The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c10.9

v1.c10.9

continued to reign till about the last quarter of the 8th century, when they were supplanted by the Cōḷas (*c.* 880-1300 A.D.) as the supreme power south of the Tungabhadra. Even Northern India was not wholly included in Harṣa's dominions. Smith himself admits that Kashmir, Punjab, Sind, Rajputana and Kāmarūpa were outside his empire. The evidence on which Valabhī, Nepal, and Bengal are reckoned as part of his dominions is extremely uncertain and vague. An Indian scholar has recently tried to show after a critical study of the epigraphic and literary evidence that Harṣa's territory only "comprised the districts roughly corresponding to the present United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, with a portion of Eastern Punjab and Western Bihar.¹ "According to this view Harsa's dominions were bounded by the Himalayas, the Western Punjab, Rajputana, Central India, and Bengal." Though this may perhaps be regarded as a rather extreme statement of the position, yet I think the time has come when we should try to avoid basing our conclusions on vague statements of partisans and *prasastikāras*. That Harṣa was the most considerable prince of Northern India is proved by the epithet *Sakala-Uttarā-patheśvara*, applied to him by his enemies the Cālukyas;² but we must learn to differentiate between the most powerful king of Northern India and the emperor of Northen India. In view of this position, it is absurd to say that no emperor arose in Northern India whose dominions could rival those of Harṣa. There is unquestioned evidence, as we shall see later on, that some of the Pratīhāra emperors ruled over an empire more extensive than that of the Puṣpabhūti king. Again, the assertion that there was a general decline in everything from about 647 A.D. is, to say the least, extremely exaggerated. It is true that no Kālidāsa was born again; but to regard poets and dramatists like Bahavabhūti, Viśākhadatta and Rājaśekhara as representatives of a decadent literature is, I fear, somewhat inaccurate. In religion; if Buddhism disappeared, the period saw the birth of teachers like Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja. In the field of Mathematics and Astronomy it produced the famous Bhāskarācārya, whose work “enjoyed more authority in India than any other astronomical work except the *Sūrya-Siddhānta*.” In the domain of architecture Smith himself admits that “it was practised on a magnificent scale” during the period that followed the death of Harṣa. Under these circumstances to regard Harṣa's death as an epoch marking the end of all unity in India and ushering in the mediaeval period is to show a false perspective of the main currents of affairs. If Indian history lost her unity she lost it with the death of Aśoka in the 3rd century B.C. If we have to find for practical purposes another date which will serve as a landmark in the history of Northern India, then 916 A.D., and not 647, is more appropriate, as we shall presently see.