Do you agree with the ‘theory of deurbanisation’ during post Gupta period in India? Discuss.
Introduction
The post-Gupta period (roughly 6th to 12th century CE) has long been characterized in Indian historiography as an era of deurbanisation. This theory, initially proposed by colonial and early nationalist historians, suggested a decline in urban life following the political fragmentation of the Gupta Empire. However, over the last few decades, this claim has been questioned and reevaluated by modern scholars, who emphasize regional variations and alternative models of urban development. In this essay, we critically examine the theory of deurbanisation in the post-Gupta period, drawing on archaeological, literary, and epigraphic evidence to determine whether it accurately represents the socio-economic realities of the time.
The Theory of Deurbanisation: Origins and Arguments
The theory gained popularity among colonial historians like D.R. Bhandarkar and Vincent Smith. They observed the decline of large cities, cessation of coinage, breakdown of centralized empires, and the apparent disappearance of long-distance trade, which they interpreted as signs of deurbanisation.
Key arguments included:
- Decline in numismatic activity (i.e., fewer coins found from post-Gupta times).
- Disappearance of inscriptions mentioning large urban centres.
- Reduced architectural grandeur and civic infrastructure in excavated sites.
- Agrarian expansion, particularly through land grants to Brahmins and temples, suggesting a ruralizing economy.
According to this model, political instability, invasions (such as those by the Huns), and breakdown of trade routes led to the disintegration of urban economies, pushing society into a feudal, decentralized, and rural mode of existence.
Revisionist Interpretations
Modern historians like R.S. Sharma, B.D. Chattopadhyaya, and R. Champakalakshmi have revisited this theory and offered more nuanced perspectives. While acknowledging that certain urban centres did decline, they argue that:
- Urbanization did not vanish uniformly; rather, it shifted geographically and transformed functionally.
- The notion of urban decline is based on selective northern Indian data and ignores vibrant urban activity in regions like the Deccan, South India, and Eastern India.
- Temples and religious institutions became centres of surplus accumulation and redistribution, performing urban functions like trade, artisanal activity, and social gathering.
Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence
Archaeological excavations in South India (e.g., Kanchipuram, Madurai, Tanjavur) and the Deccan (e.g., Paithan, Ter, and Ellora) demonstrate continued urban activity. Inscriptions from the Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, and Pallavas record urban governance, taxation, and infrastructure development.
The presence of markets (mandis), guilds (shrenis), and merchant collectives (nagaram, nagarsresthi) in inscriptions indicate a vibrant urban commercial life. Temples served as economic hubs, receiving land grants, maintaining treasuries, and financing artisan groups.
Transformation of Urban Forms
The nature of urban centres changed from classical forms like Pataliputra or Ujjain to religious, temple-based towns. These new urban centres—called temple towns—like Srirangam, Chidambaram, and Bhubaneshwar, were not only pilgrimage sites but also served economic and administrative functions.
This transformation is best described as reurbanisation or reconfiguration rather than outright decline. The decline in monumental architecture or coinage does not necessarily equate to a disappearance of urban life.
Critique of the Deurbanisation Model
The deurbanisation thesis is often critiqued for:
- Over-reliance on material evidence like coin finds, ignoring textual and inscriptional data.
- A northern bias, where patterns from Uttar Pradesh or Bihar were assumed to be pan-Indian.
- Ignoring the emergence of new urban functions, such as religious and artisanal specialization.
- Neglecting long-distance trade links maintained through the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, and Southeast Asia.
Conclusion
The theory of deurbanisation during the post-Gupta period presents an overly simplistic and regionally skewed picture of historical reality. While certain urban centres did decline, new ones emerged, and others transformed in function and form. Urbanization did not disappear; it adapted to new political, economic, and religious dynamics. Thus, rather than agree entirely with the theory, it is more accurate to describe the post-Gupta period as a time of urban transformation and regional diversification, rather than universal deurbanisation. Historiography must reflect these complexities to better understand the nature of Indian urbanism in the early medieval period.