Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c9.s1.t1: The Nandas

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c9.s1.t1

Language
English

The Nandas

c9.s1.t1.1

With the passing of the Śaiśunāgas from the stage and the assumption of supreme authority by the regicide, who is no other than the famous founder of the Nanda line, we enter upon a new epoch in the history of this country. For the first time we have an empire which transcends the boundaries of the Gangetic basin. It is not a loose assemblage of virtually independent states or feudal baronies which have a wholesome respect for the power and might of a *roi soleil*, but an integrated monarchy under an *Ekarāṭ* (single ruler) possessed of vast resources in men and money. The old, almost uninterrupted, ascendancy of clans claiming the blue blood of Kshatriyas is at an end. The new ruler is a *novus homo* who wages a war to the knife on the Kshatriyas and rouses the relentless hostility of the most astute of the politically minded Brāhmaṇas of the age. He incarnates, according to the Purāṇic chroniclers, the spirit of the Iron Age (Kali) and his accession is taken to mark a chronological epoch like the birth of Parikshit several centuries earlier.

c9.s1.t1.2

the classical account of the pedigree of Alexander's Magadhan contemporary who was the predecessor of Chandragupta Maurya. Referring to this prince who occupied the throne of Pāṭaliputra when, according to Plutarch, Chandragupta met Alexander in the Punjab, Curtius¹ informs us that "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".

c9.s1.t1.3

¹ M'Crindle, Invasion of Alexander, p. 220.

c9.s1.t1.4

There has been some difference of opinion as to whether "the present king" (Agrammes) of Curtius ruling in 326 B. C. refers to the first Nanda himself or to one of his sons. The classical testimony leaves no room for doubt on the point. Agrammes was born to the purple. His father had already usurped supreme authority and put the legitimate heirs to the throne to death. The description of "the present king" can hardly be applied to the first Nanda who was gaṇikākushi-janma (born of a courtesan) and whose father did not exercise sovereign power. We have therefore to conclude that Agrammes, or Xandrames as he is called by Diodorus, belonged to the second generation of the usurping family and his father was the first Nanda, the Mahāpadma-Ugrasena of Indian tradition.

c9.s1.t1.5

The murdered sovereign must have belonged to the line that preceded the Nandas on the throne of Pāṭaliputra. The ruler who answers best to the description given by Curtius and Diodorus is Kākavarṇa-Kālāśoka whose tragic end is alluded to in the Harshacharita, and whose sons—nine or ten in number—were, according to Buddhist tradition, ousted by Ugrasena Nanda. The name Agrammes is possibly a distorted form of the Sanskrit Augrasainya, "son or descendant of Ugrasena". It may be noted in this connection that Augrasainya as a royal epithet may be traced back to the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* where it occurs as a patronymic of Yudhāmśraushṭi.¹

c9.s1.t1.6

¹ The use of patronymics, or metronymics, instead of the personal name, is by no means rare in Indian history. The cases of Assakenus, Porus, Pandion show that in several cases classical writers did not take the trouble of acquainting themselves with the personal designations of princes.

c9.s1.t1.7

The rise of an all powerful official in the time of the later Śaiśunāgas probably indicates that the system of administration had undergone remarkable changes since the days of Bimbisāra. That monarch had exercised a rigid control over his *mahāmātras*, dismissing those who advised him badly and rewarding those whose counsel he approved. The result of the "purge" was the emergence of the type of official represented by Varshakāra and Sunitha whose rigour and efficiency are well illustrated in the Buddhist Texts. The situation must have changed considerably towards the end of the Śaiśunāga epoch. The career of Ugrasena reminds one of that of Bijjala in a later age, and his early relations with the preceding royal family had important points of resemblance with that between Cardinal Mazarin and the family of Louis XIII. If tradition is to be believed the office of a chief minister was maintained throughout the Nanda period, though the functionary in question never reached the pre-eminent position that Ugrasena occupied in the days of his royal master. Jaina and Hindu writers refer to a distinguished line of imperial chancellors from Kalpaka to Śakaṭāla and Rākshasa. It is difficult to say if these traditional figures had any historical reality. They are not mentioned in contemporary or semi-contemporary documents. But "advisers of the king", very small in number, but most respected on account of their high character and wisdom, are mentioned by Greek observers who wrote about conditions in the fourth century B. C.

c9.s1.t1.8

Next to the "advisers of the king" probably stood the "generals of the army". One official of this class, Bhadrasāla, finds prominent mention in the *Milinda-Pañho*. The Nanda army was a powerful fighting machine and we are told by the classical writers that the last king of the line "kept in the field for guarding the approaches of his country, twenty thousand cavalry, and two hundred thousand infantry, besides two thousand four-horsed chariots, and, what was the most formidable force of all, a troop of elephants which ran up to the number of three thousand".¹ Diodorus and Plutarch raise the number of elephants to four thousand and six thousand respectively. The latter puts the strength of the army of the Gangetic nations at eighty thousand horse, two hundred thousand foot, eight thousand war chariots, besides six thousand fighting elephants.

c9.s1.t1.9

¹ M'Crindle, *Invasion*, pp. 221-22.

c9.s1.t1.10

It is no wonder that the lord of such an immense host should aspire to be a sole monarch, an *Ekarāṭ*, of the vast regions stretching from the Himalayas to the Godāvari or its neighbourhood. The historians of Alexander speak of the most powerful peoples who dwelt beyond the Beas as being under one sovereign. Q. Curtius Rufus, for instance, gives the following particulars: "Beyond the river (Hyphasis or Beas) lay extensive deserts.. Next came the Ganges, the largest river in all India, the farther bank of which was inhabited by two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii, whose king was Agrammes"². The account of Diodorus is similar. But he calls the king Xandrames instead of Agrammes. The account of Plutarch, or the English translation, seems to suggest that the "Gandaritai" (Gangaridae) and the "Prasiai" had separate kings, and this is said to find support in the number of horses, war-chariots and fighting elephants assigned to the "kings" of the two nations, which is larger than those assigned to Agrammes-Xandrames by Curtius and Diodorus. But the number of foot soldiers remains the same in all the accounts. The discrepancies regarding the number of elephants etc. may be due to divergence of tradition rather than reinforcement by contingents supplied by an allied king. Pliny informs us 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 the Palibothri, nay, even the whole tract of the Ganges.

c9.s1.t1.11

² *Ibid.*

c9.s1.t1.12

Jaina writers refer to the subjugation by Nanda's minister of the whole country down to the seas :-

c9.s1.t1.13

*Samudravasan śebhya āsamudramapi śriyaḥ*
*upāyahastairākṛishya tataḥ so'kṛita Nandaśāt*

c9.s1.t1.14

Purāṇic chroniclers speak of the extermination by Mahāpadma of all kshatriyas. This is taken to imply that he uprooted all the kshatriya families which ruled contemporaneously with the Śaiśunāgas (*tulya-kālam bhaviṣyanti sarve hy ete mahikṣitaḥ*)¹, viz., the Ikshvākus, Pañchālas, Kāśeyas, Haihayas, Kaliṅgas, Aśmakas, Kurus, Maithilas, Śūrasenas, and the Vitihotras.

c9.s1.t1.15

¹ Pargiter, *DKA*., p. 23.

c9.s1.t1.16

The Ikshvākus were the ruling clan of Kośala, roughly corresponding to modern Oudh. They had been humbled by Ajātaśatru, the son of Bimbisāra. The history of the clan after the famous rulers Prasenajit and his son Viduratha is obscure. A passage of the *Kathāsaritsāgara* refers to the camp (*kaṭaka*) of Nanda in Ayodhyā. Apparently the king had undertaken an expedition to Kośala. An important section of the Ikshvākus seems to have been driven southwards as they are found in the third or fourth century A. D. in occupation of the lower valley of the Kṛiṣṇā.

c9.s1.t1.17

The Pañchālas occupied the tract of country between the upper Ganges and the Gumti together with a part of the Central Doab. They do not appear to have come into hostile contact with the Magadhan monarchy before the rise of the Nandas, and must have been brought under control by that dynasty, as the evidence of the classical writers seems to suggest.

c9.s1.t1.18

The Kāśeyas, or the people inhabiting the district round Benares, had come under the Magadhan sway as early as the days of Bimbisāra and Ajātaśatru. It is recorded in the Purāṇas that a Śaiśunāga prince was "placed in Benares" when the founder of the line took up his residence in Girivraja, the Magadhan capital in early times. It was apparently from a descendant or successor of this prince that Nanda wrested control over the people of Kāśi.

c9.s1.t1.19

The Haihayas are found in possession of a part of the Narmadā valley down to mediaeval times. Their earlier capital was at Māhishmatī, which has been identified by Pargiter with the rocky island of Māndhātā and by others with a town named Maheśvara on the northern bank of the Narmadā within the boundaries of the Indore state. The subjugation of this region by the Nandas does not seem to be improbable in view of the Purāṇic statement about the humiliation of the rulers of the neighbouring realm of Avanti by their Śaiśunāga predecessors. But there is lack of confirmation by independent witnesses. It has however to be remembered that both Malwa and Gujarat formed integral parts of the Magadhan empire in the days of Chandragupta towards the close of the fourth century B.C., and the way may have been prepared by the Nandas.

c9.s1.t1.20

The Kaliṅgas occupied the extensive territory stretching from the river Vaitaraṇī in Orissa to the Varāhanadī in the Vizagapatam District. Its capital in ancient times was the famous city of Dantakura or Dantapura which has been identified with the fort of Dantavaktra near Chicacole in the Ganjam district, washed by the river Languliya (Lāṅgulinī). The conquest of a part of Kaliṅga by Nanda is suggested by the Hāthigumphā record. The phraseology of the inscription hardly supports the view held by some scholars that the Nandarāja mentioned therein is a local chief. The reference is doubtless to a conqueror who established his authority over a sanniveśa (place) of Kaliṅga and constructed some irrigation works in the province.

c9.s1.t1.21

The Aśmakas occupied a part of the Godāvarī valley with their capital at Potali, Potana, or Podana. The last form of the name reminds one of Bodhan to the south of the confluence of the Mañjirā and the Godāvarī not very far from Nizamabad in the Hyderabad state. The existence on the Godāvarī of a city called "Nau Nand Dehra" (Nander), a little to the west of the Nizamabad District, renders it probable that the dominions of the "Nine Nandas" may have embraced the classic land of the Aśmakas, though independent confirmation by contemporary or semi-contemporary writers is not available.

c9.s1.t1.22

The Kurus, as is well known, occupied the country to the west of the Pañchālas stretching from the Ganges to the river Sarasvati (modern Sarsuti) which flows past the sacred site of Kurukshetra near Thanesar. The subjugation of this territory by the Nandas is not expressly mentioned by any contemporary authority, but is rendered probable by the Greek evidence in regard to "the dominions of the nation of the Praisioi and the Gandaridai" which seem to have embraced the whole tract of the Ganges.

c9.s1.t1.23

The Maithilas were the people of Mithilā, a city famed in the epics owing to its connection with the heroine of the Rāmāyaṇa and her father Janaka. It has been identified with the small town of Janakpur within the Nepal border, north of where the Darbhanga and Muzaffarpur Districts meet. The greater part of Northern Bihar, over which the powerful confederation of the Vrijis (including the Lichchhavis) had exercised sway, had been annexed by Ajātaśatru, and his successors are known to have graced Vaiśālī, the capital, with their presence on occasions. If the Purāṇic tradition has any value the chieftains of Mithilā must have retained a certain amount of independence in the fastnesses of the Nepalese Tarai. The periodical floods from the Gaṇḍak, the Bāgmati and connected streams during the rainy season must have rendered this part of the country very difficult of access and it is not surprising that the forests of the Tarai should have sheltered an autonomous principality when the great city of Vaiśālī fell before the onslaught of Ajātaśatru. The Nandas attained greater success as they could operate from their base in Vaiśālī.

c9.s1.t1.24

The Śūrasenas, the Sourasenoi of Megasthenes, had their capital at Mathurā on the banks of the Jumna. Their subjection to the Prasii appears very probable from the accounts of Alexander's historians.

c9.s1.t1.25

The Vitihotras are closely associated with the Haihayas and the Avantis in Purāṇic tradition. Their sovereignty is said to have terminated before the rise of the famous line of Pradyota. If the Purāṇic statement, found in a later passage of the Bhaviṣyānukīrtana, about the contemporaneity of some of the Vitihotras with the Śaiśunāgas, has any value, the latter may have restored some scion of the old line when they took away the glory (yaśaḥ kṛtsnam) of the Pradyotas.

c9.s1.t1.26

As already stated, the undoubted control that Chandragupta Maurya exercised over Western India including the Girnar region makes it highly probable that the way had been left clear by his Nanda predecessors. Jain writers expressly mention the Nandas among the successors of Pālaka, the son of Pradyota of Avanti.

c9.s1.t1.27

Much of the information given above relating to the conquests of the first Nanda is derived from late works. But the evidence of Greek writers, taken together with the testimony of the Hāthigumphā epigraph leaves no room for doubt that the dynasty that ruled over the eastern nations of India in the days of Alexander exercised sway over practically the whole of the Gangetic basin together with some portion, if not the whole, of Kaliṅga. Some ingenuity has been shown by certain writers in drawing a distinction between Pūrva Nandas (earlier Nandas) and Nava Nandas (new or later Nandas) and identifying a prince of the former group with the Nandarāja of Khāravela's inscription. But the theory rests on an unjustifiable interpretation of the expression *pūrva Nanda* used by Kshemendra and other epitomisers and redactors of the *Brihakathā*. The Purāṇic as well as the Ceylonese tradition knows of the existence of only one Nanda line and all writers including those belonging to Jaina persuasion take the word *Nava* in the expression *Nava Nanda* to mean *nine* and not *new*. Pūrva-Nanda is the designation of a single king and not of a dynasty and he is distinguished not from the Nava Nandas but from a pseudo-Nanda (Yogananda), the reanimated corpse of king Nanda.

c9.s1.t1.28

Several Mysore inscriptions state that Kuntala, a territory which included the southern part of the Bombay Presidency and the contiguous portions of Hyderabad state and the state of Mysore, was ruled by the Nandas. But these are of comparatively modern date (*c.* A. D. 1200), and too much cannot be built upon their statement. It has however to be admitted that no satisfactory account is yet available of the expansion of the Magadhan empire beyond the Kṛṣṇā and the Tuṅgabhadrā which must have taken place before the promulgation of the Aśokan inscriptions of the Kurnool and Chitaldroog districts dated in the third century B. C.

Cites (6)