The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c11.75

Language: English

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