________________
180
Sudarshan Kumar Sharma
defeated with ridiculous case by Rajyavardhana. But Dr. R.S. Trathi treats Devagupta as the son of Mahasenagupta who formed an alliance with Sasanka of Bengal and advanced against Grahvarma Maukhart of Kathu Whom he killed. The murder was, however, soon avenged by Rajyavardhana, for hé in turn vanquished and perhaps slew Devagupta. A sefon of this family hamed Madhavagupta, was subsequently placed by Harvardhana in Magadha as his feudatory or Viceroy, so that he might be a bulwark against the aggression of Sasanka, 25.
These statements of various scholors are based upon the forced imposition on Mahsenagupta the suzerainty of Malava which does not appear to be more plausible. In case Mahäsenagupta is to be deemed the 'Malavaraja of Bana who had two sons Kumaragupta and Madhavagupta we may be constrained to identify Devagupta as Kumardgupta the elder son of Mahasena Gupta bearing Devagupta as a variant name. But Bana nowhere. styles Mälavarāja as Mahāsenagupta. He has neithamed Devagupta nor Mahsenagupta as 'Malavaraja'. He has simply referred to Kumaragupta and Madhavagupta as two brothers, the sons of Malavaraja.. He has left to the scholars to probe into it. Aphsad inscription refers to the discomfiture of Damodaragupta the father of Mahäsenagupta at the hands of Isänavarma Maukhari, the king of Kanauj 20 It also refers to Mahasenagupta's victory over Susthitavarma. Mahäsenagupta has been compared to Vasudeva and Madhavagupta to Madhava in the, inscription.37 Normally the inscriptions do not omit the Geneology proper even when an elder brother is succeeded by a younger brother as has been in the Nidhanapura Copper plates of Bhaskara Varma in referring to Supratatisthita varma as the elder brother of Bhaskaravarma. In the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta.
"Aryohityupaguhya bhavapiśunaiḥ utkarpitaiḥ romabhib
sabhyasoch vasiteșu tulya-kulaja mlanǎnanodviksitaḥ snehavyalulitena väspaguruņā tattvekşina cakṣuşa yah pitrabhihito nirtksya nikhilam pähуevamurvīmiti."
There is a clear allusion to the predecession of an elder brother as a violation of the right of primogeniture giving rise to the controversial problem of Rămagupta so often discussed by scholars of repute.
Had there been a cause of Kumaragupta son of Mahäsenagupta predecessing or predeceasing Madhevagupta, the Aphsad inscription of Adityasena would have positively given some clue to it. But on the contrary Madhavagupte - has been described as the direct descendant of Mahasenagupta who was
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
