LATE RADHAKRISHNA CHOUDHARY                                                       

 

 

 

 

 

IV

 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERN

 

The Palas ruled for nearly four hundred years and developed a highly stable administrative system even without a permanent capital like the Pratiharas or the Rastrakutas. The very structure of Pala administration was feudal in character. How the empire was administered we do not know but we can sketch in outline the administrative system of Bihar and Bengal on the basis of land grants and other epigraphic records of the period. The Palas had no fixed capital. They had victory camps or Jayaskandhavaras and we have the following list: Mudgagiri(148), Pataliputra, Ramavati(149), Vataparvataka(150), Vilasapura or Haradhama, Sahasaganda(151), Kanchanpur(152) and Kapilavasak (of which the last four remain unidentified). Most of these Skandhavaras were situated on the Ganga and they served as a great unifying factor in the Pala dominions of Bihar and Bengal.

The constant shift in the seats of power was of course a disintegrating factor and the Pala administrative decentralisation was typical of feudal polity. Several fortified settlements of the Palas are found not only in Bengal but in almost all the important districts of Bihar. Till the middle of the 11th century AD the Palas had effective central control over a major portion of Bihar and Bengal. The Pala emperors had numerous vassal kings and feudal chiefs who are referred to as Rajan, Rajanyaka, Ranak, Samanta, Mahasamanta etc. We are not sure about the status of these officials. Mahasamantadhipati was an officer appointed to exercise a general control over the feudatories.(153) The relation of the feudatories with the Emperor varied in accordance with the increase or decrease in the capturers of the central authority and the point is well illustrated in the case of Ramapala. A typical example is provided in the Ramaganj CP of Iswaraghosh and later by the Panchobh CP of Samgramagupta (both of whom were Mahamandalikas who arrogated to themselves the privilege of issuing orders to various authorities. Their dependence on their official is also evident from their charters.

The Pala administration was based on a strong central hereditary monarchy with unlimited powers and they assumed the titles of Parameswara, Paramabhattaraka, Maharajadhiraja etc. They were helped by a set of ministers known as Mantrinas or Sachivas and we have a list of four or five hereditary ministers from Dharmapala to Narayanapala(154). The hereditary occupation of the office of ministers is further illustrated by Bhubaneswara Prasasti of Bhatta Bhavadeva which gives an account of seven generations of a distinguished family of Brahmanas. Bhavadeva was a minister of peace and war under Harivarmana.

The Pala and other inscriptions refer to Bhukti, Mandal, Visaya etc. The Palas had under them Pundkavardhanabhukti, Vardhamanabhukti, Dandabhukti, Tirabhukti, Srinagarbhukti and Pragjyotishabhukti. Mandal denoted the territory of a Samanta or vassal chief and we have a reference to one Balavarmana of Vyaghratatimandala. Even in the palmy days of the Palas, the feudal chiefs enjoyed local autonomy and sufficient power as is illustrated in the case of Balavarmana. There were various categories of feudal chiefs. The Yuvaraja had an important role to play and they had the designation of Kumara. Ramapala held consultations with his son Rajyapala against the Kaivarttas. Next in importance was Dataka. The Irela CP of the Kambojas mentions Mahishi, Yuvaraja, Purohita, Ritvikas, Dharmajnas, Pradeshtris, Amatyas, Karanas etc. Other known important officials were Mahasandhivigrahikas, Duta-Praishanka, Rajasthaniya, Uparika, Khola (possibly indicated the espionage), Pramatri, Ksetrapa, Adhyaksas, Visayapati, Dasagramika, Gramapati, Bhogapati, etc. Taxes included bhaga, bhoga, kara, hiranya, uparikara etc. The Accounts Department was under the charge of Mahaksapatalika assisted by Jyestha Kayastha. The Judicial Department was under Mahadandanayaka and the Police Department was under Mahapratihara. Mahasenapati was in charge of the Military Department.

The Bhuktis were divided into Visayas and the latter into Nayas or Vithis. Naya was possibly a fiscal unit. The administration unit known as Mandala was wide spread in Bengal but is hardly found in Bihar. The only mandala mentioned is that of Gaya in an inscription of 11th century AD. The recent discovery of some inscriptions in Bihar refers to mandalas, viz. Daradagandakimandala or Daradagandikamandala.(155) Nayas appear for the first time under the Palas and were characteristic only in Bihar. The village was under the jurisdiction of Gramapati who was helped by the Mahattaras.

It is not possible in the present state of our knowledge to give detailed account of the officials of the Palas in view of their being lumped together in the inscriptions but we can just suggest a tentative identification: i) Rajamatya or Amatya headed the list of officials; ii) Mahakarttakritika; iii) Mahasenapati (chief commander); iv) Mahapratihara (Head of the palace guards) or commander of the fortress; v) Danhasadhasadhanika or Mahadanhasadhasadhanika, a high police official; vi) Pramatri , chief surveyor of land, Mahapramatrmahasamanta; vii) Sarabhanga; viii) Kumaramatya or Mahakumaramatya were district officials; ix) Rajasthaniyoparika seems to have been a combination of Rajasthaniya (regent or viceroy) and Uparika (head of a Bhukti); x) Visayapati was in charge of Visayas; xi) Gramapati (of village); xii) Tarika, officer in charge of ferries; xiii) Dasaparadhika, a judicial magistrate taking cognisance of ten offices; xiv) Dandika (a trying magistrate); xv) Dandapasika (a police official); xvi) Saulkika (custom officers); xvii) Gaulmika (troop head); xviii) Ksetrapa or Ksetrapala (protector of fields); xix) Prantapala (warden of marches protecting frontier), he was assisted by Kottapala; and xx) Ayuktaka and Viniyuktaka (lower executive officials). There were also superintendents of elephants, horses and camels. The Bhagalpur Copperplate of Narayanapala mentions Mahaksapatalika, Mahasandhivigrahika and Mahasenapati. There were also Karanikas who drafted the land grants. Fortresses were under the command of the Kattapalas. Khandaraksa looked after the repairs of these forts.

Of all the medieval rulers, the Palas maintained the largest contingent of officials. The position seems to have been different under the Varmanas, the feudatories of the Palas in south-east Bengal. The general trend towards feudalising officials reached its high watermark during the period under review. This was reflected not only by paying them in land grants but also in giving them high sounding titles which were not meant to indicate their actual status. The grants of  Mahamandalikas, like Iswaraghosha and Samgramagupta, contain more than four dozen officials, most of whom had the prefix of Maha (or great).(156) Iswaraghosha’s officials consisted of 13 Maha-prefixed officials, and eighteen of Samgramagupta’s officials had the prefix of Maha. The Pala charters, along with the charters of other dynasties, mark a progressive rise in the number of maha-prefixed officials.(157) The feudalisation of official reached its zenith under the Samgramagupta of Mithila. The feudatories like the Varmanas, the Chandras and Khayarawalas also made grants.

The whole political structure of the Palas and their successors in Bengal and Bihar was reared on land grants. The officials, mentioned in the Pala and other contemporary records were mostly vassals connected with land.(158) The king was the supreme overlord, chiefs and princes owing allegiance to him. The use of the term maha in the Pala records shows that the officials were being brought in line with other feudal vassals like Mahasamanta, Maharaja etc. The Pala grants describe victory camps being attended by numerous princes accompanied by their contingents and in spite of their maintaining a standing army, they had to depend upon their vassals in time of needs. Though the term ‘visti’ is not found in the Pala grants, there are references to peasants being subjected to Sarvapida.(159)

The growing importance of vassals and officials in relation to land grants is indicated in the Sena charters. The land grants of Laksmanasena demonstrate the increasing importance of the highly feudalised officials whose favour and assent were considered desirable for the maintenance of the Grant. A grant records endorsement of as many as five dignitaries probably including king.(160) The lower the power of the lord, the larger the number of dignitaries bearing high sounding titles with maha-prefix, and later, the weaker  the kingdom, the greater the number of such officials. Ranakas, and Thakkuras became the common feudal epithets and that is best illustrated in the case of Kayastha scribes who were invested with these titles. In matters of land grants the Pala officials enjoyed some weight. In the beginning, they had to give their assent to the gifts of villages and observed the terms of endowments but in later grants, the element of assent is strengthened indicating their dependence on officials.

The Chandra and Varmana grants show a large measure of agreement with the Palas. While the inclusion of Rajni may indicate the importance of the queen, the omission of Gramika indicates the decline of rural administration. The Senas also use grandiloquent titles and besides that they had own Virudas. The Senas, the Varmanas and the Chandras had their capitals at Vikramapur. The epighrapic records throw some light on the measurement of lands. The Dhulia grant of Chandra dynasty introduces a new element in land measurement, the hala, which is still used in Sylhet district, though it is not possible to establish any relation between the two.(161) B C Sen has summed up the epigraphic information on the land-system in his own work.(162) There is no definite information about the coins under the Palas, though one belonging to Vigrahapala III discovered by me at Naulagarh (District Begusarai)(163) and others found at Ghoswara(164) show that there was a restricted use of silver coin in some regions. This was known as Vigrahapaladrammas. The Kapardaka-Puranas of Sena inscription might have been a continuation of the Vigrahapaladrammas.

The area, under the direct administration of the Gahadawalas in Bihar, was divided into Pattalas and one such Maniyara Pattala (modern Maner) is known to us.(165) The people had to pay bhaga, bhogakara, pravanikara and turuskadanda as well as taxes on fishing (matsyakara) and on exploiting iron and salt deposits (lohalavanakara). The officers, mentioned in the record, are bhandagarika (treasurer) and aksapatalika (accountants). There is also a mention of Purohita, bhisaga (physician), naimittika (astrologer) and mantra. The Gahadawalas also provided for officers who looked after towns (Pattanas) situated on the bank of Ganges.(166) The Gahadawalas had also their feudatories in Bihar, the most promonent being Pratapadhawal of Japila.(167)

The Karnatas of Mithila had their own system of administration, though not very different from the earlier tradition of the Palas and the Senas. They modelled their administration on the lines of the Palas and the Senas with local changes wherever necessary. The list of officers and courtiers in the VR and RR is no longer than any such contemporary lists. These two sources supplement each other. The model was no doubt feudal. The increased royal authority is reflected in the assumption of high sounding titles, which are based on the madels of their predecessors. The ministers also used high sounding titles like Samanta, Mahasamanta, Maharaja, Mandalika, Mahamandalika, Mahamattaka etc. They were feudal barons and made princely gifts. Chandeswara throws interesting sidelight on the working of the village administration. There is a reference to a Gulma consisting of three to five villages and mention of Gramapati, Gramadhipati, Dasagramapati, Vimsatimsagramapati, Sahasragramapati and Rastra. The village had an elected headman.(168) The mode of payment to village heads were as follows:

1. Dasesa – Head of ten villages got as much land as he could cultivate with one plough.

2. Vimsatisa – Head of twenty villages got as much land as he could cultivate with four ploughs.

3. Satesa – Head of hundred villages got one full village.

4. Sahasraadhipati – Head of thousand villages was given a City or a Town.

There was an officer called Sarvarthachintkam in every village or town. We have already made a reference to the administrative reforms of Gangadeva who created a number of fiscal units known as Parganas and appointed Choudhary to collect revenue. He also introduced the system of Patwari. From the modes of payment to various categories of servants it appears that there was much of a feudal element in the administrative set-up. The feudal chiefs had monopolised most of the important posts of the State and were ultimately responsible for the decline of the kingdom.(169)

Samgramagupta(170), a mahamandalika of the Karnatas of Mithila, appears to have maintained an independent machinery consisting of a large number of officials with flamboyant designations beginning with maha. These officials included patra (advisor), mahavyuhapati (commander of military arrays), Mahamudradhikari (keeper of the royal seal), Mahamattaka (head of the elders or nobles), Mahapilupati (commander of elephant corps), Mahasadhanika (chief officer dealing with criminals), Mahaksapatalika (chief accountant),  Mahapratihara (head of the palace guards), Mahadharmadhikarnika (chief justice),  Mahakaranadhyaksa (the chief scribe), Varttika (the intelligence officer), Naibandhika (writer of grants), Mahakatuka, Mahanthika, Tasanika, Mahadandanayaka (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Mahadanika (the chief endowment officer), Mahapanchakulika (Superintendent of the local Councils of Five), Mahasresthidanika (supervisor of the gifts made by merchants), Bhulidanika (supervisor of the gifts of cultivated lands), Ghattapala (keeper of mountain passes), Khandapala (protector of old buildings and forts), Narapati (captain of the infantry), Gulmapati (captain of the local garrison), Naubalavyaprta (head of the navy) etc. The whole atmosphere smacks of the authority of pretentious feudal vassals who had grown out of the grants carrying economic and administrative importance. The importance of the landed feudal elements was reinforced by the presence of Rajaputras and Mahasamantaranaka (head of the feudal vassals).

The Karanas emerged as important factor in the administrative set-up. Mahakaranadhyaksa, Mahadanika, Mahapanchakulika, Mahasresthidanika, Bhulidanika and Mahasamantaranaka are not found under the Palas and the Senas. Dharmadhikarani, Mahamattaka and Pratibalakarnadhyaksa are mentioned in the VR.

The opinion of the officials counted more in making grants and Samgramagupta begins by seeking the consent (mattamastu) which shows his increasing dependence on his subordinates. He imposed various kinds of forcible labour (Samanta-pida=Uparikara) which is not found in the Pala records. The revenue rights, once transferred, added to the administrative and economic power of the done.

The Karnikas mentioned in the contemporary grants were a class of scribes who had specialised in drafting the grants and were employed by the Palas, Senas, Karnatas and Gahadawalas. An inscription of about the 12th century AD from Kolhua (Vaisali) records the gift of a statue by Karnika Uchhah, a follower of Mahayana.(171) They were controlled by officials like Mahakaranadhyaksa and Pratibalakaranadhyaksa, mentioned by Jyotiriswara in his VR. The Karanas also played an important role in the history of Assam and Orissa. Their contribution to education and culture in Bihar and Bengal is immense.

 

 

Continued: home/page 8   (Click HOME in the menu and select the page you want to visit.)