Mauryan Empire:

Que. Do you agree with the popular view that Mauryas established a unitary and highly centralized if not monolithic state system? [UPSC CSE-2018]

Approach:

(1) Introduction: Explain the different views on the Mauryan state.

(2) Mention the unitary and centralised state system of Mauryas.

(3) Mention the counter argument to the popular view of centralization of Mauryan states.

(4) Conclude on balanced footing.

Introduction:

The popular view of the Mauryan state is that it was a highly centralised and bureaucratic machine which was worked on by all powerful kings assisted by deputies and ministers. 

This view is fostered by the uncritical reading of the Arthashastra which presents the state as a behemoth and imagines state involvement in all spheres of life of its citizens. 

It is also aided by the deciphering of the Ashokan edicts which point out the central role of the king and also provide names of various ministers and ministries involved in the administration of the empire.

Unitary and Centralised State System of Mauryas:

(1) The King: The King was the supreme authority of the state. All basic policy matters as well as crucial decisions were taken by the King. The Arthasastra forthrightly mentions that if over an issue the traditional law (Shastra) holds a different point of view from that of the King’s law, it was the King’s law which prevailed. The Arthasastra gives final authority to the King in all aspects of administration. King was supreme among 7 components of the state. l.e Amatya (minister), Danda (army), Durga (fort), Mitra (friends), Janapada (territory), kosa(treasury) and King himself.

(2) Council of Ministers: The Arthasastra as well as the Asokan inscriptions refer to a Council of Ministers. (Mantriparishad). The Arthasastra mentions that the work of the state cannot be carried out without assistance. It mentions that “as the chariot cannot move on one wheel hence the King should appoint ministers and listen to their advice”. Girnar rock edict mentions that Parishad shall look that new administration measures are carried out by officials and Council is empowered to discuss the order of king in his absence (Rock edict III), suggest amendments and take decisions on the matter left to them by king. However, it shall ensure its opinion is conveyed to the king immediately (Rock edict VI). The power of the Council might have varied from time to time; yet its primary role remained that of an advisory body. This was because the final authority vested with the King. There were no fixed number of ministers and Kautilya mentions that it should be decided according to the needs.

(3) City administration: According to Megasthenes the city council was divided into six sub-councils or committees and each committee had five members. The four committees were related to economic activities and the rest two were for general purposes. There is no mention of such committees in Arthashastra but those functions are performed by different officials. Trade and commerce by Panyadhyaksha, Collection of taxes by Sulkadhyaksha, Registration of births and deaths by Gopa. Apart from this arthashastra tells us that city administration was headed by Nagarika and assisted by Gopa & Sthanika, other officials were also mentioned i.e Bandha Nagaradhyaksha (looked after the jail), Rakshi (the police, was to look after the security of the people). Arthashastra also mentioned a variety of activities of city administration i.e Sanitation & water resources, checking adulteration etc. Thus, we can say that the city administration during this period was elaborate and well planned.

(4) Military Administration: Defeat of Seleucus and violent war of Kalinga in Ashoka’s time point towards a large and well organised military structure. Magasthenese mentions army division into 6 branches with 5 members into each. I.e infantry, cavalry, elephants, chariots, transport, and admiral of the fleet. Kautilya has referred to Chaturanga Bala (i.e., infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants) as the main components of the army each under a commander. There was a separate department to look after the production and maintenance of a variety of armaments whose chief was known as Ayudhagaradhyaksha. There is a detailed description of the work of various Adhyaksha i.e Rathadhyaksha (look after construction of chariots), Hastyadhyaksha (look after the elephant force).

(5) Espionage system: The Mauryas had a well-developed espionage system. Spies provided information to the Emperor on the bureaucracy and markets. There were two kinds of spies: Samsthana (stationary) and Sanchari (moving around) Gudda Purushas were covert agents or investigators. The Mahamatyapasarpa ruled over them. These agents were chosen from various social groups. There were additional agents known as Vishakanyas (poisonous girls).

(6) Justice and Punishment: Arthashastra gives elaborate judicial arrangements of the Mauryan empire. King was Dharma Pravartaka (upholder of laws) and hence was supreme judicial authority. Two kinds of courts are mentioned in the Arthasastra; Dharmasthiya (courts which decided personal disputes), Kantakasodhan (courts which decided upon matters related to individuals and the state). The sources of law, as mentioned by Kautilya, were: Dharma, Vyavahara (current legal codes), Charitra (customs), and Rajasasana (the royal decree). The penalties in Arthasastra were based on Varna hierarchies meaning that for the same kind of offence a Brahmana was punished much less severely than a Sudra.

However, there is a persuasive counter argument to the popular view of centralization of Mauryan states as well and this view is propagated by: 

(1) Gerard Fussman, who says that the extent of Mauryan Empire of the time does not promote centralisation and that initiatives at the provincial and local levels are a certainty, as is noticed by the differently worded Kharosthi inscriptions of Ashoka in the North-West.

(2) According to Romila Thapar, the empire can be classified into metropolitan, core, and peripheral areas. 

(i) Metropolitan area: Magadha was the metropolitan state which was the area of maximum centralized administration and centres of trade.

(ii) Core Area: It was of strategic importance and agrarian and commercial potential. It was less under central control and was under the control of governors and senior officials. Gandhara, Raichur Doab, Southern Karnataka, Kalinga and Saurashtra were such core areas.

(iii) Periphery: The third category was those areas which were located at the peripheries. The economy of such regions was not restructured by the Mauryan State. Only the resources were tapped.

(3) Aloka Prashar Sen and D.D. Kosambi, speaks about the difficulty in containing diverse ethnic populations in a central order and control, which implies that the monolithic culture was not prevailed.

(4) The Asokan inscriptions, especially in rock edict XIII that speak to the forest people within his kingdom and deliver to them a stern warning to desist from violence. This indicates weak central control of the empire over its populace.

Conclusion:

The nature of the Mauryan state therefore cannot be said with certainty. What seems to exist is a form of central administration and a bureaucratic machinery headed by the king. The extent to which the control of this structure permeated even within the borders of the kingdom, is however a matter of contention and has to be further investigated.