The Administrative System
THE period of the Gupta emperors and their successors saw the gradual disappearance of non-monarchical states. After the sixth century, monarchy becomes the only form of government that demands serious attention. Kingship was in most cases hereditary. The ruler was at times nominated by his predecessor, but some cases of election by the people or the nobles are recorded. Among notable instances of popular election are the enthronement of Gopala by the Prakritis or constituent elements of the body politic of Bengal, and the choice of Brahmapala by the people of Assam. We have also a similar instance in Southern India where Nandivarman Pallavamalla was raised to the throne by the mula prakritis. More often the choice of a sovereign in a time of crisis was entrusted to a selected body of state nobles or Brahmanas. In the kingdom of Thanesar it was a council of nobles headed by Bhandi that offered the crown to Harsha. Yasaskara of Kashmir was chosen by an assembly of Brahmanas. Kumarapala of Gujarat was rejected by the state nobles sitting in council. Even in cases of domination by a preceding ruler, the presence of the councillors (Sabhyas) and princes of the blood at the time of the formal act of selection was perhaps deemed to be necessary. There was no bar to the succession of a female, at least in certain parts of India, notably Kashmir, Orissa and the Telugu country.
The divine character of kingship received wide acceptance in the period under review.
In the Allahabadsamudragupta Pillar inscription Samudra Gupta is not only represented as equal to Kuvera, Varuna, Indra and Yama, the presiding deities of the four quarters, but is considered to be the Incomprehensible Being who is the cause of creation and destruction, a god dwelling on earth, who was mortal only in that he performed the acts necessary according to the conventions of the world. In the literature of the age the king is considered to be the incarnation of Justice and the representative of Vishnu, that is, God in his aspect as there. Like Vishnu the ruler in certain parts of India was styled Sri Prithvi Vallabha, that is, the Beloved of the Goddess of Fortune and of the Earth Goddess. Voices of protest against the view that the king was divine are raised now and then. Bana regards the theory of the king’s divinity as a delusion. “Though subject to mortal conditions, kings look on themselves as having alighted on earth as divine beings with a superhuman destiny; they employ a pomp in their undertakings only fit for gods and win the contempt of all mankind. They welcome this deception of themselves by their followers. From the delusion of their own divinity established in their minds, they are overthrown by false ideas.” The old theory persists that the rulers do not exist for their own good but owe a debt to the people which they can discharge only by good government. The ideal ruler is he who “possesses an inner soul pervaded by the inclination for the acquittance of debts and obligations, and is occupied with the welfare of all mankind”. The Chinese pilgrims, Fa Hien and Hiuen Tsang, the Arab merchant Sulaiman, and the Venetian traveller, Marco Polo, bear testimony to the fact that the governments of Chandra Gupta II, Harsha, Bhoja I and Rudramma (Rudramba) actually tried to translate this noble maxim into practice.
Many kings of the age were doughty fighters and lovers of manly sports like wrestling combats with wild beasts. But they were not mere rough soldiers and war-lords. A notable trait in the character of some of the most illustrious rulers of the period under review is their love of learning and the fine arts. In this respect the versatile Samudra Gupta in the north, and the “curious-minded ” (Vichitra-chitta) Mahendravarman in the south, set examples that were imitated by some of the ablest among their successors.
Some of the occupants of the throne were themselves scholars and poets of no mean repute. Among royal authors, Harsha of Kanauj, Amoghavarsha I of Malkhed, Bhoja of Dhara, Somesvara III of Kalyana, Vigraharaja IV of Ajmer, Ballala Sena of Bengal and Apararka of the Northern Konkan deserve special mention as they have left works that are studied even at the present day. The earliest among them figure mainly as dramatists, but later kings were interested in a wide range of subjects. Several rulers are justly entitled to the designation of polymath. The latest kings took special interest in legal and astrological studies.
Kings normally “held all the levers and handles which worked the governmental machinery”. They maintained the laws of the realm and were responsible for defending the people against external attacks. They administered justice, usually led troops in war and had the largest share in the formulation of policy. But it was impossible to shoulder the burden of administration without assistance. “A single wheel could not move.” Hence sovereigns had to employ ministers. In the early Gupta period, the most important among these functionaries were the Mantrin (confidential adviser), Sandhivigrahika (minister in charge of peace and war), and Akshapataladhikrita (minister in charge of records). There were also important officials whose duties were mainly of a military character. Such were the Mahabaladhikrita and the Mahadandanayaka. There was, however, no clear-cut division between civil and military officials. A Mantrin could become a Mahabaladhikrita, and the post of Amatya could be combined with that of Mahadandanayaka. The office of a minister (Sachiva) was often hereditary. One class of officials had the special designation of Kumaramatya. They figure as ministers for peace and war, generals, councillors, feudatories and district officers. Some of them were directly under the sovereign; others were attached to princes or placed under provincial governors. The expression Kumara in the designation Kumaramatya may correspond to the Elaya, Pina, Chikka, or Immadi of South India, and is best rendered by the term ” cadet”. In the far south of India during the Chola period, we have an important functionary, styled Olainayagam, who had to approve every order issued by the king.
With the efflux of time need was felt for the elaboration of the administrative machinery in certain departments. This was particularly the case in regard to the Foreign Office where special Sandhivigrahikas were appointed to deal with the affairs of certain definite areas. Thus, in the records of certain rulers of the Deccan we find references to a Karnataka Sandhivigrahika. In certain records we have references to an official styled Mahapradhana and another designated Sarvadhikarin whose functions might have resembled those of the Mukhyapradhana of the Maratha period and the Sarvarthachintaka of Manu. Though the number of ministers was not definitely fixed, Manu’s recommendation of seven or eight ministers may have been followed at times. It is doubtful if there was a central Mantriparishad comparable to the Parisha of the Maurya inscriptions. If such an institution did exist, it does not find prominent mention in the epigraphs. The Sabhyas referred to in the Allahabad Pillar inscription in connection with the nomination scene of Samudra Gupta may have been courtiers attending a Durbar as well as members of a central council. An important functionary in several States governed by Hindu kings was the Raja-guru. The Purohita or royal chaplain, though a prominent personage in a Brahmanical court, does not figure in the records of devout Buddhist kings.
Justice was often administered by the sovereign himself or a high official at the centre or in the provinces. Judges at the headquarters of a district had apparently the assistance of the chief Seths and Kayasthas of the locality, representatives of the commercial and official classes. In villages, justice was administered by royal officials with the help of the members of the village council or assembly. In certain cases the assembly alone sat in judgment and passed sentence. Special courts of self-governing corporations are also alluded to in literature. The jury system, according to some authorities, is found to have been in full swing at least in southern India. Judicial methods included trial by ordeal.
Indian armies in the period under review consisted mostly of elephants, infantry and cavalry. Chariots gradually fell into disuse. Some of the kings, especially in the desert tracts of Rajputana, maintained camel corps. A few maritime States had their navies with which they effected the conquest of riparian principalities or islands scattered in the Indian Ocean. Many provinces, especially in the south, had no good breed of horses and had to import animals from Arabia. Marco Polo refers to the unfavorable climate of South India in which these horses could not thrive. He also speaks of the ignorance of the Indian horse-keepers. Recruitment to the army was not confined to a particular caste. Some of the ablest commanders of the period were Brahmanas. A successful leader of North Bengal in the eleventh century AD belonged to the Kaivarta caste. Armies of the period included hereditary forms as well as local militia and feudal levies.
The principal sources of revenue were the bhaga or the king’s share (normally one-sixth) of the produce of the land, certain additional imposts on the rural population, as well as duties at ports, ferries and fortified stations. Rulers also got incomes from the crown-lands, mines, etc., and tribute from vassal chiefs. Taxes were often collected in kind, but payments in cash were also allowed. Forced labour (Vishti) was not unknown, and we hear of a special kind of corvee called Bhotta-vishti in lands on the borders of Tibet. Extra taxation was resorted to in times of emergency, from which even temples were not exempted. Mention may be made in this connection of imposts apparently levied by the central government to deal with the menace from marauding tribes. To this category belong possibly the Malla-kara and Turushka-danda of mediaeval epigraphs. Extra cesses were also levied for special purposes by local authorities.
Kingdoms and empires were divided for administrative purposes into units styled Bhukti, Desa, Rashtra and Mandala. Bhukti is a very common designation in the north. It usually meant a province or administrative division under an officer styled Uparika. It was usually subdivided into Vishayas or Mandalas. The post of Vishayapati (that is the officer in charge of a Vishaya or district) was filled either by a royal official styled Kumaramatya, or Ayuktaka or by a feudatory Maharaja. The Vishayapati was sometimes assisted in the work of administration by the guild-president, the chief scribe and other leading men of the locality. In the far South of India the largest administrative division was the Mandala, which was subdivided into Valanadus or into Nadus and Kottams. The lowest administrative units were the Kurram (union of villages) and grama (village), each under its own headman who was assisted by assemblies (Ur, mahasabha). The village headman had his counter-part in the nagarapati of cities. In certain rural areas the village assembly consisted of the whole adult population, in others of Brahmanas or a few great men who were selected by a kind of ballot. The assembly appointed committees to look after specific departments, like tanks, temples, justice, etc. The work of these-self-governing bodies was supervised by royal officers (Adhikarin). Towns and cities had, as already stated, special officers styled nagarapati, and certain Gupta records refer to the existence of town councils (Parishad).
