MAINS : Sample Notes For History Optional

THE ORIGIN OF MAURYAS

On the one hand, Brahmanical texts assign a low origin to Mauryas; on the other hand, Buddhist texts claim that they were Kshatriya. Some other associate them with peacocks on the basis of their name.

• Puranas equate Nandas with Shudragarbhodbhava. They speak about the low origin of Nandas but claim no knowledge about the low origin or otherwise regarding Mauryas.
• Mudrarakshasa equates Chandragupta Maurya with Apratith-kula, Vrishal i.e. of low origin.
• Ratnagarbha in Vishnu Purana Tika equates Chandragupta as a son of King Nanda from his Shudra wife Mura i.e. of low (Shudra) origin.
• Dhundiraj in Mudrarakshasa Vyakhya equates Chandragupta Maurya as the son of Mauyra who was the son of the king Sarvartha-Siddhi from his wife Vrishalatmaja i.e. low origin.
• Markandeya Purana equates Mauryas with Asura.
• Several Buddhist texts such as Mahavamsha, Mahavamsha Tika, Mahabodhivamsha, Divyavadan, Mahaparinibbana sutta etc. equate Mauryas with Kshatriyas.
• Mahabodhivamsha - The Piplivan Mauryas who vied for Buddha's ashes equates them with Kshatriyas.
• Divyavadan equates Bindusara and Ashoka with Kshatriyas.
• Buddhaghosha in the commentary on Mahaparinibban Sutta says that Mayuras (peacocks) were many in their kingdom, hence Mauryas. Indian tradition of dynastic names derived from nature - Pallavas, Kadamb, Ashwayana etc.
• Parishishta Parvan says that Chandragupta Maurya was the son of the daughter of the chief of peacock-rearers. Peacock (Mayura) connection was clear from the following:-
• Peacock on punch-marked coins.
• Peacock on the pillar at Lauriya-Nandangarh.
• Peacocks along with Ashoka's pilgrimage of Gaya-engraved at Sanchi.
• Peacocks in Mauryan palace - Arrian.
• D.B. Spooner says that Mauryans were of "Persian origin". Justin as "Sandrokottus of humble origin".
• Plutarch - "Androkottus calls Nandas low" therefore Mauryans could themselves not be low ("met Alexander"). Diodorus - "Nandas of low origin but not Chandragupta".

MAURYAN ADMINISTRATION

The Mauryan period marked the culmination of historical process into the formation of a state which was characterized by a centralized system with a developed taxation system, a professional army and a cadre of officials.

Two factors contributed to the rise of Mauryan Empire. Firstly, the development of a money economy which was aided by the use of iron and the subsequent spurt in agriculture and crafts on one hand and the use of punch marked coins on the other causing the kinship ties to decline and the rise of a private spirit. This made possible centralized fiscal collection and integrated authority. The increasing supply of various taxes facilitated the growth of a state apparatus.

Secondly, in the social sphere, the forces of urbanism and a strong agriculture base intensified the process social differentiation as the varna system filled the void created by the decline of kinship ties. This social differentiated and the strengthening of varna system facilitated state formation; the elected chief became hereditary as that genealogical right became entrenched in India because of the varna system. It further strengthened the position of the chief. His right to rule derived the secular and religious sanction; former through contract theory of state which speaks of taxation in lieu of protection and latter by religious validation. Thus the main reason for the exaltation of royal power lay in the growing importance of warrior class from the Mauryan times. The coexistent policy of aggrandizement followed by Magadha steeled the warriors and brought them to the fore.

Two strands are evident on the question of the origin of monarchy in ancient Indian thought - the mystical and the contractual. The mystical was woven around the divine appointment of king strengthened around ceremonies like rajsuya, vajpeya and asvamedha. The contractual theory spoke of taxation in lieu for protection. The Mauryan state essentially rested on the latter thought. Arthashastra doesn't deny the propaganda value of the former.

The king was the supreme authority of the state and the nucleus of the administrative system. In the Kautilyan scheme, royal order supersedes all other sources of authority including Dharma. The all embracing power of king is furnished by Ashokan edicts which talk of paternal despotism and seek to regulate even social and religious lives of the people. Legislation was largely a matter of confirming social usage and king had a fairly free hand but was expected to consult with his ministers. However the final decision laid with the monarch. Though the king was an autocrat, not limited by constitutional controls, there were many checks on his sovereignty which included dharma, council of ministers and most significantly, the public opinion. The king's duties included appointment and removal of the ministers, defence of treasury and the people, work for progress and welfare of the people, punish evil and influence the praja through his morality.

The large empire necessitated the presence of a strong and elaborate bureaucracy which was essentially supported by the economy. This bureaucracy supported not only the administration of political and civil affairs but also the economic affairs where the state was directly engaged in commercial activities. The council of ministers was an advisory body with no fixed number of ministers. Arthashastra stresses that councilors should speak freely and openly and work should be carried out according to majority verdict though the king could turn down their decision. It also lays down qualifications for the appointment of ministers, like the person should not be lured by wealth, not succumb to pressure etc. i.e. he should be 'sarvopadashudha' (purest of all).

The state tried to control all the spheres of life through its vast bureaucracy. Kautilya mentions 18 Tirthas who were probably called mahamatras or high functionaries. He also provides for 27 superintendents concerned mostly with economic functions. Some of them also performed military duties. He also refers to duties of Gopa, sthenika, dharmastha, nagaraka etc. These were employed in urban, rural and border administration. Also a new class of mahamatras worked as dharmamahamatras, enforcing the social and political order ushered in by Ashoka.

Various lists indicate a tendency to increase the no. of officials. The bureaucracy was paid mainly in cash and was highly hierarchical. It is suggested by the pay scales for different categories of employees, the highest like mantrin, purohita, senapati and yuvaraj receiving 48,000 panas and lowest being paid only 60 pannas.

Bureaucracy formed the arm of the royal power, but the crucial factor that contributed to it was the development of the coercive power of the state on an unprecedented scale. According to Justin, Chandragupta Maurya possessed 600,000 troops which was thrice the no. of infantry possessed by Nandas. The usual limbs, the infantry, the cavalry, the chariots, the elephants were strengthened by the addition of 2 wings- the navy and transport and commissariat - a development suggested by both Megasthenes and Kautilya. The power of Sword was strengthened by the royal monopoly of arms and the control over the artisans who produced arms.