Was Gupta Age really a Golden Age?

Civilizations were said to have a Golden Age when virtually every manifestation of life reached a peak of excellence. Indian historians who lived and wrote during the period of Nationalist resistance to colonial rule portrayed the Gupta period as a ‘golden age’. The glorification of the Gupta period can be viewed as a reaction of Nationalist historians to Imperialist historiography. Features that were highlighted included the political unification of a large part of the continent under what was presumed to be a centralized government, the production of exceptionally fine works of Sanskrit literature, significant developments in the sphere of stone sculpture and architecture, and a presumption that all this was based on economic prosperity and social harmony.

The traditional understanding of the Gupta period underwent a radical revision in the1960s and 1970s. This was part of an attempt to rectify the biases inherent in nationalist historiography. It was also part of a larger historiographical shift dominated by Marxist historians, a shift away from political narrative towards the study of political and socio-economic structures. Even earlier, Marxist scholars such as B. N. Datta and D. D. Kosambi had written about a feudal stage in Indian history. The idea was taken further by
R.S. Sharma ([1965], 1980), who argued that the main features of feudalism existed in the Gupta period and were intensified in subsequent centuries. According to Sharma, the real essence of feudalism lay in the administrative organization of kingdoms being based on land. Its political essence lay in the institution of serfdom. Peasants were tied to the land owned by intermediaries, to whom they paid rent in kind and labour. The economy was essentially self-sufficient, and goods were produced mainly for local use and not for the market. Several feudal features were listed by Sharma: royal grants of land; the transfer of fiscal and judicial rights to the beneficiaries; the grant of rights over peasants artisans, and merchants; an increased incidence of forced labour; a decline in trade coinage; payment of officials through land revenue assignments; and the growth of the obligations of the samantas (subordinate or feudatory rulers). From this perspective, the seven centuries from c.300 ce onwards were marked by political fragmentation and a collapse of the urban economy. (Upinder Singh, 473).

The Gupta Period was selected largely because of impressive literary works in Sanskrit and the high quality of art which coincided with what was termed as a brahmanical ‘renaissance’. Since Indian civilization had earlier been charecterised as being Hindu and Sanskritic, the initial spread of Brahmanical culture as ‘high’ culture on an unprecedented scale was described as a Golden Period. High culture was associated with the elites at various courts and focused on the aesthetics expressed in creative literature, sculpture, architecture and philosophy together with the style of life. Quite apart from the elite, it was also assumed that the common people were materially well off, with little to complain about.

The Golden Age invariably had to be utopian, but set in the distant past, and the period chosen by the ones working on the early history of India was the time when Hindu culture was more firmly established than ever before. The distant past had a greter advantage as it allowed greater recourse to imagination in recreating the past. The description of Golden Age reflected the life of the wealthy and their activities alone characterized such an age.

The classicism of Gupta period is not an innovation emanating from the Gupta rule but is a culmination of a process that began earlier. New artistic forms were initiated during the pre-Gupta period in north India, such as those associated with Buddhism and which also found parallels with other religious sects, with the writing on various technical subjects and the writing on various creative literature of the time. Much of the articulation is Sanskrit but it is not the language alone which gives the period a particular quality

The description of Gupta period as one of classicism is relatively correct regarding the upper classes, which lived well according to the descriptions in their literature and representations in their art. The more accurate, literal evidence that comes from archaeology suggests a less glowing life-style for the majority. Materially, excavated sites suggest that the average standard of living may have been higher in the preceding period. Thus Gupta period was not a Golden Age for all, but for a particular sections of the society it seems. When seen in context of art and development of Sanskrit literature, it was definitely a Golden period.