Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c32.s1.8

c32.s1.8

Argument (*c*) evidently refers to a theory started on the supposition that K. knows no large empire but only a small kingdom, as he has the maṇḍala or prakṛiti theory of neighbours and records the existence of republics and a policy towards them. The supposition is contradicted by fact: K. says that the Imperial tract (*chakravarti-kshetra*)¹ lies between the Himalayas and the Ocean, 92² thousand yojanas in the straight line (as the crow flies). It is hardly possible to imagine a state without neighbours, a policy towards neighbours will have to be postulated by any statesman however large his empire may be. Then we know that there were a number of neighbours in the South who were reduced in the next reign—*i.e.*, of Bindusāra.³ When Chadragupta took the North-Western provinces from the Greeks, it does not follow that he took the land without its rulers, republics generally, who were existing under the system of Alexander. The *Saṅgha-vritta* lays down a policy towards the republics which it assumes to be under the king's sphere of influence, be they in (1) the Punjab (2) Afghanistan (Kamboja), (3) Western India, or (4) North Bihar. There were therein parties in favour of the suzerain and parties against him (AŚ. He was to sow the seed of dissension, patronize some, instal or depose one of the leaders (p. 376). Now we know that in no other than the early Maurya time Afghanistan, the Punjab, Western India and North Bihar at one and the same time were under the sphere of one Indian king. The fact that K. hardly tolerates sub-kings is one which is only compatible with the Maurya times. Under the Śuṅgas the imperial policy changes; it becomes largely feudal (see the local *rājās* in the inscriptions)