Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c11: Chapter VIII: Municipal Administration
Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c11
- Language
- English
Chapter VIII: Municipal Administration
c11.2
**Scheme of Administration.** Kauṭilya has a regular plan on the basis of which the administration of cities was modelled. It was designed to deal with the special problems and requirements of urban life [II. 36].
c11.3
*Mayor (Nāgarika).* The Mayor or Prefect of the city which was normally the *Sthānīya* or town proper is called the *Nāgarika*. He is also called *Puramukhya* [II. 16]. It will be recalled that as an officer the *Nāgarika* was subordinate to the *Samāhartā* as the Minister whose portfolio included Municipal Administration as a subject along with several other subjects mentioned above. In the list of these subjects is mentioned the subject called *Durga* which again stands for a number of departments and interests among which the interests of cities are mentioned as being administered by the officer called *Nāgarika*.
c11.4
*Sthānika and Gopa.* We are further told that the *Nāgarika* stands in the same relation towards the city as the *Samāhartā* towards the province (*Samāhartṛivannāgariko nagaraṁ chintayet*). Like the province, the town also was divided into four parts or wards each of which was placed under an officer called *Sthānika*, while each *Sthānika* controlled a number of subordinate officers called *Gopas* who were responsible for ten, twenty or forty households.
c11.5
The Sthānikas or Gopas of each town, in the *Kauṭilīya* scheme, performed functions which very probably corresponded to those of Megasthenes's Committee No. 3, of which we have got only a partial view from Megasthenes.
c11.6
**Census.** They acted as Census officers registering the number (*jaṅghāgrajanasaṁkhyām*) and names of males and females of each household, their caste, gotra and occupations, as also their livestock and their income and expenditure.
c11.7
**Inns.** Reports of all persons who came to or went out of the town had also to be sent up by the persons concerned. The managers of almshouses or *dharmaśālās* (*dharmāvasathinaḥ*) had to send up to the city officer beforehand information regarding the advent into their establishments of all travellers and heretics (like the *Pāśupatas* and *Śākyabhikshus*) and obtain permission of the civic authorities for their residence. They were, however, free to accommodate ascetics and divines in whom they had confidence (*sva-pratyayāḥ*).
c11.8
**Factories.** Similary, craftsmen and artists could admit to their factories (*svakarmasthāneshu*) their own relatives.
c11.9
**Shops.** Traders also could similarly admit to their shops men of their class but they had to report against those who sold any merchandise in forbidden place or time or those who possessed any merchandise not their own.
c11.10
**Restaurants.** Similarly, vintners (*Śauṇḍikāḥ*), sellers of cooked meat (*Pākvamāṁsikāḥ*), and rice (*Audanikāḥ*), and women of ill-fame could allow persons well-known to them to stay with them, but they had to send reports about persons who were extravagant in their expenditure or who were of dangerous tendencies.
c11.11
Some of the municipal regulations in fact were very strict but they were very necessary in the interests of public good. We may cite the following as additional examples:
c11.12
1. Guests. Masters of households must make reports of their guests arriving or departing. Otherwise, they would be held responsible for any crimes committed during the night they accommodated the unknown persons, and, in the case of uneventful nights also, they were punished with fines as penalty for evading civic regulations.
c11.13
2. Liability of Surgeons and House-owners. Surgeons treating of patients suffering from suspicious wounds (*prachchhannavraṇa*), and masters of houses finding persons preparing dangerous or deadly drugs (*apathyakāriṇam roga-maraṇotpādaka-dravyam*) must always report the fact to the civic officials in charge, viz., the Gopas and Sthānikas. Otherwise, they were liable to the same punishment as the guilty persons themselves.
c11.14
3. Suspects: Fifth Column Activities. Suspected characters and Fifth Column agents were held under check by a series of regulations. Wayfarers along highways (*pathikā mahāmārgachāriṇaḥ*) or by-paths (*utpathikā vivītapatha-chāriṇaḥ*), either within or outside the town, were charged with the civic responsibility of arresting suspects or undesirable persons frequenting temples and holy places, forests and crematories. Under this description came persons who suffered from suspicious wounds (*savraṇam*) or carried harmful implements such as house-breaking apparatus (*anīshṭopakaraṇam*), or were carrying a load beyond their capacity, or had a suspicious appearance, or were discovered sleeping beyond time (*atisvapnam*), too much fatigued from long journeys or were absolute strangers to the country. These signs marked out criminal persons.
c11.15
Such characters were also spied out within the town in deserted houses (*aveśana*) and factories (*śilpa-śālā*), liquor saloons, restaurants supplying cooked rice and meat, gambling houses, and the abode of heretics.
c11.16
4. Curfew Order. The movements of citizens were forbidden at night when it was 6 *nālikās* before dawn and 6 *nālikās* after sunset. A *nālikā* being equal to 24 minutes, the period of restriction was from 9 P.M. to 3-30 A.M. A trumpet (*yāma-tūryam*) was sounded to announce the hours when the curfew commenced and ended and all movements between these hours, especially in the vicinity of the palace (*rājño gṛihābhyāśe*), were punished with fines. Inconvenience to the public which was caused by this restriction upon movement was obviated by granting exemptions in the following cases where free movement was a necessity: (1) persons attending delivery cases (*sūtikānimittam*), (2) medical practitioners, (3) carriers of dead bodies (*preta-nimittam*), (4) persons moving about with lanterns (*pradīpayāna-nimittam*), (5) persons going in response to the summons by drum of the city magistrate (*nāgarikatūrya*), (6) persons going to a theatrical performance passed by the censor (*prekshānimittaṁ rājānujñāta-nāṭakādiprayoga-dar-* *śane-nimitte*), (7) persons called out of their houses by emergencies such as outbreak of fire, (8) persons moving with passes after time (*mudrābhiścha agrāhyāḥ akshaṇachārino*) [I. 36].
c11.17
**Exemption.** Movement was, however, declared free for festal nights (*Chāra-rātri*) but persons going about in veil, or in inappropriate dress, males in female's and females in male's dress (*prachchhanna-viparītaueshāḥ*), ascetics, persons with *lāthi* or weapon in their hands (*daṇḍa-śastra-hastāścha*) are to be examined and, if found guilty, to be punished (*doshato daṇḍyāḥ*).
c11.18
**Police (*Rakshiṇaḥ*).** The Police were to inform authorities of any mishaps occuring at night, affecting life and property (*chetanāchetanikam rātri-dosham*).
c11.19
They were to be punished for interfering with the movements of persons entitled to freedom of movement or omitting to interfere where such freedom was not granted (*avāryaṁ vāryatāṁ vāryaṁcha avārayatām*).
c11.20
Arrest of persons who should not have been arrested and non-arrest of persons who should have been arrested were both punishable.
c11.21
Policemen found guilty of violating women were severely punished, and in the case of a lady of a respectable family (*kulastrī*), with the extreme penalty of death. Laxity of control of Police over places of indulgence (*pramādasthāne*) was punished according to the gravity of the occasion. [*Ib.*].
c11.22
**Jail Code.** The city had its Jail under its Superintendent called *Bandhanāgārādhyaksha* [IV. 9]. The Jail Code was quite strict and fair. The Jail proper is called *Bandhanāgāra* attached to the court of the *Pradeshṭā* and is distinct from the lock-up called *Chāraka* attached to the Court of the *Dharmasthīya*. An officer letting off an accused from the lock-up under a bribe (*nissārayataḥ lañchagrahaṇena*) is to be severly punished. Again, one who releases from a *Chāraka* a man against whom an action has been brought (*abhiyukta*) will be fined and made to pay the amount of the claim against him (*abhiyogadānam*). An officer (prematurely and improperly) releasing a convict from the Jail will forfeit his whole property (*sarvasvaṁ*) and may even suffer the extreme penalty (*vadhaḥ*).
c11.23
Fines are imposed for other offences as follows: releasing from a lock-up a prisoner without the order of the Superintendent, 24 *paṇas*; putting a prisoner to unauthorised labour, 48 *paṇas*; removing a prisoner and depriving him of food and drink, 96 *paṇas*; torturing a prisoner, heavy fine; similarly, extortion (*utkocha*).
c11.24
**Jail-deliveries.** There are to be limited gaol-deliveries on the following occasions: (1) the day of the lunar mansion (*Nakshatra*) in which the king is born; (2) the day of full moon, when juvenile prisoners, the old, the sick, and the destitute only will be released. There are to be general gaol-deliveries on occasions of national rejoicing such as (1) Conquest of a new country, (2) Installation of Yuvarāja, (3) Birth of a prince. There is also a jail regulation that everyday, or once in five days, account (*viśodhayet*) is to be taken of prisoners as to (a) prescribed labour (*karma*); (b) bodily punishment (*kāyadaṇḍa*) in lieu of (a); and (c) fine (*hiraṇya*)
c11.25
in lieu of (b) [II. 36]. Persons of known good character (*puṇyaśīlāḥ*) (whose offence is accidental) or those imprisoned for non-fulfilment of agreement (*samayānubaddha*) may pay a ransom or fine according to offence (*dosha-nishkraya*) [*Ib.*].
c11.26
Precaution against Fire. There were also many municipal regulations to prevent the outbreak of fire which was perhaps very common, considering the predominantly wooden material of the architecture of the period. The kindling of fire was prohibited in houses having thatched roofs during the second and third quarters of the day in summer, or cooking had to be done outside the house. Every householder had to provide himself under the penalty of fines with eightfold apparatus for control of fire (*agni-nirvāpaṇa-sādhana*) comprising (1) the *kumbha* (a kind of vessel), (2) the *droṇī*, a trough made of wood for storing water, (3) the ladder (*niḥśreṇī*) for climbing up to the top on fire, (4) the axe (*paraśu*) 'to cut off beams', (5) the winnowing basket (*śūrpa*) 'to blow off smoke' (6) the hook (*aṅkuśa*) for tearing away things burning, (7) pincers (*kachagrahaṇī*) for pulling out burning straw from the thatched roof of houses and (8) the leather bag (*dṛiti*) for sprinkling water. On the public highways, on cross-roads, at the gates of towns, and in all government buildings, rows of vessels in thousands filled with water '(*kuṭavrajāḥ*) were always kept in rows as safeguard against fire. Thatched houses made of straw were not allowed to be built in the summer months within the municipal limits. The masters of such households had to remain within doors at night and they were liable to fines if they failed to run towards the scene of fire. Fines were also imposed upon shop keepers for similar offence, though lighter than those of householders. Those who caused an outbreak of fire through carelessness had to pay a fine of 54 *paṇas* but those found guilty of deliberate incendiarism were themselves burnt to death (*prādīpiko agninā vadhyaḥ*). Lastly, those whose occupation was connected with fire (e.g. blacksmiths) had to live in a separate locality of the town (*agnijīvinaḥ ekasthān vāsayet*).
c11.27
*Sanitary Regulations.* The sanitary regulations of the municipality were enforced with strictness. Throwing dirt (*pāṁśu-nyāse*) or causing mud and water to collect on the roads (*paṅkodaka-sannirodhe*) was punished with fines and the fine was doubled in the case of the Royal Road thus interfered with. Committing nuisance in places held sacred (*puṇyasthāna*), reservoirs of water, temples, and royal buildings was also punished but exception was made when it was not done deliberately but caused by medicine, disease, or fear. Throwing inside the city the dead bodies of snakes, and animals like the cat, dog or mongoose was punished with a fine of 3 *paṇas*; in the case of the carcases of the larger animals like an ass, camel, mule, or horse, the above fine was doubled, while in the case of human corpse, the fine was 50 *paṇas*. Carrying dead bodies along roads or through gates other than the prescribed ones was punished, while the guards who connived at that offence were also fined. The cremation or burial of dead bodies (*nyāse dahane cha*) in places other than the prescribed one was similarly punishable [*Ib.*].
c11.28
Building Regulations (*Vāstukam*). Town planning was, indeed, regulated by the needs of sanitation. Every house was to be provided with a privy (*avas-kara*), drain (*bhrama*), and a well (*udapāna*), only at the prescribed place (*grihochitam*), except in the case of temporary pits to serve the place of confinement (*sūtikā-kūpa*) or needs of festivities, but these were to filled up as soon as the need was over. There were also wholesome regulations for location of (1) *Chakri-Sthāna*, sheds for goats and draught animals, (2) *Chatushpada-Sthāna* (to accommodate big animals like elephants), (3) *Agnishṭha* (oven), (4) *Udañjara-Sthānam*, a place for keeping big jars for water, (5) *Rochanī* (cornmill) and (6) *Kuṭṭanī* (mortar) [III. 8]. The object kept in view was to reduce to the minimum the inconvenience to neighbours. In case of two houses of which the above parts touched, it was obligatory to allow some space between them.
c11.29
There was to be left some open space between houses (*Sarvavāstukāyoḥ prākshiptakayor vā kish-kurantarikā tripadī vā*). There should be windows in each house for ventilation (*prakāśārtham alpam ūrdhvaṁ vātāyanaṁ kārayet*). The rules governing house-building could be determined by common consent so as to prevent mutual inconvenience (*Sambhūya vā grihasvāmino yatheshṭam kārayeyur anishṭam vārayeyuḥ*).
c11.30
The construction of doors or windows facing those of another's house to cause inconvenience was punished except when houses were separated by the King's Road or other highways. If any part of a house caused inconvenience to another house by obstructing its water course and letting the collected water damage its foundations (*parakuḍyam udakena upaghnato*), the owner was fined. If it was caused by accumulation of excreta, the fine was doubled [*Ib.*].
c11.31
House-owners in fact were bound to keep the gutters of their houses in such condition as to allow easy passage to gutter-water. They had also to construct raised platforms in front of their houses and to leave open in perfectly communistic spirit for public use the places where fire was worshipped or grain was grounded. Violation of the above rules was punished with various kinds of fines [*Ib.*].
c11.32
Epidemics (*Upanipāta-pratīkāra*). Special measures were adopted in the time of epidemic outbreaks. Physicians went about the town distributing medicines (*aushadhaiḥ chikitsakāḥ*) while saints and ascetics were busy adopting religious remedies. The same measures were adopted in respect of cattle-plague (*paśu-vyādhi-marake*) [IV. 3].
c11.33
Rats. The danger from rats was recognised and measures were taken to destroy them. Cats and mongooses were let loose with penalty to those who would catch them. Poisoned food for rats was also widely distributed. In cases of virulent outbreaks of the plague epidemic, a 'rat-cess' (*mūshika-kara*) was imposed, requiring the owner of each house to trap a fixed number of rats per day [*Ib.*].
c11.34
Medical Regulations. There were also rules regulating medical practice in the land. Dangerous diseases were always to be reported. Physicians were fined if the patient died of disease that was not previously reported. Error of treatment (*karmāparādhena*) causing death (*vipatti*) was more heavily punished. A surgeon was to lose the limb which he causes a patient to lose by his wrong operation (*marmavedha-vaiguṇya-karaṇe marmaṇi śastrakriyā anyathā-karaṇe daṇḍapārushyaṁ vidyāt bhishakkriyā-dosheṇa rogiṇo yad aṅgam upahataṁ tad bhishaja uphanyāt*) [IV. 1].
c11.35
The medical profession comprised the following classes of specialists: (1) the ordinary physicians (*Bhishajaḥ* or *Chikitsakāḥ*), (2) those who treated cases of poison (*Jāṅgalividaḥ*), (3) those who specialised in midwifery (*garbhavyādhi-saṁsthā* and *Sūtikā-Chikitsakāḥ*), (4) the surgeons who accompanied the army with the surgical instruments and appliances, oils and bandages (*Chikitsakāḥ śastrayantrāgada-snehavastra-hastāḥ*) together with Nurses who carried the necessary food and beverage for the sick and the wounded (*striyaśchānnapānarakshiṇyaḥ*) and (5) the veterinary surgeons who treated the diseases of cattle, horses, and elephants, of whom we have already given an account [X. 3].
c11.36
Snake-bite. It may be noted that cases of snake-bite were so successfully treated that it drew the attention of Alexander who always consulted the Indian Vaidyas in preference to his Greek experts whenever such cases occured [Arrian].
c11.37
Supply of Medicines. The towns had also hospitals with medical stores containing sufficient quantities of medicines which could last for years and were constantly replenished by fresh supplies (*navena anavaṁ śodhayet*). In the king's household, the medical store contained specially all the medicines that were required for midwifery and medicinal plants and herbs were grown in pots in the hot houses. Indeed, the State maintained at is own expense gardens for the cultivation of medicinal plants and herbs [II. 4].
c11.38
Washermen (*Rajakāḥ*) The dirt of clothes was attended to by the washermen who had to do the washing in fixed places on wooden planks or stones of smooth surface. Washing elsewhere was punished with a fine. There were various rules framed to secure honest dealings by washermen. Their own clothes were marked with a *mudgara* in order to distinguish them from others. They were fined if they used clothes other than those so marked, or if they sold, mortgaged or let out on hire the clothes of others. The substitution of one's clothes for another's was also punishable. Making delay in washing was also punished with fines. Washing was to show four degrees of whiteness in the stuff washed. The time allowed for washing corresponded to the degree of whiteness required. For example, 4 nights were allowed for best washing showing the utmost whiteness. Only a night was allowed for simple washing and removal of dirt; 5 nights were allowed for simple colouring (*tanurāgam*); 6 nights for colouring with indigo (*nīlam*), saffron flowers (*pushpa*), lac (*lākshā*), and *mañjishṭhā* flowers. Costly clothes (*jātyaṁ vāsaḥ*) which required much skill, care, and labour (*guruparikarma yatnopachāryaṁ yatnasaṁskāryam*) were to be returned after 7 nights [IV. 1].
c11.39
**General Duties of the Mayor.** There are prescribed certain daily duties to be discharged by the Chief Executive Officer of the city. He is to inspect (1) the sources of the city's water supply (*Udakasthānaṁ*); (2) the state of its roads (*Mārga*); (3) its grounds (*Bhūmayaḥ*); (4) its subterranean passages (*Chhannapathāḥ*); (5) the city's defences such as Vapra (battlement), *Prākāra* (wall), *Rakshā* such as *Aṭṭālaka* (tower) or *Parikhā* (moat).
c11.40
He is also to keep charge (*rakshaṇam*) under proper Municipal arrangements of things lost (*nashṭa*) by carelessness or forgetfulness of the owners (*prasṛita*), and also of cattle that have strayed away (*apasṛitānām svayaṁ apagatānāṁ dvipada-chatushpadānām*) [II. 36].
c11.41
**Adulteration.** Lastly, public health was sought to be protected by punishing adulteration (*Samavarṇopadhānaṁ tulyavarṇaiḥ hīnamūlyaiḥ dhānyādibhiḥ miśraṇe*) of food products of all kinds e.g. grains, oils, alkalies, salts, scents and medicines [IV. 2].
c11.42
**Control of Morals.** The city's morals were protected by regulations regarding its public women (*gaṇikā*) under the control of a special officer called *Gaṇikādhyaksha* [II. 27]. He controls their earnings and properties. Their relations with their customers are regulated by law. Their incomes are taxed at the rate of two days income to be paid per month.
c11.43
**Amusements.** There was no dearth of amusements and recreations in the city. These were provided by bands of (1) Actors (*Naṭas*), (2) Dancers (*Nartakas*), (3) Musicians, (4) Artists giving instrumental music (*Vādaka*), (5) Story-tellers (*Vāgjīvana*), (6) Nautch-girls (*Kuśīlavāḥ nartakīpradhānāḥ*), (7) Experts in exercises with ropes (*Plavaka rajjvārohaka*), (8) Magicians (*Śaubhika*), (9) Minstrels (*Chāraṇa*) and (10) Pimps.
c11.44
**Schools of Art.** The city also provided for institutions for teaching the arts such as (1) Vocal Music (*Gīta*), (2) Instrumental Music (*Vādya*), (3) Story-telling (*Pāṭhyam ākhyāyikādi*), (4) Dancing (*Nṛit-taṁ padārthābhinayaḥ*), (5) Acting (*Nāṭyaṁ vāk-yārthābhinayaḥ*), (6) Writing (*Lipi*), (7) Drawing and painting (*Chitraṁ ālekhya-karma*), (8) Playing on harp (*Vīṇā*), flute (*Veṇu*) and tabor (*Mṛidaṅga*), (9) Thought-reading (*Parachitta-jñānam*), (10) Making scents (*Gandha*), (11) Making garlands (*Mālya*), (12) Massage (*Saṁvāhana*) and (13) Captivating (*Vaiśika*) (the art of the courtesan taught by the teacher, Dattaka).
c11.45
**Summary: Growth of Towns.** We shall now in a summary try to obtain a view of life in the towns of India in those days. A standardised municipal administration was itself the outcome of a considerable development of urban life.
c11.46
**Evidence of Megasthenes.** We have it on the authority of Megasthenes [Frag. XXVI] “that the number of cities in India is so great that it cannot be stated with precision, cities on the “banks of rivers or on sea coasts,” or “on commanding situations, or on lofty eminences.”
c11.47
**Kauṭilya on Towns or Forts.** The location of cities as thus described by Megasthenes corresponds closely to what Kauṭilya recommends for them (*Nadīparvata-durgaṁ nadīsaṁgame hradasya vā antardvīpaṁ sthalaṁ prāstaraṁ pārvatam*) [II. 3]. Kauṭilya here mentions all varieties of forts, such as those built (1) on the bank of a river, (2) at the confluence of rivers, (3) on a lake, (4) in an island, (5) in a desert (*dhānvana*), (6) in a forest (*vana*) and (7) on a hill in stone (*pārvataṁ prāstaram*). Of all these forts, Kauṭilya prefers the fort on a hill as being defended by nature (*svāraksham*), difficult to besiege (*durūparodhi*), and to climb up (*kṛichchhrārohaṇam*), while it can be further defended by hurling down blocks of stones and trees (*śila-vṛikshapramokshaścha*) at the invaders (*mahāpakariṇām*). He does not approve of a fort on a river (like Pāṭaliputra), as the river lends itself to crossing by bridges of wood, elephants and boats (*hasti-stambha-saṅkrama-setubandhanaughiḥ sādhyam*), while it may also be drained of its waters (*anityagāmbhīryam avasrāvyudakam*) or rendered shallow [VII. 10]. Like the Greek writers, Kauṭilya, as a native of Taxila, shows his preference for a hilly fort from his personal experience of the heroic defence offered by rock-citadels like Massaga or Aornus against the siege of Alexander. He also must have seen how Alexander was easily crossing the rivers by his ‘bridges of boats’. By thus crossing the Jhelum, he was able to defeat his most powerful foe, Porus. In VII. 12, he definitely prefers a hill-fort to a fort on a river, and the latter to an inland fort (*sthala-durga*). In VIII. 1, he mentions the isolated fort on a hill, promontory (*antarīpa*), or island (*dvīpa*) as insecure for its paucity of population.
c11.48
Numbers of Towns. The Greek writers further tell us that the territories of Porus comprised “5000 considerable cities, and villages without number” [Plutarch, Alexander LX]. The republican people called *Glauchukāyanaka* (Glaussaii) boasted of 37 towns within their small territory. Megasthenes ascribes some 30 towns to the Āndhra country alone [Frag. LVIX].
c11.49
Grades of Towns. The towns covered a wide range from the smallest called *Saṅgrahaṇa* as the centre of a circle of 10 villages, the county towns called *Kārvaṭaka* and *Droṇamukha* serving a group of 200 or 400 villages, the provincial town, *Sthānīya* (modern *Thānā*), the great city (*Nagara* or *Pura*) or port-town (*Paṭṭana*) up to the royal captial (*Rājadhānī*). We have to add to these the forts on the frontiers in charge of the *Antapālas* or located in special situations in the interior, in the midst of a desert, what Kauṭilya calls *Dhānvana*, or in a forest (*Vanadurga*), or swamps and lowlands (*Nimnāvaruddhamaudakam*).
c11.50
**Art of Fortification.** The development of towns implied that of the art of fortification for which there is a standard plan handed down from earlier times. The descriptions of the Greek writers of what they had seen of the Indian fortifications at the cities like Pushkalāvatī, Maśakāvatī, or Varaṇā (Aornos) and at Pāṭaliputra, and the prescriptions laid down in the *Kauṭilīya* apply also to the cities described in the Epics. The Epic city was protected by ditches and battlemented towers, covered ways, water-gates, and portcullises.
c11.51
These descriptions also correspond to what we see depicted on the monuments of Bhārhut and Sanchi in their sculptures of nearly the same age.
c11.52
**Buildings at the Capital.** The *Kauṭilīya* city or the royal capital must have been known for its variety of buildings such as the State Treasury Building (*Kośagriha*), the State Granary (*Koshṭhāgāra*), the State Storehouse (*Bhāṇḍāgāra*) the State Arsenal, (*Āyudhāgāra*), the House of Merchandise (*Paṇyagriha*), the Courts of Justice (*Dharmasthīya*), the Council House (*Upasthāna* or *Mantrabhūmi*), the administrative offices or Secretariat buildings (*Mahāmātrīya*), the Jail (*Bandhanāgāra*), and the industrial factories (*Karmāntas*). It is interesting to note that the State Jewellery House was an underground building with three storeys (see references already given).
c11.53
Its Amenities. The city offered considerabale amenities of life to its ordinary citizens under the regulations of its Municipality already described. Every street had its water-courses serving as house-drains and issuing ultimately into the moat. Their obstruction by deposit of rubbish or any other article was punished. The law of easement was known. Houses could not have windows overlooking each other except across the street. Instead of a mechanised Fire-Brigade, there was a standing provision of vessels of water kept "in thousands" in the streets. Protection of property was further assured by a curfew order prohibiting movement at night in the interval announced by the trumpet. The Mayor of the city had to report all incidents and take charge of all lost and ownerless property. The security of the city, the problems of its Law and Order, were further secured by the Municipal Regulation that all inns, hostelries, sarais and places of entertainment should be under surveillance and should send reports of new arrivals.
c11.54
The city had also its gay side represented in its inns, restaurants, eating-houses, sarais, gambling houses, taverns, slaughter-houses. The city had also its public dinners and its theatrical performances. The physician was also abroad. Royal processions were very spectacular.
c11.55
**Agreements of Kautilya and Megasthenes.** It will also appear from the above account that the details of administration given by Kauṭilya are quite in keeping with the general description left by the Greek writers. But this subject may be examined a little more closely as providing evidence to show that the *Arthaśāstra* gives a picture of India under the Mauryas.
c11.56
**Town Officers.** Megasthenes refers to the town official called *Astonomoi* as performing functions of which the details are given by Kauṭilya. Among these he mentions ‘Supervision of Factories’. Kauṭilya states that these factories in the cities represented the Cotton Industry, the industry of Spinning and Weaving, the manufacture of gold, silver and jewellery which was pre-eminently a city industry and also the working of metals other than gold and silver, the armament industry, the building industry, the state-mint, the manufacture of dairy-products and of forest-products. According to Megasthenes, the factories of the cities were under government ‘supervision.’ Kauṭilya describes how this supervision was exercised by the Government Superintendents in charge of these factories such as the *Sūtrādhyaksha*, the *Sauvarṇika*, the *Lohādhyaksha*; the *Lakshanādhyaksha*, the *Kupyādhyaksha* and the like.
c11.57
Megasthenes next refers to a group of town officials whose duties included control of the inns, care of strangers, and their medical treatment. Kauṭilya describes in detail how the city Administration took charge of these and many other duties as described above. Megasthenes has taken a special note of the duties of the city with reference to its "strangers" or foreign population, being himself a foreigner. Kauṭilya only includes this among other allied functions of the City Administration.
c11.58
The third class of functions mentioned by Megasthenes concerns the registration of births and deaths. Kauṭilya mentions the officers called the *Sthānikas* and *Gopas* whose duty was to keep complete register of the population and prepare a regular Census, besides a record of vital statistics. This work required the visits of officers from house to house for which the city was divided into a number of wards.
c11.59
The fourth class of functions noticed by Megasthenes is described by him as "the control of the market." For this Kauṭilya provides a special officer called *Paṇyādhyaksha* whose duties have been already elaborated.
c11.60
Next, Megasthenes mentions the city's "inspection of weights and measures." Kauṭilya shows that this was in charge of a special officer called *Pautavādhyaksha*.
c11.61
The fifth class of functions mentioned by Megasthenes is described as "the inspection of manufactured goods, provision for their sale with accurate distinction of new and second hand articles."
c11.62
All these functions were exercised by the officer named *Paṇyādhyaksha* by Kauṭilya. As we have seen, he was the controller of prices, of markets for both home, and foreign, products, for food-products, imports and exports.
c11.63
Lastly, Megasthenes mentions the duties connected with the collection of taxes charged on sales, Both he and Kauṭilya refer to an *ad valorem* tax on sales. Only while Megasthenes mentions the rate to be tithe, the *Arthaśāstra* mentions a variety of rates ranging from 4 to 20 per cent. The collection of these taxes was the charge of the officer called the *Śulkādhyaksha*.
c11.64
As regards Megasthenes's reference to "accurate distinction of new and second-hand articles," it was secured by the *Śulkādhyaksha* of Kauṭilya. As we have seen, this officer was authorised to penalise fradulent understatement of the quantity or price of goods, or showing inferior samples to conceal the true quality of their goods in order to avoid taxation. We have also seen how fines were imposed on adulteration.
c11.65
According to Strabo, these duties of the town officials were discharged by Boards of Five numbering six Boards in all. As F. W. Thomas points out [*Camb. Hist.*, I 489]: "No doubt, the system varied from place to place, and it may have differed according as the city was capital or provincial, subject to a sovereign or independent. We may think of the difference between a royal borough and a free town in our own middle ages."
c11.66
**District Officers.** In this connection, we may also notice the correspondence between Kauṭilya and Megasthenes as regards the District Officials or the *Agronomoi*, most of whom were controlled by the *Samāhartā* at headquaters.
c11.67
**Agreement of Kautilya and Megasthenes: Irrigation.** The first of their functions Megasthenes describes as relating to irrigation and land-measurement. We have already seen that in the *Arthaśāstra*, irrigation constitutes one of the charges of the *Samāhartā*. It is indicated in a number of terms such as *Nadīpāla* (the Superintendent in charge of rivers and their landing-places), *Tara*, *Nāva*, *Setu* and *Sītā*. It will be further seen that while the *Samāhartā* was the chief controlling officer or the Head of the Department, he had under him a number of departmental heads in the districts, one of whom, the *Sītādhyaksha*, Director of Agriculture, was in charge of irrigation and the revenue due from it. We have already seen how the water-rates varied with the means of irrigation employed.
c11.68
Megasthenes has a further statement regarding "Officers who superintend the rivers, measure the land, and inspect the sluices from which water is let out to its branches from the main canal, so that every one may have an equal supply of it." The Superintendent of rivers is called by Kauṭilya by the appropriate name of *Nadīpāla*, as we have seen. The *Sītādhyaksha* is also described, as we have seen, as "letting in water from river (*Nadī*), lake (*Saraḥ*), reservoir (*Taṭāka*) and wells (*Kūpa*) by regulation by sluice gates" (*Udghāṭam udghāṭyate nissāryate jalaṁ aneneti udghāṭo araghaṭṭakādi-yantram*) [II. 24]. There is also a regulation that "letting out water and receiving it out of turn (*avāre*) or obstructing its flow into a field which should get it by its turn (*vāre*) is a punishable offence" [III. 9]. This shows that (a) distribution of water from a canal was made by turns among its consumers, the cultivators, and (b) the distribution was effected by the operation of a sluice-gate. Cultivated fields irrigated by canals are described as *Kulyā-vāpa* [II. 24]. There is also a reference to a process of irrigation called *Sroto-yantra-prāvartimam* which means the arrangement or appliance by which the irrigation officer distributes the water among the fields by bringing it from flowing streams (*sāraṇīpāyitajalanishpannaṁ udakabhāgam*) [*Ib.*]. As regards the statement of Megasthenes that the distribution of water should be such that “every one may have an equal supply of it”, it may be noted that the equality of the supply of water for irrigation is ensured by Kauṭilya. All are taxed equally and pay equally for the water they choose to make use of for their respective irrigation needs. The irrigation office had also to settle disputes as to distribution of water among different fields (*kedāra*) situated at different levels. A reservoir constructed later at a lower level (*paśchānnivishṭa-madharataṭākam*) must not be allowed to flood a field irrigated by a pre-existing tank at a higher level (*udakena aplāvayet*). Nor should the flow of water from a new and higher to an older and lower tank be stopped, except where it is not required for cultivation [III. 9].
c11.69
As regards the last point regarding the measurement of land, we have already described the details of Land-Revenue administration based on Survey and Settlement.
c11.70
**Hunting.** The next class of duties Megasthenes assigns to District Officials concerned supervision of hunting. In connection with these duties, Kauṭilya provides for a regular Department of Forests under an officer called *Kupyādhyaksha* who was, as we have seen, in charge of the conservation of forests and its products by the employment of forest guards (*Vana-* *pāla*), foresters who knew every inch of a tree, and could gather in the various forest products. Associated with the *Kupyādhyaksha* was the *Vivītādhyaksha* whose duty was to secure the grazing grounds of cattle against the attack of wild animals. As we have seen, he had to employ a staff of hunters (*Lubdhakas*) who with their hunting hounds (*Śvagaṇa*) would keep the forests clear of all sources of mischief.
c11.71
We have also seen that both Megasthenes and Kauṭilya are at one in describing how hunting was preeminently a royal pastime. As has been already noted, Kauṭilya is in favour of hunting as a healthy and useful sport for the king, but he provides for his safety by the employment of hunters (*Lubdhakas*) who, with the hounds of the royal kennels, would keep the forests free of ferocious animals like tigers, so that the king might learn in safety the difficult art of shooting at a moving mark like deer.
c11.72
**Forestry and Mining.** Megasthenes mentions that the District Officials were incharge of the various industries connected with Agriculture, Forestry, Work in Timber, Metal Foundries and Mines. These duties Kauṭilya distributes among different Departmental Heads such as *Sītādhyaksha*, *Kupyādhyaksha*, *Ākarādhyaksha*, *Lohādhyaksha*, *Suvarṇādhyaksha*, and *Khanyādhyaksha* who are to render the accounts of their respective departments to their chiefs, *Samāhartā*, and *Sannidhātā*, at headquarters.
c11.73
**Roads.** Lastly, Megasthenes refers to the duties of these officials to maintain the roads. We have already seen that the maintenance of the roads of Traffic (*Vanikpatha*) was one of the main duties of the *Samāhartā* in the administrative scheme of Kauṭilya. Kauṭilya refers to various classes of roads in the country which he calls (1) *Rājamārga* [I. 21; II. 4], (2) *Rathyā* or the provincial roads leading to the district headquarters, (3) roads leading to elephant-forests, (4) the by-roads leading to the fields (*utpatha*) and other by-ways, (5) and the roads meant for vehicular traffic.
c11.74
The many agreements between Kauṭilya and Megasthenes are thus summarised by a classical scholar of repute, H. G. Rawlinson [*India and the Western World*, p. 67]: 'Megasthenes' account of the constitution of Chandragupta finds close confirmation in many details in the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*. In this book, we find the king's palace described very much after the manner of Megasthenes, with its moats, ramparts, and towers. The king is surrounded by a bodyguard of 'women armed with bows' [*Strīgaṇaiḥ dhanvibhiḥ* of *Arthaśāstra*, II. 3].
c11.75
"The *Arthaśāstra* describes the highly organized bureaucracy in terms very similar to those employed by Megasthenes but in great detail. Thus Megasthenes tells us that the District officers were in charge of the forests, temples, harbours, mines, roads etc. He also describes the Six Boards who managed municipal affairs. But the general duties assigned to them are nearly the same. Thus Kauṭilya describes a Superintendent of Commerce and a Superintendent of Warehouses, who between them managed the market, fixed the market-prices, regulated the trade in agricultural produce, levied the subsidies for provisioning the army, and collected the royal tithes on goods bought and sold. These were almost precisely the duties assigned to the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth "The *Arthaśāstra* mentions a Superintendent of Courtesans and of Public Gambling, two functions of the police department not occurring in Megasthenes. But Megasthenes tells us how the king's agents employed the courtesans to obtain information. This ancient profession was treated as a recognised trade, taxed, inspected, and utilized by Government.
c11.76
"On one important point Kauṭilya supplies information which supplements Megasthenes very considerably. This is with regard to the Board of Shipping. The Port Commissioner supervised sea and river-traffic, and ferries. Fishermen, merchants, and travellers, were all subjected to taxation and the ferries were in the hands of the Government. The foods were guarded by pickets who prevented suspects from entering or leaving. It was the duty of the Harbour Masters to assist ships in distress, and of those in charge of the ferries, to see that they were not used when the river was in a dangerous state.
c11.77
"On the whole, the two accounts supplement one another in a remarkable manner."
Linked texts (5)
- Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
- Ἰνδικά — Μεγασθένης, Ancient Greek
- Pāṭaliputra
- Sāñcī
- Bharhut