Hindu India
from the beginning of the Maurya dynasty in 322 B.C.
to the seventh century A.C.

 p72  Chapter 1

Chandragupta Maurya, the first historical emperor of India, and his institutions; Bindusāra.

From darkness to light. The advent of the Maurya dynasty marks the passage from darkness to light for the historian. Chronology suddenly becomes definite, almost precise; a huge empire springs into existence, unifying the innumerable fragments of distracted India; the kings, who may be described with justice as emperors, are men of renown, outstanding personalities whose qualities can be discerned, albeit dimly, through the mists of tie; gigantic world-wide rely movements are initiated, of which the effects are still felt; and the affairs of secluded Hind are brought into close touch with those of the outer world.

The manners of the court, the constitution of the government, the methods of administration, the principles of law, and the course of commerce under the Maurya sovereigns for nearly a hundred years in the fourth and third centuries B.C. are known to us in the twentieth century A.C. far more intimately than are the doings and institution of any other Indian monarch until the days of Akbar, the contemporary of Queen Elizabeth.

Authorities for the Maurya age. We are indebted for this extraordinary wealth of knowledge concerning a section of the remote past mainly to three sources, namely, the treatise on statecraft composed by Chandragupta Maurya's able minister (Kautalya), or Chānakya; the testimony of the Greeks who visited India either with Alexander or a generation later; and the imperishable records of Asoka inscribed on rocks and pillars. Indian tradition recorded in various forms, combined with critical study of the monuments which have defied the ravenous tooth of time, enables the historian to fill in the outline of his picture with certain additional details. When all sources of information have been exhausted the result is a picture of astonishing completeness. The external political facts, although on record to a considerable extent, are known far less perfectly than the particulars of the internal government and administration.

The revolution in Magadha. The exact course of the events which led to the overthrow of the Nandas and the establishment  p73 of the Mauryas in their royal seat is not fully ascertained. Many alleged incidents of the revolution in Magadha are depicted vividly in the ancient political drama entitled the 'Signet of Rākshasa' (Mudrā-Rākshasa), written, perhaps, in the fifth century after Christ. But it would be obviously unsafe to rely for a matter-of‑fact historical narrative on a work of imagination composed some seven centuries after the events dramatized. The information gleaned from other authorities is scanty, and in some respects discrepant. It appears, however, to be certain that Chandra or Chandragupta, who when quite young had met Alexander in 326 or 326 B.C., was a scion of the Nanda stock. According to some accounts he was a son of the last Nanda king by a low‑born woman, but probably was a kinsman of the respectable Early Nandas. acting under the guidance of his astute Brahman preceptor, Vishnugupta, better known by his patronymic Chānakya, or his surname Kautilya or Kautalya, Chandragupta, who had been exiled from Magadha, attacked the Macedonian officers in command of the garrisons in the Indus basin after Alexander's death, and destroy them, with the aid of the northern nations. About the same time the youthful adventurer and his wily counsellor effected a revolution at Pātaliputra (Patna), the capital of the Magadhan monarchy, and exterminated the Nanda family. It is not clear whether the Magadhan revolution preceded or followed the attack on the Macedonian garrisons. However that may have been, Chandragupta undoubtedly succeeded to the throne of Pātaliputra, secured his position against all enemies, and established a gigantic empire. He is the first strictly historical person who can be properly described as emperor of India.

Chronology. Alexander having died at Babylon in June, 323 B.C., the news of his passing must have reached the Panjāb a month or two later. It may be assumed with safety that the campaign against the foreign garrisons began in the following coddle season of 323 to 322, and we cannot be far wrong if we date Chandragupta's accession in 322 B.C. The Magadhan revolution seems to have occupied at least a year from beginning to end.1 If it had been completed before Alexander's death, which is possible, the change of dynasty might be antedated to 325 B.C. The true date certainly lies between 325 and 320 inclusive, which is sufficiently precise for most purposes.

War and peace with Seleukos. Alexander not having left an heir capable of wielding his sceptre, his dominions were divided among his generals. The supreme power in Asia was disputed by Antigonos and Seleukos. After a long struggle the latter recovered Babylon in 312, and assumed the style of king six years later. He is known in history as Seleukos Nikator, the Conqueror, and is called King of Syria, but would be more accurately described as the King of Western Asia. Hoping to recover Alexander's  p74 Indian provinces, he crossed the Indus to attack the reigning Indian sovereign, Chandragupta Maurya. The invader was defeated, probably somewhere in the Panjāb, and compelled to retire beyond the frontier. The terms of peace involved the cession by Seleukos to Chandragupta of the provinces of the Paropanisadai, Arīa, and Arachosia, the capitals of which were respectively Kābul, Herāt, and Kandahār, and also Gedrosia, the modern Balo̅chistan. The Indian king gave in exchange a comparatively small equivalent in the shape of five hundred elephants, which Seleukos needed for the wars with his western enemies. A matrimonial alliance also was arranged, which may be interpreted as meaning that a daughter of Seleukos was married to Chandragupta.

Megasthenes. The peace so concluded between Syria and India remained inviolate, and Seleukos, in or about the year 302 B.C., sent as his envoy to the court of Pātaliputra an officer named Megasthenes, who had served in Arachosia (Kandahār). The ambassador employed his leisure in compiling an excellent account of the geography, products, and institutions of India, which continued to be the principal authority on the subject until modern times. Unfortunately his book is no longer extant as a whole, but a great part of it has been preserved in the form of extracts made by other authors. Megasthenes is a thoroughly trustworthy witness concerning matters which came under his own observation. His work has been sometimes discredited unfairly because he permitted himself to embellish his text by the insertion of certain incredible marvels on hearsay testimony.

Chandragupta's empire. Little more than what has been stated is known concerning the political events of Chandragupta's reign, which lasted for twenty-four years. His dominions certainly included the country now called Afghanistan, the ancient Ariana, as far as the Hindu Kush range; the Panjāb; the territories now known as the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Bihār, and the peninsula of Kāthiāwār in the far west. Probably they also comprised Bengal. It is safe to affirm that Chandragupta, when his reign terminated in about 298 B.C., was master of all India north of the Narbadā, as well as of Afghanistan. At present there is no good evidence that his conquests extended into the Deccan, but it is possible that he may have carried his victorious arms across the Narbadā. Late traditions in Mysore go so far as to assert the extension of the Nanda dominion to that country.

Chandragupta's severity. The Roman historian Justin, who affirms that Chandragupta was the author of India's liberty after Alexander's death, adds the comment that 'when he had gained the victory and ascended the throne, he transformed nominal liberty into slavery, inasmuch as he oppressed with servitude the people whom he had rescued from foreign rule'.a

The known facts concerning his administration prove that he was a stern despot, who lived in daily fear of his life, and enforced strict order by a highly organized autocracy supported by punishments  p75 of ruthless severity. All tradition agrees that the ship of state was steered with exceptional ability by his Brahman minister, whose writings show that his statecraft was not hampered by any moral scruples. The date or manner of the minister's disappearance from the scene is not recorded. According to the confused traditions collected in the seventeenth century by the Tibetan author Tāranāthcha, Chānakya continued to guide the counsels of Chandragupta's successor, Bindusāra. The statement may be well founded.2

The fate of Chandragupta. The only direct evidence throwing light on the manner in which the eventful reign of Chandragupta Maurya came to an end is that of Jain tradition. The Jains always treat the great emperor as having been a Jain like Bimbisāra, and no adequate reason seems to exist for discrediting their belief. The Jain religion undoubtedly was extremely influential in Magadha during the time of the later Saisunāgas, the Nandas, and the Mauryas. The fact that Chandragupta won the throne by the contrivance of a learned Brahman is not inconsistent with the supposition that Jainism was the royal faith. Jains habitually employ Brahmans for their domestic ceremonies, and in the drama cited above a Jain ascetic is mentioned as being a special friend of the minister Rākshasa, who served first the Nanda and then the new sovereign.

Once the fact that Chandragupta was or became a Jain is admitted, the tradition that he abdicated and committed suicide by slow starvation in the approved Jain manner becomes readily credible. The story is to the effect that when the Jain saint Bhadrabāhu predicted a famine in northern India which would last for twelve years, and the prophecy began to be fulfilled, the saint led twelve thousand Jains to the south in search of more favoured lands. King Chandragupta abdicated and accompanied the emigrants, who made their way to Sravana Belgola ('the white Jain tank') in Mysore, where Bhadrabāhu soon died. The ex‑emperor Chandragupta, having survived him for twelve years, starved himself to death. The tradition is supported by the names of the buildings at Sravana Belgola, inscriptions from the seventh century after Christ, and a literary work of the tenth century. The evidence cannot be described as conclusive, but after much consideration I am disposed to accept the main facts as affirmed by tradition. It being certain that Chandragupta was quite young and inexperienced when he ascended the throne in or about 322 B.C., he must have been under fifty when his reign terminated twenty-four years later. His abdication is an adequate explanation of his disappearance at such an early age. Similar renunciations  p76 of royal dignity are on record, and the twelve years' famine is not incredible. In short, the Jain tradition holds the field, and no alternative account exists.

King Bindusāra. Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Bindusāra, whose title Amitraghāta, 'slayer of enemies', suggests a martial career. Unfortunately nothing definite is recorded concerning him except a trivial anecdote showing that he maintained friendly correspondence with Antiochos Soter, whose ambassador, Deīmachos, replaced Megasthenes. An envoy named dionysios sent by Ptolemy Philadelphos of Egypt (285‑247 B.C.) to the court of Pātaliputra must have presented his credentials to either Bindusāra or his son Asoka. A tradition recorded by Tāranāth represents Bindusāra as having conquered the country between the eastern and the western seas. The tradition is probably founded on fact, because the immense extent of Asoka's empire is known, and he himself made no conquests except that of Kalinga. Asoka's dominion in the peninsula extended over the northern districts of Mysore, and it seems almost certain that the conquest of the Deccan was effected by Bindusāra.

Maurya organization. The narrative of political events will now be interrupted to permit of a survey of the institutions of the Maurya empire according to the authorities above mentioned. Most of the arrangements adopted by Chandragupta remained in force during the reigns of his son and grandson. The modifications introduced by Asoka will be noticed in due course. The reader should understand that the Nanda kingdom of Magadha was strong, rich, extensive, protected by a numerous army, and no doubt administered on the system described in the Arthasāstra. The enlargement of the kingdom into an empire did not necessarily involve radical changes in the administrative machinery, although it is reasonable to credit Chandragupta and his prime minister with effecting improvements and increasing the efficiency of the mechanism of government. The Maurya state was organized elaborately with a full supply of departments and carefully graded officials with well-defined duties. The accounts leave on my mind the impression that it was much better organized than was the Mogul empire under Akbar, as described in Abu‑l Fazl's survey. Akbar's officials, except certain judicial functionaries, all ranked as military officers. Even the underlings in the imperial kitchen were rated and paid as foot soldiers. The bulk of the army was composed of irregular contingents supplied by either subordinate ruling chiefs or by high officials with territorial jurisdiction, and the standing army was quite small. The Mauryas, on the contrary, had a regular civil administration and maintained a huge standing army paid directly by the Crown — an instrument of power infinitely more efficient than Akbar's militia, which failed miserably when confronted with small Portuguese forces, whereas the Maurya was more than a match for Seleukos. The control of the Maurya central government over distant provinces and subordinate officials appears to have been far more stringent than that exercised  p77 by Akbar, who did not possess the terrible secret service of his early predecessor. That service was worked very much on the lines followed by the late German government and with an equal absence of scruple. The Maurya government, in short, was a highly organized and thoroughly efficient autocracy, capable of controlling an empire more extensive than that of Akbar as long as the sovereigns possessed the necessary personal ability. They were equal to the task for three generations. Although the figure of Bindusāra is shadowy, and absolutely nothing definite is known about his acts, he must have been a competent ruler. Otherwise he could not have reigned for a quarter of a century and transmitted to his son Asoka the gigantic empire created by and inherited from his father Chandragupta, probably enlarged by additions in the south.

Pātaliputra, the capital. Pātaliputra, Chandragupta's capital, was a great and noble city extending along the northern bank of the So̅n for •about nine miles, with a depth of less than •two miles. Much of the area is now covered by Patna, Bankipore, and sundry neighbouring villages. Kusumapura, the more ancient site, stood on the Ganges, and evidently became merged in Pātaliputra, for the two names are often used as synonyms. The Maurya city was built in the tongue of land formed by the junction of the So̅n with the Ganges, a defensible position recommended by the writers of text-books and frequently adopted by the ancient Indians in actual practice. Modern Patna no longer enjoys the strategical security of its predecessor, the confluence being now at the cantonment of Dinapore, •about twelve miles above Patna. The old relieve beds and even the ancient embankments or quays may still be traced. The city was defended by a massive timber palisade, of which the remains have been found at several places. The gates were sixty-four, and the towers five hundred and seventy in number. The palisade was protected by a deep moat filled with water from the So̅n.

The palace. The imperial palace, which probably stood close to the modern village of Kumrahār, was chiefly constructed of timber, like the splendid regal edifices of Mandalay in Burma. Its gilded pillars were adorned with golden vines and silver birds, and a fine ornamental park studded with fish-ponds and well furnished with trees and shrubs served as setting for the edifices. Excavations at the site support the belief that the buildings were designed in imitation of the Persian palace at Persepolis.3

According to a Greek author the abode of Chandragupta excelled the palaces of Susa and Ekbatana in splendour, and there is no reason to doubt the truth of the statement. The court was maintained and served with barbaric ostentation. Gold vessels measuring •six feet across are said to have been used. The king, when he appeared in public, was either carried in a golden palanquin or mounted on an elephant with gorgeous trappings. He was clothed in fine muslin embroidered with purple and gold. The luxuries  p78 of all parts of Asia, including China, were at his disposal. In the spacious precincts of the palace the sovereign relied for protection chiefly on his Amazonian bodyguard of armed women. It was considered lucky that when he got up in the morning he should be received by his female archers. The harem or women's quarters were on an extensive scale and carefully guarded. No commodities were allowed to pass in or out except under seal.

Royal amusements. Although the early Brahman writers repeatedly condemned hunting as a grave form of vice, and solemnly debated whether it or gambling should be considered the worse, the ancient kings indulged freely in the pleasures of the chase. Large game preserves were enclosed for the exclusive royal use, and the slightest interference with the sport of kings entailed instant capital punishment. The tradition of the sanctity of the imperial hunting-ground long survived. Jāhangīr in the seventeenth century did not hesitate to kill or mutilate some unlucky men who had accidentally spoiled his shot at a blue bull. In England the Norman kings were equally tenacious of their sporting privileges. Asoka kept up the practice of hunting for many years, but abandoned it, as will be narrated presently, when he adopted Buddhist ideas. Chandragupta, who still followed the chase when Megasthenes was at his court late in his reign, is alleged to have been a Jain. It is not easy to understand how a Jain, even a king, could possibly hunt at any time. It may be that Chandragupta was a Brahmanical worshipper of Siva, or possibly, as Dr. Spooner thinks, a Magian, for the greater part of his reign, and that he was not converted to Jainism by Bhadrabāhu until almost the end.4 Gladiatorial combats, such as even Akbar enjoyed watching, and the fights between animals, which may still be witnessed in the Native States, were included in the list of royal amusements. The races run with chariots, to each of which a mixed team of horses and oxen was harnessed, with horses in the centre and an ox at each side, were a curious kind of diversion. Such races are not to be seen nowadays in India, so far as I know, although good trotting oxen are still to be found. The course measured about 6,000 yards and the races were made the subject of keen betting.5

Courtesan attendants. Accomplished courtesans of the dancing-girl class enjoyed a privileged position at court, an evil  p79 practice continued by most Indian princes up to recent times, and perhaps, in some cases, to the present day. Such women were employed as housemaids, shampooers, and garland makers. They were 35D to present the king with water, perfumes, dress, and garlands. They held the royal umbrella, fan, and golden pitcher, and attended the sovereign when he was seated on his throne, or riding in a litter or chariot. They were subject to strict official control, and those who practised their profession paid licence fees to the treasury. Similar customs at Vijayanagar in the south are recorded in the sixteenth century. The secret service of the Maurya government did not disdain to make use of intelligence collected by the public women.

Iranian influence. Up to the time of Alexander's invasion the Indus was regarded as the traditional frontier of the Persian empire, although at that date the Great King does not seem to have actually asserted his authority over the Indian satrapy conquered in the time of Darius the son of Hystaspes. The proximity of the Panjāb to territory which was a Persian province for a century or more, and the constant although unrecorded intercourse which must have existed between the Achaemenian monarchy and the Indian kingdoms, cannot have failed to make Persian institutions familiar to the people of Hind. At a somewhat later date the continuance of strong Persian influence upon India is indicated by the prevalence of the Kharoshthī script, a variety of Aramaic, in the provinces near the frontier; by the long continued use of the Persian title of Satrap; by the form of the Asoka inscriptions; and by the architecture. Some small particulars which happen to be recorded are sufficient to show that in the time of the first Maurya emperor the court was affected by Iranian practices. The Arthasāstra rule that the king, when consulting physicians and ascetics, should be seated 'in the room where the sacred fire has been kept' seems to be an indication that Magian ritual was honoured at the Maurya court. We are told also that the ceremonial washing of the king's hair was made the occasion of a splendid festival when the courtiers offered rich presents to the king. That observance recalls the Persian hair-washing ceremony on the sovereign's birthday, as described by Herodotus, and is based upon a wide-spread primitive rule or taboo.6 Researches  p80 now in progress promise to reveal the ce of Magian influence on Indian religions and other institutions to a degree previously unsuspected, but I abstain from the discussion of doubtful hypotheses. The facts so far as disclosed suggest that the influence was Magian rather than Zoroastrian in the strict seasons. The undoubted close relation­ship between Vedic religion and that of Irān must be borne in mind. Legendary accounts of the early connexion of Persia with India may be read in Firishta and other authors. Whatever may be the fate of the various hypotheses debated by scholars, there can be no doubt that ancient India was largely indebted to Iranian ideas and practices.7

Autocracy. The normal government of an Indian kingdom appears to have been always untempered autocracy or despotism.8 The royal will was not controlled by any law, and the customary respect shown to Brahmans was an ineffective check upon a sovereign resolved to have his own way. According to the Arthasāstra a Brahman convicted of ordinary heinous crime, murder included, was exempt from torture, and should be either banished or sentenced to the mines for life. But the author expressly authorizes the execution by drowning of a Brahman guilty of high treason, whereas other tais were to be burnt alive. A strong, tyrannous man like Chandragupta would not have allowed himself to be hampered by nice regard for Brahman privileges. The sovereign was not bound to consult anybody, but in practice the most self-willed despot is obliged to depend largely upon his ministers. 'Sovereignty is possible only with assistance. A single wheel can never move. Hence he [the king] shall employ ministers and hear their opinion.'9 The Maurya monarch, according to the ruling of Chānakya, was not constrained to limit his Privy Council to any particular number of ministers. The Council should 'consist of as many members as the needs of his dominion require'. The sovereign was recommended to be content with the advice of not more than four ministers on any given matter. In any case the decision rested with him alone. Akbar in the sixteenth century, although it is unlikely he had ever heard of Chānakya or his treatise, acted on the principles laid down in that work so far as his relations with his ministers were concerned.

The only real check. The only real check upon the arbitrary royal authority was the ever-present fear of revolution and assassination. A king who trampled on custom and overstrained his power was apt to come to an untimely end. Chandragupta, who had won the throne by rebellion and the extermination of his predecessor's  p81 family, naturally led an uneasy life, and was obliged to take unceasing precautions against conspiracies. He dared not incur the risk either of sleeping in the day‑time or occupying the same bedroom two nights in succession. A king of Burma at the beginning of the nineteenth century is recorded to have taken similar precautions. The dramatist already cited, who tells the traditional story of the revolution which overthrew the Nandas, gives a vivid account of the varied expedients by which the adherents of the old dynasty sought to destroy the young usurper, and how all failed, so that the disappointed ex‑minister exclaims:

The usurper's powerful military force, which will be now described, secured him in possession of his dangerous throne.

The normal Indian army. An Indian army, in accordance with immemorial tradition, comprised four 'arms' — namely elephants, chariots, cavalry, and infantry. the war‑elephants were regarded as the most important because

The high value thus set upon elephants, justified by the conditions and experience of purely Indian warfare, was discredited when a bold European general like Alexander confounded the traditional Indian tactics by novel methods of attack.

Chariots, which had been in use in Rigvedic times, played an important part in ancient Indian warfare for many centuries. It is not known with certainty when or why they went out of fashion. The Chinese pilgrim, Hiuen Tsang, writing in the middle of the seventh century, when giving a general description of India, states that the army was composed of the four divisions or 'arms' above mentioned, and remarks that officers used to ride in chariots.

Apparently at that time chariots hand used by officers only.

The same author, when describing the army organized by his  p82 contemporary, Harsha of Kanauj, credits that powerful king with possessing originally 5,000 elephants, 20,000 cavalry, and 50,000 foot. After some years he is said to have increased his war elephants to 60,000, and his cavalry to 100,000.11 No mention of chariots is made. It is legitimate to infer that the use of chariots was obsolescent in the pilgrim's time, and did not survive the seventh century. I do not know of any subsequent mention of their employment in warfare.

The Rājpu̅t horsemen in later ages were renowned for their courage and the undisciplined fury of their charges. The only authentic record we possess of action by cavalry in ancient times is in the Greek narratives of the battle of the Hydaspes. The mounted troops of Po̅ros on that occasion did their best, but could not resist effectively the Macedonian cavalry. The Indians were almost all destroyed. It was customary in India to employ enormous hosts of foot soldiers, but the line between soldiers and followers not being strictly drawn, the military value of the infantry often was very small.

The Maurya army. Chandragupta maintained the traditional 'four-fold' army. His military organization does not betray any trace of Greek ideas. The force at the command of the last Nanda was formidable, being estimated at 80,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 fighting elephants. The Maurya raised the numbers of the infantry too 600,000, and of the elephants to 9,000. But his cavalry is said to have mustered only 30,000. The number of his chariots is not recorded. Assuming that he maintained them as in the time of his predecessor, that each chariot required at least three, and that each elephant carried at least four men, his total force must have amounted to not less than 690,000, or in round numbers 700,000 men. Megasthenes expressly states that the soldiers were paid and equipped by the state. They were not a mere militia of contingents. It is not surprising that an army so strong was able both to 'overrun and subdue all India', as Plutarch soldiers, and also to defeat the invasion of Seleukos, whose force must have been far inferior in numbers. According to the Arthasāstra an Indian army was organized in  p83 squads of ten men, companies of a hundred, and battalions of a thousand each. Chandragupta probably followed the same practice. The author of the treatise, who contemplated India as being divided in the normal manner into a multitude of small states, does not describe the constitution of the empire which he did so much to establish. He therefore treats the Rājā as the Commander-in‑Chief of the army, and betrays no knowledge of any professional head-quarters organization. But Megasthenes informs us that Chandragupta's host was controlled and administered under the direction of a War Office elaborately constituted. A commission of thirty members was divided into six Boards (panchāyats), each with five members, and severally charged with the administration of the following departments, namely: Board No. I (in conjunction with the admiral), Admiralty; Board No. II, Transport, Commissariat, and Army Service; Board No. III, Infantry; Board No. IV, Cavalry; Board No. V, War‑chariots; and Board No. VI, Elephants.

NO similar organization is recorded elsewhere, and the credit of devising such efficient machinery must be divided between Chandragupta and his exceptionally able minister.

Equipment. The equipment of the army was effective and adequate. A fighting elephant carried at least three archers besides the driver. The chariots usually were four-hogshead, but two‑horsed cars also were in use. Each chariot had at least two fighting men in addition to the driver. Six men formed the complement of each of the four-horsed chariots employed by Po̅ros at the battle of the Hydaspes. Each horseman was armed with two lances resembling the Greek saunia, and was protected by a buckler. The principal weapon of the infantry was a straight broadsword suspended by a belt from the shoulder.12 Javelins and  p84 bows and arrows were additional arms. The arrow was discharged with the aid of pressure from the left foot on the extremity of the bow resting on the ground, and with such force that neither shield nor breastplate could withstand it. At the Hydaspes the Indian archers were rendered ineffective by the greasy condition of the ground which prevented the soldier from securing a firm rest for the end of his bow.13

Defensive armour was supplied to men, elephants, and horses.

The transport animals included horses, mules, and oxen.

According to Chānakya, an ambulance service was provided in the rear during an action consisting of surgeons supplied with instruments, medicines, and dressings, and of women with prepared food and beverages (Book X, chap. 3).

It is clear, therefore, that the army, as improved by Chandragupta, was extremely formidable.

Diplomacy and force. But the Maurya did not rely solely on his armed strength. Indian statesmen have always shown a leaning towards the employment of diplomacy in preference to force. The dictum of Chānakya that 'intrigue, spies, winning over the enemy's people, siege, and assault are the five means to capture a fort,' is characteristic, and indicates the nature of the subsidiary means employed to create the Maurya empire. Long afterward, Akbar was content to secure by bribery the fortress of Asīrgarh, which his arms were unable to reduce, and Aurangzēb gained possession of Marāthā forts usually by the same ignoble means. The writers of text-books debated the relative value of force and diplomacy. The author of the Arthasāstra had no hesitation in deciding that 'skill in intrigue (or "diary") is better', because the crafty intriguer can always overthrow kings who are superior in warlike spirit and power (Book IX, chap. 1).

Similarly, Machiavelli was prepared to prove by many expense that the prince who 'best personated the fox had the better success'.14 The theory of politics expounded in the Arthasāstra is substantially identical with that of The PRINCE.

Bāna's criticism of Kautilya or Chānakya. It is right to add that cynical principles of the Arthasāstra, worked out 'on ground cleared of the hindrances of private justice', did not meet with universal acceptance. King Harsha's friend Bāna in the seventh century regarded them with horror:

The treatise criticized having been written avowedly 'for the benefit of the Maurya', we may feel assured that Bāna's scruples were not shared by Chandragupta, the principles of his preceptor. The late conversion of the first Maurya emperor to the merciful creed of Jainism, if it be a fact, as I think it was, may be ascribed to a revulsion of conscience from the hateful teaching of the Atharvan Brahman.15

Severity of the government. Whatever we may think about the principles of Chandragupta, his masterful government was effective. The text-books define the art of governing as dandanīti, 'the science of punishment'. The details preserved show clearly that that definition was accepted heartily by Chandragupta, who acted on it without hesitation. Whether we consult the Arthasāstra or the Greek authorities we receive the same impression of ruthless severity in the enforcement of fiscal regulations for the benefit of the treasury, and of stern repression of crime. Megasthenes noted that while he resided in the imperial camp with a population of 400,000 people the daily thefts reported did not exceed 200 drachmae in value, equivalent to about eight pounds sterling. Such security of property was attained by the application of a terribly severe code, based, as Chānakya observes, on the precepts laid down 'in the scriptures of great sages'. When we come to the history of the purely Hindu empire of Vijayanagar in the sixteenth century we shall find that property in that realm was protected by the most appalling penalties for even petty thefts.

Torture. A person in the Maurya dominion accused of theft and arrested within three days after the commission of the crime was ordinarily (with certain exceptions) subjected to torture in order to elicit a confession, unless he could prove either an alibi or enmity on the part of the complainant. Although the author of the Arthasāstra was fully aware of the danger of eliciting false confessions by torture and insists on the necessity for the production of conclusive evidence, it seems clear that the police must have relied chiefly on the use of torture. The general principle is  p86 laid down that 'those whose guilt is believed to be true shall be subjected to torture'. In the face of such a comprehensive rule exceptions would have had little practical effect. All experienced magistrates, among whom the author of this book may be included, know how deeply the tradition of torturing a prisoner in order to extort a conversion, true or false, is engrained in the mind of every Indian policeman and how difficult it is to check the practice even under modern conditions. The author of the Arthasāstra gives a horrible list of eighteen kinds of torture, remarking calmly that 'each day a fresh kind of the torture may be employed', and that in certain aggravated cases, by special order, the prisoner might be 'subjected once or many times to one or all of the above kinds of torture'.

When the prisoner had been convicted, the modes of punishment were many, including fines, mutilation, and death in various forms, with or without torment.

Mutilation could sometimes be compounded for by a fine. The caste and rank of the offender were taken into consideration. A Brahman could not be tortured, but might be branded, exiled, or sent to the mines for life. The authorities were instructed to take notice of 'equitable distinctions among offenders, whether belonging to the royal family or to the common people'.

Theft to the value of 40 or 50 silver panas (probably nearly equivalent to shillings) was punishable with death.

Among other capital offences were homicide, housebreaking, breaching the dam of a tank, and damage to royal property, with many more. Megasthenes notes that death was the penalty for injury to an artisan in the royal employment, and that even evasion of the municipal tithe on goods sold was punished in the same drastic fashion.

There is no reason to suppose that the severity of the criminal code was seriously modified under the Buddhist government of Asoka. His Censors were specially charged to deal with cases of unjust imprisonment or corporal punishment, and prisoners lying under sentence of death are mentioned.

The Arthasāstra prescribes the modest fine of only 48 panas on the superintendent of a jail for inflicting unjust torture; and even if he beat a prisoner to death he was merely to be fined 1,000 panas. Asoka's institution of Censors may, perhaps, have rendered the redress of such wrongs somewhat easier than it can have been in the time of his grandfather; but it is always difficult to detect or punish the misdoings of officials.

Town prefect and census. The author of the Arthasāstra contemplated the division of a normal small kingdom into four provinces, each administered by a governor. He applied the same principle to the administration of the capital city, and presumably to that of other large towns. The capital was divided into four quarters or wards, each in charge of a sub‑prefect (sthānika), who was assisted by subordinates (gopa), each responsible for from ten to forty households. The whole city was administered by a prefect  p87 (nāgaraka), whose duties resembled those of the kotwāl in later times.

The town authorities were expected to know everything about everybody within their jurisdiction, and to keep a sharp watch upon all comings and goings. The official activities included the maintenance of a permanent census, the gopa being required to 'know not only the caste, gotra [caste sub‑division], the name, and obscuration of both men and women in the households of his block, but also to ascertain their income and expenditure'. Such inquisitorial registration enormously enhanced the power of the central government for taxation and all purposes.

Precautions against fire and simple sanitary regulations were enforced. A person who intentionally set fire to a house was to be thrown into the same fire.

Maurya municipal commission. Chandragupta's municipal organization for his huge imperial capital was more complex. He provided a commission of thirty members, divided like that for the War Office, into six Boards or Committees. The Commissioners in their collective capacity had charge, in addition to their special departments, of all matters concerning the public welfare, including the repairs of public works, the maintenance of markets, harbours, and temples, and the regulation of prices. The departmental functions of the six Boards or Committees were as follows: (1) industrial arts; (2) care of foreigners; (3) registration of births and deaths; (4) retail trader and barter, with supervision of weights and measures, and due stamping of produce gold; (5) supervision of manufactures and sale of the same duly stamped; and (6) collection of the tithe on the price of goods sold.

The perfection of the arrangements thus indicated is astonishing, even when exhibited in outline. Examination of the departmental details increases our wonder that such an organization could have been planned and efficiently operated in India in 300 B.C. Akbar had nothing like it, and it may be doubted if any of the ancient Greek cities were better organized.

Board No. 1; arts. Artisans were regarded as being devoted in a special manner to the royal service, and capital punishment was inflicted on any person who impaired the efficiency of a craftsman by causing the loss of a hand or eye. Board No. 1 no doubt regulated wages, enforced the use of pure and sound materials, and exacted a full tale of work in exchange for the proper wage. The subject might be illustrated at length from the rules of the Arthasāstra concerning the duties of departmental officers as described in that work, and from the practice of later ages, but it is impossible here to follow out the details.

Board No. 2; foreigners. Board No. 2 performed duties which in modern times are entrusted to consuls and in ancient Greece were carried out by the officers called proxenoi (πρόξενοι). The members of the Board were required to find lodgings for foreigners, to keep them under observation, to escort them out of the country; and in case of sickness or death to provide for  p88 the treatment or burial of the stranger, whose property they were obliged to protect and account for. The existence of such officials and regulations affords conclusive proof that the Maurya empire was in constant intercourse with foreign states and that many strangers visited the capital on business.

Board No. 3; births and deaths. The registration of births and deaths was expressly designed both to facilitate taxation, probably a poll‑tax of so much per head, and for the information of the government. It was a development and necessary consequence of the register or permanent census described in the Arthasāstra. It may be assumed that the exceptionally efficient government of Chandragupta introduced improvements on the arrangements of his predecessors.

Boards 4‑6; trade and tolls. It has always been the practice of Indian rulers to exercise strict supervision over private trade and to levy duties on sales, the goods being stamped officially to guarantee payment. Manufactures were treated on the same principles. Procedure in such matters varied so little in India from age to age that the best comment on the statement of Megasthenes is afforded by an extract from the travels of Tavernier, the French jeweller who journeyed through India on business in the seventeenth century. He states that at Benares there were

The stamp usually was impressed in vermilion. It is called 'identity-stamp' (abhijnāna-mudrā) by Chānakya, and is the σύσσημον of the Greek accounts.16 False statements made by importers or vendors were punishable as theft, that is to say, by fine, mutilation, or even death. Evasion of the municipal tithe collected by the sixth Board was specially made a capital offence, as already noted.

Full particulars of the methods of collection of duties on sales and manufactures will be found in the Arthasāstra, and some indication of the nature of Indian trade in the fourth century B.C. has been given in the account of the Nanda dynasty.

Viceroys. We have seen that according to the Arthasāstra the normal small kingdom described in that book should be divided into four provinces, each under a governor (sthānika). We do not know positively how many viceroys were required for Chandragupta's immense empire extending from the Hindu Kush to at least as far as the Narbadā, but it is noticeable that four viceroys seem to have sufficed for the still larger empire of Asoka. They will be mentioned more particularly in the history of his reign.

 p89  Departments. The Arthasāstra describes in much detail the duties of the heads of the numerous departments in the administration of a properly regulated Hindu state. The book refers to about thirty such departments. The Greek accounts prove that the departmental organization was maintained by Chandragupta. We hear specifically of officers in charge of markets, rivers, canal irrigation, public works, and sundry branches of fiscal business, besides the superintendents of hunters, wood-cutters, blacksmiths, carpenters, and minters. Innumerable details might be filled in from the Arthasāstra, but limitations of space permit notice of only a few selected topics.

Official corruption. In spite of the drastic penal code and the enhanced severities visited upon offending officials the public service suffered from corruption. The experienced minister records his opinion that

'There are', the same authority observes, 'about forty ways of embezzlement; what is realized earlier is entered later on; what is realized later is entered earlier; what ought to be realized is not realized;' and so on through the whole list.

Rewards were promised to informers who disclosed cases of defalcation; but, on the other hand, the informer who failed to prove his charges was liable to severe punishment, which might be capital.

Secret service. The secret service to which reference has been made may be described as the mainstay to government, next to the army. The king employed hosts of spies or detectives, masquerading in disguises of all kinds, who were controlled by an espionage bureau, as in modern Germany. Cipher writing was used and the services of carrier pigeons were enlisted. The doctrine of the necessity for constant espionage in every branch of the administration pervades the whole of the Arthasāstra, which treats every form of villainy as legitimate when employed in the business of the state. The evidence of Chānakya's treatise is corroborated by the Greek testimony. News writers at the head-quarters of provincial administrations supplied secret reports to the government, and the information obtained from courtesans was not despised. We are told that the king, having set up spies over his ministers, 'whole proceed to espy both citizens and country people'. The drama already cited more than once exhibits the system at work.

Property in land. The question whether or not private property in land existed in ancient India has been often debated, but  p90 without any satisfactory result, by reason of the ambiguity lurking in the term property. The disputants who affirm the existence of private property in land use the term in one sense and their opponents in another. The clearest example of absolute private property in land, apparently closely resembling the English freehold, is to be found in Malabar, the home of the Nāyars (Nairs), Coorgs, and Tulus, whom Dubois regarded as the three aboriginal tribes of the western coast. He expressed the opinion that Malabar 'is the only province in India where proprietary right has been preserved intact until the present day. Everywhere else the soil belongs to the ruler, and the cultivator is merely his tenant.'

The Abbé then proceeds to explain at considerable length exactly what he means.17

The proposition enunciated by Dubois that 'every else the soil belongs to the ruler' has been generally accepted in northern and western India, and is now, as Baden-Powell testifies, the doctrine current in the Native States.

The commentator on the Arthasāstra (Book II, chap. 24) had no doubt on the subject. He declares that 'those who are well versed in the scriptures admit that the King is the owner of both land and water, and that the people can exercise their right of owner­ship over all other things excepting these two'. The author of the treatise, as a whole, seems to accept that view. The rules in chapter 1 of Book II, for instance, instruct the king that 'lands prepared for cultivation shall be given to tax‑payers (karada) only for life (ekapurushikāni)'; and that 'lands may be confiscated from those who do not cultivate them, and given to others'. The author evidently held that land of all kinds was at the disposal of the government. Most native Indian governments, including those of the Muhammadan dynasties, have taken in the shape of land revenue and cesses so large a proportion of the produce that the actual cultivator was left at most a bare subsistence. The government share, it is true, was always limited theoretically, but in practice the state usually took all it could extort. In those circumstances no room was left for economic rent, or for a landlord class receiving rent. Nothing intervened between the poverty-stricken peasant not state. Ordinarily the peasant's customary right to retain his land as long as he paid all official demands was respected, but his ill‑defined right of occupancy, which was not protected by positive law, differed widely from owner­ship. In the Bombay Presidency, where the State still deals directly with the cultivating peasant or 'ryot', the owner­ship of the government is expressly recognized by law.

In Bengal and the Upper Provinces the British authorities have gone out of their way to develop, or even to create a class of rent-receiving landlord, whose rights are often described as amounting  p91 to full owner­ship. But in the background there is always the lien of the State on the soil to enforce the punctual payment of the land revenue, that is to say, the cash commutation for the share of the produce to which every Indian government is entitled by immemorial tradition. The so‑called 'owner­ship' was in former times and still is also subject to the customary rights of subordinate tenure-holders and of the cultivating peasants; those rights being substantial, although undefined by law and inadequately secured before the middle of the nineteenth century.

Land revenue. The land revenue, or State share of the produce, which always has been the mainstay of Indian finance, may be regarded as rent rather than taxation on the assumption that the ultimate property in land is vested in the State. The normal share of the produce admitted to be claimable by the government was one‑fourth. But Akbar took one‑third, and the Sultans of Kashmīr claimed one‑half. The nominal percentage of land revenue to the produce did not much matter, because the government usually made up for any deficiency by exacting a multitude of extra periodical cesses, not to speak of occasional forced contributions. The ordinary result was that the peasant might consider himself lucky if he was left enough to fill tolerably the stomachs of himself and family and to provide seed. Nothing was available for the payment of rent to a private landlord.

In Anglo-Indian official phraseology the term 'settlement', a translation of the Persian word bandobast, is applied to the whole process by which the amount of the land revenue or crown-rent is assessed, and the officer who carries out the operations is called a 'settlement officer'. The authorities do not explain the nature of the 'settlements' made in Maurya times, and we do not know whether the assessment was varied yearly or fixed for longer periods.

Irrigation. Irrigation, which is essential in most parts of India for the security of the crops and consequently of the revenue, received close attention, and was under the supervision of departmental officers. A system of canals with sluices was maintained, and water-rates of varying amounts were levied as they are now.

Roads. The main roads were kept in order by the proper department, and pillars marking the distances, equivalent to our milestones and the Mogul ko̅s mīnārs, were set up at intervals of ten stadia, or •about 2,022½ English yards, half a ko̅s by Indian reckoning. The Mogul emperors were content with a pillar for each ko̅s. A great highway, now represented by Lord Dalhousie's Grand Trunk Road, connected Taxila and the north-western frontier with Pātaliputra, the capital. The Arthasāstra mentions the construction of roads as one of the duties of a king. Rules were laid down concerning the correct width of each class of road.

Liquor. The drinking of and traffic in liquor were recognized officially and encouraged as a source of revenue. The whole business was under the control of a Superintendent, who was responsible for the necessary police and licensing arrangements, as well as  p92 for the collection of the government dues. Public-houses or drinking-shops were not to be close together, and the consumption, whether on or off the premises, was duly regulated. The shops were to be made attractive by the provision of seats, couches, scents, garlands, water, and other comforts suitable to the varying seasons. Chānakya mentions six principal kinds of liquor. Special licences for manufacture were granted for a term of four days on the occasions of festivals, fairs, and pilgrimages.

General observations. It is impossible to reproduce in a reasonable space nearly all the information on record concerning the institutions of Chandragupta Maurya and his immediate predecessors. The particulars recounted in the foregoing pages may suffice to give the modern student a fairly accurate and vivid notion of the nature of the civilization of northern India at the close of the fourth century B.C. Many readers probably will be surprised to learn of the existence at such an early dat of a government so thoroughly organized, which anticipated in many respects the institutions of modern times. The dark spots on the picture are the appalling wickedness of the statecraft taught in the Arthasāstra and the hateful espionage which tainted the whole administration and was inspired by the wicked statecraft of the books. the policy inculcated by Kautilya or Chānakya was not the invention of that unscrupulous minister. The book attributed to him on substantial grounds is avowedly founded upon many earlier treatises no longer extant, all of which seem to have advocated the same principles. The author of the Arthasāstra, while frequently disagreeing with his predecessors concerning details, clearly was in general agreement with them concerning the policy to be pursued. Attention has been drawn to the emphatic repudiation of the Arthasāstra doctrines by Bāna in the seventh century after Christ. He does not stand quite alone, although it might be difficult to cite any passage exactly similar from other authors. The spirit of the Dharmasāstras is far more humane than that of Chānakya's ruthless treatise, and the story of Rāma, whether told in Sanskrit or Hindī, is that of a noble prince. Kāmandaka, on the other hand, describes the author of the Arthasāstra as 'wise and Bahama (god)-like'; and Dandi calls him 'a revered teacher'.

How did the atrocious policy taught intention books of the Arthasāstra class originate and gain wide acceptance? The minister professes to write in accordance with the 'customs of the Āryas', and to revere the 'triple Veda', but his practical advice, so far as it has a vedi foundation, is based on the fourth Veda, the Atharva, a storehouse of sorcery and spells. The question which I have asked suggests curious speculations.18

---

The Author's Notes:

1 Malayaketu, son of the king of the mountains, says:

2 Wilford printed a story that the 'wicked minister' repented and retired to 'Shookul Teerth, near Broach, on the banks of the Nerbudda', where he died. Chandragupta is said to have accompanied Chānakya (As. Res., IX.96). One version of the story is said to be based on the Agni Purāna, and another on alleged traditions related by Wilford's Pundit. See Rāsmālā, I.69 n.

3 Ann. Rep. A. S. I. East. Circle, 1912‑13, 1913‑14, 1914‑15.

4 Arthasāstra (Book II, chap. 4) prescribes that in the centre of the capital city shrines should be provided for Aparājita, Paratihata, Jayanta, Vaijayanta, Siva, Vaisravana (i.e. Kuvera), and the Asvins. The first four are Jain deities.

5 Dr. Coomaraswamy informs me that 'bull-racing' is a 'very common pastime in Ceylon, and creates immense excitement. The bulls are harnessed to the light cars called "hackeries" '. In 1679, when Dr. Fryer was at Surat, ox‑races were still in favour. He describes them in his customary quaint fashion: 'The Coaches . . . Those for Journeying are something stronger than those for the Merchants to ride about the City or to take the Air on: which with their nimble Oxen they will, when they meet in the fields, run races on, and contest for the Garland as much as for an Olympiak Prize: which is a Diversion To see a Cow gallop, as we say in scorn; but these not only pluck up their Heels apace, but are taught to amble, they often riding on them' (Fryer, A New Account, &c. ed. Crooke, Hakluyt Soc., 1915, vol. III, pp157, 158). I have not found anywhere a notice of mixed teams of horses and oxen. The Arthasāstra (Book IV, chap. 20) provides official rules for gambling. Superintendents of gambling and betting collected the licence fee, and are p0c of the winnings, as well as the charges for hire of the accessories and for water-supply and accommodation in gaming houses. On Bull-races in India see W. Crooke's article in Folk-Lore, vol. XXVIII, pp141 ff.

6 Frazer, The Golden Bough, 3rd ed. vol. II, pp253 ff.

7 The Ionic Jandiāla temple in the Sir Kap section of Taxila appears to have been a fire-temple (J. P. H. S., III.77; Ann. Rep. A. S., India, 1912‑13, p35, pl. xxxiv, b). It dates from about the beginning of the Christian era.

8 The text refers only to monarchical governments; and not to the tribal republics or oligarchies, such as those of the Mālavas, Kshudrakas, Lichchhavis, and Yaudhēyas.

9 Arthasāstra, Book I, chap. ¶.

10 Watters, On Yuan Chwang, vol. I, p171. The translation by Beal (Records, I.83) differs materially and appears to be erroneous.

11 Watters summarizes the passage, omitting details. Beal (I.213) accidentally gives 2,000 as being Harsha's original cavalry force. Julien clearly is right in stating 20,000 as the number.

12 Col. Hendley noted that many Rājpu̅ts in recent times carried the sword in the same way (J. I. A., No. 130, 1915, p8).

13 Compare the Veddah method as illustrated from Tennent, Ceylon2, vol. I, p499.

14 The Prince, transl. in Universal Library ed., Routledge, 1893, p110.

15 Many passages in the Arthasāstra prove that the author was an admirer of the Atharva, the Veda of magic and spells. Book XIV, entitled 'Secret Means', treats of weird sorceries supposed to compass the destruction of an enemy.

16 McCrindle repeatedly mistranslated the words ἀπὸ συσσήμου as meaning 'by public notice'.

17 Hindu Manners, &c., ed. Beauchamp, 3rded. (1906), p56. See The Travancore State Manual, Trivandrum, 1906, for the theory and details of the Malabar 'birth-right' tenure.

18 The 'triple Veda' (trayī) is defined as comprising the 'Sāma, Rik, and Yajus'. The order of enumeration is noteworthy. The author, when specifying the 'four sciences', places for Anvīkshakī or philosophy (comprising Sānkhya, Yoga, and Lokāyata); and assigns the 'triple Veda' to the second place. The third science called Vārta deals with the practical affairs of common life, namely, agriculture, cattle-breeding, and trade; the fourth, styled alternatively Arthasāstra or Dandanīti, is the subject of his treatise. 'This Arthasāstra', he says in his opening sentence, 'is made as a compendium of almost all the Arthasāstras, which, in view of acquisition and maintenance of the earth, have been composed by ancient teachers.' See Book I, chaps. 1‑4, and the concluding chapter of the work.

---

Thayer's Note:

a Justin, XV.4.13; under the Greek version of his name, Sandrocottus.

◂ previous						next ▸
Images with borders lead to more information. The thicker the border, the more information. (Details here.)
UP TO:		Oxford History of India	History of India	Home
A page or image on this site is in the public domain ONLY if its URL has a total of one *asterisk. If the URL has two **asterisks, the item is copyright someone else, and used by permission or fair use. If the URL has none the item is © Bill Thayer. See my copyright page for details and contact information.