Four Sources, One Question: How Centralised Was the Mauryan State?
A candidate's project file contains four sources on the Mauryan state and one question: was it a centralised bureaucracy or a core with limited reach? The sources are: (i) Kautilya's Arthashastra, Book II, with its superintendent (adhyaksha) offices for mines, weaving and liquor, and its provisions on slaves and hired labour; (ii) Megasthenes' Indica, known only in fragments quoted by Strabo, Arrian and Diodorus, describing a six-committee city administration and claiming that slavery did not exist in India; (iii) Ashoka's Major Rock Edicts, which speak of dhamma and of humane treatment of servants, but never mention a revenue ministry or provincial administration; (iv) the Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman, of about 150 CE, which says the Sudarshana lake was made by Pushyagupta, Chandragupta's governor, and that conduits were added by the Yavana Tushaspha under Ashoka. The candidate has 900 words and must not simply list the sources.
1. Rank the four sources by evidentiary value for a claim about administrative centralisation, and justify each placement.
Read the worked answer
Rank on three axes: proximity to the event, freedom from later editing, and fit between the source's purpose and the claim being tested.
1. Junagadh inscription. Contemporary-in-substance, but it is a later (c. 150 CE) record citing earlier governors. It is the only source that names actual officials in actual provinces, so it is the strongest evidence that provincial government existed - but it tells us nothing about how far it reached downward.
2. Ashoka's edicts. Genuine contemporary royal documents, so their silence about a revenue ministry is meaningful. However, they are prescriptive and self-praising, and what survives is what was cut in rock, not the whole archive.
3. Arthashastra. Useful for the vocabulary and the ideal of supervision, weak as description: the text is layered over centuries and describes what a king should do.
4. Megasthenes. Eyewitness at Chandragupta's court, but transmitted through Greek writers with their own ethnographic agenda - hence the demonstrably false claim of no slavery, contradicted by the Arthashastra's provisions on dasa-bhritaka.
2. Write the thesis sentence you would use, plus two pieces of evidence you would deliberately withhold, with reasons.
Read the worked answer
Thesis: 'The Mauryan state commanded impressive supervisory ambition at the centre and demonstrably placed governors in the provinces, but the surviving evidence cannot show that its revenue apparatus penetrated the village, so it is better described as a hegemony with a bureaucratic core than as a centralised bureaucracy.'
This is defensible because it separates what is proved (governors, ideological reach) from what is inferred (village-level extraction).
Withhold:
- Megasthenes' no-slavery claim. It is a Greek topos about 'simple' eastern societies, refuted by Indian sources; quoting it invites an error the examiner is hunting for.
- Arthashastra's superintendent list as a description of Ashokan administration. The text cannot be dated tightly to the Mauryan period, and using it as a photograph of the state is the classic circular move.
Better: concede the Arthashastra's value as evidence for administrative vocabulary and aspiration, then say so explicitly, so the marker sees you know the difference between a prescriptive and a descriptive source.