Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c14.s1: Section I. The Reign of Chandragupta Maurya

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c14.s1

Language
English

Contents

Section I. The Reign of Chandragupta Maurya

c14.s1.1

*Mlechchhairudvejyamānā bhujayugamadhunā*
*saṁśritā rājamūrtteḥ*
*Sa śrīmadbandhubhṛtyaśchiramavatu mahīṁ*
*pārthivaś-Chandraguptaḥ.*
—*Mudrārākshasa.*

c14.s1.2

In B.C. 326 the flood of Mecedonian invasion had overwhelmed the Indian states of the Pañjāb, and was threatening to burst upon the *Madhyadeśa*. Agranmes was confronted with a crisis not unlike that which Arminius had to face when Varus carried the Roman Eagle to the Teutoburg Forest, or which Charles Martel had to face when the Saracens carried the Crescent towards the field of Tours. The question whether India was, or was not, to be Hellenized awaited decision.

c14.s1.3

Agrammes was fortunate enough to escape the onslaught of Alexander. But it is doubtful whether he had the ability or perhaps the inclination to play the part of an Arminius or a Charles Martel, had the occasion arisen. But there was at this time another Indian who was made of different stuff. This was Chandragupta, the Sandrokoptos (Sandrokottos, etc.) of the classical writers. The rise of Chandragupta is thus described by Justin :¹

c14.s1.4

¹ Watson's tr., p. 142 with slight emendations.

c14.s1.5

"India after the death of Alexander had shaken, as it were, the yoke of servitude from its neck and put his governors to death. The author of this liberation was

c14.s1.6

Sandrocoltus. This man was of humble origin, but was stimulated to aspire to regal power by supernatural encouragement; for, having offended Alexander¹ by his boldness of speech and orders being given to kill him, he saved himself by swiftness of foot; and while he was lying asleep, after his fatigue, a lion of great size having come up to him, licked off with his tongue the sweat that was running from him and after gently waking him, left him. Being first prompted by this prodigy to conceive hopes of royal dignity he drew together a band of robbers,² and solicited the Indians to support his new sovereignty.³ Sometime after, as he was going to war with the generals of Alexander, a wild elephant of great bulk presented itself before him of its own accord and, as if tamed down to gentleness, took him on its back and became his guide in the war and conspicuous in fields of battle. Sandrocottus thus acquired a throne when Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future greatness."

c14.s1.7

¹ Some modern scholars propose to read 'Nandrum' (Nanda) in place of 'Alexandrum.' Such conjectural emendations by modern editors often mislead students who have no access to original sources and make the confusion regarding the early career of Chandragupta worse confounded (*cf. Indian Culture*, Vol. II. No. 3, p. 558; for 'boldness of speech', *cf.* Grote XII. 141, case of Kleitus, and pp. 147 ff, case of Kallisthenes)

c14.s1.8

² The original expression used by Justin has the sense of 'mercenary soldier' as well as that of 'robber'. And the former sense is in consonance with Indian tradition recorded by Hemachandra in the *Pariśishṭaparvan* (VIII, 253-54):

c14.s1.9

³ According to the interpretation accepted by Hultzsch—'instigated the Indians to overthrow the existing government.'

c14.s1.10

The above account, shorn of its marvellous element, amounts to this, that Chandragupta, a man of non-monarchical rank, placed himself at the head of the

c14.s1.11

Dhātuvādopārjitena draviṇena Chaṇiprasūḥ
chakrepattyādi sāmagrīṁ Nandamuchchhettumudyataḥ.

c14.s1.12

*i.e.*, Chāṇakya gathered for Chandragupta an army with wealth found underground, (lit. 'with the aid of mineralogy') for the purpose of uprooting Nanda.

c14.s1.13

Indians who chafed under the Macedonian yoke, and after Alexander's departure defeated his generals and "shook the yoke of servitude from the neck" of India. The verdict of the Hydaspes was thus reversed.¹

c14.s1.14

¹ The anti-Macedonian movement led by Chandragupta, and those who co-operated with him, probably began in Sind. The Macedonian Satrap of that province withdrew before 321 B.C. Āmbhi and the Paurava remained in possession of portions of the Western and Central Pañjāb and some adjoining regions till sometime after the Triparadeisos agreement of 321 B C.

c14.s1.15

The ancestry of Chandragupta is not known for certain. Hindu literary tradition connects him with the Nanda dynasty of Magadha.² Tradition recorded in Mediaeval inscriptions, however, represents the Maurya family (from which he sprang) as belonging to the solar race.³ From Māndhātṛi, a prince of that race, sprang the Maurya line." In the *Rājputāna Gazetteer*,⁴ the Moris (Mauryas) are described as a Rājput clan. Jaina tradition recorded in the *Pariśishṭaparvan*⁵ represents Chandragupta as the son of a daughter of the chief of a village of peacock-tamers (*Mayūra- *poshaka*).¹ The *Mahāvaṁsa*² calls him a scion of the *Khattiya* clan styled Moriya (Maurya). In the *Divyāvadāna*³ Bindusāra, the son of Chandragupta, claims to be an anointed Kshatriya, *Kshatriya Mūrdhābhishikta*. In the same work⁴ Aśoka, the son of Bindusāra, calls himself a Kshatriya. In the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*⁵ the Moriyas are represented as the ruling clan of Pipphalivana, and as belonging to the Kshatriya caste. As the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta* is the most ancient of the works referred to above, and forms part of the early Buddhist canon, its evidence should be preferred to that of later compositions. It is, therefore, practically certain that Chandragupta belonged to a Kshatriya community, *viz.*, the Moriya (Maurya) clan.

c14.s1.16

² The Mudrārākshasa calls him not only *Mauryaputra* (Act II, verse 6 but also *Nandānvaya* (Act IV). Kshemendra and Somadeva refer to him as *Pūrvananda-sūta*, son of the genuine Nanda, as opposed to Yoga-Nanda. The commentator on the *Vishṇu Purāṇa* (IV, 24—Wilson IX, 187) says that Chandragupta was the son of Nanda by a wife named Murā, whence he and his descendants were called Mauryas. Dhuṇḍirāja, the commentator on the *Mudrārākshasa*, informs us on the other hand that Chandragupta was the eldest son of Maurya who was the son of the Nanda king Sarvārthasiddhi by Murā, daughter of a *Vṛishala* (Śūdra?).

c14.s1.17

³ *Ep. Ind.*, II. 222. The *Mahāvaṃsaṭīkā* also connects the Mauryas with the Sākyas who, as is well-known, claimed to belong to the race of Āditya (the Sun). *Cf.* also *Avadānakalpalatā*, No. 59.

c14.s1.18

⁴ II A, the *Mewar Residency*, compiled by Major K. D. Erskine (p. 14).

c14.s1.19

⁵ Page 56; VIII. 229f.

c14.s1.20

¹ Buddhist tradition also testifies to the supposed connection between the expressions Moriya (Maurya) and Mora or Mayūra (peacock)—see Turnour, *Mahāvaṁsa* (Mahāwansa), xxxix f. Aelian informs us that tame peacocks were kept in the parks of the Maurya Palace at Pāṭaliputra. Sir John Marshall points out that figures of peacocks were employed to decorate some of the projecting ends of the architraves of the east gateway at Sāñchī (*A Guide to Sāñchī*, pp. 44, 62). Foucher (*Monuments of Sanchi*, 231) does not regard these birds as a sort of canting ba lge for the dynasty of the Mauryas. He apparently prefers to imagine in them a possible allusion to the *Mora Jātaka*.

c14.s1.21

² Geiger's Translation, p. 27. *Moriyānaṁ Khattiyānaṁ vaṁse jāta.*

c14.s1.22

³ Cowell and Neil's Ed., p. 370.

c14.s1.23

⁴ Page 409.

c14.s1.24

⁵ *SBE.* XI, pp. 134-135.

c14.s1.25

In the sixth century B. C. the Moriyas were the ruling clan of the little republic of Pipphalivana which probably lay between Rummindei in the Nepalese Tarai and Kasia in the Gorakhpur district. They must have been absorbed into the Magadhan empire along with the other states of Eastern India. Tradition avers that they were reduced to great straits in the fourth century B. C., and young Chandragupta grew up among peacock-tamers, herdsmen and hunters in the Vindhyan forest. The classical notices of his encounter with a lion and an elephant accord well with his residence amidst the wild denizens of that sequestered region. During the inglorious reign of Agrammes, when there was general disaffection amongst his subjects, the Moriyas evidently came into prominence, probably under the leadership of **Chandragupta**. These clansmen were no longer rulers and were merely Magadhan subjects. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that Justin calls Chandragupta a man of humble origin. Plutarch, as well as Justin, informs us that Chandragupta paid a visit to Alexander. Plutarch says¹ “Androkottus himself, who was then a lad, saw Alexander himself and afterwards used to declare that Alexander might easily have conquered the whole country, as the then king was hated by his subjects on account of his mean and wicked disposition.” From this passage it is not unreasonable to infer that Chandragupta visited Alexander with the intention of inducing the conqueror to put an end to the rule of the tyrant of Magadha. His conduct may be compared to that of Rānā Saṁgrāma Siṁha who invited Bābur to put an end to the *regime* of Ibrāhīm Lūdī.² Apparently Chandragupta found Alexander as stern a ruler as Agrammes, for we learn from Justin that the Macedonian king did not scruple to give orders to kill the intrepid Indian lad for his boldness of speech.³ The young Maurya apparently thought of ridding his country of both the oppressors, Macedonian as well as Indian. With the help of Kauṭilya, also called Chāṇakya or Vishṇugupta, son of a Brāhmaṇa of Taxila, he is said to have overthrown the infamous Nanda. Traditional accounts of the conflict between Chandragupta and the last Nanda are preserved in the *Milindapañho*, the Purāṇas, the *Mudrārākshasa*, the *Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā* and the Jaina *Pariśishṭaparvan*. The *Miliadapañho*¹ tells us that the Nanda army was commanded by Bhaddasāla. The Nanda troops were evidently defeated with great slaughter, an exaggerated account of which is preserved in the *Milindapañho*.

c14.s1.26

¹ *Life of Alexander* lxii.

c14.s1.27

² Regarding the conduct of Saṁgrāma Siṁha, see Tod’s *Rājasthān*, Vol. I, p. 240, n (2). Anne Susannah Beveridge, the *Bābur-nāma in English*, Vol. II, p. 529.

c14.s1.28

³ As already stated the substitution of ‘Nanda’ for Alexander cannot be justified.

c14.s1.29

¹ SBE., Vol. XXXVI, p. 147.

c14.s1.30

“Sometime after” his acquisition of sovereignty, Chandragupta went to war with the prefects or generals of Alexander² and crushed their power.

c14.s1.31

² *Cf.* Smith, *Aśoka*, third edition, p. 14n. For the relative date of the assumption of sovereignty and the war with the prefects see *Indian Culture*, II. No 3, pp. 559ff, *Age of the Nandas and Mauryas*, p. 137.

c14.s1.32

The overthrow of the Nandas, and the liberation of the Pañjāb were not the only achievements of the great Maurya. Plutarch tells us³ that he overran and subdued the whole of India with an army of 600,000 men. Justin also informs us that he was “*in possession of India*.” In his *Beginnings of South Indian History*,⁴ Dr. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar says that Māmulanār, an ancient Tamil author, makes frequent allusions to the Mauryas in the past having penetrated with a great army as far as the Podiyil Hill in the Tinnevelly district. The statements of this author are said to be supported by Paraṇar or Param Koṟṟanār and Kallil Āttiraiyanār. The advanced party of the invasion was composed of a warlike people called Kośar. The invaders advanced from the Koṅkaṇ, passing the hills Elilmalai, about sixteen miles north of Cannanore, and entered the Kongu (Coimbatore) district, ultimately going as far as the Podiyil Hill (Malaya?).

c14.s1.33

³ Alex. LXII.

c14.s1.34

⁴ Chap. II, *cf.* *JRAS*, 1924, 666.

c14.s1.35

⁵ For the Kośar see *Indian Culture*, I, pp. 97 ff. Cf. Kośakāra, ANM. 251 ff.

c14.s1.36

Unfortunately the name of the Maurya leader is not given. But the expression *Vamba Moriyar*, or Maurya upstarts,¹ would seem to suggest that the first Maurya, *i.e.*, Chandragupta, and his adherents were meant.²

c14.s1.37

¹ *Beginnings of South Indian History*, p. 89. *Cf.* *Maurye nave rājani* (*Mudrārākshasa*, Act IV).

c14.s1.38

² Barnett suggests (*Camb. Hist. Ind.*, I. 596) that the 'Vamba Moriyar' or 'Bastard Mauryas' were possibly a branch of the Konkani Mauryas. But there is hardly any genuine historical record of the penetration of the Mauryas of the Koṅkaṇ deep into the southern part of the Tamil country. For other suggestions, see *JRAS.*, 1923, pp. 93-96. Some Tamil scholars hold that "the Moriyar were not allowed to enter Tamilakam, and the last point they reached was the Veṅkaṭa hill" (*IHQ.*, 1928, p. 145). They also reject Dr. Aiyangar's statement about the Kosar. But the view that the arms of Chandragupta possibly reached the Pāṇḍya country in the Far South of India which abounded in pearls and gems receives some confirmation from the *Mudrārākshasa*, Act, III, verse 19, which suggests that the supremacy of the first Maurya eventually extended "from the lord of mountains (the Himālayas), cooled by showers of the spray of the divine stream (Ganges) playing about among its rocks, to the shores of the southern ocean (Dakshiṇārṇava) marked by the brilliance of gems flashing with various colours". The description, however, may be purely conventional. Prof. N. Sastri is critical of the account in the Tamil texts (*ANM*, p. 253f).

c14.s1.39

Certain Mysore inscriptions refer to Chandragupta's rule in North Mysore. Thus one epigraph says that Nāgarkhanda in the Shikārpur Tāluq was protected by the wise Chandragupta, "an abode of the usages of eminent Kshatriyas."³ This is of the fourteenth century and little reliance can be placed upon it. But when the statements of Plutarch, Justin, Māmulanār, and the Mysore inscriptions referred to by Rice, are read together, they seem to suggest that the first Maurya did conquer a considerable portion of trans-Vindhyan India.

c14.s1.40

³ Rice, *Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions*, p. 10. Fleet, however, is sceptical about the Jaina tradition (*Ind. Ant.* 1892, 156 ff.). *Cf.* also *JRAS.* 1911, 814-17.

c14.s1.41

Whatever we may think of Chandragupta's connection with Southern India, there can be no doubt that he pushed his conquests as far as Surāshṭra in Western India. The Junāgaḍh Rock inscription of the *Mahākshatrapa* Rudradāman refers to his *Rāshṭriya* or High Commissioner, Pushyagupta, the Vaiśya, who constructed the famous Sudarśana Lake.¹

c14.s1.42

¹ The subjugation of the whole of Northern India (*Udīchī*) from the Himālayas to the sea is probably suggested by the following passage of the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* (IX, 1) traditionally ascribed to a minister of Chandragupta “*Deśaḥ Prithivī; tasyāṁ Himavat Samudrāntaram Udīchīnam yojanasahasra parimāṇam atiryak Chakravarti-Kshetram*.” *Cf*. *Mudrārākshasa*, Act III, Verse 19.

c14.s1.43

Reference has already been made to an Aramaic Inscription from Taxila which mentions the form *Priyadarśana*, a well-known epithet of Aśoka Maurya. But it is well to remember that in the *Mudrārākshasa Piadamsana* is used as a designation of Chandasiri or Chandragupta himself.² Further, in Rock Edict VIII of Aśoka, his ancestors, equally with himself, are styled *Devānaṁpiya*. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conclude that, like his famous grandson, Chandragupta, too, was known as ‘Devānaṁpiya Piyadasi’ (or ‘Priyadarśana’), and it is not always safe to ascribe all epigraphs that make mention of Priyadarśana, irrespective of their contents, to Aśoka the Great.

c14.s1.44

² Act VI.

The Seleukidan War

c14.s1.t1.1

We learn from Justin³ that when Chandragupta acquired his throne in India Seleukos (Seleucus), a general of Alexander, was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleukos was the son of Antiochos, a distinguished general of Philip of Macedon, and his wife Laodike. After the division of the Macedonian Empire among the followers of Alexander he carried on several wars in the east. He first took Babylon,⁴ and then his strength being increased by this success, subdued the Bactrians. He next made an expedition into India. Appianus says¹ that he crossed the Indus and waged war on Chandragupta, king of the Indians, who dwelt about it, until he made friends and entered into relations of marriage² with him. Justin also observes that after making a league with Chandragupta, and settling his affairs in the east, Seleukos proceeded to join in the war against Antigonos (301 B. C.). Plutarch supplies us with the information that Chandragupta presented 500 elephants to Seleukos. More important details are given by Strabo who says :³

c14.s1.t1.2

³ Watson's tr., p. 143.

c14.s1.t1.3

⁴ Seleukos obtained the satrapy of Babylon first after the agreement of Triparadeisos (321 B.C.) and afterwards in 312 B.C. from which year his era is dated. In 306 B.C., he assumed the title of king (*Camb. Anc. His.*, VII, 161; *Camb. Hist. Ind.*, I, 433).

c14.s1.t1.4

¹ *Syr.* 55; *Ind. Ant*, Vol. VI, p. 114, Hultzsch, xxxiv.

c14.s1.t1.5

² Appianus uses the clear term *kedos* (connection by marriage), and Strabo (XV) only an *epigamia*. The *cession of territory in consequence of the marriage contract* clearly suggests that the wedding did take place.

c14.s1.t1.6

³ H & F., III, p. 125.

c14.s1.t1.7

"The Indians occupy (in part) some of the countries situated along the *Indus*, which formerly belonged to the Persians: Alexander deprived the Ariani of them, and established there settlements (or provinces) of his own. But Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus in consequence of a marriage contract, and received in turn 500 elephants." "The Indians occupied *a larger portion of Ariana*, which they had received from the Macedonians."⁴

c14.s1.t1.8

⁴ *Ibid*, p. 78. Tarn, *Greeks in Bactria and India*, 100.

c14.s1.t1.9

It will be seen that the classical writers do not give us any detailed record of the actual conflict between Seleukos and Chandragupta. They merely speak of the results. There can be no doubt that the invader could not make much headway, and concluded an alliance which was cemented by a marriage contract. In his *Aśoka*⁵ Dr. Smith observes that the current notion that the Syrian king ‘gave his daughter in marriage’ to Chandragupta is not warranted by the evidence, which testifies merely to a ‘matrimonial alliance.’ But the cession of territory “in consequence of the *epigamia*” may rightly be regarded as a dowry given to a bridegroom. The Indian Emperor obtained some of the provinces situated along the Indus which formerly belonged to the Persians. The ceded country comprised a *large portion of Ariana* itself, a fact ignored by Tarn. In exchange the Maurya monarch gave the “comparatively small recompense of 500 elephants”. It is believed that the territory ceded by the Syrian king included the four satrapies: Aria, Arachosia, Gedrosia and the Paropanisadai, *i.e.*, Herat, Kandahār, Makrān and Kābul. Doubts have been entertained about this by several scholars including Tarn. The inclusion of the Kābul valley within the Maurya Empire is, however, proved by the inscriptions of Aśoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, which speak of the Yonas and Gandhāras as vassals of the Empire. And the evidence of Strabo probably points to the cession by Seleukos of a large part of the Iranian Tableland besides the riparian provinces on the Indus.

c14.s1.t1.10

⁵ Third Ed., p. 15.

Megasthenes

c14.s1.t2.1

We learn from the classical writers that after the war the Syrian and Indian Emperors lived on friendly terms. Athenaios tells us that Chandragupta sent presents including certain powerful aphrodisiacs to the Syrian monarch.¹ Seleukos sent an envoy to the Maurya court, whose name was Megasthenes. Arrian tells us¹ that Megasthenes originally lived with Sibyrtios, the satrap of Arachosia. He was sent from thence to Pāṭaliputra where he often visited the Maurya Emperor, and wrote a history on Indian affairs. The work of Megasthenes has been lost. The fragments that survive in quotations by later authors like Strabo, Arrian, Diodoros and others, have been collected by Schwanbeck, and translated into English by McCrindle. As Professor Rhys Davids observes, Megasthenes possessed very little critical judgment, and was, therefore, often misled by wrong information received from others. But he is a truthful witness concerning matters which came under his personal observation. The most important piece of information supplied by him is, as Rhys Davids pointed out, the description of Pāṭaliputra which Arrian quotes in Chapter X of his *Indica*:

c14.s1.t2.2

¹ *Inv. Alex.*, p. 405. *Cf.* Smith, EHI, 4th ed., p. 153. The treaty between Chandragupta and Seleukos ushered in a policy of philhellenism which bore fruit in the succeeding reigns. In the days of Bindusāra and Aśoka there was not only an exchange of embassies with the Hellenistic powers of the West, but the services of Greek philosophers and administrators were eagerly sought by the Imperial government.

c14.s1.t2.3

¹ Chinnock's tr., p. 254.

c14.s1.t2.4

“The largest city in India, named Palimbothra, is in the land of the Prasians, where is the confluence of the river Erannobaos² and the Ganges, which is the greatest of rivers. The Erannobaos would be third of the Indian rivers . . . . . Megasthenes says that on the side where it is longest this city extends 80 stades (9½ miles) in length, and that its breadth is fifteen (1¾ miles); that the city has been surrounded with a ditch in breadth 6 plethra (606 feet), and in depth 30 cubits; and that its wall has 570 towers and 64 gates.”³

c14.s1.t2.5

² Erannobaos = Hiraṇyavāha, *i.e.*, the Soṇa (*Harshacharita*, Parab's ed., 1918, p. 19). *Cf.* “*Anuśoṇaṁ Pāṭaliputram*” (*Patañjali*, II, 1. 2). For references to “Pāṭaliputra in a Tamil classic” see *Aiyangar Com. Vol.* 355 ff.

c14.s1.t2.6

³ *Cf.* Patañjali, IV. 3.2; “*Pāṭaliputrakāḥ prāsādāḥ Pāṭaliputrakāḥ prākārā iti*.”

c14.s1.t2.7

There were many other cities in the empire besides Pāṭaliputra. Arrian says, “It would not be possible to record with accuracy the number of the cities on account of their multiplicity. Those which are situated near the rivers or the sea are built of wood : for if they were built of brick they could not long endure on account of the rain and because the rivers overflowing their banks fill the plains with water. But those which have been founded in commanding places, lofty and raised above the adjacent country, are built of brick and mortar." The most important cities of Chandragupta's empire besides the metropolis, were Taxila, Ujjain, Kauśāmbī and possibly Puṇḍranagara.¹

c14.s1.t2.8

¹ Puṇḍranagara has been identified with Mahāsthāngarh in the Bogra District of Bengal. The identification seems to be confirmed by an inscription, written in early Mauryan Brāhmī character, which has been discovered at Mahāsthāna. The record makes mention of *Puṁḍanagala* and its storehouse filled with coins styled *Gaṇḍakas*, *Kākanikas*, etc. and refers to a people called Saḍvargikas. (Barua, *IHQ*, 1934, March, 57 ff; D. R. Bhandarkar, *Ep. Ind.*, April, 1931, 83 ff; P. C. Sen, *IHQ*, 1933, 722 ff.) Dr. Bhandarkar reads *Sa(ṁ)va(ṁ)giya* in the place of *Saḍvargika* which is more plausibly suggested by Dr. Barua. If the record really belongs to the early Maurya period the reference to coins is interesting. Dr. K. P. Jayaswal thinks that coins of the Maurya age bear certain symbols that can be recognized (*cf. JRAS*, 1936, 437 ff.).

c14.s1.t2.9

Ælian gives the following account of the **palace of Chandragupta**. "In the Indian royal palace² where the greatest of all the kings of the country resides, besides much else which is calculated to excite admiration, and with which neither Susa, nor Ekbatana can vie (for, methinks, only the well-known vanity of the Persians could prompt such a comparison³), there are other wonders besides. In the parks tame peacocks are kept, and pheasants which have been domesticated; there are shady groves and pasture ground planted with trees, and branches of trees which the art of the woodsman has deftly interwoven; while some trees are native to the soil, others are brought from other parts, and with their beauty enhance the charms of the landscape. Parrots are natives of the country, and keep hovering about the king and wheeling round him, and vast though their numbers be, no Indian ever eats a parrot. The Brachmans honour them highly above all other birds—because the parrot alone can imitate human speech. Within the palace grounds are artificial ponds in which they keep fish of enormous size but quite tame. No one has permission to fish for these except the king’s sons while yet in their boyhood. These youngsters amuse themselves while fishing in the unruffled sheet of water and learning how to sail their boats.”¹

c14.s1.t2.10

² The "Sugāṅga" palace was the favourite resort of Chandragupta (*JRAS*, 1923, 587.)

c14.s1.t2.11

³ The statement should be remembered by those modern writers who find traces of Persian influence in Maurya architecture.

c14.s1.t2.12

¹ McCrindle, *Ancient India as described in Classical Literature*, pp. 141-42.

c14.s1.t2.13

The imperial palace probably stood close to the modern village of Kumrahār.² The unearthing of the ruins of the Maurya pillar-hall and palace near Kumrahār, said to have been built on the model of the throne-room and palace of Darius at Persepolis, led Dr. Spooner to propound the theory that the Mauryas were Zoroastrians.³ Dr. Smith observed that the resemblance of the Maurya buildings with the Persian palace at Persepolis was not definitely established. Besides, as Professor Chanda observes, “Ethnologists do not recognize high class architecture as test of race, and in the opinion of experts the buildings of Darius and Xerxes at Persepolis are not Persian in style, but are mainly dependent on Babylonian models and bear traces of the influence of Greece, Egypt and Asia Minor.”

c14.s1.t2.14

² Smith, *The Oxford History of India*, p. 77. Macphail, *Aśoka*, pp. 23-25.

c14.s1.t2.15

³ *J. R. A. S.*, 1915, pp. 63 ff, 405 ff.

c14.s1.t2.16

We learn from Strabo⁴ that the king usually remained within the palace under the protection of female guards⁵ (*cf. strī gaṇair dhanvidhiḥ* of the *Arthaśāstra*) and appeared in public only on four occasions, *viz.*, in time of war; to sit in his court as a judge; to offer sacrifice and to go on hunting expeditions.

c14.s1.t2.17

⁴ H. & F.’s Tr., Vol. III, p. 106; *cf.* Smith, *EHI.*, 3rd ed., p. 123.

c14.s1.t2.18

⁵ The same writer tells us that these women were *bought* from their parents. In view of this statement it is rather surprising that Megasthenes is quoted as saying that none of the Indians employed slaves. Note also the story narrated by Athenaios that Amitrochates (*i.e.*, Bindusāra) begged Antiochos Soter to buy and send him a professor (Monahan, *The Early History of Bengal*, pp. 164, 176, 179).

Chandragupta’s Government

c14.s1.t3.1

Chandragupta was not only a great soldier and conqueror, he was a great administrator. Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador at his court, has left detailed accounts of his system of government. The edict of his grandson Aśoka, and the *Arthaśāstra* attributed to his minister, **Kauṭilya**, confirm in many respects the particulars of the organisation of the empire given by the distinguished envoy. The *Arthaśāstra* certainly existed before Bāṇa (seventh century A.D.) and the *Nandisūtra* of the Jainas (not later than the fifth century A.D.). But it is doubtful if, in its present shape, it is as old as the time of the first Maurya. Reference to *Chīnapaṭṭa*, China silk, which, be it remembered, occurs frequently in classical Sanskrit literature, points to a later date, as China was clearly outside the horizon of the early Mauryas, and is unknown to Indian epigraphy before the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa inscriptions. Equally noteworthy is the use of Sanskrit as the official language, a feature not characteristic of the Maurya epoch. A date as late as the Gupta period is, however, precluded by the absence of any reference to the Denarius in the sections dealing with weights and coins. Quite in keeping with this view is the reference to the *Arthaśāstra* contained in Jaina canonical works that were reduced to writing in the Gupta age. We have already adduced grounds for believing that *Arthaśāstra* probably existed before the second century A.D.¹ *Though* *a comparatively late work, it may be used, like the Junāgaḍh Inscription of Rudradāman, to confirm and supplement the information gleaned from earlier sources.*

c14.s1.t3.2

¹ P. 9 f. *ante*.

c14.s1.t3.3

The **Supreme Government** consisted of two main parts :
1. The *Rājā* and
2. The "**Councillors**" and "**Assessors**" (*Mahāmātras*, and *Amātyas* or *Sachivas*).

c14.s1.t3.4

The *Rājā* or sovereign was the head of the state. He was considered to be a mere mortal, though a favoured mortal, the beloved of the deities.¹ The possession of the material resources of a great empire and control over a vast standing army gave him real power. But there was a body of **ancient rules**, *Porāṇā pakitī*, which even the most masterful despot viewed with respect. The people were an important element of the state. They were looked upon as children for whose welfare the head of the state was responsible, and to whom he owed a debt which could only be discharged by good government. There was a certain amount of decentralisation, notably in the **sphere of local government**, and there was usually at the imperial headquarters, and also at the chief centres of provincial government, a body of ministers who had a right to be consulted specially in times of emergency. Nevertheless the powers of the king were extensive. He had military, judicial, legislative, as well as executive functions. We have already seen that one of the occasions when he left his palace was **war**.² He considered plans of military operations with his *Senāpati*³ or Commander-in-Chief.

c14.s1.t3.5

¹ *Cf.* *ante* 198n 10.

c14.s1.t3.6

² *Cf.* Strabo, XV, i; and Kauṭilya Bk. X.

c14.s1.t3.7

³ Kauṭ., p. 38. In the last days of the Maurya empire we find the *Senāpati* overshadowing the king and transferring to himself the allegiance of the troops.

c14.s1.t3.8

He also sat in his court to administer justice. "He remains there all day thus occupied, not suffering himself to be interrupted even though the time arrives for attending to his person. This attention to his person consists of friction with pieces of wood, and he continues to listen to the cause, while the friction is performed by four attendants who surround him."¹ The *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* says,² "when in the court, he (the king) shall never cause his petitioners to wait at the door, for when a king makes himself inaccessible to his people and entrusts his work to his immediate officers, he may be sure to engender confusion in business, and to cause thereby public disaffection, and himself a prey to his enemies. He shall, therefore, personally attend to the business of gods, of heretics, of Brāhmaṇas learned in the Vedas, of cattle, of sacred places, of minors, the aged, the afflicted, the helpless and of women;—all this in order (of enumeration) or according to the urgency or pressure of those works. All urgent calls he shall hear at once."

c14.s1.t3.9

¹ H. & F., Strabo III, pp. 106-107.

c14.s1.t3.10

² Shamasastry's translation, p. 43.

c14.s1.t3.11

As to the king's legislative function we should note that the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*³ calls him "*dharmo-pravartaka,*" and includes **Rājaśāsana** among the sources of law. As instances of royal "**Śāsanas**" or rescripts may be mentioned the Edicts of Aśoka, the famous grandson of Chandragupta.

c14.s1.t3.12

³ Bk, III, Chap. I,

c14.s1.t3.13

Among executive functions of the king, our authorities mentions the posting of watchmen, attending to the accounts of receipts and expenditure, appointment of ministers, priests and superintendents, correspondence with the *Mantriparishad* or Council of Ministers, collection of the secret information gathered by spies, reception of envoys, etc.¹

c14.s1.t3.14

¹ Kauṭilya, Bk. I, Ch. xvi; xvii; Bk. VIII, Ch. i. *Cf.* Aśoka's Rock Edicts III (regulation about *alpa vyayatā* and *alpa bhāṇḍatā*), V (appointment of high officials), VI (relations with the Parishad, and collection of information from the Paṭivedakā), and XIII (diplomatic relations with foreign powers).

c14.s1.t3.15

It was the king who laid down the broad lines of policy and issued rescripts for the guidance of his officers and the people. Control was maintained over the most distant officials by an army of secret reporters and overseers and, in the days of Chandragupta's grandson, by itinerant judges. Communication with them was kept up by a network of roads, and garrisons were posted at strategic points.

c14.s1.t3.16

Kauṭilya holds that *Rājatva* (sovereignty) is possible only with assistance.² A single wheel can never move. Hence the king shall employ *Sachivas* and hear their opinion. The *Sachivas* or *Amātyas* of Kauṭilya correspond to the "seventh caste" of Megasthenes which assisted the king in deliberating on public affairs. This class was small in numbers, but in wisdom and justice excelled all the others.³

c14.s1.t3.17

² *Cf.* Manu, VII. 55.

c14.s1.t3.18

³ Chinnock, *Arrian*, p. 413.

c14.s1.t3.19

The most important amongst the *Sachivas* or *Amātyas* were undoubtedly the Mantrins or High Ministers, probably corresponding to the Mahāmātras of Aśoka's Rock Edict VI and the "advisers of the king" referred to by Diodoros.⁴ They were selected from those *Amātyas* whose character had been tested under all kinds of allurements.⁵ They were given the highest salary, *viz.*, 48,000 *paṇas* per annum.⁶ They assisted the king in examining the character of the *Amātyas* who were employed in ordinary departments.¹ All kinds of administrative measures were preceded by consultation with three or four of them.² In works of emergency (*ātyayike kārye*) they were summoned along with the *Mantriparishad*.³ They exercised a certain amount of control over the Imperial Princes.⁴ They accompanied the king to the battle-field, and gave encouragement to the troops.⁵ Kauṭilya was evidently one of those *Mantrins*. Another minister (or *Pradeshṭri*?) was apparently Maniyatappo, a Jaṭilian, who helped the king to "confer the blessings of peace on the country by extirpating marauders who were like unto thorns."∗6 That there were at times more than one *Mantrin* is proved by the use of the plural *Mantrinaḥ*.

c14.s1.t3.20

⁴ II. 41.

c14.s1.t3.21

⁵ *Sarvopadhā śuddhān Mantrinaḥ kuryāt.*—*Arthaśāstra*, 1919, p 17. For *upadhā* see also the Junāgaḍh Rock Inscription of Skanda Gupta.

c14.s1.t3.22

⁶ Kauṭilya, p. 247. According to Smith (*EHI*, 4th ed., p. 149) the value of a silver *paṇa* may be taken as not far from a shilling.

c14.s1.t3.23

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 16.

c14.s1.t3.24

² *Ibid.*, pp. 26, 28.

c14.s1.t3.25

³ *Ibid.*, p. 29 *Cf.* Aśoka's Rock Edict VI.

c14.s1.t3.26

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 333.

c14.s1.t3.27

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 368 *Cf.* the Udayagiri Inscription of Śāba.

c14.s1.t3.28

∗6 Turnour's *Mahāvaṁsa*, p. xlii. The evidence is late.

c14.s1.t3.29

In addition to the *Mantrins* there was the **Mantriparishad**, *i.e.*, Assembly of Counsellors or Council of Ministers. The existence of the *Parishad* as an important element of the Maurya constitution is proved by the third and sixth Rock Edicts of Aśoka.⁷ The members of the *Mantriparishad* were not identical with the *Mantrins*. In several passages of Kauṭilya's *Arthaśāstra* the *Mantrins* are sharply distinguished from the *Mantriparishad*.⁸ The latter evidently occupied an inferior position. Their salary was only 12,000 *paṇas*, whereas the salary of a *Mantrin* was 48,000. They do not appear to have been consulted on ordinary occasions, but were summoned along with the Mantrins when Ātyayika kārya,¹ *i.e.*, works of emergency had to be transacted. The king was to be guided by the decision of the majority (Bhūyishṭhāḥ). They also attended the king at the time of the reception of envoys.² From the passage "*Mantripariṣadaṁ dvādaśāmātyān kurvīta*"—"the Council of Ministers should consist of twelve Amātyas," it appears that the Parishad used to be recruited from all kinds of Amātyas (not necessarily from Mantrins alone). From Kauṭilya's denunciation of a king with a "*Kshudraparishad*,"³ a small council, his rejection of the views of the Mānavas, Bārhaspatyas and the Auśanasas, his preference for an "*Akshudra-parishad*," a council that is not small, and his reference to Indra's Parishad of a thousand Ṛishis, it may be presumed that he wanted to provide for the needs of a growing empire. Such an empire was undoubtedly that of Chandragupta who may have been prevailed upon by his advisers to constitute a fairly big assembly.⁴

c14.s1.t3.30

⁷ Note also Pliny's reference to noble and rich Indians who sit in council with the king (Monahan, *The Early History of Bengal*, 148) ; *cf. Mbh.* iii, 127. 8. Amātyaparshad ; xii, 320, 139 Amatya Samiti.

c14.s1.t3.31

⁸ *Cf.* pp. 20, 29, 247.

c14.s1.t3.32

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, 29. *Cf.* *Mbh.*, iv. 30. 8. Aśoka's R. E. VI.

c14.s1.t3.33

² *Arthaśāstra*, p. 45.

c14.s1.t3.34

³ P. 259.

c14.s1.t3.35

⁴ The *Divyāvadāna* (p. 372) refers to the five hundred councillors (Pañchāmātyaśatāni) of Bindusāra, son and successor of Chandragupta Maurya. Patañjali refers to *Chandragupta Sabhā*. But we have no indication as to its constitution.

c14.s1.t3.36

Besides the Mantrins and the Mantriparishad, there was another class of Amātyas who filled the great administrative and judicial appointments.⁵ The *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* says⁶ that the "*dharmopadhāśuddha*" Amātyas, officers purified by religious test, should be employed in **civil**¹ and **criminal**² **courts**; the “*arthopadhāśuddha*” *Amātyas*, officers purified by money-test, should be employed as *Samāhartṛi* (“Chancellor of the Exchequer and Minister of the Interior”) and *Sannidhātṛi* (High Treasurer and Keeper of Stores;³ the “*kāmopadhāśuddha*” *Amātyas*, officials purified by love-test, should be appointed to superintend the pleasure grounds, the “*bhayopadhāśuddha*” *Amātyas*, officers purified by fear-test, should be appointed to do work requiring immediate attention (*āsanna kārya*), while those who are proved to be impure should be employed in mines, timber and elephant forests,⁴ and manufactories. Untried *Amātyas* were to be employed in ordinary or insignificant departments (*sāmānya adhikaraṇa*). Persons endowed with the qualifications required in an *Amātya* (*Amātyasampadopeta*) were appointed *Nisṛishṭārthāḥ* or Ministers Plenipotentiary, *Lekhakas* or Ministers of Correspondence, and *Adhyakshas* or Superintendents.

c14.s1.t3.37

⁵ *Cf.* the *Karma-Sachivas* of the Junāgaḍh Rock Inscription of Rudradāman I.

c14.s1.t3.38

⁶ P. 17. *Cf.* McCrindle, *Megasthenes and Arrian*, 1926, 41, 42.

c14.s1.t3.39

¹ Civil (*Dharmasthīya*) Courts were established “in the cities of *Saṅgrahana* (in the midst of a collection of ten villages), *Droṇamukha* (in the centre of four hundred villages), *Sthānīya* (in the centre of eight hundred villages), and at places where districts met (*Janapada-sandhi*;? union of districts),” and consisted of three *Dharmasthas* (judges versed in the sacred law) and three *Amātyas*.

c14.s1.t3.40

² A Criminal (*Kaṇṭakaśodhana*) Court consisted of 3 *Amātyas*, or 3 *Pradeshṭṛis*. The functions of the latter will be described later on.

c14.s1.t3.41

³ For the duties of these officers see Kauṭilya’s *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. II, 5-6, 35; Bk. IV, 4; Bk. V, 2. For the revenue system under the Mauryas, see Ghoshal, *Hindu Revenue System*, pp. 165 ff.

c14.s1.t3.42

⁴ *Cf.* *Nāgavana* of Pillar Edict V.

c14.s1.t3.43

The statements of the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* regarding the employment of *Amātyas* as the chief executive and judicial officers of the realm, are confirmed by the classical writers. Strabo, for example, observes,⁵ “the seventh caste consists of counsellors and assessors (*Symbouloi* and *Synedroi*) of the king. To these persons belong the offices of state, tribunals of justice, and the whole administration of affairs." Arrian also says, "from them are chosen their rulers, governors of provinces, deputies, treasurers, generals, admirals, controllers of expenditure, and superintendents of agriculture."

c14.s1.t3.44

⁵ H. & F., Vol. III, p. 103. *Cf.* Diodoros, II. 41.

c14.s1.t3.45

The **adhyakshas** who formed the pivot of the Kauṭilīyan administration, are evidently referred to by Strabo's translators as "Magistrates" in the following passage:¹

c14.s1.t3.46

¹ One class of *Adhyakshas*, those in charge of women, are referred to in the Aśokan inscriptions as *Mahāmātras*.

c14.s1.t3.47

"Of the **Magistrates**, some have the charges of the market,² others of the city, others of the soldiery.³ Some⁴ have the care of the rivers, measure the land, as in Egypt, and inspect the closed reservoirs from which water is distributed by canals, so that all may have an equal use of it. These persons have charge also of the hunters, and have the power of rewarding or punishing those who merit either. They collect the taxes, and superintend the occupations connected with land, as wood-cutters, carpenters, workers in brass, and miners. They superintend the public roads, and place a pillar at every ten stadia to indicate the byways and distances. **Those who have charge of the city (astynomoi)** are divided into six bodies of five each.⁵ Next to the Magistrates of the city is a third body of governors, **who have the care of military affairs.** This class also consists of six divisions each composed of five persons.⁶

c14.s1.t3.48

² "District" according to the *Cambridge History of India*, I. 417.

c14.s1.t3.49

³ *Cf.* the *Durga-rāshṭra-daṇḍa-mukhyas* of Kauṭilya, Bk. XIII, Chs. III and V.

c14.s1.t3.50

⁴ *i.e.*, the district officials (**Agronomoi**).

c14.s1.t3.51

⁵ Each body was responsible for one of the following departments, *viz.*, (1) the mechanical arts, (2) foreign residents, (3) registration of births and deaths, (4) trade, commerce, weights and measures, (5) supervision and sale of manufactured articles and (6) collection of tithes on sales. In their collective capacity they looked after public buildings, markets, harbours and temples. Prices were regulated by them.

c14.s1.t3.52

⁶ Each division or Board was responsible for one of the following departments, *viz.*, the navy, transport and commissariat (*cf.* *Vishṭi karmāṇi* of Kauṭilya, Bk. X, Ch. iv), the infantry, the cavalry, the chariots and the elephants. In the *Śāntiparva* of the *Mahābhārata* the divisions are stated to be six (CIII. 38) or eight (LIX. 41-42) :

c14.s1.t3.53

The Magistrates in charge of the city and those in charge of military affairs are evidently the same as the **Nagarādhyakshas** and **Balādhyakshas** of the *Arthaśāstra*.¹ Dr. Smith remarks,² "the Boards described by Megasthenes as in charge of the business of the capital and the army are unknown to the author (Kauṭilya), who contemplated each such charge as the duty of a single officer. The creation of the Boards may have been an innovation effected by Chandragupta personally." But the historian overlooks the fact that Kauṭilya distinctly says: "*Bahumukhyaṁ anityaṁ chādhikaraṇaṁ sthāpayet*," "each department shall be officered by several temporary heads ;"³ "*Adhyakshāḥ Saṅkhyāyaka-Lekhaka-Rūpadarśaka-Nivigrāhak-Ottarādhyaksha-sakhāḥ karmāṇi kuryuḥ*, "the Superintendents shall carry on their duties with the assistance of accountants, scribes, coin-exminers, stock-takers and additional secret overseers." Evidently Dr. Smith notices only the *Adhyakshas* but ignores the existence of the *Uttarādhyakshas* and others. As in regard to the *Arthaśāstra* Smith notices only the *Adhyakshas*, so in regard to the classical accounts he takes note only of the

c14.s1.t3.54

¹ Mysore Ed., 1919, p. 55. **Nagara-Dhānya-Vyāvahārika-Kārmāntika-Baladhyakshāḥ**. *Cf.* *Balapradhānā* and *Nigamapradhānāḥ* of Mbh., V. 2. 6.

c14.s1.t3.55

² *EHI*, 1914, p. 141. *Cf.* Monahan, *Early History of Bengal*, pp. 157 61, Stein, *Megasthenes und Kauṭilya*, pp. 233 ff.

c14.s1.t3.56

³ *Arthaśāstra*, 1919, p. 60. On page 57 we have the following passage—**Hasty-aśva-ratha-padātam-aneka-mukhyam-avasthāpayet**, *i.e.*, elephants, cavalry, chariots, and infantry shall each be placed under many chiefs.

c14.s1.t3.57

*Rathā Nāgā Hayāśchaiva Pādātāśchaiva Pāṇḍava*
*Vishṭir Nāvaś Charāśchaiva Deśikā iti chāshṭamam*
*Aṅgānyetāni Kauravya prakāśāni balasya tu*

c14.s1.t3.58

"Chariots, elephants, horses, infantry burden-carriers, ships, spies with local guides as the eighth—these are the open "limbs" of a fighting force, O descendant of Kuru." The *Raghuvaṁśa* IV, 26) refers to *Shaḍvidham balam*. *Cf.* Mbh. V. 96. 16.

c14.s1.t3.59

Boards, but ignores the chiefs who are expressly mentioned in two passages,¹ *viz.*—

c14.s1.t3.60

¹ H. & F., Strabo, III, p. 101.

c14.s1.t3.61

“One division is associated with the *Chief Naval Superintendent*,” “another (division) is associated with the *person who has the charge of the bullock-teams*.” The Chief Naval Superintendent and the Person in Charge of the Bullock-teams, doubtless, correspond to the *Nāvadhyaksha* and the *Go’dhyaksha* of the *Arthaśāstra*. It is a mistake to think that the *Nāvadhyaksha* of the early Hindu period was a purely civil official, for he was responsible for the destruction of *Hiṁsrikās* (pirate ships?) and the *Mahābhārata*² clearly refers to the navy as one of the *aṅgas* or limbs of the Royal Forces. The civil duties of the *Nāvadhyaksha* have their counterpart in those of Megasthenes’ Admiral relating to the “letting out of ships on hire for the transport both of passengers and merchandize.”³

c14.s1.t3.62

² XII. lix, 41-42.

c14.s1.t3.63

³ Strabo, XV, 1. 46.

c14.s1.t3.64

Central popular assemblies like those that existed among the Lichchhavis, Mallas, Śākyas and other *Saṅghas* had no place in the Maurya constitution. The custom of summoning a great assembly of Grāmikas or Village Headmen seems also to have fallen into disuse. The royal council gradually became an aristocratic body attended only by nobles and rich men.⁴

c14.s1.t3.65

⁴ Pliny quoted in Monahan’s *Early History of Bengal*, 148.

Administration of Justice

c14.s1.t4.1

At the head of the judiciary stood the king himself. Besides the royal court there were special tribunals of justice both in cities(*nagara*) and country parts (*janapada*) presided over by *Vyāvahārika Mahāmātras* and *Rājūkas* respectively. Greek writers refer to judges who listened to cases of foreigners. Petty cases in villages were doubtless decided by the headmen and the village elders. All our authorities testify to the severity of the penal code. But the rigours of judicial administration were sought to be mitigated by Aśoka, grandson of Chandragupta, who meted out equal justice to all and instituted the system of itinerant *Mahāmātras* to check maladministration in the outlying provinces. Considerable discretion was, however, allowed to the *Rājūkas*. We are informed by Greek writers that "theft was a thing of very rare occurrence" among Indians. They express their surprise at this for they go on to observe that the people "have no written laws but are ignorant of writing, and conduct all matters by memory." The assertion about the Indians' ignorance of writing is hardly correct. Nearchus and Curtius record that Indians use pieces of closely woven linen and the tender bark of trees for writing on. Strabo tells us that a philosopher who has any useful suggestion to offer, commits it to writing. Attention may also be invited to the marks on Mauryan pillars intended to show the by-roads and distances.¹

c14.s1.t4.2

¹ Monahan, *Early History of Bengal*, pp. 143, 157, 167 f.

Provincial Government

c14.s1.t5.1

The Empire was divided into a number of provinces which were subdivided into *āhāras* or *vishayas* (districts), because "No single administration could support the Atlantean load." The exact number of provinces in Chandragupta's time is unknown. In the time of his grandson, Aśoka, there were at least five, *viz.*:

c14.s1.t5.2

| **1.** | Uttarāpatha² | ... | capital, Taxila |
| **2.** | Avantiraṭṭha³ | ... | ,, Ujjayinī |

c14.s1.t5.3

² *Divyāvadāna*, p. 407.

c14.s1.t5.4

³ *The Questions of King Milinda*, pt. II, p. 250n. *Mahāvaṁsa* Ch. XIII; *Mahābodhivaṁsa*, p. 98.

c14.s1.t5.5

| 3. | Dakshiṇāpatha | ... | capital, Suvarṇagiri (?) |
| 4. | Kaliṅga | ... | " Tosali |
| 5. | Prāchya, Prāchīna (Prasii)¹ | ... | ," Pāṭaliputra. |

c14.s1.t5.6

¹ *Cf.* the *Questions of Milinda*, II. 250n.

c14.s1.t5.7

Of these only the first two and the last one can be said, with any amount of certainty, to have formed parts of Chandragupta's Empire. But it is not altogether improbable that Dakshiṇāpatha, too, was one of Chandragupta's provinces. The outlying provinces were ruled by princes of the blood royal who were usually styled *Kumāras*. We learn from the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*² that the salary of a *Kumāra* was 12,000 *paṇas per annum*.

c14.s1.t5.8

² P. 247.

c14.s1.t5.9

The Home Provinces, *i.e.*, Prāchya and the Madhyadeśa (Eastern India and Mid-India), were directly ruled by the Emperor himself with the assistance of *Mahāmātras* or High Officers stationed in important cities like Pāṭaliputra, Kauśāmbī, *etc.*

c14.s1.t5.10

Besides the Imperial Provinces, Maurya India included a number of territories which enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy. Arrian refers to **peoples who were autonomous and cities which enjoyed a democratic Government**.³ The *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*⁴ refers to a number of **Saṅghas** *i.e.*, economic, military or political corporations or confederations evidently enjoying autonomy in certain matters, *e.g.*, Kamboja, Surāshṭra, *etc.* The Kambojas find prominent mention as a unit in the Thirteenth Rock Edict of Aśoka. R. E. V. alludes to various *nations or peoples on the western border* (**Aparātā**) in addition to those named specifically.⁵ It is not improbable that Surāshṭra was included among these nations which, judged by the title of its local rulers, enjoyed a considerable amount of autonomy. The commentary on the *Petavatthu* refers to one of the local *Rājas* named Piṅgala,¹ the contemporary of Aśoka. Another contemporary,² the *Yavana-rāja* Tushāspha finds mention in Rudradāman's inscription at Junāgaḍh. The *Yavana-rāja* was probably a Greek chief of the North-West who was appointed to look after the affairs of Surāshṭra by Aśoka, just as Rājā Mān Singh of Amber was appointed *Subadār* of Bengal by Akbar. His relations with Aśoka may also be compared to that subsisting between the *Rājā* of the Śākya state and Pasenadi. In the time of the first Maurya Surāshṭra had an officer named Pushyagupta, the Vaiśya who is described as a *Rāshṭriya* of Chandragupta. In the *Bombay Gazetteer*,³ the word *Rāshṭriya* was taken to mean a brother-in-law. Kielhorn, however, in the *Epigraphia Indica*,⁴ took the term to mean a provincial Governor. This rendering does not seem to be quite adequate because we have already seen that Surāshṭra had possibly its group of *Rājās* in the Maurya Age and could not be regarded as an Imperial Province under a bureaucratic governor of the ordinary type. The *Rāshṭriya* of the inscription seems to have been a sort of Imperial High Commissioner,⁵ and the position of Pushyagupta in Surāshṭra was probably like that of Lord Cromer in Egypt. Neither the *Arthaśāstra* nor the edicts of Aśoka mention clearly any class of officials called *Rāshṭriya*.¹ It is, however, probable, that the *Rāshṭriya* was identical with the *Rāshṭrapāla* whose salary was equal to that of a *Kumāra* or Prince.²

c14.s1.t5.11

³ Monahan, *The Early History of Bengal*, 150; Chinnock, *Arrian*, 413.

c14.s1.t5.12

⁴ P. 378.

c14.s1.t5.13

⁵ I. H. Q. 1931, 631.

c14.s1.t5.14

¹ Law, *Buddhist Conception of Spirits*, 47 ff.

c14.s1.t5.15

² Attempts in recent times to assign Tushāspha to the post-Aśokan period lack plausibility. In the Junāgaḍh epigraph the name of the suzerain invariably accompanies that of the local ruler or officer. There is no reason to think that the relationship between Aśoka and Tushāspha was different from that between Chandragupta and Pushyagupta or between Rudradāman and Suviśākha.

First 154 of 203 passages. Read on

Linked texts (27)