Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c14.s3: Section III. The Early Years of Aśoka

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c14.s3

Language
English

Section III. The Early Years of Aśoka

c14.s3.1

Both the *Divyāvadāna* and the Ceylonese Chronicles agree that there was a fratricidal struggle after the death of Bindusāra. Aśoka is said to have overthrown his eldest step-brother with the help of Rādhagupta whom he made his *Agrāmātya* (Chief Minister). Dr. Smith observes,¹ "the fact that his formal consecration or coronation (*abhisheka*) was delayed for some four years² until 269 B.C., confirms the tradition that his succession was contested, and it may be true that his rival was an elder brother named Susīma." In his *Aśoka*³ published a few months later, he says, "it is possible that the long delay may have been due to a disputed succession involving much bloodshed, but there is no independent evidence of such a struggle." Dr. Jayaswal⁴ gave the following explanation for the delay in Aśoka's coronation: "it seems that in those days for obtaining royal *abhisheka*⁵ the age of 25 was a condition precedent. This seems to explain why Aśoka was not crowned for three or four years after accession." The contention can hardly be accepted. The *Mahābhārata*, for instance, informs us that the *abhisheka* of king Vichitravīrya took place when he was a mere child who had not yet reached the period of youth:

c14.s3.2

¹ *The Oxford History of India*, p. 93.

c14.s3.3

² *Mahāvaṁsa*, Geiger's translation, p. 28.

c14.s3.4

³ Third edition.

c14.s3.5

⁴ JBORS., 1917, p 438.

c14.s3.6

⁵ There were other kinds of *abhisheka* also, *eg*., those of *Yuvarāja*, *Kumāra*, and *Senāpati*, as we learn from the epics and the Kauṭilīya (trans., 377, 391).

c14.s3.7

*Vichitravīryañcha tadā*
*bālam aprāptayauvanam*

c14.s3.8

*Kururājye mahābāhur*
*abhyashiñchadanantaram*.¹

c14.s3.9

¹ Mbh., I. 101. 12. As the *Adiparva* refers to Dattāmitra and Yavana rule in the lower Indus valley its date cannot be far removed from that of Aśoka and Khāravela. Cf. also the cases of Samprati *Pariśishṭa parvan*, IX. 52, who was anointed king though a baby in arms, and of Amma II, Eastern Chalukya.

c14.s3.10

Dr. Smith characterises² the Ceylonese tales which relate that Aśoka slew many of his brothers as silly because Aśoka certainly had brothers and sisters alive in the seventeenth and eighteenth years of his reign. whose households were objects of his anxious care. But we should remember that the Fifth Rock Edict refers only to the family establishments of his brothers (*olodhanesu bhātinam*) as existing. This does not necessarily imply that the brothers themselves were alive. We should however, admit that there is nothing to show, on the contrary, that the brothers were dead. The Fifth Rock Edict, in our opinion, proves nothing regarding the authenticity or untrustworthiness of the Ceylonese tradition. In the Forth Rock Edict Aśoka himself testifies to the growth of unseemly behaviour to kinsfolk and slaughter of living creatures.

c14.s3.11

The first four years of Aśoka's reign is, to quote the words which Dr. Smith uses in another connection, "one of the dark spaces in the spectrum of Indian history; vague speculation, unchecked by the salutary limitations of verified fact, is at the best, unprofitable."²

c14.s3.12

² *E.H.I.*, 3rd ed., p. 155.

c14.s3.13

Like his predecessors³ Aśoka assumed the title of *Devānaṃpiya*. He generally described himself as *Devānaṃpiya Piyadasi*.⁴ The name Aśoka is found only in literature, and in two ancient inscriptions, *viz.*, the Māski Edict of Aśoka himself, and the Junāgaḍh inscription of the Mahākshatrapa Rudradāman I. The name Dharmāśoka is found in one Mediaeval epigraph, *viz.*, the Sārnāth inscription of Kumāradevī.¹

c14.s3.14

³ Cf. Rock Edict VIII, Kālsi, Shāhbāzgarhi and Mānsehra Texts.

c14.s3.15

⁴ We have already seen that the epithet "*Piadamsana*" is sometimes applied to Chandragupta also (Bhandarkar, *Aśoka*, p. 5; Hultzsch, CII, Vol, I, p. xxx).

c14.s3.16

¹ *Dharmāśoka-narādhipasya samaye Śrī Dharmachakro Jino yādṛik tannaya rakshitaḥ punarayañchakre tatopyadbhutam.*

c14.s3.17

During the first thirteen years of his reign Aśoka seems to have carried on the traditional Maurya policy of expansion within India, and of friendly co-operation with the foreign powers, which was in vogue after the Seleukidan war. Like Chandragupta and Bindusāra he was aggressive at home but pacific abroad. The friendly attitude towards non-Indian powers is proved by the exchange of embassies and the employment of Yavana officials like Tushāspha.² In India, however, he played the part of a conqueror. The *Divyāvadāna* credits him, while yet a prince with the suppression of a revolt in Taxila and the conquest of the Svaśa (Khaśa?) country. In the thirteenth year of his reign (eight years after consecration), he effected the conquest of Kaliṅga. We do not know the exact limits of this kingdom in the days of Aśoka. But if the Sanskrit epics and *Purāṇas* are to be believed, it extended to the river Vaitaraṇī in the north,³ the Amarakaṇṭaka Hills in the west⁴ and Mahendragiri in the south.⁵

c14.s3.18

² Note also the part played by the Yona named Dhammarakkhita (*Mahāvaṁsa*, trans., p. 82).

c14.s3.19

³ Mbh., III. 114. 4.

c14.s3.20

⁴ *Kūrma Purāṇa*, 11. 39, 9, *Vāyu*, 77, 4-13.

c14.s3.21

⁵ *Raghuvaṁśa* IV. 38-43; VI. 53-54.

c14.s3.22

An account of the Kaliṅga war and its effects is given in Rock Edict XIII. We have already seen that certain places in Kaliṅga formed parts of the Magadhan dominions in the time of the Nandas. Why was it necessary for Aśoka to reconquer the country? The question admits of only one answer, *viz.*, that it severed its connection with Magadha after the fall of the Nandas. If the story of a general revolt in the time of Bindusāra be correct then it is not unlikely that Kaliṅga, like Taxila, threw off the allegiance of Magadha during the reign of that monarch. It appears, however, from Pliny, who probably based his account on the *Indika* of Megasthenes, that Kaliṅga was already an independent kingdom in the time of Chandragupta. In that case there can be no question of a revolt in the time of Bindusāra. Pliny says,¹ "the tribes called Calingae are nearest the sea...the royal city of the Calingae is called Parthalis. Over their king 60,000 foot soldiers, 1,000 horsemen, 700 elephants keep watch and ward in 'procinct of war'."²

c14.s3.23

¹ Ind. Ant., 1877, p. 338.

c14.s3.24

² If, as is probable, Kaliṅga included at this time the neighbouring country of Aśmaka, then Parthalis may be the same as "Potali". For an interesting account of Kaliṅga and its early capitals Dantakūra and Tosali, see Sylvain Lévi, "*Pré-Aryen et Pré-Dravidien dans l'Inde*," J. A., Juillet-Septembre, 1923; and *Indian Antiquary*, 1926 (May), pp. 94, 98. "The appellation of Kaliṅga, applied to Indians throughout the Malay world, attests the brilliant *rôle* of the men of Kaliṅga in the diffusion of Hindu civilisation." Not far from the earliest capital (Paloura-Dantapura-Dantakūra) lay the *apheterion*, "where vessels bound for the Golden Peninsula ceased to hug the shore and sailed for the open sea." Note, in this connection, the name Ho-ling (Po-ling, Kaliṅga) applied by the Chinese to Java (Takakusu, I-tsing, p. xlvii) an island which was known by its Sanskrit name to Ptolemy (150 A. D.) and even to the *Rāmāyaṇa* (*Kishk*. 40. 30). For the connection of early Kaliṅga with Ceylon, see *IA*, VIII, 2, 225.

c14.s3.25

The Kaliṅga kings probably increased their army considerably during the period which elapsed from the time of Megasthenes to that of Aśoka, because during the war with Aśoka the casualties exceeded 2,50,000. It is, however, possible that the huge total included not only combatants but also non-combatants. The existence of a powerful kingdom so near their borders, with a big army 'in procinct of war,' could not be a matter of indifference to the kings of Magadha. Magadha learnt to her cost what a powerful Kaliṅga meant, in the time of Khāravela.

c14.s3.26

We learn from the Thirteenth Rock Edict that Aśoka made war on the Kaliṅga country and annexed it to his empire. “One hundred and fifty thousand persons were carried away captive, one hundred thousand were slain, and many times that number died.” Violence, slaughter, and separation from their beloved ones befell not only to combatants, but also to the *Brāhmaṇas*, ascetics, and householders.

c14.s3.27

The conquered territory was constituted a viceroyalty under a prince of the royal family stationed at Tosalī,¹ apparently situated in the Purī district. The Emperor issued two special edicts prescribing the principles on which both the settled inhabitants and the border tribes should be treated. These two edicts are preserved at two sites, now called Dhauli² and Jaugaḍa.³ They are addressed to the *Mahāmātras* or High Officers at Tosalī and Samāpā.⁴ In these documents the Emperor makes the famous declaration “all men are my children,” and charges his officers to see that justice is done to the people.

c14.s3.28

¹ Tosalī (variant Tosala) was the name of a country as well as a city. Lévi points out that the *Gaṇḍavyūha* refers to the country (*Janapada*) of Amita-Tosala” in the *Dakshiṇāpatha*, “where stands a city named Tosala.” In Brāhmaṇical literature Tosala is constantly associated with (South) Kosala and is sometimes distinguished from Kaliṅga. The form Tosalei occurs in the *Geography* of Ptolemy. Some mediaeval inscriptions (*Ep. Ind.*, IX. 286; XV 3) refer to Dakshiṇa (South) Tosala and Uttara (North) Tosala.

c14.s3.29

² In Purī.

c14.s3.30

³ In Gañjam.

c14.s3.31

⁴ For the identification of Samāpā, see *Ind. Ant.*, 1923, pp. 66 ff.

c14.s3.32

The conquest of Kaliṅga was a great landmark in the history of Magadha, and of India. It marks the close of that career of conquest and aggrandisement which was ushered in by Bimbisāra's annexation of Aṅga. It opens a new era—an era of peace, of social progress, of religious propaganda and at the same time of political stagnation and, perhaps, of military inefficiency during which the martial spirit of imperial Magadha was dying out for want of exercise. The era of military conquest or *Digvijaya*¹ was over, the era of spiritual conquest or *Dhamma-vijaya* was about to begin.

c14.s3.33

¹ *Cf.* *sara-sake vijaye* (Bühler, cited in Hultzsch's *Inscriptions of Aśoka*, p. 25).

c14.s3.34

We should pause here to give an account of the extent of Aśoka's dominions and the manner in which they were administered before the Emperor embarked on a new policy.

c14.s3.35

Aśoka mentions Magadha, Pāṭaliputra, Khalatikapavata (Barābar Hills), Kosambī, Luṁmini-gāma, Kaliṅga (including Tosalī, Samāpā and Khepiṁgalapavata or the Jaugaḍa Rock), Aṭavī (the forest tract of Mid-India perhaps identical with Āḷavī of the Buddhist texts), Suvarṇagiri, Isila, Ujjayinī and Takshaśilā expressly as being among those places which were under his rule.

c14.s3.36

Beyond Takshaśilā the empire stretched as far as the confines of the realm of “*Aṁtiyako Yonarājā*,” usually identified with Antiochos II Theos of Syria (261-246 B. C.), and included the wide territory round Shāhbāzgarhi² and Mānsahra³ inhabited by the Yonas, Kambojas and the Gandhāras. The exact situation of this Yona territory has not yet been determined. The *Mahāvaṁsa* evidently refers to it and its chief city Alasanda which Cunningham and Geiger identify with the town of Alexandria (Begram, west of Kāpiśa)

c14.s3.37

² In the Peshawār District.

c14.s3.38

³ In the Hazāra District.

c14.s3.39

founded by the Macedonian conqueror near Kābul.¹ **Kamboja**, as we have already seen, corresponds to Rājapura or Rajaur near Punch in Kaśmīra and some neighbouring tracts including Kāfiristān. The tribal territory of the **Gandhāras** at this time probably lay to the west of the Indus, and did not apparently include Takshaśilā which was ruled by a princely Viceroy, and was the capital of the province of Uttarāpatha.² The capital of Trans-Indian Gandhāra was Pushkarāvatī, identified by Coomaraswamy with the site known as Mīr Ziyārat or Balâ Hisār at the junction of the Swāt and Kābul rivers.³

c14.s3.40

¹ Cunn. *AGI*, 18. Geiger, *Mahāvaṁsa*, 194. The Yona territory probably corresponds to the whole or a part of the Province of the Paropamisadae.

c14.s3.41

² *Cf.* Kalinga Edict; *Divyāvadāna*, p. 407, *Rājño’śokasy-ottarāpathe Takshaśilā nagaraṁ, etc.*

c14.s3.42

³ *Cf.* Carm. Lec., 1918, p 54. *Indian and Indonesian Art*, 55

c14.s3.43

The inclusion of **Kaśmīra** within Aśoka’s empire is proved by the testimony of Hiuen Tsang's *Records*⁴ and Kalhaṇa’s *Rājataranginī*.⁵ Kalhaṇa says: “The faithful Aśoka reigned over the earth. This king who had freed himself from sins and had embraced the doctrine of the *Jina* covered Sushkaletra and Vitastātra with numerous *Stūpas*. At the town of Vitastātra there stood within the precincts of the *Dharmāraṇya Vihāra* a *Chaitya* built by him, the height of which could not be reached by the eye. That illustrious king built the town of Śrīnagarī. This sinless prince after removing the old stuccoed enclosure of the shrine of *Vijayeśvara* built in its stead a new one of stone. He…erected within the enclosure of *Vijayeśa*, and near it, two temples which were called *Aśokeśvara*.” The description of Aśoka as a follower of the *Jina*, *i.e.*, *Buddha*, and the builder of numerous *stūpas* leaves no room for doubt that the great Maurya monarch is meant. We are told by Kalhaṇa himself that he is indebted for much of the above account to an earlier chronicler named Chhavillākara.

c14.s3.44

⁴ Watters, Vol, I, pp. 267-71.

c14.s3.45

⁵ I. 102-06.

c14.s3.46

The inscriptions near Kālsī and those on the Rummindeī and the Nigālī Sāgar pillars prove the inclusion of the Dehra-Dūn District and the Tarāi within the limits of Aśoka’s Empire, while the monuments at Lalitapātan and Rāmpurwā attest his possession of the valley of Nepāl and the district of Champāran. Further evidence of the inclusion of the Himālayan region within Aśoka's empire is possibly furnished by Rock Edict XIII which refers to the Nābhapaṁtis of Nābhaka, probably identical with Na-pei-kea of Fa Hien,¹ the birthplace of Krakuchchhanda Buddha, about 10 miles south or south-west of Kapilavastu.²

c14.s3.47

¹ *Legge*, 64.

c14.s3.48

² "The Brahma (*vaivarta*?) Purāṇa assigns Nābhīkapura to the territory of the Uttara-Kurus" (Hultzsch, CII, Vol. I, p. xxxixn). Mr. M Govinda Pai (*Aiyangar Com. Vol.* 36), however, invites attention to the Nabhakānanas, apparently a southern people, mentioned in the Mbh. vi. 9. 59. In connection with the northern limits of the Maurya empire attention may also be invited to the statement in the *Divyāvadāna* (p 372) about Aśoka's subjugation of the Svaśa (Khaśa?) country. According to a legend narrated by the Chinese pilgrims (Watters, *Yuan Chwang*, II, p. 295) exiles from Takshaśilā settled in the land to the east of Khoten in the days of Aśoka.

c14.s3.49

According to Bühler, Rock Edict XIII also mentions two vassal tribes Viśa (Besatae of the *Periplus*?) and Vajri (Vṛijikas?). More recent writers do not accept Bühler's reading and substitute (*Rāja*) Visayamhi, ‘in the (king's) territory,’ in its place. There is, thus no indubitable reference either to the Vṛijikas or the ‘Besatae’ in the inscriptions of Aśoka.

c14.s3.50

We learn from the classical writers that the country of the **Gangaridae**, *i.e.*, Bengal,³ formed a part of the dominions of the king of the Prasii, *i.e.*, Magadha, as early as the time of Agrammes, *i.e.*,cont the last Nanda king.¹ A passage of Pliny clearly suggests that the "Palibothri," *i.e.*, the rulers of Pāṭaliputra, dominated the whole tract along the Ganges.² That the Magadhan kings retained their hold on Bengal as late as the time of Aśoka is suggested by the testimony of the *Divyāvadāna*³ and of Hiuen Tsang who saw *Stūpas* of that monarch near Tāmralipti and Karṇasuvarṇa (in West Bengal), in Samataṭa (East Bengal) as well as in Puṇḍravardhana (North Bengal). Kāmarūpa (Assam) seems to have lain outside the empire. The Chinese pilgrim saw no monument of Aśoka in that country.

c14.s3.51

³ For early references to Vaṅga, see Lévi "*Pré-Aryen et Pré-Dravidien dans l'Inde*." For its denotation, see *Mānasī-o-Marmavāṇī*, Srāvaṇa, 1336 Several scholars find it mentioned in the *Aitareya Āraṇyaka*. But this is doubtful. Bodhāyana brands it as an impure country and even Patañjali excludes it from Āryāvarta. The country was, however, Aryanised before the *Manusaṁhitā* which extends the eastern boundary of Āryāvarta to the sea, and the Jain *Prajñāpanā* which ranks Aṅga and Vaṅga in the first group of Aryan peoples. The earliest epigraphic reference to Vaṅga is probably that contained in the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa Inscriptions.

c14.s3.52

¹ McCrindle, *Inv. Alex.*, pp. 221, 281.

c14.s3.53

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1877, 339. *Megasthenes and Arrian* (1926), p. 141-2.

c14.s3.54

³ P. 427. *Cf.* Smith's *Aśoka*, 3rd ed, p. 255. The Mahāsthāna Inscription which is usually attributed to the Maurya period, contains no reference to Aśoka.

c14.s3.55

We have seen that in the south the Maurya power at one time, had probably penetrated as far as the Podiyil Hill in the Tinnevelly district.⁴ In the time of Aśoka the Maurya frontier had receded probably to the Pennār river near Nellore as the Tamil Kingdoms are referred to as "*Prachaṁta*" or border states and are clearly distinguished from the imperial dominions (*Vijita* or *Rājavishaya*), which stretched only as far south as the Chitaldrug District of Mysore. The major part of the Deccan was ruled by the viceregal princes of **Suvarṇagiri**¹ and **Tosalī**, the *Mahāmātras* of **Isila** and **Samāpā** and the officers in charge of the **Aṭavi** or Forest Country.² But in the belt of land on either side of the Nerbudda, the Godāvarī and the upper Mahānadī there were, in all probability, certain areas that were technically outside the limits of the empire proper. Aśoka evidently draws a distinction between the forests and the inhabiting tribes which are in the dominions (*vijita*) and peoples on the border (*antā avijitā*) for whose benefit some of the special edicts were issued. Certain vassal tribes are specifically mentioned, *e.g.*, the Andhras, Palidas (Pāladas, Pāriṁdas), Bhojas and Raṭhikas (Risṭikas, Rāshtrikas?). They enjoyed a status midway between the Provincials proper and the unsubdued borderers. The word Petenika or Pitinika mentioned in Rock Edicts V and XIII should not, according to Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar and some other writers, be read as a separate name but as an adjective qualifying Rishṭika (Edict V) and Bhoja (Edict XIII). They draw our attention to certain passages in the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*³ where the term *Pettanika* occurs in the sense of one who enjoys property given by his father.⁴ The view that *Pitinika* is merely an adjective of Raṭhika (Risṭika) or Bhoja is not, however, accepted by Dr. Barua who remarks that “it is clear from the Pāli passage, as well as from Buddhaghosha's explanations, that Raṭṭhika and Peṭṭanika were two different designations.”cont

c14.s3.56

⁴ Mr. S. S. Desikar thinks that the last point reached by the Mauryas was the Veṅkaṭa hill (IHQ., 1928, p. 145). Prof. N. Sastri lays stress (ANM, pp. 253ff) on the legendary features of the account in Tamil texts.

c14.s3.57

¹ A clue to the location of this city is probably given by the inscriptions of the later Mauryas of the Koṅkaṇ and Khāndesh, apparently the descendants of the Southern Viceroy (*Ep. Ind.*, III. 136). As these later Maurya inscriptions have been found at Vāda in the north of the Thāṇa district (*Bomb. Gaz.*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 14) and at Wāghlī in Khāndesh (*ibid.*, 284), it is not unlikely that Suvarṇagiri was situated in that neighbourhood. Curiously enough, there is actually in Khāndesh a place called Songīr. According to Hultzsch, (*CII.* p. xxxviii) Suvarṇagiri is perhaps identical with Kanakagiri in the Hyderabad State, south of Maski, and north of the ruins of Vijayanagara. Isila may have been the ancient name of Siddāpura.

c14.s3.58

² Edict XIII.

c14.s3.59

³ III. 76, 78 and 300 (P.T.S.).

c14.s3.60

⁴ *Ind. Ant.*, 1919, p. 69. *Cf.* Hultzsch, *Aśoka*, 10; *IHQ*, 1925, 387. Other scholars, however, identify the Pitinikas with the Paiṭhānakas or natives of Paiṭhaṇ, and some go so far as to suggest that they are the ancestors of the Sātavāhana rulers of Paiṭhaṇ. See Woolner, *Aśoka Text and Glossary*, II, 113; also JRAS., 1923, 92. *Cf.* Barua, *Old Brāhmī Ins.*, p. 211.

c14.s3.61

The **Andhras** are, as we have already seen, mentioned in a passage of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*. The **Bhojas** are also mentioned in that work as rulers of the south.¹ Pliny, quoting probably from Megasthenes says that the Andarae (Andhras) possessed numerous villages, thirty towns defended by walls and towers, and supplied their king with an army of 100,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry and 1,000 elephants.² The earliest Andhra capital (Andhapura) was situated on the Telavāha river which, according to Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, is either the modern Tel or Telingiri, both flowing near the confines of the Madras Presidency and the Central Provinces. But the identification is by no means certain.³ The Palidas were identified by Bühler with the Pulindas¹ who are invariably associated with the Nerbudda (Revā) and the Vindhyan region:—

c14.s3.62

¹ For other meanings of Bhoja, see Mbh., Ādi., 84, 22; IA, V. 177; VI. 25-28; VII. 36. 254.

c14.s3.63

² Ind. Ant., 1877, p. 339.

c14.s3.64

³ P. 92 *ante*. In historical times the Andhras are found in possession of the Kṛishṇā and Guṇṭūr districts as we learn from the Mayidavolu plates and other records. The earliest capital of the Andhra country or “Andhrāpatha” known from the inscriptions is apparently Dhaññakaḍa at or near Amarāvati (or Bezvāḍa). Kubiraka of the Bhaṭṭiprolu inscription (*c.* 200 B. C) is the earliest known ruler. One recension, in the Brāhmī script, of the Rock Edicts of Aśoka, has recently been discovered in the Kurnool District (IHQ, 1928, 791; 1931, 817 ff; 1933, 113 ff.; IA, Feb., 1932, p. 29) which falls within the “Andhra” area of the Madras Presidency. Recent discoveries of the Aśokan epigraphs include, besides the Yerraguḍi inscriptions (Kurnool District) two new Rock Edicts at Kopbal in the South-West corner of the Hyderabad State. The Kopbal inscriptions are found on the Gavīmaṭh and the Pālkīguṇḍu Hills. They belong to the class of Minor Rock Edicts.

c14.s3.65

¹ Hultzsch, *Aśoka*, 48 (n. 14).

c14.s3.66

*Pulinda-rāja sundarī nābhimaṇḍala nipīta salilā* (Revā).²
*Pulindā Vināhya Pushikā(?) Vaidarbhā Daṇḍakaiḥ saha*³
*Pulindā Vindhya Mūlikā Vaidarbhā Daṇḍakaiḥ saha*⁴

c14.s3.67

² Subhandu's *Vāsavadattā*.

c14.s3.68

³ *Mastsya P.* 114, 48.

c14.s3.69

⁴ *Vāyu*, 55, 126.

c14.s3.70

Their capital Pulinda-nagara lay not far from Bhilsā and may have been identical with Rūpnāth, the find-spot of one recension of Minor Rock Edict I.⁵

c14.s3.71

⁵ The Navagrāma grant of the *Mahārāja* Hastin of the year 198 (A. D. 517) refers to a Pulinda-rāja-rāshṭra which lay in the territory of the Parivrājaka kings, *i.e.*, in the Ḍabhālā region in the northern part of the present Madhya Pradesh (*Ep. Ind.*, xxi, 126).

c14.s3.72

Hultzsch, however, doubts the identification of the "Palidas" of Shahbazgarhi with the Pulindas, for the Kālsī and Girnār texts have the variants Pālada and Pārimda—names that remind us of the Pāradas of the *Vāyu Purāṇa*,⁶ the *Harivaṁśa*⁷ and the *Bṛihat Saṁhita*.⁸ In those texts the people in question are mentioned in a list of barbarous tribes along with the Śakas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Khaśas, Māhishikas, Cholas, Keralas, etc. They are described as *muktakeśā* ("having dishevelled hair"). Some of the tribes mentioned in the list belong to the north, others to the south. The association with the Andhras in Aśokan inscriptions suggests that in the Maurya period they may have been in the Deccan. But the matter must be regarded as not definitely settled. It is interesting to note in this connection that a river Pāradā (identified with the Paradi or Par river in the Surat District) is mentioned in a Nāsik inscription.¹

c14.s3.73

⁶ Ch. 88, 128. Cf. Faradene in Gedrosie (McCrindle, *Ptolemy*, 1927), 320.

c14.s3.74

⁷ I, 14.

c14.s3.75

⁸ XIII, 9.

c14.s3.76

¹ Rapson, *Andhra Coins*, lvi. Pargiter places the Pāradas in the north-west, *AIHT*, p. 268. Cf. Paradene, Gedrosia (Ptolemy, ed. 1927), 320 and Paraitakai, Ind. Alex., 44.

c14.s3.77

The **Bhojas** and the **Raṭhikas** (Riṣṭikas) were evidently the ancestors of the Mahābhojas and the Mahāraṭhis of the Sātavāhana period.² The Bhojas apparently dwelt in Berar,³ and the Raṭhikas or Riṣṭikas possibly in Mahārāshṭra or certain adjoining tracts.⁴ The former were, in later ages, connected by matrimonial alliances with chieftains of the Kanarese country.

c14.s3.78

² Smith, *Aśoka*, third ed...pp. 169-70.

c14.s3.79

³ Cf. Bhoja-kaṭa, Bhātkuli in Amraoti.

c14.s3.80

⁴ *The Rāmāyaṇa*, IV. 41. 10, places the Rishṭikas between the Vidarbhas of (Berar) and the Māhishakas of the Nerbudda valley or of Mysore. *Raṭhika* is also used as an official designation and it is in that sense that the expression seems to be used in the Yerraguḍi inscription (*Ind. Culture*, I, 310; *Aiyangar Com. Vol.* 35; IHQ. 1933, 117).

c14.s3.81

In the west Aśoka's Empire extended to the Arabian Sea and embraced all the **Aparāntas**⁵ including no doubt the vassal state (or confederation of states) of Surāshṭra the affairs of which were looked after by the *Yavana-rāja* Tushāspha with Giri-nagara (Girnar) as his capital. Dr. Smith says that the form of the name shows that the *Yavana-rāja* must have been a Persian. But according to this interpretation the *Yavana* Dhemmadeva, the *Śaka* Ushavadāta (Risahabha-datta), the *Parthian* Suviśākha and the *Kushān* Vāsudeva must have been all native Hindus of India. If Greeks and other foreigners adopted Hindu names there is no wonder that some of them assumed Irāṇic appellations. There is, then, no good ground for assuming that Tushāspha was not a Greek, but a Persian.⁶

c14.s3.82

⁵ Śūrpāraka, Nāsik, etc., according to the *Mārkaṇḍeya P.* 57, 49-52.

c14.s3.83

⁶ Cf. IA, 1919, 145; *EHVS*, 2nd, ed., pp. 26-29.

c14.s3.84

Rapson¹ seems to think that the Gandhāras, Kambojas, Yavanas, Rishṭikas, Bhojas, Petenikas, Pāladas and Andhras lay beyond Aśoka's dominions, and were not his subjects, though regarded as coming within his sphere of influence. But this surmise can hardly be accepted in view of the fact that Aśoka's *Dharma-mahāmātras* were employed amongst them "on the revision of (sentences of) imprisonment or execution , in the reduction of penalties, or (the grant of) release" (Rock Edict V).² In the Rock Edict XIII, they seem to be included within the *Rāja-Vishaya* or the King's territory, and are distinguished from the real border peoples (*Amta, Prachaṁta*), *viz*., the Greeks of the realm of Antiochos and the Tamil peoples of the south (*Nīcha*). But while we are unable to accept the views of Rapson, we find it equally difficult to agree with Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar³ who denies the existence of Yonas and others as feudatory chieftains in Aśoka's dominions. The case of the *Yavana-rāja* Tushāspha clearly establishes the existence of such vassal chiefs whose peoples undoubtedly enjoyed partial autonomy though subject to the jurisdiction of special Imperial officers like the *Dharma-mahāmātras*.

c14.s3.85

¹ CHI., pp. 514, 515.

c14.s3.86

² "They are occupied in supporting prisoners (with money), in causing (their) fetters to be taken off, and in setting (them) free" (Hultzsch, *Aśoka*, p. 33).

c14.s3.87

³ *Aśoka*, 28.

c14.s3.88

Having described the extent of Aśoka's empire we now proceed to give a brief account of its administration. Aśoka continued the Council government of his predecessors. There are references to the Emperor's dealings with the *Parishā* or *Parisha* in Rock Edicts III and VI. Senart took *Parishad* to mean *Saṁgha* and Bühler understood by it the Committee of caste or sect.

c14.s3.89

But Dr. K. P. Jayaswal pointed out that the *Parishā* of the Edicts is *Mantriparishad* of the *Arthaśāstra*.¹ The inscriptions prove that Aśoka retained also the system of Provincial Government existing under his forefathers. Tosalī, Suvarṇagiri, Ujjayinī and Takshaśilā were each under a prince of the blood (*Kumāla* or *Ayaputa*).²

c14.s3.90

¹ Compare the references to the "*Sarājikā Parishā*" in the *Mahāvastu*., Senart, Vol. III, pp. 362, 392. For different kinds of *Parishā*, see *Aṅguttara* I. 70.

c14.s3.91

² That *Ayaputa* or *Āryaputra* meant a member of a ruling house or clan appears probable from the evidence of the *Bālacharita*, attributed to Bhāsa, in which Vasudeva is addressed by a *Bhaṭa* as *Āryaputra*. Pandit T. Ganapati Sāstrī further points out that in the *Svapnanāṭaka* the term *Āryaputra* is employed as a word of respect by the chamberlain of Vāsavadattā's father in addressing King Udayana (*Introduction to the Pratimā-nāṭaka*, p. 32). An interesting feature of Aśoka's administration was the employment of a Yavana governor or *episkopos* in one territory to which reference has already been made.

c14.s3.92

The Empire and the Princes were helped by bodies (*Nikāyā*) of officials who fell under the following classes:—

c14.s3.93

1. The *Māhāmātras*³ and other *Mukhyas*. 2-3. The *Rājūkas* and the *Raṭhikas*.
4. The *Pradeśikas* or *Prādeśikas*.
5. The *Yutas*.⁴
6. *Pulisā*.
7. *Paṭivedakā*.
8. *Vachabhūmikā*.
9. The *Lipikaras*.
10. The *Dūtas*. 11-12. The *Āyuktas* and *Kāranakas*.

c14.s3.94

³ *Cf.* also *Arthaśāstra*, pp. 16, 20, 58, 64, 215, 237-39; Rājaśekhara, *KM*, XLV. 53.

c14.s3.95

⁴ The *Yuktas* of the *Arthaśāstra*, pp. 59, 65, 199. *Rāmāyaṇa*, VI, 217, 34; *Mahābhārata*, II, 56, 18; *Manu*, VIII. 34; *cf.* the *Rāja-yuktas* of the Sāntiparva, 82. 9-15.

c14.s3.96

There was a body of *Mahāmātras* in each great city and district of the empire.¹ The inscriptions mention the *Mahāmātras* of Pāṭaliputra, Kauśāmbī, Tosalī, Samāpā, Suvarṇagiri and Isila.² In the Kaliṅga Edicts we have certain *Mahāmātras* distinguished by the terms *Nagalaka* and *Nagala-Viyohālaka*. The *Nagalaka* and *Nagala-Viyohālaka* of the Edicts correspond to the *Nāgaraka* and *Paura-vyāvahārika* of the *Arthaśāstra*³ and no doubt administered justice in cities.⁴ In Pillar Edict I mention is made of the *Aṁta Mahāmātras* or the Wardens of the Marches, who correspond to the *Antapālas* of the *Arthaśāstra*⁵ and the *Goptṛis* of the age of Skanda Gupta. The *Kauṭilīya* tells us that the salary of an *Antapāla* was equal to that of a *Kumāra*, a *Paura-vyāvahārika*, a member of the *Mantriparishad* or a *Rāshtrapāla*.⁶ In Edict XII mention is made of the *Ithījhaka Mahāmātras* who, doubtless, correspond to the *Stry-adhyakshas* (the Guards of the Ladies) of the epics.⁷

c14.s3.97

¹ The empire, as already stated, was divided into a number of provinces (*diśā*, *deśa* etc). Each province seems to have been further subdivided into *āhālas* or districts under regular civil administration, and *koṭṭa-vishayas* or territories surrounding forts (Hultzsch. p. xl). Each civil administrative division had a *pura* or *nagara* (city) and a rural part called *janapada* which consisted of *grāmas* or villages. An important official in each *janapada* was the *Rājūka*. The designations *Prādeśika* and *Rāṭhika* possibly suggest the existence of territorial units styled *pradeśa* and *raṭṭha* or *rāshtra*.

c14.s3.98

² *Mahāmātras* of Śrāvasti are according to certain scholars, mentioned in the Sohgaura copperplate inscription found in a village on the Rāptī, not far from Gorakhpur. But the exact date of the record is not known (Hoernle, *JASB*, 1894, 84; Fleet, *JRAS*, 1907, 523 ff.; Barua, *Ann. Bhand. Or. Res. Inst.*, xi, i (1930), 32ff.; *IHQ*, 1934, 54ff.; Jayaswal, *Ep. Ind.*, xxii, 2).

c14.s3.99

³ P. 20, 143 f. *Cf.* the royal *epistates* or city governor in the Antigonid realm (Tarn, *GBI.*, 24).

c14.s3.100

⁴ *Cf.* also *Nagara-dhānya Vyāvahārika*, p. 55. The *Nagalaka* may have had executive functions as well, as is suggested by the evidence of the *Arthaśāstra* (II. Ch. 36).

c14.s3.101

⁵ Pp. 20, 247.

c14.s3.102

⁶ P. 247.

c14.s3.103

⁷ *Rām.* II. 16. 3 *Vṛiddhān vetrapāṇin...stryadhyakshān*; *Mbh.* IX, 29, 68, 90; XV. 22, 20; 23, 12. *Cf.* the *Antarvaṁśika* of the *Arthaśāstra*.

c14.s3.104

As to the *Rājūkas*, Dr. Smith takes the word to mean a governor next below a *Kumāra*.¹ Bühler identifies the *Rājuka* of the Aśokan inscriptions with the *Rajjūka* or the *Rajjugāhaka Amachcha* (Rope-holder, Field-measurer or Surveyor) of the *Jātakas*.² Pillar Edict IV refers to the *Rājūkas* as officers "set over many hundred thousands of people," and charged with the duty of promoting the welfare of the *Jānapadas* to whom Aśoka granted independence in the award of honours and penalties. The reference to the award of penalties (*Daṇḍa*) probably indicates that the *Rājūkas* had judicial duties. In the Rock Edict III as well as in Pillar Edict IV they are associated with the *Yutas*, and in the Yerraguḍi inscriptions with the *Raṭhikas*.³ Strabo⁴ refers to a class of Magistrates (*Agronomoi*) who "have the care of the rivers, measure the land, as in Egypt, have charge also of hunters and have the power of rewarding or punishing those who merit either." The measuring of the land connects those Magistrates with the *Rajjugāhaka Amachcha* of the *Jātakas*,⁵ while the power of rewarding and punishing people connects them with the *Rājūkas* of Aśoka. It is probable, therefore, that the *Agronomoi* referred to by Strabo were identical with the *Rājūkas* and the *Rajjugāhaka Amachchas*. The *Arthaśāstra*⁶ refers to a class of officials called "*Chora Rajjukas*," but there is no reference to the *Rājjukas* proper although on p. 60 "*Rājju*" is mentioned in conjunction with "*Chora Rājju.*"

c14.s3.105

¹ *Aśoka*, 3rd ed., p. 94.

c14.s3.106

² *The Social Organisation in North-East India* by Fick, translated by S. Maitra, pp. 148-51.

c14.s3.107

³ I.H.Q. 1933, 117; Barua takes the expressions *Jānapada* and *Raṭhika* of the Yerraguḍi copy of the Minor Rock Edict to mean 'people of the district' and 'citizens of the hereditary tribal states' respectively. But *Raṭhika* of the record probably corresponds to *Rāshṭriya* of the Junāgaḍh inscription of Rudradāman so that the expressions *Jānapadas* and *Raṭhikas* mean 'people of the country parts,' and 'officials of the district.' Cf. *Raṭhika Mahāmātra* of *Bṛihat Saṁ.*, XV. 11.

c14.s3.108

⁴ H. & F., Vol. III, p. 103.

c14.s3.109

⁵ *Cf.* Maitra, *Fick*, pp. 148-49.

c14.s3.110

⁶ P. 234.

c14.s3.111

As regards the *Pradeśikas* or *Prādeśikas*, Senart, Kern and Bühler understood the term to denote local governors or local chiefs. Smith took it to mean District Officers. Hultzsch compares it with *Prādeśikeśvara* of Kalhaṇa's *Rājataranginī*.¹ The word occurs only in the Third Rock Edict where the functionaries in question are included with the *Rājūkas* and the *Yutas* in the ordinance of the *Anusaṁyāna* or circuit. Thomas derives the word from *pradeśa* which means report² and identifies the *Prādeśikas* or *Pradeśikas* of the Edict with the *Pradeshṭris* of the *Arthaśāstra*.³ The most important functions of the *Pradeshṭris* were *Bali-pragraha* (collection of taxes or suppression of recalcitrant chiefs), *Kaṇṭakaśodhana* (administration of criminal justice), *Choramārgaṇa*, (tracking of thieves) and *Adhyakshāṇām adhyaksha purushāṇām cha niyamanam* (checking superintendents and their men). They acted as intermediaries between the *Samāhartṛi* on the one hand and the *Gopas*, *Sthānikas* and *Adhyakshas* on the other.⁴ It is, however, doubtful if the *Prādeśikas* can really be equated with Reporters. The more probable view is that they correspond to the subordinate governors, the *nomarchs*, *hyparchs* and *meridarchs* of the Hellenistic kingdoms.

c14.s3.112

¹ IV. 126.

c14.s3.113

² *JRAS*, 1915, p. 97, *Arthaśāstra*, p. 111. In the *Vishṇu Purāṇa*, V, 26 3. *Pradeśa* has apparently the sense of counsel, instruction. S. Mitra suggests (*Indian Culture*, I, p. 310) that the *Prādesikas* were *Mahāmātras* of the Provincial governments, while the *Rājūkas* were *Mahāmātras* of the central government.

c14.s3.114

³ *Cf.* The Irda grant where Pradeshṭris find mention along with *Sanghamukhyas* and others.

c14.s3.115

⁴ *Cf.* *Arthaśāstra*, pp. 142, 200, 217, 222. as stated above *Pradeshṭris* also occur in the Irda grant, *Ep. Ind.*, XXII, 150 ff.

c14.s3.116

As to the *Yutas* or *Yuktas*, they are described by Manu⁵ as the custodians of *Praṇaashṭādhigata dravya* (lost property which was recovered). In the *Arthaśāstra* too, they are mentioned in connection with *Samudaya* or state funds¹ which they are represented as misappropriating. Hultzsch suggests that they were ‘secretaries’ employed for codifying royal orders in the office of the *Mahāmātras*. The *Pulisā* or Agents are apparently identical with the *Purushas* or *Rāja Purushas* of the *Arthaśāstra*.² Hultzsch prefers to equate them with the *Gūḍha-purushas* and points out that they were graded into high ones, low ones, and those of middle rank.³ They were placed in charge of many people⁴ and controlled the *Rājūkas*. The *Paṭivedakā* or Reporters are doubtless the *Chāras* mentioned in Chapter 16 of the *Arthaśāstra*,⁵ while the *Vachabhūmikas* or “Inspectors of cowpens” were evidently charged with the superintendence of “*Vraja*” referred to in Chapter 21.⁶ The *Lipikaras* are the royal scribes one of whom, Chapaḍa, is mentioned by name in Minor Rock Edict II. *Dūtas* or envoys are referred to in Rock Edict XIII. If the *Kauṭilīya* is to be believed, they were divided into three classes, viz., Nisṛishṭārthāḥ or Plenipotentiaries, Parimitarthaḥ or Charges d’Affaires and *Śāsanaharas* or conveyers of royal writ.⁷ The *Āyuktas* possibly find mention in the Kaliṅga Edicts. In the early Post-Mauryan and Scythian Age Āyuttas appear as village officials.⁸ In the Gupta Age they figure as officers in charge of *Vishayas* or districts,¹ and also as functionaries employed in restoring the wealth of conquered kings. The full designation of the officers in question was *Āyukta-Purusha*.² They may have been included under the generic name of *Pulisā* referred to above. The *Kāranakas* who appear to be mentioned in the Yerraguḍi copy of Aśoka's Minor Rock Edict, probably refer to judicial officers, teachers, or scribes.³

c14.s3.117

⁵ VIII. 34.

c14.s3.118

¹ *Cf.* also Mbh., ii. 5. 72. *Kachchichchāya vyāye yuktāḥ sarve gaṇaka lekhakāḥ.*

c14.s3.119

² Pp. 59, 75.

c14.s3.120

³ The three classes of Purushas are also known to the Great epic (Mbh., ii. 5. 74).

c14.s3.121

⁴ Pillar Edict VII.

c14.s3.122

⁵ P. 38.

c14.s3.123

⁶ Pp. 59-60.

c14.s3.124

⁷ With the *Śāsanaharas* may be compared the *Lekha-hārakas* of the Harshacharita, Uchchhvāsa II, p. 52.

c14.s3.125

⁸ Lüders’ List, No. 1347.

c14.s3.126

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XV, No 7, 138

c14.s3.127

² Fleet, CII, pp. 8, 14.

c14.s3.128

³ Cf. *Karaṇika*, Officer-in-Charge of Documents or Accounts (IHQ, 1935, 586). In inscriptions of the seventh century A.D. the word *karaṇa* stood for *Adhikaraṇa* (Departmental or District Secretariat). *Prabāsi*, 1350 B.S. *Srāvaṇa*, 394. In Mbh. ii. 5, 34, *Kāranika* has, according to the commentary, the sense of a teacher. In the text itself the officers in question instruct the Kumāras and have to be *dharme sarvaśāstreshu kovidāḥ*, implying that their duties included among other things, those relating to Dharma (law, justice?).

Linked texts (39)