Public Administration in Indus–Saraswati Civilization

The first signs of an administrative system in Indian history are found in the archaeological material remains that are known for its cities based in urban settings that must have surely required a network of public administration system. Anthropological studies of ancient societies suggest that the story of urbanization is one of increasing cultural complexity, a widening food resource base, greater technological sophistication, expanding craft production, social stratification, and the emergence of a level of political organization that can be described as a state.^[6] The urbanization of Indus-Sarasvati civilization is no exception in this regard. The debate on the nature of the Indus-Sarasvati political system has revolved around two questions: first, whether a State existed or not, and second, if so, what sort of state it was.

Indus-Sarasvati Civilization as a Stateless Policy

Despite the cultural uniformity found in the Indus-Sarasvati civilization, it cannot be inferred that it had political unification as well. It is well known that Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations were complex societies that entail inequality, stratification in the distribution of wealth, and hierarchies of power. Whereas cities of Indus-Sarasvati civilization indicate that resources and production activities were not monopolized by the social and political class, and then, the cities also lack the tombs, palaces, and dynastic art that characterize other early complex societies.^[7] Their absence in the Indus-Sarasvati civilization suggests that the forms of inequality and power hierarchies that existed in other ancient civilizations where a class of nobles used to manage administration were limited or absent in Indus-Sarasvati cities.

Mohenjo Daro’s first excavator, Sir John Marshall, who was then the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India, noticed this empirical pattern and writes in the preface of Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization (1931):

Again, there is nothing that we know of in prehistoric Egypt or Mesopotamia or anywhere else in Western Asia to compare with the well-built baths and commodious houses of the citizens of Mohenjo-daro. In those countries, much money and thought were lavished on the building of magnificent temples for the gods and on palaces and tombs of kings, but the rest of the people seemingly had to content themselves with insignificant dwellings of mud. In the Indus Valley, the picture is reversed, and the finest structures are those erected for the convenience of the citizens. Temples, palaces, and tombs there may of course have been, but if so, they are either still undiscovered or so like other edifices as not to be readily distinguishable from them.^[8]

Even a century after the discovery of Indus-Sarasvati civilization, no clear evidence of a ruling class has been recovered in spite of considerable growth in our knowledge of this civilization and its technologies.^[9] This led to the emergence of the “stateless” paradigm,^[10] according to which, the absence of any substantial evidence of priest-kings, slaves, standing armies, or court officials does not qualify Indus-Sarasvati civilization to be put into the category of State or Empire.^[11]

In such a case a question arises, who used to manage and control well-planned cities, residential and public buildings, a water management system, seals, unique script, uniform weights and measures, production of standardized crafts, internal and maritime trade, and distribution of agricultural products and pottery over an extensive area. Such extensive activities of a complex society can only be possible in an efficient administrative setup. Archaeologists and historians of the “stateless” paradigm contended that the Indus-Sarasvati civilization was an amalgam of complex chiefdoms that look after the administration of the city as well.^[12] They argued that the sort of control reflected in this civilization could have been exercised by an elaborate village administration.^[13]

Recent scholarships pushed the “stateless” paradigm of Indus-Sarasvati civilization to the assumption that it was perhaps the world’s most egalitarian early complex society,^[14] comprising a great degree of nonhierarchical, non-coercive, and non-elite social and political formations. This defies long-held presumptions about the relationships between urbanization and political and social inequality. Some scholars think that the public administration of Indus-Sarasvati cities was looked upon by the heterarchical corporate groups with minimal coercion or exclusionary politics.^[15]

It has been argued that these corporate groups drove the urbanization process, which necessitated the creation of numerous generalized "public goods"—streets and drainage systems, large and small buildings with public access, and informational and regulatory technologies such as weights and seals that would have maintained by the collective action of the groups.^[16]

Indus-Sarasvati Civilization as a State system: Centralized or Decentralized

Another hypothesis of Indus-Sarasvati polity is termed as “state-level” paradigm which suggested that this civilization had a highly centralized empire ruled by autocratic priest-kings from the twin capitals of Harappa and Mohenjodaro.^[17] This viewpoint was supported by several characteristics, such as the degree of uniformity in material characteristics, the use of a standard script, standardized weights and measurements and efficient public administration system. The public buildings at Mohenjodaro and Harappa exemplified to fit with the idea that the rulers had a high level of control over everything, including the administration of the cities. The absence of perceptible internecine conflict between the settlements implied that they were governed by a single authority.^[18] In fact, in the view of the adherents of the state-level paradigm, craft specialization alone was sufficient to classify the Indus civilization as a state.^[19]

If to believe in a highly centralized “state-level” paradigm, the administrative machinery of Indus-Sarasvati civilization must be very effective considering the uniform weight and measures, the size of bricks, and the street layouts. The cities were governed efficiently as can be testified by proper management of public buildings and well-planned layouts. New houses were built almost exactly at the same site as the old with only minor variations in the planning of the houses. It appears that there was continuity in governance throughout the civilization.^[20]

Within a “state-level” paradigm, arguments for a decentralized state system have also been proposed. Historians belonging to this standpoint rather than attributing the civilization's apparent uniformity to a powerful central government suggests that it may have resulted from the advanced system of internal trade that the civilization fostered. The absence of monumental royal tombs, palaces, and temples, as well as the lack of pronounced social stratification like that seen in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, suggests that Indus-Sarasvati civilization was neither the empire nor a centralized state. We also see artifacts of various types are distributed throughout the occupational levels at Indus-Sarasvati sites rather than clustered in elite residences or structures. Jewelry made from precious metals and semiprecious stones, seals and sealings, and the script all turn up in small-town settings. This runs counter to the idea of a unified empire because it implies that people in both rural areas and urban centers have equal access to material goods and status symbols.^[21]

Some scholars consider Indus-Sarasvati civilization as an early state characterized by a sovereign or sovereigns closely linked to a mythical character and seen as benevolent; a military component lacking which is the essential feature of more mature states; and loosely developed economic stratification.^[22] The speculation that Indus-Sarasvati state included multiple tiers of urban elites, each with their own spheres of influence and power, including merchants, ritual specialists, and landowners supports the decentralized polity of this civilization.^[23] The decentralization hypothesis also makes laudable attempts to postulate a theory of ‘multiple kingdoms centred around major settlements of Indus-Sarasvati civilization.^[24]

A large number of unicorn seals in major cities gives the impression that it may be the symbol of the ruling elite or represented the aristocracy or merchants who had an important administrative role.^[4] Many scholars think that a probable function of seals and tablets was to record rations allocated to porters. Instead of signifying ownership of property, these seals might have been used for economic transactions. From the seals, we also get to know that the artisans and craftsmen were provided opportunities which show there was a close integration between economic and social processes. This is the mark of a successful administrative machinery. It is also observed that with the proliferation of Kot Diji culture, there was a growing use of a new type of stamp seal which may have been used as an administrative instrument.^[26]

A collection of Indus-Sarasvati seals. Over 3,000 have been discovered so far, and they appear to have served a wide range of purposes; from commercial tracking of shipments and ownership to religious invocation and protection. Usage of seals as an administrative instrument can also not be ruled out. As archaeologists have discovered Indus seals in Mesopotamian ruins as well.