North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION

nominated by the Provincial Government, the senior most of the Revenue Collectors being selected for this purpose. There can, however, be no doubts as to the Head of this Board being appointed by the Provincial Governor. This has been actually stated to be so in the Dāmōdarpur plates. And what has to be noted in this connection is that it was not the Vishayapati who was always appointed President of this District Board of Five, as might naturally be expected. Of the five Dāmōdarpur plates, only four specify details about this Board. Of these four, only one speaks of Vishayapati as being President of the District Board, namely, the plate dated Gupta year 224 and mentioning Svayambhudēva as his name. Of the remaining three, Kumārāmātya has been specified twice and Āyuktaka once as the President of the District Pañchāyat.

        What exactly were the duties this District Pañchāyat carried out cannot definitively be determined. One duty certainly was the conveyance of land as is clear from the Dāmōdarpur and other kindred copper-plate inscriptions. Another duty must have been the settlement of town disputes as is clear from Act IX of the Mṛichchhakaṭika where the Śrēshṭhin and Kāyastha figure in the Adhikaraṇa along with its head. Here the latter is called merely Adhikaraṇika, and the three Adhikaraṇa-bhōjaka and the Hall where they worked Adhikaraṇa-maṇḍapa. In addition to these, they must have been entrusted with duties connected with public works, town charities and so forth. This receives confirmation from a Nasik cave inscription which relates the benefactions of Ushavadāta (Ṛishabhadatta) to the Buddhist mendicants staying in the residential cave excavated by him for them. Ṛishabhadatta, we know, was a son-in-law and general of the Mahākshatrapa Nahapāna (c. 125 A.D.). After citing the details of his charities, the inscription says: srāvita nigama-sabhāya nibadha cha phalakavārē charitratōti,¹ “All this has been proclaimed to the Town Board and registered in a sheaf of record papers according to the established practice.” Phalakavāra, ‘’sheaf of record papers’, reminds us of the Pustapālas of the Dāmōdarpur plates who were the Keepers of Records, and who, being aware of the title to all lands, registered the conveyance of land. Many other duties of the District Board of Ancient India or Bengal must have been similar to those of the Village Pañchāyat, but of these we have no definite knowledge.

       The following passage from a Bhinmāl inscription may be compared profitably with a similar one from a Dāmōdarpur record. The first runs as follows: Śrī-Śrīmālē Mahārājādhirāja-Śrī-Udayasiṁhadēva-kalyāṇa-vijaya-rājyē tan-niyukta-Mahaṁ Gajasīha-prabhṛiti-paṁchakula-pratipa-ttau, “In prosperous Śrīmāla, during the blessed and victorious reign of the Mahārājādhirāja Śrī-Udayasiṁhadēva and during the administration of the Pañchakula (consisting of) Mahaṁta Gajasiṁha and others appointed by him and of others.”² This may be compared to Puṇḍravardhana-bhuktāv=Uparika-Chirātadattēn=ānuvaha=mānakē Kōṭivarsha-vishayē cha tan-niyuktaka-Kumārāmātya-Vētravarmmany=adhishṭhān-ādhikaraṇañ=cha Nagara-śrēshṭhi- . . . . Sārtthavāha- . . . . Prathama-kulika- . . . Prathama-kāyastha- . . .purōgē saṁvyavaharati, “While the Kōṭivarsha District is running on with (the rule of) Chirātadatta, Uparika of the Puṇḍravardhana Province . . . , and while Kumārāmātya Vētravarman, appointed by him, is administering the Board of the Town, (and) presiding over the Nagara-śrēshṭhin . . . , the Sārtthavāha . . . , the Prathama-kulika . . . , (and) the Prathama-Kāyastha . . .” It will be seen that the Adhishṭhān-ādhikaraṇa of Kōṭivarsha is a Pañchakula consisting as it is of five members. And, further, we have to note that just as in the former the President of the Town Board was nominated by the Governor of the Province, so in the latter he was by the petty Chief of the petty State whose capital it was. The only difference between the two is that whereas in the former the members of the Board of Five have been specified and named, in the latter the President alone has been so named. Anyhow both the Boards can be described as Pañchakula, a term which has survived in the modern Pañchōlī
_______________________________________________________

¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, p. 82, line 4.
² Ibid., Vol. XI, pp. 56-57, lines 4-6; p. 58, lines 3-4.