|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE GUPTA SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION office he could appoint anybody—a Kumārāmātya, Āyuktaka or Vishayapati. Here the wording is not tat-pāda-parigṛihīta but tan-niyuktaka. What the district subdivision in the Gupta period was it is very difficult to determine. The Nandapur plate,1 speaks of the village Khaṭāpūraṇa as being included in the Nanda vīthi. Vīthi originally signifies ‘a road’, ‘a row’ or ‘a market’, but here it denotes a “district subdivision.” And in this particular case it seems that the subdivision was called Nanda vīthi after Nandapur, the place where the plate was found. We have further to note another expression which occurs in the Pahāḍpur grant.2 Here land is granted from various villages which are said to be contained in the Dakshiṇāṁśa vīthi and the Nāgiraṭṭa maṇḍala. The question arises: which of these terms, vīthi and maṇḍala, denotes a more extensive territory? This may be compared to the phraseology occurring in the Nālandā plate3 of Dēvapāla and the Naihāṭi plate4 of Ballālasēna. In the first we have Śrī-Nagara-bhuktau . . . Gayā-vishay-āntaḥpāti-kumuda-sūtra-vīthi, etc. In the second, we have Śrī-Varddhamāna-bhukty-antaḥpātiny=Uttara-Rāḍhā-maṇḍalē Svalpadakshiṇa-vīthyām. A comparison of the two passages will convince anybody that the terms vishaya and maṇḍala have been used synonymously and in the sense of a ‘district’, and vīthī in the sense of a âsubdivision.â
The Gupta empire, vast as it was, must have been divided into a number of bhuktis and
vishayas. Of these, the Puṇḍravardhana bhukti and Kōṭivarsha vishaya have become well-known
from the Dāmōdarpur plates. Then we have seen that one Śarvanāga was the Vishayapati of Antarvēdī or District surrounding Kanauj. Unfortunately the name of the bhukti has not
been specified. Then the Ēraṇ pillar inscription of Budhagupta, dated Gupta year 165 (No. 39
below) describes one Suraśmichandra as governing the territory intervening between the
Kālindī and the Narmadā as Lōkapāla, that is, Viceroy. With his name has been coupled the
title Mahārāja, and what is further noteworthy about this inscription is that it mentions
another Mahārāja called Mātṛivishṇu, who, although he belonged to a holy Brāhmaṇa family,
“was married by Sovereignty, as if by a maiden choosing herself (her own husband)” (svayaṁ-varay=ēva rājalakshmy=ādhigata). This means that Mātṛivishṇu was the first of his family who
raised himself to power. As he has been also styled Mahārāja, he appears to have been a local
chieftain. But in no way does it appear that he was Vishayapati of Airikiṇa (Ēraṇ). In fact,
Airikiṇa vishaya has been mentioned in another Ēraṇ inscription5 which is of a somewhat
later time and which refers itself to the first regnal year of Tōramāṇa. When this epigraph
was engraved, Mātṛivishṇu had passed away; and the object of it was to record the erection,
by his younger brother Dhanyavishṇu, of a shrine over the image of the Boar on whose chest
it was incised. In both the records Dhanyavishṇu has been mentioned and is described not
only as tad-anuvidhāyin, “obedient to him,” but also as tat-prasāda-parigṛihīta, “encircled by
his favours.” Lastly, we have to take note of Parṇadatta in whose time the dam of the Sudarśana Lake was rebuilt, as the Junāgaḍh inscription of Skandagupta (No. 28 below) informs us.
It was this Gupta monarch, who, we are told, appointed him the protector (gōptṛi) of the whole
Surāshṭra, by which we have to understand that he was the governor of Kāṭhiāwāḍ. And,
further, we have to note that Parṇadatta put his son Chakrapālita, in charge of the protection
of the city where the inscription is found. In other words, to borrow the language of the
Dāmōdarpur plates, he was appointed the Head of the Town Administrative Board of Girinagara by the Uparika of Surāshṭra, who was doubtless his father. 1 Ep. Ind., Vol. XXIII, pp. 52 ff.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|