The Mauryan Polity c12.149

c12.149

(8) The other argument is that Candragupta possessed a great empire and that what the *Arthaśāstra* postulates is only a small state of medium size. This simply means that the political horizon of the Kauṭalīyan world was narrow and limited to a state of medium size, and that Kauṭalya had no imperial outlook. This is again far from the truth.² The description of the *maṇḍala* or Circle of States and the policy of the states towards one another have been to a large extent responsible for this theory. Jayaswal conclusively shows the hollowness of this theory. He writes: "The supposition is contradicted by fact. Kauṭalya says that the Imperial tract (*Cakravarti-kṣetra*)³ lies between the Himālayas and the Ocean, ninety-two thousand *yojanas* in the straight line (as the crow flies). It is hardly possible to imagine a state without neighbours. A policy towards neighbours will have to be postulated by any statesman however large his empire may be. Then we know that there were a number of neighbours in the south who were reduced in the next reign, *i.e.*, Bindusāra. When Candragupta took the territories now called the N. W. Provinces from the Greeks it does not follow that he took the land without its rulers, republics generally, who were existing under the system of Alexander. The *Sanghavṛitta* lays down a policy towards the republics which it assumes to be under the king's sphere of influence, be they in (1) the Punjab, (2) Afghanistan (Kamboja), (3) Western India, or (4) North Bihar. There were therein parties in favour of the suzerain and parties against him. He was to sow the seed of dissension, patronise some, instal or depose one of the leaders. Now we know that in no other than the early Maurya time, Afghanistan, the Punjab, Western India, and North Bihar were at one and the same time under the sphere of one Indian king. The fact that Kauṭalya hardly tolerates sub-kings is one which is only compatible with the Mauryan times.¹ In addition to this it may be noted that in the fifteenth and the sixteenth chapters of the seventh *adhikaraṇa*, Kauṭalya lays down interstate, if not, international, relations which ought to exist between an emperor and his subjects or allied kings. A reading of these two chapters bears testimony to the prevailing imperial ideas which swayed the master-mind of Kauṭalya. He certainly enunciated an imperial policy as is seen from the laws prescribed on the treatment to be accorded to the conquered king by the conqueror.²