North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION

hear of there having been a special pushkariṇī or tank in Vesāli, the water of which was used to sprinkle their heads while being crowned. The tank was considered very sacred, and was, therefore, covered with an iron net so that not even a bird could get through, and a strong guard was set to prevent any one taking water from it.”¹ The importance of this kuṇḍa or pushkariṇī can scarcely be exaggerated. And as the Guptas were indebted for their sovereignty to the Lichchhavis, every attempt must have been made by them to keep the water of this tank pure and unpolluted by man, beast or bird. For holding charge of this spring, no other officer could be fitter than Kumārāmātya, who, in court etiquette, was equal to the prince in rank and dignity.

        We have at least three instances of a Kumārāmātya being attached to the king. The first is that of Harishēṇa who composed the praśasti contained in the celebrated Allahābād pillar inscription of Samudragupta. The other two are furnished by the Karamḍāṁḍā stone inscription (No. 21 below) of Kumāragupta, which speaks of two persons, father and son, Śikhara-svāmin and Pṛithivīshēṇa, who were Kumārāmātyas to the two kings, father and son, Gupta sovereigns, Chandragupta II and Kumāragupta I, respectively. But it is worthy of note that whereas Harishēṇa has been designated Sāndhivigrahika-Kumārāmātya, the other two have been styled Mantri-Kumārāmātya. The first designation is indicative of the executive function, and the second of the consultative character, with which the Kumārāmātya could be entrusted. This inference is confirmed by the fact that Pṛithivīshēṇa who was a contemporary of Kumāragupta was at first, we are told, Mantri-Kumārāmātya and afterwards Mahābalādhikṛita . This shows that the office of Kumārāmātya was neither a hereditary appointment nor a permanently personal distinction. The question arises: what kind of an office was held by Kumārāmātya as Kumārāmātya ? That question we have now to consider briefly. we have seen that an officer of the grade of Kumārāmātya could be attached to a yuvarāja, and, above all, to the king himself as Mantrin or Sāndhivigrahika. He could also be in charge of a division, as is clear from the seal legend reading Tīra-Kumārāmāty-ādhikaraṇasya, “Of the Office of Kumārāmātya in charge of the Tīra (–Division=Bhukti).” He could not have been the governor of the province, because at Basāḍh itself has been found a seal bearing the legend Tīrabhukty-Uparik-ādhikaraṇasya.² Uparika, as will be shown later on, means ‘the governor of a province.’ Kumārāmātya of Tīrabhukti or Tīra province cannot therefore denote its governor. What duty then could he have performed ? In this connection we have to note that he could be in charge of the Adhishṭhān-ādhikaraṇa, as is evident from two of the Dāmōdarpur plates (Nos. 22 and 24 below) which both speak of Kumārāmātya Vētravarman as presiding over the Town Administrative Board (adhishṭhān-ādhikaraṇa) of Kōṭivarsha and as being nominated to discharge that function by the Uparika or Divisional Commissioner of Puṇḍravardhana. There he was in charge of the Land Records and Settlement Office of the District Town. Probably he had to discharge this function when he was not in charge of any special duty and had to work simply as Kumārāmātya. There is, again, a plate of Lōkanātha found at Tipperah, Bengal, which records his grant to a temple of Ananta-Nārāyaṇa. It is worthy of note in this connection that instructions in regard to this grant were communicated to the different officials of the district (vishaya) by Kumārāmātya and his adhikaraṇa as is clear³ from line 1 of the record and also from the seal attached to it. This seems to be the case also about the Baigrām copper-plate inscription⁴ where too the Kumārāmātya and adhikaraṇa convey similar orders in respect of the grant to the officers of the district concerned. There is mention in this inscription also of the
________________________________________________

¹ D.R. Bhandarkar’s Carmichael Lectures, 1918, p. 150.
² A.R ASI., 1903-04, p. 109, No. 20.
³ Ep. Ind., Vol. XV, p. 306 and p. 302.
⁴ Ibid., Vol. XXI, pp. 81 ff.