Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c25: Chapter XVII: Republics under the Mauryas

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c25

Language
English

Chapter XVII: Republics under the Mauryas

c25.2

§ 129. The empire of the Mauryas included the republican areas. Greek writers say that Chandragupta won Arachosia and Aria from Seleucus.¹ Aśoka in his inscriptions tells us that Antiochus was his neighbour.² Antiochus held Syria and Persia. The Maurya empire thus extended up to Persia in the north-west. In the south it extended up to the Tamil country.³ What was the fate of the republics under this gigantic monarchical system? To understand this, let us first examine the Maurya policy towards republics. Kauṭilya makes an excellent statement of that policy:—

c25.3

¹ See passages quoted by V. Smith, *Early History of India*, 3rd ed. pp. 149—151.

c25.4

² Rock Series II.

c25.5

³ Proved by the site of the Māsakī 'edict.'

c25.6

'Acquisition (conquest) *of a Saṁgha,*' says Kauṭilya, '*is more desirable than an alliance of goodwill or military aid. Those which are united* (in a league) *should be treated with the policy of subsidy and peace, for they are invincible. Those which are not united should be conquered by army and disunion.*' Then the policy of division is detailed; ending with '*thus should the Monarch* (*Ekarāja*) *behave towards the Saṁghas*' etc.⁴ ⁵

c25.7

⁴ **सङ्घलाभो दण्डमित्रालाभानामुत्तमः। सङ्घाभिसंहतत्वादधृष्यान् परेषाम् ताननुगुणान् भुञ्जीत सामदानाभ्याम्। द्विवुणान् (read विगुणान्) भेददण्डाभ्याम्।** Artha-Śāstra, p. 376. **अनुगुणान्** will be opposed to **द्विगुणान्**; **द्विगुण** gives no satisfactory meaning. It can give the meaning 'league of two;' but they will be *Anuguṇas*. Hence I have proposed the above correction. The further use of **विगुण** in the same chapter, *e.g.*, at p. 379 and the total absence of **द्विगुण** in the discussion support my proposal. Mr. Shama Shastry's rendering of **अनुगुणान्** as those 'favourably disposed' is far wide off the mark, AS., (Ch. XI.)

c25.8

⁵ Details of the method of creating disunion are given in pp. 376—79 ending with **सङ्घेष्वेवमेकराजा वर्तेत।** see also 'Rājā' in **सङ्घमुख्या नेषु प्रेषितमर्ष राजा** etc., p. 379.

c25.9

In other words, the Maurya policy was to allow honourable existence to those republics which were strong and united in leagues (for these were 'difficult to be conquered'). Those which were isolated were to be weakened by a policy of internal division and then reduced by force.

c25.10

Evidently many of such isolated states had already come under the control of the Maurya empire when the Artha-Sāstra was composed. The status of the confederate republics varied according to their strength. Some of them were treated on terms of equality, while others were subsidized and probably expected to render military assistance, for 'acquisition of army' from them is a condition contemplated as against pure alliance (मित्रलाभ). The result of this policy was that the stronger republics survived the Maurya imperialism, while the weaker ones succumbed. The Kshudrakas, the Mālavas, and the Vriji states which appear in Kātyāyana and Patañjali as sovereign states and in flourishing condition,¹ existed on account of leagues, and so did the Rāshtrikas and Bhojakas who fight jointly against Khāravela in the time of Patañjali.²

c25.11

¹ *Mahābhāshya* on Pāṇini IV. 2. 45 ; and on V. 3. 52.

c25.12

² *Hāthīgumphā Inscription of the Emperor Khāravela*, J. B. O. R.S., Vol. III, p. 455.

c25.13

In the light of ascertained facts of the constitutional history of the time of Kauṭilya and Alexander we can now understand the inscriptions of Aśoka better on a point. We have to recognise the republican character of many of the political communities mentioned by Aśoka in his inscriptions.

c25.14

In Rock series, section V, Aśoka enumerates :—
(1) the Yonas,
(2) the Kambojas,
(3) the Gāndhāras,
(4) the Rāshtrikas,
(5) the Pitinikas,
(6) and other *aparāntas* (Girnar version)

c25.15

In the Kālsi edition, only 1 to 3 are named with the addition 'and other *aparāntas*.' In other words, Aśoka designates the whole¹ (1) to (5) to be '*Aparāntas*'. Against these in Rock Series XIII we have:—
(1) the Yonas,
(2) the Kambojas,
(3) the Nābhaka and the Nābha-paṅktis,
(4) the Bhojas,
(5) the Pitinikas,
(6) the Andhras and the Pulindas. Instead of *aparānta* they are predicated with '*here, amongst the rāja-vishayas*.'² We know that 2, 4, and 5 had non-monarchical constitutions. Now, two questions present themselves. What constitutional position do they occupy in the system of Aśoka's empire? Are these three, the Kambojas, the Rāshtrika-Bhojas and the Pitinikas, the only republican communities in the group? To answer these questions we have to examine the inscriptions critically.

c25.16

¹ [Devanagari text] (Girnar), Senart, *J. R. A. S.*, 1900, p. 337.

c25.17

§ 131. What is meant here by *aparāntas* and *rāja-vishayas*? *Antas* in Aśoka's proclamations mean 'neighbours' (neighbouring states); following that *aparāntas* can mean literally two things: (1) 'the neighbours of the west,' or (2) 'the hinder neighbours,'—the states on the frontiers of Western India, or, states inside. If we take *Aparāntas* in its later sense, it may simply mean Western End or Frontier of the Country *i.e.* Western India. The Bhojas and Rāshtrikas and presumably the Pitinikas, did belong to the country called Aparānta, or Western India. But by no license the Yonas and the Kambojas who were in Afghanistan, can be called *aparāntas* in the sense of Westerners. That region is always called 'the North' in ancient Indian literature. Nor could the Gāndhāras be called 'Westerners.' They were always counted in the North (*Udīchī*, *Uttarāpatha*). We have therefore to give up the 'western' meaning.

c25.18

§ 132. Let us now examine the **rāja-vishayas**. Aśoka always refers to his territories in the first person possessive. He speaks of 'my empire'. It will therefore be against his known usage to call his countries 'royal countries.' He would have said, if he meant it, 'my countries,' '*my vishayas*' and not '*rāja-vishayas*'. Further, there is no occasion to refer to his countries or provinces, as he has in the same sentence already said 'throughout my empire.' '*Rājavishayas*' here is equivalent to the *aparāntas* of Section V. *Rājavishayas* should be interpreted as 'ruling (or 'sovereign) countries' (or districts), inside the empire. The 'inside neighbours' here equals the '*ruling vishayas*'.

c25.19

§ 133. The republics of this group, the '**ruling Vishayas**' or the home-neighbours (**aparāntas**) of Aśoka were thus of the status which deserved the policy of peace or subsidy from the imperial Monarch. They were self-governing states within the imperial territorial limits. The list, of course, is not exhaustive, the emperor is mentioning only those '*ruling Vishayas*' which had accepted Buddhist teachings. Apparently Aśoka was not so successful with the **Rāshṭrikas** as with the **Bhojas** for he notes the latter in Section XIII amongst the places which were inclined to accept the Dharma teachings, while in Section V the Rāshṭrikas are noted amongst those where Aśoka's missionaries were busy.

c25.20

Then, they in Section XIII are predicated with 'here' which means inside the limits of Mauryan Empire, as opposed to the *antas* outside, like Antiochus, Cholas, etc. The first meaning of **aparāntas** being inadmissible, we must take the other one, '**states inside**.' This corresponds and agrees with the 'here' of Section XIII. The two groups are identical in predication: 'inside' or 'inside neighbours.'

c25.21

§ 134. The Gāndhāras had already separated before Alexander's time from Takshaśilā, its former Capital. In 326 B.C. they were monarchical. Young Porus, a nephew to the great Porus, was their king. But the question of the constitution of the Gāndhāras does not arise, although we have evidence of their being republican about 200 B.C.¹ In Section XIII of the Rock Proclamations in place of the Gāndhāras 'the *Nābhaka* and the *Nābha-paṅktis*' have been substituted. These were either neighbours of the Gāndhāras or some sub-divisions thereof. The *Nābhapaṅktis* ('Nābha-lines') were like the *Agraśreṇis*, and the Three Yaudheyas or Three Śālaṅkāyanas, *i.e.*, a league of the Nābhas. In one edition of Aśoka's inscriptions they are called *Nābhitina* which may mean the Three-Nābhas.

c25.22

¹ The Gāndhāras instead of a king have *Mukhyas* in the MBh., U. P., Ch. 167. Patañjali (P., IV, 2. 52), puts them along with the Vasātis and Śibis whom we know to be republicans.

c25.23

§ 135. Up to this time the Nābhaka has not been identified. I find the name in the Gaṇapāṭha on Pāṇini IV. 1. 112 as *Nabhāka*. The rule before IV. 1. 112 deals with derivatives from republican names, and, that after, from river-names. The Gaṇapāṭha on Pāṇini IV. 1. 112, gives an enumeration or group called 'Śiva and others' which contains names of *rishis* and founders of families (*e.g.*, Kakutstha, Kohaḍa, etc.), royal dynasties (*e.g.*, Haihaya), rivers (Gaṅgā, Vipāśa) and a lot of obscure proper names. Along with Piṭaka, Trikshāka, are given Nabhāka and Ūrṇa-Nābha. The Ūrṇa-Nābhas appear also in the republican group of the Rājanyas, Ārjunāyanas etc.² *Nābhaka* was probably a national title derived from the Nābha people. The "Nābha lines" (*Nābha-paṅktis*)³ which were evidently non-monarchical, were probably identical with the Ūrṇa-Nābhas, the Nābhas of the 'woollen' country. Gāndhāra was famous for its wool.

c25.24

² On Pāṇini IV. 2. 53.

c25.25

³ Compare *śreṇi* 'lines' or 'rows' and its interpretation in Ch. XXVII (Pt. II).

c25.26

§ 135. What was the constitution of the Pulindas? They were a Dravidian people in the neighbourhood of the Rāshtrikas and the Bhojas. With the Dravidians, the normal constitution was monarchy. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa says that it was from the Asuras that the institution of monarchy was copied by the Hindus when they were at war with the former.¹ Were the Pulindas influenced by the Aryan example of their neighbours? Aśoka does not call any of the group a kingdom but a 'ruling country' or district. There is the definite evidence of the Kāśikā and the Bṛihat Saṁhitā that the Pulindas were a Saṁgha.²

c25.27

¹ See *infra*, Part II, pp. 4–5.

c25.28

² Kāśikā on Pāṇini, V. 3. 114, p. 456; BṛS. V. 39, पुलिन्दाश्च.

c25.29

§ 136. As to the Andhras, the problem is more difficult. There is no corroborative evidence about them. Two generations before, in the time of Chandragupta, the Andhras were a great kingdom, second in power only to Magadha.³ But under Aśoka we find them 'a ruling country' within the precincts of Aśoka's empire. It seems that the Andhra power had been broken under the reign of Bindusāra, Aśoka's father, who is credited with having carried on the policy of his father, Chandragupta, in unifying India: 'between the eastern and western oceans' he is said to have annexed sixteen Capitals.⁴ This must point to the land of the Southern Deccan, as the area above it had already been under Chandragupta. After victory, the Maurya politicians (Kauṭilya is said to have been alive) seem to have removed the royal family of the Andhras, and probably as a compromise allowed self-government under some Saṁgha constitution.

c25.30

³ See reference to Pliny in V. Smith, *Early History of India* (3rd edition), p. 206.

c25.31

⁴ Jayaswal, *The Empire of Bindusāra*, J. B. O. R. S., Vol. II, p. 82.

c25.32

Six out of the eight rāja-vishayas are known to have been republican.⁵ Of the other two there is hardly any doubt as to the constitution of the Pulindas. The remaining member of the group, the Andhra, therefore, gathers to itself the strongest presumption for having been a non-monarchical state in the circle of Aśoka's empire.

c25.33

⁵ For the Yavanas see below, §§ 137—140.

c25.34

§ 137. The identification of the *Yavanas* of Aśoka is necessary. It might incidentally settle a great controversy. The Yonas of Aśoka, the *rāja-vishaya* Yonas, were within the limits of the Maurya empire. The grouping in Aśokan records is 'the Yonas and Kambojas', while in Manu it is 'the Kambojas and Yavanas.' There is no doubt that these Yavanas were contiguous to the Kambojas.

c25.35

The Kambojas are identified with the people on the Kabul river (modern *Kamboh*). Now, who were these Yavanas? They were the neighbours of the Kabulis. They were, therefore, on or near the Kabul river. Further, they were 'self-ruling' according to Aśoka, and according to Manu¹ they had lived long enough near the Aryan people to be regarded as occupying the position of a fallen caste though they had been a 'ruling people' (Kshatriya-jātayaḥ). According to the Mahā-Bhārata they had ceased to be rulers and were living like Kambhojas and others under Hindu kings.² All these descriptions refer to the same conditions. These Yavanas could not be referred to the town of Alexandria founded by Alexander in the Caucasus. That was never a self-governing unit, and the Macedonian element of invalid soldiers, who were anxious to leave the place, was too small and would have availed themselves of the death of Alexander to migrate. On the other hand we have positive evidence of the existence of a Greek community on the Kubhā or Kabul river who had been there for a long time before Alexander's invasion. It is strange that this fact has not been taken notice of. [It settles amongst other things, the vexed chronological question raised on the mention of Yavanānī in Pāṇini.]

c25.36

¹ With the Śakas, *i.e.*, the Śakas of Seistan. Manu, X. 44.

c25.37

² Śāntiparvan, LXV, 13-15.

c25.38

§ 138. The Kabul-Yavanas had been organised in a city-state of the Indian republican type in the time of Alexander—a fact which comes in perfect harmony with the description of Aśoka's rāja-vishaya. These were probably Perso-Greeks—Greeks or Ionians who had moved and immigrated under the suzerainty of the Persian Empire. The name of their city, Nysa, is a strong evidence of their Persian connection. They had been Hinduised; Alexander's companions first regarded them as Indians. As stated by the Macedonian writers the Nysians claimed to have been Greek in origin. They knew their Greek gods and Greek mythology and tradition.¹

c25.39

¹ Arrian, Bk. V, Chap I; Arrian, *Indika*, I, where Arrian without any doubt treats them as Greeks or Indo-Greeks.

c25.40

§ 139. Their state was organised as an aristocracy and their President was called the *Akoubhi*. This word seems to be connected with *Kubhā*, the Vedic name for the Kabul river. It means ['the Leader] of the People by the Kubhā' (*Ā-Kaubhi*). Alexander's companions were convinced of the ethnic claim of the Akoubhis and they passed ten days in Hellenic revels with them. Unless the Akoubhis had been Greek in origin they could not have been able to show such intimate familiarity with matters of Greek mythology as they did and could not have convinced the Macedonians of their claim of kinship.

c25.41

§ 140. From the treatment of the Yavanas, the Kambojas, the Andhras, and the Pulindas in Manu and the Mahā-Bhārata, it appears that their republics soon lost their independence, and losing it they lost their social independence as well, and were absorbed into Brahmanism under a degraded caste-status—for the Hindu can visualise human organisations only in terms of caste. The result therefore was that these races were reduced into mere degraded castes living under Hindu rulers.

Linked texts (6)