Que. Do you agree with the popular view that Mauryas established a unitary and highly centralized if not monolithic state system?

प्रश्न: क्या आप इस लोक-प्रचलित मत से सहमत हैं कि मोर्यों ने यदि एकाश्मक राज्य तंत्र नहीं, तो भी एकात्मक और अत्यधिक केन्द्रित राज्य प्रणाली की स्थापना की थी? 

Introduction

The Mauryan Empire, established by Chandragupta Maurya in the 4th century BCE, is often regarded as one of the most significant empires in ancient Indian history. A popular view among historians is that the Mauryas established a unitary and highly centralized state system. This perspective, however, warrants a closer examination to understand the complexities of Mauryan administration and governance.

Centralized Nature of the Mauryan State

(i) Centralized Administration: The Mauryan administration was highly centralized, with the king holding supreme authority. The empire was divided into provinces, each governed by royal appointees who reported directly to the emperor. This hierarchical structure ensured tight control over the vast empire.

(ii) Bureaucratic Machinery: The Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya, outlines a sophisticated bureaucratic system. Various departments managed different aspects of governance, such as agriculture, trade, and defense. This bureaucracy was crucial for maintaining order and implementing the king’s policies.

(iii) Economic Control: The Mauryan state exercised significant control over economic activities. The state had monopolies over key industries like mining and armament production. A well-defined taxation system ensured a steady revenue stream, which was essential for the functioning of the centralized administration.

(iv) Military Organization: The Mauryan military was one of the largest standing armies of its time, with a well-organized structure comprising infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariots. This formidable military force was crucial for maintaining internal stability and defending the empire from external threats.

(v) Espionage and Intelligence: The Mauryan state maintained an extensive espionage network to gather intelligence and monitor internal and external threats. This network helped the central authority maintain control and preempt potential rebellions.

(vi) Public Welfare and Infrastructure: The Mauryan rulers undertook numerous public welfare projects, such as building roads, irrigation systems, and hospitals. These initiatives were centrally planned and executed, reflecting the state’s role in ensuring the welfare of its citizens.

(vii) Counter Arguments: Despite the centralized nature of the Mauryan administration, some scholars argue that the empire allowed a degree of autonomy to local and tribal communities. The existence of tribal republics like the Kambojas and Lichchavis, which retained certain privileges, suggests a more nuanced administrative structure.

Views of Historians

(i) Romila Thapar: Thapar argues that the Mauryan state was highly centralized but acknowledges the existence of local autonomies. She emphasizes the role of the king in maintaining control through a well-organized bureaucracy.

(ii) R.S. Sharma: Sharma supports the view of a centralized state, highlighting the economic and administrative control exercised by the Mauryan rulers. He points to the Arthashastra as evidence of the sophisticated governance system.

(iii) D.D. Kosambi: Kosambi suggests that while the Mauryan state was centralized, it was not monolithic. He emphasizes the coexistence of centralized control with local autonomies and tribal republics.

(iv) H.C. Raychaudhuri: Raychaudhuri views the Mauryan state as a highly centralized entity, with the king wielding absolute power. He highlights the role of the military and bureaucracy in maintaining this centralization.

Conclusion

The Mauryan Empire exhibited many features of a unitary and highly centralized state system, including a strong central authority, a sophisticated bureaucracy, and extensive control over economic and military affairs. However, the existence of local autonomies and tribal republics suggests a more complex administrative structure. The views of historians like Romila Thapar, R.S. Sharma, D.D. Kosambi, and H.C. Raychaudhuri highlight the nuanced nature of Mauryan governance. A balanced assessment reveals that while the Mauryan state was predominantly centralized, it also accommodated regional diversities and local autonomies, making it a unique and adaptable administrative system.