The picture of this period is that of many people moving in many directions. There were not only Yavanas trading with the subcontinent, but traders from various parts of India finding their way to central Asia, to west Asia, to the ports of the Red Sea and to south-east Asia. The wide distribution of pottery, artefacts and scripts are also indicators of this movement within the subcontinent and beyond. In many areas there were multiple communities with varying identities that drew upon occupation and caste status, religious sectarian affiliation and the use of a particular language. These were the identities that were to dominate in subsequent centuries. This variation would have been difficult for the Dharmashastras to map, let alone attempt to control. These texts could apply strong biases to theoretical arguments when the opportunity arose. References to varnas occurred, but more often with reference to the upper castes; and the lower castes, often described as mixed castes, were more frequently identified by occupations. The severity of the Dharmashastras was doubtless a commentary arising from the insecurity of the orthodox in an age of flux.
9
Threshold Times
C. AD 300-700
Classicism
In the days when historians wrote of ‘Golden Ages’, the Gupta period was described as such. Civilizations were said to have a Golden Age when virtually every manifestation of life reached a peak of excellence. The Gupta period was selected largely because of impressive literary works in Sanskrit and the high quality of art, which coincided with what was viewed as a brahmanical ‘renaissance’. Since Indian civilization had earlier been characterized as Hindu and Sanskritic, the initial spread of brahmanical culture as ‘high’ culture on an unprecedented scale was described as a golden period. High culture was associated with the elites at various courts and focused on the aesthetics expressed in creative literature, sculpture, architecture and philosophy, together with their style of life. Quite apart from the elite, it was also assumed that ordinary people were materially well off, with little to complain about.
A Golden Age invariably had to be Utopian, but set in the distant past, and the period chosen by those working on the early history of India was a time when Hindu culture was more firmly established than ever before. The distant past had an advantage, for it allowed greater recourse to imagination in recreating that past. Now that historians are commenting on all aspects of society, the notion of a uniformly Golden Age that encompasses an entire society has been questioned. This questioning applies to Periclean Athens, Elizabethan England, or any other culture. Most societies of the pre-modern world were divided into the better off and the not so well off, the former having little concern for the living conditions of the latter. The description of a Golden Age reflected the life of the wealthy and their activities alone characterized such an age.
There was previously some overlap between the notion of a Golden Age and that of a Classical Age, whereas now the two are treated as distinct. The label ‘classical’ has a different connotation – it sets the standards for assessing forms. The criteria are enduring excellence and an exemplary standard. Innovatory attempts mature into formal styles and the classical form precedes the tendency to create over-decorative forms. Even this notion is now thought inadequate by many historians since formal expression varies according to place, time and object. The predisposition to artistic and literary expression in the idea of classicism may have been due to these being viewed in isolation from the larger process of historical evolution. The existence of more than one classical period must also be conceded, since standards of excellence change in accordance with the expression of language, art, philosophy, knowledge and even material culture; nor has the obvious been stated, that classicism has a long gestation period.
There are at least three epochs when artistic and literary expression achieved impressive standards – the post-Mauryan and Gupta period; the Cholas; and the Mughals. The precursor to the culture of the Gupta period was not restricted to northern India, since the Deccan shows a striking evolution of cultures. It could also be argued that every regional culture in the Indian subcontinent has its classical period and classical periods should be viewed as such. They are not periods when the entire subcontinent subscribed to a single, universal, cultural form. The definition is therefore not one of widespread excellence but of a limited excellence, one that can be treated as a point of evaluation. The preference for using the concept of a Sanskritic culture is an attempt at introducing a historical focus, while directing attention to the more striking changes. It refers to the obvious and extensive use of Sanskrit as the language of intellectual discourse and as an idiom of various activities, even if these were limited to the culture of the court and the learned. The wider dimensions of historical change ranging from land relations to philosophical discourse, of which this was a signature, have also to be incorporated.
There has been a tendency to treat the Sanskritic culture of this period as rooted entirely in brahmanic norms. Hence the reference to its being a period of brahmanical renaissance. Yet there is much in the articulation of these times that evolved from an idiom drawing on the Shramanic tradition, particularly Buddhism. Images of the Buddha were the more impressive icons, Buddhist Sanskrit literature encouraged creative literature, and the philosophic discussions often developed from earlier Buddhist and Shramanic questioning of existing thought.
The classicism of the Gupta period is not an innovation emanating from Gupta rule but the culmination of a process that began earlier. New artistic forms were initiated during the pre-Gupta period in north India, such as those associated with Buddhism and which also found parallels in other religious sects, with the writing of texts on technical subjects and creative literature of various kinds. Much of the articulation is in Sanskrit, but it is not the language alone that gives the period a particular quality. The spread of Sanskritic culture assumes certain kinds of social and cultural exclusivity and demarcates social groups. Classicism emerges out of the interface of many styles, forms and aspirations and is therefore an evolving continuum. It attempts a transition towards a uniform, elite culture, but in the process becomes a catalyst for many others. The Gupta period is therefore the threshold to a marked mutation of north Indian society during the late-first millennium AD, rather than a revival or a renaissance.
The description of the Gupta period as one of classicism is relatively correct regarding the upper classes, who lived well according to descriptions in their literature and representations in their art. The more accurate, literal evidence that comes from archaeology suggests a less glowing lifestyle for the majority. Materially, excavated sites suggest that the average standard of living may have been higher in the preceding period. This can be firmly established only by horizontal excavations of urban sites and rural settlements, involving comparative analysis with the remains of the preceding period. The existing discrepancy between the level of material culture shown by excavations and that reflected in literature and the arts is in itself a commentary on the social context of classicism.
The Guptas and their Successors
Evidence on the origin and antecedents of the Gupta family is limited, as it seems to have emerged from obscure beginnings. It was thought that the family ruled a small principality in Magadha, but recent opinion supports the western Ganges Plain as a base. The name could indicate that they were of the vaishya caste, but some historians accord them brahman status. The eulogy on a later king of the dynasty envisages many small states subsequent to the decline of the Kushanas, and theirs may have been one such. The dynasty came into its own with the accession of Chandra Gupta I, who made his kingdom more than a mere principality. Chandra Gupta married into the Lichchhavi family, once an old, established gana-sangha of north Bihar, now associated with a kingdom in Nepal. The marriage set a stamp of acceptability on the family and was politically advantageous for them, since Chandra Gupta I made much of it in his coins. His rule extended over the Ganges heartland (Magadha, Saketa and Prayaga) and he took the title of maharaja-
adhiraja (great king of kings), although this ceased to have much significance since it was now used by many rulers, major and minor. The Gupta era of AD 319-10 is thought to commemorate his accession.
Samudra Gupta claimed that he was appointed by his father to succeed him in about AD 335. A lengthy eulogy on him was inscribed on an Ashokan pillar, now at Allahabad, which provides the basic information on his reign. It is curious that he should have chosen this pillar, carrying the Pillar Edicts of Ashoka, suggesting either that he was claiming some historical continuity or, if the earlier inscriptions could still be read, that he was taking a contrary stand to the views of Ashoka. This pillar with inscriptions of even later rulers has become something of a historical palimpsest.
Trouble over the successor to Chandra Gupta I, and the coins of an obscure Prince, Kacha, suggest that Samudra Gupta had a rival whom he finally overcame. It would seem that Samudra Gupta’s ambition was to establish an extensive empire, controlled centrally from the capital by the king. Shades of the Mauryas were re-emerging. The eulogy, if it is to be taken literally, provides an impressive list of kings and regions that succumbed to Samudra Gupta’s triumphal march across various parts of the subcontinent. In the subsequent period such lists of conquests were often part of the courtly rhetoric, but in this case the exaggeration of a court poet may have been more limited. The emphasis seems to be on the paying of tribute rather than the annexing of territory. Four northern kings were conquered, mainly in the area around Delhi and the western Ganges Plain. Kings of the south and the east were forced to pay homage, were captured and released. From the places mentioned, it appears Samudra Gupta campaigned down the east coast as far as Kanchipuram (near modern Chennai). Nine kings of Aryavarta, in northern India, were violently uprooted; the rajas of the forest-peoples of central India and the Deccan were forced into servitude. In a sixth-century inscription eighteen forest kingdoms of central India are said to have been inherited by a local ruler, which suggests that the conquest of these areas began earlier. Kings in eastern India, as well as small kingdoms in Nepal and the Punjab are said to have paid tribute. Nine of what were earlier gana-sanghas in Rajasthan, including the age-old Malavas and Yaudheyas, were forced to accept Gupta suzerainty. In addition, more distant rulers such as the Daivaputra Shahanushahi (‘The Son of Heaven, King of Kings’, clearly a Kushana title), the Shakas, and the King of Sinhala (Sri Lanka) also paid tribute, as did the inhabitants of all the islands.
The prashasti, eulogy, is a continuation of the earlier style of courtly eulogies on kings and becomes a model for later ones. Coming as it does from a recognized genre with an obvious intention, one hesitates to take it literally. Nevertheless, it carries a core of historical information and the list of Samudragupta’s conquests is impressive. The kings of the south and of the Deccan were not under the suzerainty of Samudra Gupta but merely paid him homage, as did a number of the northern rulers. His conquests allowed him to annex territory in northern India as he originally intended, exacting tribute from defeated rulers whose territory he could not annex. He probably met with stronger opposition than he had anticipated. His direct political control was confined to the Ganges Plain, since the Shakas remained unconquered in western India; and his control over the north-west may have wavered.
This inscription makes a striking contrast to those of Ashoka. The Mauryan king controlled far more territory yet was modest in his claims to power. Whereas Ashoka came close to renouncing conquest, Samudra Gupta revelled in it. An interesting feature of the conquests is their variety and number, from chiefdoms to kingdoms. Samudra Gupta broke the power of the chiefdoms in the watershed and northern Rajasthan, which led to an unfortunate consequence for the later Guptas when the Huns invaded north-western India. The watershed, the frontier to the Ganges Plain, could no longer act as a buffer. Apart from this the termination of these chiefdoms was the death-knell of the gana-sangha polity, which had held its own for a millennium as an alternative to monarchy. Those of the middle Ganges Plain had earlier succumbed to monarchy under the Nandas and Mauryas. It would seem that the antecedents of the Lichchavis as a gana-sangha were forgotten, for the Guptas made no mention of the earlier form, despite their pride in this connection. In the competition between caste and clan, and their role in creating state systems, the former had superseded the latter. It is interesting, however, that the non-monarchical states survived for so many centuries despite being repeatedly attacked.
The validity of the wider claims is questionable. Samudra Gupta’s relationship with the declining Kushanas remains uncertain. Regarding Sri Lanka, a later Chinese source provides evidence that a Sinhala king sent presents and requested the Gupta king’s permission to build a Buddhist monastery at Gaya. Such a request can hardly be termed tribute and it is probable that his relationship with other distant kings was similar. Who the ‘inhabitants of the islands’ were remains unclear and possibly refers to parts of south-east Asia hosting Indian settlements, with which contacts had increased.
Samudra Gupta had more cause than other kings to perform the horse sacrifice when proclaiming his conquests. It is said that it had been suspended for a while, which presumably is a reference to kings supporting nonbrahmanical religions. A statement claiming the king’s protection of brahmans and cows became formulaic in later inscriptions. However, he was not merely thirsting for conquest and battle. His more cultured side as a lover of poetry and music was mentioned, complemented by some of his coins showing him playing the vina (lute), although these accomplishments had also become part of the signature of kingship.
Of all the Gupta kings, Chandra Gupta II, the son of Samudra Gupta, is reputed to have shown exceptional chivalrous and heroic qualities. His long reign of about forty years from c. AD 375 to 415 had a rather mysterious beginning. A play written some two centuries later, Devi-chandra-gupta, supposedly dealing with events on the death of Samudra Gupta, introduced Rama Gupta as the son who succeeded Samudra Gupta. The story goes that Rama Gupta was defeated in battle by the Shakas, to whom he then agreed to surrender his wife, Dhruvadevi. His younger brother Chandra was incensed by this, disguised himself as the Queen and, getting access to the Shaka king’s apartments, he killed him. This action gained him the affection of the people but created enmity between him and his brother Rama. Chandra finally killed Rama and married Dhruvadevi. The discovery of the coins of Rama Gupta, and of inscriptions mentioning Dhruvadevi as Chandra Gupta’s wife, lend some authenticity to this story. Furthermore, Chandra Gupta’s major campaign was fought against the Shakas. However, the heroic tenor of the story may have been an attempt to hide an unsavoury event, often the case in courtly literature. The play subscribed to a theme frequent in historical biographies where the usurpation of the throne by a younger brother is justified.
This campaign led to the annexation of western India, commemorated by the issuing of special silver coins. Its significance lay not only in the western border of India being secure, but also in its giving access to the western trade since the ports were now in Gupta hands. The western Deccan, earlier held by the Satavahanas, was ruled by the Vakataka dynasty which emerged as a dominant power in the Deccan. One branch which had close relations with the Guptas was associated with Ramtek, where they built a number of temples, and the other with Vatsgulma. The available inscriptions recording their grants of land reveal some in relatively remote areas, which they probably opened up to settlement, and the names of some donees hint at possible tribal origins. A marriage between Chandra Gupta’s daughter and the Vakataka King Rudrasena II strengthened Gupta access to the Deccan, although the Vakatakas remained an independent power. As it happened, Rudrasena II died five years after coming to the throne and his widow Prabhavati Gupta, the daughter of Chandra Gupta n, acted as regent from c. 390-410 because his sons were minors. This brought the Vakataka kingdom closer to the Guptas. Chandra Gupta II took the title of Vikramaditya/‘sun of prowess’, and has therefore been linked with the legendary king of that name, associated with a strong sen
se of justice. The Gupta King is remembered for his patronage of literature and the arts.
It was during the reign of Chandra Gupta II’s son and successor Kumara Gupta (c. AD 415-54) that the first hints arose of a new invasion from the north-west, but these remained a distant threat during the first half of the fifth century. A branch of the White Huns, the Hephthalites from central Asia, known as Hunas to Indian sources, had occupied Bactria in the previous century and were threatening to cross the Hindu Kush mountains. The Hun threat on the Indian frontier continued for the next hundred years, with the Guptas and their successors being hard pressed to keep them back. Yet they succeeded up to a point, for when the Huns finally broke through they had been sufficiently weakened to prevent India from meeting the fate of the Roman Empire. It has been plausibly suggested that the resistance offered by the Chinese and Indians to the central Asian nomads was partially responsible for the fury with which they fell upon Europe. The coming of the Huns was another intervention by central Asia in the politics of northern India. The pattern followed that of the Shakas and the Kushanas, to be repeated later by the Turks, a possible difference being that for the Shakas and Kushanas it was an extension of their rule from central Asia to northern India, whereas for the Huns and Turks it was initially only an interest in acquiring loot.
But the successors of Kumara Gupta could not defend their kingdom as he had done, each repeated wave of the Hun invasions making the Guptas weaker. Skanda Gupta battled against the mlechchhas – the barbarians -also but he faced domestic problems, involving court rivalries and the breaking away of feudatories whose political integration into the metropolitan area of the Gupta state was tenuous. A fiscal crisis is suggested when some issues of the erstwhile high-value Gupta coins, which had changed from a Roman standard to an Indian standard, were debased. By c. 460 he had managed to rally the Gupta forces, but 467 is the last known date of Skanda Gupta. After his death, the central authority of the Guptas declined at an increasing pace. The succession of the various kings who followed is uncertain. A number of seals of administrative office have been discovered with the names of these kings, but the varied order of succession points to a confused close to the dynasty. A major blow came at the end of the fifth century when the Huns successfully broke through into northern India. Gupta power was eroded over the next fifty years, after which it gave way to a number of smaller kingdoms.
The Penguin History of Early India Page 42
