Kingship and artha
One major development of this period was the sacralization of kingship
and the legitimation of statecraft (artha). Perhaps as early as Candragupta
Maurya’s time there appeared a text known as the Artha ̄s ́a ̄stra, which
articulates principles by which the king was to govern. Kaut.ilya, traditionally
thought to be a brahman minister in Candragupta’s court, is said to be
author of this treatise, but in fact, the text is no doubt a compilation
occurring over several centuries. The text included the doctrine of ma ̄tsya
nya ̄ya(literally, “the law of the fishes”). The idea presented here was that
bigger fish eat smaller fish – that is, that as city-states were threatened, a king
was forced to have strategies that would preserve the stability of his own
domain. These strategies could include dan.d.a (“club”) – the Indian
equivalent of just war; force could be used when necessary, though, pre-
sumably, as a last resort. Short of force, one could use sa ̄ man– “conciliation”
or “appeasement”; da ̄na– “gift” or the fine art of bribing or rewarding a
neighboring king with booty; and bheda(“divide”) – the art of becoming
an ally with your enemy’s enemy. Of course, one cannot assume that these
strategies were followed by all kings.
In addition to the strategies of statecraft articulated in such texts, kings
throughout this period became increasingly extolled and sacralized, thanks
in part to the vocabulary provided from Iran and China and the rhetorical
role of their brahman ministers; the king became known as maha ̄ra ̄ja(great
king);ra ̄ jara ̄ja(king of kings); and not least important, devaputra(son of
the gods). The effect of this rhetorical support was to make the king (at least
invaidikasettings) the preserver of dharma, he who preserved order and
rendered the city-state the very microcosm of the universe itself. The king’s
palace was similarly a microcosm. He was perceived as the personification
of wisdom, the epitome of culture, and patron of the arts. Despite this
rhetorical enhancement of the role of the king, his power could nonetheless
be restrained by brahmans and other ministers in his court and even by
pressure of the populace.^4
Theism: Buddhist and vaidika
Concurrent with this rhetorical increase in the role of the king was the
emergence of a new form of theism. Before discussing the form this takes in
brahmanical discourse, it would be fruitful to trace the development of
Buddhist ideology in this regard. By As ́oka’s time we find the construction
ofstu ̄ pas– simple gravesites where ashes or relics of the Buddha or Buddhist
monks are said to have been placed. These stu ̄ pasbecame more complex by
56 The Urban Period