Proceedings and papers of National Seminar on Jainology

Author(s): Yugalkishor Mishra
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 64

Trade in the Samarāichchakahā : Text and Context
35
at least once in the text, as tax-paying rulers. They had their own armies and forts. Even the sāmanta group was hierarchical in composition. The Samarāichchakahā refers to the mahāsāmantas who were the masters of numerous sāmantas and very close to the king.” This text contains one of the earliest mentions of the term thakkura in western India, 56 a fact that underlines its feudal traits. It is pertinent to note in this context that R.S. Sharma takes thakkura as a common feudal epithet that was "applied indiscriminately to officials of different castes and categories." Significantly in the feudal society the caste considerations came to be superseded by the feudal ranks. The Samarāichchakahā, obviously familiar with this new change in social hierarchy, informs that even a lowly placed aboriginal sabara, after beoming a sāmanta, was accepted as sambandhin, or kinsman, by the family members of the overlord and other sāmantas.* The text also refers to the lord-vassel relationship. Thus, while extending help to his sabara vassal, king Kumārasena declares, "He has become my liegeman. Hence even though he has been doing reprehensible things, I cannot be indifferent when he engages himself in fight."99 The text also introduces an element of paternalism in the lord-vassal nexus as Guņachandra says to Vigraha, a vassal of his father, Maitribala, “You are liegeman of my father. Hence you are my elder brother.»60
In tune with the feudal polity of the times, the council of ministers was gaining in power vis-a-vis the king. Besides extending advise to the king, they also supervised judicial administration. That the council of ministers as well as the bureaucracy admitted of hierarchical structure is evident from the currency of designations like mantrin, mahāmantrin, amātya 4, pradhāna amātya", sachiva and pradhāna sachiva.67 The sāmantas and the mahāsāmantas not only kept their own armies but also helped their overlords in case of war. References to the pañchakulao suggest weakening of the central authority on the one hand and the rise of local units of administration on the other. Thus, numerous references to the feudatory system, growing powers of the council of ministers, lord-vassal relationship, feudal ranks determining social status, graded system of bureaucracy, feudalisation of the military structure and the emergence of local units of administration are sufficient indicators of the feudal structure that the Samarāichchakahā is contextually rooted in.
The above survey, by making a content analysis of a purely religious text, focuses upon an interesting aspect of early medieval India. It lays bare the dynamics of social formation during the period. The indubitable feudal context of the Samarāichchakahā has a distinct bearing on the nature of economy emerging from the descriptions of the text. Commercial activities