Having achieved full political unity of India, Chandragupta
Maurya (340 BC – 298 BC) settled down to accord full-proof good governance to
his people. His empire extended up to the borders of Persia beyond Afghanistan
and Baluchistan in the north-west, which he obtained after concluding a treaty
with Seleucus Nicator, one of the generals of Alexander. Incorporated in his
kingdom also was the whole of Indo-Gangetic plains including the Himalayan
states of Kashmir and Nepal. In the west it extended up to Kathiawar as is
evident from the inscriptions of Rudradaman, and in the east up to Bengal,
which he directly inherited after conquering the Nandas. In the south his
empire included a large part of trans-Vindhyan India. Practically speaking Chandraguta’s empire was
almost double the size of today’s India, but still prevailed over his kingdom
in more or less absolute peace. It is a great question, how did he do it in the
absence of any facilities of modern day’s communication system. Even to go from
one corner of his empire to the other, it took not less than two to three
months even riding a best quality steed. The answer lies in Chanakya’s
Arthashastra.
To rule such a vast empire, Chandragupta maintained
protectorates in many places. Chanakya writes: The “conquered kings preserved
in their own lands in accordance with the policy of conciliation will be loyal
to the conqueror and follow his sons and grandsons.” According to the
epigraphic and literary evidence, at least there were two such princes, such as
Malayaketu and Tushapha.
Though the king
was the head of administration with absolute power, it was not unrestrained in
ancient India. Kautilya clearly prescribes: “The king shall not consider as
good that which pleases himself, but whatever pleases his subjects he shall
consider as good.” The king was supposed to look upon his subjects as his
children, for whose welfare his government was held absolutely responsible, and
to whom he owed a debt which could only be discharged by good governance.
According to
Kautilya, there were eighteen kinds of high officials or Amatyas, who conducted
supervision over all the branches of administration, but whose selection
procedure was extremely difficult. They were expected to be of high character
and wisdom, and whose selection was the responsibility of the king himself.
Amongst the eighteen Amatyas or high officials included the Mantris or
ministers, the Purohita or the high priest, the Senapati or the commander-in-chief
and finally the Yuvaraja or crown prince. One could not claim to be the crown
prince by virtue of his birth, to assert his authority he was expected to
display high morality and unique wisdom. Amongst the most powerful Amatyas were
the Mantris, who were called Mahamatras during the reign of Ashoka, whose
character had been tested under all kinds of allurements, and thus they were
the highest paid employees. Though the king enjoyed absolute authority, he was
not expected to rule like a despot without consulting his ministers.
The second
categories of officials were dauvarika or the chief reception officer, the
antarvamsika or the chief officer-in-charge of the royal harem, the prasasti or
the chief information officer, the sannidhatri or chamberlain and the
samahartri or collector general. The third category of officers were the
members of mantriparishad, the paura vyavaharika or the city magistrates, the
rashtrapala or governor of a province , the antapala or officer-in-charge of state
manufactories and the naayaka or the chief of police. The mantriparishad
actually corresponded with modern secretaries, who mediated between the king
and his high officials.
The fourth
categories of officials were the district officers or pradestri, heads of the
trade guilds or srenimukhyas, and the chiefs of the four wings of the army or
mukhyas. Besides, there were other high officials also, such as vanapala or
forest officer or adhyakshas or heads of various departments. Kautilya mentions
that there were three categories of envoys: first kind of envoy was sent to a
foreign country with full powers was called a nisristaartha or an ambassador,
the second, who enjoyed only limited powers was called parimitaartha or charge
de’ affairs and third kind of envoy only carried the writ of the state was
called a saasanahara. Chankya prescribes four principles for maintaining
foreign relations: One is Sama or to approach neighbouring countries with
conciliatory tactics, but at the same time to keep a constant watch on their
activities, second is Dama or to deceive the enemies through stratagems, third
is Danda that is to punish the incorrigible enemies and the fourth one was
Bheda, it means, if the enemy is too powerful then in order to bring him to his
knees then segregate him by befriending both his enemies as well as his
friends. But Chanakya’s priority rested on maintenance of a powerful internal
army above all. It is about time India followed the advice of Chanakya. Keeping
peaceful relations with neighbouring countries was one of the priorities of
Chanakya, but he did not believe in keeping one’s defence weak as India did in
1962 and suffered miserably.
We can obtain
details of all these officials in Book II of the Arthasastra of Kautilya. From
the descriptions given in the Arthasastra, we can easily guess that in the
Maurayan Empire an all-pervading and highly efficient bureaucracy existed. It
was not like today’s bureaucracy, the selection procedure of which is also
highly flawed. Therefore, India’s bureaucracy is highly inefficient for which
even the best of the schemes of the government fail to produce any significant
result. Just take one example, if properly implemented MGNREGA would have
removed poverty from the country within five years, but sadly speaking it has
not been able to bring any change, barring a few exceptions, in rural setting
even in nine years since its inception in early 2006, besides in most of the
states, even it is yet to be implemented fully. The government’s monitoring
procedure is also flawed, because the State AG is not empowered to directly
conduct audits of the panchayats unless consent to this effect is obtained by the
AG from the respective state governments. Moreover, a gram panchayat is also
not within the purview of AG audit.
Be that as it
may, even in terms of military administration, there was a regular war office,
comprised of thirty members from regular army wings divided into six boards,
which looked after the needs of the four wings of the army, because it was
thought that for maintenance of territorial integrity of an empire the
interests of army were first to be prioritised. The first board was in charge
of the navy, the second of transport, the third of infantry, the fourth of
cavalry, and the fifth and the sixth of war elephants and war chariots.
The civil
administration of Chandragupta Maurya was equally highly efficient. The town
administration was looked after by Naagaraka or town officers taking assistance
from Sthanikas and Gopas. Each Gopa was in charge of a fixed number of families
in the town (hence to a Gopa no new face in the town could escape his
attention) and a Sthanika supervised their works. Megasthenes records a
detailed account of administration of cities like Pataliputra. On top of that
there was a regular municipal commission consisting of six boards to look after
sundry matters of administration of town, such as industries, watching
foreigners, maintaining vital statistics, supervising commerce and trade of
manufactured articles and finally of tithes on sales or imposition of sales tax
at the rate of one-tenth of the profit. The members of municipal commission in
their collective capacity were also responsible for upkeep of markets, temples,
harbours and other public works relating to the general interests of the
people.
Proper
maintenance of roads was one of the topmost priorities of the Mauryan
government. The roads were excellently maintained to facilitate proper
communication between different parts of the empire. Megasthenes had all praise
for Chandraguta’s administrative skills. To quote him: “Of great officers of
the state some superintend the rivers, measure land, as is done in Egypt, and
inspect the sluices by which water is let out from the main canals into their branches,
so that everyone may have an equal supply of it. The same persons have charge
also of huntsmen and are entrusted with the power of rewarding or punishing
them according to their deserts. They collect the taxes, and superintend the
occupations connected with land as those of wood cutters, the carpenters, the
blacksmiths and miners. They construct roads and at every ten stadia set up a
pillar to show the roads and distances.”
The Mauryan
administration had fully realised the importance of trees for upkeep of the
environment. Vanapala or officer in charge of the forests also monitored the
felling of trees, unnecessary felling was a punishable offence. Mines were
considered a source of treasury; therefore, mining was conducted in a much
regulated manner. Agriculture and irrigation received topmost priority of the
government. Epigraphic evidence proves that even the remotest provinces of the
empire received the facility of irrigation. Observe the irony today; even after
sixty-six years of independence, most of our farmers have to rely on monsoon
rains to fulfil their irrigation needs. How was this possible, the answer is
hidden in the Arthashastra of Chankya. A reservoir constructed damming up a
small stream catered to the irrigation needs of local farmers of Saurashtra for
more than 400 years, on which several conduits were built during the reign of
Asoka.
Efficiency of
administration was achieved by dividing the empire into four zones and each
zone into provinces. The provinces of eastern India were directly administered
by the emperor and the rest were by three viceroys stationed at Taxila, Ujjain
and Suvarnagiri. Patliputra was the capital of Chandragupta, where even a
single theft case was unheard of. Compare it with our present day Delhi; we can
easily underline the difference. The administrative head of a province was
rastrapala or governor. The collector general or Samahartra was responsible for
collection of dues from various sources. The normal share for the crown was to
the tune of 1/6th of the gross produce. Other sources were: taxes from
household properties, cesses on land including water, customs, octrois, ferry
dues, income from forests, license fees, and fines imposed at law courts etc.
Expenditures included salaries, maintenance of the court of the king,
expenditure on army, public works, maintenance expenses of the families of
soldiers and civil officials who died in harness, care of unemployed and
indigent, compensation for theft, outlays earmarked for mining, industries and
other enterprises, payment to skilled artisans, grants to different
institutions etc.
The most vital
part for proper administration of the empire was its comprehensive espionage
system. Spies were engaged not only to detect crimes or criminals, but to
obtain information about the views of the people in four corners of the empire
secretly including the local administrators. The prying eyes of the spies were
on all the people. For this mission, even courtesans were also not spared,
because they were considered the best informers. The heads of the espionage
cells were directly responsible to the Prime Minister and none else. Only due
to the extensive espionage system, the country could be run so efficiently by
the emperor. The details of the espionage system are also mentioned in the
Arthasastra.
The systems of
criminal justice were highly efficient and prompt, because penal codes were
extremely simple. Though judiciary torture was prescribed to elicit confession,
yet it was used with greatest caution. The fine thing of justice was that
nobody was above law, not even the king was spared if he committed any offence.
Megasthenes had high appreciation of criminal administration in Pataliputra.
All this could happen because of the extreme honesty of the Prime Minister
Kautilya and his ministers. It is said that even for his minor personal works,
Kautilya never used the oil lamp provided by the empire.
The more one
reads the Arthasastra, the more one feels fascinated by the genius of Chanakya,
who lived around 2500 years ago. It is really beyond human imagination, how a
humble teacher could think so extensively on every minute aspect of
administration. Most probably the Arthasastra was written much before
Chandragupta came to power when Chanakya
himself was an insignificant teacher in a village school, but the canons
incorporated in the Arthasastra was meticulously implemented by Chanakya, when
he assumed the power of the administration as the Prime Minister. The present
day administration has much to learn from the genius of Chanakya. Hopefully,
the Indian government will look into the wisdom incorporated in the Arthasastra
and reform its flawed administrative machinery for the greater good of the
country.
(Email: drpkchhetri7@gmail.com)
