The enigmatic tapestry of Indian history weaves a captivating narrative, and within its intricate threads, the Gupta Empire, illustrious and shrouded in mystery, lays claim to a compelling saga. Central to this historical riddle is the figure of Rāmagupta, a ruler who might have been of the Gupta dynasty during the 3rd to 6th centuries CE. Positioned as the eldest heir of King Samudragupta, Rāmagupta’s tale unfolds with a tragic twist, as he is ousted by his better-known brother, Chandragupta II or Vikramaditya, to prominence. There is no doubt that Chandragupta II succeeded Samudragupta but did he succeed immediately or there was some gap, that is not very clear.
The contours of Rāmagupta’s narrative are primarily etched in the fragments of Vishakadatta’s play, “Devichandraguptam,” echoing through time in later works such as Natyadarpana by Gunachandra and Ramachandra, Rastrakuta copper plates of the ninth century, and in works dating to the 10-11th centuries CE by the king Bhoja (Shringara Prakasha) and Rajasekhara’s Kavyamimansa. The fragments make up a fascinating story. Rāmaguptasucceeded his father Samudragupta, around 380 CE, but was a feeble warrior. It was the time, as is historically known when the Gupta Empire faced challenges on its western frontier from the Shakas. To negotiate peace, Rāmagupta, facing humiliation, offers his bride, Dhruvaswami, to the enemy.
The ensuing twist involves his younger brother, Chandragupta II, donning the guise of the queen and orchestrating a daring act of vengeance against the Shaka king. This operation propels Chandragupta II to the throne. Gupta coins mention Dhruvadevi as his queen. It is speculated this happened after he killed his brother Rāmagupta. So, if the story is believed to be true, then Chandragupta II married his brother’s widow, who, according to Majamal-ut-Tawārīkh, was originally betrothed to Chandragupta II, but was married to his elder brother against her wish. The remarriage of a widow with her brother-in-law is approved of in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda, and the marriage of Chandragupta II and Dhruvadevi might have owed their inspiration to the Vedic source.
Archaeological remnants add an extra layer of intrigue, as coins bearing the imprint of Kācha or Rāma (the letters are in the ‘Gupta’ script, descended from the Brahmi script) have been found in the Eran-Vidiśā region.
‘Kacho gamavajitya divam karambhir-uttamair-jayati’ (having conquered the earth, Kācha gains the sky by his great deeds) is a circular legend that appears on the obverse of a small number of exceptionally rare gold coins that are part of Kācha’s coinage, while the reverse side has the legend ‘sarvarajaochchetta’. According to Sanjeev Kumar, it may be inferred that Kācha governed the Gupta Empire and should be included in the genealogy of the Gupta dynasty since he was minting coins with the Garuḍadhvaja, who were also struck at a royal mint. Kācha could have been a different name for Rāmagupta, according to D R Bhandarkar and K P Jayaswal. A pair of distinct copper coins of the Aśvamedha Type (also known as the Horse Sacrifice Type) were discovered in the Vidiśā area. Samudragupta I’s gold Aśvamedha coins are very similar to this coin’s design. The name Rāmagupta ma[hāraja] appears on the back of the coin. Beneath the horse on the reverse side of this coin is a compound letter that reads Kāca. The fact that it appears on a coin of King Rāmagupta may only indicate that Kāca was one of his many titles. It seems that Rāma was the common name and Kācha was the formal one. Rāmagupta preferred to be called Kācha after ascending the throne, hence we only see Kācha and not Rāmagupta on his more significant gold coins. According to O P Singh, there is a striking contrast between the depictions of Rāmagupta and Kācha in several pieces of evidence. On one hand, Rāmagupta is shown as a weakling who gave up his bride to the enemy, on the other hand, Kācha is called ‘sarvarajaochchetta,’ meaning the exterminator of all kings, on his coinage. They are clearly not the same individual in this context.
At Bhilsa, several spherical copper coins with the name Rāmagupta on them were found. On the front, they feature a lion (usually with an upraised tail), while on the back, the name Rāmagupta is inscribed. Lion-type coins and similar garuda-type coins have also been found at Eran and Vidiśā. However, there are differences between the two kinds in terms of size, weight, and fabric, which suggests that separate moulds and dies were used to make them. The garuda was the insignia of the Vaisnava Gupta dynasty. It is possible to date the coin legends to the fourth century CE based on their palaeography, which is usually early Gupta. In eastern Malwa, Rāmagupta’s coins closely resemble the style, kind, and fabric of the coins that were prevalent at the time. The coins of Rāmagupta do not seem to have been issued by any feudatory monarch or local official of the Imperial Guptas. However, some historians do believe that Rāmagupta could have been a local ruler of the eastern Malwa (Eran) region who had been appointed governor by Samudragupta. The imperial Guptas struck coins with a lion on the back and a Garuda with its wings spread out on the front, and governors could adopt lofty names like Maharajadhiraja.
Except for the older brother of Chandragupta II of the Gupta dynasty, no other Rāmagupta in the 3rd-4th century CE has been identified by literary and other fragmentary evidence. Given the extensive coinage of Rāmagupta, the preponderance of garuḍa-type coins over lion-type coins (Bajpai, 1961), and the presence of the garuḍadhvaja on some coins, it is quite probable that this Rāmagupta was Chandragupta II’s older brother. In a copper land grant granted by the Rashtrakuta emperor Amoghavarsha in the 8th century (in western India), historian R.D. Banerjee discovered a reference to Rāmagupta of the Gupta dynasty.
According to P.L. Gupta, the two princes might have been on their way back to Pataliputra after the fight with the Kshatrapas in Samudragupta’s final days. Samudragupta might have died and Rāmagupta, who had not yet returned to the capital, could have become king and struck a copper coin from the Vidiśā area. It is possible that Rāmagupta was assassinated after this incident since disagreements had already emerged between Chandragupta II and him during the war. Because of this, Ram Gupta’s reign was brief — maybe not even a year. According to Chandragupta II’s inscriptions, his father Samudragupta explicitly requested that he succeed to the throne. The fact was mentioned probably to justify the unusual succession of the younger son, which became necessary on account of the existence of another brother elder than Chandragupta II.
Rāmagupta may have minted his copper coins for many reasons. Altekar had proposed the idea that ancient Indian money was localised and that a need for smaller copper coins, comparable to the Nāga coinage that was prevalent at the time, would have been perceived. It is possible that Rāmagupta chose to mint coins that closely resemble the Nāga coinage upon his ascension. Although this idea does have several limitations, one of them is that the coins were not issued with the title of a Gupta emperor, mahārājādhirāja, instead just mahārāja. Rāmagupta may have been the governor who minted these coins, according to the second theory. But minting currency in their name is not something associated with the princes of the Guptas in the early Gupta history. Alternatively, Rāmagupta might have shown his discontent with being rejected as successor by sending a message to his father that the succession would not be accepted peacefully by engraving the title Rāmagupta ma[hāraja] on his copper coins.
During the reign of the Guptas, Eran was the site of several conflicts. It is possible that Rāmagupta was entrusted to oversee the recently acquired eastern Malwa territory at Eran, in his father’s last days. The erratic political climate of the era, as documented by several sources, could have forced Rāmagupta to remain in Malava even after his father’s death, at which point his aforementioned coins might have been produced. Even the incident that led to the death of the Saka prince requesting Dhruvadevi and, subsequently, Rāmagupta himself by Chandragupta II took place in Eran or Vidiśā. Then there are the three Jain Tirthankara figures discovered at Durjanpur, close to Vidiśā in Madhya Pradesh, which were placed there according to the specific orders of Maharajadhiraja Rāmagupta, as shown by the inscriptions.
The credibility of popular tradition as a historical source is questionable. But we shouldn’t write it off without giving it a thorough evaluation. In this historical kaleidoscope, Rāmagupta’s narrative, though veiled in the mystique of legend, beckons exploration, inviting scholars to decipher the layers of truth concealed within the folds of time. His biography cannot be dismissed as a work of pure imagination since the references to him come from all across India and different periods. The brother Rāmagupta was probably never mentioned in official publications by court authors eager to demonstrate their allegiance to the ruling monarch Chandragupta II because succession had passed to him. Tales about Rāmagupta’s cowardice and the shame he supposedly brought upon the dynasty’s dignity are used to justify his omission from official genealogy.
