Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c12.s8: Section VIII. The Nandas

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c12.s8

Language
English

Section VIII. The Nandas

c12.s8.1

The Saiśunāga dynasty was supplanted by the line of Nanda.¹ With the new family we reach a stage of East Indian history when the indubitable evidence of inscriptions becomes available to supplement the information gleaned from traditional literary sources. The famous Hāthigumphā record of Khāravela, of the second or first century B.C., twice mentions Naṁda-rāja in connection with Kaliṅga.

c12.s8.2

¹ According to Jaina tradition Nanda was proclaimed king after Udāyin's assassination, and sixty years after the Nirvāṇa of Varddhamāna (*Pariśishṭa* P. VI. 243). For Nanda history see now *Age of the Nandas and Mauryas*, pp. 9-26. N. Sastri, Raychaudhuri and others.

c12.s8.3

*Paṁchame cedāni vase Naṁdarāja-ti-vasa-sata-oghāṭitaṁ*
*Tanasuliya-vāṭā panāḍi (ṁ) nagaraṁ pavesa (yati)*......

c12.s8.4

"And then, in the fifth year, (Khāravela) caused the canal opened out by King Nanda three hundred years² back to be brought into the capital from the Tanasuliya road."

c12.s8.5

² This interpretation of ‘*tivasasata*’ accords substantially with the Purāṇic tradition, regarding the interval between the Nandas and the dynasty to which Sātakarṇi, the contemporary of Khāravela in his second regnal year, belonged (137 years for the Mauryas + 112 for the ‘Śuṅgas’ + 45 for the Kāṇvas=294). If the expression is taken to mean 103 years (as is suggested by some scholars), Khāravela's accession must be placed 103-5=98 years after Nandarāja. His elevation to the position of Yuvarāja took place 9 years before that date i.e., 98-9=89 years after Nanda, i.e., not later than 324-89=235 B.C. Khāravela's senior partner in the royal office was on the throne at that time and he may have had his predecessor or predecessors. But we learn from Aśoka's inscriptions that Kaliṅga was actually governed at that time by a Maurya Kumāra, (and not by a Kaliṅga-*adhipati* or *Chakravarti*) under the suzerainty of Aśoka himself. Therefore, *tivasasata* should be understood to mean 300 and not 103 years. S. Konow (*Acta Orientalia*, I.22-26) takes the figure to express not the interval between Nanda and Khāravela, but a date during the reign of Nanda which was reckoned from some pre-existing era. But the use of any such era in the particular country and epoch is not proved. Khāravela himself, like Aśoka, uses regnal years. The agreement with Purāṇic tradition speaks in favour of the view adopted in these pages.

c12.s8.6

Again, in connection with the twelfth year of Khāravela's reign, we have a reference to *Nadarāja-jita Kaliṁga-jana-saṁ* (n) *i* (ve) *saṁ* (or, according to another reading, *Naṁda-rājanītaṁ Kaliṁga Jina saṁnivesaṁ*),¹ *i.e.*, a station or encampment, or a Jaina shrine, in Kaliṅga acquired² by king Nanda.

c12.s8.7

¹ Barua, *Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela* (IHQ, XIV. 1938 pp. 259ff). *Sanniveśa* is explained in the dictionaries as an assemblage, station, seat, open space near a town etc. (Monier Williams). A commentator takes it to mean 'a halting place of caravans or processions'. Kuṇḍagrāma was a *sanniveśa* in Videha (SBE, XXII, *Jaina Sūtras*, pt. 1, Intro.). The reference in the inscription to the conquest of a place, or removal of a sacred object *from* Kaliṅga by Nandarāja disposes of the view that he was a local chief (Camb. Hist. 538).

c12.s8.8

² Dr. Barua (op. cit. p. 276n) objects to a Nanda conquest (or domination) of any part of Kaliṅga on the ground that the province "had remained unconquered (*avijita*) till the 7th year of Aśoka's reign". But the claim of the Maurya secretariat is on a par with Jahāngīr's boast that "not one of the Sultans of lofty dignity has obtained the victory over it" (*i.e.*, Kangra, Rogers, *Tūzuk*, II. 184). Kaliṅgas appear in the Purāṇas among the contemporaries of the Saiśunāgas who were overpowered by Nanda, the *Sarva-Kshatrāntaka*.

c12.s8.9

The epigraphs, though valuable as early notices of a line known mainly from literature, are not contemporaneous. For contemporary reports we must turn to Greek writers. There is an interesting reference, in the *Cyropaedia*³ of Xenophon, who died some time after 355 B.C., to "the Indian king, a very wealthy man". This cannot fail to remind one of the Nandas whom the unanimous testimony of Sanskrit, Tamil, Ceylonese and Chinese writers describe as the possessors of enormous wealth.⁴ Clearer information about the ruling family of Magadha (c. 326 B.C.) is supplied by the contemporaries of Alexander whose writings form the bases of the accounts of Curtius, Diodoros and Plutarch. Unfortunately, the classical writers do not mention the family name 'Nanda'. The reading 'Nandrum' in the place of 'Alexandrum' in the account of Justin is absolutely unjustifiable.

c12.s8.10

³ III. ii. 25 (trans. by Walter Miller).

c12.s8.11

⁴ *Cf.* the names Mahāpadmapati and Dhana Nanda. The *Mudrārākshasa* refers to the Nandas as '*navanavatisatadravyakoṭīśvarāḥ*' (Act III, verse 27), and '*Artharuchi*' (Act. I.) A passage of the *Kathā-sarit-sāgara* says that King Nanda possessed 990 millions of gold pieces. Tawney's Translation, Vol. I, p. 21. Dr. Aiyangar points out that a Tamil poem contains an interesting statement regarding the wealth of the Nandas "which having accumulated first in Pāṭali hid itself in the floods of the Ganges." *Beginnings of South Indian History*, p. 89. For N. Sastri's views see ANM, pp. 253ff. According to Ceylonese tradition "The youngest brother (among the sons of Ugrasena) was called Dhana Nanda, from his being addicted to hoarding treasure. ...He collected riches to the amount of eighty *koṭis*—in a rock in the bed of the river (Ganges) having caused a great excavation to be made, he buried the treasure there...Levying taxes among other articles even on skins, gums, trees, and stones he amassed further treasures which he disposed of similarly." (Turnour, *Mahāvaṁsa*, p. xxxix). Hiuen Tsang, the Chinese pilgrim, refers to "the five treasures of King Nanda's seven precious substances."

c12.s8.12

For a detailed account of the dynasty we have to rely on Indian tradition. Indian writers seem to be mainly interested in the Nanda age partly as marking an epoch in a social upsurge and the evolution of imperial unity, and partly as accessory to the life-sketch of Jaina patriarchs and to the *Chandragupta-kathā* of which we have fragments in the *Milindapañho*, *Mahāvaṁsa*, the Purāṇic chronicles, the *Bṛihat-Kathā* and its later versions together with the *Mudrā-rākshasa* and the *Arthaśāstra* compendiums.

c12.s8.13

The first Nanda was **Mahāpadma** or Mahāpadmapati¹ according to the *Purāṇas* and **Ugrasena** according to the *Mahābodhivaṁsa*. The *Purāṇas* describe him as a son of the last Kshatrabandhu (so-called Kshatriya) king of the preceding line by a Sūdrā mother. (*Sūdrā-garbh-odbhava*). The Jaina *Pariśishṭaparvan*,² on the other hand, represents Nanda as the son of a courtesan by a barber. The Jaina tradition is strikingly confirmed by the classical account of the pedigree of Alexander's Magadhan contemporary who was the predecessor of Chandragupta Maurya. Referring to this prince (Agrammes) Curtius says, "His father was in fact a barber, scarcely staving off hunger by his daily earnings, but who from his being not uncomely in person, had gained the affections of the queen, and was by her influence advanced to too near a place in the confidence of the reigning monarch. Afterwards, however, he treacherously murdered his sovereign, and then, under the pretence of acting as guardian to the royal children, usurped the supreme authority, and having put the young princes to death, begot the present king."

c12.s8.14

¹ 'Sovereign of an infinite host' or 'of immense wealth' according to the commentator (Wilson, *Vishṇu P.* Vol. IX, 184n), A city on the Ganges, styled Mahāpadmapura, is mentioned in *Mbh.* XII. 353. 1.

c12.s8.15

² P. 46. Text VI. 231-32.

c12.s8.16

¹ Crindle. *The Invasion of India by Alexander*, p. 222,

c12.s8.17

The barber ancestry of Agrammes, recorded by the classical writers is quite in keeping with the Jaina story of the extraction of the Nanda line. That the Magadhan contemporary of Alexander and of young Chandragupta was a Nanda king is not disputed. The real difficulty is about his identity. He could not possibly have been the *first* Nanda himself. The words used in reference to Agrammes, "the present king," *i.e.*, Alexander's contemporary in Curtius' narrative, make this point clear. He (Agrammes) *was born in purple to one who had already "usurped supreme authority" having secured the affections of a queen*. That description is scarcely applicable to the founder of the dynasty who was, according to Jaina testimony, the son of an ordinary courtesan (*gaṇikā*) by a barber apparently without any pretensions to supreme power in the state.

c12.s8.18

The murdered sovereign seems to have been Kālāśoka-Kākavarṇa who had a tragic end as we learn from the *Harsha-charita*. Kākavarṇa Saiśunāgi, says Bāṇa, had a dagger thrust into his throat in the vicinity of his city. The young princes referred to by Curtius were evidently the sons of Kālāśoka-Kākavarṇa. The Greek account of the rise of the family of Agrammes fits in well with the Ceylonese account of the end of the Saiśunāga line and the rise of the Nandas, but not with the Purāṇic story which represents the first Nanda as a son of the last Saiśunāga by a Sūdra woman, and makes no mention of the young princes. The name Agrammes is probably a distorted form of the Sanskrit Augrasainya, "son of Ugrasena".¹ Ugrasena is, as we have seen, the name of the first Nanda according to the *Mahābodhivaṁsa*. His son may aptly be termed Augrasainya which the Greeks corrupted into Agrammes and later on into Xandrames.²

c12.s8.19

¹ "Augrasainya" as a royal patronymic is met with in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, viii. 21.

c12.s8.20

² The identification of Xandrames (taken to answer to Sanskrit Chandramas), the Magadhan contemporary of Alexander, with Chandragupta, proposed by certain writers, is clearly untenable. Plutarch (*Life of Alexander*, Ch. 62) clearly distinguishes between the two, and his account receives confirmation from that of Justin (Watson's tr., p. 142). Xandrames or Agrammes was the son of a usurper born after his father had become king of the Prasii, while Chandragupta was himself the founder of a new sovereignty, the first king of his line. The father of Xandrames was a barber who could claim no royal ancestry. On the other hand, Brāhmaṇical and Buddhist writers are unanimous in representing Chandragupta as a descendant of a race of rulers, though they differ in regard to the identity of the family and its claim to be regarded as of pure Kshatriya stock. Jaina evidence clearly suggests that the barber usurper is identical with the Nāpita-kumāra or Nāpitasū (*Pariśishṭa*, VI, 231 and 244) who founded the Nanda line.

c12.s8.21

The Purāṇas call Mahāpadma, the first Nanda king, the destroyer of all the Kshatriyas (*sarva Kshatrāntaka*) and the sole monarch (*ekarāṭ*) of the earth which was under his undisputed sway, which terms imply that he finally overthrew all the dynasties which ruled contemporaneously with the Saiśunāgas, *viz*., the Ikshvākus, Pañchālas, Kāśis, Haihayas, Kaliṅgas, Aśmakas, Kurus, Maithilas, Sūrasenas, Vītihotras,¹ etc. The Jainas, too, allude to the wide dominion of Nanda.² The Indian account of the unification of a considerable portion of India under Nanda's sceptre is corroborated by several classical writers who speak of the most powerful peoples who dwelt beyond the 'extensive deserts' (apparently of Rājputāna and some adjoining tracts) in the time of Alexander, *viz.*, the Prasii (Prāchyas) and the Gangaridae (people of the lower Ganges Valley) as being under one sovereign who had his capital at Palibothra (Pāṭaliputra).³

c12.s8.22

¹ Conquest of some of the territories occupied by the tribes and clans named here by former kings of Magadha does not necessarily mean the total extinction of the old ruling families, but merely a deprivation of their glory (*yaśaḥ*) and an extension of the suzerainty of the conqueror. Extirpation cannot be meant unless it is definitely asserted as in the case of Mahāpadma Nanda's conquest, or that of Samudra Gupta in Āryāvarta. It may also sometimes be implied by the appointment of a prince of the conquering family as viceroy. Allowance, however, must be made for a good deal of exaggeration. Even the Vajjiaus were not literally 'rooted out' by Ajātaśatru, as the most important of the constituent clans, *viz.*, the Lichchhavis, survive till the Gupta Age. A branch of the Ikshvākus may have been driven southwards as they are found in the third or fourth century A.D. in the lower valley of the Kṛishṇā. The Kāśis overthrown by Nanda may have been the descendants or successors of the prince whom Śiśunāga had placed in Benares. The Haihayas occupied a part of the Narmadā valley. Conquest of a part of Kaliṅga by Nanda is suggested by the Hāthīgumphā record, that of Aśmaka and part of the Godāvarī valley by the city called ‘Nau Nand Dehra’ (Nander, Macauliffe, *Sikh Religion*, V, p. 236), Vītihotra sovereignty had terminated before the rise of the Pradyotas of Avanti. But if the Purāṇic statement (*DKA*, 23, 69) “Contemporaneously with the aforesaid kings (Śaiśunāgas, etc.) there will be . . . . . Vītihotras” has any value, the Śaiśunāgas may have paved the way for a restoration of some scion of the old line in Avanti. According to the evidence of the *Purāṇas* (*Vāyu* 94. 51-52) the Vītihotras were one of the five gaṇas of the Haihayas, and the survival of the latter is well attested by epigraphic evidence. The Maithilas apparently occupied a small district to the north of the Vajjian dominions annexed by Ajātaśatru. The Pañchālas, Kurus, and the Sūrasenas occupied the Gangetic Doāb and Mathurā and the control of their territories by the king of Magadha *c.* 326 B.C., accords with Greek evidence.

c12.s8.23

² *Samudravasaneśebhya āsamudramapiśriyaḥ* *upāya hastairākṛishya tataḥ so' kṛita Nandasāt* *Pariśishṭa Parvan*, VII. 81.

c12.s8.24

³ *Inv. Alex.*, 221, 281; *Megasthenes and Arrian* by McCrindle (1926) pp. 67. 141, 161.

c12.s8.25

Pliny informs us¹ that the Prasii surpass in power and glory every other people in all India, their capital being Palibothra (Pāṭaliputra), after which some call the people itself Palibothri, nay, even the whole tract of the Ganges. The author is referring probably to conditions in the time of the Mauryas, and not in that of the Nandas. But the greatness that the Prasii (*i.e.* the Magadhans and some other eastern peoples) attained in the Maurya Age would hardly have been possible but for the achievements of their predecessors of which we have a record by the historians of Alexander. The inclusion of the Ikshvāku territory of Kosala within Nanda's dominions seems to be implied by a passage of the *Kathā-sarit-sāgara*² which refers to the camp of king Nanda in Ayodhyā. Several Mysore inscriptions state that Kuntala, a province which included the southern part of the Bombay presidency and the north of Mysore, was ruled by the Nandas.³ But these are of comparatively modern date, the twelfth century, and too much cannot be built upon their statements. More important is the evidence of the Hāthigumphā inscription which mentions the constructive activity of Nandarāja in Kaliṅga and his conquest (or removal) of some place (or sacred object) in that country. In view of Nanda's control over parts of Kaliṅga, the conquest of Aśmaka and other regions lying further south does not seem to be altogether improbable. The existence on the Godāvarī of a city called "Nau Nand Dehra" (Nander)⁴ also suggests that the Nanda dominions may have embraced a considerable portion of the Deccan.

c12.s8.26

¹ *Megasthenes and Arrian* (1926), p. 141.

c12.s8.27

² Tawney's *Translation*, p. 21.

c12.s8.28

³ Rice, *Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions*, p. 3; Fleet, *Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts*, 284, n. 2.

c12.s8.29

⁴ Macauliffe's *Sikh Religion*, V, p. 236.

c12.s8.30

The *Matsya Purāṇa* assigns 88 years to the reign of the first Nanda, but 88 (*Ashṭāśīti*) is probably a mistake for 28 (*Ashṭāviṁśati*), as the *Vāyu* assigns only 28 years. According to Tāranāth Nanda reigned 29 years.¹ The Ceylonese accounts inform us that the Nandas ruled only for 22 years. The Purāṇic figure 28 is probably to be taken to include the period when Nanda was the *de facto* ruler of Magadha before his final usurpation of the throne.

c12.s8.31

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1875, p. 362.

c12.s8.32

Mahāpadma-Ugrasena was succeeded by his eight sons who were possibly kings in succession. They ruled for twelve years according to the Purāṇas. The Ceylonese Chronicles, as we have already seen, give the total length of the reign-period of all the nine Nandas as 22 years. The Purāṇas specify the name of one son of Mahāpadma, viz., Sukalpa.² The *Mahābodhivaṁsa* gives the following names: Paṇḍuka, Paṇḍugati, Bhūtapāla, Rāshtrapāla, Govishāṇaka, Daśasiddhaka, Kaivarta and **Dhana.** The last king is possibly identical with the **Agrammes** or **Xandrames** of the classical writers. Agrammes is, as we have seen, probable a distortion by the Greeks of the Sanskrit patronymic *Augrasainya*.

c12.s8.33

² The name has variants. One of these is **Sahalya.** Dr. Barua makes the plausible suggestion that the prince in question may be identical with Sahalin of the *Divyāvadāna* (p. 369; Pargiter, DKA, 25 n 24; *Bauddha Dharma Kosha*, 44). The evidence of that Buddhist work in regard to the relationship between **Sahalin** and **Kākavarṇa** can, however, hardly be accepted. The work often errs in this respect. It makes Pushyamitra a lineal descendant of Aśoka (p. 433).

c12.s8.34

The fist Nanda left to his sons not only a big empire but also a large army and, if tradition is to be believed, a full exchequer and an efficient system of civil government. Curtius tells us that Agrammes, king of the Gangaridae and the Prasii, kept in the field for guarding the approaches to his country 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, besides 2,000 four-horsed chariots, and what was the most formidable force of all, a troop of elephants which, he said, ran up to the number of 3,000. Diodoros and Plutarch give similar accounts. But they raise the number of elephants to 4,000 and 6,000 respectively. The name of one of the generals, Bhaddasāla is preserved by Buddhist tradition.¹

c12.s8.35

¹ *Milinda-Pañho*, SBE, xxxvi, pp. 147-8.

c12.s8.36

The immense riches of the Nandas have already been referred to. The family may also be credited with irrigation projects in Kaliṅga and the invention of a particular kind of measure (*Nandopakramāṇi mānāni*).² The existence of a body of capable ministers is vouched for both by Brāhmaṇical and Jaina tradition. But in the end they proved no match for another traditional figure whose name is indissolubly linked up with the fall of the Nandas and the rise of a more illustrious race of rulers.

c12.s8.37

² S. C. Vasu's trans. of the *Ashṭādhyāyī* of Pāṇini, rule illustrating *sūtra* II. 4. 21.

c12.s8.38

No detailed account of this great dynastic revolution has survived. The accumulation of an enormous amount of wealth by the Nanda kings probably implies a good deal of financial extortion. Moreover, we are told by the classical writers that Agrammes (the Nanda contemporary of Alexander) "was detested and held cheap by his subjects as he rather took after his father than conducted himself as the occupant of a throne."³

c12.s8.39

³ McCrindle, *The Invasion of India by Alexander*, p. 222. *Cf.* Ref. to Nanda's avarice DKA 125, *Jaina Pariśishṭa parvan*, vi. 244.— tataścha kechit sāmanta madenāndham bhavishṇavaḥ Nandasya na natim chakrurasau nāpitasūriti.

c12.s8.40

The Purāṇic passage about the revolution⁴ stands as follows:

c12.s8.41

⁴ The dynastic change is also referred to by the *Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra*, the *Kāmandakīya Nītisāra*, the *Mudrārākshasa*, the *Chaṇḍa Kauśika*, the Ceylonese Chronicles, etc.

c12.s8.42

*Uddharishyati tān sarvān*
*Kauṭilyo vai dvijarshabhaḥ*

c12.s8.43

*Kauṭilyaś-Chandraguptaṁ tu*
*tato rājye bhishekshyati.*¹

c12.s8.44

¹ Some Mss. read *dvirashṭabhiḥ* in place of *dvijarshabhaḥ*. Dr. Jayaswal (*Ind. Ant.*, 1914, 124) proposed to emend it to *Virāshṭrābhiḥ*. Virāshṭrās he took to mean the Āraṭṭas and added that Kauṭilya was helped by the Āraṭṭas "the band of robbers" of Justin. *Cf.* Cunningham, *Bhilsa Topes*, pp. 88, 89. Pargiter, however, suggests, (*Dynasties of the Kali Age*, pp. 26, 85) that *dvijarshabhaḥ* (the best among the twice-born, *i.e.*, Brāhmaṇas) may be the correct reading instead of "*dvirashṭabhiḥ*."

c12.s8.45

The *Milinda-Pañho*² refers to an episode of the great struggle between the Nandas and the Mauryas: "There was Bhaddasāla, the soldier in the service of the royal family of Nanda, and he waged war against king Chandagutta. Now in that war, Nāgasena, there were eighty Corpse dances. For they say that when one great Head Holocaust has taken place (by which is meant the slaughter of ten thousand elephants, and a lac of horses and five thousand charioteers, and a hundred *koṭis* of soldiers on foot), then the headless corpses arise and dance in frenzy over the battle-field." The passage contains a good deal of mythical embellishment. But we have here a reminiscence of the bloody encounter between the contending forces of the Nandas and the Mauryas.³

c12.s8.46

² IV. 8. 26. *Cf.* SBE, xxxvi, pp. 147-48.

c12.s8.47

³ *Cf. Ind. Ant.*, 1914, p. 124n.

Linked texts (16)