Samanta

Samanta title of feudatory rulers; a feudatory smaller than the Rajan; a subordinate chief. The title Rajasamanta meant a Rajan and a Samanta, or one feudatory enjoying both the designations. Samantadhipati; Mahasamantadhipati; Samanta-pratiraja are the various titles of a feudatory.

The samanta system is the hallmark of early medieval (4th to 12th century AD) polity in India as also in Bengal. In the Kaautiliya Arthasastra the term samanta denoted a neighbouring king. The earliest connotation of Samanta in the sense of a vassal occurs in the Buddhacharita of Asvaghosa (1st century AD) The Brihaspatismriti recommends payment to samanta in land assignments for their rendering military and other service to the ruler. Seven grades of samantas figure in the Harshacharita. These textual data placed side by side with innumerous references to samantas, mahasamantas, ranakas, rajaputras, rautas in land grant copper-plates clearly denote the sense of feudal lords.

The Marxist scholars have suggested that the emergence of numerous regional powers and the absence of a paramount power of pan-Indian stature was in fact an expression of changes in the structures of polity due to the feudal formation. DD Kosambi thought that the new formation developed in two stages: (a) feudalism from the above, that represented the primary phase, in which there was a direct relationship between an overlord and his tributary and autonomous vassals – without the presence of a landed intermediaries, and (b) the more complex, later and second stage of feudalism from below, in which rural landowners assumed the role of powerful intermediaries between the ruler and the peasantry and they gradually disintegrated the entire political fabric. This view of a two stage development of Indian feudalism, spanning from the 4th to the 7th century AD has however been criticized by several Marxist historians as well.

The classic Marxist formulation of Indian feudalism by RS Sharma takes a close look at the period from the 3rd to 12th century AD with three distinct phases: (1) formation in 300 – 600 AD; (2) development in 600 – 1000 AD and (3) simultaneous climax and cracks in the system in 1000 – 1200 AD Sharma links up the understanding of the feudal political set up with the changing socio-economic and cultural situations. The Puranic narration of the weakening of political authority, non-observation of the varnasramadharma, the disobedience on the part of the sudras and also Dharma (righteousness) being reduced to a one-legged bull in the Kali age are taken to have represented a deep-seated social crisis around 4th century AD, when the major Puranas took their final shape. The political fallout of the crisis is seen in the inability of rulers to exercise their coercive authority (danda) and to collect resources by revenue measures. The political authority had to take recourse to the issuance of land grants to religious donees – largely brahmanas – who were not only endowed with landed wealth, but also with administrative and judicial rights. This resulted in the transformation of the donees ultimately into a local power. With the worsening of the financial conditions and the non-availability of minted currency, it became difficult to pay state officials in cash and they had to be alternatively paid in assignments of sizeable territories. Thus emerged secular grantees. Epigraphic evidence (8th century AD) has been cited to show how three merchant brothers rendered avalagana/avalagaka (demand for resources) on behalf of the villagers around present Hazaribagh in Bihar to the king, who then made the merchants his local vassals.

The administrative patterns over various periods of our history were not similar. Obviously, there was no limit to the power of the emperor. Not only did he have absolute power over all laws, punishments and the execution of justice, together with the absolute right to declare war, but he was also the source of every kind of right and privilege. But in actual fact there were some restraints on the king's personal desires and prejudices, leaving no possibility for him to be totally willful. The first restraint was the mahamantri and other prominent mantris. Indeed, Mahipala II lost both his life and Varendri in not heeding the good advice of his mantris, who were endowed with all virtues, when his vassals rebelled. All the vassals of the Varendra area had formed confederacy (milita-ananta-samanta-chakra) against the king. When Ramapala started planning for the recovery of Varendra he had to win over a large number of samantas by making gifts of land and other wealth prior to his war. Sandhyakara Nandi in his Ramacharitam clearly mentions this.

Thus the samantas themselves were another force of restraint. From the time of the Guptas to the end of the ancient period the political and social structures of Bengal, and for that matter all of India, were essentially feudal, and in one sense feudalism was the strength of the society, in another, its weakness.

A significant feature in the locality level administration in ancient India, as also in ancient Bengal, was the presence of the samanta. One such samanta – Vijayasena – became powerful enough to be known as mahasamanta under Vainyagupta (507 AD) and probably enjoyed control over a large area in the south-eastern-most part of Bengal. The first important king of Bengal, shashanka, is believed to have risen to the position of a paramount king from the position of a mahasamanta. The first Chadra king of south-eastern Bengal, Trailokyachandra, has been described in the copper-plates of his successor to have been the mainstay (adhara) of the Harikela kings before he assumed sovereign power. The founder of the Sena dynasty, Vijayasena, happened to be a samanta of importance in the kingdom of the Palas and taking advantage of the weakness of the Central Pala polity he assumed sovereign power. Thus from the numerous instances that are recorded in the copper-plates we may safely say that the samantas and their influence in early medieval polity is seen as both a cause and an effect of the decay of centralized political power. [AM Chowdhury]