Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c8: Chapter V: The System of Government

Public Administration in Ancient India c8

Language
English

Chapter V: The System of Government

c8.2

As we saw in the last chapter,¹ during the Vedic and Brahmanic periods the country was divided into a large number of independent States, some of them exceedingly small, others of a moderate bulk, but none having any considerable size. The systems of Government which prevailed in those States differed from one another in many respects. Some of them were governed by Princes, while others were Oligarchies or Republics. The Vedic literature contains references to non-monarchical forms of government.² In the Mahābhārata also we find mention of kingless states. The Vrishnis, for instance, formed an Oligarchy ruled by many chiefs, of whom Krishna was one.¹ In fact, almost all the Indian nations of these times possessed popular institutions of some type or other.²

c8.3

¹ In the Aitareya Brāhmana occur the terms ‘Svarājya’ and ‘Vairājya,’ which Mr. K. P. Jayasval translates as ‘self-governing country’ and ‘kingless State.’ From the context, however, the right meanings appear to be ‘independent kingdom’ and ‘extensive kingdom.’ The terms ‘Virāj’ and ‘Svarāj’ occur in Brihaddevatā, VIII. 107, but there the meaning is not very clear.

c8.4

² Prof. Macdonell says: “It is quite clear that the normal, though not universal, form of government in early India was by Kings, as might be expected in view of the fact that the Āryan Indians were invaders in a hostile territory : a situation which, as in the case of the Āryan invaders of Greece and of the German invaders of England, resulted almost necessarily in strengthening the monarchic element of the constitution.” Vedic Index, Vol. II. p. 210.

c8.5

¹ It is interesting to note that while Krishna, one of the great leaders of this clan, was with the Pāndavas in the Great War, the clan as a body fought on the side of the Kurus.

c8.6

² Zimmer sees traces in one passage of the Rig-Veda that in times of peace there was no King in some States, the members of the royal family holding equal rights. Macdonell's Vedic Index, II. p. 216.

c8.7

At the time of the rise of Buddhism, there were a number of independent tribes, living either under the republican or the oligarchic system of government.³ In the Republics, the affairs of State were discussed and decided in the tribal assemblies, and the executive power was in the hands of the leaders (mukhyas), who also acted as commanders in war. In regard to the system of government prevailing among the Sākiyas, Prof. Rhys Davids, one of the greatest Buddhist scholars of modern times, says: "The administrative and judicial business of the clan was carried out in public assembly, at which young and old were alike present in their common Mote Hall (Sanghāgāra) at Kapilavastu.⁴ A single chief—how and for what period chosen we do not know—was elected an office-holder, presiding over the sessions, and if no sessions were sitting, over the State. He bore the title of Rājā, which must have meant something like the Roman Consul, or the Greek Archon.”¹ In an Oligarchy, the conduct of the administration was in the hands of the members of the ruling family.² The most striking instance of an Oligarchy was that of the Lichchhavis, whose chiefs were all called ‘Rājās.’³ The free Lichchhavi clans were very powerful, and they played an important part in the social and political life of India in the sixth century B.C., and for many centuries afterwards.⁴

c8.8

³ Prof. Rhys Davids says: "The earliest Buddhist records reveal the survival, side by side with more or less powerful monarchies, of republics with either complete or modified independence." Buddhist India.

c8.9

⁴ Prof. Rhys Davids adds: "It was at such a parliament, or palaver, that King Pasenadi's proposition [i.e. the request for a bride from the Sākiya clan] was discussed. When Ambattha goes to Kapilavastu on business, he goes to the Mote Hall, where the Sākiyas were then in session. And it is to the Mote Hall of the Mallas that Ānanda goes to announce the death of the Buddha." Buddhist India, p. 9.

c8.10

¹ Buddhist India, p. 9.

c8.11

² “Kulasya vā bhaved rājyam.” Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 17.

c8.12

³ Arthaśāstra, Bk. XI. ch. 1. In the Buddhist books we are told that there were 7707 chiefs of the Lichchhavis, all of whom were called ‘Rājās.’

c8.13

⁴ The chief clans at the time of the rise of Buddhism were: (1) Lichchhavis, (2) Sākiyas, (3) Bhaggas of Sumsumāra Hill, (4) Bulis of Allakappa, (5) Kālāmas of Kesaputta, (6) Koliyas of Rāmagāma, (7) Mallas of Pāvā, (8) Mallas of Kusinārā, (9) Moriyas of Pippalivana, (10) Videhas of Mithilā.

c8.14

Even as late as the date of Alexander’s invasion many of the nations of the Punjab lived under democratic institutions. The Ambashthas (Sambastai), for instance, “were a people inferior to none for numbers or for bravery. They dwelt in cities in which the democratic form of government prevailed.”⁵ Curtius mentions a tribe called Sabarcae, “a powerful Indian tribe where the form of Government was democratic, and not regal.”⁶ The Kathanians, the Oxydrakai, the Adraistai, and the Malloi, who offered stout resistance to the advance of Alexander, also lived under a democratic form of government. When the Malloi tendered their submission to Alexander, they told him that “ they were attached more than any others to freedom and autonomy, and that their freedom they had preserved intact from the time Dionysos came to India until Alexander’s invasion.”¹

c8.15

⁵ Ancient India, Alexander’s Invasion (McCrindle), p. 292.

c8.16

⁶ Ibid.

c8.17

¹ Arrian, Anabasis (McCrindle), p. 154.

c8.18

Some of the other nations had an aristocratic form of government with a President at the head of the administration. At the city of Nysa, the administration was in the hands of three hundred wise men. When Alexander requested the Nysians to send with him one hundred men from their governing body, their President replied: “How, O King! can a single city, if deprived of a hundred of its best men, continue to be well-governed?”² It was reported to Alexander that “the country beyond the Hyphasis was exceedingly fertile, and that the inhabitants were good agriculturists and lived under an excellent system of internal government, for the multitude are governed by the aristocracy who exercised their authority with justice and moderation.”³

c8.19

² Ancient India (McCrindle), p. 81.

c8.20

³ Ibid.

c8.21

In other States, there was a King who was assisted by an assembly of elders or ‘heads’ of families. Diodoros speaks of a Patala as “a city of great note, with a political constitution drawn on the same lines as the Spartan; for in this community the command in war vested in two hereditary Kings of two different houses, while a Council of elders ruled the whole State with paramount authority.”

c8.22

Chāṇakya also mentions many powerful oligarchies. From him we know that the Lichchivikas, Vrijjikas, Mallakas, Madrakas, Kukuras, Kurus, and Pānchālas were ruling oligarchies,¹ while the Kshatriya clans of the Kāmbojas and Surāshtras were engaged in agriculture, industry, and the profession of arms.²

c8.23

¹ “Rājaśabdopajīvinaḥ.” Arthaśāstra, Bk. XI. ch. 1.

c8.24

² Ibid. It is not very clear whether the second generation of the Nandas, consisting of eight kings, ruled as a family oligarchy, or reigned in succession. In Mudrā-Rākshasa, the great family (vipula kula) of the Nandas is compared to the clan of the Vrishnis. Act II.

c8.25

But although the non-monarchical forms of government existed down to the fourth century A.D.,³ many forces had been at work for several centuries past to make monarchy the prevailing form of administration in the country.⁴ The most important of these factors was a great increase in the size of the State. As the Āryas moved eastward from the Punjab, the territory of the State tended steadily to grow. Now, it must have been found very difficult to manage the affairs of large kingdoms by means of popular institutions at a time when the representative system had not yet been invented.¹ Popular freedom had thus gradually to give way before the advance of the imperial idea. And when the success of Alexander’s invasion made manifest the weakness of a system of small independent States, the people probably welcomed, or at least submitted to, Chandragupta’s attempt to establish a centralised imperial government. Chandragupta had thus comparatively little difficulty in absorbing within the empire of Magadha all the States of Northern India, and this establishment of an imperial rule meant the sweeping away of all the free institutions of the country. In the words of the historian, Chandragupta “changed the name of freedom to that of bondage, for he himself oppressed with servitude the very people he had rescued from foreign dominion.”²

c8.26

³ In a few parts of the country, these institutions lasted till the third or fourth centuries of the Christian Era, but in these later days they never played any important part in Indian history. In the Mandasor Inscription of Kumāragupta and Bandhuvarman (sixth century A.D.), the Mālavas are referred to as living under a republican form of government (Mālavānāṁ gaṇasthityā).

c8.27

⁴ The Sukranīti, at a comparatively recent date, says: “There should be only one head in the State, not many. Nor should a State ever be without a head.” This idea must have grown up several centuries before the Christian Era.

c8.28

¹ One of the chief causes of the substitution of the monarchical for the republican form of government in Rome was the great increase in the size of the territory governed from Rome.

c8.29

² Justin, XV. 4 (McCrindle). It is a curious coincidence that the small States of Northern India were absorbed in the Magadhan Empire about the same time that the Macedonian Empire destroyed the independence of the City States of Ancient Greece.

c8.30

Chandragupta was not the first monarch to aspire to the title of ‘Samrāt’ or ‘King of Kings.’ The people for many centuries previously had been familiar with the Chakravarti or Suzerain idea. The later Vedic literature abounds with references to paramount rulers (Adhirāja, Samrāt, Sārvabhauma, etc.). The Aitareya Brāhmana and the Satapatha Brāhmana give detailed descriptions of the ceremonies that were to be performed by paramount sovereigns. According to tradition Trasadasyu, the grandson of Kutsa of Vedic fame, was the first to assume the title of Emperor, and Bharata was the first monarch to bring the whole country under the influence of Āryan civilisation. In the Mahābhārata we read of Jarāsandha’s ambition to become a paramount sovereign, of his defeat by the Pāndavas, of Yudhishthira’s Digvijaya (conquest of all the quarters) and assumption of the imperial title. It should be remembered however, that what these powerful monarchs of old aimed at was the establishment, not of an imperial rule, but of a sort of nominal supremacy over the other Kings. And one chief object of these endeavours was to bring a large part of India together by binding the Kings in a sort of alliance for offensive and defensive purposes with the strongest among them as the nominal suzerain. Ajātasatru and Mahāpadma Nanda endeavoured to bring large tracts of country under their rule, but it was Chandragupta who for the first time succeeded in bringing under one direct authority the entire country from Afghanistan to the Bay of Bengal, and from the Himālayas to beyond the Vindhya mountains. For a thousand years after the establishment of Chandragupta’s supremacy, India witnessed a continual struggle for imperial suzerainty made in different parts of the country and attended with varying degrees of success.

c8.31

The control of this imperial system of course necessitated the use of a complex machinery of administration. Such a machinery was invented and brought into use by Chandragupta with the help of his Prime Minister, Chānakya, and afterwards improved upon by Asoka. Under this system, the home province was under the control of the central executive, while the distant provinces were administered by Viceroys or Governors sent out from the capital. In Asoka’s time there were four or five such provinces besides Magadha which formed the home province. The provinces were divided into districts and sub-districts with suitable officials in charge of them. Chānakya mentions ‘gopas’ and ‘sthānikas’ as the country officials. In Asoka’s edicts occur the terms ‘mahāmātras,’ ‘prādeśikas,’ and ‘rājūkas.’ In some of the later inscriptions we find mention of ‘maṇḍaleśvaras,’ ‘rāja-sthānīyas,’ ‘uparikas,’ and ‘viṣayapatis.’ Besides these officers, there were ‘antaḥpālas,’ or wardens of the marches, to guard the boundaries of the kingdom.

c8.32

A constant touch was kept up with the distant provinces by means of a regular system of correspondence, and also with the assistance of a class of inspecting officers or ‘overseers,’ whose duty it was to watch all that occurred and to make reports to the Central Government. Portions of the Empire were, it seems, ruled by local Rājās¹ who enjoyed varying degrees of independence. Some of them only owed a nominal allegiance to the Suzerain Power. There were others who paid the annual tribute and were liable to be called upon to assist in case of a war with foreign Powers, but were practically independent of control so far as their internal affairs were concerned. The administration of the less important Princes was probably subject to some sort of supervision by the imperial government.

c8.33

¹ Chānakya advises conquerors to place a scion of the royal family on the throne of a conquered country, and to leave the internal administration in his hands.

c8.34

The system of government may be described as a limited monarchy. There were various checks on the authority of the monarch. The King had to abide by the law as laid down in the Sāstras or embodied in the customs of the country. In the practical work of administration he was guided by his ministers, who occupied an important position in society and wielded the real power in the State.² Then, there was the influence of the learned Brāhmanas as a class, who were looked upon by the people as the natural guardians of society. With these checks operating on the governmental system it was very difficult for a king to have his own way in the administration of the country. Occasionally, under a strong and capable ruler like Asoka or Harshavardhana, the government might resemble a paternal despotism,¹ but it was very rarely that the power of the King was quite absolute.² The Sāstras he regarded as embodying a sort of political constitution as well as ethical law, and the ancient system of government may thus be called a constitutional monarchy. It must, however, be remembered that the devices by which the monarch's authority was kept within proper limits were more moral than political. The most suitable term which can be used to describe the system appears in our opinion to be ‘Sachivatantra.’³ The different parts of the governmental machinery of this system will be described in some detail in the next few chapters.

c8.35

² Vide Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 7; also Bk. I. ch. 9

c8.36

¹ In the Kalinga Rock Edict Asoka says : “ All men are my children, and just as I desire my children that they enjoy every kind of prosperity and happiness in both this world and the next, so also I desire the same for all men.”

c8.37

² Vide Sukranīti, Ch. II. sl. 4.

c8.38

³ The term ‘sachivāyatta-tantra,’ that is to say, a form of government in which real power exists in the hands of the Ministers, is found in Mudrā-Rākshasa. Under favourable conditions, such a government answered to Aristotle's description of an aristocracy, that is to say, government by the wisest.

c8.39

The efficiency of administration, of course, varied in the different States and at different times. As might be expected, under good kings and capable ministers a high standard of success was attained, while incompetent administrators not unoften found it difficult to maintain peace and security in the land and brought trouble and misery to the people. On the whole, however, it seems that the administration was efficient. It was founded, as the Chinese traveller, Hiuen Tsiang, noticed, “ on benign principles ”; and the results of good government were to be seen in the happiness and prosperity of the people, the growth of literature, arts, and sciences, and the development of a high order of civilisation.

c8.40

A few words may here be said about a form of government which came into existence towards the end of the Hindu period of Indian history. This system prevailed among the Rajputs, and was pre-eminently a martial system. It had some analogies with the Feudal Monarchy of Europe in the Middle Ages. How it came into existence we do not exactly know, but it seems that during the turmoil of the eighth and ninth centuries A.D., the Rajput clans made themselves masters of some parts of the country. The leader of the clan became the owner of the conquered land, and divided it among his followers as a reward for military services. All vassals held land from the Prince on condition of military service and fidelity. The chief vassals formed the Great Council of the King, and were summoned on important occasions, generally for military purposes. The Prince, with the aid of his Civil Council and the Ministers of the Crown, conducted the central administration and promulgated all legislative enactments which affected the rights and interests of the entire community. In the Crown Demesnes justice was administered by Chabootaras (Terraces of Justice). Local Government was in the hands of the chiefs, who were assisted by their domestic councils composed of the greater sub-vassals, the Pradhān (Premier), the Mayor of the household, the priest, the bard, and two or three of the most intelligent citizens. The chiefs administered their own justice, and in the internal administration of the chiefs' estates, the government officers seldom interfered. Besides, each town and village had its own council or chotia elected by the citizens, who helped the Nagarseth (City Magistrate) and the village headman in the discharge of their local duties.¹

c8.41

¹ Vide Tod’s Rajasthan, Vol. I. In regard to the merits and defects of the system, Col. Tod says : “It is a system full of defects ; yet we see them so often balanced by virtues, that we are alternately biassed by these counter-acting qualities ; loyalty and patriotism, which combine a love of the institutions, religion, and manners of the country, are the counterpoise to systematic evil. In no country has the system ever proved efficient.” Vol. I. p. 148 (first edition).

Linked texts (8)