The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c21.101

Language: English

c21.101.1

south than in the north. Other divergences need not be dwelt upon here but it must be emphasised that, from the administrative point of view, the north and the south must be treated apart. Confining our view to the North, it must be admitted that here the extent of organic development is rather limited. Not only were the ancient Hindus a conservative race but they experienced little economic change which has always been so fruitful of political change in European history. After the Vedic period at any rate, the main features of economic life remain the same. We can watch the institutions of the Rigveda—the heritage with which the Indo-Aryans started on their historical career—change under the impact of geographical factors, economic environment and social organisation. We can notice that caste gains in strength age after age and begins to dominate the structure and working of governmental institutions. We can watch the Vedic tribal assembly recede in the background and ultimately give way to the pageant of a court. We can see the average size of the state become larger and a correspondingly elaborate system of administration spring up. A large number of new offices arise, areas of local government are demarcated. At the same time a network of relationships of varying degrees of suzerainty and vassalage extends over the country. In all these spheres of development the Mauryan empire, founded about 320 B.C., marks a decisive stage. It knows nothing of popular assemblies;

c21.101.2

it has a machinery of central, provincial and district government, of fiscal and judicial administration, more elaborate than anything known to previous ages. It displays the workings of federal-feudalism on a grand scale. In another matter the Mauryan regime marks the culminating point of statecraft. The Hindu state which never recognised any limits to its scope of activity and which, off and on, concerned itself with every aspect of the material and moral life of the people, now stood forth as a great instrument of material comfort. Above all it shone forth as a missionary state which must promote morality and righteousness all around. The ideals proclaimed by the Emperor Aśoka were not always followed by the kings who came after him but the idea of the state as the great agency of moral and spiritual welfare never disappeared from India. After the Mauryan empire Indian History enters on a period of obscurity. But the facts and inferences which can be gathered from coins, inscriptions and literature prove that the Mauryan institutions of government did not die out. When the curtain rises again the Gupta empire displays the Mauryan institutions in a more advanced stage of development. The central officers are more numerous and more definitely posted. The administrative subdivisions are better marked out; offices like those of Bhogapatis and Viṣayapatis are familiar to all. The number of taxes has also increased.

c21.101.3

The facts of federal-feudalism are recognised by all and symbolised in the gradations of titles and insignia. The Gupta empire stands at the centre of ancient Indian history. All previous history flows into it; all later history issues from it. In the development of the Sanskrit drama, classical literature, Dharma Śāstra thought and Puranic compositions, it marks the decisive epoch. Under its auspices the Hindu system of administration reaches almost the limit of organic development which it was destined to undergo in the north. After the fall of the Gupta empire, the Vardhana empire alone displays any novel features of importance. Thenceforward, organic development ceases altogether; the number of state departments or officers may increase or decrease but there is no essential change, no departure in principle or policy. In the old rut the northern administration ran for five centuries until its free independent life was extinguished by the Musalmāns. It will be observed that, compared to Greek, Roman or English political development, the range of Hindu administrative evolution was very narrow. But it must be emphasised that besides the small amount of organic development, Hindu administrative practices show considerable variation from age to age and place to place.

c21.101.4

The foregoing chapters will have demonstrated that the structure and working of institutions, as revealed by the original authorities, was not, except in essentials, uniform over the whole of North India or throughout the ancient age. During the last few centuries for which authentic epigraphic evidence is most abundant, the administration was much less elaborate in some regions than in Kanauj, Magadha or Bengal. As part of the variety which Hindu administration shows, must be reckoned the existence of clan or tribal oligarchies. Their existence is well-attested by Jaina and Buddhist literature, by Greek accounts and by Samudragupta’s Allâhâbâd Inscription. They did not all follow a uniform type. Negatively the absence of monarchy as commonly understood and positively, the presence of the oligarchic principle was the only common feature. An interesting passage of rather uncertain date, in the Jaina Âcârânga Sûtra speaks of six different kinds of polity as prevalent in north India—“arâyâṇi vâ, gaṇarâyâṇi vâ, juvarâyâṇi vâ, dorajjâṇi vâ, verajjâṇi vâ, viruddharajjâṇi vâ.”¹ The import of the statement is not perfectly clear; the last two terms are particularly obscure; perhaps the classification proceeds as much on the basis of difference of administrative structure as of quality of administration. But one can distinguish kingless, gaṇa-ruled and two-ruled states. In any case it appears that the oligarchies differed in constitution among themselves as monarchies did.

c21.101.5

They were confined to a part of the north and disappeared altogether after the fall of the Gupta empire. It must be remembered that in spite of the important difference in constitution the oligarchies formed part of the general political system, which was predominantly monarchical, of North India. For instance, the Śākyas of Kapilavastu acknowledge the suzerainty of the king of Kośala. The Ārjunāyanas, Yaudheyas and others were included in the Gupta empire.