Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, {Bi-Monthly}, ISSN 2249-9598, Volume-V, Issue-VI, Nov-Dec 2015 Issue

Monarchy and Administrative system in Ancient India in the Ramayana

Saukat Ali
Assistant Professor Department of Political Science SSM College, Bhatkuchi, Barpeta,
Assam, India
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
The history has recorded various types of government, and the governments have been
classified according to various principles. One of the oldest, the most ancient, the most
widely defused, the best and most natural of all forms of government calculated to ensure
identity of interest between the ruler and the ruled.
The ancient Indian administrative system basically based on Monarchy. Although
Monarchy was prevalent it was limited monarchy. People believed in a firm government
by a constitutional monarch. It was limited in the sense that king and his followers always
to obey the principle of Dharma; on the other way Purohit, the ministers and the other
officials played a vital role in the administration; it was limited as the people had a vital
say in matters of administration.
KEYWORDS: Monarchy, Administration, Ramayana.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION:
In ancient India a kingdom means a territory ruled by a king or queen and it basically
based on Monarchy. In the 6th century B.C. along with the Gana Ganghas some
kingdoms also emerged particularly in the Ganges plains. The land of these kingdoms
was more fertile and people settled there at a later period than the Gana Sanghas.
In a Monarchical system, the king enjoyed the sovereign power. All functions of the
government centered round him. The king could compel obedience to laws and use force
if necessary. There were customary laws of jatis and the region. Obedience to these two
types of laws continued throughout ages. In a monarchical kingdom a family which rules
over a long period becomes a dynasty.
A king was assisted by advisory councils such as Sabha and Parisad. Earlier, people were
more loyal to the clans. It weakened in a kingdom in monarchy. Loyalty was shifted to
the caste of an individual and to the king. Kingdoms were expanded over a large area and
it weakened the popular assemblies. Three important kingdoms of this period were Kasi,
Kosala, and Magadha. They often fought for the control of the Ganges plains for
strengthening defense and economy.
DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER AND ADMINISTRATION IN MONARCY
OF ANCIENT INDIA:
Before dealing with various aspects of decentralization of power and public
administration in ancient India, keeping in view these deficiencies let us explain the
machinery of public administration that existed in our country in ancient days. In this
context, we should make a line of distinction between public administration as an
academic discipline and public administration as an activity. As an academic discipline,
public administration can be traced to the earliest period human civilization when men
started to live in organized societies. The administration of the state in the ancient and
medieval period in both the East and West was authoritarian, patriarchal and elitist in
character. Maintenance of law and order, collection of revenue etc, were its compulsory

www.oiirj.org ISSN 2249-9598 Page 225

 Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, {Bi-Monthly}, ISSN 2249-9598, Volume-V, Issue-VI, Nov-Dec 2015 Issue

functions while welfare activities were purely optional functions. Administrators were
small in number, selected entirely at the will of monarch. The official statuses of the
administrators were no better than the personal servants of the king. The same thing is
true of the administration in ancient India also.
The ancient Indian monarchical government system was established in the Vedic
period. The system was in operation till 1000 AD. With the rise and fall of innumerable
administrative organizations, the history of Indian administration is gradually developing.
Two main features of Indian administration can be noticed in all ages. The first is the
importance of village as the primary unit of administration, and the second is the
coordination between the two opposite trends of centralization and decentralization. The
present Indian administrative system is an advanced version of the ancient Indian
administrative system. In fact, the modern public administration in India is composed on
the basis of the traditional public administration of our nation.
In monarchical system of ancient India, the power and responsibility to rule the provinces
was concentrated in the hands of the ruler. Numerous offices helped him to do this work.
According to historian Beni Prasad, centering the King, there were his close friends as
well as a circle of principle officers. In the two Hindu epic of Ramayana and
Mahabharata, one can find a mention of administrative officers and their respective
Departments. It can also be noticed in Manu Smriti and Sukra Niti. But the first detailed
mention of the offices of the state can be noticed in Kautilya’s Arthasastra. In the mean
time, the administrative system in India was fully developed. In fact, during the reigns of
Chandragupta Maurya and his grandson Asoka, the growth of Indian administration had
reached its height. Maurya administrative institutions grew further during the period of
the Guptas.
Decentralization had already started in ancient India. For administrative convenience,
empires were divided into provinces, provinces were divided into districts, and districts
were again divided into certain urban and rural centres. State administration was divided
into numerous departments. Gradually, the number of such departments increased and
their jurisdiction extended significantly.
Regarding administrative principles in ancient India, it may be said that that hierarchy as
a principle was given a positive shape. The seeds of coordination between various
departments could be noticed. During the periods Chandragupta Maurya and Asoka,
observation and inspection were given special importance and prominence. The
following Departments existed during that age as follows:

Palace departments

Army departments

External affairs departments

Revenue departments

Treasury departments

There are many classes among the government officers in ancient India. Three classes of
such officers were mentioned in Mauryan administration such as city officers, military
officers and village officers. Over and above these officers, there were ministers and
advisors. The provincial district and village officers worked in subordination to the
central officers. Altekar has opined that it is doubtful if there existed, like the present, all

www.oiirj.org ISSN 2249-9598 Page 226

 Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, {Bi-Monthly}, ISSN 2249-9598, Volume-V, Issue-VI, Nov-Dec 2015 Issue

India services, provincial services and subordinate services. However, ‘Mahamatya’ of

the Mauryan period and ‘Kumaramatya' of the Mauryan period might have belonged to
the all India services. Historian Radhakumud Mukherjee thinks that the king used to
appoint officers with the help of his ministers. The king, the prime minister and the priest
(purohit) formed, what is known today as the public service commission.

Manu says the king should appoint those men in the whole kingdom, who are wise,
clever and unslingish. Those who are brave, clever, from good families and pious should
be appointed to work in mines and collection of grain, and those having fear of Dharma
should be employed in the harem. Kautilya advises that those who are qualified for the
post Amatya should be appointed in various departments, according to their ability. The
Mahabharata, which is older than above two, says that those who are highly devoted to
Dharma should be appointed in the departments of justice and religion. The king,
according to it, should employ the brave ones in military work, the skilled ones in
revenue work and the very trustworthy ones in mines. In the Ramayana there is no
reference to a provincial government as the states were small and had a limited role to
play. Moreover, it did not require many officers and departments as the Mauryan state
needed.
In ancient India, there existed the organization of a central office where all the
government records and documents were kept. One finds the mention of such an office
during the Mauryan snd Chola periods. The king used to appoint personal secretary too.
In short the main function of the central office was to control and inspect provincial and
regional governments.
From the historical point of view, Indian administration period may be studied under the
following heads:
 Ancient Indian Administration
 Rajput Administration
 Sultanate Administration
 Mughal Administration
 British Administration
 Administration after Independence

ANCIENT INDIAN ADMINISTRATION AND THE ROLE OF KING IN

MONARCHY:
In ancient India, different types of administrative system were in operation in different
periods. The administrative system started during the period of the Indus Valley
Civilization. In this period, one can find planned roads and drainage which proves that a
king of municipal government was operating in cities. It looked after the civic demands
and made systematic arrangements for the city dwellers. Again a single type of houses, a
common script indicates that there was a large empire in the entire area. For convenience,
we may divide the period of ancient Indian administration into the following categories
as follows:

• Rigvedic period
• Post Vedic period
• Epic period

www.oiirj.org ISSN 2249-9598 Page 227

 Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, {Bi-Monthly}, ISSN 2249-9598, Volume-V, Issue-VI, Nov-Dec 2015 Issue

• Buddha period
• Mauryan period
• Gupta period
RIGVEDIC PERIOD:
After the demise of Indus Valley Civilization, the Rigvedic Administrative system
started. In this period, administrative unit were known as Kul, Gram, Vish and
Nation. In the political system of the Rigvedic period, the smallest unit was the
family, while the largest unit was the state. The prevalent form of government in this
period was monarchical and the office of the king was hereditary. But kings were not
despotic in nature. In fact, at the time coronation, they had to take on oath to work in
the interest of the people.
POST-VEDIC PERIOD:
The Post-Vedic period was characterized by the rise of powerful kingdom. There was
a natural increase in the number of officers assisting the king in the administration. In
running the government, the king used to take advice from his council of Ministers.
The council of ministers was headed by the Mukhyamatya. Just as in the previous
period, in the Post-Vedic period also Sabha and Samiti existed as the two prominent
institutions to curb the despotism of the king. The judicial administration was also
headed by the other officers.
EPIC PERIOD:
In the period of Ramayana, the form of government was monarchical. The
administrative system of this was well developed. As a result, most of the people
were prosperous and happy. The king was as the apex of the administrative system.
There were a number of Ministers and councilors to advice the king in matters of the
state and government. During the period of Mahabharata, the state was called
‘Saptangi’. The principal form of government in that period was monarchical. The
king set an example of high ideals and performance of one’s duties. He was
responsible for the welfare of his subjects. To help the in matters of administration,
there were Ministers and officers. Special emphasis was given on merit regarding
administrative recruitment.
BUDDHA PERIOD:
The administrative system of the period of Buddha was marked by the existence of
‘Mahajanapadas’. Numerous Republic could be noticed during this period. Along
with these republics however, there existed four big kingdoms of ‘Magada’ ‘Avanti’
‘Vatsa’ and ‘Kosala’. In type republics, the real power belonged to the ‘Sabhas’
(Councils) which included the common people as well as the elite. The king was the
head of the republican. He was elected for fixed tem and was accountable to the
council for all his activities.
MAURYAN PERIOD:
The Mauryan administrative system was characterized by the following features:
1. The King: The King was the head of the state and all powers – executive,
legislative, judicial and financial were vested him. He sacrificed his own interest
for the sake of interest of his people. Along with the council of Ministers, there
was a large number of public officials and servants in order to help the king.

www.oiirj.org ISSN 2249-9598 Page 228

 Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, {Bi-Monthly}, ISSN 2249-9598, Volume-V, Issue-VI, Nov-Dec 2015 Issue

2. Amatya: Regarding the hierarchical chain, the position of the Amatya was just
below that of the king period. The Amatya occupied a special position in the
Mauryan era. He was one of the topmost public officials.
3. Janpad: Janpad the third elements of the Mauryan State, includes both territory
and the people inhabiting it. Each territory should have well defined boundaries.
4. Forts: For defense purposes including external aggressions and internal rebellions
forts were essential. They were well equipped with arms and weapons, food water
and medicine. In maintaining stability forts consolidations of States, forts used to
play a vital role.
5. Treasury: It was the principal basis of the Mauryan State. The finance of the
empire were looked after and protected skillfully. Income of the State was derived
from taxes like sale tax, export tax and village tax. For various expenses, budget
was strictly maintained.
6. Army: Armies used to play a key role in Mauryan State. A god soldiers was
bound to be loyal, brave, adventurous and well verses in military sciences. He
used to possess the qualities of a Kshatriya warrior.
7. Friends: the term ‘friends’ implies good neighbour State.
8. Council of Ministers: The Mauryan King or emperor was aided by a council of
Ministers, headed by the prime ministers. The prime minister, known as the
Mahamantrin or Mahamatya, was the most powerful and influential person next to
the King. In making higher appointments the king usually consulted the Council
of Ministers or Mahamantriparisod.
9. Diplomacy: Diplomacy was considered to be the high quality art. Each king had a
Foreign Minister who used to possess special power of policy-making regarding
war and peace. Both Sukraniti and Arthasastra have mentioned various methods
of conquest. Kautilya had suggested various methods of diplomacy like
espionage, deceit, murder, poisoning and intoxicating.
10. Local self government: In the Hindu state of ancient India administrative power
was dcentralised. Puras and Janapada had their own administrative system. The
village dwellers and city dwellers were their discharged their own duties. Local
affairs were looked after by various kinds of Sabhas and Samities. The rural areas
had their own system of local administrative. Pataliputra was the capital of
Mauryan empire and it had a full-fledged municipal administration.

GUPTA PERIOD:
The administrative system in the Gupta era was basically monarchical. In running the
governmental machinery, the Gupta kings were assisted by the Council of Ministers.
The entire administrative was divided into certain departments. Different officers
were in charge of the respective departments. The whole Gupta Empire used to be
divided into certain provinces, which again were divided into regions. Regions were
further divided into Vishyas. The gram happened to be the smallest administrative
unit which was headed by the gramin. A gram sabha used to assist the gramin in
running the village administrative.
CONCLUSION:
Thus, the form of government in ancient period was monarchical, and it was the best
form of government during that period. According to Aristotle, theoretically

www.oiirj.org ISSN 2249-9598 Page 229

 Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, {Bi-Monthly}, ISSN 2249-9598, Volume-V, Issue-VI, Nov-Dec 2015 Issue

monarchy ought to be the best form of government if it be assumed that a wise and
virtuous king could be found.. Although monarchical administrative system was
prevalent, partially conventional pattern also followed in the Ramayana age as the
Ramayana knows only of the monarchical form of government- in which the head of
the state derives his office through hereditary succession. The Ramayana however,
does not recognize the absolute or despotic monarchy, rather it advocate a limited
monarchy. During the Ramayana period monarchy was basically the rule by one man
though the king was not a despot as he was advised to rule with the aid and advices of
his amatyas, and serve people to the best of his capacity as this was his Dharma.

REFERENCES:

Apastambha Dharmasutra: Ed. M.C. Pandey, Varanasi, 1969.

Choudhury, R.K: Kautilya’s Political Ideas and Institutions, Varanashi, 1971.

Dey, S.C: Historicity of the Ramayana and the Indo-Aryan Society in India and
Ceylon, Delhi, 1976.

Dikshitar, M.V.R.R: Mauryan Polity, Madrass, 1932.

Ghosal, U.N: Hindu political Theories, Calcutta, 1923.

Kane, P.V: History of the Indian Dharmasastras, Poona, 1946.

Manusmriti: Ed. J. Jha. Calcutta 1935.

Mahabharata: Poona Critical Edition, 1916-66, Gita Press edition, Poona.

Sankalita, H.D: Ramayana: Myth or Reality, Delhi, 1973.

Sastri, S.A: The Ramayana of Valmiki, London, 1963.

Upanisads: Gita Press Edition, Poona.

Valmiki Ramayana: Gita Press, Poona.

www.oiirj.org ISSN 2249-9598 Page 230