The Gupta period was one of aggressive imperialism and conquest and victory. But there are many such imperialistic periods in the history of every country, and they have little importance in the long run. What makes the Gupta times stand out, however, and worthy of being remembered with some pride in India, is the wonderful renaissance of art and literature which they witnessed.
38
The Huns Come to India
May 4, 1932
The new terror which descended on India across the northwestern mountains was the Hun terror. I said something about the Huns in a previous letter when we were discussing the Roman Empire. In Europe their greatest leader was Attila, who for many years terrorized over both Rome and Constantinople. Allied to these tribes were the Huns—called the White Huns—who came to India about the same time. They were also nomads from Central Asia. For a long time past they had been hovering along the Indian frontier and giving a lot of trouble to all concerned there. As their numbers grew, and perhaps because they were pushed from behind by other tribes, they undertook a regular invasion.
Skandagupta, fifth of the Gupta line, had to face this Hun invasion. He defeated them and hurled them back; but a dozen years later they came again. Gradually they spread over Gandhara and the greater part of northern India. They tortured the Buddhists and committed all manner of frightfulness.
There must have been continuous warfare against them, but the Guptas could not drive them away. Fresh waves of Huns came and spread over Central India, and their chief, Toroman, installed himself as king. He was bad enough, but after him came his son, Mihiragula, who was an unmitigated savage and fiendishly cruel. Kalhana in his history of Kashmir—the Rajatarangini—tells us that one of Mihiragula’s amusements was to have elephants thrown over great precipices into the valley below. His atrocities roused up Aryavarta at length, and the Aryas under Baladitya of the Gupta line and Yashodharman, a ruler of Central India, defeated the Huns and made Mihiragula a prisoner. But, unlike the Huns, Baladitya was chivalrous, and he spared Mihiragula and told him to go away outside the country. Mihiragula took refuge in Kashmir and later treacherously attacked Baladitya, who had treated him so generously.
Soon, however, the Hun power weakened in India. But many of the descendants of the Huns remained and gradually got mixed up with the Aryan population. It is possible that some of our Rajput clans of Central India and Rajputana have a trace of this White Hun blood.
The Huns ruled northern India for a very short time—less than fifty years. Afterwards they settled down peacefully. But the Hun wars and their frightfulness made a great impression on the Indian Aryans. Hun methods of life and government were very different from those of the Aryans. The Aryans were still in a large measure a freedom-loving race. Even their kings had to bow down to the popular will, and their village assemblies had great power. But the coming of the Huns and their settling down and mixing with the Indian people made some difference to these Aryan standards and lowered them.
Baladitya, who was the last of the great Guptas, died in 530 AC. It is interesting to note that this ruler of a typical Hindu line was himself attracted towards Buddhism and that his guru was a Buddhist monk. The Gupta period is specially known for its revival of Krishna-worship, but even so there appears to have been no marked conflict with Buddhism.
Again we find, after the 200 years of Gupta rule, many States rising up in the north, independent of any central authority. In the south of India, however, a great State now develops. A ruler of the name of Pulakesin, who claimed descent from Ramachandra, established an empire in the south, known as the Chalukyan Empire. These southern people must have been closely connected with the Indian colonies in the eastern islands, and there must have been constant traffic between these islands and India. We also learn that Indian ships frequently carried merchandise to Persia. The Chalukyan kingdom exchanged ambassadors with the Sassanids in Persia, especially with one of their great rulers, Khusrau II.
39
India’s Control of Foreign Markets
May 5, 1932
Right through this old period of history which we are considering, for more than 1000 years, we find Indian trade flourishing both in the west in Europe and western Asia, and in the east right up to China. Why was this so? Not merely because the Indians in those days were good sailors and good merchants, which they certainly were; and not merely because of their skill in handicrafts, great as was this skill. All this helped. But one of the chief reasons for the control of distant markets by India seems to have been her progress in chemistry, especially in dyeing. The Indians of those days seem to have discovered special methods for the preparation of fast dyes for cloth. They also knew a special method of preparing the indigo dye from the plant. You will notice that the very name “indigo” comes from India. It is also probable that the old Indians knew how to temper steel well, and thus to make fine steel weapons. You may remember my telling you that in the old Persian stories of Alexander’s invasion, whenever a good sword or dagger is mentioned it is stated that it was from India.
Because India could make these dyes and other articles better than the other countries, it was natural that she should command the markets. The person or the country having a better tool, or a better or cheaper method of making any article, is bound, in the long run, to drive out another person or country which has not got as good a tool or as good a method. And this is the reason why Europe has gone ahead of Asia during the last 200 years. New discoveries and inventions gave Europe new and powerful tools and new methods of manufacture. With the help of these she captured the markets of the world and became rich and powerful. There were other causes, too, which helped her. But for the moment I would like you to consider how important a thing a tool is. Man, a great man once said, is a tool-making animal. And man’s history, from the earliest days to the present, is a history of more and more efficient tools—from the early stone arrows and hammers of the Stone Age to the railway and steam-engine and the enormous machines of today. Indeed, almost everything we do requires a tool. Where would we be without tools?
A tool is a good thing; it helps to lighten work. But of course a tool may be misused. A saw is a useful tool, but a child may hurt itself with it. A knife is one of the most useful things you can have. Every scout must have it. And yet a foolish person may kill another with the knife. It is not the fault of the poor knife. The fault lies with the person misusing the tool.
In the same way modern machinery, good in itself, has been and is being misused in many ways. Instead of lightening the burden of work on the masses, it has often made their lot even worse than before. Instead of bringing happiness and comfort to millions of people, as it should, it has brought misery to many; and it has placed so much power in the hands of governments that they can slaughter millions in their wars.
But the fault lies not in machinery, but in the misuse of it. If the big machinery were controlled not by irresponsible persons who want to make money for themselves out of it, but on behalf of and for the good of the people generally, there would be a tremendous difference.
So in those days, unlike today, India was ahead of the world in her methods of manufacture. And so Indian cloth and Indian dyes and other articles went to far countries and were eagerly sought after. To India this trade brought wealth. Besides this trade, South India supplied pepper and other spices. These spices also came from the eastern islands and passed via India to the West. Pepper was greatly valued in Rome and the West, and it is said that Alaric, a chief of the Goths who captured Rome in 410 AC took 3000 pounds of pepper from there. All this pepper must have come from or via India.
40
The Ups and Downs of Countries and Civilizations
May 6, 1932
We have kept away from China for a long time now. Let us go to it again and carry on our tale, and see what was happening to it when Rome was falling in the West, and India was having a national revival under the Guptas. The rise or fall of Rome affected China very little. They were
too far removed from each other. But I have already told you that the driving back of the Central Asian tribes by the Chinese State sometimes had disastrous consequences for Europe and India. These tribes, or others whom they pushed, went west and south. They upset kingdoms and States and created confusion. Many settled down in eastern Europe and in India.
There were, of course, direct contacts between Rome and China, and embassies were exchanged. The earliest of such embassies mentioned in the Chinese books is said to have come from the Emperor An-Tun of Rome in 166 AC. This An-Tun is no other than Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, whom I mentioned in one of my letters to you.
The fall of Rome in Europe was a mighty thing. It was not merely the fall of a city or the fall of an empire. In a way the Roman Empire continued at Constantinople for long afterwards, and the ghost of the Empire hovered all over Europe for 1400 years or so. But the fall of Rome was the end of a great period. It was the end of the ancient world of Greece and Rome. A new world, a new culture and civilization were rising in the West on the ruins of Rome. We are misled by words and phrases, and because we find the same words used, we are apt to think that they mean the same thing. After Rome fell, western Europe continued to talk in the language of Rome, but behind that language were different ideas and different meanings. People say that the countries of Europe today are the children of Greece and Rome. And this is true to some extent, but still it is a misleading statement. For the countries of Europe represent something quite different from what Greece and Rome stood for. The old world of Rome and Greece collapsed almost completely. The civilization that had been built up in 1000 years or more ran to seed and decayed. It was then that the semi-civilized, half-barbarous countries of western Europe appear on the page of history and build up slowly a new culture and civilization. They learned much from Rome; they borrowed from the old world. But the process of learning was difficult and laborious. For hundreds of years culture and civilization seemed to have gone to sleep in Europe. There was the darkness of ignorance and bigotry. These centuries have therefore been called the Dark Ages.
Why was this so? Why should the world go back; and why should the knowledge accumulated through hundreds of years of labour disappear, or be forgotten? These are big questions, which trouble the wisest of us. I shall not attempt to answer them. Is it not strange that India, which was great in thought and action, should fall so miserably and for long periods should remain a slave country? Or China, with her splendid past, be a prey to interminable fighting? Perhaps the knowledge and the wisdom of the ages, which man has gathered together bit by bit, do not disappear. But somehow our eyes close and we cannot see at times. The window is shut and there is darkness. But outside and all around is the light, and if we keep our eyes or our windows shut, it does not mean that the light has disappeared.
Some people say that the Dark Ages in Europe were due to Christianity—not the religion of Jesus, but the official Christianity which flourished in the West after Constantine, the Roman Emperor, adopted it. Indeed, these people say that the adoption of Christianity by Constantine in the fourth century “inaugurated a millennium” (that is, 1000 years) “in which reason was enchained, thought was enslaved, and knowledge made no progress”. Not only did it bring persecution and bigotry and intolerance, but it made it difficult for people to make progress in science and in most other ways. Sacred books often become obstacles to progress. They tell us what the world was like at the time that they were written; they tell us the ideas of that period, and its customs. No one dare challenge those ideas or those customs because they are written in a “sacred” book. So, although the world may change tremendously, we are not allowed to change our ideas and customs to fit in with the changed conditions. The result is that we become misfits, and of course there is trouble.
Some people therefore accuse Christianity of having brought this period of darkness over Europe. Others tell us that it was Christianity and Christian monks and priests who kept the lamp of learning alight during the Dark Ages. They kept up art and painting, and valuable books were carefully preserved and copied by them.
Thus do people argue. Perhaps both are right. But it would be ridiculous to say that Christianity is responsible for all the evils that followed the fall of Rome. Indeed, Rome fell because of these evils.
I have wandered far. What I wanted to point out to you was that while in Europe there was a sudden social collapse and a sudden change there was no such sudden change in China or even in India. In Europe we see the end of a civilization and the early beginnings of another which was to develop slowly into what it is today. In China we see the same high degree of culture and civilization continuing without any such break. There are ups and downs. Good periods and bad kings and emperors come and go, and dynasties change. But the cultural inheritance does not break. Even when China splits up into several States and there is mutual conflict, art and literature flourish, lovely paintings are made, and beautiful vases and fine buildings. Printing comes into use, and tea-drinking comes into fashion and is celebrated in poetry. There is a continuing grace and artistry in China which can come alone from a high civilization.
So also in India. There is no sudden break, as in Rome. Certainly there are bad times and good. Periods of fine literary and artistic production, and periods of destruction and decay. But civilization continues, after a fashion. It spreads from India to the other countries of the East. It absorbs and teaches even the barbarians who come to plunder.
Do not think that I am trying to praise India or China at the expense of the West. There is nothing to shout about in the condition of India or China today, and even the blind can see that, with all their past greatness, they have sunk low in the scale of nations. If there was no sudden break with their past culture, this does not mean that there has been no change for the worse. If we were up and we are down, obviously we have come down in the world. We may feel pleased at the continuity of our civilization, but that is small comfort when that civilization itself has run to seed. Perhaps it might have been better for us if we had had sudden breaks with the past. This might have shaken us up and given new life and vitality. It may be that the events that are happening in India and the world today are giving this impetus to our old country and filling her with youth and new life again.
The strength and perseverance of India in the past seem to have lain in her widespread system of village republics or self-governing panchayats. There were no big landlords and no big zamindars, such as we have today. Land belonged to the village community or panchayat or to the peasants who worked on it. And these panchayats had a great deal of power and authority. They were elected by the village folk, and thus there was a basis of democracy in this system. Kings came and went, or quarrelled with each other, but they did not touch or interfere with this village system or venture to take away from the liberties of the panchayats. And so while empires changed, the social fabric which was based on the village system continued without great change. We are apt to be misled by the accounts of invasions and fighting and change of rulers into thinking that the whole population was affected by them. Of course, populations were sometimes affected, especially in the north of India, but on the whole it may be said that they worried little and carried on in spite of changes at the top.
Another factor that strengthened the social system in India for a long time was the caste system as it originally existed. Caste then was not so rigid as it became later; nor did it depend on birth alone. It held Indian life together for thousands of years, and it could only do so, not by preventing change or growth, but by allowing this to take place. The old Indian outlook in religion and life was always one of tolerance and experiment and change. That gave it strength. Gradually, however, repeated invasions and other troubles made caste rigid, and with it the whole Indian outlook became more rigid and unyielding. This process went on till the Indian people were reduced to their present miserable condition, and caste became the enemy of every kind of progress. Instead of holding together the social
structure, it splits it up into hundreds of divisions and makes us weak and turns brother against brother.
Thus caste helped in the past in strengthening India’s social system. But even so it had the seeds of decay in it. It was based on perpetuating inequality and injustice, and any such attempt was bound to fail in the end. No sound and stable society can be built up on the basis of inequality and injustice, or on the exploitation of one class or group by another. Because today there is still this unfair exploitation, we see so much trouble and unhappiness all over the world. But everywhere people have come to realize this and are working hard to get rid of it.
As in India, so also in China, the strength of the social system lay in the villages, and the hundreds of thousands of peasants who owned and tilled the land. There also there were no big zamindars. Religion was never permitted to dogmatize or to become intolerant. Of all the people in the world, perhaps the Chinese have been and still are the least bigoted in the matter of religion.
Again, you will remember that both in India and China there was no such labour slavery as in Greece or Rome, or earlier still in Egypt. There were some domestic servants who were slaves, but they made little difference to the social system. This system would have gone on in the same way without them. Not so in ancient Greece or Rome, where the large numbers of slaves were an essential part of the system, and the real burden of all work lay on them. And in Egypt, where would the great Pyramids have been but for this slave labour?
I began this letter with China and I intended to carry on her story. But I have drifted to other subjects, not an unusual thing for me! Perhaps next time we may stick to China.
Glimpses of World History Page 17
