Skip to content
Browse articles

Did the Guptas Rule over Orissa?

By Asoka Kumar Rath

Vol. 38 · No. 2 & 3June & Sept. 1962pp. 213–221English, Sanskrit
Gupta Empire Decline

Summary

This article tackles the question of whether the Gupta Empire extended its political control over Orissa (ancient Kalinga). Proponents of the idea cite copper‑plate grants from Orissa dated in the Gupta era, suggesting that local rulers acknowledged Gupta overlordship. The author argues that using a prestigious era for chronology does not equate to political subordination; eras like the Gupta era were widely adopted for dating even by independent kings. Analysing inscriptions of the Mahendra, Mathara and Eastern Ganga dynasties, he points out that donors call themselves Mahārāja or Paramabhattāraka and never refer to the Guptas as suzerains. The Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta records his southern campaign but implies that defeated kings were reinstated as feudatories rather than annexed. Gupta coins found in Orissa may reflect trade rather than administration. The article also notes that many Kalingan copper plates combine Gupta‑era dates with regnal years of local rulers, underscoring their autonomy. Inscriptions record victories over neighbouring dynasties but make no mention of Gupta authority. The author concludes that the Guptas did not directly rule Orissa; indigenous dynasties remained independent, using the Gupta calendar for convenience and possibly paying occasional tribute. Distinguishing between chronological era and political control is essential for interpreting epigraphic evidence.

Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.

Conclusion

By reassessing inscriptions and coinage, the article concludes that Orissa was not annexed by the Guptas. Dating grants in the Gupta era reflects the prestige of the calendar rather than submission to imperial authority. Local rulers continued to exercise sovereignty, and Gupta coins likely reached the region through commerce. Orissa’s history in the Gupta age thus appears one of relative autonomy.

Key passages

Chosen by AI from the article's text. Each one is checked word for word against the text before it is shown.

  • “It 1s said by some schiolars’ that Crissa was included 10 the Gupta Empire.”
  • “Although Samudragupta conquered the above territories 13૯ did not annex them to his empire. 1૪૦૧૩ the expression ‘Grahana Mokshanugraha™® it 15 clear that he liberated the above kingdoms which comprised ancient Kalinga along with other states of Daksinapatha and reinstated thewr kings.”
  • “From the above it may be stated घाव though Samudragupta conquered certain territories of Orissa, he liberated these territories and reinstated their kings wich independent status and even after him Orissa was never included in the Gupta Empire of his successors”

Works cited in this article

  1. Sircar, IHQ., Vol. XXVI No. I pp. 56 दि. 1652: 5. N. Rojourn, OHR] . 1953.
  2. A new History of the Indian People, vol. VI, p. 148.
  3. Ancient History of the Deccan, pp. 58-61.
  4. Inscriptions of Orissa, vol. 1, Part 11. pp, 18-45.
  5. Harivaméa, Chap. 60.

Discussed in this article

People

Places

Dynasties, sects & groups

  • Gupta Empire
  • Matharas

AI guide

Discuss this record

Ask about the article, its topics, issue context, selected passages, or reading strategy.

Start with the record

I can unpack the summary, turn it into study questions, explain a selected passage, or compare it with the other articles in this issue.

Original PDF

Inline viewer

Checking source PDF

The viewer will load here if the archive file is reachable.