Merchants and state society: Some case studies from early historic period and the ‘threshold times’ ( c . 600 bc to ad 700)

I

The possibilities of changes in the material and political cultures in India in the Threshold Times (up to c. 1300 ad) ¹ have been discussed by a number of scholars during the last half a century. ² One of the major prisms to look for the capacities and agents of changes in early Indian (non-dynastic) history is the formation of the state. The state in early India is not considered nowadays as a static and given institution, as was perceived in the earlier historiography, both of the indigenous (especially the nationalist) and non-indigenous traditions. The emergence and the requirement for a complex institution like the state, particularly the monarchical polity (the most frequently seen form of state in early India), cannot be grasped merely by looking at the king and his functionaries and by perceiving it, invariably as a highly centralised organisation. ³ As historians have traced the emergence of the state in India from a pre-state condition, we encounter in the formation of the state distinct process(es) in the making of the state. The divergent—and occasionally contestant—explanations by historians on the making of the state notwithstanding, a common point among them is the recognition that the formation of the state goes hand in hand with growing complexities, corresponding to the gradual transformation of a relatively simpler society to a sharply differentiated and hierarchised one. As and when the pre-state societies in different parts of the subcontinent and at various points of time were gradually transformed into monarchical states, the key elements of state, namely well-established monarchy with dynastic succession, a well-defined territory held together by the ruler (rājā) and his subject population (prajā), diversified functionaries, a regular fighting force and a strong resource base formed the main building block of in the process of state formation. The crucial element of populated territory (janapada/rāshṭra) surely implies the existence of sedentary society, which provided the suitable terrain for the monarchical state. There is no need to dilate here on the indispensability of the process of resource mobilisation in the making of the state which could maintain its growing class of functionaries and expanding army by securing a sound resource base (kośa). In other words, the demands and mobilisation of resources could be realised through an effective taxation system. The extraction of resources from both agrarian and non-agrarian sectors could be increasingly ensured by the exercise of the coercive authority (daṇḍa) of the ruler. ⁴

The socio-economic and political complexities attending the process of state formation are effectively captured by the phrase—‘state society’, as suggested by B.D. Chattopadhyaya. ⁵ The formation of the primary and secondary states in the subcontinent during nearly a millennium (c. 600 bc to 300 ad) also witnessed the growth of surplus-yielding agriculture, diversified artisanal production, varied commercial networks, rise of a money economy and the so-called ‘second urbanisation’. The point to note is that while agriculture certainly offered the most secure sources for a sound treasury, the non-agrarian sectors of the political economy too did not play a marginal role. As the primary and the secondary states emerged in the subcontinent—first in the north and then in other parts of the subcontinent—during the early historic times (c. 600 bc–300 ad), it also coincided with the formation of urban centres as sites of non-agrarian pursuits. A large number of the urban centres of the early historic times functioned simultaneously as apex political centres and thriving commercial spaces. ⁶ The view that formation of regional and local-level polities during early medieval times (c. 500 ad–1300 ad), seen as an outcome of ‘integrative polity’, coincided with the ‘third urbanisation’ figures prominently in recent historiography. ⁷ The making of the state society has been often explained, by highlighting the primacy of the spread of complex agrarian society into areas of erstwhile simpler pre-state societies. Without at all belittling the importance of agriculture in giving distinct shapes to state societies, one may also underline the importance of the non-agrarian sector, especially trade, which has possibly been somewhat marginalised as a factor in the formation of the state society. It is argued below that this assumption needs to be modified.

II

In the varṇa system, which often framed the ideology of the monarchical state, the pursuit of a trader is assigned to the vaiśya varṇa that stood below the two upper varṇas, the brāhmaṇa and the kshatriya. From the days of the later Vedic literature onwards, when the rigours of the varṇa ideology first surfaced, the vaiśya—with his function of agriculture and trade—became a subject of scorn. In contrast to the kshatriya (one possessing kshatra or ruling power), the vaiśya was categorised as one who is to be exploited by others (anyasya ādyo), one who could be evicted at will (yathākāma-utthāpya) and one who could be oppressed at will (yathākāma preshya). ⁸ The Manusaṁhitā (c. 200 bc–200 ad) considered the merchant’s profession as a combination of righteous (sat) and unrighteous (asat); the merchant could resort to both truth (satya) and falsity (anṛita). ⁹ No wonder that the merchant would be even branded as a open thief (prakāśya taskara).

Interestingly enough, the Pali canonical texts, assignable to the pre-Mauryan times, rarely used the term vessa or vaiśya. Wagle’s and Uma Chakravarti’s insightful analyses of the Pali canonical literature reveal that these texts viewed the society, outside the samgha, as being divided into the binaries of high (ukkaṭṭha) and low (hīna) social groups (kulas), instead of the four-fold varṇa divisions of Brahmanical texts. To the high group belonged the khattiya, the brāhmana and the gahapati—the ‘householder’. Members of this high group pursued agriculture, cattle-keeping and trade (kasi, go-rakkhā, vaṇijjā). The emergence of the gahapati to great prominence, replacing the vaiśya of the Vedic texts and Brahmanical Dharmaśūtras, is largely due to his immense wealth. The gahapati’s fabulous riches stemmed largely from his vast landed possessions which were put to regular cultivation. The gahapati, as the case of Meṇḍka gahapati amply bears out, was in a position to invest a part of his wealth in financing various enterprises, including the supply of money to a king. His role as a financier may explain the emergence of the seṭṭhi-gahapati, from whom would eventually appear the seṭṭhi/śresthī or the wealthiest of merchants. ¹⁰ A contextual examination of the use of the term gahapati may on some occasion suggest that he actually could have dealt in specific commodities. A case in point is the mention of a salt-dealer (loṇa-gahapati) in a donative inscription from the northwest borderland area (first century ad). ¹¹ The gahapati, significantly enough, was considered in Buddhist texts as one of the seven jewels of the ruler.

The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, not necessarily belonging to the Dharmaśāstra tradition, is well known for its marked distrust of merchants. Categories like the gahapati and the seṭṭhi/śreshṭhī are conspicuous by their absence in the Arthaśāstra. The text labels merchants as vaidehakas which word usually denotes a petty merchant, a pedlar and the like. The section on criminal law and justice (kaṇṭakaśodhana) has a chapter on Vaidehakarakshaṇam. ¹² The merchant is thus seen in the Arthaśāstra as a thorn in the path of the interest of the state and therefore fit for purification (śodhana). A close perusal of this section shows that the term śodhana actually implied suppression. Therefore, the Arthaśāstra enjoins the state to maintain strict vigilance over merchants and so recommends stringent supervision of trading activities by the Director of Trade (Paṇyādhyaksha). ¹³ The Kautiliyan recommendation for employing merchants for the promotion of trade under the supervision of the Paṇyādhyaksha indicates that merchants could be employed to obtain commercial profits for the state. The Arthaśāstra is, indeed, aware of the importance of trade for the state and its revenue-yielding potential: The officer in charge of the collection of revenue (Samāharttā) should exact taxes from seven heads of revenue. The maximum variety of taxes (as many as 22) would come from the fortified urban area (durga) which was often the preferred site for transactions (kraya-vikraya). ¹⁴ The Arthaśāstra thus recognises the importance of the non-agrarian sector, including trading activities, for resource mobilisation, though the most important resource base of the sedentary polity must have come from agrarian pursuits.

The requirements of administrative control over merchants in the Arthaśāstra state are further writ large in the operations of two other functionaries, the Śulkādhyaksha (Director of Tolls and Customs) and Saṁsthādhyaksha (the Supervisor over the marketplace). ¹⁵ The Arthaśāstra state further demonstrates its insistence on draconian measures against merchants in the prescribed policy of raising funds under an emergency or calamitous circumstances (praṇaya-kriyā). Not only are merchants to be subjected to very heavy taxes under this provision, but various nefarious activities by spies are to be unleashed against merchants for raising extra resources. One needs to consider the fact that the Samāharttā of the Arthaśāstra was at the helm both of revenue collection and the espionage network. ¹⁶ No less interesting is it to find that the distrust of the merchant in the Arthaśāstra is directed particularly towards the indigenous trader. Kauṭilya would allow 10 per cent profit for non-indigenous traders, but only 5 per cent for the indigenous ones. For the visiting or non-indigenous (āgantunām) merchants the Arthaśāstra even recommends that the Paṇyādhyaksha should not sue them (anabhiyoga) on money matters (artheshu) in a court of law. ¹⁷ There is little room for doubt that the Arthaśāstra views merchants as potential payers of commercial dues and tolls and customs (śulka) which would supplement the resource base of the state in addition to the agrarian taxes.

The above statements of the Arthaśāstra, however, do not necessarily suggest that the draconian measures over merchants were actually applied in the Mauryan state. After all, the Arthaśāstra is a normative treatise on political economy and statecraft. The interest of the Mauryan state in keeping watch over merchants may be hinted at in the accounts of Megasthenes (through the later texts based on Megasthenes’ Indica). The city commissioners (Astynomoi) at Palibothra or Pataliputra, appear to have imposed some regulations on the transactions of commodities by their dealers. One of the six ‘boards’ that looked after the administration of the Maurya capital was entrusted with the collection of one-tenth of the sale proceeds from merchants. It is, however, unlikely if such control over merchants’ activities could have been exercised by the Mauryas beyond the metropolitan area of their empire. ¹⁸

III

The five centuries from c. 200 bc to 300 ad are marked by a notable expansion of trade in the subcontinent and beyond as well, by both overland and sea-borne commercial networks. That might be linkages between long-distance trade, and secondary state formation has now received some recognition. ¹⁹ The contributions of śramanic groups to the furtherance of commerce have also been noted. ²⁰ A case in point of the political interests in trade is the situation at the port of Barygaza in the late first century ad. The Periplus Maris Erythraei, while giving an account of Barygaza, the premier port on the Gujarat coast, reports that the local ruler, Nambanus/Mambanus (identified with the Śaka Kshatrapa ruler Nahapāna) arranged for some kind of piloting facilities for foreign ships to reach Barygaza, as the access and egress there were quite tricky. ²¹ The same text elsewhere speaks of a naval blockade imposed by Nambanus on the port of Kaliiena (Kalyan, to the north of Mumbai), so that the voyaging ships could be forced to divert their destination to Barygaza. ²² Barygaza’s pre-eminence as a port finds a further corroboration from its mentions in the Indic inscriptions from Socotra (c. first–fifth centuries) in the Gulf of Aden. What is striking from these inscriptions is the mention of a Devaputra and a Kshatrapa among the voyagers to this island from western India. ²³ Both are well-known political epithets connected with the Kushāṇa and Śaka rulers, respectively. It is pertinent to raise the question here whether some scions of these two ruling houses participated in the crossing of the Arabian Sea to reach Socotra.

Contemporary to the Śaka rulers (both of the Kshaharāta and the Kārddamaka houses) in the Deccan were the formidable Sātavāhanas. The Sātavāhana dynasty (c. 50 bc to 225 ad) offers the first known advent and consolidation of monarchical state in peninsular India. ²⁴ It has been cogently argued that the Deccan under the Sātavāhanas experienced a kind of secondary state formation, which coincided with long-distance trade. The Sātavāhana interests in maritime trade are quite evident from their ship-type coins (particularly meant for circulation in eastern Deccan) which first appeared during the reign of Vāsishṭīputra Pulumāvi (c. 130–159). Interestingly enough, the well-known Buddhist cave site of Kanheri (a northern suburb of the present Mumbai) has yielded an inscription recording a donation to a Buddhist monk. This undated inscription is palaeographically assigned to the mid-second century ad by B.N. Mukherjee. ²⁵ The Prakrit inscription speaks of the donation of a cave (lena) in favour of the elder (thera) bhayanta (bhadanta) Mitabhuti (= Sanskrit Mitrabhūti) by the Sāgarapalogaṇa. ²⁶ The term Sāgarapalogaṇa can be taken to mean Sāgarapālagaṇa or a professional body or collective (gaṇa) of people looking after the sea or protecting the sea. It is however not possible to specify what could have been their exact role in the sea traffic of the time, although clearly, their being donors implies that the sea was their source of income. While it is not possible to determine what particular function these organised mariners performed, they doubtless received their income from maritime trade. Indeed, Konkan was dotted with a number of ports which figures prominently in the Periplus and Ptolemy’s Geography in the context of the subcontinent’s maritime linkages with the Eastern Mediterranean during the early centuries of the Christian era. ²⁷

Political involvement of another kind may be seen in near contemporary southernmost Sri Lanka. A second-century inscription informs us of the grant of the right to collect tolls and customs (suka/śulka) from the port (paṭana/paṭṭana) of Godapavata (identified with Godavaya) to a Buddhist monastery by the order of king Abhayagāminī. In the recent underwater excavation of a wrecked ship at Godavaya, it has been unearthed, assigned to first–second century ad on the basis of the cargo. ²⁸

Buddhist texts are, indeed, replete with positive portrayals of diverse types of merchants. Besides the ubiquitous vaṇik (a trader in general/pedlar), we encounter various kinds of caravan merchants (sātthavahas/sārthavahas) in the Buddhist texts. The close ties between the merchants and monasteries were strengthened by the artisanal organizations (śreṇī/gaṇa/pūga/nikāya); moreover, monks too are found to have participated in transactional activities. The pride of place among merchants went to the śreshṭhīs/seṭṭhis, celebrated in the Jātakas for their customary wealth of 800 million (asitikoṭivibhava seṭṭhī). The seṭṭhī appears to have been a rich merchant, mostly functioning in many exchanges. However, one also comes across a seṭṭhī, dealing in cattle wealth (go-vittaka seṭṭhī). The hereditary profession of the seṭṭhī and the formation of a prestigious seṭṭhī lineage will be evident respectively from words such as seṭṭhīputta (synonymous with the seṭṭhī, but literally denoting the son of a seṭṭhī) and seṭṭhīkula (family or group of the seṭṭhī) occurring in the Jātakas. Thanks to the studies by Fick, Fiser and Bose; it is now well established that the seṭṭhī, besides being a rich merchant, functioned also as the representative of the merchants. In his second capacity, the seṭṭhī, without being a salaried functionary of the state, attended the royal court thrice a day (divasassa tayovāre rājupatthanam gachchhati). ²⁹ The seṭṭhī’s access to the corridors of power, as the representative of the trading communities, looms large in these accounts. In the epigraphic corpus source, the seṭṭhī prominently figures as a donor–patron to the Saṁgha. ³⁰

IV

The two most important political powers of this period were the Guptas in North India and the Vākāṭakas in the Deccan. One of the salient features of the political economy of the period is the beginning of the agrahāra system by which the ruler issued revenue-free perpetual grants of landed property in favour of Brāhmaṇas and religious establishments. This temporal phase also coincided with the apparent fading out of the vibrant long-distance commerce between the subcontinent and the Eastern Mediterranean regions. A large number of historians have therefore assumed a growing marginality of trading activities and traders during these times. ³¹ The matter, however, requires a close scrutiny, largely in the light of epigraphic materials.

In Bengal, an area which was under the Gupta domination during the c. 400–550, there are a number of copper plate charters of land transfer, dated in the Gupta era (GE), found mostly in the northern part of Bengal (Pundravardhana) and also in the trans-Meghna zone. These records regularly refer to merchants, including the śreshṭhī, the wealthy merchant. The earliest mention of the śreshṭhī is found in a copper plate of 91/184 GE from Samataṭa, in the trans-Meghna tract in Bangladesh. It refers to a plot owned and sold by a śreshṭhī, ³² though the merchant is not explicitly named. The five Damodarpur CPs ranging in date from GE 124 to 224 reveal the names of the chief merchant of the city (nagara-śreshṭhī), possibly alluding to the foremost merchant of the city of Koṭivarsha (modern Bangarh, West Dinajpur, West Bengal). ³³ The custom of designating the premier merchant thus continues for a century, demonstrating the importance of the wealthy merchant in the Puṇḍra subregion. The chief merchant of the city is distinguished in the same set of copper plates from the chief of the caravan traders (sārthavāha) who too are found to be in existence for a century in Puṇḍra area. Unlike the śreshṭhī, who was probably a sedentary trader, the caravan trader was certainly itinerant by the nature of his profession. Thus, at least two types of important merchants are clearly discernible in northern Bengal in the fifth and sixth centuries. ³⁴

The seals, themselves administrative mechanisms, from the excavated site of Vaīśālī in north Bihar, also reveal the existence of the śreshṭhī and the sārthavāha who are explicitly stated to have belonged to a professional body (nigama). The commonalty of the mercantile associations in north Bengal and those in north Bihar during the Gupta rule can hardly escape our notice. What is most striking in the five Damodarpur CPs and the Vaīśālī seals is the sustained association of merchants and/or merchant bodies with local administration.

The recently discovered new land grant of Dharmapāla, year 26 (c. 796 ad), speaks of his feudatory/intermediary, mahāsāmanta Balanāga in Pundravardhana, who belonged to a family of caravan traders (sārthavāhas). His great grandfather was a sārthavāha, while his grandfather and father had already become, like Balanāga, mahāsāmantas. If there was an ancestor acting as a sārthavāha three generations before Balanāga, he should have belonged to the late seventh century. It is therefore not impossible that like the sārthavāhas during the Gupta times, Balanaga’s great grandfather too could have combined some administrative functions with commercial pursuits. This may explain the transformation of the successors of this caravan trader into local-level political elites by late eighth century ad. ³⁵

At this juncture, one may also examine the Dudhpani inscription, palaeographically assignable to the eighth century. The findspot is in the Hazaribagh area of present Jharkhand. ³⁶ The inscription has been cited by many scholars for containing perhaps the last known epigraphic mention of Tāmralipta, the premier port of the Ganga Delta. Three merchant brothers, Udayamāna, Śrīdhautamāna and Ajitamāna, hailing from Ayodhyā, according to the record, gained success in business at Tāmralipta and were returning to Ayodhyā. The ruler of Magadha, Ādisiṁha (not identified), was on a hunting expedition in the forests (aṭavi) nearby and he asked for resources (avalagana/avalagaka) from the local people. At the appeal of the villagers, the eldest of the three brothers, Udayamāna, arranged for the supply of the resources and became a favourite of the Magadhan king. The crucial point here is the existence of three settlements, Bhramaraśālmalī, Chhin͘gla and Nabhuti-shaṇḍaka, all having been designated as pallīs. The term pallī is often considered synonymous with villages (grāma), but Chattopadhyaya’s insightful analyses of early medieval rural settlements suggest that the term conveyed the sense of hamlets of non-agriculturists, including pastoralists and hunter-gatherers. ³⁷ All the three pallīs or hamlets were situated in the forest tracts, as the Dudhpani inscription explicitly states. The further point to note is that the ruler Adisiṁha having been pleased with Udayamāna’s role as a provider of resources/avalagana made him the rājā of Bhramaraśālmalī. The term rājā here certainly connotes a chief and not a king; he, significantly enough, required only resources (avalagana/avalagaka) but did not demand taxes or state levies which are typical symptoms of a state society. Next, the two other brothers of Udayamāna too were made the chiefs of the two other hamlets. The inscription suggests that the two younger brothers stood as junior chieftains in relation to the eldest one; in other words, the eldest brother was in overall authority over the three settlements. The significant statement comes at the end of the record where a caution has been pronounced that the chieftain of the two hamlets were not to act in opposition to separate themselves from the main branch of the family.

The inscription has often been cited as a typical example of the process of ‘feudalism from below’, implying the rise of petty landlords to local political chiefs, signalling the parcellisation of the apex authority. The situation alternatively can also be explained as formation of a local pocket of power as a marker of local formation, which need not be seen as a marker of decentralised polity. What is of particular significance is the transformation of three pallīs or hamlets into a chief’s area; we have already pointed to the location of these pallīs in a forest zone. The penetration of the state society into erstwhile forest tracts often took place by establishing agrarian settlements, headed by Brāhmaṇas who were granted revenue-free landed resources on a perpetual basis. ³⁸ The Dudhpani inscription presents a somewhat different scenario. Here the principal agents for the penetration of the complex state society into hamlet-like habitations were merchants and not Brāhmaṇas. The ability of the merchants to ensure the availability of resources (avalagana) for a local ruler paved the way for the emergence of a local chieftaincy. The local chieftaincy bore the telltale marks of an incipient kingdom, in the forms of a genealogy for legitimation, the use of high-flown Sanskrit poetry as a marker of the court-culture and the claim to have received from the Magadhan ruler a diadem (Śrīpaṭṭa) as an insignia chiefdom. Perhaps the most significant message here is that the mobility of merchants, often through forest tracts and non-agrarian zones during their long-distance journeys, could have paved the way for their familiarity and contacts with forest dwellers and pastoralists. The forest dwellers and pastoralists, like the merchants, were often itinerant groups unlike the members of sedentary agrarian society. Merchants, like the three Mana brothers, were thus no less suitable than Brāhmaṇas for penetrating into the pre-state societies and then played an instrumental role in the spread of the state society into the less sharply differentiated pre-state societies.

Attention at this juncture may be paid to the situation in western India during the sixth century. In the Kathiawad area in 592, there existed a professional body of merchants, known as vaṇiggrāma, which was granted a perpetual settlement (āchārasthiti patra) at a place called Lohāṭagrāma by the local ruler Vishnushena. Sircar’s initial editing and translation of the record, followed by Kosambi’s masterly analysis of the inscription, have thrown significant light on the role of merchants in western India at the time. ³⁹ All the 72 clauses of the grant, as Kosambi cogently argued, were connected with the organisation of merchants. Here is perhaps another instance, earlier than that we encountered in Jharkhand area, of the ruler’s interests in ensuring a settlement of traders in his realm. However, before taking up a few points on some of the provisions in the charter of Vishṇusheṇa, one needs to delve into a few other connected matters in the light of fresh epigraphic evidence.

To Kosambi goes the credit of decoding the term vāniyagāma (a Prakrit predecessor of Sanskrit vaṇiggrāma) in a second century bc donative record from Karle. Sanjeli in Gujarat yielded epigraphic evidence of the vaṇiggrāma in 503 ad and 506 ad referring to the reign of Hūṇa ruler Toramana and his local subordinate rulers, namely Mātṛdāsa I, Bhūta and Mātṛdāsa II. In fact, the vaṇiggrāma seems to have been in active presence also in the third record from Sanjeli of c. 519 ad. ⁴⁰ The vaṇiggrāmas figuring in these three records are older by almost nine to seven decades than the charter of Vishṇusheṇa. The combined testimony of the three copper plates from Sanjeli demonstrates that the vaṇiggrāma, as an association of merchants, consisted of local (vāstavya) and non-local (vaideśya) traders, the latter category hailing from all directions (chāturdiśābhyagatakavaid-eśya). Thus, the vaṇiggrāma seems to have been a loose organisation of diverse types of merchants, without much commonalty either in the commodities they dealt in or any spatial homogeneity. This is in contrast to the more pronounced compactness of the artisanal guild-like organisation (śreṇī); the artisanal śreṇī thrived on craft-wise combination, specialisation and localisation of crafts. A striking feature of the three plates from Sanjeli is the repeated mention of the transactions in agricultural commodities, including cereals and cash crops such as paddy (dhānya), molasses (gūḍa) and cotton (kārpāsa). There is little doubt about the circulation of metallic money (both silver and copper) for transactions in these daily necessities, staple and bulk commodities. The major purport of the three charters is to record the donation of cesses on various commodities by the vaṇiggrāma in favour of a Vaishaṇava temple (Bhagavat-pādāyatana). Enriched by the regular donations in the form of a cess, levied both in kind and cash by the vaṇiggrāma, the Vaishṇava temple by 519 ad (the third record) had been able to have a rest house where came diverse devotees, disciples and the deserving people (bhaktachailyādipragunah). The Vaishaṇava temple also provided medical facilities in the form of medicines and healthy diet (bhaishaja-pathyabhojana). The resources for the Vaishṇava temple came mostly from the self-imposed cesses paid by the merchants’ body. ⁴¹

In addition to giving explicit names of individual merchants (as members of the vaṇiggrāma) and the places they hailed from, the records (especially those of 503 ad and 506 ad) highlight two place names. The first is San͘gamapallikā, identified with modern Sanjeli (the find spot of the three charters), in the Panchmahal district, Gujarat. The second place is Vadrapāli (identified with Vadphali, also in Panchmahal district, Gujarat) which was the issuing centre of the three copper plates and where assembled merchants from disparate places. Vadrapali was clearly a marketplace and an administrative centre at a locality level (in the district or vishaya of Śivabhāgapura). It will also be impossible to miss that the merchants’ body, by arranging for voluntary levy of cess—in both cash and kind—on the commodities it traded in, assumed administrative responsibilities and functions at a local level of administration. Thus, one may plead here for a case of merchants’ participation in locality-level tiers of administration, especially in resource gathering. No less significant are the two place names San͘gamapallikā and Vadrapālī, both having name-endings analogous to palli. It sounds logical to argue that the absorption of a few hamlets (pallī/pallikā/pāli), perhaps of non-agrarian character, into a state society was facilitated by an association of merchants.

Certain issues would crop up regarding the vaṇiggrāma in the 592 ad charter in the light of the three copper plates of nearly nine/seven decades earlier. There is little doubt about the pronounced administrative functions of the vaṇiggrāma in the charter of 592. This was the basis of Kosambi’s categorising it as a ‘feudal trade charter’; he argued that the participation of the vaṇiggrāma in administrative affairs was symptomatic of the erosion of the apex state authority. The current historiography would suggest, on the other hand, that the inscriptions merely imply the growing expansion of the state society into areas where hitherto pre-state polities existed. This would result in the existence multiple foci of power without bringing in political decentralisation or instability. Comparing the charter of 592 ad with the Anjaneri CP of Pṛthivīchandra Bhogaśakti (c. 710 ad) and a story in Daṉdī’s Daśakumāracharita, Kosambi made an extremely perceptive comment: ‘It is notable that none of the charters nor the extant Sanskrit literature gives nagara privileges to merchants at or near the capital of any kingdom’. ⁴²

The continuous expansion of the state society from c. 400 ad onwards was not merely through the primacy of agrarian expansion by dint of the agrahāratype land grant but also, to some extent, by promoting exchange-related activities in so-called ‘fringe’ areas which could be penetrated by itinerant merchants/merchants’ bodies. Besides some privileges granted to merchants, like the non-exercise of the royal right to escheat (aputraka), the majority of the remissions relate to exemption from taxes on shops (āpana). These were clearly inducements to attract the merchants’ body to settle down at Lohāṭagrāma in Kathiawad. Like the Sanjeli grants of the early sixth century, the charter of Vishṇusheṇa too is replete with references to transactions in bulk commodities like indigo, oil production, grains, bamboos, various spices, varieties of wine, many of which were subjected to levies as commodities, There are also clear instances of water transportation, including the use of the sea-going vessels (vahitra). It seems that the vaṇiggrāma was entrusted with the supervision of trading and artisanal functions at relatively new centres of exchange. The involvement of the vaṇiggrāma in raising or exempting levies—clearly administrative functions—in the 592 ad charter could have been a recognition of the vaṇiggrāma’s efficiency in mobilizing resources from exchange-related functions. The three Sanjeli CPs had amply demonstrated such expertise of the merchants’ body already in the early sixth century.

A close look at the 710 ad Anjaneri CP may be in order here. ⁴³ Situated not far away from Nashik, old Govardhana which was a thriving artisanal and commercial centre in the early historic times was the old town of Sāmagiripattana. The suffix pattana is a firm marker of the urban character of the settlement. The old town somehow fell into disuse and became deserted (utsāditam). It was resettled at the initiative of the ruler Pṛthivīchandra Bhogaśakti. It seems that the management of the municipal affairs was then entrusted to a merchants’ body (nagaram) by two śresṭhīs, Ela and Karaputa. Kosambi rightly pointed out that the term nagara stood for both an urban centre and a merchants’ body in charge of the municipal administration. The residing merchants at Sāmagiripattana were granted perpetual remission from the payment of tolls and customs. This was surely done to offer inducements to merchants to settle at a rejuvenated city. But no less significant is the presence of three hamlets (pallikā) at the outskirt of Sāmagiripattana. These were Ambeyapallikā, Savaneyapalllikā and Maureyapallika. The association of merchants/merchants’ body with non-agrarian hamlets (pallikā), in the context of the emergence of a new exchange centre and that of a locality-level tier of administration, is once again illustrated by this record. All the inscriptions related to merchants and their bodies, so far examined here, demonstrate the state’s preference for and interest in creating exchange centres in non-sedentary areas where would gradually emerge mature trade centres. A distinct pattern is discernible here and it cannot be dismissed as merely co-incidental.

In the case of the Sanjeli inscriptions the close linkages of the merchants’ organisation with a Vaishṇava shrine (having also feeding houses and medical facilities) are unmistakable. Close to the resettled Samagiripattana stood a temple of Bhogeśvara. The Anjaneri CP leaves an impression that the merchants’ corporation (nagara) at Jayapura maintained regular interactions with the temple of Bhogeśvara. The colophon to the Anjaneri CP, somewhat later than the original grant, that the merchants’ corporation at Jayapura was given some land at Palittapāṭaka. Significantly enough, this piece of land seems to have originally belonged to the Bhogeśvara temple. That is why the merchants’ body agreed to pay to the temple as compensation (nishkraya) in the form of a stipulated sum of interest accruing out of the sale of bdellium (guggula). Guggula, an aromate, was a well-known commodity in western India. ⁴⁴ The way the deserted town was resettled and repopulated with merchants has a strong resemblance to the Arthaśāstra programme of creation of new settlements in virgin soil and/or the revival of deserted one (bhūtapūrvamabhūtapūrvaṁ vā). There is, of course, a crucial difference: The janapadaniveśa programme was primarily meant for the creation of rural settlements; ⁴⁵ at Samagiri, the local authority clearly preferred the traders to agriculturists as settlers and/or for re-populating the site. A deserted town was rejuvenated once again as a town and market place and was not replaced with agrarian settlements at the same site.

The presence of merchants, in individual or collective capacities, needs serious examination, in the light of available evidence, for assessing not only the relevance of exchange-related activities and networks but also for situating the merchants as instruments for the furtherance of state society. The consolidation of the state system would certainly be conducive to vibrant trade in markets, which is far more complex than gift exchange, barter and such like relatively simpler exchanges, often associated with pre-state societies. The expansion of the state society, especially into areas marked by pre-state socio-political organisation, gained pace and visibility from about fourth century ad onward. To attribute the narrative of the spread of monarchical polity primarily to agrarian expansion, through the agency of agrahāras, ⁴⁶ will run the historiographical risk of ironing out the relevant complexities and diversities. Migrant brāhmanas paved the way for the expansion of sedentary society, noted for its varṇa-jāti hierarchy. But merchants, by nature far more mobile and itinerant than Brāhmaṇas and peasants, were also ideally suitable for interacting with the hunting-gathering and pastoral groups. These groups were non-sedentary also and therefore could have interacted better with another itinerant group—the merchants—than the Brāhmaṇas whose hostilities to forest dwellers and pastoralists are too well documented to elaborate here. This essay attempts to offer an alternative perspective to the making of the state society (primary and secondary states and the states of the threshold times) that often coincides with burgeoning urban centres. This will allow a greater visibility to the instrumentality of merchants on the making of the state society and by widening the causal factors of state formation beyond the mechanism of simple agrarian spread.