|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE GUPTA SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION pustapālas or record-keepers but no reference at all to the Adhishṭhān-ādhikaraṇa. It seems that Kumārāmātya’s adhikaraṇa was conveyance and settlement office par excellence, though this duty was discharged by other officers also in the mufassil, according to the tradition and convention of the period and the place. Nevertheless, the honour and dignity attaching to the position of Kumārāmātya as Kumārāmātya was never forgotten in the Gupta period at least, as is clear from the Amauna plate1 issued in Gupta year 232 by Nandana who styles himself Kumārāmātya Mahārāja. Nandana who issued the charter was not only a Mahārāja or feudatory chieftain but also a Kumārāmātya, a dignitary of some rank in the court of his overlord. But when he made the grant, he must have been in his own territory, retaining and mentioning with pride the titular position he had attained. The same was the case during the earlier part of the Maitraka rule over Valabhī. Thus the Māliyā copper-plate inscription of the Mahārāja Dharasēna II sets forth the list of the state officials as follows: Āyuktaka-Viniyuktaka-Drāṅgika-Mahattara-Chāṭa- Bhaṭa-Dhruvādhikaraṇika-Dāṇḍapāśika-Rājasthānīya-Kumārāmāty-ādi.2 Here the officials have been mentioned in the ascending order from which it is clear that Kumārāmātya occupies the highest rank in this list and is therefore higher in rank than Rājasthānīya who corresponds to the Uparika or Divisional Commissioner of the early Gupta age, as we shall see later on. The designation continued to be used in an amplified form till the Pāla period, but its signification changed. The designation now is Mahākumārāmātya, and occurs e.g., in the Bhagalpur plate3 of Nārāyaṇapāla and the Manahali plate4 of Madanapāla, but the sense conveyed by it is some- thing like that suggested by Bhagwanlal Indraji, namely ‘an amātya minister or councilor, attached to Kumāra or prince.’ This is clear from the fact that Mahākumārāmātya has in these Pāla plates been contradistinguished from Rājāmātya, which is not noticeable in charters of pre-Pāla period.
The next designation we have now to take cognisance of is Uparika. We have already
referred to the legend on the seal discovered at Basāḍh by Bloch, namely, Tīrabhukty-Uparik-
ādhikaraṇa. Before this seal came to light, the term Uparika had been known from inscriptions
of the Gupta and post-Gupta period. The article entitled Office of Uparika by B. Ch. Chhabra
may, in this connection, be studied with profit.5 Though the word Uparika was thus known
from inscriptions, its purport could not be made explicit. All that could be made out was that
he was a great official as he was mentioned in charters in juxtaposition with such officials as
Rājasthānīya, and Kumārāmātya.6 In later times, the prefix bṛihat was added to it to exaggerate
the importance of the post just as mahā was added in the case of Kumārāmātya.7 But what the
exact position of Uparika was remained undetermined, until the Dāmōdarpur copper-plate
inscriptions came to light. Just as the Basāḍh seal referred to above speaks of Tīrabhukty-Uparika, these inscriptions speak of Puṇḍravardhanabhuktāv=Uparika. Now, it is worthy of note
that, according to the Dāmōdarpur plates, during the reign of Kumāragupta I, in the years
124 and 129 Chirātadatta was the Uparika of Puṇḍravardhana, and that, although he was
appointed to that post by the Gupta sovereign, it was he himself who nominated Kumārāmātya Vētravarman as the head of the Adhishṭhān-ādhikaraṇa of Kōṭivarsha. Similarly, in Gupta year 1 Ep. Ind., Vol. X, p. 50.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|