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 c20: Chapter XVI. The Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries A.D.

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c20

Language
English

Chapter XVI. The Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries A.D.

c20.2

The Arab occupation of Sindh in the eighth century A.D. was an episode in itself which left no permanent impress on the country. The long series of invasions by Mahmûd of Ghazni in the first quarter of the eleventh century A.D. was more important as showing the way to India and leading to the final loss of the gateways and the Western Puñjâb to the Islamic power. Until the close of the tenth century A.D. the Gûrjara-Pratihâras carefully guarded the North-western frontier but the decline of their power now facilitated the enterprise of the Sultân of Ghazni.¹ The Râjpûts, torn by hereditary feuds and lagging behind in military sciences, had to give way at almost every turn.

c20.3

¹ On the Gûrjara-Pratihâras, A. M. T. Jackson, Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, Part I, App. III; R. C. Majumdar, Journal of the Department of Letters, Calcutta, Vol. X, 1923, pp. 1–76; Hoernle, J. R. A. S., 1904, pp. 639–62; Ibid., 1905, pp. 1–32; V. A. Smith, J. R. A. S., 1909, pp. 53–76, 247–81; D. R. Bhandarkar, J. B. B. R. A. S., XXI, pp. 405 et seq.

c20.4

Musalmân Invaders.

c20.5

Nevertheless the exploits of Mahmûd, though they reached as far as Gujarât towards the south and the banks of the Ganges towards the east, were essentially raids. Except in the north-west, there was no permanent annexation. As soon as the avalanche had receded, the old surface re-appeared and life resumed its normal course. It was not until the close of the twelfth century that Mohammad Ghorî and his redoubtable lieutenants, Bakhtiyâr Khiljî and Qutb-ud-dîn Aiyabek, finally reduced the north of India and stamped out Hindu sovereignty. Another century was to roll by before Muslim arms penetrated into the south. For the whole of India, the eleventh and twelfth centuries A.D. are to be reckoned as part of the Ancient Age, and for the North, as its last period.

c20.6

The materials for the study of the administrative practices of these two centuries fall into three classes. In the first place, there are Muslim accounts, chiefly that of Alberûnî, the first and foremost of all Muslim students of Sanskrit, who lived for a while in India and wrote about 1030 A.D. In the second place, the contemporary Sanskrit literature, both Brahmanic and Jaina, can be made to yield something. In the third place, the inscriptions supply numerous administrative details.

c20.7

Alberûnî is entitled to special weight from his scientific habits of observation and mastery of Sanskrit. He is concerned with the culture rather than with the politics of India. None the less, here and there he notices the laws or institutions of the country. Caste inevitably attracted his notice. He makes the arresting remark that between the last two classes, the Vaiśyas and Śûdras, there was no very great distance.¹ As these constituted the mass of the people, it follows that Brâhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas formed the social aristocracy of the land. It appears that in the districts which came under Alberûnî's observation, political administration was not run by Brâhmaṇas at all. He reports the tradition current in his time that "originally the affairs of government were in the hands of the Brâhmaṇas but the country became disorganised since they ruled according to the philosophic principles of their religious codes, which proved impossible when opposed to the mischievous and perverse elements of the populace. They were even near losing also the administration of their religious affairs. Therefore they humiliated themselves before the lord of their religion. Whereupon Brahman entrusted them exclusively with the functions which they now have, whilst he entrusted the Kṣatriyas with the duties of ruling and fighting. Ever since the Brāhmaṇas live by asking and begging, and the penal code is exercised under the control of the kings, not under that of scholars.”¹

c20.8

¹ Alberûnî, India, tr. Sachau, Vol. I., pp. 100-101, on caste in general, pp. 99-103.

c20.9

¹ Ibid., II, 161-62.

c20.10

It is on law and justice that Alberûnî is most illuminating. Here he supplies details which are not to be found in the Hindu literature or the inscriptions. He rightly observes that the Hindus believed their religious law and its simple precepts to be derived from Ṛiṣis . . . “Further no law can be exchanged or replaced by another, for they use the laws simply as they find them.” But he adds presently “laws can be abrogated, for some practices allowed before the coming of Vâsudeva are now forbidden.”² In the Court a suitor had ordinarily to submit some documentary evidence, in prescribed form, to substantiate his claims before the judge. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the case was settled by means of witnesses. Witnesses should not be less than four but they might be more in number. Only where the facts were perfectly clear, adds Alberûnî, would the testimony of a single witness suffice. Even then the judge would employ all sorts of tricks and secret means to elicit the truth. If the plaintiff could not prove his claim, the defendant had still to swear to his innocence. On the other hand, the defendant himself might, evidently at an earlier stage, tender the oath to the plaintiff saying, “Swear thou that thy claim is true and I will give thee what thou claimest.” Oaths were of many kinds in accordance with the value of the object of the claim. If the object were not very important and the plaintiff agreed, the defendant merely swore, in the presence of five learned Brāhmaṇas, that " if I lie, he shall have as recompense as much of my goods as is equal to the eightfold of the amount of his claim."¹

c20.11

² Ibid., I, pp. 106-7.

c20.12

¹ Ibid., II, 158-59.

c20.13

The oath itself was regarded as a kind of ordeal. There were five other ordeals successively more serious. In the first, the ordeal by water, the accused, brought to a deep rapid river or a deep well, spoke as follows: "Since thou belongest to the pure angels (gods ?), and knowest both what is secret and public, kill me if I lie and preserve me if I speak the truth." He was then thrown by five persons into the water. It was believed that if he had spoken the truth, he would not drown and die. In the second ordeal, the judge would send both parties to the most venerated temple of the place, where the defendant would fast for a day and then, dressed in new garments, post himself with the plaintiff in the temple. "The priests pour water over the idol and give it him to drink. If he, then, has not spoken the truth, he at once vomits blood." In the ordeal by balance, the accused was first weighed on the scale. He then called on the gods to testify to his innocence and wrote down his invocations and declarations on a piece of paper. The paper was fastened to his head. "He is a second time placed in the scale of the balance. In case he has spoken the truth, he now weighs more than the second time." In the fourth ordeal, "they take butter and sesame-oil in equal quantities, and boil them in a kettle. Then they throw a leaf into it, which by getting flaccid and burned is to them a sign of the boiling of the mixture. When the boiling is at its height, they throw a piece of gold into the kettle and order the defendant to fetch it out with his own hand. If he has spoken the truth, he fetches it out.” In the highest ordeal, a piece of iron, red-hot and almost molten, was, with a pair of tongs, put on the hand of the accused; “there being nothing between the hand and the iron save a broad leaf of some plant, and under it some few and scattered corns of rice in the husks. They order him to carry it seven paces, and then he may throw it to the ground.”¹ It will be observed that while some of the ordeals were extremely mild and even trivial, others were very harsh and severe. Their choice probably depended on the nature of the charge and the sex, rank and character of the accused.

c20.14

¹ Ibid., II, 159-60.

c20.15

According to the Hindus of the 11th century A.D. the most serious crimes were the murder of a Brāhmaṇa, slaughter of a cow, drinking wine, and adultery, particularly with the wife of one’s own father or teacher. Alberûnî’s description of judicial punishments shows that the Smṛiti regulation of justice on lines of caste had some basis in facts. He notes the theory that if a Brāhmaṇa murdered a man of another caste, the former was only bound “to do expiation consisting of fasting, prayers and alms-giving.” But if a Brāhmaṇa murdered another Brāhmaṇa, he was not to be allowed to do any expiation but must be compelled to suffer the full rigour of punishment in the next world. In practice it appears, a Brāhmaṇa or a Kṣatriya, guilty of any of the deadly crimes mentioned above, was deprived of his property and banished. Alberûnî seems to imply that for a similar offence a Vaiśya or a Śûdra forfeited his life.

c20.16

If a man other than a Brāhmaṇa or a Kṣatriya killed a man of his own caste, he had to perform expiation and undergo an exemplary punishment. For theft the punishment varied according to the value of the objects stolen. “If the object is very great, the kings blind a Brāhmaṇa and mutilate him, cutting off his left hand and right foot, or the right hand and left foot, whilst they mutilate a Kṣatriya without blinding him, and kill thieves of the other castes.” A woman, guilty of adultery, was driven from home and exiled.¹

c20.17

¹ Ibid., II, 162.

c20.18

It will appear that the priestly injunction to deprive the Śūdras of sacred knowledge was respected by the state.

c20.19

Disabilities of Śūdras. Alberūnī, in fact, records that a Vaiśya or a Śūdra who dared to hear, pronounce, or recite Vedic texts was hauled up by Brāhmaṇas before magistrates who ordered his tongue to be cut out.² From the mention of Vaiśyas, the whole passage smacks of exaggeration but it certainly has a substratum of fact in it. Alberūnī is more correct in a later passage where he singles out the Śūdra for punishment for daring to arrogate the Dvija privileges of saying prayers, reciting the Veda and offering sacrifices to the fire.³

c20.20

² Ibid., I, 125.

c20.21

³ Ibid., II, 136.

c20.22

The Muslim historians who wrote accounts of the relations of Sabuktigin and Mahmūd of Ghaznī in the latter half of the tenth century and the first half of the 11th century A.D. do not display any deep knowledge of Indian political conditions and view all events from Ghaznī. But the incidental touches in their writings fully confirm the previous conclusions. Al'Utbī, author of Tārīkh Yamīnī or Kitābu-l Yamīnī speaks of the vassals collected by Jaipāl for his march on Afghānistān which, after the Arab occupation of Sindh, represented the first armed conflict between Hindus and Musalmāns.⁴ Again, there is a reference

c20.23

⁴ Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, II, p. 19.

c20.24

Muslim Historians.

c20.25

to chieftains.¹ Mention is made of vassals in the course of Mahmûd's campaigns in India.² Numerous Râis, as Hindu rulers are called in Muslim narratives, flourished in the north-western plains.³ Hasan Nizâmî's Taju-l Maâsir which describes the campaigns of Mohammad Ghorî and his lieutenants—the real conquest of North India—is also silent on the Hindu system of government and, in broad outline, merely confirms the foregoing accounts.⁴ There was a custom that a king, when taken prisoner, should not reign after his release. Jaipâl on return from Mahmûd's captivity, committed suicide by fire.⁵ Kings and chiefs adorned their bodies. The necklace worn by Jaipâl was composed of large pearls and shining gems and rubies set in gold, estimated at two hundred thousand dînârs. Twice that value was obtained from the ornaments on the necks of the king's relations.⁶

c20.26

¹ Ibid., II, 27.

c20.27

² Ibid., II, 38.

c20.28

³ Ibid., II, 42.

c20.29

⁴ Ibid., II, 204—43.

c20.30

⁵ Ibid., II, 27.

c20.31

⁶ Ibid., II, 26.

c20.32

It is only from inscriptions that any connected account of the administrative structure can be given. From the epigraphic data it appears that there were differences of detail in the institutions of various regions during this period but the framework was the same all over North India.

c20.33

The Candrâvatî plates of Candradeva of Kânyakubja, that is, Kanauj, belonging to the last decade of the eleventh century A.D., give the designations of many court officials as well as strictly political officers. As usual, the grants are made by the king after a bath, in the present instance, in the sacred river Sarayû at Ayodhyâ. The king styles himself Mahârâjâdhirâja Parameśvara. In the usual manner, he respects, informs and commands a number of personages, beginning with Râjas and Râjñis, feudatory chiefs and their consorts. Yuvarâjas, heirs-apparent to the various domains, come next. In the list of officers which follows, the central and local functionaries of state and the household officers are all mixed up together. Mantrins or ministers proper head the list. Then come Senâpatis or commanders of troops, Purohitas, chaplains, Pratihâras, chamberlains, Akṣapaṭalikas, keepers of records, Bhâṇḍâgârikas, treasurers or superintendents of stores, Bhiṣags or physicians, Naimittakas or astrologers, Antaḥpurikas, superintendents of seraglio departments or of gymnasiums, Dûtas or envoys, then officers in charge of elephants, horses, towns (paṭṭana), mines (âkara), stations or police stations (sthânas), officers in charge of districts (Viṣaya), cattle-stations (gokulas) and others (apara). The inhabitants of the villages granted to some Brâhmaṇas are called upon to render to the latter the bhâgabhogakara, the turuṣkadaṇḍa, viṣayadâna, etc. Bhâgabhogakara is the usual term for taxes of all kinds, including the royal share of the gross produce, the customs, tolls on sales, ferry dues, etc., etc. Turuṣkadaṇḍa is obscure. It may refer to ransom-money which had to be paid to Turuṣkas or western invaders and which had to be raised from the whole population. As such it would correspond to the Danish tax levied in England for a while. Or it may mean a sort of poll-tax imposed on Turuṣkas or settlers from the north-west. There is no reason to suppose that Turuṣkas were settled in every place of which the grants mention the Turuṣkadaṇḍa. But when once the tax had found a place in the fiscal system, it would be mentioned as an ordinary impost along with others. Viṣayadâna may mean some peculiar district tax. In any case, the number of imposts is strikingly large.¹

c20.34

¹ Ep. Ind., XIV, No. 15.

c20.35

Twenty-one Copper-plates of the kings of Kanauj ranging from the second to the seventh decade of the 12th century A.D. throughout mention the three grand titles and indicate the same feudal system. They show that Pattalâ was one of the divisions of local government and comprised a number of villages. The clerks were all called Kâyasthas. All the foregoing taxes are here with a few additions. Besides the Turuṣkadaṇḍa there is the Kumâragadiaṇaka and Pravaṇikara, rather obscure (which occur in many other grants), Gokara, probably a tax on the increase of cattle and Jâtakara. Any or all of the taxes might be alienated to the grantees.¹ Five Copper-plate Inscriptions of Govindacandra² and two later Copper-plate Grants of Jayacandra of Kanauj,³ all belonging to the 12th century A.D., mention all the above officers and state dues. Some other inscriptions of Kanauj kings repeat the same.⁴ Six Copper-plates of Jayacandra record grants to a Kṣatriya, an hereditary Râut and Mahâmahattaka. They prove that local dignities were often hereditary and that grants could be made to non-Brâhmaṇas as to Brâhmaṇas.⁵ The Saheth-Maheth Plate of Govindacandra is particularly interesting for its feudal indications.⁶ The Benâres Copper-plate Inscription of Karṇadeva of the year 1042 A.D. gives the usual information and is important for its clear indication of the claim of the state to the mineral products of the country.⁷

c20.36

¹ Ep. Ind., IV, No. 11. For another inscription of the same import, Ep. Ind., VII, No. 11.

c20.37

² Ep. Ind., VIII, No. 14.

c20.38

³ Ind. Ant., XV, pp. 6 et seq.

c20.39

⁴ Ind. Ant., XVIII, 1889, pp. 9 et seq.

c20.40

⁵ Ibid., XVIII, 136-42.

c20.41

⁶ Ep. Ind., XI, No. 3, J. R. A. S., 1909, pp. 1066 et seq.

c20.42

⁷ Ep. Ind., II, No. 23.

c20.43

The Lucknow Museum Plate of Kirtipâla of the year 1111-12 A.D. is interesting as indicating the existence of some religious dignitaries at some courts. Here the Paramabhaṭṭâraka Mahârâjâdhirâja Parameśvara mentions Mahâpurohita, Dharmâdhikaraṇika, Daivajñika, Śaṅkhadhâri, two Paṇḍitas, three Upâdhyâyas, Daivajña, Vaṭhakkura. Then come a few administrative officers—Mahâkṣapaṭalika, Aṣṭavargika, Karaṇakâyastha (registrar), Mahâtthâśâsanika, and Mahâsâdhanika. The term Mahâtthâśâsanika is obscure.¹

c20.44

¹ Ep. Ind., VII, No. 10. ² Ep. Ind., XI, No. 4 (III). ³ Ep. Ind., XI, No. 4 (XVII). ⁴ Ep. Ind., XI, No. 13. ⁵ Ep. Ind., XII, No. 3.

c20.45

In the Sevâḍi Stone Inscription of Aśvarâja of the year 1110-11 A.D. from Mârwâr in Râjputânâ, the titles are confused. There appears a new administrative term. Mahâsâhaṇiya is the great master of stables.² In another inscription of the year 1179-80 A.D. (Mârwâr) mention is made of the bhukti of the queen.³ Perhaps the proceeds of the province had been made over to her.

c20.46

In the Goharwa Plates of Karṇadeva, 1047 A.D., appear the chief officers of other inscriptions but Mahârâjaputra is used for Râjaputra, Mahâmantrin for Mantrin. Mahâśvasâdhanika is the great officer in charge of horses.⁴

c20.47

The Tarpaṇḍighi Grant of Lakṣmaṇasena, of the year 1122 A.D., shows that the same feudal-federal administrative and fiscal systems prevailed in Bengal as elsewhere.⁵ The conclusion is strengthened by the Bârrackpur Grant of Vijayasena of the 12th century A.D. Here also occur Mahâdharmâdhyakṣa, a great judicial officer, Mahâmudrâdhikrita, a great mint officer or keeper of the royal seal, and the same administrative divisions of Bhukti, Viṣaya and Grāma.¹ The Bengal grants of this period give unusually full lists of officers and state demands.

c20.48

¹ Ep. Ind., XV, No. 15.

c20.49

The Belava Copper-plate Inscription of Bhojavarmadeva of East Bengal, in the 11th century A.D., shows the fundamental political conditions to be the same but mentions a few additional offices which seem to have existed there. The king has all the three grand titles and addresses his command first to Rājans, Rājanyakas, Rājñīs (consorts of Rājans) and Rāṇakas. Here are the various bodies of feudatories. After Rājaputras or princes who may, in many cases, have occupied high offices, comes the Rājāmātya or chief minister. After the Purohita comes the Piṭhikāvitta whose functions are not clear. Then there are the Mahādharmādhyakṣa or chief judge, Mahāsandhivigrahika, minister of peace and war, Mahāsenāpati, commander-in-chief, Mahāmudrādhikṛita, as before, Antaraṅgabṛihaduparika, chief private secretary or superintendent of the seraglio or chief physician, Mahākṣapaṭalika, chief keeper of records, Mahāpratihāra, grand chamberlain, Mahābhogika, chief revenue officer, or provincial governor, Mahāvyūhapati, chief master of military arrays, Mahāpilupati, chief keeper of elephants, Mahāgaṇastha, chief commander of a gaṇa squadron, Dauḥsādhika, a special police-officer, or porter, or superintendent of villages, Cauroddharaṇika, a police-officer who had to deal with thieves, then inspectors of the flotilla, elephants, horses, cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep, etc., Gaulmikas, superintendents of forests or commanders of gulma squadrons, Daṇḍapāśikas, police-officers or executioners, Daṇḍanāyakas (magistrates), Viṣayapatis or district officers, other Adhyakṣas, superintendents or chief officers, Cāṭas, petty police-officers, Bhaṭas, soldiers.²

c20.50

² Ep. Ind., XII, No. 8.

c20.51

Another East Bengal document, the Râmpâl Copper-plate Grant of Śrīcandradeva, gives the same list of officers.¹ So, too, the Khairah Plate of Yaśaḥkarṇadeva.² In another inscription the word Rāṣṭra is used in the sense of a district.³

c20.52

¹ Ep. Ind., XII, No. 18.

c20.53

² Ep. Ind., XII, No. 24.

c20.54

³ Ep. Ind., XII, No. 17.

c20.55

The records of the Somavaṁśī kings of Kaṭak (Cuttack) in Orissâ disclose the same practices of suzerainty and vassalage as prevailed elsewhere in India. The suzerain, as usual, employed the three grand titles. Not only feudatories but also high government officials here make grants of land on their own account. Perhaps the system of remunerating high officials with assignments of land prevailed. Petty officials and clerks are called Kāyasthas.⁴ The Kudopali Plates of the time of Mahābhavagupta II, about the 12th century A.D., show that a feudatory could enjoy lofty titles and yet possess a very small territory. Puñja was a Māṇḍalika, a Rāṇaka and had obtained the five Mahāśabdas but he ruled only over fifteen villages.⁵ The plates of Vidyādharabhañjadeva bring to view feudatories and sub-feudatories.⁶ In the Orissâ grants the number of officials is smaller than in the Gangetic plains. It appears that administrative development there had not reached the stage which the Kanauj and Bengal grants, for instance, reveal.

c20.56

⁴ Ep. Ind., III, No. 47.

c20.57

⁵ Ep. Ind., IV, No. 35.

c20.58

⁶ Ep. Ind., IX, No. 37.

c20.59

The Copper-plate Grant of Vaidyadeva of the middle of the 12th century A.D. is of absorbing interest as giving a picture of contemporary Assamese administration. Probably a Brāhmaṇa by birth, Vaidyadeva was a capable general of King Kumā-

c20.60

rapâla and, politically, a man of first-rate importance. His grant shows that suzerains sometimes displaced disloyal feudatories and put loyal ones in their places. The highest offices might be hereditary. In the present case the office of Mantrin descended from father to son for no less than four generations. There is negative evidence that the number of imposts was not so large as elsewhere. The suzerain, by the way, has all the three grand titles.¹

c20.61

¹ Ep. Ind., II, No. 28.

c20.62

The Mândhâtâ Plates of Jayasimha of Dhârâ in Mâlwâ of the year 1055-56 A.D. disclose the usual feudal and fiscal system. Here the village officer is called Paṭṭakila. The grant is made to a Paṭṭaśâlâ, probably the same as Pâṭhśâlâ, a seat of learning.²

c20.63

² Ep. Ind., III, No. 7.

c20.64

The Ratnapur Stone Inscription of Jâjalladeva of the year 1114 A.D. shows the central Indian rulers founding new towns and beautifying new and old alike. Here the word maṇḍala was used to denote spheres of diplomacy dominated by one or other of the numerous princes.³ Two Candella Inscriptions show hereditary ministers.⁴ Another two Candella Inscriptions from Ajayagaḍh of the thirteenth century A.D., show a queen constructing a well and a hall.⁵

c20.65

³ Ep. Ind., I, No. 5.

c20.66

⁴ Ep. Ind., I, No. 25.

c20.67

⁵ Ep. Ind., I, No. 38. See also three Candella Copper Plate Grants of the eleventh century A.D., Ind. Ant., XVI, p. 301.

c20.68

The Nâdol Stone Inscription of Râyapâla (Mârwâr, Râjpûtânâ) of 1141 or 1142 A.D. is extremely important for local administration. Here sixteen Brâhmaṇas, inhabitants of eight different wards of the town of Dhâlopa, and another man named Devaica, a mediator, head all the men of the town in presenting a document, drafted by them, to the ruler. They promise to find out, in accordance with the custom of the country, through the Caukaḍikā or pañcāyata, whatever is lost by or snatched away from the Bhaṭa, the Baṭṭaputra, Dauvārika, Kārpaṭika, Vaṇijjāraka and others on their way. The individuals responsible for a particular ward were to busy themselves in person in tracing out any articles lost therein. The Mahārāja Śrīrājyapāla supplied the people with money, weapons and watchmen, etc., for tracing lost articles. The document ended with an imprecation that if a Brāhmaṇa refused to share in this task of investigation, he might die like a cur, a donkey or a caṇḍāla, and no blame would rest on the chiefs or Rāṇakas. Apart from its feudalism, the document shows that a town was divided into a number of wards, at least eight in this particular case, that the inhabitants with recognised leaders at their head undertook some important police duties, that all, even Brāhmaṇas, were expected to give their personal services in the task and that the whole thing was managed with the knowledge and assistance of the ruler. The document was signed by many witnesses, including the Bhaṭṭārakas of temples.¹

c20.69

¹ Ep. Ind., XI, No. 4 (IX).

c20.70

A thirteenth century document from the same area—the Sāñcor Stone Inscription of Sāmantasiṃha styled Mahārārājakula—brings the administration of a village to view. The local authority in the village was exercised by the pañca, literally a committee of five, consisting of the Mahanta Hīrā and others appointed by the king.²

c20.71

² Ep. Ind., XI, No. 4 (XXI).

c20.72

It is in the case of Mārwār alone in North India that there is any epigraphic evidence of organs of even partial local self-government. Neither in the inscriptions nor in literature is there anything to enable us to trace their origin and development. But their existence in

c20.73

Mârwâr in the last period of the ancient age is undoubted. Elsewhere in the North we only find the village elders—Mahattaras or Mahattamas—informally associated with village officers from the Gupta period onwards. In this respect the North offers a strong contrast to the South which had by this time evolved a regular system of village self-government through assemblies, committees and elective officers working under the general supervision of the government.

c20.74

Besides the regular taxes of the foregoing epochs, the inscriptions of this period bring into view some peculiar imposts. The Nadlai Stone Inscription of Râyapâla of the year 1132-33 A.D. from Mârwâr, Râjpûtâna, mentions the grant of two palikâs out of those due to the state from each oil machine (ghaṇaka) to some Jaina saints. To this benefaction there were a number of witnesses.¹

c20.75

¹ Ep. Ind., XI, No. 4 (VII, also XV).

c20.76

The Fiscal System.

c20.77

A Paṭṇâ inscription of the beginning of thirteenth century A.D. is interesting from more than one point of view. Under the suzerain Yâdavasimhana were two feudatories, the brothers Soideva and Hemâdideva who ruled over "the country of 1,600 villages." They liberally endowed with land and 'other sources of income' a college founded by the Yâdava king's chief astrologer, grandson of the famous astronomer Bhâskarâcârya for the study of Siddhântaśiromaṇi and other works of his grandfather and relations.²

c20.78

² Ep. Ind., I, No. 39.

c20.79

Feudatories.

c20.80

Most of the extant inscriptions are grants to persons, temples or institutions. They testify abundantly to the generosity of Hindu courts. Recipients also sometimes commemorated their gratitude. For instance, the Govindpur Stone Inscription of the poet Gaṅgâdhara, of the year 1137-38 A.D., records

c20.81

Endowments.

c20.82

that the poet and his ancestors enjoyed the patronage of Magadha rulers for generations.¹ Of the seats of learning endowed by royal munificence during this period, Vikramaśilavihāra is probably the finest example. It was founded by Dharmapāla, second of the Pāla dynasty, in the 9th century A.D. The institution was housed in a magnificent building which made room for 107 temples within its precincts. It included six different scholastic institutions where teaching was imparted by 108 masters. Altogether, it could accommodate 8,000 men. The head called Adhināyaka was appointed by the king. This seat of learning had an all-India fame and attracted scholars and students from far and near. There was a tradition that even its gate-keepers were Paṇḍitas and had to be defeated in scholastic discussion before one could enter the precincts. The institution flourished until the 12th century A.D. when it was engulfed in the rushing tide of the Muslim conquest.²

c20.83

¹ Ep. Ind., II, No. 26. ² Nundo Lal Dey, J.A.S.B., New Series, 1909, pp. 1 et seq., quoting Indian Paṇḍitas in the Land of Snow, 39, 58. Journal of the Indian Buddhist Text Society, 1893. Kern, Manual of Indian Buddhism, 133. Satīśchandra Vidyābhūsaṇa, Bhāratī, Baiśākh, 1315, identifies Vikramaśila with Sultāngañj in the district of Bhāgalpur. ³ Garuḍa Purāṇa, CVIII, 1.

c20.84

The evidence of the inscriptions and of the Muslim writers of this period is supplemented by literature in several particulars. The close of the ancient age produced several Nītiśāstras—compositions which, in their method and treatment stand midway between the Arthaśāstras and Dharma Śāstras and represent a partial fusion of the two. According to the theory of the Garuḍa Purāṇa,³ the Nītiśāstras are concerned with ethics in general of which the Arthaśāstra forms

c20.85

The evidence of literature.

c20.86

Nītiśāstras.

c20.87

a part. So far as contents are concerned, the line between Arthaśāstra and Nītiśāstra is very faint, almost non-existent. It need hardly be stated that the Nītiśāstras, in spite of their profuse classifications, divisions, sub-divisions, and multitudes of details, are essentially theoretical and can be used for the study of practical administration only with the utmost caution.

c20.88

King Bhoja of Dhārā in Mālwā, of the 11th century A.D., is known to Hindu tradition as a second Vikramāditya.¹ To him is attributed the authorship of many works on Yoga, philosophy, astronomy, medicine, prosody, and Alaṅkāra. He is said to have written the Yuktikalpataru which treats of a huge number of topics, covering law, government, military tactics and accoutrements, ship-building, architecture, precious stones, draught animals, etc., etc.² Here the royal preceptor, priest, minister, counseller, commander and ambassador are the chief officers of state (pp. 3—6). There are various superintendents, including those of forests. Towns had an administrative machinery of their own. Espionage plays an important part in the working of the administration.³

c20.89

¹ For the date of Bhoja, Ind. Ant., 1907, pp. 170—72. Ibid. 1912, p. 20.

c20.90

² The Yuktikalpataru has recently been published in the Calcutta Oriental Series.

c20.91

³ For the purport of Yuktikalpataru (p. 1); foreign policy and war (pp. 7—14, 17—20); for daṇḍa, p. 15.

c20.92

A Nītiprakāśikā, attributed to Vaiśampāyana,⁴ enjoyed some vogue in the Middle Ages but it contains hardly anything new. It pays special attention to archery.⁵

c20.93

⁴ Ed. Gustav Oppert, Madras, 1882.

c20.94

⁵ For its history of Nīti, I, 20—28.

c20.95

The Cāṇakya Sūtras, as one of the versions of the composition wrongly ascribed to the author of the Arthaśāstra is called, is almost valueless. It stresses the importance of discipline on the part of the king but preaches passive obedience and servility to the ‘chief god’ as the king is called.¹ The work called Vṛddha Cāṇakya Rājanīti² is even more disappointing. It is concerned merely with ethics and worldly wisdom. It is a symptom of decline that Niti and Rājanīti had altered their meaning.

c20.96

¹ Cāṇakya Sūtras, 14, 87, 372, 445, 532-33.

c20.97

² Published Ahmedabad, 1903.

c20.98

About the eleventh century A.D. Padmagupta in his Navasāhasāṅkacarita³ celebrated the glories of Sindhurāja in the usual manner and reflected a state of feudalism.

c20.99

³ Ed. Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. 53. For a criticism, J. R. A. S., 1907, p. 1072.

c20.100

The Jaina writer Merutuṅgācārya composed his Prabandha Cintāmaṇi⁴ only in the 14th century but he based his work on older tradition and may be noticed here. He is half-mythical in his earlier narration and, though he gains in sobriety as he descends to later times, he retains his passion for tales which rebound to the glory of Jainism. The old stories of fabulous kings reflect the traditional patronage of learning at Hindu courts.⁵ Ministers are seen offering wholesome advice to kings and giving them instruction from Niti works.⁶ On the other hand, the pages of Merutuṅgācārya show some royal officers oppressing the people. The king, however, comes to the rescue, redresses their grievances and grants them certain exemptions from taxes.¹ Palmists and astrologers are there at the court.² The ideal of a prince’s education is set forth when Bhoja is said to have studied all the treatises on ‘kingcraft,’ learnt the use of thirty-six weapons and “attained the further shore of the ocean of 72 accomplishments.”³ The king holds religious assemblies of representatives of all sects.⁴ There is a tragic touch in the fourth chapter where king Bhîmasena, unwilling to give the throne to Kumârapâla, his son by a low-caste woman, seeks to encompass his destruction. But the prince flies away.⁵

c20.101

⁴ Translated from Sanskrit Mss. by C. H. Tawney. On the reliability of the dates, R. Sewell, J.R.A.S., 1920, pp. 331-41.

c20.102

⁵ Ibid., 75-77, 38.

c20.103

⁶ Ibid., 88.

c20.104

¹ Ibid., 77-78.

c20.105

² Ibid., 9, 32.

c20.106

³ Ibid., 32.

c20.107

⁴ Ibid., 62.

c20.108

⁵ Ibid., 116.

c20.109

In the latter half of the eleventh century A.D. Somadeva composed the Kathâsaritsâgara—‘the Ocean of the Rivers of Stories’—largely on the basis of the Brihatkathâ, which, as already noted, had been written by an earlier creative author Guṇâḍhya in the Paiśâcî dialect.⁶ In spite of some indubitable Buddhist influence, the tone and spirit of the Kathâsaritsâgara are mainly Brahmanic. It is, therefore, all the more interesting to find at the very outset a Brâhmaṇa sentenced to death by the king. The fictitious story serves to indicate that the Brahmanic claim to exemption from capital punishment was not always respected in practice. In the stories the ideal of kingship is high,⁷ but there were kings who fell into ease and luxury and left the cares of state to ministers.⁸

c20.110

⁶ On the Brihatkathâ, Keith, J.R.A.S., 1909, pp. 145 et seq. J. S. Speyer, Studies on the Kathâsaritsâgara.

c20.111

⁷ Kathâsaritsâgara, tr. Tawney, Vol. I, Part I, p. 163, for the king’s duties of the day.

c20.112

⁸ Ibid., p. 67.

c20.113

The grant of a large area of land to a Brāhmaṇa by royal charter is interesting in the light of contemporary inscriptions.¹ Later, the rule of Mlecchas is painted as one of persecution of Brāhmaṇas, interruption of sacrifices and abduction of hermits' daughters.²

c20.114

¹ Ibid., p. 43.

c20.115

² Ibid., Vol. II, Book XVIII, Canto CXX.

c20.116

Vidyāpati Ṭhākura's Puruṣaparīkṣā, though actually composed in the 14th or 15th century A.D., belongs to the older tradition and can be noticed here. Kings were only too often arbitrary. For instance, king Nanda of Kusumpur deprives his minister Śakaṭāra of all his property and throws him into prison. Another tyrannical king whom even the sages failed to bring to duty is expelled by the people and his brother is placed on the throne.³ There were ministers who drew the minds of their masters away from duty and themselves practically usurped all authority. Ministers, we are told, are naturally of crooked minds.⁴ Every king had a sort of council which, it is urged, should consist of men versed in the Śāstras.⁵

c20.117

³ Puruṣaparīkṣā, No. XXXII, Tale of a Repentant Sinner.

c20.118

⁴ Ibid., XIII, Tale of a Base Informer.

c20.119

⁵ Ibid., XVII, Tale of a Man learned in the Śāstras. See also the Story of One well-versed in Wisdom. For royal patronage see XXII, Tale of a Man knowing the Art of Singing.

c20.120

The eleventh century saw another story-book of some literary merit, the Dharmaparīkṣā by the Jain writer Amitagati Sūri, author of Subhāṣitaratnasamdoha, Pañcasaṃgraha, Śrāvakācārya, and other works. In spite of its strong sectarian animosities, the Dharmaparīkṣā adopts the current political maxims of Brāhmaṇas. In its pages, small Rājas flit to and fro. Another Jaina "treasury of stories,” the Kathâkoṣa¹ gives many tales of princes and princesses and shows the small feudalised state to be the norm in Indian politics. At the same time it discloses intrigues, conspiracies and assassination at courts. Kings were sometimes whimsical. A king forcibly seized the wife of another man.² There is another interesting political touch in an earlier story in which a king appoints a favourite merchant keeper of the Great Seal.³

c20.121

¹ Translated from Sanskrit Mss. by C. H. Tawney (Oriental Translation Fund, New Series II).

c20.122

² Kathâkoṣa, p. 33.

c20.123

³ Ibid., p. 5.

c20.124

Only a few other works need be noticed. In the Nalodaya wrongly ascribed to Kâlidâsa, a kingdom is treated like private property which can be pawned, lost and regained at dice. The theme recurs in Trivikramabhaṭṭa’s Nalacampû. The same story was worked out towards the close of the 12th century A.D. by Śrī Harṣa into the Naiṣadhīya, one of the five Mahâkâvyas of Sanskrit Literature.⁴ The dramatic piece Satya Hariścandra Nāṭaka⁵ also regards the realm as private property which can be given away to a saint as if it were a piece of furniture. Ballālasena’s Bhoja Prabandha,⁶ reproducing the old political maxims holds forth the king as the guide, teacher and exemplar of his subjects.⁷ Kavirāja’s Rāghavapāṇḍavīya simultaneously relates the tales of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata and thus represents the height of artificiality.⁸ It echoes the old politics and is hardly representative of its age.

c20.125

⁴ Ed. with Nārāyaṇa’s commentary by Śivadatta, Bombay, 1907.

c20.126

⁵ Ed. B. R. Apte and S. V. Puranik, 3rd edition, Bombay, 1923.

c20.127

⁶ Ed. Vāsudeva Sharma, Bombay, 1921.

c20.128

⁷ Ibid., pp. 8, 10.

c20.129

⁸ Ed. with the commentary of Śaśadhara by Kāśināth Pāṇḍurang Parab, in the Kâvyamâlâ, No. 62, Bombay, 1897. The work was supposed to belong to the ninth century A.D. but see Keith, Classical Sanskrit Literature, 56, who dates it about 1190 A.D.

c20.130

To the last age of ancient India belongs an interesting Apabhraṁśa Jaina work, Bhavisattakahâ by Dhana-pâla.¹ The incidental political references in the story, particularly in the thirteenth and fourteenth saṃdhis or chapters, show that the western half of North India was divided into a number of principalities, some of which were independent, while the rest acknowledged the suzerainty of others. Sâmanta is the term used to denote vassals of this character. A circle of suzerainty comprising an overlord and his vassals was known as a Maṇḍala.

c20.131

¹ Ed. C. D. Dalal and P. D. Gune, Gaekwad Oriental Series, XX. The work is also called Bhavisattakahâ or Suyapaṃcamîkahâ. From internal references it is clear that the work was composed after the 9th century A.D. while linguistic evidence fixes the lower limit at the 12th century A.D. (Introduction, pp. 1–4).

c20.132

During this period, as in the preceding one, the institutions of the North generally resemble those of the Deccan and, to a slightly lesser extent, those of the extreme south. There were, of course, many differences of detail and nomenclature. It is worth while bringing out a few points of comparison and contrast by analysing some typical inscriptions. In the Bhandup Plates of the year 1026 A.D., found in the Thânâ district of the modern Bombay Presidency, Chittarâjadeva is called Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara, and Mahâsâmantâdhipati who has attained the Pañcamahâśabdas. Like all big feudatories he has sub-feudatories under him and runs an administration which resembles the prevailing system of the country. But his chief officers seem to fall into three categories, Mantrin, Amâtya, and Pradhâna. They may be translated as counsellor, minister and chief but the exact degree of the difference between them cannot be ascertained. Mention is made of the Sarvâdhikârin, chief executive head, and two Samdhivigrahikas. Probably, they would fall under one or other of the above categories. Between the Mantrin and the Amâtya is mentioned the Purohita. There are two general terms for minor officers: Apradhâna (' not chief ') and Naiyogika, functionaries. Four classes of local officers are mentioned— Râṣṭrapati, probably the governor of a province, Viṣayapati, district-officer, Nagarapati, city-officer, Grâmapati, village-officer. Niyuktas seem to be lower government servants, Râjapuruṣa is probably the general name for servants of state.¹ A distinction is drawn between Janapada, people of the country and Pauratrivarga, three classes of citizens.² It will be observed that the administrative nomenclature of Western India was different from that of the North.

c20.133

¹ Compare the grant of the Râṣṭrakûṭa King Govind IV, dated Śaka 853 (A.D. 930) which mentions inter alia Râṣṭrapati, Grâmakûṭa, Yuktakas, and Upayuktakas (Ep. Ind., VII, 39-40).

c20.134

² Ep. Ind., XII, No. 31.

c20.135

The titles of suzerainty and vassalage are generally applied in the Deccan and south exactly as in the north. The few peculiarities may be noticed. In an inscription of 1072 A.D, for instance, Jayasiṁha III is called Mahârâjâdhirâja, Parameśvara and Śrîprithvivallabha.³ In the Pithampur Plates of Vira Coḷâ, Râjaparameśvara is substituted for Parameśvara and the fact of suzerainty over Râjas is brought out more prominently.⁴ In another inscription one of the three grand titles is omitted.⁵ In the Soraikkavur Plates of Virûpâkṣa of the 13th century A.D., a Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara styles himself Râjâdhirâja Râjaparameśvara.⁶ This is one of the rare instances of big feudatories assuming partly the titles of suzerainty. Perhaps the ruler had many big sub-feudatories under him and was developing into a suzerain. For great suzerains some new grandiloquent titles like Sakalabhuvanacakravartin and Tribhuvanacakravartin had emerged.¹ The Chebrolu Inscription of Vikrama Cola (c. 1126 A.D.) calls the king Mahārājādhirāja, Rājaparameśvara, Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Rājarājendra, Viramahendra.²

c20.136

³ Ep. Ind., IV, No. 30.

c20.137

⁴ Ep. Ind., V, No. 10.

c20.138

⁵ Ep. Ind., V, No. 15.

c20.139

⁶ Ep. Ind., VIII, No. 31.

c20.140

¹ Ep. Ind., VII, No. 23.

c20.141

² Ep. Ind., VI, No. 21 (A). Here a Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara has got the five Mahāśabdas.

c20.142

The Kalbhan Jaina Inscription from the Sampgaum Tāluka of the Belgaum district of the modern Bombay Presidency belonging to the 11th century A.D. throws some additional light on feudatories. A Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara who paid homage as usual to a Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhirāja Parameśvara, had been duly invested with the five Mahāśabdas. His capital is called the best of cities. He had been decorated with the binding on of the Koṅguṇi fillet of rulership (Paṭṭabandha); he was entitled to be heralded in public by the sounds of the victorious drum of a Śāsanadevi; he had for an ornament the banner of a bunch of feathers; he was governing the Gaṅgavāḍi Ninety-six thousand.³ In the Gadag Inscription of Vira-Ballāla II, of the year 1192 A.D., Jagaddeva, probably a feudatory of the Western Cālukya king Vikramāditya VI, is called a Saptāṅga. Elsewhere he is designated a Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara. It appears that Saptāṅga was now one of the new feudal titles.⁴

c20.143

³ Ind. Ant., XVIII, 1889, pp. 309 et seq.

c20.144

⁴ Ep. Ind., VI, No. 10.

c20.145

The Pithapuram Inscription of Pṛthvīśvara of the 12th century A.D. from the Kiṣṭnā district shows a line of hereditary Mahāmaṇḍaleśvaras ruling a territory divided into Viṣayas and conducting an administration of the regular type.⁵ The Salotji Pillar Inscription of the 11th or 12th century A.D. from the Bijapur district shows that feudatories had banners with peculiar emblems of their own. A golden Garuda marked the banner of a Mahamandalesvara who had attained to the five Mahasabdas.¹ The Nadagam Plate of Vajrahasta, of the year 1058 A.D. has a two-fold interest. It discloses a line of hereditary Maharajas becoming Maharajadhirajas. Next it shows that Visayas could be created ad hoc and that some of the Visayas were very small. Vajrahasta calls together his ministers and other people, clubs twelve villages together, designates the aggregate as the Visaya of Velpura and makes a grant of it.²

c20.146

⁵ Ep. Ind., IV, No. 4.

c20.147

¹ Ep. Ind., IV, No. 6 (c).

c20.148

² Ep. Ind., IV, No. 24.

c20.149

The Ganjam Plates of Prithivivarinadeva of the 12th or 13th century give the three grand titles as well as that of Maharaja to the king. The latter is spoken of as having brought the whole Samanta-cakra (circle of feudatories) under him.³

c20.150

³ Ep. Ind., IV, No. 26.

c20.151

The same system is reflected in the Managoli Inscriptions of the 12th century.⁴ The Ablur Inscriptions of the same century show several grades of feudatories.⁵ In the six Inscriptions at Tirunamanallur, too, feudatories abound.⁶ An inscription of the time of Prataparudra of the Tamil country speaks of the ruler of a province as Mahamandala-cakravartin. Obviously, he was a feudatory.⁷

c20.152

⁴ Ep. Ind., V, No. 3.

c20.153

⁵ Ep. Ind., V, No. 25.

c20.154

⁶ Ep. Ind., VII, No. 19.

c20.155

⁷ Ep. Ind., VII, No. 18.

c20.156

The Belaturn Inscription of the year 1057 A.D. of the time of Rajendradeva from Mysore vividly pictures the process of elevation in feudal rank. The Chola king presents the chief of Kudiyas, who, by the way was a Sudra, with a pearl umbrella, a conch, cymbals, and a royal elephant. So he was created a Mâṇḍalika.¹ An Inscription of Buddharâja brings into view a line of hereditary Mahâmaṇḍaleśvaras.² In the Saṃgamner Copper Plate Inscription of the Yâdava Bhillama II a Mahâsâmanta who had obtained the five Mahâśabdas is described as the supreme lord of the city of Dvârâvatî. That city was probably his headquarters.³

c20.157

¹ Ep. Ind., VI, No. 10.

c20.158

² Ep. Ind., VI, No. 26.

c20.159

³ Ep. Ind., III, No. 10.

c20.160

The Kolhâpur Inscription of the Śilahara Vijayâditya of the year 1143 A.D., from Kolhâpur State, shows a Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara, who has attained the five Mahâśabdas, making a grant to a Jaina shrine in the usual style.⁴

c20.161

⁴ Ep. Ind., III, No. 27, also 29, 33.

c20.162

The Bhâdâna Grant of Aparâjita, belonging to the close of the 10th century A.D., shows a Mahâsâmantâdhipati Mahâmaṇḍaleśvarapañcamahâśabda commanding sub-feudatories, regular officers, heads of towns, people of Sthânas—police-stations—chief men and common people of the three principal castes. A Koṅkan Viṣaya comprised 1,400 villages. Here part of the revenue is not alienated to the grantee.⁵ It also proves that warfare often resulted in the enslavement of large numbers of men and women. The Gaṇapeśvara Inscription of the time of Gaṇapati, of the year 1231 A.D., from the Kṛṣṇâ district, refers to families which supplied hereditary servants of state. One of them, a special favourite with the king, received the dignity of a general and of a commander of the elephant troop along with a palanquin, a parasol and other emblems.⁶

c20.163

⁵ Ep. Ind., III, No. 37, also 40. For sub-feudatories, also 42, 43.

c20.164

⁶ Ep. Ind., III, No. 15.

c20.165

The Dirghasi Inscription of Vanapati or Banapati of the year 1075-76 A.D. shows a feudatory—a Mâṇḍalika—occupying the position of a Pratihârin or chamberlain at the court of his suzerain, Râjarâja.⁷

c20.166

⁷ Ep. Ind., IV, No. 45.

c20.167

The Anmakonda Inscription of Prola (1117 A.D.) shows that a Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara had his headquarters at a chief town, employed a sub-feudatory as his Daṇḍâdhinâtha, judicial officer, and was served by an hereditary chief minister.¹ An old-Kanarese Inscription at Terdâl in the southern Marâṭhâ country, of the year 1123-24 A.D., shows that a Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara, with his headquarters at a fine city, having attained the five Mahâśabdas, “had a trivale played before him.” He also had the device of an elephant and the figure of a golden eagle on his banner.²

c20.168

¹ Ep. Ind., IX, No. 35.

c20.169

² Ind. Ant., XIV, pp. 14 et seq.

c20.170

A Kadambâ Inscription at Siddâpur near Dhârwâḍ, of the 12th century, throws some light on fiscal arrangements. Various dues were to be collected from various persons for worship and repair of temples. From a body of 60 tenants was to be collected a set of earthern pots for oil; from the gardening tenants, one pâga for caitra and one pâga for pavitra; from another body of 504 tenants, one pâga for caitra and one pâga for pavitra, and one pâga for gâtra; from another body of 300 tenants, one pâga for caitra and one pâga for pavitra.³

c20.171

³ Ind. Ant., XI, 1882, pp. 273 et seq.

c20.172

A few of the officials in Deccan and southern inscriptions may be mentioned by way of contrast with the North. An inscription of the time of Pratâparudra from the Tâmil region calls a general Nâyaka.⁴ Several inscriptions use the terms Kaṭakâdhîśa, Kaṭakeśa and Kaṭakarâja to denote either a governor or a superintendent of the royal camp.⁵ In the Kaluchumbarru Grant of the eastern Câlukya king Vijayâditya-Amma II, of the year 945 A.D., the Yuvarâja, heir-apparent, is called Bhûpati. Here the office of Grâmakûṭa or village headman is given to a man in perpetuity.¹ In the 14th century Ranganâtha Inscription of Goppana the chief minister is called Mahâpradhâna.² The Nilaguṇḍa Plates of Vikramâditya VI (1087—1123 A.D.) mention Âyuktakas and Niyuktakas as subordinate officers.³

c20.173

⁴ Ep. Ind., VII, No. 18.

c20.174

⁵ Ep. Ind., VII, No. 25; Ind. Ant., VII, 17, 183, 189; XII, 93; XIII, 138; XX, 17, 106, 417.

c20.175

¹ Ep. Ind., VII, No. 25.

c20.176

² Ep. Ind., VI, No. 33.

c20.177

³ Ep. Ind., XII, No. 19.

c20.178

Two grants of Daṇḍimahâdevî from the Gañjam district of the modern Northern Circars (in the Southern Presidency), of the thirteenth century A.D., are unusually interesting as bringing to view female sovereigns who appear so rarely in the annals of ancient India. The queen Daṇḍimahâdevî is styled Paramabhaṭṭârikâ, Mahârâjâdhirâja Parameśvarî. Her mother had also been a sovereign. Daṇḍimahâdevî issues the grant in the usual manner and addresses her command first to Mahâsâmantas and Mahârâjas—the big feudatories. Later, special mention is made of the Sâmantas and Sâmavâjins who dwelt in the eastern sub-division of Vardâkhaṇḍa-viṣaya and who constituted a class of feudatories by themselves. Towards the end mention is made of a Râṇaka, probably a small feudatory, who acts as the Dûtaka. The central local officers mentioned here are the same as in the Northern grants of the last age of ancient India. The village is granted with the weavers, Gukuṭas, distillers of spirituous liquors, other artisans, hamlets, thickets, and landing-places in accordance with the Bhûmichidra maxim. The meaning is that some dues were usually levied from those who followed the occupations or used the places enumerated and that all such dues were now alienated to a Brâhmaṇa.⁴

c20.179

⁴ Ep. Ind., VI, No. 13.

Linked texts (36)