Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c17: Chapter X: Provincial, Divisional, District and Town Administration

State and Government in Ancient India c17

Language
English

Contents

Chapter X: Provincial, Divisional, District and Town Administration

c17.2

Before we consider the provincial, divisional and district administration, it would be necessary to understand the scheme of territorial divisions in vogue in ancient India. It has to be observed at the outset that there was no uniformity in this respect. As in modern so in ancient days, some districts and divisions were small, while others were large. This was partly due to difference in population and fertility and partly to political causes. If a feudatory had a small fief, which was later annexed to an empire, it would normally constitute a separate and, therefore, a small district. On the other hand, a frontier district may become large owing to gradual encroachment and expansion. The growing importance of a place would also lead to the incorporation of larger number of villages in it; thus Karhāṭaka district (*vishaya*) in Mahārāshṭra had 4000 villages in it in 768 A.D. but 10,000 in 1054 A.D.

c17.3

Small kingdoms like those of the Pallavas, the Vākāṭakas and Gahaḍawālas had naturally fewer types of territorial divisions than big empires. In the case of the former we usually find reference to only one territorial division, the district, variously called *vishaya* or *rāshtra*¹. The administrative divisions of a big empire like the Mauryan one were almost similar to those of the Union Government to-day. It was divided into provinces often as big as any in modern India. These provinces were divided into Divisions, whose heads, like the modern Commissioners, ruled over large tracts of land. The Divisions were divided into districts or *vishayas* and the latter into subdivisions variously termed as *pathakas*, *pethas* or *bhukits*. These latter were divided into smaller groups of villages, each one containing from 10 to 50 villages.

c17.4

¹ *E.g.*, *E.I.*, XXIV, p. 260; *E.I.*, XV, p. 297; *E.I.*, IX. p. 304

c17.5

Ancient Indian history extends over several centuries, and we need not be surprised if we do not find a uniformity in the nomenclatures of the different territorial and administrative divisions in the various kingdoms flourishing in different centuries and provinces. Thus *bhukti* denoted administrative division even smaller than a modern Tehsil or Taluka in the Deccan and M. P., but in northern India under the Guptas and Pratihāras it denoted a unit as large as the Commissioner’s Division in modern times. Thus *Pratishṭhanabhukti* consisted of only 12 and Koppārakabhukti of 50 villages in the Deccan under the Rāshṭrakūṭas,¹ whereas under the Guptas the Puṇḍravardhanabhukti comprised of the districts of Dinapur, Bogra and Rajshahi, and Magadhabhukti included the districts of Gayā and Pāṭaliputra.² Śrāvastibhukti under the Pratihāras included several districts in northern U. P. *Rāshṭra* was used in literature to denote a kingdom, but it was the name of a Commissioner’s Divisions under the Rāshṭrakūṭas.³ In south India, however, under the Pallava, Kadamba and Sālaṅkāyana administrations, it denoted only a district, if not a Tehsil.⁴ Sometimes, these terms were used with a certain amount of looseness; thus one Rāshṭrakūṭa document describes Nasik as a *vishaya*, and another, issued only 29 years later, calls it a *deśa*.⁵ It would, therefore, be dangerous to draw a precise and *prima facie* conclusion about the extent of an administrative division merely from its name.

c17.6

¹ *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, p. 137; see also *E. I.*, XXV, p. 269

c17.7

² *E. I.*, XV. pp. 125. ff. When the *Mitāksharā* on *Yaj.* I. 315 states that only a king can make the grant of land and not a *bhogapati*, it is obviously referring to the head of this territorial division.

c17.8

³ *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, p. 136

c17.9

⁴ *E. I.*, XV. p. 297; *E. I.*, XVI, 271; *I. A.*, V. p. 179

c17.10

⁵ *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, p. 137

Provincial Government

c17.s1.1

Provincial administrations in the modern sense of the term existed only in big kingdoms. The Mauryan empire was divided into several provinces. Five of them are known at present, Uttarāpatha, Avantirāshṭra, Dakshiṇāpatha, Kaliṅga and Prāchya with Taxila, Ujjainī, Survarṇāgiri, Tosali and Pāṭaliputra as their respective capitals. It is not unlikely that Uttarāpatha and Dakshiṇāpatha may have had several provinces under them. Under the Śuṅgas, in the beginning at any rate, the administration of Mālwa had the status and powers of a Provincial Government. The Kaṇva kingdom was probably too small to have any viceroys. The Sātavāhana empire extended over the whole Deccan, but we know very little about its provincial administration. The status of *mahākshatrapas* ruling at Banaras, Mathurā and Ujjayinī in the empire of Kanishka was undoubtedly similar to that of provincial governors. In the Gupta empire, Kathiawar, Mālwā and Gujarat had provincial administrations. In the home territories of the Rāshtrakūṭa empire, there do not seem to have been any officers with the viceregal status, but Gujarat, Banavāsi and Gaṅgavāḍī, which were new additions to the empire, had viceroys to govern them. The *Bhuktis* under the Pratīhāra empire appear to have been rather Commissioners' Divisions than provinces. The Pālas, the Paramāras, the Chaulukyas, the Chandellas, the Gāhaḍawālas and the Cholas ruled over relatively smaller kingdoms; the bigger ones amongst them like the Cholas had two grades of administrative divisions, *maṇḍala* which was roughly equal to about two or three modern districts, and *nāḍu*, which usually covered two Tehsils. Smaller kingdoms were divided only into districts and their sub-divisions.

c17.s1.2

Heads of the provincial administrations were officers of very high status. Very often princes of the blood royal were appointed to them. Thus under the Mauryas, Bindusāra, Aśoka and Kuṇāla had all served as viceroys in the different provinces of the empire¹; under the Śuṅgas, the crown prince Agnimitra was serving as viceroy in Mālwā.² Ghaṭotkacha-gupta, the Gupta viceroy of the same province in *c.* 435, was a prince of the royal family. The Gujarat viceroys under the Chālukyas and the Rāshtrakūṭas were scions of the royal family, who eventually managed to establish practically independent houses. The province of Gaṅgawāḍī in the Rāshtrakūṭa empire had the emperor’s eldest son as viceroy in *c.* 790 A. D. Of course princes of the blood royal were not always available for appointment to the viceregal posts; then they went to the most senior and trusted officers of the empire, who were usually military generals as well. Thus Nahapāṇa and Chashṭaṇa, the Deccan viceroys of the Kushāṇas, were capable generals, as also Baṅkeya, the Banavāsi viceroy of the Rāshtrakūṭa emperor Amoghvarsha I. Military leadership was regarded as an essential qualification not only for ministerial but also for viceregal posts. Viceroys enjoyed high and wide powers; they had to maintain internal order and protect the empire against the external enemies contiguous to the territories under their charge. So military leadership was essential to them.

c17.s1.3

¹ *Divyāvadāna*, p. 371.

c17.s1.4

² *Mālavikāgnimitra*, Act. V.

c17.s1.5

Provincial viceroys, being often royal princes, had their own courts and ministers. It is against the oppressive ministers that the people of Taxila had their grudge when they rose in rebellion in *c.* 280 B.C. Agnimitra, the viceroy over Mālwa, had his own ministry; the same was the case with the southern viceroys of the Rāshtrakūṭas and the Yādavas, who usually had the status of *mahāsāmantas* or feudatory rulers.¹ Viceroys were required to follow the policy of the Central Government as communicated to them either by imperial writs or through special messengers. Communications being difficult, they naturally enjoyed considerable autonomy. Like the provincial governors of the East India Company before the Regulating Act of 1773, we sometimes find them declaring their own wars and dictating their own peace, as did Agnimitra with reference to the kingdom of Berar.² This was to some extent inevitable, because there was the tacit understanding that they would try to extend the extent of the empire. They had their own military forces, and the Central Government would often summon some of their battalions to put down rebellions in other parts of the empire. Thus the Kushāṇa emperor summoned his Deccan viceroy Rudradāman to put down the revolt of the Yaudheyas in northern Rājputānā; Baṅkeya, the viceroy of Banavāsi, had to repair to Gujarat to put down the revolt there, when the Rāshtrakūṭa emperor Amoghavarsha I could not cope with the situation.

c17.s1.6

¹ *S. I. I.*, IX. Nos. 367 and 387

c17.s1.7

² *Mālavikāgnimitra*, Act I

c17.s1.8

We have no definite evidence about the part which the viceroys played in the civil and revenue administration of the province. They must obviously have been in charge of its supervision and guidance in the light of the orders received from the capital. Divisional Commissioners must have worked under their instructions. In the Gupta administration, however, the latter appear to have been directly responsible to the emperor. Thus the Divisional Commissioner of Puṇḍravardhana was appointed by Kumāragupta I and appears to have worked under his direct instructions.¹ It is, however, doubtful whether there was a viceroy between him and the emperor.

c17.s1.9

¹ *E. I.*, XV. pp. 130, 133 etc

c17.s1.10

Besides maintaining law and order and supervising revenue collection, the viceroys had to take steps for developing the resources of their provinces by constructing and repairing works of public utility like irrigation tanks and canals and to strengthen the foundation of the empire by ensuring good government and promoting public confidence. Almost all the departments mentioned in the last chapter, that existed at the imperial capital, must have had their replicas in the provincial headquarters.

c17.s1.11

The government taxes and revenues must have been first collected at the provincial headquarters. The balance that remained after meeting the charges of the provincial administration must have been sent to the imperial capital.

Divisional Administration

c17.s2.1

The next administrative unit roughly corresponded to the size of a Commissioner's Division consisting of three or four districts. It was called a *bhukti* under the Guptas and Pratīhāras, *rāshtra* under the Rāshtrakūṭas and *maṇḍala* under the Cholas and Chāulukyas. Sometimes the term *deśa* also was loosely used to denote it. *Rajjukas*, who ruled over several hundred thousands of persons in the Mauryan administration, might have corresponded to the modern Divisional Commissioners, but there is some evidence to show that they might have been known as *Prādeśikas*.

c17.s2.2

Aśoka had followed a policy of decentralisation and granted large powers to the *rajjukas*. Subject to the general imperial policy, they had full administrative powers in civil, revenue and criminal affairs. They could confer favours or impose punishments as demanded by the situation.¹ Under the Rāshṭrakūṭas, on the other hand, their powers appear to have been restricted; even Baṅkeya, the favourite Banavāsi viceroy of Amoghavarsha, had to take the imperial sanction for alienating a village in favour of a Jain temple.² Hardly any data are available to determine the powers of the officers over *bhuktis* under the Pratīhāras.

c17.s2.3

¹ Pillar Edict No. IV

c17.s2.4

² *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, p. 179

c17.s2.5

Divisional Commissioners had extensive powers over their subordinate officers. If the latter became disloyal or disaffected, they were arrested by them and sent up for further action. District officers had small forces under them; so very often departmental action against them meant a small military expedition as well. The Divisional Commissioners, therefore, had sufficiently strong military forces under their command, which were used for controlling subordinate officers and local feudatories.³ When a big campaign was planned by the king, a greater part of these forces were naturally sent to the capital.

c17.s2.6

³ *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, p. 174-9

c17.s2.7

Divisional Commissioners were also at the head of the revenue administration. They are usually mentioned among the officers who are requested not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the lands or revenues assigned to donees. The term *rajjuka* used to denote them (or the district officers) implies an intimate connection with the measurement and assessment of lands. Revenue settlement of villages or their reassessment necessitated by causes like the drying up of canals must have been carried under their supervision.

c17.s2.8

Aśoka's exhortation to his *rajjukas* to follow a uniform policy in punishments¹ implies that they had judicial powers as well; the same must have been the case with the Commissioners of the Divisions. Probably they constituted the highest court of appeal of the division.

c17.s2.9

¹ Pillar Edict IV

c17.s2.10

The patronage which the Divisional Commissioners exercised must have varied with different administrations. It must have been considerable under the Mauryas. Under the Guptas they had sometimes the power of appointing district officers,² but sometimes the emperor also exercised it. Under the Rāshṭrakūṭas not only the district officers, but even the Tehsildars were often appointed by the emperor himself.³

c17.s2.11

² *E. I.*, XV. p. 130

c17.s2.12

³ *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, p. 176

c17.s2.13

We have shown already how in historic times, there used to be no Central Assembly at the capital of the kingdom. It will be shown in chapter XI how popular village councils functioned almost all through the ancient Indian period and exercised considerable powers. It is very difficult to say whether popular councils existed at the Divisional head-quarters. The term *mahattara* denoted the members of the village councils, as will be shown in chapter XI. Among the officers requested not to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of land grants we sometimes come across *Rāshṭramahattaras*;⁴ sometimes their *adhikārins* or executive officers are also mentioned.⁵

c17.s2.14

⁴ *E. I.*, VIII. p. 186 (under the Rāshṭrakūṭas in Khándesh).

c17.s2.15

⁵ *E. I.*, XII. p. 130 (under the Kaḷachūris in Mālwā).

c17.s2.16

It is, however, difficult to say whether there was a regular popular council of *rāshṭramahattaras* to guide and advise the Divisional Commissioners. They are mentioned only in two records, and it is therefore not safe to generalise from them. It is not unlikely that the *Rāshṭramahattaras* mentioned in the above records may have been simply the notable citizens of the Division, who may not have been members of a constitutional popular council. The point, however, cannot be settled, until more evidence becomes available.

District Administration

c17.s3.1

The *vishaya* of our ancient records usually corresponded with the district of the modern administration, consisting of about a thousand to two thousand villages. This administrative unit was known as *āharaṇī* in Kāthiawār and *rāshtra* in M. P., Andhradeśa and Tamil country in the early centuries of the Christian era¹. The head of the *vishaya* was naturally called *vishayapati* or *vishayādhyaksha* in the Mauryan administration, since he is mentioned in Aśokan inscriptions immediately after the *rajjuka* and is also required to go on tour like him. *Sahasrādhipa* of the Smṛitis,² who was in charge of a thousand villages, is probably to be identified with him. The *nāḍu* was a smaller division in Tamil country, but the powers of its head were probably similar to those of a *vishayapati*.

c17.s3.2

¹ *E. I.*, XVI. p. 18; *E. I.*, XXIV, p. 261; *I. A.*, V. p. 155

c17.s3.3

² *Manu*, VII. 115; *Vishṇu*, III. 70 ff.

c17.s3.4

The district officers like the modern collectors were responsible for maintaining law and order in their districts; they had also to supervise the collection of government taxes and revenues. They were naturally assisted by a large subordinate staff; the *yuktas*, *āyuktas*, *niyutas* and *vyāpṛitas* who are exhorted in numerous records³ not to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of alienated villages, were most probably the members of the subordinate revenue staff. Some of them were known as *gopas* in the Mauryan age⁴ and as *dhruvas* in Gujarat in the post-Gupta period.⁵

c17.s3.5

³ *E. g.*, *C. I. I.*, III. p. 165; *I. A.* XIII. p. 15

c17.s3.6

⁴ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. II. Chap. 36

c17.s3.7

⁵ *C. I. I.*, III. p. 105

c17.s3.8

In order to maintain law and order, the *vishayapatis* used to have a small military force under them. The *daṇḍanāyakas*, who figure so frequently in inscriptions and seals, were probably the captains of the military units quartered in the different places to work under the orders of the district officers. The officers of the police department, known as *daṇḍapāśikas* or *choroddharanikas*, probably worked under the directions of the district officers. There is no definite information as to whether the different officers of the commerce, industry and forest departments were subject to the immediate general supervision of the *vishayapati*, though working under the direct orders of the heads of their respective department at the capital. Whether the *vishayapatis* exercised any judicial powers is also not known at present. It is, however, not unlikely that they may have presided over the district court.

c17.s3.9

The popular element had a large voice in the district administration at least in the Gupta period. The chief banker, the chief merchant, the chief artisan and the chief Kāyastha (writer) figured prominently in the council, which helped the *vishayapati* of Koṭivarsha in Bengal in the 5th century A. D. It should not be, however, supposed that only the big business dominated the district administration; the persons mentioned above were only the prominent members of the district council, which consisted of a large number of other members as well. The Faridpur Plate III¹ shows that there were about 20 members in this body, some of whom like Kulasvāmin and Śubhadeva were Brāhmaṇas and some like Ghoshachandra and Guṇachandra probably non-Brāhmaṇas. Whether the council looked after the administration of the headquarter of the district alone or of all the territories included in the district is not known. Probably the latter was the case.

c17.s3.10

¹ *I. A.*, 1912, pp. 195 ff.

c17.s3.11

Unfortunately we have no information as to how the members of the district council were elected or selected. As far as the bankers and merchants were concerned, they were obviously represented on the council by the president of their guilds, as their designation *prathama-śreshṭhin* and *prathama-sārthavāha* would show. The same was the case with the writers’ class. As far as the remaining members of the council were concerned, we shall not be wrong in assuming that persons of different classes, who had by their age, experience and character, acquired a preeminent status, were coopted to the council by a general consensus of opinion. Most probably the district council was dominated by the urban interests, but probably a few members might have hailed from the rural areas.

c17.s3.12

We get no detailed picture of the district council from pre-or post-Gupta records. But *vishayamahattaras* or members of the district council figure in a 6th century Vishṇukuṇḍin record from Andhradeśa¹ and a 9th century Rāshṭrakūṭa document from Gujarat.² We may not be, therefore, far wrong in assuming that they existed and functioned in the post-Gupta period as well, more or less on the lines similar to those obtaining at Koṭivarsha under the Guptas.

c17.s3.13

¹ *J. A. H. R. S.*, VII. p. 17

c17.s3.14

² *E. I.*, I. p. 55

c17.s3.15

The district administration was well organised in the Gupta period. It had its own Records Office in charge of a *pustapāla* (record keeper), who kept accurate records of the dimensions and ownership of not only cultivated but also the waste lands, and also of house sites in towns and villages. Even when waste lands, the ownership of which was vested in the state, were to be sold, the sanction of the popular council was necessary. Some of the land-grant charters even bear the seals of the district administration.³ Sealings of the district administrations of Rājagṛiha and Gayā were found at Nālandā, showing that their communications to outsiders bore the impress of their official seals⁴. All business was transacted methodically; even when the *vishayapati* himself wanted to purchase some waste lands in order to gift it for religious purposes, he had to appear before the council and take its permission.⁵

c17.s3.16

³ *I. A.*, 1910, p. 195; p. 204

c17.s3.17

⁴ *M. A. S. I.*, No. 66. pp. 45. ff.

c17.s3.18

⁵ *E. I.*, XXII. p. 54

Sub-Divisional Administration

c17.s4.1

Between the district and the village there were some administrative divisions, whose nature and dimensions varied widely from age to age. Manu recommends⁶ that ten villages should form one administrative unit, and ten of the latter should constitute a bigger one, consisting of 100 villages, which would roughly correspond to the modern Tehsil or Taluka. The district, which according to Manu was to consist of a thousand villages, would include ten Tehsils. The *Mahābhārata* suggests some variation in this decimal system of administrative units and recommends intermediate groups of twenty and thrity villages.¹ A glance at the epigraphical data shows that if not this exact system, its underlying principle was followed in several provinces. During the 8th and 9th centuries there were divisions of Vavullāla and Ruiddha 10 villages, Sihari and Sārakachchha 12 villages and Sebli 30 villages in the districts of Paithan (in Bombay state), Karpaṭavāṇijya, Vaṭapadraka (in Gujarat) and Purigeri (in Karnātak)² respectively. Pravareśvara was the headquarter of an administrative group of 26 villages in the Vākāṭaka kingdom in the 5th century.³ Tanukūpa, Ghaḍahaḍika and Khattadūā were the headquarters of a group of 12 villages in Rajputana, Gujarat and Bundelkhand respectively during the 11th and 12th centuries ;⁴ Nyāyapadraka group contained 17, Makkāla 42 and Varakheṭaka 63 villages⁵ in Mālwa during the same period. Divisions containing 84 and 126 villages are also known.⁶ These units seem to have been known after the name of the important towns situated in them.

c17.s4.2

⁶ VII. 115; see also *Vishṇu*, Chap. III. Kauṭilya however refers to group of five villages as the smallest administrative division. Its officer was called *Panchagrāmi*.

c17.s4.3

¹ XII. 87. 3 ff

c17.s4.4

² *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, p. 138

c17.s4.5

³ *E. I.*, XXIV. p. 264

c17.s4.6

⁴ *E. I.*, II. p. 109 ; *I. A.*, VI. pp. 193-4; *E. I.*, IV. p. 157

c17.s4.7

⁵ *E. I.*, XVIII. p. 322 ; *E. I.*, III. p. 48

c17.s4.8

⁶ *I. A.*, XIX. p. 350; *E. I.*, I. p. 317

c17.s4.9

A number of these village groups constituted something like modern Tehsil or Taluka, which was known as *pāthaka*, *peṭā*, *sthalī* or *bhukti* in the different provinces. *Kharvaṭaka* and *droṇamukha* consisting of 200 and 400 villages⁷ respectively were also sub-divisions of *vishayas* corresponding to modern Tehsils. An official like Tehsildar or Mamlatdar must have been in charge of its administration, appointed by the Central Government. He must have wielded powers similar to those of the *vishayapati*, but of course on a smaller scale.

c17.s4.10

⁷ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. II. Chap

c17.s4.11

The Tehsildars of the Central Government carried on the administration of their areas with the help of hereditary revenue officers, at least in the Deccan. They were known as *nāḍgāvuṇḍas* in Karnātak and *deśagrāmakūṭas* in Mahārāshtra.¹ Deshapandes, Sardeshpandes and Deshmukhs of the Maratha period were their descendants. Whether there existed similar hereditary Tehsil officers in northern India is not known at present.

c17.s4.12

¹ *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, pp. 178-80

c17.s4.13

Whether the sub-divisional officers in charge of the *pāthakas*, *peṭhas* and *bhuktis* were helped and guided in administration by popular councils is the next point to be considered. There were such councils to help the district administration as shown already ; they formed a salient feature of the village administration, as will be shown in the next chapter. There is therefore nothing improbable in similar councils having functioned for the sub-divisions or Talukas also. We, however, get evidence of their existence only in Tamil country during the Chola period. How they were constituted is not yet fully known ; the Leyden grant of Animaṅgalam, however, suggestes that they included the representatives of the villages included in the *nāḍu*. The *nāḍu* assembly took active part in the periodical assessment of the land revenue as well as in the classification of land ; we find even chieftains requesting the future *nāḍus* to respect the revenue assignments made by them.² It also took suitable steps to secure relief in land tax when there was a case to justify it.³

c17.s4.14

² *S. I. E. R.*, No. 356 of 1924

c17.s4.15

³ *Ibid*, No. 556 of 1919

c17.s4.16

Like the village councils, the *nāḍu* councils gave donations of their own and administered charitable endowments given by others. Numerous cases are on record of the *nāḍu* assemblies deciding cases of accidental homicides not amounting to murder, usually requiring the culprits to endow a perpetual lamp in a local temple, no doubt for the spiritual benefit of the innocent men accidentally killed by them.¹

c17.s4.17

¹ *S. I. E. R.*, No. 217 of 1926 ; No. 411 of 1912

c17.s4.18

The last and most important link in the administration was the village. As the problems connected with it are numerous and important, we shall deal with the topic in a separate chapter to follow. We shall conclude this chapter with an account of the town administration, which yet remains to be surveyed.

Town Administration

c17.s5.1

In the modern times, the administrative organisation of a metropolitan city like Bombay differs considerably from that of an unimportant town in the moffusil. There are no doubt certain common principles underlying the constitution of the Bombay Corporation and that of a town municipality, but the former discharges many more functions and requires many more sub-committees for that purpose than is the case with the latter. The same was the case in ancient India.

c17.s5.2

We have very little information about the cities and their administration in the Vedic period. The civilisation was mostly a rural one, and towns and cities did not form its important feature. Very little is known about the town life of the period of the Later Saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas.

c17.s5.3

When, however, we reach the historic period proper, we find that the Punjab was studded with a large number of towns and cities on the eve of the invasion of Alexander the Great. Most of them were autonomous to a great extent, being governed by their own councils. How these councils were constituted is not, however, described ; very probably experienced elders were coopted on them by a general consensus of public opinion. The chief officer of the town was called Sarvārthachintaka by this time.²

c17.s5.4

² नगरे नगरे चैव कुर्यात्सर्वार्थचिन्तकम् । *Manu*, VII. 121

c17.s5.5

We get more detailed information of the administration of ordinary towns from the Gupta period onwards. It was usually presided over by an officer of the central government usually called *purapāla*. If the town was the headquarters of a district, the district officer usually discharged this duty as well. If the town was also a fort, it used to have another imperial officer called *koṭṭapāla*, who had under him a number of commandants.¹ Very often the *purapālas* were themselves military captains, as was the case with ministers and district officers as well; thus Rudrapayya, who was the prefect of the town of Saravṭura in Karnāṭak, was a bodyguard of the Rāshtrakūṭa emperor Kṛishṇa III.² Mahādeva and Pātāladeva, the joint prefects of Badāmī under Jagadekamalla in 1140, were both *daṇḍanāyakas* or military captains. Sometimes, however, the *purapālas* were selected from among scholars as well, some of whom were interested in promoting the study of ‘the everlasting six systems of philosophy.’³ It is quite possible that they might have combined the literary qualifications with military ability as well.

c17.s5.6

¹ Such was the case at Gwalior in *c.* 875 A. D.; *E. I.*, I. pp. 154-60

c17.s5.7

² *I. A.*, XVII. p. 258

c17.s5.8

³ *I. A.*, XV. p. 15

c17.s5.9

The *purapāla* or the governor was assisted by a non-official committee, variously called as *goshṭhī*, *pañchakula* or *chaukadīka*⁴ in the different parts of the country. All classes and interests were represented on the committee. Sometimes towns were divided into wards and each ward sent its own members to the committee. Thus in the town of Ghaplop in Rajputana, there were eight wards, known as *wāḍās*, each of which used to send two representatives.⁵ How the representatives were selected, we do not know. Very probably elderly persons, who had earned the regard of the residents by their experience, character and ability, must have been sent to the council by a general consensus of public opinion.

c17.s5.10

⁴ At Ghalop in Rajputana; *E. I.*, XI. p. 39

c17.s5.11

⁵ *Ibid.*

c17.s5.12

The *pañchakula* usually consisted not necessarily of five but often of a larger number of representatives thus sent by the different wards. It used to have an executive of its own for the speedy and convenient dispatch of business. The executive was called *vāra* in Rajputana and Central India during the Pratīhāra period.¹ Prima facie, this appears to be a queer name; but it was probably given to the executive because it used to change by turn (*vāra*). An 11th century record from Bhinmal refers to a gentleman as the *vārika* of the current year.² This suggests that the executive committee changed annually at the city. At Siyadoni the same persons are seen to have been *vārikas* both in 967 and in 969 A.D.³ It appears that the executive was elected at this city for a period which was longer than one year.

c17.s5.13

¹ *E. I.*, I. p. 154 and pp. 173-79

c17.s5.14

² वर्तमानवर्षवारिकजोगचंद्र । *B. G.*, I. i. p. 43

c17.s5.15

³ *E. I.*, I. 154; pp. 173-79

c17.s5.16

The number of members of the executive committee must naturally have varied according to the needs of each case. At Siyadoni they were only two but at Gwalior they were three. It was their duty to look after all the executive work, the collection of taxes, the investment and recovery of public funds, the administration of trust funds, etc.

c17.s5.17

The *vārikas* were assisted in their work by a permanent office and staff. The former was called *sthāna* in Rajputana and used to keep carefully all records of important documents⁴. Thus when the horse dealers of Pehoa decided to give a voluntary cess, they passed a formal resolution and deposited its copy in the office (*sthāna*) of the municipality, so that it might be enabled in the future to collect the dues according to the agreed scheme. A permanent secretary (*karṇaika*) was in charge of the records and correspondence of the committee. Important documents were carefully drafted by him under the instructions of the committee. He must have had a sufficient clerical staff under him. An officer called *kauptika* used to be appointed for collecting the market dues, which probably formed the main stay of the local finance. Sometimes the dues of the Central government in customs duties were collected by the town committee on its behalf; thus the pilgrim tax at Bāhuloda in Gujarat, which amounted to several lakhs, was collected in the 12th century by the local municipality on behalf of the central government.¹

c17.s5.18

⁴ लिखितं स्थानानुमतेन करणिकसर्व्वहारिणा। *E. I.*, I. p. 79

c17.s5.19

¹ *Prabandhachintāmaṇi*, p. 48

c17.s5.20

The instances of town-councils given so far all hail from Gujarat and Rajputana; but it should not be supposed that these bodies did not exist elsewhere. At Nāsik in Mahārāshṭra there was a town council (*nigamasabhā*) in the 2nd century A.D.; all documents creating or transferring rights in landed property were registered in its office.² The council of Koṭivarsha in Bengal has been already described in connection with the district administration. At the town of Guṇapura in Koṅkan, the prefect was assisted by a committee consisting of one Brāhmaṇa, one merchant and two bankers.³ The city of Aihola in Karnātak had its own corporation throughout the Rāshtrakūṭa and Chāulukya periods. The town of Mulunda of the same province was divided into five wards. As the inscription referring to this topic is fragmentary, no definite conclusion can be drawn; but it is not unlikely that the division into wards may have a reference to the representation on the committee, as was the case with the eight wards of Ghalop referred to above (p. 221). The town committees, therefore, were a common feature of the ancient Indian administration.

c17.s5.21

² *E. I.*, VIII p. 73

c17.s5.22

³ *E. I.*, III. p. 260

c17.s5.23

We shall conclude this chapter with a brief description of the corporation of Pāṭaliputra during the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C.⁴ Being imperial capital, thronged with foreigners, its constitution was somewhat different, but it followed the same general principles which governed the constitution of ordinary town committees. It consisted of a body of 30 members divided into five sub-committees. Out of these sub-committees, the one dealing with foreigners, watching their movements and providing for their needs, must have existed only in big capitals or busy ports, where they resided in large numbers. The second committee, dealing with vital statistics and registering carefully the births and deaths, is not referred to in any later inscriptions or Smṛitis. Probably it was a Mauryan innovation and did not become popular in later times. The third committee, which supervised over the manufacture of articles, must have usually existed only in industrial towns and cities. The fourth and fifth committees dealt with the fixation of fair wages, the supervision of the market, the supply of pure and unadulterated goods and the collection of the different dues and taxes from the merchants. These duties were discharged by most of the town and village boards throughout Indian history. We miss the public works committee, usually known in Tamil country as the tank or the garden committee in later times, probably because Pāṭaliputra, being the imperial capital, its needs in this connection were met by the officers and departments of the Central Government. None of the sub-committees is seen administering trust funds for the benefit of the community, as was invariably done by the town councils and village committees in later times. Probably this work was done by some purely non-official bodies, as indicated by the *Arthaśāstra*. The Greek writers do not inform us about the constitution of this board and its different sub-committees, whether they were official or non-official, elected or nominated. Pāṭaliputra being the imperial capital of a big empire, it is but natural that many officials must have been appointed on the board like the superintendents of the markets, tolls, weights and measures etc. referred to in the *Arthaśāstra*. There is, however, no direct evidence on the point. The board of moffiusil towns consisted mostly of non-officials, as shown already.

c17.s5.24

⁴ 3. Based on the *Arthaśāstra* and Megasthenes' account

Linked texts (20)