History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s21: Festivals.
History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s21
- Language
- English
Festivals.
v3.c41.s21.1
We go on to describe the festival days mentioned by Al-Beruni (chap. LXXVI). "The second of Chaitra is a great festival day in Kashmir in honour of victory of its king over the Turks." This probably refers to the victory of Lalitāditya the conqueror of Hindustan over the Turks described in Vol. I (p. 211) as a memorable one "since this was a singular exploit of Lalitāditya deserving a prominent record in this history of Mediæval India." "The 11th of Chaitra was the Hindola festival of Vāsudeva and 15th of Chaitra was festival for women called Vasanta festival. Both these are not known to us. The 3rd of Vaiśākha was Gaurī Tritīyā. "On the 10th of Vaisakha Brahmins go out at the king's command and sacrifice for four days." This is a thing unknown to us and it is a festival which we have not been able to trace in Hindu treatises. The vernal equinox festival is peculiar to the Panjab and still observed there, being called Vaiśākhi. "Jyeshtha Śuddha 15 is a festival day for women." "All Āshādha days are festival days and on Sāvana 15 alms are given to Brahmins." "On Āśvina Mahānavamī sugarcane juice is poured for Bhavānī and kids are also killed." "The 15th of Āśvina is dedicated to animals and they wrestle with one another." The Bhādrapada Pitripaksha is also mentioned, especially the day when the moon is in Maghā." (This should have been called Āśvina Vadya according to Pūrṇimānta months). "The 3rd Bhādrapada is observed by women who grow seeds in baskets and worship Devī at night." "The 1st of Kārtika is Dīwalī day when Balirāja is liberated for one day by Lakshmī". "The 3rd of Mārgaśīrsha is a festival day for women. The 3rd of Māgha is a sacred day to women and is a festival day for them; women bathe in cold water the whole month." "The full moon day of Phālgun is the Dolā feast for women; they make fires in villages." "The 16th of Phālgun they call Śivarātri day and worship Mahādeva and remain awake the whole night." This is a correct description of Śivarātri except for the number, which ought to be 14th. "In Multan there is a special festival of the sun and it is called Sāmbapariyātra." We recognise in the above many festivals which are still observed which therefore are certainly as Al-Beruni (1030 A. D.).
v3.c41.s21.2
As described in Vol. II (p. 228) at the end of the 10th century India was divided, from Kabul to Kamrup and from Kashmir to Kumari, into several kingdoms, some large and some small which were ruled by despotic Hindu kings most of these being Rājputs. These kingdoms were so to speak, limited monarchies; for according to the modern theory of politics in the west, the sovereign has an unlimited power to legislate and a limited monarchy means a state where the monarch's power to promulgate laws is limited by the power of parliament or popular assembly to legislate. In India, as explained in Vol. II (p. 225), the kings or even the people had no right to promulgate new laws or to alter or abrogate existing ones, all the necessary laws having been in the beginning gives by the creator to Manu the first king to guide him in the government of the people. This divine Smriti-made law was followed in the different kingdoms of India and this set a limit to the despotic power of kings by preventing despotic administration becoming doubly oppressive by the addition of despotic legislation. The several despotic kingdoms in India, thus, were really limited monarchies in this sub-period and were, therefore, generally well-governed and happy.
v3.c41.s21.3
The difference again, as noted in Vol. II (p. 226), in soil climate, and nature of land and the language of the people and their provincial peculiarities made the existence of different kingdoms in the country, a normal and perhaps a necessary condition. And the kingdoms arising in this sub-period correspond almost exactly to the different divisions of India according to these circumstances. Thus Kashmir, U. P., Raj-putana, Gujarat, Konkan, Malwa, Bundelkhand, C. P., Bengal, Telangana, Dravida, Kerala, Karnatak and Mahārāshtra were distinct kingdoms with territories naturally distinct throughout this sub-period. The only factor which was favourable for the evolving of an empire combining all these kingdoms was the unity of race, religion and ancient tradition. But as in Mediæval Europe under the Holy Roman Empire, so in Mediæval Hindu India, the kingdoms did not coalesce into one empire for exactly the same reasons as in Europe. The idea of an Indian empire was, however, constantly before Indian kings, an idea which did not involve the destruction of subordinate kingdoms but only their subjugation or nominal acknowledgement of the imperial master, the Samrāt or Chakravartin as he was called And all the wars among Hindú kings were usually waged with the object of establishing the imperial status. For imperial status was not considered as descending hereditarily from father to son but was considered to depend on actual power; and every ambitious and resourceful monarch in the different kingdoms might aspire to imperial honour and attain it by Digvijaya. Rājaśekhara makes a curious distinction between a Samrāt and a Chakravartin and states that he who conquers Bhāratavarsha from the southern sea is called a Samrāt while he who conquers the country from Kumārīpura to Bindusara, beyond the Himalayas, a distance of one thousand yojanas is called a Chakravartin. The obvious difference is that Kashmir and Nepal are to be further conquered by a Chakravartin in the north and the Chola-Pandyas in the south. We, however, find in this sub-period several kings of much smaller importance calling themselves Chakravartin. Thus a Śilāhāra king of the 12th century called himself Konkana-Chakravartin or emperor of Konkan only; and Lakshmanasena called himself कमरूपावनमिंदव्वकः (Pro. Ben. V p. 467). It is not unusual for high names coming down slowly in significance like the title Mahārājādhirāja taken in inscriptions by many minor kings. But the title Chakravartin was well deserved by Bhoja of Malwa (1000-1040) whose word was respected even in Kashmir. Aśoka and Samudragupta in ancient Indian history and Lalitāditya in mediæval history were indeed Chakravartins according to the definition of Rājaśekhara and in modern historty Aurangjeb. However in this sub-period, Chola, Chālukya, Gāhadavāla and Pāla kingdoms were ordinary empires or Sāmrājyas, as there were many feudatory princes under subjection to each of them.
v3.c41.s21.4
We have already commented (p. 325) on the baneful effects of this struggle of ambitious Hindu kings to attain imperial honour. Empire did not in Hindu political philosophy mean the annexation of minor kingdoms like the Mogul or British empire. Bhoja or Karṇa were Chakravartins without destroying conquered kingdoms and thus increasing their own territory or resources. This rivalry for imperial honour thus weakened the contending powers without strengthening the conqueror. Vigraharāja of Ajmer, however, seems to have annexed the conquered kingdom of Delhi, probably because Anangapāla had no son and consequently his power became equal to that of the Gāhadavālas of Kanauj and the rivalry between the Chauhans and Rathods went on to the days of Prithvīrāj and Jaichand whose deadly animosity weakened them both and consequently led to their destruction by a third power.
v3.c41.s21.5
The different kingdoms subsisting at the end of the last sub-period continued to thrive during this sub-period also with some notable exceptions. Most notable of these was the Panjab which fell at the beginning of this sub-period, as we have already seen, before Mahmud of Ghazni and was lost to Hindu India. We have discussed the causes of the fall of the Panjab elsewhere; but we may note here again one important cause viz. the absence of a strong and sufficient standing army. This was a feature of almost all the mediæval Hindu kingdoms on which we have commented in Vol. II (p. 223). Hindu armies, as the Arab writer Sulaiman has testified, consisted chiefly of levies and auxiliary forces of the Sāmantas, paid by them from the revenues of the districts assigned to them. The Imperial Pratihāras of Kanauj in the last sub-period maintained a strong standing army but it appears that, like the Peshwas in later Indian history, the Pratihāras of Kanauj latterly neglected to maintain an efficient Huzur force and Rājyapāla consequently was compelled to submit to the Turks. U. P. was saved, however, from being finally subjugated by Ghazni for two reasons, 1st, the incompetence of the successors of Mahmud and secondly, the conquest of the Kanauj kingdom by Gāhadavālas. Their kings down to Govindachandra appear to have maintained a strong standing army consisting of foot, horse and elephant and as stated in an inscription already noted (p. 212), Govindachandra compelled the Hammira to consent to a treaty recognising the inviolability of his frontier. The Pratihāras hereafter disappeared as a ruling independent clan.
v3.c41.s21.6
The other ruling clans which disappeared at the beginning of this sub-period were the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of the Deccan and the Chāvadas of Gujarat. In both countries, new strong ruling clans were substituted which re-established the power of Mahārāṣtra and Gujarat. In Bengal, the Pāla power declined in this sub-period and a new power arose viz. that of the Senas and divided rule in Bengal with the Pālas, while in Dravida, the Chola power became ascendant and attempted a Digvijaya extending as far as the Ganges and even the Himalayas. Soon however, the Eastern Gangas established again a separate kingdom in Kalinga or Telangana and confined the Cholas to the Tamil or Dravida land. Thus practically the several divisions of India marked by distinct peculiarities of language, climate and soil were under distinct ruling families in this sub-period also and formed disinct kingdoms. Why these kingdoms, large enough as they were compared with the small kingdoms of Mediæval or even modern Europe, did not develop into strong countries or nations is the problem which a historian of Mediæval Hindu India has to solve. Small Christian kingdoms of Europe could withstand the onslaught of Arabs and Turks and preserve their independence while Hindu kingdoms in India, large though they were, finally fell before the Turks and Afghans at the end of this sub-period.
v3.c41.s21.7
The reason appears to be, as shown elsewhere, that these different Hindu kingdoms did not develop the sentiment of nationality under the influence of which even small states in Europe like Holland or Belgium, Hungary or Poland, have preserved their independence against the onslaught of Germany or Turkey for hundreds of years. There was a modicum of the sentiment of nationality no doubt in the Hindu states in the last sub-period, but even that disappeared in this sub-period "for reasons which we have to elucidate in this volume" (See Vol. II p. 227). The chief cause lies in our view in the solidification of caste which took place in this sub-period as already described.
v3.c41.s21.8
Various causes such as the growing ideas of purity of race and the adoption of vegetarian food by many communities under the revived influence of the doctrine of Ahimsā in this sub-period led each caste and sub-section of caste to isolate itself in food and marriage. The Hindu society consequently split up into hundreds of self-contained communities and thus lost its solidarity. The feeling of self-interest in the independence of the country as a whole was gone. Intermixture of blood by marriage in the previous sub-section kept up the idea of unity and interdining added its unifying quota of influence. Under the revived religious fervour of orthodox Hinduism again, it came to be considered that it was the duty and the privilege of the Kshatriya alone to rule. Indeed it is remarkable that all the different ruling families in India in this sub-period were Kshatriyas or claimed to be Kshatriyas. These ruling families, especially the Rajputs, formed themselves into a closed group under the same influence of caste solidification; and lost touch not only with the other varṇas but also with the agricultural Kshatriyas. The political apathy of the people became, therefore, phenomenal. It was believed that the kingdoms belonged to the kings as their private property and if the Rajput kings lost their property, the people had only to transfer their allegiance to the next owner, whoever that may be. The rights of kings were to be defended by the ruling clan whose privilege it was to rule. The peoples' duty was to obey any king whom God chose by giving him success in battle. The feeling of nationality thus completely died; and even among Rajputs, neither patriotism nor nationality remained but only the sentiment of loyalty. The Rajputs forgot that it was their duty to preserve the independence of the people of the kingdom. The only sentiment that remained or was appealed to in the Rajput soldier, was that of loyalty or service of the master who paid him; and as shown elsewhere, the Rajput soldiers were ready to die even for their Mahomedan king and master when the rule of the Ghaznavide Mahomedan kings was substituted for that of the Shahi Hindu kings of Kabul. It is, therefore, no wonder that the Hindu kingdoms of this sub-period were weak and that no national resistance was offered when the Rajput armies of Prithvīrāj and Jaichand were defeated in single battles and these two heroic kings were killed in the contest.
v3.c41.s21.9
It is a pity that the keen intellect of the Hindus did not find out the true essentials of a state and did not evolve its true theory. But this is not to be wondered, as even in the west, the paternal theory of kingship was in the ascendancy so late as the eighteenth century. In India the same theory is propounded in its law treatises. It must be said, however, to the credit of Hindu kings, generally as of this period, that they always carried this parental idea into real practice and rarely oppressed their subjects by acts of wanton cruelty. The legend of the herb of longevity given by Ufi in his Jamiyat-ul-Hikayat (E. II. p. 174) is interesting in this connection and shows how Indian kings, in comparison with Mahomedan kings, were less oppressive and believed that tyrannical kings had their lives shortened by the curses of their oppressed subjects. Whatever the value of this story, it may be believed that the inspiring example of Rāma, the ideal king of Ancient India was always before the Hindu kings and we rarely meet with mention of tyrannical kings in mediæval records except perhaps in the history of Kashmir. The expenses again of Hindu states were very limited. The absence of standing armies and of foreign bureaucracies explains the inexpensiveness of mediæval Hindu kingdoms and the generally less cruel Hindu temperament made even despotic kingdoms of mediæval Hindu India well-governed and happy. They in fact secured internal and external peace with the minimum of taxation. It may seem paradoxical but it is nevertheless true that a despotic Hindu king in mediæval times was less expensive than a modern foreign bureaucracy. As we shall presently see, civil and military rule in mediæval Hindu kingdoms was much less costly than modern British or Mogul rule. Lastly, the Hindu kings had no legislative power and could not enact new laws or amend old ones or impose new taxes. Their zulum where it did exist was always personal. The common people were content to live under such limited monarchies and never consequently worked to obtain political power through popular assemblies as in the west. Moreover, popular assemblies also, according to the religious belief of the Hindus, had no power to enact new laws or to alter or abrogate old ones. Even civil law and the law of offences and punishments together with even the nature and amount of taxation was laid down by the Smritis. Hence the need of peoples' assemblies was never felt in Hindu kingdoms. The absence, however, of such institutions, coupled with the wrong theory of state wherein the king was looked upon as the owner of the kingdom and not the people, led to one baneful result viz. weakness of the sentiment of nationality which, completely dying in this sub-period, the Hindu kingdoms of India were easily destroyed.
v3.c41.s21.10
The king was thus not assisted in the administration of the country, by any popular assembly or constitutional ministers, but by ministers appointed by him and holding office during his pleasure. How many these were and what were their functions, it would be interesting to find out, not from Niti-śāstras (books on polity) whose dates of compositions are yet unsettled, but from inscriptions recorded in this sub-period. And curiously, inscriptions usually recording grants of inam villages do contain the names of all the ministers as well as local and provincial officers. This list is generally most detailed in Bengal inscriptions and we find the following ministers mentioned therein: 1 Rājāmātya 2 Purohita 3 Mahādharmādhyaksha, 4 Mahāsāndhivigrahika 5 Mahāsenāpati 6 Mahāmudrādhikrita (Great Keeper of the Seal) 7 Mahākshapaṭalika, 8 Mahāpratihāra 9 Mahābhogika and 10 Mahāpilupati (E. I. XIV p. 159).* The word Mahā attached to these names showed that there were officers subordinate to them while they personally waited upon the king and were the head of their departments. (This word Mahā was first added to these names by a Kashmir king Vol. I p. 209). Besides these there were the chief queen, the chief prince (heir apparent) and subordinate kings who are also mentioned in inscriptions; but these were probably not always consulted though the land grants required to be brought to their notice also. In Gāhadavāla grants we have mention of the following officers: 1 Mantrī 2 Purohita 3 Pratihāra 4 Senādhipati 5 Bhāndāgārika and 6 Akshapaṭalika, besides 7 the Physician, 8 the Astrologer and 9 the Master of the Household (Antahpurika). The Dūta is mentioned also and the queen and the Yuvarāja or heir apparent (Govindachandra's inscriptions I. A. XVIII p. 15 and E. I. IV p. 101). In a Chedi inscription of Karṇa are mentioned: 1 The great queen 2 The great prince 3 Mahāmantrī 4 Mahā-Sāndhivigrahika 5 Mahāmātya 6 Mahā-Dharmā-dhikaraṇika 7 Mahāpratihārī 8 Mahākshapaṭalika 9 Mahā-bhāndāgārika 10 Mahāsāmanta 11 Mahāpramattakarī and 12 Mahāśvasādhanika (E. I. XI p. 41). Unfortunately we have no mention of court officers in grants of the Paramāra, Chandella and southern Chālukya kings. But as already stated (p. 247) Thana Śilāhāra grants not only contain the mention, but also the consent-signatures, of 1 Mahāmātya, 2 Mahāsāndhivigrahika, 3 Śrīkaraṇa and two Bhāndhāgārikas. The Bhadan plates (E. I. XII p. 251) in addition to these, mention 1 Rājaputra 2 Mantrī 3 Purohita and 4 Amātya. The chief minister is further described as 'bearing the burden of the care of the whole state.' From these descriptions not differing much from one another in the several states, we will try to find out what and how many ministers assisted the kings in this sub-period of mediæval Hindu history.
v3.c41.s21.11
∗ In Madanapāla's grant (J. B. LXIX p. 71) we have besides 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, Mahāsāmanta, and Mahākumārāmātya i. e. the great sardar and the great minister for princes.
v3.c41.s21.12
The chief queen and the chief prince as also the physician, the astrologer and the Purohita or religious preceptor were persons of importance in every kingdom; but they were not ministers. The prime minister there was, but he was called Mantrin in some and Mahāmātya in others. The word Mantrin means counsellor and Amātya means a constant attendant. The foreign minister or Mahāsāndhivigrika is there, as also the chief revenue minister called Mahākshapaṭalika, a word substitued in Thana by Śrīkaraṇa or master of land register. The finances and treasury were under the Bhāndāgārika. The commander-in-chief was also there. In Bengal there was in addition the chief officer for elephants, the elephant arm in Bengal being maintained at great strength (in fact the kings of Bengal were called Gajapatis) and in other states there was the chief cavalry officer. It is curious to find no mention of the Chief Justice or chief judicial officer. Probably the king himself decided such cases as came to the highest court with the help of all these officers and assessors, as we will show later. The king was not bound to consult his ministers though he usually did so. In Thana, however, it seems that not only was he bound to consult them but that the signatures of consent of his five ministers were necessary for the validity of land grants and presumably of other state orders. This was a practice peculiar to the Śilāhāra kingdom of Thana. It shows the advanced nature of its administration, involving the doctrine of the reponsibility of ministers. Or perhaps it may be that Thana being originally subordinate to the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, important ministers were appointed from the imperial court and their consent was considered necessary to every important act and the practice continued even after the Śilāhāras became independent. This system, however, of mediæval ministry together with ministers' names entirely disappeared in Mahomedan times, so much so that when Hindu rule was revived under Śivaji, we have different names and functions assigned to ministers as we proceed to show in a note.