ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 Contents The Kushan political system
conquest of Sind or the Indus region and his association with the Saka satraps who used
the Saka era, probably founded by their overlord, in their records.
The Kushans held the lower Indus valley. An inscription of Kanishka Year 11 was found
at Sui Vihar near Bahawalpur, and there have been finds of Later Kushan coins from the
stupa site at Mohenjo-daro62 and at Jhukar, about 30 km to the north.63 The find of pot-
sherds with Kharos.t.hı̄ lettering at Tor Dheri in the Loralai District of Baluchistan64 may
suggest an expansion of Kushan power in that region. But Kushan rule in Sind and Sauvira
(modern Multan) seems to conflict with the claims of the Western Satrap Rudradāman,
recorded in his Junagadh inscription of a.d. 150. This could be reconciled if we presume
that he was a satrap of Kanishka, for which there is no evidence, or that he preceded
Kanishka, which seems more probable (see discussion on the date of Kanishka above).
The Kushan political system
The divinity of kingship seems to have been the most conspicuous element in the Kushan
political system. Their kings were not only accorded the title of ‘devaputra’65 (Son of
God), corresponding to the Chinese imperial title ‘t’ien-tzŭ’ (Son of Heaven), but were
deified after death and their statues were set up in a devakula (god house). Such statues of
Kushan rulers have been recovered from excavations at Mat, near Mathura, and from Surkh
Kotal in Afghanistan. It is probable that the statue of the deified Huvishka was erected in
the lifetime of the ruler.66 The Kushan rulers were secularist in one sense, in that they
depicted divinities from different pantheons on their coins, but religion and polity were
interlinked. The Mat inscription of Huvishka67 refers to him as ‘steadfast in the true law’,
a title also borne by the first Kushan king, Kujula Kadphises on his coins. It is further
recorded that on account of his devotion, the kingdom was conferred on the grand father
of Huvishka by Sarva (which is another name for the god Śiva) and Candavira (a name
connected with the moon).
The Kushan kings assumed high-sounding titles68 borrowed, like the divinities on their
coins, from different regions and civilizations. They use the Indian titulature ‘mahārāja
rājatirāja’ (Great King, the King of Kings), its Iranian counterpart ‘s.aonano s.ao’ and its
Greek counterpart ‘Basileus Basileon’ (Fig. 4). These titles, no doubt, indicate Kushan
62
Marshall, 1932, p. 127.
63
Majumdar, 1934, p. 7.
64
Konow, 1929, pp. 173–7.
65
Thomas, 1935 pp. 97 et seq.; Sharma, 1959, p. 177.
66
Janert, 1961, p. 145.
67
Ibid., p. 144.
68
Puri, 1939/40, pp. 433–41.
252
© UNESCO 1996
Copyrights
ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 Contents The Kushan political system
FIG. 4. Coin of Kanishka I with Greek legend and the title ‘Basileus Basileon’
paramountcy over areas where lesser princes and feudal lords retained local power. In the
Ara inscription, the Later Kanishka also has the title ‘Kaisara’, the equivalent of ‘Caesar’
used by Roman emperors, suggesting Kushan contact with Rome and a claim to compa-
rable status. Some titles were borrowed from their Bactrian, Saka and Indo-Parthian pre-
decessors. It has been suggested that they also inherited a system of joint rule, but there
is no numismatic evidence for this. No Kushan coin portrays two rulers. The argument
for supposed joint rule is based on inscriptions that seem to show kings with overlapping
dates: an inscription of ‘Vaskus.āna’ (identified with Vasishka) from Sanchi with the title
‘rāja’ dated Year 22 when Kanishka was king and the Ara inscription dated Year 41 when
Huvishka was king. But both these inscriptions are dated in the Later Kushan era. There is
consequently no overlapping, and the dual kingship known in the Indo-Parthian political
system does not seems to have been practised under the Kushans.69
69
Puri, 1965, pp. 79–87.
253
© UNESCO 1996
Copyrights
ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 Contents Kushan administration
Kushan administration
The vast Kushan Empire, extending from Central Asia to Bihar and from Kashmir to Sind,
containing peoples of different nationalities and religions with a heterogeneous socio-
economic background, was governed through an organized administrative system, prob-
ably in three tiers, at central, provincial and local levels. The king seems to have pos-
sessed unfettered powers, as we find no reference in the Kushan records to any advisory
body or to councillors corresponding to amātyas and sachivas of the Mauryan period.
The Kushans seem to have followed the earlier existing pattern of the Indo-Greeks and
Parthians by appointing ks.atrapas and mahāks.atrapas for different units of the empire.
Inscriptions provide the names of some such ks.atrapas some foreign, like Vanaspara, and
the mahāks.atrapa Kharapallāna at Varanasi, Nam
. da at Mathura, Veśpasi and Lala, a scion
of the Kushan family, Liaka, and an unknown satrap, son of the satrap Gran.avhryaka at
Kāpiśa (Begram). Some inscriptions show that certain appointments were hereditary.
They mention other officials performing both civil and military functions, called
‘dan.d.anāyaka’ and ‘mahādan.d.anāyaka’. The two terms are found in numerous inscrip-
tions throughout India, suggesting the prevalence of this feudal element – as one might pre-
sume – in the administrative set-up of different ruling families over a considerable period
of time. They were charged with administrative and military responsibilities in different
areas. The dan.d.anāyaka was presumably the wielder of the rod (dan.d.a), acting both as
commissioner of police to prevent crime and as a judge or criminal magistrate adminis-
tering justice. He could also perform military functions although he is distinguished from
the senānı̄ or real commander. He is also differentiated from the dan.d.apāśika of the later
records which probably signifies someone carrying fetters (pāśa).
The places where inscriptions mentioning satraps and other officials have been found
indicate localities for which they were responsible. Satraps arc known for Kāpiśa (Begram),
Manikyala (near Rawalpindi), Und (west of the Indus), Mathura, Varanasi, etc. There
may have been satraps for other parts of the empire, but the evidence on this point is
wanting. The relations between ks.atrapas and dan.d.anāyakas are no longer defined, but
it may be assumed that ks.atrapas were definitely at a higher administrative level than
the dan.d.anāyakas. The use of foreigners alone at the higher level of political organiza-
tion ensured efficiency and minimized the chances of internal dissension and disorder, but
this principle was not applied at local village level. The inscriptions mention two terms –
‘grāmika’ and ‘padrapāla’ – both signifying ‘village headman’, who collected the king’s
dues and took cognizance of crimes in his area. There is no information about the local
government that we find later in the Gupta period.
254
© UNESCO 1996
Copyrights
ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 Contents Kushan administration
The scanty information available suggests that the Kushan rulers accepted thepreva-
lent Indian and Chinese concept of the divinity of kingship, and borrowed theAchaemenid
and subsequently Indo-Grcek and Indo-Parthian system of appointing satraps as provin-
cial governors, while the feudal lord (dan.d.anāyaka) was their own creation. The title is no
doubt Indian, but all feudal lords known to have been associated with the Kushan adminis-
tration were foreigners.
255
© UNESCO 1996
Copyrights
