THE EMERGENCE OF EMPIRE:MAURYAN INDIA

Difference B/W An Empire And Kingdom

Empires were defined by extensive territory and their glory was said to lie in
monumental architecture, grandiose public works and imperial proclamations.
The source of revenue was solely agrarian and land was entirely owned by the state.
In relation to the early past an empire recognized as a more evolved and complex
form of state. The change non-state to state becomes central to this understanding the
context in which empire arise.
Empires controlled a differentiated economy, unlike kingdoms, where the economic
base tended to be relatively more uniform.
Monumental architecture is seen as an important statement of power and presence of
an empire. Another aspect would be the uniformity in laws which is indirectly
mentioned in one of the edicts of the emperor Ashoka.
Kingdoms differ from empires also in the sense that these tend to draw maximum
profit from existing resources and therefore donot make too great an attempt at
restructuring access to resources.
The pressures on an empire and its requirements are of a different order, so meeting
the financial needs of administering an empire requires considerable restructuring
wherever there is a potential for obtaining revenue.
Not every part of the empire has the same resources, nor is their utilization identical,
therefor some drgree of economic restructuring also becomes necessary.
The restructuring of the Mauryan empire was attempted through both the extension of
the agriculture, together with the mobility of in some instances and the introduction of
more wide-reaching commercial exchange. But imperial systems also exploit
economic differences and restructure economies in order to suit new alignments. The
differentiation is based on the manner in which the resources are garnered through
administration.

THE MAURYAN EMPIRE

Founded by Chandragupta Maurya who succeeded the Nanda throne in 321 BC.
He is said to be a protg of Kautilya, under whose guidance he is able to capture the
throne. This has been narrated in a range of Buddhist and jain texts, as well as by the
play Mudrarakshasa by Vishakhadutta.
The origin and caste status of the Mauryans vary from text to text. Buddhist text
speaks of them as a branch of Kshatriya mauryan clan associated with the shakya,
presumably to give the family a higher status some have recorded him as a of
courtesan and a barber, which denoted a lower caste. Brahmanical sources imply that
 they were shudras and heretics, presumably bcoz each king was a patron to a
heterodox sect.
Similarly, the nandas have also been described as shudras by the puranas, thugh
others have recorded as kshatriyas.
This shift in the status of the ruling family is an aspect of the coming of the state,
where political power was to be increasingly open-virtually accommodating any
varna. Denoted caste mobility.
In case of a non-kshatriya coming to the throne(which became a trend from nanda
dynasty), social order was backed by religious scriptures. So even if a non-kshatriya
became the king, he would try to achieve the K status to gain legitimacy. Priest would
bestow fictitious geneology upon them so that they get legitimacy in the minds of
the people.

Tracing the Mauryan Empire:

The acquisition of the throne as suggested by some stories began by harassing the
outlying areas of the Nanda kingdom, gradually moving towards the centre on the
moral drawn from the fact that the young emperor once saw a woman scolding her
child for eating from the centre of the dish, since the centre was boundto be much
hotter than the sides.
Once the Ganges were under his control, he moved to the North-West to exploit
the power vacuum created by Alexander.* These areas felled to him rapidly, until
he reached Indus. He paused as the Greek Seleucus Nicator-a successor to
Alexander had fortified the area. Chandragupta(herein referred to as CG) moved
to Central.
305 BC saw him back in NW, where he campaigned against Seleucus where CG
seems to b victorius as inferred by the account of 303 BC treaty. Some Seleucid
territories were acceded to Mauryans and the region shifted from Persian-
Hellenistic to Mauryan ctrl.
In return to the territory ceded, Seleucs obtained 500 elephants. There was also an
epigammia-a marriage agreement-which has interpreted as the marriage alliance
b/w two royal families.
Only campaigns were not a mechanism of acquiring more territory. Diplomatic
play and search for economic advantage were also some. Economic advantage
was more visible. Large scale campaigns against wealthy neighbours were a
source of booty.

*
Alexanders invasion(326BC)- entered India thru Indus; Achaemenid Dynasty which was controlling N-W
Frontier province of India lost to Alexander. He came in contact wid tribes who didnt welcome him and met
porus-their leader. Alaexander also recruited pple whom he defeated. But thereafter he decided to go back. So
there wasnt any clash b/w him and nanda. On his way his army was harassed, met many tribes, killed many and
many persons of his army were also killed. He cudnt return to his land and died in his 30s. his kingdoms were
nw ruled by his greek generals.
 The campaign against the Seleucids was to wrest Gandhara from them, as it had
yielded impressive revenues. The acquisition to Central India meant access to
peninsula, another area wid resources as yet untrapped by northern powers.
Despite campaigns, a friendly relation is seen to have exist b/w Mauryas and
Seleucids. An exchange of envoys b/w them accompanied by exchange of gifts
makes evident of this. Seleucuss envoy Magasthenes visited India and left an
account entitled Indica. Though the original has been lost, wat survives are the
paraphrases in the writings of later authors.
The jaina tradition claims that towards the end of his life, CG became an ardent
jaina, abdicated in favor of his son Bindusara and became an ascetic. Together
with a jaina elder-Bhadrabahu and other monks, he went to South and ended his
life by regulated slow starvation in the orthodox jain manner.

Bindusara (herein refered as BS) succeeded the throne in 297 BC and known as
Amitrochates in Greek.
Buddhist tradition associate him with an interest in the Ajivika Sect.
A Tibetian history of Buddhism has shown him conquering a land b/w 2 rivers-
presumably Arabian sea and Bay of Bengal which shows that he extended his
empire as far in the Deccan. The recent discovery of Ashokan edicts at Sannathi in
Karnataka, similar to those in Kalinga raises a ques whether it was occupied by
Ashoka or his father BS or were these rocks located @ this site by mistake?
At the time of BSs death in 272BC, a large part of the sub continent had come to
Mauryan suzerainty.

After his death, his son Ashoka came to reign. Puranas have recorded him as
Ashoka while Buddhist traditions have recorded as Chakravarti. In 1837 James
Princep deciphered one of the inscription where the king has refered himself as
Devanampiya Piyadasi (the beloved of Gods, Piyadasi).
The edicts of Ashoka not only tells us the personality of the king but also with the
extent of his reign and his policies as a ruler. The earlier edicts were inscribed on
the rock surfaces whereas the later ones on well polished standstone monolithic
pillars, each surmounted with a finely sculpted animal capital. The stone was
quarried from sites at Chunar near Varanasi.
Ashokas experience as an administrator began with his being the Governor at
Taxila and at Ujjain, handling commercial activities.
There appears to be a controversy whether Ashoka succeeded his father
immediately or whether there was a struggle between him and his brothers. Stories
also go that he killed his 99 brothers and spared 1 so that he ascend the throne
after his death. Buddhist stories have exaggerated this incident and narrated that it

Note that CG has been recorded as Sandrocottos in greek texts, identified by William Jones.
 preceded b4 he converted into Buddhism. Historians, however, are reluctant to
accept this.
In about 260 BC Ashoka campaigned against the Kalingans and routed them. The
destruction caused by the Kalinga War filled the king with remorse. As evident
from his rock edict, 150k pple were deported, 100k pple killed.
It has been stated in the past that he was dramatically converted to Budhhism. But
this was not an overnight conversion.; he states in one of his inscriptions that only
after 2.5 yrs did he become zealous devotee of Buddhism, Upgupta was d 1 wid
whom he discusses the aspects of Buddhism b4 conversion and gave up the policy
of Dhammavijaya and Digvijaya.
The Mauryan capital, Patliputra was at a nodal point facilitating ctrl over Ganges.
The Ganges plain apart from river routes, was connected with main routes.
The extent and influence of Mauryan power in the penindula can be gauged from
the location of the Ashokan inscription, which are not found beyond Karnataka.
Ashoka mentions his friendly relations with the Cholas, Pandyas and as far as Sri
Lanka, and there is no indication that he attempted to conquer them.
Mauryan relations with Sri Lanka are described in Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa.
There were frequent exchanges of gifts and envoys. Ashoka gifted a branch of the
original bodhi tree under which Buddha attained enlightenment and which is
claimed to have survived in Sri Lanka.

The Political Economy of Empire:

Arthashastra provides a detailed blueprint of the polity of the Mauryan Empire.
The present form of the text is the work of Vishnugupta in about 3rd century AD.
The revenue producing economy of North India was predominantly agrarian, with
large areas being brought under cultivation. The administrative system was largely
concerned with the efficient collection of taxes.. kautilya refers at length to
methods of tax collection and related problems and a ctrl over potential sources of
revenue. Economic activities other than agrarian were neither unknown nor
discouraged.
Apart from the activities of the state in agriculture, private owners as farmers or
landowners, cultivated the land or had it cultivated and paid the state a variety of
taxes. The landowners collected rent from their tenants. Extensive areas of
wastelands and sita or crown lands were cultivated under the state.
Greek writers referring to the account by Magasthenes, unfortunately make
contradictory statements about the relationship b/w the cultivator and the state.
Arthashstra mentions that 150,000 pple deported from Kalinga after the campaign
of Ashoka were sent to clear wastelands and establish new settlements.
Magasthenes had commented on the absence of slavery in India, but is
contradicted by many Indian sources. Perhaps he had the pattern of Athenian
slavery in mind and the Indian pattern differed. Domestic slavery were a regular
 feature in prosperous households, where the slaves were of low class status, but
were not untouchables. Slave labour was also used in the mines and state craft.
Slavery was a recognized institution and the legal relationship b/w master and
slave was clearly defined. for example, if a female slave bore her master a son, not
only was she legally free but the child was entitled to the legal status of a son of
the master Magasthenes may have confused caste status with stratification defined
by degrees of freedom.
A slave in India could buy back his freedom or may voluntarily excused by his
master, and, if previously he had the status of the arya, he could return to this
status on the completion of his term as a slave.
Land revenue was at least of two kinds. One was a tax on the area of the land
cultivated and other on the assessment of the produce. The assessment varied from
region to region from 1/6th to a quarter of the produce of the land. A reference to
pindakara-a heap of taxes-would suggest a tax collected jointly from a village.
A tax of a different kind, vishti, was paid in labour for the state.
Taxes for the provision of water for irrigation were regularly collected wherever
the state was responsible for providing irrigation. The Arthashastra had a
preference for the private management of irrigation. Thus although the
construction and maintenance of reservoirs, tanks and canals were regarded as a
part of the functions of governing, there is no ground for holding that the ctrl or
irrigation was a key to the ctrl of the economy and therefore prevalence of
despotism.
Mauryan levels from excavations of urban centres show an improvement in the
standard of living compared to the previous period. Domestic housing were made
of bricks and halls of Patliputra of stones. However Magathenes does mention that
many of the buildings were made of timber wood and therefore fire was major
hazard.
Punch marked coins and some uninscribed Cu coins continue to be associated
with these levels. Terracotta figures both human and animal appear to be popular
and can be contrasted stylistically with the far more sophisticated pillar capitals of
stone.

Administration And Empire:

Arthashastra has described the administration of the Mauryan Empire to be a
centralized administration. The nucleus of the Mauryan system was the king.
Ashoka interpreted these as paternal kingship, and declared that All men are my
children. He travelled extensively throughout the empire to be in touch with the
subjects.
Ashokas edicts mention frequent consultations b/w him and his ministers, the
latter being free to advise him on his regulations. However the final decision lay
with the monarch.
 Two key offices controlled by the central administration were those of the chief
collector-Samharta and chief treasurer-Sanidharta. Council of ministers to
represent their accounts jointly. They were followed by Amatya-high level officers
below CoMs. These were further helped by Adhakshyas-suprintendents and
yuktas-clerks.

Samharta/Sanidharta CoMs Amatya Adhakshyas Yuktas

The chief minister, the purohita, and the army commander received 48000 panas,
the treasurer and the chief collector 24000 panas, the accountants, clerks and
soldiers received 500 panas. The value of pana is not known, nor the interval in
which they were paid.
For administration purposes also the empire was divided into 2 areas-Core area
forming the central part and the metropolitan area surrounding the core asre-as
suggested by Thappar.
The metropolitan state was the pivot of the empire, controlling the income and its
distribution. It extended its hegemony by conquering areas of strategic
importance and of agrarian and commercial importance, the revenue from which
would enrich it. Such areas would be the core areas.
The core areas were less directly under central control and more efeectively under
the control of the governors and senior officials. As areas were ceded to Mauryan
Empire they experienced state formation and accommodated into new situation,
being incorporated into new system.
The importance of Gandhara was that it controlled access in the Hellinistic
kingdoms of west asia and was thus an area of commercial exchange.
The areas of south-karnataka have been identified as megalithic burials. A
Mauryan presence has not been identified in any striking way, although Ashokan
inscriptions are located in these areas and refer to Mauryan administration.
Possibly the resources were tapped by the administration thru local channels.
There is a cluster of Ashokan inscriptions in the gold bearing region of Karnataka
which explains the administrative extent of Mauryan empire uptil that area.
Apart from the metropolitan area, which was directly governed, the empire was
divided into provinces, each under a prince or member of a royal family. Such
provinces were Taxila, Ujjain, Dhauli etc. other authorities appointed were-
Senior officers-pradeshikas-toured every 5 yrs for check on provincial
administration.
Specially appointed judicial seniors-Rajukas-both in cities and rural areas
and also carried assessment work.
Yuktas-record information from various sources.
Provinces would be divided into groups of villages which was staffed with an
accountant, who maintained boundaries, registered land and deeds etc. and the tax
collector who was concerned with the various types of revenue.
Urban administration had its own hierarchy of officers. Magashtenes description
of the administration of Patliputra states that the city was administered by 30
 officials, divided into 6 communities of 5 members. Each community carried out
different functions like welfare of visitors, matters relating to trade and
commerce, public sale of manufactured goods, collection of taxes etc.
Espionage was a recognized official activity. Use of spies recommends that they
should work in the guise of merchants, householders, ascetics etc. Ashoka also
refers to agents who bring him news and generally keep him informed about
public opinion.

Ashokas Dhamma
After the Kalinga war, Ashoka expounded an idea whish was new to Indian
political and social theory- the idea of Dhamma.
Dhamma is the prakrit form of the Sanskrit word Dharma, by extension, the social
and religious order found in a society where Brahmanism was d norm. in the
Buddhist canon it was uded for reaching Budhha.
However the word had a much more general connotation @ the tym and judging
by the way in which he used it in edicts, Ashoka gave it a wider meaning.
Buddhist chronicles have exaggerated his conversion and associated Dhamma
with Buddhism. His supposedly conversion to Buddhism after the battle was
dramatized and he was depicted as a paragon of Buddhist piety following his
conversion-one historian suggesting that he may hav been a monk and a monarch
@ d same tym.
Ashoka made a distinction b/w his personal belief in and support for Buddhism
and his obligation as a king and a statesman to insist dat all religions must b
respected. His inscriptions r therefore of two kinds.
The smaller group consists of declaration of the king as a lay Buddhist and his
relationship with sangha. Another inscription mentions the various teachings of
Buddha.
The versions of the Minor rock edict reiterate the fact of his being a budhha and
these together with the major rock edicts and the pillar edicts, defines what he
understands by Dhamma. Some historians have interpreted Ashokas Dhamma as
a synonym for Buddhism arguing that his intention was to propagate Buddhism
and make it virtually the religion of the Mauryan state. However, the edicts seem
to contradict this point.
He appears to have been concerned with using a broader ethic to explore ways of
governance and to reduce social conflict and intolerance. Dhamma was aimed at
creating an attitude of mind in which the ethical behavior of one person towards
another was primary, and was based on a recognition of the dignity of hman
being.
Dhamma was in part a policy that was nurtured in the mind of Ashoka, but, since
he also saw it in relation to existing problems, it is the light of these that its nature
can be assessed. At the time of Ashoka diverse communities of pple existed. The
empire included multiple cultural and social systems. Suchplularity could be
 managed either by force or by persuation. Ashoka chose the latter. He mutated
Dhamma to his needs and explained it thru a personal definition.
Of the basic principles, Ashoka emphasized tolerance.. this was a plea to
accommodate differences in the interests of harmonius living.
Refraining from violence was another principle of Dhamma. But Ashoka was not
adamant in his insistence on non-violence. He recognized occasions where
violence may b unavoidable. In a moving passage on the suffering caused by war,
he declares that by adhering to dhamma he will refrain from using force in future.
He also states that he wud prefer his decendants not to conquer by force.
He pared down the cooking of meat in the royal kitchen, allowing for only a little
venison and peacock meat. He criticized useless ceremonies and sacrifices.
To implement his policy of dhamma and publicize it, Ashoka instituted a special
category of officers- the dhamma-mahapatras. Had his interests been only to
propagate Buddhism, then his support to sangha wud have sufficed, but the
appointing of the officials points to wider concerns.
Yet the policy of dhamma did not succeed. It may have been due to Ashokas over
anxiety for its acceptance. Perhaps it was seen as much like an intusion by the
pple.

Imperial Decline
A political decline began to set in after the death oa Ashoka in 232 BC. The
last of the Mauryas, Brihadratha, was assaninated during an inspection of the
troops by the Brahman Pushyamitra, the commader of the army and founder of
the shunga dynasty. The fact that his army did not revolt back shoed the
ineptitude of the ruler.
The pattern of the breakup of the empire has its own interest in terms of the
continuance of the metropolitan area and evolving of the core regions of the
independent states. The Ganges plain remained under the Mauryas becoming
the nucleus of the kingdom of their successors. The North Western areas were
lost to the Bactrian Greeks.
It has been asserted that the decline of the empire was also attributed to the
policies of Ashoka. It has also been said that his obsession with non violence
led to the emasculation of the army, thus laying d country open to invasion.
The suggestion that the mauryan economy was under considerable pressure
also gives a plausible reason for its decline. Although excavation of the
Mauryan urban sites points to an expanding economy in the early stages, the
view that there was a debasement of Ag coins in the later Mauryan period
suggests a diff. picture.
Although an agrarian economy prevailed in the Ganges plain, there was still a
greater variation in the economic patterns throughout the empire. Significantly
despite increasing the land under cultivation, there is a record of famine in
eastern India, which suggests that the lines of supply were not adequate.
 The economic development of the core areas of the empire, such as Gandhara
and Kalinga, led to the emergence of new states that coincided with the
decline of the empire.
The lack of any representative institutions to stabilize public opinion would
have added to the problem.