Social Conditions
Varna (caste) and asrama (period or stages of religious discipline), the two characteristic institutions of the Hindu social polity, reached a definite stage in the Maurya period. Greek writers inform us that no one was allowed to marry out of his own caste or to exercise any calling or art except his own. For instance, a soldier could not become a husbandman or an artisan a philosopher. It is, however, added by some that the sophists could be from any caste. Philosophers lived in simple style and devoted their lives to serious study and discourses. Some of them became wood-dwellers (hylobioi) who subsisted on leaves and fruits and wore garments made from the bark of trees. These undoubtedly correspond to the vanaprastha order of Hindu anchorites. In the inscriptions of Asoka we have mention of householders and wandering ascetics. The system of the four asramas was thus well established in the early Maurya age.
The rise of heterodox creeds, the influx of foreigners and many other causes must have affected to a certain extent the rigidity of caste rules. Instances of matrimonial alliances between Indian monarchs and foreign potentates are known, and a Satavahana record makes pointed reference to the mingling of the four castes which a king took considerable pains to prevent. The same king is eulogised as a promoter of the households of Brahmanas and the lowly orders, doubtless the Vaisyas and the Sudras. The Kautiliya Arthasastra mentions agriculture, cattle breeding and trade as the common occupation of Vaisyas and Sudras and, if Greek writers are to be believed, the old distinction between the Vaisya and Sudra was gradually obliterated and replaced by a new distinction between husbandmen, herdsmen, and traders, who constituted distinct castes. The physicians too emerge as a distinct group of philosophers next in point of honour to the wood-dwellers. Another remarkable feature of the period is the growth of two official castes, namely, the overseers and the councillors. The latter doubtless correspond to the amatya (or amacca) kula of the Pali texts. The philosophers, the husbandmen, the herdsmen and hunters, the traders and artisans, the soldiers, the overseers and the councillors constituted the seven castes into which the population of India was divided in the days of Megasthenes. There is no reason to doubt that the Greek writer described the actual conditions as witnessed by him as opposed to the theory of the law books. The restoration of the fourfold division of caste (chaturvarna) was sought by the great Gautamiputra Satakami, who referred to dvijas (Brahmanas) and avaras (the lower orders) as objects of his special care and to the Kshatriyas as a conceited class whom he did much to repress. The cause of Gautamiputra’s hostility to the warrior caste is not clear. It is possible that the ranks of the latter were being swelled by Yavanas, Sakas, and Pahlavas who are classed by the author of the Manava-dharmasastra (Institutes of Manu) as degraded Kshatriyas. It is well known that the wrath of the great Satavahana was specially directed against the latter. Caste rules could not, however, be rigidly enforced. The Satavahanas themselves intermarried with Sakas, and Brahmanas figure as generals and kings like Drona of old.
Regarding the position of women, Greek writers and contemporary epigraphs give us a few details. We are told that some of them pursued philosophy and lived a life of continence. But married women were denied the privilege of sharing with their husbands a knowledge of the sacred lore. Polygamy was practised, especially by rulers and noblemen. The care of the king’s person was entrusted to women, and we have the curious story that a woman who killed a king when drunk was rewarded by becoming the wife of his successor. Asoka refers to women as particularly given to the performance of many trivial and worthless ceremonies. The practice of seclusion of women is hinted at by expressions like Olodhana occurring in inscriptions. Superintendents to look after women are mentioned. That the wife took a prominent share in religious activities by the side of her husband is clear from the record of the benefactions of Karuvaki, the second queen of Asoka himself. A glimpse of the way in which the life of a pious widow was spent is afforded by a Nasik record which refers to the queen-dowager Gautami Balasri as one who delighted in truth, charity, patience, and respect for life; who was bent on penance, self-control, restraint and abstinence, fully working out the type of a royal sage’s wife (rajarishibadhu). Her son is eulogised for unquestioning obedience towards his mother. “Women though deserving of honour should not have independence” says the lawgiver. But history records instances of royal ladies who guided the affairs of a realm on behalf of their children.
Slavery was an established institution. It is recognised not only by the law-books and the literature on polity, but is expressly referred to in inscriptions. Asoka draws a distinction between the slave and the hired labourer and inculcates kind treatment for all. Arrian, however, probably relying on Megasthenes, states that “all the Indians are free and not one of them is a slave”. Strabo also quotes Megasthenes as saying that none of the Indians employed slaves. But the same writer in describing the customs of the court of Pataliputra observes that the care of the king’s person is entrusted to women who are bought from their parents. Buying and selling of women are thus admitted. We have it on the authority of Hegesander and Athenaios that Amitrochates, that is Bindusara, wrote to Antiochos asking him to purchase and send him not only sweet wine and dried figs but a sophist, only to be reminded that it was not lawful in Greece to sell a sophist. The implication is that a different law prevailed in the realm of Bindusara. It has been pointed out by some scholars that Megasthenes may have been misled by the statement of Onesikritos about the non-existence of slavery in the lower Indus valley, or he may have heard of the principle laid down in Indian works on polity that no Aryan should be kept in the condition of permanent slavery.
About the manners and customs of the Indians we are told by Greek and Latin writers that they lived frugally and observed good order. Cultivators were mild and gentle. Theft was a thing of very rare occurrence and no Indian was accused of lying. The people never drank wine except at sacrifices and their food was principally a rice pottage. Their laws were simple. They had no suits about pledges or deposits nor did they require seals or witnesses, but they made their deposits and confided in each other. Their houses and property were generally left unguarded. We are further told that the Indians were a simple folk ignorant of writing and conducted all matters by memory. That the picture is a little overdrawn seems clear from what the same writers say about the different sections of the people in other passages. Thus Strabo tells us that fighting men when not engaged in active service passed their time in idleness and drinking. Speaking about a great synod that used to be held by philosophers, the same writer informs us that some of them commit their suggestions to writing. In another passage he quotes Nearchos as saying that Indians wrote letters on pieces of closely woven linen, while Curtius informs us that the bark of trees was used for writing on.