THE Maurya Empire - Lecture notes 11 PDF

Preview

Summary

After the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty at Magadha the Mauryas
came to prominence. The history of their rule is rendered
comparatively reliable on account of evidence obtained from a variety
of sources. No less important is the point that many of these sources
are more or le...

Description

THE MAURYA EMPIRE

After the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty at Magadha the Mauryas came to prominence. The history of their rule is rendered comparatively reliable on account of evidence obtained from a variety of sources. No less important is the point that many of these sources are more or less contemporary to the period under review. The discovery of some new source materials and enquiries into the known evidence have led to fresh assessments of the period, resulting in a rich historiography of the Maurya empire. The Buddhist and Jaina traditions, the early Dharmashastra texts and the material retrieved from archaeological excavations continue to remain important bases of historical reconstruction. In addition, several new sources of information are available for the history of the Mauryas.

Enlisting these primary sources, one may begin with the Greek accounts of Megasthenes, the Seleukidian envoy to the Maurya capital. Megasthenes was mostly based in Arachosia or present Kandahar in Afghanistan and visited Pataliputra during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya - the founder of the Maurya empire. The envoy's account, named Indika, is based on his impressions about India, especially northern parts of the subcontinent during the times of Chandragupta. Though there is little dispute that he did visit the Maurya capital, his account is lost and available only in fragments, is now known only from the quotations or excerpts and summaries of the Indika made by later Classical writers. While the historian certainly values his impressions of the Maurya realm, these are not beyond their limitations. But it shows correspondence with the Kautilyan text at many places. Megasthenes seems to have formed his impressions, on many occasions, in the light of his perceptions of West Asia and Egypt, something he was familiar with. Romila Thapar has diagnosed that Megasthenes' understanding of the Seleucid realm in West Asia on many occasions coloured his impressions of do not stand the subcontinent. He is known to have made some observations that not stand scrutiny. For instance, he recorded that famine never Visited India - an impression which is completely inaccurate; his statement that Indians were never accused of Iying appears to have bordered on fantasy. Moreover, the summaries of and excerpts and quotations from his Indika by later writers are themselves not uniform; this is something not entirely unexpected in the context of the use of a particular account by later writers, who themselves did not visit the land they described.

It is also important to remember that for many Classical writers of the later period, the subcontinent was an area of marginal interest; their primary focus was on the history of the Seleucids and by extension to Bactria. Mauryan contact with these areas possibly generated some interests in these writers to write about the conditions in the subcontinent. Also these summaries of Megasthenes are occasionally contradictory. For our present purpose three accounts containing such quotes and summaries of Megasthenes’ Indika will bè used. These are the Bibliothekes Historikes of Diodorus Siculus (late second century BC), the Geographikon of Strabo (late first century BC) and the Indika of Arrian (AD first/second century). It is quite evident that these three Greek writers were aware of Megasthenes’ accounts, but belonged to periods considerably later than the Mauryan epoch in Indian history. The descriptions of Plutarch and Justin, who mentioned Sandrokottas or Chandragupta, belong to an even later period. Recent historiography uses the Classical accounts of the Mauryas with a much greater rigour and critical approach than the previous ones.

Among the indigenous texts, the famous Kautiliya Arthasastra must be mentioned. It is ascribed to Kautiliya or Vishnugupta or Chanakya considered to have been the chief minister of Chandragupta Maurya. This manual on statecraft is famous for its pragmatic approach to polity and its thrust on financial/material matters (arthaivapradhanam) for the successful management of the realm. The cherished notion that the author was a contemporary of Chandragupta and that as an exponent of ‘realpolitik’, he was actually running the administration of the Maurya realm, stems partly from the Sanskrit drama, the Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta. The drama. however, belongs to AD seventh century and therefore is far removed from the actual period of the Mauryas. Modern scholarship does rely too much on the Mudrärakshasa as an evidence for the contemporaneity of Kautiliya to Chandragupta. The dating of the Arthasastra is a controversial topic and its dating to fourth-third century BC has been debated. A computer/statistical enquiry into the texts by Trautmann, discerns no less than three different styles in it and suggests that its composition may have stretched over several centuries. Nevertheless there is a general consensus among scholars that certain portions of the work (Books II, III and IV) have a genuine Maurya touch about them and may be taken as its original kernel. This computer or statistical enquiry into the texts establishes that the text took its present shape not earlier than AD first or second century and that it was perhaps not the product of a single author. The Arthasıstra is certainly one of the major sources for studying the Mauryan period, but not the only or the principal primary evidence for understanding the period in question. We can not assume that the ideals of the Arthasastra was translated in the management of the Maurya empire. Some historians have attempted to demonstrate parallels between the Arthasastra prescriptions and some descriptions of the Maurya statecraft in the Greek accounts and Asoka’s inscriptions. But the Maurya polity was not a replica of the Arthasastra model, though such a view has some takers especially among nationalist historians.

The most authentic Maurya records however remain the first decipherable inscriptions issued by Ashoka. Found at 45 places on the highways in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan, in 181 versions, they were composed in Prakrit language and written in Brahmi script in greater part of the Maurya empire, though in its north-western part they appear in Aramaic and Kharoshthi scripts. In Afghanistan, however, they are written in both Aramaic and Greek scripts and languages. Valuable field archaeological materials mostly urban are available from excavated sites like Kumrahar (near Patna, ancient Rhanal, Madhya Pradeh) and Taxila. Pıtaliputra), Besnagar (near Archaeological evidence is also culled from the occupational layers datable to fourth-third centuries BC, from other excavated/explored sites. including those in peninsular India. The Maurya period also ushered in the regular tradition of sculpting stones for creative visual arts. The age further witness the profusion of terracotta modelling. The remains of Mauryan art are an invaluable source for cultural and socio-political history of the period.

Later Buddhist texts like the Divyavadana and the Asokavadına (belonging to the Avadäna literature) and the Sri Lankan Buddhist chronicles, the Mahävamsa and the Dipavamasa, speak of the Maurya rulers, especially Asoka. Though some historians have used these texts, the sources, apart from not belonging to the Mauryan times, often try to overemphasize the role of Buddhism in shaping the Maurya history -particularly that of Asoka. These texts tend to portray the transformation of the cruel Asoka (chandasoka) to the righteous Asoka (dharmasoka) after he had embraced Buddhism. The Puranas, once again of later date, present the genealogy and chronology of the Maurya rule, though it is not free from inaccuracies. Some incidents said to have occurred during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya - the founder of the dynasty-figure in the Mudrarakshasa of Visakhadatta (AD seventh century), late Jaina sources and Kalhana’s Rajatarangini (twelfth century AD). The memories of the Maurya rule retained in these literary accounts of much later times are not free from limitations and can be useful only in the light of firm, corroborative evidence.

Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya dynasty by overthrowing the erstwhile ruling house of Magadha, namely the Nanda dynasty. The last Nanda king. Dhanananda (Agrammes of the Greek accounts), was possibly the ruler of Palibothra or Pataliputra. When Alexander fought against Puru (Porus) on the banks of the river Jhelum (Hydespas) in the Punjab. Alexander's return from India probably took place about 527 BC; it is therefore likely that the end of the Nanda rule and the foundation of the Maurya dynasty can be placed in 325 BC. Some scholars however, prefer to date the beginning of the Maurya dynasty in 324 or 321 BC. According to the Puranas, the Maurya rule lasted for 137 years. If it is granted that the Maurya rule could not have gone beyond the maximum duration of 140 years, then by 185 Bc, the Maurya political presence in India became a thing of the past. So what is known as the Mauryan period or Mauryan Age in Indian history spans from late fourth century Bc to the first quarter of the second century BC.

The origin and early life of Chandragupta remain obscure, though according to the prevalent view he belonged to the Moriya tribe and his caste was low. The older theory of his base birth is no longer acceptable to most historians. Both Indian and classical Greek sources state that he overthrew the last Nanda ruler and occupied his capital Pataliputra, modern Patna. The Greek accounts add that he moved to north-west India and subdued the Greek garrisons left behind by Alexander. Soon, however, Seleukos/Seleucus Nikator gained control of most Asiatic provinces of the Macedonian empire, and in 305 BC he seems to have met Chandragupta in battle. As a result of this treaty Seleucus ceded to Chandragupta, as Strabo, Arrian and Plutarch report, three territories, viz. Paropanisadai (areas to the south-east of the Hindukush). Arachosia (Kandahar in Afghanistan) and Gedrosia (Baluchistan). Chandragupta is said to have reciprocated by gifting 500 war elephants to Seleucus. The widely cherished idea that Seleucus also ceded the territory of Aria (Herat in Afghanistan) to Chandragupta cannot be established by any contemporary evidence, as B.N. Mukherjee rightly points out. They also entered into a marriage alliance. Who married whose daughter is not quite clear. However, on a careful scrutiny of the descriptions of the treaty in the accounts of Strabo, Arrian, Justin and Plutarch, B.N. Mukherjee and Romila Thapar have ruled out any such matrimonial alliance between the two rulers. Seleukos’ ambassador Megasthenes lived for many years at the Maurya court at Pataliputra and travelled extremely in the country. According to Jaina sources, Chandragupta embraced Jainism towards the end of his life and stepped down from the throne in favour of his son. Accompanied by Bhadrabahu, a Jaina saint, and several other monks, he is said to have gone to Sravana Belgola near Mysore, where he deliberately starved himself to death in the approved Jaina fashion.

In 297 BC Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Bindusara, known to the Greeks as Amitrochates (Sanskrit, Amitraghata = the destroyer of foes). He is said to have had contacts with Antiochus I, the Seleucid king of Syria. A man of wide tastes and interests, he requested Antiochus to send him some sweet wine, dried figs and a sophist; the last being not meant for export, however could not be sent. According to the Tibetan Buddhist monk Taranatha, who visited India in the sixteenth century, Bindusara conquered ‘the land between the two seas’ This has been taken to mean that he annexed to the Magadhan kingdom the peninsular region of India. Early Tamil literature, it has been pointed out, also mentions the Maurya invasion of the far south. But this does not adequately justify the assumption that Bindusara annexed the southernmost part of India to the Maurya empire. Nevertheless it is probable that his kingdom extended in the south up to Mysore region. Kalinga (modern Orissa), on the eastern coast, however, remained hostile and was conquered in the succeeding reign by Bindusara $ son Ashoka.

The history of the Mauryas enters its most significant stage during the reign of the third ruler of the dynasty. Asoka, son of Bindusara. third ruler of the dynasty, Asoka, son of and Bindusära. Asoka's reign spans for nearly four decades (273-232 C), which is considered a landmark and of profound importance in Indian history. We have already stated that the most important evidence of his reign comes in the form of his own lithic records, encountered for the first time in Indian history. Buddhist legends speak of his accession to the throne in 273 BC. but his formal coronation took place four years later, i.e. in 269 BC. Later Buddhist texts explain this gap of four years between his accession to the throne and his coronation in the light of Asoka's alleged involvement in bitter fratricidal feuds over a protracted period. The enthusiasm of Buddhist authors to portray the transformation of the cruel Asoka (chandasoka) to the righteous ruler (dharmasoka) under the spell of Buddhism is unmistakable. These stories try to glorify the role of Buddhism in the making of Asoka into a pious Buddhist king. There is no other corroborative account to establish the image of Asoka as an exterminator of brothers, the rivals to his claim for the throne. R.K. Mookerjee's straightforward and rather uncritical acceptance of the Buddhist legends that Asoka succeeded in a bloody fratricidal war with the help of his prime minister (agranmatya), Radhagupta has little corroboration from contemporary epigraphic records. On the contrary, Asoka in his edict clearly instructed his officials to take proper care of his brothers households (olodhanesu). The possibility of a rivalry for the Maurya throne however cannot be entirely ruled out, as there are precedents of such an event in previous Magadhan regimes.

Nearly a hundred years ago Asoka was merely a shadowy Maurya king mentioned in the Puranas. In 1837 James Prinsep deciphered an inscription in Brahmi script referring to a king called Devanama Piyadassi (beloved of the gods). Later many more similar inscriptions were discovered. Initially these records could not be attributed to Ashoka. But in 1915 was discovered another inscription which speaks of Ashoka Piyadassi. (Major Rock Edicts) MRE discovered from Maski (in Karnataka) clearly bore the name of Asoka along with the usual epithets Devanampiya Piyadasi Raja. Besides the Major Rock Edicts from Maski, the MREs from Gujarra (in Madhya Pradesh), Nittur and Udegolam (both in Karnataka) discovered in recent decades, also mention the personal name Asoka. This, corroborated by the Ceylonese chronicle Mahavamsa, established that Asoka, the Maurya monarch, was the Devanamapiya Piyadassi of the inscriptions.

The most important event of Ashoka’s reign seems to have been his conversion to Buddhism after his victorious war with Kalinga in 260/ 261 BC. The horror of the war as described in the Emperor’s own words is possibly an overstatement: a hundred and fifty thousand people were deported, hundred thousand were killed and many more died Some scholars would have us believe that Asoka, moved by the untold miseries caused by the war, dramatically embraced Buddhism. But according to one of his inscriptions, it was only after a period of two and half years that he became an enthusiastic supporter of the religion of the Buddha. Under its influence he eventually foreswore conquest by war and replaced it with conquest by piety (dhammaghosha). The Buddhist church was reorganized during his reign, with the meeting of the third Buddhist council at Pataliputra in 250 BC under the chairmanship of Mogalliputta Tissa. This was followed by the dispatch of missionaries to south India, Ceylon, Burma and other countries to propagate Buddhism. Ashoka’s own records do not suggest his association with the Buddhist council convened during his rule. His edicts, however, prove his relationship with the Buddhist church as well as his own firm belief in Buddhism. But there is little basis for the view that Ashoka ever donned the robes of a Buddhist monk.

Thirteenth Major Rock Edict

We quote below the words of Ashoka from his Thirteenth Major Rock Edict: When he had been consecrated eight years the Beloved of the Gods, the King Piyadasi, conquered Kalinga. A hundred and fifty thousand people were deported, a hundred thousand were killed and many times that number perished. Afterwards, now that Kalinga was annexed, the Beloved of the Gods very earnestly practised dhamma, desired dhamma, and taught dhamma. On conquering Kalinga the Beloved of the Gods felt remorse, for when an independent country is conquered the slaughter, death and deportation of the people is extremely grievous to the Beloved of the Gods and weighs heavily on his mind. What is even more deplorable to the Beloved of the Gods, is that those who dwell there, whether brahmanas, shramanas, or those of other sects, or householders who show obedience to their teachers and behave well and devotedly towards their friends, acquaintances, colleagues, relatives, slaves, and servants, all suffer violence, murder and separation from their loved ones … Today if a hundredth or a thousandth part of those people who were killed or died or were deported when Kalinga was annexed were to suffer similarly, it would weigh heavily on the mind of the Beloved of the Gods … The Beloved of the Gods considers victory by dhamma to be the foremost victory …

The victory over Kalinga and its annexation to the Maurya realm resulted in the maximum expansion of the empire. Asoka's edicts are the most reliable evidence for determining the extent of the Maurya empire at its peak. But before embarking on the discussion on the geographical spread of the Maurya rule, another significant point demands our attention here. For the first time, the vast Mauryan realm was given a distinct designation. At least four REs (II, III, XIII and XIV) used the term vijita to denote the domain of the Mauryas. As the term vijita stands for something conquered, it is therefore clear that Asoka viewed the area under his jurisdiction as a conquered territory. In RE XII also figures the term rajavishaya (royal domain) as a synonym of vijita or conquered area. The Maurya ruler gave a message and perceived that the realm was carved out of military conquests (vijita rajavishaya). Asoka also considered that his energetic exertions (pakama, i.e., prakrama) resulted in significant changes in the spiritual life in Jambudvipa (pakamasa esa hi phale: MRE I). It is reasonable to assume, in the light of the above passage, that he could exert his authority and efforts over the area under his jurisdiction which in this case is labelled as Jambudvipa. The term Jambudvipa in the Puranas denotes not only the subcontinent but also some areas beyond the geographical confines of the subcontinent. Asoka however used the term Jambudvipa as a distinct geopolitical entity under his authority, in other words - his empire. The term Jambudvipa therefore denotes in this case the Maurya realm itself.

Asoka was aware that his realm as vast (Mahalake hi vijitam: RE XIV). The geographical distribution of the findspots of Asoka's edicts provide a reliable image extent of the Maurya empire, since his promulgations would be effective in areas under his control. His PEs from Lauriya Nandagarh, Lauriya Araraj, Rampurva (all in north Bihar), the MRE from Sahsram and his cave inscriptions from Barabar (near Gava) point to his rule over present Bihar, which of course included the Maurya capital Pâtaliputra. The Nepalese terai has yielded two of his inscriptions from Nigali Sagar and Rumindei (Lumbini village), the latter recording an administrative exemptions from revenue. His control over the Ganga plains will be evident from his MPIs from Sarnath (near Varanasi), Kosam (near Allahabad), an MRE from Ahraura (near Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh) and Bahapur (Delhi) and the PEs from Delhi-Topra (originally standing at Topra in Haryan...