The Penguin History of Early India

by Romila Thapar

  The reigns of the first three Mauryas – the first ninety years or so of the dynasty – were the most impressive. Their significance lay not merely in the administration of the rulers over a vast territory, but also in the fact that they were able to draw together the largely diverse elements of the subcontinent. They gave expression to a political vision that coloured subsequent centuries of Indian political life, even if few rulers succeeded in repeating the Mauryan pattern. How and why this imperial vision was possible in the third century BC was determined by a variety of factors.

  The Political Economy of Empire

  Among the sources used extensively to reconstruct the polity of the Mauryas is the Arthashastra, which provides a detailed blueprint of how a kingdom should be governed. The precise date of the text remains uncertain, this being the case with many major texts of the n past. Its authorship is attributed to Kautilya, also identified by some with Chanakya and thought to be the chief minister of Chandragupta. The present form of the text is the work of Vishnugupta in about the third century AD. The main chronological controversy hinges on which parts of the texts are datable to the Mauryan period, or if at all, and which are later. Even if some sections are likely to be dated to the Mauryan period, such as Book II, they should not be taken as descriptive since, as a theoretical treatise, it is only a pointer to what were regarded as essential matters pertaining to governance and to a particular political economy. These ideas did derive from some existing features, but the precision of detailed functioning on the part of a centralized government was doubtless an ideal. It is more important to recognize that such an ideal was seen as a possibility. The text therefore is essentially an encouragement to a particular pattern of governance.

  The revenue-producing economy of northern India was now predominantly agrarian, with large areas being brought under cultivation. Land revenue had become the accepted source of income for the government, and it was realized that regular assessments assured increased revenues. The predictability of revenue from these taxes would have created a sense of fiscal security. The administrative system was largely concerned with the efficient collection of taxes. Regarded by many as the theorist of such a system of administration, Kautilya refers at length to methods of tax collection and related problems and a control over potential sources of revenue. Thus forests could not be privately cleared, and clearance was supervised by the state, doubtless to collect the forest products as well as to prevent any arbitrary extension of agriculture. It is a moot point whether such a degree of control was actually exercised. Economic activities other than agrarian were neither unknown nor discouraged. Villages still maintained herds of animals and these were listed under items that were assessed and taxed. In theory, commercial enterprises, particularly in the coastal regions, came under government supervision, and taxes, tolls and customs dues were collected wherever and whenever possible, the techniques of taxation having evolved from the earlier tax on agricultural produce.

  Apart from the activities of the state in agriculture, private owners, as farmers or landowners, cultivated the land or had it cultivated and paid the state a variety of taxes. The large landowners collected a rent from their tenants. The recognition of private property in land was gradually conceded, shown by the statement that priority over the sale of landed property would go to kinsmen and creditors before others. Kinship links in relation to land had not been entirely terminated. Extensive areas of wasteland and of sita or crown lands were cultivated under the supervision of the state. The latter could be directly cultivated by those appointed to do so, or could be cultivated by sharecroppers or tenant cultivators who paid the state a tax, or by wage labourers employed directly by the state. Greek writers, referring to the account by Megasthenes, unfortunately make contradictory statements about the relationship between the cultivator and the state, although they all agree that cultivators were the largest in number and maintain that the ownership of land was claimed by the ruling dynasty. The variations in tenancy mentioned in the Arthashastra are missing in these accounts. The text advocates that the state should organize the clearing of new areas or deserted lands and should settle on such lands large numbers of shudra cultivators, either deported from over-populated or substandard areas, or enticed from neighbouring kingdoms. Doubtless, the 150,000 people deported from Kalinga after the campaign of Ashoka were sent to clear wasteland and establish new settlements.

  Shudras settling in new land were initially exempt from tax, but, once they were working the land, tax was imposed. They have in the past been described as helots, owned and employed by the state. But they were neither owned by the state nor by the ruling community, as in helotage. Other categories that were not necessarily peasants, but provided labour, are referred to in the compound phrase dasa-karmakara – slaves and hired labourers. The status of both allowed little freedom and permitted much oppression. Buddhist texts seem to be more sensitive to the condition of such people.

  Megasthenes has commented on the absence of slavery in India, but this is contradicted by Indian sources. Perhaps he had the pattern of Athenian slavery in mind and the Indian pattern differed. He suggests a parallel with the Spartan system in Greece, which may have occurred to him because of the centrality of status through birth in both instances. Domestic slaves were a regular feature in prosperous households, where the slaves were of low-caste status, but were not untouchables or they would not have had entry into the homes of the upper castes. Slave labour was also used in the mines and by some craft associations. The conditions leading to slavery are listed in more than one text, and among them are: that a man could be a slave either by birth; by voluntarily selling himself; by being captured in war; or as a result of a judicial punishment. Slavery was a recognized institution and the legal relationship between master and slave was clearly defined. For example, if a female slave bore her master a son, not only was she legally free but the child was entitled to the legal status of a son of the master. Megasthenes may have confused caste status with stratification defined by degrees of freedom. Although Greek society in practice acknowledged degrees of unfreedom, in theory it made a distinction between the freeman and the slave, a distinction which was not so apparent in Indian society. A slave in India could buy back his freedom or be voluntarily released by his master; and, if previously he had the status of an arya, he could return to this status on the completion of his term as a slave, according to the Arthashastra. Possibly the function of arya and dasa had again undergone some change. What was immutable in Indian society was not freedom or slavery, but caste. In effect, however, the condition of freedom or slavery was implicit in caste, where, in the overall scheme, the lower castes were less free than the higher, and untouchability could coincide with slavery.

  Land revenue was of at least two kinds. One was a tax on the area of land cultivated and the other on the assessment of the produce. Ashoka’s inscription at Lumbini, commemorating the birthplace of the Buddha, speaks of bali and bhaga which may have been these two taxes. Interestingly, he exempts the people of Lumbini from the first, but continues to impose a tax on produce. The assessment varied from region to region and the sources mention a range from one-sixth to a quarter of the produce of the land. It was generally based on the land worked by each individual cultivator, and also on the quality of the land. A reference to pindakara – a heap of taxes – could suggest a tax collected jointly from a village. The treasury was entitled to tax the shepherds and livestock breeders on the number and the produce of the animals. Taxes on other activities, referred to by the general term kara, were also levied. A tax of a different kind, vishti, was paid in labour for the state and is therefore sometimes translated as corvee. It could be forced labour, although some historians regard it as a labour tax that provided labour in lieu of a tax. Vishti pertains more to the individual than the other taxes. At this period it is mentioned often in the context of craft production, where craftsmen provide a stipulated amount of free labour to the state.

  Taxes fo
r the provision of water for irrigation were regularly collected wherever the state was responsible for providing irrigation. One of Chandragupta’s governors had a dam built across a river near Girnar in western India, thus constructing the Sudarshana lake to supply water for the region. An inscription in the neighbourhood mentions the continuous maintenance of this dam for 800 years, stating that it was built through local but official initiative. But where irrigation was privately managed – through wells, channels off rivers and pools, and systems for lifting water – there was either a reduction on the water levy or an exemption. The Arthashastra had a preference for the private management of irrigation. Thus, although the construction and maintenance of reservoirs, tanks and canals were regarded as part of the functions of governing, there is no ground for holding that the control of irrigation was the key to the control of the economy and therefore the prevalence of despotism.

  According to Megasthenes, the fertility of the land was such that two crops a year were normal. However, other sources mentioned famines. The Jatna tradition referred to a famine towards the end of the reign of Chandragupta Maurya. An inscription from Mahasthan in eastern India dated to the Mauryan or the immediately post-Mauryan period listed the measures to be taken by the local administration during times of famine. Twelve-year famines were referred to in the epics and texts associated with the Vedic corpus, but such references were more likely a rhetoric for disaster.

  If the agrarian economy helped to build an empire, the latter in turn furthered another form of economic activity. The attempted political unification of the subcontinent, and the security provided by a stable government, encouraged the expansion of various craft associations, and consequently in trade. The state employed some artisans, such as armourers and shipbuilders, and they were exempt from tax. Others who worked in state workshops, for example the spinning and weaving shops and the state mines, were liable to pay taxes. The rest worked either individually or, as was most often the case, as members of an association. These associations – shreni or puga – were to become increasingly large and complex in structure, and artisans found it advantageous to join them since this eliminated the expense of working alone and having to compete with the larger organization. From the perspective of the state, such associations facilitated the collection of taxes. They were in turn strengthened by the localization of occupation and the preference for hereditary occupations, and gradually acquired features suggesting the functions of a guild.

  The sale of merchandise was, in theory, strictly supervised. Goods were required to be stamped so that consumers could distinguish between the old and the new. Before assessing the goods the superintendent of commerce was expected to inquire into their current price, supply and demand, and the expenses involved in production. A toll was fixed at one-fifth of the value of the commodity and, in addition, there was a trade tax of one-fifth of the toll. Tax evasion is on record and Megasthenes tells us that it was heavily punished. Prices were controlled to prevent too great a profit on the part of the merchant. The degree to which the Mauryan administration could collect revenue from commercial sources would have varied according to Mauryan control over an area or a route. There was no banking system but usury was customary. The recognized rate of interest on borrowed money was 15 per cent per annum. However, in less secure transactions that involved long sea voyages the rate could be as high as 60 per cent. How much of all this was actually in practice remains uncertain.

  Mauryan levels from excavations of urban centres show an improvement in the standard of living compared to the previous period. Domestic housing was of brick, although what are thought to be the palace and the audience-hall at Pataliputra were of stone. The massive wooden palisade with its towers and gateways circumscribing the city, as described by Megasthenes, has been corroborated from excavations. A timber palisade was safer in the soft alluvial soil of the river bank. However, he does mention that many of the buildings were of timber and therefore fire was a major hazard. Pataliputra is the only Mauryan city of that period with monumental architecture. Such architecture is often seen as a statement of imperial power and presence. In the Mauryan case it is limited to the capital. Elsewhere, the imperial presence is encapsulated in the inscribing of the king’s edicts. Unfortunately, the site of Pataliputra is now built over by the city of Patna, making extensive excavation virtually impossible. Characteristics associated with urban centres are met with at Mauryan levels, for example a frequency of ring wells and soakage pits. There is a quantitative increase in the use of iron, as well as a greater variety of iron artefacts. The distribution of Northern Black Polished Ware as far as south India is an indication of the reach of trade.

  Major towns tend to be distantly located in relation to each other, barring those in the Ganges Plain. Mahasthan (Bogra Dt. of Bangla Desh), Shishupalgarh (Orissa), Amaravati (in the Krishna delta), Sopara (near Mumbai) and Kandahar (in Afghanistan) are unlikely to have been in close contact. Some of these were larger than the cities of the earlier period but none could compare in size to Pataliputra. Shishupalgarh is identified by some with Tosali, an important administrative centre mentioned in an edict of Ashoka, not far from the location of the edict at Dhauli. The conquest of Kalinga and the location of Amaravati would have occasioned some activity along the east coast. In the post-Mauryan period this takes the form of a series of Buddhist sites along the coast.

  Punch-marked coins and some uninscribed cast copper coins continue to be associated with these levels. The more commonly found punch-marked coins carry familiar symbols such as the crescent-on-arches or hills, the tree-in-railing, the sun symbol and the circle with six arrow-like extensions. An attempt was made to arrange all the coins from a hoard by weight and then relate them to the symbols in order to ascertain a chronological sequence, arguing that the older coins would have less weight because of greater wear and tear. But it did not provide conclusive results.

  Terracotta figures, both human and animal, appear to have been popular and can be contrasted stylistically with the far more sophisticated pillar capitals of stone. Whereas the terracottas were made for use by ordinary people, the stone pillars and capitals were artistic statements of the royal court that drew attention to the message engraved on the pillars. Terracotta moulds have been found in large numbers and the repertoire included forms that are linked to fertility cults. Stonecutting and carving acquired significant dimensions, both in the assertion of a distinct aesthetic and in the techniques of polishing the stone after it had been carved. What has come to be called the Mauryan polish or gloss is easily recognized and gives a special quality to the stone. Stone was the medium for the large figures of yakshas and yakshis, demi-gods and spirits (such as the now famous one from Didarganj), possibly Mauryan and displaying the same perfection in polish as the pillar capitals. The stone elephant emerging out of the rock at Dhauli is of rougher workmanship. Stone sculpture was evidently the preferred medium of the wealthy and powerful, and is a contrast to the more humble terracotta images.

  Welding a Subcontinental Society

  Megasthenes speaks of Mauryan society as having seven divisions – philosophers, farmers, soldiers, herdsman, artisans, magistrates and councillors. These have been interpreted as castes because he states that no one is allowed to marry outside his own division or change one profession for another. Only the philosopher is permitted this privilege. All the seven divisions did not follow identical rules. It is thought that he was confusing caste with occupation and by the seven divisions he meant varnas. But these were only four, and seven was a fairly common number for classifications of various kinds. It is more likely that he was describing the principle of jati, where the social group one was born into was perhaps a closer determinant of marriage rules and occupation than varna. Curiously, he makes no mention of the notion of social pollution or of the category of untouchables. Was this too complicated a system for a visitor to understand or was its practice not as widespread as it was to become later? His description is of inte
rest, not because it is accurate but because it is based on the observations of a visitor and reflects hearsay as well as current notions.

  The category of philosophers consisted of the dual division of the Brachmanes and the Sarmanes – brahmans and shramanas – referring to what we would call the religious identities of Vedic Brahmanism and Shramanism. These were blanket terms which were also used in later times. The shramanas included a variety of ascetics, as well as the monks and lay followers of various sects – Buddhist, Jaina, Ajivika and others. They were large and influential enough to constitute a separate category. The philosophers were exempt from taxation, as corroborated by Indian sources when referring to brahmans and to monks.

  The category of fanners, apart from the owners of land, would have included the shudra cultivators and the labourers working on the land. The cultivators, listed as the largest category, underline the centrality of agriculture and its requirement to maintain the Mauryan infrastructure, both civil and military. Cultivators were kept unarmed, thus reducing the likelihood of peasant revolts. When Buddhist sources speak of peasants being oppressed by a king they very occasionally refer to the exiling of the king. More often such peasants are said to migrate to neighbouring kingdoms. Migration was doubtless an easier solution than revolt, and although revolts occur in a much later period even then they were infrequent.

  For Megasthenes to mention soldiers as one of the seven divisions emphasizes the importance of the army. The Mauryan standing army was larger than that of the Nandas, according to Roman sources. Pliny, writing in post-Mauryan times, quotes the figures at 700 elephants, 1,000 horses and 80,000 infantry, which figures are inflated by Plutarch to 600,000 for the foot soldiers. These enormous figures are obviously exaggerated, as were those quoted earlier for the armed opposition met with by Alexander. In peacetime such a vast army would have been an economic liability. Megasthenes writes, ‘when they are not in service they spend their time in idleness and drinking bouts, being maintained at the expense of the royal treasury.’ In the circumstances it is not surprising that the treasury had to be kept replenished at any cost, whether it meant taxing every possible taxable commodity or deporting whole communities to establish new settlements. The curtailing of military campaigns might have been encouraged by financial constraints as well. Membership of the armed forces was not restricted to kshatriyas, for foot soldiers, charioteers and attendants would have been of the lower castes. Kautilya requires that soldiers should return their weapons to the armoury.