Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c13.s1: Sāmantas or Nobles

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c13.s1

Language
English

Sāmantas or Nobles

v1.c13.s1.1

The Sāmantas or Sardars as they are now called in India or the nobles as they are called in the west, were a necessary and a usual part of the administrative machinery of a country in ancient India. The word Sāmanta is clearly derived from Samanta or vicinity and means etymologically those who are near the king. The Sāmantas were mostly the king's kinsmen and relatives or such families as had rendered meritorious services in past times or scions and representatives of dispossessed kingly families. They appear to be always territorial lords and were miniature kings in their own subject territories. For they clearly had the power to make grants, as inscriptions show many grants made by Sāmantas. They were also masters of small armies, with which they were bound to assist the king whenever he moved against his enemies. They were also bound to assist the king on other necessary occasions as Bāṇa mentions an Ātavika Sāmanta (i. e. a feudatory chief of the forest country) coming to assist Harsha in his search for his sister. (H. C. p. 309). These feudatories or nobles or Sardars lived usually, however, at the capital town and graced the Darbar on all state occasions. Their wives similarly attended on the queen. Bāṇa describes the wives of the Sāmantas as coming in hundreds to the palace at the time of Harsha's birth and keeping the birth festival by dancing as has already been stated. (H. C. p. 186 समन्तात्सामन्तःपुरसहस्राण्यदृश्यन्त). The Sāmantas with their wives thus exactly fulfilled the functions which dukes and duchesses and other noblemen and noblewomen discharge in European countries. Besides this duty of attending on the king and queen on state occasions, the Sāmantas often appear to be employed as officers. Bhandi for instance was the son of a Sāmanta chief and was the commander of the Thanesar cavalry force. Skandagupta, again, the leader of the elephant force of Thanesar was himself a Pārthiva or king (H. C. p. 267) i. e. a feudatory chief or Sāmanta. The Sāmantas were usually then as now employed in the military service, but perhaps they must sometimes have been employed even in the capacity of ministers of whom we shall now go on to speak.

v1.c13.s1.2

The ministers were certainly as necessary a part of the administration as the nobles. They were called Mantris (councillors.) or Sachivas (helpers) or Amātyas (those who live with the king, the word being derived from Amā together ). Their number was not fixed, but they had separate departments to look to, or functions to discharge. The most important and usually mentioned is the सान्धिविग्रहिक or the minister of peace and war, in other words the minister for foreign affairs. Thus Bāṇa describes Harsha as asking his foreign minister to write to all courts ( महासंधिविग्रहधिकृतमवन्तिकमन्तकस्थमादिदेश H. C. p. 263 ). These officers are called mahā or great because they belong directly to the court and attend on the king. They were often hereditary. See Corp. Ins. III p. 35. अन्वयप्राप्तसाचिव्यो व्याप्रतसंधिविग्रहः In grants of inam villages the names of such officers frequently find mention. These Śāsanas ( or Sanads ) are written by a responsible officer who is usually described as भोगिक, one who is entrusted with the collection of भोग or tax i. e. a revenue officer, sometimes even the foreign minister also. It was customary to give the name of the father and the grandfather also of the writer. See e. g. Corp. Ins. III p. 104. लिखितं च वक्त्रामात्यप्रणप्त्रा भोगिकनदत्तनप्त्रा भोगिक रविदत्तपुत्रेण महासांधिविग्रहिक सूर्यदत्तेन. See also ditto p. 119. लिखितं मया भोगिक राज्यकामात्यनष्टभोगिकश्रवदत्तभोगिक गुंजकीर्तिना. Bhogika has not been explained by Dr. Fleet but as we have just said he probably was a minister of Bhoga or revenue.* The grants also always mention a Dūtakara ( messenger ) who is always an important person. It appears that a minsiter or other important officer was specially deputed to deliver on the spot the land or village to the grantee and to make the grant known to the villagers and village officers. For instance, in the grant at page 119 ditto, the Dūtaka is उपरिक-दीक्षित-गृहपति स्थपति-सम्राट्शर्यदत्तः ‘who was the chief of sacrificers, householders and sthapatis’, probably the head of the department of religion or state church. Sometimes the grant deed was written out at the king’s own dictation and the word स्वमुखाज्ञया is used, see Corp. Ins. III p. 199. And it is curious to note that grant deeds were sometimes signed by the king himself. Harsha's own signature is thus before us in the Banskheda grant.* Probably the king signed the deed written on paper and the copyist engraved its exact counterpart on copper, for the real signature is on the copper plate. The signature of Harsha is in a very ornate hand. Ornate letters were then usually written. And it is further curious to add that the word for signature is its exact English equivalent in the expression "given under my own hand," (स्वहस्तो मम महाराजश्रीहर्षस्य). Further the signature is not sufficient and must be supported by the seal as in English documents. The seal or मुद्रा of Harsha is thus also known to us, and usually the seal was impressed on the linking of the copperplates. Strangely enough our connection with our own past is so completely broken by the intervening Mahomedan rule that we have forgotten our ancient words for seal and signature namely मुद्रा and स्वहस्त and know only the Mahomedan equivalents namely Muhr and Sahī. The use of the king's own signature shows that the ministers had not the power to make valid grants of lands and villages. Their authority was restricted.

v1.c13.s1.3

∗ See also H. C. p. 286. असतोपि पूर्वभोगपतिशेषाद्वाव्याद्भिः i. e. villagers complaining of imaginary evil deeds of past tax-collectors

v1.c13.s1.4

Besides the ministers there were other important officers called superintendents or अध्यक्ष namely, the superintendent of शुल्क or customs, of कोष्ठागार or storehouses, of दुर्ग or fort and so on. They did not enjoy the rank of अमात्य or minister but yet were important officers. We have already described the district officers but these Adhyakshas seem to be officers of the whole state and as such may be ranked next to the ministers. These may not have been hereditary though the tendency has always been in India to make offices hereditary. The grant of Pravarasena of the Vākātakas Corp. Ins. III page 237 mentions these officers in the line यतोस्मत्सन्तव्यका सर्वाध्यक्षधियोगनियुक्ताःआज्ञासं-चारिकुलपुत्रका भटाश्च छात्राश्च विश्वत्य पूर्वाज्ञाज्ञापितव्याः (Translated as follows by Dr. Fleet "our obedient and highborn officers employed in the office of general superintendents.")

v1.c13.s1.5

Lastly, we come to the court. The centre of the court was of course the king. He was an absolute monarch; he was, however, bound by laws of divine origin and therefore of an unchangeable nature. He was, again, considered the father of his people and was also the dispenser of justice. Except in a few exceptional cases, the king though despotic, was therefore generally a just and an affectionate ruler and was also in return loved by the people. The king of course was born to enjoy and had come to the royal station, so the people believed, by reason of austerities performed in former lives. He was, therefore, always surrounded by young and beautiful women. He was attended on by these damsels as his Chāmara-bearer, Tambūla-Karanka-bearer and so on. They stood about him even in open court. This feature of an ancient king’s life strikes us as almost voluptuous. But it was a long established practice of the court. Even Manu Smṛiti ( 7,224 ) describes the king as always surrounded by women.* Megasthenes also does the same. ( Ancient India Mc. Crindle’s Megasthenes page 71 & 72 ). Kālidāsa also describes the king as attended by Yavanīs and lastly Bāṇa describes even the chaste and self-restrained Harsha as attended by beautiful young women in court when Bāṇa went to see him. (H. C. p. 118). Even on elephants when marching or fighting, the king had young women for his arm-bearers. Probably this custom was originally borrowed from the Persians by Chandragupta or even the Nandas who copied the forms of the Persian court, then the most powerful and magnificent imperial court in the world, It is hence that we can explain the mention of Yavanīs by Kālidāsa as attending kings. In Bāṇa’s days these women were not probably Yavanīs as they are not so described. They were always selected for their strength, health and beauty. Except for great kings like Harsha who was martial and of great moral strength, these women must generally have been a cause of great moral degeneracy in Indian kings.

v1.c13.s1.6

∗ Thus Dharsena's grant and that of Śilāditya are also signed by them. See Corp Ins. III pages 167 and 180.

v1.c13.s1.7

The king had an anointed queen and several other wives who were, however, subordinate to the former. The anointed queen had a Pattabandha about her forehead. It was a narrow golden belt ornamented with jewels.

v1.c13.s1.8

∗ Though according to the Mahābhārata ancient kings before Chandragupta’s days had no such attendants.

v1.c13.s1.9

The palace had besides the harem always more than three kakshas or courtyards; the outer one being for people and for state reception, the next inner one for Sardars and the third for intimate persons only. The palaces were stately buildings, though not of stone. The floors, however, are described as made of shining stones. The columns and walls were ornamented with gold and even precious stones. The palace was usually a several-storeyed building with inner gardens of flowerbeds and large fruit trees (see the description of the palace of Prabhākara Vardhana at Thanesar by Bāṇa. H. C. pages 215-6.)

v1.c13.s1.10

The king was then theoretically and usually practically both the leader of armies on the battle-field and the dispenser of justice at home. The throne room or audience hall was also the house of justice and Manu and other Smritis require the king to attend court every morning to dispense justice to the people. Here everybody had admission as a matter of course. Suitors were sometimes permitted to draw the attention of kings to their wrongs by ringing the bell of justice hung in the audience hall.* The king dispensed justice with the help of Brahmin and Kshatriya and Vaiśya assessors.

v1.c13.s1.11

The Smritis direct the king to divide his time for convenience of business into three portions: one devoted to dispensation of justice, one to administration and the third to his own recreation and pleasure. Harsha followed this practice most scrupulously as Hiuen Tsang has recorded and his times were most punctually observed. Drums and conches announced to the public what the king was doing at any particular time. Some sounding instruments were looked upon as royal i. e. to be used by kings only. These instruments are described as five in number in the epithet समधिगतपंचमहाशब्दः which usually occurs in inscriptions as applied to kings, and even Sāmantas or feudatory chiefs (see Corp. Ins. p. 294). What these five were has been discussed in a note at p. 296-29 ditto where Prof. Pāthaka’s view is referred to (In. Ant. Vol. XII p. 98.) and the instruments are stated to be the Śringa or horn (trumpet), the Rammata (tambour), Śankha (conch), Bheri (kettle drum) and Jayghantā (gong). But it seems they are mentioned in the following line of Bāṇa : रटत्पटहे नदन्नान्दीके, गुञ्जत्कुञ्जे कूजत्काहले शब्दयमाने शङ्खे (H.C. p. 275). The Pataha or drum and the Sankha or conch were of course prominent and are easily recognisable.* Hiuen Tsang mentions that Harsha’s drum was given a stroke with a golden stick for each pace that he walked, a distinction which was not allowed to any other king. Perhaps this was done in special honour of Harsha as Emperor or king of kings. We may well imagine the importance of royal drums and conches in those days when cannon had no existence.

v1.c13.s1.12

∗ AiYangār's Ancient India p. 346.

v1.c13.s1.13

The king was usually surrounded by his body-guard which consisted of select strong men of hereditary service. Bāṇa describes the guardsmen of Harsha as devoted men with strongly exercised half-bare bodies, yellowish fair in complexion, standing arround him in a row at fixed distances and poetically compares them to a colonnade of golden pillars surrounding the king. (H. C. p. 110). The king’s seat was usually a couch, the four feet of which were inlaid with ivory and the surface covered with a slab of stone sprinkled with sandal pigment. There was also a small portable seat of the king called Āsandi. When the Malava king was conquered and slain in battle the things seized in plunder were his Sinhāsana (throne) Sayana (couch) and Āsandi (chair) (H. C. p. 103). For the resting of the foot there was always a jewelled footstool called Pādapitha.

v1.c13.s1.14

The Pratihāri or the usher of the king was an important personage about him. The head usher had several subordinates under him. The head Pratihāri of Harsha is minutely described by Bāṇa as a tall, gold-complexioned, broad-chested man with his body encased in a fresh washed kanchuka or coat, wearing a golden belt about the waist, provided with a jewelled buckler, a necklace about his chest, and kundalas in his ears, a white turban on his head, a pearl-hilted sword in his left hand and a golden wand in his right (H. C. p. 98). The Pratihāri is always called Kanchuki which shows that he alone used a coat. His white turban is also peculiar to him for the others had usually bare topknot hair surmounted by garlands. This description probably proves that like the Yavanī attendants, the Kanchuki was also borrowed from the Persian court.

v1.c13.s1.15

∗ Of the rest Nāndi is given in M. William's dictionary as in music a measure Dvādaśatūrya-ghosha and Kāhala is given as a large drum (Panchatantra).

v1.c13.s1.16

In one important particular, however, in the seventh century the Persian court system appears to have been abandoned. I find no mention of eunuchs in the description of the royal household in Bāṇa’s Harsha Charita and elsewhere. The Varshavaras or eunuchs were undoubtedly employed by Chandragupta. They are mentioned along with the कञ्चुकोष्णीषिणः or Ushers by Kautilya, see his Artha Śastra. They are also mentioned in the Brihatkathā as employed in the palace at Pāṭaliputra. Of course the inhuman practice of castrating men for the use of the harems of kings was originally a practice of the Semitic peoples. From the kings of Babylonia and Nineveh the eunuchs were borrowed by the Persians and from them by Chandragupta (or his predecessors the Nandas) and succeeding Mauryas. But later the supply of such persons probably ceased and from the Guptas onwards they are not found in India. This moral reclamation of Indian courts continued down to the time of the Mahomedans who introduced eunuchs again but since the establishment of the civilized and more moral British rule, this pest has ceased to disfigure even the courts of Indian princes.

v1.c13.s1.17

A study of the inscriptions recorded in the Corp. Ins. Vol. III discloses that dependent kings used the title Mahārāja, independent kings Mahārājādhirāja and also Parama Bhaṭṭāraka; while emperors added to this the title Parameśvara. The Chālukya king Pulakeśin assumed this title, it is expressly said, because he defeated the Emperor Harsha. Besides these titles generally used particular kings affected particular adjuncts or rather epithets. For instance, the Chalukyas called themselves Prithivīvallabha, the Valabhi kings called themselves Senāpatis, the Guptas used the word Vijitāvani Avanipati on their coins. The Vākātakas called themselves Parivrājakas because perhaps they were Brahmins, and so on.

v1.c13.s1.18

Every line of kings had its separate banner or Dhvaja and Lānchhanas or crest as it is translated by Dr. Fleet. The Lānchhana was used no doubt on coins and seals, but it is not certain if the same symbol might not often be used on the Dhvaja also. The symbol was always an animal. Strangely enough even countries in the west ancient and modern also adopt particular animals only as their symbols. The Lānchhana of the Guptas appears to have been a peacock, that of the Vardhanas of Thanesar a bull. That of the Chālukyas appears to be a Varāha or boar. The Lānchhana of the great conqueror Yaśodharman of Mandsaur inscription was the Aulikara (Corp. Ins. III p. 151-153). Aulikara must be some animal* but what animal it is has not yet been determined. The Dhvaja or banner had also distinctive animals on them such as a lion, a monkey and so on. The colour of the Dhvaja also seems to have been distinctive in each royal family-distinctions which are still observed.

v1.c13.s1.19

The royal umbrella was always of the white colour. The emblems of royalty as enumerated in a Śloka of the Bhāgavata Purana were (1) Chāmara, (2) Vyajana, (fan) (3) Śankha, (4) White Umbrella, (5) Crown, (6) Sinhāsana and (7) Sayyana or Couch. These things those who were not kings were not allowed to have (Bhāgavata X, 26-61).

v1.c13.s1.20

∗ उल is given in dictionaries as a wild animal mentioned in the Atharvaveda.

Linked texts (7)