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 c13: Chapter IX. After the Mauryan Empire

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c13

Language
English

Chapter IX. After the Mauryan Empire

c13.2

A period of darkness. After Aśoka Indian history enters on a comparatively dark period of five centuries. The Mauryan empire which was never a unitary state soon dissolved into its constituent fragments. The history of the independent kingdoms and confederations which arose is lighted up only by some isolated inscriptions, coins and literary records. A long series of Greek and Scythian invasions from the North-west, which met with varying measures of temporary success, makes the confusion worse confounded and defeats all attempts at the reconstruction of history. Owing to the meagreness of authenticated political facts, no connected account of political institutions in any region at any time during this period is possible. Only a few facts can be gleaned about the activities and institutions of state. The re-appearance of Mauryan institutions in a more developed form under the Guptas and their elaboration in the Smṛitis and the Arthaśāstra suggest that they continued to function with uncertain degrees of efficiency during the interregnum.

c13.3

The later Mauryas. The traditional genealogies of the dynastic successors of Aśoka show such divergence that a division of the empire after Samprati has been suggested as a working hypothesis.¹ In the absence of further evidence it is impossible to be sure of it. It is, however, clear that the Mauryas continued to rule at Pāṭaliputra until about 184 B.C. According to the Jaina tradition, Samprati was converted to Jainism and did all he could to further the interests of that faith. So, the tradition of the missionary state continued though the objective of the mission partly changed. Samprati also seems to have continued the tradition of large-hearted religious toleration. Similarly, another of the later Mauryas, Daśaratha, probably a grandson of Aśoka, extended his favours to sects other than his own. He allotted some caves to Ājīvakas.¹

c13.4

¹ The Puranic genealogies have been worked out by Pargiter (Dynasties of the Kali Age, pp. 27-30). These, along with other data in the Divyāvadāna, XXIX, Kalhaṇa's Rājatarangiṇī, I, 108 et seq., and Tārānātha, tr. Schiefner, pp. 48 et seq., are summarised in the Cambridge History of India, I, pp. 511-12. See also V. A. Smith, Early History of India, 4th edition, pp. 201-205.

c13.5

¹ Nâgârjunî Hill Cave Inscriptions, Ep. Ind., VIII; Ind. Ant., XX, 1891, p. 361.

c13.6

About 184 B.C. Brihadratha, the last of the Mauryas, was superseded by his over-mighty commander-in-chief, Puṣyamitra, the founder of the Śuṅga line.²

c13.7

² Pargiter, op. cit., 31, 70. Bâṇa, Harśacarita, (tr. Cowell and Thomas), p, 193. Jayaswal, J. B. O. R. S., IV, Sep., 1918. Puṣyamitra is also called Puṣpamitra. The former is the more correct of the two (Bühler, Ind. Ant., II, 362).

c13.8

The Śuṅgas. The fact that the Śuṅgas were Brāhmaṇas proves that ambition or the force of events sometimes violated the rule of Kṣatriya kingship and that Brāhmaṇas, not content with advisory functions or influence, occasionally wielded the sceptre. The accession of Puṣyamitra to power was followed by a reversal of the policy of religious toleration which the Mauryas had uniformly pursued. Puṣyamitra seems to have been a champion of militant Brahmanism and a bitter persecutor of Buddhism. He is said to have burnt Buddhist monasteries throughout the Gangetic valley and to have slaughtered or dispersed the monks.³ So, the policy of toleration, though generally observed in ancient India, was occasionally violated with a vengeance. In the days of the Śuṅgas North India was divided into a number of principalities, many

c13.9

³ Divyâvadâna, pp. 433-34. Târânâtha tr. Schiefner, p. 81.

c13.10

of which acknowledged their suzerainty. The coins and inscriptions which bear the name of a Śuṅga as well as another name clearly bring out the feudal relationship. Bhārhut in Central India, Kauśāmbī, Pañcāla and probably Mathurā were among the feudatory states.¹ The Hāthīgumphā Inscription refers to the frightened "kings" of the Uttarāpatha and supports the same conclusion.² All through this period there are some non-monarchical feudatories in the Puñjāb and modern Rājputānā, such as the Yaudheyas, Ārjunāyanas and Udumbaras. The coins of the first two date from a period as early as the first century B.C.³ The tradition preserved in Kālidāsa that Vasumitra, grandson of Puṣyamitra, was accompanied by a hundred royal princes in his campaigns is another evidence of feudalism.⁴ A Śuṅga inscription says that the Senāpati Puṣyamitra performed two sacrifices.⁵ It appears that the Śuṅga ruler revived the Rājasūya, imposed his suzerainty on surrounding principalities and only then received formal consecration and titles of royalty. The traditions dramatised by Kālidāsa in his Mālavikāgnimitra about the 4th or 5th century A.D. fully accord with epigraphic testimony and prove that until the completion of the sacrifice Puṣyamitra styled himself only Senāpati. He is said to have written to his son, "May it be well with thee! From the sacrificial enclosure the commander-in-chief sends this message to his son Agnimitra, who is in the territory of Vidiśā,"⁶ affectionately embracing him.

c13.11

¹ Cunningham, Coins of Ancient India, 73, 79, 85–90; Rapson, Indian Coins, 11–13; Cambridge History of India, I, pp. 523–27. Lüder's Inscriptions, Nos. 687-88.

c13.12

² J. B. O. R. S., III, p. 464.

c13.13

³ Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions, No. 1; Cambridge History of India, I, pp. 527–30; J. R. A. S., 1897, pp. 886 et seq.

c13.14

⁴ Kālidāsa, Mālavikāgnimitra, Act V.

c13.15

⁵ J. B. O. R. S., Sep., 1924, p. 203.

c13.16

⁶ Vidiśā was governed by Agnimitra, probably as his father's viceroy.

c13.17

Be it known unto thee that I, having been consecrated for the Râjasûya sacrifice, let loose from all check or curb a horse which was to be brought back after a year, appointing Vasumitra as its defender, girt with a guard of a hundred royal princes. This very horse wandering on the right (or south) bank of the Sindhu was claimed by a cavalry squadron of the Yavanas. Then there was a fierce struggle between the two hosts. Then Vasumitra, the mighty bowman, having overcome his foes, rescued by force my excellent horse which they were endeavouring to carry off. Accordingly, I will now sacrifice, having had my horse brought back to me by my grandson, even as Ansumat brought back the horse to Sagara. Therefore you must dismiss anger from your mind, and without delay come with my daughters-in-law to behold the sacrifice.”¹ The nine Śungas who followed Puṣyamitra on the throne of Pāṭaliputra and reigned until about 73 B.C. are mere names. Their dominions seem to have diminished considerably in extent.²

c13.18

¹ Kâlidâsa, Mâlavikâgnimitra, Act V, tr. Tawney, p. 78.

c13.19

² Pargiter, op. cit., 30, 70; V. A. Smith, op. cit., 214-15; Cambridge History of India, I, 518--22,

c13.20

Even during the lifetime of Puṣyamitra, the supremacy of the Śungas had been challenged and their very existence imperilled from more than one quarter. Kalinga. Kalinga had, like Magadha, made a bid for suzerainty. Megasthenes reckoned the Kalinga force at 60,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry and 700 elephants. Aśoka notes that in the Kalinga war 1,00,000 men were slain and 1,50,000 persons carried into slavery. The Kalinga power was only repressed, not destroyed. Sometime after Aśoka it threw off the yoke of the Mauryas as it had once thrown off that of the Nandas. Kalinga reached the zenith of its glory under the Jaina king Khâravela, who twice invaded the north, about 165 B.C. and about 161 B.C.,

c13.21

threatened Pāṭaliputra, defeated Puṣyamitra, reduced him to vassalage at least for a short time and carried his arms up to the foot of the Himālayas. The Hāthigumphā Inscription, which commemorates his exploits and achievements year by year and which now ranks among the most important sources of information regarding ancient India, supplies a few details of administrative importance.¹ Kaliṅga was not yet part of India proper according to the orthodox computation. Khāravela is spoken of as attacking Bhāratavarṣa. Like the Maurya, Khāravela seems to have carried out a census of the population. The inscription puts the population of Kaliṅga at 3½ millions. Considering the figure along with those of armies of various kings mentioned in history and examining the whole data in the light of modern statistics, the whole of India in ancient times seems to have comprised about 100 millions of souls. The education of a prince in Kaliṅga comprised a wide course—state correspondence, currency, state-accounting, law and custom, Dharma injunctions and "all the Vidyās (arts)." Khāravela seems also to have been taught music. After his 15th year Khāravela was appointed Yuvarāja and consecrated king in his twenty-fourth year according to the rites of the Mahārājya Abhiṣeka. It is possible that in Kaliṅga, and it may be, in some other parts of the country, the formal consecration was delayed until years of majority. The king assumed several titles—Aira (probably Ārya), Mahārāja, Mahāmeghavāhana, and Kaliṅgādhipati.² This is the first authentic case of a king assuming lofty titles—titles which became loftier still a few centuries later. The capital was a grand city. Khâravela repairs its walls, gates and buildings which had been damaged by a storm, rebuilds the reservoirs and restores the gardens. On the banks of the Prâchi the king built a great ‘palace of victory’ at a cost of 35 lacs. At the conclusion of a dazzling campaign, he built towers, with richly-carved interiors, to contain trophies and presents. Like the Mauryas, the Kalinga kings attended to the needs of irrigation. Khâravela extended a canal which the Nandas had excavated three hundred years before. The king was anxious to please his subjects and win their loyalty. Khâravela entertained the capital by songs, music, dances, theatres, other shows and festivities. One of the interesting celebrations consisted in leading statues of the king’s predecessors in procession. His charity was as unstinted as that of the great Mauryan conqueror of his patrimony. The record of the ninth year of his reign mentions his costly gifts. He gave a kalpa tree, a tree of solid gold, with leaves of gold, accompanied by feasts and gifts of elephants, horses, chariots with drivers, to Brâhmaṇas. The qualification of Brâhmaṇas shows the toleration and catholicity of the Jaina king’s policy. He made special provision for the dwelling of Kṣatriya ascetics. He does something (which the mutilated inscription does not enable us to specify) for the Śramaṇas. Like Aśoka he prides himself on the respect he paid to all sects. Yet he had some enthusiasm for his own faith. He built numerous Jaina temples. He took pains to recover from Magadha the foot-marks of the first Jina which king Nanda had taken away. Khâravela’s army consisted, as usual, of infantry, cavalry, elephants and chariots. In spite of his military activities and glories, Khâravela calls himself King of Peace and Prosperity, the Dharma King, the Bhikṣu (King). Warfare, in fact, was looked upon as an ordinary incident of kingship and did not seem to detract from one's claim to be regarded as peaceful.¹

c13.22

¹ The Hāthigumphā Inscription, known since 1825, has only recently been authoritatively edited by K. P. Jayaswal and R. D. Banerji (J. B. O. R. S., Vol. II, 1917, Pt. III, pp. 425-507). See also R. C. Majumdar, Ind. Ant., XLVIII, p. 187; V. A. Smith, J.R.A.S., 1918, p. 543; Fleet, J. R. A. S., 1910, pp. 824 et seq.; Rama Prasad Chanda, J. R. A. S., 1919, pp. 319 et seq.

c13.23

² Similar titles were assumed by a later Kaliṅga king (Ep. Ind., XIII, p. 160).

c13.24

¹ For a brief account of Khâravela's campaigns, Cambridge History of India, I, 535—38.

c13.25

The rise of Kalinga synchronised with that of another power further south. The Ândhras or Andhras, first mentioned in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, VII, 18, 2 and noticed by the Greeks as a powerful people, with thirty walled towns, and an army of 1,00,000 foot, 2,000 cavalry, and 1,000 elephants, had their centre between the Godâvari and the Kṛiṣṇâ.² Aśoka's Rock Edict, XII, mentions them among the southern borderers. On the death of the great Mauryan emperor, they became independent and, under the Śâtavâhana family, rapidly extended their power and measured swords with Kalinga. In about 28 B.C. the Ândhra king extinguished the Kâṇva dynasty of Brahmanic origin, which had supplanted the Śuṅgas at Pâṭaliputra about 73 B.C.³ The Ândhras thus became a northern power and established an empire which, in its extension from north to south and east to west, recalls that of the Mauryas.⁴ The coins which form one of the most valuable sources for the study of the Ândhra dynasties, show that different systems of coinage prevailed in different areas and that the imposition of suzerainty on a region rarely implied the extinction of its old coinage. It indicates that the Ândhra empire was not, any more than its predecessors or successors, a unitary state; that it left local autonomy more or less undisturbed and that it partook of the nature of a confederation. It is beyond the scope of this work to unravel the tangled skein of Ândhra history which touched the peoples and dynasties of the greater part of India. The fortunes of the Ândhra line vary but it continues in vigour until nearly the end of the second century A.D. and lingers into the latter half of the third century. From the relevant coins and inscriptions, a few facts can be gleaned about the system of administration. The Ândhra Śâtavâhana kings generally assumed the surname Śâtakarṇi which became a dynastic appellation. An inscription of Yajñaśrî Gautamîputra calls him only Râja.¹ The high titles of the Gupta period were not yet in vogue. Queen Nâganikâ's Nânâghâṭ Inscription² shows the Ândhra king Śâtakarṇi allied by marriage to the Marâṭhâ king of Râṣṭrikas about the second century B. C. It proves that a woman, though she could not ascend the throne, could act as regent. Another inscription shows that Gautamîputra associated the queen-mother in his administration.³ The Nânâghâṭ Inscription records the performance of certain great sacrifices in the course of which the priests received large numbers of elephants, thousands of horses, tens of thousands of cows, whole villages and tens of thousands of Kârṣâpaṇas. Twice did Śâtakarṇi perform the Aśvamedha sacrifice.⁴ Records of this nature indicate that the revival of Brahmanism was aided by rulers. None the less the Ândhra kings were generally true to the Hindu tradition of toleration for all sects.⁵

c13.26

² Pliny, Historia Naturalis, Book VI, 21, 22, 23. R. G. Bhandarkar, Early History of the Deccan, p. 6. P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar, Ind. Ant., 1913, pp. 276—78. Nânâghâṭ Cave Inscriptions, Nos. 1112—20.

c13.27

³ For the Kâṇva dynasty, Pargiter, op. cit., p. 71. V. A. Smith, op cit., pp. 215—217.

c13.28

⁴ For the Ândhras, Rapson, Catalogue of the Coins of the Ândhra Dynasty, the Western Kṣatraps, Traikûṭaka Dynasty and Bodhi Dynasty; V. A. Smith, op. cit. 217—227; D. R Bhandarkar, Ind. Ant., XLVII, pp. 149 et seq.; Ibid., XLVIII, pp. 77 et seq.; Cambridge History of India, I, 529—35.

c13.29

¹ Ep. Ind., I, No. 15.

c13.30

² Lüders, No. 1112.

c13.31

³ Arch. Surv. West. Ind., IV, p. 105. Ep. Ind., VII, p. 73.

c13.32

⁴ Ind. Ant., XLVIII, p. 77. Arch. Surv. West. Ind., p. 60. R. G. Bhandarkar, J. B. B. R. A. S., XIII, 1877, p. 311

c13.33

⁵ For the grant of a village to monks, Karle Inscription, Ep. Ind., VII, p. 57. See also Ep. Ind., VII, pp. 61, 64; VIII, pp. 60, 65, 71, 82, 94. Arch. Surv. West. Ind., IV, 102, 104, 107, 108, 110, 112, 114.

c13.34

The cumulative evidence of coins and inscriptions brings out the existence of a ruling class which occupied a two-fold position. The Ruling Class, Mahârathis, Mahâbhojas and Mahâsenâpatis, are clearly high officers of state at the capital, provincial or district governors. Elsewhere they appear to be feudal lords striking their own coins and making grants of land on their own authority. The line between direct employees of state and vassals is rather faint. Perhaps there never was a clear demarcation. One class faded insensibly into the other. The tendency to the hereditary transmission of office would bring the status of governors nearer that of feudal chiefs. The system of payment in land was another powerful factor in the same direction. An inscription of Siri Puḷumāvi of the second century A.D. shows military officers holding large fiefs of land.¹ Marriage alliance between the royal and aristocratic families would tend to produce the same result.² Polygamy, always practised by aristocrats in ancient India, would accelerate the conversion of the whole aristocracy into a sort of clan. The government of the state would tend to become government by the clan. It is clear that there were numerous local dynasties under the Andhra kings. Feudatories assumed titles like those of Cuṭukaḍānanda, Joy of the city of the Cuṭus and Muḍānanda, Joy of the Muṇḍas. In the inscriptions there occur a number of dignitaries, Amātyas, Mahāmātras and Bhaṇḍāgārikas, who correspond to officers with similar designations in other inscriptions and in literature. They acted as ministers, treasurers and heads of departments at the central, provincial or feudal capitals. There was a regular secretarial staff, comprising Lekhakas or clerks.¹

c13.35

¹ Ep. Ind., XIV, No. 9.

c13.36

² E.g., Arch. Surv. West. Ind., IV, p. 99. Ep. Ind., VIII, p. 91.

c13.37

¹ Rapson, J. R. A. S., 1903, p. 299; Rapson, Catalogue of the Coins of the Ândhra Dynasty, etc.; D. R. Bhandarkar, Ind. Ant., XLVII, pp. 69 et seq.; R. G. Bhandarkar, Early History of the Deccan.

c13.38

The numismatic and epigraphic materials at our disposal do not permit a fuller picture of institutions, but the literary works dating from the second century A.D. or earlier, show that there existed an elaborate administrative system.² There is, however, one important conclusion to which the inscriptions lead, viz., that the state, whether in its suzerain or feudal aspects was not the only form of regulation. Industry had organised itself on the principle of guilds. The Nâsik and Junnar Inscriptions prove the existence of guilds of potters, weavers, braziers, bamboo-workers, artisans, corn-dealers, etc., etc. Guilds acted as banks, receiving deposits at stipulated rates of interest. Their honesty and durability inspired sufficient confidence to induce rulers and others to entrust permanent endowments with them. They were not altogether unconnected with the administrative machinery of the state. Deposits and endowments were sometimes registered in the hall of the town.³

c13.39

² Infra, Ch. X.

c13.40

³ Ep. Ind., VIII, 82—88; X, App., p. 132, Lüders, No, 1133, 1137, 1165, 1180.

c13.41

The history of North India was influenced during this period not merely by the exploits of the Ândhras but also by events outside India. The movements of the Central Asian Hiungnu and the rise of Parthia were factors of capital importance in the politics of the Middle East and therefore of North India. Parthia cut the Indo-Greeks from the West and, as their coins indicate, forced them to lose their individuality in the midst of Indian conditions. From the close of the

c13.42

third century B.C. to the first century A.D. various Indo-Greek and Indo-Parthian dynasties ruled in the west of India but their history is obscure and little can be ascertained about their institutions. An interesting document is the Taxila Plate of Patika which belongs to about the close of the second century B.C. It applies the title Mahârâya--great king--to Moga whom Cunningham identified with the Moa or Mauos of the coins. So, Mahârâya, corresponding to Mahârâja, was the title of kings at the time in that region. Under the king Patika governed two provinces as satrap. A better-known figure of the second century B.C. is Menander, king of the Bactrian Greeks, who had established themselves in modern Afghânistân and the Puñjâb. About 155-53 B.C., Menander annexed the Indus delta, Surâṣṭra or Kâṭhiâwâḍ and other territories, occupied Mathurâ on the Jumnâ and carried his arms up to Pâṭaliputra. He was driven back to the Puñjâb. In spite of the defeat, Bactrian kings continued to hold various districts in the west of India for a long while.¹ Menander is the Milinda of the Milinda Pañha and the Tibetan Tangyur. His capital Śâkala (Siâlkoṭ) is described as "a great centre of trade, . . situated in a delightful country, abounding in parks and gardens and groves and lakes and tanks, a paradise of rivers and mountains and woods."² The position of Menander in Buddhist literature and the evidence of coins indicate that the Greeks or Bactrians were rapidly absorbed into the Hindu system. If they had any peculiar political institutions, they perished with their individuality.

c13.43

¹ V. A. Smith, op. cit., 210, 227-29, 233-62. On the successors of Alexander the Great, Cambridge History of India, I, pp. 540-62. For Bactria, Bevan, House of Seleucus. For Parthia, Rawlinson, Sixth Oriental Monarchy. For Indo-Parthian Coins, Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum, pp. 35-62. For some surmises about Indo-Greek kings and viceroys on the basis of numismatic evidence, F.W. Thomas, J.R.A.S., 1906, p. 216. For the Taxila Plate of Patika, Ep. Ind., IV, No. 5.

c13.44

² Milinda-Pañha (tr. Rhys Davids, S. B. E., XXXV), p. 2.

c13.45

About the first century A.D. other foreign dynasties ruled in the western regions of India. Bhûmaka Kṣahârâṭa and, some time after him, Nahapâna who assumed the titles Mahâkṣatrapa and Râja exercised sway over southern Râjpûtânâ, Surâṣṭra and some other districts. The line continued until about 119 A.D., when it was extinguished by the Ândhra king Gautamîputra Śri Śâtakarṇi, who annexed its whole territory.¹ It is interesting that the foreigners did not take long to adopt the Hindu title of Râja. Their other title Kṣatrapa is the Sanskritised form of the old Persian Khshathrapâvan, ‘protector of the land.’ Hindu literature never recognised it but it has been traced on coins and inscriptions from the second century B.C. onwards. The emergence of a new title Mahâkṣatrapa which corresponds to the Hindu Mahârâja indicates an adaptation to Indian conditions. Rudradâman I is said to have won the title Mahâkṣatrapa for himself. The Jûnâgaḍh Rock Inscription of Rudradâman records that he deposed and reinstated many Râjas.² It appears that the assumption of the higher title was the symbol of the recognition of suzerainty. For a while the title Mahâkṣatrapa is in abeyance, according to numismatic testimony.³ Possibly, the suzerainty of the rulers had been destroyed and they had been reduced to vassalage. The rule of Kṣatrapas and Mahâkṣatrapas seems to form part of the federal-feudal conditions which obtained in India. The Jûnâgaḍh Rock

c13.46

¹ V. A. Smith, op. cit., pp. 220-21.

c13.47

² For the inscription, Ep. Ind., VIII, No. 6; Ind. Ant., VII, p. 257; Arch. Surv. West Ind., II, p. 128.

c13.48

³ Rapson, Coins, etc., CXLI-CXLII. The distinction between the titles Râja Mahâkṣatrapa and Mahârâja Kṣatrapa is not clear. An Inscription of 180 A.D. (Ind. Ant., X, p. 157) brings to view two hereditary titles, Mahâkṣatrapa and Senâpati. See also Ind. Ant., XIV, p. 325.

c13.49

Inscription is valuable also for some administrative details.

c13.50

Administration.

c13.51

The highest officials of the Mahâkṣatrapa seem to be divided into Matisacivas, counsellors or ministers on the one hand and Karmasacivas or executive officers on the other hand. Amâtya seems to be a general designation of high officers. One of the Amâtyas is a local governor. Amaca, another form of the same term, is the designation in the Nâsik Cave Inscriptions.¹ The Jûnâgaḍh Inscription shows that ministers sometimes dared to differ strongly from their master. When the dam of the lake Sudarśana burst, the ministers did not approve of the monarch’s plan to get it repaired. The breach, they held, was too enormous and the expense would be ruinous. The people clamoured in despair. Rudradâman then elected to spend a huge sum of money out of his own private fortune and reconstructed the dam thrice as strong both in length and breadth. The Mahâkṣatrapa prides himself on having accomplished the undertaking without resort to additional taxation and forced labour. Incidentally, it appears that new taxes were often imposed and forced labour exacted for public works. None the less, the care for irrigation is remarkable. An inscription of Rudrasena I also seems to commemorate the construction of a tank.² The Nâsik Cave Inscriptions prove that the state levied numerous taxes. Besides, the digging for salt, unless alienated, was a royal monopoly. The visitations of the police were unwelcome to the people, perhaps because they meant some financial exaction. A village, granted for charitable purposes, is to be free from the presence of policemen and the interference of district officers. On the other hand, kings and his relations often displayed unstinted generosity. Uṣavadâta, son-in-law of Nahapâna, gave sixteen villages to gods and Brâhmaṇas, fed 1,00,000 Brâhmaṇas all the year round, built four quadrangular rest-houses, constructed wells, tanks and gardens, established free ferries at many places, founded water-places, halls for meeting, etc. The tradition of religious toleration was maintained. Uṣavadâta dedicated the village of Karajika to the support of all ascetics, "without any distinction of sect or origin" who might keep the Varṣa at the caves at Valûraka. He is said to have given 32,000 stems of cocoanut trees at a village to the congregation of Carakas. It is interesting to note that the money set apart for the cave of ascetics was invested in the guilds at Govardhana—2,000 in a weavers' guild and 1,000 in another weavers' guild.¹

c13.52

¹ Ep. Ind., VIII, No. 8.

c13.53

² Ind. Ant., XII, 1883, p. 32. Arch. Surv. West. Ind., II, p. 15. J. B. B. R. A. S., VIII, p. 234.

c13.54

¹ Ep. Ind., VII, No. 7; VIII, No. 8.

c13.55

Another line of Śaka Kṣatrapas ruled in Mâlwâ with its capital at Ujjayinî in the first and second centuries A.D. They had to adjust themselves into the network of the relationships of suzerainty and vassalage which extended over the greater part of the country. The satrap Caṣṭana (c. 80—c. 110 A.D.) probably acknowledged the suzerainty of the Kuṣâṇs in the north. One of his successors, Rudradâman, warred with his father-in-law, the Ândhra king, suffered a defeat at his hands but got back from him most of the old Kṣaharâṭa territory.² From coins and inscriptions it appears that Kapiśa, Taxila, and Mathurâ were also centres of satrapal government.³ The foreign origin of some of these rulers is undoubted but all foreigners were being assimilated, culturally as well as politically, into the Hindu system. The coins of Indo-Scythian kings give Hindu as well as Greek titles. Azes is styled Mahârâja Râjamahata as well as Basileos Basileon Megalon. Gondophares, who seems to have made himself master of the country from Sindh to Arachosia in the second century A.D., has a type of coin on the reverse of which appears Śiva holding a trident. It may be noted in passing that in some of these coins the king and the heir-apparent have the same titles, while in those of the satraps, the king is designated Mahâkṣatrapa and the heir-apparent Kṣatrapa.¹

c13.56

² V. A. Smith, op. cit., 222-23; D. R. Bhandarkar, Kṣatrapa Coins from Sarvania, Ann Rep. Arch. Surv., 1913-14, pp. 227—45. See also Western Kṣatrapas by Bhagvân Lâl Indrâjî, ed. E. J. Rapson.

c13.57

³ Cunningham, Coins of Ancient India, p. 85; Numismatic Chronicle, 1889, p. 308; F. W. Thomas, Ep. Ind., IX, p. 139; Bühler, Ep. Ind., V, p. 54. See also, J. R. A. S., 1894, p. 541, ; Ibid, 1905, p. 784.

c13.58

¹ Percy Gardner, Catalogue of the Coins of the Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India, VIII, p. 104; R. B. Whitehead, Catalogue of Coins in the Puñjâb Museum, Lâhore, Vol. I, pp. 151-52.

c13.59

Perhaps the most remarkable of all foreign dynasties which established themselves in India during this period was that of the Kuṣâns, which belonged to the Yüe-chi. The rise of the Yüe-chi to power in the north of India led to the fall of the Indo-Parthian principalities. The Yüe-chi king Kadphises I (c. 40 A.D.—c. 78 A.D.) ruled a large area from the borders of Persia to the banks of the Indus or the Jhelam. His son who has been called Kadphises II reigned from about 78 A.D. to about 110 A.D., probably conquered the Puñjâb and part of the Gangetic plains up to Benâres and probably annexed the whole of the lower Indus valley. "The conquered Indian provinces were administered by military viceroys, to whom should be attributed the large issues of coins known to numismatics as those of the Nameless king." He maintained diplomatic relations with China and was probably responsible for the Indian embassy which offered its congratulations to Trajan in 99 A.D. He was succeeded by Kaniṣka, one of the great figures of Buddhist history. The date of his accession has long been a matter of acute controversy. Most probably it falls in the first half of the second century A.D.¹ The kings of this dynasty adopted the title of Mahârâja which occurs in some inscriptions of Kaniṣka, Huviṣka and Vâsudeva,² and sometimes styled themselves Mahârâja Râjâtirâja as in their inscriptions of the years 11, 47, and 87.³ Some early Brâhmî Inscriptions apply the title Mahârâja Devaputra to Kaniṣka.⁴ After the additions made by Kaniṣka, the empire included a large part of North-western regions of India as well as parts of Central Asia. The complex interaction of Hindu, Zoroastrian, Gnostic and Hellenic elements was responsible for some new developments in Mahâyâna Buddhism and Gandhâra sculpture. Under Kaniṣka the foreign state caught up with the Aśokan tradition and stood forth as a culture state. During his latter days Kaniṣka adorned his capital Puruṣapur, modern Peśâwar, with a " great relic tower which seems to have deserved to rank among the wonders of the world. The superstructure of carved wood rose in thirteen storeys to a height of at least 400 feet, surmounted by a mighty iron-pinnacle . . . A monastery of exceptional magnificence which stood by its side was still flourishing as a place of Buddhist education in the ninth century.”¹ According to the Buddhist traditions of Tibet, China and Mongolia, Kaniṣka held a great Buddhist council in Kuṇḍalavana near the capital of Kashmir. He is said to have renewed Aśoka’s donation of the kingdom of Kashmir to the Buddhist Church.² Though a patron of Buddhism, Kaniṣka was somewhat of an eclectic. In any case, he recognised and favoured other sects as well. On some of his coins appears the figure of Śiva.³ Similar electicism is apparent from the coins of Wema Kadphises, Huviṣka and Vāsudeva.⁴ The Hindu name of the last king is significant. The Māṇikiāla Inscription which designates Kaniṣka as a Mahārāja brings a few government officials into view. The Daḍanayago may be a general but is more probably a judicial officer. The Navakarmiga is the superintendent of buildings. The Vihāra-karavhaena is the architect of Vihāras.⁵

c13.60

¹ On the whole subject, V. A Smith, op. cit., 263—292; Rapson, Scythian and Parthian Invaders, Cambridge History of India, I, 563—92; R. D. Banerji, Scythian Period of Indian History, Ind. Ant., 1908, pp. 25—75; J A. B. S., New Series, 1908, pp. 81 et seq.; K. P. Jayaswal, ' Statue of Wema Kadphises and Kushân Chronology'; J. B. O. R. S., V, p. 511; Ibid., VI, pp. 12—22. Fleet, in various papers, J. R. A. S., 1903, 1905, 1906, 1913, places Kaniṣka in the first century A.D. R. C. Majumdar, (Journal of the Department of Letters, Vol. I, 1920, pp. 65 et seq.) places Kaniṣka after 214 A.D. For fascinating but inconclusive debates on the Kaniṣka question, J. R. A. S., 1913, pp. 627—50, 911—1042.

c13.61

² Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv.. III, Nos. 4, 9, 16, pp. 31, 32, 34. Lüders, J. R. A. S., 1909, p. 645.

c13.62

³ Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv., III, Nos. 12, 18, pp. 33, 35. Ind. Ant., X, 326.

c13.63

⁴ Ep. Ind., IX, No. 33. For a statue of Kaniṣka, J. Ph. Vogel, Journal of the Puñjâb Historical Society. Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 39 et seq.

c13.64

¹ Song-yun, Beal, Si-yu-ki, I, p. ciii ; Yuan Chwang, ibid, 99 ; Watters, I, 204, 208 ; Alberūnī, tr. Sachau, II, p. 11 ; for the monastery, Yuan Chwang, Si-yu-ki, I, 103 ; Kielhorn, Ghosrāwa Inscription, Ind. Ant., XVII, pp. 307–12. For Kaniṣka’s monasteries for Chinese hostages, Beal, Si-yu-ki, I, 56, 173 ; Watters, On Yuan Chwang, I, 203 et seq.

c13.65

² Yuan Chwang, Beal, I, 117, 151 ; Watters, I, 270–78; I-tsing, Buddhist Practices, etc., tr. Takakusu, p. xxi ; Tārānātha, tr. Schiefner, p. 58; Takakusu, J. R. A. S., 1904, p. 414 ; Eastern Monachism, p. 188.

c13.66

³ British Museum Catalogue of the Coins of the Greek and Scythian Kings of India, p. 132 ; Catalogue of Coins in the Punjab Museum, Lāhore, p. 187.

c13.67

⁴ British Museum Catalogue of the Coins of the Greek and Scythian Kings of India, pp. 124 ff ; Catalogue of Coins in the Punjab Museum, Lāhore, p. 183.

c13.68

⁵ Māṇikiāla Inscription, Lüders, J. R. A. S., 1909, p. 645.

c13.69

There is a legend that Kaniṣka, advised by a minister named Mâthar, conquered many regions. When he proposed to complete his “universal conquest” by the subjugation of the North, the king’s people said, “the king is greedy, cruel and unreasonable; his campaigns and continued conquests have wearied the mass of his servants. He knows not how to be content, but wants to reign over the four quarters. The garrisons are stationed on distant frontiers and our relatives are far from us. Such being the situation, we must agree among ourselves, and get rid of him. After that we may be happy.” As he was ill, they covered him with a quilt, a man sat on top of him and the king died on the spot.¹ The death of Kaniṣka occurred probably about 160 A.D. His successors lingered into the third century A.D.

c13.70

¹ Srî Dharma Piṭaka, tr. Sylvain Lévi, Notes, etc.; Ind. Ant., 1903, p. 388.

c13.71

During this period there were some very small principalities, known after cities or districts, which perhaps acknowledged the suzerainty of some potentates but which were autonomous enough to issue coins of their own. Some Taxila coins have on the reverse the legend Nigamâ² which can only refer to cities. There are other coins which bear the legend Janapadasa, which refers to districts.³ The Bhaṭṭiprolu Inscriptions show nigamas or towns, grâmas or villages and goṣṭhis or groups enjoying a high degree of autonomy.⁴

c13.72

² Cunnningham, Coins of Ancient India, p. 63.

c13.73

³ Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, 164-65, 179-80; J. R. A. S., 1907, pp. 92-93; Ibid., 1908, pp. 540-41.

c13.74

⁴ Ep. Ind., II, No. 25

c13.75

The Mathurâ Jaina Inscription of the year 4 (Lüders, No. 48) refers to a lady who was the wife of a village headman and also daughter-in-law of a village headman. It indicates that the office might pass from father to son.

c13.76

Records of the third and fourth centuries A.D. support the hypothesis of federal-feudalism as the principle of political organisation in ancient India. Sylvain Lévi points out that the Chinese account of an embassy to Siam in the third century A.D. describes Muruṇḍarāja of India as a powerful monarch whose suzerainty was acknowledged by distant kingdoms. His capital might have been somewhere in Eastern India. The Allâhâbâd Inscription of Samudragupta mentions Daivaputra, Ṣâhi, and Ṣâhânuṣâhi as the titles of the chiefs and kings subjugated by the Gupta king. Ṣâhânuṣâhi is the Iranian title of suzerain and corresponds to the Hindu Mahârâjâdhirâja of the Gupta epoch as Ṣâhi corresponds to Râja or Mahârâja.

c13.77

The best traditions of Kushân rule are perhaps reflected in the writings of Aśvaghoṣa, one of the greatest figures in the Sanskrit Literature of Buddhism. Sprung from a Brâhmaṇa family, he was a master of Sanskrit learning. According to tradition, he was carried off by Kaniṣka from Pâṭaliputra to adorn his court at Puruṣapur. At any rate, the two were contemporaries. As Sylvain Lévi puts it, Aśvaghoṣa’s Sutrâlaṅkâra, along with his Buddhacarita, constitutes the first chronological land-mark in the literary history of India. He is probably the forerunner of Kâlidâsa and stands at the head of classical Sanskrit literature.¹ According to Târânâtha, he is identical with the author Mâtṛceṭâ. In his Saundara Nandam Kâvyam, Aśvaghoṣa testifies to the supreme need, the indispensability, of the kingship.

c13.78

¹ For the beginnings of Classical Sanskrit Literature, Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, 318—324. Keith, Classical Sanskrit Literature, 7—21. Sylvain Lévi (tr.) Indian Antiquary, XXXIII et seq. G. K. Nariman, Literary History of Sanskrit Buddhism. The theories of Max Müller and R. G. Bhandarkar on the Sanskrit Renaissance in the 4th, 5th or 6th century A.D. are exploded by the discovery of the works of Aśvaghoṣa and Bhâsa and the epigraphic researches of Fleet, Bühler and others.

c13.79

But the sceptre is always to be wielded for the sake of virtue and not for the sake of selfish gratification. The king should be the guide and teacher of his subjects.¹ Here is a possible reference to Kaniṣka’s policy. In the Buddhacarita too, Aśvaghoṣa paints Śuddhodana as the mighty and glorious leader of his people.² “He illumined his people on every side, showing them the paths which they were to follow.” Here, too, he emphasises the need of a thorough education for the prince.³ In the Sutrâlaṅkāra, a collection of pious legends of the Jâtaka and Avadâna type, Aśvaghoṣa repeats the same ideas and gives an interesting list of the subjects—literary, military, and conventional—which a prince should study. It includes grammar, writing, rhetoric, eloquence, the Vedas, literature, astronomy, medicine, sacrifices; music and song, playing on the tambourine, playing on the conch, dancing and laughter, computation, chess, dice, the science of precious stones and valuable materials for clothing, silk, sealing, weaving, wax work, strategy, sewing, sculpture, painting, arrangement of garlands, interpretation of dreams, interpretation of the flight of birds, reading horoscopes; the training of elephants, domesticating of horses, carrying the lance, jumping, running and fording a river, archery, rules of battle array, strategy, etc. In another work Vajraśuci, which is attributed, rather doubtfully, to Aśvaghoṣa, caste is attacked on psychological grounds. All human beings are equal “in respect of joy and sorrow, love, insight, manners and ways, death, fear and life.”⁴ Buddhism could never uproot caste but it is probable that under Buddhist regime it had not the same political importance as Brahmanical literature might lead us to suppose.

c13.80

¹ Aśvaghoṣa, Saundara Nandam Kâvyam, Canto I, pp. 7-8, Canto II, p. 9.

c13.81

² Buddhacarita, I, 12.

c13.82

³ Ibid., II, 24; see also I, 14; II, 42, 44.

c13.83

⁴ G. K. Nariman, op. cit., 36-40, 200-201.

c13.84

It is during the period reviewed in this chapter that we obtain our first glimpse of the political institutions of the extreme south. The evidence of literature shows that the hereditary monarch was surrounded by five assemblies—of the people, priests, physicians, astrologers or augurs and ministers. Their functions are specified.¹ The subject is not altogether free from doubt but it is clear that southern institutions, even in their first-known stages, differed from those of the north. In spite of manifold points of contact and resemblance, the two pursue different lines of development all through history.

c13.85

¹ V. Kanakasabhai Pillai, *Tâmils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago*, pp. 119-20.

Linked texts (19)