State and Government in Ancient India c17.s2: Divisional Administration
State and Government in Ancient India c17.s2
- Language
- English
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.