The Mauryan Polity c13.s12: 12. On writing

The Mauryan Polity c13.s12

Language: English

12. On writing

c13.s12.1

Passing on to the question and practice of writing, Stein quotes Megasthenes who is of opinion that "there were no written laws in ancient India and that the people were ignorant of writing and that they trusted to memory in all the business of life."² These statements are again a distorted version of actual conditions obtaining in the land. Megasthenes must have been evidently told that the laws of the land were contained in the *smṛtis*, and the *smṛtis* were remembrances in the form of codes of Vedic injunctions which every judge was expected practically to carry in his head. The judicial officers were so well posted with the laws and customs of the land that they decided cases without reference to the codes of law and this fact must have induced Megasthenes to draw the conclusion that they had no written laws, and to make a further inference that they were ignorant of writing. Evidently Megasthenes did not care to enquire deeply into things he saw and heard. He had gathered a few facts at haphazard and he perhaps thought it worth his while to put them in black and white along with his own impressions. Most of them have unfortunately remained as impressions and have not carried us much farther. Thus far and no further is the impression which the *Indika* makes on us at present.

c13.s12.2

² Fg. 27.

c13.s12.3

We had occasion to refer to the question of writing in India and tried to show how writing had been in existence centuries before Megasthenes came as the ambassador to the Indian Court. Prof. Stein, who has examined all the available Greek records, shows on the authority of Nearchos the existence of the custom of writing in B.C. fourth century.¹ And this fits in well with the *Kauṭalīya* which speaks of different kinds of written documents (*patra*, *śāsana*), art of writing (speech, style, and logic), as well as defects of writing, and the materials of writing.² In fact the whole chapter 10 is full of interesting materials as regards writing and its technique. The term *tāla* occurs in various places in different connections. In the chapter on royal writs the phrase *kālapatra* occurs. If we may venture a conjecture it may be *tālapatra*, and *k* for *t* could have been plausibly the mistake of the copyist. If we are to take it as *kāla*, then the word *patra* must evidently refer to *tālapatra* (palmyra leaves) as can be gathered from contemporary and earlier records.

c13.s12.4

¹ *Meg. und. Kaut.*, p. 70.

c13.s12.5

² Bk. II, ch. 10.

c13.s12.6

Bühler speaks of leaves of *tāḍa-tāla* and *tāḍi-tāla* as writing materials of the Buddhists.³ H. P. Śāstri also speaks of two kinds, narrow and broad, called *tala* and *teḍet*.⁴ Megasthenes⁵ and Arrian¹ refer to *tāla*, and even to-day in spite of the growing popularity of paper, orthodox pandits prefer to write in the palmyra leaves especially the writing of horoscopes. Tradition is so strong in India that even now when our boys are sent to school on the first day they are sent with a palmyra leaf with alphabets inscribed thereon. It therefore stands to reason that palmyra leaves were used as writing materials from earliest times known to literary history. If Megasthenes was not fully posted with the correct information at least we have the evidence of other Greek writers such as that of Nearchos, which falsifies the theory of Megasthenes and bears testimony to the statement of the *Kauṭalīya*.² These well-authenticated documents give the lie direct to the statement of Max Müller that the art of writing did not exist in India before the 4th century B.C.³ Haraprasad Śāstri has drawn attention to an important data which may be adduced as a serious argument for the ancient character of the *Gṛhya-sūtras*. In the list of the *saṃskāras* of the *Gṛhya-sūtras* of old, the first initiation into the mystery of learning is not mentioned as a sacrament, while the *Arthaśāstra* mentions it definitely. Therefore some time after the composition of the *Gṛhyasūtras* and much earlier than the *Arthaśāstra* the art of writing must have been evolved. A pre-Buddhist work like the *Vāsiṣṭha Dharmasūtra* refers to written documents (*lekhya*). This art had advanced so much that bad writing was discouraged.⁴

c13.s12.7

³ *Palaeography*, p. 89.

c13.s12.8

⁴ *Mag. Lit.*, p. 63.

c13.s12.9

⁵ Fg. 50.

c13.s12.10

¹ VIII, 3.

c13.s12.11

² Cf. Jolly, *Intro.*, p. 35. Keith, *Sans. Lit.*, p. 460.

c13.s12.12

³ History of Sanskrit Literature.

c13.s12.13

⁴ *Magadhan Literature*, pp. 61-62.

c13.s12.14

Let us take again other subjects and institutions which have been examined by Dr. Stein. Under the general heading,—the King, he discusses massage, bodyguard, daily work, justice, sacrifices, hunting, drink, income, army, kingly surroundings, name, and dynasty.¹ We shall now proceed to see how far both the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Indika* concur or demur in these respects.

c13.s12.15

¹ *Meg. und. Kauṭ.*, ch. V.

c13.s12.16

✓(a) The massage of the body of the king seems to have been a familiar custom with the ancient kings. *Arthaśāstras* like the *Kauṭalīya* and the *Purāṇas* like the *Agni Purāṇa* mention this, among the daily routine of the Indian king. This fact is also recorded by Megasthenes. It is the duty of the *Samvāhaka*.² But Megasthenes has added that the king was being massaged when the court was in session. Either it was a fact or a simple case of imagination of the Greek writer. What is of importance to us is that both agree in the main particulars. Even women were engaged for this purpose as is referred to by both the authorities.³

c13.s12.17

² Bk. I, ch. 21.

c13.s12.18

³ See Fg. 27; *Ar. Śās.*, I, 12; I, 20; *Agni*, ch. 280; *Meg. und. Kauṭ.*, pp. 73-4.

c13.s12.19

✓(b) The *Arthaśāstra* speaks of a bodyguard of soldiers protecting the king. The statement that women armed with bows and arrows guarded the king in the palace is in correspondence with the *Kauṭalīya*.⁴ Evidently Megasthenes refers to these details when he simply mentions that just in front of the palace the bodyguard and a portion of the army were quartered.⁵ (c) With regard to the administration of justice, both the authorities do not mention the king as the administrator of justice. Both mention, however, judicial officers. But according to Megasthenes the king is present almost the whole day in the court.¹ This evidently refers to the engagement of the king in the court to decide cases of appeal.² This interpretation alone would be consistent with the statement of Megasthenes which definitely mentions a body of judges to administer justice and deliver judgment.³ Curtius is perhaps right when he says⁴ that the king's citadel was ever open to those who approached it. It could not be entirely an exaggerated statement, for the same is mentioned about Aśoka. It was expected of every righteous monarch to render justice without delay. Prof. Stein however contends that Curtius speaks of kings in general and not Candragupta in particular.⁵ Whatever this may be there seems to have been a practice in Ancient India that the king was always accessible to the people. The Arthaśāstra prescribes thus: “When in the court he shall never cause his petitioners to wait at the door, for, when a king makes himself inaccessible to his people and entrusts his work to his immediate officers he may be sure to engender confusion in business and to cause thereby public disaffection, and make himself a prey to his enemies. He shall, therefore, personally attend to the business of gods and heretics, of Brahmans learned in the Vedas, of cattle, of sacred places, of minors, of the aged, the afflicted and the helpless and of women. All this is in order (of enumeration) or according to the urgency or pressure of representations. All urgent calls he shall hear at once, but never put off; for when postponed they will prove too hard or impossible to accomplish."¹

c13.s12.20

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 1.

c13.s12.21

⁵ Fg. 27; Bk. I, ch. 20.

c13.s12.22

¹ Fg. 27.

c13.s12.23

² Bk. I, ch. 19.

c13.s12.24

³ Fg. 32 and 33.

c13.s12.25

⁴ VIII, 9.

c13.s12.26

⁵ P. 81.

c13.s12.27

¹ Śāma Śāstri Trans., p. 40; Bk. I, ch. 19.

c13.s12.28

(d) According to Megasthenes the king goes out during sacrificial sessions.² Commenting on this passage Lassen is right when he maintains that this does not refer to the daily sacrifices but only to special sacrifices.³ This is corroborated by the Kauṭaliya.⁴ Here it is said that the king goes out of the palace on certain occasions—festivals, fairs, processions, or sacrificial sessions. The fact that Megasthenes has mentioned only the occasion of sacrifices shows that he must have personally witnessed the king attending an yajña outside the palace. Otto Stein thinks⁵ that it refers to the daily sacrifices and contends that Megasthenes' statement is not provable. Megasthenes does not say expressly that the king goes out daily, and even if he has so expressed he must be in the wrong, for Vedic sacrifices could not be done in all the seasons of the year. Certain periods of the year are prohibited as inauspicious for the performance of sacrifices. Hence the learned scholar's view cannot be accepted in the light of the passage in the Arthaśāstra.

c13.s12.29

² Fg. 27 and 33.

c13.s12.30

³ Ind. Alt., II, p. 270.

c13.s12.31

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 20, 21.

c13.s12.32

⁵ P. 83.

c13.s12.33

(e) The Indika reports that whenever the king set out for hunting, the roads were always blocked by ropes and when the king was leaving the city, portions of streets reserved for the king were cleared of dangers and dangerous persons. He was also accompanied by women.¹ The phrase of Megasthenes “portions of streets reserved for the king” evidently means rāja-mārga or the royal road of Kauṭalya, the main street or streets of the capital city. Kauṭalya says that whenever the king went out of the city or came into it, the royal road was to be guarded on both sides by staff-bearers and was to be clear from armed persons, ascetics and the crippled. It is said that he was further policed by the representatives of the ten tribes.² The hunting forests were free from highway robbers, snakes, and enemies. In the chapter entitled ātmarakṣitakam, mention is made of the armed women appointed for the personal safety of the king.³

c13.s12.34

¹ Fg. 27.

c13.s12.35

² Bk. I, ch. 20.

c13.s12.36

³ Bk. I, ch. 21.

c13.s12.37

(f) Megasthenes reports that the Indians are not addicted to drinking.⁴ Evidently Megasthenes moved with those members of the community who were bound by the law of the land to forsake alcoholic drinks and wine. This we see from the Arthaśāstra where there is a prohibition for the Brahmans. From the same work there is evidence to demonstrate that the other classes were not prohibited from taking these drinks, though some restrictions were placed on their use. Thus Megasthenes in this particular cannot be said to be correct.⁵

c13.s12.38

⁴ Fg. 27.

c13.s12.39

⁵ See, for more details, the chapter on Sūrādhyakṣa, Bk. II, 25.

c13.s12.40

(g) Megasthenes speaks of the state ownership of land. In other words, the king was the owner of all the lands as well as the soil of the state.¹ This is to deny the existence of private property as an institution. That there was the king's property as distinguished from private holdings no one can deny. Kauṭalya deals largely with crown lands and their regulations. Kauṭalya also mentions private holdings which are apparently communal as can be gathered from the prescriptions. In all disputes about boundary marks and fields and gardens it is the elders of the village or even neighbourhood who decided them. The state could only appropriate holdings which have ceased to be enjoyed by any person.² This means that unclaimed property became state property.³ In this connection attention may be drawn to the monograph of Bernhard Breloer, entitled *Kauṭaliya Studien I, Das Grundeigentum in Indien*, where he makes a comparative study of modern land revenue systems with those which obtained in the Maurya times as is evidenced by the Greek accounts and the *Arthaśāstra*.⁴ Megasthenes says: "Besides the land tribute, they pay into the royal treasury a fourth part of the produce of the soil."⁵ But Kauṭalya says that one-sixth of natural produce was to be paid to the king.⁶ Other rates were one-third or one-fourth. This means that land revenue varied from one-sixth to one-third according to the seasons. Megasthenes was apparently not able to distinguish between rent and tax. It is possible that he was not aware of the legal conditions prevailing in the land. If what Megasthenes said refers only to crown lands, then there is agreement between the *Indika* and the *Kauṭalīya*.¹

c13.s12.41

¹ Fg. 1 and 33.

c13.s12.42

² Bk. III, ch. 9.

c13.s12.43

³ See also Bk. III, ch. 8.

c13.s12.44

⁴ Published by Kurt Schroeder, Bonn., 1927.

c13.s12.45

⁵ Fg. 1.

c13.s12.46

⁶ Bk. VII, ch. 1.

c13.s12.47

¹ *Meg. und Kauṭ.*, pp. 95-100; cp. *Glories of Magadha*. p. 60.

c13.s12.48

(h) Under the head, army, we shall simply quote the conclusion of O. Stein. What Kauṭalya says agrees with Megasthenes that the king was staying in the Head-quarters, but at which time and on what occasion it cannot be said. That the king was directly taking part in the wars is admitted only in a restricted way. He went to the war but he did not take the personal leadership in the army, but it was entrusted to qualified men. His relation to the army was that of the highest War-master. He inspected the four divisions of the army, and a portion of the army served as his body-guard.²

c13.s12.49

² *Meg. und Kauṭ.*, pp. 106-7.

c13.s12.50

(i) In four different places of the *Indika*³ there are statements which definitely mention that the Indians do not know slavery. It has been pointed out how Megasthenes was wrong if servants were also slaves. Kauṭalya mentions a number of slaves with the prescription that an Ārya slave could regain his liberty by a compensation price.⁴ There were both male and female slaves. In this particular Megasthenes' report is decidedly incorrect and if such portions of the report are not correct, one is tempted to ask, what amount of credit can be given to the other portions of the same report? During his brief sojourn, Megasthenes apparently took some notes at random and that in an indiscriminate manner. Therefore it is not right on our part to use such doubtful materials as authorities and build theories upon them unless they are corroborated by other evidences.¹

c13.s12.51

³ Fg. 1, 26, 27, 41.

c13.s12.52

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 13; Bk. II, ch. 27.

c13.s12.53

¹ *Meg. und Kaut.*, p. 115; cf. Jolly's Intr., pp. 38-9.

c13.s12.54

(j) In Fg. 2 Megasthenes refers to the king of Indians, Sandrakottas.² Says S. Levi: "The identity recognised by William Jones of the Indian Chandragupta and the Sandrakottas of the historians of Alexander remains the cornerstone of all Indian chronology."³ The contention of Otto Stein is that Kauṭalya does not mention either King Chandragupta or the name of his dynasty in his work. No doubt the name Candragupta does not occur. But it should be noted as a matter of profound significance that the term Narendra has been used and according to scholars Narendra is only a synonym for Candragupta.⁴ There is again an indirect reference to the Maurya dynasty in the last verse.⁵ Here it is said that the Nanda dynasty had been uprooted and the new dynasty has become *fait accompli*. Taking into consideration these two unmistakable references, though still indirect they are, we must credit the work with the worth which it deserves. The sum and substance of these different verses shows the hand of the minister of Candragupta and it will be a spurious argument to advance these views in deciding the authenticity of this all important treatise on ancient Indian Polity.

c13.s12.55

² *Cp.* Arrian V.

c13.s12.56

³ *Journal of Dept. of Letters*, Cal. IX, p. 12. Cp. Rapson, *Ancient India*, pp. 20-21 (1916).

c13.s12.57

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 10. See above pp. 86 and 303.

c13.s12.58

⁵ Bk. XV, ch. 1. Cp. Keith, *Sans. Lit.*, p. 459.

c13.s12.59

How is it, then, it has been asked, that Megasthenes has failed to mention such a far-famed minister Cāṇakya as tradition makes him out to be? The following reasons among others may be adduced in reply:—

c13.s12.60

(i) The head of the administration according to the prevalent conception of those times was always the king. The king being considered an all-important factor it would be meaningless and derogatory to glorify the minister however illustrious he might have been, and this, by a foreign minister to the court, would be out of place. (ii) There might have been an occasion when his name could have been mentioned. To testify to this we are not in possession of the complete Indika. To judge from the extant fragments it will be illogical and unreasonable. After all the name of the king is mentioned only once though other statements have been repeated oftentimes. (iii) Or it may be that the minister had gone out of office when Megasthenes visited the Court. For he came to India 20 years after the accession of the king. That Megasthenes had been to India several times before this has not been conclusively proved. And again granting that Cāṇakya was still in power when Megasthenes came, his name had become so much a commonplace one that Megasthenes did not think it worth his while to mention him. (iv) Or as has been surmised Kauṭalya was not living at the time of the visit. Thus probabilities can be answered by other possibilities also. Lastly, (v) as Keith suggests this argument cannot be stressed owing to our fragmentary knowledge of Megasthenes.¹

c13.s12.61

¹ History of Sans. Literature, p. 459.

c13.s12.62

In a long chapter (III) Otto Stein considers the question of castes and professions comparing Megasthenes and the *Kauṭalīya* and trying to find out marked differences which amount indeed to little. Megasthenes writes¹: "The whole population of India is divided into seven castes of which the first is formed by the collective body of philosophers which in point of number is inferior to the other classes but in point of dignity pre-eminent over all. . . . The second caste consists of husbandmen who appear to be far more numerous than the others . . . The third caste consists of the neatherds and shepherds and in general of all herdsmen who neither settle in towns nor in villages but live in tents. . . . The fourth caste consists of the artizans. . . . The fifth caste is the military. It is well organised and equipped for war, holds the second place in point of numbers, and gives itself up to idleness and amusement in the times of peace. . . . . The sixth caste consists of the councillors and assessors—of those who deliberate on public affairs."

c13.s12.63

¹ Fg. 1. 40 and 41.

c13.s12.64

Dr. Stein has examined the Greek terms occurring in different places for caste, and has come to the conclusion that the expression of Megasthenes could not be interpreted as caste.² Schwanbeck, however, has attempted to identify these seven divisions as caste divisions: (1) Philosophers, Brahmans; (2) Husbandmen, Vaiśyas; (3) Herdsmen, Niṣādas and other lower castes; (4) Artizans, Vaiśyas and Śūdras; (5) the Military, Kṣatriyas; (6) a mixed caste, overseers; (7) Councillors and assessors, Brahmans. Though this is an explanation in a way it is not very satisfactory. There is some truth in Pischel's remark that Megasthenes has confounded castes and classes.¹ It is more reasonable to assume that Megasthenes has been told of the caste system and the chief regulations underlying the system.² He must have also learnt that the principle of division was at best a division of labour, castes being based on professions. As he has divided all the professions into seven kinds he has divided the wholy body of the people into seven classes. Evidently Megasthenes' classification was according to professions and not castes. As the professions were more or less hereditary, especially so at that time, Megasthenes could have easily taken the community of peoples following a certain profession to form a separate caste by itself. From all Greek accounts we gather that the class of philosophers was constituted by Brahmans and Śramaṇas.³ The husbandmen were agricultural people who belonged to the Śūdra caste. According to Kauṭalya every village must have not less than 100 families and not more than 500 families of agricultural people of the Śūdra caste.⁴ Again that the Śūdra caste was numerically strong is attested to in so many words by Kauṭalya.⁵ There is further the prescription of the Arthaśāstra that the king shall protect agriculture from devastation of any sort. Such of those undesirables as would cause disturbance to the work of the villagers who are wedded to their fields were subject to severe punishment.⁶ This is all in keeping with Megasthenes' account.⁷ About neatherds and shepherds the account of Megasthenes is proven from the *Arthaśāstra* almost throughout.¹ As regards hunters though Megasthenes is in agreement with Kauṭalya a discovery is made, *viz.*, Kauṭalya does not mention wandering hunters, those who live in tents.²

c13.s12.65

² *Op. cit.*, p. 120-21.

c13.s12.66

¹ See p. 51 of B. Breoler, K. Studien, 1.

c13.s12.67

² See Fg. 1, 41, especially last sentences.

c13.s12.68

³ See Strabo XV, p. 711-13.

c13.s12.69

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 1.

c13.s12.70

⁵ Bk. IX, ch. 2.

c13.s12.71

⁶ Bk. II, ch. 1.

c13.s12.72

⁷ Cp. Jolly, Intro., pp. 37-38.

c13.s12.73

¹ Stein, *op. cit.*, p. 134; *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. II, ch. 24 and also ch. 29.

c13.s12.74

² P. 136.

c13.s12.75

Of artisans Megasthenes says: "Of these some are armourers while others make the implements which husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings. This class is not only exempted from paying taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer."[³] Evidently state employees are referred to here. According to the *Arthaśāstra* we find the state engaging itself in industries like weaving, in manufactures of arms and armour, where, besides free labourers, artisans were employed and paid for their services. One of the regulations laid down by Kauṭalya is that agricultural people should be supplied with the necessary implements by blacksmiths, carpenters, borers, rope-makers, snake-catchers, and similar workmen.⁴ Kauṭalya speaks of both time and piece wages.⁵ There is a definite ruling where it is said 'artisans shall be provided with wages and provision in proportion to the amount of work done. The menials were paid a monthly salary of 1¼ *paṇa*."[⁶] Excepting private workmen who undertook some industry after previously obtaining a licence to carry on that industry we do not come across passages where there is a definite injunction that these artisans in the state employ were taxed. If O. Stein means by his statement¹ that people other than those in the state employ, he is right. But that Megasthenes is not concerned with these but only with those in the state employ is evident from the circumstances in which his statement is made.²

c13.s12.76

³ Fg. 1, 41.

c13.s12.77

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 24.

c13.s12.78

⁵ Bk. II, ch. 23.

c13.s12.79

⁶ Bk. II, ch. 24.

c13.s12.80

¹ *Steuern haben die Handwerker zu Zahlen*, p. 147.

c13.s12.81

² See also Bk. IV, ch. 1.

c13.s12.82

The Greek writer has the following on warriors. "They have only military duties to perform. Some make their arms and others supply them with horses and they have still others to attend on them in camp, who take care of their horses, clean their arms, drive their elephants, prepare their chariots and act as their charioteers. As long as they are required to fight they fight and when peace returns they abandon themselves to enjoyment; the pay which they receive from the state being so liberal that they can with ease maintain themselves and others besides".³ As regards military duties Kauṭalya gives it as the function of the Kṣatriyas.⁴ That their pay was liberal is seen from the list contained in the *Arthaśāstra*. The chiefs of the military corporations, the chiefs of the elephants, horses, chariots, and of the infantry, each, got 8,000 *paṇas*. The superintendents of the infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants were paid 4,000 *paṇas* respectively. The chariot-driver, the physician of the army, and other non-military officials employed in training horses and other animals got 2,000 *paṇas* each. The pay of the trained soldier was 500 *paṇas*. This means that the pay of a trained soldier exceeded four times that of an artisan. The arsenal department and the departments under the superintendents of horses and of elephants bear testimony to the fact that the state employed a large number of people to minister to the wants of the soldiers. All the necessary arms and armour, animals, and servants were supplied to the soldiers whenever they went out on a campaign. They were not allowed to have any arms without licence. The state regulated their keeping of arms and armour.

c13.s12.83

³ Arrian, XII.

c13.s12.84

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 3; cp. Bk. IX, ch. 2.

c13.s12.85

That the military men gave themselves up to idleness and amusement in times of peace is no exaggeration either of Arrian or Megasthenes for the matter of that.¹ It is obvious that Megasthenes is referring to the hereditary army which was dependent for its existence on the state. In times of peace the soldiers composing this constituent did not take to any other profession and earn their livelihood. War or no war they had their regular and fixed salary, and in times of peace they could lead a free life and enjoy life in their homes and family.² The only call during this period on their time was drill, for, without constant drilling the army might lose its efficiency. This is certainly not the case with the other kinds of armies—such as the hired, the corporation of soldiers, the army of an ally, and the army of wild tribes.³ These were recruited if necessary, on the eve of certain engagements for the time being. When the work was over they were disbanded. They had perhaps to take to their old professions and earn their living. Megasthenes was not concerned with them. He knew of the Kṣatriya hereditary force and referred to it.

c13.s12.86

¹ Stein, p. 162.

c13.s12.87

² Bk. IX, ch. 2.

c13.s12.88

³ Ibid.

c13.s12.89

The Overseers who moved about the country and reported to the king or their immediate superiors must undoubtedly refer to the Cāras or intelligence officers to whom several sections are devoted by Kauṭalya.¹ To ensure efficiency the chief feature of ancient administrative practice was to let loose on officials of every department, special commissioners to watch their movements and proceedings. Their function was to see that the officials of the state did not lend themselves to temptations of any sort including corruption, miscarriage of justice, and disloyalty to the state. If the Cāras heard reliable information about a certain official abusing his power and position, then a report was made in secret. The Government took action not at once but only after it was confirmed by three independent sources.² Apparently members of this intelligence department must have been influential and powerful so as to attract the notice of a foreign ambassador. When he learnt about their status in the administration he referred to them by mistake as a caste engaged for that purpose. In fact members of all castes including the Niṣādhas (hunters) were appointed to this purpose and Megasthenes had misunderstood the true conditions in India. This is again another instance why we should not attach great value to these Greek accounts.

c13.s12.90

¹ Bk. I, ch. 10-12.

c13.s12.91

² Bk. I, ch. 12.

c13.s12.92

Again the councillors and the assessors are "those who deliberate on public affairs. It is the smallest class looked at from their number but the most respected, on account of the high character and wisdom of its members; for, from their ranks the advisers of the king are taken, and the treasurers of the state and the arbiters who settle disputes. The generals of the army also, and the chief magistrates, usually belong to this class.”¹ Megasthenes is again committing a mistake by confounding professions with classes. Evidently he refers to the different kinds of councillors and ministers who guided the ship of the state. The qualifications expected of these ministerial officers were more than what Megasthenes could say. “Native, born of high family, influential, well trained in arts, possessed of foresight, wise, of strong memory, bold, eloquent, skilful, intelligent, possessed of enthusiasm, dignity and endurance, pure in character, affable, firm in loyal devotion, endowed with excellent conduct, strength, health and bravery, free from procrastination and fickle-mindedness, affectionate and free from such qualities as excite hatred and enmity—these are the qualifications of a ministerial officer (*amātya sampat*).”² When such officers are put to the test and not found wanting, they were appointed as judges of civil and criminal courts, revenue collectors, chamberlains, prime ministers, in fact, as the head of every department in the state.³ As regards the minister Kauṭalya recommends three or four for deliberative purposes but he holds that the number will depend on the circumstances of the case in question.⁴ Thus Megasthenes is right in every detail except that he entitles the system as a class or a caste. Otto Stein raises a question here¹ why Megasthenes has not mentioned officials in the country parts and surmises, perhaps rightly, that he had little or no knowledge of the conditions of the flat land and his osbervations were merely confined to the capital city of Pāṭaliputra.

c13.s12.93

¹ See also Arrian, XII.

c13.s12.94

² Bk. I, 9, Trans., p. 15.

c13.s12.95

³ Bk. I, ch. 10.

c13.s12.96

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 15.

c13.s12.97

¹ Meg. und Kauṭ., p. 196.

c13.s12.98

In his endeavour to establish a thesis Dr. Stein has not left a stone unturned. The following minor differences are stated:—(a) Megasthenes says, "there are usages observed by the Indians which contribute to prevent the occurrence of famine among them."² The Arthaśāstra on the other hand gives details as to what one should do when famine occurred.³ In the absence of details and from a general statement we cannot draw any inference. Perhaps Megasthenes might have meant 'to prevent the spread' instead of 'prevent the occurrence'. If we simply substitute 'spread' for 'occurrence' there is every agreement with Kauṭalya. (b) "The simplicity of their laws and their contracts is proved by the fact that they seldom go to law. They have no suits about pledges or deposits nor do they require either seals or witnesses but make their deposits and confide in each other."⁴ From the Arthaśāstra we gather distinctly different conditions. The law has become territorial and even complex in character. Many a contract is mentioned with elaborate rules guiding every one of them.⁵ Both courts, civil and criminal, are mentioned as well as the cases which come under the cognisance of such courts. Regulations about pledges and deposits and seals are elaborately laid down in chapters xi and xii of Book III. Witnesses, their payment, eligibility, and punishments, are also given in instructive detail.¹ One has to concede that this disagreement is distinct and clear. The one explanation that can be offered is that "in his anxiety to idealise the facts he has overdrawn the picture to such an absurd length that we could give no credit possibly to his other statement also."² Equally significant is the statement that while false witnesses suffered mutilation Kauṭalya has recommended only fines.³ (c) Arrian writes: "The custom of the country prohibits intermarriage between the castes, for instance, the husbandman cannot take a wife from the artisan caste, nor the artisan a wife from the husbandman caste. Custom also prohibits any one from exercising two trades or from changing from one caste to another. One cannot, for instance, become a husbandman if he is a herdsman or become a herdsman if he is an artisan. It is permitted that the sophist only can be from any caste: for the life of the sophist is not an easy one, but the hardest of all."⁴

c13.s12.99

² Fg. 1, 36.

c13.s12.100

³ Stein, p. 204; Ar. Śās., Bk. IV, ch. 3.

c13.s12.101

⁴ Fg. 27; Strabo XV, p. 709-10.

c13.s12.102

⁵ Bk. III, ch. 10, 11 and 13.

c13.s12.103

¹ Bk. III, ch. 1 and 9.

c13.s12.104

² Stein, p. 205.

c13.s12.105

³ Bk. III, ch. 11; cp. Intro., p. 40, Jolly ed.

c13.s12.106

⁴ XII.

c13.s12.107

This was then the prevailing practice of social polity known in Indian literature as the varṇāśrama dharma. According to the regulations of caste a member of one caste cannot enter into marital relations with the members of other castes. It is also stated that members of the different communities were to follow their own hereditary duties which are, in other words, the *svadharma* of the *Arthaśāstras* and the *Dharmaśāstras*. The *Arthaśāstra* clearly recognises the system of castes and orders and enforces strictly disciplinary rules for any departure from the ordained path. It was the caste that determined the profession. The son of the husbandman continued to be a husbandman and the son of the artisan continued to be an artisan. This is the *svadharma* or engaging oneself in his own dharma, without in any way interfering with the functions of others, thus ensuring continuity of employment and efficiency of labour. However much it has degenerated in recent times, the system avoided unhealthy competition in the earlier ages and was a safe insurance against unemployment. The Greek account simply elaborates the *svadharma* and *varṇadharma* of the Hindus. As for the last statement regarding the sophists there seems to be some confusion of ideas. Either it refers to the members of the Brahmana community who were legally allowed to marry woman members of the other three castes, or it refers to the system of asceticism which was embraced practically by all members of the four castes though restrictions were placed for its being adopted at will.¹

c13.s12.108

¹ Meg. und Kaut., p. 221-4.

c13.s12.109

(d) Megasthenes speaks of cities and countries where sovereignty was dissolved and democratic governments were set up.² Dr. Stein calls our attention to some more passages and has tried to show that these might refer to the forest tribes outside the pale of the state having their own organisations and leaders.¹ But it may also be held to denote the republican states which, as is evident from the *Arthaśāstra*, continued to flourish side by side with the monarchical state. Kauṭalya deals with these institutions which are styled as the *saṅghasandhi*, the policy to be adopted by the king towards them.² Some of these democratic states mentioned in the extant work are the Lichchivikas, the Vrijikas, the Mallakas, the Madrakas, the Kukuras, the Kurus, the Pāñcalas and others. These, K. P. Jayaswal calls, king-consul republics, while the Kambojas, Surāṣṭras and others are styled as nation-in-arms republics.³ This, then, is what the Greek accounts mean. Historians of Alexander's invasion to India refer to a number of free and autonomous states which, after Alexander's invasion and Candragupta's accession to the throne, were either merged in the imperial government or continued to maintain their prestige and power independently of the imperial rule. Kauṭalya has got a great regard for such constitutions as is evident from the following verse:—

c13.s12.110

² Fg. I, 32, 38, 50.

c13.s12.111

¹ P. 232.

c13.s12.112

² Bk. XI, ch. 1.

c13.s12.113

³ See the interesting chapter on the subject by Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, Pt. I, Ch. VII.

c13.s12.114

kulasya vā bhavēt rājyam
kulasaṅgho hi durjayaḥ|

c13.s12.115

In speaking of the functions of the overseers Megasthenes definitely states that these overseers must report to the king, or if there is no king, to the magistrates. Thus the idea is clear that Megasthenes has found two forms of government prevailing at the same time—monarchical and republican.⁴ That these references are to forest tribes outside the pale of the state is a statement far-fetched and inconclusive in the face of such significant statements.

c13.s12.116

⁴ Fg. I, 50.

c13.s12.117

(e) With regard to the administration of public affairs,¹ Megasthenes says:—"Of the great officers of state some have charge of the market, others of the city, others of the soldiers. Some superintend the rivers, measure the land as is done in Egypt and inspect the sluices by which water is let out from the main canals into their branches so that every one may have an equal supply of it. The same persons have charge also of the huntsmen and are entrusted with the power of rewarding or punishing them according to their deserts. They collect the taxes and superintend the occupations connected with the land as those of the woodcutters, the carpenters, the blacksmiths, and the murers. They construct roads, and at every ten stadia set up a pillar to show the by-roads and distances." Let us now proceed to draw parallels for each of the above statements from the *Arthaśāstra*. The latter mentions superintendents of horses, elephants, chariots and infantry, besides the commander-in-chief. There is also the city superintendent. There are again superintendents of commerce, of forest produce, weights and measures, and tolls, etc., who are directly or indirectly connected with the market. There are other officials like lohādhyakṣa, lakṣaṇādhyakṣa, ākarādhyakṣa, or khanyādhyakṣa. What we can call the economic functions of the state are cryptly expressed by Kauṭalya. "He (the king) shall carry on mining operations and manufactures, exploit timber and elephant forests, offer facilities for cattle-breeding and commerce, construct roads for traffic both by land and water, and set up market-towns."'

c13.s12.118

¹ Fg. 34.

c13.s12.119

¹ Bk. II, ch. 16.

c13.s12.120

It is further said that the king shall also construct reservoirs (*setu*) filled with water either perennial or drawn from some other source. Or he may provide with sites, roads, timber and other necessary things to those who construct reservoirs of their own accord.² *Setu* is translated 'reservoir' but it is a waterway by which water is regulated. Again the superintendent of rivers is the *nadīpāla* of Kauṭalya.³ The question whether measurement of lands in general was in vogue is easily answered by a reference to the chapter entitled 'measurement of space and time'.⁴ Here the following statements occur: 'One *hasta* used in measuring pasture lands and timber forests, one *kiṣku* used in measuring the camping grounds as well as forests and palaces, one *gārhaspatya dhanus* for measuring roads and fort walls, one *daṇḍa* for measuring *brahmadeya* lands.' Certainly officials must have been there to measure these various lands and places. It should be noted as a significant fact that Kauṭalya uses the terms '*rajjus*' and '*corarajjus*' translated as 'ropes' and 'ropes to bind thieves.'⁵ But the translator has remarked in the footnote: "The precise meaning of the word is not known. The *Jātakas* or the Buddhist literature contain similar expressions, *rajjuka* or *rajju-grāhaka*, as the Aśokan inscriptions *lajuka* or *rajuka*."⁶

c13.s12.121

² Bk. II, ch. 1. Trans., p. 50.

c13.s12.122

³ Bk. II, ch. 6.

c13.s12.123

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 20.

c13.s12.124

⁵ Bk. II, ch. 6, *see* above p. 216.

c13.s12.125

⁶ Bühler, *Z.D.M.G.* (1893), pp. 466-71.

c13.s12.126

These denote the officials who were engaged in the measurement of the land. The *Arthaśāstra* which is a composition after the *Jātakas*, which according to Bühler, must be placed in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C., and which is pre-Aśokan, contains similar expressions, and these terms therefore must refer to the same officials engaged in measuring the land. This is further attested to by another fact of great importance. The term *‘rajju’* is a measurement of space according to the *Kauṭalīya*. The table is as follows:—

c13.s12.127

10 daṇḍas = 1 rajju. 2 rajjus = 1 parideśa (sq. measure). 3 rajjus = 1 nivartana (a measurement for measuring square).¹

c13.s12.128

¹ Bk. II, ch. 20.

c13.s12.129

We have there the expression definitely used by the author in the technical sense of the measurement of space. Hence the term *‘rajjus’* must mean those officials engaged in the survey of lands by means of the *rajju* measurements. Some of these points have been raised by Otto Stein but his interpretation could not carry him further.² As regards the supervisor of hunters, of woodcutters, etc., it is reasonable to presume that the superintendent of pasture meadows (*vivitādhyakṣa*) was in charge.³ Again he was the superintendent of passports.⁴ With the help of hunters he was to secure safety to country-parts and protect timber and elephant forests, keep roads in good repair and assist the mercantile people. In addition to these functions they were expected to levy taxes and collect them on behalf of the state. Or there might have been separate revenue officials under the direction and control of the *samāhartā* and Megasthenes has not been fully informed of the duties of each and every official complicated as the machinery was.¹

c13.s12.130

² P. 236.

c13.s12.131

³ See Mookerjee, *Intro.*, p. xxxvii.

c13.s12.132

⁴ Bk. II. ch. 34.

c13.s12.133

¹ See also Stein, p. 242.

c13.s12.134

(*f*) With regard to the officials of the city,² says Megasthenes:—"Those who have charge of the city are divided into six bodies of five each. The members of the first look after everything relating to the industrial arts. Those of the second attend to the entertainment of foreigners. To those they assign lodgings and they keep watch over their modes of life by means of those persons whom they give to them for assistants. They escort them on the way when they leave the country or in the event of their dying, forward their property to their relatives. They take care of them when they are sick and if they die, bury them."³

c13.s12.135

² See Keith, *Sans. Lit.*, p. 460.

c13.s12.136

³ Fg. 34; Diodor, II.

c13.s12.137

The *Arthaśāstra* does not mention anything of administration by committees though it is reasonable to suppose that such institutions existed.⁴ Parallel passages have been traced and examined already in connection with the administration of the city.⁵

c13.s12.138

⁴ Smith, p. 127; *Ind. Ant.*, 1905, p. 200.

c13.s12.139

⁵ See above p. 228.

c13.s12.140

(*g*) On military officials Megasthenes writes: "Next to the city magistrates there is a third governing body which directs military affairs. This also consists of six divisions with five members each. One division is appointed to co-operate with the admiral of the fleet, another with the superintendent of the bullock trains which are used for transporting engines of war, food for the soldiers, provender for the cattle, and other military requisites. They supply servants who beat the drum, and others who carry gongs, grooms also for the horses, and mechanists and their assistants. To the sound of the gong they send out foragers to bring in grass and by a system of rewards and punishments ensure the work being done with despatch and safety.”[1] In the *Arthaśāstra* again there is no mention of a kollegium to carry on military affairs. Either it was the imagination of Megasthenes or more probably something like it was in practice. It is to be admitted that there is no express mention of a commander of fleet but it is reasonable to presume that the *nāvādhyakṣa* was the officer-in-charge of fleet as well as other vessels devoted to commercial and other uses. Among the ships mentioned, men-of-war also figure,—vessels bound for the enemies' country. Evidently it signifies the existence of a navy. The fact that Kauṭalya does not give details of the navy shows that land-engagements were more common than sea-fights which were perhaps few and far between.[2]

c13.s12.141

The commissariat as such there is again no definite mention. But the work of the commissariat is definitely mentioned when Kauṭalya says that the work of free labourers consists in the examination of camps, roads, bridges, wells and rivers; carrying the machines, weapons, armours, instruments, and provisions; carrying away the men that are knocked down, along with their weapons and armours.¹ Hunters reconnoitred forests and when the enemy was in sight they hid themselves under trees or mountains and blew their conch shells and beat their drums.² The *praśāsta* may perhaps answer to the superintendent of bullock trains of Megasthenes. With his followers including carpenters and free labourers he marched in front of the army clearing the road and digging wells for water. In the camp were the king, the priest, the hunters with hounds and with trumpets, the spies and the sentinels, changing their watches in turn.³ The army marched through places where grass, fuel, and water were available. In some places the army was made to carry foodstuffs. In the centre were the women of the harem.⁴ Thus Megasthenes' statements agree in the main with those of the *Arthaśāstra*.

c13.s12.142

¹ Fg. 34.

c13.s12.143

² Bk. II ch. 28. Cf. Jolly, *Intro.*, p. 37.

c13.s12.144

¹ Bk. X, ch. 4; see also above p. 189.

c13.s12.145

² Bk. II, ch. 34.

c13.s12.146

³ Bk. X, ch. 1.

c13.s12.147

⁴ Bk. X, ch. 2.

c13.s12.148

Megasthenes continues: "The third division has charge of the foot-soldiers, the fourth of the horses, the fifth of the war-chariots, and the sixth of the elephants. There are royal stables for the horses and elephants and also a royal magazine for the arms, because the soldier has to return his arms to the magazine and his horse and elephants to the stables. They use the elephants without bridles. That chariots are drawn on the march by oxen but the horses are led along by a halter, that their legs may not be galled and inflamed nor their spirits damped by drawing chariots."⁵

c13.s12.149

⁵ Fg. 34.

c13.s12.150

Corresponding to these are the chiefs of elephants, horses, chariots, and of infantry as well as the superintendents of infantry, of cavalry, of chariots, and of elephants.¹ The chariot-driver, the trainer of horses, and those who train other animals are also mentioned among the government servants.² In exact parallel to Megasthenes' statements are mentioned in the *Arthaśāstra* the stables of horses and of elephants with fuller details.³ There is also the mention of a separate arsenal department where arms and armour were manufactured, and from where soldiers were supplied with arms on the eve of an impending expedition. Thus there is coincidence of institutions of vital importance. Whether elephants had bridles, or horses were led by a halter are insignificant details which are not worth comparison. It is no argument of Prof. Jolly to say that this correspondence possesses no chronological value as these practices were prevalent at all times in India.⁴ We are not aware of texts more ancient than the *Arthaśāstra* which contain any details of regulations of stables for different animals, their architecture, foodstuffs, medicine for the animals, etc.

c13.s12.151

¹ Bk. II, ch. 33.

c13.s12.152

² Bk. V, ch. 3.

c13.s12.153

³ Bk. II, ch. 30-31.

c13.s12.154

⁴ Intro., p. 38.

c13.s12.155

(*h*) The subject of the last chapter⁵ of Otto Stein's thesis is religion and philosophy. According to Megasthenes philosophers who live on the mountains are worshippers of Dionysos.⁶ He distinguishes two kinds among them: (1) Brachmanes who are best esteemed for consistency in their opinions, and (2) Sarmanes most of whom were physicians, diviners, and sorcerers.¹ Arrian speaks of sophists who held the supreme place of dignity and honour by performing sacrifices to gods on behalf of the state. They are sages, some of whom go about naked, living upon roots and fruits.² The word sarmanes is one of some significance. Schwanbeck has shown with ability that the word sarmanes corresponds to the Sanskrit śramaṇa which means an ascetic.³ H. H. Wilson in his gloss opined that the term might refer to the Buddhists. But Lassen is perhaps nearer the truth when he takes the term to be Brahman ascetics.⁴ Elphinstone is also of the same opinion and remarks that "the habits of the physicians seem to correspond with those of Brahmans of the fourth stage". As we have already said it is indeed remarkable that the religion of the Buddha was not expressly noticed by the Greek authorities though it has existed long before Alexander.⁵ It has been shown elsewhere⁶ that there is nothing remarkable about this because the early history of Buddhism in India was quite different from its later history. The actual teachings of the Buddha did not tend to revolutionise ideas, social or religious as some scholars would have us believe. In one place we have some philosophers following the precepts of 'Boutta' identified with the Buddha.⁷ Some take Śramaṇas from this to be Jains. Whatever view may be taken, weighty arguments are adduced in favour of the theory that older forms of Hinduism flourished when Alexander or Megasthenes visited India.¹ This fits in with that in the *Arthaśāstra* where again there is no notice of the Buddhists but where on the other hand an elevated place is given to the Vedas and the *Dharmaśāstras* as well as the *śrotriya* Brahmanas.² Brahmanical rituals and sacrifices are mentioned elaborately and the king is said to take part in them. Festivals and festivities are mentioned as taking place at the commencement of the rainy season. Among the *śrotriyas* were sages and ascetics of different kinds. Some were shaven while others had matted hair. There were some who observed vows of silence and hence were called *munis*. Otto Stein is probably right when he says that the statement of silence alluded to as a punishment for those who professed to predict the future by Megasthenes is a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation.³

c13.s12.156

⁵ Ch. VIII, p. 277.

c13.s12.157

⁶ Fg. 41 (58).

c13.s12.158

¹ Fg. 59, 60.

c13.s12.159

² XI.

c13.s12.160

³ Stein, p. 289.

c13.s12.161

⁴ Ind. Alt., II, 70 (2nd Ed.).

c13.s12.162

⁵ See above p. 269.

c13.s12.163

⁶ See J.B.H.S., Vol. II, p. 1.

c13.s12.164

⁷ Fg. 43.

c13.s12.165

¹ See Colebrooke, *Essays*, Vol. II, p. 179 ff.

c13.s12.166

² Bk. II, ch. 1 and 12.

c13.s12.167

³ *op. cit.* P. 285.

c13.s12.168

A point is again raised how it was that Megasthenes had not stated the three kinds of priests, *ṛtvik*, *ācārya*, and *purohita* of whom the last holds a high position even in political administration. We agree with Prof. Stein who remarks that according to Megasthenes the king was more in the camp than in the palace and the *purohita* was also in the camp.⁴ To conclude, Megasthenes' picture of the religious life of the period is insufficient, inaccurate, and far from being trustworthy.

c13.s12.169

⁴ P. 290.

c13.s12.170

Bereft of mythological, geographical, and legendary details, the useful portion of Megasthenes' report is very meagre and its authority cannot be taken as absolute.¹ Considered calmly and impartially Dr. Stein must himself admit that the differences between Kauṭalya and Megasthenes are not fundamental but are only noticed in minor and trifling details which might well escape an enlightened author on Ancient Indian Polity as too insignificant to mention.² So far as the important institutions which functioned as organs of the administration of land went, there is plenty of evidence in point of agreement which cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, discarded. In our opinion to build a theory on such a doubtful authority like the *Indika* of Megasthenes or the Greek accounts for the matter of that, is not worth the while. Further there are so many remarkable coincidences while there are not very many appreciable differences. It is hardly necessary to compare the much misunderstood report coloured by fables and myths with a work containing solid facts attested to uniformly by tradition.³

Linked texts (7)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Jātaka — Pāli
Agnipurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra — Vasiṣṭha, Sanskrit
Ἰνδική — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek
Dharmaśāstra
Kaṇvasmṛti — Kaṇva, Sanskrit