The Mauryan Polity c7.s1.t2.1

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.