Chanakya: The Great Political Scientist of Ancient India

Understanding of public administration during the Mauryas will be incomplete without discussing Chanakya, also known as Kautilya or Vishnugupta. He was the greatest philosopher, teacher, and diplomat of ancient India who lived in the 4th century BCE. At this time, India was comprised of small kingdoms and tribes dominated by the Nanda dynasty of Magadha. The western frontier of India was destabilized for almost a century and more due to the invasion of the Persian rulers. Alexander of Macedon was encroaching into the Indian territories and there was chaos and bloodshed everywhere in the north-western part of India. Taxila (where Chankaya belongs) was also annexed by AlexanderChanakya avowed to unite the country under one emperor.

Chanakya was looking for a strong and ambitious leader who could help him overthrow the corrupt and undeserving ruler of the Nanda dynasty named Dhanananda who ruled the kingdom of Magadha. He was frustrated with Dhanananda for his inefficiency in the administration of his kingdom. His search for such a leader ended in Chandragupta Maurya who had many qualities that impressed Chanakya. He taught Chandragupta the art of combat, diplomacy, and statecraft, and together they launched a successful campaign against the Dhanananda which ultimately led to his downfall. After Chandragupta becomes the ruler of Magadha, he with the help of Chanakya established a centralized government system with efficient administrative machinery to govern his vast empire. Chanakya was prime minister under the reign of Chandragupta Maurya (322 BCE - 297 BCE) and his successor Bindusar (297 BCE – 273 BCE). ^[5] Chanakya is best known as the author of the political treatise Arthashastra which he wrote as an instruction manual for the young Chandragupta on how to rule effectively.

The Nītisara of Kamandaka, another excellent post-Mauryan treatise on political science gives us a very aesthetic and almost devotion-like tribute to Chanakya.

“Salutation unto the highly intelligent Vishnugupta, who sprang from an extensive and illustrious dynasty the descendants of which lived like the Rishis accepting alms from nobody; unto him whose renown became world-wide; unto him who was effulgent like the (highly blazing) fire; unto that most artful and cunning one, the foremost of those conversant with Paramártha, who mastered the four Vedas as if they were only one. Salutation unto that one whose fire of energy was like the flash of lightning, and through whose magical powers, that resembled in potency and in fury the thunderbolt itself, the wide-spread, renowned, powerful and mountain-like dynasty of Nanda was eradicated for good. Salutation unto him who resembled the God Saktidhara himself (in prowess) and who, single handed, by means of his Mantrasakti and Utsahasakti, brought the entire earth under the thorough control of Chandragupta, the foremost of sovereigns. Salutation unto that wisest of counselors who collated the nectar-like Niti Shástras from the mighty main of the Arthshástras.” ^[6]

Polity in The Mauryan Period

Seven constituents that were regarded as limbs (angad) of the body politic were:

1. Swamin (King) and Amatyas (ministers), who constituted the central government that exercised the sovereign powers and imparted the central unity,
2. Rastra (territory), Durgas (forts), Bala (Army) and Kosha (Treasury) constituted the resources of the state
3. Allies.

Regarding the creation of ministers, there have been several opinions on electing the court ministers. Hence the concept of considering the views of the courtesans was also established. The King was advised to have multiple options in choosing his ministers; they could be his friends, foes, highly intellectual in financial matters, or someone loyal. This shows that a person was interviewed for the role and considered his expertise. Therefore, ministerial officers (Amatya) and not councillors (Mantrinah) were established. Ministerial officers (Amátyasampat) had to be natives and possessed many other specific qualities mentioned. This established the concept of ranks. Regarding the creation of councillors and priests, the process shown in the Arthasastra is very particular, with many limitations and rules. The priest and councillors qualified to be middle or low in rank. They were also required to possess various educational (silpa), intellectual, and socio-economic skills. ^[7]

Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers was known as Mantri-Parishad during the Mauryan period. The tradition of a large Parishad is noted by Kautilya, and it is probably a reminiscence of the Vedic Parishad. There was an old grouping called the Eighteen Astadasa-Tirthas- mentioned the Arthasastra, which refers to the Tirthas as Maha-Amatyas.^[8] The Tirtha classification throws light on the significance of the technical officers. They are -

1. Mantri
2. Purohita
3. Senapati
4. Yuvaraja
5. Dauvarika or the Lord Mayor of the Palace
6. Antarvamsika or the Lord Chamberlain
7. Prasastri, evidently the Chief Prasastri, who is the Minister of Prisons
8. Samahartri or the Minister of Revenue
9. Sannidhatri or the Ministry of Treasury
10. Pradeshrir whose functions are not known
11. Nayaka or the Generalissimo
12. Paura or Governor of the Capital
13. Vyavaharika or the Chief Justice
14. Karmantika or Officer-in-charge for Mines and Manufacturers
15. Mantri-Parishat-Adhyaksha or the President of the Council
16. Danda-pala or the Minister-in-charge of the maintenance of the Army
17. Danda-pala or the Minister-in-charge of Home Defences
18. Antapala or Rashtrantapala or the Minister-in-charge of Frontiers

Role of Council of Ministers

The Council of ministers was more than just a record-keeping organization; it frequently proposed changes to the King’s orders or recommended that they be repealed entirely. In urgent instances, the emperor’s spoken commands and departmental heads’ decisions were subject to review by the Council of Ministers Ashoka’s third rock edict states that the local police were supposed to record the council instructions and explain them to the public. The sixth rock decree states that the Council had the authority to make revisions to royal commands, requiring the monarch to evaluate them, thus demonstrating that its powers were real and comprehensive. As with the royal command was recorded only after the plans had been accepted into official registers (Malavikagnimitra).

Paura-Janapada

The expression Paura-Janapada is used to denote two different assemblies in ancient India. The Janapada appears to have been primarily concerned with constitutional and political issues. The Paura always appeared alongside Janapada in all constitutional questions. As a result, the Paura served as a local self-administration of the city and a constitutional assembly. They occasionally performed the latter duty independently, particularly in regional capitals. Important issues were debated and determined in a joint parliament of the two entities, Paura and Janapada. Their union was so profound that the two bodies were considered as one and referred to in the singular. ^[9]

The Paura-Janapadas could disrupt succession to prevent an unpopular prince from ascending the throne. According to the Mahavamsa, the Paura may remove and expel the monarch for illegal conduct. They could appoint someone in his stead outside the dynasty by deciding on it at their assembly, mindful of everyone’s benefit. Arthasastra contains a sample of conversation in the Paura and Janapada assemblies. Spies for the monarch, tasked with ascertaining the political attitudes of the Paura and Janapadas on the King, would approach-

1. The Tirtha-Sabha-Sala-Samavaya or the Sectional sub-assembly of the Paura in charge of the sacred places and public places
2. The Puga-Samavaya or the sub-assembly in charge of trades and manufactures
3. The Jana-Samavaya or the Popular Assembly that is, what the Mrichchhakatika calls the Janapada-Samavaya

Taxation

The Paura-Janapada are frequently discussed in relation to taxes. Proposals for such taxes were first brought to the Paura-Janapada. According to the Arthasastra, the King had to “ask” these levies from the Paura-Janapada. At the same time, there were arguments in the Paura and Janapada sub-assemblies concerning the tyranny caused by the King’s taxes. According to Kautilya, a ruler of a conquered kingdom risked provoking the wrath of the Paura-Janapada and his subsequent collapse by raising money and an army to be provided by his suzerain. Common law established taxation. However, the King was often required and had the chance to petition for unusual taxation. Such levies took the form of pranaya, out-of-affection donations.

Anugrahas were frequently requested and secured by the Paura-Janapada (privileges). In cases of starvation, robbery, or invasions by wild tribes, the Paura-Janapada of an enemy country were persuaded by secret agents “to demand anugrahas from the monarch.” This should be read in conjunction with Yajnavalkya, which stated that the King must compensate the Janapada for losses incurred by thieves. The demands for anugrahas were mainly economic. Only those anugrahas and pariharas (fiscal concessions) that would strengthen the exchequer were to be given, while those that would harm it were to be avoided. Kautilya also advises parihara in times of hunger and considers the construction of irrigation works to be a circumstance when anugraha should be provided.

The Buddhist texts also attest to the King contacting the Janapada and the Naigama or Paura for new taxes when he wanted to make a large sacrifice. Thus, the King approached and petitioned the Paura-Janapada to give special taxes, while the Paura-Janapada demanded and secured anugrahas or economic privileges from the monarch. It is quite possible that the monarch used the Paura-Janapada machinery to raise his enormous armies, and two mentions in the Arthasastra where taxes are linked with a danda (army) or army raising support this possibility.

There was also a technique by which the Paura-Janapada hampered the rule of a misbehaving monarch by preparing a bill and delivering it to the King to make good all the damages experienced in the kingdom as a result of robberies, dacoities, and other lawlessness. Taxes were paid as wages to the monarch, and the wages were for protection. If the protection were not completely provided, a reduction in pay would be made. ^[10]

City Administration

Kautilya and Megasthanes document the system of Municipal administration in Mauryan empire. The district administration was under the charge of Rajukas, whose position and functions were similar to modern collectors. Arthasastra contains a full chapter on the role of Nagarika or city superintendent. His chief duty was to maintain law and order. Yuktas or subordinate officials assisted him. In addition to nagarika and yukta there were ‘City Magistrates’ (Paura-Mukhyas or Paura-Vriddhas) in the capital city of Pataliputra who in turn had six boards of five members each to look into the industrial matters of the city, foreigners in the city on whose death they administered their properties (forwarded them to their relatives), registration of births and deaths in the city, trade and commerce and manufacturers of the city and collection of municipal duty on the sale of articles. They had collective authority over their respective departments and problems affecting the general interest, such as the upkeep of public structures, pricing regulation, and the maintenance of marketplaces, harbours, and temples. ^[11]

Central Secretariat, Documentation and Royal Writs

According to Arthashastra, the Mauryas had developed into a full-fledged and well developed administration, almost like a central secretariat, in 3rd century BCE -- five hundred years before Rome. The efficiency of the administration depended to a great extent upon the ability of the secretariat officers and the accuracy with which they drafted the orders of the central government. Therefore, the government used to take great care in selecting the secretariat officers. They were required to possess almost as high qualifications as ministers regarding education, ability, and reliability. But, above all, they were to be experts in drafting. It was their business to listen to the verbal orders of the king of ministers and to draft them accurately and adequately in as short a time as possible.

The senior officers of departments were called Lekhakas or writers. According to Kautilya the Lekhakas were of the status of Amatyas, whose position and pay were to be inferior only to those of ministers (mantrins). ¹²

In Arthasastra, the procedure of forming royal writs (sásana) talks about establishing a formal document about the administrative reforms. The writ consists of ‘the arrangement of subject matter (arthakrama), relevancy (sambandha), completeness, dignity, and lucidity. A command in the writs was known as the king’s order for either punishment or rewards for the government servants. The writs of general proclamation were when the king directed his viceroys and other officers to secure and provide material for travelers on roads or in the country’s interior. The writ documented mismanagement of administration, accounts of bribing, and information related to priest hierarchy (sauna) and the king’s family and friends.

This indicates the importance of writing and filing in Mauryan public administration. No state business was conducted without a written document. A topic was first supported by the Home Minister and then by each connected ministry, with all the ministers involved affixing their seals after the memo. Finally, the King would sign his name and write ‘Accepted.’ Following that, the meeting minutes were signed by all members of the Council of Ministers and sealed with the Council’s seal. Finally, it was delivered to the King, who signed it with the word ‘Seen.’ ^[13]

Kautilya has mentioned that the republican chief in his state has the beneficial propensity of justice. Discipline was another of their strengths, and the republican chief was a disciplined person. Apart from discipline, the focus was also on bravery and equality because bravery was a point of ambition and honour while equality was necessary as it formed one of the pillars of democratic institutions. They also had administrative values apart from moral values. Therefore, they were especially successful in their financial administration, leading to the treasury being full at all times. ^[14]

According to inscriptions, the emperor issued a decree requiring the ministers at Takshasila to resign every three years and replaced by new ministers. The ministers in other provincial capitals were changed every five years, but an exception was created for the governments in Takshasila and Ujjayini. The king also insisted on the transfer rule, indicating high levels and advanced system of bureaucracy.

Village Administration

The village was a natural pivot of administration in a rural society. A village headman usually carried out the Village government. The Arthasastra mentions the importance of the village headman in administration. In northern India, he was known as ‘gramika,’ in eastern Deccan as ‘mununda,’ in Maharashtra as ‘gramakuta/pattakila,’ in Karnataka as ‘gavunda,’ and in Uttar Pradesh as ‘Mahatakka.’ In the Vedic period, the job of village headman was mostly hereditary. The order of the headman was represented on the Council of ratnis. He was consulted when a plot of property in the community was granted to him. One of the essential tasks of the village headman was to defend the hamlet and collect taxes.

In Arthasastra, the formation of villages talks about the administrative reforms made during the timeline. The concept of boundaries and boundary-guards was established. The idea of sale and mortgage was also shown in the scriptures. A system of land reforms was entrenched to keep in check land use. Cultivators who paid taxes would be rewarded with grain, cattle, and money supplies. If the king became bankrupt, remission of taxes were made; thus, in reward, the king paid in fatherly kindness. In Arthasastra, the division of land talks about the provisions made by the King for his people. The King permitted uncultivable land to become pasture grounds. Brahmins had a considerable advantage in processing forests for religious practices and plantations. ^[16]

People as Sovereign

It appears that ancient Indians regarded sovereignty as ultimately residing in people. They had advocated and brought about an extensive decentralization of government function and powers by investing in village councils, town committees and district boroughs with vast administrative powers and functions. The right to depose a tyrant king by subject is also recognized in ancient India, e.g., the last ruler of the Mauryas lost his throne because his misrule drove people, ministers and feudatories to rebel against him. If the monarch failed to maintain the state’s integrity, he was thought to have broken his word. Brihadratha Maurya, a). If a king violated faith and committed a crime after taking the oath to act unlawfully, he would be regarded to have broken faith, and his action would be illegal, for which the people who had placed him would remove him. Weak emperor was called as Pratijna-Durbala (weak in keeping his oath).

The description of India by Alexander’s historians show that many states as ‘free’, ‘autonomous’, or ‘independent’, which tallies very well with Kautilya’s Vartta-Sastropajivinah. According to historians, when Alexander reached the Hyphasis or Beas, he heard that beyond that river, the country was ‘exceedingly fertile and the inhabitants were good agriculturists, brave in war and living under an excellent system of internal government; for the multitude was governed by the aristocracy, who exercised their authority with justice and moderation.’ Consider that the republics that Alexander made peace with, as mentioned by the Greeks, was that of Ambashthas, spelt as Sambastai and Abastanoi, known to be ’people inferior to none in India, either for numbers or for bravery, having a form of Government that was democratic, with a very organized and large army, led by three elected generals renowned for their valor and military skill,’ The Ambashthas’ democracy included a second house made up of chosen elders. The Kshudrakas and Malavas had a democratic system because they sent over a hundred representatives to negotiate the treaty of peace, demonstrating that authority was not vested in one man or a small group of individuals. ^[17]

Police and Judiciary

Judicial and Police Departments existed in the Mauryan empire. The chief justice of the Main Court at the capital was called Dharmathikarin. There were subordinate courts under Amatyas at the provincial capitals and districts. Different kinds of punishment such as fines, imprisonment, mutilation and death were given to the offenders. Police stations were found in all principal centres. Both Kautilya and Asokan Edicts mention jails and jail officials.^[15] The Dhamma Mahamatras were asked by Ashoka to take steps against unjust imprisonment. The remission of sentences is also mentioned in Ashoka’s inscriptions.

A meticulous record was kept of the President’s judgements on the ‘rolls’ (Paveni-Patthakan), in which details of crime and punishment granted to those deemed guilty were recorded.

The Ganas also had their laws, which were highly praised by the Greek chroniclers. The Lichchhavis possessed a book of legal precedents. The laws of the Ganas are referred as Samaya in the law books, which means a decision or resolution was reached at an assembly. It also shows that the laws of the Ganas were passed at their meetings. It should be emphasized that the rules and administration of the law in the republics of India have been admired by Greek historians to the point that specific precedents of decided cases have been recorded in literature. Kautilya has also stated that the republican leader in his state had a proclivity for justice. He also agreed that justice was preserved as no republic could survive without it.

For the Ganas, preliminary investigations into specific cases were conducted in the following manner:

1. Vinichchaya-Mahamattas (the Court of Justices) were the regular court for civil cases and minor offences.
2. Voharikas, the Lawyer-Judges presiding at the Court of Appeal and
3. Sutra-Dharas or ‘Doctors of Law’, who were the judges at the High Court
4. Ashta-Kulaka, Court of Eight, which was a Council of Final Appeal

The judicial system of the period began at the most basic level, with Kula-Courts presided over by Kulikas or nobility. In a mixed constitution of aristocracy and democracy, there was the Kulika-Court, which was a board of eight Kulikas among the Vrijis to investigate criminal matters, and Gana-Court, which was a higher jurisdiction as the law books prescribed. This court entertained appeals from the Kula-Court