Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c5.82

c5.82

**Conquest of the South.** Having now extended his empire beyond the borders of India, Chandragupta next thought of extending the empire beyond the barrier of the Vindhyas to the South. In the passage cited above from Plutarch, it is stated that "he overran and subdued the whole of India with an army of 600,000." The details of this all-India conquest are lacking, but there is reliable evidence for it in the inscriptions of Asoka. In the first place, Asoka's rule in the South is declared by his inscriptions at Siddapura, Brahmagiri, and Jatinga-Rameśvara hill in the Chitaldroog District of Mysore, the Govīmath and Pālkīguṇḍu Inscriptions in the Kopbal Taluk, the Maski Inscription in the Deccan in the Nizam's Dominion, and the Gooty Inscription in the Kurnool District. Secondly, Asoka himself indicates the southern limits of his empire by mentioning as his "frontagers" or immediate neighbours, peoples like the Choḷas and Pāṇḍyas, Satyaputras and Keralaputras [Rock Edicts II, XIII]. Thirdly, he himself informs us in his Rock Edict XIII that his own conquest was only that of Kaliṅga, and further that even this conquest was the cause of much pain and repentance to him, because it had to be achieved by so much violence and bloodshed, resulting in "150,000 captives (*apavuḍhe*), 100,000 killed (*hate*), and many times that number dead from the wounds received (*muṭe*)". He felt so deeply his personal responsibility for this colossal carnage and suffering that he at once foreswore such bloody conquests for the future, and declared for *Dharma-vijaya* (Moral Conquest) as his imperial policy, abolishing the previous imperial policy of aggression and annexation. He stood now for a thorough-going creed of Non-Violence or *Ahiṁsā*. Thus the conquest of the South was not the work of Asoka. Nor was it that of his father, Bindusāra, failing definite evidence as against the statement of Plutarch attributing it to Chandragupta. No doubt, Bindusāra was not a pacifist like Asoka. This is indicated by his very title, *Amitraghātā* ('slayer of foes'), and this title may have been earned by him by some of his conquests. A vague hint of these is given by the author of *Ārya-Mañjuśrī Mūla-Kalpa*, Hemachandra, and Tārānātha, who state that that apostle of violence, Chāṇakya, had outlived Chandragupta, and continued as a minister of Bindusāra, as "one of his great lords". Tārānātha states: "Chāṇakya accomplished the destruction of the nobles and kings of sixteen towns and made Bindusāra master of all the territory between the eastern and western sea". This is taken by some scholars to indicate Bindusāra's conquest of the Deccan. It is, however, forgotten that a more authentic document, Rudradāman's inscription, describes Surāshṭra as a province of Chandragupta's empire which thus had extended from the western to the eastern sea. At the same time, we have somewhat discouraging evidence against Bindusāra's capacity as a conqueror that his north-western province of Taxila had revolted during his reign so that he had to depute his worthy son, Asoka, to quell the revolt. It may be presumed that the mere maintenance of the vast empire which was bequeathed to him by his father was too heavy a burden for a man of his easy-going disposition whose delight in life was "figs and raisin wine", for which he indented upon his friend, the Greek king, Antiochos. He can hardly be credited with any additions to the empire by his own conquests.