The Puranas on the Imperial Guptas
Summary
In this miscellaneous paper, Prof. Dasaratha Sharma reassesses the testimony of the Purāṇas regarding the extent of the Gupta empire. The Purāṇic verse cited (Anu‑Gaṅgā‑Prāyāgaṅ Saketaṅ Magadham tathā …) states that kings of the Gupta dynasty will enjoy the territories of Prayāga, Sāketa (Ayodhya) and Magadha. Scholars such as Pargiter have treated this as reliable evidence for Gupta rule over the eastern Gangetic plain around 330 CE. However, D. C. Ganguly and R. C. Majumdar argue that the Purāṇas are inconsistent; the Vāyu Purāṇa includes Sāketa and Magadha, while variants of the Viṣṇu and Bhāgavata Purāṇas seem to omit Sāketa or shift the region to between Haridvāra and Prayāga. Sharma contends that these discrepancies arise from misreadings of manuscripts and misinterpretations of the term anu‑Gaṅgām (“along the Ganges”). He notes that some texts read “Guptavaṃśajāṇ” (kings of the Gupta line) while others have “Guptā” or “Guptya,” and that scribal errors led commentators to misread “anu‑Gaṅgām” as “Gangādvāram ārabya”. By examining manuscript evidence, he reconstructs the verse as “Anu‑Gaṅgām ā‑Prāyāgam Magadhaṃ guptā bhokṣyanti,” implying that the Guptas ruled the region along the Ganges up to Prayāga. Sharma argues that the omission of Sāketa in some variants is not significant because a power controlling Prayāga and Magadha would likely have governed Ayodhya as well. He criticises Majumdar for reading the line as describing a joint rule by the people of Magadha and the Guptas and emphasises that the Purāṇic passages consistently place the Guptas in Magadha. The article concludes that the Purāṇas, when correctly read, support the view that the early Guptas governed a broad swath of the eastern Gangetic plain, and that discrepancies in modern scholarship stem from textual corruption rather than inherent unreliability. Sharma thus defends the historical value of Purāṇic testimony and calls for careful textual criticism in reconstructing Gupta history.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Sharma’s textual critique defends the reliability of Purāṇic testimony by showing that apparent discrepancies stem from scribal errors and misinterpretations. By reconstructing the correct reading of key verses, he concludes that the early Guptas ruled a region encompassing Magadha, Prayāga and Sāketa along the Ganges. The paper encourages historians to combine manuscript study with epigraphic evidence to refine our understanding of Gupta territorial extent.