Points to Remember:
- Key features of local self-government in different historical Indian administrations.
- Comparison of the extent and nature of local governance under Chola, Gupta, Vijayanagara, and Mughal empires.
- Identification of the administration with the most striking feature of local self-government.
Introduction:
The question asks to identify which of the four given administrations â?? Chola, Gupta, Vijayanagara, and Mughal â?? exhibited the most striking feature of local self-government. Local self-government, in this context, refers to the degree of autonomy and power vested in local bodies to manage their own affairs. While all four empires had systems of local administration, their structures and effectiveness varied significantly. This requires an analytical approach, comparing and contrasting the features of local governance in each administration to determine which demonstrated the most striking features.
Body:
1. Chola Administration: The Chola administration (9th-13th centuries CE) is renowned for its sophisticated and decentralized system of local self-government. Village assemblies (Ur) and village councils (Sabha) played a crucial role in managing village affairs, including irrigation, taxation, and dispute resolution. Inscriptions provide ample evidence of their functioning and autonomy. The Sabha, composed of landowners, held considerable power and maintained detailed records of their activities. This system fostered local participation and efficient administration.
2. Gupta Administration: The Gupta Empire (4th-6th centuries CE) also had a system of local governance, but it was less decentralized than the Chola system. While village councils existed, their powers were likely less extensive than those of the Chola Sabha. The Gupta administration emphasized centralized control from the imperial level, with local officials appointed by the central government playing a significant role. The evidence suggests a less robust and autonomous local self-government compared to the Cholas.
3. Vijayanagara Administration: The Vijayanagara Empire (14th-16th centuries CE) had a complex administrative structure. While village assemblies existed, their autonomy was likely constrained by the centralized nature of the empire’s administration. The empire relied heavily on a hierarchical system of officials appointed by the central government, limiting the power and independence of local bodies. Compared to the Cholas, local self-governance under the Vijayanagara empire was less prominent.
4. Mughal Administration: The Mughal Empire (16th-18th centuries CE) had a highly centralized administrative system. Local governance was largely controlled by appointed officials (Mansabdars, Zamindars) who were responsible to the central government. While village panchayats existed, their influence was limited, and their functions were often overshadowed by the power of the appointed officials. Local self-governance was significantly weaker under the Mughals compared to the Cholas.
Conclusion:
In comparing the four administrations, the Chola administration stands out for its most striking feature of local self-government. The detailed records, the significant autonomy of the village assemblies (Ur and Sabha), and the active participation of local communities in managing their affairs are well-documented. While the other empires had systems of local administration, none matched the extent of decentralization and local autonomy witnessed under the Cholas. The Gupta, Vijayanagara, and Mughal administrations, while having local bodies, prioritized centralized control, limiting the power and independence of local self-governance. Therefore, the answer is (A) Chola Administration. Further research into the functioning of local bodies in different historical contexts can help us understand the evolution of local governance and its contribution to a more participatory and effective administration, reflecting the constitutional values of democratic participation and decentralization.