Assertion A: The position of the Chola feudatories remained sub-servie...
Assertion A: The position of the Chola feudatories remained sub-servient to the Chola kings unlike the feudatories of the Rashtrakutas.
The assertion states that the position of the Chola feudatories was subservient to the Chola kings, unlike the feudatories of the Rashtrakutas.
Reason R: The Chola villages enjoyed autonomy and the feudatories simply passed the king's share of revenue.
The reason given is that the Chola villages enjoyed autonomy and the feudatories only passed the king's share of revenue.
The correct answer is option 'B': If both A and R are true but R is not the correct reason for A.
Explanation:
The Chola feudatories were local rulers who held authority over specific regions under the Chola dynasty. They were appointed by the Chola kings to govern these territories and collect revenue on their behalf. While the feudatories had a certain degree of autonomy in their administration, they were ultimately subordinate to the Chola kings.
Chola Feudatories:
- The Chola kings appointed feudatories to maintain control over their vast empire and ensure the smooth collection of revenue.
- The feudatories were responsible for governing their respective regions and collecting taxes from the villages under their control.
- However, the authority of the feudatories was limited, and they had to report to the Chola kings regularly.
- The feudatories were expected to pass on the king's share of revenue collected from the villages to the Chola kings.
- They were also required to contribute troops and resources to the Chola army during times of war.
Chola Villages Autonomy:
- The Chola villages enjoyed a certain level of autonomy in their local affairs.
- They had their own administrative systems and village councils known as "sabhas" that governed their internal matters.
- The village assemblies were responsible for maintaining law and order, resolving disputes, and managing local resources.
- However, the village administration was supervised by the feudatories who acted as representatives of the Chola kings.
- The feudatories had the power to intervene in village affairs if necessary and ensure compliance with the Chola administration.
Comparison with Rashtrakutas:
- In contrast to the Chola feudatories, the feudatories of the Rashtrakutas had a higher degree of independence and authority.
- The Rashtrakuta feudatories were often powerful and influential rulers in their own right.
- They controlled large territories and had their own armies, coinage, and administrative systems.
- The Rashtrakuta kings relied heavily on their feudatories for both revenue collection and military support.
- The feudatories of the Rashtrakutas enjoyed a greater level of autonomy and were not as directly controlled by the central authority.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the position of the Chola feudatories remained subservient to the Chola kings, and the autonomy enjoyed by the Chola villages was not the correct reason for this subordination. The Chola feudatories had limited authority and were accountable to the Chola kings, unlike the feudatories of the Rashtrakutas who had more independence and power.