State and Government in Ancient India c21.24

c21.24

The advice to refrain from annexation after conquest is easy to give but difficult to follow; a survey of the ancient Indian history, however, shows that it was more frequently followed than disregarded. We have very little authentic information about the internal condition of the Mauryan empire, but it is not unlikely that it left untouched the autonomy of the powerful republics of the Punjab and Rajputana. In the Gupta empire, there flourished a number of feudatories even in Magadha itself. The Nāga rulers, who were overthrown by Samudragupta, continued to serve as imperial officers of the government in the Doab. Samudragupta annexed the kingdoms of some kings, but their number was smaller than the number of those who were restored and allowed to rule in the feudatory capacity. The empire of Harsha also contained a number of feudatory states. The same was the case with the Pratīhāra empire of northern India. The Deccan kingdoms of the Sātavāhanas, the Chālukyas, the Rāshtrakūṭas and the Yādavas had a large number of feudatories, who enjoyed considerable autonomy. *Digvijaya* being inevitable, it was possible only to strive for the preservation of the local autonomy and culture of the conquered states. It cannot be denied that ancient India did succeed in doing this to a great extent. This success was partly due to the uniformity of culture and religion that prevailed in the states, temporarily at war with each other. Normally in peace time their relations were not embittered by religious or cultural divergences or animosities, and so the war did not spur the combatants to bring about the utter destruction of each other. Internal autonomy was easily conceded.