The turning point in the decline of india was during the reign of harshavardhana,and late gupta age when the trend began to reward the officials of the bureaucracy with land grants instead of cash.Slowly these became hereditary positions and the efficiency of the bureaucracy and central authority was destroyed,leading to rise of feudalism.
If u notice the legacy of central authority was strictly maintained in earlier empires maurya and early gupta period and land grants were rare ,but from the late gupta this changed.Thus the legacy of a centrally controlled united indian empire was lost and all these feudatories when oppurtunity arose became independent small entities fighting among each other.Political unity was destroyed.
Unlike europe which too had its problems with feudalism they had a renaissance where they recounted the glory days of rome and the nation state concept was born,we never had our renaissance till after independence when we finally crushed feudalism.
Another was the growth of the caste system.Originally this used to be a profession based system mainly for convenience and intermarriage and changing castes was common.But gradually became hereditary and totally divided the indian people.
The feudalism and caste system which grew during early medieval era were the bane in the history of india i feel.
Perfect. It was in fact this gradual de-monetisation of the economy and the administration that led to a great many ills in the nature of government and civil administration. If we look at the subsequent history of India, we will find that this legacy, initiated, as you very correctly stated, in the late Gupta period, continued through the period of the incursion of the Turks, the Afghans and, occasionally, the Persians (Mahmud of Ghazni might count as a Persian, and Nadir Shah certainly would, while Shah Abbas' jerking the chain of the Mughals was a completely different matter, more in the realm of international relations than in the competition for India).
Austerlitz, it's good to see you in this discussion.
I also want to remind you, since you talked about our finally achieving our 'renaissance' after independence through crushing feudalism, that we are here talking of two altogether different things, which you have obviously compressed to save time and space. The Renaissance marked the cultural renovation of Europe; the political renovation started with an event
which still has not taken place in the sub-continent, the Treaty of Westphalia. With the principle of
cujus regio, ejus religio, nation-states were born, and the impulse for the growth of
true secularism, not the bastardized version that we suffer in India, got space and oxygen to grow in Europe. That is still to happen in India, I feel, and whether it is going to happen in Pakistan sooner or it is going to happen later is beyond my forecasting skills. As a matter of fact, I feel that the Bangladeshis will beat both India and Pakistan to it, as they are closer to being a nation-state
in spirit than either of the other two.
Most of you will probably get to see how this fascinating process works itself out.
Having said all of which, I keep my vote on the Mauryas. Without that vast centralizing impulse, the whole of Indian history to follow would have been the history of central Asia: a formless, shapeless, chaotic mass of states heaving around with no clear direction, goal or purpose.
