Trade and Trade Routes in Ancient India c8: Chapter IV: Travellers and Conquerors on the Grand Route of India in the Mauryan Period

Trade and Trade Routes in Ancient India c8

Language: English

c8.s1 References — 1 part

Chapter IV: Travellers and Conquerors on the Grand Route of India in the Mauryan Period

c8.2

FROM THE fourth century B.C. to the first century B.C. the Grand Route of India witnessed many changes. The chief event of the fourth century B.C. was the development and organisation of the Mauryan empire of Magadha. The development of this empire began after the conquest of Aṅga by Bimbisāra in about 500 B.C. After him Ajātaśatru extended his sway on Kāśi, Kośala and Videha. The Mauryan empire had grown to such an extent that its capital was removed from Rājagṛiha to Pāṭaliputra on the confluence of the Sone and Ganga as this town was of great military importance. The Nandas had perhaps occupied Kaliṅga but Chandragupta Maurya extended his empire to the north-west of the Indian sub-continent. It is, however, a historical fact that Aśoka conquered Kaliṅga. In the second century B.C. the Indo-Greeks led a military expedition against Pāṭaliputra. After them the Scythians and the Parthians entered India through the Grand Route.

c8.3

It is important to remember in connection with the campaigns of Alexander against India that owing to the tribal rebellions in the fifth century B.C. the eastern frontier of the Achaemenian empire had become very much contracted and the republics in Sindh and the Panjab had gained their independence. The statement of Strabo that the frontier of India and Iran was on the Sindh river is not correct, because according to Arrian the Iranian Kshatrapas had no control beyond Laghman and Nagarahāra.¹ Foucher is of the opinion that the statement of the companions of Alexander that he proceeded beyond the Indus is purposefully incorrect. In his opinion in the spring of 326 B.C., when Alexander reached Taxila he had conquered most of the Achaemenian empire. The revolt of the Macedonian soldiers on the Beas river according to Foucher was due to the fact that after conquering the Achaemenian empire they did not want to proceed beyond. Alexander's decision to march back by the Indus informs us that some part of the Achaemenian empire had yet remained to be conquered. In the spring of 325 B.C., when Alexander reached the confluence of the Indus with other rivers of the Panjab, then according to the Behistun inscription he had reconquered Gandhāra.² The land extending to the confluence of the Akesines with other rivers when it was put under the control of the Kshatrapas then Hindu-Sindhu-Sind province of Darius was re-established.³

c8.4

One is tempted to accept the above opinion but unfortunately it lacks historicity. There is absolutely no proof that the Achaemenians had reached the Beas river. On the evidence of the *Purāṇas*, it may be said that the Mlechchhas were confined to the west of the Indus only. Arrian also supports this view. However, there may be truth in the statement that Alexander by his conquests was trying to re-establish the Achaemenian Satrapies. The paucity of the Achaemenian remains in Sindh and the Panjab proves that the rule of Darius I only lasted for some time after the conquest of the region.

c8.5

Alexander started the chain of his conquest after taking Khorasan in the beginning of 330 B.C. History tells us how Darius III fled and how Alexander pursued him. During his compaign he laid foundation of two Alexandrias, one in Aria and the second in Drangiane. After reaching Arakhosia he laid the foundation of the third Alexandria and he founded the fourth Alexandria after crossing the Hindukush. It is evident from these events that he traversed the whole mountain system of Afghanistan and with that he fortified all the routes as well.

c8.6

The tribes inhabiting Herat in the time of Alexander were different than those living in the time of Herodotus. According to Arrian the Sargatians lived in the marshes of the Helmand. The Ariaspioi lived in Seistan. Whatever might have been the situation, Alexander was not troubled by the people of Kandhar. From their country Alexander took the northern route which has not yet been explored. This route was inhabited by barbaric tribes who are termed as Indians by Arrian. According to Foucher they may be identified with the Sattagydai or the Hazaras of modern time.

c8.7

It is difficult to determine the stages of the route taken by Alexander. We know that the modern route between Kabul and Herat passes through Ghazni, Kandhar and Farah but it is difficult to say whether Alexander also passed through those stages. The Alexandrias of Arthakoana and Aria must have been situated somewhere near Herat. But the ancient capital of Drangine was situated in the south towards Zarang. This indicates that the ancient route did not cross the Helmand river at Girishk but at Bestai of Pliny, the Bust of the Arabs and now Galebist which is situated above Helmand and Aragandab. From here began Arakhosia and the lower valleys of the Helmand and its tributaries were included within its boundaries. Its ancient capital and Alexandria were perhaps situated on the right bank of the Helmand though modern Gandar is situated on its left bank, from where during the Islamic period the grand route started from Kabul. But according to Hsüan Tsang the route between Arakhosia and Kapiśa followed the course of the Aragandab. The archaeological remains at Jagur support this. Owing to many geographical impediments this route was abandoned.

c8.8

It could be surmised here that in order to traverse the central mountain range of Afghanistan Alexander returned towards the east. Then reaching the so-called Caucasus, he laid the foundation of another Alexandria which was perhaps situated at Parvan,⁴ where later on he created an army base for carrying on his campaign against Balkh and India.

c8.9

He began his Indian campaigns in the Spring of 329 B.C. He could not take the Bamyan route as the enemy had destroyed all his supplies and, therefore, he took the Khawak route. It is possible that leaving aside the Panjashir valley route he took the shorter route of Salang and Kaoshan. Whatever might have been the case, it was necessary to reach the interior by either of the routes. From here Alexander took the north-western route and passing Haibak he reached Khulm, from where passing Tashkhurghan he reached Balkh. But there is a track in the south of Mazar-e-sharif which entering the land of the Khulm river reaches Balkh. Perhaps Alexander took this route. We know that after reaching Adrasp by the Balkh route Alexander conquered Aornos which probably means natural fortification.⁵ This place could be identified with Kafirkila in Balkh. It is very well known that Alexander reached Balkh without any serious battle; from there he was forced to proceed towards the Oxus. After two years, in the spring of 327 B.C. he led a campaign against Sogdiana after which he returned to Balkh. After reducing it completely he proceeded towards India and after many forced marches he crossed the Hindukush through the Bamyan pass.

c8.10

Arrian informs us that from the Alexandria on Caucasus, Alexander proceeded to the eastern boundary of the *Uparisayena* province. Here following the Grand Route he reached Lampaka (Laghman). Here he stayed for some days and met the king of Taxila and other princes. Alexander divided his army here into four unequal sectors. One sector he sent in the hilly regions on the northern bank of the Kabul river. The greater part of the main army, under the command of Perdikkas, passing through the right bank of Kabul river proceeded to Pushkarāvatī and the Indus river. At that time Alexander offered a sacrifice to the goddess Athene and laid the foundation of the city of Nikia whose ruins should be sought on the route separating Mandrawar and Charbag.⁶

c8.11

The first sector of the army crossing the northern bank of the Kabul river joined by another sector, attacked a fort where king Hasti tried in vain to oppose him. Here between the network of the Kabul and Landai rivers there is a place named Prang where in the mounds of Charasada are hidden the remains of the ancient Pushkarāvatī. It took Alexander some months to reduce this city. Alexander after joining his army included a part of Parauparisayena (Iranian Gandhāra between Laghman and the Indus) with Pushkarāvatī and thus created a new Satrapy. From here following the Grand Route he reached the Indus, but owing to some reason he did not cross it at Udabhāṇḍa and ordered his commanders to build a bridge, but owing to the spring floods such a bridge could not be built. When all this was happening Alexander was fighting incessant wars with the tribes hiding in Aornos.

c8.12

For doing this he had to proceed to Buner. Within this interval the commander of Alexander built a bridge between Und and Amb. From here Taxila lay at three marches.

c8.13

Alexander had to fight bloody battles with the tribes of Uḍḍiyāna (Kunar, Swat and Buner) and it took him almost a year to subdue them but after crossing Kunar he attacked vigorously the Aśvakas (Aspasii) of Bajaur, the Gouriane of the Panjakora and Assakensi of Swat. There are two places famous in the battles of Alexander. One is Nicaea where he imitated the deeds of Dionysus and second is Aornos where he even surpassed the deeds of Heracles. Many scholars have tried to identify Aornos. Sir Aurel Stein, however, regards it as the great rock which separates Swat from the Indus.

c8.14

After crossing the Indus Alexander reached Taxila where Ambhi welcomed him. He held his court there but to the east of the Jhelum, Porus well aware of his impending doom made preparations to face the army of Alexander. Accepting his challenge Alexander marched forward to cross the Jhelum with his army. In the spring of 326 B.C. the army of king Porus assembled near the modern city of Jhelum. The flotilla of Alexander, however, attacked the week points of the army of Porus. In the last battle Porus was defeated, but Alexander pleased by his bravery handed him back his kingdom. After defeating the army of Porus, Alexander marched forward on the Grand Route. The Galuchakāyanas of the Chenab and the ruler of Abisares (Abhisāra) accepted his suzerainty. After that he proceeded towards the Ravi and conquering the territory between the Chenab and Ravi handed it over to his friend Porus. In this progress the Macedonian army marched along the foot-hills of the Himalayas. The Adṛishṭas living in the east of the Ravi submitted, but the Kathians gave him a battle. Below a low hill they arranged their army in wagon formation (*śakaṭa-vyūña*). This formation was made by three rows of wagons which encircling the hill on three sides protected the encampment.⁷ But in spite of all these strategies they were defeated. Śubhūti, the ruler of Saubha, or the country around Amritsar submitted to Alexander. Then the army marching to the east reached the Beas river. After this point to reach the Ganga Alexander had to cross only the Sutlej. While encamping on the Beas Alexander heard about the power of the Magadha empire from the ruler of Bhagala and he thought of fighting with it, but in the meanwhile near Gurudaspur his army refused to march forward and finding himself helpless Alexander ordered his army to turn back. Following the Grand Route the army reached the Jhelum but Alexander decided to travel on the Indus river and then take Kandahar-Ghazni route to reach Kabul. The autumn was passed in assembling a flotilla which was put under the command of Nearchus and it was decided to march the army on both banks of the Jhelum in order to safeguard the flanks. After the completion of these arrangements Alexander offered sacrifices to the river Indus, Jhelum and Chenab and his gods, and then ordered his fleet to weigh anchor. According to Arrian⁸ the Indians wishing success to the fleet ran on both banks of the river singing and dancing, After ten days it reached the confluence of the Jhelum and Chenab where the skin-clad Śibis accepted the authority of Alexander, but going a little down the Kshudraka-Mālavas started a war. In order to defeat them Alexander with his army pursued them and perhaps defeated them near Multan, though in this war he had practically lost his life.

c8.15

After defeating the Kshudraka-Mālavas the Macedonian fleet and the army marched forward. On the way they met the Ambaṣṭha (Abastane), then Kshatriyas (Xathri) and Vasātis (Ossadoi) were either defeated or subdued through diplomacy. In the end the army reached the confluence of the Chenab and Jhelum. In the beginning of 325 B.C. the fleet cast anchor there. Lower down this confluence was situated the republic of the Brāhmaṇas. Alexander, however, marching forcibly reached the capital of Sogdi and there again laid the foundation of another Alexandria. This territory was perhaps turned by Alexander into the Satrapy of Sindh. The territory between the confluence of the Indus and the Chenab was under the control of the Mūśikas (Musicanos) whose capital was perhaps situated at Abor. Alexander defeated them, after that came the turn of the Śambūkas (Sambos), the enemies of the Mūśikas and they were defeated at their capital Sindiman. The Brāhmaṇas gave a very tough fight to Alexander, and angered at that he ordered their general massacre.

c8.16

Before reaching Pātāla where the Indus branched out into two currents, Alexander despatched one-third of his army to return to its own country via Kandhar and Seistan, but himself marching forward occupied Pātāla (probably Brahmanabad). After that he decided to explore the western branch of the river, and the fleet after meeting many obstacles from the people of that arid region met the Macedonians on the sea-shore. After worshipping the sea and his manes Alexander returned to Pātāla and ordered the construction of docks and godowns on the river for international trade.

c8.17

Alexander decided to return to his country via Makran and ordered his fleet to sail from the mouth of the Indus to the Persian Gulf. With his land army he proceeded to the Hab river where he came to know that Arabhaṭas (Arbitae) for fear of him had fled. After crossing the river he met the Oretai and occupied their capital Rhambakia which could be identified perhaps with the Vairāmakas of the *Mahābhārata*. After that he entered Geodrosia (Baluchistan). In thatregi on following the sea coast he made arrangements for food and dug deep wells for his fleet. After crossing the terrible deserts Alexander disappeared for ever from the scene of Indian history.

c8.18

According to the arrangements made previously Nearchus with his fleet was to sail from the eastern mouth of the Indus in October 325 B.C. but for fear of the route he had to cancel his resolve. According to the new arrangements the fleet was brought to the western mouth of the Indus, here as well Nearchus had to face many difficulties. After Alexander's departure, he was forced to weigh anchor of his fleet by the end of September.⁹ The fleet starting from Kashtanagar probably reached Karachi and waited there for twenty-five days for favourable wind. Starting from there the fleet reached the mouth of the Hab river. He was opposed by the people at the mouth of the Hingol river. After staying there for five days the fleet crossing Rasohlan passed beyond the frontier of India.

c8.19

The campaign of Alexander in India was a short lived event in Indian history. Within twenty years of his return Chandragupta Maurya turned his attention towards the Panjab and as a result the Satrapies of Alexander went to pieces. Not only that, perhaps for the first time in Indian history the Indian army entered east Afghanistan ruled by Seleucus. About 305 B.C. Seleucus travelling through his empire on the Grand Route reached the Indus river and there met Chandragupta Maurya. History does not tell up about the result of that meeting though it mentions that Seleucus was ready to secede a part of the empire to the Mauryas. According to Strabo and Pliny Seleucus seceded to the Mauryas the Satrapies of Arakhosia and some districts of Aria.¹⁰ Foucher is of the opinion that the secession of this mountainous region in exchange for five hundred elephants does not show any magnanimity of Seleucus because he had kept for himself the best part of Aria.¹¹ The Mauryas and Seleucids had good relations as a result of which Megasthenes acting as an ambassador of Deimachos reached through the Grand Route to Pāṭaliputra. The occupation by the Mauryas of this part is evident from an inscription of Aśoka in Greek and Aramic (*Epigraphica Indica*, Vol. 34, Part I, p. 1 ff), found from Kandhar.

c8.20

But this state of affairs did not last for a long time after the death of Aśoka (about 236 B.C.), the Maurya empire began declining. The Seleucids also met with the same fate. Diodotus proclaimed his independence in Balkh and Arsaces declared independence in Iran. Antiochos, in order to suppress their rebellions, invaded Balkh where Euthydemus locked him up in the fort of Balkh. After laying siege of the city for two years both the parties fearing the nomad invaders made peace. After that Antiochos took journey to India where he met Subhagasena of Arakhosia. This Subhagasena was probably the viceroy of the Mauryas who had declared his independence after their fall.

c8.21

When such events had taken place on the north-west frontier of the Indian sub-continent, at that time according to the Jain tradition, Samprati, grandson of Aśoka, was increasing his power in the Middle Country, Gujarat, the Deccan and Mysore. The legend says that he made twenty-five and a half kingdoms, easy of access for the Jain monks.¹² In order to increase his power he sent his soldiers under the garb of Jain monks to Āndhra, Draviḍa, Mahārāshṭra, Kuḍukka (Coorg) and Saurāshṭra. If the tradition is correct then just after Aśoka, Mahārāshṭra, Saurāshṭra and Mysore had separated from the Mauryan empire, and, therefore, Samprati was forced to re-establish his power in those parts by sending his army to Āndhra and Tamil Nad. He apparently extended his empire to further south.¹³

c8.22

From the above legend it is apparent that the twenty-five and a half kingdoms of the Jain literature probably indicate the *bhuktis* or provinces of the Mauryan empire.¹⁴ The following is the list of provinces:

c8.23

c8.24

c8.25

It is apparent from the above list that during the Maurya period many of the older cities had disappeared and were replaced by new cities. The name of Kapilavastu does not appear in this list. It is also difficult to say why in the place of Pāṭaliputra the Mauryan capital, the name of the old capital Rājagṛiha appears. It may be due to the fact that even in the Mauryan empire the political and religious importance of Rājagṛiha continued.

c8.26

The capital of Aṅga at Champā remained but the capital of Vaṅga at Tāmralipti shows that it became a very important city as the Grand Route terminated there and its port became important because of its international trade. Kāñchanapura, the capital of Kaliṅga, conquered by Aśoka, cannot be identified but it was a port which had trade relations with Sri Lanka.¹⁵ It is also possible that by Kāñchanapura may be meant Dantapura the capital of Kaliṅga, which is called Palour by Ptolemy which according to Professor Levi is only a Tamil equivalent of Dantapura. Vārāṇasī continued to be the capital of Kāsī. It seems that the ancient Kosala was divided into three provinces. The capital of the main Kosala was Sāketa, the capital of Kuṇālā (perhaps Gonda) was Śrāvastī and Nandipura was the capital of Saṇḍilla (perhaps Sandila near Lucknow). The capital of Kurudeśa remained as previously at Hastināpura. The capital of Kuśāvartta or Kānyakubja was Soriya, the modern Soron. The capital of Dakshinapāñchāla was Kampillapura or modern Kampil and the capital of northern Pāñchāla was Ahichhattra near Ramnagar in Bareilly district, Uttar Pradesh.

c8.27

The ancient capital of Saurāshṭra was Dvārāvatī or Dwarka and it retained its position. The capital of Videha was Mithilā now Janakpur in Nepal territory. Vaiśālī is not mentioned. Kauśāmbī, the capital of the Vatsas, maintained its position as in former days. The capital of the Matsyas was Verāḍa which is identified with Bairat in Jaipur district of Rajasthan from where an epigraph of Aśoka has been found. The capital of Varaṇā or modern Bulandshahar is named as Achchhã which cannot be identified. The capital of Daśārṇa (Mandsora) in eastern Malwa was Mṛittikāvatī. It is not understandable why Ujjain the capital of western Malwa is not mentioned. The Chedis of Bundelkhand had their capital Śuktimatī perhaps somewhere in Banda district, U.P. The capital of Sindhu-Sovīra was Vītībhaya-paṭṭana perhaps Bhera. Mathurā was the capital of the Śūrasena country. The capital of Bhargadeśa (Hazaribag and Manbhum districts in Bihar) was Pāvā and the capital of Lāṭadeśa (Hooghly, Howrah, Burdwan and the easten part of Midnapur) was Koṭivarsha. The capital of Kegayiadḍha was perhaps situated in the middle of Śrāvastī and Kapilavastu near Nepalganj.

c8.28

From the account of these capitals in the Mauryan period it is apparent that the Grand Route took the same direction as in the time of the Buddha. On the Grand Route passing to the north of Kurukshetra was situated Hastināpura, Ahichhatra, Kuṇālā, Setavyā, Śrāvastī, Mithilā, Champā and Tāmralipti; on the southern Grand Route in the Gangetic valley appear Mathurā, Kampilla, Soreyya, Sāketa, Kosāmbī and Vārāṇasī. The names of other capital cities intimate the routes of Malwa, Rajasthan, the Panjab and Saurashtra.

c8.29

We have surveyed above the history of the routes in the Mauryan period. Fortunately the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya throws some additional light on the land routes and sea routes which are not mentioned anywhere else. The *Arthaśāstra* is explicit on the point that the success of internal and external trade depended mostly on the cleverness of masters of the caravans but even they were not allowed to do whatever they liked. The state had enacted certain rules and regulations for them which if transgressed they were punished.

c8.30

For the success of external and internal trade it was necessary to have good roads and government officers to regulate the movement on them. The chariot routes (*rathyā*), routes leading to ports (*droṇamukha*), roads leading to the capitals of the provinces (*sthānīya*), the roads leading to the neighbouring states (*rāshṭra*) and the roads leading to the grazing grounds (*vivītapatha*) were four *daṇḍas* or twenty-four feet wide. *Sayoṇīa?* roads leading to the military camps (*vyūha*), and roads proceeding to cemetries and villages were eight *daṇḍas* or forty-eight feet wide. The roads leading to the dykes and forests were twenty-four feet wide. The roads leading to the reserve forests for elephants were twelve feet wide. The chariot roads were seven and a half feet wide, but the animal tracks were merely three feet wide.¹⁶

c8.31

The *Arthaśāstra* also informs us that forts were provided with many roads and alleys. Before forts were built roads from north to the south and from east to the west were properly planned.

c8.32

The *Arthaśāstra* at one place compares the relative importance of land routes and sea routes.¹⁷ Quoting ancient authorities Kauṭilya observes that according to them the sea and river routes were better than the land routes because the cost was lesser for transporting the goods and, therefore, they yielded more profit. Kauṭilya, however, did not agree with this opinion. According to him the waterways were not firm and were full of difficulties and dangers. In their comparison the land routes were simpler. Pointing out to the dangers of the sea routes Kauṭilya observes that the open sea routes were more difficult than the coastal routes because on the coastal routes there were situated ports where goods could be easily bought and sold (*paṇyapattana*). In the same order the river routes in comparison with sea routes were much easier and if any difficulty arose they could be easily got rid of. According to the ancient authorities the *Haimavatamārgā* on the Grand Route from Balkh to India via Hindukush was easier than the southern route from Kauśāmbī to Ujjain and Pratishṭhāna. But Kauṭilya does not agree with this opinion because according to him the *Haimavatamārgā* was only used for trade in horses, woollen cloths, hides and furs, to the exclusion of all other goods. On the contrary on the Dakshiṇāpatha or the Deccan route trade in chankshell, diamond, precious stones, pearls and gold was carried on. Even in this route, that section was considered to be the best which proceeded to mining districts and was constantly used by merchants. This route was also less dangerous and less costly and, therefore, merchants always used it because here they could easily buy goods. While comparing the relative values of bullock-cart route (*chakrapatha*) and tracks (*pādapatha*) he considers the bullock-cart route better because this road could carry heavy loads easily. In the end Kauṭilya reaches the conclusion that for all countries and for all seasons those roads were better which could be easily used by camels and donkeys.

c8.33

From the above discussion about the comparative importance of various types of routes in this country it is apparent that there were roads between Balkh and Pāṭaliputra which carried on most of the trade of the country. Perhaps being an orthodox Brahman Kauṭilya did not prefer sea voyage. But keeping in mind the contents of the *Arthaśāstra* he does not mention religious sanctions against the sea voyage but only points out the dangers of the sea voyage.

c8.34

The Grecian authorities have also given some information about the ancient routes of northern India. Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta, has mentioned about these routes in some places in his travel account. At one place he points out that Indians were expert road-makers. After the roads were ready they put milestones at the interval of two miles in order to ascertain the distance and point out the direction of the branch routes.¹⁸ At another place he says that an account was kept about the stages of the routes.¹⁹ Arrangements were made on the roads for the comfort of the travellers. It is mentioned in one of the inscriptions of Aśoka that he had dug wells and planted trees on the roads for the comfort of the travellers.²⁰

c8.35

In the city of Pāṭaliputra in the six boards for the management of the city, the second board looked after the reception of the foreign travellers. It made arrangements for their stay and employed the servants of those foreigners to inform it about the character and behaviour of their masters. When they left the country then the board made arrangements to see them off. Unfortunately, if one of them died then it made arrangement to send his effects to his relatives. Proper medical arrangements were made to look after the travellers who fell ill and perchance if they died then they were cremated at the expense of the state.²¹

c8.36

Now the question arises that in the Mauryan period what were the countries with which India had commercial and cultural relations. We already know that there were trade relations between Balkh and Pāṭaliputra. Other routes also joined Pāṭaliputra with provincial capitals and ports. Indian ports were also great centres for international trade. Tāmralipti on the eastern sea coast and Bharukachchha on the western sea coast carried on trade with Sri Lanka and Suvarṇabhūmi. We do not know how far Indian ships travelled in the Persian Gulf, but there is every possibility that India had trade relations with Babylonia. The *Arthaśāstra* gives *alasandaka* as one of the names for coral which probably came from Alexandria in Egypt, though it is also probable that this word has entered the *Arthaśāstra* at a later date probably in the early centuries of the Christian era. But there is little doubt that Indians had full knowledge of the ports on the Red Sea. Though on account of the Arab merchants who controlled all trade and commerce of the region they did not frequently sail to those ports.²² In this connection Strabo also mentions a strange incident which happened just after the Maurya period. According to him in the time of Ptolemy Euergetes II, the ruler of Egypt, a citizen of Cyzicus named Eudoxus undertook a voyage for the exploration of the Nile. At that very time the guards looking after the coast of the Persian Gulf, brought before the king an Indian sailor whom they had found on a ship in half dead condition. They could not say anything about him or his country as he could not speak any other language but his own. The king was attracted towards that sailor and made arrangements to teach him Greek. After he had progressed in Greek, he informed the king that the ship had started from the Indian sea coast and missing the direction had sailed towards Egypt. All his comrades had died of hunger. On the condition that the king allowed him to return to his country he promised to show the Greeks the way to India. The party which was sent from Egypt to India included Eudoxus of Cyzicus who sailed to Demetria or Barygaza. After some time after completing their voyage successfully the party returned with precious stones and aromatics to Egypt.

c8.37

It is evident from the study of the *Arthaśāstra*²³ that the state fully realised the importance of sea routes and to manage them properly it appointed the Superintendent of Shipping (*naukādhyaksha*) who was in charge of ocean going ships (*samudrasaṁyāna*) and boats sailing on rivers and their mouths, lakes etc.

c8.38

Before sailing from the ports, the traveller had to pay the taxes to the state. The travellers sailing on the ships owned by the state had to pay certain charges (*yātrā-vetana*). Those who used state owned ships for fishing chankshells and pearls had also to pay a tax (*nāvkāṭaka*). If they did not pay this tax then they were free to use their own boats. The Superintendent of Shipping carried out strictly the rules (*hārita*) framed for the management of the ports (*paṇyapattana*) and supervise the work of the officers employed in the ports. If a ship buffeted by adverse wind arrived in a dilapidated condition (*mūḍhavātāhata*) then it was the duty of the Superintendent of Shipping to show a paternal attitude towards the travellers and sailors. No customs duty was levied on the goods destroyed by sea water and even if it was levied it was half of the regular amount. It was also borne in mind that after repairs such ships would start their voyage in favourable season. The ships which touched the ports on the coastal region, had also to pay the duties. The Superintendent of Shipping was empowered to destroy the pirate ships (*hiṁsrikā*), and also those ships which refused to accept the rules and regulations of the ports.

c8.39

Distinguished merchants and those foreign travellers who came to this country for trade were allowed to disembark without any trouble by the Superintendent of Shipping, but those suspects who were accused of abducting women, robbers, men who appeared frightened and puzzled, travellers without luggage, the *neosanyāsīs* travelling under assumed garbs, travellers feigning illness, carriers of precious goods without informing the authorities and poisons without declaration, and those travelling without passport (*mudrā*) were put under arrest.

c8.40

Both in the summer and in winter in big rivers many boats were put under the command of a captain (*śāsaka*), a pilot (*niryāmaka*), oarsmen (*raśmigrāhaka*) and the balers (*utsechaka*). In the rivers swollen with flood only small boats plied.

c8.41

The use of ferry without permission was considered a crime and people doing so were fined. A charge was made for the use of ferry boats from fishermen, gardeners, grass cutters, herdsmen, postmen, suppliers of goods for the military, fruit sellers, and the carriers of seeds etc. Marshy villages and those who used their own boats for going across the rivers had not to pay any kind of fees. The ferry boats did not also charge the Brahmans, wandering monks (*parivrājakas*), children and old men for ferrying them across the rivers.

c8.42

From one crossing the rivers out of fixed hours or from the point not fixed for crossing fine was realised. For one who crossed without authority even at the fixed time and at a proper crossing was fined twenty-six *paṇas* and three quarters. However, no penalty was charged from fishermen, carriers of loads of wood and grass, attendants of flower gardens, fruit orchards and vegetable gardens, the cowherds, followers of an envoy, suppliers to the military, those who crossed in their own boats, and those who ferried for seeds, food stuffs and supplies for villages situated along the water courses. The Brahmans, wandering monks, children, old and sick persons, carriers of royal edicts and pregnant women were allowed the facility of the ferry boats if they possessed sealed passports from the Controller of Shipping.

c8.43

Foreign travellers were granted permission to land after the testimony of the master of caravan. The Controller also had the power to arrest a person carrying off the wife or daughter or the property of another person, a frightened and agitated person, a person hiding behind a heavy load, a person concealing his face by the load containing heavy goods, a wandering monk, one who had put on the mark of one who went without mark, a person who feigned illness, a person showing changed appearance because of fright, a person secretly carrying goods of high value, letters, weapons, and combustible articles, a person with poison secreted in his hand, a person who had travelled a long distance, and a person without a sealed passport.

c8.44

The following duties have also been ordained. A small animal and a man with a load in a hand were charged a *māṣaka*, a load on the head, a load on the back, a cow and a horse were charged two *māṣakas*, a camel and a buffalo four *māṣakas*, a small vehicle had to pay five *māṣakas*, a bullock cart had to pay six *māṣakas*, a cart seven *māṣakas* and a load of commodities one quarter of a *paṇa*. These were the charges made in ordinary course. The fees for ferries on big rivers was double the amount mentioned. Further steps were taken for the maintenance of the ferrymen. The villages situated on waterways had to pay a fixed amount of food and wages to them. At the frontier the ferrymen were expected to realise the duties, export charges and road cess and were also authorised to confiscate the goods of one travelling without the passport, a person crossing with heavy load at an improper time and at a point which was not authorised.

c8.45

The Superintendent of Shipping was also entrusted with other duties. If a boat, because it lacked proper personnel and equipment or was not seaworthy, came to grief then he was authorised to make good of what was lost or ruined.

c8.46

Strict measures were taken to maintain the accounts of the ferrymen. They were expected to give account of their daily earnings.

c8.47

Right up from the Mauryan period to the Mughal period nobody could travel without a passport (*mudrā*). The passport was issued by the Superintendent of Passports (*Mudrādhyaksha*).²⁴ He realised a fee of one *māṣaka* for issuing the passport. Only a person with a sealed passport was authorised to enter or leave the countryside. A native of the country who travelled without a passport had to pay a fine of twelve *paṇas*. For using a forged passport the lowest fine for violence was imposed but if a person was a foreigner then the highest fine was imposed upon him. This passport was valid on land and sea routes. The Superintendent of Meadows (*vivītādhyaksha*) examined passports in the way. Such inspection houses were situated on such points on the road through which a traveller was forced to pass. His duty was also to reconnoitre the pastures and make arrangements for protecting travellers from robbers and wild animals. In arid regions he dug wells, built bunds, made arrangements for shelters and the lay out of gardens.

c8.48

As protective measures in the forests, dogs and hunters were employed. As soon as they received the intelligence of the approach of enemy or robbers, they hid themselves behind the trees or hills in order to avoid the knowledge of their presence. From here either by the beat of the drums or blowing of the chankshells they warned the people about the impending trouble. If they found that the enemy was on the march then they tied a sealed message in the neck of a homing pigeon and sent it to the proper authorities; by burning fire at regular intervals they issued warning about the presence of the enemy. Besides these precautions the Superintendent of Passports also protected the forests and elephant reserves,²⁵ repaired the roads, arrested thieves, protected merchants and cows and looked after business transactions between the caravans.

c8.49

In the Mauryan period on account of properous trade and commerce, the state realised a good amount of customs duties and the Collector of Customs and Tolls realised them with strictness. There were customs houses with their own flags situated in the northern and eastern gateways of a city. As soon as merchants reached there, four or five officers inquired about their names, addresses, the weights and kinds of their merchandise and the places where their passports were stamped first and other relevant matters. If the goods were not properly sealed and if the seals were forged then the duty was eight times as a penalty. If the seals were found broken or effaced merchants were imprisoned for twenty-four hours, if the state seal or personnel seals were changed then the merchants were fined one and a quarter per load.

c8.50

After these verifications merchants put their goods near the flag of the customs house, and after declaring their amount and prices they announced their intention to sell them. If the prices rose above the fixed prices then the duty on the increased prices went to the king's treasury. If for fear of heavy duties the goods were under-invoiced and if that was found out, then the merchants had to pay the penalty eight times as much as the original duty. The same amount of penalty was realised in the case where the amount of goods found to be lesser in quantity or precious goods declared as ordinary goods after hiding it in the folds of inferior goods. If a higher price was demanded then the increased amount was taken by the State, or the merchant was fined eight times of the ordinary duty. If the Superintendent did not examine the goods himself and the figures were not tallied properly then he was himself fined three times the amount of the unrealised duty. The goods used for weddings and other religious festivals were duty free. Those who carried stolen goods or more goods than declared or after breaking the seals put in more goods in the bales, if they were detected then their goods were not only confiscated but also they were very heavily fined.

c8.51

If a person tried to carry on trade in prohibited articles such as weapons, metals, chariots, precious stones, grains and animals then his goods were confiscated and auctioned publicly. It seems that the trade in these articles was a state monopoly and, therefore, their trade by private parties was strictly prohibited.

c8.52

Besides, the customs duty, merchants had to pay many tolls and cesses. The warden of the marches (*antaḥpāla*) realised a toll of 1¼ *paṇas* per load. The animals had to pay a cess ranging from ½ and ¼ *paṇas*. In return the warden had to perform certain duties. For instance if the goods of a merchant were looted in his territory then he had to meet his loss. The warden after inspecting the foreign goods sealed them and despatched them to the Superintendent of Customs. A spy in the garb of a merchant determined the quality and quantity of a merchant's goods and despatched the information received to the king. The king to show his omnipresence sent the information to the Superintendent of Customs and who in his turn conveyed it to other merchants. This was done to ensure that a merchant did not make a false declaration. In spite of these precautions if the deceptions were found out then the fine on a merchant was eight times of the regular duty and if the goods were of superior quality then they were confiscated by the state. The import of harmful goods was prohibited, but such articles which were not easily available in the country could be imported without any duty. On all goods such as external (*bāhya*) produce of the districts (*āntarika*), the goods manufactured in cities (*ātithya*) and foreign goods were dutiable both on their import and export.³⁶ On the dried fruits and meat the duty was one-sixth of their prices. The duties were determined on chankshell, diamond, pearl, coral, precious stones, and necklaces, with the opinion of the experts. Duty was also levied on linen, orpiment, manganese, red lead, minerals, colouring materials, sandalwood, agar etc. On linen, *dukūla* silk yarn, armours, kermes, antimony, vermilion, metals of various kinds and ores, sandalwood, spices, and fermenting materials, hides, ivory, bed-spreads, coverings and silk cloth and animal products of goats and rams, the duty chargeable was 1/10th or 1/15th part of their prices. In the same way the duty on textile materials, four-footed animals, cotton, aromatics, medicines, wood, bamboos, barks, skins, earthen pots, grain, oil, salt and parboiled rice was 1/20 to 1/25 of their values. Besides these merchants had to pay one-fifth of the customs duty as the gate toll. This, however, could be excused.

c8.53

In the Mauryan period the Director of Trade (*paṇyādhyaksha*)³⁷ had important functions to perform. He had good relations with merchants. It was his duty to determine the quantity of the material coming through land and waterways and their consumption. Taking into consideration the rise and fall in the prices of the articles, he determined whether they should be sold, bought, distributed, or stored. According to the conditions prevailing in the market, he collected goods, distributed them in far off places and determined their prices. He stored the articles manufactured in the workshops of the king, but he distributed the imported articles in various markets. All these articles were obtainable by the people at fair prices. Merchants were forbidden to make excessive profit. The monopoly in the trade of common goods was strictly forbidden. The Controller of Trade encouraged those importing goods. The loaders on ships, sailors and importers of foreign goods were allowed to go duty free. Foreign traders could not be sued in courts for their debts, but if they happened to be the members of the guild then they could be dragged to the court.

c8.54

It seems that the articles manufactured in the ateliers of the king were exported to foreign countries. While ascertaining their prices, profits and expenses, duties, tolls on the roads (*vartanīyā*), tolls on the vehicles (*ativāhika*), tolls at military encampments (*gulmadeya*), ferry charges (*taradeya*), allowances (*bhakta*) admissible to merchants and their followers and the cost of the articles to be presented to foreign kings were taken into account.

c8.55

If in foreign countries the goods did not yield any profit then the Superintendent of Trade had to determine whether there was any possibility of bringing better price by the way of exchange. After determining the rate of exchange one-fourth of the precious goods were despatched to foreign lands by the land route. Togte better profit on the goods, it was the duty of the merchant proceeding to the foreign lands that he should cultivate friendship with forest guards and district officers as it was necessary for the safety of their goods. If he was unable to reach the desired markets then he was authorised to sell the goods in any market without any kind of duties (*sarvadeya-viśuddha*) and to transport his goods by the rivers as well. But before he undertook such a journey he had to take into consideration the transport charges (*yānabhāgaka*), the road allowances (*pathadāna*), the price of the foreign goods in exchange of his own goods, the period of the river travel, the customs (*charitra*), in the market towns (*paṇyapattana*), and in the commercial towns situated on the rivers. The merchants inquired about the market rates and then sold their goods because this procedure brought more profit.

c8.56

In order to determine the quality and quantity of the goods manufactured in the king's ateliers, spies in the garb of merchants were employed.²⁸ These spies thoroughly inspected the goods produced in the king's ateliers, fields and mines. They also inquired about the duties prevalent in foreign countries, different kinds of tolls on the roads, allowances, ferry charges, the transport rates, etc., in order to ensure that the king was not defrauded by his agents. Such strict precautions taken in the disposal of the king's goods show that the king in the Mauryan period was a clever businessman and it was not so simple to defraud him.

c8.57

For the stay of travellers in the city, Kauṭilya mentions *dharmāvasatha*²⁹ or hospice. It was the duty of the managers of such rest houses that they should keep informed the city officers about the merchants and any frauds committed by them. The workers (*kārukara*) and artisans were allowed to keep as guests their relatives only in their workshops. Even then they had to inform the city authorities. This precaution was taken so that the merchants could not sell their goods outside the fixed town places and also avoid the sale of prohibited goods.

c8.58

The merchants of the Mauryan period as well as the travellers were fully aware of their responsibilities. In temples, in cities, on roads, in forests and in cemeteries, wherever they saw the wounded, fully armed, men fatigued by carrying heavy loads, men sleeping, men unacquainted with the country, it was their duty to hand them over to the state officials.⁸⁰

c8.59

We have seen that there were guilds even in pre-Buddhist era, but there was only a rudimentary idea of co-operation between them. It is evident from the *Arthaśāstra*, however, that in the Mauryan period guilds had become developed institutions and rules were enacted about wages and work.⁸¹ Those who transgressed these rules were heavily punished. There were proper arrangements for borrowing money to run one's own business but the rate of interest was very high.⁸² The ordinary rate of interest was 5% but at times it reached even 20%. Merchants travelling through forests had to pay an interest of 10% and sea merchants had to pay a tremendous rate of 20%. It seems that it was the policy of the bankers of that period to fix the rates of interest in accordance with the danger in the transactions involved.

c8.60

For the welfare of the state bankers the relations between the bankers (*dhanika*) and debtors (*dhāraṇika*) were fixed. Interest on grain could never exceed 50%. On the pledged goods (*prakshepa*) the interest was half of the profit at the end of the year. Those who transgressed these rules were punished.

c8.61

People deposited money with bankers. The deposited sum was known as (*upanidhi*). The interest on the sum was also equivalent to the interest applicable in ordinary business. If merchants lost their goods through the activity of foresters, animals, enemies, flood, fire and shipwrecks then they were not required to pay back their borrowed sums and they could not be sued in the courts.⁸³

c8.62

For the safety of the pledged articles there were many other rules and regulations. Bankers could not sell the pledged goods for their own profit. If they did so they had to pay compensation and they were also fined. But if the bankers found themselves in financial difficulties then a suit could not be filed against them for the recovery of the pledged goods but if they sold pledged goods, lost it, or pledged it with some other banker then they were fined five times of the value of the goods.

c8.63

If merchants entered into agreement between themselves during the night or stealthily in a forest, then such agreement had no legal validity, but those merchants who passed most of their time in forests their agreements were considered valid.

c8.64

The members of the guild also could enter into agreement even all alone among themselves.⁸⁴ If a merchant despatched his goods through an envoy, then if such goods were looted or the envoy died then the merchant was not entitled to any compensation.

c8.65

The old or sick merchant while travelling in a forest or undertaking a sea voyage, sealed the goods and entrusted it to another merchant to gain his peace of mind. If he died then the merchant to whom he had entrusted his sealed goods sent message to his close relatives who in their turn took charge of the sealed goods.³⁵ If the merchant did not return the sealed goods then he lost his credit and he was punished as a thief and was forced to return the goods entrusted to him.

c8.66

Merchants had to observe certain rules in buying and selling the goods. If the seller did not deliver the goods sold, then he was fined twelve *paṇas*.³⁶ But if the goods were spoilt between the time of selling and delivery then there was no fine. The manufacturing defect was known as (*paṇyadosha*). The sale of the articles confiscated by the king, the goods spoilt by fire or flood, defective articles and goods manufactured by the sick was forbidden.

c8.67

The delivery time for ordinary merchants was twenty-four hours, for agriculturist three days, for herdsmen five days and for precious goods seven days. For the sale of destructible goods it was enjoined that their salesh ould be effected prior to the sale of the goods which were not easily destructible. Merchants not observing this rule were fined. The sold goods, except if they had some defect, could not be returned.

First 66 of 92 passages. Read on

Linked texts (8)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Naturalis historia — C. Plinius Secundus, Latin
Aśoka
Epigraphia Indica
Purāṇa — Sanskrit
玄奘 — Classical Chinese
Pāṭaliputra

Trade and Trade Routes in Ancient India c8: Chapter IV: Travellers and Conquerors on the Grand Route of India in the Mauryan Period

Contents

Chapter IV: Travellers and Conquerors on the Grand Route of India in the Mauryan Period

Linked texts (8)