The Rashtrakutas and their Times c15.36

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.