Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c15.s1.t2: The Change of Foreign Policy

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c15.s1.t2

Language
English

The Change of Foreign Policy

c15.s1.t2.1

The effect of the change of religion was at once felt in foreign policy. The Emperor declared that "of all the people who were slain, done to death, or carried away captive in Kaliṅga, if the hundredth part or the thousandth part were now to suffer the same fate, it would be a matter of regret to His Sacred Majesty. Moreover, should any one do him wrong, that too must be borne with by His Sacred Majesty, so far as it can possibly be borne with." In Kaliṅga Edict I, the Emperor expressed his desire that the unsubdued peoples in the frontiers of the imperial dominions (*Aṃtā avijitā*) "should not be afraid of him, that they should trust him, and should receive from him happiness not sorrow." The chiefest conquest in the Emperor’s opinion was the conquest by righteousness (*Dhamma-vijaya*). In Edict IV he exultingly says, “the reverberation of the kettle-drums (*Bherīghoṣo*) has become the reverberation of the Law of Piety (*Dhammaghoṣo*).” Not content with what he himself did he called upon his sons and even his great grandsons to eschew new conquests—*putra papotra me asu navam vijayam ma vijetaviyam*. Here we have a complete renunciation of the old policy of military conquest or *Digvijaya* and the enunciation of a new policy, viz., that of *Dhammavijaya*.¹ The full political effects of this change of policy became manifest only after the death of Aśoka, *perhaps even after the 27th year of his consecration*. From the time of Bimbisāra to the Kaliṅga war the history of India was the story of the expansion of Magadha from a tiny state in South Bihār to a gigantic Empire extending from the foot of the Hindukush to the borders of the Tamil country. After the Kaliṅga war ensued a period of stagnation at the end of which the process is reversed. The empire gradually dwindled down in extent till it sank to the position from which Bimbisāra and his successors had raised it.

c15.s1.t2.2

¹ The Aśokan conception of *Dhammavijaya* was similar to that described in the *Chakkavatti Sīhanāda Sutta*, “conquest not by the scourge, not by the sword, but by righteousness” (*Dialogues of the Buddha*, Part III, p. 59). It was different from the Hindu conception explained and illustrated by the *Mahābhārata* (XII. 59, 38-39), the *Harivaṁśa* (I. 14.21), the *Kauṭilīya* (p. 382), and the *Raghuvaṁśa* (IV. 43). Attention may be invited in this connection to a Statement of Arrian that “a sense of justice prevented any Indian king from attempting conquest beyond the limits of India” (*Camb. Hist. Ind.* I. 321); M‘crindle, *Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian*, 209. Incidentally it may be pointed out that the discourse entitled the *Chakkavatti Sīhanāda* (*Lion Roar of the Chakravarti* or emperor who ‘conquers by righteousness’) possibly affords a clue to a proper appreciation of the famous Sarnath Capital with its *Chakra* and crowning lions. *Cf.* also *Rāmāyaṇa* II. 10.36: *Yāvadāvartate chakram tāvati me vasundharā*, IC, XV, 1-4, p. 179f.

c15.s1.t2.3

True to his principle Aśoka made no attempt to annex the frontier (*Prachaṁta*, *aṁta*, *sāmanta*, *sāmīpa*), kingdoms, *viz.*, Chola, Pāṇḍya, Satiyaputra, Keralaputra Tambapaṁni (Ceylon) and the realm of Aṁtiyako Yonarāja, who is usually identified with Antiochos II Theos, King of Syria and Western Asia. On the contrary, he maintained friendly relations with them.

c15.s1.t2.4

The Chola country was drained by the river Kāverî and comprised the districts of Trichinopoly and Tanjore. We learn from a South Indian inscription¹ that Hara, *i.e.*, the god Śiva, asked Guṇabhara (Mahendravarman I, Pallava), “How could I, standing in a temple on earth, view the great power of the Cholas or the river Kāverî?” When Pulakeśin II Chalukya strove to conquer the Cholas “the Kāverî had her current obstructed by the causeway formed by his elephants.” The Chola capital was Uraiyūr (*Sanskrit* Uragapura) or Old Trichinopoly.² The principal port was at Kāviripaṭṭinam or Pugār on the northern bank of the Kāverî.³

c15.s1.t2.5

¹ Hultzsch, *SII*, Vol. I, p. 34.

c15.s1.t2.6

² Aelian, however, has the following reference to the realm of Soras (Chola?) and its chief city: “There is a city which a man of royal extraction called Soras governed at the time when Eukratides governed the Bactrians, and the name of that city is Perimuda (city of Perumal?). It is inhabited by a race of fish-eaters who go off with nets and catch oysters.” For Uragapura in Cholika Vishaya, *see Ep. Ind.*, X. 103.

c15.s1.t2.7

³ For the early history of the Chola Kingdom and other Tamil states *see CHI*, Vol. I, Ch. 24; Smith, *EHI*, Ch. XVI; Kanakasabhai Pillay, *Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago*; Krishnaswami Aiyangar, *Beginnings of South Indian History and Ancient India*; K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, *The Pāṇḍyan Kingdom*, *The Colas*, *etc.*

c15.s1.t2.8

The Pāṇḍya country corresponded to the Madurā, and Tinnevelly districts with perhaps the southern portions of Rāmnad and the Travancore Cochin state. It had its capitals at Kolkai and Madurā (*Dakshiṇa* Mathurā). The rivers Tāmraparṇî and Kṛitamālā or Vaigai flowed through it. Kātyāyana derives Pāṇḍya from Pāṇḍu. The Pāṇḍus are mentioned as the ruling race of Indraprastha in the *Mahābhārata* as well as in several *Jātakas*,¹ Ptolemy (cir. 150 A. D.) speaks of the country of the *Pandoouoi* in the Pañjāb. There can be no doubt that Pāṇḍu was the name of a real tribe or clan in northern India. Kātyāyana's statement regarding the connection of the Pāṇḍyas with the Pāṇḍus receives some support from the fact that the name of the Pāṇḍya capital (Madurā) was identical with the famous city of Mathurā in the Sūrasena country which, according to Epic tradition, was the seat of a family intimately associated by ties of friendship and marriage with the Pāṇḍus of Indraprastha. The connection between the Pāṇḍus, the Sūrasenas and the Pāṇḍyas seems to be alluded to in the confused stories narrated by Megasthenes regarding Herakles and Pandaia.²

c15.s1.t2.9

¹ I find it difficult to agree with Dr. Barua, *Inscriptions of Aśoka*, Part II (1943), p. 232, that the "line of Yudhishṭhira"...that ruled at Indraprastha in the Kuru country "has nothing to do with Pāṇḍu's eldest son."

c15.s1.t2.10

² Ind. Ant., 1877, p. 249.

c15.s1.t2.11

**Satiyaputra** is identified by Mr. Venkatesvaraiyar³ with *Satya-vrata-kshetra* or Kañchīpura. But Dr. Aiyangar points out that the term *Satya-vrata-kshetra* is applied to the town of Kāñchī or a part of it, not to the country dependent upon it. There is besides the point whether *vrata* could become *puta*. Dr. Aiyangar supports Bhandarkar's identification with Satpute. He takes Satiyaputra to be a collective name of the various matriarchal communities like the Tulus and the Nāyars of Malabar.⁴ According to Dr. Smith⁵ Satiyaputra is represented by the Satyamaṅgalam Tāluk of Coimbatore. Mr. T. N. Subramaniam⁶ prefers Koṅgunāḍu ruled by the *Kośar* people famous for their truthfulness. Mr. K. G. Sesha Aiyar¹ takes Satiyaputra to be the equivalent of Atiyamān, chief of Kutiraimalai with his headquarters at Takaḍūr, now in Mysore. Mr. P. J. Thoma, however, gives reasons for identifying it with “Satyabhūmi” of the *Kēralolpatti*, a territory which corresponds roughly to “North Malabar including a portion of Kasergode Tāluk, South Canara.”²

c15.s1.t2.12

³ *JRAS*, 1918, pp. 541-42

c15.s1.t2.13

⁴ *JRAS*, 1919, pp. 581-84.

c15.s1.t2.14

⁵ *Aśoka*, Third Ed., p 161

c15.s1.t2.15

⁶ *JRAS*, 1922, 86.

c15.s1.t2.16

¹ *Cēra kings of the Sangam period*, 17-18, cf, now N. Sastri, ANM, 25.

c15.s1.t2.17

² JRAS. 1923, p. 412, B. A. Saletore is, however, inclined to disparage the authority of the *Keralolpatti* (*Indian Culture*, I 668). But Kirfel points out (*Die Cosmographie Der Inder*, 1920, p. 78) that Satiya (variants Satīratha, Sanīpa) finds mention in the list of southern Janapadas, along with the Mūshakas, in the Jambukhaṇḍa section of the *Mahābhārata* (Bk. VI.). For other views see Ind. Cult., Vol. II, 549 ff.; *Aiyangar. Com. Vol.*, 45-47. Mr. M. G. Pai suggests that 'Satiya' corresponds to Sāntika of the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, 58.37, and the *Bṛihat Saṁhitā*, xiv, 27, and included South Kanara. Cf. Setae of pliny. (Bomb, Gaz. Gujrat, 533).

c15.s1.t2.18

**Keralaputra** (Ketalaputo or Chera) is “the country south of Kūpaka (or Satya), extending down to Kanneti in Central Travancore (Karunagapalli Tāluk). South of it lay the political division of Mūshika.”³ It was watered by the river Periyar, perhaps identical with the Churṇī of the *Arthaśāstra*⁴ on the banks of which stood its capital Vañji (near Cochin) and at its mouth the seaport of Muziris (Kranganur).

c15.s1.t2.19

³ JRAS, 1923, P. 413.

c15.s1.t2.20

⁴ P. 75. Cf. *Suka saṁdesa* (Aiyar, *Cera kings*, 94).

c15.s1.t2.21

Ceylon was known in ancient times as Pārasamudra⁵ as well as Tāmraparṇī (Greek Taprobane).⁶ Taṁbapaṁni, *i.e.*, Tāmraparṇī is mentioned in Rock Edicts II and XIII of Aśoka. Dr. Smith lately¹ took the word to mean not Ceylon but the river Tāmraparṇī in Tinnevally. He referred to the Girnar text “*ā Tambapaṁni*” which according to him indicated that the river was meant, not the island. Now, in Edict II the phrase “*ā Tambapaṁni*” comes after Ketalaputo and not after Pāḍā. The expression “Ketalaputo as far as the (river) Tāmraparṇī” is hardly appropriate because the Tāmraparṇī is a Pāṇḍyan river.² We, therefore, prefer to take Tāmraparṇī to mean Ceylon. Aśoka’s Ceylonese contemporary was Devānaṁpiya Tissa whose accession may be dated about 250 or 247 B.C.

c15.s1.t2.22

⁵ Greek *Palaesimundu*, see Ray Chaudhuri, *Ind. Ant.*, 1919, pp. 195-96, commentary on the *Kauṭilīya*, Ch. XI; *Rāmāyaṇa*, VI, 3, 21 (Laṅkā described as *sthitā* “*pāre samudrasya*”). On reading Law's *Ancient Hindu Polity* (p. 87 n.) I find that the identification was also suggested by Mr. N. L. Dey. The equation Pārasamudra = Palaesimundu is not less plausible than the equations Sātavāhana = Sālivahana; Katāha = Kaḍāram = Kiḍāram = Kantoli (pace Dr Majumdar, *Suvarṇadvīpa*, 56, 79. 168).

c15.s1.t2.23

⁶ For other names of Ceylon see “*Megasthenes and Arrian*” published by Chuckerverty and Chatterjee, 1926, p. 60 n. For a short history of the island see *Camb. Hist. Ind.*, Chap. XXV, and IHQ. II. 1. p. 1 ff. According to tradition recorded in the *Dīpavaṁsa* and the *Mahāvaṁsa* the first Aryan immigrants were led by Prince Vijaya of Lāḷa, whom the chronicles represent as a grandson of a Princess of Vaṅga. The identification of Lāḷa is, however, open to controversy, some placing it in Gujarāt, others identifying it with Rāḍha or Western Bengal. Barnett may be right in his assumption that the tradition of two different streams of immigration was knit together in the story of Vijaya. See also IHQ, 1933, 742 ff.

c15.s1.t2.24

¹ *Aśoka*, 3rd Ed., p. 162.

c15.s1.t2.25

² Even those who prefer to see in the passage a reference to a kingdom in the Valley of the Tamraparṇī river, have to prove that such a kingdom did exist in the Maurya age apart from “Pāḍā” and Taprobane, and to explain the particular way in which it is mentioned in Edict II.

c15.s1.t2.26

Aśoka maintained friendly relations not only with the Tamil powers of the south, but also with his **Hellenistic frontager**, Antiochos II Theos, king of Syria and Western Asia (B.C. 261-246); and even with the kings the neighbours of Antiochos, namely, Ptolemy II, Philadelphos, king of Egypt (B.C. 285-247); Magas, king of Cyrene in North Africa (who probably died not later than B.C. 258)³; Antigonos Gonatas, king of Macedonia (B.C. 277 or 276-239); and Alexander who ruled over Epirus (B.C. 272-*c.*255) according to Norris, Westergaard, Lassen, Senart, Smith and Marshall.⁴ Beloch and Hultzsch, however, suggest¹ that Alikasudara of Edict XIII is the comparatively insignificant ruler, Alexander of Corinth, the son of Craterus (B.C. 252—*cir.* 244) and not Alexander of Epirus (272—*cir.* 255), the son of Pyrrhus.

c15.s1.t2.27

³ Tarn, *Antigonos Gonatas*, p. 449 f.

c15.s1.t2.28

⁴ *Monuments of Sāñchī*, I, 28 n.

c15.s1.t2.29

¹ JRAS, 1914, pp. 943 ff. *Ins. of Aśoka*, xxxi.

c15.s1.t2.30

Though Aśoka did not covet the territories of his neighbours, there is evidence that he gave them advice on occasions, and established philanthropic institutions in their dominions. In other words, he regarded them as objects of spiritual conquest (*Dhamma-vijaya*).

c15.s1.t2.31

"My neighbours, too, should learn this lesson."²

c15.s1.t2.32

² M. R. Edict I.

c15.s1.t2.33

"Among his frontagers the Cholas, the Pāṇḍyas, the Satyaputra, the Ketalaputra as far as Tāmraparṇī, Antiochos, the Greek king, and even the kings the neighbours of that Antiochos, everywhere have been made healing arrangements of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King."

c15.s1.t2.34

In Edict XIII Aśoka declares that the "conquest of the Law of Piety,......has been won by His Sacred Majesty......among all his neighbours as far as six hundred leagues, where the king of the Greeks named Antiochos dwells, and beyond (the realm) of that Antiochos (where dwell) the four kings (*rājāno*) severally Ptolemy (Turamāyo), Antigonos (Aṁtekina), Magas (Maga or Maka), and Alexander (Alikasudaro)—(likewise) in the south (*micha*), the Cholas and the Pāṇḍyas as far as Tambapaṁni......Even where the envoys (*dūtā*) of His Sacred Majesty do not penetrate,³ those people, too, hearing His Sacred Majesty's ordinance based upon the Law of Piety and his instruction in the Law, practise and will practise the Law."¹ Buddhism doubtless made some progress in Western Asia and influenced later sects like the Manichaeans. But Greeks apparently were not much impressed by lessons on non-violence. When the strong arm of Aśoka, "who possessed the power to punish inspite of his repentance," was withdrawn, the Yavanas poured once more into the Kābul valley, the Pañjab and the *Madhya-deśa* and threw all the province into confusion. The southern missions were more successful. Curiously enough, the Ceylonese chronicles do not seem to refer to the envoys sent to the independent Tamil and Hellenistic kingdoms² but name the missionaries sent to Ceylon and **Suvaṇṇabhūmi** (Lower Burma and Sumatra). The Ceylonese mission was headed by prince Mahendra who secured the conversion of Devānaṁpiya Tissa and many of his people. No direct reference to Suvaṇṇabhūmi occurs in the Edicts hitherto discovered.

c15.s1.t2.35

³ Have we here a reference to countries like Suvaṇṇabhūmi named in the list of territories to which missionaries were sent according to the *Mahāvaṁsa*?

c15.s1.t2.36

¹ From Buddhism in Western Asia, see Beal, *Si-yu-ki*, II. 378; and Alberūnī, p. 21; *JRAS*, 1913, 76; M'Crindle, *Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature*, p. 185; Eliot, *Hinduism and Buddhism*, Vol. III, pp. 3, 450 f; cf. Smith, *EHI*, 4th ed., 197; Burlingame, trans, *Dhammapada Commentary*, Introduction.

c15.s1.t2.37

² Mention is however made of the Yona country along with Kasmīra, Gandhāra and Himālaya (Geiger, 82). This Yona territory is perhaps to be identified with the homonymous land in the Kābul valley associated with Kamboja and Gandhāra in the Aśokan Inscriptions. But reference in a vague way to the Levantine world is not completely ruled out. The Deccan lands mentioned in connection with the traditional missionary activity of the Aśokan age include Mahiśamaṇḍala, Vanavāsa (in the Kanarese area), Aparāntaka (on the west coast), and Mahāraṭṭha (Mahārāshṭra) in the upper valley of the Godāvarī.

Cites (12)