________________
624 POLÍTICAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT INDIA
(ii) Inscriptions discovered in the Barābar and Nāgārjuni
hill caves disclose the existence of another line of Maukhari "Varmans" who were feudatory (sāmanta) chiefs of the Gayä district in the time of the later Guptas.
. (iii) Yuan Chwang who visited Magadha in the time of
Harsha mentions Pūrņa-varman as the occupant of the throne of Magadha." He does not say a word about Madhava Gupta or his father in connection
with Magadha. (iv) Bāņa indeed, refers to Madhava Gupta, the, asso
ciate of Harsha, but he expressly mentions his father as the king of Mālava, and not of Magadha. The existence of two associates of Harsha, each bearing the name of Mādhava Gupta, one of whom was the son of a king of Magadha, is not known
to the biographer of the great emperor. From the evidence adduced above two facts emerge, viz., that the father of the only Mādhava Gupta whom the biographer of Harsha knew to be the associate of his royal patron, was a king of Mālava, and that before Harsha's conquest of the province in A. D. 641," direct control over Magadha was exercised, not by the Guptas, but by the "Varmans". The memory of "Varman" adhipatya (supremacy) over Magadha had not died away even in the time of the Sirpur stone inscription of Mahāśiva Gupta.
The only relevant argument that Professor Banerji urged against the view that Mahāsena Gupta, the father of Madhava Gupta, the associate of Harsha, was "probably" 3 a king of Mālava, is that "it was impossible for a king of Mālava to reach the banks of the Lauhitya without strenuous opposition from the kings" who governed the intervening region. But how did Professor. Banerji solve the problem ? By making Mahāsena Gupta king of Magadha, and assuming that "Assam
1 Watters, III, 115. 2 Ind. Ant., IX, 19. 3 Political History of Ancient India, Second Edition, p. 373.
