Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c14.s1.t5: Provincial Government

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c14.s1.t5

Language
English

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.

c14.s1.t5.16

³ Vol. I, Part I, p. 13.

c14.s1.t5.17

⁴ Vol. VIII, p. 46.

c14.s1.t5.18

⁵ *Cf.* the type met with in the Near East after the First World War. The High Commissioner acted for the *de facto* paramount power. His office does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a local potentate or potentates. Note also Wendel Wilkie's observation (*One World*, p. 13) on the British "ambassador" to Egypt who is "for all practical purposes its actual ruler."

c14.s1.t5.19

¹ The Aśokan inscriptions, however, mention the *Raṭhikas* and the *Pāli English Dictionary*, edited by Rhys Davids and Stede compares *Raṭṭhika* with *Rāshṭriya*.

c14.s1.t5.20

² *Arthaśāstra*, p. 247. For Rāshṭriya see also Mbh., XII. 85, 12; 87. 9. According to Amara (V. 14) a *Rāshṭriya* is a *rājasyāla* (brother-in law of the king). But Kshīrasvāmin says in his commentary that except in a play a *Rāshṭriya* is a *Rāshṭrādhiḳrita*, *i.e.*, an officer appointed to look after or supervise the affairs of a *rāshṭra*, state or province. *Cf.*, the Macedonian *episkopos*. Note the position of Eudamos in relation to the Indian *Rājās* of the Pañjāb, and that of Pratīhāra Tantrapālas of the tenth century A.D. Dr. Barua draws attention (in *IC*, X, 1944, pp. 88 ff.) to several texts including Buddhaghosha's statement that during a royal state-drive the place assigned to the *Rāshṭriyas* was just between the *Mahāmātras* and Brahmins shouting the joy of victory. They themselves were gorgeously dressed holding swords and the like in their hands. This may well be true. But the texts cited by him are not adequate enough to prove that in the days of Chandragupta Maurya the Rāshṭrika or Rāshṭriya was nothing more than the foremost among the bankers, business magnates, etc., who functioned as Mayors, Sheriffs and Justices of the Peace. The analogy of Tushāspha and Suviśākha mentioned in the same epigraph suggests that the Rashtriya here was a more exalted functionary, and that the evidence of Kshirasvāmin cannot be lightly brushed aside.

c14.s1.t5.21

A hereditary bureaucracy does not seem to have come to existence in the early Maurya period at least in the territory of Surāshṭra. The assumption of the title of *Rājā* by local rulers and the grant of autonomy to the *Rājūkas* in the days of Aśoka ultimately let loose centrifugal forces which must have helped in the dismemberment of the empire.

Cites (9)