What is an empire? Can it be applied in the case of the Mauryas? Explain.

 An empire is a sovereign state consisting of several territories and peoples subject to a single ruling authority, often an emperor. States can be empires either by narrow definition through having an emperor and being named as such, or by broad definition as stated above in being an aggregated realm under the rule of a supreme authority.

An empire can be made solely of contiguous territories, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Russian Empire, or include territories which are far remote from the 'home' country of the empire, such as a colonial empire. Aside from the more formal usage, the word empire can also refer colloquially to a large-scale business enterprise (e.g. a transnational corporation), a political organisation controlled by a single individual (a political boss), or a group (political bosses). The concept of empire is associated with other such concepts as imperialism, colonialism, and globalization, with imperialism referring to the creation and maintenance of unequal relationships between nations and not necessarily the policy of a state headed by an emperor or empress. Empire is often used as a term to describe displeasure to overpowering situations.

 

There are two main ways to establish and maintain an imperial political structure: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force or (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power. The former method provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet limits further expansion because it absorbs military forces to fixed garrisons. The latter method provides less tribute and indirect control, but avails military forces for further expansion. Territorial empires (e.g. the Mongol Empire and Median Empire) tend to be contiguous areas. The term, on occasion, has been applied to maritime republics or thalassocracies (e.g. the Athenian and British empires) with looser structures and more scattered territories, often consisting of many islands and other forms of possessions which required the creation and maintenance of a powerful navy. Empires such the Holy Roman Empire also came together by electing the emperor with votes from member realms through the Imperial election.

The foundation of the Mauryan empire was laid by Chandragupta Maurya, who overthrew the Nanda dynasty in 321/324 BCE. According to Puranas, the Mauryan rule lasted for 137 years, i.e., the Mauryas probably ruled till 187/185 BCE. Even if one takes these dates as approximate, one can conclude that the Mauryan period lasted from around the late fourth century BCE to the first quarter of the second century BCE.

 

1) Chandragupta Maurya

Details about Chandragupta’s ancestry and caste status differ from text to text. The Mudrarakshasa describes him as being of low social origin. Dhundiraja, a commentator on the Vishnu Purana, states that Chandragupta was a Nanda scion, son of the Nanda king Sarvarthasiddhi with Mura, the daughter of a hunter. It is suggested that as the son of Mura, Chandragupta became known as Maurya, which went on to become the dynastic epithet. The 12th century text Parishishtaparvan written by Jaina author, Hemachandra, identifies Chandragupta as the grandson of the chief of peacock-tamers’ clan (mayura-poshakas). Similarly, Greek accounts of Justin and Plutarch categorically state that Sandrocottus (i.e., Chandragupta) did not enjoy any royal descent. On the other hand, the Buddhist texts such as the Digha Nikaya, Mahavamsa, and Divyavadana trace the Mauryan ancestry to a khattiya (Pali for kshatriya) clan called the Moriyas, who ruled at Pipphalivana. This stress on his noble birth was to legitimize his ascension to the throne.

What we do know from Greek accounts is that soon after Alexander’s dispersal from India, Sandrocottus established a new dynasty and conquered a vast area. Greek sources also mention a treaty signed between Seleucus Nikator and Chandragupta Maurya. According to the terms of this treaty, Seleucus ceded to The Mauryan ‘Empire’ Chandragupta the territories of Arachosia (the Kandahar area of south-east Afghanistan), Gedrosia (south Baluchistan), and Paropomisadai (area between Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent). Chandragupta is said to have reciprocated by gifting 500 war elephants to Seleucus. Alongside the treaty, the general rights of intermarriage between the Greeks and the Indians was also acknowledged. Chandragupta not only established control over the north-west but also the Ganga plains, western India and the Deccan. Kerala, Tamil Nadu and parts of north-east India were out of this ambit.

 

Graeco-Roman sources also speak highly of the trans-Vidhyan military exploits of Sandracottus. Plutarch mentions that Sandracottus over-ran and subdued the whole of ‘India’ with an army of 600,000 men. However, it remains unclear what these writers exactly mean by ‘India’.

Chandragupta’s reign is supposed to have lasted nearly 24 years

 

2) Bindusara

Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Bindusara, who ruled between 297 and 273 BCE. The Mahabhashya refers to Chandragupta’s successor as Amitraghata, which literary means ‘a slayer of enemies’. On the other hand, Greek accounts such as those of Athenaios and Strabo knew him as Amitrokhates or Alitrokhates. These names were probably royal epithets, which further indicate his military prowess. To Bindusara’s credit, he succeeded in keeping the vast empire he had inherited, intact. The Divyavadana speaks of a revolt in Taxila during Bindusara’s region. According to Divyavadana the subjects of Taxila were dissatisfied with rogue administrators (dushtamatyas; amatyas meaning ministers).

 

Under Bindusara’s reign, diplomatic relations with Greek rulers of West Asia continued. Bindusara is described as having requested the Syrian king, Antiochus I, to send him fine wine, figs and a sophist (philosopher). To this, Antiochus replied that while he would definitely send across the wine and figs, Greek laws do not permit the sale and purchase of sophists.

 

3) Ashoka

For a long time till 1837, not much was known about Ashoka. In that year James Princep deciphered a Brahmi inscription referring to a king called Devanampiya Piyadasi (Beloved of the Gods). Further, study of Mahavamsa made it clear that this epithet referred to Ashoka Maurya.

 

Ashoka succeeded his father Bindusara upon his death in 273 BCE. The Asokavadana says that when he was born, his mother Subhadrangi exclaimed ‘I am now without sorrow’ and that is how he came to be named Ashoka (the one who is without sorrow). During his father’s reign, he was appointed as the Viceroy of Taxila and also Ujjain. It is believed that he was not the crown prince (yuvaraja). He was engaged in a struggle with his brothers for the throne.

 

Ashoka, like Bindusara before him, inherited a large part of the subcontinent as empire. The only significant area not under his suzerainty was Kalinga (modern day Odisha). It was in 260 BCE that Kalinga was finally brought under Mauryan control as a result of a fierce campaign led by Ashoka. Strategically Kalinga was important. It was rich in forest resources and also lay on the Mauryan trade route with the peninsula through the east coast. However, the campaign itself was very destructive, with thousands killed, and many more captured as prisoners. The large-scale destruction is said to have filled king Ashoka with remorse. In Rock Edict XIII, Ashoka, however, states that such death and destruction is inevitable when an unconquered area is conquered. He wished that his successors would avoid any more bloodshed. Despite being remorseful, Ashoka issued a warning to the troublesome forest people, reminding them that even in his repentance, he still had the power to punish. It is also noteworthy that Ashoka refrained from engraving his remorse at any location in Kalinga, where the Rock Edict XIII was in fact replaced by the Separate Edicts. The Separate Edicts contain instructions to his officers and emphasize the value of good administration.

 

The victory in Kalinga war marked the official replacement of the war-drum (bherighosha) with the sound of Dhamma (dhammaghosha). The remorse over the Kalinga war sparked his interest in Buddhism and started his journey of  conversion. It was not however an overnight conversion, as Ashoka’s sympathy towards Buddhism had been brewing. He himself states in Minor Rock Edict I that he has been a lay devotee for two and a half years, indicating that he turned towards the Buddha’s teaching only gradually and not suddenly.

 

The Mauryan empire declined rapidly after Ashoka. The Puranas mention the names of later Mauryan rulers and make it clear that the duration of their reigns was relatively very short. The empire soon became weak and fragmented and is said to have suffered an invasion by the Bactrian Greeks. The Mauryan dynasty came to an end with the last kind Brihadratha being killed by his own military commander Pushyamitra, who then established the Shunga dynasty in c.187 BCE.

 

Traditional viewpoints saw the Mauryan empire as a centralized bureaucratic empire. Such empires are characterized by powerful kings who through military exploits bring peace and cohesiveness to the kingdom. They are marked by the presence of allies, enemies, matrimonial relations, diplomatic alliances. Centralized bureaucratic empires are exploitative in nature with corresponding element of inequality among social classes. Romila Thapar’s earlier contention that the Mauryan empire was a uniform and centralized administered entity was modified by her in a later study. According to her, at the hub was the metropolitan state of Magadha, broadly an area of the distribution of the pillar edicts. This was the area of maximum centralized administration. Then there were the core areas, which were of strategic importance and agrarian and commercial potential. This second category was less under central control and was under the control of governors and senior officials. Gandhara, Raichur Doab, Southern Karnataka, Kalinga and Saurashtra were such core areas. The third category was those areas which were located at the peripheries. The economy of such regions was not restructured by the Mauryan State. Only the resources were tapped.

 

The Mauryan realm covered diverse ethnic groups, including the non-indigenous yavanas, as well as different linguist groups. This is corroborated from the fact that Ashoka’s edicts are found in at least three languages, Prakrit, Greek and Aramaic. Ashoka’s edicts also corroborate the presence of multiple religious beliefs and practices, including Buddhism, Jainism, Vedic and Brahmanical practices, Ajikivism and smaller cults.

The key difference between a kingdom and an empire is present in the fact that a kingdom draws maximum profit from existing resources. An empire on the other hand, makes considerable effort in restructuring resources to get maximum revenue. The financial needs of administering an empire are considerable. In the Mauryan empire, this restructuring took place through the extension of agriculture, and introduction of wide-reaching commercial exchange (Thapar, 2002). Moreover, the governance of such a vast realm was aided through multiple foci of administration. Thus, regional variations and diversities were accommodated by the Mauryan rulers into their polity. While an empire accommodates and integrates these diversities on the one hand, at the same time, it also favours homogeneity as a binding force. Thus, imperial systems make attempts to draw together the ends of empire, to encourage foremost the movement of peoples and goods (Thapar, 2002). This includes the use of script, punch-marked coins in exchange transactions and the projection of a new ideology that sets new precepts. In the case of Mauryan empire, the State attempted cultural homogeneity through the introduction of the policy of Dhamma.

Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)