Consider the following statements about the Mauryan State and the fore

Consider the following statements about the Mauryan State and the forest people :

  • 1. The forest people were subjected to new forms of political and economic dominance and the necessity to subordinate and assimilate them led to a change in the earlier attitude of excluding these people from imperial territory.
  • 2. The State recognised that the forest produce was the sole monopoly of the forest people.
  • 3. The State was concerned with the conservation of forests and to this end the burning of forests was prohibited.
  • 4. The forest people could be harnessed to serve the State and could be used as troops, spies and assassins.

How many of the above statements is/are correct?

1
2
3
4
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2024
Three of the statements regarding the Mauryan State and the forest people are correct. Statements 1, 3, and 4 align with historical evidence and texts like Kautilya’s Arthashastra concerning the Mauryan administration’s interaction with forest areas and tribes. Statement 2 is incorrect.
– Statement 1 is correct: The Mauryans sought to integrate forest areas into their empire for resources and strategic reasons, leading to interactions and attempts to control/assimilate forest peoples, moving away from complete exclusion.
– Statement 3 is correct: Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions state control over forests and regulations, including prohibition of unauthorized burning, indicating a concern for forest management and conservation, though primarily for economic and strategic benefit.
– Statement 4 is correct: The Mauryans utilized forest tribes (Atavikas) for military purposes, including as troops, guides, spies, and potentially assassins, as noted in the Arthashastra.
Statement 2 is incorrect because the Mauryan state asserted significant control over forest resources through officials like the Kupyadhyaksha (Superintendent of Forest Produce), indicating that forest produce was not considered the sole monopoly of the forest people but was a source of revenue and resources for the state.