Addendum: The Indian Republics and the Rise of the Soldier Class 500–250 BC (Part 4)

The political experimentation ended with the crushing of the republics and the rise of kingdoms with large armies funded with silver coins.

Dear Reader,

I am relieved that I am concluding the deep dive into Indian pre-history but also sad that I will say goodbye to it. It was very satisfying to read some of the original translated works. There has never been another religiously organised movement arising in the last couple of thousand years. This must be a critical moment in human history. I hope to get to that when Graeber concludes this chapter.

For now, we finally meet Graeber again and the army of Alexander the Great.

Onwards,

Melanie

Our Frontalobe Bookshop

The transformation of the warrior class into professional soldiers in 500-250 BC

This period of political and social experimentation meant that different types of leadership were in play. These are often called the republics and the kingdoms using clues from linguistic references during this period. These include their place names, geographical features, and meteorological, and plant/animal references.

Witzel has observed the creation of larger aggregated villages because they were mentioned in the Atharvaveda text, the last book in the Rigveda.

The multitude of RV (Rigveda) tribes has been replaced by a few major tribes, the central Kuru-Pañcåla, and a few smaller ones surrounding them13: the Kåśi (PS) viz. Aṇga (ŚS) in the East, the Magadha in the SE, Gandhåri and the Mahåvṛṣa in the NW, the Balhika14 in the extreme NW, beyond the Hindukush (probably known only because of trade relations).

He describes the Kuru-Pancala as interacting with Mongol tribes for ritual plant paraphernalia. Some of the smaller groups surrounding them were semi-nomadic groups like the Sakya. Notably, some of these groups engage in warfare with the bigger conglomerates.

But we do not need to think of it as a one-way direction of small groups evolving into bigger groups alone. They were expanding, contracting, and enlarging around in what seemed to be an emerging class of princely rulers.

Not all of them operated the same way.

Warrior Kshatriya-led groups

Some communities follow a kinship-based model of leadership. The entries found in the linguistic rule book of Panini, show possibly inter-related leaders (offspring) ruling other janapada villages or specific janapada identified by place or location.

Philologist Panini was commemorated in a 2004 stamp in India. Photo from Philaart

janapadaśabdal... (4.1.166) 124 'the laddhila affix aN occurs or denote an apalya 'offspring' after a syntactically related nominal stem which ends in the genitive and names ajanapada 'principality, cluster of villages' with the signification of a ksatriya

janapade lup (4.2.81) 101 'a laddhila affix which occurs after a syntactically related nominal stem with the signification of deśa 'place' is deleted by LUP, provided the derivate de- notes a particular janapada 'principality, cluster of villages' so named'

Kosambi, Volume 1 p. 230

Sabdal might be the name of the offspring who is by birthright the leader of that community. The latter references a place name for the village.

apalyam paulraprabhŗligolram (4.1.162) 104 4 an offspring, namely, a grandson and any there- after, is termed golra'

Kosambi, Volume 1 p.223

We know that apalya refers to grandson. So we can infer that the ancestors were leaders as well in another village or this village. We can say that leadership is inherited by a certain group of people.

Kingdoms or monarchial-led communities

It becomes difficult to tell the difference between kingdoms and republics since the Vedic texts also refer to kings. We know this because the term king is starting to be written in other parts of the Vedic texts.

The whole range of Northern India, North of the Yamunå, may be covered by the expressions meaning "king", at 1.3.2. Of these, viråj- is described by AB 8.14 as being used in the North (by the Uttarakuru and Uttaramadra); samråj- as the word used by the Easterners; svaråj- as that used by the Western people; it is surprising that the Kuru-Pañcåla word (råjan-) is missing here, and only viśvaråj- is found, which is not explained in AB (Atharvaveda).

Witzel in Localisation of Texts and Schools

The monarchy system or having a single leader does not differentiate Kshatriya from a king. Rather the differences can be traced to the following:

• who decides

• how is the army organised

This does not mean that it is clear-cut at this point.

Point of difference: decision-making

One of the characteristics of groups labelled as republics in scholarly literature has to do with the presence of councils. Muhlberger argues that terms such as sanghas and ganas indicate a council that existed alongside the warriors and the rulers.

Is this as democratic as we think it is?

Muhlberger says that it is similar to the Greek model where the pool of participation is restricted from the class of rulers or citizens (52). What we have seen in the Rigveda texts, such as Kshatriya roles were likely performative roles that are tested in situations of conflict.

These terms appear predominantly in Brahmanical and Buddhist literature. In the latter work, the Maha-Parinibbana-Suttanta, or the last set of teachings before Gautama reached nirvana, left instructions for running the councils, closer to a ‘monastic brotherhood.’ In this system, the members must agree or refer any disputes to a committee. Something that Muhlberger surmised as unstable and potentially disorderly, values that were antithetical to that time.

Why is all this important?

If I am advocating for not categorising communities, why do I attempt to do so here? I do so to show how I have failed to differentiate the two. That in itself is a good indication of what it was like before. It was a messy soup of different forms that existed side by side.

However, by trying to understand the point of differentiation we can

• identify how the transformation towards an autocratic system occurred

• we want to emphasise that this transformation did not occur in a single direction but required the existence of different forms of organisation for people to choose

We ask the questions from our previous post:

• How did the kingdoms begin to look like Greek and Roman societies toward the end?

• Why was the monarchial model the winner?

Here, Graeber, puts forward his thesis, the coinage-slavery-military complex declared the sole political winner for India.

How monarchial rule won: the coinage-slavery-military complex

Graeber distinguished the kingdom (monarchial) from republics (council-based) when it came to their coinage issuance among others. It signalled a shift in power within society. For him, the republics run by Kshatriyas are more traditional in the sense of dynastic leadership with links to tribal loyalty. He states that some scholars believe that the Kshatriyas worked on their lands with their serfs or slaves. This was antithetical to the kingdoms such as the Kosala and Magadha who operated professional armies whose loyalty is now to the king or the one who pays for their services.

The professional army led to the successful expansion of the Magadha Empire. Gif from Wikipedia

Rather than a closed class, it was open to young men from different backgrounds. They receive a salary and equipment from the central authorities. Graeber remarked that the government sourced its personnel from the landed classes for its bureaucrats and full-time soldiers. Their pay was specifically enumerated. This was possible because they controlled the mines. In the political treatise during the Mauryan dynasty (321-185 BC) that succeeded the Magadha, Kautilya, the chief minister wrote,

The treasuring is based upon mining, the army upon the treasury; he who has army and treasury may conquer the whole wide earth.

It was this professional army that intimidated Alexander the Great’s troops. Greek records reported that the Magadha forces rounded up

• 200,000 infantry men

• 20,000 horses

• 4,000 elephants

I am unsure whether this is accurate. Alexander never reached the easternmost part of India where the Magadha reigned.

Alexander’s famous battle occurred between the Hydaspes (Jhelum) and Asecines (Chenab) Rivers in which he defeated King Porus.

Commemorative silver coin of Alexander the Great’s defeat of King Porus minted in Babylon around 324-322 BC. Photo from Wikipedia

Michael Witzel traced King Porus as probably the leader of the Pūrus, a Rigvedic tribe. Impressed with the King’s valour, Alexander bequeathed to him lands east and southeast of the Rivers. Porus became Alexander’s governor (satrap) in the region. When he tried to continue his march to the Ganges region, Alexander’s army refused. Unsurprisingly, the soldiers were exhausted from the monsoon season and amid reports of the large armies, they retreated.

Entering India via the Hindu Kush mountains and conquering the settlements there. Unable to continue east, Alexander’s army returned via a southward route. King Porus was installed as his governor. Whether he exercised real power in the region is unknown but he might have regular contact with other conquered principalities. No Indian records exist of King Porus. Original photo attribution unknown.

Despite this retreat, we know that the armies in that region were large and well-funded just like the Magadhans.

A government-led market economy

The Indian case study also upturns what we understand of a cash-based economy. Rather than a free market, the Magadhan slowly seized the market economy to keep the circulation of the cash currency under its control. The authorities gradually took charge of granaries, workshops, warehouses, and jails, extracting double and triple prices from customers. The rationale was that the silver coins paid to soldiers and administrators were returned to the royal treasuries once again. It attempted to create a closed wealth loop. It was profitable for the government to ease out the merchants and keep the wealth within its boundaries. This system also covered war slaves. They were not sold in marketplaces but held under government-controlled land, rented out, or restricted to work camp villages.

This system was not sustainable in the long term. It took the reign of Ashoka in 265 BC, the fourth ruler of the Magadha, to transform India. He conquered most of the trading centres across India except for parts that are said to be occupied by free unconquered tribes.

This is a more realistic map of Ashoka’s Empire focusing on controlling key urban trading centres including Taxila in the northwest. Photo from Wikipedia

The bloody conquest in the southeastern republic of Kalinga killed over 100,000 soldiers and civilians. Consequently, Ashoka, though victorious in eliminating the last of the republics, renounced violence and adopted Buddhism and the principle of no harm ahimsa. He declared this in edict pillars across his kingdom.

One of the Ashoka edict pillars in Sarnath, Uttar Pradesh, India. Photo from Wikipedia

This moral turn did not necessarily eliminate the army, slavery or capital punishment. However, it did eliminate aggressive warfare and diverted resources to building monasteries and stupas across India.

Interestingly, Buddhism, according to Graeber may be austere but it did not renounce credit or reject commerce. Monasteries prohibited debtors from becoming monks but had no policy barring granting credit.

The end of the Ashoka dynasty reverted the empire into smaller weaker states without great armies. Coinage ceased as a consequence.

Round-Up

As we dived deep into Indian pre-history we wanted to find out if Graeber’s argument that coinage = to warfare and credit = peace.

Since our four addenda posts, we have learned the following:

1. religion is an area that Graeber has a blind spot; the soldier class had its roots in a set of magico-social beliefs outlined in the Vedas before the use of coinage

2. both arrangements co-exist but indeed, coinage does increase in societies with large armies

The India example demonstrates to us how value systems are critical in social distinction. On the one side, we have the principles of the Gautama (Buddhism) and Mahavira (Jainism) that seem to advocate for lesser hierarchy governance and ritual practice; at the other end of the spectrum, is the growing hierarchy, rigid ritual practices and power in the entrenchment of Vedic culture. Both existed simultaneously in different intensities.

The need for order i.e. the establishment of social and political hierarchy, was a priority after the dissolution of the Harappa civilisation. This was expressed through an extensive ritual practice outlined in the Vedas. Strict ritual prescriptions and control were ways to determine safety and diminish threats by constant warfare and incursions of small groups.

We did not discuss the existing credit systems that existed alongside the coinage market economy. Graeber cites the Vedas about debt. Much of it is linked to land and debt slavery and has a longer history than the professionalization of the armies. This blind spot means that I can only see one side and not the other. It is hard to support Graeber’s argument the deeper you go.

Re-read the previous post

---

Sources:

• One hypothesis is that this period is a democracy experiment put forward by Stephen Muhlberger, Republics and Quasi-Democratic Institutions in Ancient India.

  Muhlberger, S. (2011). Republics and Quasi-Democratic Institutions in Ancient India. In: Isakhan, B., Stockwell, S. (eds) The Secret History of Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299467_4

• For tracking text to actual sites in India, see M. Witzel, On the Localisation of Vedic Texts and Schools. In: G. Pollet (ed.), India and the Ancient World. History, Trade and Culture before A.D. 650. P.H.L. Eggermont Jubilee Volume, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 25, Leuven 1987, pp. 173-213

• For reconstruction of social life in prehistory, check out the Indian scholar, Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi, An Introduction to Indian History He is also the primary reference of Graeber for this section.