The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c10.14

v1.c10.14

I have already pointed out the danger of calling Harṣa the emperor of Northern India on the strength of mere catch-phrases. A large portion of Northern India remained outside his dominions; and in this region the year 647 A.D. was only in a very limited sense, if at all, an event of any importance. Similarly a large part of it, though probably less in extent than in the time of Harṣa, lay outside the orbit of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire; and here again the year 916 A.D., which saw the beginning of the break-up of the Pratīhāra empire did not bring such vital changes as to mark an epoch in its history. To some at least the year 916 A.D., does not appear to have had the slightest significance. The time has come when we should realise more clearly the vastness of India and recognise the limitations of such expressions as 'emperor of India' or even 'emperor of Northern India' which are so frequently used in text-books on Indian history. In the strictest sense of the word there was perhaps no Hindu ruler who could be called the emperor of the whole of Northern India after the fall of the Mauryas. But for practical purposes, as I have said, the arrival of the Turk on the Indian frontier in the 10th century may well serve as a land-mark in Indian history.