Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c10.s3.t1: 1. Hindu Archives

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c10.s3.t1

Language
English

1. Hindu Archives

c10.s3.t1.1

The supreme government of the Chola Empire (900—1300) had a record office² as one of its bureaus of administration. It was here that every *sâsana* (or *râjnâm âjnâ* as it is called by Kautilya, i. e., "command of the state") was registered. This department was the depositary also of all official papers having permanent value. In southern India historiography must thus have received an impetus from the public registration of royal decrees and charters.

c10.s3.t1.2

² Aiyangar's *Anc. Ind.*, pp. 175, 177, 178.

c10.s3.t1.3

Hiuen Thsang noticed that in regard to the records of events each prefectural province of the Vardhana Empire (606—647) had its own official for preserving them in writing. The records were called *nîla-pita* (blue deposit). Good and evil events were mentioned therein, as well as calamities and fortunate occurrences.³

c10.s3.t1.4

³ *Si-Yu-ki*, Vol. I, p. 78.

c10.s3.t1.5

Further, we know from Megasthenes⁴ that under the Mauryas (B. C. 322—185 B. C.) the city fathers of Pâtali-putra regularly kept census and vital statistics of the municipal area. Such data were compiled for every territorial jurisdiction, as is borne out by the *Arthaśâstra*. The gazetteer of the village was compiled by the *gopa*.¹ The *sthânika* was responsible for the district gazetteer, as the *nâgaraka* for that of the city. The imperial gezetteer was the compilation of the *samâhartâ* or collector-general from these local directories. All details from the number of males and females to the incomes and expenditures of the families were to be found in these official registers.

c10.s3.t1.6

⁴ Mc Crindle's *Anc. Ind.*, pp. 87—88.

c10.s3.t1.7

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1905, p. 5.

c10.s3.t1.8

But, curiously enough, with the exception of certain sections in the *Artha-śâstra*² bearing on revenues and on crimes and punishments students of Hindu polity can hardly point to any collections of *śâsanas*, (ordinances and statutes) or statistical documents in ancient Indian archives. Semi-historical writings like Kalhaṇa’s *Râja-tarangiṇî* (Kashmir) Sandhyâkara’s *Râma-charita*³ (Bengal) and Bilhana’s *Vikramânka-charita* (Deccan),⁴ all of the twelfth century, which may be likened to a certain extent to the *Shu* books of China are, moreover, few and far between. Further, in the Sanskrit literature on legal institutions no treatise has yet been discovered which can be compared to the three volumes compiled during the reign of Justinian (526—565), viz., the *Digest* containing fragments of the work of lawyers like Gaius and Ulpian of the second and third centuries, the *Institutes* drawn up by his own lawyers, and the *Code* embodying the imperial “constitutions” from Hadrian (117—138) to his own times.⁵

c10.s3.t1.9

² Books III, IV. Kautilya defines *śâsana* as *râjnâm âjnâ*, i. e. the commands of rulers. *Vide* Law’s *Hind. Pol.*, pp. 122—123.

c10.s3.t1.10

³ Edited by Hara-prasad Shastri (*Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*, Vol. III, no. 1).

c10.s3.t1.11

⁴ Edited by Bühler for the *Bombay Sanskrit Series*.

c10.s3.t1.12

⁵ Mackenzie’s *Studies in Roman Law*, pp. 21—27; Article on Justinian in the *Enc. Brit.*; Moyle’s *Institutes of Justinian*; Taylor’s *Mediaeval Mind*, Vol. II, 239—248.

Linked texts (4)