System of Public Administration - Mauryan empire

The limits of the empire governed by Chandragupta are not known with absolute precision. But we can approximate to the truth by combining, the accounts of foreign writers with the Indian literary and epigraphic evidence.

The empire extended upto the borders of Persia in the north-west as gathered from the terms of the treaty with Suleucus Nikator. It included the whole of the Indo Gangetic valley extending, in the west upto Kathiawar as is evident from the inscription of Rudradaman, and in the east, upto Bengal which must have passed to Chandragupta from Nanda, who ruled over Gangaradai (Ganges delta) as well as Prassiai (Prachi).

Chandragupta probably exercised some control in the Deccan also, as appears from certain Mysore inscriptions as well as other evidences. Taranath, however, represents Bindusara as having conquered sixteen states, which must have been situated in the south, because we know for certain that northern India was firmly held by Chandragupta. It, therefore, means that either Chandragupta was content to receive the submission of the kings of southern India and it was left for Bindusara to annex their territories or that what Bindusara did was mostly the suppression of a general revolt. The latter view seems more tenable, and thus there is nothing to invalidate the belief that Chandragupta was the suzerain of a large portion of southern India. Certain portions of this region, however, seem to have remained independent.

The kingdom of Kalinga is described by Megasthenes as possessing considerable military force, and was probably independent before its conquest by Ashoka a.

The kingdom of Andhra, which lay to its soufh, is also described by Megasthenes as very powerful, and it also might have been independent in the time of Chandragupta.

The Pandya, Chola and Kerala kingdoms of the extreme south were also left alone by Chandragupta and his successors.

Thus, Chandragupta was the emperor of practically all India proper excluding Kalinga, Andhra and the Tamil land and including Afghanistan and Baluchistan. It should, however, be remembered that all this vast empire was not under the direct rule of Chandragupta. There were protectorates as has always been the case in Indian history. Kautilya lays down that "conquered kings preserved in their own lands in accordance with the policy of conciliation will be loyal to the conquerer and follow his sons and grandsons". Chandragupta must have followed this policy to some extent.

In fact, Kautilya mentions certain sanghas or oligarchies which probably still existed in the time of Chandragupta. These were the Lichchhavis, the Vrijis, the Mallas, the Madras, the Kukuras, the Kurus and the Panchalas, whose presidents or consuls were called Rajas, and the Kambhojas and Surashtras who had no Raja.

The Rajas of these oligarchies probably also acted as the representatives of Chandragupta, while those corporations which had no Raja had to be put in charge of a special officer who was called Rashtriya, and was probably identical with Kautilya's Rashtrapala. The Junagarh inscription of Rudradaman mentions Pushyagupta, the Vaisya, as the Rashtriya of Chandragupta in Surashtra which, at that time, had no Raja, but in the time of Ashoka we hear of a Yavana Raja, acting on behalf of Ashoka, from which it would appear that at that time Surashtra had adopted the institution of Rajaship.

Besides the oligarchies, there were also some kingdoms which were ruled by their own Rajas. Megasthenes mentions several such kingdoms, although it is difficult to identify many of them. Moreover, it is not easy to understand from his writings alone as to which of the kingdoms he mentions were protected and which were independent. Yet, as we know the approximate extent of Chandragupta's dominions we may be pretty certain that the kingdoms which were situated within its boundaries were only protected states.

"The essence of this imperial system," to sum up in the words of Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji, "was thus a recognition of local autonomy at the expense of the authority of the central government, which was physically unfit to assert itself except by its enforced affiliation to the pre-existing system of local government". We have ample material for describing the administration of the Maurya empire and Dr. Smith has rightly observed that "more is known about the policy of India as it was in the Maurya age than can be affirmed on the subject concerning any period intervening between that age and the reign of Akbar eighteen centuries later". The chief source is the account left by the Greek ambassador Megasthenes. The Arthasastra of Kautilya tells us much about the methods of administration, many of which must have been followed by Chandragupta, although the work seems to be largely theoretical.

The edicts of Ashoka and the ancient works dealing with Hindu polity are also helpful in adding to our information about the administration of that period. The king was the head of the administration and was absolute in his powers, having to perform military, judicial, legislative as well as executive functions which we shall deal with as occasion arises. It must, however, be remembered that the autocracy of the king in ancient India was always limited by popular institutions which the state thought it safe to recognise. Mr. Jayaswal has shown at length that the Pauras and Janapadas mentioned in Sanskrit literature were really popular assemblies representing citizens and villagers, and had considerable powers.

Kautilya mentions 18 kinds of Amatyas or high officials, who supervised all the branches of administration, and were probably identical with the Mahamatras of Ashoka. Megasthenes seems to refer to these very officers as comprising the seventh division of Indian population. They were appointed by the king, no doubt, from among men who had popular backing, as Kautilya expressly says that "whatever pleases himself he shall not consider as good, but whatever pleases his subjects he shall consider as
good."

The appointment of these Amatyas was the chief executive function of the king. The king was assisted by a Parishad or assembly of councillors, which was a sort of parliament. This body must have consisted of a large number of members. The highest officers of the state were the chief ministers, who were not more than four; and the ablest of whom probably acquired prime ministership, which rank seems to have been enjoyed by Chanakya. The salary of a chief minister was 48,000 panas per annum. The value of a pana, according to Dr. Smith, was not far from a shilling.

The military administration was very elaborate and efficient. We have said that the king had also military functions to perform, and this is clear from the fact that according to Megasthenes the king left his palace to lead the army in the time of war. The highest officer of the army was the Senapati or commander-in-chief, who got a salary equal to that of a chief minister.

We learn from Megasthenes that there was a regular war office for military administration. There was a commission of thirty members divided into six boards, each consisting of five members.' Kautilya also seems to refer to these boards when he says that each department shall be officered by many chiefs. Each board had probably a superintendent, who seems to have been identical with the Adhyaksha of Arthasastra.

The first board was in charge of navy, and worked in co-operation with the admiral who was probably identical with the Navadhyaksha of Arthasastra. This officer performed all the duties relating to ships such as hiring of ships to passengers, collecting toll from merchants, arrest of suspicious persons and destruction of hinsrikas or pirates. The ships were maintained by the state and were not restricted to rivers but ventured to sea. These regulations clearly show that there was a considerable ocean traffic in Maurya times.

The second board was in charge of transport commissariat and army service, and worked in cooperation with the superintendent of bullock trains who was probably identical with the Godhyaksha of Arthasastra. The bullock trains were used for transporting engines of war, food for the soldiers, provender for cattle and other military requisites.

The third board was in charge of infantry, whose superintendent appears to have been the Pattyadhyksha. The size of the infantry is given by both Pliny and Solinus, but unfortunately they greatly disagree. In view of the fact, however, that Ashoka had to offer a very severe fight before he could conquer Kalinga, it does not seem likely that the Mauryas really maintained such a huge infantry as Pliny would lead us to believe. It, therefore, appears that the additional zero of Pliny is only a copyist's mistake, as observed by Prof. Rhys Davids, and Solinus is correct when he says that the Prassian infantry consisted of 60.000 soldiers. Arrian has preserved an account of the way in which the Indians in those times equipped themselves for war :

"The foot soldiers", we are told, "carry a bow made of equal length with the man who bears it. This they rest upon the ground, and pressing against it with their left foot thus discharge the arrow, having drawn the string far backwards: for the shaft they use is little short of being three yards long, and there is nothing which can resist an Indian archer's shot, neither shield nor breastplate, nor any stronger defence, if such there be. In their left hand they carry bucklers made of undressed oxhide, which are not so broad as those who carry them, but are about as long. Some are equipped with javelins instead of bows, but all wear a sword, which is broad in the blade, but not longer than three cubits, and this, when they engage in close fight, they wield with both hands, to fetch down a lustier blow."

The fourth board was in charge of cavalary, whose superintendent appears to have been the Asvadhyaksha. The Greek authors unanimously state that the cavalry force of Chandragupta numbered 30.000. Each horseman was equipped with two lances and with a shorter bucker than that carried by the foot soldiers. The horses of Kamboja and Sindhu were regarded as the best.

The fifth board was in charge of the war elephants whose superintendent was probably the Hastyadhyaksha. The elephants in possession of Chandragupta numbered 9000, according to the highest estimate. Each elephant carried four men including the driver. Thus the highest figure of men with elephants was 36.000.

The sixth board was in charge of the war chariots, whose superintendent was probably the Rathadhyaksha. The number of chariots in possession of Chandragupta is not given, but Mahapadma, the predecessor of Chandragupta, possessed 8.000 chariots according to the highest estimate, and the number in possession of Chandragupta might be assumed to be the same, as Dr. Smith has suggested. Each chariot carried three men including the driver. Thus the men with chariots may be assumed to have numbered 24.000.

The total number of men in the army of Chandragupra would thus have been 150,000 in all, being more than those kept by any other state in India at that time. The force thus kept was not a militia but a standing army drawing regular pay and supplied by the government with arms and equipment. There were royal stables for horses and elephants and also a royal magazine for the arms.

The civil administration of Chandragupta was equally efficient. The method of city administration prevailing at the time may first be described. The head of the city affairs, according to Kautilya, was the Paura Vyavaharika who was one of the high officers of state. For actual details, however, we must turn to Magasthenes, who has left an account of the way in which Patliputra, the capital, was governed. Other great cities of the empire, such as Taxila and Ujjain probably were also governed on the same lines.

There was a regular municipal commission, which also consisted of six boards, each composed of five members. Kautilya, also, mentions some adhyakshas or superintendents whose duties exactly correspond to the functions of the boards referred to above. Thus the Pautavadhyaksha or the superintendent of weights and measures, the Panyadhyaksha or the superintendent of trade and the Sulkadhyaksha' or the superintendent of tolls had duties similar to those assigned to the last three boards by Megasthenes. It is, therefore, probable that every board worked in cooperation with a superintendent as in the case of military administration. Much of the administrative elaboration noticed by the Greeks, however, must have been due to the genius of Chandragupta.

The first board looked after everything relating to industrial arts. Its members appear to have been responsible for fixing the rates of wages as well as supervising the work which the artisans did. Artisans were regarded as servants of state, and any body who rendered an artisan incapable of work by causing the loss of his eyes or hands was sentenced to capital punishment.

The second board was responsible for watching the foreigners and attending to their requirements. This board provided the foreigners lodging and escorts and, in case of need, medical attendance. If any foreigner died he was decently buried, and his property was handed over to the rightful claimant. These regulations clearly prove that Chandragupta created wide-spread political and commercial relations with foreign powers to necessitate such administration.

The third board was in charge of vital statistics. All births and deaths were systematically registered, not only to facilitate the collection of taxes, but also for the information of the government. The high value attached to statistics by the Maurya government has justly evoked the wonder and admiration of modem scholars.

The fourth board supervised commerce, and was authorized to enforce the use of duly stamped weights and measures. A merchant could cleat only in one commodity, for which license was given, unless he had paid a double license tax.

The fifth board was required to supervise the trade of manufactured articles. New and old goods were required to be sold separately, and there was a fine for mixing the two. It appears from the Arthasastra that old things could be sold only by special permission.

The sixth board collected tithes on sales, the rate being one-tenth of the profit. If any one practised fraud in the payment of this tax, his punishment was death, probably when the amount involved was large. It however, appears that evasion of this tax for honest reasons was not so treated. Even then the penalty was very severe according to modern standards.

In their collective capacity the members of the municipal commission were responsible for the general administration of the city and for keeping the markets temples, harbours and other public works of the city in order.

It was recognised that "all undertakings depend upon finance". There was, therefore, a special officer for the collection of revenue called the Samaharta or Collector—general, who got a salary of 24000 panas per annum. He supervised the collection of dues from mines, forests, cattles and roads of traffic, as well as land revenues. Like other great officers he probably also had many adhyakshas or superintendents under him. Thus he must have been assisted by the Akaradhyaksha in the realization of dues from mines, by the Kupadhyaksha in the realization of forest dues and by the Sitadhayaksha in the realization of land revenue.

The mainstay of finance must have been land revenue as it is even now. The normal share of the crown recognized by Hindu lawgivers was ith of the gross produce, which is also referred to by Kautilya in one places. Diodorus, however, mentions the share of the government having been lth of the gross produce. The fact seems to be that in practice the proportion varied largely and all provinces were not treated alike. The farmers were benevolently treated, agriculture being regarded as a great prop for the people. Megasthenes remarks that "there are usages observed by the Indians which contribute to prevent the occurrence of famine among them; for whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and unviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested". When famine did occur, the state promulgated various relief measures. which shall be described in the next chapter.

We learn from Megasthenes that the government also paid great attention to irrigation, which seems to have been one of the functions of the agricultural department. The duty of the irrigation officers was to "superintend the rivers, measure the land and inspect the sluices by which water is let out from the main canals into their branches, so that every one may have an equal supply of it." We know from the Arthashastra that water rates were also levied.

There is ample evidence of the fact that much pains and expenses were lavished on irrigation even in remote dependencies. The inscription of the Satrap Rudradaman engraved about the year 150 AD tells us something about the history of the Lake Beautiful (Sudarsana) of Kathiawar. We are told that Pushyagupta, the Vaisya, who represented Chandregupta in Surashtra, noticing the needs of local farmers, dammed up a small stream, and thus provided a reservoir of great value. It was adorned with conduits in the time of Chandragupta's grandson Ashoka. This work endured for four hundred years, until in AD 150, a storm of a "most tremendous fury, befitting the end of a mundane period", destroyed the embankment.

The empire was divided into several parts for purposes of administration. Besides the home provinces of eastern India, which appear to have been under the direct control of the emperor, there were at least three vice-royalties, as can be inferred from the edicts of Ashoka. The viceroy of the North-western provinces had his headquarters at Taxila, from where he seems to have controlled Afganistan, Baluchistan, the Punjab, Kashmir and Sindh. The viceroy of western India was stationed at Ujjain and controlled Malwa and Gujarat. The viceroy of south had his capital at Suvarnagiri, which was probably situated in the Raichur district of Nizarn's dominions. The viceroys of these territories were styled Kumaras or Aryaputras and were princes of royal blood. The salary of a Kumara according to the Arthsastra was 12,000 panas per annum.

Below the viceroys there were other officers. The inscriptions of Ashoka refer to Rajukas, but it is difficult to identify them with any of the officers mentioned in Arthasatra. Kautilya mentions an officer called Pradeshta, or commissioner, who appears to have been identical with the Pradesika of Asoka. He was probably a district officer charged with the administration of criminal justice and other duties, and got a salary of 8000 panas per annum.

The bureaucracy was assisted by an organised system of espionage. The system of espionage has always been hated by people and so it must have been in the days of Chandragupta. But it had its good points also. It was recognised by Indian statesmen that a king could not rule against the wishes of his subjects. So the spies were employed, not only to detect criminals, but also to get information about the views of the people. The spies were the sixth class of Indian population according to Megasthenes. An unpleasing feature of the espionage system was that even courtezans were utilized for this purpose. Arrian says that the reports which these spies gave were always true, for no Indian could be accused of lying. This statement is not in contradiction with other records of the character of ancient Indians, although its strict accuracy may be doubted.

The administration of justice was carried on by the courts recognized by the state. According to the Dharmasastras, cases could be decided by a clan, a guild, a corporation and finally a state courts Kautilya even recognizes different kinds of state courts established at Janapada-sandhi, Sangrahana, Dronamukha and Sthaniya, with jurisdiction over two, ten, four hundred and eight hundred villages respectively and composed of three dharmasthas and three amatyas in each case. The case decided by a lower court could proceed to a higher court if the parties, were dissatisfied. The final authority was the king, and we know from Megasthenes that large number of people sought the intervention of the King in deciding their cases 1. The decision of such cases as had not been satisfactorily decided by the lower courts constituted the judicial function of the king.

The procedure of the law courts was equally interesting. The plaintiff had to file his suit along with the name and date, and the defendant had similarly to give his reply in writing. Witnesses as well as documentary evidence were recognized. Certain agreements, such as those entered into in seclusion, in the dead of night or with fraud, were held void.

Megasthenes erroneously asserts that there was no written law in India. As a matter of fact sacred writings were one of the four kinds of law, the other three being custom, agreement and the edicts of the king, the issuing of which from time to time constituted the legislative function of the king. The last three were, however, required to be in accordance with the spirit of the sacred law. The author of the Arthasastra mentions several ancient lawgivers such as Manu, Brihaspati and Usanas, whose writings must have been consulted in deciding cases.

The penal code was simple. Offences were generally punished with fines, there being three kinds of the latter, viz., the first amercement ranging upto 96 panas, the middlemost amercement ranging upto 500 panas and the highest amercement ranging upto 1000 panas. Crimes which surpassed those for which the highest amercement was prescribed, were punishable with vadha, which term, according to ancient authorities, meant corporal chastisement including beating, shaving off of the hair, mutilation and death. These crimes were generally those which involved violence or moral turpitude, such as murder, hurt, theft, fraud and the submission of false evidence. Even in these crimes there were grades. Thus a thief who stole a property upto the value of 50 panas was punishable with the highest amercement but if he stole goods worth more than 50 panas he was punished with vadha or corporal chastisement, which extended upto death, if the offence was very serious. Those persons who spoke a lie, that is to say, committed fraud in the payment of tolls were also punished like thieves. Injury to the limb of any person was punished with the mutilation of the corresponding limb as well as a hand, and if the person injured happended to be an artisan the punishment was deaths. Judicial torture was also recognized as a method of eliciting confession but it was used with the greatest caution. The efficiency of criminal administration is attested to by Megasthenes who says that in a population of 4,00,000 men in Pataliputra the thefts recorded on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae or about eight pounds sterlings. Kautilya lays down, in agreement with the Dharmasastras, that "whatever of the property of citizens robbed by thieves the king can not recover shall be made good from his own pocket".

On certain occasions prisoners were set free. One such occasion was the birthday of the King. Other occasions are enumerated by Kautilya in the following passage:—"Whenever a new country is conquered, when an heir apparent is installed on the throne, or when a prince is born to the king prisoners are usually set free.