Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c12.s5: State Industrial and Commercial Policy

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c12.s5

Language: English

State Industrial and Commercial Policy

c12.s5.1

No account of the economic conditions of the Nanda-Maurya times will be complete without some reference to the policy pursued by the State in relation to industry and trade. We may begin by noticing some features of the traditional policy in these respects as reflected in the *Arthaśāstra*. That the active encouragement of industry and commerce was contemplated as a duty of the State is illustrated by the measures included in Kauṭilya's scheme of State colonisation of rural areas (ii. 1) : they include the working of mines and forests, the construction and security of trade-routes and the foundation of market-towns. In this connection the king is enjoined to secure trade-routes from obstruction by his favourites (*vallabhas*), officers (*kārmikas*) and frontier guards (*anta-pālas*) as well as by thieves and animal herds—a list sufficiently instructive as putting the danger from the King's officers on a level with that caused by thieves and animals. How fully the industrial and commercial classes were associated with the royal court and capital is proved by the immediately following rules (ii. 4) relating to the planned settlement of the fortified capital (*durga*). According to this description which, by the way, illustrates the relative social status of different groups of artisans and traders in the times concerned, the dealers in scents, garlands, paddy etc. and the chief artisans should live along with Kshatriyas to the east of the royal palace. The dealers in cooked food, liquors and flesh should live along with Vaiśyas to the south. The manufacturers of woollen and cotton goods, the armour-makers etc. should live along with Śūdras on the west. The manufacturers of base metals and precious stones should live along with Brāhmaṇas on the north.

c12.s5.2

Not only did the State associate itself closely with the trading and industrial classes, but it also undertook manufactures and trading on its own account¹. What is more, the rules of the *Arthaśāstra* repeatedly show how thoroughly the agricultural, mineral and other resources of the State were understood to be the sources of its strength. Thus among the qualities of a good country are included (vi. 1) the possession of agricultural tracts, mines, forests of various kinds, land and waterways and the like. Very characteristic again, is the general rule of foreign policy (vii. 1) stating that the king should follow that one of the six-fold forms by which he can exploit his own mines and forests and obstruct those of his enemy. No wonder, then, that the nice balancing of the advantages of working tracts rich in mines and in food grains, of working mines yielding a precious but small output and those producing inferior but large output, of working trade-routes by land and water and so forth, formed the subject of keen discussion in *Arthaśāstra* circles dealing with questions of foreign policy (vii. 11-12).

c12.s5.3

¹ For examples see *Contributions to the History of the Hindu Revenue System*, pp. 73, 77, 90-1, 106 8. In the chapter (v. 3) describing what may be called the expenses of the king's establishment, we have the following rates of pay :- Carpenters—2,000 *paṇas*. Skilled and unskilled craftsmen—120 *paṇas*.

c12.s5.4

Another aspect of State industrial policy in these times is that relating to the strict control of artisans and traders. We have in the *Arthaśāstra* a whole Section (Section iv) significantly called ‘*Removal of Thorns*’ (*kaṇṭaka śodhanam*), which describes successively the measures to be taken by the king for securing the people against artisans and merchants, against natural calamities, against persons living by clandestine means and so forth. In thorough accord with this attitude is the fact that elsewhere (iv. 1), Kauṭilya characterises merchants, artisans and some other specified classes as thieves in fact, though not in name. In the class of artisans just mentioned, are included weavers, washermen, goldsmiths, workers in copper and other metals, physicians, actors, minstrels and beggars. How drastically paternal the State regulations for protection of the public against these classes sometimes might be, is proved by a number of examples. Not only is a differential scale of wages fixed for weaving different kinds of cloth, but fines and other penalties are prescribed for reduction in their weight and measures. Fines are also prescribed for washermen washing clothes elsewhere than on wooden planks or on smooth stone, for wearing clothes other than those marked with a cudgel, for selling, mortgaging or hiring clothes of others, and even for delay in returning the clothes. Wages at varying rates are laid down for dyeing different qualities of cloth. A scale of penalties is laid down for physicians failing in or neglecting the treatment of diseases.

c12.s5.5

The measures for public security (iv. 2) against traders partake of the same character. We read that such old wares as are of proved ownership should be sold or mortgaged at the market-place (panya-saṁsthā) under supervision of the market-superintendent (saṁsthādhyakṣa). A graduated scale of fines is prescribed for deficiency in weights and measures. There is a similar scale of fines for exceeding the profit-limit of five per cent permitted on home-grown merchandise and of ten per cent allowed on foreign merchandise. In a later chapter of the same section (iv. 4) dealing with lost and stolen property, we are pointedly told that the sale or mortgage of old wares should not be carried out without informing the market-superintendent. It is characteristic of Kauṭilya’s attitude towards traders (vaidehaka) that unlike an unnamed Arthaśāstra authority whom he quotes, he thinks (viii.4) the oppression from traders to be worse even than that caused by the Guardian of the Frontier (antapāla).

c12.s5.6

On the other hand it is only fair to add that the State in these times also took special steps to protect the artisans and merchants. For theft of small articles belonging to artisans and craftsmen, Kauṭilya prescribes (iv. 10) fines as high as 100 paṇas. Elsewhere (iv. 13) he lays down elaborate rules for compensating merchants (*sārthika*) for theft or robbery of their merchandise during their journeys.

c12.s5.7

The Mauryas followed the traditional State policy in relation to industry and trade at least in some important respects. We have already seen what care they bestowed upon the construction of roads through a special class of officers called *Agoranomoi* by Megasthenes. That they established State manufactures on their own account is proved by Megasthenes' reference to his fourth Indian caste, viz. that of artisans. Speaking of this class, Diodorus (ii. 41) says that they were not only exempted from paying taxes, but even received maintenance from the Royal exchequer. More guardedly Arrian (*Indica* Ch. xii) states that while handicraftsmen and retail dealers pay tribute, an exception is made in favour of makers of weapons of war, ship-builders and sailors, who even draw pay from the State. Evidently, the artisans maintained by the State were employed on government service. What strict control was maintained by the Maurya government over the artisans and merchants alike of the country-side and of the capital is proved by other statements of Megasthenes. We learn that the *Agoranomoi* had among other duties, to superintend crafts connected with land such as those of the wood-cutters, carpenters, blacksmiths and miners. Again, the officers known as *Astynomoi* ('city commissioners') were divided into six boards. Of these the fourth 'is that which has to do with sales and barter, and these look after the measure, and the fruits of the season, that the latter may be sold by stamp': the fifth 'is that of those who have charge of the works made by artisans and sell these by stamps, the new apart from the old'¹. We have elsewhere² given reasons for identifying Megasthenes' officers in charge of measures with Kauṭilya's *pautavādhyaksha* ('superintendent of weights and measures') and *saṁsthādhyaksha* ('market superintendent'), while connecting 'the stamp' mentioned by the Greek writer with the *abhijñāna-mudrā*, which according to *Arthaśāstra* (ii. 27) was given by the *antapāla* to incoming traders. We have finally to mention in the present place another reference suggesting that the person of the artisans was protected by a special law unlike the general rule of law known to the *Arthaśāstra*. According to Strabo (xv. 1.54), if a person caused the loss of a hand or an eye to a craftsman, he was put to death. This is a severe departure from the milder rule of law in the *Arthaśāstra* (iii. 19) imposing fines alone for the same offences.

c12.s5.8

¹ Strabo. xv. 1.50-51, tr. the Loeb Classical Library, Vol. vii, pp. 83-4.

c12.s5.9

² *Contributions to the History of the Hindu Revenue System*, p. 117.

Linked texts (1)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit