History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.160
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.160
- Language
- English
v4.c62.160.1
The Matsya-purāṇa (114. 9-10) first gives the dimensions of Bhārata-varṣa from South to North (from Cape Comorin to the source of the Ganges) as one thousand yojanas, states that its extent is ten thousand yojanas (when measured upwards across the boundaries) and that on all borders of it there are Mlecchas and that Yavanas and Kirātas dwell to its east and west (verse 11) and that the king who conquers the whole of Bhāratavarṣa is styled 'samrāṭ' (verse 15). Vide Brahmapurāṇa 17. 8 ff for almost the same words. The Śukranītisāra (I. 183-187) states that a sāmanta is one whose yearly revenue is from 1 to 3 lakhs of silver karṣas without oppressing the people, the revenue of a māṇḍalika is from 4 to 10 lakhs, that of a rājan is from 11 to 20 lakhs, of a mahārāja from 21 to 50 lakhs, of a svarāṭ from 51 lakhs to a crore, of a virāṭ from two crores to ten, of the sārvabhauma (who wields suzerainty over the whole earth i. e. Bharatavarṣa) from 11 crores to 50. Though these definitions may be regarded as scholastic and too rigid to have been practically followed they do convey a sufficiently clear idea about the power of a feudatory, a king and an emperor. The Sabhāparva⁹⁸ (15. 2) says 'there are kings in each house, who do what pleases them; but they do not reach the position of emperor, which title can be acquired with great difficulty'; and 'that king under whose sole dominion the world abides secures the position of *samrāj*'.
v4.c62.160.2
In these and other places 'world' means 'Bharatavarṣa' for which see H. Dh. vol. II pp. 17-18. Sovereignty (*sāmrājya*) consisted in ancient India not necessarily or invariably in acquiring control over vassal kings in all their affairs. Generally the supreme ruler did not hanker after territory so much as after having his superior prowess acknowledged. The descriptions of *digvijayas* (world conquests) in the Mahābhārata (e. g. of Pāṇḍu in Ādi 113, of Arjuna and the other Pāṇḍava brothers in Sabhā, chap. 26-32) show that there was no aggrandizement by acquiring fresh territory but all that was desired was to make the several kings submit and pay tribute or offer presents. Arjuna expressly says in Sabhā 25.3 that he would bring tribute from all kings and the conquered kings are generally represented as submitting and making presents of gems, golds, horses, cows to the conqueror. The Allahabad stone pillar⁹⁹ Inscription of Samudragupta (Gupta Ins. p. 8) states that the *pratyanta* (bordering) kings of Samataṭa and other countries and the Mālava and other tribal oligarchies fully gratified Samudragupta's commands by giving all tribute, by obeying his orders and by coming to perform obeisance. Śānti 96 insists that conquests should be made according to dharma. Empire did not mean imposition of the language or the government system of the conqueror on the conquered country. The conqueror's duty as understood by ancient Indian works was quite different as will be presently shown.
v4.c62.160.3
Kauṭilya (XII. 1) declares¹⁰⁰ that there are three kinds of invaders, viz. *dharmavijayin* (who is satisfied with mere submission or obeisance), *lobhavijayin* (who is satisfied with gain in land and money), *asuravijayin* (who is not satisfied with land and money only but robs the defeated king of his son, wife and life). The Nītivākyāmṛta (pp. 362-363, Yuddhasamuddeśa) defines the three almost in the same words. This shows that in the first two kinds of conquests the conquered state retained its own institutions, organization and government intact. Bāṇa gives¹⁰¹ in very striking language what Harṣa proclaimed when he started against the treacherous king of Gauḍa and on *digvijaya*. It appears that even the queens of vanquished chiefs had to perform the duties of maids at the time of the coronation of the emperor and empress, as queen Yaśomatī says to Harṣa (in Harṣacarita V). Vide Sabhā 31. 73-74 where Bibhīṣaṇa is said to have come with presents to Sahadeva. Aśoka (in Kalsi Edict No. XIII in C. I. I. I, pp. 44 and 46, ed. by Hultzsch) speaks of his conquest being *dharmavijaya*. This means that he foreswore greed and cruelty and wanted that his influence be only acknowledged. The Pallava king Śivaskandavarman (of Kāñcī) who had performed the Agniṣṭoma, Vājapeya and Aśvamedha sacrifices calls himself *dhamma-mahārājādhirāja* (a dharma-vijayī emperor) in E. 1. vol. I. p. 5. In the Dudia plate of Pravarasena II, Pṛthvīṣeṇa is styled dharma-vijayin (E. I. vol. III p. 258 at p.
v4.c62.160.4
261). Samudragupta's conquest of South India seems to have been only a dharmavijaya. As time went on the titles of kings grew in grandiloquence. Aśoka whose empire extended at least from Afganistan to the Bay of Bengal and included some part of the Deccan and Mysore calls himself '*rājā*'. Khāravela is styled only mahārāja and Kaliṅgādhipati in the Hāthīgumphā Inscription.