History Optional (Mauryan Empire) by Shivlal Gupta

Model Answer

Question #1. The Gupta phase was the period of proto-feudal polity and land donations was one of the responsible factors for this. Examine.

The main sources for understanding the polity of the Guptas are literary and archaeological. Among the literary sources, mention must be made of Kamandaka's Neetisara and Manusmriti, or Mam Dharmasastra, the codified Vedic and Puranic literature along with the contemporary literary pieces and foreign accounts.

Among archaeological sources, mention must be made of royal Prasastis like the Allahabad or Prayaga Prasasti of Samudra Gupta and many other epigraphs, and the coins and clay seals issued by the Gupta rulers, in particular the Aswamedha type of coins with titles of the kings on them.

The above-mentioned sources give an idea of the nature and dynamics of the Gupta polity. Generally, the rule of the Guptas in northern India is characterized as imperial government. However, this is not very correct, as centralized control of the Gupta polity does not appear to be a fact.

N.N. Bhattacharya observes, "The Allahabad Pillar inscription refers to Samudragupta quite in accordance with Manu's concept of Kingship as a God dwelling on earth and that the Gupta kings, like their predecessors, the Kushanas and the Mauryas, tried to put this idea into practice, but it was possible only on a limited scale, in areas which lay within a manageable distance from the capital. The rest of the empire and the occupied territories were put in charge of the local rulers, mostly by erstwhile masters of the land, acting almost independently as feudatories or vassals who paid only a token submission to the imperial authority".

The king was the central figure in the administration. They assumed titles like Maharajadhiraja, Samrat, Ekadhiraja, Chakravarthi, Paramabhattaraka, Paramadaivata and Parameswara. The Allahabad Prasasti of Samudragupta eulogizes the king as "equal to the Gods; Dhanada (Kubera), Varuna (Rain God), Indra and Antaka (Yama), who had no antagonist of equal power in the world". These kinds of titles taken by the Gupta kings itself shows the decntralisation of power which could be justified by different categories of feuds within Gupta empire

At least three categories of feudatories may be identified:

(i) Feudatory lines existing before the rise of the suzerain power but reduced to vassalage;

(ii) Feudatory lines established by junior branches of the imperial dynasty; and

(iii) Feudatories through imperial creation. During the Gupta period, the first categories of feudatories were very common.

The fact that Gupta control on feudatories was not strong can be substantiated by the following instances. The Vallabhi princes issued coins mentioning the names of the Gupta kings but with their own symbol of trident instead of the peacock symbol of the Guptas, likewise the Parivrajaka Maharaja land grants refer to the Gupta era without recording the names of the Gupta rulers. There are instances that reveal that the Gupta polity was not centralized, but layered. The Gupta polity became layered because of the strategy adopted by the rulers.

The process of land donation was initiated by the Satvahana rulers but these were religious in nature. Over the time the nature of land donations kept on changing as some other rights such as judiciary administrative were also transferred apart from the right over land revenue. During the Gupta empire because of agrarian expansion towards east and financial crunches compelled the Gupta kings for more decentralization of power which became one of the most important reasons for feudatory polity in India.

Question #2. Critically analyse the land ownership and the complications associated with it In Ancient India with special reference to Gupta Empire.

Approach

• The question focuses on the land ownership and the complications associated with it In Ancient India with special reference to Gupta Empire.

• Introduction (Summary of key demand of the question, along with necessary facts).
• Conclusion by summing up the gist of the answer.

The debate regarding the ownership of land in ancient and early medieval India has focused on assessing the evidence for communal/corporate ownership (i.e., ownership in the hands of the village community), royal ownership, and private ownership . 

The land ownership and the complications associated with it In Ancient India with special reference to Gupta Empire:

• Although the Dharmashastra texts have a great deal to say about property, their opinions on land rights vary considerably, and contradictory statements are sometimes made within the same text.
• Certain texts suggest that the village community had an important say in land-related matters, even if this did not amount to full-fledged ownership. For instance, the village community was assigned an important role in settling boundary disputes and the sale of land, and the king was supposed to inform it when he made a gift of land. According to the Vishnu Smriti (as well as the earlier Manu Smriti), pasture land was community property and could not be partitioned. The village community seems to have exercised rights over water resources as well.
• A few earlier sources assert the indivisibility of landed property, i.e., that it could not be divided.The Gautama Smriti states that what is considered yoga-kshema (livelihood) cannot be divided.
• Inscriptions, especially land grants, have also been cited as proof of the royal ownership of land. However, although land grants indicate that the state or the king owned some land, they do not necessarily indicate that this applied to all land. That the king was not the absolute owner of all land is also indicated by inscriptions recording the purchase of land by kings for the purpose of pious donation.
• The institution of private property in land emerged in about the 6th century BCE. This institution was well entrenched by c. 300–600 CE. The law books of this period discuss and distinguish between the issues of possession, ownership, and legal title to property in general and land in particular. Laws regarding the partition, sale, and mortgage of land are laid down. Literary references to various types of private land transactions are matched by those from inscriptions. Numerous inscriptions record the purchase of land by individuals for the purpose of donations to Brahmanas or religious institutions.
• Epigraphic references suggesting corporate or communal ownership are very few and belong to an early period. And although the village community—or at least its dominant section—may have had a say in land-related matters, this did not amount to corporate or communal ownership. On the other hand, from c. 300 CE onwards, literary and epigraphic evidence can be marshalled to argue for both royal and private land ownership.

It should also be remembered that notions of ownership in ancient and early medieval India were not necessarily identical to modern Western ones, and the sources sometimes suggest a hierarchy of land rights rather than exclusive or absolute ownership rights.