Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c7.s1: Sec. i. The Character of Mauryan Monarchy

The Mauryan Polity c7.s1

Language
English

Contents

Sec. i. The Character of Mauryan Monarchy

Introductory

c7.s1.t1.1

At the helm of this vast Empire girt by the seas in the east and the west were, one after another, Candragupta, Bindusāra, Aśokavardhana and other great kings for nearly a century and a half. It was Puṣyamitra Śuṅga who extinguished the line and started the Śuṅga dynasty. The evidence of the *Arthaśāstra*, of classical writers like Megasthenes, of Buddhist literature, and of inscriptions like those of Aśoka supply us with a wealth of material which helps us to frame an accurate picture of the polity in vogue in these early days of Hindu India. From all the pieces of evidence literary or epigraphical, we come upon one clear fact, that the king was an important limb of the body politic. In fact, he is one among the seven constituents constituting a state (the *saptāṅga* of the Hindu literature). The *Arthaśāstra*, as has been already said, is one of the sources of information for this period. There is a view that the *Arthaśāstra* is merely a theoretical treatise on polity in general and does not treat of the conditions of the time. But a significant circumstance in this connection is that there is an express statement by the author in unequivocal terms that the treatise was composed for the use of Narendra. In this term there has been no difficulty in recognising Candragupta Maurya.¹ Besides the fact that the Purāṇas give a second name of Candragupta as Narendra, Jayaswal draws out attention to the term narendrāṅka, being the monogram or mark to be put on arms.²

c7.s1.t1.2

¹ Bk. II, ch. 10. sarvaśāstrānyanukramya prayogamupalabhya ca| Kauṭalyena narendrārthe śāsanasya vidhiḥ kṛtaḥ||

c7.s1.t1.3

² See In. Ant., 1918, p. 55, and Hindu Polity, Pt. I, p. 214.

Succession generally hereditary

c7.s1.t2.1

Proceeding then on the assumption that the Arthaśāstra formed the manual or the code on which the Mauryas including Aśoka and Daśaratha based their administration we find the king hereditary, constitutional, and limited by a system of checks and balances. That it was hereditary no one will dispute. According to Strabo son succeeded father.³ Every one knows Bindusāra as the son of Candragupta and Aśoka, the grandson. The mere fact that a prince happened to be the son of his father did not procure him the throne. Pliny states that the king was chosen by people with thirty councillors.⁴ Besides the officials of the state, the commonalty of the people were also present on this great occasion, as well as the representatives of the Paura, Jānapada and other corporate institutions. This choice of the king by the people is an important democratic factor which one cannot easily argue away. The principle of common will was thus a factor reckoned with in the constitution of ancient Indian polity. Generally the eldest son succeeded, while other sons were sent out as provincial viceroys or posted in other superior stations. The legend contained in the *Pāṃsupradāna* section popularly known as *Aśokavadāna*¹ to the effect that Aśoka had to kill his near and dear including his brothers to get at the throne has been justly discredited. That the story extant in the Buddhist work is an imagination of the writer rather than an historical fact has been proved from one of the inscriptions where Aśoka is said to have bestowed special care and attention to the habitations of his brothers and sisters, to the harem, etc.² It is impossible to think of Aśoka devoid of family affection and brotherly goodwill.

c7.s1.t2.2

³ Ancient India as described in Classical Literature, p. 55.

c7.s1.t2.3

⁴ Ancient India in Classical Literature, Sec. V.

c7.s1.t2.4

¹ See *Divyāvadāna*, XXVI.

c7.s1.t2.5

² *Corpus*, p. 155; Pillar Edict VI.

c7.s1.t2.6

Though the succession was generally hereditary, one could not style himself Rāja or Mahārāja until he went through the time-honoured ceremony of *Abhiṣecanīya*. This was the anointing of the prince by the Purohita and other higher officers of the state. This institution is an ancient Vedic institution and is described in detail in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*. It was an important occasion of feast and festivity. There was an age limit to this anointing ceremony³ and if the tradition that Aśoka was crowned four years after his accession to the throne has any meaning, it is that Aśoka had only a formal vesting of regal powers at his father's death and that he had the legal *abhiṣeka* in his twenty-fifth year.⁴

c7.s1.t2.7

³ See Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, II, pp. 52-3. According to the inscription of Khāravela the completion of the 24th year is the age for coronation.

c7.s1.t2.8

⁴ See *J.B.O.R.S.*, Vol. I, p. 93, and Vol. III, p. 438.

Abdication

c7.s1.t3.1

There was also the practice of relinquishing the throne and the numerous honours pertaining to it by the sitting king in favour of his son and the Yuvarāja. Such abdication was voluntary, dictated by honest and well-meaning motives. It has been a tradition, both Vedic and epic, that in ancient India when the king attained a certain age fit for the third āśrama, the vānaprastha, he abdicated his throne in favour of his son and retired to the forest to lead a godly life of penance and prayer. If we are to believe the Jaina tradition, Candragupta must have felt that his son had come of sufficient age to take up the responsibilities of ruling the empire, and that it was high time he retired from the din and bustle of political administration to one of peaceful meditation. Whether he was attracted by the Jaina doctrines on the eve of his life and whether he stuck to them, it is not possible to show in any conclusive manner from the materials available. V. A. Smith did not attach any value to this tradition in his first edition of the Early History of India. In subsequent editions, however, he has changed his opinion and thinks that it may be possible that Candragupta died as a Jaina.¹ Whatever be the truth underlying this tradition the fact remains that Candragupta after a reign of 24 years abdicated in favour of his son Bindusāra who ruled the empire equally well for 25 years according to the Purāṇas and 28 years according to the Ceylon chronicles.²

c7.s1.t3.2

¹ See above, p. 51.

c7.s1.t3.3

² It is an intricate attempt to find a safe shore from the troublous sea of Mauryan chronology. The date of accession of Candragupta to the throne is still far from being settled. The latest writer on the

Abdication of Aśoka

c7.s1.t4.1

There is a similar tradition with regard to the abdication of Aśoka in the evening of his life. Of the three Edicts in the Mysore territory—Brahmagiri, Siddhāpura and Jaṭinga Rāmeśvara Hill¹—Fleet would attach special interest to the version of the Brahmagiri text which discloses the fact that it was framed on the anniversary of Aśoka's abdication, while he was living in religious retirement on the hill Suvarṇagiri.²

c7.s1.t4.2

¹ Corpus, pp. 175-79.

c7.s1.t4.3

² J.R.A.S., 1905, p. 304. Here Fleet identifies Suvarṇagiri with Songir, one of the hills round the city of Girivraja in Magadha. I think the identification with Kanakagiri Hill is more probable.

c7.s1.t4.4

subject is Otto Stein, who in an article entitled the Coronation of Candragupta Maurya in the Journal of Czecho-slovakia Oriental Institute, Prague, Vol. I, 3, argues on the strength of the classical sources that the accession could not be earlier than B.C. 318. Hultzsch agrees with Fleet in fixing B.C. 320. (C.I.I., Vol. I, Intro., p. xxxv.) V. A. Smith is inclined to B.C. 322 (Early History of India, p. 45). The writer in the Cambridge History of India makes out a case for B.C. 321, while J. Carpentier brings it down to B.C. 313 (Ibid., pp. 156-64). Prof. Kern pleads for B.C. 322 (Ind. Ant., Vol. III, p. 79), while J. Sen for 325 B.C. (Ind. His. Quar., Vol. V, pp. 6-14). K. G. Sankara assigns 321 B.C. (Ind. Ant., 1920, 49f). L. D. Barnett also suggests this date (Antiquities of India, p. 39). I am rather inclined to take the date furnished by Jayaswal cir. 326|25 B.C. (J.B. O. R. S., Vol. I, Pt. 1, p. 116). The same difficulty is met with in the case of Bindusāra and Aśoka. The date of Bindusāra's coronation ranges from 296 to 298 B.C. That the reign of Candragupta extended for 24 years seems to be generally adopted. But Bindusāra's rule was 25 years according to the Purāṇas and 28 years according to the Ceylon chronicles. The same confusion awaits us when we come to Aśoka. Professor Kern is inclined towards 270 B.C. when Aśoka became emperor (Int. Ant., Vol. III, p. 79). According to Barnett Aśoka succeeded his father about 268 B.C. and his coronation was in 264 B.C. (Antiquities of India, p. 39). H. C. Ray Chaudry in his Political History of Ancient India pleads for 273 B.C. It is said that Aśoka died in 232 B.C. after a reign of about forty years. Barnett assigns 226 B.C. as the year of Aśoka's death (Antiquities, p. 40). Aśoka's reign was for 36 years according to the Vāyu Purāṇa and 37 according to the Mahāvaṃśa. Kern places his death in 234 or 233 B.C. (Ind. Ant., Vol. III, p. 79).

c7.s1.t4.5

But what we can gather from this is that Aśoka also abdicated his throne and led a life of penance and prayer. This may perhaps explain the tradition contained in the *Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā* of Kumāralāta¹:

c7.s1.t4.6

¹ H. Lüders, *Bruchstücke Der Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā Des Kumāralāta*, p. 150 (Leipzig, 1926).

c7.s1.t4.7

tyāgaśūro narendro sāvaśoko maurya-kuñjaraḥ|
jambūdvīpeśvaro bhūtvā jāto ardhāmalakeśvaraḥ||
bhṛtyaiḥ sa bhūmipatiḥ adya hṛtādhikāro
dānam prayacchati kilāmalakārdham etat|
śribhoga vistaramadair atigarvitānām
pratyādiśann iva manāṃsi pṛthagjanānām||

c7.s1.t4.8

"Aśoka, the great Maurya, noted for his liberality, became the lord of half of the *āmalaka* fruit after ruling over Jampūdvīpa.

c7.s1.t4.9

"Having now been deprived of his kingdom by his servants (entrusted his kingdom to his servants?) he gives away in charity half of the *āmalaka* he has on hand as if to direct the minds of ordinary men elated with extensive riches (to do charitable deeds)."

A Constitutional Monarchy

c7.s1.t5.1

The Mauryan king was again a constitutional monarch, law-abiding in the sense that he obeyed the law of the land. Almost every writer on the subject has uniformly characterised the Mauryan monarchy as autocratic. Unfortunately the statement seems to have been made without any warrant for it.² If by autocracy is meant absolute government wherein the ruler was all in all, and above whom there was no authority to control and influence his acts and deeds, then it does not admit of application in the case of Mauryan monarchs. The question has been to some extent discussed elsewhere¹ but still we cannot refrain from referring to it once again here. It is a question of moment and it must be settled once for all.

c7.s1.t5.2

² *Early History*, p. 145; *Early History of Bengal*, p. 35; D. R. Bhandarkar, *Aśoka*, p. 98; R. K. Mookerji; *Aśoka*; pp. 47-49; Smith, *Aśoka*, p. 92, 3rd ed.

c7.s1.t5.3

¹ See author's *Hindu Ad. Inst.*, pp. 72-76.

King, not a law-maker

c7.s1.t6.1

Before we enter into the detailed examination of checks and balances which considerably limited the power and extent of the king’s authority, there is the great conception of the ancient Hindus that the king could not be, and was not, a law-maker. The law is eternal (*sanātana*) and is contained in the law-codes or the *Dharmaśāstras* of the different *smṛti-kartas*, which were based on the *śruti*. The king of the land was to act according to the laws prescribed by these law-givers and he could not override them. To override the laws already established was considered sacrilege. If he did act contrary to the principles of the established law, people disowned him, rose in rebellion against him, removed him from the throne and set up another in his stead. Therefore, the law of the law-books was the real sovereign of the land. The king’s orders amounted to proclamations explaining existing laws or reviving those which had fallen into disuse. He could not, and did not, make any legislation for the state.²

c7.s1.t6.2

² The observations of E. B. Havell may be quoted here: “The student of Indian History may also be led to consider whether the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain constituted as it is now is on more or less empirical lines, is really more efficient as political machinery than was the philosophic scheme of Indo-Aryan polity, in which the common law of the land, formulated by the chosen representatives of the people, had a religious as well as a legal sanction, and represented the highest power of the state to which even the king and his ministers must bow. It will be a surprise to many readers to discover that the Mother of Western Parliaments had an Aryan relative in India, show-

Aśoka, no legislator

c7.s1.t7.1

It is sometimes claimed with no justification whatever that Aśoka’s Edicts were laws promulgated by the Emperor Aśoka in utter disregard of this sacred tradition.¹ It is an erroneous position taken by the historian. Aśoka has nowhere claimed that he made any departure in the legislation of the land. He simply enforced the regulations which had fallen into disuse by long and continual neglect. If Aśoka did anything he revived old practices and put them in working order. The idea that the Hindu king was a law-maker is not countenanced in Indian jurisprudence at all. To regard therefore the *śāsana* contained in the Edicts of Aśoka as amounting to legislation by the king is, to say the least, uncritical. What Aśoka did was the re-affirmation of old laws which had gone out of practice. Therefore the term *śāsana* (rendered ‘ordinance’ by V. A. Smith) occurring in the Sārnāth Pillar Edict² and continued in the pillar Edicts of Sāmchī and Kauśāmbī (Allahabad), does not mean promulgation of a new law, but does mean a declaration of the old law without prejudice to the customary law or the *samaya* of the *Arthaśāstra*³ and *Dharmaśāstras*.⁴ In this sense the Kauṭalīya uses the term *śāsana* as can be seen from the chapter *śāsanādhikāraḥ*.⁵ One punishment for infringing the

c7.s1.t7.2

¹ *See* Smith, *Asoka*, p. 92.

c7.s1.t7.3

² *See* Corpus, pp. 161-3.

c7.s1.t7.4

³ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. III, ch. 10.

c7.s1.t7.5

⁴ *Manu*, VIII, 218-21.

c7.s1.t7.6

⁵ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. II, ch. 10.

c7.s1.t7.7

ing a strong family likeness, before the sixth century B.C., and that her descendants were a great power in the state at the time of the Norman conquest!” (Intro. xiii-xiv, *History of Aryan Rule in India.*)

c7.s1.t7.8

monastic code was deportation of these monks to non-monastic places (*anāvāsa*), with a further penalty of replacing their yellow by white robes.¹ This is only a counterpart of the penalty of banishment to the misbehaved according to the *Dharmaśāstras*. That such cases of departure from monastic life were common is seen from the *Arthaśāstra* where stringent regulations are prescribed for donning the robes of a *sannyāsin*.² It is said that those who left the order of the monks for the world were entertained by the state for various purposes and especially as special intelligent officials who were let loose on the country so as to ascertain the honesty or otherwise of its officers.³

c7.s1.t7.9

¹ *Corpus*, pp. 160-61; Cp. S.B.E., Vol. 17, p. 388, n. 1.

c7.s1.t7.10

² *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. II, ch. I.

c7.s1.t7.11

³ *Ibid.*, Bk. I, ch. XI.

c7.s1.t7.12

Like the term *śāsana* the expression *samaya* occurring in the First and Second Separate Edicts of Dhauli and the First Separate Edict of Jaugaḍa⁴ has been used in the technical sense of resolution or decision especially of corporate bodies or of judges. The expression is preceded in all these cases by the word *sasvatam* and Hultzsch in rendering the phrase *sasvatam samayam* ‘at all times’ follows Kern⁵ and Lüders.⁶ The full sentence in the context as appears in the First Separate Rock Edict, Dhauli, is *nagala viyohālakā sasvatam samayam yūjevuti*. Hultzsch interprets ‘in order that the judicial officers of the city may strive at all times’. If the rendering ‘at all times’ is to be adopted the reading must be śaśvat. A plausible reading is śaśvatam meaning eternal or immemorial and hence customary. Besides śaśvat means ‘at all times,’ and therefore no significance is attached to the expression samayam. The translation suggested is ‘in order that the judicial officers of the city may be bound by the customary law of the land’. Thus śāsana and the samaya of the Edicts as well as the punishments mentioned correspond to those of the Arthaśāstra to which Aśoka was of course indebted. In the light of the peculiar judicial concept of law as eternal, and samaya an important factor of the law, it is misreading the history of Ancient India if we style any monarch as a law-maker. In the nature of things and in the circumstances in which he accepts the crown the king is bound to be non-autocratic and non-absolute. In fact there is no place for an autocrat in the polity of ancient Hindus.

c7.s1.t7.13

⁴ *Corpus*, pp. 92-94 and 98 and 99 and 112-113.

c7.s1.t7.14

⁵ *J.R.A.S.*, 1880, p. 391.

c7.s1.t7.15

⁶ *S.P.A.W.*, 1914, p. 864.

Checks and balances

c7.s1.t8.1

This was not all. There were the chambers of the council and of the assembly where the representatives of the groups and communities sat and discussed the affairs of the state. One was the mantri-pariṣad of which the important official was the Purohita who was the king’s conscience-keeper, or in plain language, confidential adviser to the crown in matters spiritual and secular. In addition to other duties these ministers with the Purohita were to guide the king in the right path lest he should fall into pitfalls due to carelessness.¹ That these ministers of the Maurya kings discharged their duties properly is evident from the peaceful administration of the land during this epoch. A vast empire like that of the Mauryas could not be sustained for a long time if it were simply crushed down by the heavy weight of the iron hands of the king. The kingdom endured for a long time because the people willingly acquiesced in the administration of the land. They acquiesced because the kings ruled them justly and in a perfectly constitutional manner. In this connection it may be remembered that the empire depended on the dominant personality of the emperor. Whence once that personality disappeared from the arena of the empire, the latter collapsed. In other words, the empire arose under strong rulers and broke under weak ones.¹ There was, then, an institution, a council or assembly, the *pariṣad* of Aśoka inscriptions² which proved an effective check on the monarch by going astray from the ordained path.³

c7.s1.t8.2

¹ Ar. Śās., Bk. I, ch. vii.

c7.s1.t8.3

¹ See above, p. 74.

c7.s1.t8.4

² R. E. III and VI; *Corpus*, pp. 73: 52; 57-58 and 576.

c7.s1.t8.5

³ Two Indian scholars among others, K. P. Jayaswal and Dr. Bhandarkar, have identified not without reason the *Pariṣad* of the inscriptions with the *Mantripariṣad* of the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭalīya. (Bk. I, 14.) The interpretation suggested to the term by Lassen 'Assembly of the Doctors,' Senart as 'Clergy,' and Bühler 'Teachers and Ascetics of Schools,' falls to the ground in the light of the *Arthaśāstra*.

c7.s1.t8.6

The *mantripariṣad* of the *Kauṭalīya* was the Council of Ministers whose chief functions are categorically stated: to undertake a new work, to complete the work already begun, to develop other possibilities, and to enforce discipline in the administration. The king usually consulted his counsellors and the assembly of ministers as well, before he finally set his seal of approval or rejection of a certain decision. If an emergency presented itself the king summoned his counsellors and ministers and generally adopted the course of action suggested by them.¹

c7.s1.t8.7

¹ Ar. Śās., Bk. I, ch. xv.

c7.s1.t8.8

There are what we may call administrative Edicts² and from them we gather four facts among others: (1) The pariṣad enforced the execution of the king's orders by the officials; (2) it was summoned by the king whenever necessary for consultation and advice; (3) the king interfered with its work whenever differences of opinion arose amongst its members; and (4) it had a controlling influence over the officials of the state. After a close examination of these details, K. P. Jayaswal conclusively shows that the Council of Ministers was so powerful that the Emperor was virtually deprived of his sovereign authority.³

c7.s1.t8.9

² Bhandarkar, Aśoka, pp. 59-62.

c7.s1.t8.10

³ J.B.O.R.S., IV, 43; I.H.Q., Vol. I, Radha Govinda Basak: Ministers in Ancient India.

The evidence of Mudrārākṣasa

c7.s1.t9.1

The Mudrārākṣasa of Viśākhadatta which can be counted as one of the source-books for the Mauryan epoch⁴ speaks in so many words of the delegation of the authority to such an extent that the king resents that he is nothing if he is simply to carry out the proposal of the chief minister and his council. It has been suggested that the passages in question refer to the fact that the minister was all powerful but not the council of ministers.⁵ We shall examine in the sequel how weak the argument advanced for this assumption is.

c7.s1.t9.2

⁴ See Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 467.

c7.s1.t9.3

⁵ Glories of Magadha, pp. 93-94n.

The evidence of the Divyāvadāna

c7.s1.t10.1

Added to this is the significant statement of the *Divyāvadāna*, namely, ‘the king to-day has been deprived of authority by his servants’¹:

c7.s1.t10.2

¹ Cowell Ed., p. 432.

c7.s1.t10.3

bhṛtyaiḥ sa bhūmipatiradya hṛtādhikāro
dānam prayachati kilāmalakārdham etat||

c7.s1.t10.4

This passage only corroborates our view that the *pariṣad* (Council) exercised real executive powers and the king was only the nominal sovereign authority. This reminds us of the present Parliamentary system of Government in Great Britain where the real sovereign authority is the Parliament though the formal assent of the King is necessary to every administrative measure, including the appointment of higher officials. Nothing more or anything less is implied in the polity of the ancient Mauryas.

The evidence of Arrian

c7.s1.t11.1

In addition to the Buddhist tradition contained in the *Divyāvadāna* there is the valuable testimony of the Greek writer Arrian.² “The seventh caste consists of the councillors and assessors who deliberate on public affairs.” This fits in with the observation of Kauṭalya that all kinds of administrative measures were to be preceded by deliberations in a well-formed council.³ Thus every independent evidence goes to show that executive powers were exercised by the Mauryan Council. In the light of such unanimous testimony can we still seriously believe that the Mauryan monarchs were absolute or autocratic?

c7.s1.t11.2

² For the reliability of Arrian's accounts see Prof. Freeman, *Historical Essays*, quoted by K. G. Sankara in his paper on *Some Problems in Indian Chronology*: *Annals of Bh. Or. R. Institute*, Vol. XII, Pt. VI.

c7.s1.t11.3

³ *Ar. Śās.* Bk. I, Ch. 14.

The paternal conception

c7.s1.t12.1

A significant circumstance in this connection is the paternal conception of the government so eloquently proclaimed by the inscriptions left to us as an invaluable legacy by Aśoka. Even to this concept Aśoka was indebted to the *Arthaśāstra*. This is evident from the fact that the *Arthaśāstra* pleads for such a healthy form of government. It is unfortunate that an indologist of the standing of Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar has fallen into an error in examining the real force that underlies the paternal conception of administration. He remarks¹: "Just as children are solely dependent upon their parents who can do to them just what they like, the subjects were at the mercy of the king who was thus no better than a despot." The statement of Bhandarkar amounts to the fact that every father is a despot. If the feelings of a father towards his children are to be despotic it is impossible to cultivate homely virtues of peace and goodwill which were as much the crowning fruits of India's culture as those of other cultures. Nay, the notion of a father being despotic lays an axe at the root of all human relationships, and is contrary to all religious creeds. When we speak of parental feelings we mean undoubtedly genuine affection, transparent sincerity, and religious devotion to duty which consists in the upkeep of the children until they come of age and stand on their own legs. This and this alone is meant by Kauṭalya in his *Arthaśāstra* and Aśoka in his inscriptions.¹

c7.s1.t12.2

¹ *Asoka*, p. 63.

c7.s1.t12.3

¹ According to Kauṭalya ‘happy is the king whose subjects are happy.’ prajā sukhe sukhaṃ rājñaḥ prajānāṃ ca hite hitam nātmapriyam hitam rājñaḥ prajānāṃ tu priyaṃ hitam| —*Ar. Sās.*, Bk. I, 19.

c7.s1.t12.4

Aśoka’s aim was to win the affection of his people. Just as a father would do his best to his children, so that they may enjoy life thoroughly and well by pursuing a righteous path leading them ultimately to the heaven of bliss, so Aśoka wished to do to his people. He wanted to see that every one of his subjects was happy and contented. In a word, Aśoka liked to follow the *Rājadharma* in such a manner that it would tend to the *Yogakṣema* of the state comprised of different communities of people. Welfare and happiness (*hita-sukham*) correspond to the happy phrase of the Kauṭalīya *Yogakṣema*. It was then the ambition of Aśoka to discharge his duty, namely protection of his subjects, in a way calculated to promote their best interests

c7.s1.t12.5

This was the paternal conception of the ancient Indian monarchy. Kauṭalya refers to this theory in more than one place where he advocates the remission of taxes whenever need arose for such a step. (Bk. II, 1; Bk. IV, 3.) In the chapter on *Janapadaniveśa* (Bk. II, 1) the king is asked to treat the newly settled people as his children (*nivṛttaparihārān pitevānugṛhṇīyāt*. Again in the chapter on *Upanipātapratīkāra* (Bk. IV, 3) the king is instructed to protect his subjects as his own children:

c7.s1.t12.6

tān pitevānugṛhṇīyāt|

c7.s1.t12.7

This is exactly what Aśoka advocates. (First Separate R. E. Dhauli, *Corpus*, p. 95.)

c7.s1.t12.8

“All men are my children. As on behalf of (my own) children I desire that they may be provided with complete welfare and happiness in this world and in the other world, the same I desire also on behalf of (all) men.”

c7.s1.t12.9

save munise pajā mamā| ath(ā)pajāye ichhāmi
h(a)ka(ṃ) kiṃti sa(ve)na hi ta-sukhena hidalo(kika)-
pālalokike(na) y(ūjev)ū (t)i [tathā . . muni]sesu
pi (i)chhāmi (ha)ka(ṃ).

c7.s1.t12.10

possible. Aśoka's was not mere lip sympathy. He in fact did his level best to advance the comforts of his subjects. His administration undertook such kinds of public works as were acceptable to the common will and tended towards public utility. These were hospitals for beast and man, rest-houses, roads with medicinal herbs and plants, wells, irrigation works, prohibition of the eating of flesh as far as possible, avoiding war and consequently bloodshed, endowments for religious purposes and propaganda for moral and material uplift.

The king, no despot

c7.s1.t13.1

The above observations will then lead to the irresistible conclusion that the king was no despot who harassed the people at his will and pleasure, but a constitutionalist who promoted their welfare at all times, in all places, and at all costs. The king therefore felt that he was only the servant of the state. No pleasure was greater to him than to discharge the duties and responsibilities which he owed to the people and which he regarded as something sacred and religious. Any amount of reading through the several Edicts of Aśoka does not bring home to us the claim of royal prerogatives, privileges and rights. Aśoka tells us clearly and plainly that he would be available to his people at all times, and at all places, even when he dines and even when he bathes.¹ This is surely a lofty conception of the responsibility he feels to discharge, and not a privilege which he desires to abuse. Speaking on the special tone of the Edicts, L. Rice remarks: “Solicitude for the welfare here and hereafter of all his subjects, high and low, is manifest throughout and it extended even to peoples beyond his boundaries in an all-embracing humanity.” A king who feels or is made to feel that he is only a superior servant of the state could hardly be termed an absolute ruler. In the light of the above observations there is no justification for the remark that the Mauryan kings were autocrats or absolutists.

c7.s1.t13.2

¹ s(a)ve kāle bhumj(a) mānasa me orodhanamhi gabhāgāramhi vachamhi va vinītamhi cha uyāneṣu cha sarvatra paṭivedakā ṣitā athe me (ja)nasa paṭivedetha iti| sarvatra cha janasa athe karomi|| VI. R. E. Corpus, p. 11.

c7.s1.t13.3

¹ Mysore and Coorg from Inscriptions, p. 14.

Linked texts (15)