SUPPLEMENT FOUR

AN INTRODUCTORY WORD ON THE ARTHAŚĀSTRA PROBLEM

An indirect argument for the first Maurya may be advanced on the basis of the political treatise Arthaśāstra attributed to his traditional minister who is named Kautilya or Chānakya. A large number of scholars have discussed the question of this document's tallying with or differing from the account of Megasthenes regarding the administration under Sandrocottus.

When we have finished our whole reconstruction of India's ancient history from the starting-point of our equation of Sandrocottus with the founder of the Imperial Guptas, we shall take up the question in some detail, marking the contents of the Arthaśāstra as well as estimating the date which would most fit it in our new chronological scheme. We shall look at both the Mauryan and the Guptan administrations and study them in relation to the governmental set-up indicated by Megasthenes.

At the moment it is pertinent to make just two points. One defines the general attitude today and the other brings to a head one of the difficulties in favouring the Mauryan candidate for Megasthenes's Sandrocottus and avoiding the Guptan for c. 300 B.C.

The first point is R. K. Mookerji's statement:¹ "This book is taken by some as a work belonging to the time of Chandragupta and written by Chānakya to whom he owed his throne. Many scholars, however, regard the present text as of a much later date. It is doubtful, therefore, how far we may regard the system of administration depicted in it as applicable to the Maurya period."

The second point is H. C. Raychaudhuri's observation:² "...the Arthaśāstra...refers to certain high revenue functionaries styled the Samādhartri and the Sannidhātri. No such officials are, however, mentioned in Maurya inscriptions. Greek writers, on the other hand, refer to 'treasurers of the state' or 'Superintendents of the treasury.' " Here Raychaudhuri notes one of the few significant contacts of the Arthaśāstra with the age of Megasthenes but

1."Chandragupta and the Maurya Empire", The Age of Imperial Unity, p. 66.

2.The Political History of India, p. 283.

Page-221

dissociates that book from the Mauryas without realising that at the same time he has dissociated the Mauryas from the immediate post-Alexandrine period where they are commonly taken to start with Sandrocottus.

Half our problem is thus solved. It is a negative gain for us. Whether among the Guptas we can find evidence of the functionaries Raychaudhuri emphasises we shall decide later. Speaking broadly, since the Maurya founder and the Gupta founder are the sole alternatives for Sandrocottus the chances for a positive gain for us seem bright provided we look both closely and widely enough for the administrative features we are in search of.

Page-222