Chapter Seven

Power and Piety: The Maurya Empire, c. 324–187 BCE

Chapter outline

(< />)THE MAJOR SOURCES FOR THE MAURYAPERIOD

(< />)THE MAURYA DYNASTY

(< />)LITERARY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROFILES OF CITIES

(< />)SOME ASPECTS OF RURAL AND URBAN LIFE

(< />)THE NATURE AND STRUCTURE OF THE MAURYA EMPIRE

(< />)ASHOKA AND BUDDHISM

(< />)ASHOKA’S DHAMMA

(< />)SCULPTURE AND ARCHITECTURE

(< />)THE DECLINE OF THE MAURYA EMPIRE

(< />)CONCLUSIONS

THE LION CAPITAL OF ASHOKA'S SARNATH PILLAR

In 1905, a pandit of Tanjore district handed over a manuscript to R. Shamashastry, librarian of the Mysore Government Oriental Library. It was a Sanskrit text, written across 168 folios in the Grantha script, with a commentary by person named Bhattasvamin. The unnamed scribe had done his job with care, although he had made a few mistakes in places. The text, consisting of 15 books divided into several sections, was written in a terse, aphoristic style and was difficult to understand. It opened with the auspicious symbol Om and a salutation to Shukra and Brihaspati, preceptors of the demons and gods. It went on to say that this Arthashastra had been prepared mostly by bringing together the teaching of many treatises composed by ancient teachers for the acquisition and protection of the earth. It then enumerated the topics covered and asserted that this work, easy to learn and understand, and marked by precision in ideas, word, and meaning, had been composed by Kautilya.

Shamashastry thought the manuscript no more than a century or two old, but he realized that the text itself was much older and represented a sophisticated and authoritative ancient work on statecraft. His tentative translation of the work started appearing in installments from 1905 onwards in a scholarly journal called The Indian Antiquary. He published the entire text in 1909 and an English translation followed in 1915. The attention and interest aroused by Shamashastry’s publications led to the discovery of other manuscripts and commentaries of Kautilya’s Arthashastra. The work was translated into Bengali, Hindi, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, German, Italian, and Russian, and several other English translations appeared as well. A critical edition, based on several manuscripts and early medieval commentaries, along with an English translation, were published by R. P. Kangle in 1960–63.

Since its discovery in the early 20th century, there has been controversy about the age and authorship of the Arthashastra. Some scholars considered it a work of the Maurya period, written by Kautilya or Chanakya, who played a key role in Chandragupta Maurya’s succesful bid for power, while others assigned it a much later date.

The Mauryas (c. 324–187 BCE) established an empire that extended over almost the entire subcontinent and even beyond it in the north-west. Dynastic history provides an essential framework for political history, but not for understanding other aspects such as social, economic, or religious history. Therefore, this chapter will focus on issues specifically related to the Maurya empire, referring to other aspects only briefly. The discussion of broader historical patterns that stretch across and beyond these centuries will be taken up in (< />)Chapter 8.

The sources for the Maurya period are more varied than for earlier periods. The king-lists in the Puranas refer to the Mauryas, but there are inconsistencies in detail. One set of texts speaks of 13 Maurya kings who ruled for a total of 137 years, while another set speaks of only 9 kings. Jaina works such as Hemachandra’s Parishishtaparvan allude to Chandragupta’s connections with Jainism. The plot of the Mudrarakshasa, a 5th century historical drama written by Vishakhadatta, revolves around the clever machinations of Chanakya, a minister of Chandragupta, against Rakshasa, a minister of the former Nanda king. It is, however, uncertain whether this story has any historical basis. Buddhist versions of the Chanakya–Chandragupta legend are preserved in the Mahavamsa and its 10th century commentary, the Vamsatthapakasini. Some information on Chandragupta is also available in the Milindapanha and Mahabhashya. There is a possible reference to the southward expansion of the Mauryas in a poem by the Tamil poet Mamulanar.

In Buddhist texts, Ashoka is the focus of attention and is presented as an exemplary king. Texts such as the Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, Ashokavadana, Divyavadana, and Vamsatthapakasini contain information, much of it legendary, about this king. The 17th century history of Indian Buddhism written by the Tibetan monk Taranatha has some even later, mostly legendary, accounts of the Mauryas.

Among the textual sources for the history of the Mauryas and their age, Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Megasthenes’ Indica have special importance. Due to their problematic nature, it is necessary to discuss them in detail.

The Major Sources for the Maurya Period

KAUTILYA’S ARTHASHASTRA

The Arthashastra of Kautilya is an extremely sophisticated and detailed treatise on statecraft. The book refers to several previous works on the subject, none of which have survived. The term artha is not new. As one of the purusharthas (the legitimate goals of human existence), it stands for material well-being. The Arthashastra states very categorically that artha is superior to dharma (spiritual well-being) and kama (sensual pleasure), because the latter are dependent on it. It explains artha as the sustenance or livelihood of men, of which the source is the earth inhabited by people. Arthashastra is the branch of learning that deals with the means of the acquisition and protection of the earth, which is the source of people’s livelihood (Arthashastra 1.1–2). Given this definition, Arthashastra is in effect the science of statecraft. Kautilya’s work consists of 15 books (Adhikaranas). The first five deal with internal administration (tantra), the next eight with inter-state relations (avapa), and the last two with miscellaneous topics.

A major problem in using the Arthashastra as a source of history are the differences of opinion regarding its date and authorship (see Kangle, 1965: 59–115). The traditional view is that it is a work of the 4th century BCE, written by Kautilya, also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupta, who became Chandragupta Maurya’s chief minister after helping him overthrow the Nandas. This view is supported by two verses in the text. Arthashastra 1.1.19 states that ‘this work, easy to learn and understand, precise in doctrine, sense, and word, and free from wordiness, has been composed by Kautilya’. Verse 15.1.73 asserts that ‘this shastra has been composed by him, who in resentment, quickly regenerated the shastra and the weapon and the earth that was under the control of the Nanda kings’. Later works such as Kamandaka’s Nitisara, Dandin’s Dashakumaracharita, Vishakhadatta’s Mudrarakshasa, and Bana Bhatta’s Kadambari support the traditional view of the Arthashastra’s age and authorship.

However, over the years, this view has been questioned on several grounds. The verses cited above have been dismissed as later interpolations. It is argued that the mention of Kautilya’s name in the colophons of the book could mean ‘as taught or held by Kautilya’. It has been pointed out that there is no reference to Kautilya in Patanjali’s Mahabhashya (which mentions the Mauryas and the assembly of Chandragupta). Megasthenes, who we know was associated with Chandragupta’s court, does not mention Kautilya in his Indica. But the Mahabhashya is a book on grammar and refers to historical personalities and events only incidentally, in order to illustrate grammatical rules. And Megasthenes’ Indica survives only in fragments paraphrased in the writings of later authors. The

objection that the Arthashatra is the work of a scholar and not of someone actively involved in the nitty-gritty of politics is, similarly, not convincing.

While the Arthashastra’s discussion of inter-state relations seems to refer to a small or moderate-sized state, not a large empire of the Maurya type, the text does emphasize imperial ideals and ambitions. The entire discussion of statecraft is from the point of the vijigishu—the would-be conqueror—who desires to conquer the entire subcontinent. Moreover, the outline of an elaborate administrative structure and the generous salaries recommended for officials do suggest that the author had a large, well-established polity in mind.

A comparison of the Arthashastra and Megasthenes’ Indica reveals several differences, for instance, in their discussion of fortifications, city administration, army administration, and taxation. On the basis of such contradictions, it has been argued that the two works could not possibly belong to the same period, and since we know for sure that Megasthenes was Chandragupta Maurya’s contemporary, the Arthashastra must belong to some other, later time. This line of reasoning is not acceptable for various reasons. For one thing, Megasthenes was not the most acute of observers and got many things wrong (e.g., his statements that in India all land belongs to the king, that there are no slaves, and that the Indians do not know writing). Moreover, Megasthenes’ work survives only in secondhand paraphrases in later texts. For such reasons, the Indica cannot be used as a yardstick against which to gauge the date of the Arthashastra.

The Arthashastra does not contain any references to the Mauryas, their empire, Chandragupta, or Pataliputra. This could be because it is a theoretical, not a descriptive work. In fact, almost all the objections to the traditional view of the age and authorship of the text can be countered by this one basic point. The Arthashastra is a treatise on statecraft for a king and discusses a potential, not an actual state. Kangle (1965: 78–109) has pointed out that there are good reasons to support the traditional view, which places Kautilya and the Arthashastra in the Maurya period. On grounds of style, the book seems to be earlier that Vatsyayana’s Kamasutra. It is probably earlier than the Yajnavalkya Smriti, and probably also the Manu Smriti. The mention of the Ajivikas as an important sect (3.20.16) fits in with the Maurya period, as do the references to sangha polities and the discussion of the large-scale establishment of agricultural settlements. Further, the administrative structure reflected in the text does not match that of any other historical dynasty. According to Kangle, Vishnugupta seems to be the personal name of the author, Kautilya his gotra name, and Chanakya (son of Chanaka) a patronym. He suggests that Kautilya may have written the book after having been insulted by the Nanda king, before joining Chandragupta.

PRIMARY SOURCES

The statistical analysis of word frequencies in the Arthashastra

Thomas R. Trautmann conducted a computer-aided statistical analysis of the Arthashastra, focusing on the differences in the frequencies of ordinary, frequently occurring words such as cha (and) and va (or) in the different books of the work. His assumption was that different word frequencies point to different authors, something that he admits can be tested, but not proved. He concluded that three or four authors contributed to the composition of the Arthashastra:

One1. was responsible for Book 2 (which deals with the internal administration of the kingdom). Book 1 might possibly be connected to Book 2.

Another2. author was responsible for Book 3 (which deals with law). Book 4 (on law and crime) seems to be connected to Book 3, and so is possibly Book 5 (on secret conduct).

Yet3. another author composed Book 7 (which deals with inter-state relations). Books 9 and 10, which deal with the same subject, seem to hang together with Book 7.

Books4. 12 and 13 form yet another cluster along, perhaps, with Books 11 and 14.

Trautmann asserts that while it is possible that Kautilya may have been the author of a part of the Arthashastra, he cannot be considered the author of the entire text. As for dates, he suggests that Book 2 may have been completed by c. 150 CE, and the final compilation of the text may have happened by c. 250 CE. He argues that the Arthashastra, although compiled by a single person, has no single creator/author, and is in this respect similar to other ancient texts such as the Kamasutra (which he also analyses using a similar technique), Manu Smriti, and Charaka Samhita. If Trautmann’s views are accepted, the Arthashastra should not be used as a historical source for the Maurya period at all.

Trautmann’s hypothesis has been criticized on certain grounds. S. N. Mital has pointed out that there are differences in the frequencies of cha and va within different chapters of the same Books of the Arthashastra. He also points out that differences in the frequency of the use of these particles depended to some extent on the subject matter of that particular section. In sections where there was a greater need to discuss various policy alternatives in the context of different situations (e.g., in the discussion of inter-state relations), there is naturally a greater use of the word va. In those sections which required a regular enumeration of details, as in discussions of salaries of government officials or how a courtier should behave, there is a greater frequency of cha.

SOURCE Trautmann, 1971; Mital, 2000

Although the Arthashastra does have a certain element of unity, it is very likely that there were later interpolations and remouldings. The crux of the problem is: In view of the debate over its age and authorship and its normative nature, how is this text to be used as a source of history? There do not yet seem to be sufficient grounds to abandon the idea that some part of the text was composed in the Maurya period by a person named Kautilya, allowing for later interpolations stretching into the early centuries CE. Since it has some moorings in the Maurya period, the Arthashastra can be used as a source for certain aspects of the period. At the same time, we have to be careful not to read the book as a description of Maurya state or society.

MEGASTHENES’ INDICA

The Maurya period saw a steady expansion of trade with the Western world and the exchange of emissaries between Maurya and Hellenistic kings. It is hence not surprising that Graeco-Roman accounts mention kings Sandrocottus (Chandragupta) and Amitrochates (Amitraghata, i.e., Bindusara), and their capital Palimbothra (Pataliputra). Megasthenes was the representative of Seleucus Nikator at the court of Sibyrtios, governor of Arachosia (the Kandahar area of

Afghanistan). After a treaty was made between Chandragupta and Seleucus, he was sent as the latter’s ambassador to the Maurya court. Arrian refers to his visiting king Porus as well. As a royal ambassador, Megasthenes’ exposure to Indian society must have been socially and geographically restricted. Information regarding the frequency and duration of his visits to the Maurya court is unavailable.

Megasthenes wrote a book called the Indica based on his travels and experiences in India. The book has not survived, but fragments are preserved in later Greek and Latin works, the earliest and most important of which are those of Diodorus, Strabo, Arrian, and Pliny. Diodorus Sicilus was a historian born in Agyrium in Sicily and lived in the second half of the 1st century BCE. Of the 40 books of his work, Bibliotheca Historica (‘Historical Library’), only Books 1–5 and 11–20 survive; the rest exist in the form of fragments cited in later works. The surviving books describe Alexander’s Indian campaign and contain a general description of India based on sources such as Megasthenes’ Indica. Strabo was a geographer and historian, born in about 63 BCE at Amasia in Pontus in West Asia. His Geography consists of 17 books, of which the fifteenth deals with India and Persia. Arrian (Flavius Arrianus) (c. 96–180 CE) was a statesman, soldier, philosopher, and historian, born in Nikomedia in Bithynia. He wrote the Anabasis, an account of the Asian campaigns of Alexander and his Indica was a continuation of this work. The first part describes India, mainly on the basis of the accounts of Megasthenes and Eratosthenes; the second gives an account of the voyage of Nearchus (he had been commisioned to make this voyage by Alexander) down the Indus, along the coast to the Persian Gulf, and up the Euphrates river to Babylon; the third tries to prove that the southern parts of the world were uninhabitable due to great heat. Gaius Plinius Secundus (c. 23–79 CE), better known as Pliny the elder, was a Roman scholar. His book Naturalis Historia (Natural History) consists of 37 books dealing with diverse subjects such as geography, ethnography, physiology, and zoology. Megasthenes’ observations are also cited by a Roman scholar, Claudius Aelianus (2nd–3rd century CE), author of a book on zoology titled On the Peculiarities of Animals.

All the references to Megasthenes occur in texts that have a wider canvas than India. Arrian, for instance, is quite frank in the closing sentence of his Indica: ‘And since my design in drawing up the present narrative was not to describe the manners and customs of the Indians, but to relate how Alexander conveyed his army from India to Persia, let this be taken as a mere episode.’ For these writers, ‘India’ was the land beyond the Indus. We do not know whether they had direct access to Megasthenes’ work or whether they relied on some secondary account of what he wrote. Nor were all their statements necessarily based on Megasthenes’ Indica alone. The views of other writers such as Eratosthenes, Ktesius, Onesicritus, and Deimachus are also mentioned. This may help explain the many discrepancies in detail in the accounts of Strabo, Diodorus, and Arrian.

PRIMARY SOURCES

The Greeks on Megasthenes

Later Graeco-Roman writers differed in their opinion of Megasthenes’ accuracy and reliability. Strabo and Pliny were scathing in their criticism, Arrian was more trusting. Diodorus did not

make any disparaging remarks about Megasthenes, but he left out some of the latter’s strange and unbelievable stories about India and Indians.

Strabo:

But it is necessary for us to hear accounts of this country with indulgence, for not only is it farthest away from us, but not many of our people have seen it; and even those who have seen it, have seen only parts of it, and the greater part of what they say is from hearsay; and even what they saw they learned on a hasty passage with an army through the country. Wherefore they do not give out the same accounts of the same things, even though they have written these accounts as though their statements had been carefully confirmed. And some of them were both on the same expedition together and made their sojourns together, like those who helped Alexander to subdue Asia; yet they all frequently contradict one another. But if they differ thus about what was seen, what must we think of what they report from hearsay?

Strabo again:

Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India were a set of liars —Deimachus holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next; while Onesicritus and Nearchus, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words [of truth]. Of this we become more convinced while writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachus and Megasthenes. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer’s fables concerning the battles of the cranes and the pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, and Pans [horned demi-gods] with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all—meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, accusing each other of falsehood. Both of these men were sent as ambassadors to Palimbothra—Meg-asthenes to Sandrocottus, Deimachus to Amitrochades his son—and such are the notes of their residence abroad, which, I know not why, they thought fit to leave.

Arrian:

But even Megasthenes, so far as it appears, did not travel over much of India, though no doubt he saw more of it than those who came with Alexander, the son of Philip, for, as he tells us, he resided at the court of Sandrocottus, the greatest king in India, and also at the court of Porus, who was still greater than he....Let this be said by way of a digression to discredit the accounts which some writers have given of the Indians beyond the Hyphasis (Beas), for those writers who were in Alexander’s expedition are not altogether unworthy of our faith when they describe India as far as the Hyphasis. Beyond that limit, we have no real knowledge of the country: since this is the sort of account which Megasthenes gives us of an Indian river: Its name is the Silas; it flows from a fountain, called after the river, through the dominions of the Silaeans, who again are called after the river and the fountain; the water of the river manifests this singular property— that there is nothing which it cannot buoy up, nor anything which can swim or float in it, but

everything sinks down to the bottom, so that there is nothing in the world so thin and unsubstantial as this water....

Pliny:

India was opened up to our knowledge...by other Greek writers, who, having resided with Indian kings—as for instance Megasthenes and Dionysius—made known the strength of the peoples of the country. It is not, however, worthwhile to study their accounts with care, so conflicting are they, and incredible.

SOURCE H. L. Jones, cited in Majumdar [1960], 1981: 244; McGrindle, 1877: 20–21, 194, 196–97, 21

All these writers were part of an older Greek tradition of writing about other lands and people. They wrote for an educated Greek audience and their aim was not only to inform but also to entertain. Later writers selected from Megasthenes’ book the bits they thought would interest their audience the most, and left out what they considered were the boring parts (which might have been of great use to historians). They highlighted things about India that were similar to Greece, as well as those that were curious and different. They ended up choosing more or less the same parts, but their narration was not identical. The references to the contents of the Indica are separated from each other by time and by the interest, interpretation, and style of the later writers. For instance, Pliny’s work, which is later than the other three, is more factual and dry.

Megasthenes’ Indica described the country, its size and shape, rivers, soil, climate, plants, animals, produce, administration, society, and legends. The Greeks were especially captivated by India’s animals and their accounts contain lengthy descriptions of elephants, monkeys, horse training, and elephant hunting. Similarities with their own land were commented on; it was noted that legends indicated that India too was originally inhabited by primitive tribes, and that the arts and other things that improve human life were invented gradually. The Greeks referred to the Indians’ worship of Dionysus and Herakles (the names they gave Vasudeva Krishna). They cited similarities between the views of the ‘Brachmanes’ (i.e., Brahmanas) and Greek ideas relating to the nature of the world and soul. They idealized India when they stated that farmers were never touched in war, that there was no slavery, and that theft was rare. They also erred on several points. For instance, Aelian cites Megasthenes and asserts that Indians did not borrow or lend money on interest. Similarly, Strabo states that Indians were ignorant of the arts of writing and fusing metals, and never drank wine, except at sacrifices.

There were comparisons with Egypt and Europe. For example, the Ganga and Indus were compared with the Nile and Danube, and it was observed that most animals that were tame in the Greek lands were wild in India. There are also fantastic stories, such as those of one-horned horses with heads like those of deer, of huge snakes, and of the river Silas in which nothing would float. Strange customs were recounted. Pliny cites Megasthenes’ description of the men living on a mountain called Nulo—we are told that their feet turned backward and that they had eight toes on each foot. He also states that on other mountains, there was a breed of men with heads like dogs,

who lived by hunting and fowling, and communicated by barking. Gold-digging ants were said to live in the north-western mountains. Diodorus left out many of these fantastic accounts.

The Greek references to Megasthenes’ Indica represent India seen through a double filter—the first is Megasthenes’ interpretion of what he saw or heard; the second is later Graeco-Roman writers’ interpretations of Megasthenes account. The citations from the Indica seem to tell us more about ancient Greek perspectives on India than about the history of the subcontinent in the 4th century BCE.

ASHOKA’S INSCRIPTIONS

Short inscriptions on early 4th century BCE potsherds found at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka have given important evidence of the use of the Brahmi script in a pre-Maurya context. According to some historians, the Piprahwa casket inscription and the Sohgaura and Mahasthan inscriptions may be pre-Maurya or early Maurya; others consider them contemporary to Ashoka’s time or even post-Maurya. A fragmentary Sanchi inscription which mentions the name Bindusara may belong to the reign of the Maurya king of this name. However, the practice of inscribing imperial proclamations on stone is a marked feature of Ashoka’s reign.

When James Prinsep succeeded in reading Ashoka’s Brahmi edicts, it was not immediately clear to him just which king they referred to. This is because most of them refer to Ashoka by variants of two titles—Devanampiya (beloved of the gods) and Piyadasi (he who looks on auspiciousness). The Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa, which used these epithets for Ashoka, provided the crucial clues to the mystery. In later decades, versions of Minor Rock Edict I containing the personal name of the king— Ashoka—were found, first at Maski, and later at Udegolam, Nittur, and Gujjara.

Most of the inscriptions are in the Prakrit language and Brahmi script. Those at Mansehra and Shahbazgarhi are in the Prakrit language and Kharoshthi script. There are a few inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic as well. A bilingual Greek–Aramaic inscription was found at Shar-i-Kuna near Kandahar in south-east Afghanistan. Two Aramaic inscriptions were found at Laghman (in east Afghanistan) and one at Taxila. A bilingual Prakrit–Aramaic inscription was found at Lampaka and another one at Kandahar.

Ashoka’s inscriptions are divided into various categories. The two main categories are the 14 major rock edicts and 6 (in one case 7) pillar edicts. The rock and pillar edicts are sets of inscriptions that occur, with minor variations, in different places. There are also several minor rock edicts, minor pillar edicts, and cave inscriptions. The minor rock edicts are considered among the earliest inscriptions, the major rock edicts later than them, and the pillar edicts still later. Some inscriptions refer to events with reference to the number of years that had expired since Ashoka’s abhisheka (consecration ceremony). What makes Ashoka’s edicts unique is that unlike royal inscriptions of later times, which follow a conventional pattern and phraseology, Ashoka’s inscriptions reveal the voice and ideas of the king.

PRIMARY SOURCES

The different categories of Ashokan inscriptions and their location

The set of 14 major rock edicts (or portions thereof) occur at:

Kandahar1. (in Kandahar district, south Afghanistan) (only portions of rock edicts 12 and 13)

Shahbazgarhi2. (Peshawar district, North-West Frontier Province [NWFP], Pakistan)

Mansehra3. (Hazara district, NWFP, Pakistan)

Kalsi4. (Dehradun district, Uttarakhand)

Girnar5. (Junagadh district, Gujarat)

Bombay–Sopara6. (originally at Sopara in Thana district, Maharashtra; now in the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya, Mumbai only fragments of rock edicts 8 and 9)

Dhauli7. (Puri district, Orissa; separate rock edicts 1 and 2 replace major rock edicts 11–13)

Jaugada8. (Ganjam district, Orissa; separate rock edicts 1 and 2 replace major rock edicts 11–13) Erragudi9. (Kurnool district, AP)

10.Sannati (Gulbarga district, Karnataka; portions of rock edicts 12 and 14 and separate rock edicts 1 and 2 were found on a granite slab in a medieval goddess temple.)

The set of six (and in one case seven) pillar edicts, or portions thereof, occur at:

Kandahar1. (Kandahar district, south Afghanistan) (only portions of pillar edict 7)

Delhi.2. The Delhi–Topra pillar originally stood in Topra (Ambala district, Haryana). This pillar has seven edicts.

Delhi.3. The Delhi–Meerut pillar originally stood in Meerut (Meerut district, UP).

Allahabad.4. The Allahabad–Kosam pillar was probably originally located in Kosam, i.e., Kaushambi (Allahabad district, UP).

Lauriya–Araraj5. (Champaran district, Bihar)

Lauriya–Nandangarh6. (Champaran district, Bihar)

Rampurva7. (Champaran district, Bihar)

The minor rock edicts (MREs) occur at:

Bahapur1. /Srinivasapuri in New Delhi (MRE 1)

Bairat2. (Jaipur district, Rajasthan) (MRE 3)

Ahraura3. (Mirzapur district, UP) (MRE 1)

Sahasram4. (Rohtas district, Bihar) (MRE 1)

Gujjara5. (Datia district, MP) (MRE 1)

Rupnath6. (Jabalpur district, MP) (MRE 1)

Panguraria7. (Sehore district, MP) (MRE 1)

Maski8. (Raichur district, Karnataka) (MRE 1)

Gavimath9. (Raichur district, Karnataka) (MRE 1)

10.Palkigundu (Raichur district, Karna-taka) (MRE 1)

11.Nittur (Bellary district, Karnataka) (MRE 1 and 2)

12.Udegolam (Bellary district, Karna-taka) (MRE 1 and 2)

13.Rajula–Mandagiri (Kurnool district, AP) (MRE 1 and 2)

14.Erragudi (Kurnool district, AP) (MRE 1 and 2)

15.Brahmagiri (Chitradurga district, Karnataka) (MRE 1 and 2)

16.Siddapura (Chitradurga district, Karnataka) (MRE 1 and 2)

17.Jatinga–Rameshvara (Chitradurga district, Karnataka) (MRE 1 and 2)

As for the minor pillar inscriptions, versions of the schism edict have been found at Sanchi (Raisen district, MP), Sarnath (Varanasi district, UP), and Kaushambi (Allahabad district, UP). Commemorative inscriptions occur at Nigali Sagar and Rummindei (both in Bhairwa district,

Nepal). A fragmentary inscription, which may be Ashokan, has been found at Amaravati (Guntur district, AP). Three cave inscriptions of Ashoka’s time have been found in the caves in the Barabar hills (Gaya district, Bihar). A donative edict of one of Ashoka’s queens is inscribed on the Allahabad–Kosam pillar.

We do not know just how many inscriptions Ashoka had inscribed in various parts of his empire. Faxian and Xuanzang mention seeing pillars at places where today there are none. The extant major rock edicts are mostly located along the borders of the empire. The major pillar edicts are located in north India (with the possible exception of the Amaravati fragment). The minor rock edicts have the widest distribution, with a noticeable clustering in the Andhra–Karnataka area. The inscriptions were located along ancient trade and pilgrimage routes. Some of them, such as the one at Sanchi, were located at important Buddhist monastic sites.

INSCRIPTION ON DELHI–TOPRA PILLAR

MAP 7.1 FIND-SPOTS OF ASHOKAN INSCRIPTIONS

Ashoka’s inscriptions mostly contain explanations of dhamma (the content and nature of dhamma will be discussed further on), the king’s efforts to propagate it, and his own assessment of his success in doing so. Some of them directly indicate his allegiance to the Buddha’s teaching and his close relationship with the sangha. They offer a unique insight into Ashoka’s ideas about his role as king, but specific references to other aspects such as his administration or social and economic aspects of the Maurya period are few and indirect.

References to a few later inscriptions can also be cited here. The Junagarh/Girnar inscription of Rudradaman of 150 CE records that the construction of a water reservoir known as the Sudarshana lake was begun during the time of Chandragupta Maurya and completed during Ashoka’s reign. Inscriptions ranging between the 5th and 15th centuries CE in and around Shravana Belgola in Karnataka mention a muni (ascetic) named Chandragupta and the Jaina saint Bhadrabahu. A connection with the Maurya king Chandragupta has been suggested, but this is a matter of debate.

PRIMARY SOURCES

References to famine relief in the Mahasthan and Sohgaura inscriptions

In 1893, a small inscribed bronze plaque, 1.6 mm thick and measuring 6.4 × 2.9 cm, was found by an inhabitant of Sohgaura village, presently located in Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Its surface was rough and uneven and there were holes in the four corners, no doubt in order to attach it to a surface, perhaps a wall. The inscription consisted of four lines in the Prakrit language and Brahmi script, with seven symbols arranged at the top. It recorded an order issued from Manavasiti by the mahamatras (a cadre of officials) of Shravasti. It stated that in case of the outbreak of drought, the contents of the storehouses of Triveni, Mathura, Chanchu, Modama, and Bhadra were to be distributed and not withheld.

The Sohgaura inscription has been commented on by numerous scholars, who have variously assigned it a pre-Ashokan or post-Maurya date, the majority opinion currently favouring the latter. K. P. Jayaswal interpreted the crescent on the top as an emblem of the Maurya king Chandragupta and connected the contents of the inscription with the Jaina legend of a great famine during the reign of this king. These suggestions seem rather speculative.

Many years later, in 1931, Baru Faqir, a resident of Mahasthangarh village in Bagura district of Bangladesh, made an exciting discovery near a tank close to a high mound. Engraved on a small 8.9 × 5.7 cm piece of hard limestone was a fragmentary 7-line inscription, its first part missing and its last line defaced. Its script and language were similar to those of Ashokan inscriptions, but scholars were divided over whether it belonged to the pre-Ashokan, Ashokan, or post-Ashokan period.

The Mahasthan inscription appears to record an order issued by a ruler to the mahamatra stationed at Pundranagara (the site of which is represented by Mahasthangarh village), in order to relieve the distress caused on account of famine to some people known as the Samvamgiyas, who apparently lived in and around this town. The measures undertaken may have included the advancing of a loan in coins known as gandakas to a person named Galadana, who was perhaps leader of this group. A second step was the distribution of dhanya (paddy) from the granary. The inscription goes on to express the hope that the people would be able to tide over the calamity as a result of these measures, and that the treasury would be replenished with paddy and gandaka coins. The last line may refer to people having to pay back the coins and paddy to the treasury once they had recovered from the famine.

SOURCE Jayaswal, 1933–34; Hazra, 2002: 43–60

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE

Archaeological investigationes are rather inadequate and reliable dates are few and far between. As a result, there is very sketchy information about the middle and late NBPW phases in the Ganga

valley, both of which broadly correspond to the Maurya period, and even less information about sites elsewhere.

Archaeological remains from Kumrahar and Bulandibagh are associated with Pataliputra, the Maurya capital. Other important sites include Taxila, Mathura, and Bhita. Compared to earlier levels, Maurya levels display a greater diversity of artefacts and a heightening of urban features. The material evidence of the Maurya period also exists in the form of Ashoka’s pillars and other sculptural and architectural elements, many of them direct products of royal patronage. There are also a number of stone sculptures and terracotta images that appear to be part of a popular, urban milieu.

Punch-marked coins, mostly of silver, continued to be issued and used in the Maurya period. Certain symbols such as the crescent-on-arches, tree-in-railing, and peacock-on-arches have been associated with the Maurya kings. The specific symbolism and significance of the motifs is often difficult to ascertain. Some of them seem to be part of a large, common pool of cultural symbols; others (such as the sun) may have been symbols of royalty. Still others may have had a religious significance. For instance, it has been suggested that the tree-in-railing symbol represents the Buddha’s enlightenment and that the symbols consisting of a number of arches represent a stupa. However, these interpretations are speculative. The use of a symbol on coins issued by the state would certainly have endowed it with a political significance. We may note that the Arthashastra refers to different denominations of silver coins (with some amount of alloying) called panas and copper coins called mashakas.

ROCKS BEARING THE BAHAPUR/SRINIVASAPURI EDICT IN EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI

THE MAURYA DYNASTY

The Maurya empire was built on the foundations laid by the Nandas. The first three rulers of the dynasty were Chandragupta (324/321–297 BCE), Bindusara (297–273 BCE), and Ashoka (268–232 BCE) (see Majumdar et al. [1951], 1968: 54–94; Raychaudhari [1923], 2000: 234–326; Thapar [1963], 1987: 12–54). The rule of the later Mauryas continued till 187 BCE.

In Buddhist texts such as the Digha Nikaya, Mahavamsa, and Divyavadana, the Mauryas are described as belonging to a Kshatriya clan called the Moriyas, who ruled at Pipphalivana. The Parishishtaparvan, on the other hand, describes Chandragupta as the son of the daughter of a chief of a village of peacock tamers (mayura-poshakas). The Mudrarakshasa refers to Chandragupta as

being of low social origin. The early medieval writers Kshemendra and Somadeva call him Purva-Nanda-suta (son of the genuine Nanda). Dhundiraja, a commentator on the Vishnu Purana, states that Chandragupta was the eldest son of Maurya, son of the Nanda king Sarvarthasiddhi, by Mura, daughter of a vrishala (hunter).

Chandragupta may have first established himself in the Punjab and then moved eastwards until he gained control over the Magadha region. Several texts such as the Puranas, Milindapanha, Mudrarakshasa, Mahavamshatika, and Parishishtaparvan refer to his conflict with the Nandas. There is also a tradition referring to Chandragupta overthrowing the Nandas with the help of a Brahmana of Taxila named Chanakya, Kautilya, or Vishnugupta.

The background to these events was the invasion of Alexander of Macedon (327–26 BCE) in the north-west. Greek sources in fact suggest a meeting between Chandragupta and Alexander. They also refer to the conflict between Chandragupta and Seleucus Nikator, who had inherited the eastern provinces of Alexander’s empire. This may have occurred in about 301 BCE and was resolved by an agreement. Chandragupta obtained the territories of Arachosia (the Kandahar area of south-east Afghanistan), Gedrosia (south Baluchistan), and Paropomisadai (the area between Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent) and handed over 500 elephants in return. It is not certain whether a matrimonial alliance was concluded or whether the treaty recognized more general rights of intermarriage between the Greeks and the Indians.

THE DELHI–MEERUT PILLAR

The only definite inscriptional reference to Chandragupta is in the 2nd century CE Junagarh inscription of Rudradaman, which attributes the beginning of the construction of a water reservoir known as the Sudarshana lake to Chandragupta’s reign. By the time of Ashoka, the Maurya empire had extended into the Karnataka region; it is very likely that the major conquests had been made many years earlier by Chandragupta. A poem in the Akananuru (Akam 251) composed by the Sangam poet Mamulanar refers to the following incident: The Koshar achieved many successes against their enemies. However, the Mokur did not submit to them, and so the Moriyas, who had a huge army, sent an expedition to assist them. The poet describes the Moriyar’s chariots rolling across a swathe cut in the mountain for their onward march. Another poem by Mamulanar (Akam 281) states that the warlike Vadugar formed the vanguard of the Maurya army as it marched southwards. Vadugar means ‘northerners’, and refers to the people living in the Andhra–Karnataka region, immediately to the north of Tamil country. If there is any historical basis to these references, they suggest that the Mauryas interfered in the politics of the south, that they had an alliance with a southern power called the Koshar (probably located in north Karnataka), and that Deccani troops formed part of the Maurya army.

Some later inscriptions and Jaina texts suggest a connection between Chandra-gupta, Jainism, and Karnataka. A number of places in the Shravana Belgola hills have the word ‘Chandra’ as their suffix. Jaina tradition speaks of the relationship between Chandragupta and the Jaina saint Bhadrabahu. The Maurya king is said to have accompanied Bhadrabahu to Karnataka in the wake of the saint’s prophecy of the impending outbreak of a 12-year famine in Magadha. The king is also described as having committed sallekhana (ritual death by starvation). Later texts such as the 10th century Brihatkathakosha of Harishena narrate this story, as does the 19th century Rajavali-kathe. Inscriptions in the Shravana Belgola hills, dating between the 5th and 15th centuries CE, mention a person named Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu. It is possible, but not certain, that there is a historical basis to the strong Jaina tradition that connects Chandragupta with Karnataka.

FIGURE 7.1 SOME SYMBOLS ON MAGADHAN PUNCH-MARKED COINS

Chandragupta’s trans-Vindhyan conquests are suggested by Graeco-Roman sources. Plutarch states that Sandrocottus over-ran and subdued the whole of ‘India’ with an army of 600,000. Justin too describes Chandragupta as in possession of ‘India’. It is not certain what exactly these writers meant by ‘India’. The Junagarh inscription of Rudradaman indicates that Chandragupta’s conquests extended up to Saurashtra in Gujarat. In view of such indirect references, it seems that Chandragupta was the chief architect of the huge Maurya empire.

Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Bindusara, who ruled between 297 and 273 BCE.

According to Jaina tradition, Chandragupta abdicated the throne in favour of his son Simhasena. The Mahabhashya refers to Chandragupta’s successor as Amitraghata, while the Greek accounts call him Amitrochates or Allitrochates. The Divyavadana refers to Ashoka putting down a revolt in Taxila due to the activities of wicked ministers. This may have been an incident that occurred in Bindusara’s reign. Taranatha’s account states that Chanakya, one of Bindusara’s great lords, destroyed the nobles and kings of 16 towns and made him master of all the territory between the eastern and western seas. Some historians consider this an indication of Bindusara’s conquest of the Deccan, while others interpret it as a reference to the suppression of a revolt.

Buddhist sources are relatively silent on Bindusara. There is a story of an Ajivika fortune-teller prophesying his son Ashoka’s future greatness, which may suggest that the king favoured the Ajivikas. Greek sources refer to his diplomatic relations with western kings. According to Strabo, Antiochus, king of Syria, sent an ambassador named Deima-chus to his court. Pliny mentions that Ptolemy II Philadelphos, ruler of Egypt, sent an ambassador named Dionysius. There is a story that Bindusara requested Antiochus to buy and send him some sweet wine, dried figs, and a sophist (a

philosopher who specialized in philosophical debate and argumentation). Antiochus is supposed to have replied that while he would certainly send the wine and figs, Greek laws did not permit a sophist to be bought. A fragmentary inscription at Sanchi, which perhaps refers to Bindusara, suggests a possible connection between the king and this Buddhist establishment.

Bindusara’s death in 273 BCE was followed by a four-year succession conflict. According to the Divyavadana, Bindusara wanted his son Susima to succeed him, but Ashoka was supported by his father’s ministers. A minister named Radhagupta seems to have played an especially important role. The Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa refer to Ashoka killing 99 brothers, sparing only one, named Tissa.

Although Buddhist texts have a great deal to say about Ashoka (c. 268–232 BCE), we have to be careful while considering their version of events. Because of his close association with Buddhism, Ashoka is presented as a great, ideal king in the Buddhist tradition, and the account of his reign and personality in these texts is neither objective nor dispassionate.

The Ashokavadana states that Ashoka’s mother was a queen named Subhadrangi, daughter of a Brahmana of Champa. A palace intrigue kept her away from the king. This eventually ended, and she bore him a son. It is from her exclamation—‘I am now without sorrow’—that the child is supposed to have got his name. The Divyavadana tells a similar story, but in one version, gives the name of the queen as Janapadakalyani. The Vamsatthapakasini calls her Dharma. During his father’s reign, Ashoka was stationed as governor at Ujjayini, and before that, possibly at Taxila (or he may have just gone there to put down a revolt). The Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa tell the love story of Ashoka and Devi, daughter of a merchant of Vidisha. Devi went on to become the mother of Ashoka’s celebrated children, Mahinda and Sanghamitta, both of whom eventually joined the Buddhist sangha. Texts refer to other queens such as Asandhimitta, Tissarakhita, and Padmavati. An inscription on the Allahabad–Kosam pillar mentions gifts made by queen Karuvaki.

FURTHER DISCUSSION

Legends of Ashoka

Until the discovery and decipherment of his inscriptions, Ashoka’s fame rested on the legendary accounts of his life, preserved in Buddhist texts such as the Ashokavadana. The Ashokavadana is part of a large collection of legends in the Divyavadana, and may originally have existed as an independent text. Although it belongs to the 2nd century CE, it contains many legends of an earlier time. J. Przyluski argues that the basic text was composed by monks of the Mathura region (the text heaps special praise on the city of Mathura, its monks, and monasteries). Mathura was an important centre of Buddhism, especially the Sarvastivada school.

One of the stories in the Ashokavadana relates an event of great significance that is described as having happened in Ashoka’s previous birth, when he was a small boy named Jaya: One day, Jaya was playing by the roadside, when the Buddha came by. The little boy spontaneously put a handful of dirt into his begging bowl. As he did so, he made a pranidhana (resolute wish) that with this meritorious gift, he should become a king and a follower of the Buddha. The Buddha responded to the child’s gift with a smile that illuminated the universe with its rays of light. These rays re-entered the Buddha’s left palm, signifying that this child would become a great

emperor in his next life. The Buddha then turned to his disciple Ananda, and made a prediction that 100 years after the parinibbana, this boy who threw a fistful of dirt into his bowl, would become a great, righteous chakravarti king, who would rule his empire from his capital at Pataliputra.

Another story in the Ashokavadana narrates that Ashoka was disliked by his father Bindusara because of his ugly appearance. Ashoka managed to become king after getting rid of the legitimate heir, by tricking him into entering a pit filled with live coals. He became notorious as ‘Ashoka the Fierce’ because of his wicked nature and bad temper. He submitted his ministers to a test of loyalty and had 500 of them killed because he found them wanting. When certain women of his harem insulted him, he had the whole lot of them burnt to death. He was so given to sadistic pleasure that he built a hell on earth—an elaborate and horrific torture chamber, where he amused himself by watching the agony of his unfortunate victims. It was as a result of an encounter with a pious Buddhist monk that he was transformed into ‘Ashoka the Pious’. Xuanzang, who travelled in India in the 7th century CE, tells us that he visited the site where the torture chamber once stood.

The Ashokavadana gives a poignant account of Ashoka’s last days. We are told that the king started gifting away state resources to the sangha. Fearing that he would empty out the entire treasury, his ministers denied him access to it. Ashoka then started giving away his own personal possessions. Finally, he was left with only one amala (myrobalan fruit), which too he gifted. Having given everything he owned to the Order, the king died peacefully.

John S. Strong points out that a number of things have to be kept in mind when analysing such legends. The authors reworked old legends and traditions, some of which had till then circulated in oral form. Their aim was to confirm the faith of the faithful and to win new adherents to the Buddhist fold. The legends aimed at conveying certain important ideas such as the nature of suffering and how to overcome it and the importance of the laws of karma and rebirth. They tried to inculcate devotion to the Buddha and emphasized the merits that would accrue to those who gave generously to the sangha. They also highlighted the role that kingship could play in supporting the Buddhist faith.

Buddhist legends in texts such as the Ashokavadana were responsible for Ashoka acquiring the reputation of an exemplary Buddhist king who deserved both admiration and emulation, not only in the Indian subcontinent, but in East Asia as well.

SOURCE Przyluski, 1967; Strong, 1983

RECENT DISCOVERIES

The stone portrait of Ashoka at Kanaganahalli

In the autumn of 1993, a team of archaeologists was surveying the area around Sannati in the Chitapur taluk of Gulbarga district, Karnataka. A dam was to be built across the river Bhima near this place, and the survey was necessary for the mandatory environmental clearance. Several sites were discovered in the course of the survey, but the most dramatic evidence came from Kanaganahalli.

This site is situated on the left bank of the Bhima river, 3 km east of the Chandralamba temple at Sannati. Here, some irregular stones arranged in an arc in the midst of agricultural fields attracted the attention of the archaeologists. Trial excavations in 1994–95 under the direction of K. P. Poonacha, revealed one-eighth of a large brick stupa encased with sculpted limestone slabs. Carved limestone slabs, pillars, railings, capitals, and sculptures were unearthed. Over 60 lead coins bearing the names of Satavahana kings, and 200 donative and label inscriptions were identified. The remains of the Kanganahalli stupa (known as a mahachaitya) can be securely dated between the 1st and 3th centuries CE.

The discoveries at the site included a broken relief sculpture showing a king and queen flanked by female attendants, two of whom held up a parasol and fly whisk—symbols of sovereignty—in their hands. An inscription in Brahmi letters read ‘Ranyo Ashoka’ (king Ashoka), leaving no doubt about who the central figure was supposed to represent.

Many years earlier, a relief panel at the central Indian site of Sanchi had been identified as a representation of the same king, but there was no inscription to confirm the identification. Kanaganahalli provided an image that could definitely be connected to one of the most famous kings of ancient India.

Trial excavations at Kanaganahalli were followed by more systematic ones in 1996–97. The report of these excavations contains a wealth of important material illustrating the history of Buddhism in the upper Krishna area in the early centuries CE.

SOURCE Poonacha, 2007

The distribution of Ashoka’s inscriptions suggests the extent of the Maurya empire. In the northwest, it extended up to Kandahar in Afghanistan, with the kingdom of Antiochus II of Syria lying to the west. Its eastern frontier extended to Orissa. It included almost the entire subcontinent, except the southernmost parts, which, according to rock edict 13, were inhabited by the Cholas and Pandyas, and according to rock edict 2, by the Keralaputras and Satiyaputras. Ashoka’s fame is based on his association with Buddhism and his pacifism, which are proclaimed in Buddhist texts and in his own inscriptions.

The Maurya empire declined rapidly after Ashoka. The Puranas mention the names of later Maurya rulers and give the number of years they ruled for. The details vary, but it is clear that they had relatively short reigns. The empire became weak and fragmented and seems to have suffered an invasion by the Bactrian Greeks. The Maurya dynasty came to an end when the last king, Brihadratha, was killed by his military commander Pushyamitra, who founded the Shunga dynasty in c. 187 BCE.

Literary and Archaeological Profiles of Cities

The 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE saw a continuation of the processes of agrarian and urban expansion that were underway during the preceding centuries. Cities expanded in size and complexity, and urbanism spread to many new areas such as Kashmir, the Punjab plains, lower Ganga valley, Brahmaputra valley, and Orissa. Urban growth in the far south can also be identified in this period. The connection between the expansion of the Maurya empire and urban development in various parts of the subcontinent is a complex issue. The Maurya impact cannot be ignored, but it should not be exaggerated.

Urban growth was accompanied by an expansion of specialized crafts, trade, and guild organization. Money was increasingly used as a medium of exchange. Megasthenes was wrong in stating that Indians did not borrow or lend money on interest, for we know of money-lending from earlier times. Although there is evidence of earlier writing from Anuradhapura and Kodumanal, the Maurya period saw the earliest royal inscriptions on stone. Writing may have been used in other activities as well, especially to record business transactions. Some of these developments are directly reflected in evidence from middle and late NBPW levels at various sites.

Some data on urban centres is given below in order to convey the idea that the centuries of Maurya rule were also centuries of urban expansion. But it is actually best to club the details in this section with those in the next chapter, which takes up the threads of urban growth from c. 200 BCE onwards.

FIGURE 7.2 SCHEMATIC PLAN OF A FORTIFIED CITY, BASED ON THE ARTHASHASTRA (AFTER RANGARAJAN, 1992)

Greek sources describe Pataliputra, the Magadhan capital. One would expect this to be the most accurate part of Meg-asthenes’ account, and as we shall see, archaeological evidence does in fact

support it on some important points. Megasthenes describes the city as surrounded by a wooden wall with towers and openings for shooting arrows, beyond which was a moat.

The precise location and extent of the ancient city of Pataliputra has been an issue of debate among archaeologists for a long time, and is connected with the identification of the old course of the Son and Ganga. Ancient ruins that can be connected to the Maurya phase of Pataliputra’s history have been identified at several places in modern Patna. The most important of these are at Kumrahar and Bulandibagh. At Kumrahar, there are remains of a pillared hall consisting of 10 rows of 8 pillars each. To the north-west of Kumrahar, at Bulandibagh, are the remains of a wooden palisade (fortification), consisting of two parallel walls made of wooden uprights, separated by a width of about 3.75 m (details of the pillared hall and wooden palisade are discussed further on in the section on architecture). Although their stratigraphy is not clearly defined, these may represent remains of the wooden fortifications of Pataliputra described by Megasthenes.

PRIMARY SOURCES

Pataliputra and the palace, according to Arrian and Aelian

But of their [i.e., the Indians’] cities, it is said that the number is so great that it cannot be stated with precision, but that such cities as are situated on the banks of rivers or on the sea coast are built of wood, for were they built of brick, they would not last long—so destructive are the rains, and also the rivers when they overflow their banks and inundate the plains. Those cities, however, which stand on commanding situations and lofty eminences are built of brick and mud. The greatest city in India is that which is called Palimbothra, in the dominions of the Prasians, where the streams of the Erannoboas [Son] and the Ganges unite—the Ganges being the greatest of all rivers, and the Erannoboas being perhaps the third largest of Indian rivers, though greater than the rivers elsewhere; but it is smaller than the Ganges where it falls into it. Megasthenes says further of this city that the inhabited part of it stretched on either side to an extreme length of eighty stadia [over 9 miles], and that its breadth was fifteen stadia [1¼ mile], and that a ditch encompassed it all round, which was six plethora in breadth and thirty cubits in depth, and that the wall was crowned with five hundred and seventy towers and had four-and-sixty gates (Arrian, Indica, 10).

In the Indian royal palace where the greatest of all the kings of the country resides, besides much else which is calculated to excite admiration, and with which neither Memnomian Susa with all its costly splendour, nor Ekbatana with all its magnificence can vie (for I think only the vanity of the Persians would prompt such a comparison), there are other wonders besides, which I cannot undertake to describe in this treatise. In the parks tame peacocks are kept, and pheasants which have been domesticated; and among cultivated plants there are some to which the king’s servants attend with special care, for there are shady groves and pasture grounds covered with trees, and branches of trees which the art of woodmen has deftly interwoven. And these very trees, from the unusual benignness of climate, are always in bloom, and, untouched by age, never shed their leaves; and while some are native to the soil, others are with circumspect care brought from other parts, and with their beauty enhance the charms of the landscape. The olive is not among

them, this being a tree that is neither indigenous to India, nor thrives when transported there. Birds and animals that wander at freedom and have never been tamed resort on their own to India and there build their nests and form their lairs. Parrots are natives of the country, and keep hovering about the king and wheeling around him, and vast though their numbers be, no Indian ever eats a parrot. The reason for all this is that they are believed to be sacred and that the Brachmans [Brahmanas] honour them highly above all other birds. They assign a specious enough reason for doing so—namely, that the parrot alone, from the admirable configuration of its vocal organs, can imitate human speech. Within the palace ground, there are also artificial ponds of great beauty, in which they keep fish of enormous size but quite tame. No one has permission to fish for these except the king’s sons while yet in their boyhood. These youngsters amuse themselves without the least risk of being drowned while fishing in the unruffled sheet of water, and learning how to sail their boats. (Aelian, On the Peculiarities of Animals, 13.18)

SOURCE McGrindle, quoted in Majumdar [1960], 1981: 223–24; 414–15

www.pearsoned.co.in/upindersingh

SCHEMATIC PLAN OF A ROYAL PALACE, BASED ON THE ARTHASHASTRA

Several other sites give more detailed evidence of life in the cities of the Maurya empire. Excavations at Stratum II at Bhir mound at Taxila (Marshall, 1951) revealed an occupation belonging to the 3rd century BCE. The plan of the settlement was haphazard. Four streets and five lanes associated with blocks of houses were identified. There was a broad 6.70 m wide street (named First Street by the excavators), which did not run straight. Other streets ranged between 3 and 5 m in width, and were often winding rather than straight. The lanes leading off from the streets were narrower but had a more regular alignment. There were traces of covered drains in some places, but none in the main street. Some amount of civic planning is suggested by round refuse bins in the open squares and streets. Rough stone pillars (about 0.91 m high) at the corners of houses guarded them against damage from wheels of passing chariots or carts. The houses consisted of rooms arranged around an open courtyard, usually paved with stone. Some of the larger ones had two courtyards. Bathing areas and open passages were also paved with stone. Sewage from houses was carried by stone surface drains and smaller earthenware drain-pipes into soak-pits. Some of the excavated rooms may have been shops. One of these, which contained many cut pieces of shell and mother-of-pearl, was evidently a shell worker’s working area or shop. John Marshall identified a 60 × 23 m complex as a religious structure. A lane divided this into a larger northern block and smaller southern block. The northern block consisted of about 30 rooms, 2 courtyards, and a large pillared hall. The debris from the hall and nearby area included many terracotta reliefs representing a male and a female figure—perhaps deities—holding hands. According to Marshall, they may have been cult images meant to be sold to devotees.

In the Indo-Gangetic divide, Ropar reflects a transition from village to town. Period III at this site is dated c. 600–200 BCE, and yielded NBPW and punch-marked and uninscribed cast copper coins. There is also a seal with an inscription in Maurya Brahmi. Houses were made of stone set in mud mortar, although some were of mud-brick and burnt brick. There were remains of a 12 ft wide wall of burnt brick, perhaps leading into a tank for storing rainwater. The upper levels of Period III revealed soak-pits lined with terracotta rings. Maurya period levels have also been found at the Purana Qila in Delhi.

In the upper Ganga valley, remains of a fortified settlement of the Maurya period were discovered at Bhita (Marshall, 1915). John Marshall’s excavations were concentrated in the south-east corner of the site, where he uncovered two streets, which he named High Street and Bastion Street. The former was about 9.14 m wide, and probably led to a series of gates with attached guardrooms. The narrower Bastion Street lay to the northeast of this. The fortifications consisted of a 3.40 m thick mud rampart with a circular bastion and a gateway that was blocked at some point. One of the interesting discoveries was a house, which Marshall named ‘House of the Guild’ due to the discovery of a seal with the word nigama. Consisting of 12 rooms arranged around a rectangular courtyard, it may have been double-storyed, and was rebuilt several times. The remains of other similar houses were also unearthed. On the side facing the road, there were often rows of rooms with a platform or verandah in front. Cunningham identified Bhita with a place called Bitbhaya-pattana, mentioned in Jaina texts. On the other hand, Marshall identified it with a place called Vichhi or Vicchigrama, whose name occurred on a seal found at the site. Whether these identifications are correct or not, going by the large number of seals found here, Bhita seems to have been an important trade centre.

PURANA QILA: RING WELLS;

STORAGE JAR

In the doab region, Mathura and Sonkh have given evidence of occupation during the Maurya period. At Mathura, the beginnings of urbanization are discernable in Period II, dated between the late 4th century BCE and 2nd century BCE. The pottery assemblage was marked by NBPW. The size of the settlement increased to about 3.9 sq km, a mud fortification wall flanking it on three sides and the Yamuna to its east. Coins made their appearance, and there was prolific evidence of specialized crafts such as the manufacture of terracotta figurines, copper and iron working, and bead making. At nearby Sonkh, the earliest levels of Period II yielded NBPW, terracotta figurines, uninscribed cast and die-struck coins, and silver punch-marked coins.

More detailed evidence is available from Atranjikhera (Gaur, 1983) in the Etah district, where the NBPW sub-phase IVC was dated c. 350–200 BCE. This phase was marked by an increase in structural activities. The defences, consisting of a mud rampart topped by a brick parapet, seem to belong to this period. There was a development of terracotta art, coinage, and the first evidence of writing. Five structural phases were identified in Period IVC. In the first of these, four mud-brick walls were associated with mud floors, a ring well, and a circular barn. In the second structural phase, there were four mud-brick walls and a barn consisting of five courses of terracotta rings. The third structural phase was marked by an increase in building activity. Several walls and working floors were exposed, including those belonging to a room and a granary. The excavated portion of the granary was divided into small compartments by wattle-and-daub partitions plastered with a thick layer of mud. Two mud walls of a room were exposed near the granary. The remains of post-holes indicated that its superstructure was made of wattle and daub. One of its walls was made of mud-brick; all the walls had a thick layer of mud plaster. Inside this room was a kitchen containing a three-mouthed hearth (chullah), with a clay stand with a slightly flattened top near its central opening—probably the place where the rotis (breads) were placed while being baked. Several pots and pans and a big oblong jar (partially buried in the floor) were also found in this kitchen. The red mud and mud-bricks, and large quantities of charred grain indicate that this structure and the granary

had been destroyed due to fire. In the fourth structural level, nine walls made of courses of mud-brick and burnt brick associated with mud floors were found. The fifth structural phase of sub-period IVC revealed two walls, one of mud-brick, the other of mud, both coated with thick mud plaster mixed with rice husk. An oval fire pit was also found. There was evidence of a fire in this structural phase as well. The mud rampart, which had been damaged due to floods, was repaired and raised.

THE BHITA MOUND

The terracottas of Period IVC at Atranjikhera included a well-modelled female bust, a damaged plaque showing an ornamented female figure (the head and neck were missing) and part of a moulded plaque depicting a human figure. Animal figurines included representations of the bull, horse (?), elephant, goat (?), and some indeterminate figures. Birds included what look like a kite, duck, and peacock. There were terracotta wheels, rattles, gamesmen, bangles, a skin rubber, quern, dabber, and net sinker. Other objects included 32 terracotta playing balls with elaborate incised lines, and 40 terracotta discs, many with impressed or incised notches around the circumference. There were lots of terracotta beads. An interesting discovery was what may have been a terracotta design block used to print designs on cloth. Two terracotta crucibles were used for melting metal. A miniature pot was also found, which may have been a toy or used for some ritualistic purpose. Two votive tanks were found. An inscribed terracotta sealing had a partially legible Brahmi legend. There were beads of semi-precious stones (agate, carnelian, quartz, and jasper). One glass bead was discovered. Stone objects included a small pestle, grinder, and a broken quern (?). Bone and ivory objects comprised arrowheads, stylii, one ivory bead, and an ivory ear stud. Iron artefacts found in Period IVC (70) were a little less in number compared with Period IVB (79). Copper objects numbered 25, as opposed to 21 in Period IVB. Coins included one defaced copper punch-marked coin and one defaced uninscribed copper coin. A small bone sealing with a legible Brahmi letter and a svastika symbol were also found.

In the middle Ganga valley, the defences at Shravasti are dated c. 250 BCE, while those of Vaishali and Tilaura-kot belong to the 2nd century BCE. In the lower Ganga valley, the fortified city of Mahasthangarh (ancient Pundravardhana, in Bagura district of Bangladesh) has yielded a Brahmi inscription. The brick rampart at Bangarh (identified with ancient Kotivarsha) can be assigned to the 2nd century BCE. The mud ramparts of Chandraketugarh probably also belong to this period. This site, which dates from the pre-Maurya period, has yielded rich antiquities, especially exquisite terracottas, but its archaeological image still remains hazy. Tamluk was the eastern terminal point of

the Uttarapatha and was an important early historical port. NBPW, terracottas and other antiquities connect the occupation here to mid-NBPW levels elsewhere in the Ganga valley.

In Orissa, the two important sites are Sisupalgarh and Jaugada. The former, not far from Bhubaneswar, may represent the site of ancient Tosali. The mud fortification here, built in the early 2nd century BCE, was roughly square shaped, about 3/4 mile on each side. There is evidence of ancient habitation outside the fortified area as well, ranging from c. 300 BCE to 350 CE. At Jaugada on the Rishikulya, Period I, which revealed post-holes and portions of floors made of rammed earth or gravel and evidence of bead making, may date to at least the 3rd century BCE.

In Rajasthan, early urban growth is reflected at sites such as Bairat, Rairh, and Sambhar. Bairat is identified as the site of ancient Viratanagara, capital of the Matsya kingdom. The ruins at the site cover 2½ miles. Excavations in a small 400 × 190 ft area led to the unearthing of many remains of the Maurya and post-Maurya periods, such as pillars, structures including a Buddhist monastery, and many antiquities. The remains at Rairh ranged from the 3rd/2nd century BCE to beyond the 2nd century CE. The structural remains consisted of parallel walls and soak-pits made of terracotta rings. The occupation of the site of Sambhar seems to have begun in the 3rd/2nd century BCE, but little information is available.

The beginning of the early historical phase in Gujarat can be seen in the presence of NBPW at sites such as Broach, Nagal, Prabhas Patan, and Amreli, which can be dated to about the early 3rd century BCE, but detailed information is lacking. Limited excavations on the outer fringes of Broach on the banks of the Narmada revealed a 25 ft thick deposit. Period I was marked by BRW, with NBPW in the upper levels. There was a mud rampart with a moat, and five terracotta ring wells were found on its inner side. The discovery of many finished and unfinished beads of semi-precious stones are indicative of bead manufacture. The importance of the Gujarat coastal sites vis-à-vis trade increased in the succeeding centuries.

Ujjayini (Ujjain) in central India was the headquarters of one of the Maurya provinces. Period II had NBPW, copper coins, bone and ivory points, and terracotta ring wells. Two small ivory seals with their owners’ names inscribed in early Brahmi letters were also found. This phase probably belongs to the Maurya period. At Besnagar, which represents the site of ancient Vidisha, the rampart, built in 2nd century BCE, enclosed an area of about 240 ha.

In Maharashtra, there are signs of the beginnings of urbanism. At Tagara (Ter), the earliest level had NBPW and a black-and-red burnished pottery, and seems to date to the 3rd–2nd centuries BCE. The fact that a set of Ashokan rock edicts were found at Sopara suggests that it was an important port in Maurya times; however, it has not been properly explored.

Further south, the occupation of sites such as Sannati, Kondapur, and Madhavpur seems to have begun in the Maurya period. Ashokan edicts have been found at Maski and Brahmagiri, but we have no information about the settlements of the period at these places. Amaravati (ancient Dhanyakataka) on the banks of the river Krishna has yielded a fragmentary inscription in Maurya Brahmi. Period I at Amaravati goes back at least to the 4th century BCE. Period Ia was marked by BRW and NBPW. Potsherds with Brahmi inscriptions, similar to those found at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka, were found. Similar pottery continued into Period Ib, and the beginning of the stupa complex dates to this period, as does an inscribed stone slab. The settlement of Uraiyur may go back to the 3rd century BCE.

PANORAMIC VIEW OF KAUSHAMBI

Some Aspects of Rural and Urban Life

As mentioned earlier, given the dynamics and slow-moving nature of social and economic processes, it is difficult to discuss these within the frameworks of dynastic history. Here, we will confine ourselves to looking at a few aspects related specifically to the Maurya period.

Megasthenes divided the Indian people into seven strata. Diodorus and Strabo use the Greek word mere and Arrian genea for these divisions. If we combine the descriptions, the seven groups were as follows: philosophers, farmers, herdsmen and hunters, artisans and traders, soldiers, overseers, and the kings’ counsellors. This collection of occupational groups and administrative ranks corresponds neither to the varnas nor the jatis. It seems to have been Megasthenes’ own invention, although it is possible that it was modelled on Herodotus’ classification of Egyptian society into seven similar, though not identical, classes. According to Megasthenes, no one in India could marry outside their genos (this is a Greek word used to refer to clan or other relationships based on descent), nor could they follow another’s occupation. Thapar (1984) points out that it is important to understand the nuances of the Greek words Megasthenes used and that although he got the numbers wrong, he did identify two of the important aspects of the caste system—hereditary occupation and endogamy.

The philosophoi (literally, ‘philosophers’) are described as being held in high esteem in India. Strabo divides them into the brachmanes (Brahmanas) and garmanes (shramanas). Diodorus refers to nomadic tribes of herdsmen and shepherds. He also states that the artisans (technitai) were exempt from taxes and maintained by the state. According to Strabo, no one other than the king could own a horse or elephant. He writes that apart from the independent artisans, armourers and shipbuilders were employed by the state and paid a misthos (wage). This can be connected with the Arthashastra references to state-owned and state-run enterprises. However, in general, there is little that Megasthenes tells us about Indian society that we do not already know from other sources.

The Arthashastra mentions wage labour, bonded labour, and slave labour. The term karmakara refers to a person who works in return for wages. Kautilya lays down a schedule of wages for workers, but it is highly unlikely that the Maurya state could have actually implemented wage control. He also specifies the duties of employers and employees, and punishments in case these were not complied with. The Arthashastra (3.14.12–17) refers to some kind of corporate organization (sangha) of workers which interfaced with employers. Clearly, this sort of trade unionism among wage labourers could not have existed in those times.

Megasthenes lauds Indian society for not having any slaves. The Arthashastra, on the other hand, has a very detailed discussion of dasas (slaves) and ahitakas (those pledged to creditors when contracting a debt). Various types of slaves and situations of enslavement, temporary and permanent, are mentioned. There is reference to slaves in the service of private individuals as well as the state.

Kautilya lists various rules for the treatment of male and female slaves and lays down penalties for their transgression. For instance, punishments are prescribed for those who sell or mortgage a pregnant woman slave without any arrangement for her maternity, and for those who cause such a slave to have a miscarriage. There is reference to the manumission of slaves on payment of a sum of money. Kautilya also states that if a dasi bore her master a son, she was released from enslavement, and the child was considered the father’s legitimate son. Ashoka’s rock edict 9 mentions courteous behaviour towards dasas and bhatakas (bhritakas, i.e., servants) as part of dhamma.

The Arthashastra reflects a significant hardening of the Brahmanical position on untouchability. It states (1.14.10) that the well of Chandalas could only be used by them and none else. A heavy fine is prescribed for a Chandala touching an arya woman (3.20.16), although Kangle suggests that this refers not to touch but sexual relations. Chandalas and shvapakas (dog breeders) were included in the general category of the antavasayin (literally, ‘living at the end’), people who were supposed to live on the margins of settlements.

The Nature and Structure of the Maurya Empire

The problems posed by the major sources for the Maurya period have implications for our understanding of the nature and structure of the empire. There is the Arthashastra, a theoretical treatise, not composed in its entirety in the Maurya period, which talks of a potential state within the framework of an established tradition of scholarship on statecraft. Just how much of what it says can be connected to the manner in which the Maurya empire was governed is difficult to assess. Second, there are different versions of fragments of a lost text, Megasthenes’ Indica, replete with several discrepancies and inaccuracies. The third major source, Ashoka’s inscriptions, have the advantage that they are securely dated to the reign of Ashoka, but as they mostly deal with Ashoka’s dhamma, they offer only fleeting, incidental references to administration. The political implications of the numismatic finds and the archaeological evidence have not yet been properly explored.

The question is not whether the Maurya state was an empire or not, but what sort of empire was it? What did it mean for a territory or people to be absorbed into its fold? What were the strategies and degrees of control over different areas? How effective was this control? The three major sources for the Maurya period may actually mask the ground realities. All of them were, in one way or another, connected with the Maurya court. They project the point of view of the political– intellectual elites at the centre and perhaps exaggerate the level of central control.

The idea of a highly centralized Maurya empire was based partly on an assumption that empires and centralization go together. It was also based on an uncritical reading of the Arthashastra, which presents a state that controls the people, produce, and resources of its domain with all-encompassing and robotic precision. More recent writings on the Maurya state have gone to the other extreme. Gerard Fussman (1987–88) has argued that given the extent of the empire and the communication networks of the time, the Maurya empire could not possibly have been centralized. Maurya rule was superimposed over a number of existing political units, which must have been allowed to continue to exercise varying degrees of autonomy. Ashoka’s personal supervision applied only to the propagation of dhamma, not to details of routine administration. Initiatives at the provincial and local administrative level are evident in the script, language, content, and location of the inscriptions. For instance, the fact that the Greek and Aramaic inscriptions in the northwest are not

literal translations of the standard edicts suggests that considerable initiative was left in the hands of local officials.

Romila Thapar ([1963], 1987) initially presented the Maurya empire as a new form of government marked by centralized control and planning. Her subsequent re-consideration of the issue (1984) suggests that the Maurya empire was not a homogeneous whole, and that it subsumed different sorts of economies, polities, and life-ways. Using the framework of world systems theory, Thapar suggests that the empire should be considered as consisting of metropolitan, core, and peripheral areas. Magadha was the metropolitan state. The core areas included existing states, areas of incipient state formation, and centres of trade. The peripheral areas included a number of pre-state societies. The relationship between the metropolitan state and the core and peripheral areas varied, but the nature of the relationship did not—it basically involved exploitation. It is not actually necessary to label the Maurya empire as ‘centralized’ or ‘decentralized’. The empire must have had some element of centralized control, but given its extent, there must also have been a significant amount of delegation of authority to functionaries at provincial, district, and village levels.

While the Maurya period shows continuity with the preceding period in terms of political, social, and economic processes, there are also some new features. The Nandas had a large empire, but the Maurya empire was larger, covering practically the entire subcontinent and extending beyond it in the north-west. This empire was accompanied by manifestations of an imperial ideology and vision, expressed in sophisticated monumental stone sculpture and architecture. The edict-bearing Ashokan pillars stand as imperial monuments bearing the king’s unique message to his people. Another significant difference from earlier regimes was that the Maurya emperors were not insular; they looked beyond the limits of the subcontinent. This is evident from their entertaining ambassadors from Hellenistic courts, Ashoka’s dispatch of Buddhist and dhamma missions to various areas, and his claim of attaining dhamma-vijaya (victory through dhamma) in the domains of other kings.

If Kautilya had simply written his memoirs, they would have provided an excellent, direct source of information on Maurya administration. But caution has to be exercised in extrapolating historical information from his scholarly work on statecraft. It is not entirely surprising that a work such as the Arthashastra was written (at least in part) in this period. The fact that the text can actually visualize a state as powerful and streamlined as it does is in itself significant. Even if the author (or authors) was a genius, such a sophisticated understanding of politics and its relationship to the economy and society could not have emerged in a historical vacuum. It must have been grounded in the existence and experience of empire, and the author must have drawn on his understanding of contemporary politics and institutions. The Maurya period was marked by administrative changes and innovations. Within this period, Ashoka’s reign saw an important shift in the priorities of governance. In order to understand the nature and structure of the Mau-rya empire, the best course is to juxtapose details drawn from the three major sources and to assess the extent to which they agree or disagree with each other.

The Arthashastra is the first Indian text to define a state (Kangle, 1965). Its concept of the saptanga rajya considers the state as consisting of seven inter-related and interlocking constituent limbs or elements (angas or prakritis)—svami (the lord, i.e., the king), amatya (ministers), janapada (the territory and the people), durga (the fortified capital), kosha (the treasury), danda (justice or force), and mitra (ally). The idea of the saptanga rajya was accepted, with minor modifications, in many Dharmashastra texts, the Puranas, and the Mahabharata. The Arthashastra

deals only in passing with theoretical issues such as the origins of the state. Its principal concern is with practical matters of governance.

The Maurya state was a monarchy with a powerful king at the centre of the political system. Monarchy is assumed to be the norm in the Arthashastra, and its teaching is addressed to the king. The text exalts the position of the svami, i.e., king, in relation to the other prakritis. Ashoka’s inscriptions leave no doubt about the king being the central focus of power in the empire. Ashoka describes himself in one of the minor rock edicts as the raja of Magadha. But his inscriptions more often give him the epithets Devanampiya and Piyadasi. The former suggests an attempt to proclaim a connection between the king and the gods.

PRIMARY SOURCES

Kautilya’s timetable for a king

According to Kautilya, if a king is energetic, his subjects will be energetic. If he is lazy, his subjects will be lazy and will eat into his wealth. An indolent king is also likely to fall easily into the hands of his enemies.

Arthashastra 1.19.16 recommends that the king divide the day and night into eight parts each. This gives a total of 16 units of time, each consisting of 1½ hours, each associated with specific activities.

This is how Kautilya suggests the king should spend the eight parts of the day, starting immediately after sunrise:

Receive1. reports on defence and accounts of income and expenditure.

Look2. into the affairs of the people of the cities and countryside.

Bathe,3. eat a meal, study.

Receive4. revenue in cash and assign tasks to the heads of department.

Consult5. his council of ministers through correspondence and receive secret information brought in by spies.

Relax6. and enjoy himself or hold consultations.

Review7. elephants, horses, chariots, and troops.

Discuss8. military policy with the commander-in-chief.

This is how Kautilya recommends the king spend the eight parts of the night:

1.

Interview secret agents.

2.

Bathe, have a meal, study.

3.

Go to bed to the strains of musical instruments.

4,5. Continue to sleep (this gives him a total of 4½ hours of sleep).

6.

Awaken to the sound of musical instruments and ponder over the science of statecraft and on the work to be done.

7.

Consult counsellors and dispatch secret agents.

8.

Receive blessings from priests; see his physician, chief cook, and astrologer.

At daybreak, the king should circumambulate a cow, its calf, and a bull, and proceed to the assembly hall.

Following such a punishing routine would no doubt have been very difficult even for a diligent king. So, Kautilya goes on to state that if the king does not want to follow this timetable, he can divide the day and night into different parts according to his capacities and carry out his tasks accordingly. The Arthashastra gives advice, but the suggestion of alternatives implies some flexibility as well.

SOURCE Kangle [1963], 1972: 46–47

The king of the Arthashastra lives in a vulnerable world and has to exercise extreme vigilance to safeguard his life and position. Kautilya gives detailed instructions on how the palace should be provided with multiple secret emergency exits and how all things going in and out of the palace complex must be carefully examined. All food and drink consumed by the king must be first tested. He should have a personal guard of female archers and must surround himself with people whom he can trust. Ministers have to be subjected to frequent tests of loyalty. Elaborate arrangements are suggested to guard him against poison, fire, and snakes. Spies in disguise should fan out to all parts of the kingdom to sniff out even the slightest whiff of sedition. The danger of assassination always looms large, especially at the hands of those closest to him—his wives and sons. Kautilya emphasizes the need for such precautions by citing examples of kings who had been killed by their sons, wives, and brothers.

Although the Arthashastra is above all a treatise on how to acquire, maintain, and enhance political power, it emphasizes the moral obligations of kingship by elaborating on the king’s duties and obligations. These include protecting (rakshana, palana) the person and property of his subjects and ensuring their welfare and prosperity (yoga-kshema). ‘In the happiness of his subjects lies the happiness of the king and what is beneficial to the subjects his benefit. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him, but treat as beneficial to himself whatever pleases his subjects’ (Arthashastra 1.19.34). The ideal of paternalistic rule is reflected in Arthashastra 2.1.18, which states that the king should, like a father, show favours to those whose exemptions have ceased. The Kanta-kashodhana (Removal of Thorns) section discusses how he must protect his people from deceitful artisans, traders, thieves, murderers, and natural calamities. Arthashastra 2.1.26 asserts that the king should maintain helpless children, old people, childless women, and other persons in distress. Protection of the social order, defined with reference to the maintenance of varnashrama dharma, is an important duty of the king.

Ashoka’s ideals of kingship partially match those of the Arthashastra, but bear the impress of his own ideas. They include ensuring the welfare of all beings and of his subjects in this world and the next. The paternalistic ideal is reflected in rock edicts 1 and 2, which state: ‘All men are my children. Just as with regard to my own children, I desire that they may be provided with all kinds of welfare and happiness in this world and the next, I desire the same for all men.’ Ashoka speaks of the debt he owes to all living beings (rock edict 6), and his concern for people who lived beyond the borders of his kingdom (separate rock edict 2). He sought to ensure peoples’ welfare by planting trees along roads, digging wells, providing medical care for men and animals, and above all, by

instructing people in dhamma, which, as he never tired of pointing out, would lead to their happiness in this life and the next. Paternalism included looking after the subects’ welfare, but it was also imbued with authority and sternness, as evident in rock edict 2, which tells unconquered people living on the borders that they should understand that king would only forgive that offence which could be forgiven.

The second prakriti in Kautilya’s Arthashastra is amatya. This umbrella term included all high-ranking officials, counsellors, and executive heads of department. Mantrin (minister) seems to have been a more specific term, referring to the king’s advisors or counsellors. There seem to have been two consultative bodies, one small, the other larger. The Arthashastra mentions a small consultative body of mantrins called the mantra-parishad. It also refers to a larger body of variable number called the mantri-parishad, which included executive heads of department. Patanjali’s Mahabhashya refers to the sabha of Chandra-gupta, which may have been the larger council. The sumbouloi of Megasthenes also appears to refer to such a body. Ashoka’s rock edict 3 states that the palisa/parisa (i.e., parishad) is to direct the officers known as yutas (yuktas) in the discharge of certain duties. In rock edict 6, the king states that he should be informed immediately if any dispute arises among members of the parishad in the course of their deliberations. This seems to be a reference to a smaller, select body. It can be connected to Megasthenes’ sunedroi (literally, ‘those who sit together’, similar in meaning to parishad) (Bongard-Levin, 1971).

PRIMARY SOURCES

The life of a king, according to Megasthenes (via Strabo)

Now the care of the king’s person is committed to women, who also are purchased from their fathers; and the bodyguards and the rest of the military force are stationed outside the gates. And a woman who kills a king when he is drunk receives as her reward the privilege of consorting with his successor; and their children succeed to the throne. Again, the king does not sleep in the daytime; and even at night he is forced to change his bed from time to time because of the plots against him. Among the nonmilitary departures he makes from his palace, one is that to the courts, where he spends the whole day hearing cases to the end, even if the hour comes for the care of his person. This care of his person consists of his being rubbed with sticks of wood, for while he is hearing the cases through, he is also rubbed by four men who stand around him and rub him. A second departure is to the sacrifices. A third is that to a kind of Bacchic chase wherein he is surrounded by women, and, beyond them, by the spear-bearers. The road is lined with ropes; and death is the penalty for anyone who passes inside the ropes to the women; and they are preceded by drum-beaters and gong-carriers. The king hunts in the fenced enclosures, shooting arrows from a platform in his chariot (two or three armed women stand beside him), and also in the unfenced hunting-grounds from an elephant; and the women ride partly in chariots, partly on horses, and partly on elephants, and they are equipped with all kinds of weapons, as they are when they go on military expeditions with men.

It is interesting to note that both Kautilya and Megasthenes mention the king’s women bodyguards. Equally interesting is Megasthenes’ reference to the king changing his bed several

times in the night to guard himself against assassins. This fits in well with Kautilya’s precautions against assassination.

SOURCE Majumdar [1960], 1981: 271–72

The political role of high-ranking officials is apparent in the fact that Radhagupta, one of Bindusara’s mantrins (ministers) seems to have played a key role in Ashoka’s successful bid for power. Megasthenes observes that the king was always available for consultation even when being massaged. Ashoka’s rock edict 6 also emphasizes the king’s accessibility to his officials. This matches well with the Arthashastra’s recommendation that the king must be accessible to officials at all times.

Apart from the king and his consultative bodies, there were a number of high officers in charge of important portfolios. The Arthashastra mentions the samahartri (chief collector of revenue, who was in charge of maintaining accounts) and samnidhatri (treasurer, also in charge of the royal stores). It also mentions officers such as the dauvarika (chief of the palace attendants), the antaravamshika (chief of the palace guard), and a large number of adhyakshas (departmental heads). The akshapatala office in the capital was the records-cum-audit office. Even in the absence of direct references in Ashoka’s inscriptions, we can assume that there must have been officers and offices with duties corresponding to these.

The Arthashastra emphasizes the importance of the purohita (royal priest). It states that he should be of high character, should belong to a reputed family, should be thoroughly trained in the Vedas, Vedanga, the interpretation of divine signs and omens, and the science of politics (arthashastra), and should be capable of counteracting divine and human calamities by means of Atharvan practices. Kautilya (1.9.9) advises the king to follow the purohita as a pupil his teacher, a son his father, and a servant his master. Given the evidently eclectic religious beliefs and practices of the Maurya kings, it is quite possible that the purohita was not a major presence (we do not know whether he was there at all) in their courts.

Ashoka’s inscriptions mention many kinds of mahamatas (the term mahamatra occurs in the Arthashastra). Specific types of mahamatas mentioned in the inscriptions include the anta-mahamatas (mahamatas in charge of the frontier areas) and itthijhakka-mahamatas (mahamatas in charge of women’s welfare). The dhamma-mahamatas were a new cadre of officials created by Ashoka when he had been consecrated 13 years. Their job was to spread dhamma all over the empire.

The inscriptions suggest that the Maurya empire was divided into provinces under governors. There seem to have been at least four provinces—a southern one with its centre at Suvarnagiri, a northern one with its headquarters at Taxila, a western one with its headquarters at Ujjayini, and an eastern one with its centre at Tosali. The Girnar inscription of Rudradaman mentions Pushyagupta, who was the rashtriya (governor) of Saurashtra in Chandragupta’s time. Ashoka is supposed to have been stationed as governor at Ujjayini during Bindusara’s reign, and the fact that his inscriptions address the governors as kumara (or aryaputra) suggest a tradition of appointing royal princes to these important posts.

Ashokan inscriptions suggest that the pradeshika, rajuka, and yukta were important officers at the district level. Rock edict 3 refers to these officers going on tours every five years in order to instruct people in dhamma and for other purposes. Bongard-Levin (1971: 115) suggests that the rajukas of the inscriptions can be identified with the agronomoi of Megasthenes, who seem to have been connected with the measurement of land for purposes of revenue assessment. The term rajuka may come from rajju, meaning rope, and the reference may be to the measurement of land using ropes. Though land measurement may have been their main or original duty, in Ashoka’s time, the rajukas seem to have been high-ranking officers who were also associated with public welfare measures. Ashoka added judicial functions and dhamma propagation to their duties. The term yukta occurs in the Arthashastra as a general term for officers, but the rajuka is absent.

The Arthashastra suggests an elaborate administrative structure. In his discussion of the countryside, Kautilya recommends that the king should establish a headquarters known as a sthaniya to administer a unit consisting of 800 villages, a dronamukha in a unit of 400 villages, a karvatika in a unit of 200 villages, and a samgrahana in a unit of 10 villages. The sthanika was an officer in charge of the administration of large units similar to districts. Under the sthanika were the gopas, in charge of units ranging from 5 to 10 villages. The Arthashastra lays down cash salaries for various administrative officers. At the village level, it refers to the village headman (gramika), and emphasizes the important role of village elders (grama-vriddhas).

PRIMARY SOURCES

Rock edict 6 (Girnar version)

Thus speaks king Devanampiya Piyadasi:

In times past, the transaction of state business and submission of reports did not take place at all hours. But I have now made the following arrangement—reporters (pativedakas) are posted everywhere, with instructions to report to me the affairs of the people at any time and place— whether I am eating or in the harem or in the inner apartment or even in the cowpen, in the palanquin, or in the parks. And I am now attending to people’s affairs everywhere. And, if there is a dispute, or argumentation arises in the council regarding any donation or proclamation I have made verbally, or in connection with an emergent matter which has been delegated to the mahamatras, it must be reported to me immediately, anywhere, at any time. Thus have I ordered.

For I am never content in exerting myself and in despatching business. For I consider it my duty to promote the welfare of all men. But the root of that is exertion and prompt dispatch of business. Truly, there is no duty more important than promoting the welfare of all men. And whatever effort I make is made in order that I may discharge the debt which I owe to all living beings, that I may make them happy in this world, and that they may attain heaven in the next world.

For the following purpose has this edict on dhamma been caused to be written—that it may last long and that my sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons may conform to this for the welfare of all

men. But, this is difficult to accomplish without great effort.

SOURCE Hultzsch [1925], 1969: 12–13

Ashoka’s inscriptions refer to the pativedakas and pulisani, who were responsible for keeping the king informed of public opinion. The former seem to have been spies or reporters, while the latter had a higher rank and wider mandate. The pulisani can be connected with Megasthenes’ episcopoi (Diodorus) or ephoroi (Arrian, Strabo). An elaborate and effective intelligence system was central to the functioning of the Kautilyan state, and the text has a great deal to say about espionage and counter-espionage. It mentions spies who were positioned in one place (sanstha) and those who roamed about (sanchara). It gives advice on how spies could be recruited among the populace and the disguises that they should adopt to discharge their duties effectively.

Megasthenes’ account of city administration probably applied specifically to Pataliputra. It mentions six committees of five members each, in charge of the following aspects: industrial arts; the entertainment and surveillance of foreigners; maintaining records of births and deaths; trade and commerce (inspecting weights and measures, etc.); supervising the public sale of goods; and the collection of taxes on merchandise sold in the market. The nagalaviyohalaka-mahamatas of Ashokan inscriptions were no doubt associated with city administration. In this context, the Arthashastra mentions an officer called the nagaraka who had sthanikas and gopas under him.

The Arthashastra attaches a great deal of importance to the kosha (treasury), the fifth element of the saptanga rajya, and lists agriculture, animal husbandry, and trade as the peoples’ main occupations. Land was the most important resource and source of revenue for the state. Megasthenes’ assertion, cited by Diodorus and Strabo (Arrian is silent on the issue), that all land was owned by the king, is incorrect. The Arthashastra clearly recognizes privately owned as well as state-owned land, the latter under an officer known as the sitadhyaksha.

Kshetra (land) is listed among items of property, the sale of which is subject to certain regulations. The kshetrika (owner of the field) is distinguished from the upavasa (tenant). In the case of land disputes, the text states that if neither side can prove its claim to the property, it should go to the king. But there is no reference to land being taken away from farmers in case they were unable to pay taxes. Even if we discount what the Arthashastra says, we know that the institution of private property in land had emerged some centuries earlier, at least in north India. Kautilya refers to different kinds of sharecroppers working on state-owned land—e.g., the ardhasitikas who kept half the produce and the svaviryopajivins who kept 1/4th–1/5th of the produce. It can be inferred that sharecropping existed on privately-owned land as well.

Later writers who cite Megasthenes make conflicting statements about taxation. Diodorus states that farmers paid a misthos (rent? wage?) to the king because all land was owned by him, and that they also paid an additional 1/4th share of the produce to the state. Strabo states that farmers tilled the land for a misthos and that they gave 1/4th of their produce to the king. Arrian states that farmers paid phoros to the king and the self-governing cities, and that herdsmen, pastoralists, artisans, and traders did likewise. Ancient Indian texts, including the Arthashastra, place the king’s share of the produce (known as bhaga) at 1/6th. Kautilya also mentions other taxes such as kara, bali, and udaka-bhaga (‘water rate’, 1/5th–1/3rd of the produce, for the use of irrigation works). Ashoka’s

Rummindei pillar inscription refers to the villagers of Lumbini being exempted from bali (this may have been a tax on the area of land) and the bhaga being reduced to 1/8th (from 1/6th?). The actual rate and realization of land taxes must have varied over the Maurya empire. The Arthashastra refers to additional levies that the state could impose when the treasury got depleted. These include a tax on farmers, ranging from 1/4th to 1/3rd of their produce (depending on the quality of their land), an additional levy on traders, and taxes on the income of actors, singers, and prostitutes.

Urban taxes included shulka—duties on imported and exported goods and excise duty on local manufactures. Taxes were realized in cash and kind. In a strikingly pragmatic recommendation, Kautilya suggests that dues realized in the form of grain should be kept as buffer stock to be used in time of food shortage. Kautilya emphasizes the importance of protecting agriculture and agriculturists. Arthashastra 2.1.36 states that land laid waste by the enemy or foresters or afflicted with disease or famine, should be exempted from taxes. Kautilya describes forests, pastures, and mines as state property. Mines, under an officer called the akaradhyaksha, were considered especially important.

The Arthashastra (2.2.1) recommends that the king grant land unsuitable for agriculture in the wilderness to ascetics for the study of the Veda and the performance of soma sacrifices. It also advocates (2.1.7) tax-free and hereditary grants of land to Brahmanas and priests such as the ritvig, acharya, and purohita. Grants of land to adhyakshas, accountants, gopas, sthanikas, elephant-trainers, physicians, horse trainers, and couriers are also recommended; such land could not be sold or mortgaged by the beneficiaries. There are no references to land grants in Megasthenes’ account, although it does seem to suggest (at least according to Strabo) that Brahmanas were free from taxes. If this was so, it would presumably also apply to land taxes. There are no records of gifts of land made by Ashoka, but pillar edict 7 refers to gifts of an unspecified nature made by him and members of the royal family. Minor pillar edict 3 on the Allahabad–Kosam pillar refers to gifts of mango groves, gardens, and alms houses by queen Karuvaki, while inscriptions in the Barabar and Nagarjuni hills record gifts of caves by Ashoka and his successor Dasharatha to Ajivika ascetics.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Arthashastra is its ability to visualize extensive state participation, regulation, and control over the economy (see Kangle, 1965: 166–94 for details). It is worth going over what the text has to say about this, remembering, however, that it is highly unlikely that the Maurya state actually functioned in such a manner. The Kautilyan state had landed estates and employed workers and sharecroppers to till this land. The Arthashastra mentions shunyanivesha— establishing settlements on unoccupied land—as an important state activity. It recommends that newly established villages should consist of 100–500 families, mostly Shudras. There is mention of the state extracting vishti from the people. This is usually interpreted as forced labour, but in this period, could mean labour employed by the state or that provided by subjects in lieu of taxes.

Kautilya talks of strict control over markets and trade. An officer called the panyadhyaksha was in charge of trade, including the price fixation and sale of goods produced by state-run manufacturing units. The sansthadhyaksha was the superintendent of markets, the rupadarshaka the inspector of coins, and the pautavadhyaksha was in charge of ensuring the use of standardized weights and measures. The Arthashastra advocates strict state control over artisans’ guilds. It prescribes a scale of wages for different types of artisans and lays down punishments for artisans failing to deliver proper goods. The Kautilyan state was also an entrepreneur. State-run textile workshops were to be placed under a sutradhayaksha and chariot workshops under a rathadhyaksha. No ancient state

could have exercised the sort of overarching and complete control over the economy and society visualized by Kautilya. The fact that he could even imagine such a thing must have been partly rooted in the existence of a powerful state in the Maurya period. But he seems to have used his remarkable powers of analysis and projection to indicate the heights of power and control to which a state could aspire.

Durga or the fortified capital was the fourth element of the seven-limbed state. Kautilya recommends a series of frontier posts placed under officials known as antapalas. He gives detailed directions for the construction of the main fort in the capital city. He recommends a mud rampart with parapets of brick or stone, and suggests that troops be stationed along approaches to the fort. The fort walls should be surrounded by not one but three moats filled with lotuses and crocodiles. The fort should be provided with plenty of supplies to tide over sieges and should have secret escape routes. The garrison should consist of elephants, chariots, cavalry, and infantry, each under more than one officer. Kautilya refers to a standing army, recruited and maintained by the state, and to periodic levies of troops. The four divisions of the army—infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants—should be placed under officers known as the patyadhyaksha, ashvadhyaksha, rathadhyaksha, and hastyadhyaksha respectively. The senapatis and nayakas were important military officers. Kautilya recommends that the army should be recruited from all four varnas. He emphasizes the importance of training the army well and also discusses weapons and magical practices that could be used against enemies.

How much of what Kautilya says about defence and army administration is borne out by other sources? Megasthenes mentions six committees of five members each (this seems suspiciously similar to what he says about the framework of urban administration). These were in charge of the navy, supervision of equipment and transport, the infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants. The mention of a navy is interesting, as Kautilya doesn’t mention one. Ashoka’s inscriptions, not surprisingly, do not give details regarding army administration. But they do indicate an important change in policy that must have had important implications for the Maurya army. Rock edict 13 tells us that after the Kalinga war—the only war he is known to have fought—Ashoka was appalled at the grievous results of warfare, and initiated a policy of dhamma-vijaya (victory through dhamma). Some historians have pointed out that there was little else (in the subcontinent at least) left to conquer. It has been suggested that Ashoka’s pacifism has been exaggerated as there is no indication that he disbanded the army. In fact, he speaks quite sternly to forest tribes in the 13th rock edict, warning them against intransigence. As will be discussed further on, Ashoka’s renunciation of warfare seems to have been an important moral choice. And while it is true that he did not disband the army, the wheels of the military machine must have got rusty due to lack of use during his long reign.

Danda, the sixth prakriti of the state, can be understood as force or as justice. The Arthashastra deals with the administration of justice in detail. Judges are called dharmasthas, and there are references to the pradeshtris as officers responsible for the suppression of criminals. Punishments for crimes range from fines to mutilation of limbs to death. The nature of the punishment depended on the nature, gravity, and circumstances of the crime, and also on the varna of the offender and plaintiff. For most crimes, the higher varnas were given lighter punishment than the lower ones. For instance, if a Kshatriya had sexual relations with an unguarded Brahmana woman, he was to pay the highest fine; if a Vaishya committed this offence, his entire property was to be confiscated; and if a

Shudra did so, Kautilya (4.13.32) states that he should be burnt in a fire of straw. However, given the normative nature of the Arthashastra, its detailed recommendations need not necessarily reflect prevailing practice.

Ashoka’s inscriptions do not mention the dharmasthas. Separate rock edict 1 refers to the judicial functions of the city mahamatas. It urges them to be impartial and sympathetic and to ensure that no one was imprisoned or tortured without good reason. It states that every five years, the king would despatch a gentle officer, neither fierce nor harsh, on a tour of inspection to ensure that this was being done. It also states that the prince (governor) at Ujjayini should dispatch an inspection team at least every three years, and that mahamatas sent on tours from Taxila should also look into this matter, along with their other duties. Pillar edict 4 refers to the judicial functions of the rajukas (in addition to their other duties). The fifth pillar edict states that the king had released a number of prisoners annually, as many as 25 times. Pillar edict 4 contains Ashoka’s claim that he had introduced samata in judicial procedure. This has been interpreted as uniformity all over the empire or as an abolition of varna distinctions. The best interpretation of samata in this context is fairness. The same edict refers to a three-day respite for those condemned to death, in order to give relatives time to appeal the decision, console the condemned man, and to fast and offer gifts on his behalf for his happiness in the next life. This indicates that the death penalty was not abolished by this ahimsa-loving king.

Mitra (ally) is the seventh element of the seven-limbed state of the Arthashastra. Kautilya’s discussion of inter-state policy is from the point of the vijigishu—the would-be conqueror—and takes into account all possible circumstances. He talks about the circle of kings (raja-mandala), the four principal players in which were the vijigishu, ari (enemy), madhyama (the middle king), and udasina (the indifferent, neutral king). He also lists six policies (shad-gunya) that the king should follow in different circumstances. If one is weaker than the enemy, the policy of sandhi (making a peace treaty) should be adopted. If one is stronger than the enemy, then the policy of vigraha (hostility) should be followed. If one’s power is equal to that of the enemy, then it is a good idea to follow the policy of asana (keeping quiet). If one is much stronger than the enemy, then yana (marching on a military expedition) is the right policy. If one is very weak, then it is best to follow the policy of samshraya (seeking shelter with another king or in a fort). And if one can fight the enemy with the help of an ally, then the double policy of dvaidhibhava (sandhi with one king and vigraha with another) is the best course of action. Kautilya refers to three kinds of conquerors. The asuravijayin is demonic; he seizes the land, riches, sons, and wives of the enemy and kills him. The lobhavijayin is motivated by greed for land and riches. The dharmavijayin is the righteous conqueror, who makes conquest out of a desire for glory and is satisfied with mere submission.

FURTHER DISCUSSION

The Maurya state and forest people

The history of tribes and forest people has to be prised out of sources that generally had a hostile attitude towards them. Building on D. D. Kosambi’s observations on the implications of the expansion of agriculture and empire under the Mauryas, Aloka Parasher-Sen points out that no

matter how powerful an ancient empire might have been, it would have faced difficulties in containing diverse ethnic populations. She argues that in the Maurya period, new forms of political, economic, and ideological dominance were imposed on forest people, and the need to subordinate and assimilate them led to a change in the earlier attitude of excluding these people from imperial territory.

The Arthashastra uses the general term mlechchha-jati, with distinctly pejorative connotations, to refer to forest people, but it also distinguishes between different groups within this category. For instance, the term atavika referred to wild, savage tribes who continued to be ensconsed in the forest and posed a perennial problem for the state. They are described as independent, well-organized, brave, and given to looting and killing. The term aranyachara, on the other hand, had different connotations. This is reflected in the Arthashastra’s recommendation that fortresses under the command of frontier chiefs should be constructed at the frontiers of the kingdom, and that the area between the frontier and these fortresses should be guarded by Chandalas, trappers (vagurikas), tribes such as the Shabaras and Pulindas, and forest-dwellers (aranyacharas). Kautilya also refers to the bahrikas (outsiders)—dangerous wandering tribes, some with criminal propensities. The Arthashastra recommends that spies disguised as hermits could be used to spy on the territories of forest people, and it also suggests the possibility of winning over forest chiefs with bribes.

Although the forest people were not considered part of an ideal janapada, Kautilya recognized the importance of the forest’s resources. Forest produce was considered a state monopoly. The dravyavana (material forests) were sources of timber and metals such as iron, copper, and lead. Forests with elephants (hastivana) were considered especially important. The Arthashastra also recognized that forest people could be harnessed to serve the state’s interests, and recommends that they could be used as troops (atavibala), spies, and assassins.

Ashoka’s inscriptions contain several references to the encounter between the state and forest dwellers. Rock edict 13 sternly addresses the forest tribes, ordering them to repent and not to expect forgiveness for what could not be forgiven. This warning seems to be addressed to recalcitrant tribes within the empire, who can be distinguished from other tribes such as the Pitinikas and Andhras, who are described in the same inscription as following dhamma. In the second separate rock edict, the king appeals to unconquered people on his borders not to fear him, and to follow dhamma. Dhamma-mahamatas were supposed to inspire confidence among border people and to encourage them to follow dhamma. Pillar edict 5, which bans the killing of many species of animals, also prohibits the burning of forests, indicating that Ashoka was concerned with their conservation. The implications of his ahimsa policy on forest people, for whom hunting and fishing were means of livelihood, also need to be considered. Of course, the extent to which Ashoka could have actually implemented a ban on such activities (notwithstanding his boasts), should not be exaggerated.

SOURCE Parasher-Sen, 1998

Kautilya’s is a theoretical discussion based on the pragmatic realities of inter-state relations and power play. We cannot interpret it as a blueprint followed diligently by the Mauryas. Chandragupta Maurya seems to have been the king responsible for most of the Maurya military successes, but we do not know the details of his campaigns, nor what exactly happened to the defeated people. Ashoka is notable for having given up warfare. Such a stand goes completely against the ethos of the Arthashastra. Although both the Arthashastra and Ashokan edicts speak of dharma/dhamma-vijaya, they understand this term very differently. In the Arthashastra, military conquest was an important activity of the state and righteous conquest was its most noble form. For Ashoka, on the other hand, dhamma-vijaya was based on a renunciation of military conquest.

Kautilya refers to envoys associated with different powers and activities. We know the Mauryas entertained diplomats from various Hellenistic kingdoms. Deimachus was the ambassador of Antiochus, king of Syria. Megasthenes was the ambassador of Seleucus Nikator. The dhamma missions and Budddhist missions dispatched by Ashoka to other kingdoms reflect other kinds of interaction with neighbouring kingdoms.

Ashoka and Buddhism

Ashoka’s connection with Buddhism is reflected in Buddhist texts and in his inscriptions. Buddhist tradition considers him an exemplary king and a devout upasaka. He had a close connection with the sangha and with leading monks of his time such as Upagupta. His generosity as a patron of the sangha is reflected in many legends. He is credited with redistributing the relics of the Buddha and enshrining them in stupas in every important town. He is supposed to have built 84,000 stupas and viharas. He is described as having undertaken pilgrimages to all the major places connected with the Buddha’s life, and having had them marked with signs for the benefit of future pilgrims. He is also supposed to have exerted himself in spreading the teaching of the Buddha far and wide. In fact, as we shall see further on, Ashoka does seem to have played an important role in building Buddhist establishments in many parts of the subcontinent. We will also examine the relationship between the dhamma of his inscriptions and the Buddhist dhamma. Clearly, Ashoka was an ardent follower of the Buddha’s teaching, and had a position of authority vis-à-vis the sangha, although he doesn’t seem to have become a member of the order.

Ashoka proclaims his faith in the Buddha’s teaching in certain inscriptions. In minor rock edict 1, he states that he has been a lay follower for a little over two-and-a-half years. He goes on to admit that for the first year, he did not exert himself much in the cause of dhamma, but that for over a year, he had drawn closer to the sangha and had been exerting himself vigorously. Minor rock edict 3 has only been found at Bairat (also known as Bhabru). In this inscription, Ashoka greets the sangha, professes his deep faith in the Buddha, dhamma, and sangha, and recommends six texts of dhamma that he desires monks, nuns, and laypersons to frequently listen to and reflect on. These six texts are all Buddhist texts. Ashoka’s close relationship with the sangha is also evident from the so-called ‘schism edict’, in which he warns members of the order against causing any division in its ranks.

PRIMARY SOURCES

Minor rock edict 1 (Rupnath version)

Thus speaks Devanampiya:

A little over two-and-a half years have passed since I have avowedly become a Sakya [a lay follower of the Buddha]. But I was not initially very zealous. But for a little more than a year, I have drawn close to the sangha and have been very zealous. Those gods, who during that time were unmingled with the people of Jambudvipa, have now been made to mingle with them by me. For this is the result of my exertions.

And this result cannot be achieved only by persons of high rank alone; even a poor man can attain heaven if he is zealous.

And this proclamation has been issued for the following purpose—that both the poor and rich may be zealous, that even the people residing in the territories outside the borders of my dominions may realize this, and that this same zeal may be of long duration. For this cause will be made by me to progress by at least one and a half times.

And you (my officers) must cause this matter to be engraved on stone whenever an opportunity presents itself. And, wherever there are stone pillars here in my dominions, this should be caused to be engraved on those stone pillars.

And, according to the letter of this proclamation, you must despatch an officer to go everywhere, as far as your district extends.

This proclamation is issued by me when on tour. Two hundred and fifty-six nights have been spent on tour.

The terms used in different versions of this inscription for the king as lay fol lower of the Buddha are ‘Sakya’, ‘Buddha-Sakya’, and upasaka. The phrase sangham upete in the inscription has been interpreted as indicating that Ashoka visited or joined the sangha, but it is best to understand it as referring to his having drawn closer to the order. The last line of the inscription is very interesting. The Ahraura version of the edict has an additional intriguing phrase: am mamche Budhasa salile alodhe. Some scholars interpret this as indicating that Ashoka had spent 256 nights on tour after enshrining the relics of the Buddha on some sort of platform (stupa?). However, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, another interpretation is that this is a reference to the number of years that had elapsed since the parinibbana of the Buddha.

SOURCE Hutzsch [1925], 1969: 167–69; Sircar, 1966b

Buddhist texts present Ashoka as a vile and evil man until he came under the influence of the Buddha’s dhamma and present Ashoka’s ‘conversion’ to Buddhism as a sudden, transformative event. The reason why ‘conversion’ has been put in quotation marks here is because in this period, the fixed and mutually exclusive religious identities, boundaries, and ‘isms’ of the kind that we are used to thinking in terms of were absent. The Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa tell us that Ashoka turned to the Buddha’s dhamma when his nephew Nigrodha, who had become a monk at the tender age of 7,

preached the doctrine to him. On the other hand, the Divyavadana (Xuanzang supports this account) ascribes his being drawn to the Buddha’s teaching to the influence of Samudra, a merchant-turned-monk who remained unaffected and unperturbed by the tortures to which he was subjected in Ashoka’s torture chamber. The Ashokavadana mixes up the two stories and speaks of Samudra, the 12-year-old son of a merchant, as the key figure in Ashoka’s coming under the influence of the Buddhist dhamma.

Ashoka’s inscriptions do not mention any such incidents. The 13th major rock edict speaks feelingly of the Kalinga war (an event the Buddhist texts do not mention), which occurred in the ninth year after Ashoka’s consecration, and suggests that this event had an important role to play in his belief in a new kind of pacifism and non-military victory. Minor rock edict 1 indicates very clearly that Ashoka turned towards the Buddha’s teaching gradually, not suddenly. The king’s own candid confession must be given weightage over the stories given in Buddhist texts.

Further evidence of Ashoka’s personal faith in Buddhism comes from the Rummindei and Nigali Sagar inscriptions. The former states that 20 years after his consecration (i.e., in the 21st year; the dates in Ashoka’s inscriptions are assumed as expired years), Ashoka visited Lumbini and worshipped here. He had a stone wall built around the place, installed this pillar to commemorate his visit, and announced some tax concessions for the villagers. The Nigali Sagar pillar inscription states that 14 years after his consecration, Ashoka enlarged the stupa enshrining the relics of Buddha Konagamana (Kanakamuni, a mythical Buddha) to double its size, and 20 years after his consecration, he came in person to this place and had this stone pillar erected.

The Pali chronicles assert that Ashoka convened a great Buddhist council at Pataliputra, presided over by Moggaliputta Tissa, in order to purge the sangha of certain unacceptable practices. The first Buddhist council had been held at Rajagriha immediately after the Buddha’s death, and the second one at Vaishali a hundred years thereafter. The Pa-taliputra council was the third council. However, Ashoka’s inscriptions do not mention any such event. There are several possible explanations. One is that no council was convened during Ashoka’s reign and the information given in the Pali chronicles is incorrect. A second is that there was a small-scale local affair under the direction of Moggaliputta Tissa, with which Ashoka had little or no connection. A third possibility is that there were actually two councils, which the Buddhist tradition confused and merged into one. The ‘schism edict’ of Ashoka may be indirect evidence of some kind of council having been held. Heinz Bechert (1982) has argued that Ashoka’s intervention in the affairs of the sangha had to do with expelling monks and nuns who had violated monastic discipline, not of countering some sort of doctrinal schism.

The Mahavamsa mentions a number of Buddhist missions despatched by Ashoka at the conclusion of the third council. Majjhima, Kassapagota, Dhundibissara, Sahadeva, and Mulakadeva were sent on missions to the Himalayan region, and it can be noted that two of these names appear on the relic casket found in Stupa no. 2 at the central Indian monastic site of Sanchi. Maharakkhita was sent to Yona (in the north-west); Majjhantika to Kashmir and Gandhara; Mahadeva to Mahishamandala (in central India); Yona Dhammarikhita to Aparantaka in western Malwa; Rakkhita to Vanavasi and Mahadharm-marakkhita to Maharrattha (in the western Deccan); Sona and Uttara to Suvarnabhumi (perhaps in Myanmar or Southeast Asia); and Mahinda to Lanka (Sri Lanka).

TEXT: Devanapiyena Piyadasina lajina visati-vasabhisitena atana agacha mahiyite hida Budhe jate Sakyamuni ti sila vigadabhi cha kalapita sila-thabhe cha usapapite hida Bhagavam jate ti Lummini-game ubalike kate atha-bhagiye cha

TRANSLATION: When king Devanampiya Piyadasi had been anointed twenty years, he came himself and worshipped (this spot), because the Buddha Sakyamuni was born here. He caused both a stone enclosure and stone pillar to be set up, in order to show that the Blessed one was born here. He made the village of Lummini free of bali and paying only 1/8th share of bhaga.

THE RUMMINDEI PILLAR INCRIPTION (AFTER HULTZSCH [1925], 1969: 164–65)

Ashoka’s Dhamma

Most of Ashoka’s inscriptions are about dhamma (the Prakrit form of dharma). Pillar edict 6 reveals that the practice of having inscriptions on dhamma (dhamma lipi) inscribed in various parts of the empire began 12 (expired) years after the abhisheka. From this time onwards, until the end of his long reign, Ashoka seems to have been obsessed with explaining and propagating dhamma. We can only speculate on the implications of this obsession for his more routine royal duties. While the inscriptions are quite eloquent and precise about what dhamma consisted of, historians have different assessments of its nature, especially its relationship with Ashoka’s personal faith in the Buddha’s teaching.

The theme of ahimsa (non-injury) is an important aspect of Ashoka’s dhamma and is frequently mentioned and emphasized. Rock edict 1 announces bans on animal sacrifices (at some or all places?) and on certain kinds of festive gatherings that probably included the killing of animals, and also reports a reduction in the killing of animals for food in the royal kitchens. Pillar edict 5 refers to more sweeping prohibitions promulgated by Ashoka, 26 years after his consecration. Clearly, it would have been impossible to implement such prohibitions over the vast Maurya empire.

The good conduct and social responsibilities that were part of dhamma were anchored to certain key relationships. Rock edict 9 begins with a criticism of ceremonies performed by people,

especially women, on occasions such as illness, marriage, birth, and setting forth on journeys. Such rituals are described as producing uncertain and meagre results. Ashoka contrasts these with the ceremony of dhamma, which is bound to yield results in this world (i.e., life) and the next. The ceremony of dhamma is described as consisting in proper courtesy to slaves and servants, respectful behaviour towards elders, restraint in one’s dealings with all living beings, and liberality to shramanas and Brahmanas. Rock edict 11 refers to the gift of dhamma being the best of all gifts. It is said to comprise the following: proper courtesy to slaves and servants, obedience to mother and father, liberality (i.e., generosity) towards friends, acquaintances, and relatives as well as to Brahmanas and shramanas, and abstaining from killing living beings. Pillar edict 2 describes dhamma as consisting of the least amount of sin, performing many virtuous deeds, compassion, liberality, truthfulness, and purity.

PRIMARY SOURCES

The 5th pillar edict (Delhi–Topra pillar)

Thus speaks king Devanampiya Piyadasi:

When I had been anointed twenty-six years, the following animals were declared by me to be inviolable—parrots, mynahs, the aruna, ruddy geese, wild geese, the nandimukha, the gelate, bats, queen ants, terrapins, boneless fish, vedavayakas, puputakas of the Ganga, skat-fish, tortoises and porcupines, squirrels [?], the srimara, bulls set at liberty, iguanas [?], the rhinoceros, white doves, domestic doves, and all quadrapeds which are neither useful nor edible.

Those she-goats, ewes, and sows that are either with young or in milk are in-violable, and also those of their young ones which are less than six months old. Cocks must not be castrated. Husk containing living animals must not be burnt. Forests must not be burnt either uselessly or in order to destroy living beings. Living animals must not be fed with other living animals. Fish are inviolable, and must not be sold on the three Chaturmasis and on the Tishya full-moon during three days, namely—the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the first tithi, and invariably on every fast-day. And during these same days also, no other classes of animals which are in the elephant park and in the fishermen’s preserves must be killed.

On the eighth tithi of every fortnight, on the fourteenth, on the fifteenth, on Tishya, on Punarvasu, on the three Chaturmasis, and on festivals, bulls must not be castrated, and he-goats, rams, boars, and whatever other animals are castrated must not be castrated on these days. On Tishya, on Punarvasu, on the Chaturmasis, and during the fortnight of every Chaturmasi, horses and bullocks must not be branded.

Until I had been anointed twenty-six years, in this period I ordered the release of prisoners twenty-five times.

SOURCE Hultzsch [1925], 1969: 127–28

Another important aspect of Ashoka’s dhamma was the generation of mutual respect and concord among people belonging to different sects or religious communities. This clearly indicates that dhamma did not consist in the promotion of a particular sect, Buddhist or otherwise. This aspect of dhamma has often been referred to as ‘religious toleration’, a very poor understanding of Ashoka’s policy. Rock edict 12 makes it clear that the king expected people to exercise restraint in criticizing other sects and in praising their own. But he was also asking for something much more positive. He was urging people to honour and try to understand the dhamma of others. He considered it possible to promote the essentials of the different dhammas of different people through such means.

Ashoka’s inscriptions have a great deal to say about the dhamma of the king. Rock edict 6 talks of his ideals and goals—to promote the welfare of all his people, discharge the debt he owes to all beings, and ensure their happiness in this world and the next. Further, the activities listed in rock edict 2 must have been part of what he considered his dhamma as king. Here, he refers to having made provisions for medical treatment, planting beneficial medicinal herbs, roots, and fruits, and the digging of wells. While all this might come under what would be considered a king’s dharma in all traditions, what makes it unique is that the edict states that all these things had been done for the benefit not only of people, but also animals. Similar activities are mentioned in pillar edict 7, not only in his own kingdom, but also in the kingdoms of neighbouring rulers such as Antiochus in the north-west and the Cholas and Pandyas in the far south.

The Ashokan edicts present the king as exemplifying dhamma in his ideas and actions. As the patriarch of his empire, Ashoka projected himself as the proclaimer and teacher of dhamma par excellence. While the king as a maintainer of dharma (especially of varnashrama dharma) is a familiar notion in the Indian tradition, Ashoka’s idea of the king as an active teacher, proclaimer, and propagator of dhamma, is unique. Also signifi-cant is the fact (evident from rock edict 4) that Ashoka claims to attach greatest value to this duty, above all others.

One of the most remarkable and innovative aspects of Ashoka’s idea of his own dhamma and the dhamma of a king was his renunciation of warfare and his re-definition of righteous conquest. As mentioned earlier, Ashoka’s dhamma-vijaya was different from the dharma-vijaya of the Arthashastra. Ashoka’s goals and activities correspond in many ways to the image of the ideal king —the chakkavatti dhammiko dhammaraja (righteous universal ruler)—of the Buddhist tradition. This king establishes his control over the four quarters through righteousness, not through violence or force. Rival kings do not resist, and happily accept his sovereignty, which in any case is not about territorial conquest but spreading dhamma. At the same time, in the Mahasuddasana Sutta in the Digha Nikaya, the shadow of force is present, as the wheel of the exemplary king Sudassana moves forward, accompanied by the four-fold army. Ashoka seems to have taken the Buddhist idea of dhamma-vijaya one step further, with dhamma missionaries replacing the king and his army.

This is explicated in the 13th major rock edict. This inscription gives Ashoka’s account of the war against Kalinga, eight years after his abhisheka, and his consequent feeling of profound remorse. This is followed by a reasoned critique of war, pointing out that it led, directly or indirectly, to suffering for all. Dhamma-vijaya is described as the best kind of conquest, and the king claims to have achieved it over the Yavanas, Kambojas, Nabhakas, Nabhapanktis, Bhojas, Pitinikas, Andhras,

Pulindas, Cholas, and Pandyas. Outside the subcontinent, he claims to have attained dhamma-vijaya in the dominions of Antiochus II, Ptolemy II, Philadelphus of Egypt, Magas of Cyrene (in north Africa), Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia, and Alexander of Epirus or Corinth. The edict ends with Ashoka expressing the hope that his successors would not embark on any fresh conquest by arms, and that if they could not avoid it, they should at least not be harsh to conquered people. However, tucked away in this pacifist manifesto is a stern warning issued to the forest people. A similar sentiment is expressed in separate rock edict 2 at Dhauli and Jaugada.

PRIMARY SOURCES

The 13th rock edict (Shahbazgarhi version)

When king Devanampriya Priyadrashi had been anointed eight years, the country of the Kalingas was conquered by him. One hundred and fifty thousand in number were the men who were deported thence; one hundred thousand in number were those who were slain there; and many times as many those who died. After that, now that the country of the Kalingas has been taken, Devanampriya is devoted to the pursuit of dhamma, the love of dhamma, and to instructing the people in dhamma. This is the repentance of Devanampriya on account of his conquest of the country of the Kalingas. For the slaughter, death, and deportation of people that take place in the course of conquering an unconquered country is considered very painful and deplorable by Devanampriya.

But the following is considered even more deplorable than this by Devanampriya—that Brahmanas and shramanas, members of other sects or householders who are living there, and who practice obedience and firm devotion to superior persons, obedience to mother and father, obedience to elders, proper courtesy to friends, acquaintances, companions, and relatives, to slaves and servants—all these suffer injury or slaughter or deportation of their loved ones. And if misfortune befalls the friends, acquaintances, companions, and relatives of persons who are full of devotion towards them, even though they themselves be well provided for, this misfortune too becomes an injury to their own selves. This [suffering] is shared by all and is considered deplorable by Devanampriya.

And there is no place where men are not indeed attached to some sect. Therefore, even the hundredth part or the thousandth part of all those people who were slain, who died, and who were deported at that time in Kalinga, would now be considered very deplorable by Devanampriya. And Devanampriya thinks that even to one who should wrong him, what can be forgiven is to be forgiven. And even the inhabitants of the forests which are included in the dominions of Devanam-priya, even those he pacifies and conciliates. And they are told of the power to punish them which Devanampriya possesses in spite of his repentance, in order that they may be ashamed of their crimes and may not be killed. For Devanampriya desires towards all beings abstention from hurting, self-control, and impartiality in case of violence. And this conquest is considered the greatest one by Devanampriya—the conquest by dhamma.

SOURCE Hultzsch [1925], 1969: 68–70

According to pillar edict 6, the practice of inscribing dhamma edicts on stone began 13 years after Ashoka’s abhisheka. Relatively few people would have known how to read or write at the time, and Ashoka therefore made elaborate arrangements for the oral propagation of his message. Even in the inscriptions, the king is ‘speaking’ to his subjects—many of the edicts begin with the phrase, ‘Thus speaks Devanampiya Piyadasi.’ The separate rock edicts suggest that the edicts were read out and that people listened to them on certain auspicious days such as the full moon days of the months of Ashadha, Karttika, and Phalguna, and the day of the Tishya constellation. Ashoka’s message of dhamma was also orally propagated by officials such as the kumaras, yutas, rajukas, mahamatas, anta-mahamatas, pulisani, and members of the parishad. Rock edict 3 states that the rajukas and pradeshikas were to go on tours of inspection every five years as part of their other duties, as well as for preaching dhamma.

Ashoka created a special cadre of dhamma mahamatas 13 years after his consecration. Rock edict 5 enjoins them to spread dhamma within the kingdom and among border people such as the Yonas, Kambojas, Gandharas, Rishtikas, and Pitinikas. They were to move around among members of all sects and were to promote the welfare and happiness of servants, masters, traders, farmers, Brahmanas, prisoners, the aged, the destitute, and the king’s relatives.

The chief disseminator of the dhamma message was, however, Ashoka himself. In major rock edict 8, he states that earlier kings used to go on pleasure tours consisting of hunts and other pasttimes. Ten years after his abhisheka, he made a pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya. Thenceforth, the royal pleasure tours (vihara-yatas) were replaced by dhamma tours (dhamma-yatas). The latter involved visiting Brahmanas and shramanas and giving them gifts, visiting aged folk and distributing gold to them, meeting people of the countryside, instructing them in dhamma, and questioning them about dhamma. Ashoka asserts that he derived more pleasure from these dhamma tours than from anything else.

The word for dhamma in Ashoka’s Greek inscriptions is eusebeia (piety), while the Aramaic inscriptions use qsyt (truth) and data (law). The Greek and Aramaic inscriptions are not literal translations of the Ashokan edicts. B. N. Mukherjee (1984) points out that although there is a basic conformity in the elements of dhamma (non-injury towards living beings, restraint, truthfulness, liberality, compassion, respect towards parents, etc.), the Greek and Aramaic inscriptions also display some interesting differences. For instance, the Kandahar Greek inscription refers to the subjects’ devotion to the king’s interest as being an important part of dhamma. Further, none of the Greek or Aramaic inscriptions refer to the attainment of heaven as a goal or consequence of following dhamma, something which the Prakrit inscriptions mention frequently.

As his reign progressed, Ashoka seems to have become increasingly obsessed with propagating dhamma. Some of the Greek and Aramaic inscriptions and the later pillar edicts reflect his highly exaggerated idea of the transformation that he had brought about in the conduct and lives of his people.

Historians hold different views about the nature of the dhamma of Ashoka’s inscriptions. It has been seen as a sort of ‘universal religion’, containing certain common elements in many religious traditions. It has been interpreted as a form of raja-dharma (the dharma of a king), consisting of the

political and moral principles emphasized in the Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions. It has been understood as a form of the Buddhist upasaka dhamma (the Buddha’s teaching for the laity). It has also been seen as all these things rolled into one.

THE VAISHALI PILLAR

Thapar ([1963], 1987: 136–81) has underlined the political rationale behind the propagation of dhamma. She minimizes the Buddhist element in Ashoka’s dhamma and asserts that there need be no connection between the personal beliefs of a statesman and his public proclamations. Dhamma was an ideological tool used by Ashoka to weld and consolidate his far-flung empire. Due to lack of support in the early years of his reign, he sought the support of non-orthodox elements and saw the practical advantages of adopting and propagating dhamma, which was basically an ethical concept that focused on the relationship between the individual and society. However, it failed as as a unifying strategy (Thapar, 1984: 22).

PRIMARY SOURCES

Ashoka’s assessment of his success: the Shar-i-Kuna Greek–Aramaic inscription

The Greek portion:

Ten years since the consecration having been completed, King Piodosses made known the doctrine of piety to men; and from this moment he made men more pious, and everything thrives throughout the whole world. And the king abstains from killing living beings, and other men and those who are huntsmen and fishermen of the king have desisted from hunting. And if some were intemperate, they have ceased from their intemperance as was in their power; and having become obedient to their father and mother and to their elders, contrary to what happened in the past, they will, also in the future, by so acting on every occasion, live better and more happily.

The Aramaic portion:

Ten years having passed (since the consecration), our lord Prydrs the king promoted truth (qsyt). Since then evil has diminished for all men, and he has caused all hostile things to disappear, and joy has arisen throughout the whole earth. And moreover, there is this—for the feeding of our lord the king, little is killed. Seeing this, all men have given up killing animals. And those who caught fish have given up doing so. Similarly, those without restraint have ceased to be without restraint. And there is good obedience to one’s mother and father and to the old people, as destiny has laid down on everyone. And there is no judgement for all men who are pious. This has benefited all men and will continue to benefit them.

SOURCE G. P. Carratelli et al., cited in Mukherjee, 1984: 33

It is true that Ashoka’s inscriptions do not contain certain key ideas associated with the Buddha’s teaching, such as the explanation of dukkha, the Eight-fold Path, the doctrine of impermanence, or the goal of nibbana. Nevertheless, there is a definite Bud-dhist core. This is clear from the repeated emphasis on ahimsa. It is true that ahimsa is mentioned even in the Arthashastra (1.3.8), where non-injury, truthfulness, uprightness, freedom from malice, compassion, and forbearance are described as duties common to all varnas and ashramas. This text also talks (2.26) about the welfare of animals. But it is not the mere mention of issues, but the degree of emphasis that is important. And in the 3rd century BCE, Buddhism (along with Jainism) was one of the prominent sects that emphasized ahimsa both for the monastic and lay communities.

There is also a striking similarity between the duty-oriented ethics of the inscriptions and the Buddhist upasaka dhamma reflected, for instance, in the Sigalavada Sutta. The fact that the minor rock edict at Bhabru lists six Buddhist texts as texts on dhamma is significant. Buddhist resonances can be seen in the king’s assertion of the debt he owes all beings and his concern for the whole world (rock edict 6), and virtues such as self-control and purity of mind that he prescribes in rock edict 7. We can also take note of the fact that according to rock edict 8, Ashoka started the dhamma tours after a pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya.

An understanding of Ashoka’s dhamma has to move beyond textual analysis (Singh, 1997–98). The Buddhist element in Ashoka’s dhamma can also be seen in the sculptural motifs associated with the pillars. All of them have a very wide symbolic appeal, but all of them have a special Buddhist significance as well. It is interesting to note that the Girnar rock has a fragmentary inscription

referring to the white elephant that brings happiness to the whole world. The Kalsi rock has a small carving of an elephant and an inscription gajatame (the best elephant). The elephant appears at Dhauli as well, along with the word seto (the white one). Given Ashoka’s personal belief in Buddhism, the elephant at Girnar, Dhauli, and Kalsi can be seen as a Buddhist symbol, symbolizing the Buddha-to-be, who is supposed to have entered his mother’s womb in the form of a white elephant. The fact that this Buddhist ‘stamp’, so to speak, appears on rocks bearing the set of dhamma edicts suggests that there was a connection between Ashoka’s dhamma and the Buddhist dhamma. The fact that Buddhist remains have been found in the vicinity of many Ashokan pillars (Ghosh, 1967) suggests the possibility that many of them marked sites of stupas or monasteries established by the king, again suggesting a link between the dhamma of the edicts and Buddhism.

Although Ashoka’s dhamma was clearly inspired by the Buddhist upasaka dhamma, it was not identical to it. Ashoka was an innovator. His insistence on mutual respect and concord between people of different sects and beliefs was a feature that was not emphasized in any religious tradition of the time. His dhamma was a set of teachings that could not be identified with narrow sectarian belief. This is clear from the fact that the dhamma mahamatas were to occupy themselves with all sects (the term used is pasanda). It is even more evident in Ashoka’s statements (in rock edict 12) that he honours all sects and that people should respect one another’s dhamma. Inscriptions in the Barabar hills indicate that Ashoka extended his patronage to ascetics of the Ajivika sect. His idea of dhamma-vijaya also took the ideal reflected in Buddhist texts one step further, and more importantly, unlike the mythical king Sudassana, he was a real king, grappling with practical issues of governance. These innovations must have stemmed from his personal convictions, as well as his position as ruler of a vast empire.

Sculpture and Architecture

The discoveries at the site of Dholavira indicate that the origins of monumental stone sculpture and architecture in the Indian subcontinent go back to the Harappan civilization. However, after the decline of that civilization, there is a long gap, and it is only in the Maurya period that monumental stone sculpture and architecture appear on the scene again. This can be linked to higher levels of political complexity in the form of the emergence of an empire, the concentration of wealth in the hands of urban elites, and increased institutionalization of religious activity. The art of the Maurya period is not ‘art for art’s sake’ (with which we are familiar today), but art linked to political ideology and religious practice. This is evident both in the form and patronage of artistic activity.

Many of the surviving remains of art and architecture were the direct result of the patronage of the Maurya kings, especially Ashoka, and fall within the category of ‘court art’. However, there are also stone sculptures and terracotta figurines, ring stones, and disc stones, which represent what may be called ‘popular art’, one connected to the lives, activities, and patronage of ordinary people. A number of questions have been posed with regard to the artistic activity of the Maurya period: How are the origins of stone sculpture and architecture in this period to be understood? Did Western, especially Persian, influence play a key role? And how do we explain the short-lived nature and evident lack of legacy of Maurya court art? Recently, S. Settar (2003) has drawn attention to the inferences that can be made about the artisans who inscribed the Ashokan edicts. One of these artisans, Chapada, left his signature on the rocks at Brahmagiri, Jatinga Ramesvara, and Siddapur.

SARNATH CAPITAL

Sections of a wooden wall had been noticed in the course of sporadic explorations and excavations in the city of Patna over many decades. D. B. Spooner’s more systematic excavations at Bulandibagh in 1915–17 gave a better picture of the fortifications. At a depth of 6.6 m, there were two parallel walls of rectangular wooden uprights (38 × 55 cm) separated by a 3.7 m wide tunnel-like gap. The uprights extended 1.5 m below floor level and rested on a bed of kankar. Their height above ground level was at least 2.7 m. The floor was paved with long, squared lengths of timber, their ends fitted into sockets made in the vertical uprights. The excavations traced 7.2 m of the walls and about 105 m of the floor. Manoranjan Ghosh’s excavations in 1926–27 traced a further 250 m stretch of the wall at the western end and brought to light certain other features. The gap between the two parallel walls may have been a tunnel or it may have been packed with mud. The wooden wall was originally covered with mud upto a certain height and had a roof of wooden beams. The remains of what may have been a gateway were also found. About 200 ft from the western end, a large wooden drain, 40 ft long and 1’8”– 2’ 4” wide, 32 ft below the present ground level, crossed the wall at right angles. The sides and base of the drain were made of wooden beams; 60 cm long iron nails were used to connect the beams to each other, and the joints between the planks were made watertight by 7 cm wide strips of iron. Traces of the wooden fortification wall have also been found at sites such as Gasain Khanda, Rampur, and Bahadurpur, not far from Bulandibagh. The remains of a large drain were also reported from some of these sites. Another interesting discovery at

Bulandibagh was a large spoked wooden chariot wheel with an iron rim. Waddell’s excavations (1892–99) at several places led, among other things, to the discovery of what may have been the foundation of a wooden jetty projecting into the old course of the Son river at Rampur.

A pillar fragment was discovered by Waddell at Kumrahar in Patna in 1903. In 1912–13, D. B. Spooner (1912–13) discovered 72 pillars arranged in a neat chessboard pattern, and 8 more were later discovered by A. S. Altekar and V. K. Misra. Altekar and Misra (1959) also excavated a number of brick structures in the area, but all of these belonged to the post-Maurya period. The pillars were made of buff-coloured Chunar sandstone and had a smooth, polished surface. As no complete pillar was found, their dimensions can only be estimated. Their slightly tapering shafts may have been about 9.91 m long and the diameter of their circular cross-section probably ranged from 75 cm near the base to 55 cm near the top. Although they were made of the same stone as the freestanding Ashokan pillars, they were thinner and shorter. All of them had a hole on top, clearly for metal dowels that connected the shaft to a capital, which in turn supported the roof. Some of them had masons’ marks on their base, including the crescent-on-hill, a symbol which occurs on many punch-marked coins of the time. The pillars were originally fixed on square wooden basements which were laid on a compact layer of clay. The discovery of a large quantity of ash and pieces of burnt wood indicated that the floor and roof were made of wood and that the structure had been subjected to fire. The wooden roof may have been covered by brick and lime plaster, pieces of which were found at the site. There were no traces of walls, and the hall seems to have been open on all sides. About 5 m to the south-east of the hall, seven wooden platforms made of sal wood were excavated. These may have supported a wooden staircase leading up to the pillared hall. It has also been suggested that a canal may have connected this spot to the Son river. Spooner was struck by the similarity between the pillared hall at Kumrahar and Darius’ Hall of Public Audience at Persepolis in Iran, but the Maurya structure is much less elaborate than the Persian palaces. The precise function of the 80-pillared hall remains uncertain.

The majestic free-standing Ashokan pillars may symbolize the axis of the world (axis mundi) that separated heaven and earth. Some of the pillars have a set of six (in the case of the Delhi–Topra pillar, seven) edicts, while a few are inscribed with other types of inscriptions, e.g., the commemorative inscriptions at Rummindei and Nigali Sagar and the schism edict at Sanchi. There are also pillars without inscriptions—the one with a bull capital at Rampurva, the pillar with the lion capital at Vaishali, and the Kosam pillar without a capital. It is possible that some of Ashoka’s edicts may have been carved on pre-existing pillars. Many pillar fragments found in various parts of the country in different contexts may once have been parts of Ashokan pillars.

THE DELHI–TOPRA PILLAR, FIROZ SHAH KOTLA, NEW DELHI

RECENT DISCOVERIES

Ancient and modern quarries at Chunar

In 1990, a team of archaeologists of Banaras Hindu University, led by P. C. Pant and Vidula Jayaswal, was exploring megalithic structures near Baragaon (on the boundary between the Mirzapur and Varanasi districts of eastern UP) when they noticed evidence of ancient stone quarries, including many large cylindrical blocks of stone, in the nearby Chunar hills.

Jayaswal went on to conduct a detailed study of stone quarrying and stone use in the Chunar and Sarnath–Varanasi areas, testing a number of hypotheses. Her analysis of the lithic (stone) material and inscriptions found in the area indicated that the hillsides of Chunar had been quarried for sandstone from the 3rd century BCE to the medieval period. Her study revealed a number of other interesting and important results:

The1. low-lying hill near Baragaon village was the main quarrying area in ancient times. Over 450 ancient quarry sites were identified in an area of some 15 sq km. This was done on the basis of marks of extraction of stone blocks, chiselling debris, cylindrical blocks in various degrees of preparedness, and count-marks of the number of finished blocks. Inscriptions, ranging from those written in Brahmi and Kharoshthi of Maurya or early post-Maurya times to Nagari epigraph of the 13th/14th century, gave an idea of the time frame of the quarrying activities.

The2. quarried blocks of stone were chiselled and dressed into cylindrical shape at Chunar itself. Many such blocks were found at the site. This was done in order to roll them down the gently sloping hillside or down the small streams to the Ganga river and further on to sites where there was a demand for the sandstone.

The3. ultimate destination of the Chunar stone included sites such as Sarnath, one of the major sandstone-consuming settlements in ancient times. Varanasi did not give as much evidence of the use of this stone.

Stone-carving4. workshops were situated on the navigational route connecting Chunar and Sarnath. Kotwa, on the bank of the Rajapur nala, a tributary of the Ganga, was one such site which gave positive evidence of stone working. Excavations here revealed an occupational deposit containing a large quantity of

chiselling debris, broken fragments of carved stone, and a chisel tester. Alarge cylindrical block of stone was also found here before the excavations began. On the basis of the style of pottery and stone carving, the stone carving activities at Kotwa were placed between the 2nd/1st century BCE and the 11th/12th centuries CE. The location of such sites along water routes facilitated both the movement of the heavy blocks of stone and the finished products.

The5. reason why Chunar was preferred as a quarry site to other areas such as the Pabosa hills near Allahabad or Dehri-on-Son in Bihar was the good quality of its stone and its convenient geographical location near the river, which made transportation easier.

The6. fact that the average length of the Chunar blocks ranged from less than 1 m to over 2½ m made Jayaswal look more closely at the Ashokan pillars to check whether they were really monoliths. She examined the Vaishali, Lauriya–Araraj, and Lauriya–Nandangarh pillars, and found that they were in fact made of several pieces of stone. Five blocks of stone could be counted in the latter two pillars. At Lauriya– Nandangarh, a weathered part indicated that the surface of the stone was chiselled, but not polished. Over this surface was a thick (about 1 cm) coat made of crushed pink sandstone mixed with haematite pellets. The lower surface of this coat was rough, but its upper surface had a polished, lustrous appearance.

Chunar was clearly the main resource area for sandstone used for sculpture and architecture in the Ganga valley in ancient and early medieval times. Jayaswal reports that the present-day inhabitants of Baragaon village are mostly stone cutters. Although stone quarrying still goes on in the Chunar hills, modern stone cutters do not extract stone from the old quarries. Their reason is that due to prolonged exposure to the elements, stone from such quarries is not considered suitable for working. They refer to blocks of stone from the old quarries as mara patthar (dead stone) as opposed to that from more recent ones, which they call jinda patthar (living stone).

SOURCE Jayaswal, 1998

The Ashokan pillars are quite similar to each other in form and dimensions. They are made of sandstone quarried at Chunar. They are considered to be monoliths, i.e., carved out of a single piece of stone (this has been questioned by Jayaswal, 1998). The pillars have a lustrous, polished surface, which is not visible in the case of those that have had a tumultuous history, such as the Delhi–Meerut pillar. They do not have a base, and the plain, smooth circular shaft tapers slightly upwards to a height of 12–14 m. A cylindrical bolt joins the top of the shaft to the ‘capital’—a stone carved in the shape of an inverted lotus (often referred to as the ‘bell capital’). On top of this is the abacus (platform) which supports the crowning animal or animals. The abacus is square and plain in earlier pillars, and circular and carved in later ones. All parts of the pillars are carved in the round, i.e., on all sides, and were clearly meant to be viewed from all around.

The motifs associated with the Ashokan pillars have a rich and varied symbolism with resonances in many different Indian religious traditions. Apart from floral designs such as the lotus and honeysuckle/palmette, the capitals have other, mostly animal, motifs. The lion appears on the capitals of the Vaishali, Lauriya–Nandangarh, and one of the Rampurva pillars, quadruple lions on the Sanchi and Sarnath capitals, and a bull on one of the Rampurva pillars. An elephant capital (minus the pillar) was found at Sankissa. The Sanchi and Sarnath capitals were surmounted by a spoked wheel. The abacus of the Sanchi pillar has pecking geese, whereas that of the Sarnath pillar has a bull, elephant, horse, and lion, separated by wheels. The emblem of the Indian nation-state is based on the Sarnath capital.

ELEPHANT CAPITAL, SANKISSA

The sculptural motifs must have been considered to be in harmony with the dhamma message. They must have been chosen with great care, quite possibly by Ashoka himself. The lotus is a symbol of purity and fecundity in the Indian tradition. Later Buddhist texts tell us that lotus flowers sprang up where Siddhartha took seven steps soon after he was born. Although the wheel occurs in Vedic texts as a symbol of creation and time, on Ashokan capitals it is generally interpreted as the dharmachakra—the wheel of dharma, representing the Buddha’s first sermon. The chakra is also associated with sovereignty and is mentioned (along with the wheel, elephant, and horse) as one of the seven treasures of the chakravarti king in the Mahasudassana Sutta. The lion is a solar symbol in many ancient traditions, but it can be noted that the Buddha is referred to as Sakya-simha (lion among the Sakyas) in Buddhist tradition. As for the elephant, according to this tradition, the future Buddha entered his mother’s womb in the form of a white elephant, which appeared to Maya in a dream. Jaina tradition also includes the white elephant, a white bull, and a lion among the 14 significant dreams that Mahavira’s mother Trishala had when he was conceived. The elephant appears in the Brahmanical tradition as the vehicle of the god Indra and is associated with the goddess Lakshmi in her Gaja-Lakshmi form. The bull is a fertility symbol in many ancient cultures, and can also be taken to represent the asterism of Rishabha, under which the Buddha was born. In later Buddhist sculpture, the horse symbolizes the departure of Siddhartha from his home. Buddhist tradition refers to a mythical Anotatta lake situated in the Himalayas, with rocks in the shape of a horse, bull, lion, and elephant. Taken together, all the symbols associated with the Ashokan pillars had a special Buddhist significance, but they also blended into a wider fabric of cultural meaning. It

can be noted that many of these symbols occur on ring stones, disc stones, and punch-marked coins of early historical India.

Some art historians have emphasized foreign influence, especially Persian influence, on the court art of the Maurya empire. It has been suggested that Ashoka got the idea of inscribing proclamations on pillars from the Achaemenids. It has been pointed out that the words dipi and lipi occur in the inscriptions of Darius as well as Ashoka. The inscriptions of both kings begin in the third person and then move to the first person. Distinct Greek influence, and even greater Persian influence, has been identified in the polished surface of the Ashokan pillars and the animal capitals. The stiff, heraldic pose of the lions is seen as further evidence of Western influence. As far as this issue is concerned, Coomaraswamy ([1927], 1965: 13) pointed out many years ago that India formed part of an ‘ancient east’—an area extending from the Mediterranean Sea to the Ganga valley, which had some elements of a common cultural heritage from very early times. There was plenty of interaction between ancient India and ancient Iran, whether in the form of trade or the conquest of Gandhara by the Persian emperors. The use of the Aramaic script in certain Ashokan inscriptions in the north-west and the emergence of Kharoshthi from this script were direct results of the interactions between India and West Asia.

FURTHER DISCUSSION

The medieval and modern histories of Ashokan pillars

Ancient artefacts and monuments often have interesting later life-histories. The two Ashokan pillars that today stand in Delhi are good examples of this:

The 14th century Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi by Shams Siraj Afif gives an account of the columns today known as the Delhi–Topra and Delhi–Meerut pillars. Afif tells us that Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq noticed the pillars at Topra (in modern Haryana) and Meerut (in modern UP) in the course of his military campaigns, and that he was so impressed by them that he decided to transport them to Delhi. Afif describes the moving of the Topra pillar as follows: Orders were issued to the people living in and around Topra village and to soldiers, directing them to assemble at the pillar, and to bring along with them various tools and lots of silk cotton from the silk cotton tree. When the earth around the column had been carefully removed, it fell on the bed of silk cotton that had been prepared for it. The pillar was encased in reeds and hides and carefully moved onto a specially made carriage with 42 wheels. Men pulled at the ropes attached to the wheels, and the cart was dragged to the Yamuna, where the Sultan appeared to personally direct further operations. The pillar was heaved on to several boats tied together and taken by river to its new home in Delhi. At Firuzabad, it was hoisted onto its present position in the palace complex with great ingenuity, skill, and labour. Nobody could read Ashokan Brahmi by this time, but Afif tells us that some Brahmanas claimed they could. They announced that the inscription contained a prophecy that no one would be able to remove the pillar from its original place till the time of a great king named Sultan Firuz.

The pillar installed in the Sultan’s palace at Firuzabad (modern Firoz Shah Kotla) came to be known as the Minar-i-Zarin or the Golden Column. A manuscript of an anonymous work called the Sirat-i-Firuz Shahi has painted illustrations of the moving of the Topra pillar and its installation in its new home in Delhi. The Meerut pillar was installed in Firuz Shah’s Kushk-i-Shikar or hunting palace (located opposite Bara Hindu Rao hospital, on the northern Ridge, near the University of Delhi).

DRAWING IN THE SIRAT-I-FIRUZ SHAHI SHOWING HOW THE ASHOKAN PILLAR WAS MOVED FROM TOPRA TO DELHI IN THE 14TH CENTURY (PAGE, 1937)

Several Ashokan pillars have later inscriptions. Many of them record people’s names, indicating that the phenomenon of tourists scratching their names onto monuments is not a new one. The Delhi–Topra pillar has three 12th century inscriptions of the Chauhan king Vigraharaja IV. These show that a pillar which had a thousand years earlier proclaimed the dhamma of Ashoka and the majesty of the Maurya empire was used to proclaim the victories and greatness of a medieval Rajput king. There are also several later inscriptions in Sanskrit and Persian belonging to the 13th–16th centuries. The Delhi–Meerut pillar has three short early medieval Sanskrit inscriptions. Similarly, the Lauriya–Nandangarh inscription has a Persian inscription of the time of Aurangzeb, and an English inscription which reads: ‘Reuben Burrow, 1792.’ Reuben Burrow was a surveyor who apparently visited the site in the 18th century.

The fact that the Allahabad–Kosam pillar refers to the mahamatas of Kaushambi suggests it was brought to Allahabad from that place at some point of time. Apart from the schism edict of Ashoka, it has the famous Allahabad prashasti of the Gupta emperor Samudragupta. It also has an inscription giving the genealogy of the Mughal emperor Jahangir. This pillar, carrying three

emperors’ inscriptions, ranging across some 2,000 years, is unique. It also has names of various people, scratched onto its surface at different points of time.

Two fragments of Ashokan pillars have been identified at Hissar and Fatehabad in Haryana. The Hissar fragment is located in front of a mosque built by Firuz Shah Tughluq and forms the lowest part of a composite pillar. The Fatehabad fragment, which stands in the middle of a prayer ground associated with a late Mughal wall, is also part of a composite pillar, and bears a long inscription giving genealogical information about Firuz Shah. In fact, it seems that the Hissar and Fatehabad fragments were probably originally parts of the same Ashokan pillar.

There are some recorded instances of Ashokan pillars or their fragments being worshipped as Shiva lingas. It is interesting to note that in many places, Ashokan pillars and their fragments are associated in popular local tradition with the Pandava brothers, especially Bhima, and are often known as Bhim-ki-lat or Bhim-ka-danda (Bhima’s pillar or stick).

All this shows how the ‘original’ meaning and significance of a historical artefact or monument can be radically altered in later times.

SOURCE Singh [1999], 2006: xxx–xxxii, 58–62; Singh, 1997–98

At the same time, Niharranjan Ray (1975: 24–26) has drawn attention to the many differences between the Maurya and Persian pillars. The pillars of the Kumrahar hall do not have capitals, whereas those at Persepolis have elaborate ones. The Persian pillars stand on bases, either shaped like a ‘bell’ (i.e., inverted lotus), or a plain rectangular or circular block. In the Maurya pillars, on the other hand, the inverted lotus appears at the top of the shaft. The shape and ornamentation of the Maurya lotus is different from the Persian ones, the bulge typical of the former being absent in the latter. Most of the Per-sian pillars have a fluted surface, while the Maurya pillars are smooth. The capitals of the Persian columns are crowned with a cluster of stylized palm leaves and have two semi-bulls, lions, or unicorns seated back to back, or an upright or inverted cup, with double volutes on the top. The Maurya-type abacus and independent animals carved in the round crowning the pillars are absent in the Persian context. While there may be some similarities in specific features, the effect of the whole is completely different. Moreover, by having pillars inscribed with his messages on dhamma, Ashoka transformed them into epigraphic monuments of unique cultural meaning.

BULL CAPITAL, RAMPURVA

The issue of artistic ‘influence’ is a complex one. There is no doubt that artists and artistic motifs, designs, and styles do travel—often over vast distances. In some instances, a particular motif is so strikingly similar to another that one seems to be inspired by the other. In other cases, there is some stylistic similarity, but also certain striking differences and innovations. Sometimes, similar designs can be associated with different meanings. And at still other times, there is similarity in the choice of motifs, but not in the style in which they are executed, pointing to the existence of a shared pool of symbols that were considered to have meaning and significance in different cultures. If the Ashokan pillars cannot in their entirety be attributed to Persian influence, they must have had an undocumented prehistory within the subcontinent, perhaps a tradition of wooden carving. But the transition from stone to wood was made in one magnificent leap, no doubt spurred by the imperial tastes and ambitions of the Maurya emperors.

There are a few other samples of sculptures associated with the Maurya court. A polished fragment of a monolithic railing at Sarnath is usually assigned to the Maurya period. The vajrasana (throne of meditation) at the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya is a large stone slab under the bodhi tree (this pipal tree is supposed to be a descendent of the tree under which the Buddha attained enlightenment). Its original place and purpose are not known for sure. The 16.5 cm thick vajrasana is made of Chunar sandstone. Its top surface is decorated with a carved geometric pattern that looks like intersecting circles. On the sides are carved floral palmette designs and geese (hamsas), in a style similar to that of the carving on the Ashokan capitals.

At Dhauli (Bhubaneswar district, Orissa), there is a rock sculpture of the front part of an elephant. His heavy trunk curls gracefully inwards. His right front leg is slightly tilted, and the left one slightly

bent, suggesting forward movement. It is a very naturalistic, powerful portrayal of the animal, and the whole effect is such that it looks as if the elephant is walking out of the rock.

The Maurya period saw the beginning of rock-cut architecture. The Barabar and Nagarjuni hills to the north of Bodh Gaya contain several caves that were inhabited by ascetics in ancient times. Three caves in the Barabar hills have dedicative inscriptions of Ashoka, and three in the Nagarjuni hills have inscriptions of his son Dasharatha. The caves are simple in plan, with plain but highly polished interiors. The longer side of the cave runs parallel to the rock face. The only sculptural ornamentation is a relief carving on the doorway of a cave known as the Lomash Rishi cave. The doorway is modelled after wooden ones. Over the entrance, framed within the earliest example of what art historians call the chaitya or gavaksha arch with a carved finial, are two bands of relief carving. The upper one has a latticework design; the lower one has a finely carved frieze showing elephants approaching stupas. At both ends of the frieze is a makara (a mythical crocodile). The interior of the Lomash Rishi cave consists of two connected chambers. The rectangular one leads into a round, unfinished room which resembles a thatched hut. There is no inscription here, but the cave next door, with an identical interior but lacking the ornamented doorway, has an inscription stating that it was dedicated by Ashoka to the Ajivikas 12 years after his abhisheka. This suggests that the Lomash Rishi cave probably also belongs to roughly the same time.

DHAULI ELEPHANT

The tradition of making stupas—originally funerary mounds—may be pre-Buddhist, and stupas did not have an exclusively Buddhist significance. The Mahaparinibbana Sutta tells us that eight

stupas were built over the cremated remains of the Buddha and two others over the cremation vessel and embers of the funeral pyre. Some archaeologists have suggested that the mud stupas at Piprahwa and Vaishali may represent these early stupas. Initially, relics of the Buddha were enshrined in the solid core of stupas, which became places of veneration and pilgrimage. Soon, relics of the Buddha’s disciples and famous monks were similarly enshrined. Veneration and worship were transferred from the relics to the stupa itself, whether or not it contained relics. The stupa swiftly became an emblem of the Buddha’s dhamma and an important part of Buddhist monasteries. According to the Avadana texts, Ashoka re-distributed portions of the Buddha’s relics to every important town in the land and ordered the construction of stupas over them. The Nigali Sagar inscription records this king’s enlargement of the stupa of a Buddha named Kanakamuni when he had been consecrated 14 years and commemorates his visit to this site. There is thus quite a bit of evidence to show that Ashoka played an important role in popularizing the stupa cult.

FAÇADE OF LOMASH RISHI CAVE

Ashoka’s reign marked an important stage in the history of Buddhist stupa architecture. Old mud stupas were rebuilt or enlarged with bricks, as evident from excavations at Vaishali and Piprahwa. A fragment of what may be an Ashokan inscription at Amaravati suggests the possibility that the stupa-monastery complex located here dates to Ashoka’s time. There is an Ashokan pillar at Sarnath, and the Dharmarajika and Dhamekh stupas at this place seem to have originated in the Maurya period. At Rajgir, Maurya-type bricks were found at the western part of the mound, marking the site of a stupa. The origins of the Dharmarajika stupa at Taxila in the north-west may also go back to this period.

STUPA NO.1, SANCHI

An important stupa site that definitely dates to Ashoka’s time is Sanchi (in Raisen district, MP). This was situated on the outskirts of ancient Vidisha (represented by the site of Besnagar), one of the great cities of Ashoka’s empire and also, according to Buddhist legend, the birthplace of his wife, Devi. The remains on the Sanchi hillside include many stupas, shrines, and monasteries. The brick core of the largest stupa, known as Stupa no. 1 or the Great Stupa, was built in Ashoka’s time. We know this because it springs from the same floor level as the pillar that bears Ashoka’s schism edict. The stupa was about 60 ft in diameter at the base, and was a low dome (less than a full hemisphere) mounted on a low cylindrical drum. It was probably surrounded by a wooden fence and had entrances at the four cardinal points. In the 2nd century BCE, this stupa was encased in stone; other additions were made over the next few centuries (these will be discussed in (< />)Chapter 8). Stupa no. 1 did not yield any relics.

Several large stone sculptures of what look like human figures have been found at various sites in and around Patna, Mathura, and other places. Many of them represent yakshas and yakshis, deities whose worship was part of popular religion in many parts of the subcontinent from an early time right down to the present. Most of these images do not bear inscriptions, nor were they found in the course of an archaeological excavation. They were initially ascribed to the Maurya period due to the fact that some or all of their surface was polished. More recent assessments have pointed out that a polished surface is insufficient ground to assign a Maurya date to a piece of sculpture, since the so-called ‘Maurya polish’ continued into the early centuries CE. Stylistic considerations are, therefore,

also very important. The yaksha sculpture found at Parkham was initially associated with the Maurya period. Later, some scholars assigned it to the 1st century BCE on stylistic grounds. However, its base has an inscription in Maurya Brahmi letters, so the earlier view may be correct.

RECENT DISCOVERIES

The discovery of an Ashokan stupa at Deorkothar

In 1982, Phani Kanta Mishra was scouring the Tons valley in Rewa district (MP) for early Buddhist sites. At Paira village, on the right bank of the Tons, he noticed some ancient potsherds, ruined walls, and a small brick stupa. The villagers told him about some more brick mounds about 3 km south-east of Paira. The sarpanch Ajit Singh led the team of explorers to Deorkothar, a picturesque site overlooking the river. Popular legend associates the brick mound here with an ancient king who wanted to build a magnificent palace. But he died suddenly and the piled-up bricks were all that remained of his dream. Investigations and exavations during 1999–2000 showed Deorkothar to be a site rich in archaeological remains, including a stupa of the Maurya period. The remains at Deorkothar include rock shelters, rock paintings, several stupas, monasteries, and inscriptions. The initial explorations identified four brick stupas and 29 stone ones, many containing NBPW sherds. Out of the 63 rock shelters, six were found to have paintings, mostly of the early historical period. One of them has a painting of a stupa and tree enclosed in a railing.

The most imposing structure was Stupa 1 (over 9 m high). The three other brick stupas were of varying height and dimensions. Stupa 2, located about 400 m south–south-west of Stupa 1, was made out of four different brick sizes. The remains of a colossal pillar with a polished surface suggest a Maurya connection. A six-line inscription in Brahmi letters on it confirms a 3rd century BCE date. The inscription seems to suggest that a monk and his disciples were responsible for setting up the pillar.

Remains of a fallen stone railing were found close to Stupa 1. Some of the fragments had simple, shallow carvings, including half lotuses, full lotuses, and partially open lotus buds. The carvings seem to represent an earlier stage than those at Sanchi or Bharhut, and it is therefore possible that the stone railing around Stupa 1 at Deorkothar belonged to the Maurya period. The stupa seems to have suffered deliberate damage some time before the mid-2nd century BCE.

SOURCE Mishra, 2001

1

Other important examples of stone sculptures include the torso of a nude male figure found at Lohanipur in Patna. It is carved out of Chunar sandstone and has a polished surface. Antiquities of the Maurya type, including two polished sandstone pillar fragments, were excavated near the place where the sculpture was found. It is possible, but by no means certain, that this figure depicts a Jaina tirthankara. The ‘Didarganj yakshi’ was found at Didarganj village in Patna. The figure actually

seems to be an attendant and not a yakshi. Some scholars think that its style, refinement, and polished surface indicate a Maurya association, while others (on the basis of the voluptuous body and the nature of the ornamentation) think it belongs to the 2nd century CE. A headless male sculpture found at Patna bears striking stylistic similarities to the Didarganj figure. Although he may have been a yaksha figure, it is more probable that he too represented an attendant. If some of these sculptures indeed belong to the Maurya period, this suggests the existence of several centres of stone carving, serving royal and perhaps other patrons as well. Susan Huntington (1985: 52) points out that these sculptures represent an important phase in the portrayal of the human figure in Indian art, and that while certain features such as the polished surface do not have a long-term legacy, other aspects— such as the treatment of the human body, features of the costumes, and objects held in the hands—do.

STONE SCULPTURE, LOHANIGANJ

A large number of carved ring stones and disc stones found at various sites in north India have been dated to the 3rd/2nd century BCE (Joshi, 1987). They occur at sites such as Patna, Taxila, Mathura, the Purana Qila in Delhi, Kaushambi, Rajghat, and Vaishali. They generally have a diameter of 5–6 cm, with different sorts of carvings arranged within two or more concentric circles

—animals such as the lion, horse, deer, birds, and the crocodile (makara); female figures that may represent goddesses; trees and floral designs; and geometric patterns. These ring stones and disc stones may have had a religious or ritualistic significance.

FURTHER DISCUSSION

The Parkham yaksha, then and now

Yakshas were deities connected with water, fertility, trees, the forest, and the wilderness. Yakshis were their female counterparts and were originally benign deities connected with fertility. Yaksha and yakshi images of stone and terracotta have been found at many sites in the subcontinent, indicating that their worship was an important part of popular religion in ancient India.

Many yaksha images have been found in the Mathura area. The most celebrated of these is a colossal grey sandstone figure (2.59 m high) discovered next to a tank at Parkham village, south of Mathura city. According to some art historians, on stylistic grounds, this image should be assigned to the 2nd/1st century BCE. However, the Brahmi inscription on its pedestal suggests a

3rd century BCE date. The inscription states that this stone image was made by Gomitaka, a pupil of Kunika, and that it was set up by eight brothers who were members of the Manibhadra puga (congregation). The inscription clearly indicates that this was an image of the yaksha Manibhadra, mentioned in various texts and inscriptions as a tutelary deity of merchants and travellers, and especially worshipped in important trading centres.

The colossal image of the yaksha Manibhadra was removed from Parkham village to the Mathura Museum many years ago. But these days, in the month of Magh (January), a Jakhaiya mela (i.e., yaksha fair) is held in the village. Hundreds of people from surrounding villages converge at Parkham to worship the Jakhaiya (i.e., yaksha). On this occasion, a small yaksha image—a poor substitute for the original—is brought out, placed in a makeshift enclosure next to the tank, and worshipped.

The colossal yaksha suggests gravity and massive strength, and his broken right hand was probably raised in the protection-granting abhaya-mudra. His diminutive modern counterpart has a cheerful grin, and raises his left hand in what looks like a friendly wave. Nevertheless, on three consecutive Sundays in January, the yaksha regains some of the importance he once enjoyed in the Mathura area over 2,000 years ago.

SOURCE Singh, 2004a

Terracotta art flourished with the expansion of urban centres. The terracottas of this period vary a great deal in terms of theme, style, and possible significance, but they do give an important insight into popular practices, beliefs, and aesthetics. They include male and female figurines, animals, and carts. Some of them may have been toys, but others, especially certain female figurines, may

represent religious icons. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, it is not always apparent whether a figurine had a religious/ritualistic significance or not. A great deal depends on the context in which it was found. There is a problem in dating terracottas, and those pieces that are found in stratified contexts in the course of archaeological excavations are, therefore, of special value.

CARVED RING STONES

The Decline of the Maurya Empire

Since the Maurya empire was the first subcontinental empire, all its aspects have attracted scholarly attention, including its decline. The long reigns of the first three Mau-rya rulers were followed by many weak rulers with short reigns. Only one of the later Mauryas—Dasharatha—is known to have issued inscriptions. Others are known only from Puranic, Buddhist, and Jaina accounts. An invasion by the Bactrian Greeks further weakened the empire.

Ashoka has been both blamed and exonerated for the decline of the empire. Haraprasad Sastri suggested that Pushyamitra Shunga’s coup represented a Brahmanical revolution, instigated by the anti-Brahmana policies of Ashoka and the patronage extended to the heterodox sects by the Mauryas. It is possible that Ashoka’s ban on animal sacrifices may have annoyed those Brahmanas whose livelihood depended on performing sacrifices. It is also possible that the appointment of dhamma-mahamatas may have struck at the Brahmanas’ prestige as custodians of social morality. However, Sastri wrongly interprets a sentence in rock edict 1 as a boast made by Ashoka that he had revealed the Brahmanas to be false gods. The sentence actually states that due to Ashoka’s efforts, gods and men had come to mingle, figuratively speaking. In fact, Ashoka’s inscriptions contain frequent exhortations to his people to respect shramanas and Brahmanas. It is quite evident that the end of the Maurya dynasty was not the result of a revolution of any kind.

Ashoka’s pacifist policy has also been seen as responsible for the decline of the Mau-rya empire. However, as mentioned earlier, Ashoka’s pragmatism is reflected in the fact that he did not disband the army, that he did not abolish capital punishment, and that he was quite capable of giving stern warnings to tribal communities. However, a long reign marked by only one military campaign in the

early years may have adversely affected the preparedness of the army, and this may have been a factor responsible for the success of the Greek invasion.

As long as the Maurya empire was considered a centralized political system, a weak ruler at the centre could be held responsible for its decline. However, if the empire was not as centralized as once believed, then this argument becomes irrelevant. It has also been suggested that the Maurya state faced some kind of financial crisis, or that there was a more widespread economic crisis in the empire, but there is no evidence for either of these things.

Some of the arguments put forward to explain the decline of the Maurya empire (e.g., in Thapar [1963], 1987) are anachronistic—they point to things that we should not generally expect to find in ancient states. These include the absence of nationalism, the idea of loyalty to the state rather than to a particular king, and the lack of popular representative institutions. Similarly, although it is true that personal selection was important in the appointment of officials and that a Chinese-type examination system did not exist in Maurya India, this is not very helpful in explaining the decline of the Maurya empire. The point that the Maurya empire was vast, diverse, and difficult to hold together, let alone weld together, is certainly relevant. But to attribute its decline to the fact that the Mauryas were unable to restructure the economies of the core and peripheral areas (Thapar, 1984: 28–29) amounts to directing attention to the absence of strategies and interventions that are characteristics of modern nation-states.

Given the nature of the evidence, explanations of the decline of the Maurya empire have to be very general. All empires rely on mechanisms of integration and control over territory, resources, and people. These mechanisms include military force, administrative infrastructure, and ideology. In the case of the Mauryas, given the vast contours of the empire, all three must have been strained to their utmost. It was just a matter of time before the distant provinces broke away from the centre.

CONCLUSIONS

The Maurya period saw the establishment of the first subcontinental empire. Such a large empire required new strategies of governance. The Maurya period is known as much for empire-building as for king Ashoka, who renounced all military ambition and exerted himself relentlessly to promote the cause of dhamma. Although rooted in his personal faith in the Buddha’s teaching for the laity, this dhamma, being a teaching proclaimed by an emperor to his subjects, was broader in scope. The imperial power of the Mauryas was visible in monumental stone sculpture and structures, and important beginnings were made in rock-cut and stupa architecture. There are also many artefacts that reflect popular aesthetic and religious beliefs. The social and economic processes of agrarian expansion and urbanization of the preceding centuries continued under Maurya rule, and there was a further growth in cities, trade, and the money economy. Although a few specific aspects of these

processes have been touched on in this chapter, the broad patterns of social and economic processes that were underway are best discussed outside the framework of political history and will be taken up in the next chapter.