Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c10: Chapter VI. Provincial and Local Governments

The Mauryan Polity c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI. Provincial and Local Governments

Sec. i. A General Survey

c10.s1.1

It has been already shown (Ch. II) that the empire of Candragupta extended from Afghanistan to Mysore and that of Aśoka was far greater in extent including all the Dekhan and South India upto the frontiers of the Tamil kingdoms. The vastness of the empire under Aśoka can be easily gauged from the distribution of the Pillars, Edicts and the Topes¹ which are usually associated with his name. A significant fact is that Aśoka has invariably caused the Minor Rock Edicts to be located on the borders of the empire. A study of the sites wherein all Aśoka’s dumb monuments were located is in itself an interesting one. The chief places where the Major Rock Edicts are found are the following²:—

c10.s1.2

¹ In regard to the topes of Aśoka we have no reliable authority except a few legends in the Buddhist books. [Watters, Yuan Chwang, II, pp. 21 and 159; also J.R.A.S., 1901, pp. 397-410.] The statement by Chinese pilgrims, Yuan Chwang and Fa-Hien, that as many as 84,000 topes were set up for Aśoka by Yakṣas or even human agents cannot be credited with any trustworthiness. (Pp. 88-91.) But in his tour beginning with the country of Kapis, through Gāndhāra, Taksaśila, the Ganges and the Jumna, Kānyakubja, Kośāmbi, Lumbini, Vaiśāli, Tāmralipti, Kośala, Cola, Drāviḍa, Mahārāṣṭra to the middle Sindh, Yuan Chwang refers to as many as fifty topes seen by him. Hence it is reasonable to attribute a few topes to Aśoka’s credit. Or even it may be that later on some of these topes were associated with this great name to establish the authenticity of Aśoka’s faith in Buddhism. Yuan Chwang also refers to about eight pillars of Aśoka of various dimensions standing near Kapilavastu, Lumbini (p. 14), Kusinara (p. 28), Vaiśāli (p. 65), Pāṭaliputra (p. 93), and Rājagrha (p. 162).

c10.s1.3

² A reference may be made with profit to a map appended to his note on the new finds of the Edicts of Aśoka in the Ind. Ant. (Feb.), 1932 by C. E. A. W. Oldham.

c10.s1.4

(1) Shāhbāzgārhī, in the Peshawar district of the North-West Frontier Province.

c10.s1.5

(2) Mānsehrā in the Hazāra district of the North-West Frontier Province.

c10.s1.6

(3) Kālsī, in the Dehra-Dūn district of the United Provinces and near the hill-station Masuri (also Mussooree).

c10.s1.7

(4) Sopārā of the Thāna district, Bombay.

c10.s1.8

(5) Girnār, near Junāgārh in Kathiawar.

c10.s1.9

(6) Dhauli, seven miles of Bhuvaneśvar, Orissa.

c10.s1.10

(7) Jaugaḍa in the Ganjam District, Madras.

c10.s1.11

The Minor Rock Edicts are found at the following places:—

c10.s1.12

(1) Maski, Raichur District.

c10.s1.13

(2) Siddhāpura, Jaṭinga Rāmeśvara and Brahmagiri in the Chitaldroog District of Mysore.

c10.s1.14

(3) Sahasrām in South Bihār.

c10.s1.15

(4) Rūpnāth in the Central Provinces.

c10.s1.16

(5) Bairāṭ in the Jaipur State of Rājputāna.

c10.s1.17

(6) Barābar Hill.

c10.s1.18

The Pillar Edicts are at the following places:—

c10.s1.19

(1) Toprā in the district of Ambāla.¹

c10.s1.20

¹ But this Toprā Pillar is now located near the "Delhi Gate" removed thereto by Emperor Firoz Shah in the fourteenth century.

c10.s1.21

(2) Mīrāt² (Delhi-mirath) in the United Provinces.²

c10.s1.22

² This Mīrāt Pillar has also been removed by Firoz Shāh and now stands on the ridge to the north of Delhi.

c10.s1.23

(3) Kauśāmbī (Kośam) about thirty miles from Allahabad.³ (4) Lauriyā-Ararāj, Lauriyā-Nandangaṛh and Rāmpurvā, all in the Champāran District of Bihar.

c10.s1.24

³ A column is now found at Allahabad.

c10.s1.25

(5) Sārnāth near Benares.

c10.s1.26

(6) Sānchi in Bhopāl State, Central India.

c10.s1.27

(7) Rummindeī (identified as the site of the Lumbini garden, the birth-place of the Buddha) in the Nepal Tarāi.

c10.s1.28

(8) Niglīva (Nigāli-Sāgar), about 13 miles north-west from Rummindeī in the Nepalese Tarāi.

c10.s1.29

This geographical distribution of the Edicts and Pillars bears infallible testimony to the limits of the empire in the hey-day of its existence.

Administrative Divisions

c10.s1.t1.1

This wide and extensive empire of the Mauryas was then a union of states, loosely called provinces, under the supreme dominion of the Emperors like Candragupta, Bindusāra, Aśoka and his successors. With such extensive territory it is impossible for the central executive machinery, however efficient, to function properly. Hence in those days, as is now being done, the empire was split up into different administrative units, these in their turn into smaller divisions, so as to facilitate the smooth course of the general administration. These administrative divisions may be termed for the sake of convenience, provinces, districts and villages. It cannot be said with any definiteness that the government of the provinces was an innovation of the Mauryas. It is perhaps reasonable to take the view that provincial government began with the Śaiśunāgas, and the Nandas under whom the empire was growing.

Mauryan Provinces

c10.s1.t2.1

Coming to the Mauryas we know there were several viceroyalties under Candragupta. Unfortunately we are not in possession of the full materials to make a definite statement as to the number of provinces, the names of viceroys and such other details. There is evidence to show that Girnār was the headquarters of one of the provinces of Candragupta, and its governor (rāṣṭrīya) was one Puṣyagupta Vaiśya, apparently a local chief.¹ It is evident from the Buddhist books that prince Bindusāra was the viceroy of the southern provinces.² It is reasonable to assume that the provincial administration continued to be growing under Bindusāra as gathered from the Buddhist legends. Under him Taxila and Ujjain were among the provincial capitals. At these places Bindusāra appointed his sons Sumana (otherwise known as Susīma) and Aśoka as governors.³ This is further corroborated by the Divyāvadāna which mentions a revolt of the citizens of Taxila during the reign of Bindusāra, when Aśoka was sent to take up the governorship and pacify the people.⁴

c10.s1.t2.2

¹ Ep. Ind., VIII, pp. 46-47.

c10.s1.t2.3

² Mahāvaṃśa, Ch. V.

c10.s1.t2.4

³ Ibid., Ch. V, pp. 45-46, (S.B. Ceylon) Vol. I.

c10.s1.t2.5

⁴ Pp. 371-72.

Under Aśoka

c10.s1.t3.1

We have both literary and epigraphical evidence, as we shall see subsequently, to show that the government of the provinces was an accomplished fact under Aśoka. That the wealthy city of Taxila⁵ continued to be the capital of the uttarapatha or the northern province is evident from the *Divyāvadāna*. We hear of a similar rising of the citizens under Aśoka when he sent his son Kunāla as governor.¹ Viewed from the present geographical situation, Taxila was the ancient Headquarters of the North-Western Province which probably included the Punjab, Sind, the country beyond the Indus, and Kāṣmir. Besides this, there were certainly three more provinces whose respective capitals were Ujjaini (modern Ujjain in the Gwālior state), Tosāli and Suvarṇagiri. The latter was probably the headquarters of the southern provinces beyond the Nerbudda river.² The jurisdiction of the governor of Tosāli extended to the eastern provinces including the Kaliṅga country. Ujjain was the capital of the western provinces which included Mālva, Gujarat, and Kathiawar.³ According to an inscription of Rudradāman, Girnār continued to be the capital of one of the provinces of Aśoka, under whom the governor was the Yavana chief Tuṣaspha.⁴ Other cities which were seats of government

c10.s1.t3.2

⁵ That Taxila was one of the richest cities when Aśoka ascended the throne, Cunningham mentions on the authority of Burnouf's "Introduction a' l'histoire de Buddhisme Indien" (p. 373). The passage is taken from his Ancient Geography of India. "At the time of Aśoka's

c10.s1.t3.3

¹ Pp. 407-408.

c10.s1.t3.4

² Suvarṇagiri Dr. W. Geiger identified with a mountain of that name near Girivraja in Magadha (*Mahāvaṃśa*, Intro., p. xxvii). It is now identified with Kanakagiri in the Nizam's dominions, south of Māski, famous for an Edict of Aśoka. (See *Hyderabad Arch. Series No. 1*, p. 1. Hultzsch, *Aśoka*, Intro., p. xxxviii: Bühler, Ep. Ind. III, p. 134-ff.

c10.s1.t3.5

³ See *Early History of India*, p. 172.

c10.s1.t3.6

⁴ *Ep Ind.*, VIII, pp. 46-47.

c10.s1.t3.7

accession the wealth of Taxila is said to have amounted to 36 kotis or 360 millions of some unnamed coin, which, even if it was the silver tangka or six pence, would have amounted to nine crores of rupees, or £9,000,000. It is probable, however, that the coin intended by the Indian writer was a gold one, in which case the wealth of this city would have amounted to about 90 or 100 millions of pounds." This statement goes to prove the reputed wealth of Taxila within fifty years after Alexander's expedition.

c10.s1.t3.8

nors were Samāpa (Jaugaḍa) and Kauśāmbi, the modern Kośam in the west of the Magadha province.¹

c10.s1.t3.9

¹ See Kauśāmbi Pillar Edict of Allahabad-Kośam (Hultzsch, pp. 159-160). Also Cunningham's Inscriptions of Aśoka, p. 39.

Kumāras or Āryaputras

c10.s1.t4.1

The governors of these provinces were either the local chieftains like the Yavana Tuṣaspha or royal princes who accepted the suzerainty of the emperor. Ordinarily members of the blood royal were deputed as viceroys to distant provinces. Bindusāra and Aśoka were in their turn the recipients of this honour at the hands of the Imperial government. There are two Rock Edicts² according to which the kumāras or āryaputras were generally appointed as heads of the provinces. From the Rock-inscriptions of Aśoka we find that the governors at Ujjain and at Tosāli were kumāras³ while the governor at Suvarṇagiri was an āryaputra.⁴ Hultzsch is of opinion that the two kumāras were probably the sons of the king himself and the āryaputra, some other member of the royal family.⁵

c10.s1.t4.2

² Jaugada First Separate R.E., Corpus, p. 112; Mysore Edicts, ib. pp. 175-178.

c10.s1.t4.3

³ Dhauli Separate R.E. I & II. Corpus, pp. 93 and 97.

c10.s1.t4.4

⁴ Brahmagiri and Siddapura R.E., Corpus, pp. 175 and 178.

c10.s1.t4.5

⁵ Corpus, Intro., p. xi.

Districts and villages

c10.s1.t5.1

For purposes of administration the provinces were divided into districts and these again into villages. The term meaning a district is āhāla (Sanskrit āhāra), occurring in the Rupnāth Edict¹ and āhāla in the Sārnāth Edict.² There is again the mention of the district of Isila³ which was probably under the supervising control of the viceroy at Suvarṇagiri. For, the king’s orders were not directly communicated to the district officer at Isila, but went through the officials at the headquarters of the Suvarṇagiri province.⁴ The next administrative division was the grāma or a village, or a group of a number of villages which formed the political unit. That these were also under some sort of control of the district officials is borne out by an important record, viz., the Soghaura copper-plate inscription whose interpretation remained unsettled for a long time.⁵ This inscription which is accepted to be of the period of Aśoka is an order to the villages of Mānavāsitikṛtaśrīmanta and Ūṣagrāma by the mahāmātras of Śrāvasti. Śrāvasti was apparently a district. Though we are not at present concerned with the object of the grant, still it may be noted in passing that it was an order to the respective villages to put up two temporary storehouses on the road with full provisions. Thus we are enabled to see in an outline how the local government was carried on during the epoch of the Mauryas.

c10.s1.t5.2

¹ Corpus, p. 166.

c10.s1.t5.3

² Ibid., p. 162.

c10.s1.t5.4

³ Ibid., pp. 175 and 178.

c10.s1.t5.5

⁴ See for more details, the Mysore Edicts at Brahmagiri and Siddhapura, Corpus, pp. 175-179.

c10.s1.t5.6

⁵ For a discussion on the subject see the proceedings of A.S.B., 1894, p. 87ff: J.R.A.S., 1907, pp. 523ff: Annals of the Bh. R. Institute, Vol. XI, pt. 1, pp. 32-48.

The four divisions of the Janapada

c10.s1.t6.1

Before we proceed to examine the details in regard to the government of the provinces let us pass in review the scheme of provincial administration as outlined in the extant *Arthaśāstra*. The whole Janapada is divided into four convenient parts, the *sthānīya*, *droṇamukha*, *kharvaṭika* and *saṅgrahaṇa*.¹ These divisions were different stations where government officials were posted primarily for the purposes of police and secondarily for revenue purposes. The *sthānīya* is the largest division in the midst of 800 villages. The *droṇamukha*, *kharvaṭika* and *saṅgrahaṇa* were the headquarters for 400, 200, and 10 villages respectively. The area of the Kauṭalīyan village extended from one to two *krośas*, a *krośa* measuring 2250 yards.

c10.s1.t6.2

¹ Bk. II, ch. 1; cp. Bk. III, ch. 1.

The Antapālas

c10.s1.t7.1

The officers at these respective divisions were graded officials all subordinate to the *Samāhartā* or the Collector-general. We are not able to fix the exact functions assigned to these rural officials. That these headquarters were not fortified garrisons for purposes of defence is evident from the fact that in the next line of the same book,² we find a set of officials called *antapālas* who were placed in charge of the frontier-territories. In each of these were military stations at least one recalling to our memory the Palatine earldoms under William the Conqueror. That the officials at these rural head-quarters had something to do with the revenue collection is evident from the fact that these were answerable to the Collector-general. Added to this is the fact that this division occurs in the chapter entitled the *Janapada niveśa*¹ where the question of the settlement of the villages is discussed. If it is then conceded that these officials had the supervising control over the collection of revenue and were partly answerable to it, then it is reasonable to take the view that the central government entrusted the same agency to guarantee safety and security to the rural areas. This means that these officials undertook to defend the people from thieves and robbers, for the *antapālas* guarded the entrance into the kingdom. This position, it is possible to take, for in those days there was no fine distinction between the police functions and revenue functions.

c10.s1.t7.2

² Bk. II, ch. 1.

c10.s1.t7.3

¹ Bk. II, ch. 1.

Other officials

c10.s1.t8.1

In addition to these the Central government appointed other agencies to ensure internal peace. The trap-keepers (*vāhurika*), archers (*śabara*), hunters (*pulindas*), outcastes (*caṇḍālās*), and wild tribes (*araṇyacara*) were set about to reconnoitre the country parts including the forest regions, and whenever they anticipated disturbance or danger of any sort, they sent information to the capital. The means of carrying this news was by the blowing of conch shells or the beating of drums. Sometimes it was by flying the pigeons with writs (*mudrā*), or causing fire and smoke at respectable distances.²

c10.s1.t8.2

² Bk. II, ch. 34.

Classification of villages

c10.s1.t9.1

The administrative classification of the villages is not without interest to the antiquarian. Kauṭalya speaks also of three-fold classification of the villages.¹ These were, first, villages exempted from taxation (parihāraka), secondly, villages supplying soldiers āyudhīya), and thirdly, villages liable to taxation in cash or kind.² In the same chapter³ a further sub-division of the villages according to the quality of the soil is given. These are again classified under three heads—the superior, the middling and the inferior. Apparently such considerations weighed with the settlement officers in regard to the assessment of the revenue. Barring this the central administration did not interfere in the rural politics which were in the hands of the village communities. These villages, economically self-sufficient, enjoyed complete rural autonomy.

c10.s1.t9.2

¹ For a correct interpretation of the term grāma see K. A. Nila-kanta Śāstri's article in the J.O.R. (1930), part 3, being a reply to the ingenious interpretation of Prān Nāth in his A Study in the Economic Condition of Ancient India.

c10.s1.t9.3

² See the excellent comment of Gaṇapati Śāstri on this passage Vol. I, pp. 344-45.

c10.s1.t9.4

³ Bk. II, ch. 35.

Duties of the Gopa

c10.s1.t10.1

In every village there was an official who went by the name of Gopa.⁴ He was the official of the Central government appointed over a small area ranging from five to ten villages. He held the jurisdiction of this area for which he was responsible. He was primarily a revenue official. Among the functions assigned to him the following may be noted:

c10.s1.t10.2

⁴ Ar. Śās., Bk. II, ch. 35.

c10.s1.t10.3

(1) He maintained proper records of the accounts relating to the village or villages under his jurisdiction.

c10.s1.t10.4

(2) He set up boundary limits of villages, fields, forests and roads.

c10.s1.t10.5

(3) He numbered the plots of ground under respective heads: cultivable and non-cultivable, dry lands and wet lands, number of gardens including fruit, flower and vegetables.

c10.s1.t10.6

(4) He also kept a note of the grounds covered by temples and altars, cremation grounds, rest-houses where food and water were supplied, pasture grounds and roads.

c10.s1.t10.7

(5) He maintained another register wherein were noted down gifts, sales, charities and the cultivable lands remitted of revenue.

c10.s1.t10.8

(6) He kept yet another register showing the number of houses in his charge, both tax-paying and tax-free. In this he further noted the number of inhabitants, their castes and professions, their income and expenditure besides the heads of cattle in each household, as well as other domestic animals.

c10.s1.t10.9

These rural officials were not left to themselves. The Central government appointed as many as three commissioners in every headquarters of the rural areas. They went about the country and kept watch over the revenue officials lest they should prove tyrannical or harass the people unduly with unjust taxes. These commissioners were then an effective check on the conduct of these government servants who were thus given no opportunity to misuse their powers.¹ If any comparison could be made, the *sthāniyas* and the *droṇa*- mukha officers were the viceroys and provincial governors, while those at the *kharvaṭika* and the *saṅgrahana* were district officers. The *gopas* were the members of the subordinate civil service who were in charge of the accounts.

c10.s1.t10.10

¹ *Ibid.* Also see Bk. III, ch. 1.

Sec. iii. The Government of the Provinces

The relation between the central government and the provinces

c10.s2.t1.1

It would be particularly interesting to examine how far the scheme of provincial administration in the *Kauṭalīya* coincides with such aspects of that administration as can be gathered from the inscriptions of Aśoka. It is indeed difficult to define the exact relations between the central government and the local government. It is evident that at the head of each province there was a viceroy or a governor. He was invariably a member of the royal dynasty and preferably a royal prince. But in the provinces where it was felt that a local chief might prove a better administrative head, the local man was appointed.¹ This governor was assisted in his work of administration by a body of officials known by different designations, the *mahāmātras*, the *rājukas* and the *pradeṣṭṛs*. These were executive officials appointed again by the Central government. Their chief functions appear to have been the collection of revenue, and defence by means of an elaborate police organisation. These provincial heads were also the channel of communication between the Central government and the rural officials. The orders of the imperial Headquarters were communicated to the provinces by Edicts and royal prescripts of which we have some specimens in those of Aśoka to the officers at Tośāli and Kauśāmbi.¹ These officers at the Headquarters of the provinces in their turn communicated the orders of His Majesty to the rural officers. For instance, the prince and the *mahāmātras* of Suvarṇagiri communicated to the *mahāmātras* at Īśila what the Devānāmpriya had commanded.² If the administrative details contained in the *Divyāvadāna*, undoubtedly a later work, could be relied upon, then there were, in addition to those officers above mentioned, political organisations in the provincial capitals which went by the name of the Paura, the Jānapada and others.³

c10.s2.t1.2

¹ See above, pp. 201-2.

c10.s2.t1.3

¹ *Corpus*, pp. 92, 191, 155, etc.

c10.s2.t1.4

² Brahmagiri R. Ins., p. 175.

c10.s2.t1.5

³ *Divyāva*, p. 411.

The mahāmātras

c10.s2.t2.1

Let us now examine the status assigned to and the functions expected of the *mahāmātras*, the *rājukas*, and the *pradeṣṭṛs* one after the other. The term *mahāmātra* occurs in several places in the *Arthaśāstra* and has been translated by Shāmā Śāstri as ‘minister’.⁴

c10.s2.t2.2

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 12.

c10.s2.t2.3

There is also another term *mahāmātrīya*⁵ meaning ‘the official-chamber of the ministry’. Excepting the fact that these *mahāmātras* were ministers or high officials of the state, no other functions definitely marked as such can be gathered from the *Arthaśāstra*. A comparative study of the *Arthaśāstra* and inscriptions of Aśoka⁶ where the designation *mahāmātra* occurs, bears the possibility of equating the term *mahāmātra* in the Edicts with that of the *adhyakṣa* in the *Arthaśāstra*. This possibility of change was only in designation but not in function. This correspondence of *adhyakṣa-mahāmātra* does not negative the special interpretation of *mahāmātra* meaning a minister. It would seem that whenever the term is used without any prefix it may be generally taken to denote ministers. More of this later on.

c10.s2.t2.4

⁵ Bk. II, ch. 5.

c10.s2.t2.5

⁶ Rock Edict V, XII, Minor Rock Edict I, Kalinga Edicts, Pillar Edict VII, Kauśāmbi and Sārnāth Edicts. Cp. Vātsyāyana, *Kāma-

c10.s2.t2.6

Similarity of offices in the *Arthaśāstra* and the Edicts

c10.s2.t2.7

As Kauṭalya mentions a number of *adhyakṣas* in charge of the respective departments of the state Aśoka speaks of a number of superintendents in charge of different departments. We shall mention here such officers from the *Arthaśāstra* as correspond to those under the *mahāmātra* officials of the Edicts. *Nāgaraka* who is the superintendent of the town¹ corresponds to *mahāmātra-nāgaraka*. The *paura-vyāvahārika*² corresponds to the *nagala-viyohālaka*.³ These latter are found as administrators of justice for their cities, Tośāli and Samāpa.⁴ Perhaps the *gaṇikādhyakṣa*⁵ or the superintendent of courtesans can be compared with *Ithijhakha-mahāmāta*⁶ or *strīadhyakṣamahāmātras*.⁷ Probably these officials attended to the needs and comforts of the women members of the royal family. What their functions exactly were is not clear. A comparison can again be made between the *dharmā-vasa-thinah* of the *Arthaśāstra*¹ and the *dharma-mahāmā-tras* of Aśoka. In the former they were managers of religious and charitable institutions, who administered to the wants of the *śrotriyas* and ascetics, and who kept in check the *pāṣaṇḍis* and other heretical sects. They interested themselves in the promotion of morality and religion.²

c10.s2.t2.8

sūtra sūtra, pp. 285, 287, and 300. See also H. C. Chakladar, *Social Life in Ancient India* (Greater India Society publication, No. 3), p. 106.

c10.s2.t2.9

¹ Bk. II, ch. 36.

c10.s2.t2.10

² Bk. I, ch. 13.

c10.s2.t2.11

³ *Corpus*, p. 92.

c10.s2.t2.12

⁴ *Ibid.*

c10.s2.t2.13

⁵ Bk. II, ch. 27.

c10.s2.t2.14

⁶ XII R.E. Girnār, *Corpus*, p. 20.

c10.s2.t2.15

⁷ Mānsehrā, XII and Shāh., XII.

c10.s2.t2.16

¹ Bk. II, ch. 36.

c10.s2.t2.17

² Ibid., p. 10.

Functions of dharmamahāmātras

c10.s2.t3.1

More or less the same functions were expected of the *dharmamahāmātras* by Aśoka.³ Their functions were as follows:—

c10.s2.t3.2

³ R.E. V, XII and P.E. VII.

c10.s2.t3.3

“These are occupied with all sects in establishing morality, in promoting morality, and for the welfare and happiness of those who are devoted to morality (even) among the *yonas*, *kambojas*, and *gāndhāras*, and whatever other western borderers (of mine there are).

c10.s2.t3.4

“They are occupied with servants and masters, with Brahmanas and Ibhyas, with the destitute, (and) with the aged, for the welfare and happiness of those who are devoted to morality, (and) in releasing (them) from the fetters (of worldly life).

c10.s2.t3.5

“They are occupied in supporting prisoners (with money), in causing (their) fetters to be taken off, and in setting (them) free, if one has children, or is be-witched or aged, respectively.

c10.s2.t3.6

“They are occupied everywhere, here and in all out-lying towns, in the harems of our brothers, of (our)

c10.s2.t3.7

sisters, and (of) whatever other relatives (of ours there are).

c10.s2.t3.8

"These *mahāmātras* of morality are occupied everywhere in my dominions with those who are devoted to morality, (in order to ascertain) whether one is eager for morality or properly devoted to charity."¹

c10.s2.t3.9

¹ Hultzsch, Trans., pp. 33-34. See above pp. 168, 173-5, for a slight modification in the interpretation of certain terms. The statements in the inscriptions (V.R.E.): atikātaṁ amtaraṁ na bhūta-pruvaṁ dhammamahāmātā nāma| ta m(a)yā traidasavāsābhi(s)i(tena) dhammamahāmātā katā| (Girnār, corpus, p. 9). se atikantaṁ amtalaṁ nohuta-puluva dham(m)a-mahāmatā nāmā| t(e)dasa-vasābhi(i)sitenā mamayā dharma-mahāmāt(ā) kaṭ(ā)| (Kālsi, corpus, p. 32). sa atikrataṁ atara no bhuta-pruva dhramma-ma(ha)ma(tra) nama| so todaśavaṣabhisitena maya dharma-mahamatra kiṭa (Shāhbāzgārhi, corpus, p. 55).

The antamahāmātras

c10.s2.t4.1

The *antapālas* of the *Kauṭalīya* correspond to the *antamahāmātras* of the Edicts. The Empire had grown so huge and so vast that effective frontier administration was of paramount necessity. Clear instructions are laid down in the *Arthaśāstra* as to the duties

c10.s2.t4.2

This has been rendered by Hultzsch in his translation thus: "Now in times past (officers) called mahāmātras of morality did not exist before. But mahāmātras of morality were appointed by me (when I had been) anointed thirteen years." This interpretation has also been generally accepted. The words 'no' and 'na' may equate and mean 'indeed', 'now', etc. Hence the first line may be translated "In times past officers called dharma-mahāmātras indeed existed." What Aśoka apparently wants to make out is that this office which once existed did not exist during the period of his first thirteen years. He perhaps felt the necessity for such office and appointed special officers. In the light of the *Arthaśāstra* where there is evidence of a similar office, with most of the functions as found in the Edicts assigned to it, the interpretation that it did not exist before seems to be incorrect.

c10.s2.t4.3

and responsibilities of the boundary guards and frontier chiefs and their relations with the central government. They had both political and economic functions to perform. The economic duties were to collect the road-cess (vartani) on imported goods, mark them with the royal seal and take charge of these goods until they passed beyond the toll house.¹ Kauṭalya advises a good number of frontier-guards to be appointed lest they should be won over by the enemy. If they were a good number, they would be afraid of betrayal from one another and conduct themselves loyally to the empire.² The frontier peoples, whether conquered or unconquered, forest-folk or others, were kept in good humour and the paternal principle of government was even extended to them as is evident from the Kaliṅga Edicts.³ The antamahāmātras like the antapālas were chiefly occupied with the administration of the frontier provinces.⁴ The Arthaśāstra refers to three kinds of dūtas—(1) those possessing ministerial qualifications, (2) those possessing lesser qualifications, and (3) those possessing ordinary qualifications.⁵ It would appear that generally from among the first class of messengers, ambassadors were selected and sent to other states to determine the relation of states to one another. This practice corresponds to that in Aśoka's time. From a study of the Rock Edict V it can be safely said that from among the mahāmātra officials, ambassadors (dūtas) were selected. They were sent not only to the neighbouring states but also to foreign countries with which the empire had diplomatic relations.¹

c10.s2.t4.4

¹ Bk. II, ch. 21. ² Bk. II, ch. 4. ³ Corpus, pp. 98 and 102. ⁴ First Pillar Edict—Delhi Topra, Corpus, p. 119. ⁵ Bk. I, ch. 16.

c10.s2.t4.5

¹ See R.E. XIII, *Corpus*, p. 67.

c10.s2.t4.6

*The mantripariṣad of the provinces*

c10.s2.t4.7

As already mentioned the *Arthaśāstra* refers to the terms *mahāmātra* in the sense of a minister,² and the *mahāmātrīya*³ as the official chamber of the ministry. It is significant to note again the term *mantripariṣad*, meaning thereby the council of ministers. Suffice it to say here that this council enjoyed the right of consultation by the king before he would launch on some business affecting the state. What is interesting is that Aśoka uses the terms *mahāmātra* and *pariṣad* in a similar sense. There are two important Edicts, R. E. III and V, which bear this out. The first is an order of the council to the officials in the Accounts Department,⁴ and the second refers distinctly to the inner working of the councils.⁵ It is refreshing to note that Hultzsch agrees with this interpretation.⁶ He writes: "Jayaswal⁷ has drawn attention to the occurrence of the term *mantripariṣad* 'the council of ministers,' in the *Kauṭalīya*. This meaning fits admirably both here and in the Rock Edict VI." That the *āryaputra* or the provincial chief did not act on his own initiative, but consulted his council before he took action, is seen from the fact that even the orders of the provincial Headquarters were sent both in the name of the provincial chief and his *mahāmātras* as is evident from the phrase ‘ayaputasa mahāmātāṇaṃ cha’.¹ Though the members of the mahāmātra-pariṣad seem to have enjoyed a good deal of freedom, still they did not go unchecked. They could not abuse their rights and privileges. If differences of opinion arose among them, the matter was reported to the king at the imperial Headquarters who was the final arbiter.² Again if they should conduct themselves badly the citizens would raise the standard of revolt, which would be duly reported to the King.

c10.s2.t4.8

² Bk. I, ch. 13.

c10.s2.t4.9

³ Bk. II, ch. 5.

c10.s2.t4.10

⁴ Edicts R.E. III and VI.

c10.s2.t4.11

⁵ *Corpus*, p. 4.

c10.s2.t4.12

⁶ In a footnote on page 5.

c10.s2.t4.13

⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 11. See also *I.A.*, 42, pp. 282-284.

c10.s2.t4.14

¹ See *Corpus*, p. 176, Brahmagiri R. E.

c10.s2.t4.15

² See R.E. VI, *Corpus*, p. 11.

c10.s2.t4.16

‘Revolt against provincial ministry’

c10.s2.t4.17

A practical instance of this is seen from the history of Aśoka. The citizens of Taxila, the capital of uttarapatha or the northern provinces, resented the insolent behaviour of the ministry at their provincial capital. When the matter reached the Emperor Bindusāra, Aśoka was sent to restore law and order. The citizens accorded the prince a cordial welcome with pūrṇakumbhas and other invaluable presents. They addressed him thus: “We are not hostile either to the Kumāra or even the king Bindusāra. But we are hostile to the ministers who by their high-handedness provoke us to excitement.”³ There was a similar rising in the same place under Aśoka who sent his son Kunāla. He was also warmly received by the pauras who ventilated their grievances against the ministry.⁴ It has been shown already that these ministers retired from office in some places every three years as at Takṣaśīla, and in other places every five years.¹ Mention has again been made of the relations which existed between the ministry and the local assemblies of the realm such as the paura and the jānapada.

c10.s2.t4.18

³ śrutva takṣaśīlanivāsinaḥ paurāḥ| ardhatṛtīyāni yojanāni mārge sobham kṛtva pūrṇaghaṭamādāya pratyutgatāḥ| pratyutgamya ca kathayanti| Na vayam kumārasya viruddhāḥ, nāpi rājño Bindusārasya| api tu duṣṭāmātyāḥ, asmākam paribhavam kurvanti| mahatā ca satkārena takṣaśīlam praveśitaḥ|—*Divyāvadāna*, pp. 371-72.

c10.s2.t4.19

⁴ *Ibid.*, pp. 407-8.

c10.s2.t4.20

¹ See above p. 132.

Rājukas

c10.s2.t5.1

Another body of higher officials went by the designation of rājuka or lājuka. It would be indeed interesting here to examine whether this office of the rājuka is mentioned in the Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra. The term occurs in the work with a prefix ‘cora’, and the full designation is ‘corarajjuka.’² It would appear that the designation rajjuka is the more correct technical term and not ‘rājuka.’ It is not clear from what root the word derives its present form. Perhaps it comes from the old root rasj or rajj. Whatever this may be the passage in the Arthaśāstra throws welcome light on the rural administration of the land. Rural policy depended obviously on the nature of the territorial area. In the intervening places between any two villages was the officer in charge of the pasture lands (vivītādhyakṣa) and he was responsible to make good the loss occurring in his territorial jurisdiction. If the locality was not considered of sufficient importance from a commercial point of view, and the traffic was slack, there was the cora-rajjuka who was responsible for the security of the place. There were again other places where transactions were next to nothing, and in those places the people of the locality made their own arrangements for the upkeep of peace. Perhaps the responsibility was fixed in the village community.¹ In Chapter VI of Book II, the terms rajjūḥ and corarajjūḥ occur and are respectively interpreted as ‘income from the territory’ (viṣayapāladeyam), and as ‘income from the village for protection against the thieves.’² The officials in charge of such incomes were those who were connected with the department of revenue. Whenever they were chosen for specified interests, they were designated with a title, the prefix of which denoted the functions allotted to them. It may be presumed that they were officials connected with ‘survey, land settlement and irrigation’.³ This was also the interpretation which Bühler gave in discussing the phrase mahāvalabham rajjūkam⁴ when examining the Śātavāhana inscription containing a grant of Hārītiputta Satakaṇṇi of Bānavāsi of the second century A.D. That such officials existed is corroborated by the Greek authority, Megasthenes.⁵

c10.s2.t5.2

² Ar. Śās., Bk. IV, ch. 13.

c10.s2.t5.3

¹ Ibid.

c10.s2.t5.4

² coragrāhakāya grāmadeyam, T.S.S., Vol. I, p. 134.

c10.s2.t5.5

³ See F. W. Thomas, C.H.I., Vol. I, pp. 487 and 508.

c10.s2.t5.6

⁴ See Z.D.M.G., xlvii, p. 466, cp. Ep. Ind., II, p. 466, n.

c10.s2.t5.7

⁵ Fg. 34, p. 86 (Cal., 1926); see also Law, Aspects of Ind. Polity, Intro., by Mookerjee, p. 36; Contra Stein, Meg. und Kauṭalya, p. 22.

c10.s2.t5.8

To turn our attention to the Aśokan inscriptions the term occurs in the Rock Edict III and the Pillar Edict IV. According to the latter the rājukas are set over hundreds of persons. An examination of their powers and functions shows that they occupied a status next in rank only to the viceroys. Says V. A. Smith: ‘The modern term governor may serve as a rough equivalent.’⁶ According to the same authority the word rājuke or rāju (Mānsehrā R. E.) is etymologically connected with *rāja*, and hence Bühler’s construction cannot be accepted. If it is connected with the term *rāja*, he should have been one of the *mahāmātra* officials, since *rāja* in Pāli means *mahāmātra*. The term may therefore mean ‘all those who have power of life and death’.¹ The Rājukas were very likely the chief provincial revenue officers. It appears that Aśoka invested them with extensive powers and allowed them the use of their independent discretion ‘without the necessity of obtaining sanction for particular acts by reference to the Crown.’² Categorically their powers and duties may be stated as follows³:—

c10.s2.t5.9

⁶ Aśoka, p. 94.

c10.s2.t5.10

¹ See Childer’s Pāli Dictionary.

c10.s2.t5.11

² See Pillar E. IV, *Corpus*, p. 123; also Smith, *Aśoka*, p. 203.

c10.s2.t5.12

³ See P.E. IV.

c10.s2.t5.13

(1) They were the sovereign authority with regard to the questions of war and peace (*abhihara*) so far as the provinces were concerned. This means that they informed the Central government of the movements of the enemy and breaking up of hostilities in the neighbouring kingdoms or border tracts.

c10.s2.t5.14

(2) They were the final authority in matters relating to the upkeep of internal peace. This was to afford protection by the proper exercise of *daṇḍa* and *daṇḍanīti*. That their decision was binding is evident from the term *ātmapatiye* in the inscription. Local affairs were left to the hands of local men who had first-hand knowledge of the locality. It was felt improper to dictate a policy from the imperial capital by members who had neither the opportunity nor the occasion to get themselves acquainted with the needs and aspirations peculiar to the locality.

c10.s2.t5.15

(3) They exercised also civil and criminal jurisdiction. Wrongs were righted and grievances were redressed by an impartial administration of justice. They thus took cognizance of both civil and criminal causes within their territorial jurisdiction.

c10.s2.t5.16

(4) They were to conduct themselves in such a way as to win the esteem and confidence of the Jānapada organisations. Co-operation was therefore sought with the Jānapada or popular assembly for awarding punishment or granting *anugrahas* (favours and concessions). In their acts and deeds they were to be like nurses whose only care was to look after the proper growth and progress of children.

c10.s2.t5.17

(5) They were to discharge their responsibilities with a sense of duty, peace of mind, and with no feeling of hostility. They were to promote what was good for the *prajā* and the *loka* (people) and on behalf of the Jānapada. By taking a dispassionate view of things and acting selflessly with an eye to the welfare of the people, they realised their objects easily. They were, in short, expected to do what the common will dictated as tending for the common good.

c10.s2.t5.18

Thus according to the *Arthaśāstra* and the Edicts of Aśoka, the Rajjuka or Rājuka was the officer of the Jānapada entrusted with duties of a varied character as warranted by the circumstances of the situation.

The Prādeśikas

c10.s2.t6.1

We have now examined two institutions, thrown off to exercise, as their peculiar work, administrative and judicial functions of the provincial government, that is, the offices of the *Mahāmātras* and the Rājukas. The next body of officials was that of the Prādeśikas. The Arthaśāstra mentions a class of officers called the pradeṣṭṛs.¹ They were appointed by the Samāhartā.² They seem to have³ been primarily revenue commissioners.⁴ They had also magisterial functions to perform. It is said that a Board of three commissioners was formed, and that it was deputed to enquire after the disturbers of the peace including state officials in the locality, and to bring them to book so that the trade and industry which were the mainstay of the empire had an unhampered continuity.⁵ The term kaṇṭaka in this passage is interpreted as artisans in the T. M. commentary.⁶ But it is hardly acceptable. It is highly improbable that three ministers or three commissioners would have been appointed to look after the artisans. It is very likely that these officers resembled the justices of peace of the mediæval England who made extensive tours in the country parts and awarded punishment to men of criminal tendencies and acts.⁷ In meting out justice the commissioners were to be impartial and equitable⁸ and if not, they were liable to the same penalty.⁹ These commissioners like the judges were watched over lest they should become corrupt by accepting bribes. Those who were proved guilty were punished.¹ This shows that they were expected to discharge their functions with full responsibility.

c10.s2.t6.2

¹ Bk. I, ch. 12.

c10.s2.t6.3

² Bk. IV, ch. 9.

c10.s2.t6.4

³ The pay of a pradeṣṭa officer is computed to be 8,000 paṇas equal to that of the śreṇi and leaders of elephants, horses, and chariots. (Bk. V, ch. 3.)

c10.s2.t6.5

⁴ gopasthānikasthāneṣu pradeṣṭārāḥ kāryakāraṇam balipragraham ca kuryuḥ|| Bk. II, ch. 35.

c10.s2.t6.6

⁵ Bk. V, ch. 1,4 and 9. pradeṣṭārāṣṭrayastrayo vā amātyāḥ kaṇṭakaśodhanam kuryuḥ|

c10.s2.t6.7

⁶ See Shāma Sāstri Trans. p. 245-n.

c10.s2.t6.8

⁷ pradeṣṭa coramārgaṇam, Bk. IV, ch. 6.

c10.s2.t6.9

⁸ Bk. IV, ch. 10.

c10.s2.t6.10

⁹ Ibid., ch. 9.

c10.s2.t6.11

¹ Bk. IV, ch. 4.

c10.s2.t6.12

Identical with these officers are the *prādeśikas* of the Aśokan Inscriptions.² The term has had the benefit of a full and critical examination by scholars. F. W. Thomas renders it as ‘the head of the executive, revenue and judicial service.’³ Mookerjee translates it as the divisional commissioner⁴ and surmises an ascending order of rank from the mention of the *yuktas*, *rājukas* and *prādeśikas* in the Rock Edict III. Samaddar holds that their position was equal to that of a minister and that they could not have been mere ‘district’ officers.⁵ If the term is derived from *pradeśa* which means a territorial division and hence a specified area, the *prādeśikas* might be provincial officers entrusted with jurisdiction over a specified area. If the term *anusaṃyānaṃ* means ‘tour,’ then these officials toured round the country once in every five years.⁶ But if it means ‘transfer,’ they were also transferred every five years, when new commissioners took their place. The latter seems to be more probable.

c10.s2.t6.13

² R.E. III, *Corpus*, pp. 4 and 5.

c10.s2.t6.14

³ *J.R.A.S.*, 1914, pp. 383-6.

c10.s2.t6.15

⁴ *Aśoka*, p. 56.

c10.s2.t6.16

⁵ *Glories of Magadha*, pp. 87-88.

c10.s2.t6.17

⁶ R.E. III, Shāh., Mān., Gir., and Kāl.

The Puruṣas

c10.s2.t7.1

Administrative work, civil or criminal, or even military, would be impossible without an organised civil service. In the Mauryan empire we find that two classes of civil servants are distinguished. They were the puruṣas and the yuktas. While the yuktas belonged to the cadre of subordinate civil service, the puruṣas were of the superior civil service. The Arthaśāstra mentions Gūḍhapuruṣas, and they are mainly Intelligence Officers.¹ An examination of the functions assigned to them in the Kauṭalīya demonstrates corroboration with the writings of the classical writers like Megasthenes, Arrian and Strabo. "They spy out what goes in country and town and report everything to the king".² Again Megasthenes says: 'the sixth class consists of the overseers to whom is assigned the duty of watching all that goes on and making reports secretly to the king. Some are entrusted with the inspection of the city and others with that of the army. The former employ as their coadjutors the courtesan of the city and the latter the courtesans of the camp. The ablest and most trustworthy men are appointed to fill these offices.'³ The Arthaśāstra uses the term puruṣa in both a general and a technical sense. Besides it speaks of ayukta-puruṣas,⁴ abhityakta puruṣas⁵ (outcaste men according to Śāma Śāstri), yogapuruṣas, and pravīrapuruṣas (members of military associations).⁶ There is besides in it a chapter titled *puruṣavyasanavargaḥ*. But this does not refer to the troubles of civil officials, but treats in general of *vyasanas* to which a man is liable to. There is a distinct mention of *puruṣas* and *yuktas* in the sense of civil servants in chapter V of Book II.

c10.s2.t7.2

¹ Bk. I, ch. 11-12.

c10.s2.t7.3

² Ind. Ant., VI, pp. 124 and 237.

c10.s2.t7.4

³ Fg. 36.

c10.s2.t7.5

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 15.

c10.s2.t7.6

⁵ Bk. II, ch. 5.

c10.s2.t7.7

⁶ Bk. VII, ch. 14.

c10.s2.t7.8

¹ Bk. VIII, ch. 3.

c10.s2.t7.9

That they were employed in all departments and that misappropriation on their part was severely punished is seen from the same chapter also.² Perhaps the statement in chapter 20 of Book III in regard to the *puruṣas* and their qualifications is a reference to the civil servants. Regard was to be shown to those *puruṣas* who were learned, wise, bold, of high birth and skilled in discharging duties.³ It would appear that only qualified men were appointed to this service.

c10.s2.t7.10

² sarvādhikaraṇeṣu yuktopayukta tatpuruṣāṇām paṇādicatuṣpaṇāḥ paramāpahāreṣu pūrvamadhya-mottamavadho daṇḍaḥ—Bk. II, ch. 5.

c10.s2.t7.11

³ pūjyāḥ vidyābuddhipauruṣābhijñakarmātiśayataśca puruṣāḥ.

The evidence of inscriptions

c10.s2.t8.1

From the Edicts of Aśoka,⁴ the *puruṣas* who were civil servants of the superior rank were appointed in three grades—the lower, the middling and the higher. This reminds us of our own civil service system where a civil servant who is started in the lower scale is promoted to the upper division after a certain period of service. From Pillar Edict IV where these *puruṣas* are said to be acquainted with the wishes of the king it seems that these government servants were appointed by the authorities at the imperial Headquarters, and they were hence answerable to them. The Edicts are valuable in as much as they refer to the duties expected of these officials. These two duties are mentioned. First, they were the inspectorate of the government, and in that capacity watched whether the provincial officers were loyal to the king.¹ Secondly, they were sent over to the common people² to get at the prevailing public feeling with regard to the government of the land. This, it may be remembered, is a function assigned to the *gūḍhapuruṣas* by Kauṭalya.³

c10.s2.t8.2

⁴ Pillar I, IV and VII.

c10.s2.t8.3

¹ Pillar E. IV: also Mookerjee, *Aśoka*, p. 57.

c10.s2.t8.4

² bahune janasi āyaṭā P.E. VII, *Corpus*, p. 132 (Delhi-Topra).

c10.s2.t8.5

³ See Bk. I, ch. 12 and 13.

The Yuktas

c10.s2.t9.1

The other class of civil servants who were of the subordinate rank went by the technical name of the *yuktas*. Apart from its use in the Aśokan inscriptions, as we shall see presently, it occurs in the *Arthaśāstra* in different connections. There is a very informing chapter entitled *upayuktaparikṣā*.⁴ Two different classes of officials are mentioned, the *yuktas* and the *upayuktas* in the *Kauṭalīya*.⁵ In every department there were *yuktas* and *upayuktas*.⁶ They had again their own assistants. They were subject to punishment as every other government official was. The punishments were of a varied character.⁷ Such of those civil servants as were employed in the collection and distribution of revenue could not easily avoid the temptation of tasting a portion of the king's revenue. Sometimes it would be impossible to detect the amount so misappropriated, just as it is not possible to find out whether fishes drink water or not. In Kauṭalya’s opinion it is even possible to spot the birds flying high in the air, but it is an intricate task to ascertain the conduct of the government servants with dishonest motives. Hence it is recommended that those who would not covet the king’s wealth but would show an increase through legitimate means, and who would prove loyal, are to be appointed as government servants.¹

c10.s2.t9.2

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 9.

c10.s2.t9.3

⁵ These may be also identified with the Ayuktas and Viniyuktas of the Gupta Inscriptions. (Fleet, *C.I.I.*, III, p. 169, n. 4 and 5.)

c10.s2.t9.4

⁶ Bk. II, ch. 5.

c10.s2.t9.5

⁷ *Ibid.*

c10.s2.t9.6

¹ Bk. II, ch. 9.

c10.s2.t9.7

The title of Chapter 8 of Book II, *samudayasya yuktāpahṛtasya pratyānayanam* shows that the yuktas, generally accountants and clerks, had something to do with the collection of the revenue. It is reasonable to assume that they maintained accounts in regard to the various revenue items. This is obvious from the fact that in case of embezzlement, among the persons to be examined, is mentioned first in the order of importance the *upayukta*.² The translation of Shāma Śāstri has omitted *upayukta*.³ The *upayukta* held a subordinate position and when he was found guilty, in cases of embezzlement, the punishment amounted to that of a yukta as is evident from the *Arthaśāstra*:

c10.s2.t9.8

² Bk. II, ch. 8, T.S.S. Vol. I, 157.

c10.s2.t9.9

³ P. 73 (II ed.).

c10.s2.t9.10

*mithyāvāde caiṣām yuktasamo daṇḍaḥ*

c10.s2.t9.11

Thus while the *upayukta* was one among the eight officers connected with the accounts, the *yukta* in the official staff of the department, held a position superior to that of the other eight officials, who were the *upa-yukta*, *nidhāyaka* (cashier), *nibandhaka* (prescriber), *pratigrāhaka* (the receiver), *dāyaka* (the paying shroff), *dāpaka* (officer in charge of the payment of the department), *mantrivaiyāvṛttikara* (ministerial servants).¹

c10.s2.t9.12

¹ T.S.S., Vol. I, p. 157.

c10.s2.t9.13

*The mode of appointment*

c10.s2.t9.14

It is evident that each department was manned by an army of civil officials of different grades and status. The *yuktas* and the *upayuktas* had their own assistants as is evident from Chapter 5 of Book II of the *Kauṭalīya*. These servants of the government were appointed temporarily in the first instance.² In this connection the term *bahumukhya* is important and is the same as the word *anekamukhya* in chapter 4 of the same book. This shows that there were a number of temporary officials. These were in course of time taken to the permanent service, on the merits of the case in respect of qualifications, character and conduct. It is said that those who would not eat up the wealth of the state, those who would swell the wealth by fair and legitimate means, and those who would court the welfare of the king and kingdom were to be appointed as permanent servants of the state³ (*nityādhikāraḥ*). Thus the tenure of service largely depended on the honesty and efficiency of the government servants.

c10.s2.t9.15

² *bahumukhyamanityam* cādhikaraṇam sthāpayet, Bk. II, ch. 9.

c10.s2.t9.16

³ Bk. II, ch. 9.

c10.s2.t9.17

*The evidence of the Edicts*

c10.s2.t9.18

Coming to the inscriptions of Aśoka, we find the term *yukta* mentioned in the Rock-Edict III.⁴ F. W. Thomas was correct in rendering the term into a subordinate official.⁵ The *yuktas* of Aśokan Edicts may be identified with the *yuktas* and the *upayuktas* of the Kauṭaliya. The duties of the yukta according to the Aśokan inscriptions are¹:

c10.s2.t9.19

⁴ *Corpus*, pp. 4-5.

c10.s2.t9.20

⁵ J.R.A.S., 1914, 387, 91.

c10.s2.t9.21

¹ Mookerjee, *Aśoka*, p. 57.

c10.s2.t9.22

(1) to go on tours like the Rājukas and Prādeśikas every five years if *anusaṃyāna* means ‘tour’. From the position assigned to these officials we have to take that they accompanied their official superiors on tour. If the term *anusaṃyāna* means ‘transfer’,² this cannot be accounted as a part of their duties, but merely points to the administrative detail of transfer of officials.³

First 200 of 305 passages. Read on

Linked texts (21)