Empires and Kingdoms: 6th to 10th Centuries

Chapter 3 · Social Science · Class 7 30 min read

Why This Matters

Imagine you are a young traveller, about 1,400 years ago. You set off to walk across India to see what it is like.

Your first stop is Kannauj, a busy city beside the river Ganga. A powerful king lives here. His court is full of poets and scholars. A few weeks later you reach the Deccan (the big plateau in the centre of India). There you see grand stone temples and lively towns. You walk further south, all the way to the coast. There, you watch workers carving whole temples out of solid rock by the sea. And far in the east, in Bengal, you find huge universities where thousands of students study.

But here is the surprising part. You do not find one giant empire ruling all of this. Instead, you find many strong kingdoms, each ruling its own corner.

Some people of that time grumbled that it was an age of fighting and disorder. But as you travel, you see something else. You see a land buzzing with new ideas, new art and new culture — different in every region, yet all part of one India.

This chapter is about that time, from about 600 CE to 1000 CE. (CE means Common Era. It counts years forward. We are now in 2026 CE, so 600 CE was about 1,400 years ago.) The mighty Gupta Empire had faded. What rose in its place? Let us go and see.

The Big Idea

After the Gupta Empire grew weak, no single ruler could hold all of India. Instead, many strong regional kingdoms rose up across the land — some in the north, some in the Deccan, some in the far south. In the north, Harshavardhana ruled from Kannauj. In the south and the Deccan, powers like the Chalukyas, Pallavas and Pandyas rose and clashed. Later, three big powers — the Palas (east), the Gurjara-Pratiharas (west) and the Rashtrakutas (Deccan) — fought a long three-way contest for Kannauj, called the Tripartite Struggle. Towards the end of this period, the Cholas began to rise in the south. This was not an empty, dark time. It was a time bursting with temples, trade, learning, science and devotion (bhakti) — each region adding its own flavour to one shared Indian civilisation.

Let’s Break It Down

We will go region by region, slowly. First, India right after the Guptas. Then Harsha and the north. Then the southern powers. Then the great three-way struggle for Kannauj. Then temples, learning and trade. And finally, the foreign invasions. Let us begin.

India after the Guptas — many kingdoms, not one empire

You met the Gupta Empire in an earlier chapter. It was a large, rich empire in north India, famous for its golden age of art and science. But like every empire, it grew weak with time. By about 600 CE, the Guptas no longer ruled.

So what happened? When a big empire falls, smaller local rulers get their chance. They grow strong and set up their own kingdoms. That is exactly what happened here. India broke into many regional powers, each ruling its own area.

Before we go further, let us be sure about two words we will use again and again.

Look at Figure 3.1 below. It shows the main powers of this period spread across India. Notice how they are spread out — north, east, Deccan and far south. No one of them ruled the whole map.

A simplified map of the Indian subcontinent showing the main powers from the 6th to the 10th centuries. The Gurjara-Pratiharas are in the north-west, the Palas in the east in Bengal, the Rashtrakutas (earlier the Chalukyas of Badami) in the Deccan, and in the south the Pallavas, Pandyas, Cheras and the rising Cholas. Kannauj is marked in the centre-north.
Figure 3.1 — A simplified, not-to-scale map of the main powers in India from the 6th to the 10th centuries. After the Guptas, no single empire ruled all of India. In the north-west were the Gurjara-Pratiharas (yellow). In the east, in Bengal, were the Palas (green). In the central Deccan plateau were the Rashtrakutas, who had earlier replaced the Chalukyas of Badami (red). In the south were the Pallavas and the rising Cholas (purple), the Pandyas in the far south (blue), and the Cheras along the Kerala coast. The blue dot marks Kannauj, the rich city that many powers fought over. The big idea to notice: power was shared among many regions, north and south.

Now let us also fix the time in our minds before we meet the rulers. Figure 3.2 below is a timeline of the whole period. Keep glancing back at it as you read.

A timeline from 600 CE to 1000 CE. In 606 CE Harshavardhana's rule begins at Kannauj. Around 637 a first Arab naval raid is repulsed at Thana. In 712 the Arabs conquer Sindh. In 750 the Pala dynasty rises in Bengal. During the 8th and 9th centuries the Tripartite Struggle over Kannauj is fought. In the 9th century the Cholas emerge as a strong power.
Figure 3.2 — A timeline of the period from 600 CE on the left to 1000 CE on the right (older time is on the left). The blue marker shows Harsha's rule beginning at Kannauj in 606 CE. The Arabs first raided the west coast around 637 and conquered Sindh in 712. The Pala dynasty rose in Bengal in 750. The yellow band shows the long three-way Tripartite Struggle over Kannauj during the 8th and 9th centuries. The purple marker shows the Cholas rising as a strong power in the 9th century. Across these four centuries, many kingdoms rose and fell — no single one ruled all of India for long.
Concept check

When the Gupta Empire grew weak, why did many smaller kingdoms appear instead of one new big empire?

Harsha and the north — the great king at Kannauj

Let us start in the north, with a remarkable ruler. His name was Harshavardhana, also simply called Harsha. He came to the throne in 606 CE. He belonged to the Pushyabhuti dynasty (also called the Vardhana dynasty). Their earlier capital was Sthanveshvara, which is present-day Thanesar in Haryana. Harsha then ruled from Kannauj, a great city on the Ganga in today’s Uttar Pradesh.

Harsha was more than a fighter. He was a fine poet and dramatist — it is believed he wrote three plays in Sanskrit. He supported scholars too. One of them, Banabhatta (also called Bana), wrote a beautiful book called Kadambari, often called one of the world’s first novels. Bana also wrote Harshacharita, a life story of Harsha himself.

Here is something useful for a young historian. Why do we even know about Harsha’s court, his army and his ceremonies? Because of sources — old writings and objects that survive and tell us about the past. For Harsha, we have his inscriptions, the books written at his court, and the travel diary of a visitor from far away.

That visitor was Xuanzang, a Chinese Buddhist pilgrim. He travelled around India between 630 and 644 CE to visit holy Buddhist sites and learn from Indian teachers. He carried back more than 600 Buddhist manuscripts to China (it is said they needed 20 horses to carry!). And he wrote a careful account of the kingdoms he crossed — their kings, their cities, their religions. Today that diary is one of our most important sources for this whole period.

Xuanzang described Kannauj as a beautiful, rich city. He praised Harsha as a fair and energetic king who kept a huge army.

Harsha was also famously generous. Every five years he held a grand assembly at Prayaga (present-day Prayagraj, where the Ganga and Yamuna rivers meet). There, after sacred rites, he gave away enormous wealth — to Buddhists, to Brahmins and to the poor.

But Harsha did not get everything he wanted. He tried to push his power south, beyond the Narmada river. There he was stopped by a strong southern king, Pulakeshin II of the Chalukya dynasty (we will meet him soon). So Harsha’s empire stayed mostly in the north and east.

Concept check

Harsha lived 1,400 years ago. How can historians be so sure about his court, his army and his ceremonies?

The southern powers — Chalukyas, Pallavas and Pandyas

While Harsha ruled the north, the south was just as alive. Several mighty kingdoms there were locked in a contest for power. Let us meet the main three.

The Chalukyas of Badami. In the mid-6th century CE, Pulakeshin I founded the Chalukya dynasty in the Deccan. His grandson, Pulakeshin II, made the kingdom much bigger. This is the same Pulakeshin II who stopped Harsha at the Narmada. His capital was Vatapi — present-day Badami in Karnataka, famous for its grand Hindu and Jain cave temples carved into the rock. So in the early 7th century, two great powers shared India: Harsha north of the Vindhya hills, and Pulakeshin II south of them.

The Pallavas. Their capital was Kanchi (present-day Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu). The dynasty reached its peak in the 7th century under Mahendravarman I and his son Narasimhavarman I. Narasimhavarman was nicknamed Mamalla, meaning “wrestler” or “warrior”. He actually defeated Pulakeshin II and captured Badami. The Pallavas were great builders. At Mamallapuram (also called Mahabalipuram), by the sea, they carved rock-cut caves and whole temples out of solid stone, showing gods and scenes from the Mahabharata. Kanchipuram was also a rich trade centre, dealing in spices, silk, ivory and other luxury goods.

The Pandyas. They rose by the 6th century in the far south. Their capital was Madurai, a lively cultural centre. They traded by sea with Southeast Asia through ports like Korkai. They built many temples and supported poets.

Let us put these three side by side so they do not blur together.

DynastyCapital (then / now)Famous for
ChalukyasVatapi / Badami, KarnatakaCave temples; Pulakeshin II stopped Harsha
PallavasKanchi / Kanchipuram, Tamil NaduRock-cut temples at Mamallapuram; rich trade
PandyasMadurai (same)Sea trade with Southeast Asia; temples and poets

There was even a Chinese eyewitness here too. Xuanzang visited the Chalukya kingdom on his way south. He wrote that Pulakeshin II’s “beneficent actions are felt over a great distance and his subjects obey him with perfect submission”. He also visited Kanchi (the Pallava capital) and praised its people, saying they “highly esteem learning”.

Let us see how these names fit together with a quick practice.

Worked example

Pulakeshin II appears twice in the story — once stopping a king from the north, and once being defeated by a king of the south. Who were these two kings, and which dynasties did they belong to?

The Tripartite Struggle for Kannauj

Now we come to the most famous fight of this period. After Harsha died in 647 CE, the north fell into turmoil. The great city of Kannauj had no strong master. And everyone wanted it.

But why Kannauj? Two reasons. First, it sat on the rich, fertile Ganga plains, so whoever held it controlled good farmland and tax money. Second, it lay right in the centre of the north. Holding it was like wearing a crown — it let a king claim to be the leading power of north India.

So three big powers fought over it, again and again. This long, three-way contest is called the Tripartite Struggle. The word tripartite simply means “having three parts” or “three sides” — a contest with three players. Figure 3.3 below shows it clearly.

A diagram of the Tripartite Struggle. The rich city of Kannauj sits in the centre. Three kingdoms each pull towards it with a big arrow: the Gurjara-Pratiharas from the west, the Palas from the east in Bengal, and the Rashtrakutas from the south in the Deccan. The word tripartite means a contest with three sides.
Figure 3.3 — The Tripartite Struggle for Kannauj. The rich city of Kannauj, on the Ganga plains, sits in the centre as the prize. Three powerful kingdoms each pulled towards it: the Gurjara-Pratiharas from the west (yellow), the Palas from the east in Bengal (green), and the Rashtrakutas from the south in the Deccan (red). The word 'tripartite' means a contest with three sides. None of the three could hold Kannauj for long, so they kept warring over it through the 8th and 9th centuries with no lasting winner.

Let us meet the three players, one by one.

The Palas (from the east). After Harsha’s death, Bengal fell into disorder. Then, around 750 CE, the people themselves are said to have chosen Gopala as king to restore order. He founded the Pala dynasty, which soon ruled much of eastern India. His successor Dharmapala expanded the empire greatly. The Palas were great supporters of Buddhist learning. They founded famous monastery-universities like Vikramashila (in present-day Bihar) and Somapura (in present-day Bangladesh), and they kept supporting the old university at Nalanda. Their empire grew rich through sea trade from ports on the east coast, reaching Southeast Asia.

A quick word on what these “universities” were like. Vikramashila had six colleges, monasteries, lecture halls and a huge library. Nearly 3,000 scholars studied there — grammar, logic, philosophy and more. Getting in was hard: each college had a dvarapandita, a “scholar gatekeeper”, who tested students before letting them enter. Such centres kept India’s knowledge traditions alive for centuries.

The Gurjara-Pratiharas (from the west). This dynasty was founded in the mid-8th century by Nagabhata I. (“Gurjara” was a region between Gujarat and Rajasthan.) They became famous for pushing back the Arab invaders in the north-west (we will see this later). In the 9th century, their great king Bhoja built an empire stretching from Punjab and Kathiawar in the west all the way to Kannauj in the east.

The Rashtrakutas (from the Deccan). In the mid-8th century, Dantidurga overthrew the Chalukyas in the Deccan and founded the Rashtrakuta power. Their capital was at Manyakheta (modern Malkheda in Karnataka). They were one of the most dominant powers for nearly two centuries. But they were not only fighters. The Rashtrakuta king Krishna I had the magnificent Kailasanatha temple carved out of a hillside at Ellora (in present-day Maharashtra). Amazingly, it is the largest rock-cut temple in India — not built up brick by brick, but cut downward out of one giant rock, like a sculpture. Another Rashtrakuta king, Amoghavarsha I, ruled for an astonishing 64 years and brought peace, and was himself a fine poet in Sanskrit and Kannada.

Here is the key point about all three. They fought hard, but none of them could keep Kannauj for long. They were too evenly matched. So the struggle dragged on through the 8th and 9th centuries with no final winner.

Concept check

Three strong powers fought over Kannauj for nearly two hundred years, yet none won for good. Why couldn't any single one of them keep it?

⚠️ Common mistake
What students think

The Tripartite Struggle was a single great battle fought between three kings on one day.

Why it seems right

The word 'struggle' sounds like one dramatic showdown, and we are used to history telling us about famous single battles with a clear winner.

What actually happens

It was not one battle. It was a long series of wars spread over the 8th and 9th centuries — about two hundred years — between the Palas, the Gurjara-Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas. The result kept changing, and there was no lasting winner.

Other regions — Kashmir, the Deccan and the rising Cholas

The three big powers were not the whole story. Many other kingdoms rose and fell elsewhere. Let us briefly meet a few.

Kashmir. Far to the north, in the Himalayan kingdom of Kashmir, a new power stirred in the mid-8th century. We learn its story from a remarkable book, the Rajatarangini — meaning “the River of Kings” — written by the scholar Kalhana. One firm ruler was Lalitaditya Muktapida. Later, in the late 10th century, Queen Didda held power through clever alliances. Kashmir was a great centre of Sanskrit learning, philosophy and art, and a bridge for ideas travelling between India, Tibet and Central Asia.

A small but special detail: Kalhana, who wrote the Rajatarangini in the 12th century, thought carefully about how history should be written. He said a good historian must check many older works and inscriptions, and must stay “free from love or hatred” while telling the facts. That is still good advice for any historian today.

The Deccan and the south, continued. The Chalukyas of Badami declined, and the Rashtrakutas took the Deccan. But a branch of the Chalukyas, the Eastern Chalukyas, ruled from Vengi in present-day Andhra Pradesh. Under them, Telugu and Kannada literature flourished. And in the far south, beyond the Pandyas, the Cheras (also called Chera Perumals) kept their independence along the Kerala coast.

The Cholas rise. Now comes a name that will matter a lot in the next chapter. The Cholas were an ancient people who had faded for centuries. Then, in the 9th century, they were “reborn” under Vijayalaya, who set up a new capital at Tanjavur (now spelt Thanjavur). His son Aditya I defeated the Pallavas and brought most of present-day Tamil Nadu under Chola control. The Cholas went on to build one of the largest empires in south Indian history, famous for its efficient administration, its powerful navy, and its grand temples. They grew rich from the fertile Kaveri river delta and clever irrigation. Their story continues into the next chapter.

So, to keep all these names straight, look at Figure 3.4 below. It matches each main dynasty to the region it ruled.

A chart matching the main dynasties to their regions. North: Pushyabhutis under Harsha, then the Gurjara-Pratiharas, with key city Kannauj. East in Bengal: the Palas, who supported great Buddhist universities. Deccan: the Chalukyas of Badami, then the Rashtrakutas, who made the Kailasanatha temple at Ellora. South: the Pallavas at Kanchipuram, the Pandyas at Madurai, the Cheras on the Kerala coast, and the rising Cholas at Thanjavur.
Figure 3.4 — A chart matching the main dynasties to the regions they ruled. In the NORTH (yellow) were the Pushyabhutis under Harsha and later the Gurjara-Pratiharas, whose key city was Kannauj. In the EAST in Bengal (green) were the Palas, who supported great Buddhist universities. In the DECCAN (red) were first the Chalukyas of Badami and then the Rashtrakutas, who carved the Kailasanatha temple at Ellora. In the SOUTH (purple) were the Pallavas at Kanchipuram, the Pandyas at Madurai, the Cheras on the Kerala coast, and the rising Cholas at Thanjavur. Tip: remember the colours and regions rather than every single name — yellow for north, green for east, red for Deccan, purple for south.

Temples, learning and a galaxy of scientists

We have talked a lot about kings and wars. But these centuries are remembered just as much for what people built and thought. Let us see.

Temple architecture. Across India, rulers built stone temples, and they became centres not just of worship but of art, music and even trade. Two main temple styles grew. In the north came the Nagara style, with a tall, curved tower over the main shrine, called a shikhara. In the south came the Dravida style, with a stepped, pyramid-like tower called a vimana, often with a tall gateway tower called a gopuram at the entrance. Figure 3.5 below shows the two side by side.

A side-by-side comparison of two temple styles. On the left is the Nagara style of north India, with a tall curved tower called a shikhara. On the right is the Dravida style of south India, with a stepped pyramid tower called a vimana topped by a small dome, and a tall gateway tower called a gopuram. Both have a small dark inner shrine for the deity.
Figure 3.5 — The two main temple styles, side by side. Panel (a) shows the Nagara style of north India: the tower over the main shrine, called a shikhara, rises in a tall curved shape. Panel (b) shows the Dravida style of south India: the tower, called a vimana, is built in clear stepped levels like a pyramid, topped by a small dome, and the entrance has its own tall gateway tower called a gopuram. In both styles, the main deity sits in a small dark inner shrine (shown shaded); only the shape of the tower above it is different. This is an easy way to tell a northern temple from a southern one at a glance.

Remember the Rashtrakuta Kailasanatha temple at Ellora? It is a stunning example — carved downward out of a single hillside, so the whole temple is really one giant sculpture, not a building made of separate stones.

Learning and faith. Rulers in this period were broad-minded. A king who personally worshipped Shiva might still support Buddhist monasteries and Jain temples too. People often did not see Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism as separate enemies, but more like branches of one tree. This is why a Pala king could fund Buddhist universities, while Jainism stayed strong in western India and Karnataka — for example, the giant monolithic statue of Bahubali at Shravanabelagola in Karnataka. (“Monolithic” means made from a single stone — mono means one, lithic means stone.)

This was also the great age of the Bhakti tradition. Bhakti means loving, personal devotion to a god — a direct heart-to-heart bond, open to everyone, rich or poor, man or woman. It first spread powerfully from the south, through two famous groups of poet-saints who sang in Tamil: the 12 Alvars (devotees of Vishnu — one of them, Andal, was a woman) and the 63 Nayanars (devotees of Shiva, including three women). Their songs touched all layers of society and reshaped Indian culture — and their impact lasts to this day.

A galaxy of mathematicians and astronomers. This period also shone in science. The greatest name is Brahmagupta, born in 598 CE. In his big book, the Brahmasphutasiddhanta, he wrote down the rules for using zero, negative numbers and fractions — the very same rules you use in maths class today! He also helped found modern algebra. His works were later translated into Persian and Latin, helping mathematics grow in the Arab world and then Europe. Other brilliant scholars of the time included Bhaskara I, who did pioneering work in trigonometry, and Mahavira, a Jain scholar at the court of the Rashtrakuta king Amoghavarsha, who wrote the first maths book that did not depend on astronomy.

Concept check

A king might personally worship Shiva, yet still spend money supporting Buddhist universities and Jain temples. Why did rulers of this period do this?

How kingdoms were governed, and how trade grew

How did these kings actually run their lands? After the big unified empires fell, government became more decentralised — meaning power was spread out, not all held tightly at one centre.

A great king ruled his core region directly. But he could not personally govern the faraway parts. So he governed those through samantas — subordinate rulers, a bit like tributaries or vassals. A samanta ruled his own area, led armies for the king, and sent tribute (a regular payment, in money or goods) up to the great king. In return, he got protection and grand titles. Figure 3.6 below shows how this worked.

A pyramid diagram. At the top sits the great king, who rules the core region directly. Below him are subordinate rulers called samantas, who govern the outer regions, lead armies, and send tribute up to the king. Below them are the villages, run by their own headmen and committees, which stay largely self-governed. An upward arrow shows tribute and soldiers going up; a downward arrow shows protection and titles going down. A note warns that a samanta could rebel if the king grew weak.
Figure 3.6 — How kingdoms of this period were governed, shown as a pyramid. At the top, the great king ruled the core region himself. Below him, subordinate rulers called samantas governed the outer regions, led armies, and sent tribute (payments) and soldiers up to the king (green arrow). In return, the king sent protection and titles down to them (orange arrow). At the base, villages were run by their own headmen and local committees and stayed largely self-governed. The red note shows the weak spot: a samanta's loyalty was not certain. If the king grew weak, a strong samanta might break away — the Rashtrakutas did exactly this to the Chalukyas.

This system had a clear danger. A samanta’s loyalty was not guaranteed. If the central king grew weak, a powerful samanta might break free — and even overthrow his master. Remember the Rashtrakutas? They had been samantas under the Chalukyas, and they grew strong enough to overthrow them. That is the weak spot of the samanta system in action.

At the bottom of all this were the villages, the smallest units. They were run by headmen, accountants and local committees, and were largely self-governed. In fact, in the 9th and 10th centuries, south India saw village assemblies (called sabha) with detailed rules for choosing members — the famous Chola inscriptions at Uttaramerur describe how members of the village sabha were selected. This shows a long, living tradition of local self-government in India.

Trade and the economy. This was a busy trading age. Small traders ran local markets, while rich, ship-owning merchants ran long-distance sea trade. From the 8th century, India’s west coast traded briskly with ports in present-day Iran, Iraq and the east coast of Africa. India’s east coast connected with Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, and all the way to China. Merchants organised themselves into guilds — associations of traders, artisans and moneylenders that helped run trade and even supported temples and charity.

⚠️ Common mistake
What students think

Because there was no single empire, this must have been a poor, backward, 'dark age' for India with nothing being built or traded.

Why it seems right

We often assume that one big empire equals strength and progress, so it feels natural to think that many small kingdoms must mean weakness and decline.

What actually happens

The opposite was true. These centuries saw grand temples built, busy sea trade with Arabia, Africa, Southeast Asia and China, thriving universities, and great advances in maths and astronomy. Many competing kingdoms actually meant many royal patrons, so art, learning and building flourished all across India.

Foreign invasions — the Hunas and the Arabs

India’s north-western frontier had always been a place to watch, because invaders came from there. In this period, two arrivals matter: the Hunas and the Arabs.

The Hunas. The Hunas were a branch of a fierce, horse-riding nomadic people from Central Asia. (A nomadic people are those who keep moving from place to place instead of settling down.) They had helped weaken the Gupta Empire earlier. In the early 6th century, Huna leaders pushed deep into the Ganga plains. But Indian kings resisted hard, and the Aulikara dynasty (with its capital at Dashapura, modern Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh) finally defeated them. After that, something interesting happened: the Hunas settled down and blended into Indian society. Many became soldiers or officials. They adopted Sanskrit, used Gupta-style coins and titles, and even worshipped Indian deities. They became part of India.

The Arabs. Within a few years of the death of Islam’s founder, Muhammad, in 632 CE, the new religion had spread far across Asia and Africa. In 637 CE, Arab ships raided India’s west coast — at Thana, Bharuch and Debal — but won no lasting land. The big change came later. The governor of Iraq sent an army under Muhammad bin Qasim, who swept into Sindh and conquered it in 712 CE, defeating and killing King Dahir in battle.

But here is the important part: the Arab gains went no further for a very long time. Indian rulers resisted fiercely, sometimes joining together against the invaders. The Gurjara-Pratihara king Nagabhata I, the Rashtrakutas, and Kashmir’s king Lalitaditya all helped block the Arab advance. One geographer noted that after three centuries of effort, the Arab hold in India was limited to just two small areas in Sindh and Punjab. So unlike many other lands where Islam quickly replaced local rule, in India the Arab conquest stayed small and limited for centuries. In Sindh itself, the Arabs even changed their policy: Hindus and Buddhists were allowed to rebuild temples and keep worshipping.

There is a lovely fact here too. Long before Islam, India and Arabia were already linked by sea trade, with ships sailing back and forth using the monsoon winds. In fact, the very word “monsoon” comes from the Arabic mawsim, meaning “season”. And the most important exchange was in knowledge. In the 9th century, Indian texts on maths and astronomy were translated into Arabic in Baghdad. The Arabs adopted India’s decimal number system with zero. When this later reached Europe through the Arabs, the digits became known as “Arabic numerals” — though they began in India. Today many dictionaries call them “Hindu-Arabic numerals” to honour both.

Concept check

The Hunas invaded India but later became Indian soldiers and officials who worshipped Indian gods. What does this tell us about Indian society of that time?

Common Mistakes

Let us clear up a few ideas that students often get wrong about this period.

⚠️ Common mistake
What students think

Harsha united all of India under one great empire, just like the Mauryas or Guptas did.

Why it seems right

Harsha was clearly a strong, famous and generous king ruling from Kannauj, so it is easy to assume he must have ruled the whole country too.

What actually happens

Harsha ruled large parts of the north and east, but he could not unite all of India. When he tried to push south past the Narmada, Pulakeshin II of the Chalukyas stopped him. The south stayed under its own powerful kings.

⚠️ Common mistake
What students think

The Chola Empire was the great power that dominated the whole 6th-to-10th-century period.

Why it seems right

The Cholas are very famous for their later mighty empire and grand temples, so it is tempting to place them at the centre of this whole period.

What actually happens

For most of this period the Cholas were minor or faded. They only began rising again in the 9th century under Vijayalaya and Aditya I. Their truly great empire belongs to the next chapter, the 11th and 12th centuries.

⚠️ Common mistake
What students think

The Arab conquest of Sindh in 712 CE meant the Arabs quickly took over most of India.

Why it seems right

In many other parts of the world the early Arab conquests spread very fast, so we expect the same lightning spread to have happened in India.

What actually happens

The conquest of Sindh stayed small and limited. Indian rulers like the Gurjara-Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas resisted strongly and blocked further advance. For about three centuries, Arab rule in India was confined to just a couple of small areas.

Quick Check

Test yourself with these questions. Pick an answer, then read the explanation.

After the Gupta Empire grew weak, what was India like from about 600 CE to 1000 CE?

Which three powers fought the long Tripartite Struggle for Kannauj?

What is the difference between the Nagara and Dravida temple styles?

Why did the Arab conquest of Sindh in 712 CE NOT spread quickly across the rest of India?

Practice Problems

Try these yourself before you reveal the answers. Writing your own answer first helps you remember.

Easy

Easy

Name the king who ruled from Kannauj in the early 7th century, and name the Chinese pilgrim whose travel diary tells us about him.

Easy

Match each dynasty to its capital city (give the modern name): Chalukyas, Pallavas, Pandyas, Cholas.

Medium

Medium

What does 'tripartite' mean, and why was Kannauj the city that the three powers fought over? Give two reasons.

Medium

Explain the samanta system in your own words. What was its biggest weakness, and give one example from the chapter where this weakness showed itself.

Challenge

Challenge

Some people call the years from 600 CE to 1000 CE a 'dark age' for India because there was no single empire. Using examples from the chapter, write a short paragraph arguing why this view is wrong.

Summary

Here is what you should now be able to explain in your own words:

  • After the Gupta Empire grew weak (around 600 CE), no single power ruled all of India. Instead, many strong regional kingdoms rose up across the land.
  • In the north, Harshavardhana ruled from Kannauj (from 606 CE). He was a generous king and a poet, but could not unite all of India — Pulakeshin II of the Chalukyas stopped him in the south. The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang is a key source for this period.
  • In the south, the main powers were the Chalukyas (Badami), the Pallavas (Kanchi, famous for the rock temples at Mamallapuram) and the Pandyas (Madurai).
  • After Harsha, three powers — the Palas (east), the Gurjara-Pratiharas (west) and the Rashtrakutas (Deccan) — fought the long Tripartite Struggle over Kannauj, with no lasting winner.
  • This was a great age of temples (Nagara style in the north, Dravida style in the south), learning (Pala universities), science (Brahmagupta and zero) and bhakti (the Tamil Alvars and Nayanars).
  • Kings governed through samantas (subordinate rulers), while villages stayed largely self-governed. Trade boomed by land and sea, linking India with Arabia, Africa, Southeast Asia and China.
  • Invaders came too: the Hunas were defeated and then blended into Indian society, and the Arabs conquered Sindh in 712 CE but were blocked from spreading further for centuries.
  • The Cholas began rising in the 9th century — and their great empire is the story of the next chapter.

What’s Next

In this chapter you saw India as a land of many strong kingdoms, busy with temples, trade and learning. But the next two centuries — the 11th and 12th centuries — would bring big changes. The mighty Cholas would build one of the greatest empires of the south, with a powerful navy and ships reaching across the sea. And from the north-west would come new invaders who changed Indian history for good.

Read on in Chapter 16: Turning Tides — The 11th and 12th Centuries to see how the tide of Indian history turned next.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was Harshavardhana and why is Kannauj famous in history?

Harshavardhana was a powerful king who ruled from Kannauj (on the river Ganga) in the early 7th century CE. He united much of northern India under his rule. Kannauj became so important that, after Harsha died, many kingdoms fought over it for the next two centuries. Whoever controlled Kannauj was seen as the most powerful king in northern India.

What was the tripartite struggle between the Palas, Pratiharas and Rashtrakutas?

After Harsha, three powerful kingdoms fought a long war (roughly 8th to 10th centuries CE) to control Kannauj and northern India. The Palas ruled Bengal and Bihar in the east. The Pratiharas were based in Rajasthan and the northwest. The Rashtrakutas came from the Deccan in the south. Each kingdom took and lost Kannauj several times, so historians call it the 'tripartite struggle' — a three-way fight that went on for nearly 200 years.

What are the differences between Nagara and Dravida temple styles?

Nagara temples are found in northern India. Their towers (called shikharas) are tall, curved and look like a mountain peak pointing at the sky. Dravida temples are found in southern India. Their towers (called gopurams) are more pyramid-shaped, with many horizontal layers, and are often very wide at the base. The Kailasa Temple at Ellora and the Shore Temple at Mahabalipuram are examples of these two styles.

Which kingdoms ruled south India in the 6th to 10th centuries?

Several powerful kingdoms ruled south India during this period. The Chalukyas ruled the Deccan (central south). The Pallavas ruled the far south and built the famous Shore Temple at Mahabalipuram. The Pandyas were another strong kingdom in the deep south. The Cholas, who would later become very powerful, were also present in this period. These kingdoms built grand stone temples and traded across the seas.

How did Arab traders and the Arab conquest of Sindh change India?

Arab traders had sailed to India's western coast for centuries, bringing goods and ideas. In 712 CE, an Arab general named Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh (in present-day Pakistan), which was the first time a part of the Indian subcontinent came under Arab Muslim rule. This opened the door for the spread of Islam in that region, and for more trade and cultural exchange between India and the Arab world.