________________
118
/
Jijrasa
did nct agree with Jayaswal's view that Pravarasena I was the lord paramount of almost the whole of India and Chandragupta I, and in the beginning even Samudragupta, were his feudatories. He also vehemently opposed Jayaswal's view that Samudragupta defeated and killed Rudrasena I Vākātaka but supported the theory of considerable Gupta influence on the Vākāțaka court during the regency of Prabha ari guptă. According to him, during the reign of Narendrasena the Vākāļakas were invaded and defeated by the Nalas of South Kosala, but very soon recovered the lost ground so much so that the king of Mckalā and the Gupta feudatory of Mālava region accepted his suzerainty. His son Prthivisena ll faced the invasion of the Traikatakas successfully. Altekar also gave an outline of the history of the Basim branch of the Vākätakas."
V lo 1947 R. C. Majumdār published a significant paper in which he proposed quite different dates for the accession of Prthivisena I (circa 375 A.D.), Rudrasena Il (circa 400 A.D.), Divākarasena (circa 420 A.D.), Dāmodarasena (circa 435 A.D.), Pravarasena II (circa 450 A.D.), Narendrasena (circa 480 A.D.) and Prthivishena II (circa 505 A.D.).26 This chronology is based on the evidence of the Rithapur plates issued in the nineteenth regnal year of Pravarasena II, which describe the dowagerqueen Prabhāvariguptă as sāgra-varsha-sata-diva-putra-pauträ. According to Majumdār, this passage means that Prabhāvatiguptä lived for more than a hundred years and had sons and grandsons living at that tiine. If she lived for more than hundred years she must have survived her brother Kumāragupta I whose reign came to an end in 455 A.D. According to Majumdar, this fact is quite significant, for it implies that Prabhāvatigupia was born not later than 365 A.D., that Pravarasena l ascended the throne not much before 440 AD, and thai Prabhävaliguplä became a widow in circa 420 A.D. when she was not less than 55. Hence, the generally accepted view that Rudrasena II died in circa 390 A.D. during the life-time of the Gupta emperor Chandragupta II is not correct. On the basis of his chronology of these Vākāçaka rulers Majumdar determined the date of Vindhyasakti I, the founder of the dynasty, as 250 A.D. and put the reign of its last king Pythivsena II between 505 and 540 A.D. Majumdār also opines that Prabhāvotīguptă had three sons : Diväkarasena (420 A.D.) for whom Prabhāvalīguptā ruled as regent for at least 13 years, Dāmodarasena (circa 435 A.D.) who ruled before Pravarasena II and Pravarasena II himself. D. C. Sircar has followed Majumdār closely but has placed the death of Rudrasena Il in circa 400 A.D. and the reign of Pravarasena II in the middle of the fifth century AD. In between he places the period of the regency of Prabhāvatīgupta and a 'fairly long reign' of Dämodarascna.28
VI
1954 saw the publication of another edited work entitled The History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. III: The Classical Age by R. C. Majumdār and A. D. Pusalker in which D.C. Sircar gave a systematic exposition of his studies on the Vākārakas in the chapter Deccan in the Gupta Age'. The importance of his chapter lies in the fact that it reconstructs the history of the Vākātakas on the basis of the chronology adopted by Majumdār and Sircar. According to Sircar, the fact that the family is not called Samrāt-Vakätaka with reference to any ruler after Pravarasena I may be due to the waning of their power as a result of the division of the empire.29 But he does not believe that Rudrasena I was defeated by Samudragupta. "It is possible", he opines, "that Rudrasena I flourished before the victorious advance of Samudragupta in Central India."30 But he accepts that it is not improbable that the Vākātaka king (that is, Prthivisena I) was ousted from his Central Indian possessions by the
