Categories

examopedia.co.in/baa-321

BAA 321 

A.I.H.C & Archaeology 

Semester – VI 

Q1. Describe the sources of Hindu Polity in Ancient India. 

It is, in fact, very difficult to obtain a particular book or a piece of literature that describes
the various sources of the ancient Indian political thought, which are scattered all over
India. However, some dedicated scholars have made efforts to gather all the scattered
information and arrange them in a comprehensive manner for better understanding of
the subject. 

Another difficulty in proper comprehension of the subject is the usage of certain terms
and concepts. Despite these difficulties, it is important to acknowledge that some
scholarly work was carried out in the field of ancient Indian political thought. Some of the
widely available sources of classical Indian political thought are ancient monuments,
religious works, epics and political system that were practiced during those times. 

The following is a brief description of some of the important sources of

political thought: 

1. The Vedas: 

The Vedas are regarded as the authentic works of Gods at the time of the creation of the
world and so are considered the original source of information. Though Vedas do not
describe the political system that existed, information can be drawn from the concepts
like King, Kingship, Saints or Rishis, etc., and their duties towards the subjects. It is
interesting to note that institutions like sabha and samithi that are prevalent even in the
modern days have their roots in the Vedic period. 

2. The Mahabharata: 

This Indian epic is considered a classic work on the art of politics. Certain episodes like
Shanti Parva provide outstanding information related to political philosophy and
administrative system and the political system of the time. The entire art of statecraft,
diplomacy, war ethics and strategies, state relations and the like can be very well under­-
stood by making a reference to the Mahabharata. 

3. The Arthashastra: 

1/44
This work authored by Kautilya is again a masterpiece on polity. According to Prof
Altekar, it is mainly concerned with the practical problems of governance and describes
its machinery and functions both in times of war and peace. This work of Kautilya also
highlights issues like taxation, diplomacy, war strategies and revolution. It is also a
handbook of economics as well as administration for the kings. 

4. Works of Thinkers: 

Some of the great works that act as major sources of the political thought of ancient India
are the Smrithis, Kamandakeya Neethisaara, Sukraneetisara and the like. Smrithis
advocated that a king was the servant of the subjects and that it was not wrong to kill a
tyrant. A king was expected to be virtuous, gracious and helpful. Similarly, Kamandakeya
Neethisaara was also a source of ancient Indian political thought. It was, in fact, a
summary of Kautilya’s Arthashastra. 

The work highlights on king and his family and the monarchical form of government.
Sukraneetisara was supposed to have been written sometime between 1200 and 1600 BC.
Though that is not available now, the work enlightens about the position held by high
officials of the state and their functions, administrative system, monarchy and the
political life of the people at large. 

5. Inscriptions: 

Stone and copper inscriptions throw light on the contemporary political life of the people
and the administrative system of those days. 

6. Accounts of Foreign Travellers: 

The writings of foreign travellers to India like Megesthanes, Fahien, Huang Tsang and
others provide great information about the ancient Indian society, administration, trade
and industry and the like. 

7. Other Sources: 

Apart from the above sources on the ancient Indian political thought, the
following books give an extensive knowledge: 

1. Brihapati Sutra 

2. Neeti Vakya Niritha of Somadeva 

3. Rajaneethi Ratnakara 

4. Veeramrityodaya 

5. Rajaneethi Mayukha 

6. Puranas 

2/44
7. Coins and seals found in the excavations 

8. The Jain and Buddhist literature 

Q2. Discuss the different theories of origin of state in Ancient India. 

The three theories of origin of state in ancient India are as follows: 1. Social Contract
Theory 2. Divine Origin Theory 3. Organic Theory. 

The core issues in the study of political science are the state and the government. The
institution of state is studied in relation to its origin, nature, aims and functions of the
state in ancient India. The dawn of civilization was stated to have marked the beginning of
the origin of state. 

The state in ancient India was considered necessary, for it ensures peace, order and
happiness. It was a social organization with political power. However, ancient scholars
were not unanimous in their opinion with regard to the origin of the state. According to
some, state was the outcome of a contract mainly political in nature between the rulers
and the ruled. 

They opine that prior to the origin of state there was something called a golden age,
wherein the people enjoyed a life of peace, order, self-discipline and happiness. Similarly,
several theories like force theory, patriarchal theory, matriarchal theory, divine origin
theory and finally the evolutionary theory advanced the origin of the state. 

Secondly, the Saptanga theory propounded by ancient Indian thinkers discusses the forms
and functions of the state. Promotion of Dharma was considered the primary concern of
the state. Thirdly, monarchy was considered as the ideal form of government by a
majority of the ancient Indian thinkers. 

The origin of state has remained a controversial subject since olden days. It was one of the
Vedic textbooks titled Aitreya Brahmana that provided an earliest record of the origin of
state and kingship. The work is a description of a legend that explains the war between the
Gods and the demons and the defeat of the former. 

This defeat, as described by the book, made Gods unite and appoint Soma as their King
who was expected to serve the human needs and save the country from military attacks.
With the establishment of the kingship, the state gradually evolved. There are basically
three theories that describe the origin of state, namely. Social Contract Theory, Divine
Origin Theory and Organic Theory. 

The following is a brief explanation of each theory: 

1. Social Contract Theory: 

The social contract theory, one of the common theories of the origin of state, believes that
state is a result of a contract between the king and his subjects or representatives. The
king, thus appointed, was expected to save the state and the subjects from external

3/44
aggression and establish order and security within the state. However, the earliest Vedic
works never stated that state was the result of a contract. But, they clarified that king was
elected to wage a successful war against the demons. 

2. Divine Origin Theory: 

This theory of origin of kingship as well as the state was not widely acclaimed in the
ancient Indian polity. The king, according to this theory, was a subordinate to law, which
was made by the society and not him. The community as a whole was given greater
importance than the king. The king was not allowed to act indiscriminately and was
expected to act as a father to his subjects, and treat them with affection and kind­ness. 

However, certain ancient scriptures like Manusamhita explain that the origin of state is
from the divine. One such excerpt from Manusamhita is that ‘the Lord created the king for
the protection of his whole creation … even an infant king must not be despised (from an
idea) that he is only a mortal, because he is a great deity in human form’. 

It was also stated in Manusamhita that ‘when the world was not without a king and
dispersed in fear in all directions, the lord created a king for the protection of all. And
because, he’s formed of fragments of all those gods, the king surpasses all other beings in
splendor’. 

The great epic of India, the Ramayana, also clearly laid out that king was of divine origin.
It is stated therein that men approached Brahma (the Creator) to provide them a king and
accordingly after all the Gods spared a portion of their power, a being in the human form
emerged and was made the king. 

The Mahabharata, another great epic, explains that king is a person endowed with
superior talent and calibre descended from heaven to the king on the earth. Similarly,
Puranas also describe the divine origin of the king and the state. The Agni Purana states
that the kings were embodiments or forms of Lord Vishnu (the god who sustains the
earth). It is also interesting to note that some kings had titles like Chakravarthi—
universal emperor, while some of the Mauryan emperors conferred titles like Devanam
Priya, beloved of Gods, upon them. 

3. Organic Theory: 

This theory holds the view that state is like an organism and that each organ has a specific
function to perform. The theory believes that the healthy functioning of the whole
organism depends upon the healthy conditions of each part of the body or organism and
its efficient functioning. 

The seven parts of the body, that is, state are the king or the sovereign, the minister, the
territory and population, the fortified city or the capital, the treasury, the army, the
friends and the allies. Among all the seven elements or parts, it is the king who is most
important. 

4/44
The Matsya Purana states that the king was the root and the subjects were the trees.
Similarly, Sukra Neetisaara, compares the state with that of human body. According to
Sukracharya, the king is the head, the ministers the eyes, the treasurer the mouth, the
army the heart, the fort the hands, and the territory the feet. Mahabharata also supports
this theory and that every element or the limbs are important for the proper functioning
of the state. 

Q3. Write an essay on the nature and work of Mantri-Parishad. 

Mantripariṣad (मन्त्रिपरिषद्) refers to a “council of ministers” and is a concept commonly
know to the ancient Indian science of Society and Polity, as defined in Kauṭilya’s
Arthaśāstra (4th century BCE): one of the most influential treatises of political science.
Next to the king came the mantri-pariṣad (council of ministers). The king was enjoined to
discuss every matter with his Council of Ministers, which had two levels, inner and outer.
The inner cabinet had four members: the Chief Minister, the Chief Priest, the Military
Commander and the Crown Prince. The membership of the outer cabinet was not fixed in
number. 

The council of ministers or mantri-parishad advised the king and at times may have acted
as a political check. But the powers of the council were limited owing to the fact that it was
the king who appointed the ministers in the first instance. Three qualities of a minister
that the Arthasastra stresses are those of birth, integrity and intelligence. 

There was no fixed number for the members of the council and it varied according to the
need. The Arthasastra lists the Chief Minister or the mahamantri and also distinguishes
between the ministers and the assembly of ministers (mantrinomantriparisadamca). 

It would seem that the ministerial council or mantri-parisad, a small group of perhaps
three or four councillors, together with the Chief Minister, was selected to act as an inner
council or a close advi­sory body. It’s important members included the Purohita, Senapati
(Commander-in-chief), the Mahamantri and the Yuvaraja. 

Q4. Throw light on the Inter-state relations in Ancient India with special
reference to Mandala theory. 
Introduction 

Mahabharata and Kautiiya’s Arthasastra are the two precious gems of ancient Indian

political thought. Although produced at different historical settings the Mahabharata and
Kautilya’s Arthasastra have a common theme relating to the functions and duties of
the king known as “Raj-Dharma.”They have a common religious ground and
philosophical basis and a common concept of Dharma. Both deal with the principles of
social conduct, administration of civil and criminal laws and also the policy of foreign
relations, i.e., inter-state relations. 

5/44
In ancient India, politics was basically conceived as “Rajaniti” (the ethics of politics or
political ethics). Due to different circumstances, some deviations and departures occur
from the fundamental norms of politics. Consequently, politics becomes a matter of
convenience, expedience and selfish interest. Most of the earthly misdeeds are because of
the deplorable fall of politics from its original pedestal of ethics.
The Mahabharata and Kautilya’s Arthasastra are deeply concerned with the complex
situations of political life and offer solutions to the various problems of politics. 

Classification of states and six expedients of foreign policy 

Mahabharata refers to the existence of a number of states in ancient India. Although

international law and relationship as understood in the modern times, cannot be said to
have prevailed in ancient India, they are to be found, however, in a rudimentary form
in Mahabharata. The latter classifies the different states under four heads, viz., (1)
friendly states or allies (Mitra or Suhrd), (ii) inimical states (Ari or Satru). (iii) neutral
states (Udasina) and (iv) intermediary states (Madhyastha or Madhyagata). This
classification is based on the following kinds of relationship with the foreign states (i)
Hostility (Vigraha or Yuddha), (ii) neutrality (Udasinata), (iii) friendship (Mitra) and (iv)
mediation (Madhyasthata). As in the case of Kautilya’s Arthasartra, Mahabharata also
describes and prescribes the Sadgunas, the six expedients of foreign policy. (Sandhi,
Vigraha, Yana, Asana, Samsraya and Dvaidhibhava) which may be discussed as follows: 

Sandhi (treaty and alliance) 

This is intended to avert confrontation and establish friendly relation between two or
more states. Mahabharata says that a king should make peace with another when the
latter is more powerful than him. When the king is in distress, he should also do the same
thing to protect his life. When a person is afflicted by a stronger one, he should make
peace even with enemy. In the Salyaparva, Kripacharya advised Duryodhana to make a
treaty with the Pandavas because at that time the power of Pandavas was increasing and
that of the Kauravas was decrtasing. The Mahabharata says that self-preservation is the
highest law and abnormal times have ethics of their own, Apaddharma and end justifies
means. He, who, keeping in view his interests, makes a treaty with an enemy and opposes
a friend, attains good results. But, after having entered into a treaty with a superior, he
should exercise eternal care and vigilance to protect his interest without being cheated by
the superior. 

According to the Mahabharata, treaty is of three kinds, viz., Hina

(bad), Madhyama (middling) and Uttama (good) made respectively through fear (Bhaya),
respect (Satkara) and gifts of wealth (Vitta). 

Vigraha (war) 

In the ancient Indian works, the word “Vigraha” has two meanings, viz., (l) the threat of
war and (2) the actual waging of war. Mahabharata says that war should be declared and
waged against an inferior ruler when he is facing difficulties, but never against one, who

6/44
has self-respect and whose soldiers are happy and satisfied. One, who does not follow this
advice, attains neither kingdom nor happiness. 

Yatra or Yana: (March for war, i.e., invading the territory of a weaker king) 

Nilakantha opines that Yatra consists in actual pursuit of direction of marching for war.
Sukra defines it as the invasion with a view to attaining victory and defeating the enemy.
According to Manu, Yana is two-fold (i) marching alone against the foe and (ii) attacking
the foreign state with the aid of the allied powers. The Mahabharatha, however, does not
throw any further light on it. 

Asana: (Maintaining a post against an enemy or skilful withdrawal in face of danger) 

According to the Mahabharata, Asana stands for the posture of war, but no actual war,
after showing one’s readiness for marching against the enemy. It is half-way to war by
exhibiting some military movements. Thus, a king makes attempts to defeat his enemy.
Viswanatha says (in his work, Internationl Law in Ancient India),that Asana suggests
that a king should assume the attitude of neutrality, known as “Udasinata” in the ancient
Indian literature. As stated by him, there are four main classes of neutrals
in Mahabharata. They are influenced by different motives and the neutrality is due to
different causes: (i) Neutrals whose position is bound to be affected by the results of the
war (ii) Neutrals whose fortunes are practically unaffected by the course of the struggle.
(iii) Neutrals who may be affected by the war and who can, if they choose, change the
course of the war by maintaining economic forces. (iv) Neutrals, who are powerless to
enter into the war, though their fortunes may be affected by the war. 

Samsraya or Samasraya: (seeking protection of a superior king) 

Samsraya can be defined as the act of seeking protection of a powerful monarch by a weak
monarch to gain more strength. According to Nilakantha, it means to seek protection of
another king or to take shelter in forts. N. N. Law says that when a sovereign is attacked
by two powerful sovereigns, he should have recourse to Samsraya with the nearer one or
to have Kapala Samsraya with both, telling each of them that unless he is shown mercy he
will be ruined by the other. Manu describes two types of Samsraya thus: “Two-fold is said
to be the nature of alliance with a more powerful ally, according as it is made by (a
sovereign) highly pressed by his enemy at the time, or only as a pretext to intimidate his
future and intending invaders.” The states which followed this policy can be compared
with modern protectorates. Although these states enjoy freedom, they have to
acknowledge the authority of the state which has given them protection. 

Dvaidhihhava or the dual course of action 

The term Dvaidhibhava has two meanings, (i) double standards or duplicity, apparently
maintaining friendly relations with the enemy and (ii) dividing the enemy’s superior army
and harassing him by attacking the smaller units of the army in isolation. Manu uses the

7/44
word in the latter sense. It means waging war against one and making peace with another.
Nilakantha looks at it as “Ubhayatra sandhikaranam” which can be interpreted as making
treaties with both the parties, fighting with each other. 

The Four-fold foreign policy 

The foreign policy is of four types: Sama (conciliation or negotiation), Dana (cession,

persuasion, or making gifts), Bheda (creating differences) and Danda (war). According to
Sukra, when two kings became friends and make mutual promises not to do harm to each
other and help one another in the time of distress, that policy is known as “Sama.” When a
king tells another king that everything belongs to him and gives away some villages to him
or pay taxes (as tribute) to him or pleases him by any other means, the policy is known as
“Dana.” When a king weakens the army or allies of another king, takes shelter with a
powerful king and exposes a weak king, the policy is known as “Bheda.” When a king uses
troubles to his enemy through the robbers, sweeps away his treasury and granary,
watches his weaknesses, threatens him with strong force and fights bravely against him,
such policy is known as “Danda”. 

As the Kautilya’s Arthasastra, the Mahabharata also gives the pride to diplomacy for

maintaining the balance of power in the interest of promotion of good and harmonious
inter-state relations. It also prefers “battle of wits” to the “battle of arms,” War be
regarded only as the last resort when all the Upayas have failed. The epic commends the
victory achieved with the help of other Upayas and condemns that achieved in a battle.
Bhishma says that such a view was held by Brihaspati also. Manu, Yajnavalkya,
Kamandaka and Sukra significantly agree with Mahabharata in allowing war as the last
resort and thus, display a high moral spirit and sense of responsibility. War was not only
preached but also practised as the last resort in Mahabharata. 

As regards the application of these four-fold policies, Kripacharya in the Virataparva says,
as clarified by the commentator Nilakantha, that one should follow the policies of Sama
and Bheda towards equals. The policy Dana should be adopted against a powerful and a
superior king. The policy of Danda should be used against a weaker and an inferior king.
The latter should be killed in a war or made to pay taxes as tribute. In another context
also, Mahabharata says that when the enemy’s army is strong, the policy of Sama should
be used. If it does not serve the purpose. The policy of Dana should be followed.
Combining the policy of Dana with that of Bheda would be worthy of praise Bheda, being
the greatest enemy of an army, Dana be resorted to be creating dissension (Bheda) in the
army of his enemy. The Mahabharata cites several examples where those policies are
applied in practice. Kautilya holds the view that the weak king should be seduced by
means of conciliation and gift, while the strong one should be subdued by sowing the
seeds of dissension. 

The Conception of Mandala and its Importance 

8/44
In ancient India, the concept of inter-state relationship was conceived in the form of
a Mandala, the circle of states, which aimed at the maintenance of balance of power and
consisted of twelve types of states (headed by twelve kings). According to the conception
of Mandala, a king was to regard one’s own kingdomm as the centre of twelve concentric
circles, the outer circle re-representing the kingdom situated away from one’s own. A
king’s relation with all the kingdoms on the circumference of one circle was expected to be
similar. He was to manipulate his relation with other states in such a way that foes and
friends were so pitted around him that at no time he was rendered helpless. In the event
of any invasion of his country, there were always rulersa who had vested interests to
oppose the invasion. So, the ancient Indian thinkers describe and unanimously prescribe
the Mandala. The Asramavasaparva of the Mahabharata throws light on the conception
of Mandala. It consists of four sub-circles, each of which consists of four sub-circles, each
of which is constituted by three states as follows: 

1) The state at the centre of the Mandala, the friend and the friend’s friend (3 states); (2)
The enemy, his friend and his friend’s friend (3 states); (3) Natural state, its friend and its
friend’s friend (3 states); and (4) Intermediary state, its friend and its  friend’s friend (3
states). 

According to the epic, a Mandala consists of seventy-two elements as follows: Each of the
twelve constituent states of a Mandala has seven constituents (Saptangas) of a state, viz.,
Swami (sovereign) Amatya (ministers), Janapada (land and
population), Durga or Pura (fortress or a fortified capital), Kosa (treasury), Danda
or Bala (army) and Mitra (allies). Swami being merged in the State and Mitra “in the allies
among the twelve kings”, only five constituents of a state exist. These five constituents,
when multiplied .by the twelve constituents of a Mandala, make a total of Sixty. The
twelve members of a Mandala if added to sixty, the total elements of a Mandala comes to
seventy-two. The Arthasastra of Kautilya, the Manusmritiand the Kamandaka
Nitisara furnish a similar explanation of the sevehty-two constituents of a Mandala.
Kautilya classified the twelve states under four heads (i) Allies or friendly states (ii)
Opponents or enemy states (iii) Ordinary or middle states (iv) Indifferent states. 

Diplomatic Agents 

In Mahabharata as in Kautilya’s Arthasastra the important part played by the

diplomatic agents in the field of diplomacy and foreign affairs has been realised. These
agents are classified under two heads, i.e., (a) Ambassadors (Duta) (b) and Spies (Cara). 

(a) Ambassadors 

Unlike the modern practice of stationing representatives, as permanent agents in foreign

states, in ancient India they were officers, appointed for and sent on a special mission.
The functions of an ambassador were to deliver the message correctly as entrusted to him,
to make or break alliances or treaties, to declare war or make peace, to study the
geographical position, and strong points, military strength and financial condition of a
foreign state and to gather the greatest possible information. He was thus primarily

9/44
concerned with the vital issues of a foreign, policy of a state. As the ambassadors had to
perform very important as well as delicate and dangerous duties,
the Mahabharata and Kautilya’s Arthasastra more or less prescribe the same higher
qualifi­cations for them such as a noble family ground, modesty, tactfulness, eloquency of
speech, capacity to convey the message exactly as entrusted to him and a sharp and
excellent memory. The Mahabharata is conspicuously silent about the different kinds of
ambassadors, while Kautilya classified them under three heads, viz., (1) Nihsrstartha, i.e.,
a plenipotentiary. He was an ambassador endowed with the full powers of the
management of an affair and also authorised to act on his own personal judgment and
discretion put subject to the interest of the state. Krishna may be cited as an example of
this type who acted with full discretion as the ambassador of the Pandavas and tried to
make negotiations with the Kauravas before the Kurukshetra war. (2) Parimitartha or
Mitartha, i.e., an envoy whose rights were limited. His duties also seem to have been
lesser since Kautilya and Kamandaka prescribe lesser qualifications for him (3)
Sasanabara or Sasana-vahaka, i.e., an ambassador who was simply a “royal messenger”.
He was assigned only one particular task. Drupada’s Purohit to the Kauravas and Sanjaya
sent by Dhritarashtra to the Pandavas can be cited as examples of this type in
the Mahabharata. This three-fold classification of ambassadors by Kautilya holds good
even in the modern times. It is based on the country to which the ambassador is assigned
his duties and the types of functions which he has to discharge. Further, the Mahabharata
emphasises the sacredness and inviolability of ambassadors. It lays down salutary
regulations in connection with the behaviour to be meted out to them. An envoy should be
respected and treated courteously even if he conveys an unpleasant message because he is
merely the mouthpiece of the king who deputes him. He should never be killed. The
murderer of an ambassador goes to hell along with his ministers. The golden rule of
immunity and privileges of the ambassadors was generally observed except once in the
case of Krishna and that too not because Krishna was an envoy, but because he was the
bone of the Pandavas whom the Kauravas regarded as their greatest enemies. 

(b) Spies 

In India, the system of espionage is as old as Rigveda. The Mahabharata says that it was a

permanent and prominent feature of a state and was one of the eight limbs of the army.
As spies were the “eyes of the kings” they were to be appointed by the ruler to collect
information about the internal affairs and administration of his kingdom as well as
foreign states. Hence, they were scattered throughout his own kingdom and also foreign
states. Manu, Kautilya, Sukra and Somadeva Suri also hold the same view. Secrecy was
the characteristic feature which distinguished them from the envoys. If found out and
detected, the spies could be ill-treated and even killed by the foreign state. Spies should
therefore be so clever as not to be detected or identified by others.
The Mahabharata gives a list of persons who could be entrusted with this risky job, such
as Brahmanas, hypocrites, siddhas, persons capable of doing impersonation, posing as
blind and deaf depending on the situation and be as cunning as possible. The most
important condition was to examine them thoroughly before their appointment and to
appoint them so secretly that they could not recognise one another to avoid any

10/44
conspiracy among the spies themselves. Bhishma himself employed such persons as spies.
There are several instances to prove the existence of an efficient and active intelligence
department or the system of espionage in the Mahabharata. 

The Mahabharata is silent about the means to be employed by the spies to create trouble
in other states. Kautilya, on the other hand, permits any and every means for the spies,
moral or immoral. He says that they should create dissensions in the foreign states,
indulge the army chiefs in love-affairs with young ladies and after wards cause animosity
among them. They should give poison to them by saying that it would make his beloved
devoted to him. They should disguise themselves as palmists and arouse the ambition of
becoming a king in the chief and high officers of the state and make them unloyal to the
king. In war-time, they should, distribute wine or liquor, mixed with poison among the
important military officers. 

Code of Conduct for Foreign Affairs 

Mahabharata pays more attention to the behaviour towards the enemy states and has
nothing particular to say about the behaviour towards the friendly states. Broadly
speaking, the epic allows and even encourages the king to resort to all means, fair or foul,
righteous or unrighteous, to conquer the enemy. A one side morality is not enough for
success in this world. The king must be worldly-wise and learn from various sources,
including the experience of others. He should win over a hero by folded hands, a coward
by terrorism, a covetous man with gifts and wage war with an equal. Be far-sighted like a
vulture, motionless like a crane, vigilant like a dog, valiant like a lion, fearful like a crow
and penetrate the territories of an enemy like a snake. One, desirious of prosperity, should
murder even his son, friend, brother, father or preceptor, if they play the role of an enemy
because there is no higher duty than to support one’s own life. 

There is no consistency in the Mahabharata regarding the behaviour to be meted out to

an enemy when he is exhausted or is asking for shelter. At some places, it advocates
compassion and forgiveness and even advises a king to treat the enemy as if he were his
own son. But at other places, there is an inherent contradiction when it instructs the king
to kill the enemy, not to show any mercy to him and never to set him free. A similar
inconsistency also prevails in the Mahabharata regarding the treatment towards the
enemy in general. It says that an enemy should not be deceived by unfair means and he
should not be wounded mortally because his very life might be in danger. On the other
hand, it advises the King to utter sweet words while attacking and afterwards to show
mercy towards him and to shed (crocodile) tears to express sorrow. On the whole, the
balance of evidence in the Mahabharata goes to show that while the internal affairs of a
state are visualised in a high moral spirit, in inter-state relations, morality is thrown to the
winds. Dharma cannot and should not become an impediment in fulfilling the highest
ideal for the Kshatriyas, i. e., the conquest of the whole earth and establishment of a
glorious empire, according to Mahabharata. As Beni Prasad says, “Reason of state
became the one guiding overmastering principle and justified the extreme of fraud and
treachery.” Here we are also reminded of Diderot, who said that there are “Circumstances
under which it is right for a prince to be a scoundrel” and of Machiavelli who said that a

11/44
king should use fair or foul means to accomplish his ambitious designs. According to him,
the end justifies the means. On the basis of those passages of the Santiparva which make a
king’s foreign policy free from ethical standards, N. N. Ghosh says, “It will indeed be no
exaggeration to say that from the Santiparva alone it may be possible to compile a
textbook for rulers, twice as substantial as Machiavelli’s Prince and many times more full
of cynical wisdom.” 

Kautilya’s Arthasastra also likewise advocates the methods of fraud, treachery and secret
diplomacy to supress the enemies of the state. It encourages the king to have an attitude
of naked self-interest in inter-state relations where the state should legitimately use
intrigue, opportunism, treachery and violence. To realise the dream of a world-wide
kingdom, anything and everything is justifiable including secret arms, fire, sword, poison,
medicine, espionage, charms and temptations. There is, therefore, an oft-repeated
observation that there is a great similarity between Machiavelli’s Prince and Kautiiya’s
Arthasastra. Bana, the famous author of Kadambari, brands Kautilya’s statecraft as
completely Machiavellian, i.e.. full of deceit, treachery, fraud, deception and murder. The
objective of Kautilya’s foreign policy is an all-out effort of a king to obtain power and
success or denial of the same to an enemy. Opportunism and expendiency are his
watchwords. Necessity knows no law and morality. 

Conclusion 

Thus, a study of the policy of inter-state relations in Mahabharata and Kautitya’s

Arthasastra proves that there is no basic difference in them, in philosophy, methods and
strategies. These seem to have been inspired by one another and they also seem to have
outshined even the first modern western philosopher, Machiavelli. The classical works
of Mahabharata and Kautiiya’s Arthasastra echo the spirit of Dharma in normal times
and Apaddharma in abnormal times which has ethics of its own. Whatever means, fair or
foul, are adopted in the abnormal times, they are only temporary expedients and passing
phases and they cannot be characterised totally as Machiavellian traits because neither
the Mahabharata nor Kautilya’s Arthasastra is prepared to subordinate ethics to politics
for all the time to come. 

Q5. Write a note on constitution and administrative system of Ancient

Indian Republics. 

In the sixth century B.C., we find a large number of states in northern India and many of
these were not ruled by kings but formed petty republics or oligarchies. That was the age
of the Buddha and therefore, the republican states of this period have been called
‘Republics of the age of the Buddha’. These were the most ancient existing states not only
of India but of the world and, so India is also one of those countries which can feel proud
of having experimented with the republican form of constitution in ancient times. 

While the existence of republican states in India, at that time, has been accepted by all
scholars, they are divided on the form of their organisation. There is no unanimity among
scholars regarding the method of election and qualifications of voters. The Buddhist

12/44
sources provide sufficient information regarding the then republican state of the
Lichchhavis, yet the scholars are not unanimous regarding its form and constitution. 

A few scholars have expressed the opinion that every adult of the population participated
in the administration; some others maintain that only Kshatriyas had this right; and yet
others have expressed the view that only head of a joint-family was allowed to participate
in the administration. Mostly the opinions of scholars are divided on the basis of the
above mentioned differences of views. 

Dr Jayaswal maintains that these republics were divided into the following
three categories: 

a. Democracies or pure Gana, wherein the total adult-population participated in the

administration; 

b. Aristocracies or pure Kula, wherein only some selected families participated in the
administration; and 

c. Mixed aristocracies and democracies or a mixure of Kula and Gana, wherein the
administration was the mixure of the two. 

According to Dr Bhandarkar, the republics were basically divided into two types, viz., pure
republics and Kshatriya aristocracies. Then each of them was further divided into two
parts. Both the republics and the aristocracies were of two types, viz., unitary and federal.
The republican states which had a unitary character were called City-republics or
Nigamas, while the republics having a federal character were called State-republics or
Janapadas. 

Thus, opinions of scholars have differed on the basis of voting qualifications, methods of
elections and areas under the administration of the republican states. However, scholars
agree that the fundamental basis of all these states was republican. Thus, it can be agreed
upon that all these states were republican states, though they differed from each other in
matters of detail. 

In certain states, only Kshatriya families were given the right to frame laws and elect the
members of the executive; in certain others, the heads of joint-families were given this
right; while in still others, all the male-adults of the population had this right. 

Besides, in certain states, the local assemblies enjoyed wide autonomy to look after their
respective local administrations and the matters concerning the entire state were decided
by all the elected representatives of the local assemblies; in certain others, the powers to
govern the entire state were handed over to an elected central assembly and executive. 

But with all these differences among them each of them was a republican state because in
each state the members of the assembly to frame laws and the executives were elected
directly or indirectly by a large number of the populace. In all these states, the people who
had the right to rule according to settled laws of the state used to assemble at an

13/44
assembly-hall called the Santhagara, discussed all important matters concerning the state,
decided on issues by a majority vote, either by open or secret ballot, if there was no
unanimity of opinion and elected the members of the executive. 

The members of this assembly, which was constituted of these representatives, enjoyed
certain special privileges also. The members of this assembly elected the members of the
executive, the Commander-in-Chief of the forces, the Treasurer, etc. They were consulted
in all important matters of the state such as that of peace and war. The members of the
executive were called Rajana and the head of executive was sometimes given the title of
Raja (King). 

In many republics the office of the Raja and also that of other executive members had
become hereditary but they could be displaced by election. In certain other republics the
head of the executive was not called Raja but Ganapati and he as well as other members of
the executive were elected for a fixed period. 

Thus, we find that these republican states differed in matters of detail but all of them
followed the broad pattern of elections, permitted all respectable citizens or their groups
to participate in administration and framing of laws and, thus, pursued democratic
procedures as primary conditions for the governance of the state. Of course, they were not
democracies in the modern sense but having them at that time was not feasible either. But
whatever these states practised was sufficient to entitle them to be called Republics. 

The most ancient republics in India were those of the sixth century B.C.
These were as follows: 

1. The Sakyas of Kapilavastu: 

This was an important republican state of that time. It was situated near the border of
Nepal in the Terai region of the Himalayas. Mahatma Buddha belonged to the family of
the Sakyas. The republican state of the Sakyas had a federal constitution. Its head was
elected and was given the title of King. 

Every Sakya adult participated in its administration and all important matters were
decided by the assembly of all. Attendance of a fixed number of members was necessary to
complete the quorum. The Sakya republic had eighty thousand families living within its
territories and had several cities as well. It was ultimately occupied by the state of Kosala
near the end of the sixth century B.C. 

2. The Lichchavis of Vaisali: 

It was the largest and the most powerful republican state of that time. It included nine
republican states of Mallas and eighteen republican states of Kasi and Kosala. Vaisali was
the capital of the Lichchhavis, wherein lived nearly 42,000 families and was a beautiful
and prosperous city. The head of the state was elected and was titled King. 

14/44
It had another 7,707 Rajans who were, probably, the chief officers of their territories. It
was such a powerful state that Ajatasatru, the ruler of the powerful state of Magadha, had
to make military and diplomatic preparations for years before he could succeed in
annexing it and that, too, could be achieved when his diplomacy succeeded in dividing the
Lichchhavis. 

3. The Mallas of Pava: 

It was a republican state of the Kshatriyas, the capital of which was Pava. 

4. The Mallas of Kushinara: 

This was another branch of the Mallas. 

5. The Koliya of Ramagrama: 

This state was in the east of the state of the Sakyas and its capital was Ramagrama. The
Koliyas and the Sakyas constantly fought against each other on the use of the water of the
river Rohini. However, permanent peace was arranged between the two states by
mediation of Mahatma Buddha. 

6. The Bhagya of Sunsamagiri: 

This state belonged to Aitreya Brahmanas. It was near the territories of modern Mirzapur
district and its capital was Sunsamagiri. 

7. The Mauryas of Piphalivana. 

This state was in the foot-hills of the Himalayas. Probably, emperor Chandra Gupta
Maurya of Magadha belonged to this family. 

8. The Kalama of Suputa: 

Its capital was Suputa. 

9. The Videhas of Mithila: 

It was situated near the boundary of Nepal state and its capital was Mithila. 

10. The Ghvatrikas of Kollanga: 

This state was also situated in the Terai-region of the Himalayas near the boundary of
Nepal and its capital was Kollanga. 

These were the important republican states in India at that time. Each of them drew their
name from the name of its ruling family. These included both great and small states. A
few of them were aristocracies, a few others were pure republicans while a few had
federal-republican constitutions and were called Janapadas. 

15/44
Most of them brought about their ruin because of their mutual conflicts and the rest of it
was completed by the rising power of Magadha which was able to annex them all. 

After the sixth century B.C. we find the existence of republican states in the north-west of
India. The Greek king Alexander had to fight against them during his campaign in India. 

The republican states, which fought against Alexander, were the Asmakas, the Malavas,
the Kshudrakas, the Arjunayanas, the Mushikas, etc. Most of them gave serious resistance
to the invader and their role in defending their country remained more creditable than
their contemporary monarchical states. 

After the return of Alexander, Chandra Gupta Maurya conquered all these republican
states. Both he and his minister, the famous Chanakya, favoured the policy of imperialism
in order to bring about political unity to India and therefore, adopted a systematic policy
to annex these republican states. 

But, again, after the downfall of the Maurya empire, we find the existence of republican
states in Western India. Among them the kingdoms of the Malavas, the Arjunayanas, the
Yaudheys and the Madrakas were quite important. Each of them played an important role
in defending the country against foreign invaders. Probably, in each case the head of the
state was elected and was called Maharaja or Mahasenapati. 

They were defeated by the Sakas but they fought successfully against the Kushanas. The
Arjunayanas were settled in the territory near modern Jaipur, the Malavas in the territory
of eastern Rajputana, the Yaudheys near Bahawalpur state while the Madrakas occupied
the territory between the rivers Ravi and Chinab. 

Besides, the Sivis established their kingdom near Chittor; the republican state of Kuluta
was in the Kullu valley; the state of Audutnbar was situated in the Kangra-valley and the
districts of Gurudasapur ana Hoshiyarpur in the Panjab; the Bhadrakas had their
kingdom at Sialkot; the Abhiras had their kingdom in Central India; the Sanakonikas
were established near Bhilra; the Prarjunas inhabited part of Madhya Pradesh; the Kokas
had their state near Sanchi; and the republican state of Kharaparikas was near district
Damoh in Madhya Pradesh. 

All these republican states were destroyed by the imperial Guptas who pursued the policy
of extension of the empire and that of annexing the neighbouring states. A few of them
were destroyed by Chandra Gupta I, most of them by Samudra Gupta and the rest of them
by Chandra Gupta II. 

We find no existene of republican states in India afterwards. Sometimes, the mighty

Guptas have been held responsible for this tragedy. But this view is not justified. Of
course, the expansionist policy of the Guptas was primarily responsible for their
destruction but their internal weaknesses and mutual conflicts were also, certainly,
responsible for their extinction. 

16/44
Besides, the republican states had not only failed to provide political unity to India or
north India but even a part of it. In contrast to them, the monarchical states had been
more successful in this attempt. And, at that time or, rather at every time, India needed
unity and political solidarity more than the attempts of fulfilling the ideal of
republicanism. 

Therefore, the ideal of an extensive and strong empire pursued by the Guptas was
advantageous for India and, thus, the extinction of the republican states should not be
accepted at all as a regrettable event in Indian history and no blame should be assigned to
the Guptas. The extinction of the republican state was natural and advantageous to the
country and it should be accepted as such. 

Q6. Discuss about the provincial administration of Ancient India. 

In ancient India big empires were divided into provinces and districts for the sake of
administrative convenience, while small kingdoms like Pallavas, Vakatakas and
Gahadawalas had only one type of division viz. the districts known by different names like
vishaya or rashtra. 

The provincial administration during the times of the Mauryas and Guptas was organised
on elaborate basis, and was modelled on the pattern of the central government. 

The governors of the provinces were the chief channels of communication government
and its administrative unit. Each province was under-a Governor directly appointed by
the King, and was usually a member of the royal family. 

Under the Mauryas, Bindusara, Ashoka and Kunala had all served as viceroys in different
provinces of the empire. Similarly, under the Sungas the crown prince Agnimitra served
as a Governor of Malwa. The Gujarat viceroys under the Chalukyat and the Rashtrakutas
were also scions of the royal family. 

There are also instances to show when the office of the Governor was offered to the senior
and trusted officers of the empire—usually the military generals. 

The Governors or Viceroys of the provinces maintained their own courts and ministers,
but they had to carry out the policy communicated to them through imperial writs or
through special messengers. In view of the very primitive means of communication the
Viceroys successfully used discretion in numerous matters. 

The general duties of the viceroys included the maintenance of law and order, supervision
of revenue collection, construction and repair of works of public utility like irrigation
tanks and canals and strengthening the foundations of the empire by promoting public
confidence. 

Each province was further sub-divided into units like bhukti (under Guptas), rashtra
(under Rashtrakutas), mandala (under Cholas and Chalukyas) etc. This division roughly
corresponded to the size of Commissioner’s Division consisting of three or four districts. 

17/44
The Officers in-charge of these units enjoyed extensive powers over sub­ordinate officers.
The Divisional Commissioners also maintained strong contingents of military forces and
often used it for controlling their subordinate officers and local feudatories. The
Divisional Commissioners also performed revenue functions and were responsi­ble for
revenue settlement of villages. 

It is not known for certain if there was any popular councils at the Divisional
headquarters levels to guide and advise the Divisional Commissioners. We get only two
references about the existence of a council known as rashtramahattaras, which guided
and advised the Divisional Commissioners, but it would be difficult to generalize that it
existed in all the divisional headquarters. 

The district was the next unit of administration. It was under the district officers which
were designated differently in different states. Some of the common titles applied to them
include vishayapati (Mauryan administration), Sahastradhipa (Smritis) etc. 

The district officers were appointed by the provincial viceroys and were responsible for
the maintenance of law and order in their district. They also supervised the collection of
the government taxes and revenues. The District Officers were assisted by a large number
of subordinate staff. This included the yuktas, ayuktas, niyuktas, and vyapritcs. 

The district officer also maintained a small military force for the maintenance of law and
order. The officers of the police department known as dandapasikas probably also worked
under the directions of the district officer. It is not known for certain whether the district
officer enjoyed any judicial powers also. 

At the district level, at least in certain parts of India, the government was assisted by a
council consisting of the chief banker, chief merchant, the chief artisan and the chief
Kayastha (writer). The district officer usually took decisions in consultation with this
body. 

The members of the council were no doubt heads of the guilds or castes, and most
probably held office by hereditary right. Under the Cholas especially the district councils
enjoyed very extensive powers. They levied local taxes and exercised judicial functions
with the concurrence of the representative of the central government. 

Another unit of administration existed between the village and the district, but its nature
and dimensions varied a great deal in different periods. This organisation was also given
different names in different periods and parts viz. pathaka, peta, sthali or bhukti. 

It corresponded very much with the modern Tehsil or Taluka. It must have been under
the charge of a Tehsildar or Mamlatdar. They were assisted by hereditary revenue officers.
Most probably there were popular councils on the pattern of the d strict council to help
the sub-divisional officers. But how the popular councils were consti­tuted is not fully
known. 

Town Administration: 

18/44
We have very little knowledge about the administration of cities and towns during the
Vedic period. This is probably due to fact that the Vedic civilization was primarily a rural
one and there were not many cities. We do not get sufficient information about the town
administration during the later Vedic period also. 

It is only on the eve of the invasion of Alexander that we learn that a large number of
towns and cities flourished in Punjab. Most of these cities and towns were autono­mous
units of administration and were governed by their own coun­cils. 

However, we do not know for certain as to how these councils were constituted. Most
probably the members of these councils were co-opted from amongst experienced and
elderly people with the general consensus of public opinion. 

Magasthenes has given us very interesting information about the municipal

administration under the Mauryas. While giving a description of the government at
Pataliputra Magasthenes says it was under a mayor known as Nagaraka. He was assisted
by a number of subordinate officers. 

The general administration was carried on by a municipal commission consisting of thirty

members, further sub­divided into six sub-committees of five members each. These
commit­tees looked after the artisans, foreigners, census, trade and manufac­ture and
collection of taxes due to the city. The Nagaraka was person­ally responsible for the
maintenance of law and order within the juris­diction of the city. 

In this regard he received valuable assistance from an official known as dandanayaka. The
nagaraka was also responsi­ble for the collection of the revenue. Arthasastra tells us that
the nagaraka received great assistance from a petty part-time official gopa in matters
regarding the collection of revenue. 

Each gopa was expected to keep supervision on forty house-holds and kept a careful note
of the births, deaths, income and expenditure in the families under his charge. He was
also expected to keep a note of the important visitors and other developments in the
households. The gopas passed on this information to the town office where it was
permanently recorded. 

The chief duties of the city governor included cleaning of the streets, prevention of
disasters like faming, flood and plague and take other welfare measures. We get more
detailed information about the city administration from the times of the Guptas onwards. 

The city was under a purapala who was usually a military leaded, but sometimes they
were selected from amongst the scholars as well. The purupala was assisted by a non-
official committee called goshthi, panchakula or chaukadika in various parts of the
country. This committee contained representatives of different classes and ‘interests. How
these members were selected or elected is not known for certain. 

Village Administration: 

19/44
Village has been the pivot of administration in India since earliest times. The village
government was usually carried under the supervision of the village headman called
gramani in the Vedic literature. Even the Jatakas and Arthasastra testify the important
position of the village head-man in the administration of the village. 

The post of the village head-man was usually hereditary though he was frequently looked
on as the king’s representative,, who could displace him at his pleasure. Usually the
headman was a military leader and belonged to the Kshatriya caste, but the Vaisyas also
succeeded in acquiring this office. 

As life was most unsettled in ancient India, the primary duty of the village headman was
the defence of the village against raids of bandits and robbers. He was also responsible for
the collection of government revenue and kept the necessary records for the purpose. 

The headman was assisted by a village council, of which he was the ex-officio president. In
the Arthasastra we find references to village elders acting as trustees, but do not hear
about the village council or its sub-committees. It appears that the village councils as
regular bodies were evolved only during the Gupta period. 

In addition to this council there was a popular body or the Primary Assembly of the
Village. All the respectable householders of the village were the members of this Primary
Village Assembly. But as it was a petty large body, it transacted its business only through
an executive committee or council, about which we have referred above. In certain areas
the Primary Village Assembly con­sisted of all the village residents. 

In South India the village institutions were organised on democratic lines during the
Chola period which has been described as the Golden Age of the Village Assemblies. There
were two types of assemblies the Ur and Sahba. While the former was the general type the
latter one was peculiar to the Brahmadeya villages. 

The precise rules regarding the conduct of elections and qualifications of members are
mentioned in the Utteramerur Inscriptions of the Chola King Parantaka I. The Village
Assemblies exercised full powers in all departments of administration. 

They were absolute proprietors of village lands collected taxes, evicted cultivators for non-
payment of taxes, received deposits of money and grants of land for charitable purposes.
They also enjoyed certain judicial powers. 

The existence of the democratic institutions at the lowest level encouraged the communal
life of the people and developed among them a sense of civic duty and love for liberty. It
also contributed a great deal to the efficiency and purity of administration. 

Q7. Discuss the administration of Justice in Ancient India. 

In the earliest times the administration of justice was not a duty of the state. The
aggrieved party had to take necessary steps to redress the wrongs done. The most usual
step was to sit before the house of the wrong doer and not to allow him to move out till his

20/44
claim was satisfied. 

In case he failed to get the necessary redress on his own he could take the assistance of his
friends. This explains why we do not find any references about the judicial organisation in
the early Vedic literature. In the later Vedic period we come across an official sabhapati,
who is considered to have been a judge. 

However, this view cannot be conclusively proved. But we get some indications to the
effect that the sabha or popular village assembly acted as arbitrator in certain oases. 

The Dharmasutras and Arthasastra give us an indication that the judiciary had fully
developed by their times. The king was the supreme judge and it was his duty to punish
the wrong-doers. If the king failed to perform this duty he was sure to go to hell. 

Therefore, the king always devoted lot of his time to adjudication every day. Though in
theory any case could be taken to the king but in actual practice only important cases were
personally heard by the king. Quite often he delegated his judicial work to the chief justice
or other royal officials. 

The general tendency was to encourage the town councils and village panchayats to try
local disputes. Only, serious cases were tried in the royal court. Even in these cases the
king was expected to observe strict impartiality and decide the case according to the
dharma or law. 

This law was not enacted by the legislature but was based on Srutis and Smritis. In fact
law was considered as the king of kings and it could not be easily set aside. 

The composition of the courts also differed from time to time and from state to state. But
one common feature of the judicial administration of the various states was that the
system of jury was in existence. Even the king and the chief justice were assisted by a
panel of judges. The number of the jurors was normally three, five or seven. It was
deliberately kept odd to ensure majority decision. 

The judges were expected to be learned, religious, devoid of anger and impartial. The
jurors were expected to express their opinion even if it was in opposition to the king. In
fact it was their supreme duty to restrain a willful king going astray and giving a wrong
decision. 

To ensure the impartiality of the judges they are not allowed to give private interviews to
the litigants until their case was settled. Arthasastra insists that the honesty of the judges
should be periodi­cally tested by agents provocateurs. Vishnu Smriti prescribes very
serious punishments for the corrupt judges viz. banishment and forfeiture of all property. 

In addition to the regular official courts, certain popular courts also existed in ancient
India. During the Vedic period the Sabha probably worked as a popular court. The
disputes regarding boundaries of property were settled by the village elders. Yajnavalkya
mentions three types of popular courts—Puga, Sreni and Kula. 

21/44
These popular courts continued to flourish right till the beginning of the British rule,
because their decisions were usually upheld by the kings. The government courts only
accepted certain cases which came as an appeal against the decisions of the popular
courts. It may be noted that the popular courts tried only civil cases and did not enjoy any
power with regard to criminal cases. 

While considering the case due weightage was given to the evidence. In serious criminal
cases evidence from all the sources was accepted, but in the civil cases the evidence of
women, learned Brahmans, government servants, minors, debtors, persons with criminal
records etc. was not given much weightage. 

The evidence of the members of low caste people was not valid against persons of higher
caste. False evidence was greatly abhorred. A person who acted as false witness was
expected to suffer various temporal penalties, including a hundred unhappy births in
future lives. 

In case of serious suspicion the accused could be tortured to elicit confession. These
tortures included whipping. Usually Brahmans, children, the aged, the-sick and pregnant
women were exempted from torture. In case of women the torture was rather light. 

The observance of various types of ordeals to ascertain the guilt were also resorted to
settle the cases outside the court. The most common ordeals were ordeals by fire and
immersion. The Smriti writers did not approve of these ordeals in normal cases and
permitted them only in those cases where there was no concrete evidence on either side 

Different types of punishments were in vogue. These included the fines, imprisonment,
banishment, mutilation and death sentence. The fines were the most common
punishment While deciding upon the punishment, the judges took into account the nature
of the crime, the motive of the accused, his age and status in society. 

Usually lighter punishments were inflicted on the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas. The early
Sutras had laid down fines for the punishment of murder— 1,000 cows for killing a
Kshatriya, 100 for a vaisya, and in for a sudra or a woman. 

The killing of a Brahman could not be expiated by a fine. These cattle were handed to the
king, who passed them on to the relatives of the slain person. Thus under the ancient
Indian system of justice fine could atone all but the most serious crime, the fines however
differed according to the seriousness of the crime and it ranged from small copper coins
to the confiscation of the entire property. 

Imprisonment was another common punishment. Though the Smriti writers do not make
a mention of it, it was quite popular during the times of Ashoka and Harsha. Hiuen Tsang
says that imprisonment was the most usual form of punishment under Harsha. 

Those sentenced to imprisonment were often made to work on road and in public places
so that it could have a deterrent effect on others. Mutilation of limbs was also resorted to
as a punishment usually the hands of the thief were mutilated. 

22/44
Banishment, another type of punishment, was usually inflicted on the privileged classes.
The death sentence was imposed on murderers, traitors, dacoits and persons guilty of
heinous sex crimes. However, during the times of the Guptas the punishments were made
lighter. 

Fa-Hien tells us that death penalty was not imposed in northern India. Most of the crimes
were punished with fine. Even in case of serious crimes like revolts the amputation of one
hand was done. 

Q8. Examine the theory regarding Paur-Janpad. 

The expression Paura Janapada in ancient India had been used in plural form but the two
are different assemblies. According to some Paura Janapada often indicates the
inhabitants of towns and villages that comprised a kingdom. However when this term is
used in the neuter singular as Paura-Janapada it refers to a constitutional body consists of
the representatives of the capital and the country. The prestige of this body was high that
the state would often refuse to grant any relief to a person who was working against its
interest. This term has also been referred in the epic Ramayana too. 

Ramayana uses the term paura janapada in the plural and it denotes the citizens and not
any constitutional or representative body. The paura janapada as referred by Bharata are
the ordinary citizens who accompanied him to see whether Rama could be persuaded to
return to Ayodhya. From this epic it is clearly evident that paura janapada wielded no
effective powers. It could neither refuse Dasaratha‘s plan to banish Rama nor induce
the Lord Rama to return home as they desired. Paura Janapadas are prominent by their
absence. 

The Hathigumpha inscription states that the king conferred many favours amounting

to hundreds and thousands on the Paura and Jana-pada. From here it is clear that
numerous favours conferred upon country have been referred. Its monetary value
amounted to hundred and thousands of rupees. The Janapada-dharmas referred in the
Smritis prove the existence of a Janapada as a central law-making parliament. The
janapadadharmas referred by Manu are the customs of the country. It is not the
enactments of its legislature. Janapadadharmas are identical with desa dharma. 

While deciding court cases Manu and other Smriti-writers point out that desadharmas or
janpadadharmas should be taken into consideration by the court. They were mere
customs and not any laws passed by the legislature like a Janapada body. 

23/44
Mauryan state was influenced by the conduct and mode of assemblies of the Paura and
Janapada. This is evident from Arthashastra. In Arthashastra the term refers to the area
covered by villages and towns of the whole kingdom. Mrichakatika mentions that the
Janapada hall was located in the capital. News of deposition of the King and appointing
his brother to the throne were brought by a messenger to the assembly hall of the
institution of Janapada. 

In Pataliputra there were two assemblies in the capital: the Paura and Janapada. This
city had a paura association. Paura paid attention to the industrial and commercial
concerns of the capital. They also looked after the interest of the foreigners who resided in
the city. They also looked after the sanitation and legal matters. These assemblies have
been referred in connection with taxes therefore it can be assumed that they had some say
as far as taxation was concerned. 

 Janapada assembly has also been referred in the inscriptions of Ashoka too. The officers
had to behave in such a manner so that the Janapada does not get offended. These two
bodies jointly carried out certain activities and that is how they have been mentioned
together. It is evident from the inscriptions that the king’s second day is dedicated to
attending the Paura Janapada. They also enjoyed certain executive powers. Thus the
existence of this institution cannot be denied. 

Q9. Discuss the central administrative system of Guptas. 

The Gupta empire had a top-to-bottom administrative hierarchy. Provinces were also

divided into Vishayas and placed under the control of Vishayapatis. Rajya, Rashtra,
Desha, Mandala, Prithvi, and Avani were some of the names given to the empire. It was
divided into 26 provinces which were styled as Bhukti, Pradesha, and Bhoga. 

Gupta Dynasty – Background 

Many small kingdoms rose and fell after the Mauryan empire. Between
approximately 300 and 700 CE, a classical pattern of imperial rule emerged, paving
the way for state formation in many regions. 
During this time, the Gupta kingdom rose to prominence as a great power, achieving
political unification of a large portion of the Indian subcontinent. 
It had a powerful central government that ruled over many kingdoms. 
During this time, feudalism as an institution began to take root. The Gupta economy
thrived thanks to an efficient guild system and overseas trade. 
During this time, great works in Sanskrit were created, and a high level of cultural
maturity in fine arts, sculpture, and architecture was attained. 
The upper classes’ living standards peaked. Education, art, and scientific study
advanced, but the feudal system of governance placed people in some form of
hardship. 

24/44
 Although some historians claim that the Gupta era was a golden age, this is not
entirely correct. However, many scholars agree that it was a period of cultural
florescence and a classical age for the arts. 

Gupta Administration – Features 

Monarchy was the dominant form of government during the Gupta period. The
Gupta dynasty’s rulers had their own councils. 
Mantri Parishad was the name given to the ministerial council. It was made up of
high-ranking officials such as the kumaramatya and the sandhivigrahika. 
The empire was divided into provinces called ‘bhuktis.’ The bhuktis were further
classified as ‘Vishyas.’ Each bhukti was administered by a ‘uparika,’ who was
appointed by the king. Vishayapatis were appointed by the provincial governor or, in
some cases, the king himself to control the vishayas. 
The bhuktis were further subdivided into ‘vishayas,’ each of which was overseen by a
Vishayapati. 
The village administration was overseen by the village headman. Unlike the
Mauryan period, the administration in the Gupta period appears to have been
managed from the ground up. 

The King 

Gupta Administration – The King 

Political hierarchies during the Gupta era can be identified by the titles used. Kings
were given titles like maharajadhiraja, parama-bhattaraka, and parameshvara. 
They were also associated with gods through epithets such as parama-daivata (the
foremost worshipper of the gods) and parama bhagavata (the foremost worshipper
of Vasudeva Krishna). 
Some historians believe the Gupta Kings claimed divine status. In the Allahabad
inscription, for example, Samudragupta is compared to Purusha (Supreme Being). 
These assertions can be interpreted as the king’s attempt to claim divine status. 

Gupta Administration – Ministers and Other Officials 

Official ranks and designations are mentioned on seals and inscriptions, but their
precise meaning is often unknown. 
The term “kumaramatya” appears on six Vaishali seals, indicating that this title
represented a high-ranking officer with his own office (adikarana). 
The designation “amatya” appears on several Bita seals, and the “kumaramatya”
appears to have been preeminent among amatyas and equivalent in status to princes
of royal Kumaramatyas were attached to the king, crown prince, revenue
department, or a province. 
One of the Vaishali seals refers to a kumaramatya who appears to have been in
charge of maintaining the Lichchavis’ sacred coronation tank. 
Individuals with the rank of kumaramatya sometimes had additional designations,
which were hereditary. 

25/44
 Harisena, the composer of the Allahabad prashasti (praise inscriptions), was a
kumaramatya, sandhivigrahika, and mahadandanayaka, as well as the son of
Dhruvabhuti, a mahadandanayaka. 

Gupta Administration – Council of Ministers 

A council of mantrins(ministers) aided the Gupta king. The Allahabad prashasti

refers to the Sabha, a ministerial assembly or council. 
The various high-ranking functionaries included the sandhivigrahika or
mahasandhivigrahika (minister for peace and war), who appears to have been a
high-ranking officer in charge of contact and correspondence with other states,
including initiating wars and concluding alliances and treaties. 
High-ranking officials were referred to as dandanayakas, while mahadandanayakas
were high-ranking judicial or military officers. 
One of the seals mentions a mahadandanayaka named Agnigupta. The Allahabad
prashasti refers to three mahadandanayakas. All of this suggests that these positions
were hereditary in nature. 
Another person was given the title mahashvapati (commander of the cavalry),
indicating military duties. 

Gupta Administration – Division of Empire 

The provinces of the Gupta Empire were known as deshas or bhuktis. Governors,
known as uparikas, were in charge of running them. 
The king directly appointed the uparika, who in turn frequently appointed the
district administration and the district board. 
Uparika continued to rule “with the enjoyment of the rule consisting of elephants,
horses, and soldiers,” implying control over military machinery as well. 
The uparika’s use of the title maharaja on three Damodarpur plates indicates his
high status and position in the administrative hierarchy. 
The Budhagupta Eran pillar inscription, dated Gupta year 165 CE, refers to
Maharaja Surashmichandra as a lokpala, ruling over the land between the Kalinndi
and Narmada rivers. 
Lokpala appears to be a provincial governor in this context. The Gupta Empire’s
provinces were divided into districts known as visayas, which were ruled by officers
known as vishyapatis. 
The vishyapatis appear to have been appointed by the provincial governor in
general. 
The vishyapatis were sometimes directly appointed by the kings. The vishyapati was
assisted in administrative duties by prominent members of the town. 

Gupta Administration – Administrative Unit Below district level 

Clusters of settlements known as vithi, bhumi, pathaka, and peta were the
administrative units below the district level. 

26/44
 There are references to officials known as ayuktakas and vithi-mahattaras. Villagers
elected functionaries such as gramika and gramadhyaksha. 
The Damodarpur copper plate from the reign of Budhagupta mentions an
ashtakula-adhikarana (a board of eight members) headed by the mahattara. 
Mahattara has several meanings, including village elder, village headman, and head
of a family community. 
The panchmandali, which may have been a corporate body, is mentioned in a Sanchi
inscription from the time of Chandragupta II. 

Army of Gupta Empire 

Military designations like baladhikrita and mahabaladhikrita (commander of

infantry and cavalry) are mentioned on seals and inscriptions. 
The term “senapati” does not appear in Gupta inscriptions, but it may appear in
some Vakataka epigraphs. 
The ranabhandagar-adhikarana, or military storehouse office, is mentioned on a
Vaishali seal. 
Another Vaishali seal mentions the dandapashika’s adhikarana (office), which could
have been a district-level police station. 
The mahapratiara (chief of the palace guards) and the
khadyatapakita(superintendent of the royal kitchen) were two officials specifically
connected with the royal establishment. 
A Vaishali seal refers to a person as a mahapratihara as well as a taravara. The
administrative structure’s top layer also included amatyas and sachivas, who were
executive officers in charge of various departments. 
Spies known as dutakas were part of the espionage system. Another group of high-
ranking officers were the ayuktakas. 

Conclusion 

The Gupta kings had to account for the brahman donees, who had absolute administrative
power over the people of the donated villages. Despite the Gupta kings’ strength,
institutional factors working for decentralization were far stronger during this period.
Throughout the early medieval period, the Gupta administration served as a model for the
basic administrative structure, both in theory and in practice. 

Q10. Write a note on concept of Taxation in Ancient India. 

Most of the writers of ancient India hold the view that the success of the king depended
upon the wealth he could amess in his treasury. In the Rig Vedic period there was no
system of taxation as because there was no state at all. That was an age of cattle-rearing
and the general economy of the society depended essentially on it. The lede f the group,
clan or community never could extort something like a tax regularly. In the entire Rig
Vedic period we never came across a name of a person who was entrusted with the task of
revenue collection from the inhabitants. Though there are the terms like ‘Boli’ or ‘Bhaga’
in Rig Veda these were virtually a voluntary gift on the part of the subjects paid to their

27/44
leaders. Of course, the king or leaders of these groups used to distribute the wealth among
their subjects. Possible, they used to distribute the wealth among their subjects. Possible,
they used to distribute a part of their plunders among the men of their groups or
community which they usually obtained by plundering other groups. Thus, during the Rig
Vedic period the king had no right to collect taxes.  As was said earlier to ‘Boli’ or ‘Bhaga’
that he used to get was a voluntary gift from his people, not his legitimate right. In the
later Vedic period, however, the king was called the ‘Baliharita’ which meant the person
who collect the ‘Bolies”. As the collection of the ‘Bolies’ became regular, it changed its
characters. What was previously a voluntary gift now became a necessary and compulsory
tax to be paid regularly. This change of character of ‘Boli’ was essentially due to the
presence of surplus in production and wealth. Possibly from this time onward a special
group of employees were appointed known as ‘Swampadasangrahaka’. By that time, the
Vedic Society had become a caste-based society and the Vishyas were the main producers
of this surplus wealth. As such, they were the main tax payers and the Sudras had to pay a
little amount as tax. But the other two castes – the administrator and warrior caste
Kshatriyas and the Priestly caste – the Brahamanas were exempted from paying any tax at
all. 

Moreover, in later Vedic period the revenue collectors were called – ‘Samgrithitri’.during
this period the power of the king had increased. As the administration became more and
more complex, greater number of employees had to be appointed to carry on the
administration smoothly. The surplus wealth that the king had collected by dint of taxes
was utilized to maintain the cost of administration and paying away the salaries of the
employees. The king became a hard extortioner of taxes and he collected the taxes
regularly. Hence the king was defined in this period as ‘Bishamata’ – the person who eats
the subjects – specially the person belonging to vaishya-caste.The system continued
during the 6th century B.C. and the process was in vague in the solasa Mahajanapadas as
well. With the growth of political power it became necessary to keep a huge standing army
for each and every kingdom and eventually it also became necessary for the king to extort
taxes regularly for maintaining his standing army. In Pali text we find the reference of a
group of government employees who were entrusted with the task of measuring the lands;
they were called “Rajjudgahaka Amachocha.” Possibly they are also to extort the surplus
produces of the cultivators. 

When the Mauryas came into power they laid special stress and attention on the collection
of revenues. The contemporary Greek records told us that there were six Samitees
consisting of five members each in Pataliputra to look after its administration. These
members were known as “Austinomoya.” The members of the fourth Samiti were to look
after the goods that were brought into the market so that no adulterated goods could be
sold. Indian literatures of the period, have told us that the state had absolute control over
the trade and commerce of this period. According to Meghasthenes, it was the duty of the
Sixth Samiti members to collect taxes from the traders at per the rate of one-sixth of the
prices of the sold commodities. If any trader failed to pay or denied to pay the tax he was
even punished with death sentence. Possibly the Samiti extracted taxes on foreign trades
as well during the Mauryan period. 

28/44
What exactly should be the role of the states in trade and commerce has been discussed by
Kautilya in his famous work ‘Arthasastra.’ To him traders of tries to squeeze the people
and hence the state should protect the common men from the traders. A high government
official, the “Pannyadhaksha” was entrusted with this task of controlling the traders. He
had many duties. He was to implement the royal policy in view of public interest, to
arrange the supply of a commodity in case of its scarcity, to sell the goods produced in the
royal farms and factories to regulate the prices of the goods and to determine the profit
margin of the traders-which were 5% for the indigenous traders and 10% for the foreign
traders respectively. 

We are not very sure about the rate of land revenue during the Maruyan period; possibly
it was one-sixth or one-fourth of the total produces. There were some government lands
or land of the king, known as ‘sita’ possibly the state extracted two-third of the produces
as the tax from the cultivators of the land. The state used to extract another type of tax
from agriculture known as ‘Udakbhaga’ or water tax levied on the process of irrigation
water. If the water was mechanically collected from the ponds or rivers, the tax was one-
third of the produces. Thus the system of taxation on irrigation-water was in vague as
early as in 4th century B.C. The Maruyas used to extract at least twenty two different types
of taxes from the mines. In Ashoka’s edicts we find the name of a royal employee
“Bachabhumik Mahamatya” who possibly extracted taxes on Braja or pasture lands.
Meghasthenes also told us that a herdsman or a professional hunter had to pay taxes to
the state. “Arthasastra” also told us about various other taxes like the tariff duties, octoroi
etc. Apart from these ordinary regular taxes the Mauryas also extracted some special taxes
in times of emergency. These types of emergency taxes were called by Kautilya as “Pranoy
Kara” 

During the Guptas period land revenue was the main source of earning for the state. For
this period also we are not very sure about the rate of taxes. Throughout the entries period
of ancient Indian history, the king was given the right to receive one-sixth of the total
produce for which he was given the title “Swarabhagin.” In the inscription we find the
mention of two types of revenues “Karas” and “Upakaras”. According to Prof D.C. Sarkar
these two types of taxes actually meant direct and indirect tax respectively. These was
another type of taxation known as the “Udranga”. Apart from these three types of taxes in
Western India there was another tax known as “Dhanya” usually taken in the Maitraka
Knigdom and in Northern India there was a special tax known as “Halikkara”. Possibly
the land revenue was taken in the form of the produces. Taxes were also paid in cash
which the inscriptions described as “Hiranya”. The tax that was collected from trade and
commerce was called “Sulka” and the person who collected it called “Soulkik”. 

Q11. Throw light on the administrative system of Maurya period. 

We get information about the Mauryan administration from Megasthenes’ Indica

and Kautilya’s Arthashastra. 
We also get information about the Mauryan administration from the inscriptions of
the Mauryan ruler Ashoka.  

29/44
The purpose of the Maurya administration was to provide stability to the state. To
provide stability to the state, the Maurya rulers used to collect maximum taxes and
did public welfare work to maintain happiness and peace in the empire. 
Chandragupta Maurya did the work of providing the base to the Mauryan
administration, but the later Maurya rulers also provided stability to the Mauryan
administration through various experiments. 
The Mauryan administration was divided into central, provincial, and local
administration. 
The focal point of the central administration was the king. According to Kautilya,
the centre was the centre of the seven organs of the state. The concept of kingship
changed during the time of Emperor Ashoka, he included divinity in the concept of
kingship. He had declared himself Prajapalak. 
For administrative convenience, the Maurya Empire was divided into various
provinces. The inscriptions of Emperor Ashoka find mention four provincial
capitals. Tosali in the east, Ujjain in the west, Taxila in the north, and Suvarnagiri in
the south were the provincial capitals. 
In the Maurya Empire, the provinces were divided into districts, which were called
“Aharas” or “Vishayas”. Their chief was called Vishayapati. 
The smallest unit of administration was the village. The head of the village was
called “Gramik”. 
Next, we are presenting the Mauryan officials through a table- 
  

30/44
Officer                Related Department And Work                          

Merchandiser  He was the head of the Department of Commerce 

Suradhyaksha  This was the head of the Excise Department 

Sunadhyaksha  This was the president of the slaughterhouse 

Ganikadhyaksha  This was the head of the prostitutes 

Sitadhyaksha  This was the head of the Department of Agriculture 

Akaradhyaksha  This was the head of the Mines Department. 

Warehouse Head  This was the head of the treasury department 

Kupyadhyaksha  Head of the rest Department 

Koshthagaradhyaksha  Head of Ordnance Department 

Shulkadhyaksha  Head of the business tax collectors 

Sutradhyaksha   This was the head of the spinning-weaving department. 

Iron  Chief  This was the head of the metallurgical department 

Lakshanadhyaksha  This was the head of the mint department.  

He was the chief official for issuing currency in the state. 

Go-Adhyaksha  This was the head of the livestock department. 

Vivitadhyaksha  This was the head of the pasture department. 

Mudradhyaksha  This was the head of the Passport Department. 

Navadhyaksha  This was the head of the shipping department 

Pattnadhyaksha  He was the head of the port department 

Sansthadhyaksha  He was the head of the trade routes 

Devta Adhyaksh  Head of religious institutions 

Pautvadhyaksha  This measurement was the head of the weighing department. 

Manadhyaksha  This was the head of the department related to distance and
time 

Ashwadhyaksha  Head of the Department of horses 

Hastyadhyaksha  Head of the Department of Elephants 

Suvarnadhyaksha  Head of the gold department 

Akshapataladhyaksha  This was the head of the Accounts Department 

31/44
Q12. Discuss the types of state in Ancient India. 

Types of states in ancient India have been mentioned vaguely in Vedic Literature. It
has been observed that monarchy was the type of state that was highly prevalent. Few
passing references have been made to the Sangha or republican state. Initially the state
was tribal in nature. The Rig Veda apart from the references to vispatis and janapatis
frequently refers to specific tribes like the Yadus, the Purus, the Anus, the Turvasas. The
notion of a territorial state was being gradually evolved in the later Vedic period. This has
been clearly mentioned in the Atharva Veda. The Brahmana literature refers to the
emperors as the rulers all over the earth bounded by the sea. Therefore the notion of the
territorial state was established at this time (c. 1000) completely. 

Monarchy was the normal form of the state in the Vedic period. In Aitareya
Brahmana it is mentioned that different type of states flourished like rajya bhaujya,
vairajya, and samrajya flourished in different provinces of the country. In the later history
several kings have been mentioned enjoying different degrees of autonomy and ruling as
feudatories of an emperor. In the Vedic period most of the states were small. Probably the
dominion of a samrat was not much bigger than that of an ordinary king. Probably the
term Rajya denoted a smaller but independent kingdom. Vairajya means a republic or a
state which had no king. 

States where the principal executive authority was vested in two rulers was prevalent in
ancient India. Such a state existed in Sindh where the sovereignty was vested in two
different kings hailing from different houses. This type of state has also been referred to in
Arthashastra. However two kings cannot rule in harmony as each of them have unlimited
power extending over the same kingdom. Such a state is often torn by factions and parties
supporting the power of each ruler. In order to avoid discord, very often the brother or
cousin rulers of a dvairajya state would divide the kingdom between them, as was done in
the dvairajya kingdom. This was created in Vidarbha by the sungas. Though the kingdom
was divided, the two rulers would hold joint consultations on all important matters. When
the two kings ruled in harmony, the state was called a two-kings-state. When they were
pulling in opposite directions, it was called a self-fighting state or virudharajya. 

There are passages in the Vedas that refer to the existence of an oligarchy, where power
was vested in a council of nobles. Each member was entitled to call himself a kin who had
a right to elect the chief of the state. This type existed in the sixth century in some parts of
North Eastern India. Side by side with monarchical and oligarchical states, there also
existed republican governments in ancient India as early as the Vedic age. A passage in

32/44
the Aitareya Brahmana states that the people who lived near the Himalayas like the
Uttarakurus and the Uttaramadras had no king and therefore called virat or kingless.
These people had a non-monarchical or republican form of government. 

The city state was another feature of the political life earlier. Mahabharata refers to the
powerful villages on the bank of the Indus River. Here it is referring to the powerful city
states. It is probable that at some periods of their history there were city states who issued
coins on their own authority. The city states did not bring the outlying villages under their
control. The government was generally carried on by the aristocratic classes of the city. 

Composite and confederate states were also known to ancient India. It is probable that the
Kurupanchalas in the later Vedic period formed a composite state, ruled by a common
king. Yaudheya state of republic comprised of three sub-states. These confederations
lasted for short periods. During the time of Lord Buddha and Lord Mahavira, the
Lichchhavis had formed a confederation, once with the Mallas and once with the Videhas.
The Lichchhavi-Malla federal council consisted of 18 members, nine being elected by each
of the confederating state. However it can be concluded that the jurisdiction of the central
government of the confederating states was confined to foreign policy and the declaration
and prosecution of war. Each state retained its sovereignty. The general for the joint army
was elected by the confederating states. 

 States in ancient India were unitary in nature. King was the source from which the
ministers and provincial governors derived their power. Village Panchayats, town-
councils and trade-guilds also were controlled by the central government. However the
state’s intervention in these bodies was limited except in the case of a breach of
constitutions. The unitary character of the state was modified to a great extent by the
presence of these autonomous bodies, which used to function on their own lines despite
revolutions occurring at the centre. 

Q13. Define Vedic Sabha and Samiti. 

The term Sabha denotes both the assembly (in early Rig-Vedic) and the assembly hall
(Later Rig-Vedic). Women who were called Sabhavati also attended this assembly. It
was basically a kin-based assembly and the practice of women attending it was stopped in
later-Vedic times. RigVeda speaks of the Sabha also as a dicing and gambling assembly,
along with a place for dancing, music, witchcraft, and magic. It discussed pastoral affairs
and performed judicial and administrative functions and exercised judicial authority. 

Samiti 

The references to samiti come from the latest books of the Rig-Veda showing that it
assumed importance only towards the end of the Rig-Vedic period. Samiti was a folk
assembly in which people of the tribe gathered for transacting tribal business. It discussed

33/44
philosophical issues and was concerned with religious ceremonies and prayers.
References suggest that the Rajan was elected and re-elected by the Samiti. 

The differentiations between Sabha and Samiti 

In the beginning, there was no difference between the Sabha and the Samiti. Both were
called daughters of Prajapati. Both were mobile units led by chiefs who kept moving along
with the forces. The only difference between Sabha and Samiti seems to be the fact
that Sabha performed judicial functions, which the Samiti did not. Later, the
sabha became a small aristocratic body and samiti ceased to exist. 

Q14. Who is related ‘Shantiparva’? 

Shanti parva recites a theory of governance and duties of a leader. This theory is outlined
by dying Bhishma to Yudhishthira and his brothers (shown), as well as words from
sage Vidura. 

The origin of state, which is a major aspect of politics, has been defined in the
Vana parva in Mahabharata. The Shantiparva clarifies that in the state of nature, the
institution of state did not exist. There was no kingly office and the people there had sense
of thine and mine. 

Q15. What is Ratnin? 

Authority of the ‘rajana’ called ’ratnin’; they were 12 jewels of the king, worked for
‘rajana’. 

Q16. What was ‘Vishay’? 

The empire during the Gupta Period was divided into provinces called ‘bhuktis.’ The
bhuktis were further classified as ‘Vishyas.’ Each bhukti was administered by a ‘uparika,’
who was appointed by the king. Vishayapatis were appointed by the provincial governor
or, in some cases, the king himself to control the vishayas. 

Q17. What is ‘Dharmasthiya’ and Kantakasodhana? 

There were two types of law courts during the Maurya period called ‘Dharmasthiya’
or court of civil law and ‘Kantakasodhana’ or the court of criminal law13. The lit- erary
sources of the Mauryan period, both Indica of Megasthenes and Arthasastra of Kautilya
describe that the penal code was very severe. 

Dharmasthiya and Kantakasodhana are civil and criminal courts respectively. 

Q18. Define Dvairajya. 

A dominion divided between two kings. 

Q19. What do you understand by Bali? 

34/44
In later Vedic times, three terms commonly used for taxes were Bali, Bhaga and Shulka. 
All three terms are referred to in Vedic texts, but perhaps not as taxes. 

As offerings, Bali and Bhaga were based on personal relations between the giver and the
receiver and were made in kind. 

Q20. What is ‘Sandhivigrahika’? 

Sandhivigrahika, he was the minister of peace and war i.e. modern foreign minister.

Kumaramatyas, he was a body of top ranking officials attached not only to the king, but
also to the crown-prince, and sometimes placed as in charge of districts. 

The Gupta Empire was an ancient Indian empire, existing from approximately 240 to 590
CE. A team of officers known as Mahadandanayaka, Sandhivigrahika and Kumaramatyas
assisted the king in administering the state. The most important officers in the Gupta
empire were the Kumaramatyas or the ministers. They were appointed by the king in the
home provinces and possibly paid in cash. 

Q21. Who is the author of ‘Hindu Polity’? 

K. P. Jayaswal 

Q22. Give an account of the importance of Sabha and Samiti. 

Early mention of Sabha and Samiti occurred during the Early Vedic period in India.These
were important organizations to solve the problems in the Administration and society. In
Atharvaveda , Sabha and Samiti is identified as 2 daughters of Prajapati ,the Vedic God
.These assemblies may have played an important role in the distribution of resources
along with Gana and Parishad. 

SABHA 

It was the council of select members , particularly people with higher powers and
positions.In the Early Vedic period women were also part of it .The term Sabha is
mentioned about 8 times in Rig Veda and 17 times in Atharvaveda . According to some
Historians Sabhas were older than Samitis and both are interlinked.Members which were
associated with Sabha as mentioned in the Vedas are 

1. Sabhapati (lord of the assembly). 

2. Sabheya and Sabhayogya(worthy people) 

3. Sabha -chora ,Sabhasad and Sabyas(members of the assembly). 

4. Sabhavati(women member). 

5. Sabhapala(Guardian) 

6. Sabhavin(keeper of the assembly). 

35/44
MAIN FUNCTIONS 

It was an assembly of elders and prominent people who used to take some
important Decisions about policies and businesses. 
In R.V it is mentioned that it is place where gambling,dicing , dancing music took
place. 
It had judicial powers in the case of Crime . 
Members of Sabha used to pray to Lord Indira to protect the sabha and its
members. 

SAMITI 

Another important assembly where all the members of the Clan and tribe used to be part
of it.The Samiti occurred 9 times in Rig Veda and 13 times in Atharvaveda. 

FUNCTION OF SAMITI 

It used to elect the king and it is said that the power of the king was not permanent
.if the king is not suitable for the people ,the samiti could throw him out any times
they want . 
It deals with political activities mostly. 

Conclusion  

Both were equally important in the early Vedic period however in the later the power of
Sabha dwindled while Samiti became more important. 

Q23. What do you know about Mandala theory? 

Your neighbor is your natural enemy and the neighbor’s neighbor is your friend” 

This was the basic thought behind Kautilya’s Mandala Theory. And it is the very frist
thought that comes to one’s mind when we read the texts of kautilya. Mandala is a
Sanskrit word whisch means ‘circles’. 

Mandala theory of foreign policy, is based on the geographical assumption

that the immediate neighbour state is most likely to be an enemy (real or
potential) and a state next to the immediate neighbour is likely to be ones
friend, after a friendly state comes an unfriendly state (friend of the enemy
state) and next to that a friendly state (friend of a friendly state) and so on
i.e., “With respect to the middle king [he himself], the third and the fifth
constituents are friendly elements. The second, the fourth, and the sixth are
unfriendly elements.” 

The Mandala concept is one in which there are circles of friends and foes with the central
point being the King and his State. This embraces twelve kings in the vicinity and he
considers the kingdoms as neighbors, the states which are the enemies neighbors are his
enemies’ friends and the next circle of states are his friends. He also believes that the

36/44
states which are his neighbors and are also neighbors of his enemies are neutral and
should always be treated with respect. He believes that this circle is dynamic and the King
should strive to be expanding his central position and reduce the power of the other kings
in the vicinity. He also proposes to build alliances with states which are two degrees away
from the center to create a balance of power. 

The mandala, as comprising 12 types of kings/states, it is classified as follows: 

1. The would-be conqueror, at the centre of the mandala. (Vijigisha) 

2. The enemy whose territory borders on that of the would-be conqueror, i.e., the hostile
neighbour. 

3. The ally’s whose territory lies immediately beyond that of the hostile neighbour. 

4. The enemy’s ally who is the neighbour of one’s won ally. 

5. The ally’s ally who is territorially distant. (Vijigishu) 

37/44
6. The ally of the enemy’s ally who is also territorially distant. 

7. The rear of the would-be conqueror, i.e., rearward enemy 

8. Rearward friend 

9. Friend of the rearward enemy 

10. Friend of friend is the rearward friend 

11. A neutral king/state neighboring both the would-be conqueror and his/its enemy but
is stronger than both. 

12. The king is very indifferent towards all other kings/states but is more powerful than
the would-be conqueror, his enemy and the neutral king/ state. 

In a system of mandala, Kautilya advocated six-fold policy to interact with the neighbours,
which included co-existence, neutrality, alliance, double policy, march and war. To
achieve this he advised the king to resort to five tactics: conciliation, gift and bribery,
dissention, deceit and pretence, open attack or war. As such on the question of treaty and
alliance, he suggests: “A King should not hesitate to break any friendship or alliances that
are later found to be disadvantageous.” 

In the whole spectrum of Mandal, the Vijigishu functions as a sort of balance of power by
asserting his own supremacy. It is assumed that the two adjacent states are normally
hostile and consequently two states with another intervening between them would be
friendly, being common enemies of the latter. The neutral is the strongest power in the
neighborhood. The intermediary in intermediate in strength between the neutral and the
other powers. 

ENEMIES ACCORDING TO KAUTILYA: 

38/44
Potential enemies were those to whom one showed a friendly face. They might be your
ally or there might be no particular relationship between your country and theirs. But
eventually, they would become enemies or so. Kautilya assume, After all, his politics were
aimed at conquering the world, which can only be done by taking control of all other
territories, most of which will fight to retain control. 

In bottom line 

Kautilya’s Mandala theory of foreign policies and interstate relationships though cannot
be said to be completely applicable in the present context, though one cannot ignore its
relevance. His concept stands as barrier against the idea of integration, both at regional
and global level. But unfortunately in the present day, knowingly or unknowingly,
Kautilya dominates in regional and international relations. His warfare technique even in
the present day helps a lot. He has actually very accurately had given his theories. 

Moreover, even to understand the ancient Indian political thought, it is very important to
understand the inter-state relationships and hence kautilya’s contribution is immensely
important when we look back at the Indian History and how under his guidance India
reunited by the Mauryan Umpire. 

Q24. Throw light on the Salient features of Mauryas Administration. 

The growth of Magadha culminated in the emergence of the Mauryan Empire.
Chandragupta Maurya, who founded the empire (321 BCE), extended control as far
northwest as Afghanistan and Baluchistan, and his grandson Asoka, arguably the most
famous ruler of early India, conquered Kalinga (Present day Orissa). Such a huge empire
needed a strong administration, hence are the main features of how the empire was
administered. 

1. Division of empire into five major political centres – This centres were located at
very strategic location for example both Taxila and Ujjayini were situated on
important long – distance trade routes, while Suvarnagiri (literally, the golden
mountain) was possibly important for tapping the gold mines of Karnataka. 

2. Standing army – Such a diverse and vast region needed a strong army to control and
protect it. Hence as Megasthenes has shown that the Mauryan has a very strong
army. And he mentions six different committee with six subcommittees for
coordinating military activity. Of these, one looked after the navy, the second
managed transport and provisions, the third was responsible for foot soldiers, the
fourth for horses, the fifth for chariots and sixth for elephants. 

3. Appointing royal princes as the governor of the major political centres, because
being a royal princes they could be trusted. 

4. During Ashoka, he tried to hold his empire together by propagating dhamma, the
principles of which were simple and virtually universally applicable. This according
to him, would ensure the well-being of people in this world and the next. 

39/44
 5. Strong means of communication along land and rivers were developed also as to
administer the vast empire. 

Among the five points we see that it was his attempts to hold the empire using dhamma as
means to be most prominent theme in the inscription which were inscribed on natural
stones, pollished pillars. 

Q25. Describe the provincial administrative system of Mauryas.  

The entire Empire was divided into two parts:  

The kingdom that was under the direct rule of the King, and  
The vassal states 

The Mauryan territory that was directly ruled by the King was divided into a number of
provinces called ‘Janapadas.’ Ashoka had five provinces with capitals namely Taxila,
Ujjain, Tosali, Suvarnagiri, and Pataliputra. Each province was subdivided into a number
of districts and each district was again subdivided into a number of units. 

However, in addition to these centrally ruled Mauryan territories, there were vassal states.
They enjoyed a great deal of autonomy. 

The provincial administration worked on similar lines of the central administration. The
Mauryan Emperor directly ruled the central and eastern parts of the Empire. The other
areas were ruled by the provincial Governors. The provincial Governors were responsible
for day-to-day conduct of administration of provinces. They were expected to consult on
important matters. (the central administration). There were also the district officers,
reporters, clerks, who helped in the smooth running of provincial administration. 

Q26. Discuss the types of Taxation in ancient India. 

In India, the system of direct taxation as it is known today, has been in force in one form
or another even from ancient times. Present Indian tax system is based on ancient tax
system which was based on the theory of maximum social welfare. As Kalidas described in
Raghuvansham eulogizing king Dalip- “It was only for the good of his subjects that he
collected taxes from them, just as the Sun draws moisture from the Earth to give it back a
thousand fold”. 

Important Types of Taxation in Ancient India 

Sita : profits from Stand land  

Bali :  religious taxes 
Kara : taxes paid in cash 
Bhaga : share or portion of the produce payable to the state 
Booty : Gains of victory in the form of wealth of the losing nation comprised the
prime source of public finance 
Vanikpath was the income from roads and traffic paid as tolls 
Vartanam : levy on all foreign commodities imported in the country 

40/44
 Dvarodaya : levy paid by the concerned businessman for the import of foreign
goods 
yatravetana : levied on pilgrims 

There are references both in Manu Smriti and Arthasastra to a variety of tax measures.
Manu  laid down that traders and artisans should pay 1/5th of their profits in silver and
gold, while the agriculturists were to pay 1/6th, 1/8th and 1/10th of their produce
depending upon their circumstances. Taxes were paid in the shape of gold-coins, cattle,
grains, raw-materials and also by rendering personal service. 

Kautilya emphasised that the King was only a trustee of the land and his duty was to
protect it and to make it more and more productive so that land revenue could be
collected as a principal source of income for the State. According to him, tax was not a
compulsory contribution to be made by the subject to the State but the relationship was
based on Dharma and it was the King’s sacred duty to protect its citizens in view of the tax
collected and if the King failed in his duty, the subject had a right to stop paying taxes,
and even to demand refund of the taxes paid. 

According to the Arthasastra, the land revenue was fixed at 1/6 share of the produce and
import and export duties were determined on advalorem basis. The import duties on
foreign goods were roughly 20 per cent of their value. Similarly, tolls, road cess, ferry
charges and other levies were all fixed. Kautilya’s concept of taxation is more or less akin
to the modern system of taxation. His over all emphasis was on equity and justice in
taxation. All kinds of liquor were subject to a toll of 5 precent. Tax evaders and other
offenders were fined to the tune of 600 panas. 

Q27. Write a note on Saptang theory in Ancient India. 

Kautilya Theory of Saptanga 

According to Kautilya, a state has seven elements or constituents, namely, Swamin— the
King, Amatya—the Minister, Janapada—the Land, and the People, Durga—the Fortress,
Kosha—the Treasury, Danda—the Army and Mitra—the Allies. This entire set-up of the
kingdom was described as Saptanga theory in ancient India. 

The Swamin refers to the king, regarded as the indispensable, integral and inseparable
part of the state in ancient India. King in all cases belonged to the noble and royal family
who possessed qualities of both head and heart. Amatya or the minister refers to all the
officials involved in the functioning of the government. It is their responsibility to ensure
that the government runs smoothly. Janapada implies the land and the people and,
according to Kautilya, must be fertile. 

The term ‘Durga’ in the ancient India means fort, which is considered an extremely
important element. Usually, forts were constructed on the borders of the territory.
Kautilya, in fact, divided these forts into water, hill, desert and forest forts. The fifth
element is Kosha or the treasury. Kautilya opined that a king must amass wealth to
promote the welfare of the people and also maintain his army. 

41/44
Danda referred to the armed forces to protect the state from aggres­sions and maintain law
and order within the state. Kautilya suggested that it is the responsibility of the king to see
that his army is content with its role in the state. Finally, Mitra refers to a friend or allies. 

A king must have certain dependable friends who help him in all calamities. A king’s
immediate neighbour becomes an enemy and an enemy’s enemy becomes a friend of the
king. The Saptanga theory was, in fact, famous all through the ancient period. 

The state was regarded as a physical organism and its elements as the parts of the body. It
was stated that king was considered the head, ministers as the eyes, and treasury as the
face, army as the mind, fort as the hands and country as a whole as the legs of the human
body. 

Q28. Who was Uparik? 

Uparikas was the name of provincial governors in the Gupta empire. The king
maintained a deep contact with the provincial administration by a group of officials called
Kumaramatyas and Ayuktas. Bhuktis was the name of Provinces in the Gupta Empire. 

Q29. What type of tax was ‘Pranay Kar’? 

Pranay Tax  Maurya Dynasty  Emergency Tax 

Q30. What was ‘Santhagara’? 

Santhagara is a Pali word derived from combination

of Santha or Sanstha in Sanskrit (group) and Agara (house or assembly point) and was
used for the general assembly hall of a particular Gaṇasaṅgha kshatriya clan of ancient
northern India where the old and younger of the same clan meets to decide on the general
and state affairs. Santhagara was associated with republican states and its history traces
back to 600 B.C. The republican states were known as gaṇa or saṅgha. Buddhist
literatures show that Santhagara of republic states used to control foreign affairs,
entertaining foreign Ambassadors and princes, and deciding on peace and war proposals.
The history of democracy in India is believed to be starting from Santhagara and India
derives its official name Bhārat Gaṇarājya, the Republic of India, from the Gaṇa. Other
evidences of this period identifies saṅghas or gaṇas as not completely democracies but
sort of corporations and also not as republics but oligarchies, where power was exercised
by groups of people. 

Q31. What was Pilupati? 

Some officials during Gupta Period were Mahabaladhikrita, Narapati, Pilupati(head of

elephants). 

Q32. Who wrote the history of Dharmasastra? 

Pandurang Vaman Kane 

42/44
The History of Dharmashastra with subtitle Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law
in India, is a monumental five-volume work consisting of around 6,500 pages. It was
written by Bharat Ratna Pandurang Vaman Kane, an Indologist. The first volume of
the work was published in 1930 and the last one in 1962. 

Q33. What is ‘Vidatha’? 

The vidatha was a form of assembly referred to 122 times in the Rig Veda and
22 times in the Atharva Veda. Translated as a “family council,” the vidatha included
women and elders as participants. The vidatha collectively worshiped Vedic deities such
as Agni and Indra, offering sacred food and singing their praises. 

Q34. What is Sadgunya? 

Shadguna Sidhanta {Six-Fold Diplomatic Policy} 

This doctrine is a six-fold foreign policy for attainment of one’s national interests and
goals based on realpolitik. Kautilya had suggested this recipe for a Vijigishu to realise his
dream to become world conqueror. The six principles are Sandhi, Vigraha, Asana, Yana,
Sansraya and Dvaidhibhava. A very brief explanation of these is as follows: 

Sandhi 

Sandhi (making peace with strong enemy) has been advised for a weaker nation with
strong enemy. When you enemy is stronger than you, don’t confront with him and rather
make peace on terms and conditions of your enemy {i.e. surrender troops, treasury or
territory}. Sandhi will thwart the strong enemy and will give enough time to get strong
enough to overthrow the strong enemy. Thus, this policy is based on “opportunism” and
seeks time to become strong and wait for enemy to get weaker. 

Vigraha 

Vigraha (policy of hostility) has been advised for stronger nation with relatively weaker
enemy. There can be two dimensions of policy of hostility viz. Defensive and Offensive.
Kautilya says that policy of Vigraha is advisable only when you are sure that you should be
either repel attack of enemy or are strong enough to ruin enemy or seize his territories (in
such case go ahead with Yana). 

In this policy, Kautilya has hinted some kind of cost-benefit analysis and says that if cost
appears more than benefit, then Sandhi is preferred over Vigraha. 

Asana 

The Asana is basically a stance of keeping quite. It is to wait for enemy to get weaker
either by plunging itself in some difficulties or getting involved in war at some other front.
Asana also includes secret efforts to weaken the enemy or some kind of proxy war in
modern terms. 

43/44
Yana 

Yana {March or Expedition} is direct manifestation of a policy of Vigraha and is to be

followed when you are sure that you shall ruin the enemy and win over him. 

Sansraya 

Sansraya means seeking shelter with another king. If a king is weak and threatened to be
attacked by a powerful enemy, it’s better to seek protection from another King or another
place / fort etc. This policy corresponds to status of Protégé in modern sense. 

Dvaidhibhava 

Dvaidhibhava refers to the double policy of Sandhi with one king and Vigraha with
another at a time. It is suggested for a King who is strong enough to fight but may not win
without getting additional strength of an ally. 

Apart from the above Shadgunas, Kautilya has mentioned four tactics to overcome the
opposition viz. Saman (Conciliation), Dama (Gifts), Bheda (Dissension) and Danda
(Force). 

Relevance of Rajamandala and Shadguna Siddhanta 

In Arthashastra, Kautilya has made arguments about power, governance, statecraft etc.
without any reference to any religion or divinity, which makes him eligible as true founder
of what we call realpolitik. However, above description makes it very clear that Kautilya
suggests a state to act in order to enhance its power and self-interest. There does not seem
to be any moral / ethical or religious obligation in his policy. War and peace are solely on
basis of profit. Many criticize this policy of Kautilya as ruthless realpolitik, intrigue,
deceptive and immoral. Despite of criticism, the policy holds relevance because Kautilya
said something which has always been actually practiced by states everywhere. 

At the same time, when discussing about India’s foreign policy, many observers connect
the ancient Indian strategic thought of Kautilya with contemporary Indian strategy,
whereby foreign policy takes place within three widening concentrics, with the first circle
encompassing India’s immediate neighbourhood region, the second its extended
neighbourhood; and the third the entire global stage. Many observers consider such
principles to be both applicable to, and evident in, the conduct of Indian foreign policy
since 1947. 

44/44