Forms of Government
IN the period under review we have for the first time in the history of this country great empires extending from the Hindukush to the valleys of the Godavari and the Krishna. It will, however, be a mistake to think that the imperial or even the ordinary monarchical system was the only form of government known to the people of the age. Greek observers referring to the activities of the overseers who “enquire into and superintend all that goes on in India” add that “they make report to the king or, where the state is without a king, to the magistrates”. Thus non-monarchical states governed by their own magistrates flourished side by side with territories ruled by kings. Arrian makes distinct mention of self-governed cities. Towards the end of our period the existence of autonomous tribal governments is proved by numismatic evidence. Such states are usually referred to as ganas, although the designation sangha is also known.
But monarchy was in this, as in all ages, in this country, the prevailing form of government. A remarkable feature of the period is the association in many parts of India of a prince of the blood or an allied chieftain with the titular or real head of the government as co-ordinate ruler or subordinate colleague. Such a prince was often called yuvaraja or yuva-maharaja (crown prince or junior king). Sometimes he was honoured with full regal titles. In the literature on polity this type of rule was known as dvairajya or diarchy.
Ideas of Kingship
Ideas of kingship underwent a change during the period. At the commencement of the age a king was considered to be a mere mortal, though a favoured mortal, the beloved of the deities. Thus Asoka refereed to himself and his forebears as devanampiya, the beloved of the gods. The Greeks, however, introduced titles like the “divine king”, the “god-like queen”, etc. In the early centuries of the Christian era a Parthian king took the title of Devavrata, an epithet applied to an epic hero, the son of a river goddess, and also to Karttikeya, the god of war. The Kushan emperors adopted the still more significant title of devaputra, “Son of Heaven”. The deification of rulers was clearly on the way to accomplishment, and ideas of divine kingship found favour especially in tracts which came under foreign influence. Greek and Chinese influence is clearly discernible in the title of devaputra.
Kings, even those who preceded the Scythian ” Sons of Heaven” were no puppets. They had usually at their disposal powerful standing armies and the material resources of vast kingdoms and empires over which they presided. From the observations of Greek writers and the actual records of the reigns of Chandragupta, Asoka, Kharavela, Gautamiputra and many other rulers, it is clear that kings often led the troops in person to the battlefield. They also administered justice, issued rescripts, made important appointments, granted remission of taxes and took a large share in the ordinary work of civil government. They generally held in their hands the main strings of policy. Rulers with such powers and resources cannot be regarded as limited monarchs of the type with which the modern world is familiar. Nevertheless it is a mistake to consider Hindu kings of the age as absolute despots. There was a body of ancient rules which even the most masterful of the rulers of the period viewed with respect. The people were an important element (prakriti) of the state. They were looked upon as children (praja) for whose welfare the head of the state was responsible, and to whom he owed a debt which could only be discharged by good government. There was a certain amount of decentralisation notably in the spheres of local government, legislation and administration of justice in the rural areas. The existence of autonomous communities, urban and rural, political and economic, social and religious, put a limit, in normal times, on the exercise of authority by the supreme executive. Lastly, there was usually at imperial head-quarters, and also at the chief centres of provincial government body of ministers (mantri parishad, mati sachiva) who had a right to be consulted especially at times of emergency.
Literature on Polity
For a detailed record of the administrative arrangements of the period we have to look mainly to three classes of evidence, namely, inscriptions, accounts of Greek and Roman observers, notably Megasthenes, and literature on polity styled Rajasastra or Arthasastra.
Treatises on polity are often found embedded in legal or Puranic collections. But a few exist as independent works. The most famous among these is the Arthasastra attributed to Kautilya, the traditional minister of Chandragupta Maurya. The Arthasastra certainly existed before Bana (seventh century AD) and the Nandi Sutra of the Jainas (not later than the fifth century AD). But it is doubtful if in its present shape it is as old as the time of the first Maurya. Reference to Chinapatta, China silk, a commodity often mentioned in classical Sanskrit literature, points to a later date, as China was clearly outside the horizon of the early Mauryas, and is unknown to Indian epigraphy before the Nagarjunikonda inscriptions. Equally noteworthy is the use of Sanskrit as the official language, a feature not characteristic of the Maurya period. A date as late as the Gupta period is, however, precluded by the absence of any reference to the denarius in the section dealing with weights and coins. Quite in keeping with this view is the reference to the Arthasastra contained in the Jaina canonical works that were reduced to writing in the Gupta age.
Maurya Administration
The administrative history of the epoch is best studied under two heads, namely, Maurya administration and the system prevailing in the days of their Indian and Graeco-Scythian successors.
As already stated, the Maurya king did not lay claim to divine rank. Asoka looked upon his people as his children and assigned their care to his officers just as a mother does to skilful nurses. The idea of government paternalism persists in these expressions. In one record he declared that whatever effort he was making was intended to discharge the debt which he owed to living beings. The Kautiliya Arthasastra, which in its present shape may be post-Mauryan but which uses older material, declares that “whatever pleases himself the king shall not consider as good, but whatever pleases his subjects he shall consider as good.” The king is also advised to show fatherly kindness to his people.
The powers of the king were extensive. We have it on the authority of Megasthenes that the king took part in war and the administration of justice. While listening to causes he did not suffer himself to be interrupted even though the time arrived for the massage of his limbs. Appointments to the most important offices were made by the ruler himself; he also often laid down the broad lines of policy and issued rescripts and codes of regulations (sasana, dharmaniyama) for the guidance of his officers and the people.
Control was maintained over the most distant officials by an army of secret reporters and itinerant judges, and communication with them was kept up by a network of roads marked with pillars at every ten stadia.
It was impossible for a single individual to support the Atlantean load of administration. The king had the assistance of a council of advisers styled the Parishad or the mantri parishad, who were specially consulted in times of emergency. There were also bodies (nikaya) of trained officials who looked after the ordinary affairs of the realm. Greek writers refer to three important classes of officers, styled district officials (Agronomoi), city commissioners (Astynomoi) and a third body, who had the care of military affairs. In the inscriptions of Asoka we have references to Rajukas and Pradesikas, charged with the welfare of Janapadas or country parts and Pradesas or districts, Mahamatras or high officers charged with the administrations of cities (Nagala Viyohalaka) and sundry other matters, and a host of minor officials including clerks (Yuta), scribes (Lipikara) and reporters (Pativedaka). The Arthasastra mentions the official designations Mahamatra, Yukta, etc. It refers to the highest officers as the eighteen tirthas, the chief amongst whom were the Mantrin (chief minister), Purohita (high priest), Yuvaraja (heir-apparent) and Senapati (commander-in-chief). Another important class of officials mentioned in the literature on polity are the Adhyakshas or superintendents in charge of the various departments of the state. Officials were appointed irrespective of caste, creed or nationality. Vaisyas and even Yavanas were admitted to the highest offices of the state.
At the head of the judiciary stood the king himself. But there were special tribunals of justice, both in cities and the country parts, presided over by Mahamatras and Rajukas. Greek writers refer to judges who listened to the cases of foreigners. Petty cases in villages were doubtless decided by the headman and the village elders. Asoka seems to have introduced many reforms in judicial administration and procedure. While preserving a certain amount of uniformity he is said to have allowed considerable discretion to the Rajukas so that they could discharge their duties unperturbed. Greek writers testify to the severity of the penal code, and the emperor admits in some of his inscriptions that in Kalinga individuals suffered from arbitrary imprisonment and torture. To check maladministration in this and other outlying areas the emperor or his viceroys sent forth in rotation every five or three years such officers as were of mild and temperate disposition and regardful of the sanctity of life.
The army was often led by the king himself. Chandragupta personally undertook the campaign against the generals of Alexander, and Asoka was an eye-witness of the terrible carnage in Kalinga. It is only in the days of the last Maurya that we find a senapati overshadowing the king and transferring to himself the allegiance of the troops. The army of Chandragupta, according to Pliny, included 600,000 foot soldiers, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 elephants, besides chariots. The protection of the king’s person was entrusted to an amazonian bodyguard of armed women. The fighting forces were under the supervision of a governing body of thirty divided into six boards of five members each. Each of these boards was responsible for one of the following departments, namely, the navy, transport and commissariat, the infantry, the cavalry, the chariots and the elephants. In military as well as judicial affairs Asoka must have introduced great innovations. He deprecated wars and abolished even hunting. In one of his inscriptions he declares exultingly that throughout his dominions the sound of the war-drum had become the sound of dharma (religious discourse). It would have been a miracle if the army could have preserved its morale and efficiency under such circumstances.
