Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c11: Chapter VII. Pre-Mauryan Administrations

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII. Pre-Mauryan Administrations

c11.2

Vedic literature, the Sûtras, the Epics and the Jâtakas give an inkling into the administrative practices of different regions and ages but they afford little help towards the reconstruction of regular political history. It is not until the last quarter of the 4th century B.C. that any connected account of political events can be commenced and administrative data examined in the light of well-authenticated institutions. Nevertheless, a few facts can be gleaned about the political transactions of the two centuries which preceded the foundation of the Mauryan empire. The most important sources of information are the Buddhist and Jaina¹ literatures which, though primarily ethical and philosophical, incidentally give some political facts because the founders of Buddhism and Jainism sprang from aristocratic families and came into contact with crowned heads in their career. In several Buddhist works occurs the following list of the sixteen great states :—

c11.3

¹ See Jacobi, S. B. E, Vol. XLV, p. 122, for Pârśvanâtha who might have been the founder of Jainism. For the life and teachings of Mahâvîra, the traditional twenty-fourth or last Tîrthakara of the Jainas, see the Jaina Kalpa Sûtra and Âcârâṅga Sûtra.

c11.4

(1) Aṅgâ, (2) Magadhâ, (3) Kâśî, (4) Kośalâ, (5) Vajjî, (6) Mallâ, (7) Cetî, (8) Vaṃsâ, (9) Kurû, (10) Pañcâlâ, (11) Macchâ, (12) Sûrasenâ, (13) Assakâ, (14) Avantî, (15) Gandhârâ and (16) Kambojâ.²

c11.5

² Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 23; Cambridge History of India, I, 172-73; relying mainly on Aṅguttara Nikâya, I, 213; IV, 252, 256, 260. Mahâvastu, II, 2. Vinaya Texts, II, 146. The names are given in their Pâli forms.

c11.6

It is likely that about the sixth century B.C. the whole of North India from Gandhâra in modern Afghânistân to the borders of Bengal was parcelled out roughly among sixteen principal states. Another list in the Dîgha Nikâya divides the central region of the North into seven states.¹ But neither the seven nor the sixteen seem to have constituted a permanent political system. They frequently warred with their neighbours; their boundaries would change and some would be annexed to others. By the beginning of the fifth century B.C. Kośala had conquered Kâśî, Magadha had conquered Aṅga and the Assakas were probably dependent on Avantî.² Besides the principal states there were others, dependent or independent, which filled the northern plains. Some of these were clan-oligarchies in their form of government.³ A list of ten such clans was compiled by Rhys Davids from Pâli records:—

c11.7

¹ Dîgha Nikâya, II, 235; Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, II, 270. Cambridge History of India, I, p. 173.

c11.8

² Rhys Davids, Cambridge History of India, I, 173.

c11.9

³ The Avadâna Śataka (No. 88) preserves an old tradition that some merchants from Madhyadeśa in reply to queries in the south, stated that some regions were under Gaṇas and some under Râjas. Kâtyâyana, IV, 168, also distinguishes between saṃgha and Ekarâja. See D. R. Bhandarkar, Lectures on the Ancient History of India, p. 147.

c11.10

1. The Sâkiyas, capital Kapilavatthu
2. The Bulis, capital Allakappa
3. The Bhaggas, capital on Sumsumâra Hill
4. The Koliyas, capital Râmagâma
5. The Kâlâmas, capital Kesaputta
6. The Mallas, capital Pâvâ
7. The Mallas, capital Kusinârâ
8. The Moriyas, capital Pipphalivana
9. The Videhas, capital Mithilâ
10. The Licchavis, capital Vesâlî.⁴

c11.11

⁴ Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, pp. 8, 9, 22. Cambridge History of India, I, p. 175. Also, Jaina Kalpa Sûtra, ed. Jacobi, p. 65.

c11.12

All these clans were not necessarily independent. For instance, the Śâkiyas owned the suzerainty of Kośala and, before the death of the Buddha, suffered a complete destruction of their autonomy.¹ Thus, the fundamental political conditions in this epoch are the same as those reflected in somewhat later literature which has already been noticed. It is, however, interesting that autonomy, so long as it lasted, carried with it autonomy of political organization. A monarch might be the suzerain of an oligarchy.

c11.13

¹ Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 8. ² Âcârâṅga Sûtra, II, 3, 1, 10. ³ For a doubtful interpretation, Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, I, 96-100. ⁴ Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, I, 113. Dîgha Nikâya II, 147.

c11.14

The Jaina Âcârâṅga Sûtra preserves the old tradition that some regions were ruled by Gaṇas, some by two kings and so on while others had no rulers at all.² It is difficult to be sure of the meaning of this passage.³ Neither Buddhist nor Jaina literature furnishes any instance of dual kingship. If the rule of Gaṇas pertains to these states, it probably means the rule of clans. All the oligarchies are named after clans and founded on the idea of clan. Their assemblies are referred to as those of the Śâkiyas, Mallas, etc.⁴ All the inhabitants of any one of these states could hardly have belonged to a single clan and could not have come together for deliberation. Of representation, there is no trace or hint anywhere. Hence this type of polity is to be designated as oligarchy rather than republic. The Jâtakas mention seven thousand seven hundred and seven Licchavi kings. The number is too symmetrical to be authentic but it does indicate that the aristocratic families

c11.15

Form of Government.

c11.16

numbered several thousands. Beyond their pale lay the other inhabitants.¹

c11.17

¹ Jātaka, I, 504; IV, 148.

c11.18

In these oligarchies the assembly seems to have been a living institution. Probably it was a continuation of the Vedic Sabhā or Samiti. The Santhāgāra, as the mote-hall was called, seems to have been a mere roof supported by pillars without walls. Like the Vedic Sabhā it was the scene of gossip and social life. A Brāhmaṇa thus describes his experiences of Śākiya Santhāgāra to the Buddha, "Once, Gautama, I had to go to Kapilavatthu on some business or other of Pokkharasadis and went into the Śākiyans' Congress Hall. Now at that time there were a number of Śākiyans, old and young, seated in the hall on grand seats, making merry and joking together, nudging one another with their fingers; and on a truth, methinks, it was I myself who was the subject of their jokes; and not one of them offered me a seat. That, Gautama, is neither fitting nor is it seemly that the Śākiyans, menials as they are, mere menials, neither venerate, nor value, nor esteem, nor give gifts, nor pay honour to Brāhmaṇas."² The news of the Buddha's death is broken to the Mallas while they are in the assembly hall.³ Elsewhere too there is a reference to the mote-hall of the Mallas.⁴

c11.19

² Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, I, 113.

c11.20

³ Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta, 6, 23.

c11.21

⁴ Dīgha Nikāya, II, 147.

c11.22

It is almost impossible to form an idea of the powers or procedure of the assembly. It is recorded that when the king of Kosala besieged the capital of the Śākiyas and demanded surrender, they resolved to assemble and deliberate whether they should open the gates. When they assembled they discovered that opinion was divided. But the view of the majority prevailed.¹ We are not told whether it was an *ad hoc* gathering or a regular meeting of the assembly. The Aṭṭhakathâ has it that the tocsin was sounded when the Vaisâlians entered the house of law, which may mean the assembly.² If the Mahâ-Govinda Suttanta faithfully reproduces earthly conditions in its description of the palaver in Sakka’s heaven, it may be inferred that at a clan meeting all sat in a specified order, that the chief laid the business before the assembly and that the recorders noted down the unanimous decisions arrived at.³ It is not, however, possible to assert anything with certainty about procedure at clan meetings. Jayaswal and, following him, some other scholars hold that the detailed procedure of business prescribed by the Buddha for his Saṃgha or monastic order was borrowed by him from political assemblies where it actually prevailed and where, in fact, it was taken for granted. But apart from the fact that the dates of Buddhist works are very uncertain, it has to be noted that nowhere in Buddhist or Jaina literature is there any evidence of any organic connection between the procedure of the monastic order and the political assembly. In the Cullavagga the Buddha is represented as laying down the law himself for monks and nuns. There is little warrant for assuming that the theroy of the monastic order represents the practice of political life.⁴

c11.23

¹ Rockhill, Life of the Buddha, pp. 118-19.

c11.24

² Turnour, J. A. S. B., VII, 1838, pp. 994-95.

c11.25

³ Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, II, 259-64; Cambridge History of India, I, p. 176.

c11.26

⁴ The Vinaya Piṭaka is the primary authority for the Buddhist Saṃgha. For the procedure of monastic meetings Mahâparinibbâna Suttanta, IV, 7; Mahâvagga, II; III, 6, 6, 26; IX, 2-8; Cullavagga, IV, 10, 14, 26; XII, 2, 7-8; V, 14, 24; IV, 11, 12; XI, 1, 4, 7; IV, 9, 5; XII, 1, 10. For Jayaswal's views, Modern Review, 1913; Hindu Polity, I, pp. 45 et seq. Also, D. R. Bhandarkar, Carmichael Lectures, 1918, Lecture IV.

c11.27

In these oligarchies the executive was presided over by a chief called Râjan. There is nothing to show how he was elected or that he was elected at all in the strict sense of the term. The designation Râjan applied to him has monarchical associations. The accounts of the life of the Buddha seem to assume that he might have succeeded his father Śuddhodana in the headship of the Śâkiya clan. A passage, though late, in Kâtyâyana’s Kâśikâ is illuminating on this point. It speaks of “Râjanyas being leaders of families consecrated to leadership.”¹ The chief point of difference between the oligarchic and monarchical executive seems to be that the former was based partly on the idea of clan and had to take account of the assembly. For the rest, the line between the two is very faint, almost non-existent. Besides the Râja there was an Uparâja, a sort of vicegerent and a senâpati or military commander.² Other officers, too, might have been appointed. The Mahâvastu speaks of the Licchavis appointing a Mahattaka to be the envoy of the whole people.³ Mention is made of peons or police among the Koliyans and Mallas.⁴ If a passage in a later work, the Lalitavistara, can be relied on, the clan-executive sometimes found it difficult to carry out its will. “Amongst them (the Vaisâlians) the rule of having respect for the high, the middle ones, the oldest, the elders, is not observed; everyone considers himself to be the Râja; ‘I am the Râja, I am the Râja.’ No one becomes a follower of another.”⁵

c11.28

¹ Kâśikâ, 546-47. ² Aṭṭhakathâ, Turnour, J. A. S. B., VII, 1838, pp. 993 et seq. ³ Mahâvastu, I, 254. ⁴ Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 21. ⁵ Lalitavistara, III. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, I, 52, takes the passage to imply equal right of voting and a universal aspiration for the presidentship.

c11.29

Besides the organs of government at the centre, there were moots in towns and perhaps also in villages,¹ but of their jurisdiction or working we can gather nothing. Kulas or families also had some regulating powers.² Here the state is based partly on the territorial basis and partly on the basis of kinship. From incidental touches it appears that the whole government was rather homely in character. Thus, the Mallas of Kusinârâ imposed a fine of 500 pieces on any one who "went not forth to meet the Blessed One (the Buddha," when, on his tour, he drew near their town.³

c11.30

¹ Rhys Davids, Cambridge History of India, I, p. 177.

c11.31

² Later, the Basâḍh seals (Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind., 1903-4, pp. 107 ff; Ibid., 1911-12, p. 56; Ibid., 1913-14, p. 188) speak of prathama kulikas or chiefs of kulas.

c11.32

³ Vinaya, I, 247; Mahâvagga, VI, 36.

c11.33

According to the Aṭṭhakathâ, the judiciary consisted of a graded series of courts, each of which must find the accused guilty before he could be punished. The Viniccaya Mahâmattas formed the first court. Then came the Vohârikas or lawyer-judges; Sûtradharas or masters of law; Aṣṭakula or council of the eight; Senâpati, Uparâja and Râja.⁴ The passage is intensely interesting but it is not corroborated anywhere else in Buddhist literature. The arrangements it indicates are rather complicated and there is no means of knowing how they worked in practice. The Aṭṭhakathâ adds that the decisions of the Râja were recorded in a Paveni-patthakân.

c11.34

⁴ Aṭṭhakathâ, Turnour, J. A. S. B., VII, 1838, pp. 993-94.

c11.35

The clans sometimes formed alliances and even loose temporary confederations. The Licchavis once federated with the Mallas and, together, both set up an executive of eighteen members, drawn in equal numbers from either group.⁵ Elsewhere we read that when Ajâtaśatru attacked his grandfather’s dominion of Vesâlî, he was encountered by nine Licchavi and nine Malla confederate chiefs, though in vain.¹ At another time the Licchavis federated with the Videhas and other clans. The confederates as a whole were called Saṃvajjians. It was to the federated Vajjian clans that Gautama Buddha addressed a few precepts. He seems to give a dose of conservatism to those who might be inclined to rush headlong into innovations. He insists that time-honoured customs and usages must be maintained. Nothing that was not already established should be enacted. Nothing that had been enacted should be abrogated. The elders must be honoured, esteemed, revered and supported. It should be a point of duty to hearken to their words. Justice and fairness should always be followed. Women or girls should never be detained by force or abducted. The spiritual interests should not be neglected. The Arhantas should be defended, protected and supported. The Caityas, sacred temples, must be revered and maintained. Turning to constitutional affairs, the Buddha wanted the clansmen to hold full and frequent assemblies. They should “meet together in concord and rise in concord and carry out Vajjian business in concord.” So long as these wholesome rules were observed, “so long may the Vajjians be expected not to decline but to prosper.”²

c11.36

⁵ Jaina Kalpa Sûtra, 128.

c11.37

¹ S. B. E., XXII, Int., p. XIV.

c11.38

² Dîgha Nikâya, Mahâparinibbâna Suttanta, tr. Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, II, 79–85. The Buddha repeats the same precepts in Aṅguttara Nikâya, VII, 19.

c11.39

The clan-oligarchies covered a very small part of the northern fringe. The plains for the most part were ruled by monarchs. One of the most powerful kingdoms in the time of the Buddha was that of Kośala which stretched from Nepâl to Prayâga on the confluence of the Ganges and the Jumnâ. It does not seem to have been a unitary state. The Śākyas are mentioned as a feudatory community acknowledging the overlordship of king Pasenadi.¹ The relations of the Śākyas with the Kośala king are well indicated in a passage in the Dialogues of the Buddha, where the great teacher remarks that "the respect which Pasenadi receives from the Śākyas is shown by him towards me."² None the less, the Śākyas retained their pride of birth and disdained to give a daughter of their house to the suzerain's family.³ Elsewhere Pasenadi is said to be the head of a group of five Rājas.⁴ Here is an unmistakable indication of feudalism. Pasenadi is said to have been educated at Takkasilā. He appreciated the teachings of the Buddha and built a Saddhamma Mahāsālā, a great hall of the Dhamma, for him. None the less he practised perfect religious toleration.⁵ There is an interesting Jātaka tradition (IV, 152) that once during his absence from the capital to visit the Buddha, Pasenadi left the administration in charge of a minister who proclaimed his deposition and installed his son, Viḍuḍābha, on the throne.

c11.40

¹ Rhys Davids, Cambridge History of India, I, 181.

c11.41

² Dīgha Nikāya, III, 83-84. Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, III, 80.

c11.42

³ Rockhill, Life of the Buddha, 75-77.

c11.43

⁴ Saṃyutta Nikāya, Book of the Kindred Sayings, tr. Mrs. Rhys Davids, p. 106.

c11.44

⁵ Kośala Saṃyutta, Saṃyutta Nikāya, I, 68-102. Dīgha Nikāya, 87; Udānavarga, 2, 6.

c11.45

Kośala was sometimes at war and sometimes at peace with neighbouring realm of Magadha, one of the sixteen Janapadas of Jambūdvīpa.⁶ Its king Bimbisāra or Śreṇika who was a contemporary of the Buddha is said to have been the fifth of the

c11.46

⁶ For Janapada or Mahājanapada, Aṅguttara Nikāya, I, 213; IV 252, 256, 260. The name Magadha first appears in the Atharvaveda, V, 22, 14.

c11.47

Śaiśunāga dynasty founded by Śiśunāga or Śiśunāka about the middle of the 7th century B.C.¹ His kingdom is said to have included 80,000 villages, each under a chief or headman.² The Cullavagga records an incident pertaining to Bimbisāra’s administration, and showing that the king had a number of Mahāmattas or ministers who were expected to give him sound advice. Bimbisāra dismissed some Mahāmattas who had advised him badly, degraded some others with whose counsel he was not satisfied and promoted those whose advice he approved of.³ An incident relating to the reign of Ajātaśatru, son of Bimbisāra, shows that the state reserved forests even in those early days. A Bhikṣu’s action in taking wood from a reserved forest is noticed by Vassakāra, a minister of Ajātaśatru, and brought to the knowledge of the Buddha.⁴ The Vinaya Piṭaka shows that towns had gates which were closed at night when all entry was forbidden.⁵ Both Bimbisāra or Śreṇika and Ajātaśatru or Kuṇika are claimed by Jainas and Buddhists as adherents of their religions. Probably they patronised both the creeds and displayed that wide tolerance and appreciation of divergent persuasions which characterised so many rulers in ancient India. It is possible to form some idea of the tenure of inter-state relationships in the Buddha’s days. Bimbisāra is said to have contracted marriage alliances with the kings of several states. These, we may be sure, were quite common in ancient India. It is said that on Kośala Devī, one of the wives of Bimbisāra, the revenues of an estate in Kāśī had been settled by her father Mahâkośala. When the lady died of grief at the tragic end, of her husband, the payment was no longer made to Magadha. Thereupon, Ajātaśatru commenced a war which, with varying fortune, was closed with a marriage alliance.¹ The diplomatic relations of states already extended over nearly the whole of India. Ajātaśatru is said to have fortified his capital Rājagṛiha against an apprehended attack from Ujjayinī.² Ajātaśatru actually came into conflict with the Vajjian confederacy. He is represented as saying, "I will root out these Vajjians, mighty and powerful though they be, I will destroy these Vajjians, I will bring these Vajjians to utter ruin." He built a fort at Pāṭaliputra (Pāṭaliputta) on the Ganges on the frontier, treacherously sowed dissensions among the Vajjians, at last overran their territory, destroyed Vesālī and butchered its people.³

c11.48

¹ V. A. Smith, Early History of India, 4th edition, p. 32.

c11.49

² Mahāvagga, V, I, 1. For Bimbisāra tradition, see also the Jaina Harivaṃśa Purāṇa, I, 148-49.

c11.50

³ Cullavagga, VII, 3, 5. For ministers see also Mahāvagga, I, 40, 3.

c11.51

⁴ Vinaya Piṭaka, III, 41-45.

c11.52

⁵ Vinaya Piṭaka, IV, 116-17.

c11.53

¹ Dīgha Nikāya, I, 86 III, 127; Jacobi, Jaina Sūtras, I, XII—XV; Dīpavaṃśa, III, 56—60; Mahāvaṃśa, II, 29, 30; Rhys Davids, Cambridge History of India, I, pp. 182—85; Charpentier, Ibid., 160-61; V. A. Smith, op. cit., 32—38.

c11.54

² Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 13. Archæological remains prove that Rājagṛiha was a great town in antiquity. The remains of its vihāras and stūpas have in modern times been utilised for temples, mosques and tombs.

c11.55

³ Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, II, 78; Cambridge History of India, I, 184-85; Rockhill, Life of the Buddha, 127; V. A. Smith, op. cit., 37-38.

c11.56

Of the other contemporary kingdoms, those of Avanti with its capital at Ujjayinī and of the Vamsas with its capital at Kosambī are

c11.57

Jayaswal (J. B. O. R. S., V, 550-51) identifies the Parkham statue of Mathurā as that of Ajātaśatru and the two Śaiśunāka statues in the Indian Museum at Calcutta as those of Udaya and Nandivardhana of this line (J. B. O. R. S., V, 402—406). See also his paper on the Śaiśunāka and Maurya chronology and the date of the Buddha's Nirvāṇa, J. B. O. R. S., I, p. 67. For criticism, Ramaprasad Chanda, Ind. Ant., XLVIII, p. 25; R. C. Majumdar, Ibid., p. 29.

c11.58

noteworthy but we know nothing of administrative importance about them. If Buddhist tradition preserved in later works can be trusted, justice was highly prized at Kâśî.¹

c11.59

¹ Dhammapada Commentary, I, 251 et seq. For the kingdoms, Majjhima Nikâya, III, 7; II, 83; Vinaya, II, 32, 139; Lalitavistara, ed. Rajendra Lal Mitra, p. 24; Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, 141–46; Cambridge History of India, I, 185–88. The site of Kosambî long discussed (e g., Watters, On Yuan Chwang, I, 366–69; V. A. Smith, J. R. A. S., 1898, p. 503) was identified last year with the village of Kosam, at a distance of about eighteen miles from Sirathu Railway Station in the district of Allahabad.

c11.60

It was probably during the lifetime of the Buddha that the Persians under Darius conquered certain districts in the north-west of India and grouped them into the twentieth satrapy of their empire.² It stretched along the banks of the Indus and probably included the whole of Sindh and part of the Puñjâb to the east of the river. It paid 360 Euboic talents of gold dust, equal to 185 hundredweights as tribute.³ But a passage in Xenophon’s Life of Cyrus shows that partly at least the Persian dominion fell into line with the fundamental political conditions of India. There is a reference to an Indian ‘king’ who sent a sum of money through some agents to the Persian king.⁴ The passage points not to downright annexation but to the relationship of suzerainty and vassalage. The Persian empire always respected local autonomy and it is more than probable that its Indian tracts were either left in the hands of old dynasties or at any rate governed on the old lines. About Indian royal houses themselves it is interesting to recall that Aristotle quotes from a book by Scylax of Caryanda (employed by Darius to navigate the Indus) that among Indians kings were held to be of a race superior to their subjects.¹ Here a ruling caste is indicated. The Persian connection probably provided fresh openings for an exchange of cultural influences between India and Persia. The general similarity between the political institutions of ancient India and ancient Persia makes it difficult to estimate the extent of the influence of the latter on the former but that there was some influence cannot be doubted.²

c11.61

² India is not mentioned in the Behistun Inscriptions of 516 B.C. at Persepolis but is mentioned in the Inscription on the tomb of Darius at Naksh-i-Rustam, 486 B.C. The Indian satrapy must have come into existence during this interval.

c11.62

³ Herodotus (Rawlinson), II, p. 403; IV, 177, 207; V. A. Smith, op cit., 38–48; William Jackson, Cambridge History of India, I, pp. 319–341; who may be consulted for further references to other writers.

c11.63

⁴ Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VI, 2, 1–11.

c11.64

¹ Politics, VII, 14.

c11.65

² Spooner, J. R. A. S., 1915, pp. 63-89, 405-55, exaggerates the general influence of Persia on India. For criticism, V. A. Smith, J. R. A. S., 1915, pp. 800-802; Keith, Ibid., 1916, pp. 138-43; Thomas, Ibid., pp. 362-66; Nimrod, Modern Review, 1916. See also J. J. Modi, Asiatic Papers, II. For a comparison of Indian and Persian political institutions, infra, Ch. XVII, Conclusion.

c11.66

During the interval between the death of the Buddha and the invasion of Alexander the Great in 327 B.C., Indian political annals, even after the painstaking research of the last two generations, can show only a few names.³ Practically nothing can be gleaned about administrative practices. It is only in the later years of the 4th century B.C. that the curtain rises with advent of the Greeks. There were at least nineteen writers who visited the country with Alexander or shortly after his death or who were at any rate his contemporaries. Patrokles states that Alexander caused the whole country to be described by men well-acquainted with it and that the description was put into his hands afterwards by his treasurer Xenokles.⁴ But all the

c11.67

³ V. A. Smith, op. cit., 38-43. Rhys Davids, Cambridge History of India, I, 188-90. Jayaswal, J. B. O. R. S., V, 88-106. R. D. Banerji, Ibid., 210-15.

c11.68

⁴ Strabo, IV. McCrindle, India as described in Classical Literature, p. 95.

c11.69

original works have perished. The extracts probably embellished by successive generations of writers and preserved in a few authors mostly of the first century B.C., or the first century A.D., sometimes indulge in fairy tales and sometimes contradict one another. Strabo stigmatised the Greek writers on India as a set of liars of whom only a few managed now and then to stammer out some words of truth. The charge is sweeping and rather uncritical but it must be admitted that it is difficult to penetrate to the truth in writers who had a love for the marvellous and who borrow or summarise accounts of regions and times far removed from their own. They cannot be accepted at their face value and have always to be used with great caution.¹

c11.70

¹ Of the writers, Arrian (Arrianus), philosopher, statesman, historian and tactician, was born towards the close of the first century A.D. at Nikomedia in Bithynia in Asia Minor and died in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Strabo flourished in the reigns of the Emperors Augustus and Tiberius (27 B.C.—A.D. 37) in Pontos, and wrote a sort of universal geography. Diodorus Siculus, born at Agyrium in Sicily, flourished in the days of Julius Cæsar and Augustus (49 B.C.—A.D. 14) and composed the Bibliotheca Historia, a Universal History. Quintus Curtius Rufus lived probably in the reign of the Emperor Vespasian (A.D. 70—79). He wrote a life of Alexander Plutarch, the famous author of the Parallel Lives of Greek and Roman heroes, was born at Chairo-naia in Boiotia about the middle of the first century A.D. Pliny (A.D. 23—79) wrote the Encyclopaedic Historia Naturalis. Claudius Ptolemacus (Ptolemy) wrote his Outline of Geography (Geographike Hyphegesis) in the nature of a universal survey, at Alexandria. For English rendering, McCrindle, Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian, Calcutta, 1877 Ancient India as described in Classical Literature, Westminster, 1901; Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian, Q. Curtis Rufus, Diodorus, Plutarch and Justin. Westminster, 1896. For Modern accounts of Alexander's Invasion of India, see V. A. Smith, Early History of India, 4th edition, pp. 52—120; E. R. Bevan, Cambridge History of India, I, 345—386.

c11.71

On the whole, the Greek accounts show the country between the Indus and the Jumnâ divided into a large number of independent and half-independent principalities, frequently at war with their neighbours and all swayed by militarism. The eastern parts of the country seem to have developed the large-state organisation, which, however, was equally militaristic. Of the states in the Puñjâb and Sindh some were monarchical and others tribal oligarchies. Âmbhi of Taxilâ who allied himself with Alexander, Puru or Porus who offered such tenacious resistance and the neighbouring king of Abhisâra, are monarchs of the usual type already considered.¹ It appears that there were many chiefs under a king. At a sort of durbar held by Alexander at Takṣaśilâ, before he met Porus, a number of chiefs came to him with presents from the small territory already subdued. The oligarchies² display variety of organisation but it is impossible not to suspect that their institutions have been brought by the Greek imagination nearer to those of Hellas. For instance, we are told of the Sophytes (Saubhûtis)³ and the Kathians (Kaṭhas) that "they do not acknowledge and rear children according to the will of parents but as the officers entrusted with the medical inspection of infants may direct, for if they have remarked anything deformed or defective in the limbs of

c11.72

¹ Puru seems to have been a family name. At the time of Alexander's invasion, a nephew of the king who is given the same name, was in revolt against him and offered to surrender his uncle into the hands of Alexander. Later, when he found the king an ally of the Greeks, he warred against both (Arrian, Book V, Ch. XXI; McCrindle, Invasion of India, 113-14).

c11.73

² Pāṇini who cannot be later than 300 B.C. mentions Saṅghas in his Sûtras (e.g., III, 3, 42) but we cannot be sure that he is referring to oligarchies or republics. For an interpretation in the political sense see Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, I, 41-44.

c11.74

³ For the identification of Sophytes with Saubhûtis, Sylvain Lévi, Journal Asiatique, VIII, pp. 237 et seq.

c11.75.1

the child they order it to be killed."' This order, adds Strabo, was pronounced by a magistrate according to the law.² Diodorus embellishes the details and adds that beauty was highly prized by those people in politics as in marriage³ Political infanticide is opposed to all we know of Hindu life, character and institutions in any part of the country from indigenous or foreign sources. Nowhere in Hindu literature or inscriptions is there the remotest hint at it whether by way of approval or disapproval. If such a practice really prevailed at this time, Aśoka who came shortly after and who was a humanitarian above all else would be sure to condemn it in his edicts. The fact is that the Greeks, struck by the heroism and endurance of the Kathas naturally compared them to Spartans and then imagined that similar institutions were required to produce similar characteristics. Another stretch of fancy can be detected in the description of Patala by Diodorus. It was a city of great note "with a political constitution drawn on the same lines as the Spartan; for in this community the command in war is vested in two hereditary kings of two different houses while a council of elders rules the whole state with paramount authority."⁴ Here, again, the Greek imagination seems to have transplanted the Spartan constitution to the banks of the Indus. Patala was perhaps really an oligarchy and its people were undoubtedly valorous.

c11.75.2

But it is not necessary to fancy with the Greeks that the highest valour could only be produced by Spartan political habits. The tribe ruled by Mausikanos (Mucukarṇa) are said to have taken their meals in common and not to have recognised slavery.⁵ The latter statement is likely to be true, but the former is again too reminiscent of Sparta. One administrative detail about this tribe is more than interesting. Strabo says that their courts took cognisance only of murder and other violent crime.¹ It is possible that criminal justice had been taken over by the state but that civil disputes were still disposed of by heads of families or clans. Reminiscences of Athenian history seem to sway the imagination of the Greek writers when they relate that "at last after many generations had come and gone, the sovereignty, it is said, was dissolved and democratic governments were set up in the cities,"² or that "most of the cities adopted the democratic form of government, though some retained the kingly, until the invasion of the country by Alexander."³ It is noticeable that the Greeks think and write in terms of the city-state about India which was predominantly a land of villages and country states. In all Greek accounts of India this tendency to bring Indian history and politics into line with their own political evolution has to be alllowed for.

c11.75.3

Arrian has it that beyond the Hyphasis (the Beâs), the country was exceedingly fertile and the inhabitants were good agriculturists, brave in war, and living under an excellent system of internal government; "for the multitude was governed by the aristocracy, who exercised their authority with justice and moderation."⁴ Strabo adds that, according to the earlier writers, this aristocracy consisted of "five thousand councillors each of whom furnished the state with an elephant."⁵ It has been suggested that this unnamed state was that of the Yaudheyas whose coins have been found in that region in large numbers.⁶ In any case, the state was a military aristocracy, probably a tribal oligarchy, which comprised some thousands of heads of families. According to Curtius, the Sambastai or Abastanoi (the Ambaṣṭhas) had a democratic form of government; they elected their generals, renowned for their valour and military skill; their army consisted of 60,000 foot, 6,000 cavalry, and 500 chariots. Diodorus adds that having ‘adopted the advice of their elders not to fight,’ they sent an embassy to Alexander for peace.¹ According to the Greeks the Nysaeans also had an oligarchical form of government. Alexander desired them to send the best hundred men of their governing body to be sent with him.

c11.75.4

The conversations which followed on this demand betray, on the part of Indians, a familiarity with Greek tradition, Alexander’s history and foundation of cities,² which is likely to be an effort of the Greek imagination. The only safe conclusion to be drawn from the interesting notice is that the Nysaeans had a ruling class and that Alexander demanded 100 members thereof as hostages for their good faith. The Agsinae or Agalassians (Agraśreṇī ?), in the neighbourhood of the Oxydrakai (Kṣūdrakas) had, according to Diodorus, an army of 40,000 foot and 3,000 horse. Their territory comprised large cities which offered house-to-house resistance to the Macedonians.³ The Sabarcae are said to have enjoyed a democratic form of government and to have mustered 60,000 foot, and 6,000 cavalry and 500 chariots, commanded by three generals elected for their valour and military skill.⁴

c11.76

¹ Curtius, McCrindle, Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, p. 219.

c11.77

² Strabo, XV, 30.

c11.78

³ Diodorus, XVII, 91; McCrindle, Invasion, p. 280.

c11.79

⁴ Diodorus, XVII, 104.

c11.80

⁵ Strabo, XV, 34.

c11.81

¹ Ibid., XV, 34, 54.

c11.82

² Diodorus, III, 38; McCrindle, Megasthenes, etc., p. 38.

c11.83

³ Diodorus, III, 39; McCrindle, op. cit., p. 40.

c11.84

⁴ Arrian, Book V, 25; McCrindle, Invasion of India, p. 121.

c11.85

⁵ Strabo, XV, 37; McCrindle, Ancient India as described in Classical Literature, p. 45.

c11.86

⁶ Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, I, 67.

c11.87

¹ Curtius, Book IX, 8; McCrindle, Invasion of India, p. 252.

c11.88

² Arrian, Book V, Ch. I-II; McCrindle, Invasion of India, pp. 79-81. For a discussion of the site of Nysa, see Holdich, Gates of India, p. 122.

c11.89

³ Diodorus, Book XVII, Ch. 96; McCrindle, Invasion of India, p. 285.

c11.90

⁴ Curtius, McCrindle, op. cit., p. 282.

c11.91

The Accae tribes had 40,000 men under arms; their towns had walls of the most formidable strength and were equipped with every means of defence.¹ Much further south, probably in Gujarât, the Automela on the coast had 1,600 elephants, 5,000 cavalry and 1,50,000 foot.² Mention is made of the Pandae, the only race in India ruled by women, who had 300 towns.³ It is, however, doubtful where this tribe lived or if it is to be identified with the Pâṇḍyas of the extreme south. There is an interesting notice that Brâhmaṇas instigated a city to revolt against Alexander who had subdued it. Alexander recaptured the town and put all the Brâhmaṇas concerned to death.⁴ Plutarch also says that Alexander hanged many philosophers for encouraging the free states to revolt from his authority.⁵ It appears that Brâhmaṇas exercised a good deal of political influence.

c11.92

¹ The Itinerary of Alexander the Great, by an unknown author, in McCrindle, India as described in Classical Literature, p. 151.

c11.93

² McCrindle, India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian, p. 147.

c11.94

³ Ibid., pp. 147, 159, 194-95, 200 202.

c11.95

⁴ Arrian, Book VI, Ch. XVI; McCrindle, Invasion of India, p. 159.

c11.96

⁵ Ibid., p. 306.

c11.97

Though often at war with one another, the tribes sometimes formed close alliances. The Malloi (Mâlavas) and Oxydrakai (Kṣudrakas) entered into a confederacy, in the presence of a common foe, cementing it by wholesale inter-marriage, and were able to put into field 90,000 foot-soldiers, 10,000 cavalry, and 900 war-chariots.⁶ The two nations, we are told, were proud of their "liberty which for so many ages they had preserved inviolate." But they suffered a defeat at the hands of Alexander. The catastrophe seemed to break up the confederacy. The Malloi are recorded to have declared that they were willing "to receive whatever satrap Alexander might appoint, pay the tribute he chose to impose and give as many hostages as he required." The Oxydrakai despatched 100 ambassadors, leading men of their cities and their provincial governors. They "all rode in chariots and were men of uncommon stature and of a very dignified bearing. Their robes were of linen embroidered with inwrought gold and purple."¹ The Yaudheyas in the southern portion of the Puñjâb and the Ârjunâyanas in the north-east of modern Râjpûtânâ also represented confederations. They are mentioned by Pânini.²

c11.98

⁶ Curtius, McCrindle, Invasion of India, p. 234.

c11.99

¹ Arrian, Book VI, Ch. XIV; McOrindle, op. cit., p. 154. ² See J. R. A. S., 1897, pp. 887-88. ³ Arrian, Book VI, Ch. II. ⁴ McOrindle, India as described in Classical Literature, p. 108. ⁵ Megasthenes, Fragment XXVI; McOrindle, India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian, p. 68. ⁶ Infra, Ch. VIII. ⁷ Arrian, Book V, Ch. XIV; McOrindle, Invasion of India, p. 156.

c11.100

Arrian says that the Indian territory, conquered by Alexander, comprised seven nations and 2,000 towns.³

c11.101

Alexander's political arrangements. Pliny puts the number of nations at nine and that of the towns at 5,000, none of which was less than a kos or nearly two miles in extent.⁴ Elsewhere Megasthenes remarks of India as a whole that the number of cities was so great that it could not be counted.⁵ It may be inferred that the number of towns was strikingly large but of their administrative structure we can gather little beyond what Megasthenes says of Pâtaliputra.⁶ Alexander himself is said to have founded cities and fixed the boundaries of 'satrapies.'⁷ The Macedonian conqueror seems to have largely followed the Indian model in his political arrangements. He "not only appointed Poros to govern his own Indians, but added to his original territory another of still greater extent."[¹] He allowed the various districts to be governed by their old rulers under the overlordship of Poros who was to be his own vassal. Besides the satrapy of Poros which extended from the Hydaspes (Jhelum) to the Hyphasis (Beâs) there was the satrapy of Philip at Takṣaśilâ who was also invested with the charge of a province extending as far south as the confluence of the Indus with the Acesinas (Chenâb). But Âmbhi also continued to rule at Takṣaśilâ.[²] According to Curtius, Âmbhi and Eudamos were appointed joint administrators by Alexander.[³] We do not know how their relations were co-ordinated and their spheres demarcated. The third satrapy comprised Sindh and was placed under Pithon, son of Agenor. From the rapidity with which his authority was shaken off, it appears that there were autonomous Indian chiefs under him as well. Alexander left an army of occupation consisting of Macedonians, Thracians and Greek mercenaries but its distribution is uncertain.[⁴] It is probable that while civil administration was left to Indian chiefs, military authority was concentrated in the hands of Macedonian officers. In any case the Macedonian hold on India was extremely weak. The death of Alexander was the signal for its disappearance. In 321 B.C. at the time of the partition of Triparadisos, Pithon, son of Agenor, had ceased to be the satrap of the lower Indus valley and was ruling only west of that river.[⁵]

c11.102

¹ Arrian, Book V, Ch. XIX; McCrindle, Invasion of India, p. 109.

c11.103

² Arrian, Book VI, Ch. XV.

c11.104

³ Curtius, X, 1, 31.

c11.105

⁴ Arrian, Book V, Ch. XV, XXVIII; Curtius, X, 1, 10; Diodorus, Book XIX, Ch. XIV, Book XVIII, Ch. III; Bevan, Cambridge History of India, I, 384-85.

c11.106

⁵ Bevan, House of Seleucus, I, Ch. XIII. If Plutarch can be relied on, the memory of Alexander's exploits lasted for a long while. He records that on his retreat he erected altars to gods which the kings of the Praisai held in veneration even in his (Plutarch's) days. They would cross the river and offer sacrifices there in the Hellenic style (McCrindle, Invasion of India, p. 311).

c11.107

The Macedonian episode exercised little influence on the development of Hindu political institutions. As Bevan puts it, "India and the Greek world only touched each other on their fringes and there never was a chance for the elements of the Hellenistic tradition to strike deep root in Indian soil."¹

c11.108

¹ Cambridge History of India, I. p. 385. See infra, Ch. XVII, Conclusion.

Linked texts (29)