The Mauryan Polity c13.s12.98

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