|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE GUPTA SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION Mahārāja Raṇjit Singh held the post of deoḍhīvālā or ‘chief door-keeper’ ” and further draws our attention to the remark of F. Drew that “in a native court, a palace of personal government, the door-keeper, possessing as he does the power of giving or restraining access to the chief, has considerable influence.”1 Even in Rajputana up till recently Dēvaḍhīdār was an important officer of a chief’s palace. There are one or two more designations of the Gupta epoch that we have yet to take cognisance of. One of these is Vinayasthitisthāpaka who seems to have had his own adhikaraṇa or office, as is clear from the seal legend Tīrabhuktau Vinayasthiti-sthāpak-ādhikaraṇasya2 Bloch leaves it untranslated, but remarks that Vinayasthiti-sthāpaka “may denote a class of officials entrusted with the superintendence of the moral conduct of the people.” The term or designation may safely be rendered by “the official who maintains moral (vinaya) and social (sthiti) discipline.”3 This may be compared to Raghuvaṁśa I, 24-25, where both vinaya and sthiti occur. In later times a somewhat different phraseology was employed to denote the same office or officer, namely, Mahādharmādhyaksha, Dharmādhikaraṇika,4 and so on. The same function was apparently discharged by Paṇḍitrāv, a member of Śivāji’s Cabinet Council. His duties as pointed out by K. T. Telang, were “to receive learned persons on behalf of the State and countersign all documents that may issue from the Sovereign relating to Āchāra, Vyavahāra and Prāyaśchitta, that is to say, rules of conduct, civil and criminal law, and penances—the three departments of the Dharma-śāstra.”5
Another Officer that we have now to consider is Āyuktaka who is mentioned in a Dāmōdarpur plate (No. 40 below). He is Bhaṇḍaka who, over and above his duties as an Āyuktaka, was the Head of the District Town Administration of Kōṭivarsha. We have further to note that Āyuktas are mentioned in line 26 of the Allahābād pillar inscription of Samudragupta as being “always engaged upon restoring wealth to the many kings conquered by the might of his arms.” In the earlier period the term Yukta is used. Thus Rock Edict III of Aśōka specifies Yuktas along with the officials, Prādēśikas and Rājukas. In Kauṭalya’s Arthaśāstra not only Yuktas but also their assistants Upayuktas have been mentioned. The duties of both appear to be of the same kind. They seem to be district treasury officers who managed the king’s property, received and kept account of revenue and had power to spend where expenditure was likely to augment revenue.6 These designations persisted in later times also. Thus, in the Cambay plates of the Rāshṭrakūṭa Gōvinda IV of Mānyakhēṭa, Yuktaka and Upayuktaka7 are specified along with Rāshṭrapati, Grāmakūṭa and Mahattara. Our account of the Administrative System of North India in the Gupta period cannot
be complete until we show what light epigraphic records throw upon the Pañchāyat system in
Bengal. Pañchāyat is generally taken to signify ‘the village community.’ It had better be understood in the sense of ‘local self-government,’ whether it is connected with a village or district.
The old Pañchāyat is at present found in its best preserved form in the Madras Presidency. In
many parts of Mahārāshṭra and Gujarāt also it continues to be in some force, in spite of the
innovations introduced by the British Government. But there was hardly any trace of it in 1 Antiquities of Chamba State, Vol. I, p. 135.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|