Why India got socio-religious reformers 600 years before Christ

Vardhman Mahavira

Jesus Christ was born in 6 BCE (before common era). His religious teachings heralded a socio-religious revolution in the West. He preached peace to an extremely quarrelsome population from the deserts of Arab to the greeneries of Greece and Italy. But historians tell us that the real impact of the Christ revolution happened after Jesus Christ's teachings hit the head of Constantine One or Constantine, the Great. 

Though some historians doubt his absolute belief in Christianity but they agree that he identified himself as a Christian. One particular incident is often cited. That when he was leading his army to fight off an invader, a pagan, just outside Rome in the early fourth century (311-12), he saw an image in the sky. As the narrative goes, his enemy believed in a prophesy that the enemies of Rome would prevail in the war. Constantine, on the other hand, saw an image in the sky -- Chi-Ro (kee-ro), represented by two Greek letters -- x and p -- combined together with words inscribed on air: by this sign, conquer. 

He led his army to victory. The next year, he declared persecution of Christians illegal in Rome. He made Chi-Ro the official insignia of his army, which won many a battle, vastly expanding the Roman empire, and made Byzantine his capital christened as Constantinople, now Istanbul. This Chi-Ro later became the Christian Cross for the Christian armies. The impact of his deeds was such that Christianity was declared the official religion of Rome seventy years later.

This story is originally very long. I have tried to tell it in short. Even this abridged version is lengthy for a write-up on how socio-religious movements happened in India many a centuries before Christianity made a true impact in the West. But I told this story on purpose. Most people need a reference point or a familiar background against which they appreciate some intrinsically known facts. We tend to get used to the worst and the best almost in the same mental-psychological manner. We just get used to it. 

I had read somewhere that when Mahavira and Buddha happened to the Indian subcontinent, there were more than 560 (562, if I remember correctly) socio-religious reformers of repute. This was happening more than 500 years before Christ was born, and more than 800 years before Christianity began taking its real shape. And unlike Christianity, the most popular religion on the planet, none of these socio-religious philosophies needed an army to stamp their authority on the minds of the then-Indian population. All of them received respect from people even though many of them fought among themselves in their bid to establish superiority of their own philosophy.

So, the natural question is, why India produced so many reformers and two of the world's greatest ever in those years?

Society must have needed them. There must have been situations or a culmination of situations which saw society producing these luminaries and accepting them as the guiding lights. The answer to this question could be found in existing social-religious conditions and the material progress of the time. Let's reconstruct both these aspects here.

Social background

In the earlier times, Vedas and Upanishads were the core of socio-religious beliefs. The language of these literature was Sanskrit, a chaste form compared to modern-day Sanskrit to the extent that many historians prefer to call it Vedic Sanskrit or archaic Sanskrit. The population generally spoke their regional languages with enough number of people knowing a few languages from different parts of India. I am not sure when it happened a disconnect had been established between what was written in the Vedas and Upanishads, and what reached to the common people not versed in Sanskrit.

This disconnect had a strong link to how society stratified over the past one thousand years or so. By now, society was clearly divided into four varnas: Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. It is remarkable to note here is that Brahmanas were originally one of perhaps 16 classes of Vedic priests. But by sixth century before common era, they had developed into a separate caste with their own sub-castes with a claim to the top stratum of society. But their claim was not yet unchallenged. Kshatriyas, who practically owned geography-clamped societies, jostled for supremacy, some of the historians tell us. 

Monolithic statue of Gautam Buddha installed in a Hyderabad lake (Pic: Twitter)

Vish of the Rig Vedic times had classified themselves in several castes but maintained their Varna identity. Shudras had developed from all other Varnas but now had a relegated position for engaging in labour-intensive activities. It is ironical to see that both Kshatriyas and Shudras were in labour-intensive fields, and performed two equally significant basic functions of a society but were seen differently, and occupied almost the extreme ends of the social ladder. Kshatriyas provided protection to society. Shudra fed society, clothed it, gave it shoes, manufactured weapons of protection and served the rest in every possible way to ensure that societal communities continue to flourish. 

Now, each Varna was assigned well-defined functions. But unlike the Vedic times, the Varnas were now emphatically based on birth. The two top Varnas enjoyed some privileges. Brahmanas were considered the storekeeper of knowledge and wisdom. This gave them intellectual and psychological superiority over the rest. However, it seems illogical that all from the Brahmana Varna enjoyed the same authority over the rest. There must have been poor among them who had to toil hard to eke their livelihood. But they could not contribute to literature. So, their status is completely unknown. We anyway know only what has survived. The rest is an informed logical guess.

Brahmanas were priests and teachers. They demanded several privileges including those of receiving gifts from the kings, local chieftains and the common people, and also exemption from paying taxes and subjection to punishments for various crimes, if and when they committed. However, they must not have been getting a blanket cover from punishment or were offered gifts without questions or with total devotion as the fate of Chanakya is well-documented. 

He lived some 300 years after this phase of socio-religious reforms. Still, he could not claim all that authority which literature of the past generally makes us believe. Again, we know only what has survived. Chanakya was poor despite his father being a well-reputed scholar. He goes to the emperor but was not given gifts that he wanted. He was, in fact, ridiculed. He ended up insulting the king in a fit of rage, and in return, got banished. So, Chanakya originally got neither gift nor exemption from punishment. But some must have got both. This can be compared with today's societal set-up. Not all politicians or professors are equally prestigious or powerful. 

Kshatriyas fought and governed claiming taxes, and living off the revenues collected. They were the real power-wielders. But again not all Kshatriyas could have been equally powerful. Obviously, one could be the king and the other the front-line foot-soldier.

(Photo: Twitter)

The Vaishyas engaged in agriculture, cattle rearing and trade. They employed Shudras in big numbers for their activities. They appear as the principal tax payers. However, along with the two other higher Varnas, they were placed in the class of Dwija -- or twice-born people. This meant that they could hold the investiture ceremony, in which an adolescent male could wear a ceremonial thread across his torso. The three Varnas had different rules for wearing the sacred thread. 

Shudras were not allowed to organise the investiture ceremony for themselves. They were supposed to serve the other three Varnas. They along with women of all Varnas were practically denied Vedic education or studies. However, again the literature from later years -- the Chanakya-Chandragupta years -- indicate that this rule must not have been strictly followed or enforced by the ruler-teacher class. For, we see the Nanda dynasty emerge as the most powerful ruling family before the Mauryas came on the scene. The Nandas were said to be from the Shudra Varna. And the Mauryan literature talks about powerful women. The emperor himself was protected by a band of women bodyguards. This would not have been possible if society was so dead against Shudras and women as the surviving literature from the socio-religious upheaval years makes us believe.

But yes, Shudras and women were by now employed as domestic help and lived like slaves. Slaves in India were not comparable to the slaves recorded in the West. Here, their living condition was much more humane making a fourth century Greek ambassador believe and record that India did not practise slavery. Maybe, the Sanskrit word "dasa" is not the correct parallel of "slave" of English. 

Shudras were the chief manual labour force in the agricultural field -- some were agricultural slaves. They were craftsmen and craftswomen. They were practically hired for every vocation or business that needed manual labour except warfare. They might have been employed there in support staff as baggage and weapon carriers. Some literature, as historians say, describe them as cruel, greedy and thieving in habit, and some of them were treated as untouchables. Shudras must have made up the biggest chunk of society, and must have felt utterly frustrated with their social, economic and religious positioning in that societal set-up just because of their birth to a particular couple branded as belonging to a particular Varna. 

There must have been yearning for luxury and respect among them. The societal set-up was such that the higher the Varna the more privileges and purity one could claim. For the same offence, Shudras would get severer punishment compared to Brahmanas.

Naturally, Varna-divided society would have generated tensions. There are no means to ascertain the reactions from Vaishyas and Shudras. But Kshatriyas, who were the royalty, recorded their reaction against the ritualistic domination of Brahmanas. They appear to have led a sort of protest movement to demolish the principle of importance attached to birth in the Varna system. Their protest saw Brahmanas as targets, not violent but ideological. It is no mere coincidence that the two of the greatest socio-religious leaders were Kshatriyas -- Vardhman and Gautam.

Material base

This is considered as a bigger factor contributing to the rise of socio-religious reforms in the sixth century before common era. It was the time of the introduction of a new agricultural economy in the middle and lower Gangetic plains. Introduction of iron technology to agriculture heralded the transformation. 

These areas -- from Bihar-Bengal to eastern Uttar Pradesh -- were thickly forested in earlier times. The Aryan people cleared the forests for agriculture, as literature suggests. In the middle Gangetic plains, large scale habitations emerged around 600 BCE, as a result. The use of iron implements made forest clearing, farming and large-scale settlements easier. Agriculture-based economy got a new fillip with iron ploughshare, which required the use of bullocks. The supply of bullocks needed a flourishing animal husbandry as vocation. 

It was not that only Magadh rose to power. Kingh Kharvel invaded Magadh and defeated its king, and brought back Jain's statue to Kalinga (Photo: Twitter)

A whole new economic equation came into place. This was in a sharp contrast to the Vedic practice of indiscriminate sacrificing of cattle -- a necessity of the time to maintain a population balance in a society that thrived on milk and other cattle products, and used the same for transportation. The sacrifice of cattle in religious ceremonies meant that demand for bullocks could not be met. This came in the way of the new phase of agricultural revolution. The cattle wealth had slowly declined, the historians tell us. They also tell us that some communities, particularly those living on the southern fringes of the emerging Magadh empire, killed cattle for food. New agricultural revolution challenged their food habit by making availability of food easier than before, and also needed them to change their food habits so that there was no short-supply of cattle needed for the farms. 

If the new agrarian economy had to be stable, this indiscriminate killing of cattle with religious sanction needed to be stopped. A new guiding religious belief had to emerge to sustain the civil living based on new agricultural revolution.

In other words, the time had come for an idea backed by socio-religious philosophy that could preach absolute non-violence in an intellectually and spiritually glamourised fashion.

The period saw the rise of a large number of cities in the middle Gangetic plains. We all know a city organically grows only when there is abundant supply of food. If food supply is not assured, hunting, gathering or farming remains the primary vocation. City-life is a tertiary scale of socio-economy. These new cities needed and had many artisans and traders, who began to use coins for the first time on regular basis for economic exchange. The earlier barter economy exchange model could not support the growth. The earliest coins to survive belong to the fifth century before common era, and are called the punch-marked coins.

The use of coins naturally facilitated trade and commerce, which added to the importance of Vaishyas. But in the Brahmanical order, they did not get much importance. So, they looked for an order, which would improve their social position. This is why Vaishyas extended generous support to both Mahavira and Buddha. 

Further, Jainism and Buddhism, in their initial stages, did not attach any importance to the existing Varna system. Secondly, they preached the gospel of non-violence, which would put an end to wars between different kingdoms and consequently promote trade and commerce. Third, the Brahmanical law books, called Dharmashastras, decried lending money on interest. A person who lived on interest was condemned by them. Therefore, Vaishyas were not held in esteem and were eager to improve their social status.

On the other hand, there was a also strong reaction against various forms of private property. The new forms of property created social inequalities, and caused misery and suffering to the masses. So, the common people yearned for a more harmonious life and society. The ascetic ideal was one of the ideas espoused by the Vedas. A section of society now must have wanted to adopt this ideal, which was dispensed with the new forms of property and the new style of life.

Both Jainism and Buddhism preferred simple puritan ascetic living. The Jain and Buddhist monks were asked to forego the good things of life. They were not allowed to touch gold and silver. They were to accept only as much from their patrons as was sufficient to keep their body and psyche in harmony. The people, therefore, identified themselves such monks and supported the religious reactions against the Vedic religious practices. 

Also, since both Vardhman and Gautam came from ruling Kshatriya families, they commanded authority over both the priestly class and the common populace. Their ideas were patiently listened to, and adopted as far as possible. Since they came from Kshatriya Varna, the Brahmanas could not denounce them with arguments that they were not versed in the Vedas. This logic would not have any weight in society. Brahmanas were the interpreters of the Vedic religion and system, and Kshatriyas were enforcer of the order. 

Now, Kshatriyas took up the task to modify the social order and bring about a socio-religious reform. This went a long way in giving Jainism and Buddhism credibility as the royal warrior class produced teachers who preached peace and denounced the malpractices of the Vedas. This explains why unlike Christianity, where a non-violent preacher Christ needed a warring emperor to take off 300 years later, Jainism and Buddhism got royal support almost since their beginning, and none used the new religious ideas to launch a war on the other kingdom. Both kingdoms could be adopting the new ideas. And it also explains why Mauryan emperor Ashoka took the task of spreading Buddhism after renouncing warfare.

Vardhaman Mahavira: An introduction to Jainism

Vardhaman Mahavir temple, Madurai/Twitter

Vardhaman Mahavira was born in 540 BC in Kundagram near Vaishali. At the age of 42, he attained the state called Nirvana (cessation). The jnaan that attained is called kaivalya (omniscience) – the realisation of one’s self. He was acclaimed as a tirthankara (forth finder), a kaivlin (the supreme omniscient), jina (conqueror) and arhant (the blessed one). He was henceforth called Mahavira, the great hero. 

At the age of 72, Mahavira died in Rajgir in 468 BC at a place called Pavapuri. Mahavira recognised the teachings of 23 previous tirthankaras, about whom nothing is practically known. Many historians believe that only the last tirthankara, Mahavira, was a historical personage. 

However, most of them are known by their names and symbols. Mahavira is regarded as the historical founder of Jainism. Rishabhadeva or Rishabha was the first Jain tirthankara. The word, Rishabha, means a bull, hence some scholars link him to the bull worship of Mohenjodaro. 

Mahavira told his followers that their deeds should be based on Right Faith, Right Knowledge and Right Action. These are called the tri-ratnas or three jewels of Jainism.

Right Faith is the belief in what one knows.

Right Knowledge is the knowledge of the Jain creed.

Right Action is the practice of five vows of Jainism, namely, non-injury to living beings (ahimsa), truth (satya), non-stealing (asteya), not to own property (aparigrah) and practising chastity (brahmacharya). 

The first four vows were laid down by Parshwa and the fifth one was added by Mahavira, who also asked his followers to abandon clothes and go about naked.

Jainism emphasises on reality, which it describes as anekatva or plurality or multi-sidedness. It is beyond the finite minds to know all aspects of a thing. All our judgments are thus necessarily relative. There is no certainty in any knowledge, and hence, syadvad (the perhaps doctrine) is the wisest course to follow. To every proposition, the correct reply is syad, i.e. perhaps. There can be no absolute judgment on any issue.

Jainism represents the universe as something functioning according to an eternal law, continuously passing through a series of cosmic waves of progress and decline. 

Jainism proposes the principle of duality of jiva (eternal being/energy/some scholars have called it soul) and ajiva (eternal element) as applicable everywhere.  The jiva acts and is affected by its actions, it is a knowing self; the ajiva is atomic and unconscious. Every object is an agglomeration of ajiva with at least one jiva enmeshed in it. 

Everything material, even inanimate objects, has at least one jiva. Plants and trees have two jivas. For that specific reason, a fruit should preferably fall from the tree before it could be eaten. It must not be plucked by the followers of Jainism. Animals have three or more jivas. Jains are permitted to eat things with two jivas. To eat things with three jivas is forbidden. It is considered a breach of the vow of ahimsa. 

Mahavira preached in Magadhi, the language spoken by the common people of Magadh. Initially, his teachings were confined to the Ganga Valley regions but in the later centuries, Jainism moved to western parts, and also northern India (Rajasthan), and to the south in Karnataka.

Jainism was popular among the trading community members, who became its champions and spread it to far flung areas.

Jain teachings were at first presented in an oral tradition. But in the third century BC, at a council convened in Patliputra, it was collected and recorded. The final version was edited in the fifth century at Vallabhi. At the time of the council, the jains were divided into two sects – Svetambara and Digambara. The digambaras refused to recognise the rearranged and edited version of the 12 Angas as authentic. The digambaras were the ones who did not wear clothes. Svetambaras are those who wore white clothes.

Gautam Buddha: An Introduction

Photo taken on Aug 10, 2015 shows Buddha statues in one of the caves of the Yungang Grottoes, a 1,500-year-old Buddhist site in North China's Shanxi province. Listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2001, the Yungang Grottoes contain more than 51,000 statues of the Buddha. (Photo: Twitter/

@zhang_heqing

)

His name was Siddhartha, also known as Gautam, and he was a contemporary of Vardhaman Mahavira. There is confusion about the exact date of his birth but historians seem to consider 563 BC as his year of birth. He was born at Kapilavastu in the Himalayan foothills of Nepal as his mother was on her way to parents’ home from her in-laws’ place in Vaishali, an emerging political seat of power in the sixth century BC North Bihar. He was born in the ruling Shakya family.

Siddhartha attained ‘knowledge’ (Bodhi, a derivate of Sanskrit word, Buddhi meaning logic-based intelligence) at Bodh Gaya in South Bihar under a peepal tree. After attaining knowledge, Siddhartha delivered his first sermon at Sarnath in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh. His first preaching is known as Dharma-chakra-parivartan (literally meaning a change in the cycle of dharma, which is difficult to translate into English) in Buddhism, the philosophy founded by Siddhartha. He was afterwards called Buddha or Lord Buddha.

He preached for forty years and passed away at Kushinagar in Uttar Pradesh at the age of 80 in 483 BC.

He condemned the caste system as false and wrong.

He enunciated four truths that form the basis of Buddhism. These are:

1. Suffering (dukha) exists wherever there is life.
2. Desire is the cause of suffering leading to endless rebirths. The desire for things, existence, experience, immortality, sensual pleasure, worldly possession and power are the causes of suffering.
3. Freedom from suffering is possible. It can be achieved by abandoning desire, dumping one’s individuality and giving up the lust for worldly possessions.
4. There is a way to get rid of this cycle of suffering and rebirths. This is called the eight-fold way. It is alternatively called the middle path in Buddhism. It advocates negation of extremes, for example, the attachment to passion and worldly pleasure on one hand, and the practice of self-mortification and asceticism on the other.

The guiding principles for this liberation are enunciated in what is called the eight-fold path, the Ashtanga Marg. It leads to wisdom, calmness, knowledge, enlightenment and liberation. The eight principles are:

1. Right View
2. Right Aspiration
3. Right Speech
4. Right Conduct
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Meditation

These eight principles are grouped under three categories:

1. Prajna Skandh: Right View, Right Aspiration 
2. Sheel Skandh: Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood
3. Samadhi Skandh: Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Meditation

A devoted follower of the eight-fold path attains salvation or nirvana. The attainment of nirvana is the chief objective of Buddhism.

Buddhism (and also Jainism) is non-theistic in nature. The existence of God is irrelevant to the Buddhist doctrine. Buddhism believes that God is not the creator of the universe because if he is the creator, he would have to be responsible for the miseries of the world.

Buddha laid emphasis on self-effort or self-sufficiency. That is, “one who looks onto oneself”. In Buddhism, nothing is left for divine intervention.

Buddha also believed that a soul does not exist (after death), and that there is no transmigration of the soul. That soul dies with the death of the person. What is called soul is, in reality, a physical or mental aggregate of five impermanent conditions. These are:

1. Form (the body)
2. Feelings
3. Idea or understanding
4. Will
5. Pure consciousness

The human personality or soul is said to be bound within a process which Buddha called the Wheel of Existence or the Existence Wheel. We keep the wheel revolving through ignorance and indulge in actions that create karma. This karma leads to rebirth and successive existences, all beings inseparably bound with misery.

The question that arises is if the soul dies with he man, how does karma of a man lead to rebirth?

Milinda Panha has explained this aspect of Buddhist philosophy in terms of a wave which rises in water, gives birth to another and then disappears itself. Karma through consciousness becomes the cause for rebirth.

Like Mahavira, Buddha too laid down several sheelas (rules of conduct) for his followers. In general, sheelas prohibit destruction of life and causing of pain or injury to any living being. Ahimsa is fundamental to Buddhism.

Stealing, falsehood, use of intoxicants, coveting the property of others, telling lies and indulging in corrupt practices are prohibited.

Some sheelas prohibit magic, prophesy, astrology, religious rituals or worship in any form.

In society, Buddhism took the form of the Sangha, a Buddhist order of monks and laymen.

Sometimes after his death, a credo was formalised for the Buddhis discipline: Keep my faith in Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha. This Buddhist credo is referred to as the Tri-ratna, three jewels.

Buddha started viharas (monasteries), which were places where monks lived and spent their lives praying and preaching Buddhism. The viharas were also used as schools open to people of all strata of society. Some of the more famous were at Nalanda, Vikramshila (in Bihar) and Vallabhi (in Gujarat).

After Buddha, Ashvaghosh and Nagarjuna were great teachers of Buddhism and played significant role in the spread of Buddhism.

After the death of Buddha, four general councils of the Buddhist church (Sangha) were held.

1. First great Sangha was held at Rajagriha in 483 BC, soon after the death of Buddha. The discourses of Buddha were collected, compiled and embodied in the Pali canon. This literature is known as Tri-Pitaka after the conclusion of the third great Sangha, where the third Pitak was compiled.
• Vinaya Pitaka: This deals with the rules of the Buddhist order. It was versed by Buddha’s favourite disciple, Ananda.
• Sutta Pitaka: This is a collection of Buddha’s sermons. It was versed by Buddha’s another great disciple, Upali. The famous Jatakas (or the Jataka Kathas), dealing with the stories from previous births of Buddha, are contained in the Sutta Pitaka. They give us a graphic description of the contemporary society, and make clear references to various regions and geographic divisions.
• Abhidhamma Pitaka: It was compiled at the third great Sangha, held at Patliputra. It is a treatise on metaphysics. It tells us about the preachers, princes, rich, poor, towns and villages of the period. It was versed by Mogaliput Tissa.
2. Second general council was held at Vaishali in 383 BC, a hundred years after the death of Buddha. It was at this convention that sharp divisions within the Buddhist order crept up – the Theravadi (Mayakachchayan) verus Mahasanghika (Mahakassapa) debate began at this Sangha. Interestingly, the bhikshukas (monks) of Vaishali boycotted this assembly, held in their own city.
3. Third general council was held at Patliputra in 250 BC, during the reign of Maurya emperor Ashoka. It was at this session, it was decided to send missionaries to various parts of the Indian subcontinent and beyond, and to make Buddhism an actively proselytising religion.
4. Fourth general council was held in Kashmir in the first century AD. Here, the schism in Buddhism was recognised officially. One branch was called Hinayana or the followers of the lesser vehicle, and the other, Mahayana or the followers of the greater vehicle.

Eventually, Hinayana Buddhism found its stronghold din Ceylon (Sri Lanaka), Burma (Myanmar) and the countries of South-East Asia. Mahayana Buddhism became the dominant sect in India, Central Asia, Tibet, China and Japan.

In Mahayana Buddhism, the belief in deification of Buddha, and image or idol worship (first century AD onwards) with its usual accompaniments, elaborate rituals, religious formulae, charms etc replaced the simpler tenets to place a follower’s faith in Buddha.

It also believed in Bodhisattava, the previous incarnations of Buddha, as essential part of the sect to attain salvation. It adopted Sanskrit as the language for its religious literature, and a new canon developed in as a result.

Hinayana Buddhism, however, continued to practice self-culture and believe that good deeds led to salvation.

(Tell the blogger in the comment box if you liked the content.)

The Age of Three Empires: Palas, Pratiharas and Rashtrakutas

 

Kailash Temple, Aurangabad, Maharashtra: Carved from one piece of rock, estimated to have weighed over 4 lakh tonnes, during the reign of Rashtrakuta king Krishna I (Photo: Twitter/@ancient_bharat)

Kailash Temple, Aurangabad, Maharashtra: Carved from one piece of rock, estimated to have weighed over 4,00,000 tonnes during the reign of Rashtrakuta king Krishna I. (Photo: Twitter/@ancient_bharat)

Three powerful kingdoms arose in India between 750 and 1000. These were the Pala kingdom, the Pratihara kingdom and the Rashtrakuta kingdom. Each of these kingdoms, although they fought among themselves, provided stable conditions of life over large areas and gave patronage to arts and letters. Of the three, the Rashtrakuta empire/kingdom lasted the longest. It was not only the most powerful empire of the time but also acted as a bridge between the North and the South India in economic as well as cultural matters.

STRUGGLE FOR DOMINATION

Since the days of Harsha, Kannauj was considered the symbol of sovereignty of North India. Control over Kannauj also implied control of the upper Gangetic valley and its rich resources in trade and agriculture. The Palas and the Pratiharas clashed with each other for the control of area extending from Benaras to Jharkhand which again had rich natural resources, and well-developed traditions. The Pratiharas clashed with the Rashtrakutas too.

THE PALAS

The Pala empire/kingdom was founded by Gopala, in or around 750, when he was elected by the notable men of the area to end anarchy prevailing there. He was succeeded by Dharmapala. In spite of having been defeated by Dhruva Rashtrakuta, Dharmapala occupied Kannauj and held a grand durbar there. It was attended by vassal rulers from Punjab, eastern Rajasthan etc. However, Dharmapala could not consolidate his control over Kannauj. Nagabhatta II Pratihara defeated him near Mongyr (now, Munger).

Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh remained a bone of contention between the Palas and the Pratiharas. Bihar and Bengal remained, however, under the control of the Palas for most of the period of their rule.

Failure in the north compelled the Pala rulers to turn their energies in other directions. Devapala (810-850), the successor of Dharmapla, extended his control over Pragjyotishpur (Assam) and parts of Odisha. A part of Nepal probably also came under the Pala suzerainty.

Thus, for about a hundred years, the Palas dominated eastern India. Their power is attested by Arab merchant Sulaiman. He calls the Pala kingdom Ruhma and testifies that the ruler maintained a large army.

The Tibetan chronicles also provide some information about the Palas. The Pala rulers were great patrons of Buddhist learnings and religion. Dharmapala revived the famous university of Nalanda. He set apart 200 revenue villages for meeting the expenses of the university. Dharmapala also founded the Vikramshila university, which stood second only to the Nalanda university in fame. 

The Palas built many viharas in which a large number of Buddhist monks lived. The Pala rulers had a very close cultural relation with Tibet. The noted Buddhist scholars, Shantarakshita and Dipankara (also called Atisa) were invited to Tibet. They introduced a new form of Buddhism there. As a result, many Tibetan Buddhists flocked to the universities of Nalanda and Vikramshila for education.

The Palas had close trade contacts with South East Asia. Trade with South East Asia was very profitable adding immensely to prosperity of the Pala rulers and empire. The powerful Shailendra dynasty of South East Asia sent an embassy to the Pala court and sought permission to build a monastery at Nalanda and also requested the Pala ruler Devapala to endow five villages for its upkeep. The request was granted. It bears the testimony to a close relationship between the two empires/countries in the early medieval times.

THE PRATIHARAS

The Pratiharas are also called the Gurjar-Pratiharas. They are said to have originated from Gujarat or South West Rajasthan. They were at first possibly local officials but later able to carve out a series of principalities in central and eastern Rajasthan. They gained prominence on account of their resistance to Arab incursions from Sindh into Rajasthan. The efforts of the early Pratiharas to extend their control over the upper Gangetic valley and Malwa region were foiled by the Rashtrakuta rulers Dhruva and Gopal III.

The real founder of the Pratihara empire was Bhoja, who was also the greatest ruler from the dynasty. Re rebuilt the empire and recovered Kannauj around 836. Kannauj remained the capital of the empire for almost a century. The name of Bhoja is famous in many legends. Bhoja was a devotee of Vishnu and adopted the title of Adivaraha, which has been found inscribed in some of his coins.

Mihir Bhoja was succeeded by Mahendrapala I, probably in 885. Mahendrapala I maintained the empire of Bhoja till 908-09 and extended it over Magadha and North Bengal. Mahendrapala I fought a battle with the king of Kashmir but had to yield to him some of his territories in Punjab won by Bhoja.

The Pratiharas, thus, dominated North India for over a hundred years — middle of the 9th century to the middle of the 10th century. The Arab travellers tell us that the Pratiharas had the best cavalry in India, having horses imported from Central Asia. Al Masudi, who visited Gujarat in 915-16, testifies about the great power and prestige, and vastness of the Pratihara emepire. He calls the Gurjara-Pratihara kingdom Al Juzr, and identifies Baura (possibly out of confusion for Bhoja, who had died by that time) as its king.

The Pratiharas were patrons of learning and literature. The great Sanskrit poet and dramatist Rajashekhar lived at the court of Mahipala, a grandson of Bhoja. The Pratiharas also embellished Kannauj with many fine buildings and temples.

Between 915 and 918, Indra III Rashtrakuta attacked Kannauj and devastated the city. This weakened the Pratihara empire, and possibly also resulted in Gujarat being passed to the hands of the Rashtrakutas. Al Masudi tells us that the Pratihara empire had no access to the sea. The loss of Gujarat was a major blow to the Pratiharas.

Again in 963, Krishna II Rashtrakuta invaded North India and defeated the Pratihara army. This was followed by rapid dissolution of the Pratihara empire.

THE RASHTRAKUTAS

The dynasty of the Rashtrakutas produced a long line of warriors and able administration. The kingdom was founded by Dantidurg, who set up his capital at Manyakhet. The Rashtrakutas kept fighting with the Pratiharas, the Palas, the Chalukyas of Vengi, the Pallavas of Kanchi and the Pandyas of Madurai.

Probably, the greatest rulers of the Rashtrakutas were Govind-III and Amoghvarsha. Govind-III defeated the Kerala, the Pandyas, the Chola, the Pallava and the western Ganga kings.

The king of Lanka and his minister were brought to Halapur. Two statues of the lord of Sri Lana were carried to Manyakhet and installed like pillars of victory in front of a Shiva temple.

Amoghvarsha preferred the pursuit of religion and literature to war. He was himself an author and credited with writing the first Kannada book on poetics. He was a great builder. He is said to have built the capital city of Manyakhet to surpass the glory of the city of Lord Indra. However, there were many rebellions in the far flung parts of the kingdom during Amoghvarsha’s reign. These could barely be contained, and began afresh after his death.

Indira-III re-established the empire. Indra-III was the most powerful king of his times. Al-Masudi has mentioned about a Rashtrakuta king with name, Balhara or Vallabharaja as the greatest king of India.

Krishna-III was the last in the line of brilliant rulers from Rashtrakuta lineage. He pressed down to Rameshwaram where he set up a pillar of victory. But after his death, al his opponents united against his successor. In 972, the Rashtrakuta capital Malkhed was sacked and burnt. This marked the end of the Rashtrakuta rule.

The Rashtrakuta rulers were tolerant in their religious views and patronised not only Shaivism and Vaishnavism but also Jainism. The famous rock-cut temple of Shiva at Ellora was built by Krishna-I in the ninth century.

The Rashtrakutas allowed Muslim traders to settle, and permitted Islam to be preached in their dominions. Muslims had their own headmen and held their daily prayers in large mosques in many of the coastal towns in the Rashtrakuta empire. This tolerant policy helped to promote foreign trade which enriched the Rashtrakutas.

The Rashtrakuta kings were great patrons of art and letter. Their court poets wrote in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramsa. The great Apabhramsa poet, Swayambhu probably lived in the Rashtrakuta court.

POLITICAL IDEAS AND ORGANISATION

The system of administration in the three empires was based on the idea and practices of the Gupta empire, Harsha’s kingdom and the Chalukyan kingdom.

Monarch was the head of all affairs. He was the head of the administration and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The infantry and cavalry stationed in his courtyard. Captured war-elephants were paraded in front of him. He was attended by royal chamberlains, who regulated the visits of the vassal chiefs, feudatories, ambassadors and other high officials. The king also dispensed justice. Dancing girls and skilled musicians also attended the court. Ladies of the king’s household also attended the court on festive occasions.

The king’s position was hereditary. Thinkers of the time emphasised absolute loyalty and obedience to the kings because of the insecurities of the time. However, a contemporary writer, Medhatithi thought that it was the right of an individual to bear arms in order to defend oneself against thieves and assassins. He also said that it was right to oppose an unjust king.

The rules of succession were not rigidly fixed. Thus, Dhruva and Govinda-IV deposed their elder brothers. Sometimes, rulers designated the eldest son or another favourite son as Yuvraj. In that case, Yuvraj stayed at the capital and helped the king in the task of administration. Younger sons were sometimes appointed as the provincial governors. Princesses were rarely appointed to government posts but there is an instance where a Rashtrakuta princess named Chandrobalabbe, a daughter of Amoghvarsha, administered the Raichur doab region for some time.

Kings were generally advised by a number of ministers, who were chosen by the king usually from leading families. Their position was often hereditary. During the Pala dynasty’s reign, a Brahmana family supplied four successive chief ministers to Dharamapala and successors.

From epigraphic and literary records, it appears that in almost every kingdom, there was a minister, treasurer, chief (senapati) of the armed forces, chief justice and purohita.

More than one post was combined in one person. All ministers except Purohita were expected to lead military campaigns where called upon to do so. There were also officials of the royal household, Antahpur.

Arab travellers tell us that the three kingdoms maintained highly efficient military wings. Elephants were supposed to be the elements of strength and were greatly prized. The largest number of elephants was maintained by the Pala kings.

A large number of horses were imported by Rashtrakuta and Pratihara kings by sea from Arabia and West Asia, and by land from Central Asia. The Pratihara kings are believed to have had the finest cavalry in the country. There are no references to war chariots which had fallen out of use.

Some of the kings, especially the Rashtrakutas had a large number of forts. The infantry consisted of regular and irregular troops and units provided by vassal chiefs as levies.

The regular troops were often hereditary and sometimes drawn from all over India. Thus, the Pala infantry consisted of soldiers from Malwa, Khasa (Assam), Lata (South Gujarat) and Karnataka. The Pala kings and perhaps the Rashtrakutas had their own navies.

The empires consisted of areas administered directly and regions ruled by vassal chiefs. The latter were autonomous as far as their internal affairs were concerned and had a general obligation of loyalty, paying a fixed tribute and supplying a quota of troops to the overlord. The vassal chiefs were required to attend the court of the overlord on special occasions and sometimes, they were required to marry one of their daughters to the overlord to one of his sons.

But the vassal chiefs always aspired to become independent, and wars were frequently fought between them and the overlord. Thus, the Rashtrakuta had to fight constantly against the vassal chiefs of Vengi (Andhra) and Karnataka. The Pratihars had to fight against the Paramaras of Malwa and the Chandellas of Bundelkhand.

The directly administered areas in the Pala and the Pratihara empires were divided into Bhuktis, and Mandalas or Vishayas. The governor of a province was called Uparika, and the head of a district Vishayapati.

The Uparika was expected to collect land revenue and maintain law-and-order with the help of the army. The Vishayapati was also expected to do the same within his jurisdiction.

During this period, there was an increase of smaller chieftains called Samantas or Bhogapatis who dominated over a number of villages. The Vishyapatis and these smaller chiefs tended to merge with each other and later on, the word Samanta began to be used indiscriminately for both of them.

In the Rashtrakuta kingdom, the directly administered areas were divided into Rashtra (provinces), Vishayas and Bhuktis. The head of a Rashtra was called the rashtrapati, and he performed the same functions as the Uparika. The head of a Vishaya here was called Pattala.

Below these territorial units was a village, which was the basic unit of administration. The village administration was carried on by the village headman and the village accountant whose posts were generally hereditary. They were paid by grants of rent-free lands.

The headman was often helped in his duties by the village elder called Grama-Mahajana or Grama-Mahamattara. In the Rashtrakuta kingdom particularly in Karnataka, there were village committees to manage local schools, tanks/ponds, temples and roads. They could also receive money or property in trust and manage them.

These committees worked in close cooperation with the village headmen and received a percentage of the revenue collection. Simple disputes were also decided by these committees.

Towns also had similar committees to which the heads of the guilds wee also associated. Law-and-order in the towns and in their immediate locality was the responsibility f the Koshta-pala in the towns.

(Source: History books and notes from CSE preparation days)