power and glory of the empire had definitely
Hunas. The Hunas reappeared around the close of the fifth and the beginning
of the sixth century, under the leadership of Toramana and his son
Mihirakula. Their military successes are already known from epigraphic and
literary references. New lights on the times during the reign of Toramana are
shed by three inscriptions found from Sanjeli in Gujarat. One of them speaks
of Toramana’s conquest of and control over Malwa and Gujarat. Along with
the other two inscriptions of a similar nature, it speaks of Toramana’s rule
over a substantial part of western India. The son and successor of Toramana,
Mihirakula is eulogised in his Gwalior prasasti for his widespread conquests.
But the military and political exploits of the Hunas appear to have been rather
short-lived. The combined testimonies of Hiuen Tsang’s accounts, the
Harshacharita of Banabhatta and an inscription of the Maukhari ruler
Isanavarman of Kanauj, point to several victories over the Hunas.
Decline of Gupta Empire The military success of the Hunas was only
temporary, though they proved a menace at least for some time in the Indian
political scene. This in its turn, would suggest that the decline and collapse of
the Gupta empire sometime between 500 and 550 AD was not largely due to
the Huna inroads, as the Hunas themselves were overpowered by several
rulers. Some of these victorious rulers over the Hunas had originally been
subordinates under the Guptas, but rose to conspicuous political prominence
in the first half of the sixth century. The final phase of the Gupta rule hence,
appears to have been troubled more by its subordinates paying little or no
allegiance to the Gupta monarchs, than by external incursions of the Hunas.
  Numerous historical writings have been published extolling the great
  achievements—political and cultural—during the period from fourth to the
  sixth centuries AD, which in popular estimation is considered to be the
  ‘golden age’ and/or the ‘classical age’ in Indian history. Scathing criticism
  of labelling this epoch as golden age came from a number of Marxist
  historians. They brought to sharp focus that the construction of a golden
  age in Indian history was mainly done by nationalist and conventional
  historians, in the wake of a nationalist upsurge against colonial rule in the
  first three decades of the twentieth      century. It was also pointed out that