Sources of the Ancient Indian History Historians try to reconstruct political history, by using diverse types of sources, particularly inscriptions and coins. The use of various types of time reckoning systems, eras, and regnal years of rulers, are markers of interesting political changes or political developments. It is interesting to observe how historians approach a confusing political scenario, in order to clear the confusion, and arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Quoting an instance will allow us to comprehend the methodology adopted by historians in doing so. When confronted with two rulers having the same name, one being Mahendrapala of the Pala dynasty, and the other a Mahendrapala of the Gurjara dynasty, with inscriptions not mentioning the genealogy or family history of any one of these Mahendrapalas, the methodology that historians use in order to determine which Mahendrapala belonged to which dynasty, and to distinguish between the two, is to take recourse to studying the regnal years stated in the inscriptions. The Palas always used the regnal year of the ruler as their dating system in their inscriptions, while in sharp contrast to this practice; the Gurjara Pratiharas used the time reckoning system of the Vikramasamvat, in which the first year corresponds to 57 BCE. A comparison of the regnal reckonings used in the inscriptions, thereby helps historians to identify, and differentiate between the two, and decide to which dynasty each belonged. In South India, the Cholas used their inscription to update political events. Whenever a new conquest took place, such as in the tenth regnal year of a great ruler like Rajaraja Chola, the inscription of this particular regnal year (tenth year), would be updated with the current political information, along with the incorporation of the earlier political achievements of that ruler. This was a remarkable practice which definitely points to the realization, of the importance of keeping proper records of significant political achievements by the Chola court. From c.700 CE onwards a particular type of literary text called the Charita, (Eulogies on the life of a particular political ruler) started to emerge. This tendency started with the Harshacharita by Banabhatta (court-poet of Harshavardhana), which speaks of the deeds of Harshavardhana. It is not free from limitations, due to the use of hyperbolic statements. Such Charitas need to be constantly checked and verified with information from other contemporary sources, before a historian can accept its statements. Similarly Sandhyakaranandi’s Ramacharitam speaks of the gradual waning of the mighty Pala power, or of the last flicker of its existence during the time of Ramapala, who tried to recapture the lost territory of Varendri (present day northern part of Bangladesh), which the Pala’s had lost. The recovery of Varendri constitutes the major focus of the Ramacharitam. The text revolves around the career of Ramapala, and points to many interesting political aspects of the last phase of the Pala rule in northern Bengal. The Vikramankadevacharita of Bilhana, a poet of the eleventh century, describes the career and achievements of his patron, a powerful south Indian ruler Vikramaditya VI, in a similar fashion. A fascinating textual account of a particular region was Kalhana’s Rajatarangini (River of Kings), which possibly outclassed the other historical chronicles written in ancient times. This text gives a connected account of the history of Kashmir from very remote times (according to some it goes back to the nineteenth century BCE). Kalhana’s account about the pre-seventh century CE was mostly based on hearsay, legends and tales, but from the seventh century CE onwards, it was based on evidence available to him, and was more factual and dependable. Kalhana, a Kashmiri Brahmin, belonged to the twelfth century CE. He states that he checked, read, and studied earlier evidence in the form of coins, accounts, and dynastic chronicles, in order to compose his text. His approach to these sources, itself surprises us, as he went about his work with remarkable balance and critical judgment. Romila Thapar sees the culmination of the Itihasa Purana type of textual narrative in Kalhana’s Rajatarangini.It is noteworthy that this work was fundamentally different from the Charitas, as the latter were composed in a spirit of hero worship, or patron pleasing, while the Rajatarangini was the outcome of a detached and impartial mind, viewing the past and the present with great historical insight. Although inscriptions and coins are perhaps of most usefulness, when writing the political history of ancient India, they should also be checked and verified with other kinds of texts, Puranic accounts, Charitas, and other chronicles. In terms of ancient India, it is often taken for granted, that the prevalent polity was monarchical. This idea emanates from the earliest known literary text of India, or the Vedic corpus and particularly the Rig Veda, which mentions the term Raja. This led many historians, particularly of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s, to translate the term Raja as king. The translation is no doubt valid, but what were required was a more critical analysis of the Vedic corpus, (particularly the Rig Veda) and a comparison of this term in the context of other evidence available from the same Vedic literature. Such a method has revealed that the term ‘raja’ rarely stood for the head of a monarchical state. It actually meant chieftains, as the Rajas in the Vedic corpus were rarely associated with any territorial position. On the contrary they often figure as the head or chief of a particular clan. The study of certain expressions (vocabulary) that appear in a text, open up new possibilities of understanding political institutions. The Vedic corpus does not acquaint us with the existence of a fully fledged monarchical setup, but refers to certain kinds of bodies, like the sabha, samiti, and vidhata, which could be equated to popular assemblies. These popular assemblies point to possible popular participation in the political setup. This feature seems to be more in tune with the image of a polity where fully fledged monarchy had not yet developed, thereby pointing to a situation where popular assemblies were quite active. The Pali canonical texts, and the Jain texts in the Prakrit language, speak regularly about Ganarajyas, and Ganasanghas (non monarchical groups). These non monarchical groups also figure in Brahmanical normative treatises, like the Arthasastra, Manu Samhita, and the Shantiparvana of the Mahabharata. However there seems to be an attitude of apprehension, or even reaction and disfavour, in connection with these popular assemblies, especially the Ganasanghas and Ganarajyas in the Brahmanical normative texts. A contrasting stance was taken by the Buddhist and Jain texts, which openly celebrated the non monarchical institutions, and political activities of the Ganarajyas, Although the Buddhist texts were essentially religious in content, and had little to do with political organizations, it was from a story in the Digha Nikaya that historians like U. N. Ghoshal, R. S. Sharma, Romila Thapar and many others, traced the elements of some kind of an agreement or contract, between the people and the ruler, before the latter started to function (rule). It was in the light of this Digha Nikaya story, that such historians observed the germs of a contractual origin of the monarchical polity. Monarchical polity appears in a very major way in texts such as Kautilya’s Arthasastra, the Manu Samhita, and the Shantiparvana (Mahabharata) in which the ideals of ruler ship, and ideal functions of the ruler are highlighted. In the Manu Samhita and the Mahabharata, the king is considered almost as a divinity. Manu’s dictum was that the king was verily ‘a God in human form’, and therefore even an infant king could not be disobeyed. The answer to the question as to whether these statements had any bearing on the polity or were merely theoretical statements, are available in some sources. Inscriptional sources, coins and some sculptures of the Kushana phase, show that in their inscriptions the Kushanas called themselves son of God or Devaputra. There was even an instance where a Kushana ruler figures as Devamanusha, thereby exactly echoing Manu’s statement of a God in human form. Moreover Kushana rulers encouraged the practice of erecting frontal statues of the rulers, to be propitiated in dynastic sanctuaries called Devakula, which find reflection in their inscriptions. This is the manner in which information from textual prescriptions, numismatic evidence and inscriptions and even visual arts may be studied in combination, to show how the idea of the ruler being a divinity or having divine origin was gaining ground. The normative treatises laid down the various principles of tax collection, and the reasons that justified the ruler to collect taxes. The maxims were laid down in the Dharmasastras. One comes across a large number of revenue terms, as well as officials entrusted with the collection of revenue, from inscriptions, particularly land grant charters from 400 CE onwards. The renowned Chinese pilgrim Fa Hien (5th century CE) while travelling through different parts of northern and central India had commented that the burden of taxation on the Indian population was rather light, and that the tax system was very lenient. A study of the data from Gupta and Vakataka inscriptions from central India however display a completely contrary picture. It shows that the burden of taxation and the diversification of revenue demands were ever on the increase, over and above which existed the custom of imposing forced labour called Vishti. Thus diverse types of images emerge from different types of sources. R. S. Sharma, one of the most respected historians on ancient India, used a text on architecture called Aparajita Priccha, to suggest how this Sanskrit text proposed different types of palaces for different grades of rulers (e.g. a far bigger palace for a sovereign ruler, than that for a relatively smaller under lord or subordinate vassal). Sharma’s idea was not to visualize how the royal palaces would have looked like in the light of this prescription, but to use it to indicate, how even a text on architecture, was influenced by the idea of political hierarchy, (between the lord and his vassals) and thereby built up his concept of Indian feudalism, or that of political fragmentation. He also used the evidence of land grants, and the emergence of the Samantas or under lords to prominence at the cost of the central political authority, to justify his theory. This indicates how multiple types of information can be collated together in order to reveal a complex image. A similar method can be used to illustrate developments in the southern part of India, from where in the last two decades, a profusion of inscriptions (tens of thousands), either in copper plate charters or inscribed on the walls of the temples, refer to transfer of revenue from certain villages to a big temple, usually instituted and constructed by the patronage of a great Chola ruler. Efforts have been made by scholars like, Yellava Subbarayalu, Matsui and Noboru Karashima, to create a computerized data bank of the plethora of such epigraphic information, regarding land settlements, boundary demarcations of villages, and local self-governing bodies vis a vis the central apex authority, and to find out the computerized results that emerged. There is an international collaboration among epigraphists, social, political and economic historians, to furnish a multi faceted understanding of the political institutions. There were regular references in Chola inscriptions, to elected bodies at the rural level, which were called Ur in non-Brahman villages, and sabha in Brahmana villages, as well as details of how these popular bodies functioned, even when there were powerful monarchical authorities in existence at the apex level, of whom mention could be made of Chola kings like Rajaraja, Rajendra and Kulottunga. This co-existence of political entities find no direct mention in prescriptive sources, but come to light only through descriptive sources like inscriptions. It is indeed impossible to come to a single conclusive closed assessment of any situation from the different sources. The situation keeps changing from one period to another, and alongside this the perspectives of historians too keep getting altered.
Posted on: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 00:29:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015