The Gupta Age was considered as the golden era in ancient Indian history, which lasted for two centuries. It threw a powerful impact on India’s cultural heritage. But very soon some of the Marxist historians opposed this thinking by highlighting the inequalities of the Gupta period. They argue that the inequality was caused by the rise of caste-based hierarchy in favour of the Brahmans and Kshatriyas caste. The Marxist historians have thus made fun of the the period’s achievements in art, literature, architecture as they were benefitting only the upper caste and thus feel that the Gupta period was not worthy of getting the title of a “golden age.” This debate is between nationalist’ and ‘Marxist.’ Chandra Gupta I was the founder of the Gupta Dynasty who maintained a very good relation with other kings. It helped his son and successor, Samudra Gupta who expanded the Pataliputra-based kingdom into a big empire. Later Chandra Gupta II marked his identification with the legendary Vikramaditya, as he was very brave. The period of Chandra Gupta II’s reign encouraged the artists. The unrustable Iron Pillar, the rise of Kalidasa, a contemporary Sanskrit poet was a result of his love towards arts. Both Buddhist and Brahmanical practices were encouraged in this period. It reflects mixed picture of perfection with rise of caste-based hierarchy. The controversy remains, as there is no certain line of describing that.
By: Anita Aishvarya