Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c6.s4: Sec. iv. The Ends of the Mauryan State

The Mauryan Polity c6.s4

Language
English

Contents

Sec. iv. The Ends of the Mauryan State

c6.s4.1

Mauryan administration not a military rule

c6.s4.2

To understand correctly the Mauryan administrative system and its achievements and failure, it is necessary that we must first examine the aims and ends of the Mauryan state. What is true of the Mauryan state is largely true of Hindu states in general; for the Mauryan state was not a departure from the established tradition of the land. When we speak of the ends of the state, there is the implication that the ends of state were both proximate and ultimate. The ultimate end was spiritual in character and religious in scope. It perhaps approached the doctrine inculcated by Hegel that morality (*sittlichkeit*) is the end of the state. By its nature the Mauryan administration was not a military rule and consequently the state was not a centralised despotism. As has been stated elsewhere, the end of the state, namely the moral and material welfare of the citizens at large, could not be realised in a polity which made militarism its essential feature. No doubt wars were fought and territories conquered. The object was to bring the whole country under one sceptre. The laws of war are only a code of honour very skilfully incorporated into the body of the civil law, so that militarism may not show itself in all its nakedness.¹ The other aspect, which is, that the Mauryan state was not a centralised despotism, will be examined in the next chapter.

c6.s4.3

¹ Hindu Adm. Inst., p. 382.

Purpose of the State

c6.s4.t1.1

We may point out *en passant* that the Aśokan inscriptions betray a scheme of decentralisation, the signs of which are already visible in the *Arthaśāstra*. The insistence on the principle of *svadharma* in the Kauṭalīya,² and the inculcation of the laws of dharma or practice of morality by Aśoka have no other end in view than the attainment of heavenly bliss. If this was the chief purpose of the state, what were then the proximate ends which contributed to the realization of this ultimate end?

c6.s4.t1.2

² See Winternitz, *Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra* in the *Sir Asutosh Memorial Volume*, Patna.

The triple end

c6.s4.t2.1

From a study of the literature and epigraphical records concerned, it appears that the triple end advocated by Von Holtzendorff, approximately answers to the proximate ends of the Mauryan state.

c6.s4.t2.2

The first is *der nationale Machtzweck*. This is claiming a position of overlordship over other states in addition to its own subjects by proper exercise of true power.

c6.s4.t2.3

The second is *der individuelle Rechtszweck*. This is to let every citizen of the state enjoy liberty according to his station and purpose in life, but of course with due regard to the conventions of society.

c6.s4.t2.4

The third and last purpose of the state is *der gezells-chaftliche culturzweck*, general happiness. Towards this end, the state recognizes the existence of institutions, social and religious, within its territorial limits, and keeps a vigilant watch over these organisations lest they should undermine the power of the state. Other duties of the state under this category are mentioned as follows: "It must prevent the rivalries between different associations from coming to a breach of the peace. It must protect the rights of the individual member of any association against the tyranny of the association. It must hold all associations to their primary purpose, if such they have, and aid them, if strictly necessary, in its accomplishment. Finally, it must direct education of its subjects."¹

c6.s4.t2.5

¹ Burgess, *Political Science and Constitutional Law*, Vol. I, p. 84.

Immediate ends of the State

c6.s4.t3.1

Though there is a confusion here of an admixture of functions of government and functions of state as Burgess holds, still they are important since they clearly show the immediate ends of the state as realised in ancient Hindu polity. Attention has been already drawn to the Kauṭalīyan recommendation of the two aspects of government, power (*śakti*) and consummation (*siddhi*), and the different elements constituted by each. The *Arthaśāstra*, if it teaches anything, teaches the king to concentrate all his power so as to ensure the *lokayātrā* to his subjects and retain that power through an elaborate official machinery. The social organization with its principle of *svadharma* so much insisted in the *Arthaśāstra* is conceived to be the body politic composed of individuals in various states of evolution discharging their respective duties and yet enjoying freedom. This freedom of the individual is not of the type aimed at by the political philosophers of the 19th century. The individual of Hindu social polity aimed not at asserting his rights and privileges but aimed at the far more important thing, namely, the liberation of his soul by faithfully discharging his obligations and by means of supreme knowledge (*jñāna*). This opens to him the royal path which ultimately leads him to the *mokṣa*, the final release from the bondage of birth and death (*saṃsāra*). Not the least interesting is the fact that the chief proximate end of the state as proclaimed in the Kauṭalīya and vociferously reiterated in the Edicts of Aśoka, (which no political philosopher of modern times could ignore) is summed up in two pregnant lines:

c6.s4.t3.2

"In the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king: it is no happiness or welfare to the king which is not the happiness or welfare of the people at large."¹

c6.s4.t3.3

¹ Bk. I, ch. 19; R. E. VI, First Separate Edict at Jaugada, and Pillar Edict VI.

c6.s4.t3.4

Towards this end Aśoka directed all his energy and effort. He protected the rights of individual associations in the land whether it be Brahmanical, Buddhist, Jaina, Ājīvaka or any other. He strove to promote brotherly feeling among these sects of various denominations and character. He allowed them to have their own ways of religious worship and philosophical speculation. He aided these associations in their functioning and in their accomplishment. He promulgated regulations and ordinances to prevent a breach of the peace among these sects. Aśoka felt these to be the primary duties of the state and executed them to the best of his abilities. Why these things were zealously pursued is explained by him and by the author of the *Arthaśāstra*. These are towards realising the ultimate end, which, according to the belief of the times, was to find an honoured place in Heaven.

Linked texts (2)