Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c18: Chapter XIV. From the Eighth to the Tenth Century A.D.

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c18

Language
English

Chapter XIV. From the Eighth to the Tenth Century A.D.

c18.2

Neither Bāṇabhaṭṭa nor Yuan Chwang nor any of the contemporary inscriptions refers to any wife of Harṣavardhana, or to the fact of his marriage. It is certain that he died childless. When it is remembered that his sister Rājyaśrī is often mentioned, one is inclined to think that the emperor was a celibate all his life. If so, it is interesting to notice that while big seraglios were the rule in aristocratic circles in ancient India, there were occasional exceptions. On the death of Harṣa about 648 A.D. his empire split up into the fragments which had only loosely held together for a few decades. The throne at Kanauj was usurped by a minister of the late king.¹ It is a proof of the great power wielded by ministers that several Hindu empires—the Mauryan, Śuṅga, Kāṇva and Vardhana—ended with ministerial usurpations. From the latter half of the 7th to the 11th century A.D. the history of North India loses unity and clarity. Thanks to Kalhaṇa's Rājatarangiṇī, a connected account of the history of Kāśmīr can be constructed. But of the rest of the country only fragmentary glimpses can be obtained through coins, inscriptions, and literature. Towards the ninth century the Gūrjara-Pratihāra ascendancy certainly recalled the glories of Harṣavardhana but it was short-lived. Besides, the Gûrjara-Pratihâra dominion was held together even more loosely than the Gupta or Vardhana empire. On the whole, then, it may be laid down that the four centuries preceding the Muslim invasions under Mahmûd of Ghaznî were a period of small and, historically, obscure states. The political facts about them, so far as modern research has been able to recover them, are well summarised in the fourth edition of Vincent A. Smith's Early History of India (pp. 366- 438), and in a few recent papers notably those of D. R. Bhandarkar and R. C. Majumdar. It is needless to recapitulate them here. All that need be stated is that during the period, the chief states in the north were Kanauj, Kâshmîr, Sindh, Magadha, Kalinga or Orissâ, Bengal, Kâmarûpa or Assâm, Mâlwâ and later, Ajmere, Delhi, Gwalior, Jejâkabhukti and Chedi. Besides them and generally below them lay a huge congeries of petty principalities.

c18.3

¹ For a different view S. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, Journal of Indian History, December, 1926, pp. 313-15.

c18.4

As the subsequent analysis of the epigraphic and literary data will demonstrate, the political constitution and administrative structure of these different states were fundamentally similar. Everywhere one meets with the same feudal conditions of suzerainty and vassalage, nearly the same high officers with similar designations, the same fiscal and judicial system and, though not to the same extent, a similar attitude on the part of the state towards the people. Everywhere one meets with the same despotism—often benevolent but sometimes terrible and tyrannical. Everywhere is the same system of village administration—partly informal self-government and partly government and supervision from the district, provincial or central headquarters. This striking similarity is to be attributed to three causes. In the first place the northern plains were governed by the same geographical, economic and social conditions and therefore tended to evolve the same type of polity. In the second place, the human tendency to

c18.5

Similarity of Administrative Structure.

c18.6

imitation would conduce to the reproduction of the institutions of one region in others. The multiplicity of states meant a large field for political experimentation. The limits of the experiment, its terms of reference, so to say, were narrow, but within its range it would result in the growth of diverse institutions. Their success and failure would be naturally observed and the more successful ones might be adopted elsewhere. In the third place, the rise of big empires from time to time would assist the process of assimilation. The example of the suzerain would be followed by the vassals and the resulting uniformity of institutions would, in a large measure, survive the break-up of the empire. From the broad administrative point of view North India shows a unity which, from the strict political standpoint, is conspicuous by its absence. Another general conclusion which emerges from the data of this period is that the institutions show little development. The number of officers in a given region may be larger or smaller at one time than in other periods. The number, size and sphere of administrative departments might similarly vary. But there is no change of first-rate importance, no organic evolution, in the institutions of this epoch. When one has arranged all relevant inscriptions and literary documents in the chronological as well as regional order, and compared their data, one fails to detect any marked changes or developments. Monotony and stagnation seem to characterise the politics of these four centuries. This was, perhaps, only part of a general phenomenon. For instance, the literature of this period is wanting in originality, depth and movement. The Purāṇas or Upa-Purāṇas which had been fashioned in earlier epochs were perhaps added to but merely on the old lines. The Smṛitis which were composed during this period slavishly echo the earlier Dharma Śāstras for the most part. Where they attempt something on their own account, they fail miserably. The classical literature is not immune from this deadening tendency. The Kâvya is now bound hand and foot by artificial rules and has perforce to follow a prescribed model. Instead of inspiration and spontaneity, it only shows ingenuity and jugglery of words.¹ The drama which displayed such virility in the days of Bhâsa and which had reached its high-water mark in the Gupta age is now governed by mechanical rules. The Pañcasandhis replace natural movement.² A good deal of the literary talent of the period is spent on fashioning these rules of prosody, dramaturgy, etc., in classifying the subject-matter and reducing it to division and sub-division until life is replaced by machine. Other writers exhaust themselves in writing commentaries on old philosophic works, grammarians, the epics, Dharma Sûtras, Dharma Sâstras, Purânas and classical pieces. The time came when even commentaries were furnished with a code and composed almost mechanically Such were the general conditions under which government was carried on in North India from the eighth century onwards. For administration it is perhaps best to begin with literature and eke out the little which it has to offer.

c18.7

¹ Dandin's Kâvyâdarsa is probably the first of its kind (Keith, Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 131). The crop becomes plentiful later on.

c18.8

² See the rules laid down by Bharata, Dhananjaya, Visvanâtha and Singabhûpâla. The Bhâratîya Nâtyasâstra is probably anterior to Bhâsa and Kâlidâsa (Keith, Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 129; on the whole subject, Keith, Sanskrit Drama, pp. 290 et seq.) but the domination of rules increases with the lapse of time.

c18.9

About 700 A.D. Bhavabhûti enriched Sanskrit literature by three remarkable plays—the Mâlatimâdhava, the Mahâvîracarita and, above all, the Uttara Râmacarita.³ The last two considerably

c18.10

³ On the date, style, etc., of Bhavabhûti, see Keith, Sanskrit Drama, pp. 186-204. Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature, 362-65 R. G. Bhandarkar's Preface to his edition of the Mâlatimâdhava, Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. XV. Also the introductions by various scholars to the editions and translations of his works, particularly that by S. K. Belvalkar, Harvard Oriental Series, No. 21.

c18.11

Bhavabhûti.

c18.12

modify the story of the Rāmāyaṇa in their plots. The Uttaracarita is a severe indictment of Rāma’s action in exiling his faithful wife, Sītā, to calm irrational rumours, but it admits that a king must pay high regard to popular sentiment and conciliate it at any cost. In the play spies move among the people to detect all shades of feeling and report them to the king who receives them personally. The brothers of a king are associated with him in the task of administration. No great royal sacrifice or ceremony can be complete without the presence of the queen. For the rest, Bhavabhūti, a Brāhmaṇa of the Taittirīya school of the Yajurveda, is an upholder of the orthodox Brahmanical order. In a scene which is hardly necessary to the main plot, King Rāma is thrown into consternation when he is told that a Śūdra was, contrary to Śāstric injunctions, practising penances and that this violation of Dharma was bringing ruin and death to some righteous folk. Rāma hurriedly takes up the bow, rushes to the scene and slays the Śūdra. The accessibility of the king is one of the remarkable features in Bhavabhūti’s plays.

c18.13

About the eighth century also comes Māgha, author of the frightfully artificial Śiśupālabadha, one of the five Mahākāvyas of Sanskrit literature. The plot turns on Kṛṣṇa’s killing of his perverse foolhardy relative, Śiśupāla, but the poet, when not enchained to the epic, is subservient to Bhāravi. It is on the Kirātārjunīya that the political passages of the Śiśupālabadha are modelled. Māgha frankly disregards principles in politics. The government should be popular but, above all, efficient, firm and relentless. High ambition and self-interest, adroitly and unflinchingly pursued, swift, decisive action will make the king shine like the sun in the Maṇḍala of twelve kings.¹ The persistence of this school of real politics from the days of the Mahâbhârata onwards indicates that it always had some relation to facts. Machiavelli, said Acton, is "a constant influence" in Europe. His counterparts in ancient India were likewise a permanent phenomenon.

c18.14

¹ Māgha, Canto II, particularly Ślokas 26, 29, 30, 65, 81.

c18.15

The fact is well illustrated by Visâkhadatta’s political drama, the Mudrârâksasa which belongs to the eighth or ninth century A.D.¹ The play perhaps follows an older tradition and it is not easy to decide how far it is representative of the age in which it was actually composed. None the less, the series of adroit manœuvres in which Cânakya plays a leading part and which culminate in the replacement of the Nanda by the Mauryan dynasty on the throne of Pâtaliputra are of fascinating interest. Cânakya addresses Candragupta as a Vrisala (Sûdra). Râksasa, the chief minister of the Nanda king, addresses the goddess of royal power in a soliloquy and asks "was there no chief noble of blood to win thy fickle smiles, that thou must elevate a base-born outcast to imperial sway?" (Act II). In the play the monarch finds his position a source of great uneasiness. It is difficult for him to attend to his own interests as well as to those of others. On the other hand, he runs a fatal risk if he entrusts too much power to his minister. Fortune makes kings her sport. When both the king and the ministers are very powerful, the goddess of royalty deserts one of them. Sovereignty, so to say, is indivisible. If a king relies too much on his ministers, he will, on separation from the latter, feel like a helpless babe. Or the minister may unconsciously usurp too much power. In the play, the king chafes under the control of Cāṇakya. In high affairs of state, secret intrigue sometimes played an important, even decisive part. Espionage is there as an integral part of the machinery of government.¹ In the first Act avaricious Nandas are contrasted with Candragupta who "esteems your happiness his wealth." The third Act emphasises that the king must forego his personal comfort for the sake of the general good.

c18.16

¹ Charpentier placed Visâkhadatta in the age of Kâlidâsa, but Jacobi on astronomical evidence brings him down to the latter half of the ninth century A.D. See Keith, J. R. A. S., 1909, p. 145. See also Rapson, J. R. A. S., 1900, p. 535; Tawney, J. R. A. S., 1908, p. 910; Konow, Ind. Ant., 1914, p. 68, also Ind. Ant., 1913, pp. 265-67. Jayaswal places the Mudrârâksasa in the time of Candragupta II. Antani (Ind. Ant., LI, p. 49) refutes Jayaswal.

c18.17

¹ Mudrārākṣasa (ed. H. R. Kale), particularly Act III, pp. 39, 47, 63.

c18.18

Harihara's Bhartṛharinirveda, in Sanskrit and Prākṛt, brings in the fourth Act, a king listening quietly and attentively to an ascetic's instruction. Rājaśekhara who flourished about 900 A.D. at the court of Mahendrapāla and his successor at Kanauj, wrote four plays: (1) Karpūramañjarī, (2) Bālarāmāyaṇa, (3) Pracaṇḍapāṇḍava, and (4) Viddhalaśālabhañjikā. In the last both the minister Bhāgurāyaṇa and the buffoon Cāyaṇa are Brāhmaṇas.

c18.19

The Jaina literature of this period, though extensive and magnificent, is from the administrative view-point only of secondary importance. It tells us little that is absolutely new but it confirms, in a most striking manner, the conclusions to which other evidence leads. By far the most important Jaina work of this period is the Ādi Purāṇa, composed by Jinasenācārya and, after his death, continued by Guṇabhadrācārya, in the 8th and 9th centuries A.D.² It embodies a good deal of older tradition. Its conception of government is paternal and patriarchal.¹ When it seeks to demolish the claims of ordinary Brāhmaṇas and in their place to invest Jaina Brāhmaṇas with all the privileges of reverence, stipends, exemption from taxes and severe punishments, it shows that the Brāhmaṇas did really enjoy some privileges. Jaina kings should not accept any blessings from the ordinary Brāhmaṇas.²

c18.20

² Mss. of the Ādi Purāṇa are preserved in numerous Jaina temples in India. It has been published in the Syādvāda Granthamālā Series, No. 4. For the author, see the Ādi Purāṇa, Prastāvanā, 55-58, Uttara Purāṇa, Praśasti, 11-12. The Hindī Jñānaprabodha, 9-17, is unreliable but see Bakhat Rāma's Buddhivilāsa. The Vardhamāna Purāṇa and Jinendraguṇastuti, believed to have been written by Jinasena, have not yet been recovered.

c18.21

¹ Ādi Purāṇa, Parvan XVI, 271-75. For the Jaina conception of the Golden Age, the fall from it, the emergence of 'civilisation,' the creation of society and the state, etc., Ibid., III, XV, 130-190, 241-45, 255-57, 250-52. For political reflections, LXXV, 105-15, 214-20 in particular.

c18.22

² Ibid., XVI, 241-46; XXXIX, 13-14, 20-22, 108-24, 127-142, 154-57; XL, 40, 63, 67, 139, 192-93; XLI, 45-55; XLII, 181-92.

c18.23

But the coronation of Ṛiṣabha, the first of the twenty-four Tirthakaras, in the 16th canto, is conducted in Brahmanic style. The account is also useful for other details which are probably true to facts. Water was brought from the Ganges, Sindhu (Indus) and other rivers (sacred only in the belief of Brāhmaṇas), for the consecration. The various holy waters, mixed with camphor, sandal, etc., and again with the essence of many kinds of flowers, were poured on Ṛiṣabha by "kings," that is, feudatories, among others. Jewels and many other precious articles were showered on him. His father Nābhi took the crown off his head and, with his own hands, placed it on that of Ṛiṣabha, saying, 'Ṛiṣabha is the protector of all the crowned heads, not I.'³ On this auspicious occasion, the capital Ayodhyā was astir with song and music and dance.⁴ Later, at the close of his own reign, Ṛiṣabha installed his son Bharata as king and another prince Bāhubali as Yuvarāja.⁵ On a yet later occasion in the narration of the Ādi Purāṇa, another consecration is performed in a similar style, at first by many great Râjas, then by inmates of the seraglio, by priests and by citizens.¹ Besides Nâbhi and Ṛiṣabha there are other kings or feudatories in the Âdi Purâṇa who renounced the world on the approach of age or even earlier and anointed their sons in their places. Religion could exercise this sort of influence even on those who had no decidedly spiritual turn of mind. For instance, Jayakumâra once entrusted the government to his younger brother, Vijayakumâra, and went to various places for enjoyment.² Later, he formally anointed his son and renounced the world.³ King Atibala suddenly realised that worldly dominion was contemptible and soul-killing and promptly renounced his country, family and all else.⁴ Other legends of the Âdi Purâṇa, however, show that kings, so long as they occupied the throne, generally lived a life of luxury and enjoyment. Lalitâṅgadeva, for instance, is said to have had four chief queens and four thousand other wives and to have spent countless years in enjoyment.⁵

c18.24

³ Ibid., XVI, 211, 225-32.

c18.25

⁴ Ibid., XVI, 197-208.

c18.26

⁵ Ibid., XVII, 76-77.

c18.27

¹ Ibid., XXXVII, 2-3, 11, 13-14.

c18.28

² Ibid., XLIII, 256.

c18.29

³ Ibid., XLIII, 276-78.

c18.30

⁴ Ibid., IV, 141-56. Cf. Uttara Purâṇa, XLVIII, 9-10, 26-27, 32-33, 90-91; LXVII, 14-17; LIV, 80-82.

c18.31

⁵ Ibid., V, 285-97.

c18.32

The institutions of government in the Âdi Purâṇa are the same as in other literature and in the inscriptions. King Mahâbala, a legendary figure, had four ministers and held counsel with all of them, or three, two or one of them.⁶ On finance and local government the Jaina work follows the Brahmanical Dharma Śâstras. It idealises universal conquest in spite of the Jaina emphasis on non-violence as the essence of religion.⁷

c18.33

⁶ Ibid., IV, 190-96.

c18.34

⁷ Ibid., IV, 106-98; XVI, 254; XXV-XXVI.

c18.35

The account of Ṛiṣabha, the first of the twenty-four Jaina Tīrthakaras and his son Bharata, the first of the Cakravartins, shows that the small state was the rule but the tendency to expansion brought about an extensive relationship of suzerain and vassal. Feudalism, in fact, is rampant in the Ādi Purāṇa. Not only is the consecration of the suzerain performed primarily by feudatories, but the latter are expected to give him valuable presents on the occasion of his birth-day which, by the way, is celebrated with great festivities.¹ Ṛiṣabha is spoken of as seated on the throne, surrounded by hundreds of Rājas.² When he renounces the world, his example is followed by 360 “kings” who, later, fall from the truth.³ The Digvijaya of Bharata follows the usual course and is said to result in the acknowledgment of his suzerainty all round.⁴ A svayaṃvara is attended by numerous ‘kings,’ who, after it is over, indulge in a free fight.⁵ The facts of feudalism are brought out still more clearly in the Uttara Purāṇa as the continuation of Guṇabhadrācārya, in its relation to the whole as the Mahāpurāṇa, is called. It gives sketches of the twenty-three Tīrthakaras who followed Ṛiṣabha at long intervals of time, of Rāma, Kṛṣṇa (who are painted as Jaina worthies), Śreṇika, Jivandhara and numerous other Jaina heroes. Most of the personages were born in royal families and some of them wielded political power. Throughout the pages of the Uttarapurāṇa, feudatories abound. In hundreds they appear as the satellites of the suzerains.

c18.36

¹ Ibid., XVII, 1.

c18.37

² Ibid., XVII, 1.

c18.38

³ Ibid., XVII, 216.

c18.39

⁴ Ibid., XXVI, 58 et seq. ; XXVI.

c18.40

⁵ Ibid., XXXIX, 230 et seq.; XL.

c18.41

The same conclusion about feudatories emerges from the Jaina Padma Purāṇa and Harivaṃśa Purāṇa. In the latter, for instance, king Śreṇika’s example in filling Bihār with Jaina temples is said to have been followed by his Sâmantas, ministers and subjects in general.¹ Here Sâmanta can have only one meaning, that of feudatory. Here one of the aspects of the relations between suzerain and vassal is that of giving the lead and following the lead.

c18.42

¹ (Jaina) Harivaṁśa Purâṇa (Gândhî Haribhaî Devakaraṇa Jaina Granthamâlâ No. 2), I, pp. 148-49. See Canto II for royal pomp and splendour. For an instance of stern justice, see Uttara Purâṇa, LXVII, 96-111, where a king, in spite of the protests of ministers, sentences a defaulting prince to death and remarks that a king should cut off the right hand if it offends.

c18.43

Sudharmasvâmigaṇabhṛitha's *Śripraśnavyâkaraṇâṅgam*² has some excellent incidental political touches. The term Mâṇḍalika here means a feudatory, a normal feature of the body-politic. Kings are often spoken of as accompanied by them as well as by priests, ministers and commanders. Kings and military commanders sometimes fought among themselves and oppressed the people.³ Only too often did royal servants misuse their trust. Sudharmasvâmigaṇabhṛitha speaks of them as a species of thieves.⁴ Military officers are called rogues⁵ and equally severe epithets are applied to police-officers and revenue officers.⁶

c18.44

² Published with a commentary by Abhayadevasûri, Nirṇayasâgara Press, Bombay, 1919.

c18.45

³ Śripraśnavyâkaraṇâṅgam, III, 11.

c18.46

⁴ Ibid., II, 12.

c18.47

⁵ Ibid., III, 11.

c18.48

⁶ Ibid., I, 7.

c18.49

Candraprabha Sûri's *Prabhâvakacarita*⁷ also brings out a condition of federal-feudalism. The *Anuyogadvârasûtram* inculcates loyalty to government as part of the general resignation which is its philosophy, as that of so many other Jaina tracts. In the *Gadya Cintâmaṇi* written by Vâdibhasimhasûri⁸ in the style of Bâṇabhaṭṭa about the eighth century A.D., King Satyabhadra practically transfers the administration to a scheming minister who usurps the throne. But a posthumous prince recovers his patrimony and shines forth as an ideal ruler. In his Kṣatracūḍāmaṇi¹ the same author speaks of kings as the life of living beings,² and condemns disloyalty as a great sin.³ There is an interesting anecdote that a king, convinced of the futility of worldly grandeur, embraced asceticism to the great grief of Pauras and Jānapadas,⁴ city-folk and country-folk. This seems to have been a convenient division of the people from the political point of view.

c18.50

⁷ Ed. H. P. Śâstrî, Bombay, 1909.

c18.51

⁸ Ed. T. S. K. Śâstrî, and S. S. Śâstrî, Tanjore.

c18.52

¹ Ed. T. S. K. Śāstrī, Tanjore.

c18.53

² Kṣatracūḍāmaṇi, Lamba, I, 46.

c18.54

³ Ibid., I, 47.

c18.55

⁴ Ibid., I, 69-70.

c18.56

There are a few other Jaina works of this period which incidentally touch on politics. Haribhadra's Dharmavindu for instance, which belongs to the ninth century A.D., inculcates loyalty and respect to the sovereign⁵ but, on the whole, these works do not reflect the working of institutions and must be passed over. In the tenth century A.D. Somadevasūri composed a remarkable work, Nitivākyāmṛtam, ‘nectar of political sayings’ in Sūtra form. It lacks originality of matter. The author cries ‘back to Kauṭalya’ and frequently draws also on the Mahābhārata, Vasiṣṭha, Manu and others. But the dexterity with which he leaves out some of their ideas and weaves the rest into a fine harmonious whole is in itself an index to the political temper of his age. The work was composed under the patronage of a big feudatory but it treats of politics in the usual style. It shows that the governmental machinery of a feudatory state approximated to the usual type. Knowledge is the prime requisite

c18.57

⁵ Dharamvindu, I, 31.

c18.58

in public affairs. A perverse ignorant prince should never be installed as heir-apparent.¹ Somadeva wants the king to promote agriculture, to control trade, fix the prices and supervise the markets. In reality there are no greater thieves on earth than tradesmen. Ministers should be well-born Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas or Vaiśyas. but never foreigners. Somadeva puts their number at three, five or seven.² Evidently he is thinking of very small states or feudatory domains. The duty of administering impartial justice is extolled in the highest terms and the policy imposing heavy fines from financial motives is condemned. Another possible reference to contemporary politics is implied in the precept that military officers should not be consulted in the determination of policy. They are only too ready to clutch at war. Strife is the law of their being. Besides, if they are placed in control of civil policy, they may grow dangerously proud and powerful.³ None the less, the commander-in-chief was one of the most important of officers.⁴ The ambassador was another notable functionary. A definite code of diplomatic etiquette had been evolved. An envoy might talk as he liked but his life was sacrosanct. On no account was he to be molested.⁵ Needless to say, the Purohita was another great personage, who should be instrumental in warding off natural or supernatural calamities.⁶

c18.59

¹ Somadeva Sūri, Nītivākyāmṛtam, 56-57. For the prince's education, 60-61.

c18.60

² Ibid., 62-66, 76-80, 84-90, 93-95, 98-100, 102-104, 106-125, 127-35.

c18.61

³ Ibid., 136-37.

c18.62

⁴ Ibid., 149.

c18.63

⁵ Ibid., 170-71.

c18.64

⁶ Ibid., 160-63.

c18.65

On espionage Somadeva seems to reflect the facts of his times all over India. Broadly speaking, secret agents fell into two classes, those who busied themselves with discovering the misdeeds of officials and the feelings of subjects and those who sought to probe the intentions and plans of neighbouring rulers. In either case they were to disguise themselves as ascetics and scholars, mathematicians and astrologers, physicians and soldiers, tradesmen and artisans, singers and dancers, foresters and snakecharmers, sorcerers and jugglers, and so forth. They must be paid adequately.¹ Another realistic touch is furnished when the author, in spite of his Jaina persuasion, lays down that in law-courts a Brâhmaṇa should take the oath by touching his sacred thread or a piece of gold; a Kṣatriya, by touching a weapon, a jewel or the ground, etc., a Vaiśya by touching his ear or gold, a Śûdra by touching milk or corn. The idea, we are told, is that the form of oath should have some correspondence with the occupation of the person concerned.² There are many other political maxims in the Nitivâkyâmṛtam but they are too theoretical.³

c18.66

¹ Ibid., 172-74.

c18.67

² Ibid., 305.

c18.68

³ On political deliberation, ibid., 175-76; other qualities in kings and ministers, 177-84, 246-50; on officers, 185-190; on the treasury, 202-206; on the territory, 190-97; on forts, 198-201; on the army, 209-15; on diplomacy and foreign policy, 243-72; on allies, 216-20; on courtiers, 295-305; on taxes, 271. Haribala's commentary on the Nitivâkyâmṛtam frequently illustrates Somadeva's meaning by parallel quotations from the Arthaśâstra, various Dharma Śâstras and Jaimini, the great master of the rules of interpretation, but it is valueless for administrative practice.

c18.69

Another of Somadeva's works, the Yaśastilaka-campû, has some political touches, particularly in its third Aśvâsa. But they add nothing to the data available from the Nitivâkyâmṛtam.

c18.70

In the eighth century A.D. India felt the impact of the rising power of Islâm for the first time. The Arabs

c18.71

conquered Sindh in 712 A.D. about the same time that their arms were crowned with victory in the far distant Spain. The Arab writers give a full account of the expeditions of the young hero Muhammad-bin-Qâsim and, incidentally, throw some light on the political condition of Sindh and the neighbouring regions. They are not accurate in all their details but in fundamentals they corroborate the conclusions which are reached on the basis of indigenous evidence. The dominant fact which emerges from the Arab accounts is that a feudalised confederation was the type of Hindu polity. The merchant Sulaimân’s Salsilatu-t Tawârikh, written in the middle of the ninth century and added to by Abû Zaidul Hasan of Sirâf in the following century, has it that the Balharâ was the most eminent of the princes of India, that all Indians acknowledged his superiority, that while every prince in India was master in his own state, all paid homage to the supremacy of the Balharâ. The latter’s representatives were everywhere received with the profoundest respect. A few pages later, the Arab writer slightly modifies his statement and says that the princes of India did not recognise the supremacy of any one sovereign, each one was his own master, still the Balharâ had the title ‘king of kings.’¹ Ibn Khurdabâ’s Kitâb-l Masâlik Wa-l Mamâlik, composed towards the close of the ninth or the beginning of the tenth century A.D. also calls the Balharâ king of kings.² In the tenth century two other writers, Al Masûdî, author of Murûjul Zahab and Al Idrisî, author of Nuzhatu-l Mushtak also speak of Balharâ as king of kings and the greatest king in India.³ Who this Balharâ was is not an easy question to answer. Probably he represented the dynasty at Ballabhî-pura but the difficulty of the identification does not affect the conclusion that India, so far as known to the Arabs, was split up into a large number of principalities which faintly recognised the suzerainty of an overlord. Another statement of the merchant Sulaimân confirms this view. "When a king subdues a neighbouring state, he places over it a man belonging to the family of the fallen prince, who carries on the government in the name of the conqueror. The inhabitants would not suffer it to be otherwise."¹ This feature of "conquest" which is also well brought out in Hindu literature and epigraphy, would serve to accentuate the federal-feudal character of Hindu political organisation. An idea of the usual size of a Hindu state is given by the Chach Nâmâ or Târîkh-i-Hind wa Sind, which, though composed in the 13th century, is based on older, authentic documents which go back to the eighth century A.D. There were no less than seventy chiefs ruling in Sindh.² The lines of some of these feudatories survived for long, bearing to the new Muslim power the relation in which they had stood to the Hindu suzerain. About the beginning of the 17th century A.D., the chronicler Mir Muhammad Mâsûm of Bhakkar, author of the Târîkh-u-s Sind, applied the term zemîndâr to all such feudatories.³ That expression today only means a landholder, but the sense in which the Muslim historians from the 13th to the 17th century A.D. used it to denote the nearly independent or semi-independent Hindu chieftains of the deserts, mountains, Râjpûtânâ, and Central India conveys the idea of the usual relationship of suzerain and vassal in Ancient India.

c18.72

¹ Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, Vol. I, pp. 1, 6-7.

c18.73

² Ibid., 13.

c18.74

³ Ibid., 21, 75.

c18.75

¹ Ibid., 7.

c18.76

² Ibid., 211.

c18.77

³ Ibid., 212.

c18.78

The sceptre of the suzerain or of the feudatory descended from father to son in the same family. According to Masûdî, the rule was never broken. The Arab writer, however, seems to be wrong when he states that none could ascend the throne until he was forty years of age or that the king never appeared in public except at rare intervals for the inspection of public affairs. But a king who grossly misconducted himself might pay the penalty of his sins. One such ruler, a hopeless drunkard, forfeited the crown. But it seems to have been bestowed on another member of the family.¹ There were, of course, occasional cases of usurpation. For instance, Chach, who occupied the post of chamberlain, usurped the throne on the death of his master.² So strong was the sentiment in favour of hereditary succession that the chief offices of state—those of ministers, judges—were practically confined to the same families.³ The use of the Arabic word Qâzî to denote judges is interesting. It shows that the Hindu judges bore some resemblance to the well-known Muslim officers of the western Muslim countries.

c18.79

¹ Ibid., 20.

c18.80

² Ibid., Chach-nâmâ, p. 140.

c18.81

³ Ibid., 20.

c18.82

In Sindh the highest office was that of High Chamberlain. According to the Chach-nâmâ, this officer exercised authority over the whole kingdom, and made all appointments and dismissals.⁴ The king's territory was divided into four provinces, each under a governor.⁵ Alor, the central capital of Sindh, was a large city adorned with all kinds of palaces and villas, gardens and groves, reservoirs and streams, parterres and flowers.⁶ The Hindu state had to keep itself constantly in readiness for war. The soldiers were paid regularly.⁷

c18.83

⁴ Ibid., 139, 140.

c18.84

⁵ Ibid., 138.

c18.85

⁶ Ibid., 138.

c18.86

⁷ Ibid., 138-39.

c18.87

An instance of influence of the state on social life is recorded. When Chach acquired some tracts in Sindh, he is said to have made the Jāṭas and Lohānas undertake to wear only mockswords, to forswear saddles, to keep their heads and feet uncovered, and to adopt certain occupations like those of carrying fuel and providing guides.¹

c18.88

¹ Ibid., 145 et seq.

c18.89

The Arab occupation of Sindh was a mere episode. Muslim rule soon disappeared and for the next four centuries Sindh relapsed into the old political conditions.

c18.90

The administration of the rest of the northern plains has to be gathered from inscriptions. In the eighth and later centuries the centripetal forces are even weaker than in the former interregnums. Feudalism was now more rampant than ever. The title Rāja could be assumed by, or could be bestowed upon, men whose rule was confined to a single village. In the disintegration of the times we can watch the rise of such small feudatories step by step. Udayamāna’s lengthy rock inscription at Dudhpani in Magadha, of the eighth century A.D., records that three brothers, Udayamāna, Śridhautamāna and Ajitamāna, merchants by profession, on their way back from Tāmalipti in Bengal to Ayodhyā, after a gloriously successful mercantile adventure, happened to tarry at Bhramaraśālmali in Magadha. The ruler Ādisimha chanced to appear in the forest near by on a hunting trip and demanded an avaloga or avalogan—some sort of supplies or presents—from the villagers. The latter betook themselves to Udayamāna and entreated him to do the king’s behest on their behalf. Udayamāna, overflowing with riches, readily complied and found himself a favourite with the king and a recipient of a Śripaṭṭa or diadem from royal hands. At his request the ruler sent an assurance to the villagers of Bhramaraśālmali of his good will towards them. On his return to the village, the benevolent merchant received an affectionate welcome. The grateful people requested him to be their Rāja. The ruler approved of the proposal. And so Udayamāna began his rule over the village. He managed to have his brothers Śridhautamāna and Ajitamāna appointed Rājas of the neighbouring villages, Nabhūtiṣaṇḍaka and Chiṅgatā.¹

c18.91

¹ Ep. Ind., II, No. 27.

c18.92

In this inscription Ādisiṃha is only called Magadhādhirāja. The absence of any of the three grand titles—Parameśvara, Mahārājādhirāja, Paramabhaṭṭāraka—which were universally employed by independent kings from the Gupta period onwards, shows that Ādisiṃha himself was only a feudatory. Nor does his name appear in any other inscription as that of a suzerain. So there is the interesting spectacle of feudatory Adhirājas creating sub-feudatory Rājas.

c18.93

The emergence of suzerainty like that of vassalage can also be studied in the inscriptions. The Khalimpur Plate of Dharmapāladeva records that Gopāla was induced by the people to assume the sovereignty in order to put an end to lawlessness and disorder. The grant employs the term Mātsya-Nyāya—the Logic of the Fish—the classical Sanskrit expression for anarchy. So he founded the Pāla dynasty of sovereigns about 730—740 A.D. He married Daddādevi, daughter of a king of Bhadra, and thus assimilated his line to the bluest blood of the country.² Here, then, we can observe how the general popular support would enable a dynasty to rise to supremacy. As in the earlier centuries, the rise to independence was always signalised by the assumption of the grand titles. Thus

c18.94

² Khalimpur Grant in Ep. Ind., Vol. IV, No. 34. For Bhadra, Ind. Ant., XXI, p. 258.

c18.95

An instance of the emergence of suzerainty.

c18.96

the Alina Copper Plate Inscription of Śilāditya VII of the year 766-67 A.D. designates Dharasena IV, as Parama-bhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja, Parameśvara, and Cakravartin and applies the same titles to his successors but his predecessors are not designated in the same style. The inscription describes powerful princes as bowing before the suzerain.¹

c18.97

¹ Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions, No. 39.

c18.98

The rise from vassalage to independence or suzerainty is also indicated in some other epigraphic records of this period. The Daulatpura Plate of Bhojadeva I of Mahodaya, in the modern state of Jodhpur, dated Harṣa saṃvat 100, that is about 706 A.D., speaks of the grantee and his predecessors as Mahārājas.² On the other hand, the Pehevā (Pehoa) Inscriptions of Harṣa saṃvat 276, that is, about 882 A.D., speaks of the same monarchs as Mahārājādhirājas.³ It seems that sometime during the interval of 176 years, the dynasty asserted its independence, and contrary to the usual practice, all its previous members were given the grand titles.

c18.99

² Ep. Ind., V, No. 24.

c18.100

³ Kielhorn's List No. 546.

c18.101

Most of the rulers of this period are Rājpūts who, according to modern research, had much foreign blood in their veins and who, as an age-long tradition indicates, had been consecrated to Kṣatriyaship. Even non-Kṣatriya kingship was known during this period. Commenting on Manu, VII, 1, 2; VIII, 40, the orthodox Medhātithi, who lived in the 10th century A.D., admitted the validity of non-Kṣatriyā kingship. Later about the 14th century, Vijñāneśvara, who commented on Yājñavalkya in the Mitākṣarā, one of the most influential of all legal commentaries, agreed with Medhātithi.

c18.102

The inscriptions convey a fair idea of administrative structure when they enumerate the personages to whom the royal command is addressed. In the Khalimpur Plate of Dharmapâladeva, Râjans and Râjânakas head the list. The former is undoubtedly a feudal designation. It shows that feudatories were required to respect the suzerain’s commands and arrangements. It can also mean that the feudatories were employed in high office in the suzerain’s direct administration. The term Râjânaka signified minister in Kashmir and Chambâ. But the context of the Khalimpur Inscription indicates that some feudatories are meant. Perhaps they represent a grade definitely lower than that of Râjas but the point is not free from doubt. The grant in question is made at the request of Nârâyanavarman, the Mahâsâmantâdhipati—great chief of Sâmantas, that is, feudatories. It is probable that the greatest and most notable of the feudatories was given this title. The term Râjaputra which follows shows that princes, whether of the suzerain or of the feudal houses, were often employed in high administrative posts. Next, the Râjâmâtyas mean, as usual, the ministers of the king, probably only the highest ministers. The Dûtaka is not mentioned with other officers but he is evidently an officer of the highest importance. In the present inscription, the Yuvarâja himself seems to hold that position. The Senâpatis or commanders of armies stand next in order. Besides them there are a large number of officers. The Dauhsâdhasâdhanikas and Cauroddharanikas are obviously police-officers. The Dandasaktis and Dandapâsikas may be police-officers but it is more probable that they are judicial officers who are invested with the “power of punishment.” The Saulkikas and Gaulmikas were, as in the preceding epochs, concerned with the supervision of tolls and of forests. The Dûtas, Gamâgamikas¹ and Abhitvarmâṇas are the various classes of messengers. The mention of Kholas between Dûtas and Gamâgamikas indicates that the Kholas were also a class of messengers. The use of four, or at least, three different terms points to a gradation. In any case the frequent mention of messengers with responsible officers is an index of their importance and position. In a far-flung empire their function was necessarily one of great importance. To the central as to the subordinate offices were attached a number of secretaries or clerks, who, again, seem to be divided into grades. Kâyastha was the general term applied to them. Jyeṣṭhakâyasthas or chief writers are specially mentioned in the Khalimpur grant. Among fiscal officers, besides the Śaulkika is mentioned the Śaṣṭâdhikṛita, the superintendent or controller of the Śaṣṭhâṃśa or Ṣaḍbhâga, the traditional royal sixth of the land produce. The Tarikas were probably overseers of the ferries and collected the ferry tolls. There are a number of military officers, inspectors of the elephants, horse and other troops. Along with them are mentioned inspectors of boats, of cows, buffaloes, goats and sheep. The possibility of these inspectors being civil officers cannot be excluded but from the context and order of their enumeration, it seems that they belonged to the military departments and had charge of the boats which served as a sort of flotilla on the big rivers, and of the animals required for the supply of the army with various articles of diet and comfort. The tadâyuktakas and viniyuktakas are minor employees, perhaps both on the civil and military side. The Bhaṭas, as usual, are soldiers while Câṭas, as usual, are petty miscellaneous, chiefly, police officers.

c18.103

¹ For Gamâgamikas, see also Ep. Ind., III, No. 36; Ind. Ant., XV, p. 306; XVII, p. 11.

c18.104

The Bhâgalapur plates of Nârâyaṇapâla (Ind. Ant., XV, pp. 304 et seq.) also give Mahâsâmantas and Râjarâjânakas as feudatories. Besides other officers there are Kṣetrapa, protector of the fields, Prāntapāla, protector of the frontiers, Koṭṭapāla and Khaṇḍarakṣa—police or military officers. It appears that either the king or these officers appointed keepers of elephants, horses, camels, inferior naval and military officers, men in charge of foals, mares, cows, she-buffaloes, goats and sheep. It seems that mercenaries were employed from far and wide. The fiscal system is of the usual type. Besides the three classes of messengers there are Dūtapraiṣaṇikas—those who despatched messengers.

c18.105

From this inscription some idea of provincial and local government can be formed. Contrary to expectations, Viṣayapatis are mentioned before Bhogapatis. It may be a mistake or it may be that the terms were used rather loosely at some epochs and places. Elsewhere in the same inscription the sequence of local divisions is stated as Bhukti, Viṣaya, and Maṇḍala. Bhogapati was usually in charge of a bhoga or bhukti, that is, a province. Viṣayapati, as before, held charge of a Viṣaya or district. It may be mentioned that in the Alina Copper Plate Inscription of Śīlāditya (VII) (766-67 A.D.) the term Āhāra is used in the sense of Viṣaya. Daśagrāmika is the officer in charge of a group of ten villages. It appears that this local division was of general prevalence. Karaṇas were another class of government servants charged with registration, etc. The reference to ‘other district officers’ shows that there were numerous other government employees in local government. The Mahāmahattaras and Mahattaras seem to be village elders who were not government employees. But their frequent mention in the inscriptions shows that they had a voice in village administration and, it may be, also in the administration of the next higher division. The information about the fiscal system in this inscription is rather scanty. The four villages in question are granted with the talapāṭaka and paṭṭika. The former signifies the land revenue paid to the government. Paṭṭika means market dues, usually charged on all markets. This inscription, like others, proves that kings often displayed great generosity. Four villages are here granted for the maintenance of a temple erected by the Mahāsāmantādhipati Nārāyaṇavarman.¹

c18.106

¹ Ep. Ind., IV, No. 34. Also Ind. Ant., XI, p. 339.

c18.107

The Nālanda Copper Plate Grant of Devapāladeva of the 10th century A.D. issued by a holder of the three grand titles, mentions practically all the foregoing officers. Rājāmātya and Mahākārttākṛitika alike seem to be high ministers of state. The Rājasthānīya is probably a viceroy, and Uparika, a fiscal officer. The Dāśāparādhika is a judicial officer. The fiscal system is the same. The large number of officers in all the later grants shows that the administrative structure had attained to the height of its development.²

c18.108

² Ep. Ind., XVII, p. 310.

c18.109

We meet with essentially the same system in distant Orissa, though, here, the number of chief officers and departments is smaller. In the ninth century Talcher Grant of Kulastambha the king has the three grand titles. He has big feudatories, Mahāsāmantas, under him. He addresses his command also to Rājaputras. Then there are the Daṇḍapāśikas, Niyuktakas, Cāṭas, Bhaṭas and "others." Maṇḍala is used for Viṣaya.³ The Neulpur Grant of Subhākara (8th century A.D.) was issued by an hereditary Mahārāja who was thus a feudatory. He addresses Mahāsāmantas and Mahārājas which shows that he had big sub-feudatories under him. The mention of Rājaputras shows that princes were employed in high offices. Kumāra is probably a mistake for Kumārāmātyas, counsellors of princes. The Uparikas, Daṇḍapāśikas, Taḍāniyuktakas are there as usual. The Antaraṅgas are clearly household officers. The Mahākṣapaṭalādhikaraṇādhikṛta who acts as the Dūtaka is primarily an officer of the Record Department. So, too, the Pustapālas, keepers of books. Another officer is designated as Mahākṣapaṭalika-Bhogika which shows that he combined the offices of a provincial governor and a record-keeper. Perhaps, he was in charge of the records of his province. Viṣayapatis, district officers, are there as usual. The reference to two villages as situated in two Viṣayas in North Tosali indicates that the last was the name of a province. The occurrence of the term Bṛihadbhogika shows that the governors of the major provinces might have enjoyed this higher title. There is another officer Sthānāntarika but his functions are not clear. From the analogy of other inscriptions he appears to be a police-officer.¹

c18.110

³ Ep. Ind., XII, No. 20.

c18.111

¹ Ep. Ind., XIV, No. 1.

c18.112

The administration was by no means so elaborate everywhere. In Almorā, a mountainous district in the north of the present United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, the machinery seems to have been much simpler. Two Tāleśvara Grants found there are forgeries but they are none the less valuable for the administration of that district about the eighth century A.D. The monarch, in spite of the undoubtedly small extent of his territory, is called Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja which is a clear indication of his independence. In the spurious grant he is made to address chiefs, that is, his feudatories, among others. Besides them, there were many landowners. The prince is one of the counsellors of the king. The chamberlain and the pramātāra are the chief civil officers mentioned. The masters of the elephants and horse are the principal military officers. The mention of Kulacārikas, that is, heads of kulas or families with the landed magnates and officers shows that society in the hills was organised partly on the basis of clans or families and that their heads exercised some regulating authority.¹

c18.113

¹ Ep. Ind., XIII, No. 7.

c18.114

Another grant discovered in Mārwār in the modern state of Jodhpur also indicates that the administrative structure in some regions was simpler than in others. The command in question was issued by an independent monarch who bears the three grand titles. But his administrative system is rather elementary.² The same remark applies to Bundelkhaṇḍ. From the 9th century A.D. onwards, the Chandel princes of Jejākabhukti appear as great builders. They beautified the towns of Mahobā, Kālañjar and Khajurāho with magnificent temples, palaces, lakes and tanks which still survive somewhere intact, somewhere in ruins But the administrative system of the whole region of Bundelkhaṇḍ never reached the complexity of other regions. In the Pachar Plate of Paramārdideva which is as late as the 12th century A.D. the king of Kālañjar, like his ancestors, has the three grand titles. His territory is subdivided into Viṣayas but his system of government is not elaborate.³

c18.115

² Ep. Ind., X, No. 17.

c18.116

³ Ep. Ind., X, No. 11.

c18.117

The Sunarpal Stone Inscription of Jayasiṃhadeva of Bastar in the modern Central Provinces, belonging probably to this period, calls the king Rājādhirāja Mahārāja. He makes the grant in the presence of five officers—the chief minister, the Paḍivāda probably the grand chamberlain, the Cavarikumāra, probably the prince in charge of the whisk, the

c18.118

Sarvavâdi Nâyaka, probably the head of the intelligence department, and the Dâdesan Pâtra Cavakâ, whose position is obscure. In this comparatively backward region, the organisation is different and simpler.¹ Two other inscriptions from near Bastar belonging to the middle of the eleventh century A.D. apply the title Mahârâjâdhirâja to King Someśvaradeva and call two of his queens Mahâdevîs.²

c18.119

¹ Ep. Ind., X, No. 6.

c18.120

² Ep. Ind., X, No. 5.

c18.121

In Pamparâjadeva’s Kaṅkar Copper Plates, of the beginning of the thirteenth century A.D., belonging to the Chhattîsagaḍh division of the modern Central Provinces, the title Paramabhaṭṭâraka and Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara are used in the ordinary sense.³

c18.122

³ Ep. Ind., IX, No. 22.

c18.123

The Copper Plate Grant of Vâkpatirâja of Dhârâ in Mâlwâ of the year 980 A.D. mentions the usual fiscal arrangements. It is particularly important for local government. It records that a village belonging to the Tiṇisapadra Twelve was alienated to the temple of a goddess.⁴ It proves that divisions like the Twelve-village, so common in the Deccan and the south, obtained as far north as Central India. It was on the basis of villages and their combinations that areas of local government were demarcated.

c18.124

⁴ Ind. Ant., XIV, p. 159.

c18.125

The majority of the inscriptions of this period refer to the Mahattaras or Mahattamas of a village. The two terms, though apparently representing the comparative and superlative degrees, have the same political significance, that of elders. Their repeated mention shows that generally the elders of a village were associated, it seems informally, with the regular servants of government in the management of rural affairs. Sometimes they rose high and obtained recognition at the courts of suzerains and feudatories. In one of the grants a Mahattama appears as the Dûtaka.¹

c18.126

¹ Ep. Ind., X, No. 17; III, No. 36.

c18.127

The tenth century Rajor Inscription of Mathanadeva speaks of numerous dues from a village (the object of a grant), customary and not customary, fixed and not fixed, shares of all sorts of grains—the khalabhikṣâ, prasthaka, skhandhaka, mârgaṇaka. The meaning of these is not clear. The dictionaries give no help.² The fines for “ten offences” which are hereby alienated formed a distinct source of revenue. The mention of treasures and deposits shows that the mineral products and treasure-trove were state-perquisites—a fact which is corroborated by the Dharma Śâstras. A little later the inscription mentions a few additional taxes—three vimśopokas as customary in the market on every sack of agricultural produce brought for sale; two palikâs from every ghaṭakakûpaka of clarified butter and oil; two vimśopakas per measure for every shop; and fifty leaves for every chollikâ of leaves imported from outside the specified boundaries. The occurrence of the term Maṭṭadâva in this inscription and of Maṇḍapikâ or Śulkamaṇḍapikâ in others shows the existence of a regular customs-house in towns and elsewhere.³

First 126 of 159 passages. Read on

Linked texts (49)