Question

Broad Question

**Describe the following condition of Gupta Empire
(a) Trade and commerce
(b) Political issues

Answer 1

India after the death of Harsha (606-647) saw the rapid disintegration of his empire. The whole empire of Harsha, which covered a large part of northern India, was split up into numerous kingdoms. The common feature of these kingdoms was the rapid growth of a system which has been called by the modern scholars as feudalism

Rise of Feudalism

In the period under review feudalism became a universal phenomenon, particularly in Northern India. Recently two outstanding research works, Indian Feudalism by R.S. Sharma, and Society and Culture in the Northern India by Prof. B.N.S Yadav, have thrown ample light on the various aspects of feudalism. B.P. Mazumdar's The Socio-Economic History of Northern India also provides us valuable information on this problem. B.P. Mazumdar calls this period "as the hey day of feudal anarchy." The writings of D.N. Jha and K.M. Shrimali also deserve our attention.

One of the significant features of the prevailing political system was the complete fragmentation of political power from top to bottom. The basic changes in the economic structure and relationship did have their implications on the political structure. With the shifting of economic power to the vassals the supreme political authority i.e., the king was not in a commanding position to concentrate all political power in his hand. The result was obvious K.M. Shrimali rightly points out :

"The growing bardic sycophancy, however, had begun to create an aura around kings, treating them as rulers of rulers and ascribing divinity to them. As a result of this image building the king was increasingly becoming more of a private person than the real head of the state."

The vassal was usually called as samanta, rauta, thakkur, etc. The vassal was granted land by the ruler. In lieu of this land grant he was expected to send military contingent to the ruler. Apart from this obligation the samanta was left free with full powers to administer his territories. If the samanta remained loyal to the fuller and committed to his military obligations there was no interference from the above. However, the division of political power was not restricted to this level alone. Feudal lords had their own sub-vassals. The increase in the number and power of these samantas and sub-samantas weakened the central authority. It resulted in the emergence of a political system which deprived the ruler of administrating his territory directly and effectively. Prof. Mohammad Habib thus remarks :

"the strength of Hindustan was divided among a multitude of factious Rais, Sub Rais, local chiefs and village headmen, between whom anything like sensible co-operation was impossible."

Weak Administration

With the emergence of a new political order, which saw the sharing and shifting of political authority, the need of making the central administration really imposing was no longer there. The role of centre was rapidly marginalized. As already stated the land was assigned to thesamantas, which provided a solid base for their political power; the rulers were reduced to a nominal position and virtually lost the power to intervene effectively in the affairs of the territories that were under the control of the samantas. Whatever structure that existed at the top was retained nominal. Under these prevailing conditions nothing was done to gear up the administrative machinery. The more powerful rulers concentrated their energies on settling scores with their neighbours. Continuous warfare did not give them any opportunity to look seriously into the administrative problems.
Left practically free the samantas had framed their own rules and regulations and conducted the affairs of their territories in their own way. The multiplicity of the administration within a state created a complex situation : all this finally led to the weakening of the entire administrative machinery.

Out-dated Military System

Moreover, the approach of the Indian rulers to the military system was out-dated. While the Turks had raised well-trained standing army consisting mainly of the cavalry the Indian rulers were religiously sticking to the traditional methods of warfare.

The army of an Indian ruler consisted largely of the troops supplied by his vassals or the samantas. Obviously such an army supplied from various pockets could not work in cohesion in a battlefield. The idea of raising a standing army remained more or less alien to the Indian rulers. Further, these rulers neglected their cavalry. A fragmented and slow-moving army was hardly an answer to the well-trained horses of the Turks