Studies in History

http://sih.sagepub.com/

Of tribes, hunters and barbarians: Forest dwellers in the Mauryan period

Aloka Parasher-Sen
Studies in History 1998 14: 173
DOI: 10.1177/025764309801400202

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://sih.sagepub.com/content/14/2/173.citation

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Studies in History can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://sih.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://sih.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Aug 1, 1998

What is This?

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 Of tribes, hunters and barbarians:
Forest dwellers in the Mauryan period

Aloka Parasher-Sen

Department of History
University of Hyderabad

Evidence from Greek writings and the Asokan edicts clearly suggest that the
Mauryan period in the subcontinent saw a contact between peoples and cul-
tures on a scale and intensity that had not been known before. It has been
rightly surmised that the Mauryan empire ’was a decidedly mixed empire,
over subjects ranging from Stone age savages to people who had heard and
understood the original discourse of Aristotle’.’ This essay looks at the nature
of this contact between cultures through a focus on theArthasästra, an impor-
tant text associated with the Mauryan period.2 Though the use of the Artha-
§istria exclusively for the Mauryan period and, based on it, the characterization

Acknowledgements: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conference on Ecologi-
cal History and Traditional Sciences organized by the Centre for Science and Environment at
the India International Centre, New Delhi, 27-29 March, 1997.
1
D.D. Kosambi, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline, New Delhi,
1970, p. 140.
2
P.V. Kane, History of the Dharma
stra, Vol. II, Poona, 1962, p. xi assigns the date of this text
śā
as 300 B.C.; R.P. Kangle, The Artha
stra, Pt. III, Bombay, 1965, Chap. 4, pp. 59ff. reviews the
śā
problem of the date at length and concludes to assign it to the Mauryan period. He considers that
it is important (p. 10) to note that the text marks a culmination of a long period of speculation on
the matter which forms the subject of the śā
stra; A.B. Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, Lon-
don, 1940, pp. 459-61, is typical of the view that proposes the work to be a product of c. A.D. 300
chiefly because the accounts of the Mauryan state given by Megasthenes in his Indica, and by
Kautilya in the stra do not coincide; D.D. Kosambi,
śā
Artha An Introduction to the Study of Indian
History, Bombay, 1975 rpt, pp. 210-12 disagrees with Keith’s views first by showing that accounts
of Megasthenes and Kautilya do tally, and, second, by detailing reasons why society depicted in
the Artha
stra could not exist in the India of c. A.D. 300. More recently, based on the researches
śā
done on a statistical analysis of terms used in this text, T.R. Trautmann, Kautilya and the
stra, Leiden, 1971, p. 174, concludes that there is no unity of authorship in the text and
śā
Artha
therefore, there are as many dates as authors of the text. However, a provisional date for it is sug-
gested on pp. 176-87 as c. A.D. 250. Based on these insights it is possible to conclude as Romila
Thapar had done ś
A
(
oka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Delhi, 1961, Appendix), that some por-
tions of the text may be considered later additions.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
174 /

of the Mauryan empire as a highly centralized polity has been questioned in

recent historiography,3 we still need to have a closer look at this text because
of the policies that it enunciates and the larger ideological milieu of the times
that it reveals.
Recent writings of Romila Thapar and Gerard Fussman have raised new
questions about the nature of Mauryan control over different parts of the sub-
continent and the diverse forms of social life within it. In Thapar’s view,4
effective Mauryan control lay in Magadha which should be looked at as a met-
ropolitan state. It was this metropolitan state, she argues, that initiated con-
quest and control of the other areas, the territorial expansion to mobilize
resources necessary to support the metropolitan areas. If these resources
could not be found in the ’core’ areas, expansion and exploitation of the ’pe-
riphery’ became essential. Each of these areas would provide different kinds
of resources, some tracts yielding agrarian surplus, others mineral products;
yet others were trade enclaves profitable to the state. In this interpretation of
the Magadhan empire we are given an opportunity to look deeper into the
complex relationship between the dominating and the dominated regions of
the empire which were held together not merely by military strength.
Fussman,5 too, questions the hypothesis that the Mauryan empire was only
dependent on the efficiency of the central administration and the armed
forces. Through a use of the Greek accounts and the edicts of Moke, he con-
cludes that the Mauryan empire was made up of (a) territories administered
directly by the Crown; (b) kingdoms conquered or won over, and; (c) tribes
and republics with some degree of internal autonomy. These tribes existed
before the Mauryan Empire and they survived its dissolution. In this interpre-
tation the Mauryas strove hard to bring under its power pre-constituted entities
to which it left ’a greater or lesser degree of autonomy according to the place
and circumstances’ so that ’history and geography precluded the constitution
of a unitarian state, which is not a reality even in the twentieth century’.66
It is against this background of interpretation that I suggest that however
powerful an ancient empire, it always had difficulties in containing diverse
ethnically powerful populations. This essay seeks to understand how the state
perceived the forest-dwellers and sought to subordinate and assimilate them.
Geography and the perceived existence of hostile tribes defined the frontiers
of the empire and both had to be mastered for the expansion and integration
of the state. This meant that the growth of empire and the processes of territo-
rial acquisition and assimilation went along with the defeat and subjection of
tribal and frontier peoples, a marginalization of their ways of life. In a perti-
nent verse defining the Arthasästra, it is said: ‘ artha is the sustenance or

3
Gerard Fussman, ’Central and Provincial Administration in Ancient India: The Problem of
the Mauryan Empire’, The Indian Historical Review, Vol. 14: 1-2, 1987-88, p. 48.
4
Romila Thapar, The Mauryas Revisited, S.G. Deuskar Lectures in Indian History, 1984, Cal-
cutta, 1987, pp. 3-4.
5
Fussman, ’Central and Provincial Administration’, p. 71.
6
Ibid. , p. 72.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 / 175

livelihood (vrttih) of men; in other words ’the earth inhabited by men’.

Anha§3stra is the science which is the means of acquisition and protection of
the earth’.7 Kangle explains to us that the word vrtti (derived from vartta) was
the three-fold economic activity of agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade,
which ’constituted the usual means by which men obtained their livelihood on
earth’ (emphasis added).8 In this explanation there is no mention of food-
gathering and hunting as a means of earning livelihood. Since there was no
recognized space for such activities, the underlying aggressive goal of acquir-
ing habitats that sustained hunting-gathering was taken for granted. In fact,
this fits in well with Patafijali’s9 suggestion that within a janapada-the resi-
dence of decent people (drya niväsa), there were four types of settlements,
namely, grdma, ghosa, nagara and samväha. The first two referred to agricul-
tural and pastoral settlements respectively while the latter two were indicative
of urban conglomerations.
In an important essay, B. Subbarao divided the major geographical niches
of the subcontinent into three categories:l° (a) perennial nuclear regions or
areas of attraction; (b) culs de sac or areas of isolation and in between these

two; and (c) the areas of relative isolation.ll He argued that the horizontal
expansion of the so-called ’higher cultures’ led to the displacement, contrac-
tion and isolation of the so-called ’lower cultures’ in different parts of the
country at different periods and at different cultural levels producing the
three geographical and cultural niches. 12 Developing Subbarao’s idea
Sankalia mapped the distribution of the prehistoric food-gathering cultures.
These maps clearly show that a large part the subcontinent has evidence of
stone age communities except the major river valleys of the Indus and the
Ganges. 13 This substantiates Gadgil’s and Thapar’s statement: ’Before the
spread of extensive settled cultivation, the Indian subcontinent would have
been inhabited by territorial hunter-gatherers and shifting cultivators with
cultural traditions of prudent resource use’. 14

The Civilized and the Barbarian

The river valley civilization on the plains of the Ganga displayed pejorative
cultural attitudes towards tribal communities. From literary sources we can try

7
15.1.2.
8
R.P. Kangle, The Kautiliya Artha
stra, New Delhi, 1986 rpt, Vol. 3, p. 1.
śā
9 on Pāninī, IV3.84.
sya
bh
ā
Mah
10
B. Subbarao, The Personality of India, Pre and Proto-Historic Foundations of India and Paki-
stan, Baroda, 1958, p. 12.
11
Ibid., map on ’Physical Regions of India and Pakistan’, as Figure 6, p. 19. (See also Figure 3,
p. 12; Figure 4, p. 15; Figure 5, p. 17.)
12
Ibid., p. 12. See H.D. Sankalia, Pre History and Proto History of India and Pakistan, Poona,
1960, map on distribution of early neolithic and chalcolithic cultures, Figure 246, p. 555.
13
Ibid., map on distribution of mesolithic cultures, Figure 56, p. 234.
14
M. Gadgil and R. Thapar, ’Human Ecology in India: Some Historical Perspectives’, Interdis-
ciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 15:3, 1990, p. 209.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 176 /

and understand the way the dominant community, primarily the traditional
cultivator and the urban elite, constructed and defined itself vis-~-vis ethnic
groups pursuing pastoralism and hunting as a mode of livelihood. One of the
earliest movements of people on the subcontinent was the immigration of
Indo-Aryan. They designated the area of their settlement as ’drydvarta’. A
study of the changing connotation of this term reveals that as the Aryans
moved into the land, spreading their influence and culture, they enlarged the
concept of homeland. In one of the earliest and standard explanations,
. Ãryävarta15 is said to be the country which lay to the east of the region where
the river Sarasvati disappeared, to the west of the Black Forest (Kalakavana),
to the north of the Pdriydtra mountains and to the south of the Himalayas.
These geographical indicators, defining the limits of the land where the
Dharmasutra injunctions were to be followed to their perfection, excluded
present-day Bengal and Bihar, as well as a major portion of the land sacred to
the Rgvedic Aryans. 16 This exclusion is historically significant.
Dharnzasiistra writers did expand the definition to include all the land south
of the Himalayas and north of the Vindhyas, and two oceans forming the limits
in the east and west. However, there was also another flexible definition which
is interesting in the present context. This was by quoting a tradition contained
in the Brahmana of the Bhdllavins, a school of the Siimaveda. According to
this tradition Aryavarta was to be demarcated by areas where the black ante-
lope naturally grazed. Its wanderings in the west were said to be limited by the
Indus (Sindhu) and in the east by the regions where the sun rose (suryodyana).
It has been suggested by scholars that the black antelope grazed only on the
well-cultivated rich plains of India and not on the sandy, mountainous and
forested areas. The latter tracts, as is well known, were commonly inhabited
by the aboriginal tribes. 17 Later Smrtis, like those of Manu, sanctify this tradi-
tion further by suggesting that the land where the black antelope naturally
roamed was to be considered fit for sacrifice. In fact, Visvarupa, the commen-
tator of the Yajfiavalkya Smrti explained clearly: ’Sacrifice became a black
antelope and wandered over the earth, dharma followed in its wanderings’. 18
The implication of these descriptions of pure land associated with the lands
of the well-watered plains of northern India was deeper. Conscious concern
about the purity of land was also apparent when there were references to peo-
ple of mixed origin (sathkirnayotzi). In the section on the rules and customs of
different countries, Baudhdyana considered the inhabitants of Avanti, Anga,
Magadha, Surdstra, Daksinapatha, Updvrt and Sindhu Sauvira to be of mixed
15
Aloka Parasher, Mlecchas in Early India: A Study in Attitudes towards Outsiders up to A.D. 600,
New Delhi, 1991, pp. 93-94.
16
Ibid., see map IV, p. 299.
17
A.A. Führer, Aphorisms on the Sacred Laws of the Ā
ryas, Bombay Sanskrit Series, Bombay,
1883, p. 3, fn. 13.
18
avalkya Smrti, ed. T. Ganapathi Sastri, Trivandrum, 1922, rpt., New Delhi,
Viśvarupa on Yaj
ń
1982, I.2.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 /177

origin. Those people who visited the countries of the Arattha, Karaskaras,
Pundras, Sauvira, Vangas, Kalingas, Pranuas, were to offer a grautasiitra sac-
rifice called Punhstoma or Sarvapristhi. Taking some of these early pieces of
evidence from the Dhannasütra literature which is generally considered to be
pre-Mauryan, one observes that the lands excluded from Aryavarta were the
Punjab, Magadha, Anga, Vanga, Gujarat, Sindhu and the lands south of the
Vindhyas as well as Rajputana and Malwa. This exclusion cannot merely be
understood in cultural terms and was, in fact, intrinsically linked to the pace of
agrarian growth in these areas during the sixth century B.C. when state society
was just beginning to be entrenched in the core of the Ganga Valley.’9 The
establishment of the va17Jiisrama society also went hand-in-hand with these
developments.
If we turn to Buddhist and Jain literature that describe conditions of this
period, we see that their definitions of Majjhimadesa2° clearly give a better
idea of the eastern regions. The Vinaya Pitaka in explaining the border coun-
try (orpaccantimdjanapada) gives us its limit as the lands beyond the towns of
Kajangala and Mahasala in the east, the river Salalavati in the south-east, the
town of Setakannika in the south, the Brahmana village of Thina in the west
and the mountain range of Usiraddhaja in the north. The Buddhist writers
clearly extended the boundary of Majjhimadesa to include the Anga and
Magadha territory. The Buddhists, however, were unfamiliar with the west-
ern and southern regions. The soil in the country of Avanti Dakkhinapatha
was described as black and rough on the serface, trampled by the feet of cat-

tle, difficult for the monks to travel bare foot.21 The border areas in both Bud-
dhist and Jaina writing were understood as the habitat of tribals, people
among whom ignorance abounded. In fact, in the Jaina writings, the monks
and nuns when going on pilgrimage were told to avoid areas belonging to bor-
der peoples and unlearned and barbaric peoples. They were graphically des-
cribed as half-civilized and unconverted people who ate and rose at improper
times. These injunctions were similar to those contained in the Dharmasutras
which stated that the sniitakas were not to visit inferior men, nor the countries
inhabited by them.22 The Buddhist texts further recognized that in some parts
of the country broad regional differences were manifested in social organiza-
tion : among the Yona and Kamboja communities, it is pointed out, only two
vannas existed, that of the master and the slave, arya and dasa.23 Thus, apart
from the social organization based on the va17Jiisrama system in large parts of
northern India during the sixth century B.c., there were other prevailing social
systems, those of the foreigners like Greeks and the tribes being particularly
marked out.

19
Summarized from Parasher, Mlecchas in Early India, 1991, pp. 94-95.
20
Ibid., map V, p. 300.
21
Ibid., pp. 96-97.
22

23
pastambha Dharmas
Ā tra, I. 11. 32. 18.
u
Majjhima Nikya I, 149.
ā

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
178

The Jaina tradition, which was systematized later, around the fifth century
A.D., during the reign of King Sampai (Samprati), contain references to many
countries other than the sixteen Mahajanapadas which were made suitable
for the movement of the Jaina monks. The Pannavana (Prajnapana) conse-
quently has listed twenty-five-and-a-half countries, with their important cit-
ies,24 as those inhabited by the arya and fifty-three countries of the milakkha
or barbarians.25 Though the Jainas, like the Buddhists, gradually incorporated
into their lists of arya countries areas outside the traditional home of their ori-
gin, there were still large tracts that were designated as out of bounds for the
monks. These were the mountainous and forested tracts of the subcontinent.
To discuss this relationship between the drya and the non-drya, the civilized
and the barbarian, I will now focus on the northern and central parts of the
Mauryan empire.
Fragments of Megasthenes’ account depicting conditions in the third cen-
tury B.C. informs us that the Indians were surrounded by barbarian tribes who
differed from the rest of the population.26 He mentions the existence of 118
communities of peoples but he does not seem to attach any importance to dif-
ferences among them. Nor does he mention any province of special status.
Attitudes changed by Mauryan times. Mokan Edicts and the Arthasästra
clearly show that the traditional rules of excluding the tribes from imperial
territory was outrightly broken on the one hand, and on the other, state’s ini-
tiatives and policy now sought to redefine these groups. New forms of politi-
cal, economic and ideological dominance intruded into tribal habitats. There
was also a desire to differentiate different types of tribal groups through vari-
ous generic names and by such general terms as arafJyacara, atavi and atavika.

By the Mauryan period many tribal settlers, especially on the periphery of

the northern plains had merged into the wider peasant population as a result
of the slow but gradual progress of agriculture especially along the Ganga Val-
ley. However the janapada settlements were still separated from each other
by large tracts of forests inhabited solely by food-gathering populations .27 For-
ests between villages of the same janapada would supply fuel, timber, hay,
game, edible produce and provide land for grazing. Importantly, these were
considered safe from the danger of human populations inhabiting these for-
ests. However, as part of the policy for the defense and settlement of the
countryside, Kautilya suggests that the frontiers of each janapada were to be
heavily guarded against attack from savages or foreign enemies. Fortresses
were to be erected on the frontiers under the command of frontier chiefs.~

24
sya I. 326ff.
Brhatkalpa Bh
ā
25
Listed in Parasher, Mlecchas in Early India, p. 212.
26
J.W. McCrindle, Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian, Calcutta, 1925,
pp. 20-21.
27
Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, pp. 145-47.
Ś
A
28
2.1.5.
.,

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 179

The territory between the frontier and the fortresses was to be guarded by
trappers (vägurikas), Sabaras, Pulindas, CafJ4älas and forest dwellers (aranya-
cara).29 The contrast between the aranyacara and those known as the atavika
has to be emphasized. The latter in particular carried the connotation of a
wild savage tribe well entrenched in the jungle fastnesses who were ostensibly
a nuisance to the state.

, These territories of savages were often spied on by agents disguised as her-

mits. They were considered less ripe for a change to food production and
Kautilya has clearly pointed out that they could be a source of danger to the
state, and if they became aggressive they had to be subjugated.3° They, the
atavikds, were said to be well-organized and brave, practically autonomous,
and fond of looting and killing. They are here compared to robbers and
thieves and were usually said to operate on the frontiers and forests. Kautilya
considered them more dangerous than robbers because they operated from
their own territories and had all the facilities that a strong king could have
In another context, it is mentioned that a forest chieftain was one who was
capable of seizing the throne from the ruler, especially if the latter was impi-
ous.32 Alternatively, a strong king could destroy the kingdom of a forest chief-
tain by winning him over with bribes.33
Apart from the forest and hunting tribes, there were roving or wandering
tribes known by the term bdhirika or ’outsiders’, commonly known as gypsies.
Described in the context of a discussion on the layout of a fortified city, they
were stated to be harmful to the country and not allowed entry to the city.

They were either to be sent back to the countryside or made to pay all taxes.34
These groups were distinguished from the forest and hill tribes because, as
Kangle points out,35 some of them were supposed to have criminal propensi-
ties. There was a term, m1tlava, in theArthasästra for dacoits or criminals but
it is not clear whether these were organized as tribes.36
It is quite clear from our evidence that the separateness of forest tribes
from civilized society had come to be regarded as fundamental. They were
known through various terms and, in the Arthasästra, a composite term,
mlecchajdti, came to allude to them. 37 This term had a pejorative meaning
though it did not prevent the state from establishing contact with them for
their own advantage.38 Considering the threat from these communities,

29
Ibid., 2. 1. 6.
30
Ibid., 7. 10. 16.
31
Ibid., 8. 4. 43.
32
Ibid., 1. 10. 3.
33
Ibid., 12. 3. 17.
34
Ibid., 2. 4. 32.
35
Kangle, The Kautilya Artha
stra, III, p.
śā 150.
36
&.,
A
Sacute; 4. 5. 1-7.
37
Ibid.,1. 12. 21; 7. 10. 16; 7. 14. 27; 13. 5. 15; 14. 1. 2.
38
Parasher, Mlecchas in Early India, p. 117.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
180

Kautilya advocated that in the conquered territory the king should change the
residence of professional thieves, of mlecchajaiis and of chiefs of forest, coun-
try and army.39 This injunction was part of a wider policy of settlement, pacifi-
cation and control of the newly conquered territory. This implied a far-
reaching transformation. Kosambi rightly observes: ‘...the tribal life and pro-
duction-whether Aryan or not-were systematically converted into a caste-
ridden peasantry conditioned not to bear arms, nor unite in opposition to the
State’. 40

Settling the Forest

Explaining the different means of livelihood and occupations, Kautilya argues

that no kingdom could exist without a country or territory and its people, and
without providing the people with vartta or livelihood.41 Janapada lands fell
into two categories: those paying rashtra taxes and those that were sita lands,
settled as well as farmed directly under crown supervision. In fact, an ideal
janapada was that which provided facilities for the pursuit of värttä.42 It would
be worth detailing the elements that went into the making of an ideal
janapada:
Possessed of strong positions in the centre and at the frontiers, capable of
sustaining itself and others in times of distress, easy to protect, providing
excellent [means ofl livelihood, malevolent towards enemies, with weak
neighbouring princes, devoid of mud, stones, salty ground, uneven land,
thorns, bands wild animals, deer and forest tribes, charming, endowed with
agricultural land, mines, material forests and elephant forests, beneficial to
cattle, beneficial to men, with protected pastures, rich in animals, not
depending on rain for water, provided with water-routes and land-routes,
with valuable, manifold and plenty of commodities, capable of bearing
fines and taxes, with farmers devoted to work, with a wise master, inhabited
mostly by the lower vamas, with men loyal and honest, these are the ...

excellences of a country. (Emphasis added)

Clearly, the focus here is on an ideal country that could be effectively ex-
ploited for resources. Further, forest tribes in this context have been equated
with wild animals and were not considered necessary in an ideal janapada
while the forests that they inhabited, especially if they provided raw materials,
were sought after. There is even a differentiation made between types of for-
ests. When describing the forest resources, Kautilya, unlike other teachers,

39
Ś
A
., 13. 5. 15.
40
Kosambi, An Introduction, p. 215.
41
Ś 8. 1. 29; 13. 4. 5.
A
.,
42
Ibid., 6. 1. 8.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 181

was of the view that the material forests (dravyavana) were less important
than elephant forests (hastivana). The former could always be planted for
more produce, resources of the latter could not be increased easily.43 Ele-

phant forests were not to be cleared since elephants were indispensable to the
army, not only in battle, but for heavy transport and building bridges. They
had prestige value as well. The principal products of the dravyavana included
all kinds of timber and wood and metals like iron, copper and lead.44 Reading
through this chapter of Arthagdstra, it appears that entirely new forests were
planted when a new state was carved out of unoccupied territory. That the
state gained a substantial amount of income from the forest wealth is clear
from the fact that it had special store-houses for the products of the forest in
the city45 and appointed officers knowledgeable about forest produce.~ Sepa-
rate forests, each for a different product, were to be planted; different vil-
lages, identified and noted, were to provide different raw materials (kupya).
Forest produce, fish, game and elephants were to be reserved for the state,
totally disregarding the interest of the people that inhabited these tracts.
There has been little discussion in existing historiography on how the extrac-
tion of these resources affected the tribal habitats, primarily because other
sources on the Mauryan period are not very explicit on these issues. Despite
some immediate economic benefit to the communities that lived by these
means of livelihood, in the long run a depletion of these resources probably
led to a migration away from these areas. Many of these tracts being contigu-
ous to agrarian tracts, were claimed for agricultural production over a period
of time.
Though, by the third century B.C., agrarian village communities had become
the general pattern over large parts of the Ganges valley, variations in the eco-
nomic structure continued to exist on the margins of important agrarian
tracts. Apart from forests, the other type of bhümicchidra land (’a weakness in
land’ or ’inferior type of land’) not suitable for agriculture, according to the
Arthasästra, was that used for pastures. 47 However, the importance of pastures
or grasslands was also emphasized as important for the profit of the state and
a special officer or ’superintendent of pastures’ called vivïtädhayalqa was

appointed for maintaining them. The king was advised that these uncultivable
tracts were to be made suitable for pasture. An officer was responsible for lay-
ing out grasslands, providing wells and tanks for this purpose, as also for
ensuring safety of the cattle grazing on such lands.41 In these cases, the state
was supposed to lease out pastures to the herdsman who cut and sold grass.49

43
Ibid., 7. 11. 13.
44
Ibid., 2. 2. 13-14.
45
Ibid., 2. 5. 1; 2. 5. 5.
46
Ibid., 1. 18. 20.
47
Ibid., 2. 2. 1ff.
48
Ibid., 2. 34. 6-8.
49 3. 10. 21.
Ibid.,

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
182/

However, the advantages of reclaiming land that was hitherto used for pasto-
ral purposes was also discussed. It is clearly stated that if land used by large
herds of cattle hindered expansion of cultivation, then the land was to be
reclaimed.10 Simultaneously, Kautilya also warned that lands producing abun-
dant yields could be reclaimed by the state if this land was threatened by a
calamity. Pastoral land was explicitly forbidden from expanding on to agricul-
tural land though, ’Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade, these constitute ...

economics, (artha) [which are] beneficial, they yield grains, cattle, money,
as
forest produce and labour’51 all for the benefit of the state. The shepherds
...

and herdsmen were certainly of some significance during the Mauryan period
because Megasthenes has listed them as the third ’caste’ in the schema of the
seven ’castes’ known to him. Their specialization was to hunt and domesticate
animals especially after forest land had begun to be used for pastures
Agriculture was indeed the dominant mode of production in the society of
Arthasâstra. Details on different types of agricultural land in the book53 effec-
tively explains the advantages of each type for the revenue of the state. To
expand revenue resources, virgin land was brought under cultivation under
state initiative. The primeval forest was, of course, not under any private own-
ership but was the abode of innumerable tribal populations. With the policy of
clearing new lands for cultivation the state also asserted its right as a predomi-
nant landowner. The Anha§dstra in its original form was formulated at a time
when it was felt that the pastoral and forest food-gathering tribes still needed
to be destroyed.
In an important section theatthagdstra dwells at some length on the settle-
ment on virgin land. This creates the impression that an entirely new janapada
could be brought into being by new settlements (abhütapü/Va janapada). 54
These settlements were described as complete in all respects, having villages,
fortified capitals and other elements that went into the making of a full-
fledged janapada. Kangle doubts whether this indicated the creation of a new
kingdoms The settlers could be immigrants from outside the janapada
(paradesäpavähamena) given special inducements to settle or, südra karshaka
families of about 100-500 in number.56 The latter could be the excess popula-
tion of heavily populated centres made to emigrate to the newly settled areas
within the state (svadesäbhiDJandavamanenavä). Imigration from outside,
writes Kangle, ’might involve the forcible removal of people from some for-
eign territory’. 17 On the basis of the figures (150,000) quoted in Asokan Rock
50
Ibid., 8. 4. 37-38.
51
Ibid., 1. 4. 2.
52
ś and the Decline, pp. 69-70.
A
Thapar,
oka
53
Ś 7. 11. 3-5.
A
.,
54
Ibid., 2. 1. 1.
55
Kangle, The Kautilya Artha
stra, III, p. 169.
śā
56
Ś 2. 1. 1-2.
A
.,
57
Kangle, The Kautilya Artha
stra, 1965, III,
śā p. 168.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 183

Edict XIII, Kalsi version of the dead and wounded in the Kalinga War, Thapar
suggests that ’a fair percentage must have been peasants who were probably
made to clear forested regions and cultivate virgin lands’ .58 However, accord-
ing to Kosambi, ’these villagers were not slaves, not even serfs, but free set-
tlers’59 so that the ’§fidra helot had come into his own under state control to
make large-scale slavery unnecessary for food production’. 60
Settlement on unoccupied land (sunyanivesa) was to be in the form of vil-
lages.61 The new villages which were to be three miles or so apart, had to have
the precise boundaries between them carefully demarcated, irrespective of
whether all the land was cleared or not, since there were frequent disputes
between villages .62 Whoever was willing to bring non-arable land under culti-
vation could do so and the state promised to help these new settlers with
seeds, cattle and even cash.63 The state was not the sole land-clearing agency.
Any group, usually organized guilds (sref]Í), could move to a jungle and clear
it. Different scales of taxes were charged in rdstra or sita areas.64 Otherwise,
they would be beyond the constantly expanding frontiers of any janapada,
hence beyond the king’s jurisdiction. This meant holding out against the for-
est savages (atavikd) by force of arms or direct negotiations. To what extent
they were a stimulus to the development of the ajavikfs is a matter for conjec-
ture. However, as noted by us below, it was anArthasästra practice to hire the
atavikas as scouts and army auxiliaries. This must have also had some influ-
ence on their future advance to civilization.

Pacifying the Atavikas

It would not be out of place to detail the views of Kautilya on how best to use
mleccha a ’tavikd tribes for the political advantage of the state. These steps ’
were intended to keep tribes occupied so that they could be prevented from

resorting to plunder and arson. Contrary to Brahmanical instructions to avoid

contact with them, Kautilya in fact recommends that they be used by the state
as spies against the enemy. The atavibala or troops composed of members of
forest tribes formed one of the six kinds of troops at the disposal of the ruler.
It was recognized that such troops, under the command of tribal chieftains,
were more interested in plunder than fighting. Alien troops commanded by
an arya were said to be better than forest troops.65 If a particular king’s army
confronted an army of wild tribes then, he was advised to use his own army of

58

59
Thapar, oka
ś and the Decline, p. 62.
A
Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, p. 149.
60
Kosambi, An Introduetion, p. 185; 218.
61

62
&.,
A
Sacute; 2. 1. 3.
Ibid., 2. 1. 3.
63
Ibid., 2. 1. 9; 2. 1. 13-14.
64
Ibid., 2. 1. 15-18.
65
Ibid., 9. 2. 18-20.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
184/

wild tribes against them.66 While it is admitted that a whole army of forest
tribes could at times pose a threat, the king was openly advised to secure the
help of certain mlecchas for his own personal needs. To reinforce their troops
kings were asked to secure the services of heroic men from bands, robber
groups, mleccha atavikdjdtis and secret agents.67 Mlecchas were also to be
employed to assassinate a weak king.68 They were even trusted as spies inside
the palace of the king.69
There are other dimensions of the state’s interference with tribal patterns
of social and political organization. The eleventh book of the Arthasiistra
describes the methods of the breaking-up of free, powerful, armed tribes of
food-producers organized as samghas.’° The main technique was to soften
them up for disintegration from within so as to convert the tribesmen into
members of a class society based upon individual private property. Dissension
was sown by spies and active tribal elements were sought to be corrupted. The
internal working of the tribal community was disturbed in every conceivable
way. The senior members of the tribe were not to eat at the tribal common
table, younger members of the group were incited to question their allotted
share of tribal lands and revenues, tribesmen were to be killed and the killing
was to be attributed to rival members within the tribe .71 The ultimate aim of
this policy was to see that the tribe was fragmented and the tribesmen settled
on different lands segregated from each other. The tribes people being
referred to in this context were of two kinds: those like the Kambojas and
Surastras Ksatriyas clans72 who bore arms and were involved in husbandry
(agriculture and trade); and those who lived solely by fighting, namely, the
ksatiiya oligarchs and their kings such as the Licchivikas, the Vrjikas, the
Mallakas, the Madrakas, the Kukuras, the Kurus, the Panchalas and others.73
Kautilya’s own proximity to the north-west meant that he had been in direct
contact with the Madra and Kamboj a tribes and his familiarity with their soci-
ety led him to formalize some of his ideas about these polities. His aim was to
emphasize that these militant and warrior groups had to be subdued for the
consolidation of a powerful state. On the other hand, the nomadic herding
tribesmen who were not armed or a military danger to the state, continued to
exist. It was perhaps on observing the importance of some of these communi-
ties that Megasthenes mentions pastoralists as one of the major seven ’castes’
of the Indian population in third century B.C. Kautilya thus proposed a policy
of pacifying, subduing and integrating the mlechcha atavikas and other forest

66
Ibid., 9. 2. 7-8.
67
Ibid., 7. 14. 27.
68
Ibid., 12. 4. 23.
69
Ibid., 1. 12. 21.
70
Ibid., 11. 1. 1-2.
71
Ibid., 11. 1. 10-11; 11. 1. 14-18.
72
Ibid., 11. 1. 4.
73
Ibid., 11. 1. 5.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 185

inhabitants and those living on the margins of an agricultural society. Political

expediency ultimately determined policies of conquest and pacification. A
Chakravartin ruler’s ideal of controlling the land which extended north to
south from the Himalaya to the seas,74 was never really achieved, except per-
haps by A~oka.’S Therefore we now take a brief look at Asoka’s relationship
with the tribal populations of his empire and those living on its frontiers.
In the Dhauli version of the Fifth Rock Edict, emperor Asoka claims to
have employed Dhamma-Mahamdtras throughout the earth sava putha-
viyarii76- indicating that the Mauryan monarch was well aware of the concept
of a Chakravarti but did not use the term to describe himself. In the Buddhist
Edict of Moka discovered near Bhabra (3.5 kms from Bairat), we come across
the phrase ’Magadhan king Piyadassi’.&dquo; This in no way implies that king
Moka was not a powerful paramount ruler who exerted considered control
over his subjects. His message to the forest tribes (atavi) in his Rock Edict
XIII makes this clear. Thus, it is declared:

Even when he is wronged, the Beloved of the Gods believes one must exer-
cise patience as far as it is possible to exercise. As far as the Forest (tribes)
which are in his Empire are concerned, the Beloved of the Gods conciliates
them too and preaches them. They are even told that they repent and do
not kill any more. (Emphasis added )78

This isan important statement. Agoka, moved by the horrors of the Kalinga

War, indicates his desire to renounce violence, and the king’s message is to be
spread everywhere even among the populations who lived on the fringes of his
Empire. It must, however, be underlined that Moka made a clear distinction
between people inhabiting the borders of the empire and the wild tribes in the
interior of the empire. The list of these people like the Yonas, Kambojas,
Nabhakas, Bhojas, Pitinikas, Andhras was engraved on Rock Edict XIII and
nearly all the well-known versions of this Edict have been found engraved at
the confines of the Empire. 79 Scholars suggest that these groups occupied a
status mid-way between the provinces of the empire and the unsubdued bor-
derers.8°
Moka was thus categorical in warning the forest tribes that even after the
Kalinga war, the king was still powerful and that they had to fall in line with his
policies. He certainly did not want to subdue these forest tribes through force
74
Ś 9. 1. 17-18.
A
.,
75
D.C. Sircar, The Geography of Ancient and Medieval India, Delhi, 1960, p. 4.
76
E. Hultzsch, ’Inscriptions of Aśoka’, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. 1, Oxford, 1925,
p. 87.
77
oka, Paris, 1950, p. 154.
Ibid., p. 173; J. Bloch, Les Inscriptions d’A
ś
78
Bloch, Les Inscriptions, pp. 128-29.
79
Ibid., pp. 103-4, 129-31.
80
H.C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India, Calcutta, 1953, p. 311.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
186/

and bloodshed, but wanted to be firm with them all the same. On the other
hand, in the Second Separate Edict, he made an appeal to all unconquered
peoples on his borders not to fear him and to follow the Dhamma initiated by
him.81 The Dhamma-Mahdmdtras were advised to inspire confidence among
those who lived in the borders and induce them to practise the moral princi-
ples laid down in his policy of Dhamma. No derogatory terms like mlechcha
were used in Asokan inscriptions to describe the forest tribes, the aim being to
win them over through the spread of his ideas on Dhamma.

Destruction and Conservation

Kosambi has pointed out that by the time of Asokan rule the size of janapadas
had increased, as also the complexity of populations inhabiting them. Jana-
pada frontiers were no longer widely separated. Trade routes through the
dense forest had greatly increased. In many areas the forest ’savages’ near the
margins of agrarian tracts were now relatively few. They had been pushed into
the interior of the forests and mountains. The forest land was now increas-
ingly penetrated by daring individuals who began to clear tracts for cultivation
which became difficult to classify as either rastra or sita lands.82 This implies
that by ASoka’s time, in certain parts of the subcontinent, the disturbance of
tribal habitats was far greater than in others. The necessity to protect forests
and their wealth began to be felt and this is also articulated in the Asokan
inscriptions which I will now discuss.
Buildings in the Mauryan period were in all probability made of timber83
creating a great demand of wood around towns and along major trade routes.
The fortifications of Patna were of timber.84 From the inscriptions we know
that Asoka spent a great deal on important public works. Hospitals were
founded all over the empire for men and beasts, with free medical attendance
at state expense. These efforts were made not only within his dominion but
also beyond its frontiers. All this activity naturally had an effect on diminish-
ing certain kinds of resources like wood and metals needed for construction
work. Kosambi$5 thus suggests that at least around Magadha some amount of
deforestation had taken place.
It is in this connection that our attention is drawn to the fact that Asoka was
concerned with the conservation of forests, completely prohibiting burning
down of forests.86 Kosambi sees this as an effort ’to protect settlements and
to conserve natural resources’. 87 The extent to which the prohibition was

81
Hultzsch, ’Inscriptions’, Vol. 1, pp. 116-17.
82
Summarized from Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, p. 163.
83
ś and the Decline, p. 76, 118.
A
Thapar,
oka
84
Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, p. 160.
85
Ibid., p. 164.
86
Pillar Edict V, Bloch, Les Inscriptions, p. 166.
87
Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, p. 162.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 / 187

stringently followed is doubtful. By the Mauryan period the final transition to

agrarian food production had been made, particularly in the Ganga Valley,
Asoka wanted people to be concerned about the devastation caused by this
transition. Thapar, however, pertinently draws our attention to another rea-
son why forests had to be preserved, namely, that they were ’a source of reve-

nue, which was provided by the tax on timber and on hunters who maintained
a livelihood from the animals in the forest’.88 The A rthasiistra had suggested
the employment of guards under the supervision of a ’Director of Forest Pro-
duce’ so that unnecessary damage was not done to forests
At another level, the ideology of ahinisa which had been important to Bud-
dhism as well, had an adverse impact on the day-to-day existence of the food
gathering population whose livelihood depended on killing of animals. In cer-
tain inscriptions found on the borders of the Asokan empire and written in
Greek and Aramaic the message was loud and clear. Hunters and fishermen
were strictly prohibited from taking to their traditional occupations. These

passages have generally been lauded for the piety contained in them because
they enunciated the principle of non-violence. Scholars have ignored the fact
that such policies profoundly affected the livelihood of the hunting and fish-
ing populations in certain niches of the subcontinent. In the two Aramaic
inscriptions found at Laghman9° in Afghanistan, it is indicated that Moke
expelled from his subjects those who indulged in killing creatures and fishes
and those involved in frivolous activities. The text reads thus: ’In the year 16,
Priyadargi scattered abundantly [i.e., dispersed] and pushed out of [or ex-
pelled from] the prosperous [population] the lovers of what is hunting of crea-
tures and fishes and what [i.e., that which] is worthless [or empty] work’.91 It is
not absolutely clear if these allusions were to professional hunters or refer to
those people who took to hunting as a pastime. However, there is clear refer-
- once in the Shar-i-Kuna Greek edict that after the expiry of the tenth year of
his coronation, Asoka promulgated the Law of Piety or Dhamma so that ’all
men including the king’s huntsmen and fishermen ... stopped hunting’.92 This

suggests that those hunters and fishermen who supplied flesh and fish to the
royal kitchen probably gave up their vocation.93 The Kandahar Greek edict
also indicates that ’the king’s huntsmen and fishermen have ceased hunt-
ing...’94 since Asoka ’had given orders to abstain from [consuming] animals’.95
88
ś and the Decline, p.
A
Thapar,
oka 118.
89
Ś 2. 17.
A
., 1-3. A list of forest produce is given subsequently: 2. 17. 4-17.
90
B.N. Mukherjee, ’Two Aramaic Edicts of Priyadarsi (Aśoka) from Laghman’, in Studies in
the Aramaic Edicts ś
of A I.M. Reprint Series No. 1, Indian Museum, Calcutta, 1984, pp. 9ff.
oka,
91
Ibid., text lines 1-3, p. 12. The content of the second Aramaic inscription from Laghman
found engraved on a rock called Sam Baba is almost similar—see ibid., text lines 1-5, p. 14.
92
Epigraphica Indica, Vol. 34, pp. 2-3.
93
Mukherjee, ’Two Aramaic Edicts’, p. 59.
94
&
A
okaThapar, and the Decline, p. 72.
sacute;
Epigraphica Indica, Vol. 37, pp. 194-95.
95

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 188

These messages were not confined to the north-western parts of Asokan

empire. Twelve years after his coronation, in Rock Edict IV, Moka stated that
’by the inculcation of the Law of Piety made by King Priyadargi, the Beloved
of the Gods, has now increased abstention from slaughter of lives, avoidance
of injury to creatures... 196 The same sentiment is repeated fifteen years later
in Pillar Edict VII, namely, that after the growth of the Law of Piety or
Dhamma, ’the want of injury to beings and avoidance of slaughter of living
creatures’ had also increased. 97 It is, however, unlikely that in the forested
areas hunting and fishing ceased. In Rock Edict III, the King asked the Yuktas
and Pradesikas, officers of the state, to preach among his subjects that
’abstention from slaughter of living creatures is an excellent thing’. 98 This was
probably because the practice of killing animals for food consumption and
other purposes was very well-entrenched in the society of the times and Moke
wanted his new ideology to make a dent in the minds of the people.
Asoka however did not forbid killing of all animals, only a special list of ani-
mals and birds were protected. Even in the royal kitchens, the number of ani-
mals to be slaughtered had been reduced but not totally prohibited.99 The
Aramaic Edict from Shar-i-Kuna suggests that the King should be emulated
since now for ’the King only a few animals are killed’.1°° Thus, the emperor set
the example of vegetarianism in his own palace, cutting down the royal house-
hold’s consumption of meat almost to a minimum. Only two peacocks and a
deer could be killed every day.loi The fifth Pillar Edict contains a detailed list
of animals and creatures that were not to be killed under any circumstances
and a further list of those that could not be killed on certain days. Thapar has
suggested that some animals like members of the lizard family were useful for
preparing poisons and magic potions and had to be protected. 102 Killing of
animals for sacrifices was totally disapproved of and was constantly men-
tioned in many of the edicts. 103 Asoka made repeated pleas in his edicts that
animals were to be treated with care and medicated when necessary.101 B.N.
Mukherjee has suggested these injunctions on the banning of animal slaugh-
ter were put into effect gradually in stages. Thus, he writes ’RE I and the
Shar-i-Kuna edict appear to allude to the first stage of imposing restrictions
on the killing of creatures. The next stage of action is recorded in the

96
R.G. Basak,
sacute; Inscriptions, Calcutta, 1959, pp. 14-15, 19-20.
okan
&
A
Ibid., p. 109; 112. Another example of the same message is given in Rock Edict XI; Ibid.,
97
pp.55-56.
98
Mukherjee, ’Two Aramaic Edicts’, p. 15.
99
Rock Edict I tells us that earlier hundred thousands of lives were slaughtered but now "only
three lives" were killed for use in the royal kitchens; cf. Mukherjee, ’Two Aramaic Edicts’, 1984,
p. 15.
100
Epigraphica Indica, Vol. 34, pp. 3-4.
101 Rock
Edict I, IV, Bloch, Les Inscriptions, p. 91, 98.
102
ś and the Decline, pp. 70-71.
A
Thapar,
oka
103
Rock Edict IX, Bloch, Les Inscriptions, p. 113.
104
Rock Edict II, ibid., p. 64.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 / 189

..

. Laghman edicts which indicate that Priyadarsî banished from his subjects
[excessive] lovers of hunting of animals and fishes in the [expired] year 16. An
order for general prohibition from killing certain types of animals and fishes
was promulgated in his twenty-sixth years

Overall, the period of Mokan rule, on the one hand, brought a greater
awareness about the need to protect animal and forest wealth, at a time when
their destruction was a potent reality. On the other hand, the ideological poli-
cies of the king, the concept of ahinisa, distanced hunting and tribal communi-
ties from mainstream society. An important point to note is that by Asoka’s
time new sources of iron and other precious material had to be located for the
development of the metropolitan and core areas of the empire. Small pockets
of the very finest ores scattered throughout the Deccan were tapped. This
explains the need of the Asokan state to have so many inscriptions in Andhra
and Karnataka, especially in the gold mining areas. These parts could not be
so easily settled with agrarian communities as the Arthasiistra had suggested
for the sitd lands because the best soil was in scattered patches.1°6 Moka had
no option but to interact with and tame the ’wild’ and ’semi-wild’ tribes
located on the borders. This interaction was not uniform. In many parts of the
Deccan, particularly those bordering the areas of dense tribal habitation, evi-
dence of Mauryan contact in terms of Asokan edicts or other material
remains is absent.1°7 Even where Mauryan material evidence is found in the
Deccan, it is in the context of a Megalithic society that was based on either a
simple pastoral economy or an incipient agricultural one. That a large part of
the population in these parts were forest folk is well attested by the messages
given to them by Moka particularly through his Rock Edict XIII discussed
earlier.
The impact of Mauryan policies on tribal habitats has been often overesti-
mated because historians have compulsively projected the Mauryan state as a
monolithic and powerful state. It has now been readily recognized that most
states in the ancient period were not uniform systems. Thus, writes Bhatta-
charya : ’The Mauryan state with all its marvellous Pan-India expanse and
complex bureaucratic machinery did not seem to have attempted to impose
the same degree and pattern of control over all its territory.’1°8 He argues that
the ’geographical spread’ and ’social composition’ of the country led to a ’pe-
culiar fragility’ of most states.lo9 Bhattacharya suggests that ancient Indian
legal and political thinkers recognized this fact and made conscious attempts
105

106
Mukherjee, ’Two Aramaic Scripts’, p. 59, 34.
Thapar, The Mauryas Revisited, p. 13; pp. 25-26.
107
Aloka Parasher-Sen, Social and Economic History of Early Deccan: Some Interpretations,
New Delhi, 1993, p. 71, 91.
108
Sibesh Bhattacharya, ’Pluralism and Visible Path (Pratyaksha Marga) and Early Indian
Idea of Polity’, Presidential Address, Section I, Indian History Congress, Session 54, Mysore Uni-
versity, 1993, Reprint, p. 4.
109
Ibid., p. 7.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 190 /

to advisekings not to impose measures that would be distasteful and to

respect local customs with all their variations The injunctions and policies
of the Arthasastra probably alluded to the core areas of Mauryan rule in
northern and central India. Further, in the light of the new interpretations of
the nature of the Mauryan state, we need to recognize that the state enter-
prise of agrarian production on sita land could not be effective in every part of
the empire. Similarly, due to the ecological constraints, the use of a progres-
sive technology like iron for the spread of agriculture was limited in certain
parts like Deccan.l Finally, when we turn to look at the material remains of
the Mauryan period in terms of major artifacts and structures of the period,
the picture we get is not very impressive. This is particularly so with reference
to large monumental buildings or habitation structures. Often it is very diffi-
cult to identify even the Northern Black Polished Ware only with the Maur-
yan period per se, and that which is possible to do, is largely concentrated in
the Ganges Valley. 112 This can be contrasted with material remains for the
immediately succeeding periods which indicates that a larger community
gained from the prosperity of the period. The fast-burgeoning urban centres
in many parts of Maharashtra, Andhra and Karnataka increased the pressure
on rural resources.113

,
What this reveals is that around the third to second century B.C. an intensive
use of the resource base was still limited to the fertile tracts of the Gangetic

plains. The only natural boundaries on all sides of this agrarian tract were for-
ests or rivers. Protection of the plains was important as the forest tribes could
always intrude into areas of cultivation. It is in this light that the Artha~astra
material discussed here can be viewed. There was, in fact, a two-way thrust in
state attitude. On the one hand, agrarian surpluses were to be enhanced and
for this forests had to be cleared; on the other hand, the resources of the forest
were also to be protected for their revenue and material potential. There is no

doubt, however, that the overall tenor of these policies was geared towards agri-
cultural and, to some extent, the pastoral component-of the population. For-
est populations had a more dependant relationship to the dominant mode of
agrarian production during this period than they had ever before. The ten-
dency for successive regimes to extend cultivation continued as this was essen-
tial for the growth in their revenue resources and the ultimate success of their
rule. Despite all these major changes in the agrarian texture of the Indian sub-
continent over time, it has been postulated by scholars of more recent periods

110
Ibid., pp. 14-16.
Thapar, The Mauryas Revisited, p. 26.
111

112
James Heitzman, ’Early Buddhism, Trade and Empire’, in K.A.R. Kennedy and Gregory L.
Possehl, ed., Studies in Archaeology and Paleoanthropology of South Asia, AIIS, 1984, p. 125, Fig-
ure 1, map on Archaeological Sites—3
rd century B.C.’
113
Ibid., pp.126-27, Figures 2 and 3; maps on ’Archaeological Sites—200—0 B.C.’ and ’Archaeo-
logical Sites A.D. 0-300’ respectively.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012
 ’191

of Indian history that a major disharmony between the forests, pastures and
cultivated tracts arose only with the colonial intervention.&dquo;4
We thus conclude that in the Mauryan period an intrusion into tribal habi-
tats disturbed their economic and social texture. Disturbance of the tribal
habitats did not necessarily mean a conversion of all such tracts to agricultural
production, it meant a disruption of the material cycle of production of many
off the food-gathering and hunting localities, especially those bordering the
plains. They were made partially dependant on the produce of the plains,
while large-scale forest resources gradually became necessary for the prosper-
ity of the metropolitan society. Since Mauryan times, we find in Indian history
an uneasy tension between settled peasant society and the tribes. In some

areas, especially the borders of the kingdom and empire, ideological mecha-
nisms of subordination were attempted. The latter efforts seem to have had
little effect, as the Jaina texts noted above inform us that, even in the fifth cen-
tury A.D., fifty-three countries were still out of bounds for the monks as they
were the habitat of the milakkha/barbarian people. Thus, despite the aggres-
sive expansion of the agrarian economy, only twenty-five-and-half countries
were supposed to be countries for the aryas. This, of course, raises the funda-
mental question of the existence of perennial or semi-perennial geographical
niches on the subcontinent that inhibited the easy expansion of the agrarian
economy till very recent times. -

Tribes in India have always lived on the lap of civilization so that the state in
pre-modern India was never able to eradicate these habitats totally. Political
thinkers, in fact, preferred non-interference in ’tribal’ life and customs sug-
gesting that there was no inherent antagonism towards them. The state
impinged on these localities only at certain levels. The formation of endoga-
mous caste groups brought about more permanent changes in the social con-

figuration of these areas and also restricted their geographical distribution.

This inhibited large-scale homogenization of tribal with non-tribal popula-
tions. On the contrary, their fragmentation led to the conservation of skills
achieved through a range of survival strategies in much more localized envi-
ronments. The transformation of such micro-regions in different historical
phases was thus necessarily slow and gradual.

114
M. Gadgil and R. Guha, This Fissured Land: Towards an Ecological History of India, Delhi,
1993, pp. 105-9.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at Dehli University Library System on November 20, 2012