The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c21.86

c21.86

A similar likeness is observable in the systems of provincial and local administration. The Persian empire, at least from the time of Darius, " was divided into twenty satrapies, or provinces, under satraps or governors appointed by the king; and within these large provinces there were again smaller districts under subordinate governors to whom however, at least often, the same term satrap was applied." This system indeed goes back to Cyrus and Cambyses and recalls the similar system which prevailed in the Assyrian, Median and Babylonian empires. It is indeed so natural that it developed everywhere. It is, however, interesting that the term satrap or Kṣatrapa had a long history in India. It is again instructive to read that in Persia, as in India, the local administrators were " appointed for indefinite terms, often retaining their position over a long period of years and through more than one reign."⁴ Again, like the Hindu governors, the Persian " satraps were men of high birth, . . . in some cases members of the royal family by birth or marriage."⁵ Nor is the final touch of resemblance lacking. In Persia, " these powerful administrators, as early as the reign of Darius, showed a tendency to independence, and later the satrapic system facilitated the break-up of the empire."¹ In Persia, as in India, numerous dues were levied in cash or kind.² It may be noted that the term 'king's eye' which denoted secret agents and reporters in ancient India was applied to inspectors of local administration in Persia.³ In fundamentals there is, indeed, one great difference. Annexation was far more frequent and far more thorough in ancient Persia than in ancient India. Across the Hindu-Kush conquered princes, as a rule, were not treated so gently. Persian organisation had much less of federal-feudalism than ancient India. None the less the resemblances in the two systems of administration are striking enough. It must be borne in mind that similarity of beginnings and similarity of environment account for a good deal. But owing to the facilities of communication between the two countries and the direct, intimate touch supplied by the extension of the Persian dominion into India under Darius, the possibility of some influence cannot be ruled out. In point of time the Persian system, as all the evidence at our disposal for the two countries indicates, developed earlier than the Hindu. It is possible that the latter owed some suggestions to the former. The almost identical form of the commencement of Darius's Naqsh-i-Rustam Inscription and the Aśokan inscriptions supports the hypothesis. The prevalence of the title Kṣatrapa of Persian origin in India points the same way. Beyond this there is no direct evidence of influence but its probability is well-established.