The Rashtrakutas and their Times c24: Chapter XVII. Conclusion

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c24

Language: English

Chapter XVII. Conclusion

c24.2

Our task of giving a comprehensive picture of the Deccan under the Rāṣṭrakūṭas has now come to an end, and only a few words are necessary by way of epilogue.

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas were, on the whole, an able set of rulers. Their empire was certainly more extensive than that of any of their Hindu successors in the Deccan. It is possible that the Āndhras and the early Chālukyas, who preceded them, were perhaps ruling, for some time, over more extensive areas; but neither of them could claim an equally brilliant career. The Chālukyas could boast of having only repelled successfully the attempted invasion of Harṣa. The Āndhras could no doubt launch an expedition into the Madhyadeśa and overthrow the Kaṇvas, but the latter, at the time of the Āndhra victory, were mere petty rulers. In no other period of Ancient Indian History did the Deccan enjoy the same high political prestige, which it did under the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. The observation of Sulaiman, that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were the most feared and powerful rulers of India, is no flattery, but a mere statement of facts. A glance at the Indian History shows that it is usually the northern Indian powers which try to expand at the cost of their southern neighbours. During the Rāṣṭrakūṭa regime, neither the Pālas nor the Gurjara-Pratīhāras could entertain such ambitions. Nay, we find that the latter were several times signally defeated in their own provinces by the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. Three times the armies of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas crossed the Vindhyas and defeated their northern opponents, who were, unlike the Kaṇvas, strong and ambitious rulers, attempting to establish their own hegemony in the north. The Rāṣṭrakūṭas could capture the Gurjara-Pratīhāra capital; the latter could not even cross the Rāṣṭrakūṭa border in retaliation. The Pallavas were a perpetual source of anxiety to the early Chālukyas; no southern neighbour of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, though given repeated provocation, ever dared to invade the empire from the south.

c24.4

The Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire lasted for about 225 years. It is interesting to note that very few Hindu dynasties have ruled in their full glory for so long a period. The Mauryas, the Imperial Guptas, the early Chālukyas all collapsed in less than two centuries. The Āndhras no doubt ruled for about four centuries and a half, but it is not certain that the Pauranic list of the Āndhra kings belongs really to one dynasty. The Gurjara-Pratīhāra dynasty can certainly claim a longer career, but it had attained no imperial position before the time of Vatsarāja ( c. 775 A.D. ), and its empire was shorn of much of its glory after the severe blow given by Indra III in c. 916 A.D. Most of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa rulers were able ones; in a list of about 14 kings, only three are found to be vicious or inefficient. Dantidurga, Kṛṣṇa I, Dhruva, Govinda III, Indra III and Kṛṣṇa III form a galaxy of able and ambitious rulers, the like of which can hardly be claimed by any other dynasty.

c24.5

The most glaring defect of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa polity was its inability to secure a peaceful succession to the throne at the death of its previous occupant. There was a war of succession almost at every alternate accession. The dynastic history of no other Hindu dynasty is probably disfigured by so many wars of succession. It is, therefore, the more remarkable that the empire should have had so long and glorious a career.

c24.6

A superficial reader of the Muslim chroniclers is likely to get the impresion that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were following an anti-national policy by siding with the Muslims and fighting against the Gurjara-Pratihāras. It has been, however, shown already¹ that the statements of these writers, that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were partial to the Muslims, and that none but the Muslims ruled over the Muslims in their dominions, only show that the Muslim Kazis were allowed to look after the religious and judicial affairs of the foreign colony. The friendly policy followed towards the Muslim traders was, in a great measure, necessitated by the dependence on Arabia for the supply of horses to the army. Merchant Sulaiman, who was acquainted with the state of affairs only in the Deccan, observes that none among the natives of India or China had embraced the Muslim faith or could speak the Arabic language.² It is, therefore, clear that the Muslim traders, settled in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa ports, had initiated no activities injurious to the interest of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas or their subjects. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas had made any political alliance with the Muslim rulers of Sindh in their wars with the Gurjara-Pratihāras.

c24.7

¹ Ante, p. 187.

c24.8

² Sulaiman Saudagar, Hindi translation, p. 84.

c24.9

It is, however, a pity that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas should have neglected altogether the branch of naval defence. The reasons for this have been already discussed.³ This weakness of the administration was, however, not peculiar to the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, for most of the Deccan empires had neglected the naval arm. It must, however, be remembered that no naval invasion of the Deccan had occurred in historic times; it is, therefore, in a way natural that it may have been thought that it was unnecessary to waste any money over the navy. Safety of the oversea trade, however, aught to have opened the eyes of the Hindu governments to the necessity of the navy.

c24.10

³ See ante, p. 247.

c24.11

The careful student of the Hindu history cannot help regretting that the political thinkers in India should ever have adumbrated the principle that a conqueror should not supplant, but merely reduce, the conquered king, and that it should have been so widely respected. The resources of the empires, like those of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, were unnecessarily frittered away in suppressing the rebellions of feudatories, who should never have been allowed to exist. The present writer believes that if the policy of ruthless annexation had been followed consistently since the days of Chandragupta Maurya, there would have been evolved in India stronger and stabler states, and it would not have been possible for foreigners like the Scythians, Hunas, and Muslims to get so easy a footing in India.

c24.12

The Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration was certainly efficient. The 20th century would naturally disapprove of a system of administration under which a large number of civil officers were recruited from the army. But it may be pointed out that the bifurcation between the civil and military, and executive and judicial functions is more recent than our period, and the recent history of Italy, Poland, Spain, Portugal and Germany shows that it is by no means certain that some states in future may not revert back to the old system where the military commanders, being persons of proved vigour and efficiency were entrusted with important administrative posts. Probably the exigencies of a forward policy were responsible for the appointment of so many military commanders to civil posts. The evils of the system were probably to a great extent mitigated by the fact that the military officers were after all sons of the soil and were assisted by hereditary district, Taluka, and village officers. Democratic institutions like elected parliaments, responsible cabinets etc., were absent, but it may be pointed out that they existed nowhere else in contemporary times. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa subjects, however, enjoyed a substantial amount of self-government by the circumstance that large powers were delegated to local bodies where they had an effective voice. How far the administration secured the material, moral and cultural progress of the people is the next question to be considered. Sufficient evidence has been adduced in chapter XV to show that the Deccan was economically strong and prosperous under the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. Otherwise their aggressive wars would have been impossible. Commerce was brisk, and several industries flourished. The mines were also yielding rich income. The high compliments paid to the Deccanese character by the Chinese and the Muslims would show that the moral welfare was also looked after. It is, however, difficult to determine how much of the credit in this respect has to be given to the state and how much to religion. In religious matters the state maintained a catholic and tolerant attitude. Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism lived side by side in peace and harmony. It may be pointed out that during our period, there was no such harmony in Tamil country, where the Jains were ruthlessly persecuted by the Śaivaits.

c24.13

The effort of the state to promote the cultural wellbeing of the subjects can, to some extent, be judged from the chapter dealing with Education and Literature. Both these received the royal patronage in a liberal measure; if the literature did not flourish more luxuriantly than it actually did, the fault seems to be not of the state. It must be.

c24.14

however, admitted that fine arts do not seem to have received any impetus in the age of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. The Mauryan, Gupta, Cālukya and Pallava ages had their own distinctive and creditable contributions in the sphere of fine arts; no such claim can be made for the Rāṣṭrakūṭa age. Fine arts seem to have been practically neglected by the Malkhed Court. The rock-cut temple at Elora is no doubt an architectural wonder; but it is the only imposing monument of the age, handed down to the posterity, and there is no evidence to show that any other monuments of equal magnificence have been subsequently destroyed. The Elora temple, again, may, not unlikely, have been the work of artists imported from Kanchi.

c24.15

In the religious and social spheres, our age was an age of transition. It was towards the end of our period that Buddhism, reconversions into Hinduism, intercaste dinners and marriages, and religious parishads having powers to settle socio-religious matters, disappeared from the Hindu society. Vratas, tonsure of widows, provincial sub-castes, the association of dancing girls with temples, the resuscitation of the Satī custom in the Deccan, and the more intricate Smārta ritual are innovations that can be traced either to our, or to the immediately succeeding age. It is probable that our age believed that most of these changes were changes for the better, but the subsequent history of the Hindu society has shown that they have weakened its unity and cohesion. One cannot help thinking that the thinkers of the age should have taken a longer view of the situation, and realised the full consequences of the new changes that were being either forced upon or recommended by them.