Administrative Divisions in the Inscriptions of Early Mediaeval India
By Krishna Kanti Gopal
Summary
Analysing a corpus of copper‑plate grants and stone inscriptions dated between the 7th and 12th centuries, this article examines the administrative divisions recorded in early medieval India. It notes that royal charters issued by the Pallavas, Chalukyas and Gurjara‑Pratiharas frequently mention territorial units such as ‘bhukti’, ‘vishaya’, ‘mandala’ and ‘desa’. The author traces the hierarchical relationships among these terms: a bhukti often denoted a large province governed by a viceroy; within it were vishayas (districts) comprising numerous villages; mandalas sometimes referred to clusters of villages or sub‑districts; desas and gramas indicated smaller units or ecological zones. The paper highlights regional variations: in Bengal and Orissa inscriptions, ‘bhoga’ and ‘pataka’ appear as fiscal terms for revenue circles; Chalukya charters from the Deccan use ‘kampana’ for a province. Drawing on examples like the Nalanda copper plates and the Ghatiyala inscription, the author shows how such divisions were used to describe the location of donated land and to demarcate jurisdiction. He argues that the proliferation of intermediate units reflects the growing complexity of governance in early medieval polities, where kingly authority was mediated through feudatory lords and local assemblies. The study also compares inscriptional terminology with references in law digests like the Dharmashastra to demonstrate continuity and change. It concludes that understanding these administrative divisions is crucial for mapping historical geography and for reconstructing patterns of state control and local autonomy.
Conclusion
The paper demonstrates that inscriptions are invaluable sources for reconstructing the administrative geography of early medieval India. By analysing territorial terms in context, the author shows that polities developed layered systems of governance adapted to regional needs. Such findings nuance narratives of ‘Indian feudalism’ by illustrating how central and local authorities interacted through complex administrative hierarchies.