The Penguin History of Early India

by Romila Thapar

  Despite the campaign, there was considerable contact of a friendly and inquisitive nature between the Mauryas and the Seleucids. Chandragupta is referred to as Sandrocottos in later accounts and is said to have met Alexander as a young man. In the eighteenth century William Jones identified Sandrocottos with Chandragupta, which provided a clue to Mauryan chronology. It is possible that as a result of the marriage alliance one of the daughters of Seleucus came to the Mauryan court at Pataliputra, in which case a number of Greek women would have accompanied her. An exchange of envoys between the Mauryas and the Seleucids, and with the Hellenistic states further west, was initiated, accompanied by an exchange of gifts (which included potent aphrodisiacs!). Pataliputra welcomed visitors and the city administration had a special committee to look after their welfare.

  Seleucus’s envoy, Megasthenes, is said to have spent time in India and left an account entitled Indica. Much of this account could have been gathered from conversations and travellers’ tales, rather than from personal knowledge, and some of his contemporaries doubted that he spent time at Pataliputra. Unfortunately, the original account has been lost and what survive are paraphrases in the writings of later authors such as Diodorus, Strabo and Arrian. That these later authors were reformulating the original text is possible as there are some points of disagreement among the three. The Hellenistic states were all seeking historians to give them legitimacy and to describe their governance. Megasthenes was the choice of the Seleucids. His account of Mauryan India can be better appreciated if seen in the context of the discussion on Hellenistic states by other writers.

  The Jaina tradition claims that towards the end of his life Chandragupta, by now an ardent Jaina, abdicated in favour of his son Bindusara and became an ascetic. Together with one of the better-known Jaina elders, Bhadrabahu, and other monks he went to south India, and there he ended his life by regulated slow starvation in the orthodox Jaina manner. A site close to the Jaina centre of Shravana Belgola in Karnataka is associated by local tradition with this story.

  Bindusara succeeded in about 297 BC. To the Greeks, Bindusara was known as Amitrochates – perhaps a Greek transcription of the Sanskrit amitraghata, the destroyer of foes. Apparently he was a man of wide interests and tastes, and it is said that he asked the Greek King Antiochus I to send him some sweet wine, dried figs and a sophist. Buddhist tradition associates him with an interest in the Ajivika sect. A Tibetan history of Buddhism, written many centuries later, attributes to him the conquest of ‘the land between the two seas’ – presumably the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. This would suggest that Bindusara campaigned in the Deccan, extending Mauryan control as far south as Karnataka. The recent discovery of Ashokan edicts at Sannathi in Karnataka, similar to those found at Kalinga in Orissa and issued after the Kalinga campaign, raises the question of whether this region was conquered later by Ashoka, rather than by his father Bindusara; or were these edicts located at this site by mistake? Early Tamil poets of south India speak of Mauryan chariots thundering across the land, their white pennants brilliant in the sunshine. Yet there appeared to have been friendly relations with the chiefdoms of the far south. At the time of Bindusara’s death in c. 272 BC, a large part of the subcontinent had come under Mauryan suzerainty. One area that was hostile, possibly interfering with Mauryan commerce to the peninsula and south India, was Kalinga on the east coast (Orissa). Its conquest was left to Bindusara’s son Ashoka, whose campaign in Kalinga was more than just an event of military significance.

  Until about a hundred years ago in India, Ashoka was merely one of the many kings mentioned in the Mauryan dynastic list included in the Puranas. Elsewhere in the Buddhist tradition he was referred to as a chakravartin/cakkavatti, a universal monarch, but this tradition had become extinct in India after the decline of Buddhism. However, in 1837, James Prinsep deciphered an inscription written in the earliest Indian script since the Harappan, brahmi. There were many inscriptions in which the King referred to himself as Devanampiya Piyadassi (the beloved of the gods, Piyadassi). The name did not tally with any mentioned in the dynastic lists, although it was mentioned in the Buddhist chronicles of Sri Lanka. Slowly the clues were put together but the final confirmation came in 1915, with the discovery of yet another version of the edicts in which the King calls himself Devanampiya Ashoka.

  The edicts of Ashoka, located as inscriptions in various parts of his empire, acquaint us not only with the personality of the King but also with the events of his reign and above all his policies as a ruler. As statements of his personal concerns they are remarkable documents, vividly capturing the ambience of his time. This allows glimpses of something other than the conventional limitations of official documents. The edicts do in fact ‘speak’ of his concerns, both as a human being and a statesman. Their almost conversational style brings to life the personality of the King.

  The edicts of the earlier half of his reign were inscribed on rock surfaces wherever these were conveniently located, and are therefore referred to as the Minor and Major Rock Edicts. These were distributed widely throughout the empire especially in areas of permanent settlement and concentrations of people. In the latter part of his reign his edicts were inscribed on well-polished sandstone monolithic pillars, each surmounted with a finely sculpted animal capital, and these have come to be known as the Pillar Edicts. The stone was quarried from sites at Chunar near Varanasi and would have involved much technological expertise in cutting and engraving. The Pillar Edicts are confined to the Ganges Plain, probably because they were transponed by river. The area coincides with the heartland of the empire.

  Ashokan inscriptions continue to be found and there is always anticipation regarding information that a new edict may bring. Even where the text is the same as that of earlier ones, the significance of the location adds to our information on Mauryan history. Translations or versions in Greek or Aramaic of the Ashokan edicts, intended for the Greek-and Aramaic-speaking people on the north-western borders, have been helpful in clarifying the meaning of those Prakrit terms that are ambiguous or controversial. Thus dhamma was rendered by some scholars as the teaching of the Buddha and by others as a more general concern for ethical behaviour. Its translation into Greek as eusebeia would tend to support the second meaning. There is interestingly no reference to the teachings of the Buddha in the Greek and Aramaic versions. This might have been expected if their intention was to propagate Buddhism. What is equally fascinating is that some concepts in these edicts are drawn from the philosophical discourse in that language. Thus the edicts in Aramaic are better understood if read in the context of some Zoroastrian concepts. At a more mundane level, the Greek version of the Minor Rock Edict clarifies the date as being in expired regnal years, which is helpful to chronological reconstruction.

  Ashoka’s experience as an administrator began with his being the governor at Taxila and at Ujjain, both cities handling commercial activities. His sojourn in Taxila is described in texts associated with the later northern Buddhist tradition. These write of his bid for the throne on the death-bed of his father, a bid encouraged by some of the more powerful ministers. His stay at Ujjain is described in the Sri Lankan chronicles of the southern Buddhist tradition. They refer to his love for the beautiful daughter of a merchant, a devout Buddhist and the mother of his son Mahinda who is said to have introduced Buddhism to Sri Lanka.

  There continues to be a controversy as to whether Ashoka succeeded his father immediately on the latter’s death or whether there was a four-year interregnum involving a struggle for the throne among the brothers. Of the events of Ashoka’s reign, the most frequently referred to by modern historians has been his conversion to Buddhism. This was linked to the famous campaign in Kalinga. In about 260 BC Ashoka campaigned against the Kalingans and routed them. Presumably the campaign was to obtain resources from Kalinga; to safeguard the routes of the profitable Mauryan trade with the peninsula that went past the eastern coast; or to chastize the Kalingans for having broken away from Magadhan
control, if the canal built by the Nandas was a symbol of control. The destruction caused by the war filled the King with remorse. His earlier perfunctory interest in Buddhist teaching was rekindled and this time it became a central pursuit. It has been stated in the past that he was dramatically converted to Buddhism immediately after the battle, with its attendant horrors. But his was not an overnight conversion; he states in one of his inscriptions that only after a period of two and a half years did he become a zealous devotee of Buddhism. It eventually led him to endorse non-violence and consequently to forswear war as a means of conquest. Yet, curiously, he refrained from engraving his confession of remorse at any location in Kalinga. This was replaced by the Separate Edicts (as they have come to be called), which are instructions to his officers, emphasizing the need for good administration.

  Nevertheless his statement on the campaign is indeed extraordinary, coming from a conqueror, setting him apart as a rare human being. He states:

  When he had been consecrated eight years the Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, conquered Kalinga. A hundred and fifty thousand people were deported, a hundred thousand were killed and many times that number perished. Afterwards, now that Kalinga was annexed, the Beloved of the Gods very earnestly practised Dhamma, desired Dhamma and taught Dhamma. On conquering Kalinga the Beloved of the Gods felt remorse, for when an independent country is conquered the slaughter, death and deportation of the people is extremely grievous to the Beloved of the Gods and weighs heavily on his mind. What is even more deplorable to the Beloved of the Gods, is that those who dwell there, whether brahmans, shramans, or those of other sects, or householders who show obedience to their superiors, obedience to mother and father, obedience to their teachers and behave well and devotedly towards their friends, acquaintances, colleagues, relatives, slaves and servants – all suffer violence, murder and separation from their loved ones. Even those who are fortunate to have escaped and whose love is undiminished suffer from the misfortunes of their friends, acquaintances, colleagues and relatives. This participation of all men in suffering weighs heavily on the mind of the Beloved of the Gods.

  Major Rock Edict XIII, tr. R. Thapar,

  Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, pp. 255-6

  It was during Ashoka’s reign that the Buddhist Sangha underwent further reorganization, with the meeting of the Third Buddhist Council at Pataliputra in c. 250 BC. The Theravada sect claimed that it represented the true teaching of the Buddha, a claim that enabled it to become a dominant sect in the southern tradition and allowed it to exclude those regarded as dissidents. Theravada Buddhist sources have naturally tried to associate Ashoka with this important event in order to give it greater legitimacy. Ashoka does not mention it directly in any of his inscriptions, but there is a possibly oblique reference in an inscription addressed to the Buddhist Sangha, stating that dissident monks and nuns are to be expelled. The exclusion of dissidents is a recognized pattern in sectarian contestations.

  The decision to send missionaries to various parts of the subcontinent and even further, and to make Buddhism an actively proselytizing religion, appears to have been taken at this Council, leading eventually to the propagation of Buddhism all over Asia by the turn of the Christian era. This heightened sense of mission was in some ways more characteristic of Buddhism than of the other religions that evolved in India. Conversion as a religious act was partially determined by links between caste and religion.Buddhism did not make caste a barrier to those who wished to be either Buddhist monks or lay followers. This was a contrast to Vedic Brahmanism where caste was crucial to participation in, and sometimes even defined, various forms of worship. Buddhism was unable to negate caste as a form of stratification, which in later times other non-caste religions such as Christianity and Islam also failed to do.

  Communications with the world beyond the subcontinent were once again being developed. Most of the contacts were with countries to the west. The east was comparatively unexplored. Ashoka’s missions to the Hellenistic kingdoms, and the enhancement of trade with these, familiarized the Hellenistic world with Indian life and provoked an interest in things Indian. Exchanges of envoys are on record. The closest of these kingdoms was that of the Seleucids whose border was contiguous with the Mauryan. The north-western provinces, having once been part of the Achaemenid empire, retained many Persian features. It is not surprising that the capitals of the Ashokan pillars bear a remarkable similarity to those at Persepolis, and the idea of engraving inscriptions on appropriately located rocks may have come to Ashoka after hearing about those of Darius. However, the content of the inscriptions and their locations are very different from those of the Achaemenids.

  Ashoka mentions various contemporaries in the world to the west with whom he exchanged missions, diplomatic and other. A passage in one of his inscriptions reads, ‘where reigns the Greek King named Amtiyoga and beyond the realm of that Amtiyoga in the lands of the four kings Tulamaya, Antekina, Maka, and Alikyashudala’. These have been identified as Antiochus II Theos of Syria (260-246 BC), the grandson of Seleucus Nicator; Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-247 BC); Antigonus Gonatus of Macedonia (276-239 BC); Magas of Cyrene; and Alexander of Epirus. This passage is the bedrock of the chronology of Indian history, interlocking the date of the Mauryas with Hellenistic kings. The choice of these kings was not arbitrary since each had some kinship connection with his neighbour.

  The Ashokan inscriptions were generally in the local script. Other than the ones composed in Greek and Aramaic, they were in the Prakrit language. Thus, those found in the north-west, in the region near Peshawar, are in the kharoshthi script which was derived from Aramaic used in Iran. At the extreme north-west of the empire, near modern Kandahar, the inscriptions are in Greek and Aramaic. Elsewhere in India they are in the brahmi script. Whereas in the north-west a concession was made to both the local language and script, in the southern part of the peninsula where people did not yet speak Prakrit – the more widely used language being Tamil – such a concession was not made. Perhaps this was because Tamil did not have a script at that time, the earliest script being an adaptation of brahmi; or perhaps also because these were regions which were still chiefdoms and therefore were not given the same status as the kingdoms of the north-west. The extensive use of Prakrit would suggest that the edicts encouraged an element of cultural uniformity in the empire quite apart from the geographically limited use of other languages, but regional linguistic variants are common in the Prakrit of the inscriptions. The origin of the brahmi script remains a source of controversy. Some point to its similarities with the southern Semitic script and argue that trade connections led to its evolution; others maintain that it is indigenous and was invented to assist in the administration of a state. The close link between kharoshthi and brahmi could suggest that the former influenced the latter, since engravers with knowledge of kharoshthi were sometimes used to engrave the inscriptions in brahmi as far south as in Karnataka.

  Tibetan sources maintain that the kingdom of Khotan in central Asia was jointly founded by Indian and Chinese political exiles, and that Ashoka actually visited Khotan. This sounds improbable in view of the hazardous terrain encountered in making such a journey. Contacts with China are difficult to determine with any precision at this date. The central Asian route may have been known but not used regularly. The mountains of the north-east were on the borders of areas that came to be part of the Chinese domain, but the alignment of these mountains in a north-south direction may have created an effective barrier to frequent communication. One of Ashoka’s daughters is said to have married a nobleman from Nepal, thus setting up a connection. The eastern Ganges region was included in the location of Vanga (Bengal). Urban centres and ports in the delta such as Chandraketugarh and Tamralipti/Tamluk became centres of trade, and ships heading for the eastern coast and south India began their voyage from the ports of the delta. On the western coast the major ports were Bhrigukaccha (the Barygaza of Greek texts) and Sopara near Mumbai.
/>
  The Mauryan capital, Pataliputra, was linked to the northern route – the uttarapatha – of earlier times, which ran along the foothills of the Himalaya and then probably along the Gandak. The capital was also at a nodal point, facilitating control over the Ganges system. The Ganges Plain, apart from river routes, was connected with the main commercial centres. Pliny, writing in the post-Mauryan period, mentions a royal highway which followed the route from Taxila to Pataliputra, with a possible extension to Tamralipti. Routes through the peninsula are indicated by the location of the edicts at strategic points – Sahasram, Panguraria (near Hoshangabad), Sannathi. The sites of the inscriptions in southern Karnataka could also have been reached by sea along the eastern coast to the delta of the Krishna River and then inland.

  The extent and influence of Mauryan power in the peninsula can be gauged from the location of Ashoka’s inscriptions, which are not found beyond southern Karnataka. Ashoka mentions the people of the south with whom he was on friendly terms – the Cholas, Pandyas, Satiyaputras and Keralaputras, as far as Tamraparni (Sri Lanka), and there is no indication that he attempted to conquer them. The resources of the far south seem not to have been so visible as they were to become later. The chiefdoms, in turn, having had or heard of the experience of Mauryan arms from earlier campaigns, probably preferred to give pledges of friendship and remain at peace.

  Mauryan relations with Sri Lanka are described as particularly close in the chronicles of the island – the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa. Not only was the first Buddhist missionary to the island said to be Ashoka’s son Mahinda, but the then King, Tissa, appears to have modelled himself on Ashoka. There were frequent exchanges of gifts and envoys. The Indian Emperor gifted a branch of the original bodhi tree under which the Buddha had gained enlightenment and which, it is claimed, survived in Sri Lanka, although the parent tree in India was cut down in later centuries by an anti-Buddhist fanatic.