Kingship

Kingship at this period was hereditary throughout India but the rule of primogeniture was not in vogue. We have many references to show that the Rashtrakuta throne was not ascended by the eldest son of the king (in the case of Krishna I, Dhruva, and Govinda III). Also, Dantidurga, the founder of the Rashtrakuta was succeeded by his uncle Krishna I in 756 CE.^[3] War of succession was frequent but most of the time ablest prince became the king with the support of ministers. Feudatories and ministers had a determining voice in deciding who should be offered the throne, as when Govinda II was deposed in c. 780 CE, or Amoghavarsha III was installed in c. 936 CE. Dhruva (780-793 CE), the younger brother of Govinda II and a governor of a province during his brother’s reign was requested by the feudatories to accept the throne for the sake of the glory of the Rashtrakuta empire when his elder brother indulged himself in the life of pleasure and ignored the administrative responsibilities of the kingdom. Dhruva was also succeeded by his younger son, Govind III (793-814) instead of Stambha, his eldest son because Govind III was a skilful administrator and general who always kept his ministers and officers at the highest level of efficiency. Govind III also realized that the goodwill and confidence of his ministers and high officers is essential in a fight for the throne.^[4]

The Rashtrakuta dynasty followed the em>Smritis' recommendation to choose the heir apparent during the lifetime of the king. Arab traveler Suleiman who visited Rashtrakutas kingdom noted in his travelogue that the kings in India name their own successors indicating the practice of the nomination of the prince (Yuvaraja). Govind II was nominated crown prince during his father’s lifetime only and Dantidurga had also made all the arrangements that his uncle should succeed him. However, the heir-apparent had to reach a certain age before being anointed.^[5] Political theorists like Sukra specify that the king must be a major before he runs the government. The observation of contemporary Arab traveller Al-Masudi that no king could succeed before 40 proves that this injunction was followed.^[6] His remark supports the Smriti position that juveniles cannot administer. The regent, therefore, represented the monarchy until the minor king reached the age of taking the responsibilities of the state. When Amoghavarsha I ascended the throne in 814 CE, he was just a boy of thirteen years. His father Govind II appointed his nephew Karkka regent to his cousin brother Amoghavarsha I whose regency proved to be very beneficial for the minor king.^[7]

The Yuvaraja had the status of a Panchamahas’abda- Samanta and was invested with a necklace which was the insignia of his office. He exercised the regal prerogative of granting villages while serving as a minister according to the rule of Nitisastra of the period. When kings like Amoghavarsha I and Amoghavarsha III reached old age and retired or engaged themselves in religious disposition, their heir apparent assumed virtually all of their authority. It was customary for the Yuvaraja to reside in the capital. He was rarely sent as viceroy to a distant province under the Rashtrakuta administration. Generally, younger princes and cousins were deputed as provincial governors. We also have references to the appointment of princesses to government posts and governors of the provinces.^[8]

Perhaps the character of the Rashtrakuta monarchy was limited as can be said about most of the ancient dynasties of India. We see that constitutional checks in the form of a council of ministers always existed. Hindu political writers often cited spiritual sanctions, careful and proper education, public opinion, the division of power within a ministry, the supremacy of established usage in the realm of law and taxation, and the devolution of large powers to local democratic bodies as checks on the monarchy.^[9] Rashtrakuta's kingship dwelling upon divinity as they often associate themselves with epic heroes and popular deities would not have only afforded them legitimacy to rule but also to rule for the welfare of the people following the conduct of heroes of epics and popular gods.^[10] Al-Masudi who visited India during the reign of Rashtrakuta king Indra III (914-928 CE) left for us an interesting note on the observance of ancient political theories on kinship in India during the time of his visit.^[11]
To quote Al-Masudi:
"The Hindus abstain from drinking wine, and censure those who consume it; not because their religion forbids it, but in the dread of its clouding their reason and depriving them of its powers. If it can be proved of one of their kings, that he has drunk (wine), he forfeits the crown; for he is (not considered to be) able to rule and govern (the empire) if his mind is affected.^[12]"

Ministers

The most important post under the king was of the Prime Minister referred to in inscriptions of the period with different names like sarvadars (superintendent over the members of the ministry or sarvasya anushthata (person in charge of all administration) or sarvadhikarin (officer with power over the whole adminsitartion) was the second only to the King in importance. His position came with five insignia namely, a flag, a fan, a white umbrella, a conch, a large drum, and five musical instruments called Panchamahashabdas to commensurate his position. Under him was the Dandanayaka (commander), Mahasandhivigrahaka (foreign minister) and Mahamatya or Purnamathya (prime minister), all of whom were affiliated with one of the feudatory kings and must have had a high level government position. A Mahasamantha was a feudal lord or top royal officer. All ministers in the cabinet had extensive knowledge of politics (Rajneeti) and training in the military.^[13] Rashtrakutas Empire had several foreign ministers or secretaries called Sandhivigrahakas working under the directions of a chief foreign minister. Dharmankusas were ministers in charge of religion and morality under the Rashtrakutas. ^[14]

Administrative Units

The vast Rashtrakuta Empire must have been divided into several provinces for administrative purposes. Directly administered areas were divided into rashtras and vishayas roughly corresponding to modern divisions and districts. Thus, rashtra was the largest administrative unit and vishaya was its subdivision. The vishaya roughly corresponded to a modern district comprised of villages varying from 1,000 to 4,000. The next territorial division was a bhukti. The vishayas were subdivided into bhuktis consisting of 50 to 70 villages, and named after the headquarters towns. The bhuktis were further subdivided into smaller groups of 10 to 20 villages each. The bhukti is the old administrative division known from the Gupta times. The village itself was the smallest administrative unit.^[15]

Administrative Officials of Territorial Divisions

The land grants of Rashtrakuta usually refer to Rashtrapatis, Vishayapatis, and Gramakutas in the stated order. Each rashtra, equivalent to four or five modern districts, was administered by a Rashtrapati who was appointed in recognition of their distinguished military services. He managed military and civic administration. The peace and order of the kingdom depended on him, as did the surveillance of lesser feudatories and officers. If a feudatory revolted, Rashtrapatis were expected to immediately deal with a punitive expedition. Naturally, the Rashtrapati had to keep a sufficient military force under his command. He himself used to be a military officer of high grade. Rashtrapatis was in charge of the fiscal administration and were tasked with ensuring that land tax was collected on time. Among their other function, they had to keep careful eyes on local rights and privileges besides noting the villages whose revenue was given to temples and Brahmans. However, Rashtrapatis were not authorized to alienate any revenues without royal permission. They also didn't have the power to select district and sub-district officers.^[16] Some of the governors of the provinces were royal princes as well which means that Rashtrakutas princes held the post of Rashtrapatis.

Vishayapatis or district officers exercised the same functions as Rashtrapatis within his smaller jurisdictions. Some of the Vishayapatis enjoyed feudatory status like the provincial governors. An appointment to these posts was usually made either in recognition of the administrative ability or as a reward for military service. The post of Vishayapatis became hereditary in those cases where original officers had sons who excelled on the battlefield or in the secretariat. Vishayapatis exercised considerable revenue powers can be gleaned from the numerous copper plates where they requested not to disturb the beneficiary possession of the lands or villages granted. They must have been responsible to the provincial governors and the central government for the revenue of their districts. Subordinate officers needed their approval for the remission of taxes. In their administrative duties, Vishayapatis collaborated with a council of Vishaya-mahattaras which was the body consisting of the notables of the district.^[17]

The officer in charge of the administration of bhukti was called a bhogapati or bhogika. They corresponded to the officers of the modern sub-divisions of the Talukas. Most of the time, these officers were not feudal lords. Instead, they were just common people. Rashtrakutas records do not refer to bhogapati along with Rashtapatis and Vishayapatis, probably because they did not possess considerable revenue powers like Rashtrapatis and Vishayapatis. The villages for administrative convenience assembled within groups and were kept in charge of separate officers called Nal-gavundas, translated as country sheriffs. The Nal-gavuruda either singly or jointly with other gavundas, could endow lands, transfer revenues, and grant remissions for pious objects.^[18] Nal-gavundas also known as Deshgramakutas were hereditary revenue officers of the countryside who had to assist Vishayapatis and Bhogapatis in the revenue administration. Rent-free lands were given to these officials as payment for their services.^[19]

In Rashtrakuta Empire, non-official bodies possessing administrative powers also existed. Rashtrakuta records refer to Vishayamahattaras and Rashtramahattaras suggesting the existence of popular bodies at the district and provincial headquarters, discharging functions probably similar to those of the municipal in Indian cities today. Vishayamahattaras were members of the district council whereas Rashtramahattaras belongs to the provisional council. Most probably, Rashtramahattaras and Vishayamahattaras constituted a body of the notables and elders in the province and district respectively.^[20]

Town and Village Administration

Since early times the custom prevailed that towns and cities were to be kept under the jurisdiction of separate officers. Arthasastra and Manusmriti lay down this rule. Important towns and cities make up an administrative unit by themselves and were run by Purapatis or Nagarapatis, who was in charge of those units. Military captains were often appointed to the posts. The city affairs were managed by the officers with the help of non-official committees whose members were called Vishayamahattaras. We have ample records that indicate that the administration of the city was also vested in committees of bankers, merchants, and corporations. This may suggest that cities and towns were divided into several wards for the purpose of representation in the city council. Since town committee members were non-officials, they must have been elected or selected. They may have been under the control of the Rashtrapatis in whose jurisdiction the towns were situated. The administration of the cities was fairly rigorous and it may have been exercised partly by the regular official hierarchy through periodical tours—a principle recommended by Manu and Sukra. The orders from the imperial secretariat were directly carried by special messengers, who were known as Vallabhajnasancharinah (carriers of royal orders). The police officers were known in this period as Choroddharanikas or Dandapasikas.^[21]

As far as the administration of the villages and towns was concerned, the popular element was fairly effective. In ancient Indian villages, formal elections were not the order of the day, but the elders of the villages called Gramamahattaras appoints subcommittees to manage local schools, temples, tanks, and roads. They would also be entrusted with the responsibility of managing the properties of the trust in accordance with the terms laid down by the donor. These subcommittees collaborated closely with the village head and were allocated a reasonable share of the local budget to fund various public welfare schemes. Civil suits were also the affair of the village council and its decisions were upheld by the government. ^[22]

However, officially the village administration in the Rashtrakuta Empire was carried on by the village headman called Gramkutas and the village accountant, whose posts were usually hereditary. The headman was in charge of maintaining law and order in the village and had a local militia at his disposal to help him carry out his duties. The rebellions of feudatories and the conflict between neighbouring villages were the primary factors that disrupted the peace in the villages. Thieves and bandits were much less of a problem. On these occasions, village headmen were expected to perform the duties of military captains, and it was not uncommon for them to give their lives defending the homes and hearths of their fellow villagers. They were also in charge of getting the revenue from the villages and their payment into the treasury and granaries of the king. They were remunerated by rent-free lands and the assignments of some petty taxes paid in kind refer to as sadhanyahiranyadeyah. Rashtrakutas village grant inscriptions contain the expression ‘sodrangah soparikarah’ which alludes to some taxes in addition to the land revenue. The village accountants who worked as their assistants were important village officials.^[23]

Revenue and Taxes

The principal sources of revenue of the Rashtrakuta Empire may be classed under five heads. These were:

Regular taxes

Epigraphical evidence shows that bhagakara or udranga was land tax and formed the main source of revenue. Udranga regularly used to be levied in all the villages of the empire. It was often paid in kind in two or three instalments. In the case of lands given to Brahmans and temples, the incidence of taxation was usually smaller than regular tax, and in some cases complete freedom from all taxes was sanctioned. Another important regular tax of the period was Bhogakara or Uparikara. Bhogakara stands for the pretty taxes that had to be paid to the king every day in kind. From the very nature of the case, the king collected these taxes in the form of betel leaves, fruits, vegetables, etc., when he would be on tour. Therefore, they were usually assigned to local officers as a part of their income.^[24] The Rashtrakuta inscriptions refer to a tax called Bhutopattapratyaya which was the general excise and octroi (a local tax collected on various articles brought into a district for consumption) duties that were collected at the villages. Octroi and excise duties were collected sometimes in goods and cash. Butter and charcoal taxes were paid in kind, but octroi duties and customs dues were paid in cash.

Vishti or forced labour was also a kind of regular tax that had been referred to in most of the records of our period. When the kings and officers of the central government made a tour of a village, the headman could ask the artisans and the labourers to work for the village community in the interest of the state. They were usually assigned to works like a cleansing of the government granary, weighing or measuring the land tax paid in kind, and also in public works of villages like the excavation of village tanks or wells, etc.^[25]

Occasional taxes or exactions

Exactions at the time of the arrival of regular and irregular military and police forces were referred to as Chatabhatapraves’ adanda. Chatas and Bhatas were members of the police and military forces of the state, and when they were quartered in a village while on the march, the villagers had to meet several demands from them. However, most of the villages were exempted from this exaction. Shukraniti lays down that soldiers should encamp outside a village and should not enter it except on official business. It would thus appear that good governments of the period were trying to minimise the exactions of the soldiers by preventing them from entering into villages, except with the permission of the higher authorities. Another occasion tax was Rajasevakanam vasatidandaprayanadandau which alludes to the dues leviable at the time of the halt or departure of the royal officers. Customary presents to the king and higher officers on occasions of festivity like the birth of a son, or marriage comes in this category of exactions.^[26]

Fines

Fines could hardly have formed any appreciable fraction of the total income of the state, and a considerable portion of them must have been consumed by the expense of the judiciary. The usual expression in this connection is sadandadas’aparadhah but sometimes more expressive terms like dandaya or pratishiddhaya are used. A part of these fines was spent in meeting the expenses connected with the trial of the case before the village council while the balance normally went into the state treasury.^[27]

Income from Government Properties

Under this category came the income from mines, forests, and wastelands, the ownership of which was claimed by the state. The ownership of arable lands, however, was vested in private individuals and families. The state could confiscate them only if the revenue demand had not been complied with. We come across expressions like sahabhyantarasiddhi which suggest transfer to donatory the state right to mineral wealth in the interior of the earth

Tributes from feudatories

The feudatories also had to pay a fixed amount of their revenue as a tribute to the Rashtrakuta kings.