Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c6: Chapter III: Administration: Ideals: Divisions

Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c6

Language
English

Chapter III: Administration: Ideals: Divisions

c6.2

**Indian Ideals of Polity.** The governance of such a vast empire which stretched from Persia to Mysore was a formidable undertaking. It was specially so in olden times, in pre-mechanical ages lacking the means of speedy communication and quick transport between the different and distant parts of a large empire. News would take months to travel from Paropanisus to Pāṭaliputra. This initial difficulty of administration led John Stuart Mill to doubt the existence of large empires in ancient times, "because the machinery of authority was not perfect enough to carry orders into effect at a great distance from the person of the ruler, nor did there exist the means of making the people pay an amount of taxes sufficient for keeping up the force necessary to compel obedience throughout a large territory."

c6.3

These natural difficulties, however gave way before human ingenuity. A suitable system of administration could cope with them. The difficulties are formidable for a system of centralized authority. It is not so where government is not carried on from one centre but from many centres. Decentralisation of authority solved the problem of government for large empires in ancient times. It divided up the empire into a number of provincial governments and local administrations in which sovereignty could make its presence and power felt. The area of each such government was conveniently sized.

c6.4

*Rural Republics.* Ancient India was built upon the basis of decentralisation on principle. It did not believe in centralisation of authority, resulting in a system of over-government of the people. It believed in the self-government of the group, in the extension of self-government from the sovereign at the top through all grades and strata of society down to the lowest classes in the villages. Every village was self-governing. There were also unions of villages as self-governing federations. Ancient India was thus built up as a vast rural democracy. Society was functioning apart from the State proper as a separate entity in defined spheres of self-government. Rural politics was independent of state-politics and of the vicissitudes of political fortune affecting the State or the Sovereign at the top. India owes the preservation of her culture to her self-governing villages or rural republics in which it was centred through the long course of her history which has seen so many political revolutions and changes of sovereignty. The position is very well summed up in the words of Sir Charles Metcalfe giving evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons [Report, 1832, Vol. III, App. 84, p. 331]: “The Indian village communities are little republics, having nearly everything they can want within themselves, and almost independent of any foreign relations. They seem to last where nothing else lasts. Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down; revolution succeeds to revolution … but the village community remains the same … This union of the village communities, each one forming a separate little State in itself, has, I conceive, contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the peoples of India, through all the revolutions and changes which they have suffered, and is in a high degree conducive to their happiness, and to the enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and independence.”

c6.5

The aloofness of the Indian village from high politics at the centre attracted the attention of Megasthenes who has described how the bulk of India’s population who were living on land as agriculturists were exempted from military service and were often found freely working, out in the fields, even in sight of a battle raging close by. He says: “Whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil, and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make a carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they neither ravage an enemy’s land with fire, nor cut down its trees.” And again: “The Husbandmen appear to be far more numerous than the others. Being moreover exempted from fighting and other public services, they devote the whole of their time to tillage; nor would an enemy coming upon a husbandman at work on his land do him any harm, for men of their class, being regarded as public benefactors, are protected from all injury. The land thus remaining undamaged, and producing heavy crops, supplies the inhabitants with all that is requisite to make life very enjoyable. The husbandmen themselves, with their wives and children, live in the country, and entirely avoid going into town either to take part in its tumults or for any other purpose" [Frag. I, XXXIII]. These rural retreats of democracy kept the culture of the country in tact and free from all political disturbances.

c6.6

Dharma as Sovereign. There was, however, a deeper political philosophy which moulded Indian polity to this form. Hindu thought counts *Dharma* as the true Sovereign of the State, as the Rule of Law. The king is the executive called the *Dāṇḍa* to uphold and enforce the decrees of *Dharma* as the spiritual sovereign. Thus the king or the temporal sovereign is not the source of Law in the Hindu State. The sources of Law are above and beyond him. They are not his creation. He has only to see to their observance.

c6.7

Sources of Law. The sources of Law are stated by Manu to be (1) *Veda* or *Śruti* (2) *Smṛiti* or Dharma-Śāstra (3) *Śīla* or code of conduct enjoined by the Śāstras (4) *Āchāra* or the manners and customs of holy men.

c6.8

It was provided that doubtful points of Dharma arising out of these primary sources of Law were to be decided by a body of legal experts called *Śishṭas*, 'well versed in sacred lore and disciplined in correct conduct.' This body was called *Parishad*. Thus legislation was considered too important for the State and for the common weal to be left to party politics or the opinions and fancies of its individual leaders. John Stuart Mill recommended the creation of a Standing Legal Commission to guide legislation by Parliament.

c6.9

*Varṇāśrama-Dharma.* It is, however, to be noted that the Dharma for which the Hindu State stood was what is known as *Varṇāśrama-Dharma.* It was the law that regulated the occupations of different castes of people, and duties of life depending on its different stages called *Āśramas.* The Hindu scheme of life determines its duties normally in accordance with caste, i.e., birth and heredity, and also with age. Kauṭilya in his *Arthaśāstra* presents this scheme as follows:

c6.10

Each *Varṇa* or caste, and each *Āśrama,* is to follow its *Svadharma,* its own Dharma, to which one must be true.

c6.11

*Duties of different castes.* The duties of *Brāhmaṇa* are: (1) Learning (*Adhyayanam*), (2) Teaching (*Adhyāpanam*), (3) Worship (*Yajanam*), (4) Conducting Worship (*Yājanam*), (5) Making gifts (*Dāna*), (6) Receiving gifts (*Pratigraha*).

c6.12

The *Kshatriya* is to observe (1), (3), and (5) of the above list, and to follow in addition the two following special duties, viz., (a) The pursuit of arms (*Śastrājīva*); (b) Defence of his country (*Bhūtarakshaṇam,* protection of all living beings).

c6.13

The *Vaiśya* is to observe (1), (3), and (5) but is to follow the special occupations named: (a) Agriculture, (b) Cattle-rearing, and (c) Trade.

c6.14

The *Śūdra’s* duties are specified to be (1) Service of the first three castes, "the twice-born"; (2) Agriculture, Cattle-rearing and Trade (*Vārttā*); (3) Craftsmanship (*Kārukarma*); and (4) Minstrelsy (*Kuśīlavakarma*).

c6.15

**Duties of different Āśramas.** There are pointed out the four Ages of Life called the *Āśramas*, viz., those of (1) *Brahmachārī* (student) (2) *Gṛihastha* (the married state) (3) *Vānaprastha* (dweller in forest) (4) *Parivrājaka* (wandering ascetic).

c6.16

The duties of the Brahmachārī are stated to be (1) study of the Vedas (*Svādhyāya*), (2) worship and offering to fire (*Agnikāryābhishekau*), (3) practice of begging (*Bhaikshyavratatvam*), (4) following the teacher unto death.

c6.17

The duties of the house-holder are stated to be

c6.18

(1) earning livelihood by the pursuit of prescribed occupations (*svakarmājīva*);

c6.19

(2) marrying into families of equal status but different *gotras*;

c6.20

(3) offering food to gods, ancestors, guests and paid servants, and appropriation of what remains to himself (*śeshabhojanam*).

c6.21

The house-holder, who leaves his home for the forest, has to observe the following duties, viz., (1) Continence (*Brahmacharya*) (2) Sleeping on bare earth (3) Wearing long hair and deer skin (4) Offering worship and oblations to fire (5) Worship of gods, ancestors and guests (6) Eating what is grown in the forest.

c6.22

The ascetic (*Parivrājaka*) has to observe the following injunctions: (1) Control of senses (2) Abstention from all external work (*Anārambha*) (3) Renouncing all possessions (*Nishkiñchanatvam*) (4) Life of solitude (*Saṅgatyāga*) (5) Begging in different places (so as not to get attached to any) (6) Living in forest (7) Purity of body and heart.

c6.23

The following duties are compulsory for all, viz., (1) Non-violence (*Ahiṁsā*) (2) Truthfulness (*Satyam*) (3) Purity (*Śaucham*) (4) Freedom from jealousy (*Anasūyā*) (5) Freedom from cruelty (6) Tolerance (*Kshamā*).

c6.24

It was the supreme duty of the State or the Sovereign to uphold this social order or system which was taken to be the best system for ensuring the stability of society and the development of personality or the self-fulfilment of the individual as the supreme objective of the State itself.

c6.25

The King as *Daṇḍa* or upholder of Dharma. The *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* [VIII. 26] describes the king as the *Defender of Dharma* (*Dharmasya goptā*). The *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* [XIV. 4, 2, 23] states that the *Daṇḍa* or the king is necessary to maintain *Dharma* or those "principles of justice by which the strong are prevented from eating up the weak" (*abalīyān balīyāṁsamāśaṁsate dharmeṇa yathā*). The *Mahābhārata* [*Śānti P.* chh. 67, 122] points out that without *Daṇḍa*, Society will be in a state of nature described as *Mātsya-Nyāya* in which "people devour one another like fish or dog (*parasparaṁ bhakshayanto matsyā iva jale kṛiśān| parasparaṁ vilumpanti sārameyā yathāmisham ||*). This doctrine is thus stated by Kauṭilya: "Where there is no *Daṇḍa-dhara* or the sovereign wielding the sceptre of justice, the strong eat up the weak, as it is among fish. But, protected by the king, the weak become strong (*apraṇīto hi mātsyanyāyamudbhāvayati| Balīyānabalaṁ hi grasate daṇḍadharābhāve| Tenaguptaḥ prabhavati ||*) [I. 4]. Kauṭilya further states that the king who upholds *Dharma* "will attain happiness both here and hereafter" (*pretya cheha cha *nandati* [I. 3]. It is also to be noted that subject to *Dharma* or the Law and Constitution of the realm, the Sovereign had supreme power in the State as its Head (*Kūṭasthānīyo hi svāmīti*) [VIII. 1]. Kauṭilya further points out [III. 1] that the king who governs (*anuśāsat*) in accordance with *Dharma* (*satye sthitaḥ Dharmaḥ*, 'established in truth'), *Vyavahāra* (Evidence or established laws), *Saṁsthā* (Custom, *lokāchāra*) and *Nyāya* (Justice or Reason) will be the conqueror of the whole earth up to the seas (*Chaturantāṁ mahīṁ jayet*). Kauṭilya also holds [IV. 13] that if the king exercises his power in an unlawful manner, he will be himself punishable (*adaṇḍya-daṇḍane rājño daṇḍastriṁśatguṇombhasi*, 'the king penalising an innocent person is to pay as penalty thirty times its amount). By paying the penalty, he will purify himself of the sin of injustice' (*tena tat pūyate pāpaṁ rājño daṇḍāpachārajam*). This is driving the theory up to its limit, but it is only to emphasise the fundamental position that *Dharma* is the ultimate Sovereign to whom the king also is subject. The Law or Rule is the ruler of men.

c6.26

It was for the fulfilment of this lofty mission prescribed for kings that Chandragupta himself was called to the throne by Chāṇakya when he found that it was jeopardised under the Śūdra rule of the Nandas.

c6.27

**Custom as Law.** It will also be seen that one of the established sources of Law is defined to be what is called *Āchāra* which Kauṭilya calls *Charitra* or *Saṁsthā*, the manners and customs of the country. These, however, vary with different families, castes, corporations, and regions, and these several groups were empowered to legislate for themselves. Accordingly, Manu says [VIII. 41, 46] that it is the Sovereign's duty to recognize and enforce the laws laid down for themselves by these several self-governing groups, such as *Kula* (family), *Jāti* (caste), *Śreṇī* (guild), and *Janapada* (region). Gautama [II. 2, 20, 21] goes farther and grants powers of legislation to the *Vargas* or Guilds (*Śreṇīs*) of cultivators, traders, herdsmen and artisans, thus granting self-government to Industry. As an instance of regional or local law which is to be recognised by the king, the commentator on Manu cites the South Indian custom of 'marrying the daughter of the maternal uncle'.

c6.28

In this way, democracy descends to the villages and the lowest strata of social structure and operated as the most potent agency of uplifting the masses. Thus ancient Hindu monarchy was a limited monarchy under the very conception of the State. The self-governing groups upon which the State was founded formed a vast subterranean democracy limiting the absolutism of the sovereign at the top.

c6.29

The Mauryan empire had to fit itself into this traditional frame-work of administration. The problem of imperial government was already solved in the very scheme of indigenous polity. The emperor had only to operate the existing administrative machinery.

c6.30

**Administrative Divisions.** The Mauryan empire was divided into a number of Viceroyalties and Provinces and each of these was of the time-honoured and standardised pattern of the Hindu State, comprising the ruler or governor at the top, the Council of Ministers called *Mantriparishad*, Heads of Departments called *Adhyakshas*, the Civil Service represented by a hierarchy of officers in different grades of jurisdiction, and self-governing village communities at the foundation of the structure.

c6.31

There is not much evidence available as regards the provinces of the Empire under Chandragupta Maurya. But we have some evidence for the time of his grandson, Asoka, by whom the institutions of his predecessors were continued except where they were reformed, or in the case of innovations which Asoka himself specifies in his inscriptions. None of the provinces indicated in his inscriptions is claimed by Asoka to be his own creation.

c6.32

Viceroyalties. His inscriptions speak of at least four Viceroyalties with their headquarters at (1) Taxila (2) Ujjain (3) Tosali and (4) Suvarṇagiri.

c6.33

The Viceroyalties were recruited from the princes of blood royal called *Kumāras* or *Āryaputras* in Asoka's inscriptions. Asoka served as his father's Viceroy at Ujjain, and again at Taxila, where he replaced his elder brother, Prince Susīma. Prince Kuṇāla, Asoka's son, served as his Viceroy at Taxila. Asoka also appointed his brother, Prince Tissa, as deputy king, *Uparāja*, to act for him at headquarters. The heir-apparent was known as the *Yuvarāja*.

c6.34

Kauṭilya [XII. 2] provides for emergency which may cause the king's absence from the country, in which case an officer will take his place thus rendered vacant (*śūnya*) and will be appropriately called *Śūnya-Pāla*, a sort of a Deputy-king like Asoka's *Uparāja*.

c6.35

Of the above Viceroyalties, Taxila was the capital of the newly-acquired North Western Frontier Province of Chandragupta's empire, and Ujjain of the Central Provinces then known as *Avantirāshṭra*, [*Mahāvaṁsa*, XIII, 8].

c6.36

Suvarṇagiri was the capital of the southern province. Tosali was the capital of Kalinga, but it was not a part of Maurya empire under Chandragupta.

c6.37

It may be noted that the traditional names of five Provinces into which India was divided are mentioned in the *Purāṇas* as
(1) *Udīchya* (Northern India) or Uttarāpatha.
(2) *Madhya-deśa* (Central India).
(3) *Prāchya* (Eastern India)
(4) Aparānta (Western India) and
(5) *Dakshiṇāpatha* (Deccan and South India).

c6.38

Like the king, the Viceroy had his Council of Ministers known as *Mahāmātras*. Like him, he also could appoint special Ministers (*Mahāmātras*) for purposes of inspection of judicial administration [See my *Asoka* (Macmillan), p. 52].

c6.39

Governorship. Side by side with these Viceroyalties under the Princes, there were also the Provinces under Governors. Seats of such governorships are mentioned in Asoka's inscriptions, such as Isila, and Samāpā in the South, and Kauśāmbī in modern U.P. near Allahabad. The Governors were called *Prādeśika-Mahāmātras*, and aso *Rājūkas*, "set over hundreds of thousands of souls" and possessed of wide powers of government [*Ib.*]. The later inscription of Rudradāman of 150 A.D., however, calls the provincial Governor a *Rāshṭriya*. As we have seen, we owe to this inscription the important information that the Western Province of Chandragupta's empire was known as Ānarta and Surāshṭra, of which the capital was Girinagara and the Governor was Vaiśya Pushyagupta. Kauṭilya [II. 16; IX. 3] uses the term *Rāshṭra-Mukhya* or *Rāshṭra-pāla* [V. 1] or *Īśvara* [II. 10] for the provincial Governor.

Linked texts (9)