The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c27.36

v1.c27.36

According to Justin (xv, 4) the rule of Chandragupta was oppressive; but the judgment is not supported by details or by Indian evidence. The consensus of Sanskrit writings on policy discountenances excessive leniency, and insists upon the retributory function of the ruler, who in maintaining order and protecting weakness should not shrink from severity; while in time of need he is entitled to call upon his people to bear ‘like strong bulls’ a considerable burden of taxation¹. The duration of the reign is stated by the Purāṇas, in agreement with the Buddhist books, at twenty-four years. It would be uncritical, however, to regard these testimonies as from the beginning independent, or to attach any special credence to the exact figure. Moreover, the initial date is uncertain, the Jains presenting a date equivalent to 313 (312) B.C., while the Buddhists of Ceylon give 321, and the Brāhman writings withhold any reference to a fixed era. It would be idle to dwell further upon a matter of so much uncertainty. Our defective knowledge of the chronology is in striking contrast to the trustworthy information which we possess concerning the country and its administration.