The Successor of Kumara Gupta 1
Summary
The succession of the Imperial Guptas after Kumara Gupta I Mahendraditya remains contentious due to conflicting evidence from the Bhitari Seal of Kumara Gupta II (discovered in 1889) and other inscriptions. The Bhitari Seal names "Maharijadhiraja Pura Gupta" as the son and apparent successor of Kumara Gupta I, while the Dhitari pillar inscriptions consistently place Skanda Gupta as the immediate successor. Scholars generally favor the traditional view that Skanda Gupta succeeded Kumara Gupta I, followed by his brother or half-brother Pura Gupta. This interpretation aligns with a verse from the *Arya-Manjusri-Mula-Kalpa*, which mentions Samudra (Samudra Gupta), Vikrama (Candragupta II Vikramaditya), Mahendra (Kumara Gupta I), and "Sakradya" (likely Skanda Gupta) in succession. The term "Devaraja," used for Skanda in the verse, mirrors his epithet "Sakropama" in the Kaimata Stone Pillar inscription, suggesting he adopted titles like Vikramaditya and "Devaraja" to emulate his grandfather. The phrase "thai param" further indicates Skanda's immediate succession after Mahendra (Kumara Gupta I). Despite the Bhitari Seal's emphasis on Pura Gupta, the prevailing scholarly consensus supports Skanda Gupta as the rightful heir, with Pura Gupta potentially perishing in a succession struggle or being sidelined.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the succession of Kumara Gupta I reveals a complex interplay of evidence, with the Bhitari Seal of Kumara Gupta II and the Dhitari pillar inscriptions presenting conflicting narratives. While the seal positions Pura Gupta as the direct heir, the inscriptions and the Arya-Manjusri-Mula-Kalpa verse strongly support Skanda Gupta’s immediate ascension, followed by Pura Gupta. The analysis underscores the significance of the "Devaraja" epithet, linking it to Skanda’s adoption of titles in imitation of his grandfather, Candra Gupta II. This study highlights the challenges in reconciling disparate sources and reinforces the likelihood of a contested succession, where Skanda’s rise to power may have involved conflict, with Pura Gupta’s legitimacy overshadowed by the prevailing scholarly consensus. The findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of Gupta dynasty chronology and the political dynamics of imperial transitions.