Rise of extremists, Radical revolutionaries, Left wing extremism

 1. Discuss the nature, methods and activities of the Terrorist Revolutionary Movement and assess its place in India’s Freedom Struggle. [1979, 60m]

2. Examine the causes of the rise and progress of revolutionary movements in India from 1905 to 1931. [2003, 60m]

3. Describe the changing nature of revolutionary activities in India between 1905 - 1946. [2008, 60m]

4. “The very idea of the bomb and the secret society, and of propaganda through action and sacrifice were import from the West.” Critically examine. [2015, 10m]

5. Trace the origin of the Ghadar movement and discuss its impact on the revolutionaries in India. [2017, 20m]

The Left; The Left within the Congress: Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, the Congress Socialist Party; the Communist Party of India, other left parties.

1. Assess the role of the Left Wing within the Indian National Congress between 1920 and 1947. [1981, 60m]

2. Account for the rise and growth of Left-wing within the Congress. Did Jawaharlal Nehru believe in a socialistic approach to Indian and world problems and if so why? [1986, 60m]

3. ‘The National Movement has shown concern for problems other than the constitutional one.’ Discuss the factors that helped the rise of a left wing in the Indian National Congress. [1990, 60m]

4. Account for the rise and growth of leftism in the Congress movement. What impact did it have on contemporary Indian politics? [1997, 60m]

5. Discuss the nature of the leadership and programme of the Congress Socialist party. [2002, 60m])

6. “The ideology of Subhash Chandra Bose was a combination of nationalism, fascism and communism.” Comment. [2002, 20m]

7. Account for the emergence of the left-wing within the congress. How far did it influence the programme and policy of the congress? [2006, 60m]

8. The emergence of left-wing group in the congress redicalized its social economic agenda." Critically evaluate. [2011, 20m]

9. A powerful left-wing group developed in India in the late 1920s and 1930s, contributing to the radicalization of national movement.” Critically Examine. [2015, 10m]

10. Underline the growth of various forms of Socialist ideologies in the Indian National Movement between World War I and II. [2018, 20 Marks]

11. Assess the role of Subas Chandra Bose in India's struggle for independence.

OPSC

1. Examine the causes of the rise and progress of revolutionary movements in India from 1905 to 1931.(60)

2. Account for the rise and growth of leftism in the Congress movement. (40)

3. How would explain the growth of the militant nationalism in the beginning of the 20th century ? In what way did the militant nationalists differ from the moderates.

4. Trace the growth of militant nationalism in the freedom struggle of India between 1906 and 1920.

Formation and Evolution of INC

 1. Discuss ‘the safety valve’ theory. Does it satisfactorily explain the foundation of the Indian National Congress? [60m]

2. To what extent was the emergence of the Congress in 1885 the culmination of a process of political awakening that had its beginning in the 1870s? [60m]

3. “The ‘safety-valve thesis’ does not adequately explain the birth of the Indian National Congress in 1885.” Critically examine.

4. Describe briefly the ideals and programme of the Indian National Congress between 1885 and 1905 and assess official response to it. [1980, 60m]

5. Trace the factors which led to a split in the Indian national Congress in 1907. What was its impact on the course of the nationalist movement? [2003, 60m]

6. Analyze the social composition of the early Congress leadership. [30m]

7. “Politics remained for the bulk of the Moderates very much a part-time affair. The Congress was not a political party, but an annual three-day show…” Elucidate. [20m]

8. Review the aims of the moderates in the Congress. Do you believe because of their approach Extremism appeared at the national level.  [60m]

Drain Theory PYQs

 

UPSC

1. Trace the course and explain the consequences of the drain of wealth from Bengal in the eighteenth century. [60m]

2. “Our system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the good things from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames.” Comment. [20m]

3. Write a critique on the impact of the Drain Theory of Dadabhai Nauroji in the growth of economic nationalism. [60m]

4. "The need for a unilateral transfer of funds to Britain was constant factor and, in fact, progressively increased over time." Critically evaluate. [20m]

5.How far was the drain theory a focal point of nationalist critique of colonialism? [20 Marks]

OPSC

1. Critically analyze the growth of economic nationalism in India in the light of the Drain-Theory. [60 marks]

2. Examine the growth of economic nationalism in India in the light of the drain theory.

3. The halcyon days of India are over; she has been drained of large portion of her wealth she once possessed and her energies have been cramped by a sordid system of misrule to which the interests of the millions have been sacrificed for the benefits of few.

industrial and agricultural policy of the government of india between 1858 and 1914

Over the years in the late eighteenth and the early twentieth centuries the colonial state had been perfecting its system of surplus extraction from the agricultural economy of India. India had to provide a market for Britain's manufactured goods, and serve as a source of agricultural raw materials and served as a major market for British industries, like cotton, iron and steel, railways, machinery etc.

Agricultural Policy :

o Some of the recent historical writings point out that the fact still remains that India was not transformed into a full-fledged capitalist economy. As in the case of agrarian economy, so also in other sectors, British policies failed to foster growth. And this was due to the colonial nature of those policies, i.e., the policy of gearing up the colonial economy to the needs of the economy of the mother country.

o There was, first of all, limited colonial initiative to develop agricultural production, except the construction of some irrigation canals in parts of northern, north-eastern and south-western India, i.e., in non-Permanent Settlement areas where there was scope for enhancing land-revenue rates.

▪ It is possible to argue that between 1900 and 1939, the area under irrigation almost doubled; but that was only in absolute terms. In relative terms, in 1947 when the British empire ended its long career in India, only a quarter of the total cropped area was under public irrigation system.

▪ The real reason was that public investment in this sector was guided only by the profitability factor and extreme contingencies, such as prevention of famines.

▪ Region where irrigation facilities developed, it favoured only the more prosperous among the peasantry, as canal rates were very high.

• In Punjab, the canal colonies became the model of commercial agriculture in Asia, but the new prosperity that accrued even after paying high water rates, was shared only by limited social groups, such as a few agricultural castes and some medium and large-sized landlords.

▪ The aggregate agricultural yields were largely static in colonial India, and between 1920 and 1947, especially the production of food crops lagged far behind the rate of population growth.

• Near-famine conditions were therefore not rarities in India during the British period and in 1943 two to three million people perished in a major famine in Bengal

o Commercialisation of agriculture, which favours differentiation within the peasantry, capital accumulation and production for the market, is considered to be a sign of progress towards capitalist agriculture.

▪ In the Indian case, however, the initiative often did not come from within the peasant society and the benefits did not accrue to them either. In the case of indigo in eastern India, planters (had no right to buy land until 1829) had to persuade, and later force, the local peasants to accept advances to produce indigo in their lands

▪ As for other crops, there is a persistent view that the peasants were "forced" to cultivate cash crops because of high revenue demand, the necessity to pay revenue and rent in cash and above all for debt servicing.

▪ It was only the rich peasants who could go for cash crops and they too remained immensely vulnerable to the fluctuations in the market.

• In western India, for example, cotton cultivation grew in response to the cotton boom in the 1860s caused by the American Civil War. It created a pocket of prosperity in the Deccan cotton belt, which disappeared very soon after the end of the war and was followed by a famine and agrarian riots in the 1870s.

• Jute cultivation in eastern India developed as the peasants failed to meet the subsistence necessities and hoped to earn more by cultivating the "golden crop". So an economic motive was certainly there in peasants' decision to shift to jute cultivation. But as Sugata Bose has shown, the primary producers could hardly reap the benefit of the boom in jute market between 1906 and 1913, as "jute manufacturers and exporters [majority of whom were British] were able to exercise their monopsony power as purchasers of raw jute", leaving the jute growers no space to bargain for prices.

o The jute economy crashed in the 1930s and was followed by a devastating famine in Bengal in 1943. It is difficult to establish a direct connection between commercialisation and famines, even though cash crops in some areas might have driven out foodgrains from the better quality land, with consequent impact on output.

o When colonial rule came to an end, food crops were still being grown in 80 per cent of the cropped acreage. But on the whole, as noted earlier, the aggregate production of food crops lagged behind population growth.

Industrial Policy

o Until World War One, there was no import duty, which could possibly offer any sort of protection to any of the Indian industries .

o India became field for British capital investments in railways and agency houses.

o Much of the foreign loans and investments were for the development of infrastructure, for integrating internal markets and, therefore, for the modernisation of the Indian economy itself.

Railways are considered to be another contribution of British rule towards the development of modem economic infrastructure.But its main purpose was to serve the interests of the empire, rather than the needs of the lndian economy.

• Empire and deindustrialisation:

▪ Following the industrial revolution, not only did this export demand gradually evaporate, but colonial rule opened the Indian markets for British manufactured goods and led to "deindustrialisation" or destruction of indigenous handicraft industries, reducing the number of people dependent on secondary industries.

There was rising industrial income because of increasing per worker productivity in the crafts achieved through technological specialisation and industrial reorganisation.

The shift from local to long distance trade market helped artisanal industry, but did not lead to successful industrialisation, with the necessary structural changes and economic development.

• One of the reasons behind this lack of overall economic development was that the colonial state in the nineteenth century was far from just a "night watchman",

Since 1813 when Indian trade was freed from the monopoly of the East India Company, India came to be considered as a lucrative field for British private capital investment, chiefly in railways, jute industry, tea plantation and mining.

o Indian money market was dominated by the European banking houses. One major reason why the Indian entrepreneurs failed and their European counterparts thrived was the latter's greater access to and command over capital, facilitated by their connections with the banks and agency houses, while the Indians had to depend on their kins, families and castemen.

British economic interests in India operated through the Chambers of Commerce and the Managing Agency Houses, which influenced government policies and eliminated indigenous competition.

dominating jute industry, coal mining and tea plantations, controlling 75 percent of the industrial capital in India and almost half of the total industrial employment. So whatever industrialisation that did occur was mostly, though not exclusively, through British capital, with the profits being regularly repatriated. And the major factors that favoured this development were the discriminatory official policies.

▪ Tea industry remained dominated by British capital until the 1950s; so was coal mining in eastern India.

• Successes of the Indian Industrialist:

o The development of jute industry in Bengal:

▪ jute as a cheap substitute for flax was developed in the early nineteenth century and Bengal remained the chief supplier of raw jute for the industries in Dundee. In 1855 the first jute mill was started in Bengal, and then closeness to sources of raw materials and cheap labour gave it a competitive edge over the Scottish industry.

▪ The World War One and the wartime demand hike gave the industry a real push. The amount of paid up capital in jute industry increased from 79.3 million in 1914-15 to 106.4 million in 1918-19, to 179.4 million in 1922-23. Bulk of the capital invested was British capital, organised through the Indian Jute Mills Association (IJMA), which controlled output in order to maintain high prices. The profitability of the industry continued until the Great Depression.

▪ However, this dominance of expatriate capital notwithstanding, from the 1920s some Calcutta-based Marwaris, who had made

money as traders and shroffs, began to intrude into this exclusive sphere and started investing in jute industry. First, through buying stocks and lending money, many of the Marwaris got themselves elected to the boards of the European managing agencies. And then, people like G.D. Birla and Swarupchand Hukumchand set up their own mills in 1922. This marked the beginning of Indian jute mills around Calcutta.

▪ This Marwari stranglehold was gradually extended to other sectors, like coal mines, sugar mills and paper industry. Between 1942 and 1945, they began to take over some of the European companies.

o The real success of the Indian industrialists, however, came in the cotton industry of western India.

▪ Until the beginning of World War One imported textiles dominated Indian markets. This import considerably declined during the war-more than halved between 1913-14 and 1917-18-

• partly because of the transport dislocations caused by the war and partly due to 7 .5 per cent import duty on cotton textiles imposed in 1917.

• There was the military demand and the call for 'Swadeshi', proposing a boycott of foreign goods and the use of their indigenous alternatives.

▪ Cotton industry existed in India before World War One, and along with the European managing agencies, certain traditional trading communities like the Gujarati banias, Parsis, Bohras and Bhatias, who made money through export trade with China, had maintained their presence in this sector.

▪ The industry remained dependent on foreign collaboration for imported machinery, chemicals and technological expertise.

o Iron and steel industry, under the leadership of Tata Iron and Steel Company (flSCO), began at the turn of the century under direct government patronage.

▪ Because, here the monopoly of the Birmingham steel industry had already been broken by continental steel, except in matters of government and railway orders.

• Though government policies and the stranglehold of British capital inhibited Indian enterprise in certain sectors, recent researches show that below the westernised enclave and above the subsistence economy of the peasants, there was an intermediate level— the bazaar— where Indian businessmen and bankers continued to operate. 

o Some of these indigenous firms took advantage of the new opportunities of the empire, such as the railways and telegraph, and ran sophisticated and fairly integrated business networks that covered the whole of the subcontinent. These firms later expanded overseas to China, Burma, Straits Settlement, Middle East and East Africa. It was these operations which generated indigenous capital, which was later invested in industries after World War One. India's underdevelopment was therefore not due to any lack of entrepreneurial skills.

Explain why Akbar is regarded as the greatest muslim ruler of India

Undoubtedly Akbar was the only ruler among the rulers of medieval India who attempted to foster the national feeling in India.

He did succeed to some extent. However subsequent Mughal rulers failed to catch his spirit.

The majority of historians regard Akbar as a great emperor.

Akbar (1542-1605) - Familypedia

K.T. Shah writes, “Akbar was the greatest of the Mughals and perhaps the greatest of all Indian rulers for a thousand years, if not ever since the days of the mighty Mauryas. But without detracting in the least from the genius of the man of the inheritance of his birth, it may yet be said that Akbar was so great, because he was so thoroughly Indianised.”

Akbar’s claim to be a ‘national king’ is supported on the following basis:

1. Bringing entire India under rule of one monarch.

2. Unified system of administration.

3. Unified system of revenue administration.

4. Unified taxation policy.

5. Rajput policy of reconciliation.

6. Religious policy of synthesis and toleration.

7. Making Persian as court language.

8. Generous help in the growth of literature in all languages.

9. Developing a uniform Indian style of fine arts by bringing about synthesis of different styles.

10. Cultural harmony relating to customs and manners.

11. Welfare of his subjects belonging to different communities.

Edwardes and Gerrett wrote:

“Akbar has proved his worth in different fields of action. He was an intrepid soldier, a great general, a wise administrator, a benevolent ruler, and a sound judge of character. He was a born leader of men and can rightly claim to be one of the mightiest sovereigns known to history …During a reign of nearly fifty years, he built up a powerful Empire which could vie with the strongest and established a dynasty whose hold over India was not contested by any rival for about a century. His reign witnessed the final transformation of the Mughuls from merely military invaders into a permanent Indian dynasty.”

1. Considering India as Motherland:

Most of the Sultan rulers of India considered themselves as the representative of Caliph of Baghdad. Babur had also willed to be buried outside India and in his home country. Humayun also looked towards Kabul and Qandhar. Akbar completely identified himself with India, its people and soil etc. He worked for the prosperity of India. He had loyalty to India alone and none else.

2. Union of Hindustan under one head:

According to Malleson, “Akbar’s foremost aim was the union of Hindustan under one head which was difficult to achieve had he persecuted all Non-Islamic religions. To accomplish this, it was necessary first to conquer, secondly to respect all consciences and all methods of worshipping the Almighty.” Thus Akbar’s aim to expand his empire in India was to unify the scattered kingdoms under one umbrella. However according to Dr. R.P. Tripathi, the aim of Akbar was more ambitious than that of national king. Akbar in his view wanted to bring the entire world under his control as he was an expansionist.

3. Equal treatment with all subjects:

Famous artist Ferguson has written, “There is nothing more remarkable in Akbar’s character as his toleration which influenced all his activities. He had the same love and appreciation for all his Hindu subjects as he had for his co-religionists.”

4. Synthesis of all religions:

Akbar attempted to being about synthesis of all religions. ‘Ibadat Khana’ was established for religious discussions.

5. Founding of Din-i-Ilahi:

On the basis of good points of all religions, Akbar founded a new religion and such a step could he taken only by a national ruler.

6. Appointments on merits and not on religious basis:

Merit was the basis of all appointments and this led to great efficiency in his administration. By this policy Akbar won the heart of the Hindus. Todar Mal, was appointed an Finance Minister. Bhagwan Dass, Man Singh and Birbal were among the high-ups.

7. Akbar’s ‘Nav-ratnas’ (Nine Jewels):

Out of nine distinguished persons of his court, four were Hindus.

8. Removal of restrictions upon the Hindus:

Akbar abolished the pilgrim tax as well as jizya tax. He gave religious freedom to all.

9. Matrimonial alliances with the Hindus:

Akbar entered into matrimonial alliances with several Rajput families. However it is not clear why no girl from the royal family was married into Hindu family.

10. Cultural synthesis of Hindus and Muslims:

Akbar made vigorous efforts to bring about fusion of Hindu and Muslim art and literature.

(a) Architecture:

The effects of both Persian and Indian art are clearly visible in his buildings built at Fatehpur Sikri, Agra and Delhi.

(b) Painting:

It is said that not less than 13 out of 17 most important painters of his court were Hindus.

(c) Literature:

Akbar established a special translation department with the objective of translating the sacred books of the Hindus from Sanskrit into Persian.

Summing up:

From the accounts given above, it is clear that Akbar was a national ruler. Jawaharlal Nehru has rightly described him, “Father of Indian nationalism.”

Make an estimate of Iltutmish as the real founder of the Delhi Sultanate

 Founder/Real founder of the Delhi Sultanate:

Achievements of Aibak (1206 to 1210):

It appears that quite a large number of historians have been very generous to Iltutmish in their praise and rather unfair to Aibak. It is usually forgotten that had there been no Aibak there would not have been any Sultan by the name of Iltutmish.

There is no doubt that Qutab-ud-din Aibak founded the Mameluk of Slave Dynasty which had eleven rulers who ruled over Delhi from 1206 to 1290. Mameluk means a slave born of free parents. Iltutmish strengthened the Sultanate founded by his predecessor.

Main achievements of Aibak are as under:

1. It was Aibak who rendered a very useful service to Mohammad Ghori in the battle of Tarain. It was an important event which changed the course of Indian history.

2. Again it was Aibak who conquered the area of Hansi, Delhi and Ranthambore in the absence of Mohammad Ghori.

3. It was Aibak who helped Ghori to defeat Jaichand of Kanauj.

4. Not only this he defeated Bhimdeva II of Anhilwara who on one occasion had defeated Ghori. Aibak thus avenged the defeat of his master.

5. After Ghori’s death, Aibak had declared himself the ruler of his Indian possessions and he protected and extended’ the Delhi Sultanate.

6. By marriage diplomacy Aibak was able to overpower the difficulties that he faced in founding the empire. He entered into marriage alliances with three of the most important Turk nobles i.e. Qubacha, Yilduz and Iltutmish.

7. Aibak subdued several Rajput rulers.

In the words of Prof. S.R. Sharma, “Among these (rulers) Aibak must rank with Balban as pioneer founder of a great dynasty of rulers. Some of his successors might have added more glory to the empire as a whole. But the groundwork and examples were Aibak’s” Dr. Iwwari Prasad ranks Aibak “among the great pioneers of Muslim conquert in India.”

Iltutmish (1211-1235) as the Consolidator of the Delhi-Sultanate:

Iltutmish, a “slave of a slave” is regarded by several historians as the real founder and consolidator of the slave Dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate. According to them, Aibak was the ruler for four years only. There was so much anarchy after his death that the Sultanate of Delhi seemed slipping and a powerful ruler was needed to control the situation and Iltutmish rose equal to the occasion.

When we peruse the history we find that Mohammad- bin-Qasim was the first Muslim invader who came to India but he conquered only Sindh and Multan. In the words of Lane-poole “it was a mere episode in the history of India”. Mahmud Ghaznavi was the second great Muslim invader but his seventeen successful expeditions were primarily meant for plunder. His invasions did not lead to the establishment of any Muslim Kingdom in India.

For about 150 years there was no attempt to found any Muslim empire in India. Mohammad Ghori conquered the bulk of Hindustan but most of his time was spent in Ghazni-out of India. He himself did not rule over India but left to his viceroy Aibak.

Aibak extended his kingdom and formed an independent Muslim state in India. Since his rule was very short-lived, he could not consolidate the Sultanate. But the credit of founding the Sultanate must go to him. Of course, Iltutmish strengthened the foundation and saved the infant Muslim empire from collapsing.

On account of Iltutmish’s achievements in bringing about political consolidation out of turmoil, Dr. R.P. Tripathi has observed, “Qutub-ud- din cannot be regarded ever as sovereign ruler of Muslim India because no coins of his name are available and his name is conspicuous by its absence in the list of kings prepared by Ibn Batuta and in that prepared by Firoz- Shah Tughlaq for Khutba.” He has further observed, “The history of Muslim sovereignty in India begins properly speaking with Iltutmish.”

In the words of Dr. A.L. Srivastva, “Iltutmish was a brave but cautious soldier. He was also a successful general. He laid the foundation of a military monarchy that was to serve later as the instrument of a military imperialism under the Khaljis”.

In the opinion of Lane-poole, “Iltutmish is the true founder of the Dynasty of the Slaves, Kingdom.”

“It was he,” writes Prof. K.A. Nizami “who gave the country a capital (Delhi), an independent state, a monarchial form of government and a governing class.”

Prof. A.B.M. Habibullah states, “Aibak outlined the Delhi Sultanate and its sovereign status, Iltutmish was unquestionably its first king.”

Sir Wolseley wrote, “Iltutmish was the greatest of all the slave kings.”

Minhaj-us Siraj, a contemporary historian of Iltutmish wrote, “Never has a sovereign so virtuous, kind hearted and revered towards the learned and the divine sat upon the throne.”

Dr. Iswari Prasad regards Iltutmish “undoubtedly the real founder of the Slave Dynasty.”

According to Dr. R.C. Majumdar, “Iltutmish may justly be regarded as the greatest ruler of the early Turkish Sultanate of Delhi which lasted till 1290 A.D.”

Difficulties of Iltutmish:

With a view to appreciate the role of Iltutmish, it is very necessary to know the difficult circumstances under which he acceded to the throne. The newly Muslim empire was threatened with disintegration.

Important difficulties facing Iltutmish are mentioned here in brief

1. Iltutmish had no hereditary claim to the throne.

2. Iltutmish was slave of a slave (Aibak) and according to Muslim law no slave could ever occupy the throne.

3. There were several equally powerful nobles who would not tolerate the rise of an equal to the position of a Sultan.

4. Nasir-ud-din Qubachah, the governor of Sindh and Multan and Taj- ud-din Yalduz, the ruler of Ghazni refused to recognise Iltutmish as the rightful successor to the throne of Delhi.

5. Some of the Muslim generals asserted their independence taking advantage of the confusion.

6. Rajput rulers of Jalaun, Kalinjar, Ranthambhore and Gwalior declared their independence.

7. The Mongol invasion posed a great threat to the Sultan.

Solving Difficulties by Iltutmish:

Iltutmish exhibited remarkable energy and patience in solving the difficulties. Some of his achievements were as under:

1. He quelled the nobles who opposed him in becoming the Sultan. He defeated Aram Shah, the son of Qutub-ud-din who had declared himself as the Sultan.

2. He defeated Yalduz, made him prisoner and executed him.

3. Qubachah was defeated and he lost his life while crossing the river Indus.

4. Iltutmish suppressed the revolt in Bengal.

5. Iltutmish conquered the Rajput states of Gwalior, Malwa, Ujjain and Ranthambore.

6. Iltutmish got recognition as the Muslim Sultan of India by the Khalifa of Baghdad, Iltutmish, thereafter assumed the title of ‘Amir-ul- Mommin or ‘Commander of the Faithfuls’ and had the name of Khalifa inscribed on his coins. As a result of recognition by Khalifa, Iltutmish’s power and status were enhanced.

According to Prof. S.R. Sharma, “It is for this reason that Iltutmish has been considered as the real founder of the Muslim Kingdom of Delhi, though it is too much an exaggeration to call him the greatest of all slave kings.”

7. Iltutmish with great diplomatic skill prevented the Mongols from invading India. He very politely put off the king of Khwarizm who sought refuge in India from the Mongols.

8. One of the momentous measures of Iltutmish was that he changed his capital from Lahore to Delhi, and it for the first time became the capital of Hindustan.

9. With the help of Fakh-ud-din Ismani, an experienced Wazir of Baghdad, Iltutmish organised his administrative set up and provided a benign and sound administration to the hitherto, disorganised and dismembered empire.

10. According to Thomas, “Iltutmish instituted the veritable commencement of the silver coinage of the Delhi Sultanate.”

11. Iltutmish created a ‘Corps of Forty’ slave who were very loyal to him and kept a watch on the activities of nobles.

From the above account it is clear that Iltutmish was undoubtedly a successful ruler. His greatness lay not only in saving the infant Muslim empire in India but also in organising the scattered conquered territories of Ghori and Aibak into a well-organised and well-administered empire. Besides being a conqueror, he was a good administrator. He provided a systematic administrative set-up.

By dint of his dauntless bravery and wisdom he transformed a weak and vulnerable kingdom into a stable empire in India. He freed the Delhi Sultanate from the claim of suzerainty by the rulers of Ghazni. On account of these features, Iltutmish is often called the real founder of the Muslim empire in India.

Discuss the role of Rashtrakutas in the history of South India

Introduction :

The Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta or Malkhead rose to prominence in Western Deccan after the decline of the Badami or Vatapi Chalukyas. The Rastrakutas played in important role in the history of Deccan and South India for a period of nearly two centuries from AD 753 to 973.

Romila Thapar aptly observes that the geographical position of the Rastrakutas led to their involvement in wars and alliances with both the northern and more frequently, than southern neighbours.

The Rashtrakuta’s effective interference in the politics of Kanauj made them masters of Kanauj for a brief period in the early tenth century. This imbued them with confidence and made them feel a great, strong power.

Origin: 

The origin of the Rashtrakutas is shrouded in mystery, in spite of a number of theories professing to identify the origin of this ruling lineage. The term Rashtrakuta does not signify any particular community, caste or a Jati. 

Some historians identify the Rashtrakutas with the Reddy community of Andhradesa. Other historians consider them as a branch of the Kshatriyas who figure in the records of Asoka. Several Chalukyan epigraphs of Eastern Deccan refer to the term Rashtrakutapramukhanam who are identified as agriculturists of the Andhradesa.

R.C. Majumdar, K.K. Datta and H.C. Raychaudhari are of the view that it is not improbable that the Rashtrakutas were originally Dravidian agriculturists who obtained hereditary governorships of the provinces under the Chalukyas. It is suggested that, as the Sanskrit literature and epigraphs refer to the adminis­tration of a territory of Rastra or province as Rastrika or Rastriya and Ratthi in Prakrit, some of the officials in charge of the administration of the Rashtras might have declared independence and assumed royal titles and became rulers. We come to know from Undikavatika copper plate of Rashtrakuta Abhimanyu that there existed a Rashtrakuta kingdom in southern Maharashtra with Manapura or Manyapura as its capital.

We also come to know that prior to the establishment of the Chalukyan power in Badami area, there existed a Rashtrakuta power and with the establishment of Chalukyan power, the Rashtrakuta power disappeared. We do not have any evidence to establish the relationship between the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta and the earlier Rashtrakuta families of southern Maharashtra or Vidarbha or Badami. Rashtrakutas proclaimed themselves as ‘rulers of Lattaluru’ and it is identified with Latur presently situated in Osmanabad district of Marathwada.

The first ruler of Rastrakuta family appears to be Nannaraja, who ruled between AD 630-650. We have references to Dantivarma, Indrabhattarakaraja, Govindaraja, Karkkaraja and they are said to have ruled in between AD 650 and 735. The founder of the independent Rastrakuta power was Dantigdurga, who was an official of high rank under the Chalukyas of Badami till AD 742 and after the death of Badami Chalukya Vijayaditya II in 747, Dantidurga appears to have declared independence and ruled till AD 755. Dantidurga was followed by his paternal uncle Krishna I, who ruled between AD 756 and 772. Krishna I consol­idated and extended the Rashtrakuta power. He became famous as the patron who caused the carving of the Kailasa cave temple at Ellora.

The death of Krishna I resulted in a civil war between his sons Govinda and Dhruva. In this civil war Dhruva won victory in AD 780 and ruled till AD 793. Dhruva is said to have defeated the Gangas, Pallavas and Vengi Chalukyas and he led his armies against northern Indian rulers, and occupied Kanauj and defeated Dharmapala.

He also acquired Ganga Yamuna Torana and Palidhwaja. By these conquests Dhruva made Rashrakutas, a very strong and formidable power. He nominated his son Govinda III as ruler in AD 793. He ruled with the titles of ‘Rajadhiraja’ and ‘Rajaparamesvara’, ‘Sri Vallabha’, ‘Janavallabha’, ‘Tribhuvanamalla’ and ‘Kirtinarayana’. Govinda III had to face the opposition of his eldest brother Stambha who took advantage of disturbances in the Rashtrakuta territory. Dharmapala reconquered Kanauj. But Govinda III successfully curbed his brother and regained the lost ground and by AD 795.

He re-established the Rashtrakuta power. He once again led his armies north and gained victory over Dharmapala before AD 810. He also defeated Eastern Chalukya Vijayaditya II and occupied Kanchi by AD 802. The whole of South India acknowledged his sovereignty and even the ruler of Ceylon sought his friendship by offering presents. Undoubtedly, Govinda III is an eminent 150 The Post-Gupta Period in the Deccan and the Peninsula conqueror and statesman of repute among the Rashtrakutas. By his conquests over Pala and Pratihara rulers in the north, he established the greatness of the Rashtrakuta power. The political influence of the Rashtrakutas extended from the plains of the Ganges in the north to Kanyakumari in the south.

After Govinda III, his son Sarvudu with the name of Amoghavarsha ascended the throne in AD 814. But as he was a mere boy of thirteen, Karkka was appointed as regent. Amoghavarsha had the titles of Nrpatunga and Viranarayana. We come to know from the Sirur epigraph of Amoghavarsha that he defeated the rulers of Anga, Vanga, Magadha, Malava and Vengi. Amoghavarsha built the city of Manyakheta and changed his capital to that city in AD 860. He was also a patron of art and letters. He himself authored “Kavirajamarga” in Kannada. Jainasena, the author of “Adipurana” and Sakatayana, the author of “Ganitasara Sangraha” belong to his times. He professed Jainism yet showed religious tolerance. Amoghavarsha was not a blood-thirsty conqueror but was a peace loving ruler.

Amoghavarsha died in AD 878 and was followed by Krishna II. He married the daughter of the Chedi ruler Kokalla. He gave his daughter in marriage to Adityachola, the Chola ruler of Thanjavoor. He fought with Prathihara Bhoja and Eastern Chalukya Bhima I. Krishna II died in AD 914 and was followed by Indra III.

After Krishna II, his grandson, Indra III ascended the throne in AD 914 and ruled till AD 922. He was also a conqueror of repute and led his armies against Gurjara Prathihara Mahipala and defeated him. After his sudden death, his son Amoghavarsha II became ruler but he too was killed by his brother Govinda IV. As Govinda IV proved to be very wicked, he was replaced by Amoghavarsha III in AD 939. After Amoghavarsha III, his son Krishna III ruled from AD 940 to 968.

Krishna III continued hostilities with the Cholas. Sometime in AD 943, he attacked the Cholas and secured control of Tondaimandalam. In AD 949, Krishna III defeated the Cholas in the battle of Takkolam and proceeded to Rameshwaram to erect a pillar of victory and he built the temples of Krishnesvara and Gandamartandaditya at Rameshwararam. He also led an expedition to northern India in AD 963, but not much is known about the consequences of this expedition. He appears to have succeeded in placing his nominee on the Vengj throne. Though he cannot be compared to Dhruva, Govinda III or Indra III he too occupies an important place in the line of the Rashtrakutas as the lord of the large part of the Deccan and parts of South India. Thus, the Rashtrakuta power ruled over a vast territory in its heyday extended from South Gujarat, Malwa and Baghel Khand in the north to Thanjavoor in the south. The contemporaneous Arab writers rank them as one of the four great sovereigns of the world, along with the emperors of China, the Caliphs of Baghdad and the emperor of Constantinople.

Krishna III was followed by his younger brother Khottiga in AD 967. During his reign, Paramara Siyaka invaded the Rashtrakuta territory and devastated Manyakheta and this led to the death of Khottiga. Khottiga was succeeded by Karkka II. Tailapa II of the Chalukyas of Kalyani defeated and drove away Karkka II and became the overlord of the Deccan.

Polity:

The Rashtrakutas also followed monarchical form of government, wherein the king was the head of the state and exercised control over judiciary, executive and legislative functions. The Yuvaraja was assigned a key role. The king was usually assisted by a council of ministers. The Rashtrakutas do not appear to have had any organized bureaucracy. For administrative convenience, they divided their territory into administrative units – Rastras and Vishayas, Bhuktis and Villages.

The Rashtrakutas promoted agricultural operations and trade and commerce. The Rashtrakutas appointed Arabs as officers and governors in their territory and made use of their services to enrich their economy. In order to continue commercial relations with West Asia, the Rastrakutas utilized the services of the Arabs appointing them in the Sanjan area, which are very essential and useful for commercial relations with Western Asia.

Epigraphic reference is available about an Arab Muslim who called himself Maduramati, who has became a governor granting land to a wealthy Brahman ‘matha’. The same epigraph further affirms that the said governor controlled many of the harbour officers on behalf of the Rashtrakutas. This makes us suggest that there was long distance sea trade during the time of the Rashtrakutas.

The worship of Siva and Vishnu was popular in the Rashtrakuta territory. Epigraphs refer to various gods and they performed Hiranyagarhhadana and Tuladam. They too constructed temples to promote Bhakti based worship of Saiva and Vaishnava deities. Besides Puranic dharma, there prevailed the faith of Jainism. The Rastrakuta rulers Amoghavarsha I, Indra III, Krishna II and Indra IV patronized Jainism.

The Rashtrakutas made significant contribution to Indian art. The rock-cut temples at Ellora and Elephanta belong to this period. The culmi­nation of rock-cut architecture reached its highest stage in the monolithic temple of Kailasa, which was carved out of the live rock. This monolithic temple was excavated during the reign of Rashtrakuta Krishna I. K.A.N. Sastri, observes “in its general plan, it bears a certain resemblance to the Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal, though it is more than twice its size. The Kailasa temple has four parts – the main body, entrance gateway, a Nandi shrine in between, and cloisters around the court yard. The temple’s main body, measures roughly 150 by 100 feet with projections at intervals througjiout the entire height of its structure.”

Percy Brown, the eminent art historian describes this temple as follows: “Standing high on this plinth is the temple proper, approached by flights of steps leading to a pillared porch in its Western side and it is here that its designers rose to the greatest’ heights.

There is no pronounced departure from the conventional combination of the Mandapa and the Vimana, but the manner in which various architectural elements, all definite and sharply 152 The Post-Gupta Period in the Deccan and the Peninsula outlined, such as cornices, pilasters, niches and porticos, have been assembled in an orderly and artistic manner to form a unified whole, which is masterly.

Then rises the stately tower in three tiers, with its prominently projecting gable-front, and surmounted by a shapely cupola, reaching up to a total height of 95 feet while the interior consists of a pillared hall, from which a vestibule leads to the cells.

This hall is a well proportioned compartment measuring 72 by 62 feet having sixteen square pieces in groups of four in each quarter, an arrangement which produces cruciform central aisle with an effect of great dignity”. The sculptured panels of Dasavatara, Bhairava, and Ravana shaking the mount Kailasa, dancing Siva and Vishnu and Lakshmi listening to music are superb.

We may agree with Percy Brown that the “Kailasa temple is an illustration of one of those occasions when mens” mind, hearts and heads work in unison towards the consummation of a supreme ideal. It was under such conditions of religious and cultural stability that this grand monolithic representation of Siva’s paradise was produced”.

We may agree with the view of A.S. Altekar that the period of Rastrakuta ascendancy in the Deccan from about AD 753 to 975 constitutes perhaps the most brilliant chapter in its history. No other ruling dynasty in the Deccan played such a dominant part in the history of India till the rise of the Marathas as an imperial power in the eighteenth century.