Explore the The Rise Of Harsha And Kanauj as the New Political Centre in early medieval India. Understand the historical context, Harsha’s conquests, administration, and Kannauj’s rise to prominence after the Gupta Empire’s decline. The decline of the Gupta Empire in the 6th century CE created a power vacuum in North India, leading to political instability and the rise of several regional powers. Among these, Harsha of the Pushyabhuti dynasty emerged as a remarkable ruler who successfully unified a large part of northern India under his leadership.
His reign marked a significant phase in Indian history, not only because of his administrative abilities and military campaigns but also due to the rise of Kannauj as a new political and cultural centre. Strategically located on the Ganges plains, Kannauj became the heart of Harsha’s empire and later retained its prominence for centuries in medieval Indian politics. This blog post explores the circumstances that led to Harsha’s ascendancy, the factors behind Kannauj’s emergence as a new political hub, and the broader implications for early medieval India.
Table of Contents
The Pushyabhutis: Rise and Expansion
The rise of the Pushyabhuti dynasty, which initially ruled from Thaneswar (in Haryana) and later from Kanauj, is detailed through multiple sources, including the Harshacharita, the accounts of Chinese traveler Hiuen Tsang, and various inscriptions and coins.
According to Banabhatta, Pushyabhuti was the founder of this dynasty. However, Harsha’s own inscriptions do not mention Pushyabhuti by name. The Banskhera and Madhuvan copper plates and certain royal seals enumerate five predecessors to Harsha. Of these, the first three rulers held the title of Maharaja, suggesting limited sovereignty or vassal status. It was with Prabhakaravardhana, the fourth ruler, that full sovereignty emerged — he is titled Maharajadhiraja, implying a higher, independent kingship.
Prabhakaravardhana forged important political alliances, notably marrying his daughter Rajyasri to Grahavarman of the Maukhari dynasty. However, his reign faced significant external threats, particularly from the Hunas advancing from the northwest.
Banabhatta describes Prabhakaravardhana as “a lion to the Huna deer,” highlighting his success in countering these incursions. However, during a campaign against the Hunas, Prabhakaravardhana fell ill, forcing his son Rajyavardhana to return.
Following Prabhakaravardhana’s death around 604 CE, the dynasty entered a turbulent phase. The Malava king assassinated Grahavarman and captured Rajyasri. Threatened by an alliance between the Malava and Gauda kings, the Pushyabhuti kingdom (Thaneswar) faced severe danger. Rajyavardhana launched a successful campaign against the Malavas but was subsequently betrayed and killed by Sasanka, the king of Gauda (present-day Bengal).
At this critical juncture, Harshavardhana, the younger son of Prabhakaravardhana, assumed responsibility. Harsha successfully avenged his brother’s death, liberated Rajyasri, and embarked on a campaign of imperial consolidation. In time, Harsha established a powerful empire spanning a large part of North India, with Kanauj as his political center.
Sources for Harsha’s Period
During Harsha’s reign, historical sources primarily include epigraphs, such as eulogies and copper plate charters issued by dynasties of the time. These inscriptions frequently exaggerate political achievements and portray kings as universal emperors (chakravartin or sarvabhauma) who accomplished digvijaya (conquest of all quarters). The areas referenced in these land grants and the locations where the inscriptions are found help historians infer the extent of dynastic territories.
A new literary form, the charitakavya (biographical poem), also emerged. These kavyas glorify the patron kings, portraying them as heroic figures who overcame challenges. The earliest example is Banabhatta’s Harshacharita, detailing the rise of Harshavardhana. According to Banabhatta, Harsha’s ascendancy followed a chain of familial tragedies: his father Prabhakaravardhana died, his elder brother Rajyavardhana was killed in action against Sasanka of Gauda and Devagupta of Malava, and Harsha subsequently rescued his sister Rajyasri and was offered the throne of Kanyakubja (Kannauj). The Harshacharita thus legitimizes Harsha’s rule and portrays him as just and capable.
Later rulers, such as Ramapala of Bengal, Vikramaditya VI of the Western Chalukyas, and Kumarapala of Gujarat, similarly became subjects of charitakavyas like Ramacharita, Vikramankadevacharita, and Kumarapalacharita. Harshacharita set a precedent, inspiring a literary tradition where kings were depicted as epic heroes.
Additionally, another major source is the travel account of the Chinese monk Xuanzang (Huien Tsang), who visited India between 629 and 645 CE, spending considerable time at Harsha’s court.
Interpretation of the Sources
Both Banabhatta and Huien Tsang, as beneficiaries of Harsha’s patronage, depict him as the supreme lord of north India. Early historians, relying heavily on these accounts, described Harsha as the last great Hindu emperor after the Guptas. This view was reinforced by inscriptions like the one from Chalukya king Pulakesin II’s successors, calling Harsha sakalottarapathesvara (“war-like lord of the north”).
In their periodization of Indian history, colonial historians such as Vincent Smith saw Harsha’s death in 647 CE as the end of the “ancient” Hindu period, leading to the medieval period marked by Rajput dominance and Muslim rule. This narrative emphasized the break-up of empire and decline of centralized authority.
However, modern historians critique this simplistic division. They argue that the death of a ruler should not be used as the sole marker of historical transitions; instead, larger historical processes like socio-economic changes must guide periodization.
Political Activities of Harshavardhana: An Overview
Harsha ascended the throne in 606 CE. He hailed from the Pushyabhuti dynasty, centered at Sthanvisvara (modern Thanesar, Haryana). His early life was shaped by a significant marital alliance: his sister Rajyasri married Grahavarman, a Maukhari king of Kanyakubja (Kannauj).
However, political upheavals soon unfolded. The Gauda king Sasanka and Malava king Devagupta allied to kill Grahavarman and capture Kanyakubja. In retaliation, Rajyavardhana marched against them but died at the enemy camp. Harsha rescued Rajyasri and was offered the throne of Kanyakubja by Maukhari ministers, thus uniting the Pushyabhuti and Maukhari domains under his rule.
Eastern Campaign
Harsha vowed revenge against Sasanka and set out to establish control over eastern India. However, the sources—especially Banabhatta and Huien Tsang—remain silent about a direct confrontation.
Importantly, Huien Tsang notes that Sasanka destroyed the Bodhi tree at Gaya, implying Sasanka’s control over parts of eastern India. Harsha’s conquests of Odra and Kongada (present-day Odisha) around 643 CE suggest that significant progress in the east occurred only after Sasanka’s death around 637 CE.
Western India and the Maitrakas of Valabhi
In western India, the Maitrakas of Valabhi (Saurashtra), former Gupta vassals, became key players. The southern Gujarat region (Latadesa) along with the Malavas and Gurjaras, was strategically important—positioned between Harsha in the north and Pulakesin II in the south (across the Narmada River).
Pulakesin II’s Aihole inscription claims these territories as his vassals. However, it seems that Harsha secured Valabhi through matrimonial diplomacy: Dhruvasena II Baladitya of Valabhi married Harsha’s daughter, thus severing ties with Pulakesin. This act possibly triggered the conflict between Harsha and Pulakesin II.
Conflict with Pulakesin II
The borders of Harsha’s kingdom and Pulakesin’s Chalukyan Empire met at the Narmada River. Pulakesin II’s Aihole inscription boasts that Harsha’s “joy melted” when his forces suffered defeat. Xuanzang also hints that Harsha’s campaign against Pulakesin was unsuccessful.
While Pulakesin’s successors claimed grand victories (even calling Pulakesin Parameshvara for defeating Harsha), modern historians like R.C. Majumdar note that such claims are exaggerated. In royal inscriptions, praising rivals often enhanced the victor’s glory.
Extent of Harshavardhana’s Empire
Harsha’s empire included parts of present-day Uttar Pradesh, southern Bihar, and Odisha. He inherited Thanesar, parts of eastern Punjab, and eastern Rajasthan.
He exercised influence over Bhaskaravarman of Kamarupa (Assam) and possibly rulers of Jalandhar and Kashmir. However, south of the Narmada, Chalukya Pulakesin II remained dominant.
Thus, Harsha’s empire was regional, not pan-Indian like the Mauryan or Gupta empires. His dominion was extensive but not as vast as some early historians imagined. Consequently, portraying Harsha as the “last great Hindu emperor” or marking his death as the definitive end of ancient India is considered an oversimplification today.
The transition from ancient to medieval India is better understood through long-term structural changes rather than the life or death of a single ruler.
Huien Tsang’s Account
The Chinese pilgrim Huien Tsang provides rich descriptions of Harsha’s reign:
- Harsha frequently toured his empire to stay informed about his subjects’ welfare.
- The kingdom, particularly Kanyakubja (Kannauj), appeared prosperous and orderly.
- Harsha followed Buddhism and personally practiced austere living despite the grandeur of his court.
- Public administration was efficient; justice was upheld, and charity was widespread.
- Harsha organized grand assemblies, like the Kannauj Assembly, inviting scholars and monks from across Asia.
- He regularly sponsored religious activities and promoted both Buddhist and Brahmanical faiths, reflecting the pluralistic spirit of the time.
Xuanzang’s depiction adds immense value to our understanding of Harsha’s administration, court culture, and society. However, historians caution against taking his highly idealized account literally without corroborating with other evidence.
Administration under Harsha
Information regarding Harsha’s administration is relatively scarce. The two primary sources, Bana and Huien Tsang, provide limited insights into the actual working of the government. However, inscriptions from Harsha’s reign, along with those from Pulakesin II, his successors, and other contemporary rulers, offer some useful details.
Harsha was the supreme head of the state. He personally appointed ministers and high-ranking officials and led military campaigns. His governance adhered to the traditional ideals outlined in the Dharmashastras. To assist him, Harsha had a council of ministers that included feudatories (samantas), princes, and senior officials. A dedicated set of officers managed the royal palace, while departmental heads worked under the king’s direct supervision.
During Harsha’s reign, there was no clear division between civil and military departments. Some top civil officers performed military duties as well. The administrative structure at the provincial and district levels largely resembled that of the Gupta Empire. This continuity is evident from the terminology used for administrative units and designations of officers in inscriptions such as the Damodarpur copper plates of Kumaragupta I, the Faridpur inscriptions of Dharmaditya and Samachardeva, and the Basadha seals. These similarities indicate a strong Gupta legacy in Harsha’s governance system.
Official titles and designations from the Gupta era persisted into Harsha’s time. According to Huien Tsang, taxation under Harsha was not burdensome. The king’s share was one-sixth of the farmer’s produce. Huien Tsang mentions that there was no regular system of forced labor (corvée), but there might have been moderate instances of it. Scholar Devahuti suggests that Huien Tsang was perhaps referring to labor obligations in lieu of taxes rather than widespread corvée labor.
Harsha was a vigorous and industrious ruler. Huien Tsang states that Harsha divided his day into three parts: one for state affairs and two for religious activities. While “state affairs” included secular governance, “religious affairs” may have referred to welfare measures like establishing hospitals, building free rest houses along highways, distributing alms, organizing philosophical debates, planting fruit-bearing and shady trees, and founding educational institutions. These activities demonstrate Harsha’s commitment to public welfare and religious patronage.
Harsha maintained close contact with his subjects through regular inspection tours, often traveling incognito to understand ground realities. His familiarity with his vast empire’s local geography and the distinct characteristics of its diverse populations helped him appoint suitable governors and administer effectively.
A notable aspect of Harsha’s rule was his practice of convening personal audiences with tributary rulers, which facilitated better governance. In 643 CE, approximately 20 tributary leaders attended such audiences. His political relations were not limited to the Indian subcontinent; he maintained friendly ties with neighboring regions and instructed them to assist Huien Tsang during his travels. Harsha even established diplomatic contacts with the Chinese emperor, showing an active foreign policy.
The highest title adopted by Harsha was Parambhattaraka Maharajadhiraja, meaning “the noblest supreme king of kings.” The adoption of such exalted titles had become common since the Gupta period. As kings achieved greater military success and dominance over rivals, such lofty honorifics became a symbol of supreme sovereignty.
A point of historical debate involves Harsha’s conflict with Pulakesin II, the Chalukya king of the Deccan. Pulakesin’s successors claimed that Pulakesin earned the title Paramesvara (“Supreme Lord”) after defeating Harsha, referred to as sakalottarapathesvara (“Lord of the entire north”). Historian R.C. Majumdar argues that this claim was likely exaggerated to glorify Pulakesin’s achievements, a typical literary convention of royal inscriptions intended to magnify a king’s accomplishments while respectfully acknowledging the strength of their rivals.
In Harsha’s empire, subordinate rulers were designated as rajas or maharajas. They exercised autonomy in their territories but formally acknowledged the supremacy of the emperor. This system ensured a balance between central authority and local governance.
The End of Harsha’s Reign
Chinese records provide critical information about the later phase of Harsha’s reign. The T’ang emperor Tai Tsung sent diplomatic missions to Harsha’s court twice, in 643 CE and again in 647 CE. When the Chinese envoys arrived in 647 CE, they discovered that Harsha had died and that the throne had been seized by an usurper.
Following Harsha’s death, the political situation in north India became unstable. With military support from Nepal and Assam, the Chinese intervened, defeated the usurper, and took him prisoner to China. This episode highlights the growing Chinese interest and involvement in the political affairs of north India during that period. It also indicates the important position that Harsha held in international politics, as his death created a significant enough vacuum to draw the attention of foreign powers like China.
Thus, Harsha remains an important but not ultimate figure in Indian history—his reign representing a bridge between the classical and early medieval phases rather than a dramatic break.
Conclusion
Harsha’s administration was largely a continuation of Gupta administrative traditions, with some adaptations to new conditions. Though detailed records are sparse, the available evidence points to a well-organized system where the king exercised supreme authority, supported by a strong network of ministers, officers, and tributary rulers. His governance combined secular and religious duties, and he promoted public welfare through infrastructure development, charity, and education.
Despite challenges like Pulakesin II’s opposition, Harsha managed to maintain the integrity of his empire, foster strong international relations, and leave a lasting impression on the polity of early medieval India. His death, however, marked the beginning of political fragmentation, signaling the end of a relatively stable era in north Indian history.
Political Dynamism In North India
During the early medieval period, certain regions in North India rose in political significance based on strategic advantages such as elevation, proximity to rivers, and access to key land and water routes. These factors enabled better defense and easier movement of armies and supplies. As a result, some areas became more prominent than the older traditional capitals (rajadhanis). These emerging centers were referred to as Jayaskandhavaras (literally meaning ‘camp of victory’) in contemporary inscriptions.
Jayaskandhavaras functioned as crucial military and administrative hubs. Rulers often issued land grants to Brahmanas, monasteries, and temples from these centers. Numerous inscriptions from the early medieval period mention Jayaskandhavaras under different kings, providing important information about the rulers’ political reach and territorial extent. For instance, Harsha issued the Banskhera and Madhuban copper plates from the Jayaskandhavaras of Vardhamanakoti and Kapitthika, respectively, most likely located in present-day Uttar Pradesh.
Kanauj as the New Political Centre
One of the most prominent examples of this trend was the rise of Kanauj (ancient Kanyakubja or Mahodaya) in present-day Uttar Pradesh. Situated on elevated ground in the fertile Ganga-Yamuna doab, Kanauj could be easily fortified despite being located in the plains. Its fertile surroundings enabled extensive land grants, attracting Brahmanas and making Kanauj a center of religious and cultural importance. The Brahmanas of Kanauj earned great reputation and influence in royal courts across India.
Strategically, Kanauj was well-connected to trade and military routes extending eastward into the Ganges plains and southwards, making it an attractive political hub. Consequently, there was a noticeable shift of political focus from Pataliputra (in southern Bihar) to Kanauj during this period. In post-Gupta north India, Kanauj became the central stage of political activities.
The Harshacharita, composed by court poet Banabhatta, describes Kanauj as the seat of power for the Maukharis under Grahavarman, who had married Rajyasri, the sister of Harshavardhana. After ascending the throne, Harshavardhana shifted his capital from Thaneswar (modern-day Haryana) to Kanauj. This move was likely influenced by the security concerns posed by the Hunas (Huns) who had been threatening India’s northwestern frontiers since the 5th century CE. Compared to Thaneswar, Kanauj’s more easterly location offered greater safety.
Decline of Pataliputra
Prominent historian R.S. Sharma suggests that Pataliputra’s decline in the post-Gupta period was linked to the decay of trade and commerce, a development that paralleled the broader feudalization of polity and economy. Earlier, the city had thrived by collecting tolls from traders. However, with trade activities dwindling, coinage (particularly in money transactions) became scarce. Consequently, officials, soldiers, and service personnel began to be compensated with land assignments rather than monetary salaries, weakening the urban economic structures.
As cities declined, Skandhavaras (military camps or temporary capitals) like Kanauj gained importance. R.S. Sharma characterizes Pataliputra as representative of the pre-feudal urban order, while the emergence of Kanyakubja under Harsha marked the rise of the feudal political system in North India.
However, this interpretation is not without its critics. A closer examination of regional economies indicates that the decline in trade and urban life was not uniform across India. Some regions, such as southeastern Bengal and western India, continued to witness flourishing trade, supported by the circulation of abundant gold and pure silver coins. Both inter-regional and intra-regional trade networks remained active, suggesting that the collapse of urban centers was neither universal nor simultaneous across the subcontinent.
Kanauj’s ascendancy was further magnified by its glorification in Harshacharita, contributing to its mythic status in historical memory. This, in turn, laid the foundation for the famous “Tripartite Struggle”, a prolonged contest among the Gurjara-Pratiharas of western India, the Palas of Bengal and Bihar, and the Rashtrakutas of the Deccan, all vying for control over Kanauj.
Some Books To Study
- Chakravarti, Ranabir (2010). Exploring Early India up to c. A.D. 1300. Delhi:Macmillan Publishers India Ltd.
- Cowell, E. B. and Thomas, F. W. (trans.) (1993). The Harsha-Charita of Bana. Delhi: MotilalBanarssidas.
- Devahuti, D. (1999). Harsha: A Political Study. Oxford University Press.
- Sharma, R.S. (2005). India’s Ancient Past. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
- Singh, Upinder (2009). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India from theStone Age to the 12th Century. Delhi: Pearson Longman.
