HISTORY. Subject : History (For under graduate student) Lecture No. & Title : Lecture-2 Chandragupta & Bindusara

Transcription

1 HISTORY Subject : History (For under graduate student) Paper No. : Paper-I History of India Topic No. & Title : Topic-8 Mauryan Empire Lecture No. & Title : Lecture-2 Chandragupta & Bindusara The political history of the Mauryan Dynasty The foundation of the Mauryan dynasty was made by Chandragupta Maurya by displacing the erstwhile rulers of Magadha namely the mighty Nanda dynasty. The exact date of the beginning of the Maurya rule is not known but is generally accepted as being between 321 BC and 325 BC. However it is clear that Maurya rule was established in Magadha with its capital at Pataliputra. There was a long history of Magadha before the Mauryas came into prominence. Magadha, (the region of present

2 day southern part of Bihar), was one of the sixteen territorial polities called Mahajanapadas during the time of the Buddha. At the beginning it was just one of these Mahajanapadas, but it soon began to rise fast under the two very energetic rulers, Bimbisara and Ajatasatru in the 6 th 5 th centuries BC. It was possibly by the early part of the 4 th century BC that the Nandas came to occupy power in Magadha, and by that time Pataliputra was already recognized as an important city, which figured even in Greek accounts as Palibothra, at the time of Alexander s invasion of India. The rise of Magadha had already become visible before the Mauryans, under the powerful Nanda king Mahapadmananda. This energetic ruler, and well known conqueror established Magadhan control a vast tract of North Indian plains. The last known ruler of the Nanda dynasty was Dhanananda, known in the Greek text as Xandreams or Aggrammes. We do not the exact manner in which Chandragupta Maurya managed to displace the last Nanda ruler Dhanananda.

3 Historians have attempted to trace the genesis of the name Maurya in the light of different types of text. Based on the drama Mudra Rakshasa, one version suggests that Chandragupta was actually the son of a Nanda ruler, while his mother named Mura was a slave woman who belonged to the Nanda household, and that Chandragupta came to be known as Maurya after the name Mura. But the veracity of this view is doubtful as the drama was a later composition. On the other hand Jain texts, like the twelfth century author Hemachandra in Parisishtaparvan points out that Chandragupta was the grandson of the chief of the peacock-tamers clan or Mayuraposhaka, and hence he derived the epithet of Maurya. But again this claim is made by a text that was composed a long time after Maurya rule. The Greek writers on their part inform us that the ruler named Sandrcottus did not have any royal pedigree, but it is difficult to ascertain whether this was a correct view. Justin and Plutarch recount a legend that the feet of Sandrocottas (Chandragupta) were licked by a lion while he was asleep, and also that an elephant uplifted him with its trunk (the lion and tiger are well known symbols

4 of royal power), thereby trying to say that Chandragupta inspite of not being a royal had secured the legitimacy to power. On the other hand, according to the Sri Lankan Buddhist text, the Mahavamsa, Chandragupta was born in a khattiya moriya family, underlining thus that he was fit enough by birth to ascend the throne. If one observes the commonalities in all these theories it would appear that the first Mauryan ruler had a definite association with the forest region, and that he rose to eminence from a relatively obscure origin. The earliest of all sources, the Pali canonical text Mahaparinibbanasutta (belonging to pre-maurya times) refers to a non-monarchical clan named Moriyas located in Pipphalivana (located in between the Nepalese terai and the Gorakhpur district in Uttar Pradesh). The name Moriya/Maurya comes very close to the later very well known historical Mauryas. It thus seems to be clear that Chandragupta Maurya rose to prominence without ever enjoying any royal pedigree or a very high social status in his early life.

5 It is also evident that the foundation of the Maurya dynasty was possible only by ousting the Nanda rule in Magadha. Having weighed in all possible evidence, B.N.Mukherjee holds that Chandragupta first overthrew the last Nanda king Dhanananda (or Xandreams, or Aggrammes) and laid the foundations of Maurya rule at Pataliputra around 325/324 BC. And thereby inherited the extensive territorial possessions of the Nandas. Greek accounts (Justin) leave little room for doubt that soon after Alexander s dispersal from India; Sandrocottas established a new dynasty, conquered a vast area and removed the last vestiges of the Greek political presence (the Greek governors left in charge by Alexander) in the north-west of the subcontinent. The last possible date of the Greek governors was BC. Alexander did not leave any direct successor to the vast territories he had conquered, so after his death his conquered areas were apportioned among his generals. The eastern part of his territorial positions (western part of Asia) came under one of his generals Seleucus Nikator, which bordered on the north-western parts of the subcontinent. This set the stage for a clash between Chandragupta

6 Maurya and Seleucus Nikator around 310 BC., but we do not know the exact account of the war nor do we know about the exact outcome of this conflict. Greek accounts mention that hostilities between Chandragupta and Seleucus came to an end with the signing of a treaty. As a result of this treaty three areas were given to Chandragupta Maurya by Selecus. These were Paropanisadai (south east of Hindukush), Arachosia (present Kandahar in Afghanistan) and Gedrosia (Baluchistan). Contrary to common belief Aria (Heart in Afghanistan) was not given. In return the Greeks got five hundred war elephants which were most coveted by the Greeks, since the battle of Alexander against Poros. The treaty also included recognition of Epigamia (marriage between the locals and the Greeks) particularly in the areas that were ceded in the North western borderland. The popular belief that Seleucus gave his daughter in marriage to Chandragupta Maurya, first suggested by Vincent Smith, has been ruled out by B.N.Mukherjee and Romila Thapar after a careful scrutiny of the treaty in the accounts of Greek writers like Strabo, Justin, Arrian and

7 Plutarch. The treaty however was significant because it was the first known international treaty in Indian history. The fact that the Mauryas did control the areas ceded to them in the treaty is clear from the inscriptions of Asoka found from regions close to Kabul that is Laghman, Pul-idarunta and also close to Kandahar. Asoka did not conquer these areas, yet he ruled over these areas, which denotes that the inclusion of these areas within the Mauryan realm goes back to the time of Chandragupta who got these territories as per the clauses of the treaty signed with Seleucus Nikator. Thus the Mauryan political authority expanded from its principal strong hold in Magadha particularly in the Ganga valley, to Punjab and the north western frontier areas and then beyond the north western frontier areas to certain areas of present day Afghanistan. The inscriptions of Asoka found in Afghanistan were written in Greek and Aramaic script and languages. Chandragupta Maurya s rule over western part of India, the present area of Kathiawar Junagarh region is also

8 known to us from an inscription of 150 AD belonging to the Saka ruler Rudradaman which recalls very clearly the rule of Chandragupta Maurya and the provincial authority who ruled in this region on behalf of Chandragupta Maurya. Thus the Mauryas ruled over a very large area covering the greater part of the Indian subcontinent except the far south and the far eastern regions. Bindusara is not known in historical sources to have been a great conqueror. Asoka is credited only with the conquest of Kalinga, which indicates that the rest of the vast territories of the Mauryan dynasty actually go back to the time of Chandragupta Maurya. It is not possible to know how he conquered certain areas of the peninsular part of India, but a later Tamil literary text refers to Maurya presence in the south. The Mauryas were considered as the Vamba Maurya, or the Maurya upstart ruler. According to Jain tradition Chandragupta breathed his last in Shravanabelgola in Karnataka. This possibly suggests some association of Chandragupta Maurya with

9 the peninsular part. The paucity of sources and the absence of any inscriptions make it difficult to describe the last days of Chandragupta Maurya, or how long he ruled. It appears that his reign is likely to have ended around the end of the fourth century BC., by about 300 BC. Chandragupta is remembered in Jain literature as a devoted Jain particularly in the last phase of his life. Chandragupta Maurya is also known from the account of Megasthenes named the Indika, which has been handed down to us by the three later accounts of Diodorus, Strabo and Arrian, from which we get to know many aspects of the administrative system, social and economic conditions and the network of communications that existed in the Mauryan times. The descriptions of Megasthenes do have certain flaws. He has given us many fantastic stories, like saying that Indians are never accused of lying, or that famine never visited India. These were no doubt hyperbolic statements. But in spite of all the inaccuracies the

10 account is of extreme significance as it was an eyewitness account, based on his visit India. Megasthenes was mainly based in Arachosia or Kandahar area, from where he visited Pataliputra, the Maurya capital, and also traversed a greater part of the subcontinent particularly the north Indian belt. Bindusara succeeded Chandragupta, but the absence of any contemporary source referring to him very little is known about his reign. Strabo knew the successor of Sandrocottas as Amitrokhates, which was probably derived from the Indian term amitraghata or slayer of foes. There are no dates about this second ruler of the Mauryan dynasty. We have to assume that Bindusara s reign lasted for about 24, 25 or 26 years, from 300 BC to 275 or 276 BC. Whatever is known about this rule of 25 or 27 years is from different sources none of which were contemporary. Neither did he issue any inscriptions, nor are there any ascribable coins belonging to his reign.

11 There is no indication that the vast empire he inherited suffered any shrinkage during Bindusara s reign, which in itself was no mean achievement. There is at least one Buddhist story in the Divyavadana, a later text that speaks of the continued Maurya rule over Taxila. It says that there was popular discontent at the nature of Mauryan rule at Takshasila. Bindusara is said to have sent his son, Asoka to tackle the situation, and he learnt that the people had no misgivings about the Maurya rulers, but that they were unhappy with the rogue administrators or dushtamatyas. This story at least gives the impression that Bindusara was able to retain control the north western frontier areas of the realm. The Greek text, (Athenaios) remembers him as a close friend of the Syrian Greek ruler Antiochus I, whom Bindusara requested to buy for him figs, good wine and a philosopher (sophist). Antiochus I is said to have replied that he would be happy to send for his Indian counterpart

12 figs and wine but not the philosopher as the latter was not purchasable. The Greek account certainly highlights the continuity in the Maurya policy of maintaining close diplomatic linkages with Greek rulers of West Asia during Bindusara s reign. This interest of the Mauryas in maintaining amiable relations with rulers beyond their realm would be continued by Asoka.