The correct option is (b).
Explanation
The Mauryan Empire employed a differentiated system of administration. While the core areas (like Magadha) were under direct and rigid state control, peripheral and forested regions functioned under a more flexible relationship, characterized by semi-autonomy and tribute obligations rather than direct bureaucratic governance.
Statement-wise Analysis:
- Statement 1 is Incorrect. The people living in forested regions were not completely independent. Although they retained significant internal autonomy compared to the agricultural plains, they were considered subjects of the empire. Ashoka’s Rock Edict XIII explicitly addresses the forest tribes (atavikas), warning them to abide by Dhamma and acknowledging the Emperor's power to discipline them if necessary.
- Statement 2 is Correct. The Mauryan state viewed forests as critical economic and military assets. The Arthashastra mentions the appointment of a Superintendent of Forest Produce (Kupyadhyaksha). Forest dwellers were expected to provide tribute in kind, specifically elephants (crucial for the Mauryan army) and timber, along with other forest produce like wax and honey.
- Statement 3 is Incorrect. Forest regions were generally not integrated into the monetized tax system of the plains. They did not pay regular taxes in gold coins. Instead, their economic relationship with the state was based on the supply of raw materials and elephants as tribute.
Key Takeaway:
Forested regions in the Mauryan Empire were semi-autonomous zones that provided strategic resources (elephants and timber) as tribute, rather than paying regular monetary taxes or being completely independent of imperial authority.