Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s13: Vākāṭaka Administration and Society

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s13

Language
English

Vākāṭaka Administration and Society

v1.c8.s13.1

IT is not yet possible for the historian to give a vivid and comprehensive picture of the administration of the Vākāṭakas and of the life of people living under their rule. The material available for the purpose is very meagre. Their records, discovered so far, are few in number, and the vast majority of them happen to be those issued during the minority or reign of a single ruler, viz. Pravarasena II. The Vākāṭaka copper plates mention only a few officers and hardly supply us with any material for giving an adequate picture of the central and local administration. No foreign traveller visited their court, who could have left for us an account of the condition of the people under their rule. There are hardly any literary works that can be assigned to their period and kingdom, containing any information useful for the historian. We can, therefore, give at present only a very incomplete account of the Vākāṭaka administration and society.

v1.c8.s13.2

At the head of the Vākāṭaka government was the king of the dynasty, whose post was hereditary. The second ruler of the house, Pravarasena I, made extensive conquests and found it convenient to entrust the different parts of his far-flung empire to the charge of his four sons, who eventually established practically independent houses after their father's death. This division weakened the empire and caused a number of complications in the reign of Rudrasena I, the successor of Pravarasena I. Later on therefore the same mistake was not repeated, and the kingdom was not again divided among rival brothers. Two of the three Vākāṭaka family branches, founded at the death of Pravarasena I, appear to have been reabsorbed in the main kingdom; but the house founded by his son Sarvasena at Vatsagulma (the modern Basim) continued to exist almost as an independent dynasty until the end of the fifth century. The unwisdom of the division of the kingdom into smaller semi-independent units was fully realized by the rulers of the direct line, and they appear not even to have permitted feudatories within their jurisdiction. Koṇḍarāja and Nārāyaṇa-Mahārāja no doubt figure in the records of Pravarasena II,¹ but their titles, *rājā* and *mahārāja*, seem to be purely formal. Even if they were feudatories, it does not seem that they enjoyed any considerable ruling power. They are seen requesting the Vākāṭaka king to make certain land grants for some projects in which they were interested. If they were feudatories at all, it is certain that their ruling powers were very limited. The available evidence shows that the Vākāṭaka empire was more united and centralized and less perforated by semi-independent feudatory states than was the case with the Sātavāhana, the Chālukya, or the Rāṣṭrakūṭa, empires.

v1.c8.s13.3

¹ GI, p. 235; EI, xxiii, 86.

v1.c8.s13.4

The Vākāṭaka kingdom was fairly extensive, but its rulers were content with the mere title of *mahārāja*. Only one amongst them, Pravarasena I, who was undoubtedly a great conqueror, took the title *samrāṭ*, probably because he had performed the *vājapeya* sacrifice, which, according to the sacred texts, entitles a ruler to assume that designation. His successors reverted to the old and simple title *mahārāja*. We have shown already that this title had nothing whatever to do with any imagined reduction of the Vākāṭaka sovereigns at any time to mere feudatory status,¹ and had in fact no connexion with such a status, whether real or fancied.

v1.c8.s13.5

¹ *Supra*, pp. 168-9.

v1.c8.s13.6

Members of the royal family like the Yuvarāja (heir-apparent) and other princes must have been entrusted with some duties in the administration, but we have no definite information on the point. Queens of reigning monarchs or princesses do not figure as administrative officers, as we find that they do in the Chālukya administration. Dowager queens, however, used to supervise and direct the administration, if the heir-apparent to the throne happened to be a minor. Prabhāvatīguptā, the widow of Rudrasena II, successfully steered the ship of state through troubled waters for a period of about twenty years. Adequate steps were taken to give proper literary and administrative training to the royal princes. Most probably Kālidāsa was one of the tutors of Pravarasena II. Contemporary records show that young princes used generally to receive special training in the military art at this time;² the same usage must have been the practice of the Vākāṭaka rulers.

v1.c8.s13.7

² *IA*, vii, 37.

v1.c8.s13.8

Curiously enough ministers are referred to very rarely in the Vākāṭaka records. Only one of them, that in the Ajanta caves, refers to a minister, without giving the designation of his portfolio. We may, however, assume that the non-reference to ministers in other Vākāṭaka records is accidental and that the Vākāṭaka government was carried on by the king with the help of an adequate number of advisers and deputies, as was the case in other contemporary administrations. The Ajanta record indicates that some of the ministers held hereditary offices and that all of them were usually well trained in the sciences of politics and warfare. The prime-minister was in charge of the whole administration; it is probably he who is referred to by the appropriate and significant title *sarvādhyaksha*. How he conducted the administration is, however, but imperfectly known, for the Vākāṭaka plates refer only to a very few officers. In the Deccan records of the successors of the Vākāṭakas, the provincial, district and subdivisional officers, as also the hereditary officers of the villages, are usually mentioned in connexion with the exhortation not to disturb the possession of the donees of the grants. The Vākāṭaka records, however, mention only four classes of officers.¹ Of these, *chaṭās* and *bhaṭās* refer to the members of the police and military forces and throw no light on the administrative machinery. The term *santaka*, which is mentioned in the exhortation, seems to denote officers in general, or perhaps the district officers, but we have as yet not sufficient data for defining the scope of their office or duties. The last class of officers mentioned in our records is, however, very interesting. They are described as high officers conveying the orders of the central government and appointed by or working under the direction of the *sarvādhyaksha* or prime-minister. These were obviously the inspectors appointed by the central government to tour in the kingdom and find out whether its orders were being properly carried out or not by the subordinate and district officers. The inspection machinery of the central government is but rarely referred to in ancient Indian records, and the Vākāṭaka plates are, therefore, regarded as very valuable evidence in this respect by the student of ancient Indian administration.

v1.c8.s13.9

¹ *Asmat-santakāḥ sarvādhyakṣaniyoganiyuktāḥ ājñā-sañchārikula-putrādhikṛtāḥ bhaṭāḥ chatrāścha*, EI, xxiii, 86.

v1.c8.s13.10

The officer of the title *rajjuka* figures in a solitary record as its writer;² but what precisely was his function we do not know. Probably he was an officer in charge of the revenue administration and of the measurement of the lands in the kingdom. Hence we find him sometimes entrusted with the task of executing charters alienating land revenues.

v1.c8.s13.11

² EI, xxiv, 56.

v1.c8.s13.12

*Bhukti*, *rāṣṭra*, and *rājya* are the names of territorial divisions occurring in the Vākāṭaka records, but they seem to indicate the same administrative unit.³ None of them is ever mentioned as forming part of or situated within the limits of the other. They, therefore, seem to have all denoted the district units into which the kingdom had been divided, and which appear to have been differently designated in different parts of the kingdom according to local tradition. Districts were divided into smaller administrative divisions. Sometimes these were known after the chief town included in them; thus, for instance, *Pravareśvara-shaḍviṁśaka* denoted a subdivision of twenty-six villages of which Pravareśvara was the chief town.⁴ Sometimes the subdivisions of the district were simply known as its eastern or western part.⁵

v1.c8.s13.13

³ Asi-bhukti, EI, xxv, 265. Pakkaṇa-rāṣṭra, EI, xxiv, 261; Bhogakaṭaka-rājya, GI, p. 241.

v1.c8.s13.14

⁴ EI, xxiv, 265.

v1.c8.s13.15

⁵ Cf. Bennakaṭasya aparabhāge, GI, p. 246.

v1.c8.s13.16

Districts were in charge of officers of the central government probably designated as *santakas*. They were heads of the general administration and were responsible for the maintenance of law and order and the collection of land revenue. Members of the police and military force (*chaṭāḥ* and *bhaṭāḥ*) helped them in this work and worked under their general direction. The central government controlled the district administration through its inspecting staff, which has been already referred to above.

v1.c8.s13.17

We get very little information about the village administration in the Vākāṭaka records. The elders of the village of Kadambagiri are referred to in one record and exhorted not to disturb the possession of the donee.¹ We may, however, safely conclude that village administration under the Vākāṭakas was carried out by a council of village elders presided over by the village headman, as was the case in other contemporary and earlier states.² The precise nature of the powers of the village council or of the control exercised over it by the central or district government is not known.

v1.c8.s13.18

¹ *EI*, xix, 102. ² *EI*, xxiv, 267; *GI*, p. 240. ³ *GI*, p. 245. ⁴ *GI*, p. 236. ⁵ *EI*, iii, 260-2.

v1.c8.s13.19

Some of the Vākāṭaka plates state at their end that when they were issued, so and so was the *senāpati* or the general of the king. Thus Chitravarman was the *senāpati* of Pravarasena II when one of his incomplete charters was issued in the eleventh year of his reign, as also when the Chammaka plates were issued seven years later. Six months later, however, when the Sivani plates were issued, Bappadeva was the *senāpati*.³ The manner in which the names of the generals are mentioned at the end of the copper plates suggests that their importance was next to that of the king himself. May it be that the names of these generals are given in this prominent manner because they were the prime-ministers or *sarvādhyakṣas*? Military skill and leadership was one of the necessary qualifications for appointment to ministerial posts in contemporary times. Many of the ministers of the Guptas were *daṇḍanāyakas* or *senāpatis*, and the same may have been the case under the Vākāṭakas as well.

v1.c8.s13.20

Let us now consider the different items of revenue in the Vākāṭaka state. We can get some indirect idea in this connexion from the privileges and exemptions granted to the donees of the copper plates. They are usually given the right to work salt mines, appropriate hidden treasures, and use village pastures.⁴ This would suggest that normally the state claimed ownership over all mines and treasure troves, as also over the waste lands in the kingdom. The same probably was the case with forests. The ownership of the cultivable lands was vested in private owners. When villages were granted by the state, their rights were not affected. Formerly they had been accustomed to pay their taxes to the state, now they had to pay them to the donee or grantee. It is not, however, to be supposed that the state owned no arable land at all. Sometimes it would reclaim forest land and become its owner. Sometimes some pieces of land would lapse to it for lack of heirs or would be taken over in default for non-payment of the land tax. Pieces of land thus owned by the state formed, however, only a very small part of the total cultivable land. Sometimes we find the Vākāṭaka kings giving such lands to temples or Brāhman colonists.

v1.c8.s13.21

The land tax was the main source of the state revenue, but curiously enough we do not know what technical name it bore. The usual expressions for it like *bhāgakara*, *bhogakara*, or *udraṅga* or *uparikara* do not occur in our records.

v1.c8.s13.22

Probably the expression *klipta* figuring there refers to it. The incidence of this tax is not known. It was probably paid in kind.

v1.c8.s13.23

Import duty was another source of state revenue. Fuel, vegetables, flowers, milk-products, &c., had to pay a duty when they were imported, whether into a village or into a town. The same must have been the case with more important articles like cloth, grain, and oil, though they are not especially mentioned in our records. Whether there were excise duties on the manufacture of cloth and wines we do not know.

v1.c8.s13.24

The visits of the inspecting or detective staff were usually recognized functions. The expenses connected with their stay had to be borne by the villagers; the donees of the religious grants are seen to have been exempted from such payments. The inspectors had also to be provided with free labour and transport (*begār*) in order to enable them to move on to their next halting-place.

v1.c8.s13.25

We thus get only an imperfect picture of the Vākāṭaka administration, but such evidence as we possess indicates that it was on the whole vigilant and efficient. Copper plate grants were not issued before they had been checked; each of them usually bears a certificate to this effect, as testified by the term *dṛiṣṭam* inscribed on the plate. There is evidence to show that inaccurate or unsatisfactory plates were rejected.¹ Still more interesting is it to note that even the Brāhman donees of the copper plate grants were not permitted to be a law to themselves; some of the grants expressly lay down specific conditions under which alone the grants were to be continued. First of all they and their descendants were to be loyal to the state and to offer the fullest co-operation in apprehending persons guilty of treason, theft, and immorality. They were further not to interfere with the rights of neighbouring villages.² If these conditions were not fulfilled, the state could resume the grant without any moral or spiritual compunction. Land also was carefully surveyed according to the measure determined by the state, and the requisite entries were made in the relevant records. There is no evidence to show how far the people themselves had any voice in the administration, but there can be no doubt that in the sphere of village government, at any rate, the village councils consisting of the village elders had a decisive voice.

v1.c8.s13.26

¹ See *EI*, xxii, 209.

v1.c8.s13.27

² *GI*, iii, 236 ff.

v1.c8.s13.28

Let us now survey the religious condition of the people. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism were the three main religions of the age, but, strangely enough, we get no reference whatsoever to any Jaina temple or establishment in the Vākāṭaka records. Very probably few among the Vākāṭaka subjects were followers of Mahāvīra.

v1.c8.s13.29

Buddhism was fairly popular in the Deccan at this time. The inscriptions and monuments of Kārli, Bhājā, Junnar, Nāsik, and other places show that the gospel of the Buddha was accepted by a large number of people in Western India belonging to the Brāhman, Kshattriya, and Vaishya classes, and following various professions such as medicine, metal-working, wood-working, the distribution of food-stuffs, &c. This continued to be the case down to the fourth century A.D. at least. It is interesting to note that Junnar possessed a nunnery as well.¹

v1.c8.s13.30

¹ ASWI, iv, 33.

v1.c8.s13.31

Ajanta and Ellora were still flourishing centres of Buddhism during our period, as is shown by the caves, sculptures, and paintings at these places. The majority of these caves were executed in the Vākāṭaka period, and this would not have been possible if Buddhism had not possessed a large following among the wealthy classes. The Vākāṭaka rulers were all Hindus, but it would not be surprising if new records were to be discovered showing that they had contributed liberally to the development of the Buddhist establishments at these two places, both situated within their kingdom. At any rate some of their ministers are known to have been Buddhists and figure among the donors of a few of the caves.

v1.c8.s13.32

Ajanta was the centre to which several famous Buddhist monks who were widely known throughout the country were attached. One of these was Sthavirāchala, who figures in a record in Cave 26. He is probably to be identified with the Arhat A-che-lo mentioned by Yuan Chwang.²

v1.c8.s13.33

² Watters, ii, 239-40.

v1.c8.s13.34

The Vākāṭaka period (c. A.D. 250-550) coincides with the golden and creative period of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Not far from the boundary of the kingdom lived the famous Mahāyāna philosopher, Nāgārjuna, at Nāgārjunikoṇḍa on the bank of the Kṛṣṇā. By founding the Śūnyavada he infused new life into Indian Buddhism and helped the eventual development of the Advaita school in the Hindu Vedānta. It is no wonder that the Buddhists of the Ajanta and Ellora monasteries during this period should have been mostly Mahāyānists, and that they did not subscribe to the simpler Hīnayāna dogma of barren atheism. A record at Ajanta definitely asserts that the Buddha has not been dissolved into nothingness, but has won immortality for himself and continues to govern the world and to guide his devotees from his abode high above the universe.³ It is but natural that owing to the influence of the dogma, the Mahāyānists should have introduced the images of the Buddha at suitable places in the earlier Hīnayāna caves at Ajanta, which suggested the presence of the master only by significant symbols like the stūpa.

v1.c8.s13.35

³ Burgess, Cave Temples of Western India, p. 77.

v1.c8.s13.36

It is not to be supposed that Buddhism was confined only to the places mentioned above. A record in the Chanda District shows that a local king named Sūryaghosha had the misfortune to have his son killed by an accidental fall from the palace.⁴ He decided to commemorate his memory by erecting a temple in honour of the Buddha. It is thus sufficiently clear that Buddhism must have found adherents in many individuals scattered all over the kingdom, though no sufficient inscriptions or other evidence has survived to our time to substantiate this statement.

v1.c8.s13.37

⁴ JRAS, 1905, p. 617.

v1.c8.s13.38

The relations between Buddhism and Hinduism were on the whole friendly.

v1.c8.s13.39

The followers of each faith naturally claimed that their own gospel was superior to the other. The monk Sthavirāchala of Ajanṭā, for instance, proudly points out that gods in Hinduism are subject to decay, that even Kṛṣṇa had to succumb to death and that Mahādeva could not escape from a curse, but that the Buddha on the other hand is ever immortal, ever free from fear and always guiding the destinies of the universe.¹ Hindus on their part advanced similar claims and maintained that the doctrine of the Void as taught by Buddhists was obviously unsatisfactory. These philosophical wranglings could have led to persecutions of the adherents of one faith by those of the other. The common people, however, had the good sense to realize that each religion was good in its own way and led to the same goal though by a different road. Each should follow the gospel that appealed to him most, without caring to see what others were doing.

v1.c8.s13.40

¹ Cave Temples of Western India, p. 77.

v1.c8.s13.41

Let us now survey the position of Hinduism. Early in the period under study Vedic sacrifices were still popular all over India, and we find Pravarasena I, the real founder of the Vākāṭaka greatness, performing a number of them like Agniṣṭoma, Āptoryāma, Ukthya, Shoḍashin, Atirātra, Vājapeya, Bṛhaspatisava, and Sādyaskra. He was a great conqueror and it is therefore no wonder that he should have celebrated the Aśvamedha sacrifice as many as four times. Though the Vākāṭakas were Brāhmans, Pravarasena’s zeal for Vedic religion did not descend to any of his successors. None of them seems to have cared to perform even a single Vedic sacrifice. The fact was that the Smārta religion was fast getting the upper hand over the Śrauta form of faith. Pravarasena’s grandson Rudrasena I became a Śaivite, probably under the influence of his maternal grandfather Bhavanāga of the Bhāraśiva dynasty. All the subsequent Vākāṭaka kings were devotees of Śiva, with the exception of Rudrasena II, who became a Vaiṣṇava under the influence of his wife Prabhāvatīguptā and her illustrious father Chandragupta II. It should, however, be noted that the followers of Śiva and Viṣṇu lived in complete amity, and that members of the same family often changed the object of their devotion according to their individual inclinations. Thus the Naḷa king Bhavattavarman was a Śaivite; he attributed his successes to the favour of Mahāsena. But his son Skandavarman, who built a Viṣṇu temple, was a Vaiṣṇavite.² Pravarasena II was a Śaivite but he wrote his Setubandhu to glorify the achievements of Rāma, an incarnation of Viṣṇu. In fact the Vākāṭakas paid particular reverence to the god Rāmagirisvāmin, whose temple was situated on the hill at Rāmtek, not far from their capital.³

v1.c8.s13.42

² EI, xxi, 155.

v1.c8.s13.43

³ JASB, xx, 56.

v1.c8.s13.44

As far as the ordinary Hindus were concerned, they had a much more fervent faith in the Paurāṇic than in the Vedic deities. In their daily life they used to perform the sandhyā and the five great sacrifices recommended by the Smritis. They also occasionally went on pilgrimage to holy places like Prayāga, as the Naḷa king Bhavattavarman did after his victory over the Vākāṭakas.¹ The Paurāṇic vratas had not yet become popular in our age. In fact those portions of the modern Purāṇas which recommend them had not yet been added to these works in our period. The Ekādaśī-vrata was, however, already in vogue; many of the Vākāṭaka grants are made a day or two after the Ekādaśī. Eclipses and Saṅkrāntis were apparently not regarded as particularly suitable occasions for religious charity in our age; no Vākāṭaka grant is to be seen made on their occurrence.

v1.c8.s13.45

¹ EI, xix, 102.

v1.c8.s13.46

The cult of the temple was gradually becoming more and more popular. Free feeding houses were often conducted under its auspices; the Pattan plates grant of Pravarasena II was ordained for the purpose of defraying the expenses of a sattra attached to a temple of Mahāpuruṣa or Viṣṇu.² On the other hand, there is no evidence to show that temples had become centres of education in our period.

v1.c8.s13.47

² EI, xxiii, 86.

v1.c8.s13.48

The Vākāṭaka records throw very little light on contemporary social life. The caste system existed in Hindu society, but it was not yet very rigid. There was considerable freedom in the choice of professions. The Vākāṭakas were themselves actually Brāhmans, but were still following the Kṣattriya profession of kingship. The percentage of Brāhmans among their officers was probably fairly large. Intercaste marriages were also permitted in our period. The Vākāṭakas, though Brāhmans, had no hesitation in accepting a Gupta princess in marriage, belonging to the Vaiśya caste. Soma, the ancestor of one of their ministers, though a Brāhman by caste, had also married a bride of the Kṣattriya caste, and his descendant Hastibhoja insists on pointing out that it was a procedure fully approved both by the Śrutis and the Smritis. At a time when intercaste marriages evoked no opposition, interdining must naturally have also been fairly common. The Upanayana ritual was gradually getting unpopular among both the Kṣattriyas and the Vaiśyas in this period.³

v1.c8.s13.49

³ ASWI, iv, 140.

v1.c8.s13.50

A few words may be added about the position of women. Pre-puberty marriages gradually became the order of the day in our age, at least in Brāhman families. This put an end to the education and Upanayana of girls. The widow's right to inherit the property of her husband was being advocated in our age, but was meeting with strenuous opposition. The satī custom was followed in rare cases in Kṣattriya families. The paintings in Ajaṇṭā caves show that women commanded respect in society.

v1.c8.s13.51

As pointed out already, neither monasteries nor temples had developed into centres of education in the Vākāṭaka age. Education used to be imparted by private teachers, who were the pivots of the educational system. These were all Brāhmans and they usually congregated in capitals and holy places, as they could easily get state and public support at these centres. Nāsik, Pravarapura, Vatsagulma, and Paithana were the main centres of higher education in the Vākāṭaka dominions. Agrahāra colonies consisting of learned Brāhmans settled in certain villages, the revenues of which had been assigned to them by way of maintenance, were also centres of higher learning. There were probably several Agrahāra villages in the Deccan of our period, but unfortunately we do not get any reference to them in the extant Vākāṭaka grants. There can, however, be no doubt that the Vākāṭakas, like their contemporary rulers, must have created a large number of such centres for the purpose of promoting religion, education and culture. Some of these Brāhman donees who had been assigned grants by the state used to conduct large schools, where they were accustomed to impart free education. Thus the donee of the Pāṇḍurangapalli grant (c. A.D. 500) is described as a teacher of hundreds of Brāhmans.

v1.c8.s13.52

A number of books were no doubt written in Sanskrit and Prākṛit on various subjects during the Vākāṭaka period, but very few of them can be definitely assigned to authors belonging to the Deccan. The Purāṇas were remodelled, the Yājñavalkya, Nārada, and Kātyāyana Smṛitis were written, and the Śabarabhāshya, the Vyāsabhāshya, the Padārthasaṃgraha, the Sāṅkhyakārikā and the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra were composed in our period, but whether the authors of any of these works were subjects of the Vākāṭaka kings we do not know. Bhāsa, Śūdraka, Viśākhadatta and Kālidāsa no doubt flourished in our period, but we have no information as to whether they were natives of the Deccan or composed their works there.

v1.c8.s13.53

It is very likely that Kālidāsa lived for some time in the Vākāṭaka court and we may well presume that part of his Meghadūta was composed at Rāmaṭeka, the place of his hero's exile. The only work that can be definitely ascribed to the Deccan of the Vākāṭaka age is the Prākṛit poem Setubandha, written by King Pravarasena II and revised by the poet Kālidāsa himself.

v1.c8.s13.54

Very little light is thrown by the Vākāṭaka documents on contemporary economic conditions. The Deccan and Teḷaṅgana were famous for their fine muslins in the second century A.D. and we may presume that the cloth industry continued to flourish during our period. Paithan was one of its most important centres. Contemporary records show that the different trades were organized into autonomous guilds elsewhere in India; earlier Deccan records prove that they were very popular in that province also in the Sātavāhana period. We may therefore well conclude that they were equally efficient and popular under the Vākāṭakas and that the non-occurrence of any mention of them in their records is purely accidental.

v1.c8.s13.55

Like many other contemporary dynasties of the Deccan, the Vākāṭakas issued no state currency. We have shown already how the view that Rudrasena, Pravarasena and Pṛithvīsheṇa had issued their own coinages is altogether untenable. Retail commerce on a small scale was carried out with cowries (shells) as the means of exchange. Barter was also extensively practised. Bullion was used for more important transactions. The rate of interest probably varied from 12 to 24 per cent.

Linked texts (18)