Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c21.s1: Relations with Feudatories

State and Government in Ancient India c21.s1

Language
English

Relations with Feudatories

c21.s1.1

Feudatory or semi-independent states existed in large numbers in ancient India. We have seen already how the conqueror was expected not to annex the territories of a king defeated by him, but to allow his state an autonomous existence under his overlordship. This gave rise to a large number of feudatory states. Their number was further increased when the senior posts of Divisional or Provincial governors began to become hereditary and their incumbants began to be invested with the feudatory titles like *mahārāja*, *sāmanta*, *mahāsāmanta* or *maṇḍaleśvara*. Under the Deccan administrations like those of the Yādavas or the Chālukyas, it becomes very difficult to state whether a particular *mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* was a real feudatory or a provincial viceroy with the feudatory’s titles. The confusion becomes more confounded by the practice prevailing in several localities of appointing defeated feudatories as provincial officers in the empire of the conqueror.

c21.s1.2

³ *E. I.* XII. p. 16

c21.s1.3

Till recently some of the larger Indian feudatory states like those of Hyderabad, Baroda and Kolhapur had their own feudatories; the same was the case in ancient India. Thus king Mātṛivishṇu of Eran (*c.* 480 A. D.) was a subordinate of king Suraśmichandra, who in his turn was a feudatory of the emperor Budhagupta.¹ In 813 A. D. Govinda III was the Rāshtrakūṭa emperor; his nephew Karkka was his feudatory, ruling over southern Gujarat and Sri-Budhavarsha of Salukika family was governing Siharikā 12 as a sub-feudatory, to which position he was raised by the younger brother of Karkka.² It will be thus seen that the feudatories could create their own subfeudatories, probably with the previous permission of the emperor.

c21.s1.4

¹ *C. I. I.*, III. p. 89

c21.s1.5

² *E. I.*, III. p. 53

c21.s1.6

Naturally, therefore, the status and powers of the feudatories were not the same, a circumstance which reminds us of the Indian polity under the British rule in which the different Indian princes enjoyed different privileges. The important feudatories were entitled to the use of feudal throne, fly whisk, palanquin and elephants. They were also authorised to the use of five musical instruments, *śriṅga* (horn), *śaṅkha* (conch), *bherī* (drum) *jayaghaṇṭā* (bell of victory) and *tamaṭa* (?), a privilege that was guardedly conferred by the imperial power. They were usually styled as *mahārājas*, *sāmantas*, *mahāsāmantas*, or *maṇḍasleśvaras*.

c21.s1.7

Śukra (I. 183 ff.) gives an interesting account of the grades and incomes of the different feudatories. Lowest in the rung of the ladder, Sāmanta, had a revenue of a lakh of silver Karshas, roughly equal to Rs. 40,000 of modern days. Then came Māṇḍalika with a revenue of 10 lakhs, Rājā with a revenue of 20 lakhs, Mahārāja with a revenue of 50 lakhs, Samrāṭ with a revenue of a crore, Virāṭ with a revenue of 10 crores and Sārvabhauma with a revenue of 50 crores. The scheme seems to be a theoretical and ideal one; it seems to be based more on the decimal calculations than on the realities of life. When terms like Virāṭ were in use, terms like Sāmanta and Māṇḍalika were non-existent, as also the currency in silver. Śukra's account however would give us sufficient evidence to show that several grades of feudatories existed with varying powers and incomes.

c21.s1.8

A representative of the imperial power stayed at the court of feudatory rulers to watch its interests. He exercised power of general control and supervision, similar to those of the Residents or Political Agents under the British rule. They were received, as merchant Sulaiman informs us, with profound respect due to the representatives of the imperial power. They had a large number of spies under them to detect whether the feudatory kings were contemplating sedition or revolt against the imperial power. The feudatories, on the other hand, used to appoint a representative of their own at the imperial court to keep themselves in touch with its latest trends and developments. Thus Bankeya, the feudatory governor of Banavāsi, had a representative of his named Gaṇapati at the court of the Rāshtrakūṭa emperor Amoghavarsha I (*c.* 850 A. D.).¹

c21.s1.9

¹ *E. I.*, VI. p. 33

c21.s1.10

The control, which the paramount power exercised, naturally varied with the status of the feudatory and its own capacity to check him. General obedience to imperial orders was expected and exacted. The feudatories were usually required to acknowledge their subordinate position in the official charters they issued by mentioning the name of the emperor first. They could not issue their coinage. Attendance at the imperial court was required not only on ceremonial occasions, but also at periodical intervals; epigraphs and literary works usually describe the imperial courts as teaming with feudatories come to pay personal homage to the emperor. A regular tribute had to be paid; sometimes it was sent to the imperial capital; sometimes emperors used to collect it during their tours.² Special presents were also expected on the occasions of festivity in the imperial household like marriage or the birth of a son. The feudatories were also expected to offer their daughters in marriage, in case the emepror was inclined to wed them.

c21.s1.11

² *I. A.*, XI. p. 126

c21.s1.12

Under the Gupta administration kings, who had been reduced to the feudatory status after a conquest, used to be granted imperial charters regranting them their territories under such conditions as were agreed upon.¹ Whether such a procedure was followed under other administrations, we do not know.

c21.s1.13

¹ Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta

c21.s1.14

As in medieval Europe, the feudatories had to supply a certain number of troops to their feudal lord to participate in his imperial campaigns. Kalachūri prince Soḍhadeva (*c.* 850 A.D.) participated in the Bengal campaign of his suzerain Mihira Bhoja;² Narasimha Chālukya (*c.* 910 A. D.) of southern Karnāṭak is seen fighting in U. P. against the Pratīhāra emperor Mahīpāla on behal of his overlord, the Rāshtrakūṭa emperor Indra III.³ The Chālukyas of Veṅgī had to supply forces to the Rāshtrakūṭas in their wars against the Gaṅgas of Mysore during the 9th century. Nāgarasa, a feudatory of the Gaṅgas, had, at the bidding of his sovereign, to participate with his own forces in a feud between Ayyapadeva and Vīramahendra, wherein he lost his life.⁴ Many such instances are known; the above are mere typical ones.

c21.s1.15

² *E. I.*, XII. p. 101

c21.s1.16

³ *Rāshtrakūṭas*, p. 265

c21.s1.17

⁴ *Ibid.*, pp. 91-4

c21.s1.18

The measure of internal autonomy varied according to circumstances. Bigger feudatories like the Uchchakalpas, the Parivrājakas and the Varmans under the Guptas, the Gujarat branch rulers under the Rāshtrakūṭas, and the Śilāhāra kings under the Chālukyas and the Yādavas enjoyed large amount of internal autonomy. Some of them like the Uchchakalpas do not even refer to the Imperial power in their land-grants; but this procedure was rather exceptional. Subject to the payment of a certain amount of tribute, they enjoyed full internal autonomy. They could create their own sub-feudatories and appoint their own officers. They could assign taxes, alienate villages and even sell them without any reference to the imperial power.⁵

c21.s1.19

⁵ *I. A.*, XIII. p. 136; *E. I.*, III. p. 310 The Uchchakalpa, Parivrājaka and Gujarat Rāshtrakūṭa charters were usually issued without the sanction of the imperial power

c21.s1.20

How slender was the control which the proud feudatories were generally disposed to tolerate can be judged from the following extract from a letter of Akkham, the Lohana chief of Brahmanabad, to Chacha, who called upon him to recognise his sovereignty; 'I have never shown you opposition or quarrelled with you. Your letter of friendship was received and I was much exalted by it. Our friendship shall remain and no animosity shall arise. I will comply with your orders. You are at liberty to reside at any place within the territory of Brahmanabad. If you have resolved to go in any other direction, there is nobody to prevent you or molest you. I possess such power and influence that I can render you aid.¹

c21.s1.21

¹ Elliot and Dowson, I. p. 146

c21.s1.22

Smaller feudatories naturally enjoyed far less freedom. Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja and Śatrughna Mahārāja, who were Vākāṭaka feudatories, Rudraṭa who was a feudatory of Vainya-gupta, Paramagula, a subordinate ruler of Gaṅga king Śivamāra and Bhānuśakti, who owed allegiance to the Kadambas,—all felt the necessity of securing imperial sanction for alienating the revenues of some villages in their own states.² When Budhavarsha, a feudatory of the Rāshṭrakūṭa emperor Govinda III, desired to grant a village to counteract the evil influence of Saturn, he had to supplicate for the permission of his feudal lord.³ Śaṅkaragaṇa, a feudatory of the Rāshṭrakūṭa emperor Dhruva, is seen to take the imperial permission when making a village grant.⁴ The Kadambas also exercised a similar control over their feudatories. In the Gurjara Pratīhāra empire feudatories even in the distant provinces like Kathiawar had to take imperial permission for the alienation of land or land revenues, which was usually given through the resident Political Agents, who are often seen signing the copperplate charters on behalf of the imperial power.⁵ The same practice prevailed also under the Paramāras⁶ and was followed in the 7th century in Kashmir.⁷

c21.s1.23

² *C. I. I.*, III. p. 236; *I. H. Q.*, VI, p. 53; *E.C.*, X, Gd. 47; *I.A.*, VI, pp. 31-2

c21.s1.24

³ *I. A.*, XII. p. 15

c21.s1.25

⁴ *E. I.*, IX, p. 195

c21.s1.26

⁵ *E. I.*, IX. 9

c21.s1.27

⁶ *J. A. S. B.*, VII. pp. 736-9

c21.s1.28

⁷ *I. A.*, XIII. p. 98

c21.s1.29

Third rate feudatories were subjected to still greater control and interference. Their feudal overlords and even the latter's premiers are often seen granting away villages in their kingdoms. Thus the Rāshṭrakūṭa emperor Kṛishṇa II gave a village in the jurisdiction of a Gujarat feudatory of his, king Chandragupta.¹ The Paramāra king Naravarmā gave twenty ‘ploughs’ of land in a village of his feudatory Rājyadeva.² A feudatory of the Chālukya emperor Someśvara is seen agreeing to pay five gold coins for a certain charity, because he was commanded to do so by the prime-minister of the Emperor.³ Gaṅgadeva, a feudatory of the Paramāra king Jayavarman, is seen making a land grant at the dictate of his sovereign.⁴

c21.s1.30

¹ *E. I.*, I. p. 89

c21.s1.31

² *P. R. A. S. I. W. C.*, 1920-1, p. 54 ; *Bhandarkar's List*, No. 180

c21.s1.32

³ *I. A.*, I. p. 141

c21.s1.33

⁴ *E. I.*, IX. pp. 120-3

c21.s1.34

Feudatories, who had rebelled and were defeated in war, were subjected to a number of indignities. Kumārapāla (*c.* 1150 A. D.) defeated and dethroned Vikramasiṁha, a feudatory of his, and put the former’s nephew upon the throne.⁵ Sometimes greater humiliations were in store for them ; they were often compelled to sweep the stables of the conqueror.⁶ They had to surrender their treasures, horses and elephants as a punishment for their disloyalty. Often their states were taken over or annexed, usually for a short period.

c21.s1.35

⁵ *Kumārapālaprabandha*, p. 42

c21.s1.36

⁶ *E. I.*, XVIII. p. 248

c21.s1.37

If the Central Governement became weak, the feudatories used to become practically independent. During the decline of the Gurjara Pratīhāra empire, a number of its feudatories quietly assumed the imperial title *mahārājāhdirāja-parameśvara*.⁷ They would discontinue mentioning the emperor’s name in their charter, or refer to it only in a casual manner. Their tributes would become more and more irregular. The imperial power, having become weak, would require their military support, and they could dictate their own terms when giving it. Thus Rāmapāla of Bengal had to pay a heavy price for getting the support of his feudatories to win the throne. If there was a war of succession, their position would be still stronger; they could then take sides and try to put their own nominee on the throne, thus playing the role of the king-makers. On such occasions they could pay off their old scores by imposing their own terms on the new successors ; the latter could hardly get or expect the same obedience to his orders from the feudatories who were his erst-while benefactors. If the emperor was very weak, a war would start among the feudatories for succeeding to the imperial position. At the decline of the Chālukya power, the Yādavas , the Kalachūris and the Hoysalas started a race for the hegemony of the Deccan, in which the first mentioned power eventually succeeded. Such a phenomenon occurred towards the end of almost all the empires.

c21.s1.38

⁷ *E. I.*, II. p. 193 ; III. pp. 261 7

c21.s1.39

The policy to permit defeated kings to rule as feudatories no doubt protected vested interests and favoured local autonomy. But it also introduced a permanent element of instability in the body politic. Naturally the feudatories were always cherishing the hope of throwing the imperial yoke one day, and the imperial power had to keep a vigilant watch over their actions and intentions. It could not disarm them, because it needed their forces for its own purposes also. Very often the feudatory and the imperial power were in a state of armed neutrality ; the imperial power could maintain its position as long as it managed to keep a balance of power among its feudatories and its own effective hold over all of them. The consequences of this permanent condition of instability will be discussed in the course of the last chapter.

Linked texts (21)