Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c15: Chapter VIII. Central Government: King and Ministry

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c15

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VIII. Central Government: King and Ministry

c15.2

King-in-ministry was the normal form of the government in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire. Feudatory administrations were also governed by the same principle. Neither literature, nor epigraphical records, nor accounts by foreign travellers disclose the existence of a non-monarchical form of government anywhere in the Deccan of our period. This is natural, for even in the north, governments were all monarchical at this time, as we know from the account handed down by Yuan Chwang. Tribal or republican forms of government, which are known to have been persisting in northern India down to the 4th century A.D., cannot, however, be traced in the south, even in the earlier period. This is rather strange when we remember that the village council was more democratic and elective in the south than was usually the case in the north. This may be due to the dearth of historical material relating to the earlier period of the history of the Deccan, or to the possibility of democracy not having extended beyond the scope of the village government.

c15.3

Kingship at this period was hereditary throughout India. We nowhere come across any elective type of monarchy in our period, either in the south or in the north. We get only one clear case of the election of a king which is referred to in the Rājatarangiṇī. This case occurred in 939 A.D., when at the death of Sūrvarmar there was no heir of the Utpala dynasty to succeed him. Kamalavardhana, who had actually become the de facto king, requested the Brahmanas to elect a king, anticipating that none but himself would be elected by them. After considering the claims of several claimants, the Brahmana assembly decided to elect Yaśaskara. This, however, is the only known case of the genuine election of a king by a section of the general population as distinguished from ministers or feudatories; but the observations of Kalhaṇa on the occasion show that a person who resorted to such a course was regarded as qualifying himself for admission into a lunatic asylum.¹ Feudatories and ministers had sometimes a determining voice in deciding as to who should be offered the crown, as when Govinda II was deposed in c. 780 A.D., or Amoghavarsha III installed in c. 936 A.D. But statements made even with reference to these occasions like

c15.4

¹ राजतरंगिणी V, 456, ff. cf:—

c15.5

Sāmantairatha Raṭṭarājyamahimālambārthamabhyarthitaḥ
‘He was requested by the feudatories to accept the throne for supporting the glory of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire,’

c15.6

are more figurative than real. For we have already seen that Amoghavarsha III and Dhruva owed their elevation to the throne more to their own exertions than to the votes of the feudatories. The kingship was thus hereditary in our period and the crown passed usually to the eldest, and sometimes to the ablest son, as in the case of Govinda III.

c15.7

In the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration, the advice of the Smritis that an heir-apparent should be selected in the lifetime of the ruling king was usually followed. Sulaiman’s statement, that the princes in India name their own successors,² refers to this practice of the nomination of the

c15.8

² Elliot I, p, 6. Election as a possible means of getting a kingdom was unknown also to Somdeva, a contemporary writer on politics; cf. राज्यस्य मूलं क्रमो विक्रमश्च । नीतिवाक्यामृत V. 26.

c15.9

प्राकर्मभिर्मोदितो वा प्रेरितो वा कुमन्त्रिभिः ।
नाभात्सिंहासना रूढो मूढः कमलवर्धनः ॥ ४५६ ॥
एकाकिनीं रहः क्षीबां लब्ध्वा दुर्लभयोषितम् ।
अप्रौढोऽनुपभुज्यान्यदिने दूत्याथयेत यः ॥ ४५९ ॥
विभूतिं रभसावातां यश्च संत्यज्य तत्क्षणम् ।
नीत्या कामयतेऽन्येषुः शोच्यस्ताम्यां परोस्ति कः ॥ ४६० ॥
अष्टौगोक्षनिभा विप्रास्तमगंसत गोकुले ॥ ४६१ ॥
वैमत्येन मिथस्तेषां नान्यः कोप्यभ्यषिच्यत ॥
कूचीं भाषणनिष्ठ्यूतैः स्वकूर्चष्ठीवनैः परम् ॥ ४६२ ॥

c15.10

Yuvaraja. Usually the choice fell upon the eldest son, but he was not recognised as a Yuvaraja before he was formally annointed as such. Thus in the Talegaon plates of Kṛṣṇa I³ his eldest son is simply referred to as Govindarāja, whereas in the Alas plates issued two years later he is described as a Yuvaraja. Since the village in the Talegaon plates was granted at the request of Govindarāja, it is clear that he must have been a major by that time. And though the eldest son, he had not at that time received the coronation as an heir-apparent. It would appear that the heir-apparent had to attain a certain age, probably 24, before he could be formally annointed. If the king had no son, or if the one he had was a minor and the times were troubled ones, sometimes the younger brother was made the Yuvaraja. Thus a Palase Kadamba grant⁴ refers to Bhānuvarman, the younger brother of the ruling king, as Kanīyān nṛpaḥ or Yuvaraja. While the Ganga ruler Śivamāra was rotting in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa prison, his younger brother Vijayāditya was made Yuvaraja, and the Gattavadipur plates tell us that he refrained from enjoying the earth, knowing her to be his elder brother's wife.⁵

c15.11

³ E. I., XIII, p. 275.

c15.12

⁴ I. A., VI, p. 28.

c15.13

⁵ E. C., III, Nanjangad No. 129.

c15.14

The Yuvaraja had the status of a Pañcamahāśabda-Sāmanta and was invested with a necklace which was the insignia of his office, as would appear from the observation of Govinda III to his father, that he was quite content with the necklace with which he was invested by the latter at the time of his appointment as an heir-apparent.⁶ He was a member of the ministry, according to the Nīti-śāstra writers of the period, and we find him exercising the royal prerogative of granting villages.⁷ When the ruling emperors were old and of a retiring or religious disposition like Amoghavarsha I or Amoghavarsha III, the heir-apparents exercised almost all the powers of the ruling kings. We have already seen how this was responsible for the overlapping of the reigns of the kings just mentioned and their sons, who succeeded them.⁸ The Yuvaraja usually stayed at the capital. He was hardly ever deputed as a viceroy to an outlying province under the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration. The reasons were obvious; if the Yuvaraja were absent from the capital his chances of succession were likely to be affected by the machinations of other aspirants to the throne. This was a real danger in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa dynasty, whose records are too full of the wars of succession. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa practice was to depute younger princes and cousins as provincial governors. Thus Dhruva was a governor at Dhulia in 779 A.D., before he rebelled against and ousted his elder brother Govinda II; Dhruva's cousin Saṅkaragaṇa was a governor in Berar in 793 A.D., Indrarāja of the Gujarat branch had appointed his younger son Govinda as a provincial governor.⁹ These examples can be multiplied almost ad infinitum. The only case of the eldest son being a provincial viceroy is that of Stambha; but his viceroyalty of the newly conquered province of Gangawadi was rather an exile than an appointment. He was sent there by his father who had superceded his claims in the Yuvaraja selection.

c15.15

⁶ E. I., IV, p. 242.

c15.16

⁷ Alas plates, E. I., VI, p. 210.

c15.17

⁸ Ante. pp. 89 and 122.

c15.18

⁹ Torkhede Inscription, E. I., III, p. 53.

c15.19

When a king was a minor, usually a male relative was appointed to act as the regent. During the minority of Amoghavarsha I his cousin Karkka was appointed to carry on the administration on behalf of the emperor. The claims of Indra IV were being pushed forth by his maternal uncle Mārasimha, who was his regent. It is interesting to note that we nowhere come across queens or princesses as regents or governors in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration. Under the Western Chalukyas queen governors were not unknown; thus Vijayabhaṭṭārikā, the senior wife of Chandrāditya, the elder brother of Vikramāditya I was a governor, if not a regent.¹⁰ Under the later Chālukyas of Kalyani also, we have several examples of queens being appointed to important government offices. Thus Mailādevī, one of the wives of Someśvara, was the governor of Banavasi 12,000 in 1053 A.D. Ketalādevī, another wife of the same monarch, was the governor of the agrahāra of Ponnavada.¹¹ Akkādevī, an elder sister of Jayasimha III, was governing Kinsukad 70 in 1022 A.D. Kumkumadevī, an elder sister of Vijayāditya was administering Purigere 300 in 1077 A.D.¹² Lakshmīdevī, the chief queen of Vikramāditya VI, was in charge of 18 agrahāras in 1095 A.D. That lady governors should have been so common under the Chālukyas and altogether unknown under the Rāshṭrakūṭas is indeed strange. Can we explain this fact on the assumption that the latter Chālukyas, unlike the Rāshṭrakūṭas belonged to a stock which was considerably under the influence of matriarchy?

c15.20

¹⁰ I. A., VII, p. 163.

c15.21

¹¹ I. A., XIX, p. 274 and p. 271.

c15.22

¹² I. A., XVIII, p. 37.

c15.23

The regency must have lasted during the minority. The writers on politics like Śukra lay down that the king must be a major before he assumes the control of administration. That the injunction was observed in practice is clear from the statement of Al-Masudi that no king could succeed to the throne before he was 40.¹³ The age given by this traveller seems to be wrong, but his statement may be taken as corroborating the Smriti view that minors could not be entrusted with the administration. Khāravela, we know, could not assume the reigns of government before he was 24.

c15.24

¹³ Elliot I, p. 40.

c15.25

A few words may be said about the Rāshṭrakūṭa court. We have no detailed description of the pomp and splendour of the royal court in any contemporary document, but a few hints given by our records can be utilised. The access to the court was regulated by the royal chamberlain and his staff; a verse in the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarsha I says that even feudatories and foreign potentates had to wait outside the portals till they were called for audience. It would thus appear that Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings transacted their business systematically; only those were admitted in the audience hall whose business was about to be considered. The court was surrounded by regiments of infantry, cavalry and elephants; these were intended partly to secure safety and partly to show off imperial pomp. Very often the elephants and horses carried from the defeated enemies were exhibited outside the royal court along with other valuable booty.¹⁴ Abu Zaid, a contemporary of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, has observed that the kings of India were accustomed to wear earrings of precious stones, mounted in gold, and necklaces of great value formed of pearls and precious stones. In the Rāṣṭrakūṭa court also very probably the king must have appeared on ceremonious occasions in rich dress and ornaments. He was attended, as was the case with almost all the kings in contemporary drama and fiction, by courtesans and dancing girls; this custom was so common in our period that even Somadeva, the Jain writer of our period, is compelled to countenance it.¹⁵ Al-Idrisi records its prevalence in the Chālukya court of Aṇahilapaṭṭaṇa,¹⁶ and the Nilgund inscription confirms the same conclusion when it informs us that Amoghavarsha I had covered all the territories of the numerous chieftains and hostile kings with thousands of courtesans. It would appear that the sovereign rulers used to compel their feudatories to accept some imperial courtesans in their courts. These used to be in immediate attendance on the kings and, therefore, must have served as ideal spies. The gifts given by a concubine of the Chālukya king Vikramāditya II just before the rise of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas¹⁷ would show that many of these courtesans must have been fairly rich and may have wielded considerable power and influence. Al-Idrisi tells us that the Cālukya rulers of Gujarat used to go out once a week in state, attended only by women, one hundred in number, richly clad, wearing rings of gold and silver upon their hands and feet, and engaged in various games and sham-fights,—a description which reminds us of the Second Act of Śakuntala, where we read of king Dushyanta being followed by amazon archers, while out on hunting. The statement in Kadba plates (18) that the moon-faced damsels of the court of Kṛṣṇa I used to delight the ladies of the capital by the movements of their lotus-like hands, which could skilfully convey internal emotions, might perhaps show that a similar custom prevailed in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa court also. It is a little unlikely that all the ladies of the capital could have been admitted in the royal court; in that case they may be seeing these dances in some processions. It is true that the British Museum plates of Govinda III (19) do not refer to any Yavanīs or courtesans accompanying the king when they describe the boar-hunting of the king. But the king was at that time out on expedition and, therefore, the Yavanīs or courtesans may not have figured in the hunting party.

c15.26

¹⁴ Sanjan plates, E. I., XVIII, p. 235 ff.

c15.27

¹⁵ Nītivākyāmṛta, XXIV, 29, 51.

c15.28

¹⁶ Elliot, I, p. 88

c15.29

¹⁷ E. I., VI p. 102.

c15.30

The Yuvaraja and other princes of the blood royal, members of the ministry, the chamberlain and his assistants, military officers and other high dignitaries of state were the most prominent members of the royal court. Poets also were there, for the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were liberal patrons of literature, as will be shown in chapter XV. By the side of the poets, we might imagine, were sitting the astrologers. There is definite evidence to show that astrologers were maintained at the court of the Gujarat Rāṣṭrakūṭas, (20) and when we remember the great hold of astrology on the popular mind during our period we may not be wrong in assuming that the astrologers figured in the Malkhed court also. It may be pointed out that the *Kāmandaka-nīti-sāra*, a work probably written at about our period, lays down that a royal astrologer should be always maintained at the court.²¹ The doctor is known to have been one of the court officers of the Gahadwalas;²² for obvious reasons he could hardly have been absent from the Rāṣṭrakūṭa court as well. Merchants, presidents of guilds, and other notables of the capital were prominent among the non-official members of the royal court.

c15.31

¹⁸ I. A., XII, p. 13.

c15.32

¹⁹ I. A., XI, p. 126.

c15.33

²⁰ I. A., V, p. 145.

c15.34

²¹ IV, 33

c15.35

²² E. I., XI, p. 24

c15.36

The character of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa monarchy,—whether it was limited or arbitrary, would be a question of great interest to the present-day reader. It may be pointed out that the Hindu monarchy was in theory always limited, but the constitutional checks thought of in our period by the theorists on the subject were of a different nature than those to which we are accustomed in the present age. Spiritual sanctions, effects of careful and proper education, force of public opinion, division of power with a ministry, supremacy of established usage in the realm of law and taxation, devolution of large powers to local bodies whose government was democratic in substance if not always in form,—these were the usual checks on monarchy relied on by the Hindu political writers. Though it is not possible to agree with all that Mr. K. P. Jayaswal says about *Paura* and *Jānapada* bodies serving as constitutional checks upon the king, it is clear that in some cases at least these bodies did exist. Deccan records, however, prove that the terms *Paura* and *Jānapada* were not used to denote popular representative bodies in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa period. Among the officers and bodies enjoined not to interfere with the enjoyment of landed property given to the donees, *Pauras* and *Jānapadas* do not figure in the period we are studying with the solitary exception of the Deoli grant of Kṛṣṇa III.(23) But that record omits all officers usually mentioned in such connection like Rāṣṭrapatis, Viṣayapatis, Grāmakūṭas, Yuktas, and Niyuktas and substitutes the expression ‘Sarvāneva svajānapadān’ in their place. It is clear, therefore, that Jānapada here stands for subjects in general and not for their representative assemblies. The expression ‘Janapadān’ in the expression ‘Rāṣṭrapati-viṣayapati-nagarpati-grāmapati-niyuktāniyukta-rājapuruṣa-janapadān’, occurring in a S’ilāhāra record of 1026 A.D.,(24) also refers to the subjects of the realm in general and not to any popular assembly.

c15.37

Although the term Jānapada was not used in the sense of a popular representative council, it is not to be supposed that non-official bodies possessing administrative powers did not exist in our period. Such bodies certainly existed in villages, and probably in districts (Viṣayas) and provinces (Rāṣṭras) as well; their members were known as Grāmamahattaras, Viṣayamahattaras, and Rāṣṭramahattaras respectively. It has been already shown by me elsewhere(25) that the expression Grāmamahattara denoted a member of the non-official village council. Analogy would, therefore, show that Rāṣṭramahattaras and Viṣayamahattaras may have, very probably, constituted a body of the notables and elders in the province and district respectively. Some kind of divisional popular bodies seem to have existed in Tamil country also,(26) and there is no wonder if we found them in the Deccan proper during our period.

c15.38

Members of the district council, Viṣayamahattaras, are referred to in the Kapadwanj grant of Kṛṣṇa II,(27) and those of the provincial council, Rāṣṭramahattaras, in the Dhulia plates of Karkka, son of Dhruva.²⁸ These bodies were not innovations of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, for the Vadner plates of Kalachuri king Budharāja, dated 609 A.D.,²⁹ also refer to Rāṣṭramahattarādhikāriṇaḥ.

c15.39

²³ E. I., V, p. 195.

c15.40

²⁴ I. A., V, p. 278.

c15.41

²⁵ Altekar, A History of the Village Communities in the Western India, pp. 20-21. (Humphrey Milford, 1927).

c15.42

²⁶ R. C. Majumdar, Corporate Life in Ancient India, pp 211-13.

c15.43

²⁸ E. I., VIII, p. 186.

c15.44

²⁹ E. I., XII, p. 130.

c15.45

It must be, however, admitted that out of the numerous Rāṣṭrakūṭa grants, mentioning various officers and bodies, only the above two records mention the members of the district and provincial councils. This circumstance can, however, be explained on the assumption that these councils were not normally expected to interfere with the enjoyment of the lands granted to the donees, rather than by the hypothesis that they did not exist except under Govinda II and Kṛṣṇa II. There is nothing improbable in the evolution of the bodies of Vishaya- and Rāṣṭramahattaras on the analogy of the council of Grāmamahattaras which existed almost everywhere in the Deccan from c. 500 to c. 1300 A.D. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa charters may be mentioning Grāmamahattaras and omitting Vishaya and Rāṣṭramahattaras, because the first mentioned councillors, being the members of local village bodies, were, unlike the last-mentioned ones, directly concerned in the matter.

c15.46

Our records, however, do not give any clue as to what were the powers of these councils of the district and provincial notables or representatives, whether they were elected, if so, by whom, how frequently they met and how they transacted their business. Considering the means of communication in our period, it would appear very probable that the meetings of these bodies could not have been very frequent. Their powers, therefore, must have been considerably less than those of the village councils. If they were as powerful as the village councils, one would have heard much more about them than is actually the case at present. An officer called ‘Mahattamasarvādhikārin’ is mentioned in the Begumra plates of Kṛṣṇa II as the *dūtaka* of the grant.³⁰ It may thus appear that the *Vishaya*- and *Rāṣṭramahattaras* had an accredited officer of theirs, probably their president, who was perhaps acting for them when they were not in session. Gaṇapati, the chief councillor of Bankeya, the Banavasi viceroy of Amoghavarsha I, was a *mahattara*;³¹ he may have been probably selected from among, or elected by, the *Rāṣṭramahattaras* of Banavasi. In Śaka 991³² one of the ministers of the Yādavas of Seuṇḍeśa was Mahattama Śrī-Amāditya. It is possible to conjecture that some of the members of these bodies were selected for some of the posts in the ministry.

c15.47

³⁰ I. A., XIII, p. 66.

c15.48

³¹ E. I., VI, pp. 29 ff.

c15.49

³² E. I., II, 225.

c15.50

Whether corresponding to these nebulous provincial councils of *mahattaras*, there existed in the capital a grand council of the empire we do not know. Such a body is nowhere referred to in our documents but there is nothing impossible in its having existed. It could not have probably met frequently, if it existed at all, and it must have been eclipsed at the capital by the king, his ministers, and other high officers. Its powers could not, therefore, have been very substantial.

Ministry

c15.s1.1

All the writers on the Hindu political science hold that ministry is the most important wheel of the administrative machinery, and evidence can be adduced to show that realpolity included that institution since very early times. The Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration is no exception to the general rule. Ministers under this administration were very important and influential members of government. Nārāyaṇa, the foreign minister of Kṛṣṇa III, has been described in the Salotgi inscription³³ as another hand, as it were, ‘*Pratihastaḥ*’ of the emperor, as dear to him as his own right hand. The Pathari Pillar inscription of the feudatory Rāṣṭrakūṭa chief Parabala states that he used to regard his premier as worthy of salutations by his own head.(34) A record of king Kṛṣṇa of the Yādava dynasty compares his minister to his own tongue and right hand.(35) Another record of the same king states how his premier's feet were brightened by the crest-jewels on the head of the feudatories. It is, therefore, no wonder that the ministers sometimes possessed feudatory titles and were entitled to the Pañcamahāś'abdas. Dalla, the chief foreign minister of Dhruva, was a Sāmanta entitled to the use of the five great musical instruments.(36) Kālidāsa, the war minister or commander-in-chief of the Cālukya king Jagadekamalla, is described as entitled to the Pañcamahāśabdas in a record of his hailing from Badami.(37) Consultations with the ministry before embarking on a particular course or policy are rarely referred to in our records, probably because there was no occasion to do so. But the above evidence regarding the influence of the ministry would show that ministerial consultations are not mentioned simply because the copper-plate grants are not treatises on constitutional theory and practice. It may, however, pointed out that a record of the Yādava dynasty, which succeeded the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in the northern portions of their dominions, states while recording the grant of some shops for certain religious objects, that the king had consulted his ministers before making the grant in question.(38)

c15.s1.2

³³ तस्य यः प्रतिहस्तोऽभूत्प्रियो दक्षिणहस्तवत् । E. I., IV, p. 60.

c15.s1.3

It must, however, pointed out that there may have existed some rulers in our period who may have ridden roughshod over the heads of their ministers. Naturally the majority of our records would pass over such cases. A perusal of the Rājatarangiṇī shows that side by side with ministers who ruled wisely and ably, there existed others who were worth.

c15.s1.4

³⁴ E. I., IX, p. 254.

c15.s1.5

³⁵ I. A., XIV p. 69.

c15.s1.6

³⁶ E I., X, p 89.

c15.s1.7

³⁷ I. A., VI, p. 140.

c15.s1.8

³⁸ Cf. श्रीसेउणाख्येन नृपेण प्रधानयुक्तेन विचार्य हट्टद्वयं दत्तम् । I. A., XII, p. 127.

c15.s1.9

less puppets in the hands of their tyrant masters. The same may perhaps have been the case under some of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa rulers like Govinda II or Govinda IV, who were notoriously licentious. But the power, influence and utility of a ministry vary with the capacity, nature and temperament of the king and the ministers even in the limited monarchies of our present day. The same may have been the case in a slightly aggravated degree in the past, when the constitutional checks of the modern types were unknown. But these occasional exceptions do not disprove the proposition that under normal conditions abler ministers exercised a great influence on the administration in the age of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. How the weal of the kingdom was regarded as very intimately connected with the ministry may be seen from the following verse in a grant of Govana III of the Nikumbha feudatory family of Khandesh which, though belonging to a slightly later time than our period, may be regarded as embodying the views of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa age as well:—

c15.s1.10

राष्ट्रस्य पुष्टिस्वजनस्य तुष्टिः ।
धर्मस्य वृद्धिसकलार्थसिद्धिः ॥
नन्दन्ति सन्तः प्रसरन्ति लक्ष्म्यः ।
श्रीचंगदेवे सति सत्प्रधाने ॥(39)

c15.s1.11

'When Changadeva was the good premier, the nation flourished, subjects and allies were content, religion (i. e. virtue) increased, all aims were attained, the wise were happy and prosperity was visible everywhere.'

c15.s1.12

Our records being usually copper plate grants do not dilate upon the merits and qualifications of ministers. The Salotgi inscription of Kṛṣṇa III, however, shows that ministers were expected to be learned and well-versed in the science of politics.(40) Some of them, like Nārāyaṇa of this record, were also poets, as was the case in the age of the great Guptas as well.⁴¹

c15.s1.13

³⁹ I. A., VIII, p. 41.

c15.s1.14

⁴⁰ Cf. पारगो राजविद्यानां कविमुख्यः प्रियंवदः । E. I., IV, p. 60.

c15.s1.15

⁴¹ S'āba, a minister of Chandragupta II, was a poet as well. C. I. I. III, No. 6.

c15.s1.16

Arthaśāstra, book I, chapter 3, Śāntiparvan, chapters 82, 83 and 85, Kāmandaka-Nītisāra IV, 25-31, Nītivākyāmṛta X, 5, Sukra II, 52-64, Bārhaspatya Arthaśāstra II, 42, etc., lay down in great details the qualifications of ministers. But a perusal of these passages does not leave the impression that ministers were expected to be military leaders or generals. Kāmandaka and Somadeva observe in passing that ministers should be brave and Somadeva adds that he should know the use of missiles but even such general statements are not made by any of the remaining writers on the topic. In the Deccan during the period under review we, however, find that ministers were very frequently military leaders and were accustomed to take a leading part in the warfare of the times. Thus Chāmuṇḍarāya, a minister of Noḷambāntaka Mārasimha who was a feudatory of Kṛṣṇa III, had won for his master the battle of Gonur by defeating the Noḷambas;⁴² in 1024 A.D. the minister of records and the director-general of registration in the administration of the later Chālukyas had the title of 'Mahāprachaṇḍadaṇḍanāyaka', showing that he was a high military or police-officer. If we travel a century more, we find a reference to ministers being chased in battle in the Teridal inscription.⁴³ This record further shows that all the five ministers of Kalachuri Bijjaladeva were military leaders or Daṇḍanāyakas. Recruitment of ministers from military officers was fairly common in the Deccan of our period. It may be also pointed out that the great Shivaji had insisted that all his ministers, with the exception of the Pandit, should be competent military leaders. It is possible to conjecture that most of our theoretical writers do not include military ability among the qualifications of the ministers because they hailed from the north, where the recruitment of ministers from the military ranks does not seem to have been very common.

c15.s1.17

⁴² E. I., V, p. 173.

c15.s1.18

⁴³ I. A., XIV, p. 26.

c15.s1.19

The charters issued by the Śilāhāras, who were the feudatories of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in Konkan, frequently describe the whole administrative machinery, naming all the ministers and their respective portfolios. Thus under the Śilāhāra prince Chittarājadeva, the ministry consisted of five members in 1024 A.D.⁴⁴ 61 years later under king Anantadeva of the same dynasty it was reduced to four.⁴⁵ The Yādavas of Chandor, who were ruling over a petty state, had a ministry of seven in 1069 A.D.⁴⁶ It is to be very much regretted that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa secretariate did not follow the practice of the Konkan feudatories and name the various ministers and their portfolios in the copper plates grants. We have, therefore, very little information about the actual strength of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa ministry and the various portfolios of its members. A perusal of the provisions upon the subject in the Niti and Smriti works shows that there were no hard and fast rules about the strength of the ministry. The number varied from 8 to 20; some predecessors of Kauṭalya preferred very small ministries of 2 to 4. In actual practice the Hindu king seems to have remembered the saying of Kauṭalya that the strength of the ministry should vary with the needs of the situation and acted accordingly. Considering the extent of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire, we may well presume that the ministry at the capital must have been fairly large, since those of the smaller contemporary feudatory states consisted of as many as 5 to 7 members. Unfortunately very few of the ministers are actually mentioned in our epigraphical records; their number and portfolios will have, therefore, to be inferred from the practice of the contemporary dynasties in the south.

c15.s1.20

⁴⁴ I. A., V, p. 278.

c15.s1.21

⁴⁵ I. A., IX, p. 35.

c15.s1.22

⁴⁶ E. I., II, p. 225.

c15.s1.23

The Sukranīti, which is a fairly late work, gives prominence to Pradhāna or the premier whom it describes as *sarvadars'in* or general superintendent over the members of the ministry.⁴⁷ Jiyanta, who is called *sarvasya anushthata* or the person in charge of all administration in a record from Halasi belonging to the 6th century A.D.,⁴⁸ Babhiyaka, who is styled as a *mahapradhana* or the prime-minister in the Vaghli inscription of Seunachandra, dated 1069 A.D.,⁴⁹ and the premier of the Yadava ruler Kannara, who is designated as *sarvadhikarin* or the officer with powers over the whole administration,⁵⁰ were all of them occupying the status corresponding to that of the *Sarvadars'i Pradhana* of S'ukra. Bhadravishnu, who was a *Puranamatya* under Kapardin, a feudatory of Amoghavarsha I,⁵¹ and Krishnambhatta, who was a *mahamatya* under Dantivarman of the Gujrat Rashtrakuta branch in 867 A.D.,⁵² were also holding similar positions in the respective administrations. Since earlier contemporary and subsequent administrations are seen to be having the post of the premier in the ministry, it may be regarded as almost certain that the Rashtrakuta administration could have formed no exception to the general rule. As in modern times so in our period too, the premiers often used to take some particular portfolio as well. Thus the premier of the Silahara ruler Anantadeva was also the Lord High Treasurer in 1085 A.D. ⁵³ and that of the Yadava king Seunachandra II was also in charge of the revenue administration.⁵⁴

c15.s1.24

⁴⁷ II, 82.

c15.s1.25

⁴⁸ I. A., VI, p. 24.

c15.s1.26

⁴⁹ E. I., II, p. 225.

c15.s1.27

⁵⁰ I. A., VII, p. 304.

c15.s1.28

⁵¹ I. A., XII, p. 136.

c15.s1.29

⁵² E. I., I, VI, p. 287.

c15.s1.30

⁵³ I. A., IX, p. 35.

c15.s1.31

⁵⁴ I. A., XII, p. 127.

c15.s1.32

Owing to his exalted position the premier often enjoyed the status of a *Mahasamanta* entitled to the *Panchamahas'abdas*; he was also saluted by the feudatory chiefs of the Imperial power.⁵⁵ It is no wonder then that we sometimes find feudatory chiefs making grants at the dictation of the premiers of their overlords. When the king was temporarily absent from the capital or was unable to attend to duty owing to illness or some other similar reason, the administration was entrusted to the premier, as would appear from an anecdote narrated by Mahmud Ufi.⁵⁶ Such, of course, would have been the case when the heir-apparent was too young to assume the responsibility of the administration.

c15.s1.33

⁵⁵ See *ante.* p. 160.

c15.s1.34

⁵⁶ Elliot, II, p. 163.

c15.s1.35

The designation of the Foreign Minister, who has been invariably called a *dūta* in the works on politics like the Arthaśāstra, Rājadharmaparvan and Manusmṛti (chapter VII) etc., seems to have undergone a change by this time throughout India. Most of the epigraphical records use the more pompous and expressive title of *Mahāsandhivigrahaka* to denote the person who held that responsible office in the ministry. This minister figures several times in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa record, and we see him usually entrusted with the drafting of the copper plate charters creating alienated holdings. One expects the Revenue Minister to draft such charters, but the work was usually entrusted to the secretariate of the foreign minister, probably because the charters had to describe the genealogy and the exploits of the grantor and his family and the foreign office had the most reliable and up-to-date information on the point. It would be interesting to note that there is an agreement in this respect between the epigraphical practice and the dicta of the contemporary Smṛitis on the point. An anonymous text quoted in the *Mitākṣarā* on Yājñavalkya I 319-20 states:—

c15.s1.36

संधिविग्रहकारी तु भवेद्यस्तस्य लेखकः ।
स्वयं राज्ञा समादिष्टस्स लिखेद्राजशासनम् ॥

c15.s1.37

'The drafter (of the copper plate charter) should be the person who is the foreign minister; he should draft the charter as dictated by the king himself.' The *Mitākṣarā* itself adds that the charter should be caused to be drafted by the foreign minister and by no one else.

c15.s1.38

Rāṣṭrakūṭas had several feudatories and neighbours. Mahāsandhivigrahaka or the chief foreign minister must, therefore, have had several ordinary Sandhivigrahakas under him. This inference, suggested by the formation of these two words, is confirmed by the Bhandup plates of Chhittarājadeva from which we learn that among the members of that king's ministry Sihapeya was the principal Sandhivigrahaka and Śrī-Kapardin was Karṇāṭaka-Sandhivigrahaka or the foreign minister for Karnatak. If the small feudatory kingdom of the Śilāhāras required two foreign office officials both of the status of a minister, the ministry of the big Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire must have had at least about half a dozen foreign ministers, bearing titles like Gurjara-Pratīhāra-mahāsandhivigrahaka, Gauḍa-mahāsandhivigrahaka, Pallava-mahāsandhivigrahaka etc. The post of the foreign minister was an important one; the well-being and prosperity of the kingdom depended upon his skill and ability. It is, therefore, natural that he should have often enjoyed the dignity and status of a Sāmanta entitled to the Pañcamahāśabdas under the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration.⁵⁷ As he had to draft foreign despatches, he was expected to be skilful in penmanship.⁵⁸

c15.s1.39

⁵⁷ E. I., X, p. 89.

c15.s1.40

⁵⁸ Nitivākyāmṛta, XXXII, 2.

c15.s1.41

A third member of the ministry figuring in Rāṣṭrakūṭa records is the chief justice who is mentioned in the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarsha I as ‘the drafter of the grant.’ The chief justice is mentioned as a member of the ministry in almost all the works on administration and he was the final appellate authority for cases coming from the lower courts, except when the king decided them himself.

c15.s1.42

Since many of the ministers and governors were military leaders, it is obvious that the commander-in-chief must have been a member, and an important one, of the ministry. Nitivākāmṛta⁵⁹ no doubt lays down that commanders of the army should not be members of the council, but Śukra includes the commander-in-chief in the ministry and the Deccan administrations are seen to be following the view of S'ukra, rather than that of the Deccanese Somadeva. The war-minister is called Sachiva by S'ukra, (60) Kampana by Kalhaṇa (61) and Mahāprachaṇḍa-daṇḍanāyaka by a Yādava record. The Gahadwala records use the prosaic title of Senāpati. It is extremely probable that in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa ministry there may have been several war-ministers like the foreign ministers. The empire was a large one and constantly engaged in warfare with its neighbours; hence this inference seems to be most natural and almost certain. The status of generals and war-ministers was very high. Kālidāsa, the commander-in-chief of the forces of Jagadekamalla, was also his premier as already shown. The Kalas inscription of Govinda IV (62) informs us that generals were supplied with palatial buildings, were permitted to use elephants for riding, were invested with brilliant robes, and cunningly worked staffs, which were the insignia of their office, and were authorised to use a multitude of curiously made parasols. They had, like the Mahāsāmantas, the great musical instruments of their own office. These privileges are no doubt mentioned in connection with generals. But we have seen already that even civil ministers were generals and, therefore, the war-minister could hardly have been a civilian; hence he must have enjoyed similar, if not higher, honours and privileges. Similar privileges were continued under the later Chālukyas, one of whose generals, Kālidāsa, was the supreme chief of great feudatories and entitled to the Pañchamahāśabdas. (63) Examples are not unknown of grateful monarchs commemorating the memory of their successful generals by granting them villages renamed after them. (64) When it is remembered that during our period the successful general of to-day had every chance of becoming a king or even an emperor to-morrow, the privileges associated with the office of a general or war-minister need not cause any surprise.

c15.s1.43

⁵⁹ Chapter X, 101-102.

c15.s1.44

⁶⁰ II, 90.

c15.s1.45

⁶¹ VII, 365.

c15.s1.46

⁶² E. I., XIII, p. 334.

c15.s1.47

⁶³ I. A., VI, p. 139.

c15.s1.48

⁶⁴ I. A., VIII, pp.279-80.

c15.s1.49

Purohita, who was since early times an important member of the ministry, (65) seems to have ceased to belong to that body in the period we are studying. In the S'ilāhāra records he is differentiated from Mantrins and Amātyas, (66) and in the Nitivākyāmṛta (67) and Gahadwala records from the mantrins. (68) We do not possess any evidence about the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration, but it is not improbable that here too he may have been an officer of the royal household rather than a member of the ministry. The place of the Purohita was taken in our period by an officer whose business it was to excercise general superintendence over religion and morality. Paṇḍita, the minister of morality and religion in the S'ukranīti, seems to embody the tradition of the Dhammamahāmātyas of Asoka, Samaṇa-mahāmātas of the Āndhras (69) and the Vinayasthitisthāpakas (70) of the Guptas. The tradition was continued in the north by the Chedis, one of whose records mentions Dharmapradhāna in addition to Mahāpurohita. (71) The office existed under the early Rāṣṭrakūṭa ruler Nannarāja in 708 A.D., (72) and the officer bore the significant title of Dharmāṅkus'a. It is not unlikely that the descendants of Nannarāja may have continued the office when they rose to the imperial position in the Deccan. One may be reasonably certain that at least under kings like Amoghavarsha I and Amoghavarsha III, who were more interested in matters.

c15.s1.50

⁶⁵ Cf. Gautama, II, 2. 12.

c15.s1.51

¹⁷ Budhāyana Dharma-Sūtra, I. 10.

c15.s1.52

⁷ Arthas'āstra I Chap. 10; Kāmandaka IV, 32. S'ukra III, 78.

c15.s1.53

⁶⁶ Bhadup plates, I. A., V., p. 277.

c15.s1.54

⁶⁷ XI, 2.

c15.s1.55

⁶⁸ E. I., XI, p. 24.

c15.s1.56

⁶⁹ Nasik Inscriptions, E. I., VIII, p. 91.

c15.s1.57

⁷⁰ A seal of this officer was discovered at Vaisali by Bloch; A. S R., 1903-4, p. 109.

c15.s1.58

⁷¹ Kumbhi plates of Vijayasimha, J. A. S. B. XXXI, p. 116.

c15.s1.59

⁷² Multai plates, I. A., XVIII, p. 230.

c15.s1.60

spiritual than temporal, the office must have been revived, if it had been allowed to lapse under their predecessors.

c15.s1.61

Amātya or the Revenue Member figures in a record of the Yādavas of Chandor, belonging to the 11th century.⁷³ It is obvious that a similar portfolio must have existed under the Rāṣṭrakūṭas as well. The functions of this minister must have been similar to those described by writers like S'ukra (II 103-5) and Somadeva (XVIII). In the Malkhed administration he must have had a very big staff and secretariate under him, for, as will be shown in the next chapter, the central administration of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas had hardly left any revenue powers in the hands of the provincial governors and the district officers. In our grants we no doubt find the king making the grants and the foreign minister usually drafting them; but the officer who must have been principally consulted by the king must obviously have been the Revenue Member or Amātya, whose office used to keep the necessary records connected with land tenures and ownership. The Inspector General of Records must have been working under the supervision and control of the Revenue Minister. He is not mentioned in Rāṣṭrakūṭa records, but documents of contemporary dynasties refer to him and mention his designation sometimes as 'Mahākshapaṭalika' and sometimes as S'āsanādhikārin. From the Miraj plates of Jagadekamalla⁷⁴ we learn that this officer had a big clerical establishment under him; when his Mahākshapaṭalika interviews Harsha we find him accompanied by a number of Karaṇis or clerks. There is ample evidence to show that revenue records were carefully preserved in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration. One instance may suffice. Dhruva I of the Gujarat branch had alienated a village named Trennā in favour of a Brahmana. We find the grant renewed by his grandson Dhruva II when he ascended the throne. When Gujrat branch came to an end by the annexation of its dominions by the Malkhed house, we find the descendant of the previous donees approaching Indra III to get his title confirmed by the new administration.⁷⁵ The history of this village makes it graphically clear that the secretariate of the governments of our period used to preserve careful records bearing upon land-ownership. The originals of the copper plates were preserved at the district head-quarters; the Bhadana plates of Aparājita,⁷⁶ issued in 997 A.D., expressly declare that the original draft of the copper plates in question was preserved at Sthānaka or modern Thana, which was the head-quarter of the division. The copper plates were carefully compared with the original draft when they were inscribed by the smith; the Surat plates of Karka, which I am editing, state at the end that the chief of the imperial secretariate had certified that the contents of the plates, as they were engraved on copper, were identical with the original draft. From the Daulatpura plates of Bhoja⁷⁷ we learn that if the copper-plates granted by the grantor were lost by the donee, government used to enquire into his claims by a reference to its secretariate.

c15.s1.62

⁷³ E. I. II, p. 225.

c15.s1.63

⁷⁴ I. A., VIII, p. 11.

c15.s1.64

⁷⁵ E. I., IX, p. 24.

c15.s1.65

⁷⁶ E. I., III, p. 271.

c15.s1.66

⁷⁷ E. I., V, p. 208.

c15.s1.67

Treasurer, who is stylled as Samāhartā by Kauṭalya and Sumantra by S'ukra, was another member of the ministry. Saṃgṛhītṛ who figures in the list of the Ratnins of the Vedic period was discharging similar functions. We do not find this minister mentioned in the records of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa dynasty, but he figures in S'ilāhāra records bearing the title of Bhāṇḍāgārika. A large part of government revenues in our period was collected in kind and so this title given to the minister in charge of the treasury is significant. In 1094 A.D., S'ilāhāra king Anantadeva had a small ministry of only 3, and yet Bhāṇḍāgārika was included in it. This would show that the office was regarded as very important; Mahābhārata, (S'āntiparvan 130, 35), Kāmandaka (XXI, 33), Nītivākamṛta (XXI, 5) etc. declare that the treasury was the very root of the state and must be properly looked after. The treasurer figures invariably in the Gahadwala copper plates and his omission in our records must be due to the fact that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa secretariate was not following the practice of mentioning all the ministers and their different portfolios in the copper plate charters.

c15.s1.68

Pratinidhi is the only minister mentioned by Sukra whom we miss in our epigraphical records. His function was to act for the king and S'ukra gives him a status inferior only to that of the heir-apparent.⁷⁸ His absence in our records may be due to the fact that kings of our period were accustomed to attend to the administration either themselves or through their heir-apparents, but not through a Pratinidhi. Palitana plates of S'ilāditya, dated 574 A.D.⁷⁹ mention an officer called Rājasthānīya, immediately after Rājaputra and before Amātya; he may, therefore, be possibly occupying the position of the Pratinidhi of S'ukra. The Antroli-Chharoli plates of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Karkka,⁸⁰ however, use the term Rājasthānīya to denote royal officers of a very low grade. It would, therefore, appear that Pratinidhi or Rājasthānīya was not a usual member of the ministry in our period. It may be pointed out that among the writers on political science only S'ukra includes him in the ministry.

c15.s1.69

⁷⁸ II. 71.

c15.s1.70

⁷⁹ E. I. XI, p. 115.

c15.s1.71

⁸⁰ J. B. B. R. A. S., XVI, p. 108.

c15.s1.72

Our records supply us with very little information about the manner in which the daily business of administration was carried on at the capital. The secretariate at Malkhed must have been a big one; it must have been divided into several branches, each supervised over by its chief. S'ukra lays down that each minister was to be assisted by two secretaries,⁸¹ but in big empires like those of the Guptas, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and the Gurjara-Pratīhāras, the actual number of secretaries must have been obviously greater. The same writer lays down that ministerial orders were to be approved by the king before they were issued;⁸² this practice, too, we may well presume was followed in our period, especially since towards the end of the Surat plates of Karkka, we find the king expressly stating that he had perused the document. Some of the Chola records show that royal orders, when drafted by the secretariat, were countersigned by the Chief Secretary; (83) in our documents, however, we come across the royal sign-manual, and the names of the composer of the grant and the person who conveyed it to the grantee. Ministers and Secretaries are conspicuous by their absence. It is, however probable that daily routine orders may have been issued by the ministers with the counter-signature of the king or the heir-apparent.

c15.s1.73

⁸¹ II, 109-10.

c15.s1.74

⁸² II, 363-9.

Linked texts (45)