Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c20.s1: Section A—Administration

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c20.s1

Language
English

Contents

Section A—Administration

c20.s1.1

At the head of the state was the king, whose office was hereditary. He exercised despotic powers, and except his immediate advisers the people in general had hardly any share in the determination of his policy in peace or war. The inscriptions usually apply to him the epithets *Paramabhaṭṭāraka*, *Mahārājādhirāja* and *Parameśvara*, which have been taken to imply Imperial status. But sometimes to the names of even mighty potentates like Mihira Bhoja are prefixed merely the honorific *Śrīmat*¹ or the unassuming title of *Mahārāja*.*²* In the Gāhaḍavāla epigraphs the kings are also given the appellations of *Aśvapati*, *Gajapati*, *Narapati*, *Rājatrayādhipati*, *Vividha-vidyā-vicāra-vācaspati*; the exact connotation of the first three terms is no doubt obscure, but if our surmise, made elsewhere, be correct, they may be understood either to signify various classes of feudatories or to stand for the lordship over the three branches of the army¹. Next to the sovereign were the chief queen (*Agra* or *Paṭṭamahiṣī*) and the crown-prince (*Yuvarāja* or *Mahārājaputra*), and from the Gāhaḍavāla plates they appear to have been quite important personages being invested with certain "royal prerogatives" of granting land.² Their grants had, however, to receive the consent of the ruling monarch before they could take effect. Thus, when the Yuvarāja Jayacandra³ and the Mahārājñī Gosaladevi⁴ make a grant, they do so with the approval of Vijayacandra and Govindacandra respectively. Sometimes the crown-prince was more closely associated with the government, as was Govindacandra during his father's lifetime.

c20.s1.2

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, I, p. 156, line 6.

c20.s1.3

² *Ep. Ind.*, XIX, p. 18, line 6 (Barah copper plate).

c20.s1.4

¹ See *Ante*. In the Candravati plates we come across two more epithets of rulers vanquished by Candradeva, viz., *Giripati* and *Triśaṅkupati*, whose meaning is not quite clear (*Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 193).

c20.s1.5

² *Ind. Ant.*, XIV, p. 103; *Ep. Ind.*, II, pp. 359-60; *J. R. A. S.*, 1896, pp. 787-88.

c20.s1.6

³ *Ep. Ind.*, IV, pp. 118, 120.

c20.s1.7

⁴ *Ibid.*, V, pp. 117-18.

c20.s1.8

The suzerain was the centre of a number of vassal chiefs, who helped him in military undertakings, and rendered him personal attendance when required. Such, for instance, were the chieftains named Uṇḍabhaṭa of Siyadoni,⁵ Balavarman and Avanivarman II Yoga of Saurāṣṭra,⁶ Mathanadeva of Rajorgarh⁷ during the Pratihāra times; and Singara (Śringaroṭa) Kamalapāla and Vatsarāja under the Gāhaḍavālas.¹ These feudatories are described as having obtained from their overlord the *Pañcamahāśabda*² or the *Rājapaṭṭi* i.e., the royal fillet or tiara.³ The inscriptions bestow on them such subordinate titles as *Mahāsāmantādhipati*, *Samadhigataśeṣamahāśabda*, and *Mahāpratīhāra*;⁴ but sometimes they even assumed the bombastic epithet of *Mahārājādhirāja*, as did Mathanadeva (Rajor inscription), Durbhaṭa and Niṣkalaṅka (Siyadoni inscription), which was probably due to varying degrees of dependence. The powers of these subordinate chiefs must have been considerably restricted, since we learn from certain inscriptions that even their grants were countersigned by provincial representatives of the suzerain. Thus, according to the Unā charter Dhīika, who was perhaps such an official under Mahendrapāla, gave his approval to a grant made by the Mahāsāmanta Avanivarman II Yoga.⁵ Again, the Partabgarh inscription represents that it was the provincial governor of Ujjain named Mādhavā that Indrarāja, the Cāhamāna feudatory (Mahāsāmanta), after having built a temple to the sun-god (Indrādityadeva), applied to make an endowment for its upkeep. The record calls Mādhava a "*Tantrapāla*," and also gives him the titles of *Mahāsāmanta* and *Mahādaṇḍanāyaka*. These governors were assisted in the enforcement of their authority by the military, which were posted at strategic points in the outlying provinces. Thus, Maṇḍapikā (Māṇḍū), near Ujjain, was the military headquarters for the southern regions, as we are told that Mahendrapāla II stationed there one Śrīśarman as his commander-in-chief.¹ Besides, provincial defence was organised by building forts, which were placed in charge of officers called "Koṭṭapāla" (guardian of fort). Under Bhoja I one such official was Alla. But his father Vaillabhaṭṭa, who was in the service of Rāmadeva, is given the designation of Maryādādhurya or Dhurodhikārī, meaning chief of the boundaries. This shows that one of his functions was also to watch that the existing boundaries were not disturbed by foreign encroachments.² Another provincial officer whom we know from the Barah copper-plate was the "Vyavahārin" or controlling officer.³ He supervised the grants that were made by kings with a view to avoiding their lapse into abeyance. These charters (śāsana) were conveyed by an officer called "Dūtaka," which literally means "messenger."⁴ Regarding his duties, Fleet remarks that "the Dūtaka's office was to carry, not the actual charter itself, for delivery into the hands of the grantees, but the king's sanction and order to the local officials, whose duty it was then to have the charter drawn up and delivered."⁵

c20.s1.9

⁵ *Ibid.*, I, pp. 169, 173.

c20.s1.10

⁶ *Ibid.*, IX, pp. 1-10 (Unā copper plate inscription).

c20.s1.11

⁷ *Ibid.*, III, pp. 263-67. (Rajor inscription).

c20.s1.12

¹ *Ibid.*, IV, pp. 130-33. (Kamauli copper plate inscription dated v. E. 1191).

c20.s1.13

² *Ep. Ind.*, IX, p. 1 f. See also for an explanation, *Ind. Ant.*, V, pp. 251-52; XII, pp. 95-96; *Ep. Ind.*, XII, pp. 254-255; C. I. I., III, p. 296, note 9, etc.

c20.s1.14

³ *Ep. Ind.*, IV, p. 130.

c20.s1.15

⁴ *Ibid.*, I, pp. 169, 173.

c20.s1.16

⁵ *Ibid.*, IX, pp. 2, 6.

c20.s1.17

¹ Ibid., XIV, pp. 180, 185-87.

c20.s1.18

² Ep. Ind., I, pp. 156, 157, 159, 160. Maryādā may also mean a constitution or regulation-system, especially of corporate bodies; and so Maryādādhurya may denote a person responsible for its maintenance. Dhurodhikāra, on the other hand, means only an officer in control, and Dr. L. D. Barnett is of opinion that it may not be a technical term.

c20.s1.19

³ Ibid., pp. 16, 18; Cf. also Vyavaharaṇa in Ep. Ind., XI, p. 145, line 41.

c20.s1.20

⁴ Ibid., V, pp. 212, 213.

c20.s1.21

⁵ C. I. I., III, p. 100, note 3.

c20.s1.22

In connection with the village administration we learn of officials designated as *Gāmagāmika*, *Mahattara*, and *Mahattama*.¹ The first term probably stands for headmen of the villages who were responsible to the government for the maintenance of peace and order within their boundaries. The other two terms have evidently the same political significance, although they have comparative and superlative inflexions. *Mahattara* literally means "one higher in rank;" *Mahattama*, "one highest in rank." It seems they were the two classes of elders of villages, who co-operated with the government officials in the management of rural affairs.

c20.s1.23

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, III, p. 266.

c20.s1.24

This list is further supplemented by the Gāhaḍavāla records, which it will be noticed, mix together court officials and strictly political functionaries, local or central:

c20.s1.25

(a) *Mantrin*, or minister. He advised the king on matters of moment, but the inscriptions do not give any idea if there was a separate minister for each department. In the Unā charter the term *Amātya* occurs in the sense of counsellor.

c20.s1.26

(b) *Purohita*, or chaplain. He ministered to the spiritual needs of royalty, whom he assisted in the maintenance of the *Dharma*. He was also the recipient of the royal gifts. The plates often mention the term *Mahāpurohita*, which shows that there was a high-priest in the kingdom.²

c20.s1.27

² See Kauṭilya’s *Arthaśāstra* (Eng. Trans.), p. 15, for his duties and qualifications.

c20.s1.28

(c) *Pratīhāra*, or door-keeper. The office of the chamberlain has always been a prominent one in the states of ancient India. This official is also mentioned in the records of the Pratīhāra kings,¹ and in the *Mahābhārata* and the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya he is called “Dvārapāla” and “Dauvārika” respectively.

c20.s1.29

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 107, 110; see also *Ibid.*, p. 97, etc.

c20.s1.30

(d) *Senādhipati*, or commander of troops.

c20.s1.31

(e) *Bhāṇḍāgārika*, or superintendent of stores. He had to see that all necessary articles were kept in readiness and that their distribution was in accordance with the king’s orders.

c20.s1.32

(f) *Akṣapaṭalika*, or keeper of records. Considering the large number of Gahaḍavāla grants, his office must have been a very important one. Some inscriptions mention the superior officer called Mahākṣapaṭalika.²

c20.s1.33

² *Ind. Ant.*, XVIII, p. 136.

c20.s1.34

(g) *Bhiṣak*, or the physician. He looked after the health of the king, and was perhaps the head of the public health department.

c20.s1.35

(h) *Naimittika*, or astrologer. He was responsible for forecasting the effects of particular conjunctions of the stars, portents, etc. : it was probably after his reading of the omens that undertakings were embarked upon.

c20.s1.36

(i) *Antaḥpurika*, or superintendent of the seraglio. As kings not unoften used to have several wives, a special officer was appointed to look after the needs of the harem.

c20.s1.37

(j) *Dūtas*, or envoys. These formed a diplomatic corps responsible for maintaining proper relations with foreign powers.

c20.s1.38

(k) *Karyā-adhikāra-puruṣas*, or officers in charge of elephants. They were probably charged with the management of elephants, wild or domesticated.

c20.s1.39

(l) *Turagādhikāra-puruṣas*, or officers in charge of horses. These two sets of functionaries formed a very important part of the state machinery, as its defence and power largely depended upon the efficiency and organisation of the cavalry and elephant forces.

c20.s1.40

(*m*) *Pattanādhikāra-puruṣas*, or officers in charge of towns. These may be compared to the Drāngika of the Unā record and the “Nāgarika” of Kauṭilya’s *Arthaśāstra*, being charged with the administration of cities. From the Siyadoni record it also appears that during Pratīhāra times some sort of municipal government was not unknown. For it tells us that the town affairs were managed by an assembly of five called “Pañcakula,” and by a committee of two, appointed from time to time by the town.¹

c20.s1.41

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 170, 177.

c20.s1.42

(*n*) *Akarādhikāra-puruṣas*, or officers in charge of mines. They must have been very important officials, as the mines were one of the chief sources of revenue.

c20.s1.43

(*o*) *Sthānādhikāra-puruṣas*, or officers of police-stations. They corresponded to modern *Thānādārs*, and were responsible for policing and maintaining law and order. The Unā inscription uses the term Daṇḍapāśika, which literally means “one who holds the fetters or noose of punishment” i.e.—a policeman. Or, does it connote a hangman or executioner?

c20.s1.44

(*p*) *Gokulādhikāra-puruṣas*, or officers of cattle-stations. As agriculture was the main industry, it was necessary to have a separate officer for cattle in order to rear good breeds etc.

c20.s1.45

(*q*) *Kāyastha* or *Karaṇika*, i.e., the scribe. He was apparently the writer of the records or legal documents.

c20.s1.46

Besides these officers, the Unā charter mentions Rājasthānīya, Uparika, Cāṭa, Bhaṭa, Daṇḍoddharaṇika (either a judicial officer from daṇḍa in the sense of fine; or a police officer, from the same word in the sense of rod of chastisement), Ayuktaka, Niyuktaka (perhaps subordinate functionaries of the government); and the Sarnath inscription of Kumāradevī adds the term Pattalikā,¹ which according to Sten Konow is the feminine form of Pattalaka or head of a pattalā.²

c20.s1.47

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, IX, pp. 325, 327, verse 22.

c20.s1.48

² *Ibid.*, p. 320, note 2; see also *Ibid.*, III, p. 44, line 33, for the term Pattalaka.

c20.s1.49

The Lucknow Museum plate of Kīrtipāla, found in the Gorakhpur district of the United Provinces, further refers to Aṣṭavargika, Mahātthāsāsanika, Mahāsādhanika, Dharmādhikaraṇika, Daivāgārika, Daivajña, and Saṅkhadhārī³ etc. The last four appear to be religious dignitaries, but it is difficult to determine exactly the functions of the other officials.

c20.s1.50

³ *Ibid.*, VII, p. 97.

Territorial Divisions

c20.s1.t1.1

For purposes of administration the kingdom was divided into numerous provinces. These provinces were usually called *bhukti*, as the Kānyakubjabhukti in the Barah copper plate;⁴ or *bhūmi*, as the Gurjaratrā-bhūmi in the Daulatpura charter;⁵ or *maṇḍala*, as the Saurāṣṭra maṇḍala in the Unā grant.⁶ According to the Barah copper plate, however, *maṇḍala* was the next lower unit after *bhukti*, and was not a synonymous term. The provinces were further subdivided into *Viṣayas* or districts. Among examples of them we find mention of Udumbara¹ and Dindavanaka.² The term *bhoga* also seems to have been used sometimes in the same sense, as we read of the Vamśapoṭakabhoga.³ The headquarters of a district were called *Adhiṣṭhāna* or *Pattana*.

c20.s1.t1.2

⁴ *Ibid.*, XIX, pp. 18, 19.

c20.s1.t1.3

⁵ *Ibid.*, V, pp. 211, 213.

c20.s1.t1.4

⁶ *Ibid.*, IX, pp. 3, 9.

c20.s1.t1.5

¹ *Ibid.*, XIX, pp. 18, 19.

c20.s1.t1.6

² *Ibid.*, V, pp. 211, 213.

c20.s1.t1.7

³ *Ibid.*, III, p. 266.

c20.s1.t1.8

The next unit in the descending scale was the *Agrahāra* or a modern *Tahsil*. We thus read of the Valākāgrahāra in the Barah copper-plate. In the Gahaḍavāla records, however, the term *Pattalā* is used in the same sense.

c20.s1.t1.9

Last came the *grāma* or village, which has been the most stable unit of administration in India from time immemorial. Furthermore, in some records the term *pāṭaka* appears; this, according to the lexicographer Hemacandra denoted one-half of a village.⁴ It may be pertinent to note that Kielhorn also explains it as “grāmaikadeśa” i.e., “the outlying portion of a village or a kind of hamlet which had a name of its own, but really belonged to a larger village.”⁵

c20.s1.t1.10

⁴ Cf. “Pāṭakas-tu tadardhe syāt (see *Abhidhāna-Cintāmaṇi*, Boehtlingk’s edition, p. 179).

c20.s1.t1.11

⁵ *Ind. Ant.*, XVIII, p. 135.

Group-life

c20.s1.t2.1

As some Pratihāra inscriptions show, persons following the same occupation normally formed themselves into corporations for regulating their business. For example, the Gwalior (Vaillabhaṭṭasvāmin) epigraph⁶ refers to the guild of oil-millers (tailikaśreṇī) and gardeners (mālikaśreṇī), who in their corporate capacity made gifts to a temple. The members of these guilds had their chiefs called respectively *Tailikamahattaka* (lines 12, 13 and 14) and *Mālikamahar* (line 17). Similarly the Siyadoni record mentions such traders as potters, distillers of spirituous liquors, sugar-boilers, betel-sellers, oil-makers, stone-cutters,¹ and the Pehoa inscription adds to this list the horse-dealers,² whose organisation into guilds is proved by their joint action in matters of common concern, and by the fact that they had a foreman or *deśī*. We are told, for instance, that the distillers of liquors were required to give on every cask liquor worth half a *vigrahapāladramma* to the god Viṣṇu. Or, we may cite the joint agreement of the horse-dealers belonging to “various countries,” whereby they imposed upon themselves and upon their customers certain taxes, the proceeds of which were distributed among the temples and the priests in specified proportions.

c20.s1.t2.2

⁶ *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 160, 161.

c20.s1.t2.3

¹ *Ibid.*, pp. 167-68, 174-78.

c20.s1.t2.4

² *Ibid.*, I, pp. 184-90.

c20.s1.t2.5

Such guilds must have been of benefit to the state, inasmuch as they certainly fostered a law-observing spirit in the interests of the community, and thus facilitated the task of government, besides rendering useful service in organising society and administering justice in internal affairs.³

c20.s1.t2.6

³ Cf. R. C. Majumdar, *Corporate Life in Ancient India*, (Calcutta, 1922).

Fiscal conditions

c20.s1.t3.1

We may now set forth the evidence regarding the principal sources of revenue, on which depended the stability and strength of the state.⁴ The Rajor inscription of the Pratihāra feudatory Mathanadeva mentions numerous dues from a village⁵ like the *Bhoga* and the *Mayūta* income (probably the contributions of fruits, firewood, etc.), with all customary and not customary, fixed and not fixed receipts; the shares of all sorts of grain; the *Khalabhikṣā* (cess on threshing floors);¹ *Prasthaka*; *Skandhaka*; and *Mārgaṇaka*.² The meaning of these three terms is not quite clear. Dr. Ghoshal, however, thinks that *Mārgaṇaka* represented benevolences of a general character levied upon the villages, as distinguished from the special forms called *Prasthaka* (a cess on each *prastha* of grain over and above the usual grain-share) and *Skandhaka* (perhaps a cess at a certain rate per load).³

c20.s1.t3.2

⁴ Cf. e.g. “Koṣamūlo hi rājeti pravādaḥ sārva-laukikaḥ” (*Kāmandakīya Nītisāra*, XXI, 33).

c20.s1.t3.3

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, III, pp. 264, 266.

c20.s1.t3.4

¹ Cf. also *Ibid.*, II, p. 179, verse 42. See *Ind. Ant.*, XVIII, p. 114, line 55, for Khalaka as a revenue term.

c20.s1.t3.5

² See also *Ind. Ant.*, XVIII, p. 83, line 20. Compare *Mārgaṇaka* with the Hindi word "māṅganā."

c20.s1.t3.6

³ *Hindu Revenue System*, pp. 294, 296, 298, etc.

c20.s1.t3.7

Fines for ten offences (*daśāparādhandaṇḍa*),⁴ gifts, likewise *aputrikādāna* (literally the property of a person who in the absence of a son has not appointed his daughter to raise a male issue for him, or in other words, it signifies the crown's right to confiscate the property of one who dies sonless?) and *naṣṭabharata* (*naṣṭabharaṭa*?) were other sources of revenue. Besides these, the state laid claim to treasure-trove and mineral products. The record also mentions the following taxes for purposes of worship : three *vimśopakas* on every sack of agricultural produce brought for sale to the market (*haṭṭadāna*); two *pālikas* on every *ghaṭaka-kūpaka* of clarified butter and oil; two *vimśopakas* per mensem on every shop; fifty leaves on every *collika* (of leaves) brought from outside the town. The Unā charters specify the usual dues—*bhāgabhoga*, *hiraṇyadāna*, daśāparādhadaṇḍa—and add the *Udranga* (revenue imposed upon the permanent tenants?), *Uparikara* (tax on cultivators who have no proprietory rights in the soil), *Collaka*, and other minor imposts.¹

c20.s1.t3.8

⁴ Jolly's *Hindu Law and Custom* (B. K. Ghosh's Eng. Trans., 1928), pp. 268-70. Also consult Fleet, *C. I. I.*, Vol. III, p. 189, note 4; Hira Lal, *Ep. Ind.*, IX, p. 47, note 1, etc.

c20.s1.t3.9

¹ *Ibid.*, IX, pp. 5, 10.

c20.s1.t3.10

Further, the Gāhaḍavāla plates mention the following sources of revenue :

c20.s1.t3.11

(a) *Bhāga*, or share : this possibly represents a stipulated share exacted by the actual owner from the farmer who cultivated the land.

c20.s1.t3.12

(b) *Bhoga*, or enjoyment : probably certain rights that the landlord enjoyed when the land was left fallow. Or, it might refer to the use of waste and taking of grass, etc., from the field when the cultivator’s crops had been removed. Or, is “bhāga” partial and “bhoga” complete proprietorship?

c20.s1.t3.13

(c) *Kara*, or rent proper, payable in cash or kind.

c20.s1.t3.14

(d) *Hiraṇya*, or gold : probably a money-tax levied on profits of trade or manufacture. It is, however, possible that “*Kara*” represents dues in kind and “*hiraṇya*” dues commuted into cash.

c20.s1.t3.15

(e) *Pravaṇikara* : a tax on turnpikes intended to preserve the peace of the village by discouraging the advent of large numbers of visitors. Or, is it a tax for the upkeep of roads? Sometimes it has also been taken to stand for a tax imposed upon certain classes of merchants.²

c20.s1.t3.16

² Ghoshal, *Hindu Revenue System*, p. 296.

c20.s1.t3.17

(f) *Turuṣka-daṇḍa* : a term that is most difficult to explain. It has been variously interpreted as a tax on aromatic reeds,³ or tribute paid to Ghazni by the ruler of Kanauj,⁴ or a tax levied on the Hindus to ward off the Moslems.¹ But, as pointed out by Sten Konow, it might also mean a tax imposed on the Moslems,² who, according to the *Kāmil-ut-tawārīkh*, settled in the Kanauj kingdom in the time of Mahmud-bin-Sabuktigin, and “were faithful to the law of Islam and constant in prayer and good works.”³ Thus it would be a sort of Hindu counterpart of the Moslem *Jizya*.

c20.s1.t3.18

³ J. A. S. B., LVI, pt. I (1887), p. 113.

c20.s1.t3.19

⁴ C. V. Vaidya, H. M. H. I., Vol. III, p. 211.

c20.s1.t3.20

¹ V. A. Smith, *Early Hist. of India*, 4th ed., p. 400, note 1.

c20.s1.t3.21

² Sten Konow, *Ep. Ind.*, IX, p. 329.

c20.s1.t3.22

³ Elliot, *History of India*, Vol. II, p. 251.

c20.s1.t3.23

(g) *Jalakara*, or tax on water. This must have been a fruitful source of income as the prosperity of the village largely depended upon irrigation.

c20.s1.t3.24

(h) *Gokara* : probably a tax on the breeding of cattle just as in the south there was a tax of “the good bull.” Or, was it charge covering grazing rights?

c20.s1.t3.25

(i) *Viṣayadāna* : This must have been some kind of district tax.

c20.s1.t3.26

(j) *Nidhi-nikṣepa*, i.e., treasure-trove.

c20.s1.t3.27

(k) *Kumāragadyāṇaka* : an obscure term. It has sometimes been explained as a tax at the rate of so much per *gadyāṇaka* (= 32 *guñja* berries) on behalf of royal princes.⁴ Presumably it was something like modern *nazar* offered to royal personages on ceremonial occasions.

c20.s1.t3.28

⁴ See *Hindu Revenue System*, p. 294.

c20.s1.t3.29

(l) *Ākara* : a tax on mines.

c20.s1.t3.30

In addition to the above the Gāhaḍavāla inscriptions mention the following taxes, but unfortunately their exact signification is unknown.

c20.s1.t3.31

(m) *Yamali-Kambala*.

c20.s1.t3.32

(n) *Kūṭaka* (e.g., *Ep. Ind.*, IV, p. 111).

c20.s1.t3.33

(o) Valaat (Ind. Ant., XVIII, p. 17).
(p) Vimśaticchavathā (Ibid.).
(q) Akṣapaṭaladāya (Ibid.).

c20.s1.t3.34

The last two are respectively called Viśatiṭhu (Vimśatyathū) prastha and Akṣapaṭalaprastha in the Basahi plate (Ind. Ant., XIV, p. 103), which refers to other imposts also like Varavajjhe, Pratīhāraprastha, and Daśabandha, etc.

c20.s1.t3.35

We also learn from inscriptions that there were regular customs-houses, called “Mattadāva” or “Maṇḍapikā,” where perhaps taxes on sales and manufactures were levied and collected.

c20.s1.t3.36

Regarding land settlement the details are meagre to the extreme. All the information that we get is that the village lands were measured by “hastas” and “nālukas” and they were well demarcated by boundaries.¹

c20.s1.t3.37

¹ Ep. Ind., V, pp. 113, 114.

c20.s1.t3.38

Further, we are told in the Gāhaḍavāla plates of the rights possessed by owners of villages, and granted to donees, viz., water (Jala); waste-land (sthala); iron-mines and salt-mines (lohalavaṇakara); fisheries (matsyakara); ravines (garta), saline soil (Oṣara); groves of madhuka and mango (madhukāmravanavāṭikā), grass and pasture land etc. (tṛṇa-yutigocaraparyantaḥ).

c20.s1.t3.39

Lastly, we may make a few observations about the currency of the period. As already shown, copper and silver coins of Madanapāla, and gold and copper issues of Govindacandra, have been discovered. It would, therefore, not be unreasonable to suppose that the Gāhaḍavāla kings minted in all the three metals. The copper pieces were probably meant for small transactions, for which barter may also have been practised. The gold and silver coins vary in their types and values, and the percentage of alloy indirectly throws light on the financial condition of the kingdom under their rule. For the Pratihāra times our extant evidence consists of the silver *Drammas* of Mihira Bhoja and the doubtful gold issues of Mahīpāla. The former are derived from the Indo Baktrian (Greek) *Drachmae* weighing 65 grains, and the Siyadoni inscription enumerates several distiner kinds of these *Drammas* in connection with donations:

c20.s1.t3.40

Dramma; Pañciyaka-dramma; Vigrahapāliya-dramma; Vigrahasatka dramma; Vigrahatungiya dramma; Ādivarāha; Ādivarāha dramma; Varāhakaya Vimśopaka (?); Vigraha-dramma visovaka; Kapardaka; Kākinī; Varātaka.¹

c20.s1.t3.41

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 169, 173-79.

c20.s1.t3.42

Judging from this comprehensive system of coinage and taxation, it would appear that the fiscal administration was fairly developed, and the government knew how to squeeze money out of people.

Linked texts (24)