One of the greatest mistakes of Indian Historiography
scholars is identifying Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Mourya.
The predecessor of Sandrocottus was Xandremes (who can be
easily identified Chandramasi, the unpopular Satavahana ruler). Sandrocottus himself was Chandragupta, who
has murdered Chandramasi and usurped the kingdom. His forefather was named Gupta, meaning the protected alluding to
his low caste. Probably an artisan. The Greek records identify the father of
Sandrocottus as a barber , towards whom the Queen was amorous. This need not be in doubt since the
name Ghatotkacha, father of CG I not
only indicates a name of lower birth but also a person with great capabilities,
especially physical strength. If the Queen of an unpopular and perhaps, old
king has loved him, it may be no wonder.
The son of Sandrocottus was Sandrocyptus.
Max Mueller could not synchronize the names " Xandremes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocryptus"
with "Nanda, Chandra gupta Maurya and Bindu sara". Hence, he denied the existence
of Xandremes and postulated without
evidence that both Sandrocottus and Sandrocryptus are one and the same.
The name Sandro cryptus not only synchronizes with the name
of Samudra gupta , the valiant son of CG I but also, the title of allitrochades or Amitrochates (meaning slayer of enemies)
perfectly suits his image as a valiant and ruthless warrior, as described in
the Prasasthi epigraphy.
However, it is clear that the kingdom of Guptas did not
sustain for long. It is not correct to say that CG II is the son of Samudra
gupta and he has taken over the reins of Gupta Kingdom after SG. There are many
kings between Samudra gupta and CG II.
Samudra gupta's father CG I has taken over the kingdom around 321 bce
whereas it is clearly chronicled that CG II has driven away the Sakas in 58/57
bce. To support this, there are many names of kings mentioned in the liturgical
history as well as in numismatics. All these names were tried to be shown as
other names of already known kings, which has taken place due to the shrinkage of Indian chronology. For
eg., we do not know who is Kacha, who came after Samudra Gupta , nor Chandra
prakasa as mentioned by Vamana nor Chandra who claimed on the Allahabad Pillar that he expanded his kingdom to Bengal. There
are many more such names about whom we know nothing nor we are in a position to
fix their chronology.
After Samudra
Gupta, his son Rama (Chandra)Gupta or Sarma (Chandra)Gupta, who has married
Dhruva Swamin could not continue on the seat of pataliputra. He was driven away
to the west by one Kalyana varma whose
victory was chronicled in a drama called Kaumudi mahotsavam. Ramachandra gupta
has taken over at Ujjain but he had to surrender his wife to the foreign rulers
in order to keep his seat, as described in Kavya mimamsa by Raja sekhara In shame, Sarma gupta or Ramachandra gupta
has retired to Himalayas and hence, Dhruvaswamini has continued the rule. Her
son was Govinda gupta also seemed to have ruled for sometime.
During this time that Priyadarsi has come into forefront.(Priyadarsi could not be a Mauryan king for many reasons - one new reason being the Mauryan kings were not in habit of bearing titles, whereas all the kings CGM, Bindusara and Asoka were shown as bearing titles)
He has corrected two mistakes that have been committed by Samudra gupta :
one, in spite of his various Jaitra
Yatras, SG did not bother about them strategically. He did not have a
particular control over the trade routes. Priyadarsi has seen to it that he had
a great control over trade routes. In fact, the Kalinga conquest was primarily
for this purpose, to have a control over road and sea routes. Second mistake of SG was to lose contact
with people in general. In spite of his great ness, SG has inscribed his
eulogies in Sanskrit, which were not understood by common man. Priyadarsi has
seen to it that not only his inscriptions were in prakrit, a language known to
the common man but also he has ensured that all these inscriptions are read
aloud to the gatherings at frequent intervals. He has also cleverly used the
tool of religion in order to control the general masses.
More about priyadarsi soon.
Kishore patnaik