The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c15.14

c15.14

The most striking fact which emerges from the study of the Gupta inscriptions is that the empire was dominated by feudalism and that the very idea of a kingdom had become that of a feudal-federal organisation. Râja or even Mahârâja now means only a feudatory. Sâmanta or Mahâsâmanta has the same significance. The higher feudatories have sub-feudatories under them. The idea of a king, as distinct from a feudatory, is conveyed only by the grand title of Mahārājādhirāja. The suzerain generally assumes two other titles—Parameśvara and Paramabhaṭṭāraka. These are the titles applied to all independent kings in the Gupta as well as later inscriptions. It is significant that the first two rulers of the dynasty—Gupta and Ghaṭotkaca—are not given these high-sounding designations by their descendants and successors. They are only called Mahārājas.¹ Probably they were only feudatories of more powerful magnates. In Gupta and later inscriptions, feudatories, even when they do not expressly mention their suzerains, are content to call themselves Mahārājas or adopt a similar title. As soon as the Gupta line started on an independent career of its own and, as was almost inevitable in the political circumstances of the times, stood forth as itself the suzerain of some feudatories, it bedecked itself with titles denoting independence and empire. The inscriptions of the Vardhana dynasty which came into prominence in the first half of the seventh century A.D. tell an identical tale.² In this fashion every real kingdom is an empire. An empire or a kingdom is largely a feudal organism. As the internal autonomy of the various regions of an empire is respected, it partakes of the nature of a confederation. The working of this type of polity is well illustrated by the Gupta inscriptions.