The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c27.38

v1.c27.38

The extent of the dominions of Chandragupta has already been stated. But his authority cannot have been everywhere exercised in the same manner or the same measure. Indian conquerors do not for the most part displace the rulers whom they subdue, nor was the example of Alexander in India to the contrary. Accordingly we may assume that the empire of Chandragupta included feudatory kingdoms; and even the presence of his viceroys would not necessarily imply, for example in Taxila or Ujjain, the extinction of the local dynasty. It has been acutely remarked by Lassen² that in a number of cases Megasthenes states the military power of particular provinces; and he infers that these are instances of independent rule. The inference may have been carried too far; but it has an undeniable validity as regards the kingdoms south of the Vindhya mentioned by Megasthenes, namely the Andhras and Kaliṅgas, as well as their western neighbours the Bhojas, Peṭenikas, and R̥iṣhṭikas, who all down to the time of Chandragupta’s grandson Açoka remained outside the regular administration. The districts beyond the Indus, Gandhāra, Arachosia, and Kābul were similarly frontier states.