The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c15.19

Language: English

c15.19.1

carried with it the right to retain or develop different systems of organisation. Thus, the Mâla vas, Ârjunâyanas, Yaudheyas,¹ Mâdrakas, Âbhîras, Prârjunas, Sanakânikas, Kâkas, Kharaparikas and others mentioned in the inscription are clearly tribal oligarchies. The Prahalâdpur Stone Pillar Inscription² shows the suzerain appointing a chief as the leader of a tribe. The appointment may be only the recognition of a *de facto* ruler. In any case, the tribal oligarchies retain their individuality and internal self-government. Like other states, they issue coins. Indeed, the large number of punch-marked coins issued from various mints testifies to the large number of autonomous or semi-autonomous regions and groups.³ There is a notable passage in the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghoṣa, who flourished about this time, to the effect that a money-changer could recognise from which village, town or capital and from what mint a particular coin was issued. Coinage was thus feudal and local and varied from place to place. So great was this variety that a regular science of coinage grew up as Buddhaghoṣa testifies.⁴ There are numerous coins issued by Nigamas or cities and Janapadas or districts, which testify to the existence of very small, partially autonomous areas. The coins, again, prove that some foreign dynasties were allowed to linger. These, however, were being rapidly assimilated to the Hindu tradition.

c15.19.2

Thus, the coins of the Sytho-Sassanian Varahan V have Śiva and a bull on the reverse.¹ The status of the feudatories shows great variations. In fact, there seem to have been several definite grades among them. In the Allâhâbâd Inscription Pratyantanṛipatis—frontier "kings" or chiefs—are higher than Sâmantas. Mahârâjas are obviously higher than Râjas. Mahârâjas and Mahâsâmantas seem to be of equal status. Both the titles are applied constantly to Samudrasena and his ancestors in an inscription² and to others elsewhere.³ A number of feudatories, in the grants issued by them on their own authority, refer to their feudatories who are therefore sub-feudatories of the emperor. The inscriptions of Mahârâja Hastin, for instance, expressly mention Gupta sovereignty and then proceed to address his own feudatories.⁴ It appears that only on acquiring a certain degree of importance could a feudatory be called a Mahârâja. One of the inscriptions makes it clear that after two generations in a family had extended the patrimony and consolidated their power, its third representative assumed the title of Mahârâja. The rise to such a position was duly signalised by a sort of consecration and blessed and acknowledged by the suzerain lord.

c15.19.3

The Mahârâja Droṇasiṁha was installed "by besprinkling" by his paramount sovereign, 'the sole lord of the circumference of the whole earth,' and the glory of his new position "was purified by his great liberality." Judging from the date of the inscription of his grandson (571-72 A.D.), this event must have taken place during the latter days of the Gupta Empire.⁵ It was probably on such occasions that feudatories sometimes ventured to celebrate a sort of Aśvamedha.¹ Vassals specially favoured of the suzerain were given further honorific titles such as Sâmanta-cûḍâmaṇi.² Whether these additional titles were hereditary during this period is not clear but the ordinary feudal designations are always transmitted from father to son. Smaller feudatories, those bearing only the title of Râja, also make grants, though, judging from the paucity of their inscriptions, not with the same frequency.³ It appears that feudatories were sometimes employed in positions of high trust under the suzerain.

c15.19.4

The Khoh Copper-plate Inscription of the Mahârâja Saṃkṣobha records that the Mahârâja Hastin was placed in charge of eighteen forest chiefships.⁴ The grant of Jayabhaṭa II mentions Sâmantas in the same breath with Bhogikas and Viṣayapatis who are undoubtedly government officers.⁵ The line between officers of state and feudatories sometimes grows faint and official and feudatory titles are indiscriminately applied to many personages.⁶ From another inscription it appears that boundary pillars were sometimes set up to mark off the territories of different feudatories.⁷ The king often entered into matrimonial relations with feudatories as with ministers.⁸ The feudatories sometimes attended upon the king. The Kahaum Stone Pillar Inscription of the year 460-61 A.D. speaks of the tranquil reign of Skandagupta whose hall of audience (Upasthânabhûmi) was shaken by the wind caused by the falling down (in the act of performing obeisance) of the heads of a hundred Nripatis or feudatory rulers.⁹ In the language of etiquette the relations between the suzerain and the vassal are summed up in the expression Pâdânudhyâta, “meditating on the feet of—,” which emphasises reverence and obedience. The same term is used to typify the attitude of a Mahârâja or Mahârâjâdhirâja towards his parents, preceptors or other superiors.¹ In almost all of the numerous “perpetual,” “eternal” grants of villages recorded in the inscriptions, the inhabitants concerned are commanded to obey the grantees.

c15.19.5

The grants being also expressly free from the entrance of government police and soldiers, it seems that the grantee was expected to arrange for defence and maintenance of order. Since most of the grantees were Brâhmaṇas, some of them might not have discharged these duties by themselves. Perhaps they left them to chief persons of the village. But in any case, this system of grants which are avowedly hereditary, which, in fact, are expected to last “until the sun and moon endure,” and the resumption of which is cursed with the heaviest imprecations, would introduce an element of feudalism at the bottom. These small landholders, however, could easily be controlled in the case of any untoward incidents. The great feudatories might have been more difficult to manage. Vassalage faded by insensible degrees into practical independence. It is significant that the Allâhâbâd Inscription counts the king of Ceylon, undoubtedly independent, as a sort of vassal.