The Post-Gupta Period in Northern India

The post-Gupta era is a period that witnessed the beginnings of the regional identities that took deep roots in course of time.

This formative period requires a detailed study, since many institutions and problems of present-day India owe their origin to this period.

With the disintegration of the Gupta political power centre, the northern half of the subcontinent splintered into ‘warring kingdoms’ and each tried to become a sovereign power.

The basis of this sover­eignty was distinct regionalism and localism that achieved a clear picture and structure in later centuries. The political heirs to the Gupta political power attempted to recreate an empire but, with the exception of the Pratihara kingdom, the attempts of others remained only a distant dream. The ability to establish large kingdoms and empires appears to have shifted to the region beyond the Vindhyas, i.e., the powers of the Deccan and the Tamil country. These powers of the Deccan and the south, the Chalukyas, the Rashtrakutas, the Pallavas and the Cholas showed the greatest vitality in the evolution of the classical Indian civilization.

The decline of the Gupta kingdom in the 6th century AD slowly and gradually led to the growth of many small kingdoms. In this process, certain regions witnessed the emergence of new kingdoms; and in other regions, the erstwhile Gupta vassals freed themselves from the sovereignty of the Guptas, founding independent kingdoms. Of the new political powers that emerged, the important ones are kings like Yasodharman, and powers such as the Maukharis, the Hunas and the later Magadhan Guptas.

Along with these new powers, the Pushyabhutis, the Gaudas, the Varmans and the Maitrakas also became important powers to be reckoned with at that time. The political scenario of this period is to be understood against this background of the emergence of regional identities represented by the new political powers. The first to be studied is Yasodharman.

Yasodharman:

Bandhuvarman, a feudatory of Kumaragupta I, ruled Mandasor, in Malwa. This Bandhuvarman of Aulikara family appeared to have ruled until the beginning of the 6th century as can be seen from the two stone pillars of Mandasor, one of which is dated to AD 532 refers to the achievements of Yasodharman. The epigraph glorifies him as a conqueror of the areas that were not even conquered by the Guptas. Except the name of Mihirakula, no other name is mentioned in the epigraph. It is suggested that Yasodharman must have ruled from AD 528 to 543, by which year his power appears to have disappeared.

The Maukharis were an old royal family. Patanjali is known to have referred to them. There is also a view that the Maukharis were the descendants of Asvapati. The Barabar and Nagarjuni epigraphs refer to three Maukhari rulers, who ruled Gaya before they ruled from Kanauj as independent rulers. These three rulers of the said above epigraphs could be Yagnavarman, Sardulavarman and Anantavarman. As they had only the title of Samanta, it is believed that they accepted the suzerainty of the Guptas.

One Asirgarh copper seal refers to Harivarman, Isanavarman and Sarvavarman as the rulers of Kanauj. While Isanavarman had the title of Maharajadhiraja, the rest had the title of Maharaja. It is presumed that Isanavarman set up an independent kingdom. The later Guptas appear to have had good relations with the early Maukharis but Isanavarman’s declaration of independence must have strained their relations as the Apshal inscription of Kumaragupta of the later Gupta family of Magadha mentions a victory over Isanavarman.

There existed hostile relations between the later Guptas and the Maukharis. This can be proved by the fact that Sarvavarman, the second son of Isanavarman is said to have defeated Damodara Gupta of the later Gupta dynasty. The last one in Maukhari line is Grihavarman. He married Rajyasri, the sister of Harshavardhana. Deva Gupta, the king of Malwa defeated and killed Grihavarman and thus the line of Maukharis ended. The Maukhari rulers appear to have ruled over modern Uttar Pradesh and parts of Magadha. However, the wars between the Maukharis and later Guptas resulted in the shifting of boundaries between them.

The Maukharis patronized Brahmanical religion and defended their terri­tories against the invasions of the Hunas like the Guptas. One of the epigraphs of Kumaragupta proudly states that he defeated the elephant forces of the Maukhris, which defeated the Hunas. By their success against the Hunas, the Maukharis must have paved the way for Prabhakara Vardhana of the Pushyabhuti dynasty to easily override the Hunas.

Later Guptas or Magadhan Guptas:

A.L. Basham observes, “By the middle of the sixth century a line of rulers with the same surname, but not connected in their official geneology with the imperial line, ruled in Bihar and parts of Uttarapradesh”. The Aphsad epigraph of Aditya Sena gives the following names as belonging to the Gupta line of Magadha.

They are:

(1) Krishna Gupta,

(2) Harsha Gupta,

(3) Jivita Gupta,

(4) Kumaragupta,

(5) Damodara Gupta,

(6) Mahasena Gupta,

(7) Madhava Gupta, and

(8) Aditya Sena.

These rulers are said to have ruled between the 6th and 7th centuries AD. Their rule appeared to have been confined to Magadha and sometimes to Malwa also. Most of the time, they had hostile relations with their western neighbours namely the Maukharies of the upper and middle Gangetic valley. Finally, the Gaudas of Bengal, who in turn were overthrown by Yasodharman of Kanauj, overthrew the later Guptas. Besides these powers, the Maitrakas of Valabhi ruled the Kathiawar region in western India. The Maitrakas were also originally the subordinates of the Guptas but they asserted themselves after the decline of the Gupta political power.

The Gurjaras ruled in Rajaputana and Gujarat. Harishchandra was the founder of this line and his three successors ruled until AD 640. Gauda, the region of north and north-west of Bengal was under Sasanka, which, as an independent kingdom became prominent in Orissa. However, both these kingdoms faced setbacks because of the rise of Sasanka of Gauda and Harshavardhana of Kanauj.

The Pushyabhutis of Thaneswar and Kanauj:

Of all the dynasties and personalities that left an indelible imprint on the post-Gupta era, the most important is the dynasty of Pushyabhutis of Thaneswar and Kanauj, and of them Harshavardhana of the Pushyabhuti line. There are both literary and archaeological sources to reconstruct the history, achievements and place of the Pushyabhutis of Thaneswar and Kanauj in general and in particular that of Harshavardhana. Harshacharita of Banabhatta, Si-yu-ki or travels of Hiuen Tsang, the Chinese traveller and some inscriptions and coins are important for these sources. Banabhatta, the court poet of Harshavardhana and an ardent admirer of Harsha, glorified and extolled him. Bana mixed up history and romance and hence Harshacharita is an unreliable history of Harsha.

Regarding the historical value of Bana’s Harshacharita, one should not accept in toto what was written, but at the same time, it cannot be ruled out as totally without historical value. In spite of its historical inaccuracies, and admiration for Harsha, it has historical value. “The court, the camp, the quiet villages and the still more quiet monasteries and retreats, whether of the Brahmanas or the Buddhists, are all painted with singular power and his (Bana’s) narrative illustrates and supplements the Chinese traveller’s found at every turn” is the observation of Cowell and Thomas. Si-yu-ki of Hiuen Tsang is also an equally important literary text to know about of Harshavardhana.

Hiuen Tsang visited many parts of India between AD 629 and AD 644 and recorded what he saw and heard. In spite of certain drawbacks, Si-yu-ki of Hiuen Tsang is a veritable fund of information about Harshavardhana. The available epigraphs of Harsha and of his contemporaries do not throw much light on the reign and achievements. Harsha’s Banskhera and Madhuban copper plate epigraphs contain his sentiments towards Buddhism.

The Banskhera epigraph is very important as it contains the fascimile of his signature and proves beyond doubt that he is a good calligraphist. The Badami Chalukyan epigraph records the defeat of Harsha at the hands of Pulakesin II but Harsha’s epigraphs are silent about the event. Likewise, the epigraphs of the Gurjaras of Broach also throw light on their role in the conflict between Harsha and the ruler of Valabhi.

The available seals also throw much light. For example, the Nalanda seal gives information on the history of Kanauj after the death of Grihavarman. It informs us that Grihavarman was a Pararmbhattaraka. The silver coins of Harsha dated in the year of Harsha also throw some light and appear to be imitations of the Gupta ‘peacock-type coins’. The legends on the coins describe him as a world conqueror and conqueror of heaven. Banabhatta, the author of Harshacharita informs us that Pushyabhuti was the founder of this dynasty. Curiously, the inscriptions of Harsha do not refer to Pushyabhuti.

Even the Banskhera and Madhuban plates and royal seals of Harsha mention five earlier rulers of whom three assumed the title of Maharaja and the fourth one Prabhakaravardhana is described as a Maharajadhiraja. It can be inferred that Prabhakaravardhana declared his independence and started independent rule and cultivated friendship with the Maukharis by offering the hand of his daughter Rajyasri to Grihavarman. As Banabhatta described Prabhakaravardhana as a lion to the ‘Huna deer’, it can be presumed that the Hunas from the western side attacked Thaneswar sometime about AD 604.

Bana informs us that Rajyavardhana, the eldest son of Prabhakaravardhana was despatched to meet the Hunas but suddenly had to come back as his father was seriously ill. The sudden death of Prabhakaravardhana was a great setback to the newly declared independence of the Pushyabhutis. Taking advantage of this new development, the Malwa king Deva Gupta killed Grihavarman and imprisoned Rajyasri. Further, the later Gupta king, Deva Gupta entered into an alliance with Gauda Sasanka and threatened Thaneswar the capital of the Pushyabhutis. Rajyavardhana rose to the occasion and gave a fitting reply by defeating the Malwas but was killed treacher­ously by Gauda Sasanka.

In these unfavourable circumstances, Harsha reluctantly ascended the throne. However, the death of his brother; and the imprisonment of his sister and her attempt to commit suicide brought about a sudden change in the mental make-up of Harshavardhana who gave fitting reply to his rival and enemies.

In AD 606, Harsha ascended the throne of Thaneswar and started his conquests by sending his armies against Gauda Sasanka who treacherously killed his brother and helped Deva Gupta, the Malwa king to kill Grihavarman, Harsha’s brother-in-law. Before starting his march, he entered into a political friendship with Bhaskaravarman, the ruler of Pragiyotisha or Assam, as he was opposed to Gauda Sasanka. It was a master stroke of diplomacy and indicates the far-sightedness of Harsha.

There is no positive evidence to know whether Harsha attacked Sasanka directly or not. However, one positive effect is the release of Rajyasri from imprisonment. The result was the merger of Thaneswar and Kanauj, and Harsha started ruling from Kanauj. Hiuen Tsang refers to Harsha as the ruler of Kanauj. Both Bana and Hiuen Tsang mention that Harsha took a vow to defeat his other enemies.

Conquests:

Harsha appears to have fought with the Valabhis, though there is no positive evidence except the indirect reference to his fight against the Valabhi ruler. From the evidence of Hiuen Tsang and an inscription of Dhruvasena II dated in AD 640-41, we learn that political fortunes shifted between Harsha and the ruler of Valabhi – “who this ruler of Valabhi is a big question”. Banabhatta writes that Harsha won a victory over Sind. However, Hiuen Tsang contradicts that statement of Banabhatta by writing that Sind was a powerful and independent territory when he visited it. This made some to suggest that Harsha’s wars against Sind did not bear fruit.

Though Harsha took a vow to free the earth from the hands of Sasanka of Gouda as per the statement of Bana, there is no positive evidence to prove that he defeated Sasanka. It is known from Hiuen Tsang that about the beginning of AD 643, Harsha finished the subjection of Kongonda and Orissa and was halting at Kajangala or Rajamahal on the bank of the Ganga.

Harsha maintained friendly relations with Bhaskara Varma the king of Kamarupa. The war between Harsha and Pulakesin II of Badami Chalukyan dynasty is another event of significance in the reign of Hashavardana. The cause for the friction and resultant war between the two appears to be their interest in the overlordship of the Lata, the Malwas and the Gurjaras.

While Harsha was actively engaged in consolidating his unques­tionable hold over the entire Uttarprapatha, Pulakesin’s desire to extend his sphere of activity to northern India could be the reason for the hostility and the war. While Banabhatta was totally silent about this war and its result, Rayikirti the court poet of Pulakesin II and the author of the Aihole epigraph implies by pun that Harsha, “whose lotus feet were arranged with the rays of the jewels of the diamonds of hosts of feudatories prosperous with unmeasured might, through Pulakesin II had his harsha (mirth) melted away by fear, having become loathsome with the rows of his lordly elephants fallen in battle”.

While the epigraphs of Harsha are silent, even the Aihole Prasasti does not positively indicate that Pulakesin II achieved victory over Harsha except that the happiness of Harsha melted away in fear. However, a reading of the sense in-between lines suggests that Harsha was not successful. The successors of Pulakesin II are certain that Harsha was defeated and hence gave lot of impor­tance to this event, and mentioned that Pulakesin II acquired the title of ‘Parameswara’ after defeating Harsha. Interestingly, we have unconfirmed evidence to know where the battle took place. Based on the available Chinese evidence, V.A. Smith places the war in the year AD 620.

As Hyderabad inscription of Pulakesin II mentions the title of Parameswara, R.K. Mukhreji assigns the date AD 612. There is also another view that the conflict took place in AD 630. Some scholars hold the view that Harsha defeated the Pallava ruler Mahendravarman and some other southern rulers too. However, there is no definite conclusive evidence to give it credence.

As the Harsha era was in vogue in Orissa state, we may state that Orissa was conquered by Harsha. There is also a controversy regarding the extent of Harsha’s empire. Though some modern biographers of Harsha believe that he ruled over the whole of Uttarapatha, Bihar, Bengal, and Orissa and areas of Kashmir, the Punjab, Sind, Rajaputana, and Kamarupa did not become a part of his empire because Hiuen Tsang mentions them as independent kingdoms.

While there is a view, that the ruler of Valabhi was a feudatory of Harsha and hence his kingdom included Malwa, Gujarat, Kutch and Kathiawar. However, Hiuen Tsang categorically states that these territories were independent. Hence, we can conclude that, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa were under his direct rule and the peripheral areas of Kashmir, Sind, Valabhi and Kamarupa acknowledged his suzerainty.

Harsha era was in vogue in Nepal, some scholars argue that Nepal was also part of the kingdom of Harsha. Harsha also maintained friendly relations with China. While Harsha sent an envoy to China in AD 641, China sent three envoys and by the time the third envoy reached India, Harsha was no more. Harshavardhana adopted the administrative structure and mechanism of the Guptas with minor modifications. Hiuen Tsang tells in his work, “He was just in his administration and punctilious in the discharge of his duties. He forgot sleep and food in devotion to good work.

The king’s day was divided into three periods, of which one was given to activities of the government, and the remaining two were devoted to religious works. He was indefatigable and the day was too short for him”. We can say that Harsha did not totally depend on his officers, and vassals, but took personal interest in matters of adminis­tration.

Hiuen Tsang graphically describes this, in his words, “If there was any irregularity in the manners of the people of the cities, he went amongst them to punish evil doers and reward the good people”. Further, he stated, “the King made visits of inspection throughout his dominions not residing long at any place but having temporary building erected for his residence at each place thus it can be said that Harsha took personal interest and moved from place to place”.

Though it is said that his was a centralized monarchical system, there is a view that his administration had become relatively decentralized and feudal. Bana’s Harshacharita and epigraphs refer to state functionaries of civil and military nature like Mahasandhivigrahaka, Devikrita, Mahabaladhikrita, Baladevikrita, Senapati, Catabhata, the Dutas, Rajasthaniya, Kumaramatya, Uparika, Vishayapati, Mahathalavara, Bhogapati, Mahapratihara, Pariyata, Dutaka and Karamikas that made historians suggest the existence of a well-organized civil and military bureaucracy to assist and help Harsha. For administrative convenience, Harsha’s kingdom was divided into Bhukthis or provinces, Vishayas or districts, Pathakars or taluks and finally Gramas or Villages.

Hiuen Tsang is all praise for the administration of Harsha. We understand from his observation, that the state did not interfere in the day-to-day life of the people as he says, “Society was not choked by a grinding bureaucracy or overburdened by system of heavy taxation”. The State collected the following taxes as referred to in the epigraphs – traditional one-sixth of the produce from the tiller, Tulyamanya or tax based on weight and measure of commodities, Bhagabhoga, Kanashiranyadi or share of the enjoyment. Hiuen Tsang states, “Of the royal land, there is fourfold division.

One part is set apart for the expenses of the government and state worship, one for endowment of great public Services, one to reward high intellectual eminence, and one for acquiring religious merit by gifts to various sections”. Officials and ministers were not paid in cash but land was apportioned to them by the state for their maintenance. Crimes were rare because punishments were severe and brutal. Overall, according to Hiuen Tsang, crimes were at a minimum.

Though Harsha is said to have ruled benignly, he appears to have maintained a large standing army besides the army supplied by the Samantas or feudatories. The army consisted of infantry, cavalry, elephants and chariots. The strength of the army and its division appear to be exaggerated.

While what has been described above is the traditional scholar’s perspective on the nature and structure of the administration of Harsha, recent researchers offer a different perspective on the same. However, in its dimen­sions his vast kingdom appears very much as that of the Gupta Empire; for a critical observer however, the internal structure appears to be quite different from that of the Gupta Empire. It is suggested that the core area of his kingdom, the doab between Kanauj and Prayaga and east Varanasi was under his control. Based on the cancellation of a land grant to a Brahmin because of the spurious nature of the grant situated nearly 250 miles away from Kanauj, it is suggested that he also exercised central control like the Mauryas and the Guptas.

However, in other respects, the administrative mechanism looks more decen­tralized. Harsha’s authority over the other parts of his kingdom and the peripheral areas was not very effective. For example, Pumavarman of the Maukhari dynasty as a representative of Harsha ruled Magadha. Though Purnavarman ruled on behalf of Harsha, he enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy.

Likewise, Bengal appears to have been divided between Harsha and Bhaskaravarma, his ally and the ruler of Kamarupa, after Sasanka’s death and there is no direct proof to state that Harsha ruled over Bengal. Compared to Harsha, the Guptas exercised effective power in appointing governors and district officers in Magadha and Bengal.

Based on the Madhuban epigraph of AD 632, it is suggested that there was a different type of control in the core area that reflects a ‘definite’ change in the organization of administration. The inscription refers to ‘great neighbours’ (Mahasamantas), great kings (Maharaja), guardians of the royal gateway (Daushadhika), Judges (Pramahara), Viceregents (Rajasthaniya), ministers belonging to the royal family (Kumaramatyas) Governors of provinces (Uparikas) district officers (Vishayapatis) regular and irregular troops (Bhata, Chata) ordinary people and servants (Janapada) as the ones who guaranteed the validity of the grant.

This inscription makes us think that political power was fragmented between the various executives mentioned above. Further, as the epigraph begins with a Mahasamanta but not a Kumaramatya, it makes us postulate a hypothesis that the institution of Samanta appears to have taken deep roots. Originally Samantha is understood as a neighbour but by the 6th century, Samanta had come to mean a subject but reinstated prince of a realm. While these Samantas played an important role in the border areas under the Guptas, in the time of Harsha the Samantas had begun to exercise more authority in the core area also. Thus, according to latest researches, it is suggested that ‘Samantization’ became the practice of the time 128 The Post-Gupta Period in Northern India of Harsha and was called the Indian variety of feudalism. This process appears to have been accelerated by the two factors.

The ruralization of economy and decline of long-distance trade which led to urban decay and paucity of coins which forced the king to pay salaries through land assignments with definite rights also because of the growth of a feeling that the prestige of the king depended on Samanta Chakra or circle of tributory princes. In course of time, Samantization slowly eroded the power-base of the ruler in the core area of his kingdom, as this assignment of prebends reduced and limited the area directly controlled by the central administration.

Harsha’s Religion:

Bana writes that Harsha was a worshipper of Nilalohita or Siva in the beginning. This corroborated by the Banskhera epigraph, which calls him Paramamaheswara and the Madhuban record which also, says that he was a devotee of Maheswara. However, Hiuen Tsang is of the view that he became a Mahayana Buddhist at the beginning of his reign with the title of Siladitya.

Hiuen Tsang records that Harsha erected thousands of stupas and built monasteries and generously furnished Chaityas, and that he convened an assemblage of Buddhist monks every year and looked after them for 21 days. Harsha honoured the true Buddhist scholars in this assembly. Hiuen Tsang records that at a special function at Kanauj he was honoured with rich presents in the presence of 20 rulers, 1,000 scholars from Nalanda, 3,000 Buddhist monks of Hinayana and Mahayana sects and 3,000 Brahmanas and Jains, and was taken in procession on an elephant.

We also come to know that a special tower was built where a Buddhist statue of gold of considerable height was installed. It appears that religious discussions took place for 23 days. Hiuen Tsang records that Brahmans who did not like his patronage of Buddhism planned to kill Harsha but that the attempt failed and Harsha punished the ringleaders. This does not mean that he neglected other religions and patronized Buddhism exclusively. Taking into consideration the fact that his kingdom consisted of different religions, he realized that as a ruler he should respect all religions.

Harsha not only prohibited meat eating but also did away with execution of culprits guilty of serious offences. He also provided rest houses for all travellers. He established royal kitchens where every day 1,000 Buddhist monks and Brahmans were fed by the state. Harsha followed the practice of convening quinquennial convocation “Maha Moksha Parishad” every five years. Hiuen Tsang is said to have attended the sixth convocation at Prayaga, where the Buddha, the Sun God and Siva were worshipped.

Harsha’s Contribution to Culture:

Harsha was not only an able administrator, and a conqueror of Uttarapatha but also a literary genius of considerable merit. He authored three dramas in Sanskrit: Ratnavali, Priyadarsika andNagananda. Some expressed doubt about the authorship of these three dramas. Harsha himself composed the Banshkera and Madhuban copper plate epigraphs. Two Sanskrit 5toirfl5 and a grammatical work are attributed to him. Harsha was not only a poet and a dramatist of consid­erable repute but he also patronized poets. Bana adorned his court along with Mayurasena. Bana wrote Kadambari besides Harshacharita.

Some attribute Parvati Parinaya and Chandisataka to him. Mayura is credited with the writing of Suryasataka and Astaka. Besides Bana and Mayura, Harsha is also said to have patronized Diwakara who is identified with the Jaina writer who was also the author of Bhakkatttara Stotra. Some others identify him with Siddhasena Diwakara, the author of Kalyanamandira Stotra.

It is not clear whether Bhartrihari, the famous poet, philosopher and grammarian, had any connection with Harsha. It is said that Harsha had set apart one-fourth of his revenue for honouring eminent scholars. He was a great patron of the Nalanda University. A story in circulation states that he showered favours on one Jaya, a native of Saurashtra. Hiuen Tsang wrote that Harsha built a magnificent monastery and a temple at Nalanda.

Estimate of Harsha:

Harshavardhana is considered the last great Hindu king and is often compared to Asoka, Samudragupta and Akbar. But this comparison does not appear to be right to some historians as Harsha had not made Buddhism a living religion like Asoka, nor can we compare him to Samudragupta because he was not a great soldier, nor to Akbar because Harsha was not a nationalist like Akbar. Yet, commitment to the welfare of the people makes him one of the greatest kings of early India.