The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c20.132

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.