Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c16: Chapter IX. Provincial, District, Divisional and Town Government

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c16

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX. Provincial, District, Divisional and Town Government

c16.2

As shown already in Chapter VII, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire was divided into several provinces or rāṣṭras which were approximately of the same size as the modern division consisting of about 5 or 6 districts. The number of the rāṣṭras included in the empire is not known, but to judge from its extent, it could not have been less than about 20 or 25. Some of the governors of these provinces were royal princes, as we have seen already; (1) others were appointed in recognition of their distinguished military services as shown, for instance, by the appointment of Bankeya to the viceroyalty of Banavasi 12,000 under Amoghavarsha I. The provincial governors had their own courts at their capitals which were replicas of the imperial court on a smaller scale. They were usually of the status of the Mahāsāmanta or the Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara and often bore the title of king (Rāja in Sanskrit or Rasa in Canarese). Thus the governor of Banavasi under Dhruva was called Mārakka-rasa and the one under Govinda III, Rājāditya-rāja-parameśvara.(2) Bankeya and his descendants, who were ruling the same province from about 850 A.D., were hereditary Mahāsāmantas. It will be soon shown that the feudatory status was enjoyed even by lower officers like vishayapatis. The reason why these district and provincial governors were allowed to use the feudatory titles seems to be that some of them were the descendants of the local kings who were once independent, but were subsequently conquered by the imperial power, and continued in the government of their patrimony as its own officers or governors. This practice, recommened by Manu,(3) was followed in practice on many occasions in Ancient India.

c16.3

⁸³ S. I. I, III, Nos. 151, 205.

c16.4

In the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration the provincial governors had considerable powers over their subordinates. Some idea of this control may be had by a few concrete cases. In 912 A.D., when Mahāsāmanta Kaḷaviṭṭarasa was the governor of Banavasi, a subordinate of his, who was the Mamlatdar or Tahsildar (Nālgāvuṇḍa) of Giduvalge 70, became disaffected and was about to escape to the neighbouring kingdom of Gangawadi. While attempting to do so, he was arrested in Kumbise district by the orders of the governor.(4) When Chitravāhana, the Commissioner of Alurakheda 6,000, became insubordinate in c. 797 A.D., the governor of Banavasi had to lead an attack against him.(5) These instances would make it clear that the provincial governors had large military forces under them, which were used in times of peace for controlling local officers and feudatories and for preserving internal peace and order. In times of war with the neighbouring kingdoms these forces were requisitioned by the imperial government to fight its own battles; this is made clear by the Konnur inscription of Amoghavarsha I,(6) where we find the Banavasi governor now fighting with the Gangas, then running up to the capital to quell an insurrection there with his own battalions, and then again joining the imperial army in its expedition against the Pallavas. The same record represents Bankeya as coming at the head of the hereditary (*Maula*) forces; this would show that military service was a normal feature of the duties of the provincial governors and that they used to maintain hereditary troops which were probably maintained, as will be shown in Chapter XII, by the assignment of entire villages to them.

c16.5

² E. C., VIII, Sorab Nos. 40 and 22.

c16.6

³ VII, 202.

c16.7

⁴ E. C., VIII, Sorab No. 88.

c16.8

⁵ Ibid, Nos. 10 and 22.

c16.9

Provincial governors were also at the head of the revenue administration. This would be clear from the fact that they are invariably mentioned among the officers requested not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the rent-free lands and villages granted by the emperors. Revenue settlement of the villages and fields in their jurisdiction was carried out by these officers in conjunction with the local bodies; one such fresh settlement necessitated in 941 A.D. by the drying up of an old canal is referred to in an inscription hailing from the province of Banavasi.⁷

c16.10

⁷ E. C., VIII, Sorab No. 83.

c16.11

The *Rāṣṭrapatis* of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration were occupying approximately the position of the Rajjukas of Asoka, but they did not enjoy the same autonomy; the central government at Malkhed exercised a much greater control over them. Though often enjoying the status of Mahāmaṇḍaleśvaras or Mahāsāmantādhipatis, they had no power of making grants of villages; even Bankeya, the favourite governor of Banavasi under Amoghavarsha I, had to seek imperial permission in order to alienate a village in favour of a Jain temple.⁸ In the Nidgundi inscription of Amoghavarsha I⁹ we no doubt find Bankeya giving 6 mattars of cultivable land to a temple of Mahādeva at the request of his son; but it is not clear whether the land granted was government property or part of the private landed estate of the governor. Very probably the latter may have been the case.

c16.12

⁸ Konnur Inscription, E. I., VI, p. 29.

c16.13

⁹ E. I., VII, p. 214.

c16.14

if so, the statement of Vijñāneśvara at Yājñavalkya-smṛti, I, 318, that land could be given in charity only by a king and not by a subordinate officer seems to have been based on contemporary practice in the Deccan. The Hatti-Mattur inscription from Dharwar District (10) belonging to the reign of Indra III does not really go against this conclusion; for it says that Leṇḍeyarasa, the officer over Purigeri 300 caused to be allotted the village of Vattavur. The construction of the sentence becomes explicable only on the assumption that Leṇḍeya did not himself make the grant, but only procured the imperial sanction for the alienation of the village in favour of the temple.

c16.15

The patronage under the control of the Rāṣṭrapatis does not seem to have been extensive. In the Imperial Gupta administration, the uparikas or provincial viceroys could appoint viṣayapatis or district officers and nagarapatis or town prefects in the territory under their jurisdiction. (11) Under the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration, however, the posts of Viṣayapatis and even bhogapatis or Tahsildars were filled by the emperor himself. From the Nilgund inscription (12) it is evident that the governor of Belvola 300 was appointed by the emperor Amoghavarṣa I himself. Only petty offices like those of the supervisors over very small units, consisting of 10 or 12 villages, seem to have been filled by the Rāṣṭrapatis, since we find these appointments very often going to their own relatives. (13)

c16.16

As observed already, the Rāṣṭrapatis seem to have been assisted in their administrative work by a council of Rāṣṭramahattaras. The probable nature and powers of this council have been already discussed in an earlier chapter. (14)

Vishayapatis

c16.s1.1

District officers were a replica on a smaller scale of the Rāṣṭrapatis. We have seen just now how even small Tahsil or Taluka officers had to be suppressed by military force when grown insubordinate; it is, therefore, clear that all the officers like the district, subdivisional and Taluka officers had some military forces under their command. Some of the district officers or *Vishayapatis* enjoyed the feudatory status like the provincial governors; thus Kundama-rāja, the governor of Kuntala vishaya in 1019 A.D., was a *mahāmaṇḍales'vara* entitled to the Pañcamahāśabdas.¹⁵ Whether all the district officers enjoyed this status is doubtful.

c16.s1.2

¹⁰ I. A., XII, p. 225.

c16.s1.3

¹¹ E. I., XV, p. 130.

c16.s1.4

¹² E. I., VII, p. 214.

c16.s1.5

¹³ See E. I., VI, p. 102, and VII, p. 214.

c16.s1.6

¹⁴ Ante pp. 159-60.

c16.s1.7

¹⁵ I. A., V, p. 17.

c16.s1.8

Vishayapatis exercised considerable revenue powers, since they are invariably mentioned in the copper plates among the officers requested not to disturb the possession of the donees of the lands or villages granted. They must have been obviously responsible to the provincial governors or to the central government for the revenue of their districts. Remission of taxes by subordinate officers required their sanction in order to be operative,¹⁶ but it is not clear whether they had not themselves to refer the matter to their superiors before passing their own orders on the point. In the Gupta administration the Vishayapatis had the power to sell the waste lands situated within their own jurisdiction on behalf of the central government; it is not known whether the Rāṣṭrakūṭas had permitted them similar powers. The administration was highly centralised, and it would be no wonder if we discover a record proving that no such powers were delegated to them.

c16.s1.9

¹⁶ Kunihalimalli inscription, E. I., XVI, p. 280.

c16.s1.10

Vishayapatis were associated with a council of *Vishaya-mahattaras* in their administrative work. This body consisted of the notables of the district and its probable nature and powers have been already discussed on an earlier occasion.¹⁷

c16.s1.11

¹⁷ *Ante*, pp. 159-60.

Sub-divisional and Taluka Officers

c16.s2.1

Districts or Vishayas were divided into several sub-divisions known as Bhuktis comprising of about 100 to 500 villages. (18) The officers over these divisions, which roughly corresponded sometimes to modern sub-divisions of the district, and sometimes to the Talukas, were known as Bhogikas or Bhogapatis. These officers did not usually possess the feudatory status but were generally commoners; Devaṇayya, for instance, who was administering Belvola 300 and was a favourite of Amoghavarsha I, was only a commoner. We sometimes find even these officers possessing feudatory titles, (19) but these cases are exceptional and rare. These officers were appointed directly by the central government as shown already.

c16.s2.2

Bhuktis were subdivided into smaller circles comprising of about 10 to 30 villages. Officers over these seem to have been appointed, as shown above, by the provincial or district officers. Very often even these petty posts went to military captains; we find the Ganga ruler Būtuga II appointing Maṇalera to the post of the supervisor over Atkur 12 as a reward for his conspicuous bravery in the Chola war. (20)

c16.s2.3

Imperial officers appointed over the subdivisions and Talukas administered their areas with the help of hereditary revenue officers. These officers were known as Nāḍgavuṇḍas in Karnatak and Des'a-grama-kūṭas in Maharashtra. A country headman or Nāḍgavuṇḍa of Belvola 300 is mentioned in a record hailing from that division, (21) and the record in question makes it clear that this officer was different from the governor of Belvola 300 appointed by the central government. The Managoli inscription of 1161 A.D. enumerates among the officers assembled on the occasion 'the 16 of the 8 districts.' This expression '16 of the 8 districts' can be best understood on the hypothesis that each of these 8 districts was in charge of two officers, one hereditary and the other appointed by the central government. Purigeri 300 and Belvola 300 each possessed a headman who was different from Mārasimha, who was the officer appointed by the central government over those divisions. (22) The Kumonelihalli inscription of Kṛṣṇa II mentions Aladitya Gova and Kalpata as the officers holding the country shrievalty of Anniga 100; (23) appointment of joint Mamlatdars by the central government over a Taluka of about 100 villages is hardly an intelligent administrative procedure; probably one of the two officers, therefore, was the nominee of the central government and the other the hereditary Nāḍgavuṇḍa or the country headman of the division. In 874 A.D., when Bankeya was the governor over Banavasi 12,000, his son Kundatte was the officer over the Nilgundige group of 12 villages. When Bankeya proceeded to make a grant of five mattars of land at his son's request to a local temple, the record informs us that he summoned his son Kundatte and Rāpa. (24) It is almost certain that this Rāpa was the hereditary headman of Nilgundige 12 in co-operation with whom Kundatte, the nominee of the central government, was administering the group of villages under his charge. Only on this assumption we can explain as to why he was summoned along with Kundatte. A des'a-grāmakūṭa-kṣetra or the rent-free field of the district headman is twice mentioned in a spurious Ganga record from Lakshmeshvar; this would show that there existed headmen of districts who were partly remunerated by hereditary rent-free lands, as is still the case with the Deshpandes and Sardeshpandes of Maharashtra. Tuppaḍ Kurahatti inscription of Kṛṣṇa III (25) mentions a tax which the cultivators had to pay in addition to the normal government demand for the remuneration of the country gāvuṇḍas,—a tax which was as high as the king's tax, probably because the latter was low owing to the field being temple property. This record too supplies clear evidence proving the existence of country headmen similar to village headmen. Like the Deshpandes of the Maratha period, these posts were hereditary; an inscription from Shikarpur informs us that when the Nālgāvuṇḍa of Nagarkhande died while fighting for Kaḷaviṭṭa-rasa, the governor of Banavasi, his wife succeeded to the office which she ably managed for 7 years. Then when she decided to perform the *sallekhanā* vow and die, she sent for her daughter and nominated her to her office.²⁶ This case would make it clear that the post of the country headman was, like that of the village headman, a non-official and hereditary one. He being a man of the people must have served the purpose of popularising the administration to some extent. We do not know whether there existed popular bodies of *mahattaras* to co-operate with the divisional and subdivisional officers. But since there certainly existed, as will be shown in the next chapter, such bodies in villages there is nothing improbable in the existence of corresponding bodies for these administrative units. It is, however, doubtful wheher they were more formal and definite than the councils of the *vishaya-* and *rāṣṭramahattaras*.

c16.s2.4

¹⁸ Ante p. 136.

c16.s2.5

¹⁹ I. A., XII, p. 225.

c16.s2.6

²⁰ E. I., VI, p. 56.

c16.s2.7

²¹ E. I., XIV, p. 366.

c16.s2.8

²³ E. I., XVI, p. 280.

c16.s2.9

²⁴ E. I., VII, pp. 202 ff.

c16.s2.10

²⁶ E. C., VII, No. 219.

c16.s2.11

The subdivisional and Taluka officers were under the control of the Vishayapatis and the Rāṣṭrapatis; we have already seen how the Nālgāvuṇḍa of Jiduvalge 70 was immediately arrested by the governor of Banavasi when he was suspected of sedition and disaffection. This incident will give some idea of the rigorous control exercised over these officers by their superiors. They had no powers to alienate any revenues on their own account; the Kyasnur inscription of Kṛṣṇa III²⁷ refers to the remission taxation given to a field of two *mattars* by the officer over the Edevola division for the purpose of the local tank; it would appear that these officers had the power of assigning some revenues for public purposes. It is, however, not unlikely that even for such remissions the previous sanction of the higher authorities may have been necessary; otherwise, the meticulous way in which the above inscription states that at the time of the grant Maharaja Kannara was the supreme lord, Maharaja Kalaviṭṭa was the governor of Banavasi, and the donee was the gāvuṇḍa over the Edevolal division will have hardly any significance. The Sirur inscription of Amoghavarsha I²⁸ states that Devaṇayya, the governor over Belvola 300, had remitted a tax on ghee levied at the locality for his own spiritual benefit on the occasion of an eclipse. This record does not invalidate the view above advanced, that these officers had no powers to alienate the public revenues under their own authority. Taxes in kind on food-stuffs, vegetables etc. formed part of the pay of the local officers in our period, and this custom persisted in the Deccan down to the British rule.²⁹ It is, therefore, almost certain that the tax on ghee remitted by Devaṇayya in favour of the temple formed part of his salary and, therefore, he could dispose it off in any way he liked. The question as to how the officer could assign a part of the salary of his post and thus reduce the emoluments of his successor is also not difficult to answer; the numerous resumptions even of land-grants show that the grants, even when made in favour of Brahmans and temples, were often revoked; the successor of Devaṇayya had, therefore, the power either to continue or revoke the grant made by his predecessor according to his own inclinations.

c16.s2.12

²⁷ E. I., XVI, p. 281.

c16.s2.13

²⁸ I. A., XII, p. 218.

c16.s2.14

²⁹ Altekar, Village Communities in Western India, pp. 10-11.

Town Administration

c16.s3.1

In the Rāṣṭrakūṭa period the cities and towns were in charge of prefects who were designated as purapatis or nagarapatis. These officers are rarely referred to in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa copper plate grants, but they are almost invariably mentioned in the grants of the Śilāhāras, who were the Konkan feudatories of the imperial power.³⁰ Military captains were often appointed to the posts; thus Rudrapayya, who was the prefect of Saravatura or modern Soratur in Karnatak, was one of the body-guards of the emperor Kṛṣṇa III.³¹ Mahādeva and Pātāladeva, the joint prefects of Badami under Jagadekamalla in 1140, were both of them Daṇḍanāyakas or military officers. Sometimes learned men also were appointed to these posts; the 12 officers in charge of Teridal in S. M. C. are described in 1123 A.D. as promoting the everlasting six systems of philosophy.³² One expects active interest in art or philosophy from men of letters rather than from military generals. Kuppeya, a governor of Soratur under Amoghavarsha I, was a Mahāsāmanta; it would, therefore, appear that some of these town prefects enjoyed the dignity and status of feudatories, as was the case with some of the Rāṣṭrapatis and Viṣayapatis.

c16.s3.2

³⁰ See Bhadana plates of Aparājitadeva, 997 A.D., E. I., III, p. 273, Bhandup plates of Chittarāja, 1018 A.D., I. A., V, p. 278.

c16.s3.3

³¹ I. A., XII, p. 258.

c16.s3.4

³² I. A., XV, p. 15.

c16.s3.5

The city affairs were managed by the prefects with the help of non-official committees. Such committees were fairly common during the period of Ancient Indian History; they are referred to by Megasthenes and Kauṭalya, they existed at Nasik under the Sātavāhanas,³³ in Puṇḍravardhana division and Kathiawar under the Imperial Guptas,³⁴ and at Bahuloḍa, Prabhāsa and Aṇahilapaṭṭaṇa under the Gujarat Cālukyas.³⁵ Coming to our own period and province we find that the administration of Guṇapura in Konkan was vested in 997 A.D. in a prefect assisted by a committee of two bankers Ambus'reshṭhin and Vappaiyas'reshṭhin, a merchant called Chelappaiyu, a Brahmana named Govaneya and some others. (36) The city of Aihole also had its own corporation under Kṛṣṇa II, the constitution of which, however, is not described in the record. No clue is available to indicate the way in which these town committees were formed; there is no express reference to any election of these members. The statement

c16.s3.6

³³ Nasik Inscription No. 12; E. I., VIII, p. 82.

c16.s3.7

³⁴ Damodarpur plates, E. I., XV, p. 150; C. I., I., III, no. 14.

c16.s3.8

³⁵ Altekar, Towns and Cities in Ancient Gujarat and Kathiawar, p. 54.

c16.s3.9

पौरत्रिवर्गप्रभृतीन् समाज्ञापयति ।

c16.s3.10

which occurs in the Silāhāra records above referred to, probably refers to the three upper castes, rather than to three different constituencies. Apparently five wards of the town of Mulgund and their representatives, the Mahājanas, are mentioned in the Mulgund inscription of Pāñchāladeva, dated 975 A.D. (37) This may suggest the inference that cities were divided into several wards for the purpose of representation on the city council; the inscription in question is, however, fragmentary and this conclusion is not, therefore, quite certain. The divisions into wards for the purpose of representation was known in Tamil land, as is clear from the famous Uttaramallura inscriptions, (38) and there is nothing impossible in a similar arrangement being in vogue in our province as well. There must obviously have been some kind of election or selection for constituting the town committees, since these members were non-officials and were usually not more than half a dozen or so. But the precise method adopted in the Deccan of our period cannot be determined at present for want of evidence.

c16.s3.11

Our records do not supply us with the information as to whom the town prefects were responsible for the administration. They may have been possibly under the control of the Rāṣṭrapatis in whose jurisdiction their towns were situated, or perhaps to a special minister or officer at the capital. Our records hardly supply any information about the methods whereby the local, district, and provincial governments were supervised and controlled by the Central Government. The control and supervision were, as shown already, fairly rigorous and it may have been exercised partly through the regular official hierarchy, partly through periodical tours,—a principle recommended by Manu⁴⁰ and S'ukra⁴¹ and practised by Asoka and Harsha,—and partly through direct orders from imperial secretariate carried by special messengers, who were known as *Vallabhājñāsañcāriṇaḥ* ‘carriers of royal orders’. The precise nature of the postal arrangements made by the state in our period is not definitely known, but it is obvious that postal runners and mounted couriers must have been used for the purpose with relays at convenient intervals. Such arrangements were witnessed by Ibn Batūta in the first half of the 14th century⁴² and it is very likely that Mahomedan administration may have borrowed the system from its Hindu predecessors.

c16.s3.12

³⁶ E. I., III, p. 260.

c16.s3.13

³⁷ E. I., VI, p. 260.

c16.s3.14

³⁸ A. S. R., 1904-5 p. 140.

c16.s3.15

⁴⁰ VII, 124,

c16.s3.16

⁴¹ I, 374-5.

c16.s3.17

⁴² Gibs, *Ibn Batuta*, p. 183.

Selection of Officers

c16.s4.1

It would be necessary to say a few words here about the selection of officers to the various posts mentioned above. The selection was governed partly by military, partly by hereditary, and partly by educational considerations. We have already seen how many of the ministers, and provincial, district, and town governors were military officers. Very probably they must have owed their appointments to distinguished service on the battlefield. In many cases offices were transmitted from the father to the son. The viceroyalty of Banavasi 12,000 had continued for three generations at least in the family of Bankeya, who had won it by his military achievements. When Kaṇṇapa, who had won the governorship of Purigeri 300 and Belvola 300 by his bravery on the battlefield died, his younger brother Sobhaṇa stepped into his place.(43) Kauṭalya, Manu and Śukra recommend this principle of preference for heredity and the recommendation was acted upon in the Gupta period as well, at least in some cases, as clearly appears from the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta(44) and Karmadanda inscription of Kumāragupta I.(45) From Al Masudi we learn that high offices in our period were often hereditary in India,(46) and the submissive Brāhmaṇas, who were appointed to lower administrative posts by Kasim in Sindh after its annexation, were assured by him that their appointments would be continued hereditarily.(47) The Rājatarangiṇī also affords numerous examples of offices being transmitted hereditarily.(48) This principle was thus widely prevalent in our period and the Banavasi governorship was no solitary example. The Surat plates of Karka, which I am editing, show that the father of Nārāyaṇa, the chief Foreign Minister of that ruler, was also occupying the post to which his son was later appointed.(49) There may have been many more cases of this nature in the administration.

c16.s4.2

The minister Nārāyaṇa of Kṛṣṇa III, who is described as a prominent poet, a skilful speaker, and a great expert in the science of polity,(50) did not belong to a family of hereditary ministers, as was the case with his namesake just mentioned; he was very probably selected for his educational qualifications. I-tsing, who had visited India just before our period, has recorded how distinguished scholars used to be appointed by the Valabhi administration to responsible posts,(51) and the same practice must have been fairly prevalent throughout India for obvious reasons.

c16.s4.3

Many appointments must have also gone to royal favourites, who possessed no other qualification than that of being in the good books of the ruling king. This need not cause any surprise, for such scandalous appointments are by no means rare even in the present age. No concrete cases of unworthy favourites being raised to high offices are known from our records, but in contemporary Kashmir, many court-flatterers were often appointed to responsible posts by some of its worthless rulers, (52) and it is not unlikely that the phenomenon may have been repeated in the reigns of some of the dissolute monarchs of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa line like Govinda II, Govinda IV and Karka II. Two of the generals of the last king are compared to the feet of Kali in a Chālukya record. (53)

c16.s4.4

⁴³ E. I., IV, p. 20.

c16.s4.5

⁴⁴ C. I. I., III, p. 1.

c16.s4.6

⁴⁵ E. I., X, p. 70.

c16.s4.7

⁴⁶ Elliot, I, p. 20.

c16.s4.8

⁴⁷ Ibid p. 103.

c16.s4.9

⁴⁸ Cf. VIII, 2473, 3322 etc.

c16.s4.10

⁴⁹ Being published in E. I., XXI.

c16.s4.11

⁵⁰ E. I. IV, p. 60. 51. p. 181.

c16.s4.12

The average officer of our period was highly attached to the throne; many cases are recorded in the Kashmir chronicle of loyal and devoted officers burning themselves on the funeral pyres of their dead masters. (54) The custom seems to have been fairly common in our period, for Abu Zaid also refers to it. (55) This writer informs us that at the time of the coronation of a king his deeply attached followers used to take voluntarily a portion of the rice prepared for the king on the occasion. All such persons were obliged to burn themselves when the king was dead or slain. The custom existed in Malbar during the 13th century, for it is referred to by Marco Polo also. (56) Epigraphical evidence of our period shows that Abu Zaid's account is no cock and bull story. Honale No. 47 (57) informs us that when Taila II died, Boppana made good his vow, entered fire and went to heaven. We do not know from the record the occasion of this vow, but it is quite possible that it may have been the king's coronation. Two other records, Arkalgad Nos. 5 and 27, refer to two officers of the Ganga ruler, Nitimārga, who burnt themselves to death when their master died. From one of these records, we learn that pensions were often provided for the bereaved families of such loyal servants.

c16.s4.13

⁵² See *Rājatarangiṇī* VII, 580, VIII, 183, etc.

c16.s4.14

⁵³ E. I., XII, p. 152 Kauthem plates.

c16.s4.15

⁵⁴ V. 206-7, VII, 481, 1488, 1490, VIII, 1447 etc.

c16.s4.16

⁵⁵ Elliot, I, p. 8.

c16.s4.17

⁵⁶ II, p. 339.

c16.s4.18

⁵⁷ E. C., VII.

c16.s4.19

Abu Ishtak Al Ishtakhri and Ibn Haukal state that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa administration was very partial to the Muslims and that none but Muslims ruled over their coreligionists living in that empire. (58) This statement, if not exaggerated, will only show that the personal law of the Muslims was administered to them through their own Kazis. (59) The administration seems to have given them the same privileges, which were recommended to the guilds, traders, foresters etc., by the Smritis. (60) Muslim administrators nowhere figure in epigraphical records, and if they had really existed, the Muslim chroniclers would not have been content to observe that none but the Muslims ruled over the Muslims in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire; they would have claimed that there were Muslim officers in the administration who were ruling over the non-Muslims as well. The statements of these Muslim writers are also sometimes wild and unreliable; some of them like Al Idrisi gravely inform us that in the kingdom of Balhara, *i. e.* Gujrat of the 12th century A.D., concubinage is permitted with all persons except married women, including even daughters, sisters, and aunts if they are unmarried. (61)

c16.s4.20

Remuneration of officers was sometimes by rent-free lands and sometimes by salaries, paid partly in cash and partly in kind. The principle of offering rent-free lands to state servants is recommended by a number of writers, (62) and we have seen already how the country headmen had their own service lands known as *Des'a-grāmakūṭa-kshetra*.(63) It will be shown in the next chapter that village headmen also were paid partly by rent-free lands. The statement made above, that part of the salaries was probably paid in kind need not cause any surprise; for, a large part of the royal revenues were received in kind, as will be shown in chapter XI, and the staple corn often formed the principal medium of exchange. In some of the Chola records(64) the prices of articles like pulses, camphor, plantains, ghee, sugar, etc., are given not in money but in paddy. The salaries of the temple servants etc., are stated usually in paddy, sometimes in paddy and cash, and rarely in cash alone. A similar practice may have probably prevailed in the Deccan under the Rāshṭrakūṭas.

c16.s4.21

⁵⁸ Elliot, I, p. 27 and p. 34.

c16.s4.22

⁵⁹ Such was the case in the Chinese Port of Khanafa in c. 850 A.D., where a number of Muslim traders had settled down for whom the Chinese government had appointed a Kazi to look after their religious and judicial affairs. See *Sulaiman Saudagar*, Hindi Translation, by Mahesh Prasad Sadhu, pp. 35-6.

c16.s4.23

⁶⁰ Brhaspati, I, 26; Gautama, XI, 23; Manu, VIII, 59.

c16.s4.24

⁶¹ Elliot, I, 89.

c16.s4.25

⁶² Kauṭalya, II, i; Manu VII, 118-9.

Linked texts (19)