Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c10.s1: Sec. i. A General Survey

The Mauryan Polity c10.s1

Language
English

Contents

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.

Linked texts (8)