________________
634 POLITICAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT INDIA
described as overlords of Navyāvakāśikā, Vāraka-mandala, and, in one case, of Varddamāna-bhukti (Burdwan Division). The Vappaghoshavāța inscription introduces to us a fourth king, viz., Jayanāga, who ruled at Karņasuvarņa. These kings are, however, not expressly referred to as Gaudas. The earliest king, to whom that epithet is applied is the famous Saśānka, the great rival of Rājya-vardhana of Thanesar and his brother Harsha. The title Mahārājādhirāja assumed by the Bengal kings mentioned above, leaves no room for doubt that they no longer acknowledged the suzerainty of the Guptas and set themselves up as independent sovereigns.
The uprising of the Pushyamitras, the invasions of the Huns and the intransigentism of provincial governors and feudatories, were not the only sources of trouble to the Guptas in the last days of their sovereignty. Along with foreign inroads and provincial insubordination we should not fail to take note of the dissensions in the Imperial family itself. The theory of a struggle amongst the sons of Kumāra Gupta I may or may not be true, but there is evidence to show that the descendants of Chandra Gupta II did not pull on well together, and the later kings who bore the Gupta name sometimes took opposite sides in the struggles and convulsions of the period. The later imperial Guptas do not seem to have been on friendly terms with their Vākāțaka cousins. Narendrasena Vākāțaka, a great-grandson of Chandragupta II through his daughter Prabhāvati, seems to have come into hostile contact with the lord of Mālava. Narendrasena's cousin Harishena claims victories over Avanti. Inasmuch as the Guptas are associated with parts of Mālava as late as the time of Harsha, some of the victories gained by the Vākāțakas must have been won over their Gupta cousins. In the seventh century A.D. Deva Gupta appears as an enemy of Harsha's family, while Mādhava Gupta was a friend.
Lastly, it is interesting to note that while the earlier Guptas were staunch Brāhmanists, some of whom did not scruple to
kalpa, ed, G. Šāstri, p. 637). It is not altogether improbable that Dhakārākhya (ibid, p. 644) is identical with Dharmāditya. Was he a younger brother (anuja) of Vakārākhya (Vajra) and Pakārākhya (Prakatāditya)? If this surmise turns out to be correct he may have belonged to the Gupta line.
