North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION

chintāmaṇi (II.9.34) has chaturaṅga-bal-ādhyakshaḥ sēnānīr=daṇḍanāyakaḥ. This was no doubt the primary sense. But in what sense are we to understand this term in the Gupta epoch? The most plausible reply to this question is to take Daṇḍanāyaka as equivalent to something like a ‘Mansabdar’ in the Mughal period. According to Irwine, the Mansabdar was in the service of the State and was bound to render service, military or otherwise, when he was called upon to do so. According to Abul Fazal, there were sixty-six grades of Mansabdars, but there were not more than thirty-three in actual existence, the lowest were 20 rising to 5000, though about the close of Akbar’s reign there were created Mansabs of 7000, and even 10,000. Mansab was not granted to a merely military officer. Each Mansab was expected to maintain a certain number of horses, elephants, beasts of burden and carts, according to his rank and dignity.¹ This suits here excellently, because, from the inscriptions, there appear to have been at least four grades of this rank and dignity, namely, Daṇḍanāyaka, Mahādaṇḍanāyaka, Mahāprachaṇḍa- Daṇḍanāyaka and Sarva-Daṇḍanāyaka.² This receives further confirmation from the Rājataraṅgiṇī, Book VII, verses 975-87, where not only Daṇḍanāyakas but also their forces (sainya) have been referred to in connection with the capture of Rājapurī by Kandarpa upon the demonstrations of king Harsha. Vexed by the reproaches of the king, when Kandarpa, we are told, entered Rājapurī, only one from among the forces (sainyas) of the Daṇḍanāyakas followed him, namely, the general (sēnānī) named Kularāja.

>

This general fell in the skirmish, and the enemy thought that Kandarpa was killed. But at midday Kandarpa penetrated into the royal palace of Rājapurī while three hundred of his foot routed thirty thousand of the enemy’s soldiers. In the evening as he was entering the palace again and preparing himself for another fight, he heard that that Daṇḍanāyaka had arrived whose soldiers (sainikas) had hidden themselves from fright ; so forth and so on. From the above account it is clear that several Daṇḍanāyakas with their forces (sainyas) had accompanied Kandarpa to Rājapurī, that only one general (sēnānī) from among them followed him to the palace and that later on even the Daṇḍanāyaka whose soldiers had held back through fear also joined him. What inference is here more natural than that the Daṇḍanāyakas were something like Mansabddars who joined the royal army with their forces and that each of these forces was commanded by a Sēnānī or General who was not and could not always be the Daṇḍanāyaka himself ? The Rājataraṅgiṇī has been translated by two scholars. One of these is Sir Aurel Stein who has rendered the term by ‘the prefect of police’ and the other is R. S. Pandit who has translated it by ‘the commissioner of police.’ How different Police Prefects or Commissioners could take to the battle-field their different police detachments of which they were not always the commanders, and joined the regular army for the battle as no doubt the Daṇḍanāyakas did in the present case, is something which it is difficult to understand. This is not intelligible except on the supposition that Daṇḍanāyakas were something like Mansabdars who were to help the State with military service or otherwise as occasion called for it. That they were asked to serve the State even in times of peace in the Gupta period is clear from the fact that Harishēṇa of the Allahābād pillar inscription is described not only as Mahādaṇḍanāyaka but also as Kumārāmātya and, above all, Sāndhivigrahika. If another instance is required, it is supplied by the legend of a Bhīṭā seal which runs thus: Mahāśvapati-Mahādaṇḍanāyaka-Vishṇurakshitapād-ānugṛihīta-Kumārāmāty-ādhikaraṇasya.³ Here we have a Mahādaṇḍanāyaka called Vishṇurakshita who is mentioned as Mahāśvapati, ‘supreme commander of the cavalry.’ That Vishṇurakshita was a big officer is further indicated by the fact that it was within his power to appoint such a high dignitary as Kumārāmātya.
_______________________________________________________________

¹ Isvari Prasad’s Short History of the Muslim Rule in India, pp. 468-69.
² Ind. Ant., Vol. V, p. 49; Ep. Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 188, line 11; Ind. Ant., Vol. IV, p. 167, lines 21-22, where Sarva-Daṇḍanāyaka must be taken in the sense of ‘the model Daṇḍanāyaka’ like Sarva-dhanvin, ‘model archer’, that Love, or Sarva-Yōgin, ‘model Yōgin’, that is, Śiva.
³ A.R. ASI., 1911-12, pp. 52-53.