Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c19.s4: Section IV. Administrative Machinery of the Scythian Period

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c19.s4

Language
English

Section IV. Administrative Machinery of the Scythian Period

c19.s4.1

¹ The expression "Scythian Period" has been used in this section in a broad sense to denote the epoch of all the Post-Mauryan dynasties that ruled in India during the centuries immediately preceding and succeeding the Christian era. During the greater part of this period the most powerful potentate in India was the Scythian "King of Kings" who had his metropolis in the North-West, but whose commands were not unoften obeyed on the banks of the Ganges and the Godāvarī. *See Cal. Rev.*, Sept., 1925.

c19.s4.2

The little that we know about the administration of the Scythian Epoch leaves no room for doubt that the institutions of the age were not haphazard improvisations of military upstarts, having no relations with the past, but a highly developed and organised system—the fruit of the labours of generations of political theorists and practical statesmen (*Vaktṛi-Prayoktṛi*).

c19.s4.3

The influence of political thinkers (*Arthachintakas*) on Indo-Scythian Polity is evident. The ablest among the princes of the time assiduously studied the science of polity (*Arthavidyā*);² and the care taken to train the occupant of the throne, the employment of officers endowed with ministerial qualifications (*Amātyaguṇa*), the classification of ministers and other high officials (*Sachivas*), abstention from oppressive imposition of *Praṇaya* (Benevolences), *Vishṭi* (forced labour) etc., and the solicitude for the welfare of the *Pauras* and *Jānapadas*, people of cities as well as country parts, clearly show that the teaching of the writers of treatises on polity (*Arthaśāstra*) was not lost upon the Scythian conquerors of India. There was no great cleavage with the past, and the references to *Mahāmātras*,¹ *Rajjukas*,² and *Samcharamtaka* or *Sañchārin*³ spies, indicate that the official machinery of the Maurya period had not ceased to function at least in Southern India.

c19.s4.4

² The Junāgaḍh Inscription of Rudradāman (*Ind. Ant.*, 1878, p. 261; *Ep. Ind.*, VIII, 36 f.).

c19.s4.5

¹ Lüders' Ins., Nos. 937, 1144. Note the employment of a *Śramaṇa* as *Mahāmātra* (High Officer) by a Sātavāhana ruler.

c19.s4.6

² Ins. Nos. 416, 1195. The *Rajjukas* were Surveyors and Judges in the country parts.

c19.s4.7

³ Ins., No. 1200; *cf.* IA, 5, 52, 155.

c19.s4.8

But we must not suppose that the entire administrative structure of the period was a replica of the Maurya constitution. The foreign conquerors of North-Western India brought with them several institutions which had been prevalent for ages in the countries through which they passed. Thus the Persian system of government by Satraps was introduced in several provinces of Northern, Western and Southern India, and officials with the Greek titles of *Meridarch*⁴ (probably District Officer) and *Strategos* (general or governor) ruled contemporaneously with functionaries having the Indian designation of *Amātya* (minister or civil officer in charge of a district) and *Mahāsenāpati* (great general or military governor).

c19.s4.9

⁴ A Meridarkha Theüdora is mentioned in a Swāt Kharoshṭhī epigraph. Another Meridarkha is mentioned in a Taxila Kharoshṭhī Inscription. The two *meridarchs* are mentioned as establishing Buddhist relics and sanctuaries (*Corpus*, II. i. xv).

c19.s4.10

The tide of Scythian invasion could not sweep away the **tribal republics** which continued to flourish as in the days of Buddha and Alexander. Inscriptions and coins testify to the existence of many such communities,⁵ and like the *Lichchhavis* and *Śākyas* of old, the most powerful among them were found very often ranged against their aggressive royal neighbours who were now mostly Scythian. Unfortunately, the contemporary records do not throw much light on their internal organisation, and it serves no useful purpose to ascribe to them institutions which really belong to their predecessors or successors.

c19.s4.11

⁵ *E.g.*, the Mālavas (Malayas), Yaudheyas, Ārjunāyanas and possibly the Audumbaras, Kulūtas, Kunindas (see *Camb. Hist.*, 528, 529), and Uttamabhadras. *Cf.* Smith, *Catalogue of Coins*, Sec. VII.

c19.s4.12

Though the Scythians could not annihilate the republican clans, they did destroy many monarchies of Northern and Western India, and introduce a more exalted type of kingship. The exaltation of monarchy is apparent from two facts, namely, the assumption of high-sounding semi-divine honorifics by reigning monarchs, and the apotheosis of deceased rulers. The deification of rulers, and the use of big titles are not unknown to ancient Indian literature, but it is worthy of note that a supreme ruler like Aśoka, whose dominions embraced the greater part of India and possibly Afghanistān, was content with the titles of "*Rājā*" and "*Devānampiya Piyadasi*."¹ The great rulers of the Scythian age, on the other hand, were no longer satisfied with those modest epithets, but assumed more dignified titles like *Chakravartin* (emperor of a circle of states), *Adhirāja* (super-king), *Rājātirāja* (supreme king of kings), and *Devaputra* (the son and not merely the beloved of the gods).

c19.s4.13

¹ 'Of Gracious Mien, Beloved of the Gods.'

c19.s4.14

In Southern India we come across titles of a semi-religious character like *Kshemarāja*,² *Dharma-Mahārājā-dhirāja* and *Dharma-Yuvamahārāja*,³ assumed by pious defenders of Indian faiths, engaged in upholding *dharma* as practised by the ancient teachers and law-givers, and purging it of the evils of the Kali Age, probably to distinguish themselves from the unbelieving foreigners and barbarian outcastes of the North-West.

c19.s4.15

² Lüders' Ins., No. 1345. 'The beneficent or propitious king', 'prince of peace'.

c19.s4.16

³ "The Righteous King of Kings", "the Righteous Crown Prince". Lüders' Ins., Nos. 1196, 1200. For the significance of the title, *cf.* IA, 5, 51, "*Kaliyuga-doshāvasanna-dharmoddharaṇa-nitya sannaddha*." *Cf.* also the epithets "*Manvādi-praṇīta-vidhi-vidhānadharmā Dharmarāja iva*," "*prakshālita-kali-kalaṅkaḥ*" applied to the Maitraka Kings of Valabhī (*Bhavnagar Inscriptions*, 3!). Sometimes even Saka rulers and generals posed as *Dharmavijayī* (*JASB*, 1923, 343).

c19.s4.17

The assumption of big titles¹ by kings and emperors was paralleled by the use of equally exalted epithets in reference to their chief consorts. Aśoka's queens appear to have been styled merely *Devī*. The mother of Tīvara, for instance, is called "*Dutīā Devī*" (the second queen) and the implication is that the elder queen was *Prathamā Devī*. But in the Scythian epoch we come across the titles of *Agra-Mahishī* and *Mahādevī* which distinguished the chief queen from her rivals. Among such chief consorts may be mentioned Ayasi-Kamuia, Nāganikā, and Balaśrī.

c19.s4.18

¹ It is a characteristic of Indian history that imperial titles of one period became feudatory titles in the next. Thus the title *Rājā* used by Aśoka became a feudatory title in the Scythian and Gupta periods, when designations like *Rājarājā*, *Rājādhirāja*, *Mahārājādhirāja*, *Parama-Bhaṭṭāraka* and *Parama-Rājādhirāja* (*Allan*, 63), came into general use. But even *Mahārājādhirāja* became a feudatory designation in the age of the Pratihāras when the loftier style of *Paramabhaṭṭāraka*, *Mahārājādhirāja*, *Parameśvara* was assumed by sovereign rulers.

c19.s4.19

The apotheosis of deceased rulers is strikingly illustrated by the practice of erecting *Devakulas* or "Royal galleries of portrait statues." The most famous of these structures was the *Devakula* of the *Pitāmaha* (grandfather) of Huvishka referred to in a Mathurā inscription.² The existence of royal *Devakulas* as well as ordinary temples, and the presence of the living *Devaputra* probably earned for Mathurā its secondary name of "The city (?) of the gods."¹

c19.s4.20

² JRAS, 1924, p. 402. For images of later kings, *cf*. *Beginnings of South Indian History*, 144, 153; Raverty, *Tabaqāt*, I, 622 (effigy of Bikramajit); C. S. Srinivasachari, *The Evolution of Political Institutions of South India*, Section IV ("*The Young Men of India*," June and July, 1924), p. 5. Images of Sundara Chola and one of his queens were set up in the Tanjore temple and deified. C. V. Vaidya (*Mediaeval Hindu India*, I, 98) refers to the prevalence of the custom of raising some temples at the place of burning the dead body of the kings. But it is not clear if the temples contained images of the dead king and his queens. The deification and worship of the dead kings may be compared to *devapitripūjā* referred to in the *Kauṭilīya* (II. 6).

c19.s4.21

¹ For a different suggestion see Tarn, *The Greeks in Bactria and India*, 252. Tarn prefers to translate Ptolemy's phrase as 'daughter of the gods'. But see Lévi, *JA*, 1915, p. 91.

c19.s4.22

The exaltation of royalty in the epoch under review had the sanction of certain writers on kingly duty (*Rājadharma*) who represented the king as a "*mahatī devatā*," a great divinity, in human shape. But it was probably due in the first instance to the Scythians² who acted as carriers of Persian, Chinese and Roman ideas of kingship. The title *Rājātirāja*, supreme king overpassing other kings, as Rapson points out, is "distinctively Persian." "It has a long history from the *Xshāyathiyānām Xshāyathiya*³ of the inscriptions of Darius down to the *Shāhān Shāh* of the present day." The Kushān epithet "*Devaputra*" is apparently of Chinese origin, being the literal translation of the Chinese emperors' title "Son of Heaven" (*Tien-tze* ; *tien tzu*).⁴ If Lüders is to be believed, one at least of the Indo-Scythian sovereigns (Kanishka of the Ārā Inscription)

c19.s4.23

² The titles 'Theos' and 'Theotropos' were used by certain Indo-Greek rulers, but their example does not seem to have been widely followed. Gondophernes, it is true, calls himself *Devavrata*, but not yet *Deva* or *Devaputra*. As to the theory that the Kushāns had been invested competitively with the title "son of the gods" in opposition to the Hiungnu rather than to the Chinese, it has to be admitted that there is no definite evidence that the title in question originated with the Hiungnu, and was *not* borrowed in ancient times from the Chinese. Pace *B. C. Law Volume*, II, 305 ff. The Kushāns had direct contact with the Chinese in the time of Panchao.

c19.s4.24

³ Cf. the use of the term 'Kshapayitvā in connection with the subversion of the Śuṅga sovereignty by Simuka. The expressions *Kshatrasya Kshatra* (*Bṛihad Āraṇyaka Upanishad*, I. 4. 14), *Adhirāja*, *Chakravartin*, etc., are, no doubt, known to our ancient literature. But there is no proof of the use of the last two as formal styles of sovereigns till the Post-Mauryan period, while the first is never so used.

c19.s4.25

⁴ *JRAS*, 1897, 903; 1912, 671, 682. Allan, *Coins of the Gupta Dynasties* xxvii. Artabanus (I or II) called himself 'son of a God' (Tarn, *The Greeks*, p. 92). This may suggest Greek influence too. Some writers fail to distinguish between occurrence of similar royal epithets in *literature* and their formal use in contemporary *epigraphic records* in the time of the Kings themselves (B. *C. Law Volume*, II, pp. 305 ff).

c19.s4.26

assumed the Roman title of, " *Kaisar*," and the dedication of temples in honour of emperors on the banks of the Tiber may have had something to do with the practice of erecting *Devakulas* on the banks of the Jumna.

c19.s4.27

A remarkable feature of the Scythian Age was the wide prevalence of the system of *Dvairājya* or Diarchy in Northern and Western India and *Yauvarājya* (rule of a crown-prince) in N. W. India and the Far South. Under both these forms of government the sovereign's brother, son, grandson, or nephew had an important share in the administration as co-ruler or subordinate colleague. In a *Dvairājya* or Diarchy the rulers appear to have been of equal status, but in a *Yauvarājya* (rule of a crown-prince) the reigning prince was apparently a vicegerent. As instances of *Dvairājya* may be mentioned the cases of Lysias and Antialkidas, Agathokleia and Strato I, Strato I and Strato II, Spalirises and Azes, Hagāna and Hagāmasha, Gondophernes and Gad, Gondophernes and Abdagases, Chashṭana and Rudradāman, Kanishka II and Huvishka etc., etc. Among ruling *Yavarājas* may be mentioned Kharaosta and the Pallava *Yuva-Mahārājas* Śiva-Skanda-varman, Vijaya-Buddha-varman¹ and Vishṇu-gopa of Palakkada.

c19.s4.28

¹ IHQ, 1933, 211.

c19.s4.29

The king or viceroy, resided in cities called *Adhishṭhāna*. The number of such *Adhishṭhānas* and various other kinds of cities (*Nagara*, *Nagarî*), was fairly numerous. But regarding their administration our information is very meagre. We hear of "*nigama-sabhās*"

c19.s4.30

or town councils and of a city official called *Nagarāksha-darśa*¹ whose functions are nowhere distinctly stated in the inscriptions but seem to have been similar to those of the *Nagara-vyāvahārikas*, or city judges, of the Maurya Age.

c19.s4.31

¹ EHI⁴, 226; Lüder's Ins., No. 1351 (Udayagiri Cave Inscription). *Cf.* *Akshadarśa*, Patañjali, *Index of Words*. Oka, *Amarakośa*, 123; *Agni Purāṇa*, 366, 3; *Vin.* iii, 47. According to the last mentioned text the 'akkhadassas' constituted a class of *Mahāmattas*, like their prototypes in the time of Aśoka. In later ages the *Akshadarśa* might have had revenue functions. *Cf.* Kshīra's comment on the passage from the *Amarakośa* referred to above. The duties of the *Akshapaṭalikas* of the Gupta period may be mentioned in this connection.

c19.s4.32

Regarding general administration, and the government of provinces, districts and villages, we have more detailed information. The designations of some of the highest officers of state did not differ from those in vogue during the Maurya period. *Mahāmātras*, and *Rajjukas* play an important part in the days of the *Sātavāhanas* and Scythians as in the time of Aśoka. But side by side with these functionaries we hear of others who do not figure in inscriptions of the Maurya Epoch although some of them appear in the *Arthaśāstra* attributed to Kauṭilya.

c19.s4.33

The officers most intimately associated with the sovereign were the privy councillors,—the *Matisachivas* of the Junāgaḍh epigraph and the *Rahasyādhikṛita* of the Pallava grants. Among other prominent court officials must be mentioned the *Rāja Vaidya*,² Royal Physician, and the *Rāja Lipikara*, Royal Scribe.³

c19.s4.34

² Ins., 1190-93.

c19.s4.35

³ Ins., 271; Kauṭ., II, 10.

c19.s4.36

No less important than the privy councillors were the high military officials—the *Mahāsenāpati*,⁴ the *Daṇḍanāyaka* and the *Mahādaṇḍa-nāyaka*⁵ who probably correspond to the *Senāpati* and *Nāyaka*¹ of the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*. These important functionaries had probably under them subordinates like *Senāgopas* (captains), *Gaulmikas*² (commanders of platoons), *Ārakshādhikṛitas*³ (guards), *Aśvavārakas*⁴ (troopers), *Bhaṭamanushyas*⁵ (mercenaries), etc.

c19.s4.37

⁴ 1124, 1146.

c19.s4.38

⁵ 1328, *cf.* Majumdar's *List of Kharoshṭhī Ins.* No. 36. For the duties of a *Daṇḍanāyaka*, *cf.* *IA*, 4, 106, 275n; 5, 49; Fleet, *CII*, 16. Daṇḍanāyakas sometimes carved out principalities (*rājya*) for themselves (JASB, 1923, 343).

c19.s4.39

¹ Kauṭ., Bk. X. Ch. 1, 2, 5.

c19.s4.40

² Lüders' Ins., 1200; Ep. Ind., XIV, 155; *cf.* Manu, VII, 190.

c19.s4.41

³ Lüders, 1200.

c19.s4.42

⁴ Lüders, 381, 728.

c19.s4.43

⁵ Lüders, 1200.

c19.s4.44

We have already referred to one class of civil officers (*Amātyas* or *Sachivas*), viz., the *Mati sachivas* (counsellors). There was another class of *Amātyas* who served as executive officers (*Karma sachivas*). From them were chosen governors,⁶ treasures,⁷ superintendents,⁸ and secretaries⁹ as in the days of Megasthenes.

c19.s4.45

⁶ Lüders' Ins., 965.

c19.s4.46

⁷ 1141.

c19.s4.47

⁸ 1186.

c19.s4.48

⁹ 1125.

c19.s4.49

Among treasury officials mention is made of the *Gaṁjavara*,¹⁰ the *Koshṭhāgārika*¹¹ and the *Bhāṇḍāgārika*¹² who was one of the principal ministers of state (*Rājāmātya*). But we have no epigraphic reference to the *Sannidhātṛi* (*lit.* piler) or the *Samāhartṛi* (collector) till the days of the "Śaila" kings of the Vindhyas and the Somavaṁśi kings of Kosala. The main heads of revenue received into the *Bhāṇḍāgāra* or *Kośa* (treasury) were, as enumerated in the Junāgaḍh Inscription, *Bali* (extra tribute), *Sulk* (duty), and *Bhāga* (customary share of the king). These sufficed to fill the exchequer of a benevolent prince like Rudradāman with *kanaka* (gold), *rajata* (silver), *vajra* (diamond), *vaidūryaratna* (beryl), etc. Rulers less scrupulous than the *Mahākshatrapa* doubtless oppressed the people with arbitrary imposts, forced labour and benevolences (*kara-vishṭi-praṇaya-kriyā-bhiḥ*). Besides the *Bhāṇḍāgāra* whose existence is implied by Lüders' Ins., No. 1141, we have reference to the storehouse, *Koshṭhāgāra*,¹ which is described in Book II, Chapter 15, of the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*. The inscriptions afford us glimpses of the way in which the revenue was spent. The attempts to provide for “*pānīya*” or drinkable water are specially noteworthy. The Junāgaḍh Inscription tells us how “by the expenditure of a vast amount of money from his own treasury” a great Scythian ruler and his *amātya* restored the Sudarśana lake. References to the construction or repair of tanks, wells, lakes and other reservoirs of water, *Pushkariṇīs*, *udapānas*, *hradas* or *taḍāgas*, are fairly common. Lüders' Ins., No. 1137, makes mention of makers of hydraulic engines (*Audayantrika*), while another epigraph² refers to a royal official called *Pānīyagharika* or superintendent of waterhouses. Inscription No. 1186, after recording the gift of a *taḍāga* (pond), a *nāga* (statue of a serpent deity) and a *vihāra* (pleasance, monastery), refers to the *Amātya* Skandasvāti who was the *Karmāntika* (superintendent of works), an official designation known to the *Arthaśāstra*.³

c19.s4.50

¹⁰ Lüders, 82; *Rājataraṅgiṇī*. V. 177. Note the employment of a Brāhmaṇa treasurer by a Scythian ruler.

c19.s4.51

¹¹ Ep. Ind., XX, 28.

c19.s4.52

¹² Lüders, 1141.

c19.s4.53

¹ In Ins. No. 937.

c19.s4.54

² Lüders, 1279.

c19.s4.55

³ Bk. I, Ch. 12.

c19.s4.56

In the department of Foreign Affairs we have the *Dūta* (envoy or messenger), but we do not as yet hear of dignitaries like the *Sāmdhivigrahika* (officer in charge of peace and war) and *Kumārāmātya*¹ who figure so prominently in inscriptions of the Gupta and Post-Gupta periods.

c19.s4.57

¹ *Kumāra* means 'a youth', 'a prince'. Hence *Kumārāmātya* may mean 'junior minister', or 'prince's minister'. The word *Kumāra* as the opposite of *Prouḍha* may correspond to *Chikka*, *Chenna* or *Immaḍi* of the South. Another interpretation is also possible. *Kumārāmātya* may mean an *amātya* from one's youth just as *Kumāra-sevaka* means *ākaumārapārichārakaḥ*.

c19.s4.58

Inscriptions of the period under review refer also to officials like the *Mahāsāmiyas* who preserved records,² and others whose exact functions and status are nowhere indicated. Amongst these may be mentioned the *Abhyamtaropasthāyaka*, 'servant of the interior (harem ?),' *Māḍabika*,³ *Tūthika* and *Neyika*.⁴

c19.s4.59

² For another interpretation see *JBBRAS*, N.S., IV, 1928, pp. 64, 72; *IHQ*, 1933, 221. In the opinion of V. S. Bakhle the *Mahāsāmiya* "seems to refer to the resolution of the corporate assembly of the city or to that body itself."

c19.s4.60

³ The word *Māḍabika* may perhaps be connected with *Māḍamba* of the Jaina *Kalpasūtra*, 89. Para. 62 refers to an official styled *Māḍambiya* (Burgomaster). For a tax *Maṇḍapikā* see *Ep. Ind.*, XXIII, 137.

c19.s4.61

⁴ Sircar equates *Neyika* with *Naiyogika*.

c19.s4.62

The big empires of North Western India were split up into vast satrapies and smaller provinces ruled by *Mahākshatrapas* and *Kshatrapas*. The satrapies as well as the kingdoms outside the limits of the Scythian Empire, were divided into districts called *Rāshṭra*, *Āhāra*, *Janapada*, *Deśa* or *Vishaya*. We do not as yet hear of the organisation into *Bhuktis* (*lit.* allotments, administrative divisions) so widely prevalent in Post-Scythian times. *Rāshṭra*, *Āhāra* (or *Hāra*) and *Janapada* seem to have been synonymous terms in this age, as is proved by the case of the *Sātahani-raṭṭha* (*rāshṭra*) or *Sātavāhanihāra* which is styled a *janapada* in the Myakadoni Inscription. The chief officer in a *Rāshṭra* or *Āhāra* was the *Rāshṭrapati*, *Rāshṭrika* (*Rathika*) or *Amātya*. The *Amātya Suviśākha*, for instance, governed *Surāshṭra* under the *Mahākshatrapa Rudradāman*. The *Amātyas Vishṇupālita, Śyāmaka*, and *Śiva-skanda-datta* successively governed the *Āhāra* or district of Govardhana (Nāsik) in the time of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi and Pulumāyi, while the neighbouring *Āhāra* of Māmāla (Poona District) was under an *Amātya* whose name ended in—Gupta. In the Far South the chief officer of the *Āhāra* seems to have been called ‘*Vyāpṛita*.’¹ The *Janapadas*, particularly those on vulnerable frontiers, were sometimes placed under the charge of military governors (*Strategos, Mahāsenāpati, Mahādaṇḍanāyaka*, etc.). The *Janapada* of *Sātavāhani-hāra* was, for instance, under the *Mahāsenāpati* Skandanāga.² Part of Eastern Mālwa seems to have been governed by a Saka *Mahādaṇḍanāyaka* shortly before its annexation by the Imperial Guptas and portions of the Indian borderland, were governed by a line of *Strategoi* (Aspavarman, Sasa)³ under Azes and Gondophernes.

c19.s4.63

¹ Lüders, 1327, 1328.

c19.s4.64

² *Cf.* the Myakadoni Inscription.

c19.s4.65

³ For an *amātya* named Sasa, see the Koḍavali Rock Inscription of the Sātavāhana king Siri Chaṁḍa Sāti or Sāta (Ep. Ind., XVIII, 318).

c19.s4.66

*Deśa*, too, is often used as a synonym of *Rāshṭra*, or *Janapada*. It was under a *Deśādhikṛita*, the *Deshmukh* of mediaeval times, an officer mentioned in the Hīrahaḍagalli grant of Śiva-Skanda-varman. The next smaller unit was apparently the *Vishaya* governed by the *Vishayapati*.⁴ But sometimes even ‘*Vishaya*’ was used as a synonym of *Deśa* or *Rāshṭra*, and there were cases in the Post-Gupta period of the use of the term to designate a larger area than a *Rāshṭra*.⁵

c19.s4.67

⁴ 929*n* (Lüders).

c19.s4.68

⁵ Fleet, CII, 32 n.

c19.s4.69

The smallest administrative units were the villages called *Grāma* or *Grāmāhāra*,⁶ and the smaller towns or emporia called *Nigama*.¹ The affairs of a *Grāma* were controlled by officers styled *Grāmeyika Āyutta*² who were apparently headed by the *Grāmaṇī*,³ *Grāmika*,⁴ *Grāmabhojaka*⁵ or (*Grāma*) *Mahattaraka*. Lüders’ (Mathurā) Inscription, No. 48, gives the names of two such *Grāmikas*, Jayadeva and Jayanāga. In Southern India we have the curious title “Muluḍa” applied to the head of a village.⁶ The chief men of the Nigamas were the *Gahapatis*,⁷ the counterparts of the *Grāmavṛiddhas* of villages. In Lüders’ Inscription, No. 1153, we have evidence of the corporate activity of a *dhamma-nigama* headed by the *Gahapati*. The *Grāma* and *Nigama* organisation was the most durable part of the Ancient Indian system of government, and centuries of Scythian rule could not wipe it out of existence. The village and the Nigamas were also the nurseries of those ideas of associate life which found vent in the organisation of societies, committees, assemblies and corporations styled *Goshṭhīs*,⁸ *Nikāyas*,⁹ *Parishads*,¹⁰ *Saṁghas*,¹¹ etc., about which the inscriptions of the period speak so much. Not the least interesting of these institutions was the “*Goshṭhī*” which afforded a field for co-operation between kings and villagers. Lüders' Ins., Nos., 1332 to 1338, speak of a Goshṭhī which was headed by the *Rājan*, and which counted among its officials the son of a village headman.

c19.s4.70

⁶ Lüders, Ins. No. 1195.

c19.s4.71

¹ In Pali literature *Nigamas* are distinguished from *grāmas*, villages, as well as from *nagaras*, cities which had strong ramparts and gateways (*dṛiḍha prākāra toraṇa*).

c19.s4.72

² 1327.

c19.s4.73

³ 1333.

c19.s4.74

⁴ 48, 69a.

c19.s4.75

⁵ 1200.

c19.s4.76

⁶ Ins., 1194. *Cf. Muruṇḍa*=lord (Śaka). For the presence of Śakas in the Far South, see *Ep. Ind.*, XX, 37.

c19.s4.77

⁷ *Gahapati*, house-lord, was a designation specially applied to the leading men of the gentry, the wealthy middle class, *Kalyāṇa-bhattiko*, men accustomed to a good dietary. They are often distinguished from priests and nobles (Rhys Davids and Stede).

c19.s4.78

⁸ Lüders' Ins., 273, 1332, 1335, 1338.

c19.s4.79

⁹ 1133.

c19.s4.80

¹⁰ 125, 925.

c19.s4.81

¹¹ 5, 1137.

c19.s4.82

A less pleasing feature of ancient Indian polity in the Scythian, as in other times, was the employment of spies, particularly of the "*Saṁcharāṁtakas*," or wandering emissaries, whose functions are described with gruesome details in the *Arthaśāstra*. The evidence of foreign witnesses in Maurya and Gupta periods seems, however, to suggest that political morality did not actually sink so low as a study of the *Arthaśāstra* would lead us to think. Vatsyāyana probably voices the real feelings of his countrymen when he says that every single maxim for which there is provision in a theoretical treatise need not be followed in actual practice, because theoretical manuals have to be comprehensive, but practical application should have a limited range. No sane man will think of eating dog's flesh simply because its flavour, tonic power, dressing, etc., are discussed in medical treatises.

c19.s4.83

*Na śāstramastītye tāvat prayoge kāraṇaṁ bhavet*
*śāstrārthān vyāpino vidyāt prayogāṁstvekadeśikān*
*rasa-vīrya vipākā hi śvamāṁsasyāpi vaidyake*
*kīrtitā iti tat kiṁ syād bhakshaṇīyaṁ vichakshaṇaiḥ.*

Linked texts (9)