Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c6.s3: Sec. iii. The Character of the Empire

The Mauryan Polity c6.s3

Language
English

Contents

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.

c6.s3.t9.2

¹ Burgess, *Political Science and Constitutional Law*, Vol. I, pp. 77-78.

c6.s3.t9.3

² *Ibid.*, p. 79.

Linked texts (2)