Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c23.s5: Section V: North Indian Administration in the Post-Harsha Period

State and Government in Ancient India c23.s5

Language
English

Section V: North Indian Administration in the Post-Harsha Period

c23.s5.2

¹ Largely based upon a portion of the thesis written by my daughter, Dr. Mrs. Padma Udgaonkar.

c23.s5.3

We get ample epigraphical and literary evidence to reconstruct the picture of the administration from *c.* 700 to 1200 A. D. Northern India was divided into a number of dynasties during the greater part of this period, and we shall give here a composite picture based upon the evidence supplied by their records and by contemporary works on polity. This would give an insight into the nature of the general administration of the period, although the whole of it may not be true of any particular dynasty.

c23.s5.4

Kingship had now become hereditary; we have shown already how the theory of king’s election is ridiculed by Kalhaṇa, the Kashmir historian (p. 84). Crown prince was probably selected formally even in the earlier periods, but epigraphical records of this period refer more frequently to his selection. Thus we find that Gāhaḍawāla records expressly refer to the selection of Madanapāla, Govindachandra and Āsphoṭachandra as crown princes by their fathers. The same was the case with Tribuvaṇapāla and Rājyapāla of the Pāla dynasty and several rulers of other houses. A younger brother or a nephew was selected as crown prince in the absence of a son. Women rarely became *de jure* queens. Sugandhā of Kashmir and Tribuvanamahādevī, Daṇḍamahādevī and Dharmamahādevī of the Kara dynasty of Orissa were really regents and not queens. Diddā of Kashmir was a real queen and ruled over the land effectively for 22 years. But this woman of extraordinary ability and energy had to a wait for a number of years after her husband’s death and work for the removal of three kings before she could get the coveted throne.

c23.s5.5

The theory of the divinity of the king was becoming more widely acceptable; kings were now often conceived as incarnations of God. King Lantigadeva in Rajputana is known to have built a temple for his own image.¹

c23.s5.6

¹ *E. I.* IX, 79-81

c23.s5.7

Coronation ritual of this period was more Pauranic than Vedic; a number of Vedic Mantras were recited, as we gather from the Rājadharma of the *Kṛityakalpataru*, but they were not connected with any details of coronation. Owing to the ascendancy of astrology great interest was attached to the selection of a proper auspicious day. King’s body was rubbed with earth brought from a number of places; right hand, for instance, by the dust dug by an elephant, and the left hand by the sand adhering to the horns of a bull. This procedure had an obvious symbolical element. The king was then given a bath by people of all four castes with water fetched from several holy rivers. A number of Śāntis or propitiatory rites were performed like Aindrī-śāntī, Grahaśāntī and Vināyakaśāntī to ward off evil influence. Then followed worship of Gaṇesha, Brahmā, Śiva and Vishṇu. The king was then seated on a throne covered with tiger's skin with umbrella-bearers and chauri-bearers by his side. He then gave audience to his subjects and then the coronation procession started. There was jail delivery also.

c23.s5.8

In this description we miss any reference to any oath. The coronation ceremony had now hardly any constitutional significance. Records of this period refer to the coronation of the crown prince also. Gāhaḍawāla prince Jayachandra is expressly described as *Yauvarajâbyishikta* in one record (E. I. IV. 118).

c23.s5.9

The growing influence of religion manifests itself also in another direction. Owing to the greater hold of the theory of Samnyāsa some kings are seen abdicating their throne in their old age. Such was the case with Vigrahapāla I, father of Nārāyanapāla of the Pāla dynasty, king Jayavarman of the Chandella dynasty, Bhalladitya and Jhoṭa of the Pratīhāra dynasty, Durlabharāja of Chaulukya dynasty and Anma of Varman dynasty of Kanauj. Religious suicide was recommeneded by some Smṛitis in extreme old age; Jainism also permitted it under its *sallekhanāvrata* vow. Chedi king Gāṅgeyadeva and the Chandella ruler Dhaṅga are known to have drowned themselves in the Triveṇī at Allahabad.

c23.s5.10

Records of our period show that queens normally took no part in the administration. They are sometimes seen making land-grants, but usually they did so with the permission of their husbands the ruling kings. Thus when queen Nayanakelidevī of Govindachandra wanted to make the grant of a village to the royal priest, she had to get the sanction of her husband.¹

c23.s5.11

¹ *E. I.*; IV. 108. See also *E. I.* II. 187-188; V. 117-8

c23.s5.12

Crown princes were playing important part in the administration; they could often make a land grant themselves.² Sometimes our records refer to the rule both of the king and the crown prince; thus the Sevadi inscription refers both to Mahārājādhirāja Aśvarāja and Yuvarāja Kaṭukarāja.³ Younger princes often acted as governors.

c23.s5.13

² *I. A.*, XIV, 101-4; *E. I.*, IV. 118

c23.s5.14

³ *E. I.* XI. 29-30

c23.s5.15

The ministry continued to be an important limb of administration during our period. In Chap. VIII (p. 186) we have given a number of instances showing how ministers were highly respected by the kings and how they would often control his arbitrary actions. Ministers would often sacrifice their lives to save that of their king. We have, however, equally numerous instances of kings disregarding the advice of their ministers. Mahīpāla of Bengal spurned the advice of his ministers and was ruined. Kings' love affairs often disgusted their ministers, but they could do nothing even when the sweethearts of the rulers belonged to the untouchable classes. Whether ministry had become more impotent in our period, it is difficult to say, because we have instances of either type. The roles of the king and the minister varied with the personal ability and temperament of either party.

c23.s5.16

The qualifications of ministers were the same as those in the earlier periods. Qualities prescribed for ministers in our epigraphs are similar to those laid down by Kauṭilya, Manu or Kāmandaka. Very often ministry was hereditary in one family: we have quoted one example in the Chandella dynasty on p. 179; another instance from the Pala dynasty may be given here. From Badal *praśasti* we learn that Garga and his four descendants, Darbhapāṇi, Somesvara, Kedāra Miśra and Gaurava Miśra were ministers of Dharmapāla and his three successors. Ministry was probably hereditary in several families in other dynasties also. About the working of the ministry during this period, we may refer the reader pp. 176-7.

c23.s5.17

Epigraphs of our period refer to a number of new official designations like Khola, Hiraṇyasamudāyika, etc.; the precise meaning of these expressions is not yet clear. Similarly we come across some new territorial divisions smaller than a Vishaya like Vīthi, Vṛitti, Chāturikā, Pattalā, etc., but their precise extent is still somewhat uncertain. The last mentioned division Pattalā seems to have corresponded with a Taluka or Tehsil of the modern period.

c23.s5.18

The working of the secretariat was similar to what it was in the last period. As compared to the earlier age, copper plate grants become much more numerous in our period. When the letters of the old plate became blurred, new ones were issued (*E. I.*, XIX. 15). Sometimes grants were forged and then they were pronounced as frauds by the secretariat officers. In one case, however, recorded in the Tarachandi inscription (*E. I.*, XIV, 182) we find an officer of the Gāhaḍawāla king himself issuing an unauthorised charter to some Brāhmaṇas after receiving some bribe from them; Government officer Japila investigated into the case and pronounced it to be fraudulent.

c23.s5.19

¹ Ghoshal, *Beginnings of Indian Historiography* p. 418.

c23.s5.20

Growth of feudalism was a marked feature during this period. Kings used to assign fiefs liberally to their relatives and officers, as was done by king Avantivarman of Kashmir.¹ The Paramāras, the Chaulukyas and the Chāhamānas also encouraged the feudal system by making liberal land and village grants to their relations and officers.² Chāhamāna Pṛithvīrāja, Kalachūri Karṇa, and Chaulukya Kumārapāla had 150, 136 and 72 Sāmantas or feudories under them.³ Kings thus became direct rulers over their feudatories and not over their subjects. These feudatories, even when small, had their own courts and secretariats.

c23.s5.21

¹ विभज्य बंधुभृत्येभ्यः बुभुजे पार्थिवः श्रियम् । *Rājataranginī*, V. 21

c23.s5.22

² These were known as Sejas in Rajasthan.

c23.s5.23

³ *Prabandhachintāmaṇi*, p. 33

c23.s5.24

We come across instances of a feudatory of 84 villages having his own court and foreign minister.⁴ These rapidly increasing courts had to be maintained by the common cultivator, whose burden naturally became heavier.

c23.s5.25

⁴ *E. I.* XIX No. 10

c23.s5.26

When Kumārapāla prohibited slaughter of animals on certain days, the feudatories imposed different scales of fines. One feudatory imposed a fine of four Drammas; another prescribed a fine of five Drammas on ordinary persons and of one Dramma only on members of royal families.⁵ The imposition of different fines on different persons by different feudatories show that feudalism had become a law unto itself and a source of oppression to the population.

c23.s5.27

⁵ *Prakrit Sanskrit inscriptions*, Kāvyamālā Series, pp. 206-7

c23.s5.28

Apart from the Sāmantas, royal relations like the queens, crown princes, and junior princes also received feudal grants, known as Rājakīyabhoga under the Gāhaḍavālas and Grāsa-bhūmi under the Chāhamānas. Usually they had no full proprietary rights over these assignments. The extent of these assignments varied with the resources of the kingdom. We find the Chāhamāna prince Kīrtipāla enjoying twelve villages as his fief.¹ Princes Lakhaṇapāla and Abhayapāla were together enjoying only one village in 1177 A. D.²

c23.s5.29

¹ *E. I.* IX, 68

c23.s5.30

² *Ibid.* XI, 50

c23.s5.31

The abnormal growth in the number of the feudatories was a source of oppression, as far as the ordinary man was concerned. He had now a large number of superiors to deal with, each of whom was anxious to grow richer at the cost of the former.

c23.s5.32

We get greater information about the constitution and administration of the army during this period. The army was far from being an integrated force. It consisted partly of imperial, partly of feudatory and partly of hereditary forces. Some brought their own weapons, while others used the weapons supplied by the Government. Some sections brought their own officers, others were supplied officers by the government. Mercenary forces were common; one epigraph describes the Pāla forces as consisting of Mālava, Khaśa, Lāṭa and Karṇāṭa soldiers.

c23.s5.33

In a well-trained army officers were appointed over ten, hundred, a thousand and ten thousand soldiers, known as Gaulmikas Śatānīkas, Sahasrānīkas and Āyutikas. Regular drill was taken and half-trained soldiers were paid less. The army had its office establishment, which kept account of the weapons, provisions, salaries, etc. Such well-trained and well-officered forces formed, however, only a small section of the total army. Great attention was paid to the construction and proper equipment of the different types of forts.

c23.s5.34

³ See *Śukranīti*, Chap. II, 140 ff.

c23.s5.35

We need not devote more space to other aspects of the administration, because they were more or less the same as in the age of Harshavardhana.

Linked texts (12)