This article analyses the position of women, particularly queens in the Ancient Indian administration. While important positions were held by members of the royal family such as princesses, who were educated to partake in the administrative set up; the queens did not hold administrative posts generally. However, there are instances of queens being appointed to administrative positions and participating in the administration of the state. Their role was however limited to influencing important decision making and functioning behind the scenes.. The princesses also received education and training in administration, though gradually the position of women in society deteriorated and higher education was denied to them. The general opinions of the political thinkers were not in favour of women's right to succession to the throne, but we have examples in its favour. In the Ramayana there was a suggestion to offer the throne to Sita after Rama's banishment to forest. Bhishma advised Yudhisthrira to sanction the coronation of the daughters of such Kings who died without leaving a male issue. The inscriptions and literature of our period throw light on the  position of queens in the contemporary period.

We have, however, examples of joint rule (Chandragupta I and Kumaradevi of the Gupta dynasty). The arrangement appears to be unique as generally the husbands used to assume the reins of administration of his wife's kingdom after marriage. Though the succession to the throne independently did not find favour of the political thinkers but the queens could rule as a regent after the death of their husband till their sons were minor or were taken prisoner. We get several such examples. The queen Nayanika or Naganika, after death of her husband the Satavahana king Satakarni, acted as regent during the minority of the princes Sakit-Sri and Veda-Sri. The Vakataka queen Prabhavati Gupta acted as queen Regent during the minority of her son. Sugandha a queen of Kashmir is another such example. Queen Kumardevi of Somesvara ruled as the regent during the minority of her grandson Prithviraja III. It appears to be a general practice. Dr. Altekar has referred to several queens and princess, particularly of Deccan, taking an active part in administration on the basis of epigraphical evidence⁵. He has referred to the senior queen of Chandraditya of Chalukya family, named Vijayabhattarika, who was ruling over a portion of Deccan in the 7th century. Silamahadevi, the crowned queen of the Rashtrakuta  King  Dhruva, making land grant in 786 A.D. on her own authority. The wife of Erraganga, named Revakanammadi, a daughter of king Amoghavarsha I was the governor of Editore district in 837 A.D. Similarly the queens of Someshwavara Chalukya Maliladevi and Ketaladevi were ruling over Banavasi and Ponavad respectively. Akhadevi an elder sister of Jayasimha III was ruling over the district of Kinsukad in 1022 A.D. Dr. Altekar has also referred to Kumkumdevi (a sister of Vijayaditya), Laksmidevi (Chief Queen of  Vikramditya VI, 1075-1125 A.D.), Bammaladevi (Queen of Hoyasala king Vishnuvardhan) who were ruling over some portion of the kingdom. The Kakatiya queen Rudrama ruled over Guntur district in the 13th century when Marco Polo visited India⁶.

 While there are records available about various queens and princesses from the North Indian dynasties, very few were involved in the administration. Administrative responsibilities rested with the kings and prices in this region, with only limited examples of women being entrusted with these duties. The Gahadavala crown prince is stated to have taken consent of the queen Ralhanadevi, besides his ministers and purohita at the time of land grant, as mentioned in two records. P.B. Udgnokar thinks that the consent of the queen mother was probably a formal affair, an attempt to honour her⁷. We have no doubt examples of queen's land grants but only after taking the permission of the ruling kings. The queens of Govindachandra granted land with the permission of their husband⁸. The same practice pravailed among the Chedis also. However, Chedi Queen Alhanadevi, the mother of king Narsimha, perhaps did not take permission of the ruling king while assigning the income of the village as the document is silent about it P.B. Udganokar is of the view that it was accidental or the king out of regard for his mother did not like his name to be mentioned in the copper plate."⁹

The queens were given land for their personal expenditure. Such lands were called Rajakiyabhoga¹⁰ and Grasbhumi, under the Gahadavalas and Chedis respectively. It is difficult to say if queens of every dynasty enjoyed such privilege. However, they might have received Stridhana in shape of land over which they enjoyed exclusive right. Whether the queens of all the dynasties enjoyed full properties right over the Rajakyabhoga and Grasbhumi lands, we do not know. The queens granted land from their own Rajakiyabhoga lands.  

The produce of the Rajakiyabhoga lands was used by the queens for their own personal expenditure. There used to be separate Bhandagara or treasury for the storage of the produce which was looked after by a Bhandagarika. For example Bellana was the Bhandagarika of queen Gosalladevi as referred to in the Hatiyadaba Pillar inscription. It is interesting to note that some of the Chahamana queens issued coins in their own name. Somaldevi the queen of Ajayaraja issued coins in her own name.

Inspite of lack if formal participation in the administration of states, the queens managed to play important roles in governance indirectly and sometimes directly. Vedic literature informs us that the queen was included in the list of Ratins who were associated with administration of the state. Their exact capacity and functioning in state administration, however, remains unclear. It may be presumed that the king consulted queen on important matters. We may also presume that the advisory role of queens continued through out the ancient period and thereafter. They might have also participated in the battle field and fought with the enemies along with the king. The queen of Massaga, Kleophis took the control of the army and directed the attack against Alexander the great after the death of her husband¹¹. Several such examples are found in Rajput history. So far the history of the period under discussion (up to 1200 A.D.) is concerned we find Kurmidevi taking administration of Mewar in her own hands and fought at the head of her troops resisting the invasion of Kutuu-ub-din.

The records of the Maitraka dynasty throw light on the role of princesses in administration. The Alina and Kiara plates of Dharasena IV inform that Bhupa or Bhuva (called Raja- duhitri) acted as the dutaka. Besides she also accompanied the king in his tour or march of war and was entrusted with considerable responsibilities. It may be presumed that the queens also played a significant role in administration since princesses were doing so. In the contemporary Nepal perhaps, the queens enjoyed more power and could decide the issue of succession to the throne as we find in the case of widow queen Rajyavati.  

Kalhana's Rajatarangini, a 12th century work, throws light on the history of Kashmir. It appears from this work that the queens of Kashmir assumed enormous power as they took interest in the court intrigues. The queens of Kashmir not only helped their husbands in administration but ruled the country in their own names or as queen regents during the minority of kings. Besides, a passage in this work indicates that the queens were empowered to order directly to the minister and were expected to be complied; otherwise minister was liable to punishment. Sugandha, the queen of the Kashmiri king Sankaravarkman dominated the court politics. After the death of Sankarvarman she ruled as regent during the minority of Gopalavarman and after him Sankata ruled only for short periods. Sugandha, who played a major role in the palace intrigues holding the reins of administration, finally ascened the throne. Similarly, Didda, the queen of Ksemagupta after her husband's death ruled for sometime as queen regent, but later on ascended the throne. Suryamati was the defacto ruler of Kashmir during the rule of her husband the Lohara King Ananta. She persuaded her husband to abdicate the throne in favour of her unworthy son Kalasa, though the wisest councilors were opposed to it. The queens of the Bhauma kara royal house of Orissa also took active part in state politics.

The queens took the reins of administration in their own hands, D.K, Ganguly has referred to a number of such examples from the history of the Bhauma Kara dynasty, some four queens of the Bhauma-Kara family reigned in the capacity of defacto and dejure rulers. The queens of this dynasty called themselves Paramamahabhattarika, and Paramesvari.

 The queens of the Chalukyas of Vatapi shared administrative responsibilities but the queens of the Rashtrakutas, who succeeded the Chalukyas, did not perhaps enjoy such privilege, either occupying administrative posts or running the administration during the minority of the king. However, they saved land grants without mention of their husband. This may indicate that a formal permission of the king was not needed in their case. We do not know if the Pallava queens also shared administrative responsibilities, like the Chalukya queen. Not only the queens of the Chalukyas of Vatapi but the queens of the Cahlukyas of Kalyani were also entrusted with the responsibilities of administration¹². The inscriptions of the Alupa kings indicate that their queens held an honourable position in their kingdom. They could rule jointly with their husbands.

Rajasthan preserves the tradition of women chivalry. We have traditions of valiant queens who not only participated in administration, but also participated in battle against enemies. We may give several such examples belonging to a later period but forming a glorious chapter in the history of Rajputs and that of India as a whole. It is needless to go into the details of queens and princesses, belonging to different dynasties, both of North and South India, who took active part in administration (holding administrative post or ruling independently or acting as queen regent) in the pre-medieval India. Some of the details have already been referred to.

 The above discussion shows that in ancient India the queens occupied an honourable position in the state politics and sometimes ruled directly also. A.S. Altekar rightly observes: "Queens used to exercise a good deal of influence on administration even when their husbands were ruling. They were often entrusted with most delicate missions and their advice was eagerly awaited. When Duryodhana was adamant in his resolution to go to war with his cousins, the last effort to dissuade him from his resolve was entrusted to his mother Queen Gandhari. The influence which the masterly mind of Draupadi exercised upon the Pandavas and their policy is well known. Kunti sums up her inspiring and eloquent message to her sons by asking them to follow the advice of Draupadi. This slows how great the confidence which was placed in her judgement.”  While it is evident that queens played an important role in the governance and administration of states, their role was mostly indirect. This can be attributed to the fact that the society during that time was predominated by men, particularly in the political and economic spheres. This is also evidenced by the belief of Niti-writers in India that the queen did not have claims to the throne if the husband died without bearing any male heirs. Thus, the queens and princesses of Ancient India had very limited direct control in administrative and state matters. We cannot however completely disregard their importance and the role they played in government functioning.

1.   We have examples of queen's regent of their minor sons, Prabhawatigupta a Vakataka   queen, and daughter of Chandra Gupta II ruled as queen regent.

2.    Agni Purana, 360-76

3.   Ramayana, 11, 37-38

4.   Altekar, A.S. (1959) The position of Women in Hindu Civilization, Moti Lal Banashi  Das, p. 185

5.   Altekar, A.S. (1959) The position of Women in Hindu Civilization, Moti Lal Banarshi  Das, p. -89-90

6.  Tripati Ramashankar, History of  Ancient India, Moti Lal Banarsi  Das  P-430

7.  Udgaonkar, P.B. (1969) The Political Institutions & Administration, Moti Lal Banarshi  Das p. 71

8.   Udgaonkar, P.B. (1969) The Political Institutions & Administration, Moti Lal Banarshi Das p. 72,

9.    Epigraphica Indica - II,87-88, Epigraphica Indica - IV, 108; Epigraphica  Indica-V. 117-18.

10.  Udgaonkar, P.B. (1969) The Political Institutions & Administration, Moti Lal Banarshi Das p. 72

11.  Tripati Ramashankar, History of  Ancient India, Moti Lal Banarsi  Das  P-117

12.   Tripati Ramashankar, History of  Ancient India, Moti Lal Banarsi  Das  P-395