Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c6: Chapter II. The Extent and Character of the Empire

The Mauryan Polity c6

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. The Extent and Character of the Empire

Sec. i. The Extent of the Empire

c6.s1.1

Elsewhere¹ has been shown how from early Vedic times the king of the ancient Hindu State was the mainspring of the polity, and this state of affairs continued to exist down to the period of the *Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra*, if not, still later. Before we go to examine the position of the monarch in the polity of the Mauryas, and the nature and extent of authority exercised by him in this period, it will be well to survey briefly the events and circumstances, which in the epoch immediately preceding that of the Mauryas, had tended largely to contribute to the consolidation of regal power.

c6.s1.2

¹ Author's *Hindu Administrative Institutions*, (Madras University, 1929).

c6.s1.3

That the royal dynasty which immediately preceded the Mauryan was that of the great Nandas who exercised their sway for well-nigh a century, is quite clear. But the materials available at present are too meagre to enable us to ascertain and describe the exact limits of their empire. But this much is certain that it included a good portion of the south of India in addition to their vast territory in the north. An inscription of the twelfth century after Christ records a tradition that one of the provinces subject to the rule of the Nandas was Kuntala which comprised the Western Dekhan and the North of Mysore. And this derives very strong support from another fact, namely, that the Kadamba kings of South India trace their descent from a certain Nanda, undoubtedly a member of this ancient royal family.¹ The above inscription therefore shows that the Nanda empire embraced also a good portion of the South. That being so, it may be safely assumed and it is not an improbable assumption that when Candragupta Maurya ascended the throne he was in possession of the whole of this empire left intact by his Nanda predecessors. It has been contended, however, that in the revolution effected by Candragupta with the help of his minister Cāṇakya, several States which had been loosely attached to the Empire under the strong hand of the Nandas cut themselves off the Empire and declared their independence. Among these were, perhaps, the South Indian provinces as they were far away from the Capital. That this was a possibility can be seen from the history of the Mauryas. Mention may be made of four factors in the light of which one may conclude that the Empire of the Nandas slowly expanded itself under the first rulers of the Mauryas.

c6.s1.4

¹ See Rice, Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions, (1909), p. 3; Smith, Early History of India, 4th Ed., p. 158; G. M. Moraes, Kadamba Kula, p. 9 (Bombay, 1931).

The Jaina Tradition

c6.s1.t1.1

First, there is the tradition transmitted by the sacred books of the Jains that Candragupta Maurya was a Jaina by religion, and that in the evening of his life he abdicated his throne in favour of his son Bindusāra who succeeded him in 298 B.C., and that after the abdication Candragupta placed himself under the spiritual guidance of Bhadrabāhu, the last in the category of the Jaina saints well known as the Śrutakevalins. Both appear to have gone so far south as Śravaṇa Belgola in the Mysore State where Candragupta embraced asceticism, and finally gave up his life in that very place by starvation, so highly meritorious in the eyes of the Jainas. Consequently Śravaṇa Belgola is even to-day held in great veneration by the members of the Jaina sect. If this story is not ‘imaginative history’ as V. A. Smith remarked in the first edition of his *Early History of India*, but ‘has a solid foundation on fact’ according to the revised opinion of the same historian, then it is quite reasonable to assume that the southern province of the Nandas remained an integral part of the empire and did not show any signs of revolt during the change of dynasty. The possible alternative supposition that Candragupta might have conquered the southern province will not stand to reason, since Candragupta was the first monarch of a new line of kings who came to the throne after overthrowing the reigning Nanda dynasty. To effect this in his own Capital and to make the Empire rest on an unshakable foundation would have required and absorbed all the energy and effort of a life-time. Thus busy at home, Candragupta could have hardly directed his attention or diverted his activity to the Dekhan also. If again the tradition that Candragupta chose the far south, Śravaṇa Belgola, for his retirement and death is trustworthy,¹ Mysore must have been to him quite a home, which a recently conquered province could never be. It may then appear, that Candragupta must have succeeded to the Nanda empire including the Dekhan province.

c6.s1.t1.2

¹ For Jaina tradition, see Rice, *Mysore and Coorg*, pp. 3-9; *Q.J.M.S.*, Bangalore, October, 1922; *E. I.*, Vol. XIII, pp. 430-47; Rice, *Inscriptions at Śravaṇa Belgola* (1889), Intro., pp. 1-15. *Contra* J. F. Fleet, *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XXI (1892), pp. 156-60; *Ep. Indica*, Vol. III, p. 171, note.

c6.s1.t1.3

Lewis Rice draws our attention to a number of inscriptions at Śravaṇa Belgoḷa discovered by him in 1874 where Bhadrabāhu and Candragupta Munīndra are frequently and jointly mentioned,¹ adding that Candragupta attained such spiritual eminence as he was for a long time served by the forest deities. This, Mr. Rice, substantiates from literature. The Bṛhatkathākośa of Hariṣeṇa (10th century) refers to King Candragupta as a disciple of Bhadrabāhu. There is, besides, another work, Bhadrabāhucarita, attributed to Ratnānandi of the 15th century, where a similar account occurs. The same is found in another modern work Rājāvali-kathā by Devacandra, perhaps belonging to the earlier part of the 19th century. The migration was, according to the Bṛhatkathākośa, to the Punnāṭa, a province in the south-west of Mysore² famous for its beryl even in the second century A.D. according to Ptolemy who calls it Pounnāṭa.

c6.s1.t1.4

¹ Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions, pp. 3 and 4.

c6.s1.t1.5

² saṃghopi samasta guruvākyataḥ dakṣiṇā pathadeśastha punnāṭaviṣayam yayuḥ|

c6.s1.t1.6

*The evidence of Tāranātha*

c6.s1.t1.7

Secondly, there is the evidence of the Tibetan historian Tāranātha,³ according to whom, Bindusāra assisted by the glorious Cāṇakya, who was responsible to a great extent for Candragupta’s accession to the Magadha throne, is said to have made extensive conquests in the country south of the Vindhyas. "Afterwards there ruled the son of Candragupta, by name Bindusāra who was born in the country of Gaura, for 35 years. The Minister and Brahman Cāṇakya conjured up the jealous Yamāntaka. After he had seen his face the power of his mantra became very great. By means of magic, he killed the kings and ministers of about 16 towns. And when in consequence of this, the king began a war, he brought the country which was situated between East and West Oceans into his power.¹ Then this Brahman killed, by different methods, 3,000 people and by different uses of narkoṭa he fooled nearly 10,000 people. Further he expelled several people, disunited them, made them immovable, dumb, etc. As a result of all these sins, he died of a loathsome disease and was confined to Hell. During the time of this king, in the town of Kusumapura a vihāra named Kusumālaṅkāra was erected in which the great Ācārya Mātṛceta lived and propagated the law of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. Towards the end of the life of the Ācārya Mātṛceta there ruled Bindusāra’s brother’s son, King Śrīcandra. He built a temple to the Ārya Avalokiteśvara, and supported 2,000 Bhikṣus who taught the Mahāyāna. When Rāhulabhadrā was teaching in Nālanda he built there fourteen beautiful halls and fourteen incomparable religious schools. After King Śrīcandra had ended his rule many years had passed by, when in the west in the kingdoms of Ṭili and Mālva a young king Kaṇika was elected ruler. At that time 28 mines with precious stones were discovered and the king became rich. In all parts of the world he built big temples and entertained 20,000 Bhikṣus of great and small vehicles. Therefore one must know that the kings Kaniṣka and Kaṇika are not one and the same person.”¹ Though the above statement is open to question inasmuch as it refers, to the time of Bindusāra, the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna systems which were the products of much later times, yet it clearly demonstrates that Bindusāra of whom we have unfortunately no documents, literary or epigraphical, was busy extending the empire in the south of India in addition to that left by his father. That Bindusāra must have been a great soldier and conqueror is corroborated by the testimony of the Greek writers who refer to him as Amitrochates (Sans.: Amitraghāta), a terror to the enemies. It is not a name but a surname which indicates his great prowess in war and his extensive conquests.² Bindusāra could not have earned this title for nothing. There was no necessity for his conquest of the North India as the whole territory was under his father's suzerainty. Nor is there any possibility of Bindusāra carrying his arms beyond the borders of the Indian continent. It is, therefore, obvious that his conquests of the Dekhan must have been so difficult and arduous as to merit this hard-earned title. In conclusion Candragupta succeeded to the Kuntala province left to him by the Nandas. His son Bindusāra acquired further territories so much so that the empire of Aśoka comprised the whole of the Peninsular India roughly down to the latitude of Nellore. If it is conceded that Aśoka conquered the province of Kaliṅga, then Bindusāra either in the capacity of the Viceroy under his father at the provincial capital, Vidiśa, or in his own personal capacity as king, must have been busy in conquering and acquiring the southern parts other than that of the Kuntala.

c6.s1.t1.8

³ Schiefner p. 89, Tāranātha’s Geschichte Des Buddhismus, (1869).

c6.s1.t1.9

¹ This means that Bindusāra enlarged the territory already in possession under his father.

c6.s1.t1.10

¹ Tr. from Schiefner, pp. 89-90.

c6.s1.t1.11

² That it is but a mere title is proved by the Rāmāyaṇa where Vālmīki describes the bold warrior Kumbhakarṇa as amitraghāta (VI, 60-97).

Conquest of Kaliṅga?

c6.s1.t2.1

It has been suggested that even the conquest of Kaliṅga was not the conquest of an independent province but only a suppression of a rebellion.¹ There is of course the evidence of the Purāṇas that the empire of the Nandas was as large and as extensive as that of the Mauryan empire at the commencement. We have already shown how the Kuntala province must have been a part of the empire of Magadha under the Nandas. There is again inscriptional evidence to show that Kaliṅga was also one of these provinces. In the course of a learned note on the Hathi-gumpha Inscriptions of Khāravela, R. D. Banerjea remarks: "Three centuries before Khāravela and two hundred years before Aśoka, Kaliṅga was conquered by Nanda I or Nandivardhana, the founder of the Nanda dynasty of Magadha. This invasion was not a mere raid and Kaliṅga continued under the Nanda kings at least for some time. This is proved by the mention of public works undertaken during the reign of Nanda I, who excavated a canal in this country."²

c6.s1.t2.2

¹ Vide P. T. S., History of Tamils, p. 140. Prof. E. J. Rapson seems to think that this was possible from his alternative statement 'or that it had revolted and was reconquered by Aśoka' (C.H.I., p. 315).

c6.s1.t2.3

² See line 6 of the inscription. Also J.B.O.R.S., III, pp. 502-3.

c6.s1.t2.4

We are not in possession of facts or figures which would definitely mark out the period when Kaliṅga threw off the yoke of the empire of Magadha, and whether it effected its independence even during the epoch of the Nandas or in the revolution effected by Candragupta Maurya or even later. If the Mauryan invasion of South India is an historical fact, and if Bindusāra’s conquests were mainly beyond the Vindhyas, then it is plausible to postulate a theory that Kalinga continued to be a part of the Magadha empire under the two first Mauryan emperors. But soon after Aśoka’s succession, the sturdy Kalingas declared independence. The emperor, though actuated by the principle of dharmavijaya, had no other option than to engage himself in asuravijaya by conquering them with sword and bloodshed. There is of course a view that Aśoka’s eclectic ethics were the consequence of Kalinga war, its horrors and atrocities. Though we do not hear of any other incident which made it necessary on the part of the Emperor to take arms it could not by itself be the starting point of enunciating the policy of peace and good-will. Aśoka must have possessed divine temperament from his early life, which enabled him to turn even sour things sweet. The peculiar character in him, viz., to girdle all around with music, the music of the heart, must have been an inborn characteristic and not the mere outcome of a particular incident or even a series of incidents.¹ Until it is proved on reliable evidence that Kalinga was an independent country at the accession of Aśoka, and that the latter pursued at the outset a policy of aggression and self-aggrandisement for enlarging the territorial limits of his empire, it is reasonable to presume that Kalinga continued to be a part of the empire of Magadha from Nanda I to Aśoka, and asserted its autonomy under Aśoka. This he put down with a strong hand, as befits the duty of an emperor of even of the Rājasattama type.

c6.s1.t2.5

¹ This seems to be also the view of Edmund Hardy. See Konig Asoka, p. 21 (last para.), published by Von Kirchheim & Co., Mains, 1913.

The evidence of the Edicts

c6.s1.t3.1

The next remarkable circumstance in this connection is the fact that the Rock Edicts of Aśoka have been discovered in a number of places in South India such as Siddhapura, Brahmagiri, Jaṭinga Rāmeśvara hill in Mysore in 1892, in Maski in the Nizam's dominions¹ and lastly in a place near Gooty in the Kurnool District discovered by Anu Ghose, the well-known geologist of Calcutta, while directing mining operations in that district. The discovery of the Aśokan Edicts in these places is in itself a sufficient testimony to the extent of the empire during the time of Aśoka. In addition to this there is again evidence of rare value in the inscriptions themselves. Three inscriptions of Aśoka, Rock Edicts II, V and XIII make specific mention of the southern provinces describing them at the same time as either dependent on, or independent of, the Mauryan empire. In the Second Edict, mention is made of the neighbouring countries such as the Colas, the Pāṇḍyas, the Satyaputra, the Keralaputra and the Tāmbapanni. In the V Rock Edict the neighbours mentioned are the Yonas, Kambojas, Gāndhāras, Riṣṭikas, Pitinikas, etc. In the thirteenth Rock Edict the Colas, the Pāṇḍyas and the Tāmbapanni are mentioned in addition to the statement "likewise where the king dwells among the Viśas, Vajris, the Āndhras and Pulidas.”¹ From these it is quite safe to infer that the Mauryan empire must have had its southern limits extended up to the Tamil kingdoms before Aśoka’s time, or at any rate in Bindusāra’s reign.

c6.s1.t3.2

¹ For details, see Hyderabad Arch. Series, No. 1, 1915.

c6.s1.t3.3

¹ Bühler, *Ep. Ind.*, II, p. 471 and S. K. Aiyangar, *Beginnings of South Indian History*, pp. 69-70.

The evidence of Tamil Literature

c6.s1.t4.1

The fourth and last is the evidence to be found on this point in early Tamil literature. There are four clear references to the Southern invasion of the Mauryas, three in the *Ahanānūru* and one in the *Puranānūru*. The following is the literal translation of the passages in question:

c6.s1.t4.2

1. “The rock of the sky-kissing high mountain which the Moriyar had cut down for the free passage of their golden chariot-wheels.”²

c6.s1.t4.3

² Viṇporu neḍuvarai iyaltēr mōriyar Poṇpuṇai tikiri tiritarak kuṟaitta arai . . . —*Aham*, 69, by Paraṅkorṟaṉār.

c6.s1.t4.4

2. “If he should hear of our unbearable anguish and grief here he would not, even for the sake of the immense riches of the Nandas, tarry there amidst the mountain rocks which the new Moriyar had cut down for the smooth passage of their well-adorned chariot-wheels when they came down upon the south with an army of horses and elephants because the king of Mohūr had refused to submit when the Kośar with chariots, swift-flying like the winds, routed the enemies’ forces on the field of battle with their drums vociferously sounding on the high hoary Podiyil hill.”³ 3. "The sky-kissing snow-capped mountain-rock which the Moriyar had cut down for the free passage of their golden chariot-wheels when they swept down on the south with the Vaḍukar marching before, strong with the strength of their mighty swift-flying arrows."¹

c6.s1.t4.5

³ Nāmpaṭar kūṟum-aruṭuyar kēṭpin Naṉdaṉ veṟukkai eaitiṉum maṟṟavaṭ-

c6.s1.t4.6

4. "The mountain-rock which the Moriyar with the sky-touching umbrella and the bannered chariot had cut down for the easy passage of their chariot-wheels."²

c6.s1.t4.7

That there was an invasion of, or expedition against, the South by the Moriyar is perfectly clear from these extracts; but there is some difference of opinion as to who could be the Moriyar referred to in the above passages. Some hold³ that the reference is undoubtedly to the army of the Mauryan King Candragupta or his son and successor Bindusāra, while others

c6.s1.t4.8

ṭaṅalar vāḷi tōḷi vel koṭit-
tuṇaik ālanna punaitērk kōcar
toṇmū dālat tarumpaṇaip podiyil
innicai muracaṅ kaṭippikut tiraṅgat-
temmuṇai citaitta ñāṉṟai mōhūr
paṇiyā maiyiṟ pakaitalai vanta
mākēḷu tāṉai vamba mōriyar
punaitēr ṉēmi uruḷiya kuṟaitta
vilaṅguveḷ ḷaruviya aṟaivāi
—*Aham*, 251, by Māmūlaṉār.

c6.s1.t4.9

¹ muraṇmiku vaḍukar muṉṉuṟa mōriyar
teṉṟicai mātiram muṉṉiya varaviṟku
viṇṉuṟa vōṅgiya paniyiruṅ kuṉṟat-
toṇkadirt tikiri uruḷiya kuṟaitta
aṟai.
—*Aham*, 281, by Māmūlaṉār.

c6.s1.t4.10

¹ *Beginnings of South Indian History*, Ch. II, pp. 81-103 *Proceedings of Second Oriental Conference* (Cal.), p. 319ff K. A. Nilakanta Sastri in Q.J.M.S., Vol. XVI p. 305. Somasundara Deśikar, I.H.Q., Vol. IV p. 135ff.

c6.s1.t4.11

² viṇporu neḍuṅkuḍaik-koṭittēr mōriyar
tiṅkatirt tikiri tiritarak kuṟaitta, aṟai.
—*Puram*, 175, by Aṭṭiraiyaṉār.

c6.s1.t4.12

think¹ that the *Moriyar* here mentioned are only the Mauryas of Koṅkān who came into prominence some time in the fifth century A.D. But the weight of evidence both direct and circumstantial, seems to incline strongly in favour of the former view.

c6.s1.t4.13

¹ *History of the Tamils*, pp. 521-6; Paṇḍit Rāghava Aiyangar, *Cēran-Seṅguṭṭuvan* (First ed.), 1915, p. 165 ff. The Paṇḍit has omitted this portion in the second edition of his work,

c6.s1.t4.14

In these passages then there is a clear reference to a mighty invasion to the South Indian Kingdoms by the northern *Moriyar* in the course of which they had to hew down a mountain that stood in their way and carve a passage for their war-chariots. This grand exploit of theirs is mentioned and commemorated in all the four extracts quoted above. The other facts connected with this invasion mentioned in them are, that the invaders were celebrated chariot-warriors, that their chariots were adorned with victorious banners, that their umbrella, one of the insignia of sovereignty, was as lofty as the sky, that this expedition was undertaken to put down the Mohūr king who had refused to submit to the Kośar who had on a former occasion defeated in a pitched battle all the hostile forces of the South arrayed against them, and that the Vaḍukar served in this expedition as their vanguard. What is of more interest is that in one of them (the second extract above) the invaders are designated as the *new Moriyar*.

c6.s1.t4.15

These several incidents unmistakably indicate that the invasion was by the mighty army of a victorious emperor for the purpose of bringing down a recalcitrant ruler of a South Indian principality who alone had refused submission when all others had been vanquished and overthrown by the Kośar fighting evidently under the banner of the Imperial Mauryas. Who these Kośar¹ and Vaḍukar were who formed part of the imperial forces? Were they allies or mercenaries? It is difficult to ascertain beyond doubt. But the allusion in one and the same passage not only to the fabulous wealth of the Nanda—undoubtedly a king of the great Nanda line—but also to the *Moriyar* invasion² by the author Māmūlaṇār, bears the weight of the evidence that these facts were connected by some association of ideas in the mind of the author. Now what other connection could there be except that the Mauryas were the immediate successors to the throne and empire, and inheritors of the power and wealth of the Nandas? That this Nanda to whose vast hoard of wealth Māmūlaṇār here makes such pointed reference is the imperial Magadha Nanda, is clear from another poem of his where also the wealth of Nanda is eulogistically mentioned:

c6.s1.t4.16

¹ I have submitted a paper on the *Kośar*, Their place in South Indian History, to the All-India Oriental Conference, Patna, 1930.

c6.s1.t4.17

² *Aham*, 251.

c6.s1.t4.18

palpukaḷ niṟainda velpōr Nandar
śirmiku pāṭalik kuḷiik-kaṅgai
nirmutaṟ karanda nidiyan koḷḷō.
—*Aham*, 265, Māmūlaṇār.

c6.s1.t4.19

"Is it the wealth hoarded by the Nandas and kept in their capital Pāṭali (modern Patna) but swept away and submerged later on by the floods of the Ganges?"

c6.s1.t4.20

Paṇḍit M. Rāghava Aiyangar agrees with this interpretation. To me this passage is significant in more than one respect. This literary reference to the floods of the Ganges, a fact supported by archæological evidence³ is further corroborated by an independent testimony. Haraprasād Śāstri writes: "Buddha-ghoṣa says in his commentary that Buddha predicted the destruction of Pāṭaliputra by fire, flood and feud. So it seems that before his time, *i.e.*, in the third and fourth centuries there were destructive fires, destructive inundations and internal strifes which is very possible in periods of anarchy."¹ In summarising briefly the synthesis published in the Annual Reports of the Archæological Survey, Bengal Circle, D. B. Spooner remarks thus: "The fact that we observe a belt of virgin soil some eight feet thick distributed evenly over the floor appears to me susceptible of only one explanation, namely, that the building was flooded while it stood intact. It was at all events buried to this depth, or its *disjecta membra* must certainly have lain upon the floor. Whether this burial was due to flood or to some other cause, is not a question of much archæological interest, but I assume it was by flood, because the soil is Ganges silt and virgin.

c6.s1.t4.21

³ Vide *An. Rep.*, 1912-13, pp. 55-61; 1913-14, pp. 45-74; 1914-15, pp. 45-46.

c6.s1.t4.22

¹ J.B.O.R.S., Vol. VI, p. 32.

c6.s1.t4.23

"A flood of this sort is evidenced by another ancient monument not far from here. When General Cunningham dug down around the Aśoka column which still stands at Bakhra in Muzaffarpur he found that five feet of the buried shaft was covered by a virgin silt which he attributed himself to flood, and his statement has not been challenged so far as I am aware. But if there was in early times a flood like this at Bakhra, what was there to prevent its sweeping over Patna, too? I know of no high land between the sites.

c6.s1.t4.24

"But flood or no flood, it is at all events certain that the Mauryan building was buried with eight feet of earth over its floor before the fire occurred which finally destroyed it.

c6.s1.t4.25

"That fire was the medium of this final catastrophe, all evidences indicate infallibly. The thick carpet of black ash and charcoal which lay like a pall over the whole site below the bottoms of the Gupta walls, is proof of this fact obvious enough for any child to read, and it is equally obvious that these ashes cannot be due to any burning of the Gupta structures. Otherwise how could they lie so uniformly underneath the lowest foundations of these buildings? If, however, they cannot be of Gupta date, or rather if they cannot appertain to the Gupta stratum, they must, by the simple law of alternative, appertain to the only other level of occupation traceable at this site, namely the Mauryan stratum."¹

c6.s1.t4.26

¹ Annual Report 1913-14, p. 47.

c6.s1.t4.27

There can then be no doubt that the Nandas mentioned by Māmūlaṇār could be none other than the famous line of the Nanda kings who reigned at Pāṭali or Pāṭaliputra and that the *Moriyar* or the new Moriyar as they are called were the armies of the Mauryan King Candragupta who succeeded to the throne of the Nandas or some one of his lineal successors. From the evident gusto with which Māmūlaṇār in more than one place refers to the magnificent wealth of the Nandas and the martial enterprise of the Mauryas where the subject of the poems does not call for it, it is safe to surmise that these incidents should have been of no distant occurrence, and therefore fresh in the memory of the poet. Now if we could from other sources of information ascertain even approximately the time of Māmūlaṇār it would certainly set this question at rest, but unfortunately the materials are too meagre to arrive at any definite conclusion.¹

c6.s1.t4.28

¹ This fact of the flood of the Ganges sweeping over Patna is of considerable importance to a student of South Indian history. For it has been mentioned by the Tamil poet Māmūlaṇār. From Cunningham's statement the flood must have occurred after Aśoka's time, and from Spooner's examination of the subject, the fire must have broken out at least before the epoch of the Guptas. This may then give clue to fixing the date of this poet roughly. He may be said to have flourished between 230 B.C. and 300 A.D. But his reference to the Vemba Mauryas and his silence regarding the fire incident may induce us to assign him to the last period of the Mauryan epoch or perhaps not far from it. See also author's Studies in Tamil Literature and History, (1930), pp. 133-134.

c6.s1.t4.29

The next point to examine is the result of this invasion. The result was indeed far-reaching. The Mauryan empire expanded a good deal southward. The territory up to the frontiers of the chief Tamil kingdom came direct under the Mauryan sway, at least during the reign of Bindusāra, if not earlier. This is evident from the Aśokan Pillars and Rocks at the main road leading to the South (perhaps the Dakṣiṇapatha of Sanskrit literature) as well as at Gooty and Kaliṅga. Another result but more important than this was the alliance between the Empire and the Tamil states in the South. According to the maṇḍala theory of the Kauṭalīya the neighbouring state is supposed to be a potential enemy, if not a natural enemy. The time of Aśoka must have been the heyday of the teachings of the Arthaśāstra. For literary tradition whether Brahmanical, Buddhist, or Jaina makes Kauṭalya-Cāṇakya as the minister of Candragupta, and Bindusāra.² Be that as it may, the influence of the Arthaśāstra must have been great and profound. In spite of this we find that in practice the neighbours were allies of the empire, the representatives of the latter opening hospitals for man and beast even in those territories. This indirectly demonstrates that these small states acknowledged in a way the superiority, if not the suzerainty, of the Mauryan emperor. The invasion opened further the possibility of a strong Tamil king overreaching his enemies in the far north. Three centuries later we hear of Ceraṇ Śeṅguṭṭuvaṉ carrying his arms as far as the Ganges and returning victoriously. In much later times another Tamil king Rājendra led his army to the north fired by ambition to be the paramount master of all earth. It equally opened possibilities for a strong North Indian ruler to spread his sway over the distant south. We know from history Malik Kāfūr’s invasion of Peninsular India and his march through the Tamil kingdom as far south as Rāmeśwaram.¹ Not only, was therefore, the dakṣiṇapatha a commercial route for easy and frequent intercourse as suggested by the Arthaśāstra, but also a military route by which armies of the South and the North passed to and fro. It formed the great highway for Aśoka to broadcast his imperial policy. Its importance even in much later times as in the days of the East India Company can be seen by a reference to F. H. Scott’s military routes in his *Routes in the Peninsula of India.*²

c6.s1.t4.30

² Tārānātha (Schiefner), p. 89; Hemacandra, Pariśiṣṭa Parvan (Bibl. Indica), Canto VIII, sl. 445 ff.

c6.s1.t4.31

¹ C.H.I.III, pp. 86-87.

c6.s1.t4.32

² Published in Madras, 1853.

Sec. ii. The Limits of the Empire in Hindustan

c6.s2.1

It is thus definite that all South India beyond the Vindhyas, barring of course the Tamil kingdoms, was included in the Mauryan empire under Aśoka. It would be equally interesting to know whether there is evidence to show that all Hindustan was under the Magadhan sway. Among the places mentioned under his dominion are Pāṭaliputra, Khalatika parvata,¹ Kośāmbi, Lumminigrāma, Ujjain, Takkhasilā, Suvarṇagiri and Kaliṅga. The records of Hiuen Tsiang bear out the fact that Kashmir was also a member of the Empire.² That the Empire extended in the north as far as the Himālayan region is also seen from the Rock Edict XIII where there is a reference to the Nābhapantis or Nabhakas. That the Tarai and Nepal were also part and parcel of the Empire is obvious from the Rummindēi and Niglīva Pillars and from the monuments at Lalitapaṭan respectively. That Bengal and possibly Assam were included in the Magadhan Empire is evident from different sources. Though there is not any definite testimony to include Assam, there is no denying the fact that Bengal formed an integral part of the Empire. The *Divyāvadāna* and the records of Hiuen Tsiang who noticed the monuments of Aśoka at Tāmralipti, Karṇasuvarṇa, Samataṭa and other places, all in Bengal, are the evidence.¹ This is further attested by the Greek writers, according to whom Bengal (Gangaridæ) was one among the divisions of the king of the Prasii² (sans. prāchya) or Magadha, even during the time of Agrammes (also Xandrames) identified with the Dhana-Nanda, the last of the Nanda line.³ From the mention of the state of Surāṣṭra, in the west, it is reasonable to suppose that the Empire extended as far as the Arabian Sea. Thus from Kashmir to Assam in the east, and the Arabian Sea in the west, all the country was under the direct rule of the Emperor Aśoka, besides that portion of South India of which mention has already been made.⁴

c6.s2.2

¹ Kātyāyana and Patañjali refer to this hill as Khalatika parvata (*Mahābhāṣya* I. ii. 2). The same hill or a part of it as Dr. R. K. Mookerji surmises (*Aśoka*, p. 205 n) came to be known as Gorathagiri as is evident from the Hathigumpha cave inscription of Khāravela and also other inscriptions. Again there was a change in the name according to an inscription in the Lomaśa Ṛṣi cave of the Barābar hills. It came to be known Pravara hill. Now this hill is well known as Barābar Hill containing a number of cave Inscriptions.

c6.s2.3

² Watters, Vol. I, pp. 267-71; cp. *Rājataraṅgini* of Kalhana I, p. 19, ed. by M. A. Stein. *Si-yu-ki*, i, p. 150 ff.

c6.s2.4

¹ See Smith, *Asoka*, 3rd ed., p. 255.

c6.s2.5

² On the different forms of the name *Prasii* see Lassen, *Ind. Alt.* II., pp. 210-1, *n* 1.

c6.s2.6

³ McCrindle, *Invasion of Alexander*, pp. 221 and 281. See also *Ind. Ant.*, 1877, p. 339 C.H.I. 1, p. 469.

c6.s2.7

⁴ See above p. 64.

Rāja-Viṣayas

c6.s2.t1.1

Within the imperial territorial limits were several political communities which, we may, for the sake of convenience, call “sovereign states within the empire”. A peculiarity about them is that these were not under the direct rule of the emperor though they were inside the empire. Their constitution was of republican character.⁵ These were several in number and on all parts of the Empire. In the south and south-west, communities possessing such republican character are the Āndhras, Bhojas, Rāṣṭrikas and Pulindas. The classical writings refer to the vastness of the territory, and the fertility of the soil of the Āndhras (Andaræ).⁶

c6.s2.t1.2

⁵ *Hindu Polity*, Part I, p. 142.

c6.s2.t1.3

⁶ *Ind. Ant.*, 1877, p. 339.

c6.s2.t1.4

The Āndhras are known to the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* (VII. 18) as also the Pulindas and the Bhojas. If the Bhojas are to be identified as the ancestors of the Mahābhojas of the later period, and the Rāṣṭrikas with the Mahāraṭhis of the Śātavāhana period,¹ they must have occupied respectively the territory covered by the modern Berar and the Mahārāṣṭra. The Pulindas are one among the south Indian tribes according to the *Vāyu*² and *Matsya Purāṇas*.³ Apparently their capital city was somewhere near the modern Bhilsa.⁴ Among the vassal states of the north-west figure those of the Yonas, Kambojas, and the Gāndhāras. The precise habitat of the Yonas is uncertain and deserves further investigation. The term *yona* occurs in two different places in the XIII Rock Edict. *Yona* is Prakrit for Sanskrit *yavana*.⁵ The first is a reference to the feudatory Yona state and the other to the Hellenic kingdoms⁶ with whom Aśoka had international relations. The feudatory Yona state may probably refer to the hilly tracts on the lower spurs of the three-peaked Koh-i-Mor where Alexander found "descendants of the western people who had come into those parts with their god Dionysus"⁷ and who helped Alexander in his battle in the plains of the Punjab.

c6.s2.t1.5

¹ *Asoka*, 3rd ed., pp. 169-170.

c6.s2.t1.6

² Ch. 99, 268.

c6.s2.t1.7

³ Ch. 114, 48.

c6.s2.t1.8

⁴ See p. 161 of N.L. Dey's *Geographical Dictionary*, Cal. Or. Series, No. 21.

c6.s2.t1.9

⁵ See Woolner, *Asoka, Text and Glossary*, Part I, p. 28 and Part II p. 126.

c6.s2.t1.10

⁶ The Hellenic states mentioned in the Aśokan inscriptions are Egypt, Cyrene, Macedonia, Epirius, and Syria. See also *C.H.I.*, I, p. 540.

c6.s2.t1.11

⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 354.

c6.s2.t1.12

But if Geiger's identification of Alasanda in the Mahāvaṃśa with Alexandria founded by Alexander near Kabul is correct, then it is probable that the Yona country must have been the western portion of modern Afghanistan.¹ The identification of Kamboja state is not difficult. It included a great portion of modern Afghanistan, at least its northern and eastern parts. The Mahābhārata² mentions Rājapura, the capital of that state. Hiuen Tsiang refers to this city and its inhabitants³ and identifies them among the north-western tribes.⁴ The Gāndhāras who are different from the Kambojas must have occupied the territory comprising the districts of Peshawar and Rawalpindi and possibly west of the Indus.⁵

c6.s2.t1.13

¹ Geiger, Mahāvaṃśa, p. 194.

c6.s2.t1.14

² VII.4.119; See Sörensen's Index, p. 581.

c6.s2.t1.15

³ Watters, Vol. I, p. 284.

c6.s2.t1.16

⁴ See also Dey, Geographical Dictionary, p. 87.

c6.s2.t1.17

⁵ Ibid., pp. 60-61.

The Viṣa Vajri

c6.s2.t2.1

Among the vassal tribes mentioned in the Rock Edict (III), there occurs the term raja viṣa vajri according to the Shābhāzgarhi and Mānsehra texts.⁶ The Girnār version is a little different. The term in this text is rajavisayamhi. Bühler's reading was Visa and Vajri but this has not found acceptance with scholars. An attempt has been made to identify Vajri with Vrijika of the Arthaśāstra, and the Viṣas with the Bestæ of the Periplus.⁷ Until we alight on an unassailable ground we may regard the identification of Vajri with Vrijika probable. It is wrong to take Viṣas as a separate people. The word is certainly a corrupt form of Viṣaya and the full word is rāja-viṣaya. The most interesting fact is that almost all the rājaviṣayas including the Āndhras are known to have been republican.¹ This position is to be granted in the light of the constitutional history in the epoch of Kauṭalya and Alexander. The Kauṭalīya knows of many republics some of whom were citizen republics or in the language of Jayaswal ‘nation-in-arms’ republics. Under this category Kauṭalya mentions² the Kambojas, the Surāṣṭras, the Kṣatriyas (kathroi), the Śreṇis and others. Some of these are noticed by the classical writers as enjoying a republican form of constitution. The Arthaśāstra sets forth the relation between the imperial Government and these republics in four full pages.³ The underlying motive is to conquer the disunited Saṅgha and to overawe the united, with the policy of subsidy and good will. It would appear that this policy was vigorously pursued with the result “that the stronger republics survived the Mauryan imperialism, while the weaker ones succumbed. For example, the Surāṣṭras survived as attested to by the inscriptions of Balaśrī and Rudradāman.⁴

c6.s2.t2.2

⁶ Inscriptions of Asoka, Part I, p. 53, edited by Bhandarkar and Majumdar Sastri (Cal. Univ., 1920).

c6.s2.t2.3

⁷ H. C. Raychaudri, Political History of India, pp. 163-4.

c6.s2.t2.4

¹ See Hindu Polity, Pt. I, p. 146.

c6.s2.t2.5

² Kambojasurāṣṭrakṣatriyaśreṇyādayovārtāśastropajīvinaḥ| Ar. Śās. Bk. XI, ch. I. See also Hindu Polity, Pt. I, pp. 60-61. According to M. M. Gaṇapati Śāstri’s commentary the kṣatriyas and śreṇis are not communities but mean śreṇis of kṣatriyas and other castes among the Kambojas and Surāṣṭras, Vol. III, p. 144.

c6.s2.t2.6

³ Bk. XI, Ch. I.

c6.s2.t2.7

⁴ Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, pp. 44 and 60.

Sec. iii. The Character of the Empire

The Nanda Empire or the First Empire

c6.s3.t1.1

There is a general view that historically speaking the Mauryan Empire is the First Empire. But historical facts prove that the Empire was a realised fact under the Nandas. In about 400 B.C. Mahāpadma Nanda ascended the throne of Magadha and the Purāṇas entitle him with lofty titles of *ekarāṭ*, the sole emperor of the land and *ekachatra*, the sole possessor of the umbrella of the empire,¹ titles sighed for in vain by many a monarch of Ancient India. Besides this literary tradition, there is the primary authority of the inscriptions of varying dates which throw light on the extent of the Empire of Magadha under the Nanda monarchs.² There is no denying the fact that a considerable portion of the Dekhan was brought to subjection by the Nandas; and possessing extensive territories both in the north and the south of the Vindhyas, they legitimately prided themselves in such high-sounding titles. It would appear then that the First Empire was of the Nandas and that of the Mauryas was only the Second. It is unfortunate that we have not sufficient details to reconstruct the history of India during the epoch of the Nandas.

c6.s3.t1.2

¹ Pargiter, Kali Age, p. 25.

c6.s3.t1.3

² See Rice, Mysore and Coorg from Inscriptions, p. 3; also reference to Nanda’s conquest of Kalinga in the Khāravela Inscription.

The terms ‘Empire’ and ‘Imperial sway’

c6.s3.t2.1

What the terms ‘Empire’ and ‘Imperial sway’ connoted in those ancient days is too intricate a question to answer with any satisfaction. The remarks of a recent writer seem apposite. “The connotation of the word Empire is such that it cannot be used in Indian history without giving a misleading view of the course of that history. The Roman Empire meant the establishment of the *Pax Romana*, the gradual extension of Roman citizenship, the institution of Roman jurisprudence, and the spread of the Latin tongue. The British Empire means the establishment of British methods of the maintenance of law and order, the use of the English language for purposes of administration, the spread of English schools and universities, the wide extension of British commerce, the starting of Christian propaganda, and the slow development of British democratic institutions. The establishment of empire in ancient India meant none of these things."¹

c6.s3.t2.2

¹ *History of the Tamils*, p. 146.

c6.s3.t2.3

*Imperial sway is Overlordship*

c6.s3.t2.4

Viewed in this light, imperial sway of ancient Indian monarchs meant the active rule of that individual monarch, who, by his abilities and capabilities, brought to subjection the neighbouring chieftains and rulers and proclaimed himself the sole ruler of all the earth. He need not have conquered every one of the states by sword. A state might feel the weight of his arms and render obeisance of its own accord. So long as master minds were at the helm of affairs, these states placed themselves in a state of subordination, sincere or feigned. But when once these towering personalities disappeared from the arena of the Imperial stage, there was the opportunity for these subordinate states to declare their independence. The establishment of suzerainty was only a formal affair. This simply meant that other states acknowledged their inferiority to a supreme over-lord. This acknowledgment of the over-lordship of a certain monarch, or the willing acquiescence of lesser powers to a greater power, was investing that monarch with the halo of imperial sway. It was the rule of the Emperor over other kings. But the rule was not personal or direct. It was over-lordship and nothing more.

The nature of overlordship

c6.s3.t3.1

But what was the nature of this overlordship in relation to subdued or vassal states? The subjugated ones either by coercion or willingness simply acknowledged the suzerainty of a conquering monarch, the Vijigīṣu of the *Arthaśāstra*.¹ These states retained their individuality, their institutions and organization, their system of administration and government, their laws and customs, their language, and religion. In a majority of cases even the old royal dynasty was suffered to exist if its reigning members were not turbulent and disloyal. The visible manifestation of their subordinate capacity consisted in periodical payments of tributes and presents, assistance in war and absence of separate foreign relations.² In other respects, these states were given a free hand to act for themselves. Accepting overlordship did not generally mean transformation in the methods of administration, or change of royal dynasty, or planting of colonies, or stationing of military garrisons from the imperial capital. These autonomous states, then, incorporated themselves into the Empire without prejudice to retaining their peculiar individuality and the established policy of their government. This was the nature of the imperial sway over its subordinate chiefs and states. Thus the alleged imperial sway depended not upon a dynasty but an individual as the monarch. It may be a line of kings as powerful as in the case of the Nandas or Mauryas whose overlordship was accepted unquestioned though one or two risings here and there are not unheard of. Generally the inferior states subordinated themselves by incorporating into the Empire but always waiting for the opportune moment to throw off the yoke. Under weaklings the Empire broke up and under the powerful it was built up. Its endurance depended mainly on the capacity of the emperor. This largely explains why the Hindu empires had a short lease of life.

c6.s3.t3.2

¹ Bk. VI, Ch. 2; Bk. VII, Ch. 3.

c6.s3.t3.3

² See N. N. Law, *Interstate Relations in An. India*, pp. 62-63 (Cal. Or. Series, 1920).

The Circle of States

c6.s3.t4.1

The above outline is not incompatible with the description in the Kauṭalīya where the theory of a circle of states is promulgated with instructions in detail. We have heard of the maṇḍala theory and the maṇḍala policy from other literature, but until the discovery of the Arthaśāstra one did not know the exact details by means of which the maṇḍala policy was put in actual practice. It is in later literature known as the dvādaśa-rāja-maṇḍala. The conqueror, his ally and ally's ally are the three chief monarchs who constituted a circle of states. This is said to be the conqueror's circle of states. The three monarchs comprising this particular maṇḍala possessed respectively the five elements of sovereignty,—namely, the minister, the territory, the fortress, the treasury, and the army. Thus a circle of states consists of eighteen elements, the fifteen of the three states, and their kings.¹

c6.s3.t4.2

¹ vijigīṣurmitram mitramitram vā asya prakṛtayastisraḥ| tāḥ pañcabhiramātyajanapadadurga kośadaṇḍaprakṛtibhirekaikaśaḥ samyuktā maṇḍalamaṣṭādaśakam bhavati| anena maṇḍalapṛthaktvam vyākhyātam arimadhyamōdāsīnānām| evam caturmaṇḍalasaṃkṣepaḥ| dvādaśa rājaprakṛtayaḥ; ṣaṣṭirdravyaprakṛtayaḥ; saṃkṣepeṇa dvisaptatihi| —*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. VI, ch. ii.

Śakti and Siddhi

c6.s3.t5.1

While the conqueror's circle of states is the primary circle, three other circles are also mentioned. They are the potential enemy's circle, the Madhyama king's circle of states, and the Udāsīna king's circle of states. Thus the total number of kings constituting the maṇḍala are twelve and each possessing five elements of sovereignty, the aggregate of elements in the big circle of twelve kings is sixty. The chieftains of these twelve states constitute themselves twelve sovereign elements. The *dvādaśarājamaṇḍala* then contained altogether seventy-two elements of sovereignty. Every one of the states possessed besides the elements of sovereignty two chief factors all contributing to defining the active or inactive policy of every state. The two factors are the consummation (*siddhi*) and power consisting of strength of wisdom, strength of treasury and army, and strength of energy and enthusiasm (*śakti*). In other words these were the means to the end in view, namely happiness. This end was three-fold, the consequence of the three-fold *śakti* or strength. That monarch who possessed of these elements and the means above mentioned became the overlord of not only his maṇḍala but of the whole of the *maṇḍala* through further exertion of his power (*śakti*). By augmenting his own power and behaving righteously towards his neighbours the power of the inferior is thrown into the shade, and these have no option but to accept the overlordship of the Vijigīṣu or the conquering monarch. After giving such details and more, the *Kauṭalīya* ends the section with the very instructive and informing verse which says : "Throwing the circumference of the circle of states beyond his friend's territory, and making the kings of those states as the spokes of that circle, the conqueror shall make himself as the nave of that circle."¹

c6.s3.t5.2

¹ Trans., Bk. VI, ch. ii: cp. Bk. VII, ch. xviii.

c6.s3.t5.3

*Primary kings and subsidiary states*

c6.s3.t5.4

From this we are not to conclude that the whole of the then known world was divided into twelve states and their relations were consequently defined. These twelve kings were primary kings, heads of the primary states. It can be, therefore, affirmed with reasonable confidence that these chief states were in their turn the overlords of several small subsidiary states, each enjoying internal autonomy and responsible to his superior so far as external policy of that kingdom was concerned. Thus there was a number of small states, all in a subordinate capacity to the superior who must have been one among the twelve kings comprising the *maṇḍala* group. When one of these twelve kings augmented his power and means, he became superior to other kings and his suzerain power was acknowledged by one and all. He was then the emperor of the land and his kingdom was *empire* and his policy was that of the *imperialist*. This is the idea of an empire set forth in the *Arthaśāstra*, and any other construction is to misunderstand the true conception that lies behind this significant notion. It has been remarked that the policy enunciated by the author of the *Arthaśāstra* is not imperial in outlook but narrowed down to a small state. But let it be noted that the policy enunciated is applicable to a small state as well as to a large state which we call an empire.

The views of Dr. S. K. Aiyangar

c6.s3.t6.1

In this connection Dr. S. K. Aiyangar’s remarks seem apposite: “Empires in India under the Hindus attempted to be no more than kingdoms, of a small compass comparatively, which gathered together under the ægis of the leading state, which went by the name of imperial state for the time being, other kingdoms constituting merely an expanding *maṇḍala* in political dependence. The administration that had to be carried on by the imperial state was a comparatively simple one, as by a well established principle of devolution, most of the actual administration was carried on by local bodies for comparatively small states. . . . . . If that is granted there is no difficulty in understanding that what seems to be laid down for a congeries of smaller states cannot be far different from what was necessary for a really imperial state. Examined in this light it will be found that even the *Arthaśāstra* polity provides the machinery for carrying on the imperial administration as well as the administration of a comparatively small state.”¹

c6.s3.t6.2

¹ Author’s *Hindu Administrative Institutions*, Intro., pp. xiii-xiv.

State, federal not unitary

c6.s3.t7.1

From this we are to understand that the state in Ancient India, at least so far as the Mauryan India was concerned, was not unitary in type but federal in character, speaking in the language of modern political science. It was roughly a composite of federal states. It is indeed difficult to determine the nature of the ancient Indian state in general, and the Mauryan state in particular. It is again an intricate task to set forth the substantial relations which existed between the imperial Government and each of the provinces or states now united in the Empire as its member. Every student of modern Political Science knows that federation which has its roots in the remote past ‘varies in form from place to place, and from time to time’.¹ One view of a federal state is that when a central authority exercises limited jurisdiction over authorities beneath it, then that authority is a federal authority. Viewed in this light the Mauryan state was a federal state. For it cannot be claimed to have exercised unlimited jurisdiction over states beneath it, a mark of a unitary state. But its was not a rigid federal constitution. It was a loose form of confederation made up of congeries of states.²

c6.s3.t7.2

¹ C. F. Strong, *Modern Political Constitutions*, (1930, London), p. 98.

c6.s3.t7.3

² *Ibid*., p. 82.

Vassal provinces

c6.s3.t8.1

If it, then, be accepted that the Mauryan state was of a confederate type or rather federal in character, then it may be asked how could such elaborate provincial system of administration be in vogue as is evident from the Edicts of Aśoka, not to speak of other evidences. This topic then requires a new and independent examination. It would seem that these provinces would come under the name of vassal provinces, one form of the sub-division of what Bluntschli calls the compound states (*Zusammen gesetzte Statsform*).

Relation of the central states to provinces

c6.s3.t9.1

A province can be likened to a colony which is “at the outset no state. It is a local Government with perhaps more or less of local autonomy.”[¹] The separate organisation is only a form of Government, and not a state, for if we subject this case to a rigid scientific test, the moment a province becomes a state it ceases to be a part of the empire. The constitution was, therefore, a confederation of a number of states effected not necessarily by a treaty but with the express consent of the parties themselves. It was a sort of interstate agreement by which the Imperial Government or the Emperor representing that Government, introduced a sort of governmental organisation which consisted of a Viceroy and his Council of Ministers. The provinces which were in the nature of different states agreed to abide by the recommendations of this body. This agreement, it is reasonable to infer, must have been “for the accomplishment of certain limited and restricted purposes”. This system may, perhaps, roughly answer to what Burgess conceives to be a simple state of wider organisation.[²] Viewed in terms of modern political science it may not be right to style these provinces as states though in fact some continued as subordinate states. It is true that imperial officers were stationed at the provincial headquarters. But our contention is that these imperial officers at the provincial capitals were there to suppress any political rising against the Imperial Power and to see that these states did not wilfully evade the payment of tribute or presents to be paid to the emperor according to the original agreement with him. Nothing more was executed by this body. But it can be asserted with reasonable confidence that these imperial officers at the provincial headquarters aided the provincial or state authorities in the conduct of their government, without any interference in the details of internal administration. They seem to have occupied a position that can be compared to that of the representatives of the central government in the Native States of Modern India. The states, loosely called provinces, continued to be precisely the same from the standpoint of law and custom.

First 109 of 148 passages. Read on

Linked texts (29)