Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c5.96

c5.96

We may consider the constitutional significance of these references to Surāshṭra. We have three descriptions of its constitutional status which it is difficult to reconcile with each other. These are: (1) Surāshṭra as a province of the Maurya empire under an imperial official as its Governor; (2) Surāshṭra under a chief as a feudatory of the Maurya emperor; and (3) Surāshṭra as a *Saṁgha* or a republic. The third description is attributed to Kauṭilya, but not quite accurately. Kauṭilya does not describe Surāshṭra as a full-fledged republic, but only refers to certain sections of its population as belonging to self-governing corporations or *Śreṇīs*. These *Śreṇīs* were formed by the Kshatriyas and Vaiśyas of Surāshṭra and were either economic or military guilds, devoting themselves either to *Vārtā* (agriculture, cattle-rearing, and trade) or to the profession of arms as means of livelihood (*Surāshṭra-Kshatriyaśreṇyādayo vārtā-śastropajīvinaḥ*) [VII. 1]. Thus Surāshṭra under this description may still be a kingdom. The two other points to settle about its constitutional position are (1) whether it was a local chiefship and a feudatory State under the Maurya emperor or (2) whether it was completely annexed by Chandragupta Maurya to his empire and created a governorship under him. The second point is established beyond doubt by Rudradāman's Inscription which has greater evidential value than tradition and literary text. The first point can be reconciled with the second only on the supposition that, as in modern India, an imperial province may accommodate its hereditary ruling princes figuring as feudatories acknowledging the paramount sovereignty of the emperor. It is thus that Piṅgala as a local chief of Surāshṭra was out to pay homage to Asoka.