________________
120
! Jijāsā
Gupta cvar Sanakálina Rūjavainsa in which he gave a detailed account of the political history of the Vakarakas in over forty pages (its revised version under the title Gupta aur Vākāțaka Sämrājyon kā Yuga appeared in 1988). As regards the Vākāțaka chronology, Goyal, with minor modifications, supports Altckar's scheme and gives several new arguments to prove its correctness. But his reconstruction of the history of the Vakatakas is significantly different from that of Altekar and Mirāshi in several respects. He has criticised both Alirashi and Altekar on the question of the original home of the l'äkärukus. He has pointed out that there could not have been any connection between the .Vākātaka householder of the Amarāvarī inscription and the royal dynasty of the Vākātakas. He has also pointed out that the titles and the technical terms found in the Vākājaka records, to which attention has been drawn by Mirăshi, are all found only in the epigraphs of the Basim branch which flourished in the South and was greatly influenced by the southern traditions; they are conspicuous by their absence in the records of the main branch. Therefore, if it is argued that the occurrence of such titles and technical terms proves che southern origin of the Vakātakas, then why their absence in the records of the main branch should not be regarded as a proof of their northern origin?38
Goval gives a new interpretation of the phrase Bhavanäga-dauhitra occurring for Rudrasena I in the Vükaka records to show that Bhavanäga and Pravarasena I had forged a scheme by which after them the Näga and Vākätaka kingdoms were to merge and Rudrasena I was to succeed both of them, just as in the North Samudragupta, the Lichchhari-dauhitra. was designated as the successor of both Chandraguptal and the Lichchhavi chief, the father of Kumaradevi. Savs Goyal :
..as is well-known Caca r a predeceased his father Pravarasena I, for we find that the latter was succeeded by Rudrasena I, the son of Gautamiputra. It is very curious, because after the demise of Gautamiputra Pra varasena I should have been Succeeded by the ckiest of his remaining three sons.... No scholar has so far felt the necessity to explain this rader unusual fact. We, however, feel that its explanation lies in the correct interpretation of the phrase Bhavanaga-dauhitra used for Rudrasena 1... Manu says that dan hitra, in the absence of (natural) son, inherits the whole property and offer's pincas both to the natural father and maternal grandfather (if he adopts him as subsidiary son of dauhitra category). ... It makes it quite reasonable to believe that in the beginning of the fourth century A.D. Bhavanaga, who probably did not have a male issue to succeed him, gave bis daughter in marriage to Gautamiputra, the Hakutaka crown-prince, on the understanding that his (Bhavanāga's) daughter's son would be his subsidiary son of dauhirra category. Pravarasena i readily accepted his proposal... (and) when his son Gautamiputra died a premature death, he nominated Rudrasena i, the son of Gautamiputra and the grandson of Bhavanaga, as his own successor as well. For, had Pravarasena l been succeeded by any one of his remaining three sons, the two empires could not be amaigamnated. ... Now, how far (this plan
succeeded) is another matter....” This suggestion of Goyal cogently explains as to why in the main branch Pravarasena I was succeeded by his grandson Rudrasena I though his other son Sarvasena was alive.
Goyal differs radically from Altekar and N/irāshi on the problem of the Vakātaka-Gupta relations also. As opposed to the view of Altekar, Mirăshi and others, he is of the opinion that Jayaswal's basic suggestion about the identification of Rudrasena I with Rudradeva of the Prayāga prasasti (shorn of his other suggestions regarding the achievements of the Vākātakas, their relations with the Pallavas
