Impact of Vedic Culture on Society

by Kaushik Acharya | 2020 | 120,081 words

This page relates ‘Changes in Administration and Polity in Later Vedic Era’ of the study on the Impact of Vedic Culture on Society as Reflected in Select Sanskrit Inscriptions found in Northern India (4th Century CE to 12th Century CE). These pages discuss the ancient Indian tradition of Dana (making gifts, donation). They further study the migration, rituals and religious activities of Brahmanas and reveal how kings of northern India granted lands for the purpose of austerities and Vedic education.

Changes in Administration and Polity in Later Vedic Era

In ancient India, there wasn’t a clear distinction between the state and government, and the essential elements of the country like the fixed territory, a regular source of income, andthe standing army were absent in the vedic period. The people were more attached and well-connected to the kin or their relatives rather than to any territory. However, the process that gave rise to the state organs had already begun in the ṛgvedic period.

In the later vedic period, small communities merged to become larger units, and these groups of communities became part of different Janapadas or a region or state. The king wasn’t wholly identified with the country, but gradually, the idea of kingship evolved in the later vedic period. At the end of the vedic age, the king’s authority began with his own success. Gradually, the genetic elements were diminished with the further strengthening of the kings. From this stage, the role of the courtiers became as important as the rise of the larger regional states made it difficult for them to function as they did before.

In the later vedic era, primitive assemblies lost their importance and became exclusive by the male gender. However, the sabhā and samitiḥ continued to hold their ground, but vidatha completely disappeared. The primary office holders included other essential officials. They were comparatively organized under powerful monarchies.

Towards the end of the later-vedic period, the concept of territoriality created the idea of possession over the land. The king belonged to a kṣtriya class who sought the support of the priests for domination over the people. The king was called the protector of the brāhmaṇas and gracious of the enemies.

In the vedic age, kings did not naturally use any administrative or religious titles since the concept of an imperial king or paramount ruler did not exist then. But, the kings of Northern India during early and early medieval periods adorned their names by the use of proud and grandiloquent titles such as Mahārājādhirāja, Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Parameśvara, and others. The title of Mahārājādhirāja (the noblest of the Supreme) and Parameśvara (Supreme lord) indicate the Supremacy of the kings over the kingdom and their paramountcy over the feudatories and the vassals. Paramabhaṭṭāraka (the noblest of the supreme) meaning to most worship one, indicates the paramount sovereignty of the king over the kingdom.

Feudal kings also used some administrative titles during the period under discussions like independent kings such as Mahārāja, Senāpati, Mahāsāmanta, and others. However, many of them had not used any royal titles.

The following chart identifies some of the administrative titles of independent kings and feudal rulers of Northern India.

Some Notable Administrative Titles Adopted by the Kings

Titles Used by the Independent and Paramount Kings
Mahārājādhirāja King of all kings. It was a sovereign title used by the imperial emperors, which signified the assumption of supreme power.
Paramabhaṭṭāraka The most worshipful one. It was a vain-glorious title. The monarchs wanted to exhibit to the world that they were such a pious and godly man who would revere virtue and spurn vice. However, it need not be considered entirely as a title of paramount sovereignty.
Cakravartin The cakra or wheel is also known as a symbol of the Sun, which travels around the earth and rules over it. Thus cakravartin would hold a similar position in the polity. A ruler the wheels of whose chariot roll everywhere without any obstruction, emperor, sovereign ruler of the world, ruler of a chakra or country described as extending from sea to sea, the state of a universal emperor.
Parameśvara It was also an imperial title closely connected to Paramabhaṭṭāraka and Mahārājādhirāja.
Titles used by feudatory Kings
Mahārāja Great king. Usually,the title of feudatories.
Senāpati The General of the army, leader of forces, the military governor of a district, or commander in Chief, or the chief officer in charge of the military department.
Mahāsāmanta The Great chieftain, the title of a feudatory of a higher rank than the Sāmanta. Or the feudal Chief.
Mahādaṇḍanāyaka The commander of forces.
Mahāpratihāra The head of the door-keepers of a palace or the king’s chamber or the capital city. He was the superior officer above all door-keepers, the great chamberlain.
Mahākārtakṛtika This is an official designation of uncertain import: probably, a reporter who informed the king about the progress of significant undertakings sometimes explained as the royal agent or judge.
Panca-mahāśabda The sound of five instruments (horn, tabor, conchshell, kettle-drum and a gong) the use of which was allowed the persons high rank and authority; usually a title of feudatories.


Mahārāja and Mahārājādhirāja

According to J. F. Fleet,[1] in the Mauryan times, we hear titles like Rājan, Mahārāja, and Kumāra applicable to kings and princes. The early princes of the imperial line like Śrī-Gupta were satisfied with the title of Mahārāja. Still, soon it becomes an official title applied to feudatories and not to Imperial rulers. To distinguish the feudatories from themselves, the imperial Guptas adopted the title Mahārājādhirāja indicative of their imperial power and sovereign position.

The polity, during this period, witnessed significant changes in political, social, and religious spheres. During the post-ṛgvedic period, the primitive settlements were more focused on agriculture and a variety of other occupations relating to trade, metalwork, and crafts. In other words, the post-ṛgvedic polity, though primitive in character, had enhanced features. The transition from the nomadic life of the early vedic period to settled agriculture during the late vedic period also signified a change in the meaning of the term grāma. The elaborate rituals like Rājasūya, extending over two years, required a fixed place, and the king had to approach dignitaries who lived in permanent dwellings. The Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa enumerates ten types of government prevalent in different parts of the country, which show that power was established at fixed geographical locations. While in the early vedic period, as analyzed by Wilhelm Rau, grāma stood for a train of vehicles used by nomadic tribes always on the move for better pastures, in the later vedic period this term came to mean a village where the tribe eventually settled down.[2]

In the post-ṛgvedic period, far-reaching developments take place in political and social spheres. Later vedic literature gives us more information on the consolidation of the position of the king, the addition of new entities in the governance structure, and further enhancement in the status of the Purohita (priest).In his tenure, the king was assisted by priests, the commanders, the chief queens, and a few other high ranking officials.

At the lower level, the administration was possibly run by village assemblies, which may have been controlled by the chiefs of the dominant clans. These assemblies also tried local cases. However, the king did not have a permanent standing army during the later vedic period. Gradually, the legitimacy of the king’s power began to be confirmed by a long and extensive yajñas (sacrifices) conducted by the priests. Thus the alliance between the priest and the king became a fundamental feature of the Indian state. Later it also led to social stratification.

It has to be said that after reviewing the whole matter, despite the vedic influence in each of the cases we have discussed earlier, there is no difficulty in acknowledging that the vedic influence in the administrative field is not very strong. However, there are enough reasons behind this. And as we said earlier, if we compare today’s administration with the administration of the middle Ages, the same difference can be noticed.

Ṛgvedic Units of Administration Early and Early Medieval Units of Administration
Kula (the smallest unit) Kula was confined into household affairs
Grāma Grāma (the smallest unit)
Viś Viṣayas
Jana Bhukti and Bhoga
Rājya Maṇḍala/ Rājya
Rāṣṭra Deśa/ Rāṣṭra


Although it looks pretty much the same, there is a big difference between the two in terms of size, royal officials, and overall structure and concept of administration. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the basic structure of the administration was the same.

In this regard, a question may arise that in the vedic age Aśvamedha, Vājapeya and Rājasūya sacrifices were mentioned which only kings could perform to increase their political power by occupying other territories through direct war. But, in this chapter it came up that the administrative system was very simple in the vedic age, even the concept of 'king' was not there at that time as it was in later vedic times.

The Vedas are not the one-time composition. This literature has been refined and expanded over the centuries. Many researchers could not come to a definite conclusion even after many attempts. The result of each of their studies is also different. However, it can be said with certainty in this case, at the very beginning of the vedic age, the concept of king was not there, even the political sacrifices we are talking about were not there at the early stage too.

The concept of these elaborated sacrifices came into prominence during the age of brāhmaṇas, which was composed many centuries later. This brāhmaṇa here, however, looks identical, is totally different from the brāhmaṇa we have discussed in our whole study. Here brāhmaṇa refers to a kind of compilation or collection of explanations of religious rites and rituals related and attached to each Veda (Saṃhitā), which often relied on mythologies to describe the origins and importance of vedic rituals.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

CII, vol. III, p. 59.

[2]:

Wilhelm Rau and Harrassowitz Otto, op. cit., p. 70 ff.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: