Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c15.s2: Section II. The Later Mauryas and the Decline of their Power

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c15.s2

Language
English

Contents

Section II. The Later Mauryas and the Decline of their Power

c15.s2.1

The Magadha Empire under Aśoka extended from the foot of the Hindukush to the borders of the Tamil country. But the withdrawal of the strong arm of Piyadasi was perhaps the signal for the disintegration of this mighty monarchy. "His sceptre was the bow of Ulysses which could not be drawn by any weaker hand." The provinces fell off one by one. Foreign barbarians began to pour across the north-western gates of the empire, and a time came when the proud monarchs of Paṭaliputra and Rājagṛiha (and Malwa) had to bend their knees before the despised provincials of 'Andhra' and Kaliṅga.

c15.s2.2

Unfortunately, no Megasthenes or Kauṭilya has left any account of the later Mauryas. It is impossible to reconstruct a detailed history of Aśoka's successors from the scanty data furnished by one or two inscriptions and a few Brāhmaṇical, Jaina and Buddhist works.

c15.s2.3

Aśoka had many children. In Pillar Edict VII, he pays attention to the distribution of alms made by all his children, and in particular to those made by the "Princes, sons of the Queens". It is to this last category that belonged some of the *Kumāras* who represented the Imperial authority at Takshaśilā, Ujjayinī and Tosalī. **Tīvara**¹ the son of queen Kāruvāki, the only prince actually named in the inscriptions, does not appear to have mounted the imperial throne. Three other sons, namely, Mahendra, Kunāla (Dharma-vivardhana, Suyaśas?), and Jalauka are mentioned in literature. It is, however, uncertain whether Mahendra was a son of Aśoka or his brother.

c15.s2.4

¹ For Tīvara as a Magadhan name see the *Book of Kindred Sayings*, II, pp. 128-30.

c15.s2.5

The *Vāyu Purāṇa* says that after Aśoka's death his son **Kunāla** reigned for eight years. Kunāla's son and successor was Bandhupālita, and Bandhupālita's *dāyāda* or heir was Indrapālita. After Indrapālita came Devavarman, Śatadhanus and Bṛihadratha.

c15.s2.6

The *Matsya Purāṇa* gives the following list of Aśoka's successor:—Daśaratha, Samprati, Śatadhanvan and Bṛihadratha.

c15.s2.7

The *Vishṇu Purāṇa* furnishes the following names:—Suyaśas, Daśaratha, Saṅgata, Śāliśūka, Somaśarman Śatadhanvan and Bṛihadratha.

c15.s2.8

The *Divyāvadāna*¹ has the following list:—Saṁpadī, Vṛihaspati, Vṛishasena, Pushyadharman and Pushyamitra.

c15.s2.9

¹ P. 433.

c15.s2.10

Jaina writers refer to a Maurya king of Rājagṛiha, named Balabhadra.²

c15.s2.11

² Jacobi, *Introduction to the Kalpasūtra of Bhadrabāhu*, 1879, p. 9.

c15.s2.12

The *Rājataraṅgiṇī* mentions **Jalauka** as the successor of Aśoka in Kaśmîra, while Tāranātha mentions another successor Vîrasena who ruled in Gandhāra and was, as Dr. Thomas suggests, probably the predecessor of **Subhāgasena** of Polybius.³

c15.s2.13

³ *Ind. Ant.*, 1875, p. 362; *Camb. Hist. Ind.*, I, p. 512.

c15.s2.14

It is not an easy task to reconcile the divergent versions of the different authorities. The reality of the existence of Kunāla is established by the combined testimony of the Purāṇic and Buddhist works (which represent him as the father of Saṁpadī) as well as the evidence of Hemchandra and Jinaprabhasuri, the well-known Jaina writers. The names Dharma-vivardhana occurring in the *Divyāvadāna* and the *Records* of Fa Hien and Suyaśas found in the *Vishṇu* and the *Bhāgavata Purāṇas* were probably *birudas* or epithets of this prince. Tradition is not unanimous regarding the accession of Kunāla to the imperial throne. He is reputed to have been blind. His position was, therefore, probably like that of Dhṛitarāshṭra of the Great Epic and, though nominally regarded as the sovereign, he was physically unfit to carry on the work of government which was presumably entrusted to his favourite son Samprati, who is described by Jaina and Buddhist writers as the immediate successor of Aśoka.

c15.s2.15

Kuṇāla’s son was Bandhupālita according to the *Vāyū Purāṇa*, Saṁpadî (Samprati) according to the *Divyāvadāna* and the *Pāṭaliputrakalpa* of Jinaprabhasuri,¹ and Vigataśoka according to Tāranātha.² Either these princes were identical or they were brothers. If the latter view be correct then Bandhupālita may have been identical with **Daśaratha** whose reality is established by the brief dedicatory inscriptions on the walls of cavedwellings at the Nāgārjuni Hills which he bestowed upon the *Ājīvikas*. Daśaratha, who receives the epithet “*devānaṁpiya*” in the inscriptions, was a grandson of Aśoka according to the *Matsya* and *Vishṇu Purāṇas*, and the predecessor of Samprati (variant Saṅgata) according to the same authorities.

c15.s2.16

¹ See also *Pariśishṭaparvan*, IX, 51-53.

c15.s2.17

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1857, 362.

c15.s2.18

Indrapālita must be identified with **Samprati** or Śāliśūka according as we identify Bandhupālita with Daśaratha or Samprati. “In the matter of the propagation of the Jaina faith, Jaina records speak as highly of Samprati as Buddhist records do of Aśoka.” The *Pāṭaliputrakalpa* of Jinaprabhasuri³ says, “in Pāṭaliputra flourished the great king Samprati, son of Kuṇāla, lord of Bhārata with its three continents (*trikhaṇḍaṁ Bharata-kshetraṁ Jināyatanamanditam*), the great *Arhanta* who established *Vihāras* for *Śramaṇas* even in non-Aryan countries.”

c15.s2.19

³ Bomb., Gaz., I. i, 6-15. *Pariśishṭa*, XI. 65.

c15.s2.20

Dr. Smith shows good grounds for believing that the dominions of Samprati included Avanti and Western India.¹ In his *Aśoka*² he admits that the hypothesis that Aśoka left two grandsons, of whom one (Daśaratha) succeeded him in his eastern and the other (Samprati) in his western dominions, is little more than a guess.³ The Jaina writers represent Samprati as ruling over Pāṭaliputra as well as Ujjayinī. His name is mentioned in the Purāṇic list of Aśoka's Magadhan successors.

c15.s2.21

¹ *Pariśishṭaparvan*, xi. 23. *itaścha Samprati nṛipo yayāv Ujjayinīṁ purīm*.

c15.s2.22

² Third ed., p. 70.

c15.s2.23

³ Curiously enough, Prof. Dhruva maintains in spite of this and the clear evidence of Jaina literature that "historians say that on the death of Kuṇāla there was a partition of the Maurya Empire between his two sons Daśaratha and Samprati (*JBORS*, 1930, 30)." Prof. Dhruva's emendations of the text of the *Yugapurāṇa* are largely conjectural and of little probative value.

c15.s2.24

The existence of Śāliśūka is proved not only by the testimony of the *Vishṇu Purāṇa* but also by that of the *Gārgī Saṁhitā*⁴ and the *e Vāyu* manuscript referred to by Pargiter. He may have been identical with Vṛihaspati, son of Samprati, according to the *Divyāvadāna*, unless Vṛihaspati represented a different branch of the imperial family.

c15.s2.25

⁴ Kern's *Bṛihatsaṁhitā*, p. 37. The *Gārgī Saṁhitā* says, "There will be Śāliśūka, a wicked quarrelsome king. Unrighteous, although theorising on righteousness, *dharmavādī adhārmikaḥ* (sic) he cruelly oppresses his country."

c15.s2.26

Devavarman and Somaśarman are variant readings of the same name. The same is the case with Śatadhanus⁵ and Śatadhanvan. It is not easy to identify Vṛishasena and Pushyadharman; they may be merely *birudas* or secondary names of Devavarman and Śatadhanvan. But the possibility that they represent a distinct branch of the Maurya line is not entirely excluded.

c15.s2.27

⁵ For an interesting account of a King named Śatadhanu see *Vishṇu Purāṇa* III. 18. 51; *Bhāg.*, II. 8. 44. His identity is, however, uncertain.

c15.s2.28

The last of the Imperial Mauryas of Magadha, **Bṛihadratha**, is mentioned not only in the *Purāṇas* but also in Bāṇa's *Harsha-charita*. He was crushed by his general Pushyamitra who is perhaps wrongly described by the *Divyāvadāna* as of Maurya descent. A Maurya minister is said to have been imprisoned by the rigicide family.

c15.s2.29

Petty Maurya kings continued to rule in Western India as well as Magadha long after the extinction of the Imperial line. King Dhavala of the Maurya dynasty is referred to in the Kaṇaswa inscription of A. D. 738.¹ Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar identifies him with Dhavalappadeva, the overlord of Dhanika, mentioned in the Dabok (Mewar) inscription of *cir. A. D. 725*.² Maurya chiefs of the Koṅkaṇ and Khāndesh are referred to in Early Chalukya and Yādava epigraphs.³ A Maurya ruler of Magadha named Pūrṇavarman is mentioned by Hiuen Tsang.

c15.s2.30

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XIII, 163; *Bomb. Gaz.*, I. Part 2, p. 284. Kaṇaswa is in the Kotah State, Rājputāna. It is not unlikely that Dhavala was a descendant of some princely Viceroy of Ujjain. See also reference to the Mauryas in the Navasārikā grant Fleet, *DKD*, 375.

c15.s2.31

² *Ep. Ind.*, XII, p. 11. But see *Ep.* XX. 122. The date A. D. 725 is not accepted by other scholars who prefer A. D. 813.

c15.s2.32

³ *Bomb. Gaz.*, I. Part 2, pp. 283, 284. Bühler suggests (*Ep. Ind.*, III, p. 136) that these Maurya chieftains of the Koṅkaṇ were probably descendants of the princely Viceroy of the Deccan. He also draws our attention to the family name 'More' which is met with in the Mahratta country, and is apparently a corruption of 'Maurya.'

c15.s2.33

There can be no doubt that during the sovereignty of the later Mauryas the Magadha Empire experienced a gradual decay. Aśoka died in or about the year 232 B. C. Within a quarter of a century after his death a Greek army crossed the Hindukush which was the Maurya frontier in the days of Chandragupta and his grandson. The *Yuga Purāṇa* section of the *Gārgī Saṁhitā* bears testimony to **the decline of the Maurya power in the *Madhyadeśa* after the reign of Śāliśūka**:

c15.s2.34

*Tataḥ Sāketam ākramya*
*Pañchālān Mathurāṁstathā*
*Yavanā dushṭavikrāntāḥ*
*prāpsyanti Kusumadhvajam*
*tataḥ Pushpapure prāpte*
*kardame prathite hite*
*ākulā vishayāḥ sarve*
*bhavishyanti na saṁśayaḥ*.¹

c15.s2.35

¹ Kern, *Brihat Saṁhitā*, p. 37.

c15.s2.36

"Then the viciously valiant Greeks, after reducing Sāketa (in Oudh), the Pañchāla country and Mathurā, will reach (or take) Kusumadhvaja. Pushpapura (Pāṭaliputra) being reached....all provinces will undoubtedly be in disorder."

c15.s2.37

Where was now the power that had expelled the prefects of Alexander and hurled back the battalions of Seleukos?

c15.s2.38

According to Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasād Sāstrī² a **reaction promoted by the Brāhmaṇas** had sapped the foundations of the Maurya authority and dismembered the empire.

c15.s2.39

² JASB, 1910, pp. 259 ff.

c15.s2.40

Among the causes of the alienation of the Brāhmaṇas the foremost place is given to Aśoka's Edict against animal sacrifices. The Edict, in Paṇḍit Sāstrī's opinion, was certainly directed against the Brāhmaṇas as a class and was specially offensive because it was promulgated by a *Sudra ruler*. As to the first point we should remember that prohibition of animal sacrifices did not necessarily imply hostility towards Brāhmaṇas. Long before Aśoka Brāhmaṇa sages whose teachings have found a place in the Holy *Sruti*, the most sacred literature of the Brāhmaṇas, declared themselves in no uncertain terms against sacrifices, and in favour of *Ahiṁsā* (non-violence).

c15.s2.41

In the *Muṇḍaka Upanishad* ¹ we have the following *Śloka*:—

c15.s2.42

¹ 2, 7; *S. B. E.* *The Upanishads*, pt. II, p. 31.

c15.s2.43

*Plavā hyete adṛiḍhā yajñarūpā*
*ashṭādaśoktam avaraṁ yeshu karma*
*etachchhreyo ye’bhinandanti mūḍhā*
*jarāmṛityuṁ te punarevāpi yanti.*

c15.s2.44

"Frail, in truth are those boats, the sacrifices, the eighteen in which this lower ceremonial has been told. Fools, who praise this as the highest good, are subject again and again to old age and death." In the *Chhāndogya Upanishad* ² Ghora Āṅgirasa lays great stress on *Ahiṁsā*.

c15.s2.45

² III. 17. 4.

c15.s2.46

As to the second statement we should remember that tradition is not unanimous in representing the Mauryas as of *Śūdra* extraction. Certain *Purāṇic* texts assert no doubt, that after Mahāpadma there will be kings of *Śūdra* origin.³ But this statement cannot be taken to mean that all the post-Mahāpadman kings were *Śūdras*, as in that case the Śuṅgas and the Kāṇvas also will have to be classed as *Śūdras*.⁴ The *Mudrārākshasa*, the evidence of which is cited to prove that Chandragupta was a *Śūdra*,⁵ is a late work, and its evidence is contradicted by earlier authorities. As already pointed out above¹ the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta* represents the Moriyas (Mauryas) as belonging to the Kshatriya caste. The *Mahāvaṁsa*² refers to the Moriyas as a noble (*kshatriya*) clan and represents Chandragupta as a scion of this clan. In the *Divyāvadāna*³ Bindusāra, son of Chandragupta, said to a girl, "*Tvaṁ Nāpinī ahaṁ Rāja Kshatriyo Mūrdhābhishiktaḥ kathaṁ mayā sārdhaṁ samāgamo bhavishyati?*" Thou art a barber girl, I am a consecrated kshatriya (king). How can I unite myself with thee?'' In the same work⁴ Aśoka says to one of his queens (Tishyarakshitā), "*Devi ahaṁ Kshatriyaḥ kathaṁ palāṇḍuṁ paribhakshayāmi?*" 'Queen, I am a *kshatriya*, how can I take onion?' In a Mysore inscription Chandragupta is described as "an abode of the usages of eminent kshatriyas.''⁵ The *Kauṭilīya's* preference of an "*abhijāta*" king seems also to suggest that the sovereign of the reputed author was born of a noble family.⁶

c15.s2.47

³ *Tataḥ prabhṛitirājāno bhavishyāḥ Śūdrayonayaḥ.* The reading in other texts is, however, *Tato nṛipā bhavishyanti Śūdraprāyāstadhārmikāḥ* (DKA, 25).

c15.s2.48

⁴ Among real Śūdra (or partially Śūdra) kings may be included the Nandas, a few rulers mentioned in the *Garuḍa Purāṇa* (Ch. 145. 4) and the *Si-yū-ki* of Hiuen Tsang (Watters, I. 322; II. 252), and certain princes of Western India and the Indus Valley mentioned on pp. 54-55 of Pargiter's *Dynasties of the Kali age*.

c15.s2.49

⁵ In the play Chandragupta is styled ‘*Nandānvaya*’ and *Vṛishala*. As to the former appellation we should note that the play describes Nanda as *abhijana*. Further it calls Chandragupta *Mauryaputra*, and though commentators try to reconcile the epithets *Nandānvaya* and *Mauryaputra*, we learn from early Buddhist writers that Maurya is not a metronymic of Chandragupta or of his father, but the designation of an old clan. The Greeks, too, refer to a tribe called Morieis (Weber IA. ii. (1873) p. 148; Max Muller, *Sans. Lit.*, 280; Cunn. *JASB*, XXIII, 680). As to the epithet *Vṛishala* it should be remembered that a Purāṇic text applies it even to the founder of the so-called Andhra dynasty (Pargiter, DKA, 38). But we learn from contemporary epigraphs that the dynasty regarded itself as 'Bamhaṇa.' According to Manu (X. 43) the epithet *Vṛishala* could be applied to degraded Kshatriyas (cf. IHQ, 1930, 271 ff. *Cf.* also Mbh. XII. 90, 15 ff., "The Blessed Dharma is *Vṛisha*. He who deals with it in such a way that it ceases to be of any use, *i.e.*, transgresses it, is called a *Vṛishala, Vṛisho'hi Bhagavān Dharmo yastasya kurute hyalam*). The Mauryas by their Greek connection and Jaina and Buddhist leanings certainly deviated from the Dharma as understood by the great Brāhmaṇa law-givers. Attention may be invited in this connection to the epithet *Vasalaka* (*Vṛishala*) applied by Brāhmaṇas to the Buddha himself (Mookerji, *Hindu Civilization*, 264).

c15.s2.50

¹ P. 267 *supra*.

c15.s2.51

² Geiger's *Translation*, p. 27.

c15.s2.52

³ P. 370.

c15.s2.53

⁴ P. 409.

c15.s2.54

⁵ Rice, *Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions*, p. 10.

c15.s2.55

⁶ *Cf.* *Arthaśāstra*, p. 326. See also *supra*, 266 f. (the reign of Chandragupta)

c15.s2.56

Having referred to the prohibition of animal sacrifices Paṇḍit Sāstrī goes on to say: "this was followed by another edict in which Aśoka boasted that those who were regarded as gods on earth have been reduced by him into false gods. If it means anything it means that the Brāhmaṇas who were regarded as *Bhūdevas* or gods on earth had been shown up by him."

c15.s2.57

The original passage referred to above runs thus:—

c15.s2.58

*Y (i)-imāya kālāya Jambudipasi amisā devā husu te dāni m (i) s-kaṭā.*

c15.s2.59

Paṇḍit Śāstrī followed the interpretation of Senart. But Sylvain Lévi¹ has shown that the word *amisā* cannot stand for Sanskrit *amṛishā*, for in the Bhābrū edict we find *Musā* and not *Misā* for Sanskrit *mṛishā* (falsely or false). The recently discovered Māski version reads *misibhūtā* for *misaṁkaṭā*, showing that the original form was *miśrībhūtā*. It will be grammatically incorrect to form *misibhūtā* from Sanskrit *mṛishā*. The word *miśra* means mixed. And *miśrībhūtā* means "made to mix" or made to associate. The meaning of the entire passage is "during that time the men in India who had been unassociated with the gods became associated with them."² There is thus no question of "showing up" anybody.³

c15.s2.60

¹ Hultzsch, *Aśoka*, 168.

c15.s2.61

² *Cf.* *Āpastamba Dharmasūtra*, II. 7. 16. 1: "Formerly men and gods lived together in this world. Then the gods in reward of their sacrifices went to heaven, but men were left behind. Those men who perform sacrifices in the same manner as the gods did, dwell with the gods and Brahma in heaven." My attention was first drawn to this passage by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar. *Cf.* also *Harivaṁśa* (III. 32. 1): "*Devatānāṁ manushyāṇāṁ sahavāsobhavattadā;*" and *SBE*, XXXIV, p. 222-3 (Śaṅkara's Com. on the *Vedāntasūtras*): "The men of ancient times, in consequence of their eminent religious merit, conversed with the gods face to face. *Smṛiti* also declares that 'from the reading of the Veda there results intercourse with the favourite divinity.'"

c15.s2.62

³ The true import of the passage was pointed out by Dr. Bhandarkar in the *Indian Antiquary*, 1912, p. 170.

c15.s2.63

Paṇḍit Śāstrī adds that the appointment by Aśoka of *Dharma-mahāmātras*, i.e., of superintendents of morals, was a direct invasion of the rights and privileges of the Brāhmaṇas. It is hardly correct to represent the *Dharma-mahāmātras* as mere superintendents of morals when their duties consisted in the establishment of the Law of Piety (which included liberality to Brāhmaṇas), the promotion of the welfare of the Yavanas, Kambojas, Gandhāras, Riṣṭikas, Brāhmaṇas and others, revision of sentences of imprisonment or execution, the supervision of the family establishments of the Emperor's brothers and other relatives, and the administration of alms-giving.¹ These duties were not essentially those of a mere superintendent of morals, and were not a direct invasion of the rights and privileges of the Brāhmaṇas. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the *Dharma-mahāmātras* were wholly recruited from non-Brāhmaṇas.

c15.s2.64

¹ Aśoka, third ed., pp. 168-69.

c15.s2.65

Our attention is next drawn to the passage where Aśoka insists upon his officers strictly observing the principles of *Daṇḍa-samatā* and *Vyavahāra-samatā*. Paṇḍit Sāstrī takes the expressions to mean 'equality of punishment' and 'equality in lawsuits' irrespective of caste, colour and creed, and adds that this order was very offensive to the Brāhmaṇas who claimed many privileges including immunity from capital punishment.

c15.s2.66

The passage containing the expressions *Daṇḍa-samatā* and *Vyavahāra-samatā* should not be divorced from its context and interpreted as if it were an isolated *ukase*. We quote the passage with the context below:—

c15.s2.67

"To my *Rājūkas* set over many hundred thousands of people I have granted independence (or discretion) in the award of honours and penalties. But as it is desirable that there should be uniformity in judicial procedure

c15.s2.68

(*Vyavahāra-samatā*) and uniformity in penalties (*Daṇḍa-samatā*), from this time forward my rule is this—‘To condemned men lying in prison under sentence of death a respite of three days is granted by me.’ ”

c15.s2.69

It is clear from the extract quoted above that the order regarding *Vyavahāra-samatā* and *Daṇḍa-samatā* is to be understood in connection with the general policy of decentralisation which the Emperor introduced. Aśoka allowed discretion to the *Rājūkas* in the award of penalties, but he did not like that the *Daṇḍa* and *Vyavahāra* prevalent within the jurisdiction of one *Rājūka* should be entirely different from those prevailing within the jurisdiction of others.¹ He wanted to maintain some uniformity (*samatā*) both in *Daṇḍa* (penalties) as well as in *Vyavahāra* (legal procedure). As an instance he refers to the rule about the granting of a respite of three days to condemned men. The *Samatā* which he enforced involved a curtailment of the autonomy of the *Rājūkas* and did not necessarily infringe on the alleged immunity of the Brāhmaṇas from capital punishment.

c15.s2.70

¹ I am indebted for this suggestion to Mr. S. N. Majumdar.

c15.s2.71

But were the Brāhmaṇas really immune under all circumstances from capital punishment in ancient India? We learn from the *Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa*² that a *Purohita* (priest) might be punished with death for treachery to his master. The *Kauṭilīya*,³ tells us that a Brāhmaṇa guilty of treason was to be drowned. Readers of the *Mahābhārata* are familiar with the stories of the punishments inflicted on Māṇḍavya and Likhita.⁴ The life of a Brāhmaṇa was not so sacrosanct in ancient as in mediaeval and modern India. We learn from the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* that king Hariśchandra of the Ikshvāku family did not scruple to offer a Brāhmaṇa boy as a victim in a sacrifice.

c15.s2.72

² *Vedic Index*, II, p. 84. The story of Kutsa and his chaplain, Caland, *Pañch. Br.*, XIV. 6.8; cf. *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Up.*, III, 9. 26.

c15.s2.73

³ P. 229.

c15.s2.74

⁴ *Adi*, 107 and *Sānti*, 23, 36.

c15.s2.75

Against the surmises regarding the anti-Brāhmaṇical policy of Aśoka we have the positive evidence of some of his inscriptions which proves the Emperor’s solicitude for the well-being of the Brāhmaṇas. Thus in Rock Edict III he inculcates liberality to Brāhmaṇas. In Edict IV he speaks with disapproval of unseemly behaviour towards the same class. In Edict V he refers to the employment of *Dharma-mahāmātras* to promote the welfare and happiness of the Brāhmaṇas.

c15.s2.76

Paṇḍit Śāstrī says further that as soon as the strong hand of Aśoka was removed the Brāhmaṇas seemed to have stood against his successors. We have no evidence of any such conflict between the children of Aśoka and the Brāhmaṇas. On the other hand, if the Brāhmaṇa historian of Kaśmīra is to be believed, the relations between Jalauka, one of the sons and successors of Aśoka, and the Brāhmaṇical Hindus were entirely friendly.¹

c15.s2.77

¹ Note also the employment of Brāhmaṇa officers, *e.g.*, Pushyamitra, by the later Mauryas. Kalhaṇa has nothing but praise for Aśoka. Another Brāhmaṇa writer, Bāṇa, applies the epithet *anārya* (ignoble) not to the Maurya kings, but to the Brāhmaṇa general who overthrew the last of them. Viśākhadatta compares Chandragupta with the Boar Incarnation of Vishṇu. Certain epic and Purāṇic writers, it is true, refer to the Mauryas as *asuras*, and the *Gārgī-Saṁhitā* draws pointed attention to the oppressive rule of some of the later members of the family. But there is little to suggest that the Brāhmaṇas were special victims of Maurya tyranny. On the contrary, members of the class were freely admitted to high office as evidenced by the case of Pushyamitra. The epithet *asura* or *sura-dvish* was applied not only to the Mauryas but to all persons ‘beguiled by the Buddha.’ The testimony of the Purāṇas in this respect is contradicted by that of contemporary epigraphs which refer to Aśoka and the only one among his imperial descendants who has left any epigraphic record as *devānāṁpiya*, that is, the beloved (and not the enemy) of the gods.

c15.s2.78

In conclusion Paṇḍit Śāstrī refers to the assassination of the last Maurya Emperor of Magadha by Pushyamitra Śuṅga and says, “We clearly see the hands of the Brāhmaṇas in the great revolution." But the Buddhist remains at Bhārhut erected "during the sovereignty of the Śuṅgas" do not bear out the theory which represents them as the leaders of a militant Brāhmaṇism. Are inferences deduced from uncorroborated writings of late authors like the compiler of the *Divyāvadāna* and perhaps Tāranātha, to be preferred to the clear testimony of contemporary monuments? Even admitting that Pushyamitra was a militant Brāhmaṇist we fail to see how the decay and dismemberment of the Maurya empire can be attributed primarily to him or to his Brāhmaṇist followers. The empire was a shrivelled and attenuated carcase long before Pushyamitra's *coup d'etat* of *c.* 187 B.C. We learn from the *Rājataraṅgiṇī* that immediately after the death of Aśoka one of his own sons, **Jalauka,** made himself independent in Kaśmīra and conquered the plains including Kanauj. If Tāranātha is to be believed another prince, Vīrasena, apparently wrested Gandhāra from the hands of the feeble successor of the great Maurya at Pāṭaliputra. The virtual secession of Vidarbha or Berar is vouched for by the *Mālavikāgnimitram* of Kālidāsa. The loss of the northern provinces is confirmed by Greek evidence. We learn from Polybius that about 206 B.C., there ruled over them a king named Sophagasenus, **Subhāgasena,** probably a successor of Vīrasena). We quote the passage referring to the king below:—

c15.s2.79

"He (Antiochos the Great) crossed the Caucasus (Hindukush) and descended into India; renewed his friendship with Sophagasenus, the king of the Indians; received more elephants, until he had 150 altogether, and having once more provisioned his troops, set out again personally with his army, leaving Androsthenes of Cyzicus, the duty of taking home the treasure which this king had agreed to hand over to him."

c15.s2.80

It will be seen that Subhāgasena was a king and not a petty chief of the Kabul valley as Dr. Smith would have us believe. He is called "king of the Indians," a title which was applied by the classical writers to great kings like Chandragupta and Demetrios. There is nothing in the account of Polybius to show that he was vanquished by the Syrian king in war or was regarded by the latter as a subordinate ruler. On the contrary, the statement that Antiochos "renewed his friendship (or alliance) with Sophagasenus, king of the Indians" proves that the two monarchs met on equal terms and friendly relations were established between them. The renewal of friendship on the part of the Greek king, and the surrender of elephants on the part of his Indian brother, only remind us of the relations subsisting between Chandragupta and Seleukos. Further the expression "renewal of friendship" seems to suggest that Subhāgasena had had previous dealings with Antiochos. Consequently he must have come to the throne sometime before 206 B.C. The existence of an independent kingdom in the north-west before 206 B.C. shows that the Maurya Empire must have begun to break up nearly a quarter of a century before the usurpation of Pushyamitra.

c15.s2.81

We have seen that the theory which ascribes the decline and dismemberment of the Maurya Empire to a Brāhmaṇical revolution led by Pushyamitra does not bear scrutiny. Was the Maurya disruption due primarily to the Greek invasion? The earliest Greek invasion after Aśoka, that of Antiochos the Great, took place about 206 B.C., and we have seen that the combined testimony of Kalhaṇa and Polybius leaves no room for doubt that the dissolution of the empire began long before the raid of the Hellenistic monarch.

c15.s2.82

What then were the primary causes of the disintegration of the mighty empire? There are good grounds for believing that the government of the outlying provinces by the imperial officials was oppressive. Already in the time of Bindusāra ministerial oppression had goaded the people of Taxila to open rebellion. The *Divyāvadāna* says¹

c15.s2.83

¹ P. 371.

c15.s2.84

“ *Atha Rājño Vindusārasya Takshaśilā nāma nagaraṁ viruddham. Tatra Rājñā Vindusāren Aśoko visarjitaḥ... yāvat Kumāraśchaturaṅgena balakāyena Takshaśilāṁ gataḥ, śrutvā Takshaśilā nivāsinaḥ paurāḥ ... pratyudgamya cha kathayanti ‘na vayam Kumārasya viruddhāḥ nāpi Rājño Vindusārasya api tu dushṭāmātyā asmākaṁ paribhavaṁ kurvanti.’* ”

c15.s2.85

“ Now Taxila, a city of king Bindusāra’s, revolted. The king Bindusāra despatched Aśoka there. . .while the prince was nearing Taxila with the fourfold army, the resident *Pauras* (citizens of Taxila), on hearing of it. . .came out to meet him and said :—‘ We are not opposed to the prince nor even to king Bindusāra. But these wicked ministers insult us.’ ”

c15.s2.86

Taxila again revolted during the reign of Aśoka and the cause was again the tyranny of the ministers. *Rājñ-ośokasy-ottarāpathe Takshaśilā nagaram viruddham . . .².* Prince Kunāla was deputed to the government of the city. When the prince went there the people said “ *na vayaṁ Kumārasya viruddhā na rājño’-śokasy-āpi tu dushṭātmāno’ mātyā āgatyāsmākam apamānaṁ kurvanti.*”

c15.s2.87

² *Divyāvadāna*, 407f.

c15.s2.88

The *Divyāvadāna* is no doubt a late work, but the reality of ministerial oppression to which it refers, is affirmed by Aśoka himself in the Kaliṅga Edicts. Addressing the High officers (*Mahāmātras*) in charge of Tosalī he says : “ All men are my children; and just as I desire for my children that they may enjoy every kind of prosperity and happiness both in this world and in the next, so also I desire the same for all men. You, however, do not grasp this truth to its full extent. Some individual, perchance, pays heed, but to a part only, not the whole. See then to this, for the principle of government is well-established. Again, it happens that some individual incurs imprisonment or torture and when the result is his imprisonment without due cause, many other people are deeply grieved...Ill performance of duty can never gain my regard... The restraint or torture of the townsmen may not take place without due cause. And for this purpose, in accordance with the Law of Piety, I shall send forth in rotation every five years such persons as are of mild and temperate disposition, and regardful of the sanctity of life...From Ujjain, however, the Prince for this purpose will send out a similar body of officials, and will not over-pass three years. In the same way—from Taxila."¹

c15.s2.89

¹ Smith, *Aśoka*, Third Ed., pp. 194-96.

c15.s2.90

From the concluding words of the Edict it appears that official maladministration was not confined to the province of Kaliṅga. The state of affairs at Ujjain and Taxila was similar. It is thus clear that the loyalty of the provincials was being slowly undermined by ministerial oppression long before Pushyamitra's *coup d'etat* of *c.* 187 B.C.² and the Greek invasion of *c.* 206 B.C. Aśoka no doubt did his best to check the evil, but he was ill served by his officers. It is significant that the provincials of the north-west—the very people who complained of the oppression of the *dushṭāmātyas* as early as the reign of Bindusāra, were among the first to break away from the Maurya empire.

c15.s2.91

² The Jaina date 313—108=205 B.C. for Pushyamitra's accession may refer to the assumption of power by Pushyamitra in Avanti, while the date *c.* 187 B.C refers to the dynastic revolution in Magadha.

c15.s2.92

The Magadhan successors of Aśoka had neither the strength nor perhaps the will to arrest the process of disruption.¹ The martial ardour of imperial Magadha had vanished with the last cries of agony uttered in the battle-fields of Kaliṅga. Aśoka had given up the aggressive militarism of his forefathers and had evolved a policy of *Dhamma-vijaya* which must have seriously impaired the military efficiency of his empire.² He had called upon his sons and even great-grandsons to eschew new conquests, avoid the shedding of blood and take pleasure in patience and forbearance as far as possible. These latter had heard more of *Dhamma-ghosha* than of *Bheri-ghosha*. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the *rois faineants* who succeeded to the imperial throne of Pāṭaliputra proved unequal to the task of maintaining the integrity of the mighty fabric reared by the genius of Chandragupta and his Chancellor.

c15.s2.93

¹ On the contrary, if the *Gārgī Saṁhitā* is to be believed, one of his successors, namely Śāliśūka, actually quickened the pace by his tyranny—*Sarāshṭra mardate ghoraṁ dharmavādī adhārmikaḥ* (*sic*). Some of Aśoka's descendants (e.g., Jalauka) set up independent sovereignties, and were thus directly responsible for the dismemberment of the empire.

c15.s2.94

² *Cf.* the events narrated on page 353 f. *ante*, and "Garga's" attack on the policy of so-called Dharmavijaya, "conquest conformable to Dharma" attributed to Śāliśūka, which, in the opinion of the present writer, is hard to dissociate from *Dhamma-Vijaya* as promulgated by Aśoka himself and recommended for adoption by his "sons and even great-grandsons." Attention to the passage in the *Gārgī Saṁhitā* was also drawn by Jayaswal (*JBORS*, IV, 261)—*sthāpayishyati mohātmā vijayaṁ nāma dhāmikaṁ*, "the fool will establish the so-called conquest of Dharma." The expression *mohātmā* reminds one of the later meaning of '*Devānaṁpiya*' (fool, idiot like a brute, beast, Apte, *Sanskrit-English Dictionary*, 510). An eminent writer takes Vijaya to be a proper name, the appellation of the elder brother of Śāliśūka, whom the latter established *on the throne*. But it is not clear why the enthronement of a righteous (*dhārmika*) man should earn for the person responsible for the action the opprobrious epithet *mohātmā*. Besides, Vijaya does not occur as a royal name in any of the lists of *later* Mauryas known to tradition. (For reference to divergent views see *Cal. Rev.*, Feb., 1943, p. 123 ff; Feb., 1946, p. 79 ff). As pointed out by Dr. Sircar, conjectural emendations of the text of the *Gārgī Saṁhitā* in support of a particular theory do not carry conviction (*Cal. Rev*, 1943, April, 39ff).

c15.s2.95

The disintegration which set in before 206 B.C. was accelerated by the invasions led by the Yavanas referred to in the *Gārgī Saṁhitā* and the *Mahābhāshya* of Patañjali. The final *coup de grace* was given by Pushyamitra the Baimbika.

c15.s2.96

The royal hunt and jousts of arms in *Samājas* were abolished. The army seems to have been practically inactive during the last 29 years of Aśoka's reign as the emperor himself declares with a feeling of exultation that 'the sound of the bheri had become the sound of the True Law, *Dharma*.' The Chinese *Hou Hanshu* (quoted by S. Konow, CII, Vol. II, p. lxvii) testifies to the fact that people of India "practise the religion of the Buddha; it has become a habit with them not to kill and to fight." The ease with which general Pushyamitra overthrew his king, in the very sight of the army, shows that unlike the earlier kings of the dynasty who took the field in person, the last of the Mauryas lost touch with his fighting forces, and ceased to command their affection. The largesses of gold lavished on the religieux must also have crippled the financial resources of the empire. The system of autonomous Rājūkas instituted by Aśoka must have let loose centrifugal forces that his successors were unable to check.

Genealogy of the Maurya Dynasty

c15.s2.t1.1

[Figure: Mauryas of Pipphalivana : Chandragupta

c15.s2.t1.2

Bindusāra Amitraghāta

c15.s2.t1.3

| . . . . .
| | |

c15.s2.t1.4

Sushīma (Sumana) Aśoka Piyadasi = {(1) Devī (first wife) Vigataśoka

c15.s2.t1.5

| {(2) Asandhimitrā (first queen) (Tissa)

c15.s2.t1.6

Nigrodha {(3) Kāruvākī (second queen) {(4) Padmāvatī {(5) Tishyarakshitā . . . . .

c15.s2.t1.7

Mahendra ? Kuṇāla (Suyaśas ?) Jalauka Tīvara, Son of Kāruvākī (son of Devī) (son of Padmāvatī) King of Kaśmīra

c15.s2.t1.8

| . . . . .
| | |

c15.s2.t1.9

Bandhupālita Samprati Vigataśoka (Daśaratha ?) | |

c15.s2.t1.10

| Vīrasena of Gandhāra
| descendent
| ? Subhāgasena "King of the Indians"
|

c15.s2.t1.11

Śāliśūka

c15.s2.t1.12

Somaśarman (Devavarman ?)

c15.s2.t1.13

Prince of Prince of Śatadhanvan (Śaśadharman ?) Suvarṇagiri Ujjain | : : Bṛihadrath (killed by his Commander-in-Chief : : : Pushyamitra) : : : Suketuvarman : Pūrṇavarman (Magadha) (Maurya of Koṅkaṇ) : : Mauryas of Valabhi Dhavala 738-39 A.D. and (Rājputāna) Khāndesh

c15.s2.t1.14

Govindarāja Yādava feudatory, 1069 A.D.]

Linked texts (30)