Administration
Neither in the east nor in the west was monarchy the only form of government in the beginning of our period or towards its close. There were, no doubt, powerful rajas in South Bihar and Oudh, as well as in Malwa and the Punjab, who were fighting to extend their authority at the expense of their neighbours and build up true imperial States. But they had to reckon with free and warlike tribes, governed by their own elders and owning the authority of no monarch. Kingship, again, was not everywhere of the same type. Some of the kingdoms in eastern India were true Samrajyas, governed by rulers who could justly call themselves Ekarat or sole monarch. In the Indus delta, on the other hand, we have kings who commanded in war but left the work of government to a Senate of Elders. The number of kings was two, as in Sparta, an early instance of dvairajya or diarchy, so famous in Indian history and tradition. While Sudras acquired supreme power in the lower Ganges valley, the state of things in the lower valley of the Indus was different, and great political power was exercised by the Brahmanas. The raja of the Madhya-desa, judging by the testimony of the epic, was no autocrat. He carried on the affairs of his realm with the assistance of the Sabha, usually consisting of princes of the blood and military chiefs. The circle of advisers was sometimes enlarged by the admission of priests and officials or representatives of lower orders like the Sutas.
Among certain tribes, all clansmen had a right to attend the Sabha, which was thus a popular assembly and not a council of magnates. Even in kingdoms where the popular assembly is not much in evidence, the monarch had to defer to the wishes of Brahmanas, elders of corporations and the commonalty.
He had to do what was pleasing to the people. For the efficient discharge of his duties he had to learn the Vedas and the Sastras. Tyrannical princes were not infrequently expelled from the throne. Even in Magadha, the citadel of imperialism, the king consulted the village headmen. A dynasty was driven out by the citizens because of its delinquencies.
Monarchies were often hereditary and the reigning prince at times nominated his successor. But cases of election are referred to by all our authorities. Choice was sometimes limited to members of the royal family, but on occasions selections were made from outside. A Greek writer tells us that in a certain district of the Punjab the handsomest man was chosen as king. Kingship was no longer a monopoly of the Kshatriya caste, and one of the most powerful dynasties of the age was of Sudra extraction.
With the growth of kingdoms and the incorporation of new territory, the office of the viceroy and provincial governor became more and more important. Among other State functionaries, the Purohita was of special importance in Kasi-Kosala, as we learn from the Ramayana and several Jatakas. In the Kuru-Panchala and Matsya countries, on the other hand, the Purohita was over-shadowed by the Senapati, who was often a prince of the blood or a person of royal rank.
The most important feature of the administrative development of the period under review was the rise of a class of high officials styled mahamatras, who are unknown to the Vedic texts and gradually tend to disappear after the Maurya and Satavahana periods. They were charged with duties of a varied character. Some looked after general affairs (sarvarthaka). Others administered justice (vyavaharika). A third body had charge of the army (sena-nayaka). Others were entrusted with the work of cadastral survey (rajjugrahaka) or measurement of the king’s share of the produce (dronamapaka).
In the administration of justice, the king continued to play an important part. It was his duty to give decisions in accordance with the special laws of the districts, castes, and families. But much of the judicial work was now entrusted to the Vyavaharikas or judges.
Scarcely less important than the administration of justice was the protection of the people from armed foes. To do this duty the rulers had to maintain big armies. Important changes were effected in military organisation by the introduction of war-elephants as a regular feature of the fighting forces, and the creation of the body of mahamatras to take charge of the department of war. Armies of the period usually consisted of four elements: infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants. To these the later epic adds the navy, labourers, spies and local guides. Greek writers refer to expert sailors in the Indus delta whom the Macedonians employed to steer their vessels down to the ocean when their own attempts at navigation failed. It is not improbable that rulers of the deltaic region maintained small fleets even before the organisation of a big naval department by the founder of the Maurya dynasty.
About the equipment of Indian troops in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. we have fortunately a few details recorded by Greek observers. The Indian infantry, clad in cotton garments, usually carried long bows and iron-tipped arrows made of cane. Some were armed with spears. They also carried a two-handed sword and a buckler of undressed ox-hide. The cavalry had usually the same equipment as the infantry. The chariots were drawn by horses or wild asses and carried six men apiece, of whom two were bowmen, two were shield-bearers, and two were charioteers. Epic poets refer to the division of the army into akshauhinis, vahinis, etc., mention different kinds of battle-array (Vyuha), and allude to various projectiles including the sataghni or hundred-killer. Jaina writers refer to the use made by Ajatasatru of the mahasilakantaga and ra(t)hamusala. The first seems to have been some engine of war of the nature of a catapult which threw big stones. The second was a chariot to which a mace was attached and which, running about, effected great execution. Greek writers bear testimony to the fact that in the art of war Indians were far superior to the other peoples of Asia. Their failure to offer a successful resistance to foreign invaders was often due to an inferiority in cavalry. Indian commanders in ancient times pinned their faith more upon elephants than upon horses.
The maintenance of a splendid court, a big army and a large body of civil officials required money. Weak rulers had sometimes to appease their conquerors by the payment of heavy tribute. Some of the kings loved to hoard treasure to the amount of several millions. The collection of revenue was, therefore, all-important to the State, and sometimes strange expedients were resorted to by rulers to fill their treasuries. The oldest source of revenue was the bali, a contribution mentioned as early as the Vedic hymns. Bhaga, the king’s share of reaped corn, became, in course of time, the most important source of State revenue, and shadbhagin, “a sharer of the sixth part”, a standing epithet of the king. The bhaga was measured out either by the village authorities or by royal officials at the barn-doors, or by survey of the crops. Among the most important revenue officials was the Grama-bhojaka or village head-man. The office was sometimes held by royal ministers. Bali gradually acquired the sense of an oppressive impost, and the collectors of bali were apparently classed with man-eating demons. Among other royal dues, mention may be made of “milk-money “, payable by the people when an heir was born to the king, and taxes and octroi duties paid by merchants. The ruler also imposed at times forced labour and claimed the right to dispose of forest land and unowned property.
About the kingless States or republics our intonation is mainly derived from Buddhist and Greek sources, though some details are given by the Sanskrit epics and works on polity as well as the sacred literature of the Jainas. Coins and inscriptions are not of much help for our period. The word for a republic was Samgha or Gana, but the terms were also applied to religious fraternities and economic corporations. Like monarchies, the republics, too, were not all of the same type. Some were tribal oligarchies, others are expressly mentioned as having a democratic constitution. Some of these States embraced several clans, others were limited to single Kulas or even cities. Some were sovereign States owning no allegiance to any external authority. Others did homage to some neighbouring potentate, though enjoying a considerable degree of local autonomy. There were, however, certain features common to all.
Each had its parishad or assembly which met in the samsthagara or mote-hall where young and old alike were present. According to a high authority, the method of procedure generally adopted in the tribal meetings was not by voting on a motion. The point at issue was either carried unanimously or referred for arbitration to a committee of referees. Besides the central assembly at the capital, there were local parishads in all the more important places in the State. The citizens honoured and esteemed the Mahallakas or elders and held it a point of duty to hearken to their words. Executive government was in the hands of a single chief or a number of chiefs styled Rajan, Gana rajan or Samghamukhya, corresponding to the Roman consul or Greek archon. The Rajas or Samghamukhyas were either identical with the Mahallakas or selected from them. The title Rajan was some times loosely applied to all the chief men of the State, for we hear of 7,707 Rajas among the Lichchhavis, though one document puts the figure at 500 and a Jaina text seems to limit the title to only nine. A Buddhist commentary seems to suggest that the Rajas ruled by turns. The number of elderly citizens eligible for the chief executive office probably fluctuated from time to time. Besides the Rajan there were other functionaries styled Uparajan (vice-consul), Senapati (general), Bhandagarika (treasurer), etc.
