CHANDRA GUPTA MAURYAV.

VI

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The social, religious and economic condition of the people of India in the Maurya age deserves separate treatment, being a highly interesting subject. Fortunately for us, we possess sufficient materials in the shape of ancient writings of foreigners as well as Indians to permit us to have a fairly satisfactory idea of the manner in which people in those times lived and thought.

The caste system, as we know it, was certainly not fully developed till then. Kautilya still speaks of the traditional four Hindu castes, viz. the Brahmanas, the Kshatriyas, the Vaisyas and the Sudras, who probably corresponded to Megasthenes' philosophers, soldiers, husbandmen and artisans. The herdsmen mentioned by Megasthenes may have been outcaste people or panchamas, who had not come within the pale of settled population. Megasthenes mentions two more castes, but he has certainly erred. The overseers and councillors in the service of government certainly were recruited from all castes, and cannot have formed distinct social divisions. Thus it appears that the settled population of India still consisted mainly of four castes, although the process of the formation of new castes as a result of intermarriages had already begun. We, however, learn from Kautilya that among the first three castes a man of higher caste could marry a woman of the lower caste, without the risk of losing caste. The Hindu lawgivers, no doubt, also recognize such marriages, but they regard the offsprings of such marriages as belonging to new castes, thereby discouraging such marriages. Kautilya, on the other hand, expressly says that the son of a Brahman from a Kshatriya woman is no other than a Brahman and the son of a Kshatriya from a Vaisya woman, is no other than a Kshatriya. This bold statement seems to suggest that intermarriage between the three upper castes was still in vogue to some extent. Thus the most rigid division was still between Aryas and Sudras, although sub-divisions must have existed in both of these groups.

Kautilya refers to the eight theoretical kinds of marriages recognized by Hindu lawgivers, but it is difficult to believe that all of them were widely prevalent at any time. The first of these viz. the Brahma marriage, in which the parents of the girl marry her to a suitable man after adorning her with ornaments is now the only form of marriage observed by the people, and it must have been the most common one even in those times. Another kind, the Arsha marriage, probably was also prevalent because Megasthenes seems to refer to it when he says that Indians marry wives "giving in exchange a yoke of oxen". The other two kinds, which Kautilya approves, were the Prajapatya, in which the bride and bridegroom were united with the promise of joint-performance of secred duties, and the Daiva in which the parents of the girl married her to an officiating priest at the time of a sacrifice.

Polygamy was also prevalent according to both Megasthenes and Kautilya, but we learn from the latter that a man could marry more than one wife only in case he had no son from his former wife.

Kautilya even prescribes the period for which a man should wait before marrying another wife.

The remarriage of widows is also frankly recognised by Kautilya. The only condition for such a kind of marriage was that the widow forfeited whatever had been given to her by her father-in-law and her deceased husband; and if she happened to have sons also, she lost even her own property (Stridhana) which was given to her sons.

What is most curious is that Kautilya also recognizes a kind of divorce. The following passage from the Arthasastra makes it clear. "A woman. hating her husband, can not dissolve her marriage with him against his will. Nor can a man dissolve his marriage with his wife against her will. But from mutual enmity, divorce may be obtained". We are, however, told that divorce even on these conditions could be obtained only in certain kinds of marriages. It is clear from these regulations that the cases of divorce must have been rare and hence Megasthenes is silent on the subject.

The horrible custom of Suttee was absolutely unknown to Kautilya and even Manu. Moreover, the marriage customs described above clearly show that there was no room for that custom, which was probably of Scythian origin and later spread into India. The Greeks, of course, refer to it, but their references apply to the semi-foreign north-west frontier. In India proper the custom was as yet not prevalent.

It is generally believed that the purdah system (the practice of preventing women from being seen by men) was non-existent in ancient India. This statement, however, can not stand unqualified Some kind of purdah was certainly observed by women of aristocratic classes, as Kautilya refers to women who were Anishkasini i.e. "not-stirring-out." References of this kind are not wanting in other Sanskrit works also. At the present time women in many parts of India observe purdah even before certain of their relatives, but no such practice seems to have been prevalent in ancient India.

According to Megasthenes all the Indians were free and not one of them was a slave. But in the light of the Arthasastra we have to modify this statement. As a matter of fact slavery did exist, but a perusal of Arthasastra makes it clear that it was so different from the slavery which prevailed in the west, that a Greek could hardly notice it. It was forbidden to sell an Arya or freeman (here including Sudra) into slavery except at his own option and dire necessity. "It is no crime", says Kautilya, "for Mlechchhas to sell or mortgage the life of their own offspring, but never shall an Arya be subjected to slavery." He then proceeds to say that if a man is enslaved for inevitable reasons, he should be soon redeemed. "But in order to tide over family troubles, to find money for fines or court decrees, or to recover the (confiscated) household implements, the life of an Arya is mortgaged, they (his kinsmen) shall as soon as possible redeem him (from bondage); and more so if he is a youth or an adult capable of giving help." Moreover a slave in the west had no personal rights; his person was dead. In India, a dasa was little worse than a servant as long as he was not redeemed; his offsprings being free even during his period of bondage. A dasa could even earn independently if he got time from his master's work, and could regain his Aryahood if his independent income become equal to the value for which he was purchased. If a man abused or caused hurt to his slave, or employed the latter to do an ignoble work, the slave became free. Thus it is clear that although there were dasas in India, the kind of slavery prevalent in the west was non-existent in India.

Of the religions followed in India the Vedic was still predominant one, although it was greatly modified in the course of several centuries. The most popular form of this religion was the Bhagavata faith. The founder of this reform was Krishna, whom Prof. Ray Chaudhury has identified with Devakiputra Krishna, mentioned in the Chhandogya Upanishad.

According to the Puranic tradition Krishna flourished in the 14th century BC. The followers of this faith, although continuing to honor the thirty-three Vedic devas, believed in devotion to one Supreme God, whom they called Bhagavan or the Lord. They further regarded Krishna as their savior. The Greeks also mention Krishna as Herakles. "This Herakles" we are told, "is held in special honour by the Sourasenoi, an Indian tribe who possess two large cities, Methora and Cleisobora, and through whose country flows a navigable river called the Jobanes".

The other important religion was Buddhism, founded by Gautama Buddha, in the 6th century BC. Buddhism put moral obligation in the front, and taught that man was the maker of himself. In this respect it was opposed to Bhagavatism which preached that man could do nothing without the will of God.

Jainism was the third important religion of that time. This religion, though claiming a high antiquity, was, for all practical purposes, founded by Mahavira, a contemporary of Gautama Buddha. Its basic teaching was ahinsa or non-injury to every form of life, however insignificant. According to the Jain tradition Chandragupta himself became inclined towards this faith during his last days.

The worship of images perhaps was first begun by the Jains and the Buddhists, who made beautiful images of their prophets. It was borrowed soon by the Hindus The worship of images and the institution of temples seems to have gained a strong foothold in the Maurya period. Patanjali has humorously remarked that the Mauryas who wanted gold raised it by instituting images of Gods for worship.

Asceticism was also greatly in vogue in the Maurya period. The Greeks refer to the Brachmanes, who were evidently Brahman ascetics, and the Sarmanes who may or may not have been Buddhist Sramanas. There were also Jain munis in sufficient numbers, as well as Ajivikas,an ancient order of ascetics, now long forgotten.

The Greeks have largely quoted from Magasthenes regarding the lives of the Brachmans. They are said to have lived in simple style and abstained from animal food. They spent their lives in listening to serious discourse, and in imparting their knowledge to others. They already believed in the five elements, from which the world was created. They were of a very independent spirit, for one of them named Dandamis when asked to present himself before Alexander, who was himself the son of Zeus, replied that healso was the son of Zeus as much as Alexander was,and that Alexander should himself come to his as he was anxious to have a dicourse. The opinion of Megasthenes about the Brachmanes is perhaps summed up in the following passage. "All that has been said regarding nature by the ancients is asserted also by philosophers out of Greece, on the one part in India by the Brachmanes and on the other in Syria by the people called the Jews".

We are fortunate to possess sufficient details, preserved from the writings of Megasthenes, to understand what the Indian people of that period were like. "The inhabitants," we are told, "having abundant means of subsistence, exceed in consequence the ordinary stature and are distinguished by their proud bearing." They were noted for their high standard of morality, being generally truthful and honest. They seldom went to law and generally left their houses and property unguarded. They had their superstitions too, as is clear from the Arthasastra, which has several references about witchcraft. Kautilya also gives regulations about gambling, which seems to have been a common vice among the aristocratic classes. The same author gives elaborate regulations regarding liquor houses,1 but we are assured by Magasthenes that the people of India did not drink wine except at sacrifices.

Kautilya has preserved interesting details about the economic condition of the country. The system of traffic by barter had passed away, and coins were used for transactions. In the pre-Maurya period punch-marked coins used to be issued by private persons. But it Kautilya mentions what was a fact, it is clear that the government of Chandragupta issued and regulated coins, Kautilya speaks of a regular government mint. The standard coin seems to have been the silver pana, which was probably of about 146 grains. There were also half, quarter and one-eighth of panas. The copper coin was called the mashaka. A gold coin called the suvarna is also mentioned, but perhaps its use was rare.

Of the industries of India agriculture has been the chief one since ancient times, and the Maurya period was no exception. Kautilya has given an account of the crops grown which included rice, barley, wheat, sesamum, linseed, mustard, pulses, sugar cane and cotton.Megasthenes corroborates the account and gives further particulars, which are worth quoting.

"In addition to cereals, there grow throughout India much millet, which is kept well watered by the profusion of river streams, and much pulse of different sorts, and rice also, and what is called bosporum, as well as many other plants useful for food, of which most grow spontaneously. The soil yields, moreover, not a few other edible products fit for the subsistence of animals, about which it would be tedious to write. It is accordingly affirmed that famine has never visited India, and that there has never been a general scarcity in the supply of nourishing food. For, since there is a double rainfall in the course of each year,—one in the winter season, when the sowing of wheat takes place as in other countries, and the second at the time of the summer solstice, which is the proper season for sowing rice and bosporum, as well as sesamum and millet—the inhabitants of India almost always gather in two harvests annually; and even should one of the sowings prove more or less abortive they are always sure of the other crop. The fruits, moreover, of spontaneous growth, and the esculant roots which grow in marshy places and are of varied sweetness, afford abundant sustenance for man. The fact is, almost all the plains in the country have a moisture which is alike genial, whether it is derived from the rivers, or from the rains of the summer season which are wont to fall every year at a stated period with surprising regularity; while the great heat which prevails ripens the roots which grow in the marshes, and specially those of the tall reeds."

It is clear from the above that there was no scarcity of crop in India at that time and that various factors tended to the prevention of famine. But, in spite of all this, famine did sometimes occur. The traditions of the Jains record a great famine which occurred in the reign of Chandragupta Maurya. The government, no doubt, adopted various relief measures when famine did occur. Kautilya has recorded several of them. The chief of them were, the distribution of provision by government among the people, the employment of men to repair ruined buildings, request of help from the allies, exhorting the rich persons to contribute to the cause of famine relief, and emigration of the population to regions having abundant harvests.

The manufacture of cloth seems to have been the most widespread industry. Megasthenes has highly praised the robes wore by Indians for their fitness. "Their robes are worked in gold, and ornamented with precious stones, and they wear also flowered garments made of the finest muslin". Kautilya gives elaborate regulations, about weaving, which prove the importance of this industry. It is noteworthy that it was a home industry, and women did much of the spinning. Cotton fabrics of Benares, Bengal, Kalinga and Madura were considered to be the best, according to the Arthasastra. The same work also mentions the manufacture of silk, hemp and woollen materials. It is surprising to note that the blankets of Nepal were famous even at that period.

The mining industry was also sufficiently advanced. According to Kautilya, mines were the source of treasury. Precious stones as well as metals formed the objects of mining. The metals known were gold (suvarna), silver (rupya), iron (kalayasa), copper (tamra), bronze (kansya), lead (sisa), tin (trapu and brass (arakuta). Megasthenes has also recorded his observations on the subject. "And while the soil bears on its surface all kinds of fruits which are known to cultivation, it has also underground numerous veins of all sorts of metals] for it contains much gold and silver, and copper and iron in no small quantity, and even tin and other metals, which are employed in making articles of use and ornament, as well as implements and accoutrements of war". Indeed India was so rich in gold that fables became current that there were gold digging ants in India.

Trade was in a flourishing condition in the Maurya period. Different places in the country had already gained special reputation for certain things. We have already seen that cotton fabrics of some places were looked upon as specially fine. Southern India was similarly famous for conchshells, diamonds, pearls and gold according to Kautilya. Indian trade, however, was not limited within the country. Even before the Maurya time India had maintained trade relations with Babylon and other countries, and these relations became all the more brisk in the Maurya period, as is proved by the creation of a special board for foreigners. Indian peacocks and ivory were specially famous outside. Kautilya praises the China silk, which probably proves that there was some traffic even with China. This trade was carried on through ships. Even an early Buddhist work, the Baveru Jataka, refers to a trading journey to Babylon by sea. Kautilya also mentions sea voyage and recommends that the route along and close to the shore is better, as it touches at many trading port towns.

A special feature of the economic life of that period was corporate activity. People following the same profession even though not belonging to the same caste, formed their own sreni, which was much like the mediaeval guild of Europe. The srenis were recognized by the government and had many rights, such as deciding cases of dispute among members of the same sreni. The head of the sreni was called the Sreshthin. Another institution representing corporate life was the system of sambhuya samutthana, which was much like the joint stock companies of the present day. This kind of business corporation was established by several persons contributing some share, and when the profits were earned they were divided among the members in proportion to the share of each member.

Much of the prosperity of trade depends upon roads. The Maurya government paid due attention to this necessity. Roads were maintained in order by officers of the proper department and at every ten stadia or half a kos a pillar was set up to show the byroads and distances. A royal road ran from Pataliputra to Taxila and was the forerunner of the modern Grand Trunk Road. The vehicles used for journeying on the roads are mentioned by Arrian. "The animals used by the common sort for riding on are camels and horses and asses, while the wealthy use elephants—for it is the elephant which in India carries royalty. The conveyance which ranks next in honour is the chariot and four; the camel ranks third; while to be drawn by a single horse is considered no distinction at all."