Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c18: Chapter V. Chandragupta Maurya and Bindusāra, from 322 B.C. to 273 B.C.

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c18

Language
English

Chapter V. Chandragupta Maurya and Bindusāra, from 322 B.C. to 273 B.C.

c18.2

WHEN Alexander quitted the Panjāb he posted no Macedonian garrisons in that province, making over the care of his interests to king Pōros, who must have been independent in practice. Āmbhi, king of Taxila, was also entrusted with authority as a colleague of Pōros. After the assassination of Philippos, Alexander had sent orders from Karmania to Eudēmos, commandant of a Thracian garrison on the Indus, to act as Resident pending the appointment of a satrap, and to supervise the native princes. But the officer had no adequate force at his command to enforce his authority, which must have been purely nominal. He managed, however, to remain in India, probably somewhere in the basin of the Indus, until about 317 B. C., when he departed to help Eumenes against Antigonos, taking with him a hundred and twenty elephants, and a small force of infantry and cavalry. He had obtained the elephants by treacherously slaying a native prince, perhaps Pōros, with whom he had been associated as a colleague.¹

c18.3

¹ Ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς Εὔδαμος παρεγένετο μεθ’ ἱππέων μὲν πεντακοσίων [v.l. τριακοσίων], πεζῶν δὲ τρισχιλίων [v.l. τριακοσίων], ἐλεφάντων δὲ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι· τὰ δὲ θηρία ταῦτα παρέλαβε μετὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου τελευτήν, δολοφονήσας Πῶρον [v.l. πρῶτον] τὸν βασιλέα (Diodorus, xix, 14).

c18.4

The province of Sind, on the Lower Indus, below the great confluence of the rivers, which had been entrusted by Alexander to Peithōn, son of Agēnōr, remained under Greek influence for a period still shorter. At the time of the second partition of the Macedonian empire in 321 B. C. at Triparadeisos, Antipater was avowedly unable to exercise any effective control over the Indian Rājas,² and Peithōn had been obliged already to retire to the west of the Indus.

c18.5

² Οὐ γὰρ ἦν τούτους τοὺς βασιλεῖς μετακινῆσαι χωρὶς βασιλικῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἡγεμονίας ἐπιφανοῦς (Diodorus, xviii, 39).

c18.6

The Indian provinces to the east of the river were consequently ignored in the partition, and Peithōn was content to accept the government of the regions bordering on the Paropanisadai, or Kābul country. That country probably continued to be administered by Roxana's father Oxyartes, whom Alexander had appointed satrap. Sibyrtios was confirmed in the government of Arachosia and Gedrosia; Stasandros, the Cyprian, was given Aria and Drangiana, and his countryman Stasanor was appointed governor of Bactria and Sogdiana.¹ These arrangements clearly prove that in 321 B. C., within two years of Alexander's death, the Greek power, to the east of the Indus, had been extinguished, with the slight exception of the small territory, wherever it may have been, which Eudēmos managed to hold for some four years longer.

c18.7

¹ ᾿Αρίαν δὲ καὶ Δραγγιάνην Στασάνδρῳ τῷ Κυπρίῳ· τὴν δὲ Βακτριανὴν καὶ Σογδιανὴν Στασάνορι τῷ Σολίῳ, ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς ὄντι νήσου (Diodorus, xviii, 9). McCrindle (*Invasion of India by Alexander the Great*, 2nd ed., p. 411) confounds these two officers.

c18.8

The insecurity of the Macedonian authority in the newly annexed Indian provinces had been proved by the assassination of Philippos, the report of which was received while Alexander was in Karmania, and might be expected to return some day to the scene of his victories. His death in June, 323 B. C., dispelled all fears of his return, and the native princes undoubtedly took the earliest possible opportunity to assert their independence and exterminate the weak foreign garrisons. The news of Alexander's decease was known in India probably as early as August, but no serious fighting would have been undertaken by ordinary commanders until the beginning of the cold season in October; for Alexander's indifference to climatic conditions was not shared by Indian chiefs, who were accustomed to regulate their military movements strictly in accordance with precedent. We may feel assured that as soon as the news of the conqueror's death had been confirmed beyond doubt, and the season permitted the execution of military operations with facility, a general rising took place, and that Macedonian authority in India was at an end early in 322 B. C., except the small remnant to which Eudēmos continued to cling.

c18.9

The leader of the revolt against the foreigners was an able adventurer, Chandragupta by name, at that time a young man, probably not more than twenty-five years of age. On the father’s side he was a scion of the royal house of Magadha—the principal state in Northern India—and it has hitherto been supposed that his mother, or, according to another version, his grandmother, was of lowly origin, and that, in accordance with Hindu law, he belonged to her caste, and had to bear the reproach of inferior social rank. The family name Maurya, assumed by the members of the dynasty founded by Chandragupta, is said to be a derivative from Murā, his mother’s or grandmother’s name. There are, however, grounds for holding that Chandragupta, so far from being of low caste, was related to the respectable Early Nandas. Whatever be the truth, young Chandragupta in some way incurred the displeasure of his kinsman, Mahāpadma Nanda, the reigning king of Magadha, and was obliged to go into exile.¹ During his banishment he had the good fortune to see Alexander, and is said to have expressed the opinion that the Macedonian king, if he had advanced, would have made an easy conquest of the great kingdom on the Ganges, by reason of the extreme unpopularity of the reigning monarch.² Mahāpadma Nanda was reputed to be the son of a barber, who had secured the affections of the late queen. The guilty pair had then murdered the king, whose throne was seized by the barber-paramour. His son, the now reigning monarch, was avaricious and profligate, and naturally possessed few friends.

c18.10

¹ ‘He was born in humble life . . . when by his insolent behaviour he had offended Nandrus [= Nanda], and was ordered by that king to be put to death, he sought safety by a speedy flight’ (Justin, xv, 4, with von Gutschmid’s emendation of *Nandrum* for *Alexandrum*, McCrindle, pp. 327, 405). The *Mudrā Rākshasa* play lays great emphasis on the low-caste origin of Chandragupta, and on his relationship to the Nanda king. But see reference to Harit Krishna Deb’s views in note 1, p. 44 *ante*. It is hardly safe to rely wholly for matter-of-fact history on a work of imagination composed several centuries after the events dramatized. The character of Mahāpadma Nanda himself may have suffered from tales spread by sectarian rancour.

c18.11

² Plutarch, *Alexander*, ch. 62.

c18.12

Chandragupta, having collected, during his exile, a formidable force of the warlike and predatory clans on the north-western frontier, attacked the Macedonian garrisons after Alexander’s death, and conquered the Panjāb. It appears probable that before he undertook the expulsion of the foreign garrisons, he had already overthrown his unpopular relation, the Nanda king of Magadha, whom he deposed and slew. The dramatist who tells the story asserts, and no doubt with truth, that Nanda’s race perished utterly and was exterminated. The adviser of the youthful and inexperienced Chandragupta in this revolution was a Brahman named Vishnugupta, better known by his patronymic Chānakya, or his surname Kautilya, by whose aid he succeeded in seizing the vacant throne. But the people did not gain much by the change of masters, because Chandragupta, ‘after his victory, forfeited by his tyranny all title to the name of liberator, oppressing with servitude the very people whom he had emancipated from foreign thraldom’. He inherited from his Nanda predecessor a huge army, which he increased until it numbered 30,000 cavalry, 9,000 elephants, 600,000 infantry, and a multitude of chariots. With this irresistible force all the Northern States, probably as far as the Narbadā, or even farther, were overrun and subjugated; so that the dominions of Chandragupta, the first historical paramount sovereign or emperor in India, extended from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea.

c18.13

While Chandragupta was engaged in the consolidation of his empire, a rival was laying the foundations of his power in Western and Central Asia, and preparing to attempt the recovery of Alexander’s Indian conquests. In the course of the internecine struggle between the generals of Alexander, two had emerged as competitors for supreme power in Asia—Antigonos and Seleukos, who afterwards became known as Nikātor, or the Conqueror. Fortune at first favoured Antigonos, and drove his antagonist into exile; but, in 312 B. C., Seleukos recovered possession of Babylon, and six years later felt himself justified in assuming the regal style and title. He is conventionally described as king of Syria, but was in reality the lord of Western and Central Asia.¹ The eastern provinces of his realm extended to the borders of India; and he naturally desired to recover the Macedonian conquests in that country, which had been practically abandoned, although never formally relinquished. In pursuit of this object Seleukos crossed the Indus in or about 305 B. C., and attempted to imitate the victorious march of Alexander.² The details of the campaign are not known, and it is impossible to determine how far the invading army penetrated into the Gangetic valley, if at all, but the result of the war is certain.

c18.14

¹ See Mr. Bevan's work, *The House of Seleucus*.

c18.15

² ‘Transitum deinde in Indiam fecit’, &c. (Justin, xv, 4); καὶ τὸν Ἰνδὸν περάσας ἐπολέμησεν Ἀνδροκόττῳ [Chandragupta], βασιλεῖ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν Ἰνδῶν, μέχρι φιλίαν αὐτῷ καὶ κῆδος συνέθετο (Appian, *Syr.* 55). Strabo (Bk. ii, ch. ii, 9) substitutes for the last two words, συνθέμενος ἐπιγαμίαν.

c18.16

When the shock of battle came, the hosts of Chandragupta were too strong for the invader, and Seleukos was obliged to retire and conclude a humiliating peace. Not only was he compelled to abandon all thought of conquest in India, but he was constrained to surrender a large part of Ariāna to the west of the Indus. In exchange for the comparatively trifling equivalent of five hundred elephants, Chandragupta received the satrapies of the Paropanisadai, Aria, and Arachosia, the capitals of which were respectively the cities now known as Kābul, Herāt, and Kandahār. The satrapy of Gedrosia, or at least the eastern portion of it, seems also to have been included in the cession, and the high contracting powers ratified the peace by ‘a matrimonial alliance’, which phrase probably means that Seleukos gave a daughter to his Indian rival. This treaty may be dated in 303 B. C. As soon as it was concluded Seleukos started on his long march westward to confront Antigonos, whom he defeated and slew at Ipsos in Phrygia in 301 B. C.³ Ipsos being distant at least 2,500 miles from the Indus, the march to it must have occupied a year or more.

c18.17

³ Niese's notion that Chandragupta recognized the sovereignty of Seleukos (*die Oberhoheit des Seleukos anerkannte*) has no foundation, except the anecdote that Chandragupta paid honour to the altars set up by Alexander at the Hyphasis. The facts that Seleukos retired from India, giving up valuable provinces in exchange for only 500 elephants out of the 9,000 possessed by Chandragupta, that he entered into a matrimonial

c18.18

The range of the Hindū Kush mountains, known to the Greeks as the Paropanisos or Indian Caucasus, in this way became the frontier between Chandragupta's provinces of Herāt and Kābul on the south, and the Seleukidan province of Bactria on the north. The first Indian emperor, more than two thousand years ago, thus entered into possession of that 'scientific frontier' sighed for in vain by his English successors, and never held in its entirety even by the Moghal monarchs of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

c18.19

In the course of some eighteen years Chandragupta had expelled the Macedonian garrisons from the Panjāb and Sind, repulsed and humbled Seleukos the Conqueror, and established himself as undisputed supreme lord of at least all Northern India and a large part of Ariāna. These achievements fairly entitle him to rank among the greatest and most successful kings known to history. A realm so vast and various as that of Chandragupta was not to be governed by weakness. The strong hand which won the empire was needed to keep it, and the government was administered with stern severity.¹ About six years after the withdrawal of Seleukos, Chandragupta either abdicated or died (298 B. C.), and handed on the imperial succession to his son Bindusāra, who is also known by the title of Amitraghāta, 'Slayer of Foes.'

c18.20

¹ Justin, xv, 4, and the details given by Megasthenes. The passsage in Justin's compilation is one of the most important concerning Chandragupta. The testimonies of the various Greek and Roman authors are collected in McCrindle's books and in Wilson's preface to his translation of the *Mudrā Rākshasa*. That play, probably composed in the fifth century, very likely embodies a kernel of genuine historical tradition, of which I have made cautious use. alliance, and sent an ambassador, clearly indicate the real nature of the relations between the sovereigns. Megasthenes exhibits the greatest respect for the Indian monarch, and never presumed to regard himself as the Resident at the court of a feudatory. Concerning the extent of the cession of Ariāna see Appendix F.

c18.21

Soon after the conclusion of peace in or about 303 B. C., Seleukos had sent as his envoy to the court of Chandragupta an officer named Megasthenes, who had been employed under Sibyrtios, satrap of Arachosia. The envoy resided for a considerable time at Pātaliputra (now Patna), the capital of the Indian empire, and employed his leisure in compiling an excellent account of the geography, products, and institutions of India, which continued to be the principal authority on the subject until modern times. Although often misled by erroneous information received from others, Megasthenes is a veracious and trustworthy witness concerning matters which came under his personal observation, and his vivid account of Chandragupta's civil and military administration may be accepted without hesitation as true and accurate.¹ That account, although preserved in a fragmentary form, is so full and detailed that a modern reader is more minutely informed in many respects concerning the institutions of Chandragupta than he is about those of any Indian sovereign until the days of Akbar, the contemporary of Queen Elizabeth.

c18.22

¹ The fragments of Megasthenes have been collected and edited by Schwanbeck under the title of *Megasthenis Indika* (Bonn, 1846); and translated by McCrindle in *Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian* (Trübner, London, 1877). Arrian (*Indika*, 17) rightly brackets Nearchos and Megasthenes as trustworthy persons (δοκίμω ἄνδρε). Strabo, who was disgusted by some of the travellers' tales repeated by Megasthenes, unjustly stigmatizes him as a liar. The information collected by Megasthenes was supplemented by the works of other writers, of whose books fragments have been preserved by the authors to whom we are indebted for our knowledge of Megasthenes. For a list of these authors see Schwanbeck, op. cit., Index I. McCrindle's books, six in number, give a nearly complete collection of the passages in Greek and Roman authors treating of ancient India.

c18.23

Pātaliputra, the imperial capital, which had been founded in the fifth century B. C., stood in the tongue of land formed by the confluence of the Sōn with the Ganges, on the northern bank of the former, and a few miles distant from the latter. The site is now occupied by the large native city of Patna and the English civil station of Bankipore, but the rivers changed their courses many centuries ago, and the confluence is at present near the cantonment of Dinapore, about 12 miles above Patna. The ancient city, which lies buried below its modern successor, was, like it, a long, narrow parallelogram, measuring about 9 miles in length and 1½ miles in breadth. It was defended by a massive timber palisade, pierced by sixty-four gates, crowned by five hundred and seventy towers, and protected externally by a broad and deep moat, filled from the waters of the Sōn.¹

c18.24

¹ See Lt.-Col. Waddell's treatise, *Discovery of the Exact Site of Asoka's Classic Capital of Pātaliputra* (Calcutta, 1892, and revised edition, 1903). Some fragments of the timber palisade have been found. The remains of one of the Maurya palaces are buried under the houses and fields of the village of Kumrāhār, on the south side of the railway between Bankipore and Patna. Excavations conducted at Kumrāhār by Dr. Spooner of the Archaeological Survey at the cost of the late Sir Ratan Tata, of Bombay, have revealed remains of a 'Hall of 100 Pillars', apparently copied from the prototype at Persepolis. The work, which is still in progress, has been partially described in *Ann. Rep. Arch. Survey of India, Eastern Circle*, 1912–13, pp. 55–61, and results of profound interest are expected. Sir J. Marshall has found a 'Mauryan *chaitya*-hall' at Sanchi. Another palace, that described by Hiuen Tsang, was in the city, probably in the neighbourhood of the Sadar Gali and Kallū Khan's Bāgh, where an Asoka pillar is hidden in a zenana (P. C. Mukharji, unpubl. report). The ruins at Kumrāhār represent the town of Ni-li, which Asoka built, as stated by Fa-hien. Cunningham was mistaken in believing that Pāṭaliputra had been mostly cut away by the rivers. Patna is in N. lat. 25° 37′, E. long. 85° 10′. Chānakya (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, ch. 3, revised English version by R. Shamasastry, Bangalore Government Press, 1915, pp. 56–60) lays down elaborate rules for the fortification of the capital.

c18.25

The royal palace, although chiefly constructed of timber, was considered to excel in splendour and magnificence the palaces of Sūsa and Ekbatana, its gilded pillars being adorned with golden vines and silver birds. The buildings stood in an extensive park, studded with fish-ponds and furnished with a great variety of ornamental trees and shrubs.

c18.26

Here the imperial court was maintained with barbaric and luxurious ostentation. Basins and goblets of gold, some measuring six feet in width, richly carved tables and chairs of state, vessels of Indian copper set with precious stones, and gorgeous embroidered robes were to be seen in profusion, and contributed to the brilliancy of the public ceremonies. When the king condescended to show himself in public on state occasions he was carried in a golden palanquin, adorned with tassels of pearls, and was clothed in fine muslin embroidered with purple and gold. When making short journeys he rode on horseback, but when travelling longer distances he was mounted, like a modern Rāja, on an elephant with golden trappings.¹ Combats of animals were a favourite diversion, as they still are at the courts of native princes, and the king took delight in witnessing the fights of bulls, rams, elephants, rhinoceroses, and other animals. Gladiatorial contests between men were also exhibited. A curious entertainment, which seems not to be known in the present age, was afforded by ox-races, which were made the subject of keen betting, and were watched by the king with the closest interest. The course was one of 30 *stadia*, or 6,000 yards, and the race was run with cars, each of which was drawn by a mixed team of horses and oxen, the horses being in the centre with an ox on each side. Trotting oxen are still largely used for drawing travelling carriages in many parts of India, but the breed of racers seems to be extinct.²

c18.27

¹ Curtius, viii, 9 ; Strabo, xv, 69.

c18.28

² Aelian, Περὶ ζῴων ἰδιότητος, Bk. xiii, ch. 18 ; Bk. xv, ch. 15. Compare the Burmese incident : 'Walking out one day, I met a waggon drawn by four stout oxen going at a hand-gallop, and driven by a country girl standing up in her vehicle, who seemed to manage the reins and a long whip with equal dexterity' (Symes, *Embassy to Ava*, vol. i, p. 294, Constable). That girl could have taken part in a race. Modern Burma presents many illustrations of ancient India. Dr. Coomaraswamy informs me that 'bull-racing' is a 'very common pastime in Ceylon and creates immense excitement. The bulls are harnessed to the light cars called "hackeries"'. In 1679, when Dr. Fryer was at Surat, ox-races were still in favour (Fryer, *A New Account*, &c., Hakluyt Soc., 1915, vol. iii, pp. 157, 158).

c18.29

The principal royal amusement was the chase, which was conducted with great ceremony, the game in an enclosed preserve being driven up to a platform occupied by the king, who shot the animals with arrows ; but, if the hunt took place in the open country, he used to ride an elephant. When hunting he was closely attended by armed female guards, who were obtained by purchase from foreign countries, and formed an indispensable element in the courts of the ancient Indian monarchs. The road for the sovereign's procession was marked off with ropes, which it was death to pass.³ The institution of the Royal Hunt was abolished by Chandragupta's grandson, Asoka, in 259 B. C.

c18.30

³ Megasthenes, *Fragm.* xxvii. The Greek is τῷ δὲ παρελθόντι ἐντὸς μέχρι γυναικῶν θάνατος, which McCrindle renders 'it is death for man and woman alike to pass the ropes’, but the Greek idiom will not bear this translation. Müller correctly renders ‘quodsi quis interius ad mulieres [*scil.* to the female guards] usque accedit, interficitur’. This rendering, perhaps, would require the text to read τῶν γυναικῶν. The word τῶν may have dropped out. The female guards are mentioned in the Sanskrit plays. In the *Mudrā Rākshasa*, Act iii, Chandragupta is represented as attended by a girl named Sonottarā. The girls were bought from their parents (Strabo, xv, 55); and good-looking maidens for the royal harem (παρθένοι εὐειδεῖς πρὸς παλλακίαν) were still regularly imported in the first century A. D. at Barygaza (Broach), on the western coast (*Periplus*, ch. 49; see also chs. 8, 9, 31, 36; transl. Schoff; Longmans, 1912). Chāṇakya prescribes that ‘On getting up from bed, the king should be received by troops of women armed with bows’ (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i, ch. 21; revised English version by R. Shamasastry, Bangalore Government Press, 1915, p. 47).

c18.31

As a rule, the king remained within the precincts of the inner palace, under the protection of his Amazonian bodyguard, and appeared in public only to hear causes, offer sacrifice, and to go on military or hunting expeditions. Probably he was expected to show himself to his subjects at least once a day, and then to receive petitions and decide disputes in person. Like the modern Indians, Chandragupta took pleasure in massage or friction of the limbs, and custom required that he should indulge in this luxury while giving public audience; four attendants used to massage him with ebony rollers during the time that he was engaged in disposing of cases.¹ In accordance with Persian custom, which had much influence upon the Indian court and administration, the king ceremonially washed his hair on his birthday, which was celebrated by a splendid festival, at which the nobles were expected to make rich presents to their sovereign.²

c18.32

¹ Such an attendant (*saṁvāhaka*) is a minor character in the *Toycart*, or *Little Clay-cart*, drama; transl. by Ryder, in *Harvard Oriental Series*, vol. iv (1905).

c18.33

² Strabo, xv, 69; Herodotus, ix, 110. The fact is mentioned by Herodotus in connexion with the horrible story of the wife of Masistes. As the Persian hair-washing festival was celebrated on the king’s birthday, the Indian imitation presumably was celebrated on the same occasion (‘Persian Influence on Maurya India’, *Ind. Ant.*, 1905, p. 201). The shaven heads, now favoured by most Hindus, were not fashionable in ancient India. The Indians, we are told, ‘frequently comb, but seldom cut, the hair of their head. The beard of the chin they never cut at all, but they shave off the hair from the rest of the face, so that it looks polished’ (Curtius, viii, 9).

c18.34

In the midst of all the gold and glitter, and in spite of the most elaborate precautions, uneasy lay the head that wore the crown. The king's life was so constantly threatened by plots that he dared not incur the risk either of sleeping in the day-time or occupying the same bedroom two nights in succession.¹ The dramatist brings vividly before us the astuteness of the Brahman counsellor who detected the plots of both the poisoners and

c18.35

¹ Strabo, xv, 55. So, in Burma, king Badonsachen or Bodoahpra (A. D. 1782–1819), after his escape from a conspiracy, began the practice of changing daily his chamber and bed (Sangermano, *Burmese Empire*, ed. Jardine, p. 65).

c18.36

'The brave men who were concealed
In the subtérrene avenue that led
To Chandragupta's sleeping chamber—thence
To steal by night, and kill him as he slept'.²

c18.37

² *Mudrā Rākshasa*, Act ii (Wilson, *Theatre*, ii, 184).

c18.38

The army, to which Chandragupta owed his throne and empire, was maintained at enormous numerical strength, and so organized, equipped, and administered as to attain a high degree of efficiency, as measured by an Oriental standard. It was not a militia, but a standing army, drawing liberal and regular pay, and supplied by the government with horses, arms, equipment, and stores.³ The force at the command of Mahāpadma Nanda is said to have numbered 80,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 fighting elephants. This huge force was greatly augmented by Chandragupta, who raised the numbers of the infantry to 600,000, and also had 30,000 horse, and 9,000 elephants, besides chariots, all permanently enrolled in a regularly paid establishment.⁴ The elephants were esteemed the most valuable section of the imperial host, because, as Chānakya observes, 'it is on elephants that the destruction of an enemy's army depends'.⁵

c18.39

³ Diodorus, ii, 41.

c18.40

⁴ Pliny, vi, 19; Plutarch, *Alex.* ch. 62.

c18.41

⁵ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. vii, chap. 11 (*Ind. Ant.*, 1910, p. 68).

c18.42

Each horseman carried two lances, resembling the kind called *saunia* by the Greeks, and a buckler. All the infantry carried the broadsword as their principal weapon, and as additional arms, either javelins, or bow and arrows. The arrow was discharged with the aid of pressure from the left foot on the extremity of the bow resting upon the ground, and with such force that neither shield nor breastplate could withstand it.¹

c18.43

¹ Arrian, *Indika*, ch. 16.

c18.44

Each chariot, which might be drawn by either four or two horses, accommodated two fighting-men besides the driver; and an elephant, in addition to the mahout, or driver, carried three archers.² The 9,000 elephants therefore implied a force of 36,000 men, and the 8,000 chariots, supposing them to be no more numerous than those kept by Mahāpadma Nanda, required 24,000 men to work them. The total number of soldiers in the army would thus have been 600,000 infantry, 30,000 horsemen, 36,000 men with the elephants, and 24,000 with the chariots, or 690,000 in all, excluding followers and attendants.

c18.45

² Strabo, xv, 52; Aelian, xiii, 10. The chariots of Pōros in the Panjāb were each ‘drawn by four horses, and carried six men, of whom two were shield-bearers, two, archers posted on each side of the chariot, and the other two, charioteers, as well as men-at-arms, for when the fighting was at close quarters they dropped the reins and hurled dart after dart against the enemy’ (Curtius, viii, 14; *ante*, p. 26).

c18.46

These high figures, which may seem incredible at first sight, are justified by our knowledge of the unwieldy hosts used in war by Indian kings in later ages. For instance, Nuñez, the Portuguese chronicler, who was contemporary with Krishna Deva, the Rāja of Vijayanagar, in the sixteenth century (1509–29), affirms that that prince led against Raichūr an army consisting of 703,000 foot, 32,600 horse, and 551 elephants, besides camp followers.³

c18.47

³ Sewell, *A Forgotten Empire*, p. 147. Many other proofs of the unwieldy size of Indian armies might be cited.

c18.48

The formidable force at the disposal of Chandragupta, by far the largest in India,⁴ was controlled and administered under the direction of a War Office organized on an elaborate system. A commission of thirty members was divided into six Boards, each with five members, to which departments were severally assigned as follows: Board No. I, in co-operation with the admiral—Admiralty; Board No. II—Transport, Commissariat, and Army service, including the provision of drummers, grooms, mechanics, and grass-cutters; Board No. III—Infantry; Board No. IV—Cavalry; Board No. V—War-chariots; Board No. VI—Elephants.

c18.49

⁴ The powerful Āndhra kingdom (*validior gens*) possessed only 100,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry, and 1,000 elephants. ‘Sed omnium in India prope, non modo in hoc tractu, potentiam claritatemque antecedunt Prasii, amplissima urbe ditissimaque Palibothra’ [*scil.* Pāṭaliputra] (Pliny, vi, 19).

c18.50

All Indian armies had been regarded from time immemorial as normally comprising the four arms, cavalry, infantry, elephants, and chariots; and each of these arms would naturally fall under the control of a distinct authority; but the addition of co-ordinate supply and admiralty departments appears to be an innovation due to the genius of Chandragupta. His organization must have been as efficient in practice as it was systematic on paper, for it enabled him not only, in the words of Plutarch, to 'overrun and subdue all India', but also to expel the Macedonian garrisons, and to repel the invasion of Seleukos.

c18.51

The details recorded concerning the civil administration of Chandragupta's empire, if not so copious as we might desire, are yet sufficient to enable us to realize the system of government; which, although, of course, based upon the personal autocracy of the sovereign, was something better than a merely arbitrary tyranny.

c18.52

The administration of the capital city, Pātaliputra, was provided for by the formation of a Municipal Commission, consisting of thirty members, divided, like the War Office Commission of equal numbers, into six Boards or Committees of five members each. These Boards may be regarded as an official development of the ordinary non-official *panchāyat*, or committee of five members, by which every caste and trade in India has been accustomed to regulate its internal affairs from time immemorial.

c18.53

The first Municipal Board, which was entrusted with the superintendence of everything relating to the industrial arts, was doubtless responsible for fixing the rates of wages, and must have been prepared to enforce the use of pure and sound materials, as well as the performance of a fair day's work for fair wages, as determined by the authorities.

c18.54

Artisans were regarded as being in a special manner devoted to the royal service, and capital punishment was inflicted on any person who impaired the efficiency of a craftsman by causing the loss of a hand or an eye.

c18.55

The second Board devoted its energies to the case of foreign residents and visitors, and performed duties which in modern Europe are entrusted to the consuls representing foreign powers. All foreigners were closely watched by officials, who provided suitable lodgings, escorts, and, in case of need, medical attendance. Deceased strangers were decently buried, and their estates were administered by the commissioners, who forwarded the assets to the persons entitled.¹ The existence of these elaborate regulations is conclusive proof that the Maurya empire in the fourth and third centuries B. C. was in constant intercourse with foreign states, and that large numbers of strangers visited the capital on business.

c18.56

¹ These officials corresponded exactly with the Greek πρόξενοι, and it is possible that Chandragupta borrowed this institution from Greece. But his other arrangements show no trace of Greek influence. For a good account of *προξενία*, see Newton's *Essays on Art and Archaeology*, pp. 121–3 ('Consular Officers in India and Greece', *Ind. Ant.*, 1905, p. 200).

c18.57

The third Board was responsible for the systematic registration of births and deaths, and we are expressly informed that the system of registration was enforced for the information of the government, as well as for facility in levying the taxes. The taxation referred to probably was a poll-tax, at the rate of so much a head annually. Nothing in the legislation of Chandragupta is more astonishing to the observer familiar with the lax methods of ordinary Oriental governments than this registration of births and deaths. The spontaneous adoption of such a measure by an Indian native state in modern times is unheard of, and it is impossible to imagine an old-fashioned Rāja feeling anxious 'that births and deaths among both high and low might not be concealed'. Even the Anglo-Indian administration, with its complex organization and European notions of the value of statistical information, did not attempt the collection of vital statistics until very recent times, and always has experienced great difficulty in securing reasonable accuracy in the figures.

c18.58

The important domain of trade and commerce was the province of the fourth Board, which regulated sales, and enforced the use of duly stamped weights and measures. Merchants paid a licence tax, and the trader who dealt in more than one class of commodity paid double.

c18.59

The fifth Board was responsible for the supervision of manufacturers on similar lines. A curious regulation prescribed the separation of new from old goods, and imposed a fine for violation of the rule. The reason for this prescription was that traffic in old goods, whether by sale or mortgage, was prohibited, unless official sanction had been obtained, which could be granted only on certain conditions.¹

c18.60

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. iv, chaps. 2 and 7.

c18.61

The collection of a tithe of the value of the goods sold was the business of the sixth and last Board, and evasion of this tax was punishable with death. Similar taxation on sales always has been common in India, but rarely, if ever, has its collection been enforced by a penalty so formidable as that exacted by Chandragupta.

c18.62

Our detailed information relates only to the municipal administration of Pātaliputra, the capital, but it is reasonable to infer that Taxila, Ujjain, and the other great cities of the empire were governed on the same principles and by similar methods. The 'Borderers' Edict' of Asoka is addressed to the officers in charge of the city of Tosali in Kalinga.²

c18.63

² V. A. Smith, *Asoka, the Buddhist Emperor of India*, 3rd ed., p. 193.

c18.64

In addition to the special departmental duties above detailed, the Municipal Commissioners in their collective capacity were required to control all the affairs of the city, and to keep in order the markets, temples, harbours, and generally speaking, all public works.³

c18.65

³ Fragment xxxiv in Schwanbeck, from *Strabo*, xv, 1, 51; translated by McCrindle in *Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian*, p. 87, and again (revised) in *Ancient India as described in Classical Literature*, p. 54. The words ἀπὸ συσσήμου, twice mistranslated by McCrindle as 'by public notice', really mean 'with official stamp', the *abhijñāna-mudrā* of the *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, chap. 21. Similar regulations continued in use until comparatively recent times. The French traveller Tavernier (1st ed., 1675) tells us that at Benares there were 'two galleries where they sell cottons, silken stuffs, and other kinds of merchandise. The majority of those who vend the goods are the workers who have made the pieces, and in this manner foreigners obtain them at first hand. These workers, before exposing anything for sale, have to go to him who holds the contract [*scil.* for collecting the tax on sales], in order to get the king's stamp impressed on the pieces of calico or silk, otherwise they are fined and flogged' (V. Ball, transl. Tavernier, *Travels in India*, I, 118). It is interesting to note that the cotton fabrics of Benares were famous in Maurya times. The best kinds came from Madura in the south, the Konkan, Kalinga, Benares, Eastern Bengal (Vanga), Vatsa or Kauśāmbī, and Mahishmati (Mandhāta on the Narbadā) (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, chap. 12). The harbours were those on the Sōn and Ganges rivers. The remains of the brick embankments along the old course of the Sōn can still be traced.

c18.66

The administration of the distant provinces was entrusted to viceroys, probably, as a rule, members of the royal family. The information concerning the viceroyalties being more complete for Asoka's reign than for that of Chandragupta, the subject will be referred to again when Asoka's system of administration is discussed.

c18.67

In accordance with the usual practice of Oriental monarchies, the court kept watch over the more remote functionaries by means of special agents or 'news-writers', the *akhbār navīs* of modern times, who are called 'overseers' and 'inspectors' (ἔφοροι, ἐπίσκοποι) by the Greek authors, and are mentioned in the Asoka Edicts as the king's 'men', (*pulisāni*, Pillar Edict VI), or 'reporters' (*pativedakā*, Rock Edict VI). The duty of these officers was to superintend or oversee all that occurred in town or country and to make private reports to the government. Arrian notes that similar officers were employed by the authorities of the independent nations as well as by the monarchical governments of India. They did not disdain to utilize as coadjutors the courtesans of the camp and city, and must have transmitted at times to their masters strange packets of scandalous gossip.¹ Arrian's informants assured him that the reports sent in were always true, and that no Indian could be accused of lying; but it is permissible to doubt the strict accuracy of this statement, although it is certainly the fact that the people of ancient India enjoyed a widespread and enviable reputation for straightforwardness and honesty.¹

c18.68

¹ The statement that the courtesans were utilized as informers is in Strabo, xv, 48.

c18.69

¹ The evidence is summarized by Max Müller in *India, what can it teach us?* (8vo ed. 1883, p. 54).

c18.70

The general honesty of the people and the efficient administration of the criminal law are both attested by the observation recorded by Megasthenes, that while he resided in Chandragupta's camp, containing 400,000 persons, the total of the thefts reported in any one day did not exceed two hundred *drachmai*, or about eight pounds sterling. When crime did occur it was repressed with terrible severity. Ordinary wounding by mutilation was punished by the corresponding mutilation of the offender, in addition to the amputation of his hand. If the injured person happened to be an artisan devoted to the royal service, the penalty was death. The crime of giving false evidence was visited with mutilation of the extremities; and in certain unspecified cases, offences were punished by the shaving of the offender's hair, a penalty regarded as specially infamous.² Injury to a sacred tree,³ evasion of the municipal tithe on goods sold, and intrusion on the royal procession going to the hunt were all alike capitally punishable. These recorded instances of severity are sufficient to prove that the code of criminal law, as a whole, must have been characterized by uncompromising sternness and slight regard for human life.

c18.71

² This was a Persian punishment. 'Lighter crimes are punished by cutting off the nose, or perhaps only the hair. Sometimes one-half of the scalp is shaved, and a tablet affixed to the neck, so inflicting disgrace on the offender' (Kingsmill, in *Athenaeum*, July 19, 1902, quoting a Chinese work of the sixth century, entitled *Wei-Shu*, with reference to the Sassanian period). The offences for which shaving of the head was one of the optional penalties are specified in the *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. iv. ch. 9. For petty thefts of articles worth ¼ to ½ a silver *paṇa* (say *3d.* to *6d.*) the penalties prescribed were (1) a fine of 6 *paṇas*, or (2) shaving the head, or (3) exile. If the value was between 1 *paṇa* and 2 *paṇas*, the penalties were (1) a fine of 24 *paṇas*, (2) shaving the head with a piece of brick, or (3) exile. The operation with the brick must have been extreme torture, a terrible punishment for a trivial theft. The value of the silver *paṇa* (146 grains of impure silver) may be taken as about a shilling.

c18.72

³ Curtius, viii, 9.

c18.73

The native law of India has ordinarily recognized agricultural land as being crown property, and has admitted the undoubted right of the ruling power to levy a crown rent, or 'land revenue', amounting to a considerable portion, either of the gross produce or of its cash value.¹ Even the English laws, which, contrary to general ancient custom, recognize private property in cultivable land, insist that the land revenue is the first charge on the soil, and permit the enforcement of the charge by sale of the land free of all incumbrances, in the event of default. The land revenue is still the mainstay of Indian finance. So it must have been in the days of Chandragupta. The details of his system of 'settlement', or valuation and assessment of the land, have not been preserved, and it is not known whether a fresh valuation was made annually, or at longer intervals. The normal share of the gross produce taken by the Crown is said to have been one-fourth; but in practice, no doubt, the proportion taken varied largely, as it does to this day, and all provinces could not be treated alike. Certain other unspecified dues were also levied. The army being a professional force, recruited from the fighting castes, the agricultural population was exempt from military service; and Megasthenes noted with surprise and admiration that the husbandmen could pursue their calling in peace, while the professional soldiers of hostile kings engaged in battle.²

c18.74

¹ 'Those who are well versed in the Śāstras admit that the king is the owner of both land and water, and that the people can exercise their right of ownership over all other things excepting these two' (Comment on *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, chap. 24). The Malabar coast offers an exception to the general rule. Dubois (*Hindu Manners*, &c., 3rd ed., Beauchamp (1906), p. 56) expounds the system of proprietary rights in land and of slavery as the special peculiarities of the Malabar coast, where the predial slaves went with the land, although they might be sold separately. He believed Malabar—i. e. the region occupied by 'the Nairs, the Coorgs, and the Tulus, the three aboriginal tribes of the Malabar coast', to be the only province in India where full private proprietary right 'has been preserved intact until the present day. . . . Here the lands may be alienated, sold, given away, or disposed of according to the will of the owners'.

c18.75

² Strabo, xv, 40. In this passage the erroneous statement occurs that the cultivator received one-fourth of the produce. Diodorus correctly states that the land revenue was one-fourth of the gross produce.

c18.76

The proper regulation of irrigation is a matter of prime importance in India; and it is much to the credit of Chandragupta that he maintained a special Irrigation Department charged with the duty of measuring the lands, and so regulating the sluices that every one should receive his fair share of the life-giving water. The allusion to the measurement of lands as part of the duty of the Irrigation Department indicates that a water-rate must have been levied, and the reference to sluices implies a regular system of canals.¹

c18.77

¹ We know from the *Arthaśāstra* that heavy water-rates were actually levied, and that canals were maintained under strict regulations.

c18.78

The inscription of the Satrap Rudradāman, engraved soon after the year A. D. 150 on the famous rock at Girnār in Kāthiāwār, on which Asoka, four centuries earlier, had recorded a version of his immortal edicts, bears direct testimony to the care bestowed by the central government upon the question of irrigation, even in the most remote provinces. Although Girnār is situated close to the Arabian Sea, at a distance of at least 1,000 miles from the Maurya capital, the needs of the local farmers did not escape the imperial notice. Pushyagupta, the Vaisya, who was Chandragupta’s governor of the western provinces, saw that by damming up a small stream a reservoir of great value for irrigation could be provided. He accordingly formed a lake called Sudarsana, ‘the Beautiful’, between the citadel on the east side of the hill and the ‘inscription rock’ farther to the east, but failed to complete the necessary supplemental channels. These were constructed in the reign of Chandragupta’s grandson Asoka, under the superintendence of his representative, Rāja Tushāspha, who was then viceroy. These beneficent works constructed under the patronage of the Maurya emperors endured for four hundred years, but in the year A. D. 150 a storm of exceptional violence destroyed the embankment, and with it the lake.

c18.79

The embankment was then rebuilt ‘three times stronger’ than before by order of the Saka Satrap Rudradāman, who has recorded the history of the work in an inscription which is the only known epigraphic record containing the names of Chandragupta and Asoka Maurya. Notwithstanding the triple strength of Rudradāman's masonry, it too failed to withstand the fury of the elements; the dam again burst, and was repaired once more in A. D. 458 by the local governor serving under Skandagupta. At some time unknown these ancient works fell to ruin, and the lake thus finally disappeared. Its site, buried in deep jungle, was so utterly forgotten that modern local inquirers have experienced difficulty in ascertaining its exact position.

c18.80

The fact that so much pains and expense were lavished upon this irrigation work in a remote dependency of the empire is conclusive evidence that the provision of water for the fields was recognized as an imperative duty by the great Maurya emperors, and is a striking illustration of the accuracy of Megasthenes' remark that imperial officers were wont to 'measure the land, as in Egypt, and inspect the sluices by which water is distributed into the branch canals, so that every one may enjoy his fair share of the benefit'.¹

c18.81

¹ Fragment xxxiv, in Strabo, xv, 1, 50. The antiquities of Girnār (Jūnāgaṛh) are described by Burgess in *Reports Archaeol. Survey W.I.*, vol. ii, and the position of the lake is defined by Cousens in the *Progress Report* of the same Survey for 1898–9, par. 49. For Rudradāman's inscription see the latest ed. by Prof. Kielhorn in *Ep. Ind.*, viii, 36, and the abstract version in Lüders's *List*, No. 965 (*Ep. Ind.*, x, App. p. 99). It is the earliest considerable inscription in the Sanskrit language. The earliest short inscription in pure Sanskrit known at present is that on the *yūpa* or sacrificial post at Isāpur near Mathurā, dated in the year 24 in the reign of Shāhi Vāsishka (*Ann. Rep. A. S., India*, for 1910–11, pp. 39–48, with plates. The inscription is only a few years earlier than that of Rudradāman). The term *rāshtriya* applied to Pushyagupta in that record should be rendered 'governor'. Tushāspha is called a 'Yāvana', but the form of the name shows that he must have been a Persian (*Ep. Ind.*, viii, 46, note). See also note in *Ind. Ant.*, xlviii, Aug. 1919, pp. 145–6, by Hemchandra Raychauduri, who suggests that Tushāspha may have been a Greek (Yāvana) who had adopted an Iranian name, just as the Yāvana Dhemmadeva, the Saka Ushavadāta, and the Kushān Vāsudeva adopted Hindu names.

c18.82

The central government, by means of local officers, exercised strict control and maintained close supervision over all classes and castes of the population. Even the Brahman astrologers and soothsayers, and sacrificial priests, whom Megasthenes erroneously described as forming a separate class of 'philosophers' or 'sophists',² received their share of official attention, and were rewarded or punished according as their predictions and observations proved correct or mistaken. Among the artisans, ship-builders and armour-makers were salaried public servants, and were not permitted, it is said, to work for any private person. The wood-cutters, carpenters, blacksmiths, and miners were subject to special supervision, of which the nature is not defined.

c18.83

² Megasthenes has a peculiar enumeration of the occupational classes (γενεαί), commonly mistranslated ‘castes’, which he reckoned as seven (‘ἐς ἑπτὰ μάλιστα γενεάς’ = to about 7): (1) the ‘sophists’ (σοφισταί); (2) agriculturists (γεωργοί); (3) herdsmen, shepherds, and graziers (νομέες, ποιμένες, βουκόλοι); (4) artisans and traders (τὸ δημιουργικόν τε καὶ καπηλικὸν γένος); (5) the military (πολεμισταί); (6) the overseers (ἐπίσκοποι); (7) the councillors (οἱ ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν βουλευόμενοι ὁμοῦ τῷ βασιλεῖ, ἢ κατὰ πόλιας ἔσαι αὐτόνομοι σὺν τῇσιν ἀρχῇσι, Fragm. xxxii of Schwanbeck, from Arrian, *Indika*, 11, 12). Strabo calls No. 1, τοὺς φιλοσόφους; No. 3, ποιμένων καὶ θηρευτῶν; No. 4, τοὺς ἐργαζομένους τὰς τέχνας καὶ τοὺς καπηλικοὺς καὶ οἷς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ἡ ἐργασία; No. 6, ἔφοροι; and No. 7, οἱ σύμβουλοι καὶ σύνεδροι τοῦ βασιλέως. His nomenclature of Nos. 2 and 5 agrees with Arrian’s. The Brahman books, as is well known, reckon four classes or groups (*varṇa*) of castes (*jāti*), namely, Brahmans, Kshatriyas or Rājanyas, Vaiśyas, and Sūdras. It is a mistake to translate *varṇa* as ‘caste’.

c18.84

According to Strabo, no private person was permitted to keep either a horse or an elephant, the possession of either animal being a royal privilege. But this assertion is undoubtedly inaccurate, if taken as applicable to all parts of the country, and is corrected by the reasonable and detailed observations of Arrian (*Indika*, 17). That author tells us that the mounts used commonly were horses, camels, and asses, elephants being used only by the wealthy, and considered specially appropriate for the service of royalty. Except as regards asses, which are now looked upon with contempt, and restricted to the humblest services as beasts of burden for potters and washermen, the statement of Arrian applies accurately to modern India.¹ To ride an elephant or camel, or in a four-horsed chariot was, he says, a mark of distinction, but anybody might ride or drive a single horse.¹ The *ekka*, or light carriage drawn by a single pony, still so much used in Northern India, is a very ancient conveyance.

First 83 of 179 passages. Read on

Linked texts (21)