________________
370
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XIV.
It is, therefore, certain that it is hardly possible to identify Chandragupta I of the early Gupta dynasty with king Chandra of the Moharauli pillar inscription. We may now revert to Mr. Basak's question as to whether we possess any evidence which indicates that Bengal was at any time in the possession of Chandravarman. The answer is in the affirmative. We have evidence of the possession of a part, at least, of Bengal by Chandravarman in the Susuniä rock inscription of Chandravarman, son of Sirhavarman, king of Pushkarana.1 Mr. Basak has taken this inscription to be a pilgrim's record without assigning sufficient reasons. So far as is known, there is no evidence to prove that Susuni, hill was at any time a place for pilgrimage of sufficient importance to draw devotees from the Western end of India. No remains have been found on the hill which might indicate that there was any famous shrine on this hill or near the inscription. It is very difficult to understand why Mr. Basak takes this inscription to be the record of a pilgrimage of king Chandravarman of Pushkaraná simply because he carved the discus of Vishậu on a hill of Western Bengal. The inscription proves that a king named Chandravarman from Pushkaraņā (modern Pokharan in the Jodhpur State) had come as far as Western Bengal proper and left his mark there in the form of a short record with one of the emblems of his principal deity incised on the hill, the only prominent landmark in the country, which is perhaps the only hill in Bengal proper. Let us connect the fact gleaned from this very short record with those obtained from the Méharauli inscription of Chandra. The latter speaks of a king named Chandra, who had defeated a combination of his enemies in the Vanga countries. The full name of king Chandra may be either Chandranátha, Chandravarman or Chandragupta. In the Susuniã inscription we have a confirmation of one of the statements of the Méharauli inscription that a king named Chandravarman hact left the mark of his visit in Bengal. Then, both inscriptions are Vaishnava; king Chandra had raised a staff of Vishņu on the Vishộupada hill, while Chandravarman had incised the wheel of Vishņu on the Susunia hill. Whereas it is impossible to identify this Chandra with Chandragupta I of the early Gupta dynasty, the only alternative left open is to identify this Chandra of the Moharauli pillar inscription with Chandravarman, son of Simhavarman, of the Susuniā rock inscription. The statement of the Méharauli pillar inscription fits in very well with the case of Chandravarman, as he must have had a long reign.
The mention of Chandravarman among the chieftains of Aryävarta, who were uprooted by Samudragupta, shows that that dynasty had come to an end in the North. Subsequent inscriptions prove that two more generations continued to rule independently in Western Mālava and the dynasty was finally subjugated during the reign of Kumāragupta I. In this connection certain inaccuracies which Mr. Basak has used to refute the statements of Mahāmahopadhyaya Hara-Prasad śāstri should be considered :
The first of these is Mr. Basak's idea of the extent of the dominion of the early Guptas in Málava. He says: "We know from Epigraphic records that in A.D. 404 Chandragupta II was on the Imperial Gupta throne. Hence we may safely suppose that Mahāraja Naravarman was Chandragupta II's feudatory in the Western regions." The Mandasor inscription of Naravarman contains no reference to the suzerainty of the Gupta dynasty, and it is hardly correct to Buprose that he had submitted to the Guptas. The only possible conclusion is that Naravarman had somehow or other evaded the yoke of the Guptas down to the year 461 V.E.=404 A.D. The Gangdhar inscription of his son Visvavarmans clearly proves that Naravarman maintained bis independence throughout and did not submit to the Guptas.
In the second of these extraordinary statements Mr. Basak asks us to believe that both Viévavarman and his son Bandhuvarman were feudatories of Kumāragupta I. He says: "We
\ Epi. Ind., Vol. XIII, p. 133.
Ind. Ant., Vol. XLVIII, p. 98. • Floot's Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III, pp. 74-76.
