character, and hoped that his existence would be proved by discovery of his coins in future. Subsequently, some scholars such as K. D. Bajpai attributed a few copper coins discovered in central India to Ramagupta, but others, such as D. C. Sircar disputed this attribution (see Coinage) below. Later, three Jainism statue inscriptions referring to Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta were discovered at Durjanpur, and have been cited as proof for the existence of the king mentioned in the Devichandraguptam (see Inscriptions below).
According to the play, Ramagupta decided to surrender his wife Dhruvadevi (or Dhruva-svamini) to a Saka enemy, but his younger brother Chandragupta II went to the enemy camp disguised as the queen, and killed the enemy. According to the Devichandraguptam passage quoted in Bhoja's Shringara-Prakasha, the enemy camp was located at Alipura. Banabhatta's Harshacharita calls the place "Aripura" (literally "enemy's city"); one manuscript of Harsha-charita calls the place "Nalinapura".
The identity of Ramagupta's "Saka" (IAST: Śaka) enemy is not certain. Proposed identifications include:
Based on the Jain statue inscriptions (see #Inscriptions below), historian Tej Ram Sharma speculates that Ramagupta may have adopted "a peaceful style of life" after his humiliation by the Shaka enemy, which may explain his inclination towards Jainism.
Later, Chandragputa appears to have killed Ramagupta and married Dhruvadevi, who is mentioned as Chandragupta's queen in the Gupta records.
| A: Statue of Chandraprabha | Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Face of the left-hand attendant figure damaged, Inscription well-preserved and complete. | Bhagavatorhataḥ Candraprabhasya pratime-yaṃ kāritā ma- harājadhirāja-śri-Rāmaguptena upadeśāt-Pāṇipā- trika-Candrakṣamacā- ryya-kṣamaṇa-śramana-praśiṣya-acāryya Sarppasena-kṣamaṇa-śiṣyasya Golakyāntyā-satputraasya Celūkṣamaṇasyeti |
| B: Statue of Pushpadanta | Face of the tirthankara completely damaged, Attendant and prabhavali portions well-preserved, Last two lines of the inscription damaged. | Bhagavatorhataḥ Puṣpadantasya pratime-yaṃ kāritā ma- harājadhirāja-śri-Rāmaguptena upadeśāt-Pāṇipātrika- Candrakṣamanācāryya-kṣamaṇa-śramana-praśiṣya ... ti |
| C: Statue of Chandraprabha | Face of the tirthankara partially preserved, Attendant and prabhavali portions completely lost, Inscription erased (though some words and letters can be reconstructed based on the other two inscriptions). | Bhagavatorhataḥ Candraprabhasya pratime-yaṃ kāritā maharājadhirāja- śri-Rāmaguptena upadeśāt-Pāṇipātri ... |
Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu-kshamana (IAST: Celū-kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena-kshamana, who in turn, was a pupil's pupil of Chandra-kshamana.
These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor:
However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II.
However, historian D. C. Sircar doesn't find Bajpai's theory convincing, and states that the issuer of these coins may have been a local chief of imitated Gupta coinage after the decline of the Gupta dynast in the late 5th century CE. Sircar points out that a non-Gupta ruler named Harigupta is known to have issued copper coins that feature a garuda, and imitate the gold coins of Chandragupta II. Coins of another such imitator, named Indragupta, have been discovered at Kumhrar. Sircar also notes that other Gupta emperors are known to have issued gold coins, but no gold coins issued by Ramagupta have been discovered.
|
|