CASTE OF GUPTA KINGS
And of others whose names had "-gupta" as a suffix rather than a separate, surname-like word
Modern-day Hindus often make the mistake of assuming that ancient Indians with the suffix "-gupta" — not a separate word — in their names were Vaishya. They weren't. Vishnugupta and Brahmagupta were established Brahmins, for example.
The first time ever when castes of Indians were registered was during the weddings of the daughters of Chandragupta Vikramaditya (aka Chandragupta II). All his sons-in-law were Brahmins and the marriages were arranged, implying that endogamy had to be observed, given the varna sensitivity of Indians in that epoch. In retrospect, these marriages proved that the Gupta kings were all Brahmins.
Interestingly, the sons-in-law were kings and princes too — their Brahminical identity notwithstanding. For example, Prabhavatigupta (not to be written as "Prabhavati Gupta") got married to Rudrasena II who was a Brahmin.
Here again, the "Sena" should not be taken for modern-day Bengali surname Sen who are either Kayastha or goldsmith (OBC in some states) or north Indian Sain (barber, OBC). Rudrasena II was a Vakataka ruler from the Deccan, a region alien to north Indian caste classifications.
Other arguments exist, of course. Historians AS Altekar and RS Sharma believe the Guptas were Vaishya whereas Sita Ram Goel, Buddhist scholar Paramartha and the Mandsaur stone inscription of Yashodharman hold they were Brahmins.
I reject the theory of KP Jayaswal and BP Sinha that the Gupta kings were Jat, as there were no ancient Jats. This mediaeval-era caste was a land-owning community of farmers who did not adhere to any one religion. Wherever they settled, they took up the religion of that land. Like in the present-day subcontinent, you have Jat Sikhs and Jat Hindus in India and Jat Muslims in Pakistan. Jat gotras are actually names of villages rather than names of rishis.
Nepali scholar DR Regmi says, citing the example of the Nepali Abhira dynasty, the "-gupta" termination of a name signifies royalty rather than caste.
Abhinavagupta, the great scholar who institutionalised the religion of ancient Kashmir, was no doubt born in a Brahmin family whose ancestors migrated from Kannauj on invitation from the king of Kashmira, Lalitaditya Muktapida.
As for his being Kayastha, history (not belief) says this word only meant an accountant and this caste does not find mention in the scriptures. The "prathama kayastha" (first accountant) ever was Gupta king Kumaragupta I, son of Chandragupta II, shows a Mathura inscription of Vasudeva I. Vainayagupta's inscription calls Kumaragupta a karaṇa-kāyastha whereas the Apashadha inscription calls him a gauḍa-kāyastha. This 'accountant', mind you, is not a professional descriptor. It's the nature of the person to maintain records. Kumaragupta I, the founder of the Nalanda University and library, was one of the greatest record-keepers of ancient India.
Finally, I consider the Puranas, despite their mutual inconsistency and conflicting claims that credit different gods for any given victory of good over evil, the most definitive source to determine castes of ancient Indians. Skanda Purana, historian Dasharatha Sharma says, mentions that the gotra of Chandragupta II, Dharana, was a gotra of Brahmanas of Dharmaranya in present-day Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh (but adds that it's possible that the Gupta kings adopted it from their Brahmin gurus). And while Puranas challenge the narrative of one another — for example, they differ on the territories of the Guptas — on the question of caste, Vishnu Purana, Vayu Purana, Bhagavata Purana and Skanda Purana converge.
[Image: Samudragupta playing a musical instrument]
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें