The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c15.139

Language: English

c15.139.1

The system of administration which prevailed under the Imperial Guptas persisted throughout the days of the decline of the empire and also after its fall. Here and there were some variations in titles and administrative details but the framework remained exactly the same. A few of the important inscriptions of the interval between the Guptas and the Vardhanas may be passed in rapid review. The Khoh Copper Plate Inscription shows how offices might rotate in the same families. The father and grandfather of the Mahâsandhivigrahika had been Bhogikas. The grandfather is also given the title of Amâtya or minister. Here are two Dûtakas, one of them being the Mahâbalâdhikṛita.⁴ Another inscription of the same feudatory, of the year 533-34 A.D., mentions the usual offices and fiscal arrangements. Like others, it emphasises that the inhabitants should obey the grantees.⁵ The Betul Plates of Saṃkṣobha, of the year 518-19 A.D., from the modern Central Provinces show a line of hereditary Parivrâjaka Mahârâjas, who owed allegiance to Guptas, exercising overlordship over a number of forest chiefships. One of the Mahârâjas prides himself on establishing the Varṇâśramadharma.¹ In the Mandasor Stone Inscription of Yaśodharman, the members of a single family occupy several high offices and one of them constructs a large well for popular use.

c15.139.2

Here, curiously enough, Yaśodharman is only called Janendra.² Another stone-pillar inscription records that a column was erected for the purpose of inscribing a laudation of Yaśodharman’s power and glory.³ The Chamnak Copper Plate Inscription of the Mahârâja Pravarasena II shows how suzerains and feudatories intermarried. Here the charter is written by the Senâpati.⁴ The Siwâni Copper Plate Inscription of the same ruler records that he performed four Aśvamedha sacrifices. Evidently, the ceremony was now losing its supreme significance. The privileges conferred with the grant are specific and throw light on contemporary fiscal arrangements. The village granted to some priests “is not to be entered by the regular troops or by the umbrella-bearers; it does not carry with it (the right to) cows and bulls in succession (of production), or to the abundance of flowers and milk, or to the pasturage, hides and charcoal, or to the mines for the purchase of salt in a moist state; it is entirely free from all (obligation of) forced labour; it carries with it the hidden treasures and deposits, and the klripta and upaklripta.” The last two terms are obscure. But the inscription suffices to give an idea of the petty dues levied, probably in kind, and the state monopolies. Needless to say, the grant is to be eternal and hereditary.

c15.139.3

All protection was to be extended to its holders, no hindrance of any kind was to be offered to them.⁵ In the Ganeśgaḍ Plates of Dhruvasena I, of the year 526-27 A.D., from Bhâvanagara state, two brothers are big feudatories,—Mahârâja and Mahâsâmanta—and a third one holds the post of Senâpati which he passes on to his son. The feudal dominion has the usual administrative machinery. Drângikas are the town-officers with whom are associated Mahattaras, elders. It appears that, as in the village, the elders were informally consulted on administrative matters in towns. Sthânâdhikaraṇikas are the police-officers in charge of Sthânas (police stations), from which the medieval and modern term thânâ is derived. The nomenclature is interesting. In this inscription the fiscal officers and arrangements are the same as in the foregoing ones.¹ Two other grants of Dhruvasena I from Pâlitânâ introduce big feudatories, Mahâsâmanta Mahârâjas.² In the Pâlitânâ Plates of Siṃhâditya, of the year 574 A.D., also appears a line of hereditary Sâmanta Mahârâjas—big feudatories. Among those to whom the Śâsana is addressed are Râjasthânîyas, Drângikas, Mahattaras, riders on elephants and horses who seem to form part of the army.³ The Pâlitânâ Plates of Dharasena II of the year 571 A.D. mention a few other officers but none which has not been already noticed.⁴ These grants prove that Kâṭhiâwâḍ had the same system of administration as the north. Gujarât was quite in line.

c15.139.4

The Sunao Kala Plates of Saṅgamasimha of the year 540-41 A.D., from Bharukaccha, modern Baronch, in Gujarât, furnish an illustration. The Mahâsâmanta Mahârâja, though a feudatory, has a regular administrative system of the usual type. His Śâsana is addressed to Râjasthânîyas, Uparikas, Kumârâmâtyas, Viṣayapatis, Drângikas, Câṭas, Bhaṭas and others. Ârakṣikas and Kulaputrakas are also mentioned. The former are probably police-officers. Kulaputrakas are probably not regular officials but merely representatives of families who were consulted by village and town-officers. There is a chamberlain Mahâpratihâra, while the Samdhivigrahika acts as Dûtaka. The fiscal system is the same as that of the Guptas. One of the privileges conferred on the grantee is that his area will not be entered by Câṭas and Bhaṭas whose presence, obviously, was felt as a burden.¹ The foreign rulers who established themselves in India adapted themselves to the Hindu system. In the Eraṇ Stone Boar Inscription Torâmaṇa is called Mahârâjâdhirâja.² Elsewhere Torâmaṇa has the titles Śâhi and Jauval as well as Râjâdhirâja.³ Some of the coins of Mihirakula have the bull-emblem of Siva and the legend Jayatu Vṛiṣaḥ on the reverse.⁴