The Penguin History of Early India

by Romila Thapar

  The Buddha travelled in the towns of the middle Ganges Plain and later resided at the Buddhist monasteries that were established, teaching the monks and those who came to be taught. The Sangha was not initially encouraged to own property, but some provision was needed for a residence for monks during the long season of monsoon rains. The religion was congregational for most, but did not preclude those who wished to meditate in isolation. Monastic orders were introduced, the assembly of monks constituting the authoritative body, the Buddhist Sangha or the Buddhist Order. Monks wandered from place to place, preaching and seeking alms, and this gave the religion a missionary flavour. The Buddha’s teaching came to be compared to a raft, enabling a person to cross the water of life, and it was suggested that the raft should be left at the shore so that it could assist another person to do the same. Later, when monks and nuns acquired residences, their monasteries and nunneries were built near towns, thereby facilitating the support expected from the lay community.

  The establishment of Buddhist monasteries accelerated education, since they became a source of teaching, additional to the brahmans; even more important was the fact that education was not restricted to the upper castes. Brahman monks symbolized an ideological conversion. However, initiation seemed to focus on members of the upper castes to begin with, thus ensuring that people of status were entering the monasteries. The kshatriyas of the gana-sanghas who were not patrons of Vedic sacrifices were potential supporters of Buddhism and Jainism. Wealthy merchants, given a lesser status in the varna hierarchy, were respected by the Sangha and included among the patrons of the new religions. The inclusion of other castes as monks was a gradual process.

  The organization of the monasteries was modelled on the procedures adopted for the functioning of the gana-sanghas. Regular fortnightly meetings were held, the views of monks were heard and decisions arrived at in accordance with the regulations of the Sangha. Dissident opinion, if it was weighty enough, could lead to a breaking away from the dominant sect and the founding of a new sect. The directive in the functioning of the monastery was that opinions were to be democratically discussed, with decisions arrived at through this process. This is likely to have been the prevalent mood in the early history of the Sangha, but by the third century B c mention is made of the expulsion of dissidents.

  The Buddhist Canon, the Tripitaka, was recited and collected after the Buddha’s death, but was probably not written until a couple of centuries later. It is difficult to separate the original teaching from the additions and changes made by his followers, or to give a precise date to the texts included in the Canon. Periodic councils were held, the first at Rajagriha, the second at Vaishali and the third at Pataliputra. These meetings would have introduced their own interpolations. The intention was to determine and define the original teaching and to record it. This also required decisions on regulations governing the Sangha if there was a difference of opinion. A major contention, for instance, was over whether monks could receive donations of money as alms. The question of accepting property as donation, as in the case of the parks gifted to the Sangha, would have required careful discussion and consideration since such donations were the thin end of the wedge, introducing the notion that it was legitimate for the Sangha to own property. The ownership was said to be communal, providing a residence for the monks, particularly in the period of the rains when they could not travel. Nevertheless, the ownership of property would have posed problems to a body of renouncers, as has been the case among monastic religious sects in every age.

  Much of the Buddhist Canon was later translated into Chinese and other languages. This allows a comparative study of the Pali and the other versions that can assist a better understanding of the original intention. Buddhism was to undergo many sectarian breakaways, both in the country of its origin and in the course of its spread to other parts of Asia. Some forms claim an unbroken descent, but have in fact suffered historical vicissitudes that created breaks, in common with many sectarian religions. Theravada Buddhism is predominant in Sri Lanka and some south-east Asian countries. Elsewhere, the Sarvastivada has been more influential.

  In recent times Buddhism and Jainism have often been included as a part of Hinduism, but the three were differentiated in contemporary texts. The prevalent elite religion at that time was Vedic Brahmanism, to which neither Buddhism nor Jainism subscribed. In fact, they were opposed to many brahmanical theories and practices, and provided an alternative through their heterodox ideas. Unlike Vedic Brahmanism, or the later Puranic Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism had specific historical teachers that have now come to be viewed almost as founders, had organized an order of monks and nuns and an ecclesiastical structure, were not concerned with a deity, did not perform rituals of sacrifice, emphasized the centrality of social ethics rather than caste distinctions and had a strong sense of the history of the religion with reference both to teachings and sects. The chronological focus in the case of Buddhism was provided by the date of the mahapari-nirvana – the death of the Buddha. This was calculated as the equivalent of 486/483 BC and came to be used as an era. (Recently this date has been questioned and later dates have been suggested, but there is no consensus on an alternative date.)

  Buddhist and Jaina sects and some of other persuasions had orders of monks (bhikkhu – literally, mendicants) and nuns (bhikkhuni). As a general category they were referred to as shramanas or samanas – those who labour towards freedom from rebirth. This led to a distinction between what has been called Brahamanism and Shramanism, the two parallel streams of religious articulation that prevailed for many centuries. They are referred to as distinct by many, even by Alberuni, writing as late as the eleventh century AD. Monks renounced social obligations to take on an alternative life when they joined the Order. They lived as equal members of the Order, denying caste distinctions. But they lived in monasteries near villages and towns so that they could draw on the support of the lay community, namely, those who were Buddhists or Jainas but were not initiated into renunciatory groups. Lay followers were referred to as upasaka and upasika. Renunciation also gave the monks greater freedom so that they could concentrate on their own nirvana, as well as attending to the well-being of the community. Renunciation was not necessarily identical with asceticism and a distinction between them might be useful. The ascetic ideally lived in isolation, discarding all social obligations and performing his death-rites before leaving home. The renouncer discarded the social obligations required through family and caste ties, but entered an alternative society – that of the Sangha, where new obligations were assumed relating to the life of renouncers.

  With the increase in numbers of the lay community, the monks were called upon to perform life-cycle rituals linked to birth, puberty, marriage and death. This may well have been the beginning of a change, introducing a larger body of rituals than was originally intended. Places of worship such as the small stupas, or funereal tumuli, as they were at this stage, and the chaityas, or sacred enclosures, often at locations of sacred trees or local deities, were gradually incorporated into Buddhist worship and were later to take on impressive dimensions. The mounds at Lauriya Nandangarh in north Bihar are thought to be among the early places of worship and some have also provided small representations in gold of what might have been goddesses. The incorporation of popular religion was essential to any sect wishing to collect a following in an area.

  Some persons became monks because they disapproved of the ways of society and expressed this by opting out. This was an act of individual choice and is to that extent expressive of individual freedom, although admittedly it was confined to joining an Order. Because these were renunciatory Orders a distinction was gradually made between the Sangha that consisted of the Orders, and the upasakas or lay followers, ranging from royalty to artisans, providing the support for the Sangha. The donations of the lay followers were not for a single, sacrificial ritual, but contributed to the permanent maintenance of the Sangha. When monasteries began to receive large do
nations and prospered, the life of the monk could become comfortable. This may have occasioned some persons, in search of a minimally comfortable life, to join the wealthier monasteries.

  There was much in common between Buddhism and Jainism, Both were started by kshatriyas and were opposed to brahmanical orthodoxy. Although they did not call for the termination of the varna system, they were nevertheless opposed to it as set out in the Dharmasutras. But it took a while for them to build up a following of people other than those of the upper castes. When this did happen some of the practices underwent change. As with all historically evolved religions, the original teachings in new contexts were given new meanings, some of which contributed to changing the religion in varied ways. The readings of such histories of change requires a juxtaposition of the original teaching, together with contemporary texts as they came to be written in later times.

  The historical transition from the sixth to the fourth century BC saw the expansion of agriculture, the evolution of towns and the beginning of commerce on a wider scale than before, and political authority in the form of the state and monarchy with some contestation between the two political systems of monarchy and chiefship. These changes were not unconnected with the new formulations in religion and ideology, distinctively different from what had gone before. Such formulations received a further and perhaps diverse assertion in the Mauryan period.

  6

  The Emergence of Empire: Mauryan India

  C. 321-185 BC

  The Mauryas and their World

  The concept of an empire becomes familiar to Indian historiography in the colonial period. There was an attempt to identify a few empires from the past and see the current one as part of an ongoing legacy. Empires were defined by extensive territory and their glory was said to lie in monumental architecture, grandiose public works and imperial proclamations. In these descriptions empires outside Europe were generally characterized by autocracy and backwardness, explicitly stated in concepts such as Oriental Despotism. The source of revenue was solely agrarian, as this was a system where land was entirely owned by the state. This was a historical justification for the claim to ownership of resources by nineteenth-century imperial systems.

  When the term came to be used for large states in early times the focus of the definition had to shift. In relation to the early past an empire is recognized as a more evolved and complex form of state, and therefore embedded in the nature of the formation of states that preceded it. The change from non-state to state becomes central to understanding the context in which empires arise. A qualitative change is also significant. Empires, for instance, control a differentiated economy, unlike kingdoms, where the economic base tends to be relatively more uniform. A crucial question relates to whether the state attempts to restructure the economies – and if so, which economies – or is it content merely to cream off revenue from the resources. There was also an assumption of cultural uniformity, based largely on the symbols of imperial power. But there has been less investigation of the extent to which imperial cultural forms penetrated into distant areas. These investigations are necessary to the definition of an empire. Thus, monumental architecture was seen as important, but largely as a statement of power and presence. Another aspect of such a presence would have been uniformity in laws, perhaps mentioned indirectly in one of the edicts of the Emperor Ashoka, although the laws in question are not spelt out.

  With the coming of the Mauryas in the latter part of the fourth century BC, the historical scene is illuminated by a relative abundance of evidence from a variety of sources. Not only do these provide information, but they also encourage tangential thoughts on the history of those times. The political picture is relatively clear, with the empire of the Mauryas covering a large part of the subcontinent, the focus being control by a single power. Attempts were made to give the political system a degree of uniformity, and historical generalization can be made with more confidence for this period than in earlier centuries. Inevitably, in an imperial system, there were attempts to draw together the ends of the empire, to encourage the movement of peoples and goods and to explore the possibilities of communication at various levels. These included the use of a script, of punch-marked coins in exchange transactions and the projection of a new ideology, intended to pursue new precepts.

  In the typologies of states, kingdoms differ from empires. Kingdoms tend to draw the maximum profit from existing resources and therefore do not 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. An imperial system is not static and has continually to adjust to demands and resources. Although they rarely succeed, imperial systems attempt to erase variation in favour of homogeneity. The variations are cultural and economic. Cultural homogeneity is often sought by propagating a new ideology, in this case the dhamma of Ashoka. Not every part of the empire has the same resources, nor is their utilization identical, therefore some degree of economic restructuring also becomes necessary. The restructuring tends to be limited to those resources thought to have the maximum potential. The restructuring in the Mauryan Empire was attempted through both the extension of agriculture, together with mobility of labour 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 resources are garnered through administration.

  The empire was founded by Chandragupta Maurya, who succeeded to the Nanda throne in c. 321 BC. He was then a young man and is thought to have been the protegfe of the brahman Kautilya, who was his guide and mentor both in acquiring a throne and in keeping it. This is suggested by a range of stories that relate his rise to power, particularly from Buddhist and Jaina texts, as well as by the play Mudrarakshasa by Vishakhadatta, which, although written many centuries later, still supports this tradition. The origins and caste status of the Maurya family vary from text to text. Thus Buddhist texts speak of them as a branch of the kshatriya Moriya clan associated with the Shakyas, presumably to give the family a higher status; but brahmanical sources imply that they were shudras and heretics, presumably because each king was patron to a heterodox sect. Predictably, the family has also been associated with the Nandas. The Puranas had described the Nandas as shudras, with the ambiguous statement that in contrast to the kshatriya heroes of the solar and lunar lineages the successor dynasties would be of shudra origin. 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.

  The young Maurya and his supporters were inferior in armed strength to the Nandas, and it was here that strategy came in useful. The acquisition of the throne of Magadha was, according to some accounts, the first step: Other stories suggest that Chandragupta began by harassing the outlying areas of the Nanda kingdom, gradually moving towards the centre: this strategy was based, we are told, on the moral drawn from the fact that the young Emperor-to-be saw a woman scolding her child for eating from the centre of a dish, since the centre was bound to be much hotter than the sides. Once the Ganges Plain was under his control, Chandragupta moved to the north-west to exploit the power vacuum created by Alexander’s departure. These areas fell to him rapidly, until he reached the Indus. Here he paused, as the Greek Seleucus Nicator – the successor to Alexander – had fortified his hold on the area. Chandragupta moved to central India for a while and occupied the region north of the River Narmada. But 305 BC saw him back in the north-west, involved in a campaign against Seleucus, in which Chandragupta seems to have been successful, judging by the terms of the treaty of 303 BC.

  Some Seleucid territories that today would cover eastern Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Makran were ceded to the Maurya. With this, the rout
es and nodal points of the north-west region shifted from Persian-Hellenistic to Mauryan control, a shift from one to the other of the major states of Iran and northern India becoming a pattern in the history of the region. Given this historical reality, the notion of some dynasties being ‘foreign’ would possibly have been unfamiliar to the people of the north-west, who were themselves of varying cultures. In return for the territory ceded, Seleucus obtained 500 elephants, a belief in their effectiveness in campaigns being axiomatic in Hellenistic military strategy. There was also an epigammia – a marriage agreement – which has been interpreted as a possible marriage alliance between the two royal families. But it could also have referred to the legalizing of marriages between Hellenistic Greeks and Indians living in the cities or as part of the garrison settlements in eastern Afghanistan. The territorial foundation of the Mauryan Empire had been laid, with Chandragupta controlling the Indus and Ganges Plains and the borderlands – a formidable empire by any standards.

  Campaigns in the ancient world were not merely a mechanism for acquiring more territory. They were frequently enterprises motivated by considerable diplomatic play, as well as a search for economic advantage. Diplomacy took the form of relationships with neighbours, and was later to provide the basis of the theory of mandala – the circle of diplomacy involving allies and enemies. Economic advantage was more visible, not only in the nature and location of the territory to be conquered and its resources, but also in the nature of the campaign. Large-scale campaigns against wealthy neighbours were a source of booty, as well as the taking of prisoners-of-war who could be used as labour. Campaigns have therefore been more than matters of military concern. The campaign against the Seleucids was to wrest Gandhara from them, as it had yielded impressive revenues since the time it was part of the Achaemenid Empire. It was also linked to the land routes to west Asia. The acquisition of central India meant access to the peninsula, another area with resources as yet untapped by northern powers.