________________
Bhaskaravarma of Danąı and Bana : An Appraisal
Yos
the problóm of Bhaskaravarma of Dandi requires some examination in the Wight of the historical background pertaining to the history of Magucht depicted by Dandi in his Dasakumara Carita which names Rajahamasa a the king of Magadha38 and Manasära as the king of Malava.39 Dr, H. C. Raychaudhari" bas refuted the arguments of Dr. R. D. Banerji that Mabe sona Gupta father of Madhava Gupta of the Aphsad inscription, the associate of Harsa and the vanquisher of Susthitavarma of Kamarupa was not a king of Malava but of Magadha. He has adduced the evidence of Deo Baranark inscription of Jivita Gupta II having allusion to Balādityadeva and after him to that of Maukhari Sarvavarma and Avantivarma to the total exclusion of the reference to the later guptas.
He also quotes Barabara and Nagarjuna bill cave-itscription containing allusion to another line of Maukbaris occupying Magadha. He also quotes Baņa referring to Madhavagupta as the son of the king of Mālava. But the point goes against his arguments that Bāņa has also mentioned KÜmara Gupta as the elder brother of Mādhava Gupta exclusively mentioned in Aphsad, inscription as such and Bāņa has also referied to Malavarāja as the "Duratma" in VIth Uccbväsa. Banskbera and Madhuban plates of Harta refer to Devagupta and others extirpated by Rājyavardhana. This proves D:vagupta to have been the Malayaraja who owed allegiance to Prabhakaravardhana and sent his two sons Kumāragupta and Madhavagupta to his court as subserviant princes meant to serve the King or else how could Devagupta remain subdued to him. He could only raiso his head after the death of Prabhakaravardhana a fact that stands illustrated by Baņa as such. Rajyavardhana marched against Devagupta and his sons could not have kept alliance with Rajyavardhana and Harga as such. They could have found an opportunity to alliga with Devagupta and might have got killed in battle. 'Devagupta dayah' in the inscription of Harga makes it evident. Mahasena-gupta re-established himself on the throne of Magadha and extended his reign to Kamar Upa and Malava could have been his dominion of Gphita-pratimukta mode with Devagupta and others conspiring incognito. Since Mabāsenagupta was maternal uncle of Prabhakaravardhana, the latter having been described as 'Mälavalakşmflata. parafuh' by Båņa we can casily consider Prabhākaravardhana as the Paramount Sovering of Thanesar having Maukharis and Malavas as bis subsidiaries in conjoint effort with MabaseDagupta whose son Mădhavagupta could casily succeed to the throne of Magadha hiving small disintegrated parts of Bihar held by vassals of Maukhari descent and others. Mabāsena Gupta had banquished Susthitavarma of Kāmarupa. That is why later on Bhaskar varmā son of Sustbikavarmā sought alliance of Harșa for the discomfiture of Satanka of Gauda with a view to consolidating the paramountsy of
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
