Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c7.s2: Administrative system

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c7.s2

Language
English

Administrative system

c7.s2.1

*Kingship* : The only form of government known to our ancestors of the seventh and the eighth centuries A.D. was monarchy. Ancient republics of the early Buddhist times had completely disappeared. Kingship was generally hereditary. Usually the king nominated his successor, who was in most cases his eldest son. Election was however, not altogether unknown. Gopala, the founder of the famous Pala dynasty of Bangal, was elected by the notable political elements of that province in the first half of the eighth century A.D., and the Pallava King, Nandi Varman Pallavamalla of Kanchi in southern India, was similarly elected at about the same time. At a time of crisis the choice of a monarch was entrusted to a select body of nobles or Brahmans or both. Many such cases of selection by notables are on record, the most important among them being that of the great Harshavardhan of Thaneshwar and Kanauj who was chosen by a council of nobles to fill the vacant throne of his late brother, Rajyavardhan. Females were not debarred from succession to the royal throne, and there had been women rulers, specially in Kashmir, Orissa and some parts of southern India.

c7.s2.2

*Powers of the king* : The monarchs of this period were absolute or despotic rulers. It was widely believed that the king was God's representative on earth and was, therefore, superior in power and intelligence to other people. There were, however, some critics of the divine right theory. The king's powers were restricted only by well-established laws and traditions and by the fear of a rebellion on the part of the people. He was the chief executive, commander of the army and the fountainhead of justice. Inspite of the combination of these wide powers and functions, he was not a tyrant, as he was governed by the traditional *raj-dharma* which was to be the father of the people, and to always act for their welfare, physical, moral and material.

c7.s2.3

*Ministers and their functions* : Every king had his ministers who were his nominees and servants. Their number was not fixed, and, in fact, could not be constant in all cases. Manu prescribes seven to eight ministers, a number which might have been generally followed. There were two types of ministers, namely, confidential advisers (*Mantrins*), and ministers properly so-called (*Sachivas*). To the latter category belonged (*a*) ministers of war and peace (*Sandhivigrahikas*), (*b*) ministers in charge of records (*Akshapataladhikrita*), (*c*) ministers in charge of military duties (*Mahabaladhikrita* and *Mahadandanayaka*), (*d*) finance ministers (*Amatya*), and (*e*) foreign ministers (*Sumant*). Besides, there was a *raj-guru* or *raj-purohit* whose rank was equal to a minister's and who held the portfolio of religion. There was no bar to militarymen holding a civil portfolio. Certain ministerships had become hereditary. All strings of policy being concentrated in the king's hands, the importance of a minister depended upon his ability, strength of character and loyalty and the degree of his sovereign's confidence in him. In matters which did not involve change of policy and in day-to-day administration, ministers must have enjoyed full powers over their respective departments.

c7.s2.4

***Local Government***: For administrative purposes every kingdom was divided into provinces which bore different designations in different parts, such as, *Bhukti* in the north and *Mandala* in the south. They were sometimes known as *Desa* or *Rashtra*. The province was in the charge of a governor called *Uparika*. Every province was divided into *Vishayas* (districts) with a *Vishayapati* (district officer) at its head. Both *Uparikas* (governors) and *Vishayapatis* (district officers) were appointed by the king and were members of either royal or noble families. The district officers were assisted in the work of administration by the guild president, chief scribe (*Kayastha*), and some of the notable men of the district. In certain parts, notably south India, districts were further sub-divided into unions of villages with a headman and an assembly for the administration of the union. The village was everywhere the lowest union of administration. In every village there was a headman and a *Panchayat* consisting of village elders or notables. There were committees for looking after watch and ward, tanks, temples, education, etc. Besides the headman there was a village officer styled *Adhikarin* or *Adhikari*, whose main business was to supervise the work of the *Panchayat*. In towns and cities the management was in the hands of an officer called *Nagarpati*. In some towns there was a popular assembly to assist the *Nagarpati* in the administration.

c7.s2.5

***Finance***: Great attention was paid to finance, for it was realised as early as the days of the eminent political thinker and statesman, Kautilya, that this was one of the two most important departments of government, the other being the army. There were three main sources of income, namely, (*a*) land revenue from the crown land, that is, those areas of the country which were directly administered by the government, (*b*) tributes from the vassal chiefs, and (*c*) taxes other than land revenue, such as excise, irrigation duties on goods charged at ferries, roads and frontiers of the kingdom, income from mines, etc. The State's share of the produce of the soil was usually one-sixth and was called *bhag*. We do not know the rates of other taxes. Perhaps there was no income-tax. There were one or two emergency taxes. The items of expenditure were civil administration, army and the king's household. There might have been some kind of budget-making, though it might not be scientific like what we have nowadays. The economic system must have been very sound indeed, for the country was extremely prosperous. People were well off and free from want.

c7.s2.6

Buddhism was declining. Most of the kings of this period were the followers of the Hindu religion. These kings, however, were very tolerant towards all faiths. In fact, they patronised Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism at one and the same time. There was no religious antipathy among the people and no religious persecution. The common people as well as the upper classes seem to have been inspired by high spiritual ideals.

Cites (2)