Social Sciences, asked by mnmshajahan3701, 11 months ago

Review the administration of Emperor Harsh in detail.

Answers

Answered by vinimahi290111
2

Administration and the Empire

Harshavardhana ruled over the entire North India from 606 to 647 CE. It is said that Harshavardhana’s empire reminded many of the great Gupta Empire as his administration was similar to that of the administration of the Gupta Empire. There was no slavery in his empire and people were free to lead their life according to their wish. His empire also took good care of the poor by building rest houses that provided all the amenities required. In many texts, Harshavardhana has been described as a noble emperor who made sure all his subjects stayed happy. He did not impose heavy taxes on his people and the economy was somewhat self-sufficient. His capital Kannauj (in present day Uttar Pradesh) attracted many artists, poets, religious leaders and scholars who traveled from far and wide. He also maintained cordial relations with the Chinese. He even sent an Indian mission to China, establishing a diplomatic relationship between India and China. The famous Chinese monk and traveler Xuanzang spent eight years in his empire. He later recorded his experiences and even praised Harshavardhana for the way he went about ruling his empire.

During the course of his rule, Harshavardhana built a strong army. Historical records suggest that he had 100,000 strong cavalry, 50,000 infantry and 60,000 elephants during the peak of his reign. He was also a patron of literature and art. Thanks to the numerous endowments that were made to the Nalanda University, a mighty wall enclosing the edifices of the university was constructed during his rule. This wall saved the university from attack and invasions by the enemies and that ensured the prosperity of this great centre of learning. Harshavardhana’s interest in the field of prose and poetry is well-documented. A famous Indian writer and poet named Banabhatta served as the ‘Asthana Kavi’ (primary poet of the kingdom) in the court of Harshavardhana. The emperor himself was a skilled writer as he had penned down three Sanskrit plays, namely ‘Ratnavali’, ‘Priyadarsika’ and ‘Nagananda.’

During Harshavardhana’s reign, there was paucity of coins in most parts of North India. This fact suggests that the economy was feudal in nature. People were more concerned about growing their own crops rather than creating a market for the crops grown.

Harshavardhana’s kingdom was one of the earliest Indian kingdoms where we can see the practice of feudalism. This was similar to the feudal grants of Europe. Independent rulers, collectively known as ‘Mahasamantas,’ paid tribute to Harshavardhana and also helped him by supplying military reinforcements. This played an important role in the expansion of Harshavardhana’s empire.

Being one of the largest Indian empires of the 7th Century CE, it covered the entire North and Northwestern India. In the east, his empire extended till Kamarupa and ran all the way down to the Narmada River. It is said that his empire was spread across the present day states of Orissa, Bengal, Punjab and the whole of Indo-Gangetic plain. Harshavardhana defeated and conquered many kingdoms during his reign. When he thought of extending his empire beyond the Narmada River, his advisors came up with a plan to conquer South India. He then charted out a plan to attack Pulakeshin II of the Chalukya dynasty. Pulakeshin II controlled a major part of South India. Hence, Harshavardhana’s plan to fight Pulakeshin II suggests that he wanted to gain control over the whole of India. Unfortunately, Harshavardhana underestimated Pulakeshin II’s military prowess and was defeated in the battle, which took place on the banks of Narmada.

MARK AS BRAINLIEST

FOLLOW ME

Answered by chalamharshavardan
2
Harsha governed his empire on the same lines as the Guptas did, except that his administration had become more feudal and decentralised. The accepted title of a great king in Harsha’s days was Parma-Bhattaraka Mahesvara and Maharajadhiraja which implied the existence of lesser kings with considerable authority within the empire.

The major part of the territory conquered by Harsha was ruled by such feudatories. Independent in the internal administration of their territories, they generally owed allegiance to a suzerain. The leading feudatories of Harsha were Bhaskaravarman of Kamarupa, Dhruvabhatta of Valabhi, Purnavarman of Magadha and Udita of Jalandhara.

The King was the centre of administration, helped by the crown prince. Other princes were ap­pointed as Viceroys of provinces. Ministers of various types and advisers assisted the king in the administration. During Harsha’s time high officers i.e., Daussadha Sadhnika, Pramatara, Rajasthaniya, Uparika and Vishayapati, etc., were not paid in cash for their services to the state, but were compen­sated by way of offering one-fourth of the royal revenues.

Thus under Harsha, revenues were granted not only to priests and scholars but also to the officials of the state, a practice the existence of which is supported by the paucity of coins belonging to this period. In the areas administered by the Samantas (feudal chiefs), the emperor realised annual taxes from them and not from the subjects.

Bana speaks of samanta, mahasamanta (chief samantaj, aptasamanta (those who willingly ac­cepted the vassalage of the overlord), pradhana samanta (were the most trusted chiefs of the emperor, who never disregarded their advice), shatru mahasamanta (conquered army chiefs) and pratisamanta (a hostile vassal).

Defeated kings were made to render three kinds of services to king in the court. They held chowries, served as door-keepers in the court and served as reciters of auspicious words like success (jaya). Normally, an important duty of these rajas and samantas was to render military aid to their overlord.

Decentralisation of administrative authority was caused by increasing grants of land and villages with fiscal and administrative immunities to priests and temples. The vesting of magisterial and police powers together with fiscal rights on the priests evidently weakened the central authority.

The local administration was, for all practical purposes, independent of the centre. The officers in charge of the districts (ayukta) and the provincial official (kumaramatya) were the link between local administration and the centre. Village came under the control of rural bodies consisting of the headman and the village elders.

Harsha maintained contact with public opinion both through his officers and by his own tours, which gave him the opportunity of supervising the administration.
Similar questions