HISTORY

Subject : History
(For under graduate student)

Paper No. : Paper-I

History of India

Topic No. & Title : Topic-11

Harshavardhana

Lecture No. & Title : Lecture-1

Political System & Administrative
Institutions

Harshavardhana: Political System and administrative

institutions
Harshavardhana was the sixth and last ruler of the
Pushyabhuti dynasty of Thaneswar. With immense military
power, and strategic diplomatic moves, Harsha came to
occupy a supreme position in Northern India with Kanauj as
his capital. Harshavardhana built up a large empire which
he ruled for forty one years. He was given the epithet of
‘Sakolottarapathanath’ or the Lord of entire North India, by
his Chalukya rival Pulakesin II. He is known not only for his
military exploits but also for his accomplishments in the
field of literature. He was himself an erudite scholar and
composed three plays, the Rantavalli, the Priyadarshika and
the Nagananda. He probably also composed the text of the
two copper plate inscriptions – Banskhera and Madhuban
which bear his signature. Nalanda,the great centre of
learning, was located in his empire, and he is said to have
given large grants to this university.

Following the disintegration of the Gupta Empire in the

middle of the sixth century CE there emerged many small
kingdoms in northern India. One of these was the kingdom
of the Pushyabhutis of Thaneswar. Thaneswar was located
to the north of Delhi, near Kurukshetra. This family became
influential under the reign of Prabharkarvardhana, but it
was under his younger son Harshavardhana (who ascended
to the throne in 606 AD), that they became a paramount
power in northern India.

The major sources of information regarding

Harshavardhana of the Pushyabhuti dynasty are the
political biography called Harshacharita that was composed
by his friend and court-poet Banabhatta, and the account of
the Chinese pilgrim, Hiuen Tsang, who came to India in
627CE, called Hsi Yu Ki. Archaeological material for
Harshavardhana’s reign is scarce. There are three copper
plate inscriptions which record land grants, known as the
Madhuban, the Banskhera and the Kurukshetra-Varanasi
inscriptions. There are also the Nalanda Clay Seal and the
Sonepat Copper Seal. Some silver coins have been found
bearing the epithet Shiladitya, which was the title assumed
by Harshavardhana on his accession. These coins can be
assigned to him. Gold coins found from Farukhabad in UP
definitely belonged to Harshavardhana’s reign.

A number of monographs and chapters on Harshavardhana

reign provide an insight into his reign. The main duties of
the king included the conquest of neighbouring states,
protection of the people and preservation of the varna
system. Under the Gupta’s political unity was characterized
by a balance of centralization and regional autonomy, but
under Harshavardhana the empire was more of a loose
federation, based much more on diplomatic alliances than
on the firm hold of central authority.
The Guptas had organised a fine blend of central control
and regional autonomy, which was not visible in the times
of Harshavardhana. With the passage of time the feudo-
federal structure of the Gupta times became more
feudalistic under Harshavardhana. There were certain
factors that hindered Harshavardhana, from maintaining
the kind of central authority which the Gupta rulers had
maintained. The imperial frame work weakened primarily
because Harshavardhana’s army was not a monolithic
centrally controlled and recruited one. It was an army that
consisted of soldiers who were for the most part supplied
by his feudal subordinates, which was an obstacle in the
creation of an efficient, central command of the army. The
Samantas or the feudatories were also differentiated
according to their relationship with the king, and their
varying degrees of allegiance to Harshavardhana.

The administrative structure of Harshavardhana was highly

feudalized. He bestowed titles of samanta, and
mahasamanta to higher state officials. There was a council
of ministers known as the mantri-parishad, which consisted
of heads of administrative departments. Ministers often
possessed military qualifications in addition to
administrative ones.

Feudatory rulers who paid tribute to Harshavardhana, or

those who were subservient to him, were often appointed
to some suitable government posts. It is interesting to
observe how the term samanta itself underwent a change
over time. This term is used in the sense of an independent
meighbour in the Arthasastra of Kautilya. But by the time of
the Manu Smriti and the Yajnavalkya Smriti, it was being
used to denote those persons with whose help boundaries
disputes were resolved. From Hiuen Tsang we learn that
the ministers and higher officials were often paid in land
grants (plots of cultivable land) instead of cash salaries.
Such allottees could enjoy the revenue and other benefits
from this land.

Traditionally the number of ministers in a council was

twelve, though we do not know the exact number in
Harshavardhana’s time. Ministers had an important role in
the administration. Hiuen Tsang has stated that after the
death of Rajayavardhan, (Harshavardhana’s elder brother),
Harshavardhana was unwilling to take up the crown. But it
was one of his ministers who persuaded him to do so. This
person has been identified with a general called Bhandi of
the Harshacharita, who seems to have played an important
role in the acquisition of the throne of Kanauj for
Harshavardhana.

The same functionary could have both civil as well as

military duties and responsibilities. There are references to
some other high officials of the central administration, such
as the Kumaramatya, who could either be stationed in state
provinces, or in the districts, or even in the central
secretariat. Then there was the mahasandhivigradhikrita,
which refers to the minister of hostilities and treaties.
References to other ministers who performed duties like
arranging for regular audiences, or who looked after the
procedures of the court, have also been recorded. Besides
the officers there were departments of revenue, as well as
interstate relations and public welfare.

The department of public welfare occupied an important

position under Harshavardhana, as its officials were
responsible for the maintenance and setting up of free
lodging, boarding, and medical facilities for travellers, the
poor and the pilgrims. They also had to make arrangements
for the frequent debates and assemblies which took place.
Hiuen Tsang refers to an inspector for Buddhist affairs, and
to certain scribes, who were responsible for the
maintenance of state documents and other important
papers.

Harshavardhana’s empire was divided into administrative

units of different sizes, large and small. The traditional
divisions mentioned in his inscriptions, are that of the
‘grama’ (village) ‘vishaya’ and ‘bhukti’. The term ‘bhoga’
also occurs as a territorial unit.

Following the Gupta pattern, Harshavardhana’s

administrative units were also divided into bhuktis and
vishayas. The Gupta division of desa, probably used for
frontier countries was absent under Harshavardhana.. The
bhukti was definitely much larger than the vishaya. We are
acquainted with the names of a number of bhuktis like,
Tirabhukti, Vardhamanabhukti, Pundravardhanbhukti,
Ahichchatrabhukti, and Navabhukti. The bhogapati appears
to have been the head of the administrative unit known as
bhoga. The pataka probably corresponded to the pargana,
and finally there was the grama which was the smallest
administration unit. Banabhatta mentions forest guards
known as vanapalas, and another official called
sarvapallipati or chief of all villages.

The vishaya had an autonomous administration, and its

own courts of law, some of which were stationary while
some were mobile. The Gupta practice of autonomous
vishaya was maintained, and continued in the days of
Harshavardhana. The central administration did not, or
rather could not, interfere in the daily, and regular
administration of the vishaya, so for all practical purposes
they were autonomous. Appeals to the royal court of justice
at the centre were meant only for the vishaya and bhuktis.

Though we do not have too many details about the sources

of revenue, yet we can assume that many of the taxes
which were imposed in the Gupta period were applicable
even in Harshavardhana time. Land revenue was
undoubtedly the most important source of income for the
state. In the land grant inscriptions we have two terms, of
which one is Udranga which means the royal share of the
produce, and the other Sarvaraja-kula-bhavya-pratyaya
meaning all dues payable to the king. The taxes enlisted
under the latter are, Tulameya, or taxes on merchandise,
according to the weight and measure of the commodity,
Bhaga or the royal share of the grain amounting to a
quarter or one-sixth of the produce, Bhoga or a periodical
offering, Uparikaara or a periodical tax, and Hiranya being a
tax levied on cash crops, which was payable in cash. The
state also derived income from trade and commerce, both
inland and foreign, which must have constituted a major
source of royal income. Another source of revenue was
from fines charged for various offences and crimes.

Harshavardhana’s campaign against Gujarat, was certainly

influenced by the realization, that this region had several
important sea-ports, having commercial relations with west
Asia. A similar factor must have been considered when he
selected Kanauj as his capital over Thaneshwar, as Kanauj
had a nodal position in northern India. His establishment of
diplomatic relations with China may have been executed
with the aim of encouraging trade relations.

As in the other departments of administration, the manner

in which justice and police duties were carried out in
Harshavardhana’s administration followed the well defined
traditional lines, except for some innovations. In the post
Gupta inscriptions we find reference to an official known as
Pramatara. According to Devahuti, this term applied to
those specialists who interpreted the various legal systems
to the king, so that it enabled him to better comprehend
the prevalent legal procedures, and to function accordingly.
According to the Harshacharita, these specialists also aided
the monarch in the field of judicial administration. The
situation in which Harshavardhana had to function did not
allow him much independence in matters such as the
promulgation of new laws, which made it imperative for him
to take the advice of these officials who were proficient in
legal procedure. It was only if a situation arose, when all
interpretations and prevailing traditions failed, that the king
was in a position to promulgate new laws. There were
number of officials who helped the King in his disbursement
of the judicial and the police duties. Among them were the
Dandika, to whom there are frequent references in the
inscriptions, and in the Harshacharita. The term Dandika,
has been used in connection with military, police and legal
spheres. But in the Harshacharita, this term may be
observed to have been used in connection to the police
department. There is allusion to jails also. The
Harshacharita informs us that, that it was within the power
of the king sometimes, to remit sentences of imprisonment,
and to issue pardons. But when doing so, he had to
function according to the law of the land, and the strict
injunctions stipulated in the dhramsastras. Punishments for
offences were imprisonment, fines and even amputation of
limbs. The highest offence was considered to be treachery,
and offenders were sentenced to life imprisonment, or
sometimes the amputation of limbs. Along with such
punishments the offender had to suffer from social
ostracism, which acted as a deterrent against acts of
treachery.

According to the Harshacharita, the king was the supreme

military authority, and commander-in-chief. The other
important military officials included the Senapati and the
Baladhikrita. The army was composed of infantry, cavalry,
chariots and elephant soldiers. However there was no
mention of forts built during this time.

The term Dandanayaka appears in inscriptions, but not in

those of Harsha himself. Hiuen Tsang has given us
interesting details about the army. The military service was
hereditary in nature; hence the soldiers were adept in
military tactics. The soldiers carried weapons such as bows
and arrows, swords, sabers, spears and the shield. The
elephants were covered with a coat of mail, while their
tusks were guarded with barbed instruments. The chariots
were drawn by four horses, and were guarded by soldiers
on either side. There are references to the Mahanao or
large boats on the river banks, in the inscriptions of
Harshavardhana.

Hiuen Tsang states that Harsha raised the number of foot

soldiers from 50,000 to 1 lakh and the elephant corps from
5000 to 60,000. These figures appear quite inflated, but
were probably not unlikely; keeping in mind that most of it
was composed out of feudal levies. Many of the soldiers of
the elephant corps or the cavalry were drawn from the
feudatory rulers. This was one of the reasons why the army
lacked cohesiveness and discipline. In fact Bana states that
when the army passed through villages, the soldiers
pillaged and destroyed most of the crops and property of
the villagers.

The edifice that Harshavardhana erected, did not last very

long. It collapsed right after his death in 647 AD. Though
Harsha controlled and influenced large parts of north India,
yet he could not provide stability or strength. The reason
could lie largely in the feudal nature of his administration.
The fact that large parts of his empire were under his
indirect control, may have contributed to the weakening of
his rule. Unlike Samudra Gupta who left only south India,
to tributary rulers, Harshavardhana left even areas close to
his capital like Mathura to tributary rulers.

Moreover, for most of the time Harshavardhana was out of

the capital. These long absences must have affected the
administration. He had to undertake long tours and military
campaigns, to keep a watch on the activities of his
feudatories. Harshavardhana was once described as the last
empire builder of north India by R.K. Mukherjee, but this
point of view now is no longer acceptable. In fact
Harshavardhana has been described as a child of his age,
which was one in which feudalism was very apparent in the
polity as well as in the economy. Therefore Harsha may be
described as an important ruler, but only in comparison to
some of the other monarchs of his time.