Post graduation. Ancient Indian History.  Delhi university. By – Srishti Gosain.

James Prinsep decipher the Ashokan edicts in 1837 and in 1901, Vincent Smith published one of the earliest histories  on the subject titled, Ashok: the Buddhist emperor of India. Since then, the Mauryas  have maintained their Central position in ancient Indian historiography  and nor  this attraction diminished with  the passage of time.  The centralised model of Mauryan control needs to be re-examined, as it seems to have been predicted on inadequate appraisal of the archaeological data. Much of the discussion concerning the centralized nature of the state continues to be based on the Arthasastra of Kautilya , though it is generally accepted that the text in its present form dates significantly later, to the early centuries of the Common Era (Trautmann 1971) and even for that period, data from the Arthasastra need to be contrasted with early Buddhist sources for a balanced appraisal. But several scholars have already drawn attention to the inability of Mauryan polity to exercise control over its provinces. So basically in this answer I would like to draw attention on whether Mauryan state was a centralized state or its just a myth .
So lets start our discussion with D.D.Kosambi who began the interpretation of mauryan period with the attributes of the Arthasastra of Kautilya to the age of the mauryas by stating that mauryan government have a vast bureaucracy , and witness an unprecedented expansion of village economy etc. R.S.Sharma and D.N. Jha also ascribes the Arthasastra of Kautilya to the mauryan epoch in more detailed approach deals with the administrative, social and economic problems of mauryan history telling that mauryan was a centralized state.

MABBETT I . W renewed the interest in his book Truth, myth and politics in ancient India  that  there’s a generally accepted idea that Mauryan state was highly organised and large empire as we normally invited to believe but all this  perspectives were in question.  We can say this because the view of North Indian kingdoms is quite different from the view we have of Administration that came before and after the Mauryan Empire.  We get evidences from Brahmanas and Pali Canon that  King assert unique authority above the run of kshatriya claims to dignity, build fortification, seeking to enlarge their territories contracting dynastic  marriages and possibly granting land or revenues as rewards to favour supporters but there is no reason to suppose that they presided over elaborate bureaucratic or that villager experienced the constant scrutiny of a Central Government.  So we can see, kings were still  war leaders or ceremonial dignitaries of patriarchs to be approached in audience for grace and justice but they are not primarily administrator. So from this we understood that King had enormous power but he don’t have  regulating power  to continuing ability to make decisions which might affect subjects in any part of the kingdom. Further Mabbett give various types of dubious  evidences that can be put forward for the traditional view of Mauryan empire :-

1)  Not much evidence of other Kings is available at time of mauryas which suggest that other rulers were being submerged by them. 

2)  The portrayal of  an organised state in the Arthashastra must be treated as of mauryan date.  In Arthashastra it was argued that  Chandragupta’s  Minister Kautilya was actually the author,  however, is only one of the possibilities,  also  there is no telling how much the picture of an Empire in it may have been modified during the intervening centuries which  is proved to be invalid as it does not show that it’s author knew of any large and organised Empire .
And  we have no reason to believe that the whole Mauryan Empire was an integrated administrative unit run on the same model rather it is more natural to believe until we find evidence to the contrary that the Mauryan Empire was a Mandala  in which one king, the Lord of Magadh happen to have been extraordinary successful in getting his own claims  acknowledged.

3)  Megasthenes description of organised state was  also doubtful  as    there is no original account by Megasthenes of Chandragupta’s India  , only the extract is available in the Greek author’s writing so by this we can say that Megasthenes judgement are less reliable as  his greek background  influences his perception. But  we  cannot  dismissed  nor   belittle Megasthenes as he was after all an eye witness describing what he saw of indian life and this gave his story a value that any number of inscriptional ordinance and   sastra theorizing cannot parallel. 

4)  The content and position of ashoka’s inscription was seen to show a large Empire was also dubious because  inscriptions are all forgeries  and  they were being   erected by somebody else of the same name.

Gerald Fussman argues that huge extent of expire and primitive communication networks wouldn’t have allowed centralisation; there existed varying degrees of autonomy. Ashoka’s personal supervision applied only to dhamma, not to routine administration. However, Greek and Aramaic inscriptions in the NW are not literal translations of Ashokan edicts, hinting that local officials had some powers. Thapar argues for decentralisation in Mauryas Revisited, saying that chiefs existed as intermediaries between the clan and the empire. She also says that the breakdown of the empire and the rise of local states from core areas was important in shaping their relationship with erstwhile peripheral areas.

Romila Thapar’s understanding of this is that the empire consisted of 2 elements: extensive conquest and territorial control, and domination of culturally alien and inferior people. The components of an empire are metropolitan state, core areas and peripheral areas. The metropolitan state historically evolves from a small kingdom, becomes the nucleus of the empire, and ultimately becomes a highly developed state, in early times developing into primary state formations, e.g. Magadha. Core regions could be existing states like Gandhara (incorporating Taxila), or incipient state formations like Saurashtra and Kalinga, or existing centres of exchange, e.g. Ujjain and Brigukaccha. In a sense, these were sub-metropolitan, and developed into metropolitan states when the empire disintegrated. Peripheral areas were further differentiated political and economic systems. They ranged from hunting-gathering to producing societies, but had no known state systems. They were located in interstices between rich agricultural belts. Metropolitan areas were only interested in the dominance and exploitation of other areas through revenue collection and resource appropriation. For all other purposes, peripheral and core areas were left untouched. If this was not possible, then economic restructuring of the area was undertaken.

It is not known whether the Buddhist concept of universal monarch (‘chakkavattin’) predated or post-dated Ashoka. The notion is of chakkavattin as a just ruler ruling in accordance with dhamma; if he fails to do so, wheel of dharma sinks into the ground and disappears.

The empire was divided into four provinces—Dakshinapatha (capital: Suvarnagiri), Uttarapatha (capital: Taxila), Western Province (capital: Ujjain), and Kalinga (capital: Tosali). The governors were called kumara/aryaputra, suggesting a tradition of royal princes as provincial governors. Important officers at the district level were pradeshika, rajuka, and yukta. Rajukas correlate with agronomoi mentioned by Megasthenes.

Also significant were the pativedikas and pulisani, responsible for keeping the king informed of public opinion. Pativedikas were spies/reporters, and pulisani had higher rank and wider mandate. The Indica mentions spies positioned in one place (sanstha) and those who roamed about (sanchara). It also gives advice on how to recruit spies and effective disguises they should don for better/more effective discharge of their duties.

The standing army was recruited and maintained by state, along with periodic levies of troops—infantry, cavalry, navy, chariots and elephants. Senapatis and nayakas were important military officials. The army had to be recruited from all 4 varnas, and had to be trained well in the importance of weapons and using magical practices.

Plutarch refers to army of 600,000, but this seems exaggerated, since this was double the entire infantry of the Roman Empire in pre-Diocletian times. Ashokan inscriptions indicate an important change in policy regarding the Mauryan army after the Kalinga war—dhamma vijaya was introduced, perhaps because little else in subcontinent left to conquer for Ashoka. Therefore, Upinder Singh argues, “the wheels of the military machine must have gone rusty due to lack of use during his long reign”.

Separate rock edict 1 refers to the judicial function of the city mahamatas. It urges them to be impartial and sympathetic, punishing people only for a good, justifiable reason. It says Ashoka sent a gentle officer through the empire to see if justice was being rendered to one and all. Pillar edict 4 says that the rajuka had judicial duties; it stresses on samata (fairness) in death penalty. Pillar edict 5 says the king released his prisoners annually.

Professor Nayanjot Lahiri writes in her richly thoughtful new book Ashok in ancient India, the 3rd Century BC object of her attention stands out from the near – innumerable  run of rulers, princes, officials and emperors to a very marked degree.  She writes  of the emperor Ashoka to the contrast with the archetypically self – serving politicians, that  it” is so stark and rare that Ashoka arouses in historians a  knee- jerk admiration virtually unseen in  South Asia until the appearance of Mahatma Gandhi”.

CONCLUSION: So by the end of our discussion I only conclude by saying that there is no accuracy ,no stability of whether the mauryan state is centralized or not . We get mixed perspective and approaches . All of them giving their opinions but the debate is still not come to an end .

Thank you and Good luck to our learner fraternity.

Team Virasath. United by understanding of education.

Post graduation. Ancient Indian History. University of Delhi.

Introduction :-The model of integrative state formation is a fairly recent construction. It is the outcome of a critical but most fruitful debate with the other two dominant models of early medieval state formation, i.e. Indian Feudalism and the Segmentary State. B.D. Chattopadhyaya has proposed a model called the Integrative State Model. In this model, he interprets the early medieval period as a ‘period of state formation’. It means the transformation of pre-state polities into state polities, thus the integration of local polities into structures that transcended the bounds of local polities. The major integrative factor is ‘ritual’ sovereignty rather than ‘political sovereignty’ and attempts at explications of the concept of ‘ritual sovereignty’ locate the king as the principal ritualist . Hermann Kulke is one of the chief advocates of this model. According to him, this process of integrative state formation in early medieval India pertained to three connected geographical areas and accordingly went through three chronologically distinct stages of state development. The geographical zones were: (i) the local nuclear area from which the political development issued, (ii) its surrounding peripheral zones, and (iii) beyond these peripheral zones, the nuclear areas of originally independent neighbours (samantas). In short, the socio-political ,cultural, economic domain at the locality ,sub-regional and regional level nicely integrated .
Before starting our answer there must be a brief mention of the feudal polity model by RS Sharma.
From the post-Maurya period, and especially from Gupta times, certain political and administrative developments tended to feudalize the state apparatus. The most striking development was the practice of making land grants to the brahmanas, a custom which was sanctified by the injunctions laid down in the Dharmasastra, the didactic portions of the Epic, and the Puranas.
According to some grants the Brahmans were granted the right of enjoying the hidden treasures and deposits of the villages; this meant the transfer of royal ownership over mines, which was an important sign of the king’s sovereignty. Equally important is the fact that the donor not only abandoned his revenues but also the right to govern the inhabitants of the villages that were granted. This is the position created by the grants made to the brahmanas, according to RS Sharma. As a result of land grants made to the brahmanas, the “comprehensive competence based on centralized control”, which was the hall-mark of the Maurya state, gave way to decentralisation in the post-Maurya and Gupta periods. According to the Indian feudalism model, state formation after the Gupta period had a decisively negative character since the many small kingdoms and principalities emerged in a protracted process of fragmentation ‘from above’ at the cost of former larger political entities.
According to B D Chattopadhyaya, the structure of the construct of Indian feudalism rests on two interrelated arguments. 1) that feudal polity emerged from the gradual breakdown of a centralized bureaucratic state system. However, feudal polity crystallized eight centuries after the disintegration of the Mauryan state, although elements of feudal polity are identified in the Kusana and Satavahana polities. And 2), that the system of assignment of land, apparently absent in the Mauryan state, because of the practice of payment in cash, became widespread and intermixed with the transfer of the rights of administration, corroding the authority of the state and leading to the parcellization of sovereignty. B D Chattopadhyay believes that these arguments do not sufficiently explain the total political configuration of the feudal formation.
Emphasis on legitimation alone obscures crucial aspects of the exercise of force and of the secular compulsions of state power, but as a part of the overall political process it nevertheless offers us a convenient vantage point from which to view the ideological dimension of the state.
BD Chattopadhyaya seeks to identify the political process of this period, seen parallel with contemporary economic, social and religious processes. The process of caste formation, the chief mechanism of which was the horizontal spread of the dominant ideology of social order based on the varna division remained the essence of the social process which drew widely dispersed groups into a structure which allowed them in a large way to retain their original character except that this character was now defined with reference to the structure.
Early medieval evidence suggests that there is no necessary correspondence between a lineage and a static territorial limit, as can be seen in the cases of the Kadambas and the Cahamanas. Therefore BD Chattopadhyaya argues that since the changing distribution patterns of ruling lineages do not necessarily correspond to static territorial limits, an initial study of polity must begin with an analysis of formation of lineages and of the pattern of the network they represent, both territorially and in inter-lineage combinations, at different levels in the organization of political power.
The formation and mobilization of lineage did not develop along a single channel. It could involve the colonization of areas of pre-state polity. It could even be the simple replacement of one lineage by another. Polities were interactive and interlocking, and this often resulted in the formation of new blocks and networks of power in which the original identity of a lineage was obliterated.
The large polities tended to emerge in ‘nuclear’ regions, providing such polities with a resource base potentially much richer and easier to integrate administratively than relatively isolated pockets. Two things to be kept in mind here are, 1) a ‘nuclear’ region is a historical-chronological and not purely a geographical region, and 2)larger polities did not necessarily originate in nuclear areas; military mobilization could generate a movement towards nuclear areas and result in major transformations in polity.

Opposition to the ‘feudal model’ is best articulated in the model of the ‘segmentary state’ by Burton Stein. The basic characteristics of the ‘segmentary state’ model are: (1) limited territorial sovereignty which further weakens gradually as one moves from the core to the periphery, and often results in ritual hegemony, (2) the existence of a centralized core with quasi-autonomous foci of administration, (3) the pyramidal repetition of the administrative structure and functions at the peripheral level, (4) absence of absolute monopoly of legitimate force at the centre and (5) shifting allegiances of the periphery system.
According to Herman Kulke, three spatial zones found their chronological dimension in three successive stages of state formation which may be termed as chiefdom, early kingdom and imperial kingdom. In Sanskrit terminology this process would somewhat correspond with the evolution from king (rajā) to ‘great king’ (mahāraja) and ‘supreme king of great kings’ (mahāraja-adhiraja). These delineations emphasize aspects of a continuous and multifarious process of state formation rather than static structural features of the state and its society. Kulke stresses that the vast majority of the early medieval kingdom arose rather in their autonomous peripheral hinterland and in intermediate regions which had not yet been conquered, but which had already come under a wide range of influences of the Gupta empire.
He takes a look at local nuclear regions which form the nuclei of incipient state formation, and finds they lay mostly in the ecologically favourable riverine landscape which enabled agrarian extension and thereby led to an increase in population. Another factor of their early development was the occasional participation in early inter-regional trade. All these variables indicate that the economic factor played a considerable if not decisive role in the early development of the nuclear areas. This development may have led to a professional differentiation and—strengthened by Hindu influence—to a nascent social stratification.
The legitimizing function of the Brahmans during this early phase of local political development is of particular importance. For the material reproduction of the new form of political authority demanded a continuously increased appropriation of socially produced surplus, which in turn required new forms of religio-political legitimation.
Comparison might have induced the people of the early nuclear area to also draw comparisons between the status of their earlier tribal chiefs and that of a new Hindu raja. However, it must be stressed that for the raja and his dynasty to have been accepted would have required the inhabitants of the nuclear area to have participated in the ‘elevation’ of their new ruler.
The most important characteristic of the early development of the state was thus the founding as well as the consolidation and legitimization of political authority within the local nuclear area; the relations with neighbouring areas and peripheral zones only played a subordinate role. What was important was the increase in barter and trade relations with the peripheral zones.
In the second phase of state formation, the situation changed and there was the emergence of the early kingdoms. In this phase, there is the attempt to consolidate the peripheral areas into the nuclear zone. This may be done either through campaigns or imperceptibly through agrarian expansion. It is in this phase that that raja starts to donate land to brahmans . However, these land grants did not necessarily lead to a loss of privileges by the king, as presumed by the school of Indian feudalism. Therefore, as opposed to the feudal view of ‘parcellization of power’, Kulke in fact sees this move as an attempt to bring in previously peripheral areas out of the king’s control into the royal dominion by situating sacral authorities on these areas on a tributary basis.
According to Kulke, it would be wrong to belittle the long-term results of land grants to Brahmans. The samantas ruled over their own nuclear states. By the seventh century, the term samanta came to mean ‘neighbouring tributary princes’, which is of particular importance since it implied that they were no longer independent rulers but tributaries to the king of the nuclear area. Therefore the samantas had the choice of forming their own nuclear area or accepting the role of a tributary of another. This was the major development in state formation in the second phase, and led to what is called the samantacakra or the ‘circle of tributary princes’ which further established the kingdom of the nuclear area.
The imperial kingdoms represent the third and final stage in Kulke’s model of state development in early medieval India. An important characteristic of this kind of a state, as seen in the Colas, Rastrakutas , Calukyas and so on, these were no creations of warlords, but had emerged from a continuous process of integrative state formation which had its origin in the development of local centres of power.

A decisive new characteristic was the extension of the directly controlled area far beyond the natural frontiers of the original nuclear areas of the early kingdoms. Also there was the unification of at least two nuclear areas either by overthrow by a tributary prince or a neighbouring king. Important means of integration were further agrarian expansion, inclusion into translocal trade networks and the spread of the state society of the dynastic core region.

The shifting of the capitals after expansion of the state aimed not only at the acquisition of a geometrically exact central location but was also accompanied by the successive development of the state. There was mutual dependency linking the centre and the enlarged core area. Thus the power potential of the inner circle also increased.

Therefore, the structural history of the imperial kingdom was as much the expression of the continuance of local power groupings as of a stage by stage extension of the organs of central power.

Conclusion :-
Therefore, it can be seen that a simplistic study of land grants that led to the formulation of the concept of Indian feudalism is no longer acceptable, because it presupposes an established social structure which crumbles, when in fact, as B D Chattopadhyaya and Hermann Kulke have shown, the process of state formation in early medieval India is continuous and receptive, and not fragmentary. B.P.Sahu points that the actual process and political mechanism involved in the integration of marginal areas with the core/nuclear pockets remains somewhat untouched and that the modes of social and economic integration are not sufficiently elaborated.

Thank you and Good luck to our learner fraternity.

Team Virasath. United by understanding of education.

Post graduation. Ancient Indian History. University of Delhi.

Introduction :-A State is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. In Max Weber’s influential definition, it is that organization that has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” It thus includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts etc. But all these qualities of the state was not available at the time of emergence of the states in northern india as at that time societies were kin-based and egalitarian basically ‘simple societies’ that were headed by band leaders and chiefs which further got evolved into complex society, which was a state based society where members are stratified on the basis of status ,birth ,resources etc . So this process had taken a long time and various historians like , D.D.Kosambi , R.S.Sharma , Romila Thapar and many others had given their views on the emergence of state formation in northern India in the mid first millennium bc. We don’t come across any definition of the state either in the theories in later Vedic collections and brahmanas or in the early law-books i . e., Dharmasutra because this institution was not established on a firm footing so far. According to Kautilya ‘no territory deserves the name of kingdom(state) unless it is full of people and controlled by an absolute authority over the territory’. It is only after the rise of well organized states of Kosala and Magadha in the age of Buddha that the state is defined for the first time in Arthasastra of Kautilya. Kautilya in his Saptanga Theory as described in Arthasastra there are seven constituent elements (7 limbs) of the state: sovereign head(Svamin), minister (Amatya) , populated territory (Janapada) , Fort (Durga) , treasury (Kosa) , coercive power (Danda) and friend (Mitra) which becomes an axiom in the later sources . The growth of taxation system were connected to the development of the state machinery. The most effective prop of the state formation was the standing army ,whose origins may be traced back to earlier period and whose growth was promoted by socio-economic developments in the age of Buddha . War has a role to play. They continued long drawn out war  that enable people who manage the war to accumulate power and resources that empower decision markers led to rise and form strong states.
Kosambi in 1952 said that Koshala-  Magadha  had several features  like growing use of iron, punch marked coins  , large number of settlements, Budhhism /Jainism etc came up.   Kosambi as a historian also said  one needs to find out the relationship between the various factors that emerges during state formation . The factors came up simultaneously, provocating a suggestion that there is some kind of intellectual affinity  between the various factors . However , Kosambi did not push these ideas.  His main aim was to discern  the pattern in the coming up of state. Kosambi produced 2 more books : 1956 –  Introduction to the study of Indian history and 1966-  Culture and Civilization.  His basic effort was to discuss certain patterns in ancient history similar things were not done earlier i. E political narrative.
R. S. Sharma  in 1987 Kosambi memorial Lecture instituted by the Bombay University bring out the mystery  that appeared  in  Indian history and he traces the ideas, Institutions and processes through which the prestate lineage and tribal societies in the Vedic period made a transition to the state. RS Sharma uses the expression trying to reduce the factor to a straight line rather than raising them to level of intellectual affinity .  This can be shown by from agricultural growth to population growth led to the coming of state formation. RS Sharma  recognized 2 visible transitions during a pre- state lineage and tribe based society and pastoral economy in the early Vedic period :(1) smaller clans – ganas, grama, vraja, gotra, vrata, sardha etc  which were headed by raja, gopa, vrajapati, vratapati etc. (2)  Emergence of larger, tribal group called Janas, vis etc came to pass between 1500 to  1000 BC and headed by a rajas, vispati etc  who were elected by vidatha, sabha and samiti. Professor Sharma’s account says that state finally emerged around 500 BC in the middle Ganga Plains and the varna  structure became the social base of the state.  The two upper varna emerged as the state’s leaders  (1)chiefs known as Rajanyas / ksatriyas and (2)the priest known as the brahmanas rose at the cost of the tribal power and paved the way for the formation of the full – fledged state in India represented the state in the sense that they were entitled to receive gets and taxes.  Brahmins and ksatriyas come together to form the ruling elite. Democratication of   metal have created condition for prosperity and iron more than copper enhanced production in agriculture and non agricultural activities. R.S. Sharma in the age of BUDHA shackles around the coming of state broken. Use of iron in production activities at a considerable scale. Geography of the people shifts eastward. Paddy cultivation increased. Dharmasutra ( Apastambha ,baudhyana,vashishtha and Gautama ) talks about duties and responsibilities of all varnas, formation of varnas , duties of kinship defined etc. Notion of territory gradually crystallises. Janapadas come together to become Mahajanapadas . Institution of army coming up. Lastly Sharma said varna and state formation in mid –gangetic plains mention sites –chirand , sonpur etc tries to compare and contrast Neolithic – Chalcoltihc layer with iron –NBPW layers.

Claessen also have traits of the early state 😦 1) The sufficient population of the state make possible social categorisation, social stratification and specialization. ( 2) citizenship is determined by residence or birth in the territory which means that citizenship is not defined by membership of a clan or tribe. (3) The government through the use of both force and authority has centralised control and process the necessary power to maintain law and order. (4) Productivity is high enough to ensure regular surplus which is used for the maintenance of the state organisation. (5) The legitimacy of the ruling stratum is based on the common ideology of the state.
Romila Thapar inspired by anthropological literature on state and in his book ‘From Lineage to state’ she give her views about how from pastoral society a well settled society was formed that led to the state and draws attention to a few other related factors that led the understanding of the   states formation in north India in the mid first millennium bc. So she had wrote a narrative that start from early Rig Vedic to later Vedic period in which she has shown lineage society where people lived in seminomadic life their source of wealth was cattle ,there was also indication of artisan , mode of exchange of Barter system was also there and metal working also known. In Rigveda , Janapada in the mid of first millennium bc comprised village ,town ,community , cities and involve taxation and administration.Various kin-based assemblies –Sabha, samiti, vidhata acted as a political body but later they lost their importance to royal power in later Vedic period which show Coming of iron linked to whole range of technological and economic developments which leads to the emergence of a complex society, eg: Axes, blades, long hammers etc .Economic social networks are enlarging with rise of trade with iron ores. According to Romila Thapar iron is not equal to development but it’s a gradual transition and iron plays a significant role apart from other factors like increase in population due to economic expansion based on agriculture, PGW settlement ,manuring ,irrigation ,construction of wattle and daub all this development resulted in substantial enlargement of settlement such as Hastinapur and Kausambhi which give a little glimpse of state formation .
Various political changes happened in later vedic period such as – 1)  chiefship changed in this period , the territorial ideas gained ground,  people started to lose their control over the chief and the popular assemblies creditors appeared.
2)  chiefship had become hereditary   & with the  help of Brahmanas they are getting  divine nature of kingship. Due to this    they becoming more powerful and the authority of the popular assembly started disappearing.

3)    Rudimentary army too emerged as an important element of the political structure during this period  and all these lived on the taxes called bali, the shulka and the bhaga offered by the people.
However, all these element do not show that a  territorial state with all its attributes such as standing army and Bureaucracy had emerged in the later Vedic period but via rituals and sacrifices is given a  divine status and is empowered  which gradually works towards the establishment of kinship and state.
Thus Romila Thapar thinks that state formation was a transformation of a lineage society into a stratified society with concentration of wealth into a center and not for any single persuasive factor.

Conclusion : So we can conclude our answer by saying that the definition of state was 1st composed by Kautilya in his Arthasastra as before there was no such mention of state. According to R.S.Sharma earlier their was only stratification of varna system in which brahmanas and kshatriyas were considered as high elite and they are the ones who have more power than king . But we can see that there was evolution from tribal ,pastoral, nomadic society where there was only kin based society ,people are living under clan they are not governed by proper political authority . But as the time passes from later Vedic period onwards as Romila Thapar had mentioned standing army ,bureaucracy ,taxation etc had emerged which led to the growth of state formation.
Changes in natural environment and population size led to the growth of ‘ Asiatic mode of Production’ along the river sides of the Orient having managerial bureaucratic institutions of controlling the irrigating system by a despotic ruler in a stable (unchangeable )economy and from 6th century bc the real state formation had come up by Magadha and Kosala . From 16 mahajanapadas 2 kind of division can be seen :-
Monarchies( rajagriha,champa and kosala) and Non –Monarchies( shakyas, lichchavis,malas
Prestation (Ganga- Yamuna doab becomes the hub of sacrifices –community feasting.

In mid Gangetic plains don’t have the legacy of prestation . Thus , the state come out better and stronger in this region. However they are not the centralized states per se . No evidence of fortification , monumental architecture ,temples structure etc acquired a powerful structure in and around 400 bc. Rich in copper and iron ores, elephants made Magadha as the expansionist state.

There are 2 other major work in gangetic plains-
MAKHAN LAL worked in and around Kanpur in late 70s and early 80s.
G. Ardosy working on settlements arranged in kind of hierarchy that led to movement of settled society

Many other historians like Morton H.Fried it was an evolution of political society from egalitarianism to state through the rank and stratified society. But E.R.Service identified the process as the transition of band society to tribe and from tribe to state through the chiefdom .Warfare reinforces the cohesiveness of centralization of authority of the emerging state and it act as the mechanism of state formation. Growth of trade and urban centers at the same time precipitated the social differentiation and accelerated the growth of social –stratification an essential prerequisite for the state formation .

Thank you and Good luck to our learner fraternity.

Team Virasath.

United by understanding of education.

Post graduation. Ancient Indian History. University of Delhi. By:- Sanchit Raj.

EARLY INDIAN SOCIAL ORDERS: STRUCTURES AND PROCESSESS

TOPIC:-MLECCHA
QUESTION:-DISCUSS THE ATTITUDES TOWARDS MLECCHAS FROM THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BCE TO THE FIFTH CENTURY C.E.

THE CONCEPT OF THE MLECCHA WAS PART OF THE MORAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK OF THE BRAHMANICAL SOCIETY THAT BELIEVED IN ITS INHERENT CULTURAL SUPERIORITY.THE NOTION OF BEING A MLECCHA ,WITH THE ITSELF, FIRST APPEARS IN THE LITERATURE OF THE INDO-ARYAN SPEAKING TRIBES AND THEIR CULTURE.
THE OCCURENCE OF THE WORD MLECCHA IS FIRST ATTESTED IN THE SATAPATHA BRAHMANA,WHICH,ALONG WITH THE AITAREYA BRAHMANA,IS ASSIGNED TO 800-600 B.C.E.IT APPEARS IN A LINGUISTIC CONTEXT AND DENOTES UNINTELLIGIBLE SPEECH.IN PALI AND PRAKRIT ,ITS FORMS ARE MILAKKHA AND MILAKKHU RESPECTIVELY.THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF MLECCHA/MILAKKHA,HOWEVER, EMERGES IN THE SENSE OF “UNCIVILIZED”,”BARBARIC”,OR “UNCULTURED” .THIS COULD REFER TO VAC,(SPEECH) ,BHASA(LANGUAGE), DESA(COUNTRY) ,OR JATI(COMMUNITY). MLECCHA AND MILAKKHA BECOME INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE SANSKRIT &PRAKRIT VOCABULARIES BUT THEIR ‘ETYMOLOGICAL ORIGINS IN THESE LANGUAGES ARE DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN.HOWEVER,MLECCHA AS A REFERENCE GROUP IN EARLY INDIA INCLUDED ALL OUTSIDERS WHO DID NOT CONFORM TO THE VALUES AND IDEAS AND, CONSEQUENTLY,TO THE NORMS OF THE SOCIETY ACCEPTED BY THE ELITE GROUPS.
IN THE RIG VEDA,THE EARLIEST OF THE VEDIC TEXTS,THERE IS NO MENTION OF MLECCHA AS SUCH BUT THERE ARE REFERENCES TO THE DASA OR THE DASYU, THE LOCAL TRIBES WHO WERE SUBORDINATED TO THE ARYAN SPEAKERS AND WHO WERE THEN REGARDED AS ALIEN AND BARBARIC. THEY ARE COMPARED WITH DEMONS BEING BLACK-SKINNED (KRSNA-TVACH) AND SNUB-NOSED ,SPEAKING A STRANGE LANGUAGE(MRDRA-VAC) .THEY PRACTICE BLACK MAGIC AND DO NOT PERFORM THE REQUIRED SACRIFICES. THEY ARE TREACHEROUS AND THEY LIVE IN A FORTIFIED HABITATIONS.THE DISTINCTION OF LANGUAGE AND PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IS RECORDED.
THOSE AREAS WHERE A MLECCHA BHASA(LANGUAGE) WAS SPOKEN CAME TO BE REGARDED AS THE MLECCHA-DESA. THE MLECCHA AREAS WERE REGARDED AS IMPURE LAND BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PERFORM THE CORRECT RITUALS. THESE WERE LANDS WHERE THE SRADDHA CEREMONY(OFFRINGS TO ANCESTORS ON STIPULATED OCCASIONS) WAS NOT CARRIED OUT,AND WHERE PEOPLE DID NOT OBSERVE THE LAWS OF THE VERNA.SINCE THE MLECCHA IS RITUALLY IMPURE, ARYAS VISITING THE LAND OF THE MLECCHA MUST PERFORM PRAYASCITTA OR EXPIATORY RITES BEFORE THEY CAN BE REGARDED AS CLEANSED AND FIT FOR NORMAL ASSOCIATION AGAIN. KINSHIP RELATIONS WERE EXCLUDED AND THE MLECCHA THEREFORE FORMED THEIR OWN MLECCHA JATIS.NO SELF- RESPECTING ARYA WOULD MARRY INTO A MLECCHA FAMILY .P.V. KANNE HAS DISCUSSED AND QUOTED PASSAGES THAT REFER TO THE ARYAS AS WELL AS DASYUS AS VIOLATORS OF VRATAS ESTABLISHED BY THE GOD .MEDHATITHI,A NINENTH CENTURY COMMENTATOR OF MANU, FIRST TO GIVE VIEWS OF MLECCHADESHA THAT IT IS IDEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTED & IT IS NOT BEYOND ARYAVRATA.
BY THE LATTER HALF OF THE FIRST MILLENNIUM B.C. THE PICTURE HAD BECOME FAR MORE COMPLEX. THE AMALGAMATION OF EXISTING LOCAL CULTURES,WHICH WAS INEVITABLE IN THE EVOLUTION OF ARYAN CULTURE, CREATED PROBLEMS FOR THE THEORISTS OF CASTE SOCIETY. NOT ALL SOCIAL GROUPS COULD BE GIVEN A PRECISE VARNA STATUS. THE PROCESS OF ANULOMA(HYPERGAMY) AND PRATILOMA ( WHERE THE MOTHER IS OF A HIGHER CASTE THAN THE FATHER) HAD TO BE CONCEDED AND A NUMBER OF NEW AND ,INEVITABLY,MIXED CASTES( SAMKIRNA JATI) WERE ADMITTED TO THE THEORY OF SOCIAL ORDER. THEY WERE GIVEN THE RANK OF SUDRAS. OF THESE MANY CAME TO BE DESCRIBED AS MLECCHA SUCH AS THE AMBASTHA, UGRU, AND NISADHA AMONG THE ANULOMA AND THE SUTA, MAGADHA, CANDALA, AND PULKASA, AMONG THE PRATILOMA. THERE IS HIERARCHY OF RANKING AS RECODED IN THE DHARMASASTRA. ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES OF OCCUPATIONS WITH UNCLEAR TASKS WASHERMEN, FISHERMEN,POTTERS,LEATHER-WORKERS,IRON-SMITHS,BASKET-MAKERS,HUNTERS,&SCAVENGERS.THERE WAS A COMPROMISE & DISRUPTION OF SOCIAL HIERARCHY AT TOP BETWEEN BRAHAMANS & KSHATRIYAS. THEREFORE,ACCORDING TO MARKANDEYA PURANA, MLECCHA ACHIEVING SOME KIND OF ACCOMODATION IN POWERFUL GROUPS.”MATERIAL CULTURES” COULD NOT BE OVER-ESTIMATE.ALTHOUGH “PROCESS OF ACCOMODATION” WERE TAKING PLACE SIDE BY SIDE. IT WAS BELIEVED THAT IN KALIYUGA “KALI KALKA SANKAT”,LOWER ORDER WAS GOING TO DOMINATE THE SOCIETY AND THIS WAS CALLED AS ” THREAT PERCEPTION” OR “DISRUPTION IN SOCIAL HIERARCHY.
THERE IS A MYTHOLOGICAL STORY IN THE RAMAYANA AND THE MAHABHARATA IN WHICH WISHING COW, OR DIVINE COW NANDANI PRODUCED MLLECCHA FROM HER BODY TO PROTECT HERSELF. BASICALLY IT IS A MYTHOLOGICAL METAPHOR. THE MAJJHIMA NIKAYA REFERS TO THE TERM BABBAHARA WHICH CAN BE TRANSLATED AS PEOPLE OF AN UNKNOWN TONGUE OR THOSE WHO MUMBLE,THAT IS, ARE NOT DISTINCT IN THEIR SPEECH. THE VISHNU SMRTI MAKES THE EXPLICIT AND POSITIVE STATEMENT THAT MLECCHA LANDS ARE THOSE WHERE THE SYSTEM OF FOUR VARNAS IS NOT ESTABLISHED. IT CAN NOT BE IGNORED AND MUST BE REITERATED THAT, ON THE WHOLE, THE MAIN CONCERNS OF THE SMRTIS WRITERS WAS RESTRICTED TO THE WELL-BEING OF THEIR OWN SYSTEM AND WAYS AND MEANS BY WHICH IT COULD BE PROMOTEED. DEMARCATION WITH REGARD TO TERRITORY ,ESPECIALLY AS A BASIS FOR DISTINCTION BETWEEN MLECCHAS AND ARYAS WAS ONLY PERIPHERAL.AMONG THE BRAHMANICAL WRITERS KAUTILYA IS AN EXCEPTION AND IS THE FIRST TO OBSERVE A CUSTOM OF MLECCHAS WHICH IS NOT REPEATED ELSEWHERE AND ABOVE ALL, NOT SPOKEN IN DEROGATORY TERMS. THE MARKANDEYA PURANA PROUNCES THE NEED OF THE FOUR VARNA BEING SAFEGUARDED AND THE DASA, MLECCHAS AND OTHERS WHO LIVE IN WICKEDNESS BEING SLAIN. THE CHIEF FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH MLECCHA BEHAVIOUR WERE VICE,VIOLENCE, HATRED, FALSEHOOD,LACK OF VIRTUE IN WOMEN,NEGLECT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SMRTIS,NON-POPULARITY OF THE VEDAS AND THE PERFORMANCES OF SACRIFICES AND THE ADDICTION OF PEOPLE TO IMPIOUS AND VILE CUSTOMS.
THE MANUSMRTI( COMPLETED AROUND THE SECOND CENTURY A.D.) ADD A NEW DIMENSION TO THIS DISTINCTION. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT ALL THOSE TRIBES WHOSE ORIGIN IS OTHER THAN THAT DESCRIBED IN THE ‘PURUSASUKTA’, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THEY SPEAK ARYA OR MLECCHA LANGUAGES, ARE TO BE CONSIDERED DASYUS. THE EARLIER IDEA OF ARYAVARTA,BRAHMVARTA,AND MADHYADESA,ETC WAS CONSIDERED AS THE ONLY CENRES OF THE BRAHMANICAL ACTIVITY. IN THE PURANAS,IN A STANDARD AND OFTEN REPEATED DESCRIPTION, THE MLECCHAS ARE REGARDED AS RESIDENTS OF OUTSKIRTS OF BHARATAVARSA;THE YAVANAS,AND KIRATAS ARE SAID TO INHABIT THE WESTERN AMD EASTERN BORDERS RESPECTIVELY. AND IN THE CENTRE WERE SUPPOSED TO RESIDE THE BRAHMANAS,KSHATRIYA,VAISHYAS, AND SUDRAS,EACH PERFORMING THEIR RESPECTIVE DUTIES. THE TERM MLECCHA CAN NOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR ONE HOMOGENOUS GROUP OF PEOPLE,AND THIS IS FURTHER CLEAR WHEN TEXTS SUCH AS THE MAHABHARATA, PURANAS ,BRHATSAMHITA, ETC SUGGEST THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS OF THE VARIOUS MLECCHA GROUPS.
THE IDENTIFICATION OF THESE WORDS AS BELONGING TO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS IMPOSSIBLE. IN FACT, THE CONTROVERSY HERE IS NOT REGARDING MLECCHA LANGUAGES THEMSELVES , BUT IN CONNECTION WITH SANSKRITIZED VERSIONS OF WORDS BORROWED FROM THESE LANGUAGES.IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE ONLY IDENTIFICATION OF MLECCHA LANGUAGE IS MADE IN THE BUDDHIST WRITING OF BUDDHAGHOSA,DATABLE AROUND THE FIFTH CENTURY A.D.
IN THE MANORATHA PURANA, HIS COMMENTARY ON THE ANGUTTARA NIKAYA, THE DAMILA,KIRATA,AND YAVANA LANGUAGES ARE LISTED AS MILAKKHA-BHASA. IN THE ‘BRHATSAMHITA’, ANOTHER TEXT OF THE FIFTH CENTURY A.D. ,THE SAKAS ARE CALLED KINGS BELONGING TO THE MLECCHAJATIS,WHO ARE BEST KNOWN IN THE ASTROLOGICAL CIRLCES OF THAT PERIOD FOR THEIR ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ERA. ELSEWHERE, IN THE SAME TEXT, THE YAVANAS,PARTICULARLY THEIR ASTROLOGERS ARE DESCRIBED AS MLECCHAS. THIS ALSO INDICATES THAT THE TERM MLECCHA WAS NOT NECESSARILY APPLIED INA N OPPROBRIOUS MMANNER. THE WORD MLECCHA NEVER APPEAR IN ANY OF ASHOKA’S EDICTS AND TRIBES ARE ALWAYS MENTIONED BY THEIR NAMES. THE IMPRESSION THAT MLECCHA WAS USED AS A DESIGNATION ONLY FOR THE UNCONTROLLABLE WILD TRIBES IS WRONG. UNLIKE MOST TEXTS, THE MUDRARAKSASA, A PLAY DEALING WITH POLITICAL CONSPIRACY,REFERS TO THE MLECCHA ALLIES OF MALAYAKETU WHO ARE DESCRIBED AS REGIONAL KINGS WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBCONTINENT. FROM INSCRIPTIONAL EVIDENCE IT HAS BEEN DUDECED THAT ” THE PRACTICE OF GRANTING LAND AND THE GROWTH OF LANDED INTERMEDIARIES FIRST BEGAN IN OUTLYING ,BACKWARD AND TRIBAL AREAS”- IN MAHARASHTRA IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D. AND IN MOST PARTS OF MADHYA PRADESH DURING THE FOURTH & FIFTH CENTURIES A.D.
THE SYSTEM OF LAND GRANTS AND THE GROWTH OF NEW SETTLEMENTS ACCORDINGLY FORMED THE NUCLEI OF THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE “CIVILIZED” BRAHMANICAL SOCIETY UPON TRIBAL AREAS AND RESULTED IN THE SPREAD OF THE AGRARIAN VILLAGE ECONOMY. THIS WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND INTEGRATING MEANS BY WHICH “OUTSIDERS” WERE BROUGHT CLOSER TO THE BRAHMANICAL WAY OF LIFE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT , ON THE WHOLE, THE DHARMASASTRA,ARTHASASTRA AND BRAHMANICAL JURISPRUDENCE IN GENERAL EXCLUDED MLECCHAS FROM ITS SCOPE. IT ALSO DID NOT BOTHER TO NOTE THAT THE LAWS AND SOCIAL CODES PREVALENT IN MLECCHA SOCIETIES OR COMPARE THEM WITH ITS OWN. ALL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CULTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE MLECCHAS, THEIR SOCIAL CUSTOMS OR THEIR ECONOMIC STATUS IS,THEREFORE,PREJURATIVE .THERE IS GENERALLY UNANIMITY ABOUT ASSOCIATING MLECCHAS WITH BAD CONDUCT , FILTHY HABITS AND PECULIAR CUSTOMS.
IN THE BEGINNING, PARTICULARLY IN THE CENTURIES BEFORE THE CHRISTIAN ERA,THE THEORETICAL ASSERTIONS OF THE BRAHMANAS EXCLUDED MLECCHAS, BOTH FOREIGNER AND TRIBES,FROM SOCIETY,AND TREATED ALL OF THEM AS ONE LARGE REFERENCE AND MARGINAL GROUP.THE MOST IMPORTANT PHASE ,WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT A DISTINCT CHANGE IN THE DESIGNATION OF FOREIGNERS AND TRIBES AS MLECCHAS ,AND IN THE ATTITUDES TOWARDS THEM,WAS THE PERIOD BETWEEN c.200 A.D. DURING THIS PERIOD, THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE ESTABLISHED SOCIETY WAS AFFECTED BY ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VARIOUS MLECCHA REFERENCE GROUPS.

BIBLOIGRAPHY:-

1. PARASAR,A :-MLECCHAS IN EARLY INDIA: A STUDY IN ATTITUDES TOWARDS OUTSIDERS UP TO 600 AD,
   2.ROMILA THAPAR:- IMAGINED RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES? ANCIENT HISTORY AND THE MODERN SEARCH FOR A HINDU IDENTITY.
   3.P.V. KANE: HISTORY OF DHARMASASTRA
2. CLASS NOTES..
   5.B.D. CHATOPADDHAYAYA:-REPRESENTING OTHERS ,CHAPTER 2,3
   7.BNS YADAV:-SOCIETIES AND CULTURE IN NORTH INDIA

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI.
BY:- SANCHIT RAJ
COLLEGE :- SRI VENKATESWARA COLLEGE.

Post graduation.Ancient Indian History. University of Delhi. By:-Sanchit Raj.
HISTORY OF INDIA FROM c.200 BCE TO 600 CE.

TOPIC – ‘GUILD ORGANIZATION IN ANCIENT INDIA’

Introduction:-
Harappan culture can be said to be the first developed civilization in India. so, it is accepted that there were economic organization in the harappan period, our knowledge of such organization remains nebulous for the lack of documentary evidence in this regard. there are several terms, frequently occur in the vedic literature, Sreni, Gana, Puga, Vrata, and Naigama, which denoted to co-operative organization in ancient India. so, some socio-economic, religious and political conditions had now become favorable for the emergence and growth of guilds.In the Buddhist and Jaina texts, naigama is used in the sense of commercial town centre inhibited by many tradesmen.However, division of labour under the varna system was conducive to the emergence of guild organization.Agriculture,cattle farming & trade, the three occupations of the vaisyas, in the course of time, developed as separate groups. The sudras, besides serving other varnas, took up such menial crafts as were looked down upon by the higher varnas,while some non-aryans, mostly incorporated into the sudra varna of the brahmanical society, too, came to form separate economic groups.
The emergence of sizeable kingdoms, from c.6th century BCE, led to the interlinking of far-flung areas and most of facilitated procurement of raw materials from, and sale of finished goods in distant regions. the pooling of resourses & managable skills could be achieved better by traders and craftsmen organised into guilds. The growth of towns and cities provided better prospects to artisans & made a number of village artisans migrate to cities. The use of iron became widespread for agricultural land and plough fields. this would have helped in the production of grain in surplus, enabling more artisans to act as whole-time craftsmen,receiving food in the lieu of artifacts manufactured by them.
Buddhism and Jainism, that emerged in the 6th century BCE, were more egalitarian than brahmanism and provided a better environment for the growth of guilds. material wealth and animals were sacrified in the brahmanical yajnas.the Buddhist and Jaina did not perform such yajnas.thus, material wealth and trade were saved and made available for trade and commerce. The Gautama Dharmasutra (c.5th century BC) states that ‘cultivators’,traders,herdsmen,money-lenders, and artisans have authority to lay down rules for their respective classes and the king was to consult their representatives while dealing with matters relating to them.the state seems to have come to exercise some contron over guild by appointing an official “bhandagarika” with ‘judgeship over all guilds’. In the jatakas tales, besides internal trade, there are also references to trade with Tamraparni( Sri-lanka),Suvarnabhumi(Sumatra),&Baneru(Babylonia).
The Mauryan empire (c.322-185 BCE ) witnessed better maintained high-ways and increased mobility of men & merchandise. the state participated in agriculture & industrial production.the government kept a record of trades & crafts and related transaction and convention of guilds, indicating state intervention in guild affairs.The state alloted guilds separate in a town for running their trade and crafts. the members of the tribal republics that lost political power due to their incorporation in the extensive mauryan empire took to crafts and trades and formed economic organization. Kautilya, considers the possibility of guilds as agencies capable of belonging centre of power.
Pre-Mauryan period (600-320 BCE )
The sixth century BCE is unique in ancient india for emergence of the sixteen mahajanpadas which led to the transformation of loyality from ‘tribal organization’ to ‘politico- geographical units’ ( Ghosh,1974,p-4). The use of writing helped in the codification of laws and in accountancy, and the introduction of coin-age, in the collection of taxes,payment of wages and also in the development of trade and commerce. the large scale use of iron tools and implements contributed to a considerable development in agriculture production, and transport.

Localization of Guilds:
Some towns were specially known for excellence in certain crafts,eg; Mathura and Kashi for their clothes. Kautilya prescribes allotment of different quarters and streets to the followers of different crafts,and even to merchants dealing with different merchandise. The Samuddavanjja Jataka refers to migration of the carpenters of a village en masse as, even after receiving advances, they failed to fulfil their commitment of manufacturing articles.
Hereditary Nature of Professions:
The Jatakas stories frequently refer to a son following the craft of his father. often,kula and putta occur as suffixes to craft-names, the former indicating that the whole family adopted a particular craft of his father.this ensured regular trained man-power and created more specialization. it may, however, be pointed out that adopting a family profession was more common with member’s of craftmen’s guilds than with members of trader’s guilds.
Guild Laws:
Guilds had their laws, based on customs and usuage, regarding organization, production, fixation of prices of commodities,etc.these rules were generally recognized by states. The laws were a safeguard against state oppression and interference in guild affairs. The Gautama Dharmasutras enjoins upon the king to consult representatives while dealing with matter concerning guilds. In Kautilya scheme ,a superintendent of accounts was to keep a record of the customs and transactions of corporations. Manu enjoins that a guild member who breaks an agreement must be banished from the realm by the king. According to Yajnavalkya, profits and losses were to be shared by members in proportion to their shares. Yajnavalkya prescribes severe punishment for one who embezzles guild property. In Ancient India, the credit of successfull training of craftmen ,so vital for the development of arts and crafts goes largely to guilds.

Guild structure:-
The guild was a compact organization.it had three components;
(a) The General Assembly
(b) The guild Head
(c) executive officer
(B) The guild head:- The head of the guild is often referred to as the jetthaka or pamukkha in early Buddhist literature.eg;’ head of garland makers’ ( malakara jetthaka ) ,’head of carpenter guilds’ ( vaddaki jetthaka),etc. Carvan merchants were guided by their leader, sarthavaha, who instructed them regarding halting, waterning, etc, and precautions against robbers ,etc. Setthis were merchants-cum-bankers and often headed merchant guilds. they were big businessmen in cities and also held landed property in village, and played an important role in both rural and urban economy.Ancient texts do not specify whether the office of the head of a guild was elective or hereditary.
(C) Executive officers:- To assist the guild head and to look after the day to day business of the guild , executive officers came to be appointed. the earliest reference to executive officers is met with in the Yajnavalkya smriti. their number varied according to need and circumstances.Yajnavalkya says that they should be pure, free from avarice and knowers of the vedas,the mentioned qualification suggests the presence of Brahmanas in the executive council. It is not specially stated whether the executive officers were elected by the assembly or were nominated by the guild head.
There were checks and balance in the functioning of the guilds. The members had the right to speak in the guild assembly. But a speech that was not sensible or that created hurdles in the functioning of a guild was punishable.
Sources of Income and Items of expenditure:-
Considerable amount of money in guilds came from the subscription of their members. profits earned in executing orders formed an important source of income. Fines recovered from erring members were added to guild funds. gifts bestowed by kings on guild heads and executive officers became the property of the guilds. Besides, at times, the guilds might also receive subsidies from the government.Although, the guilds spent a good deal of money on works of charity and religious piety and in providing help to the poor and destitute.
Function of the guilds:-
(a) General economic functions
(b) Functions related to religious piety and charity
(c) Bank- like functions
(d) Administrative functions
Guilds and Castes:
Guilds and Castes,though similar in some respect, are basically different. guilds were economic institutions, castes were social groups. caste is necessarily hereditary, but not guild membership. one could be a member of only one caste, but one could be a member of more than one guild. however, in areas populated by the people of same caste, member of guild and caste coincided and the head of the guild presided by the meetings of both guild & caste.It was only by the early medieval period that guilds become considerably fossilized into occupational sub-castes.
Guilds and the State:-
Guilds enjoyed considerable autonomy, which came not as a favour by the state but by their inherent right.The guilds safeguarded the interests of the traders and craftmen against oppression by the king as well as the legal descrimination they are normally subjected to. To protect the interest of village guilds, entry of an outsiders guild therein was banned. Manu lays down that a king should employ guards and spies near artisan’s shops as a protection against robbers.There is no evidence of a guild or a combination of guilds attempting to capture political power. the guilds of the period were local character, with no central organization. interests of different guilds were of different kinds, sometimes even conflicting and so they could hardly form a joint front against the state. However, in case of contests for succession to the royal throne, they might have helped the claimants of their choice in acquiring it.

Post-Mauryan period ;(200 BCE -300 CE)
In this period north- western and western part of India controlled by the Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Kushanas, and Parthians. India was the main exporter of the luxury items to the Roman empire and earned huge profits. A large number of coins of this period those of the Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Kushanas, Parthians indigenous rulers and tribal republics,cities and guilds have been found, some in hoards (kosambi,1956,p-254). It indicates a greater circulations of money- economy and fairly advancement of bricks trade and commerce,in which guilds must have played a significant role. ‘ Milindapanho’ refers to a numbers of occupational guilds , their number being much greater than the early periods.
The sixth century A.D. witnessed the ascendancy of the landed aristocracy in the forms of samantas over the nigamas ans srenis (Majumdar,B.P.,p-67-68). therefore ,samantas replaced srenis and nihamas in the political administrationof the sixth century A.D. The Dudhapani rock inscription of the 8th century A.D. tells us that three merchants become master of three villages in the Hazaribagh district of Magadha. thus the feudalization of merchants turned them into some kind of landed intermediaries. the dominant power of these feudal lords in the rural economy of this period was a great retrogatory factor. so the growth of feudalism with its emphasis on rural and self- suficient economy can also be expected to have had an adverse impact upon the fortunes of the guilds.
Decline of guild organization:-
The decline of guilds was also result of their being consolidated into sub-castes. In early medieval India, the guild mostly appear to have fossilized into sub-castes (Basham,1967,p-217). with in these sub-castes however some sort of social control over members and the instinct of co-operation which was at the route of all their successes in the beginning ,was rapidly disappearing. This change, therefore, appear to be one of the important factor which contributed to the degeneration of guilds.Although, it was a major cause of the decline of the guilds, in early medieval India,yet it was not the only one cause. It merely accelerated the process of their degeneration in this period (Gopal,1995,p-84). The rapid invasion of Islam in India broke down the vast organization of trade & industry.
Conclusion:-
With the break-up of Mauryan empire and the consequent weakening of state control, the guilds gained their power,prestige, and freedom of activity and became a formidable economic force enjoying considerable judiciala and administrative power & reached their acme in the Gupta Period.
Therefore, the post- gupta period of India was remarked by political unrest and mass emigration for the sake of security, feudalization of merchants, imposition of additional taxes on traders and artisans,competition between temples and guilds for economic benefits, consolidation of guilds into sub-castes, above all scarcity of co-operation, confidence and authoritative control of guilds over their members,.all these were the major factors for the guilds to their strives vigorously under the difficulties. Actually , the root of degeneration of guilds was generated a long prior to early medieval India(Chattopadhya,1999,p-152 ). In spite of unfavourable conditions in early medieval India, the guilds struggled hard to maintain their structure and social status intact, but they ultimately failed and became almost irrelevant in socio-economic society.
Bibliography :-

1. Guilds in Ancient India up-to 300 A.D. by Kiran kumar Thaplyal
2. class notes
3. Exploring early India by Ranbir Chakrabarti
4. trade and trade routes by Moti Chandra
   5.guilds and monastry by H.P. Roy
5. guild , the institutional economic base of ancient India by Santosh Mahapatra.

BY: SANCHIT RAJ
COLLEGE : SRI VENKATESWARA COLLEGE.