Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Town Planning in Ancient India c19: Appendix C: Distribution of City Gates

Town Planning in Ancient India c19

Language
English

Appendix C: Distribution of City Gates

c19.2

The construction and distribution of city gates have been briefly discussed in proper places in some previous chapters but the separate treatment of the subject in orthodox treatises of Śilpa invests it with an importance that necessitates its special discussion in *extenso*. Construction of city gates does not obviously come under town-planning. It is with their allocation that I am therefore concerned here.¹ The main directions about the latter operation will bear repetition here in view of its full, complete treatment contemplated in this chapter. The arrangement of the gates has been made with reference to the division of the city into a Paramaśāyika pada, *i.e.* into eighty-one rectangular blocks, the fundamental operation upon which the whole science of Indian town-planning has been based.

c19.3

¹ The principal directions regarding this distribution have already been noted. The details, actually some prohibitory injunctions, will interest none but the academic antiquarian. I have considerable doubt if these restrictive regulations were actually followed by the Indian civic architect at all. Certainly the modern town-planner has nothing to do with them. The grounds adduced for these prohibitions are like so many dogmatic assertions savouring more of superstition than of reason, which is a stereotyped characteristic of Indian treatises in such cases. Nevertheless, their description is a necessity to make our investigation complete and exhaustive according to the Indian town-planning code.

c19.4

All authorities on Silpa Sāstra agree that four principal gates (Mahādvāra) should be constructed on the four sides of the town. The Eastern gate should be located at the Mahendra (i.e., at the chamber dedicated to Mahendra); the Southern gate at the Rākshasa; the Western gate at the Pushpadanta; and the Northern gate at the Bhallāṭa. The Mahendra gate is said to be conducive to prestige and glory (māhātmya); the Rākshasa gate is conducive to wealth and prosperity (sampad); the Pushpadanta gate to all good qualities (guṇa); and the Bhallāṭa gate to the singularity of the king and his citizen. It should be noticed that the site of a principal gate is one pada or chamber removed to the left from the central one. The gates are therefore not situated in the middle of the sides, so that the two principal roads of the town that run through its centre east to west and north to south are confronted by the walls of the city.¹ It is difficult to surmise the reasons which weighed with the civic architects to enjoin this deviation of the gates from the central position and to have the principal roads blockaded at their extremities by walls. This also detracted from the beauty and splendour of the roads as well as of the gates which, under this peculiar arrangement could not have over-arched, like many magnificent crowns, the stately streets lying before them. The arrangement also spoiled the splendid vista that would have otherwise spread out before an on-coming visitor. The arrangement, in all probablity, was an institution of those unsettled times when the necessity of defence preponderated over æsthetic needs or the requirements of naturalness and convenience and impressed upon the city its fortificatory character. The conservative habit of the Indian may have preserved and handed down this quaint practice from generation to generation. This is the only plausible explanation about the recommendation of a system that one meets with in almost all the Silpa Sastras. It may be observed here that this rule of establishing the gates a little removed from the middle of the sides extended to the doors of houses and also gates or entrances to the compound¹ of a homestead.

c19.5

¹ Strange as it may seem, it is exactly similar to the Chinese system. "In many Chinese cities, where the streets are straight and run at right angles to one another, the gates towards which they point are nevertheless not vis-à-vis, but the main thoroughfares between the gates make two right-angled turns at some point in their otherwise straight course."

c19.6

¹ MM. Dr. Ganganath Jha writes in the *B & O Research Society Journal*, Vol. II, Pt. II, June, 1906 :—Every house should have doors on all four sides ; but no two doors should be exactly opposite each other. Even the modern village mason is very particular about this. In spite of the strictest orders of the master, he will never allow two doors to be exactly opposite, but will shift them at least an inch or two. The preventing of direct draught appears to be the motive underlying this rule.

c19.7

The natural, the æsthetic asserted itself in some measure in later periods when comparative peace and tranquillity settled in the land. The rectification of the doors or gates was first made for the gods, Brāhmaṇs, and the kings.¹ This modification of the old rule in favour of these high classes may indicate that the alignment of the gates with the central streets or the opening up of the doors just in the middle of the wall of the house was looked upon as an improvement upon the previous practice. This was therefore first sanctioned to the rank as a special privilege or it may be that, being the intelligent class, they were the first to realise the advantage and utility of this simple arrangement and the Vaiśyas and the Śūdras who, belonging to the lower grades of the society, were by nature more conservative and unimaginative, continued the old practice even after the higher classes had abandoned it in favour of the natural and more convenient rule.

c19.8

¹ मध्यहारश्च देवानां द्विजानामवनीभृताम् ॥ Mayamatam, Ch. 30, sl. 42.

c19.9

Gradually however all classes of men became conscious of the advantage of this system and they came to accept it. Perhaps the Mānasāra was compiled at a period of transition when the old usage of arranging doors or gates was giving place to the new and the natural. In this book we find that in some village-plans the old rule has been retained and also recommended, while in others the new has been advised. Thus in the Nandyāvarta town-plan Mānasāra directs a peculiar arrangement of the principal gates. The principal gates of the village, instead of being constructed along the sides, were located in the four corners. The eastern gate was situated at the Īśāna; the southern gate at the Agni (hence it was also called Agni-dvāra); the western gate at the Pitṛs (therefore known as Pitṛ-dvāra) and the northern gate at the Vāyu (hence also called Vāyu-dvāra). And in the same village-plan again he would seem to recommend another set of four principal gates on the four sides and located on the central lines running towards the cardinal directions.¹ This way of distributing the principal gates he has adopted in the other village-plans as well. On the other hand he has not totally discarded the old practice to which he makes a general reference.

c19.10

¹ Probably these two schemes of arranging gates point to the two types of the Nandyāvarta town-plan, the circular and the rectangular. In the former may it be that the gates were opened in the corners, while the latter was provided with gates on the sides.

c19.11

The author of the Śilparatna makes the following commendatory observations about the old arrangement of main gates which bears semblance of their classification according to different castes:

c19.12

"The gates constructed in the Mahendra and the Gṛhakshata (Rākshasa) are respected by the Brāhmaṇs (Brāhmaṇapūjitam); the gates raised in the Gṛhakshata and the Pushpadanta by the royal class; the gates set up at the Pushpadanta and the Bhallāṭa by the Vaiśyas; and the gates located in the Bhallāṭa and the Mahendra by the Śūdras." It should be noted that the same gate obviously does credit to two castes. For example, the eastern gate situated at the Mahendra befits both the Brāhmaṇ and the Śūdra. This is an anomaly. A plausible explanation seems to be that the assignment of the gates to the various castes is a metaphorical way of classifying and arranging them according to their rank, determined by their magnitudes and grandeur, the rank of the caste attached to a gate only pointing to the rank of the gate.¹ Hence the cyclical order of the four principal gates according to their rank may either begin in the east at the Mahendra or in the south at the Gṛhakshata.

c19.13

¹ It may be these directions applied to the houses of the castes or to settlements exclusively of a single caste. The Śūdras should have therefore opened their doors or gates at the Bhallāṭa or the Mahendra, and so on.

c19.14

The natural plan of locating the gates was always emphasised upon in the northern school of Indian town-planning, if the author of the Purāṇas may be said to form such a school. I have already had occasion to notice that according to the Matsya Purāṇa, the two central cross-roads should terminate at four stately structures. The Agni Purāṇa’s instructions are more definite on this point. It lays down that the eastern gate should be raised at the chamber of Sūryya (Āditya); the southern gate at the Gandharva;¹ the western gate at the Varuṇa and the northern gate at the Soma.² That this was the oldest scheme in northern India will be evident from the directions about the distribution of gates given in the Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra.³ Kauṭilya would place the southern gate at the Yama and this was a necessity inasmuch as its location in the other chamber would clash with other gates.

c19.15

¹ It should be noticed that this gate does not occupy exactly the middle position in the south. But the Matsya Purāṇa and the Kauṭilya have overcome this apparent aversion to the chamber of Yama (the Lord of Death).

c19.16

² > ईशादि विंशत्पदे पूर्द्वारे च सूर्यके ॥

c19.17

³ *Vide* Chapter IV.

c19.18

The author of the Śilparatna would erect another set of four main gates situated, in order, at the Jayanta, the Gandharva,⁴ the

c19.19

⁴ The location of the gate at the Gandharva instead of at the Vitatha violates the symmetry of the distribution.

c19.20

गन्धर्वाभ्यां दक्षिणे स्याद्द्वारे पश्चिमे तथा ।
सौम्यद्वारे सौम्यपदे कार्या द्वारास्तु विस्तराः ॥ २ ॥
अग्निपुराणम्, १०६ अध्याय।

c19.21

Sugrīva,¹ and the Mukhya and all these gates make for the weal of all the castes in contradistinction to the other set discussed above. The merits of the gates of this system are described as follows: The Jayanta gate brings in victory (jaya); the Gandharva gate is auspicious for all functions; the Sugrīva gate conduces to all sorts of gain; and the Mukhya gate gives immediate rise to Brāhmaṇya (good of the Brāhmaṇic culture).

c19.22

¹ The text gives Dauvārika, but I have cancelled it in favour of Sugrīva, not only to maintain the symmetry but also in diference to the injunction contained in the same text against a gate at the Dauvārika.

c19.23

The Mayamata would, on the other hand, set water-passages or water-gates (jala-mārga or jala-dvāra) in these chambers: to wit, Jayanta, Vitatha, Sugrīva, and Mukhya. It should be noticed that the Mayamata replaces the Gandharva in the order of the Śilparatna by the Vitatha, and this adjustment restores the symmetry of the arrangement. These water-gates or water-outlets are of doubtful significance. The lie of the ground, according to its levelling, was towards the east and the north. Consequently these jala-dvāras could not possibly be gates through which the drains of the town fell into the outside ditches inasmuch the two of the gates, namely, the Vitatha and the Sugrīva gates lie in the south and the north. The Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati would make provision for the water-gates, along the eastern and the northern sides in the space between the Mahendra and the Argala via Īśāna as the water would flow towards the east and the north.¹ The Mānasāra’s directions are more specific on this point; it would open the water-gates at the Mukhya, the Bhallāṭa, the Mṛga, the Aditi, the Jayanta, the Mahendra, the Satya, and the Bhṛśa.² Thus the water-gates were confined to the north and the east. And this scheme stands to reason as well.

c19.24

¹ जलमार्गास्तथैन्द्रतः । अर्गलान्तं शस्ताः स्युः प्रागुदीच्यौ यथा ॥ Pt I, Ch. 25, sl. 63.

c19.25

² मुख्ये वा भल्लाटे वा मृगे वा चोदिताथवा । जयन्ते वा महेन्द्रे वा सत्यके भृशेऽथ वा । एवमेव जलद्वारं कुर्यात्ततो विचक्षणः ॥

c19.26

All authorities recommend the construction of some eight subsidiary gates. They are generally located at the Bhṛśa, the Pūṣā, the Bhṛṅgarāja, the Dauvārika, the Soṣa, the Nāga, the Diti, and the Parjjaṇya.³ According to the Mayamata these are also known as tunnels (Suraṅga).¹ This designation of the subsidiary gates may indicate their original character. It strikes me as an anomalous paradox that the author of the Śilparatna who relates the demerits accruing from construction of gates on these sites, recommends them, in case of necessity, as fit places for the subsidiary gates. Such self-contradiction is inexplicable unless it argues a concession to necessity.

c19.27

³ महेन्द्रे गहरक्षे च भल्लाटे पुष्यदन्तके ॥ महाद्वाराणि चैव स्युर्उपद्वाराणि सन्ति चेत् । भृशे पूष्णि भृङ्गाख्ये दौवारे शोषनागयोः ॥ दितौपि च पर्जन्ये जलमार्गास्तथैन्द्रतः ॥— ईशानशिवगुरुदेवपद्धति, Pt I, Ch. 25.

c19.28

¹ उपद्वारं प्रयोक्तव्यं तत्सुरङ्गमिति स्मृतम् । मयमतं विंशोऽध्याय—५२ श्लोकः ।

c19.29

The Śilparatna recounts the disqualifications of the chambers that it discards in the choice of sites for gates. In its opinion erection of a gate at the Āditya causes son’s death; a gate at the Satya makes for rupture with allies or friends. A gate at the Bhṛśa leads to the obstruction of path. If a gate is constructed at the Antarikṣa, the owner goes to rack and ruin. The lord of the habitat meets with death in case he erects a gate at the Agni. Ruin from his domestic elephants overtakes him who raises a gate at the Pūṣā. The Vitatha gate portends death of the owner. Death and utter annihilation will come in the wake of location of a gate at the Yama. A gate at the Bhṛṅgarāja portends danger; that at the Mṛsha destruction of crops; that at the Nirṛti mortality; and that at the Dauvārika causes apprehension. A gate at the Asura means perennial pestilence. A gate at the Soṣaṇa sucks up all merits. Leprosy is likely to follow if a gate is set up at the Roga. A gate at the Vāyu exposes the citizen to blasts of wind. There is every fear of snakes, if a gate is opened at the Nāga. Watery grave awaits him who would make a gate at the Argala. A gate at the Aditi portends abdomenal distempers. A gate at the Diti spells ruin of the wife or spoilation of reservoirs. A gate at the Rudra stands for conflagration. A gate at the Parjjanya augurs ill for the kitchen.

c19.30

The above sum up the grotesque and fantastic reasons that the exponents of Indian civic engineering philosophy have adduced in support of their interdicting the aforesaid positions in the matter of location of doors. They are too dogmatic and mysterious to appeal to a modern architect. But then it should be noticed that the principal and subsidiary gates make up, between themselves, as equable and symmetric distribution of the gates as possible. I am disposed to think that these fastidious regulations marked the inchoate stage of Indian townplanning, especially the period when the towns were no bigger than a small ward of a corporation in a modern city. Small dimensions of a town can favour such likes and dislikes of the civic architect. With the growth and expansion of the towns, such meticulous distinctions fell into desuetude and gates were opened wherever necessary. Thus Megasthenes has left accounts testifying to the existence of sixty-four gates in the city of Pāṭaliputra. It seems the civic architects of ancient India do not favour a large number of entrances into the city.¹ By the side of every gate a temple should be raised to the lord of the quarter. It may be interesting to note here that the renowned residential Universities of ancient India, e.g. Vikramaśilā, fortified that they were with walls, possessed splendid gates and a renowned savant, so was the rule, was placed in charge of each gate. He therefore had his lodge beside the gate and any student wishing to enter the University by the gate had to pass through an examination by him. Vikramaśilā had six such gates and Prajñākaramati, a renowned Bengali Pandit (savant) of the time was the guardian of the southern entrance.

c19.31

¹ बहुप्रवेशमागश्च मार्गविरुद्ध गर्हितम् ।। मयमते द्वतीये ध्याये १६श श्लोकः ।

Linked texts (8)