Chandragupta Maurya – One of the greatest rulers of India

CHANDRAGUPTA was one of the greatest rulers of India. He ruled over an India more exten­sive than British India, with its boundaries extended beyond the frontiers up to the borders of Persia. He- was the first Indian ruler to bring together the valleys of the Indus, Ganges and Yamuna under one political authority.

He was also the first to add to this poli­tical unification of northern India the further achievement of uniting in one Empire both North and South across the barrier of the Vindhyas. He was again the first to face the consequences of a European invasion, the conditions of depression and disorganisation it had created, and to achieve the distinction of liberating his country from the yoke of Greek rule.

Alexander’s invasion of India lasted for about 3 years. May, 327- May, 324 B.C., while Chandragupta was able to rid the country of all vestiges of Greek authority by 323 B.C. Chand­ragupta was also great in achieving so much within a short time, a reign of only 24 years, as stated in the Puranas (the well-known Sanskrit historical works). Thus he reigned from 323 B.C. to 299 B.C. and was succeeded by his son Bindusara, who reigned for 25 years and was succeeded by the great Asoka in 274 B.C. These dates gathered from the Puranas fit in with the known chronology of Asoka’s reign.

Chandragupta’s early life has been the subject of much romance and conflicting traditions. Quite a cycle of legends has grown round it. It is difficult to separate fact from fiction in their mixture.

According to the Puranas the Sudra dynasty of Nandas, who had exterminated the Kshatriya kings of the time, was over­thrown by the Brahman Kautilya (or Chanakya), who anointed Chandragupta as king and inaugurated the rule of the Maury as.

The well-known work Artha-Sastra of Kautilya echoes this tradition by stating that it was left to Kautilya to free the country, its culture, science and arts (Sastra and Sastra) from the strangle­hold of the unlawful Nanda Kings.

The implication of this tradition is that Chandragupta was a true-born Kshatriya prince utilised by Chanakya as a fit instrument for his mission of restoring the country to lawful Kshatriya rule in accordance with Varnasrama- dharma, which reserved royalty to Ksha- triyas.

But the drama of Mudrarakshasa, however (which is later by more than seven centuries than the time of Chandra­gupta), is supposed to insinuate that he was a low-born connection of the Nandas themselves. He is dubbed in the drama by epithets like Vrishala or Kula- hina (of low lineage). The insinuation may be explained away, because Vrishala literally means “a vrisha or bull among kings, the best of kings,” in a passage (111, 18) in the drama itself. The term is also used in the drama as one of endearment by Chanakya for his pupil, Chandragupta, and the epithet Kula-hina may refer not to low, but lowly lineage, as contrasted with the epithet prathita-Kula, “famous lineage,” applied by the drama to the Nandas whom it was out to exalt and extol. Dramatic partisanship is not history. It was left to the commentator Dhundiraja of the eighteenth century to describe Chandragupta definitely as the son of Maurya, the offspring of the Sudra wife, Mura, of his father named Sarvar- thasiddhi, who had another son named Nanda by his wife Sunanda. This is the only passage in Sanskrit literature which definitely ascribes a base birth to Chandragupta. Perhaps it was sug­gested by the commentator on the Purana, who explained Maurya as one born of Mura, but even he does not state that Mura was a Sudra woman. His grammar, however, is wrong, be­cause Mura leads to the derivative Maureya and not Maurya. He is thus innocent of b.oth grammar and of libel against Chandragupta.

It should further be noted that the Kashmiri works, Kathasaritsagara of Somadeva, and Brihatkathamanjari of Kshemendra, suggest a different lineage for Chandragupta. They describe him as the son of Purva-Nanda, a previous Nanda King, distinguished from the other Nanda called Yoga-Nanda.

Moreover, Buddhist tradition is quite certain about the noble pedigree of Chan­dragupta. He is stated to be the scion of the Kshatriya clan of Moriyas, an off­shoot of the noble and sacred sect of the S’akyas who gave the Buddha to the world. Instead of the term Maurya, Buddhist works use the form Moriya, derived from Mora, Mayura, and peacock. The story is that the Moriyas, separating from the parent community of S’akyas, to escape from the invasion of the cruel Kosala King, Vidudhava, found refuge in a secluded Himalayan region full of peacocks, whence they also became known as Moriyas, i.e. those belonging to the place of peacocks. Another version of the story derives Moriya from the city called Moriya-nagara, as it was built with “bricks coloured like peacocks’ necks.” The people who built the city became known as Moriyas.

According to Jain tradition (Paris’- ishtaparvan, p. SG), Chandragupta was born of a family who reared peacocks.

The Greek accounts of Alexander’s campaign mention an Indian tribe called Manes after the allied term Moriya.

The canonical Buddhist work Digha- Nikaya (II, 167) refers to the Moriyas of Pipphalivana. The Mahavamsa (Geiger’s Tr., p. 27) describes Chandra­gupta as being born of Moriyas who were Kshatriyas. The Divyavadaiia (Cowell’s ed., p. 370) describes Chandragupta’s son Bindusara and also his grandson Asoka as a Kshatriya.

The connection of peacock, Mayura, with Moriya or Maurya dynasty is attested beyond doubt by singular archaeological evidence. One of the Pillars of Asoka, that at Nandangarh, bears at bottom the figure of a peacock as the dynastic emblem of the Moriyas or Mauryas, while the same Mayura symbol is repeated in some sculptures on the Great Stupa at Sanchi, which are associated with Asoka on the basis of the stories of his life which they translate into stone.

Perhaps the true facts of Chandra- gupta’s lineage were gathered by the Greeks. Justin (xv, 4) states that “he was born in humble life.” Plutarch (Ch. LXII) makes Chandragupta report to Alexander that the then Nanda King of Magadha was unpopular for “his wicked­ness and meanness of origin.” A de­scendant cannot cast aspersion on his own ancestry. Ancestral meanness will also be his by descent!

The fact of Chandragupta’s humble life is also borne out by Buddhist tradi­tion. (See Mahawamsa, ed. Tumour, p. x.) According to this tradition his father, the chief of his tribe, was killed in a border fray. The helpless widow escaped to Pushpapura (Kusumapura- Pataliputra) where’ she gave birth to Chandragupta. The boy was spirited away by a cowherd, who brought him up in his cowpen and then sold him to a hunter by whom he was employed to tend cattle. The story goes that at the village common, the boy Chandragupta took instinctively to the game of playing the King (raja-krida) with his com­panions, administering justice in a mock court got up for the purpose. It was at one of these plays that Chandragupta was first seen by Chanakya. Chanakya saw in that rustic child the promise and signs of royalty and at once bought him from his foster-father for the sum of 1,000 Karsha panas, brought him to Taxila, his own native city (Takshasilanagara- Vasi), and had him educated there for 7 or 8 years. These details explain the reference of Justin to Chandragupta’s “humble life” at the beginning. They also explain the other very interesting and important fact that Chandragupta, when a mere youth, had seen Alexander in the course of his campaigning in India (Plutarch, Ch. LXII). It was possible for a youth brought up at Taxila.

According to the Buddhist text (Mahavatsa-tika), Chanakya, after the completion of Chandragupta’s education at Taxila, proceeded to “recruit an army locally and made Chandragupta its commander.” According to Justin also (xv, 4), Chandragupta “collected a band of robbers.” As pointed out by Mc- Crindle (Invasion of India by Alexander, p. 4o6), these “robbers” were the repub­lican peoples of the Punjab, the Arattas or Arashtrakas, “kingless” peoples. Baudhayana, in his Dharma-Sutra (c. 400 B.C.), calls the Punjab the country of the Arrattas. The Mahabharata (VIII, 44, 2056-2070; 45, 2100) also defines the Aratta as the people of the Panchan- ada country, “the land of five rivers,” and also calls them Vahikas, along with peoples named Prasthala, Madra, Gandhara, Khasa, Vasati, Sindhu, and Sauvira. Alexander saw some of them, such as the Vasati, whom he calls Ossadii, or the Arattas, whom he calls Adraistai. Alexander’s invasion brought to light the many free peoples who resisted it at different centres in the Punjab, with all their might and resources. A large part of the Punjab, according to Arrian (IV, 21), was then held by “independent Indian tribes,” “fierce nations” ready to fight Alexander “with their blood” (Curtius, IX, 4).

There were, then, magnificent military material and possibilities available in the Punjab among her small republican peoples and States. Their heroic defence of their liberties against Alexander’s in­vasion failed, probably because it lacked leadership, organisation, unity of direc­tion and pooling of resources. Alex­ander was able to deal with each State separately and to subdue it easily. The multiplicity of States prevented a united front against a common enemy and caused the collapse of opposition.

It was left to the genius of Chanakya and Chandragupta to exploit and organise this local military material and spirit of resistance, which they had seen with their own eyes, for a more successful endeavour for the achievement of the country’s freedom from Greek control. They knew how to produce out of this material an army fit for freedom’s battle.

Indian literature throws some light on the composition of the army which Chandragupta had got together for fighting his battles. The Mudrara- kshasa speaks of an alliance which Chanakya had arranged with a Himalayan chief called Parvataka. The Sthaviraval- icharita also states that “Chanakya went to Himavatkuta and entered into alliance with Parvataka, the king of that region”; and Buddhist accounts also mention a Parvata as a close associate of Chanakya. Thus three traditions testify to this alliance. It is extremely probable, as F. W. Thomas has suggested (in Cam­bridge History of India, Vol. I), that this Parvataka was no other than King Poros of the Greeks. He filled such a large place in the politics of the Punjab that no adventure in that region was possible without him at that time.

The Mudrarakshasa further informs us that as a result of this Himalayan alliance, Chandragupta got together a composite army recruited from the differ­ent peoples of the region.

Apart from his military preparations, the internal conditions of the country helped Chandragupta and were not favourable to Greek rule. The course of Alexander’s invasion did not itself run smooth. Rebellion was rearing its head in his rear and sometimes even among his own people. Popular opin­ion on the situation was conveyed to Alexander by an Indian ascetic, who asked Alexander to tread on a piece of dry hide and made him observe that as he placed his foot on one end its other end would fly up. This was a visible image of the uncertain and unstable consequences of campaigns carried on in countries too far from “the centre of his dominion” (McCrindle’s Invasion, p. 315). The prospects of his enter­prise did not appeal very much to the Greeks themselves. Alexander’s policy was to plant colonies of Greek veterans at suitable centres to mark the progress of his conquest (Arrian v, 27, 5). Such colonies were set up first in Bactria and Sogdiana; but the moment there was a rumour of Alexander’s death, 300 of these colonies left for home (Diodorus, XVII, 99). Alexander himself thought of these colonies as penal settlements, to which the Greeks convicted of disloyalty were committed (Justin XII, S, 8, 13).

Then, again, to consolidate his con­quests, Alexander divided Greek India into six Satrapies, three on the west side of the Indus and three on the east. The three western Satrapes were Greek: Peithon posted as Governor of Sind, Nicanor, of the province called “India West of the Indus,” comprising lower Kabul valley and hill-tracts up to Hindu Kush with its capital at Pushkalavati (Charsadda), assisted by a Macedonian garrison under Commandant Philip and Oxyartes, governor of Paropanisadae province (Kabul valley). Alexander could not post Greek governors to the east of the Indus. Here the three Satrapes were placed under Indian Kings, Ambhi, King of Taxila, the King of Abhisara country, and Paurava (Poros), Alexander’s worst enemy, now installed as ruler of the largest territory compris­ing “15 republican peoples, 5,000 con­siderable cities and villages without number” (McCrindle, p. 309).

The position of the Greek governors rapidly became precarious. First Kandahar revolted under the instigation of an Indian Chief called Samaxus or Damaraxus. Next, the Asvakas killed their Greek governor or Nican (Arrian, v, 20, 7). The Eastern Asvakas threatened the Indian Agent of Greek imperialism, Sisikottus (Sasigupta), who had to ask Alexander for help.

All this trouble was brewing in 326 B.C. when Alexander was in the thick of his campaigns. He was even falling short of men. He had to wait for Thracian reinforcements from distant Iran to be able to advance beyond the Chenab, but the Beas proved the limit of his advance. Koinos conveyed to Alexander the spirit of revolt among the Greek soldiery, “of whom few were left with their bodily strength and spirits no longer as before” (McCrindle).

The place of Nicanor, murdered by the Indian “Mutineers,” was taken by Commandant Philip, who became the most powerful Greek Governor. He was already acting as Alexander’s agent at Taxila to keep watch over the activities of his old and powerful enemy Paurava (Poros). He was further selected by Alexander to guard the rear of his advance down the Hydaspes and, later, to take charge of the territories of the free peoples, the Malavas (Malloi) and Kshudrakas (Oxydrakai), conquered by Alexander, as far south as the confluence of the Indus and the Chenab. Philip, therefore, held the-key-position of Greek rule in India. The assassination of such a man was a fatal blow to that rule. He was murdered on his return to headquarters after he had seen Alexander off on his return journey down the Jhelum. According to Arrian (vi, 27, 2), Philip fell a victim to jealousy between Greeks and Macedonians of his garrison, but the incident was “symptomatic of a more deeply seated trouble” (Cambridge History of India, Vol. I). Alexander re­ceived the news of his murder before he had reached Carmania, on his westward march, but he was quite helpless to avenge it. All that he could do was to seek the good offices of his Indian ally, the King of Taxila, to whom he sent des­patches asking him kindly to “assume the administration of the Province pre­viously governed by Phillipus until he could send a Satrap to govern it” (Arrian, VI, 27). That Satrap was never sent. On the contrary, an Indian King was helped to extend his authority beyond the Indus and the frontiers up to the Kabul valley and Hindukush. A Thracian, named Eudamus, was left as the sole Greek agent in charge of the garrison at Pushkalavati (modern Charsada) to deal with the scattered Greek and Mace­donian troops and colonists who lingered on in India.

Then followed the death of Alexander in 323 B.C., when the Greek situation in India became extremely critical. The two years 325-323 B.C. that intervened between the death of Philip and that of Philip’s master were fateful years for the revolutionary movement that were silently going on behind the scenes for achieving India’s freedom from foreign subjection.

Chandragupta appears on the scene as the leader of this movement. What was then happening may be gathered from the following statement of Justin (XV, 4), the only available evidence on the subject. “India, after Alexander’s death, as if the yoke of servitude had been shaken off her neck, had put this Prefect to death. Sandrocottus (Chan­dragupta) was the leader who achieved this freedom…. He was born in humble life. . . . Having collected a band of ‘robbers,’ he instigated the Indians to overthrow the existing (Greek) govern­ment…. He was thereafter prepar­ing to attack Alexander’s Prefects, mounted on an elephant which fought vigorously in front of the army.” The “Prefects” mentioned here must be the Satraps Nicanor and Philip, who were both assassinated, as already related.

His success in the Punjab in ridding it of foreign rule made him turn confi­dently to the main mission of his life, viz., to rid his own country of its wicked ruler, Nanda. We have not much evidence on the details of Chandragupta’s conquest of Magadha, but it was a sensational episode and roused popular interest. It passed into folklore and tradition. The Buddhist texts relate that Chandragupta’s movement was from the frontier to the interior of India, towards Magadha and Pataliputra and that he had first made mistakes in strategy. “In his ambition to be a monarch, without beginning from the frontiers and taking the towns in order as he passed, he invaded the heart of the country and found his army sur­rounded by the people on all sides and routed: like a child eating the middle part of a cake and not eating from the edges, which were thrown away.” Next, he tried another method. He commenced operations from the fron­tiers (Pachchantato Patthaya) and con­quered many rashtras and janapadas, States and peoples, on the way; but his mistake was not to post garrisons to hold the conquests. The result was that the people left in the rear of his advance were free to combine, to encircle his army, and defeat his designs. Then the proper strategy dawned on him. He had garrisons stationed at the rashtras and janapadas as they were conquered (uggahitanaya balam samvidhaya) and, crossing the frontiers of Magadha with his victorious army, encountered the Nanda army, besieged Pataliputra and killed Dhana-Nanda (Mahavamsatika).

A similar comment on strategy is also contained in the Jaina work, Sthavira- valicharita, which states: “Like a child burning his finger which he greedily puts in the middle of the dish, instead of eating from the outer part which was cool,*Chanakya had been defeated be­cause he had not secured the surrounding country before attacking the stronghold of the enemy. Profiting by this advice, Chanakya went to Himatvatkuta and entered into alliance with Parvataka, the king of that place . . . they opened the campaign by reducing the provinces.”

These stories only point to the funda­mental fact of Indian history that all movements of conquest in India have been from the frontier to the interior, from the north to the south, from the highlands to the plains. It is only in the case of the British as a sea-power that the movement has followed a different course, from the sea upwards.

It is also apparent from the stories that the conquest of Nanda’s Empire was the result of several attempts, because it was so powerful. Curtius records that its army comprised 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, 2,000 four- horsed chariots, and 3,000 elephants. It was very large, extending as far as the Punjab. Paurava II, retreating before Alexander’s invasion of his country between the Chenab and Ravi, found shelter in the Nanda dominions (McCrindle’s Invasion, p. 279). The Puranas describe the first Nanda “as a second Parasurama, who exterminated all Kshatriyas,” and mentions as the contemporary Kshatriya dynasties the Aiksvakus, Panchalas, Kasis, Haihayas, Kalingas, Asmakas, Kurus, Maithilas, Surasenas and Vitihotras. The Greeks describe him as the ruler of peoples called Gangaridae and Prasii, i.e. the peoples of the Ganges valley and the Prachyas or Easterns, peoples living to the east of the “Middle Country” such as the Panchalas, Surasenas, Kosalas and the like. The Puranas again call him Mahapadma, which literally means “Lord of immense army and wealth, 100,000 millions.” Thus Nanda had untold re­sources in both men and money. What he lacked was popularity. Chandra­gupta himself reported to Alexander that Nanda was “hated by his subjects” and this report Alexander got confirmed by the Indian Kings Paurava and Bhagala (Phegelas). The Greek writers record that Nanda’s unpopularity was due to the original sin of his ancestor who was a barber and a paramour of the wife of his royal master, whom he murdered, to­gether with the royal children, and seized the throne for his son by the guilty Queen (Diodorus and Curtius cited in McCrindle’s Invasion).

Thus the Nanda dynasty was born in sin, which Hindu social opinion could not tolerate. The Puranas dub the dynasty as “immoral.” The Buddhist texts call Nanda as Dhana-Nanda for his rapacity. The Mahavamsatika (Tumour, Introduction to Mahawanso, p. xxxix) has a different tradition about the first Nanda, whom it calls by another name, Ugrasena. He started as a marauder and formed a gang of dacoits with his other brothers and later seized Magadhan sovereignty (cf. Mahabod- hivamsa). Perhaps the Greek version is more reliable as being based upon first-hand reports. It is echoed in Bana’s Harshacharita, which states that “Kakavarni Saisunagi was killed by a dagger thrust into his throat in the suburb of his city”-pointing to the treacherous murder of his royal master by the Queen’s paramour, the barber, the sinful progenitor of the Nanda dynasty. A similar tradition is recorded in Jain works. The Parisishtaparvan (p. 46) describes Nanda as the son of a barber by a courtesan, which implies a double degradation due to both parents being tainted. The Avasyakasutra (p. 690) describes the Nanda king as “be­gotten of a barber” (napitadasa).

There are different traditions as to the circumstances which led to a clash between Chandragupta and Nanda. According to Justin, Chandragupta “by his insolent behaviour had offended King Nandrus and when ordered by that king to be put to death, he had sought safety by a speedy flight.” The text of Justin has the name Alexandrum, which is taken to be a mistake for Nandrum, i.e. Nandra. The Mahavamsatika, how­ever, relates that it was not Chandra­gupta but Chanakya who had offended Nanda. Chanakya had come all the way from his native city of Taxila to Pataliputra to try his wits at disputation at the court of Dhana Nanda, who was now a changed man, his avarice being replaced by a love of giving. His charities were organised through an institution called Danasala, administered by a Samgha, of which Chanakya was appointed president with liberty to give up to a crore, but the king, unable to stand his look and manners, relieved him of his office. The insulted Chanakya now became his mortal enemy and escaped in the disguise of an Ajivika ascetic. Then he came across Chandra­gupta as a foundling and brought him to Taxila, as already related. The Mudrdrakshasa also supports this tradi­tion in stating that Nanda had insulted Chanakya by expelling him publicly from his place of honour in his court. It represents Chanakya as the primary enemy of Nanda, and Chandragupta only as his instrument. The drama opens with the statement of Chanakya that he has already destroyed the Nanda family and will not spare a single off shoot thereof. The Milinda panho (SBE. Vol. XXXVI, p. 147) gives the information that the general of Nanda’s army was Bhaddasala and mentions the colossal carnage of the war at which were killed “100 kotis of soldiers, 10,000 elephants, 1 lac of horses and 5,000 charioteers.”

The subsequent career of Chandra­gupta may be gathered from the following Statement of Plutarch (Life of Alexander, Ch. LXII) as the only evidence on the subject. “Not long afterwards, Andro- kattos (Chandragupta), who had by that time mounted the throne, presented Seleukos with 500 elephants and overran and subdued the whole of India with an army of 600,000.” “The throne” here refers to the throne of Magadha, which Chandragupta had won by defeating the Nanda king. His conquest of the Magadhan Empire was followed by two other achievements, first, the defeat of Seleukos and, secondly, the conquest of southern parts of India which were not included in the Nanda Empire. In the struggle for power among his generals, following Alexander’s death, Seleukos emerged victorious in 312. B.C. and later thought of recovering Alexander’s conquests in India. Crossing the Indus in 305 B.C., he found a new India, strong and united, under Chandragupta, with whom he had to come to terms. He ceded to Chandragupta the four Greek provinces of Paropanisadae (Kabul), Aria (Herat), Arachosia (Kandahar) and part of Gedrosia, making up modern Afghan­istan and Baluchistan. Chandragupta on his part presented Seleukos with 500 elephants, which he found helpful in his war with his rival Antigonos. By this treaty of 303 B.C. Chandragupta was the first Indian King to extend the frontiers of India to the borders of Persia.

There is no evidence to prove Chand­ragupta’s conquest of the south, except the passage from Plutarch cited above. A Jain tradition (Rajavalikathe cited in IA. 1892, p. 157) relates that Chand­ragupta abdicated and settled clown at Sravana Belgola in Mysore as an ascetic. It stands to reason that he chose for his retirement a place which was not outside his vast dominion, while his grandson, Asoka, tells in his Inscriptions that his immediate “neighbours” in the south (Antah) were Cholas, Pandyas and others. So the Maurya Empire had in­cluded Sravana Belgola within its limits.

Some ancient Tamil authors like Mamulanar or Paranar mention Mauryas advancing up to a hill in Tinnevelley district, led by a warlike clan called Kosar. There are also late Mysore inscriptions referring to Chandragupta’s rule in Mysore (Rice, Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions, p. 10). Nagak- handa in Shikarpur Taluka, Mysore, is stated to be included in the kingdom of Chandragupta. The Mauryas are sup­posed to have penetrated into Southern India through the Konkan.

To sum ur, Chandragupta is to be credited with achievements which in­clude the overthrow of the Greek occu­pation and conquest of the Punjab; the conquest of the Empire of Magadha; the victory over the western king, Seleukos, and the extension of empire beyond the Indian frontiers; and the conquest of the South and the political unification of North and South under one paramount sovereignty.

The government of such a vast empire was necessarily based upon a system of decentralisation. The empire was divided up into a number of Pro­vinces and Vice-royalties and each of these was of the time-honoured pattern of the Hindu State, comprising the ruler or governor at the top, heads of depart­ments, a hierarchy of officials in different grades of jurisdiction and the self- governing village communities at the foundation of the structure. In the inscriptions of Asoka, under whom the Maurya Empire was seen at its best, there are mentioned cities like Taxila, Ujjain, Kosambi, Girnar, Tosali, and Suvarnagiri as the seats of the provincial governments. The evidence for the reign of Chandragupta on these matters is very meagre. We know only from a later inscription of Rudradaman (of C. A.D. 150) of the western province of Chandragupta’s empire, which was then called Surashtra and had its capital at Girinagara (Girnar). It was administered by the governor (Rashtriya), named Pushyagupta Vaisya. The province was known for the “beautiful reservoir” called Sudarsana Tataka (Lake).

The provincial government in the traditional Hindu polity rested on a hierarchy of officers of different grades and jurisdictions, planned on what may be called the decimal system, comprising the village (grama) as the smallest unit under the officer called Gramani and groups of to, 20, too and i,000 villages under officers called, respectively, Dasi, Vimsi, Satesa and Sahasresa, in an ascend­ing order of authority, culminating in the provincial governor called Adhipati (cf Manu, VII, 115-125). These several authorities received revenue, dealt with the returns of crime and passed them on from one to the next higher till revenues and reports focused in the king, the lord of all. Towns grew out of villages as centres of protection and prosperity. Every ten villages were served by a market-town called Samgrahana; 300 or 400 villages had their county towns ailed Kharvataka and Dronamukha (located at a river’s mouth); and, lastly, there were the great city, Nagara, or Pura, the port or Pattana and the capital or Rajadhani (Artha-Sastra, p. 46).

At the foundation of the structure was the village community functioning like a self-governing corporation or republic. The villagers were free to legislate for themselves through the groups to which they belonged, the Kula or family, the Jati or caste, the Sreni or guild and the Janapada, the locality. The king’s duty was to recognise and enforce the laws laid down for themselves by these self-governing groups, communities, and corporations, and the laws of different localities (Manu, VIII, 41, 46).

As regards the administration, a vast body of valuable and concrete evidence is furnished by the epoch-making San­skrit work, the Artha-Sastra of Kautilya. Although the exact date and authorship of the work cannot be ascertained (as in the case of most Sanskrit works which are products of schools and not of individual authors and hence open to additions), scholars are agreed that the contents, of the work reflect the conditions of Maurya India.

The main source of information regarding India under Chandragupta Maurya is the account of Megasthenes who, after the Treaty of 303 B.C., was sent as an envoy by Seleukos to the court of the Indian king, where he spent a number of years and had several times visited the Maurya capital.

He describes Pataliputra as situated at the confluence of the Son and Ganges, protected by a massive timber palisade (of which fragments have been recently excavated), pierced by 64 gates, crowned by 570 towers, and surrounded by a moat boo feet broad and 30 cubits deep, filled from the waters of the Son.

The palace was of timber, with gilded pillars adorned with golden vines and silver birds. The king was carried in a golden palanquin adorned with tassels of pearls, and was clothed in muslin em­broidered with gold. Public amusements were fights of bulls, rams, elephants, rhinos, and other animals, gladiatorial contests, ox-races and the like. The chief royal amusement was the chase. The king was attended by armed female guards. He attended court to administer justice, “remaining there all day thus occupied, not suffering himself to be interrupted even though the time arrives for attending to his person” (Strabo, iii, 106-107).

Megasthenes brings the Indians under seven classes with reference to their occupations: (r) The Philosophers, i.e. the Brahmans, who performed sacrifices privately for individuals and publicly for kings; (z) the Agriculturists who formed the bulk of the population and were exempt from military service and were often found freely working in the fields, in sight of a battle raging close by; (3) Herdsmen and Hunters; (4) Traders, Artisans and Boatmen. Armourers and ship-builders were to work for the State, and not for private individuals. The admiral of the king’s navy hired out ships to private individuals for the transport of goods and passengers. (5) Soldiers, who received pay even in peace time; (6) In­spectors forming the Intelligence Depart­ment, who watched what was going on and reported to the king, and were known for their probity; and (7) the King’s Ministers, the class from whom were re­cruited “the magistrates, the chiefs of dis­tricts, the deputy governors, the keepers of the treasury, the army superintendents, the admirals, the high stewards, and the overseers of agriculture.”

Megasthenes gives some facts about the educational system of the country. Its leaders are called “Philosophers,” who were both Brahmans and “Sar- manes,” S’ramanas, ascetics. The Brah­man students spent 37 years in student­ship, living with their teacher “in a grove near the city, using beds of leaves and skins, living sparely, practising celibacy and abstinence from flesh- food, listening to discourse, and admit­ting others to discussion. This point to the Hindu system of education based on Brahmacharya. The Sramanas ‘lived in the forests on leaves and wild fruits, wearing barks of trees’ and always meditating and worshipping gods. These were probably the Sannyasis in the fourth stage or asrama of a Hindu’s life. Some of these were medical philoso­phers,’ ‘treating people by diet and not by medicines’ and preferring medi­cines to be applied externally ‘to drugs.’ ” (Megasthenes, Frag. 40=Strabo, XV, C. 71 If)- Strabo mentions another class of philosophers called Pramanai, the Pramanikas, who believed in pramana or reasoning as a means of knowledge. Being rationalists, they laughed at ritualist Brahmins (Strabo, xv, C. 719). It is also stated that the ‘Philoso­phers’ were assembled by the king on New Year’s Day to make their sugges­tions for improving the conditions of the country and sound recommendations were rewarded by the king by granting exemptions from taxation.