[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [The Rashtrakutas and their Times](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934) › c19.s2 # The Rashtrakutas and their Times c19.s2: Section B: The Feudatories The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c19.s2 - **Language:** English ### Section B: The Feudatories ### [c19.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.1) Feudatory states are not a new feature in the Indian polity introduced by Lord Wellesley. Since very early times empires in India have generally consisted partly of directly administered areas, and partly of territories under feudatory states, which were allowed a large amount of autonomy in return for their allegiance and tribute to the imperial power. Writers like Manu have laid down that even when an enemy king is conquered or killed in war, the conqueror should not annex his state, but should appoint a near relative of the former ruler as his own nominee to the vacant throne, imposing his own conditions upon him. The Mauryan, Gupta, Vardhana and the Gurjara-Pratihāra Empires show that this principle was very largely followed in practice in Ancient India. Even foreign observers have noted this peculiar feature of the Indian polity. Writing in about 850 A.D., Sulaiman says :—‘When a king subdues a neighbouring state in India, he places over it a man belonging to the family of the fallen prince, who carries on the government in the name of the conqueror, The inhabitants would not suffer it to be otherwise.’ The Rāṣṭrakūṭas also usually followed this principle, and as a result, the empire included a large number of feudatory states. Examples of attempts at annexation are not unknown; thus Dhruva I had imprisoned the Ganga king and appointed his eldest son Stambha as the imperial viceory over the newly annexed province.(63) Govinda III is described in the Baroda plates of Karkka (64) as the uprooter of the royal families; Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III were issued when that king was encamped at Melpadi in South Arcot district, engaged in creating livings for his dependents out of the newly conquered southern territories, and in taking possession of all the property of the defeated feudatories.(65) It must be, therefore, admitted that some of the more ambitious rulers of our dynasty sought to set at naught the principle of non-annexation; but it has to be added that their efforts were one and all unsuccessful. Gangawadi could not be directly administered as an annexed province for more than 30 years, and the portions of Tamil country that were annexed by Kṛṣṇa III were recovered by the Cholas immediately after his death. ### [c19.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.2) ⁶⁴ I. A., XII, p. 157. ### [c19.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.3) The number of the feudatories representing the conquered royal houses was further enlarged by the creation of new ones as a reward for military service. Most of these used to be originally appointed only as governors with the feudatory privilege of the Pañchamahāśabdas, but the principle of hereditary transmission of office used to convert them soon into full-fledged feudatories. ### [c19.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.4) Some of the protected states like Hyderabad, Baroda and Kolhapur, have their own feudatories at present; a similar practice prevailed in our period as well. In 813 A.D., Govinda III was the emperor; his nephew Karkka was the feudatory ruler over southern Gujarat, and S'rī-Budhavarsha of Salukika family was governing Siharika 12 as a sub-feudatory, to which position he was raised by the younger brother of Karkka.⁶⁶ The Raṭṭas of Saundatti, who were the feudatories, first of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and then of the later Chālukyas, had their own sub-feudatories.⁶⁷ Naturally, therefore the status and powers of the feudatories could not have been the same in all cases, a circumstance which reminds us of the present-day Indian polity, where also different ruling princes enjoy different powers and status. The important feudatory chiefs were entitled to the use of the five musical instruments, the names of which, according to a Jain writer, named Revākopyāchara, were S'ringa (horn), S'ankha (conch), Bheri (drum), Jayaghaṇṭā (the bell of victory) and Tammata.⁶⁸ They were also allowed the use of a feudal throne, fly whisk, palanquin, and elephants. Many of the sub-feudatories on the other hand may not have enjoyed any ruling powers at all, and may have been designated Sāmantas or Rajas only by courtesy. In many Canarese inscriptions even sub-divisional officers are seen having the title of \*rasa\* or king. It is probably on account of this circumstance that we read in the S'abara-bhāshya on the Mīmānsāsūtra 11; 3, 3 that the title \*rājan\* was used by the Āndhras even with reference to a Kshatriya who was not engaged in ruling over a town or country, and that Kumārila, a writer belonging to our period, amplifies the statement by observing that the term Āndhra has been used with reference to the southerners in general. ### [c19.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.5) ⁶⁶ E. I., III, p. 53. ### [c19.s2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.6) ⁶⁷ I. A., XIV, p. 24. ### [c19.s2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.7) ⁶⁸ I. A., XII, p. 96. ### [c19.s2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.8) Feudatory states had to entertain an ambassador from the imperial court. He exercised general powers of supervision, and control and occupied a position corresponding to that of the Political Agent or Resident of the present day. He was received, as merchant Sulaiman informs us, with profound respect that was naturally expected to be shown to the representative of the paramount power. He had under him a number of spies for fishing out information; the thousands of courtesans with which Amoghavarsha I is known to have covered the courts of hostile kings⁶⁹ must have been intended for a similar purpose, and been working under the direction of the imperial ambassador. The various kinds of spies, mentioned in the Arthaśāstra, were probably not unknown to the Deccan of our period. ### [c19.s2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.9) ⁶⁹ E. I., VI, P. 102. ### [c19.s2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.10) The control, which the paramount power exercised, differed partly with the status of the feudatory and partly with the strength of the paramount power. General obedience to the orders of the imperial power was expected and exacted. Attendance at the imperial court was required not only on ceremonial occasions, but also at periodical intervals; otherwise we cannot understand how our literary writers and epigraphical documents should be always describing the imperial courts as full of feudatories. A regular tribute had to be paid; we find Govinda III touring about in the southern parts of his empire for the purpose of collecting the tributes due from his feudatories.(70) Special presents were expected on the occasions of festivity in the imperial household like the birth of a son or marriage.(71) As in medieval Europe, they had to supply a certain number of troops to their feudal lord and to participate in his imperial campaigns. Narasimha Chālukya, a feudatory of Indra III, had taken a prominent part in the latter's campaign against the Gurjara-Pratīhāra emperor, Mahīpāla.(72) The Gujarat Rāṣṭrakūṭa viceroyalty was created as a kind of bulwork against the Gurjara-Pratīhāras.(73) The Chālukyas of Vengi had to supply forces to the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in their wars against the Gangas.(74) From a Bangalore museum Ganga record(75) we learn that Nāgattara, a feudatory of the Gangas, had to participate with his own forces, at the bidding of his sovereign, in a feud between Ayyapadeva and Vīramahendra wherein he lost his life. This practice prevailed in northern India also; Chatsu inscription of Bālāditya(76) and the Kahla plates of Kalachuri Sodhadeva(77) show that the ancestors of these feudatories had to participate in the wars of their feudal lord, Mihira Bhoja, with the Pālas of Bengal. Much of the confusion that arises, while marshalling the facts of ancient Indian history, is due to the habit of the subordinate feudatories of claiming as their own the successes which were really won by their feudal lords. ### [c19.s2.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.11) The measure of internal autonomy that was enjoyed by the feudatories was not uniform as observed already. The bigger among them like the Gujarat Rāṣṭrakūṭas and the Konkan S'ilāhāras enjoyed large amount of internal autonomy. They could create their own sub-feudatories.(78) Subject to the payment of a certain amount of tribute they had full powers over their revenues. They could assign taxes, (79) alienate villages, (80) and even sell them (81) without the sanction of the imperial power. The position of these feudatories was probaly as high as that of Kumārapāla of Assam and Dhruvasena of Valabhi in the court of Harsha. How slender was the control which the proud feudatories were disposed to tolerate in our period can be judged from the following extract from a letter of Akkham, the Lohana chief of Brahmanabad, to Chacha, who had called upon him to recognise his sovereignty—'I have never shown you opposition or quarrelled with you. Your letter of friendship was received and I was much exalted by it. Our friendship shall remain and no animosity shall arise. I will comply with your orders. You are at liberty to reside at any place within the territory of Brahmanabad. If you have resolved to go in any other direction, there is nobody to prevent you or molest you. I possess such power and influence that can render you aid.' (82) ### [c19.s2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.12) ⁷⁰ I. A., XI., P. 126. ### [c19.s2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.13) ⁷¹ Nitivākyāmṛita XXX, 32. ### [c19.s2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.14) ⁷² Karṇatakabhāshāhhūshana, introduction, p. XIV. ### [c19.s2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.15) ⁷³ I. A., XII, p. 160. ### [c19.s2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.16) ⁷⁴ Ante pp. 91-94. ### [c19.s2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.17) ⁷⁵ E. I., VI, p. 49. ### [c19.s2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.18) ⁷⁶ E. I., XII, p. 101. ### [c19.s2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.19) ⁷⁷ E. I., VII, p. 85. ### [c19.s2.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.20) Smaller feudatories enjoyed far less autonomy. Not only could they create no sub-feudatories, but they had not even the power of alienating any villages. When Budhavarsha, a Chālukya feudatory of Govinda III, desired to give a village to a Jain sage who had made him free from the evil influence of Saturn, he had to supplicate for the permission of his feudal lord. (83) Śaṅkaragaṇa, a feudatory of Dhruva, is seen taking his sanction at the time of alienating a village. (84) The necessity of imperial permission for such alienations is proved by the records of other contemporary dynasties both in the south and north. Vīrachola and Prithvīpati II, feudatories of the Cholas, had to take imperial sanction before they could alienate villages in charity.(85) The early Kadambas also exercised a similar control over their feudatories.(86) In the Gurjara-Pratihāra empire even the feudatories in distant places like Kathiawar had to take imperial permission for such transactions; the ‘Political Agents’ of the imperial power had to sanction such alienations on behalf of their suzerains by authenticating the documents by their signatures.(87) The same practice prevailed in Nepal, as is clear from a 7th century inscription of Śivadeva.(88) ### [c19.s2.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.21) ⁷⁹ I. A., XIII, p. 136. ### [c19.s2.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.22) ⁸⁰ See the copper-plate grants of the Gujarat Rāshṭrakūṭas. ### [c19.s2.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.23) ⁸¹ Tilgundi plates, 1083 A. D., E. I., III, p. 310. ### [c19.s2.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.24) ⁸² Elliot, I., p. 146. ### [c19.s2.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.25) ⁸³ I. A., XII, p. 15. ### [c19.s2.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.26) Third-rate feudatories felt the heels of the imperial shoes still more severely. In the Kapadwanj plates of Kṛṣṇa II(89) we find the emperor giving away in charity a village situated within the jurisdiction of his feudatory Mahāsāmanta-prachaṇḍadaṇḍanāyaka Chandragupta. In the Kadarol inscription of Someśvara, we find a feudatory chief agreeing to pay annually five golden Gadyanakas for a certain charity, because he was commanded to do so by Someśvarabhatta, the premier of the Imperial power.(90) It would be thus seen that the smaller feudatories had to remain in the dread, not only of their emperor, but also of his ministers and ambassadors. ### [c19.s2.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.27) The feudatories were subjected to a number of indignities if they dared to rebel and were defeated in war. Sometimes they were compelled to do the menial work, as was the lot of the Vengi ruler who had to sweep the stables of his conqueror Govinda III.(91) They had to surrender their treasures, dancing girls, horses and elephants to the imperial power as a punishment for their disloyalty. Even their wives were sometimes put into prison and the marriage of Chacha with the widow of his feudatory Akkham would show that the less cultured princes used to subject them to further indignities and humiliations. Attempts at annexation, though rare, were not unknown. ### [c19.s2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.28) ⁸⁵ E. I., IV, p. 82; S. I. I., II, p. 369. ### [c19.s2.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.29) ⁸⁶ I. A., VI, p. 32. ### [c19.s2.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.30) ⁸⁷ E. I., IX, p. 9. ### [c19.s2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.31) ⁸⁸ I. A., XIII, p. 98. ### [c19.s2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.32) ⁸⁹ E. I., I, p. 53. ### [c19.s2.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.33) ⁹⁰ I. A., I, p. 141. ### [c19.s2.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.34) If the central government became weak, the feudatories used to be practically independent. They could then exact their own terms for supporting the fortunes of their titular emperor; the commentary on the \*Rāmapālacharit\* shows how Rāmapāla of Bengal had to pay a heavy price in order to get the support of his feudatories for winning the throne.⁹² Their position became still more strong if there was a war of succession; they could then take sides and try to put their nominee on the imperial throne, thus playing the role of the king-makers. On such occasions they could pay off their old scores by dethroning their old tyrant and imposing their own terms on the new successor. Dhruva, Amoghavarsha I and Amoghavarsha III had owed their thrones to a considerable degree to the support of their feudatories. The weakness of the position of Amoghavarsha I was to a large extent due to the fact that he owed his throne to his feudatories, like the cousin ruler of the Gujarat branch, who would not brook the former degree of the imperial control. ### [c19.s2.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.35) ⁹² Banerji, \*The Palas of Bengal\*, p. 85. ### [c19.s2.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2.36) PART III ## Linked texts (10) - [Karṇāṭakabhāṣābhūṣaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vernacular.kannada.sastra.bhasabhusana) — Nāgavarma II, Sanskrit - [Mayidavōlu plates, time of Śiva-Skandavarman, year 10](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.south.pallava.mayidavolu-plates) — Prakrit - [Cipḷūṇ plates of Pulakeśin II](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.badami-calukya.ciplun-plates-of-pulakesin-ii) — Sanskrit - [Epigraphia Indica](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.ei) - [Nītivākyāmṛta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.nitivakyamrta.30.32) — Somadevasūri, Sanskrit - [Old-Kanarese inscription at Tērdāḷ](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.kalyana-calukya.old-kanarese-inscription-at-terdal) — Kannada - [An Old-Canarese Inscription at Toragal](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.varia.an-old-canarese-inscription-at-toragal) — Kannada - [Doḍḍahuṇḍi Inscription of Nitimārga and Satyavākya](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.western-ganga.doddahundi-inscription-of-nitimarga-and-satyavakya) — Kannada - [Dhiniki grant of King Jāikadeva](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.west.jethva.dhiniki-grant-of-king-jaikadeva) — Sanskrit - [Rāṣṭrakūṭa grant of Govinda-Prabhūtavarsha, Śaka 726](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.rastrakuta.rastrakuta-grant-of-govinda-prabhutavarsha-saka-726) — Kannada --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.altekar-1934.c19.s2) · Pramāṇa