Hubbry Logo
Chandragupta MauryaChandragupta MauryaMain
Open search
Chandragupta Maurya
Community hub
Chandragupta Maurya
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Chandragupta Maurya
Chandragupta Maurya
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Possible extent of Nanda Empire, c. 325 BCE.
There are no contemporary records of Chandragupta's military conquests and the reach of his empire. The extent is deduced from Greek and Roman historians and religious Indian texts, all written centuries after his death. Based on these, Chandragupta's empire was extensive,[2][5][6] here conceptualized at c. 303 BCE as a network of core areas and trade- and communication-networks.[a][b]
Traditional representation of extent of Chandragupta Maurya's empire c. 303 BCE, as a solid mass of territory.[c][b] Some maps include all of Gedrosia, e.g., south-east Iran.

Chandragupta Maurya[d] (reigned c. 320 BCE[e] – c. 298 BCE)[f] was the founder and the first emperor of the Maurya Empire, based in Magadha (present-day Bihar) in the Indian subcontinent.

His rise to power began in the period of unrest and local warfare that arose after Alexander the Great's Indian campaign and early death in 323 BCE, although the exact chronology and sequence of events remains subject to debate among historians. He started a war against the unpopular Nanda dynasty in Magadha on the Ganges Valley,[7] defeated them and established his own dynasty. In addition, he raised an army to resist the Greeks,[8][9][10][g] defeated them, and took control of the eastern Indus Valley.[11] His conquest of Magadha is generally dated to c. 322–319 BCE,[12][13] and his expansion to Punjab subsequently at c. 317–312 BCE,[h] but some scholars have speculated that he might have initially consolidated his power base in Punjab, before conquering Magadha;[h] an alternative chronology places these events all in the period c. 311–305 BCE.[14][e] According to the play Mudrarakshasa, Chandragupta was assisted by his mentor Chanakya, who later became his minister. He expanded his reach subsequently into parts of the western Indus Valley[i] and possibly[15] eastern Afghanistan[b] through a dynastic marriage alliance with Seleucus I Nicator c. 305–303 BCE.[11] His empire also included Gujarat[j] and a geographically extensive network of cities and trade-routes.[a][b]

There are no historical facts about Chandragupta's origins and early life, only legends, while the narrative of his reign is mainly deduced from a few fragments in Greek and Roman sources, and a few Indian religious texts, all written centuries after his death. The prevailing levels of technology and infrastructure limited the extent of Chandragupta's rule,[k] and the administration was decentralised, with provinces and local governments,[16][l] and large autonomous regions within its limits.[m] Chandragupta's reign, and the Maurya Empire, which reached its peak under his grandson Ashoka the Great,[n] began an era of economic prosperity, reforms, infrastructure expansions. Buddhism, Jainism and Ājīvika prevailed over the non-Maghadian Vedic and Brahmanistic traditions,[17] initiating, under Ashoka, the expansion of Buddhism, and the synthesis of Brahmanic and non-Brahmanic religious traditions which converged in Hinduism. His legend still inspires visions of an undivided Indian nation.

Historical sources

[edit]

Chandragupta's confrontations with the Greeks and the Nanda king are shortly referred to in a few passages in Greek-Roman sources from the 1st century BCE to the 2nd century CE. Impressions of India at that time are given by a number of other Greek sources. He is further mentioned in Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jain religious texts and legends, which give impressions of his later reception; they significantly vary in detail.[18] According to Mookerji, the main sources on Chandragupta and his time, in chronological order are:[19]

  • Greek sources by three companions of Alexander, namely Nearchus, Onesicritus, and Aristobulus of Cassandreia, who write about Alexander and do not mention Chandragupta;
  • The Greek ambassador Megasthanes, a contemporary of Chandragupta, whose works are lost, but fragments are preserved in the works of other authors, namely Greco-Roman authors Strabo (64 BCE–19 CE), Diodorus (died c. 36 BCE, wrote about India), Arrian (c. 130–172 CE, wrote about India), Pliny the Elder (1st cent. CE, wrote about India), Plutarch (c. 45–125 CE), and Justin (2nd cent. CE). According to Mookerji, without these sources this period would be "a most obscure chapter of Indian history."[20]
  • The Brahmanical Puranas (Gupta-times), religious texts which viewed the Nandas and Mauryas as illegitimate rulers, because of their shudra background;
  • Later Brahmanical narratives include legends in Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa (4th–8th cent), Somadeva's Kathasaritsagara (11th cent.) and Kshemendra's Brihatkathamanjari (11th ). Mookerji includes the Arthasastra as a source, a text now dated to the 1st–3rd century CE, and attributed to Chanakya during Gupta-times.[21]
  • The earliest Buddhist sources are dated to the fourth-century CE or after, including the Sri Lankan Pali texts Dipavamsa (Rajavamsa section), Mahavamsa, Mahavamsa tika and Mahabodhivamsa.
  • 7th to 10th century Jain inscriptions at Shravanabelgola; these are disputed by scholars as well as the Svetambara Jain tradition.[22][23] The second Digambara text interpreted to be mentioning the Maurya emperor is dated to about the 10th-century such as in the Brhatkathakosa of Harisena (Jain monk), while the complete Jain legend about Chandragupta is found in the 12th-century Parisishtaparvan by Hemachandra.

The Greek and Roman texts do not mention Chandragupta directly, except for a second-century text written by the Roman historian Justin. They predominantly describe India, or mention the last Nanda emperor, who usurped the throne of the king before him (Curtis, Diodorus, Plutarch).[24] Justin states that Chandragupta was of humble origin, and includes stories of miraculous legends associated with him, such as a wild elephant appearing and submitting itself to him as a ride to him before a battle. Justin's text states that Chandragupta "achieved [India's] freedom, and "aspired to royalty by all men," as he offended Nanda and was ordered to death, but saved himself "by a speedy flight."[25]

Plutarch states that Chandragupta, as a young man, saw Alexander the Great.[26] He is described as a great king, but not as great in power and influence as Porus in northwestern India or Agrammes (Dhana Nanda) in eastern India.[27]

The Brahmanical Puranic texts do not discuss the details of Chandragupta's ancestry, but rather cover the ancestry of the last Nanda king, and the restoration of just rule by Kautilya[28] (Chanakya; the identification with Kautilya, the author of the Arthashastra, dates from a later period[21]). The Nanda king is described to be cruel, against dharma and shastras, and born out of an illicit relationship followed by a coup.[28] According to Mookerji, the Arthasastra refers to the Nanda rule as against the spiritual, cultural, and military interests of the country, a period where intrigue and vice multiplied.[28] In a later addition,[21] the Arthasastra states that the text was written by him who returned dharma, nurtured diversity of views, and ruled virtuously that kindled love among the subjects for his rule,[28] an insertion linking the Guptas to the Mauryans.[21]

Buddhist texts such as Mahavamsa describe Chandragupta to be of Kshatriya origin.[29] These sources, written about seven centuries after his dynasty ended, state that both Chandragupta and his grandson Ashoka – a patron of Buddhism – were Moriyas, a branch of Gautama Buddha's Shakya noble family.[30] These Buddhist sources attempt to link the dynasty of their patron Ashoka directly to the Buddha.[31] The sources claim that the family branched off to escape persecution from a King of Kosala and Chandragupta's ancestors moved into a secluded Himalayan kingdom known for its peacocks. The Buddhist sources explain the epithet maurya comes from these peacocks, or Mora in Pali (Sanskrit: Mayura).[30][2] The Buddhist texts are inconsistent; some offer other legends to explain his epithet. For example, they mention a city named "Moriya-nagara" where all buildings were made of bricks colored like the peacock's neck.[32] The Maha-bodhi-vasa states he hailed from Moriya-nagara, while the Digha-Nikaya states he came from the Maurya clan of Pipphalivana.[29] The Buddhist sources also mention that "Brahmin Chanakya" was his counselor and with whose support Chandragupta became the king at Patliputra.[32] He has also been variously identified with Shashigupta (which has same etymology as of Chandragupta) of Paropamisadae on the account of same life events.[33]

7th-century Bhadrabahu inscription at Shravanabelagola (Sanskrit, Purvahale Kannada script). This is the oldest inscription at the site, and it mentions Bhadrabahu and Prabhacandra. Lewis Rice and Digambara Jains interpret Prabhacandra to be Chandragupta Maurya, while others such as J F Fleet, V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, and Svetambara Jains state this interpretation is wrong.[34][22][23]

The 12th-century Digambara text Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandra is the main and earliest Jain source of the complete legend of Chandragupta. It was written nearly 1,400 years after Chandragupta's death. Canto 8, verses 170 to 469, describes the legend of Chandragupta and Chanakya's influence on him.[29][35] Other Digambara Jain sources state he moved to Karnataka after renouncing his kingdom and performed Sallekhana – the Jain religious ritual of peacefully welcoming death by fasting.[36][5] The earliest mention of Chandragupta's ritual death is found in Harisena's Brhatkathakosa, a Sanskrit text of stories about Digambara Jains. The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of Bhadrabahu and mentions Chandragupta in its 131st story.[37] However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta lived in and migrated from Ujjain – a kingdom (northwest Madhya Pradesh) about a thousand kilometers west of the Magadha and Patliputra (central Bihar). This has led to the proposal that Harisena's Chandragupta may be a later era, different person.[37][34][38]

Biographical information

[edit]

Date

[edit]

None of the ancient texts mention when Chandragupta was born. Plutarch claims that Chandragupta in his youth saw Alexander the Great during the latter's invasion of India (c. 326–325 BCE):

Androcottus [Chandragupta], when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth.[39]

Assuming the Plutarch account is true, Raychaudhuri proposed in 1923 that Chandragupta may have been born after 350 BCE.[40] There is also a passage of Justin's history which had been read as referring to a meeting between Chandragupta and Alexander. However, according to Thomas Trautmann, this was a due to mistranslation in early printed book, and the correct reading was Nandrum (Nanada king), rather than Alexandrum.

Some early printed editions of Justin's work wrongly mentioned "Alexandrum" instead of "Nandrum"; this error was corrected in philologist J. W. McCrindle's 1893 translation. In the 20th century, historians Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri and R. C. Majumdar believed "Alexandrum" to be correct reading, and theorized that Justin refers to a meeting between Chandragupta and Alexander the Great ("Alexandrum"). However, this is incorrect: research by historian Alfred von Gutschmid in the preceding century had clearly established that "Nandrum" is the correct reading supported by multiple manuscripts: only a single defective manuscript mentions "Alexandrum" in the margin.[41]

According to other Greco-Roman texts, Chandragupta attacked the Greek-Indian governors during a period of unrest and local warfare after Alexander's death (died c. 323 BCE), acquiring control of the eastern Indus Valley.[42] The chronology and dating of Chandragupta's activities in the Punjab is uncertain,[43] either before or after he took the Nanda-throne.[44] The defeat of the Greeks is dated by Mookerji at 323; Jansari dates the arrival of Chandragupta in the Punjab at c. 317, in line with the chronology of Greek history.[45][e]

The texts do not include the start or end year of Chandragupta's reign.[46] According to some Hindu and Buddhist texts, Chandragupta ruled for 24 years.[47] The Buddhist sources state Chandragupta Maurya ruled 162 years after the death of the Buddha.[48] However, the Buddha's birth and death vary by source and all these lead to a chronology that is significantly different from the Greco-Roman records. Similarly, Jain sources composed give different gaps between Mahavira's death and his accession.[48] As with the Buddha's death, the date of Mahavira's death itself is also a matter of debate, and the inconsistencies and lack of unanimity among the Jain authors cast doubt on Jain sources. This Digambara Jain chronology, also, is not reconcilable with the chronology implied in other Indian and non-Indian sources.[48]

Historians such as Irfan Habib and Vivekanand Jha assign Chandragupta's reign to c. 322–298 BCE.[49] Upinder Singh dates his rule from 324 or 321 BCE to 297 BCE.[4] Kristi Wiley states he reigned between 320 and 293 BCE.[22] Jansari, admitting that c.320/319 is the date conventionally accepted by most scholars,[h] follows Cribb in re-assessing Justin (XV section 4.12-22), who states that Chandragupta's became "'ruler of India' when Seleucus was 'laying the foundations' of his own empire." According to Jansari, "this reference appears to refer to the period c.311– c.308," implying that "Chandragupta gained power, and was possibly already the first Mauryan king, between c.311 and c.305 BCE."[50]

Chandragupta and Seleucus Nicator entered into a dynastic marriage-alliance at c. 305–303 BCE.

The circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death are also unclear and disputed.[34][22][23] According to Roy, Chandragupta's abdication of throne may be dated to c. 298 BCE, and his death between 297 and 293 BCE.[51]

Name

[edit]

Greek writer Phylarchus (c. third century BCE), who is quoted by Athenaeus, calls Chandragupta "Sandrokoptos". The later Greco-Roman writers Strabo, Arrian, and Justin (c. second century) call him "Sandrocottus".[52] In Greek and Latin accounts, Chandragupta is known as Sandrakottos (Greek: Σανδράκοττος) and Androcottus (Greek: Ανδροκόττος).[53][54]

British orientialist and philologist Sir William Jones (1746–1794) was the first to propose, in 1793, that Chandragupta Maurya known from the Sanskrit literature must be equivalent to the Indian king known as "Sandracottus" in Graeco-Roman historical sources. Jones' discovery "was of vital importance," states historian Sushma Jansari, because "it meant, for the first time, that Indian and Graeco-Roman history could be synchronised and dates assigned to this period of ancient Indian history." Consequently, Chandragupta's reign has been referred to as "the sheet anchor of Indian chronology."[55]

Titles

[edit]

The king's epithets mentioned in the Sanskrit play Mudrarakshasa include "Chanda-siri" (Chandra-shri), "Piadamsana" (Priya-darshana), and Vrishala.[52] Piadamsana is similar to Priyadasi, an epithet of his grandson Ashoka.[56] The word "Vrishala" is used in Indian epics and law books to refer to non-orthodox people. According to one theory, it may be derived from the Greek royal title Basileus, but there is no concrete evidence of this: the Indian sources apply it to several non-royals, especially wandering teachers and ascetics.[57]

Religion

[edit]

In contrast to the Jain legends which developed 900 years later,[58] contemporary Greek evidence states that Chandragupta did not give up performing the rites of sacrificing animals associated with Vedic Brahminism; he delighted in hunting and otherwise leading a life remote from the Jain practice of ahimsa or nonviolence towards living beings.[59][o]

Biography

[edit]

Historical background

[edit]
Late Vedic era map showing the boundaries of Āryāvarta with Janapadas in northern India. Beginning of Iron Age kingdoms in India—Kuru, Panchala, Kosala, Videha.

Around 350 BCE Magadha, ruled by the Nanda dynasty, emerged as the dominant power after a "process of internecine warfare" between the janapadas.[60]

Alexander the Great entered the Northwest Indian subcontinent in his Indian campaign, which he aborted in 325 BCE due to a mutiny caused by the prospect of facing another large empire, presumably the Nanda Empire, and before Chandragupta came into power. Alexander left India, and assigned the northwestern (Indus Valley) Indian subcontinent territories to Greek governors.[61][62] He died in 323 BCE in Babylon, whereafter war broke out between his generals.

Early life

[edit]

Family background

[edit]

There is no historical information on Chandragupta's youth. One medieval commentator states Chandragupta to be the son of one of the Nanda's wives with the name Mura.[28] Other narratives describe Mura as a concubine of the king.[63] Another Sanskrit dramatic text Mudrarakshasa uses the terms Vrishala and Kula-Hina (meaning - "not descending from a recognized clan or family") to describe Chandragupta.[64] The word Vrishala has two meanings: one is the son of a shudra; the other means the best of kings. A later commentator used the former interpretation to posit that Chandragupta had a Shudra background. However, historian Radha Kumud Mukherjee opposed this theory, and stated that the word should be interpreted as "the best of kings".[64] The same drama also refers to Chandragupta as someone of humble origin, like Justin.[64] According to the 11th-century texts of the Kashmiri Hindu tradition – Kathasaritsagara and Brihat-Katha-Manjari – the Nanda lineage was very short. Chandragupta was a son of Purva-Nanda, the older Nanda based in Ayodhya.[65][66][p] The common theme in the Hindu sources is that Chandragupta came from a humble background and with Chanakya, he emerged as a dharmic king loved by his subjects.[67]

Chanakya

[edit]
Chanakya
Chandragupta's guru was Chanakya, with whom he studied as a child and with whose counsel he built the Empire. This image is a 1915 attempt at depicting Chanakya.

Legends about Chanakya couple him to Chandragupta, acting as his mentor and spiritual teacher, complementing the image of a chakravartin.[q]

According to the Digambara legend by Hemachandra, Chanakya was a Jain layperson and a Brahmin. When Chanakya was born, Jain monks prophesied that Chanakya will one day grow up to help make someone an emperor and will be the power behind the throne.[7][35] Chanakya believed in the prophecy and fulfilled it by agreeing to help the daughter of a peacock-breeding community chief deliver a baby boy. In exchange, he asked the mother to give up the boy and let him adopt him at a later date.[29][35] The Jain Brahmin then went about making money through magic, and returned later to claim young Chandragupta,[35] whom he taught and trained. Together, they recruited soldiers and attacked the Nanda Empire. Eventually, they won and proclaimed Patliputra as their capital.[35]

The Buddhist and Hindu legends present different versions of how Chandragupta met Chanakya. Broadly, they mention young Chandragupta creating a mock game of a royal court that he and his shepherd friends played near Vinjha forest. Chanakya saw him give orders to the others, bought him from the hunter, and adopted Chandragupta.[68] Chanakya taught and admitted him in Taxila to study the Vedas, military arts, law, and other shastras.[68][69]

According to the Buddhist legend, Chanakya was chosen as president of the samgha which administered the Danasala, a charity foundation, but was dismissed by Dhana Nanda due to his ugliness and manners. Chanaky cursed the king, fled Pataliputra, and then met Chandragupta.[70]

Rise to power

[edit]

Unrest and warfare in the Punjab

[edit]

The Roman historian Justin (2nd Century CE) states, in Epit. 15.4.12-13, that after Alexander's death, Greek governors in India were assassinated, liberating the people of Greek rule. This revolt led by Chandragupta, who in turn established an oppressive regime himself "after taking the throne":[71][g]

India, after the death of Alexander, had assassinated his prefects, as if shaking the burden of servitude. The author of this liberation was Sandracottos [Chandragupta], but he had transformed liberation in servitude after victory, since, after taking the throne, he himself oppressed the very people he has liberated from foreign domination."

— Junianus Justinus, Histoires Philippiques Liber, XV.4.12-13 [72]

Raychaudhuri states that, according to Justin Epitome 15.4.18–19, Chandragupta organized an army. He notes that early translators interpreted Justin's original expression as "body of robbers", but states Raychaudhuri, the original expression used by Justin may mean mercenary soldier, hunter, or robber.[73] Mookerji refers to McCrindle as stating that "robbers" refers to the people of the Punjab, "kingless people." Mookerju further quotes Rhys Davids, who states that "it was from the Punjab that Chandragupta recruited the nucleus of the force with which he besieged and conquered Dhana-Nanda."[74]

The nature of early relationship between these governors and Chandragupta is unknown. According to Habib & Jha, Justin mentions Chandragupta as a rival of the Alexander's successors in north-western India.[49] Alain Daniélou further explains:

In the Swat, Nicanor was killed. Philip, who was guarding Taxila with Ambhi, replaced Nicanor as satrap of Gandhara, but was himself assassinated in 325 B.C.E.[...] Chandragupta began attacking the Greek principalities. The Brahmans fomented revolts against the unclean foreigners. Peithon withdrew to Arachosia (Kandahar) in 316. After treacherously killing an Indian prince probably Ambhi. Eudemus left India with one hundred and twenty elephants to join Eumenes army. He was beaten and put to death with Eumenes by Antigonus, king of Babylon. It took no great effort for Chandragupta to annex the Greek kingdoms, which had prepared the terrain for him.[11]

According to Mookerji, the Buddhist text Mahavamsa Tika describes how Chandragupta and Chanakya raised an army by recruiting soldiers from many places after the former completed his education at Taxila, to resist the Greeks. Chanakya made Chandragupta the leader of the army.[74] The Digambara Jain text Parishishtaparvan states that this army was raised by Chanakya with coins he minted and an alliance formed with Parvataka.[9][10] According to Nath Sen, Chandragupta recruited and annexed local military republics such as the Yaudheyas that had resisted Alexander's Empire.[75]

The chronology and dating of Chandragupta's activities in the Punjab is uncertain.[43] This may be either before or after he took the Nanda-throne.[44] The defeat of the Greeks is dated by Mookerji at 323 BCE; Jansari dates the arrival of Chandragupta in the Punjab at c. 317, in line with the chronology of Greek history.[45][e]

Offense of the Nanda-king and flight

[edit]

According to Justin, Chandragupta offended the Nanda king ("Nandrum" or "Nandrus") who ordered his execution.[7] Mookerji quotes Justin as stating

Sandracottus (Chandragupta) was the leader who achieved its freedom. He was born in humble life but was prompted to aspire to royalty by an omen. By his insulent behaviour he had offended Nandrus[r] and was ordered to be put to death when he sought safety by a speedy flight.[7]

Justin narrates two miraculous incidents as omens and portents of Sandracottus (Chandragupta) fate. In the first incident, when Chandragupta was asleep after having escaped from Nandrum, a big lion came up to him, licked him, and then left. In the second incident, when Chandragupta was readying for war with Alexander's generals, a huge wild elephant approached him and offered itself to be his steed.[76]

The Mudrarakshasa states that Chanakya felt insulted by the king, whereafter he swore to destroy the Nanda dynasty.[77][78] The Jain version states that it was the Nanda king who was publicly insulted by Chanakya.[77] In either case, Chanakya fled, found Chandragupta, and started a war against the Nanda king.[79]

War against the Nandas and seizure of Pataliputra

[edit]
Nanda Empire, c. 325 BCE

According to Mookerji, after defeating the Greeks,[80][e] the army of Chandragupta and Chanakya revolted against the unpopular Nandas[7] and conquered the Nanda outer territories, and then advanced on Pataliputra, the capital city of the Nanda Empire, which according to Mookerji they conquered deploying guerrilla warfare methods with the help of mercenaries from conquered areas.[7][51][81] With the defeat of Dhana Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya Empire.[82]

The Buddhist Mahavamsa Tika and Jain Parishishtaparvan records Chandragupta's army unsuccessfully attacking the Nanda capital.[9] Chandragupta and Chanakya then began a campaign at the frontier of the Nanda empire, gradually conquering various territories on their way to the Nanda capital.[83] He then refined his strategy by establishing garrisons in the conquered territories, and finally besieged the Nanda capital Pataliputra. There Dhana Nanda accepted defeat.[84][85] In contrast to the easy victory in Buddhist sources, the Hindu and Jain texts state that the campaign was bitterly fought because the Nanda dynasty had a powerful and well-trained army.[86][87] These legends state that the Nanda emperor was defeated, deposed and exiled by some accounts, while Buddhist accounts claim he was killed.[88]

Historically reliable details of Chandragupta's campaign into Pataliputra are unavailable and the legends written centuries later are inconsistent. While his victory, and ascension of the throne, is usually dated at c. 322–319 BCE,[12][14] which would put his war in the Punjab after his ascension, an ascension "between c. 311–305 BCE" is also possible, placing his activity in the Punjab at c. 317 BCE.[89][e]

The conquest was fictionalised in Mudrarakshasa, in which Chandragupta is said to have acquired Punjab, and then allied with a local king named Parvatka under the Chanakya's advice, where-after they advanced on Pataliputra.[12][s][t]

In contrast to the easy victory of Buddhist sources, the Hindu and Jain texts state that the campaign was bitterly fought because the Nanda dynasty had a powerful and well-trained army.[86][87]Greco-Roman writer Plutarch stated, in his Life of Alexander, that the Nanda king was so unpopular that had Alexander tried, he could have easily conquered India.[79][90] Buddhist texts such as Milindapanha claim Magadha was ruled by the Nanda dynasty, which, with Chanakya's counsel, Chandragupta conquered to restore dhamma.[91][87]

Legends narrate that the Nanda emperor was defeated, but was allowed to leave Pataliputra alive with a chariot full of items his family needed.[88] The Jain sources attest that his daughter fell in love at first sight with Chandragupta and married him.Though daughter is not named the source later name mother of Chandragupta's son as Durdhara.[92][29]

Dynastic marriage-alliance with Seleucus

[edit]
Malan Range and limit of ceded territory according to Tarn (1922)

According to Appian, Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's Macedonian generals who in 312 BCE established the Seleucid Empire with its capital at Babylon, brought Persia and Bactria under his own authority, putting his eastern front facing the empire of Chandragupta.[93][94]

Somewhere between 305 and 303 BCE Seleucus and Chandragupta confronted each other, Seleucus intending to retake the former satrapies each of the Indus. Yet, Seleucus Nicator and Chandragupta formed a dynastic marriage-alliance, Seleucus receiving five hundred elephants, and Chandragupta gaining control over the regions bordering at the east on the Indus.[95][96] Strabo, in his Geographica, XV, 2.9 composed about 300 years after Chandragupta's death, describes a number of tribes living along the Indus, and then states that "The Indians occupy [in part] some of the countries situated along the Indus, which formerly belonged to the Persians."[97]

The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus Mountains: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus [Chandragupta], upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants.[98]

The exact extent of the acquired territories is unknown.[99][b] A modest interpretation limits the extension to the western Indus Valley, including the coast of eastern Gedrosia (Balochistan) up to the Malan mountain raing (Hingol river),[100][101] the Punjab,[101][102][u] and the eastern part of Paropamisadae (Gandhara). Arachosia (Kandahar, present-day Afghanistan), is a possibility,[103][104][105] while Aria (present-day Herat, Afghanistan) is also often mentioned, but rejected by contemporary scholarship.[v] Tarn, writing in 1922,[101] and Coningham and Young,[15] have questioned the inclusion of eastern Afghanistan (Kabul-Kandahar), Coningham and Young noting that "a growing number of researchers would now agree that the Ashokan edicts may have represented 'an area of maximum contact rather than streamlined bureaucratic control'."[106] Coningham & Young also question the extent of control over the lower Indus Valley, following Thapar, noting that this may have been an area of peripheral control.[106] Raymond Allchin also notes the absence of major cities in the lower Indus valley.[107][i]

The details of the engagement treaty are also not known.[108] Since the extensive sources available on Seleucus never mention an Indian princess, it is thought that Chandragupta himself or his son Bindusara marrying a Seleucid princess, in accordance with contemporary Greek practices to form dynastic alliances. The Mahavamsa states that Chandragupta married a daughter of Seleucus not long after the latter's defeat.[109][110] As well, an Indian Puranic source, the Pratisarga Parva of the Bhavishya Purana, described the marriage of Chandragupta with a Greek ("Yavana") princess, daughter of Seleucus.[111]

Chandragupta sent 500 war elephants to Seleucus, which played a key role in Seleucus' victory at the Battle of Ipsus.[112][113][114] In addition to this treaty, Seleucus dispatched Megasthenes as an ambassador to Chandragupta's court, and later Antiochos sent Deimakos to his son Bindusara at the Maurya court at Patna.[115]

Megasthenes served as a Greek ambassador in his court for four years.[82]

Control of Gujarat

[edit]

In the south-west, Chandragupta's rule over present-day Gujarat is attested to by Ashoka's inscription in Junagadh. On the same rock, about 400 years later, Rudradaman inscribed a longer text sometime about the mid second–century.[116] Rudradaman's inscription states that the Sudarshana lake in the area was commissioned during the rule of Chandragupta through his governor Vaishya Pushyagupta and conduits were added during Ashoka's rule through Tushaspha. The Mauryan control of the region is further corroborated by the inscription on the rock, which suggests that Chandragupta controlled the Malwa region in Central India, located between Gujarat and Pataliputra.[117]

Jain accounts of renunciation and retirement in Karnakata

[edit]
Inscription
1,300-year-old Shravanabelagola relief shows death of Chandragupta after taking the vow of Sallekhana. Some consider it about the legend of his arrival with Bhadrabahu.[34][22][23]
A statue depicting Chandragupta Maurya (right) with his spiritual mentor Acharya Bhadrabahu at Shravanabelagola
Chandragupta Maurya having 16 auspicious dreams in Jainism

According to Digambara Jain accounts Chandragupta abdicated at an early age and settled as a monk under Bhadrabāhu in Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka.[118] According to these accounts, Bhadrabāhu forecast a 12-year famine because of all the killing and violence during the conquests by Chandragupta Maurya. He led a group of Jain monks to south India, where Chandragupta Maurya joined him as a monk after abdicating his empire to his son Bindusara. Together, states a Digambara legend, Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu moved to Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka.[118] Chandragupta lived as an ascetic at Shravanabelagola for several years before fasting to death as per the practice of sallekhana, according to the Digambara legend.[119][36][120] In accordance with the Digambara tradition, the hill on which Chandragupta is stated to have performed asceticism is now known as Chandragiri hill, and Digambaras believe that Chandragupta Maurya erected an ancient temple that now survives as the Chandragupta basadi.[121]

The 12th-century Svetambara Jain legend by Hemachandra presents a different picture. The Hemachandra version includes stories about Jain monks who could become invisible to steal food from imperial storage and the Jain Brahmin Chanakya using violence and cunning tactics to expand Chandragupta's empire and increase imperial revenues.[35] It states in verses 8.415 to 8.435, that for 15 years as emperor, Chandragupta was a follower of non-Jain "ascetics with the wrong view of religion" and "lusted for women". Chanakya, who was a Jain convert himself, persuaded Chandragupta to convert to Jainism by showing that Jain ascetics avoided women and focused on their religion.[35] The legend mentions Chanakya aiding the premature birth of Bindusara,[35] It states in verse 8.444 that "Chandragupta died in meditation (can possibly be sallekhana.) and went to heaven".[122] According to Hemachandra's legend, Chanakya also performed sallekhana.[122]

Textual sources

[edit]

The Digambara Jain accounts are recorded in the Brihakathā kośa (931 CE) of Harishena, Bhadrabāhu charita (1450 CE) of Ratnanandi, Munivaṃsa bhyudaya (1680 CE) and Rajavali kathe,[123][124][125]

Regarding the inscriptions describing the relation of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, Radha Kumud Mookerji writes,

The oldest inscription of about 600 AD associated "the pair (yugma), Bhadrabahu along with Chandragupta Muni." Two inscriptions of about 900 AD on the Kaveri near Seringapatam describe the summit of a hill called Chandragiri as marked by the footprints of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta munipati. A Shravanabelagola inscription of 1129 mentions Bhadrabahu "Shrutakevali", and Chandragupta who acquired such merit that he was worshipped by the forest deities. Another inscription of 1163 similarly couples and describes them. A third inscription of the year 1432 speaks of Yatindra Bhadrabahu, and his disciple Chandragupta, the fame of whose penance spread into other words.[126]

Along with texts, several Digambara Jain inscriptions dating from the 7th–15th century refer to Bhadrabahu and a Prabhacandra. Later Digambara tradition identified the Prabhacandra as Chandragupta, and some modern era scholars have accepted this Digambara tradition while others have not,[34][22][23] Several of the late Digambara inscriptions and texts in Karnataka state the journey started from Ujjain and not Patliputra (as stated in some Digambara texts).[22][23]

Analysis of the sources

[edit]
The Footprints of Chandragupta Maurya on Chandragiri Hill, where Chandragupta (the unifier of India and founder of the Maurya Dynasty) performed Sallekhana

According to Jeffery D. Long, in one Digambara version it was Samprati Chandragupta who renounced, migrated and performed sallekhana in Shravanabelagola. Long notes that scholars attribute the disintegration of the Maurya empire to the times and actions of Samprati Chandragupta, the grandson of Ashoka and great-great-grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, concluding that the two Chandraguptas have been confused to be the same in some Digambara legends.[127]

Scholar of Jain studies and Sanskrit Paul Dundas says the Svetambara tradition of Jainism disputes the ancient Digambara legends. According to a fifth-century text of the Svetambara Jains, the Digambara sect of Jainism was founded 609 years after Mahavira's death, or in first-century CE.[128] Digambaras wrote their own versions and legends after the fifth-century, with their first expanded Digambara version of sectarian split within Jainism appearing in the tenth-century.[128] The Svetambaras texts describe Bhadrabahu was based near Nepalese foothills of the Himalayas in third-century BCE, who neither moved nor travelled with Chandragupta Maurya to the south; rather, he died near Patliputra, according to the Svetambara Jains.[22][129][130]

According to V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar – an Indologist and historian, several of the Digambara legends mention Prabhacandra, who had been misidentified as Chandragupta Maurya particularly after the original publication on Shravanabelagola epigraphy by B. Lewis Rice. The earliest and most important inscriptions mention Prabhacandra, which Rice presumed may have been the "clerical name assumed by Chadragupta Maurya" after he renounced and moved with Bhadrabahu from Patliputra. Dikshitar stated there is no evidence to support this and Prabhacandra was an important Jain monk scholar who migrated centuries after Chandragupta Maurya's death.[34]

According to historian Sushma Jansari, "A closer look at the evidence for Chandragupta's conversion to Jainism and his and Bhadrabāhu's association with Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa reveals that it is both late and problematic. In addition, except for Jain sources, there is no evidence to support the view of Chandragupta's conversion and migration."[131] Jansari concludes, "Overall, therefore, the evidence as it currently stands suggests that the story of Chandragupta's conversion to Jainism and abdication (if, indeed, he did abdicate), his migration southwards and his association (or otherwise) with Bhadrabāhu and the site of Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa developed after c.600 AD."[132]

Dikshitar has taken Rice's deduction of Chandragupta Maurya retiring and dying in Shravanabelagola as the working hypothesis, since no alternative historical information or evidence is available about Chandragupta's final years and death.[34]

Assumed control of Southern India

[edit]

There is uncertainty about the other conquests that Chandragupta may have achieved, especially in the Deccan region of southern India.[117] At the time of his grandson Ashoka's ascension in c. 268 BCE, the empire extended up to present-day Karnataka in the south, so the southern conquests may be attributed to either Chandragupta or his son Bindusara.

According to Mookerji, Chandragupta expanded his empire into the south,[133] referring to Plutarch, who stated that "Androcottus [...] with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India."[134][115] Mookerji notes that details are lacking, but argues that "there is reliable evidence for it in the inscriptions of Ashoka."[115] Mookerji also refers to the Jain tradition that Chandragupta retired at Sravana Belgola, Karnakata,[135] and to references in Tamil records.[136]

According to Kulke and Rothermund, if the Jain tradition about Chandragupta ending his life as a renunciate in Karnakata is considered correct, it appears that Chandragupta initiated the southern conquest.[137]

Yet, the Digambara Jain accounts are problematic. His conversion and retirement at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa with Bhadrabāhu are only attested in Digambara Jain sources, which developed after 600 CE.[132] They may actually refer to Samprati Chandragupta the great-great-grandson of Chandragupta Maurya,[127] and are contradicted by Svetambaras Jain texts, who situate Bhadrabahunear the Nepalese foothills of the Himalayas in third-century BCE, neither moving nor travelling with Chandragupta Maurya to the south.[22][129][130] The Digambara legends may also have misidentified Prabhacandra, an important Jain monk scholar who migrated centuries after Chandragupta Maurya's death, as Chandragupta Maurya.[34]

Two poetic anthologies from the Tamil Sangam literature corpus – Akananuru and Purananuru – allude to the Nanda rule and Maurya empire. For example, poems 69, 281 and 375 mention the army and chariots of the Mauryas, while poems 251 and 265 may be alluding to the Nandas.[138] However, the poems dated between first-century BCE to fifth-century CE do not mention Chandragupta Maurya by name, and some of them could be referring to a different Moriya dynasty in the Deccan region in the fifth century CE.[139] According to Upinder Singh, these poems may be mentioning Mokur and Koshar kingdoms of Vadugars (northerners) in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, with one interpretation being that the Maurya Empire had an alliance with these at some point of time.[140]

Empire

[edit]

Administration

[edit]
Chandragupta Maurya period Karshapana coin, circa 315–310 BCE[141]

After conquering northern India, Chandragupta and Chanakya passed a series of major economic and political reforms.[citation needed] Chandragupta established a decentralised administration with provinces and local governments,[16] and a mantriparishad (council of advisers) advising the king.[142] While it is often thought that Chandragupta applied the statecraft and economic policies described in Arthashastra, which was earlierly thought to be written by his minister Chanakya[143][144] but it's now thought by most scholars that the Arthashastra is not of Mauryan origin, and contains prescriptions which are incompatible with Chandragupta's reign.[145][l]

The Maurya rule was a structured administration; Chandragupta had a council of ministers (amatya), with Chanakya was his chief minister.[146][147] The empire was organised into territories (janapada), centres of regional power were protected with forts (durga), and state operations were funded with treasury (kosa).[148] Strabo, in his Geographica composed about 300 years after Chandragupta's death, describes aspects of his rule in his chapter XV.46–69. He had councillors for matters of justice and assessors to collect taxes on commercial activity and trade goods. His officers inspected situations requiring law and order in the cities; the crime rate was low.[149]

According to Megasthenes, Chandragupta's rule was marked by three parallel administrative structures. One managed the affairs of villages, ensuring irrigation, recording land ownership, monitoring tools supply, enforcing hunting, wood products and forest-related laws, and settling disputes.[150] Another administrative structure managed city affairs, including all matters related to trade, merchant activity, visit of foreigners, harbors, roads, temples, markets, and industries. They also collected taxes and ensured standardized weights and measures.[150] The third administrative body overlooked the military, its training, its weapons supply, and the needs of the soldiers.[150]

Chanakya was concerned about Chandragupta's safety and developed elaborate techniques to prevent assassination attempts. Various sources report Chandragupta frequently changed bedrooms to confuse conspirators. He left his palace only for certain tasks: to go on military expeditions, to visit his court for dispensing justice, to offer sacrifices, for celebrations, and for hunting. During celebrations, he was well-guarded, and on hunts, he was surrounded by female guards who were presumed to be less likely to participate in a coup conspiracy. These strategies may have resulted from the historical context of the Nanda emperor who had come to power by assassinating the previous emperor.[151]

During Chandragupta's reign and that of his dynasty, many religions thrived in India, with Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika gaining prominence along with other folk traditions.[152][153]

Infrastructure projects

[edit]
Coins
Silver punch mark coin (Karshapana) of the Maurya Empire, with symbols of wheel and elephant (3rd century BCE)

The empire built a strong economy from a solid infrastructure such as irrigation, temples, mines, and roads.[154][155] Ancient epigraphical evidence suggests Chandragupta, under counsel from Chanakya, started and completed many irrigation reservoirs and networks across the Indian subcontinent to ensure food supplies for the civilian population and the army, a practice continued by his dynastic successors.[60] Regional prosperity in agriculture was one of the required duties of his state officials.[156]

The strongest evidence of infrastructure development is found in the Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman in Gujarat, dated to about 150 CE. It states, among other things, that Rudradaman repaired and enlarged the reservoir and irrigation conduit infrastructure built by Chandragupta and enhanced by Asoka.[157] Chandragupta's empire also built mines, manufacturing centres, and networks for trading goods. His rule developed land routes to transport goods across the Indian subcontinent. Chandragupta expanded "roads suitable for carts" as he preferred those over narrow tracks suitable for only pack animals.[158]

According to Kaushik Roy, the Maurya dynasty rulers were "great road builders".[155] The Greek ambassador Megasthenes credited this tradition to Chandragupta after the completion of a thousand-mile-long highway connecting Chandragupta's capital Pataliputra in Bihar to Taxila in the north-west where he studied. The other major strategic road infrastructure credited to this tradition spread from Pataliputra in various directions, connecting it with Nepal, Kapilavastu, Dehradun, Mirzapur, Odisha, Andhra, and Karnataka.[155] Roy stated this network boosted trade and commerce, and helped move armies rapidly and efficiently.[155]

Chandragupta and Chanakya seeded weapon manufacturing centres, and kept them as a state monopoly of the state. The state, however, encouraged competing private parties to operate mines and supply these centres.[159] They considered economic prosperity essential to the pursuit of dharma (virtuous life) and adopted a policy of avoiding war with diplomacy yet continuously preparing the army for war to defend its interests and other ideas in the Arthashastra.[160][161]

Arts and architecture

[edit]

The evidence of arts and architecture during Chandragupta's time is mostly limited to texts such as those by Megasthenese and Kautilya. The edict inscriptions and carvings on monumental pillars are attributed to his grandson Ashoka. The texts imply the existence of cities, public works, and prosperous architecture but the historicity of these is in question.[162]

Archeological discoveries in the modern age, such as those Didarganj Yakshi discovered in 1917 buried beneath the banks of the Ganges suggest exceptional artisanal accomplishment.[163][164] The site was dated to third century BCE by many scholars[163][164] but later dates such as the Kushan era (1st-4th century CE) have also been proposed. The competing theories state that the art linked to Chandragupta Maurya's dynasty was learnt from the Greeks and West Asia in the years Alexander the Great waged war; or that these artifacts belong to an older indigenous Indian tradition.[165] Frederick Asher of the University of Minnesota says "we cannot pretend to have definitive answers; and perhaps, as with most art, we must recognize that there is no single answer or explanation".[166]

Religion

[edit]

Chandragupta sponsored Vedic sacrifices[167] and Brahmanical rituals,[168] and hosted major festivals marked by procession of elephants and horses.[149]

While many religions thrived within his realms and his descendants' empire, Buddhism, Jainism and Ājīvika gained prominence prevailing over Vedic and Brahmanistic traditions,[17] initiating, under Ashoka, the expansion of Buddhism and the synthesis of Brahmanic and non-Brahmanic religious traditions which converged in Hinduism. Minority religions such as Zoroastrianism and the Greek pantheon were respected.

Legacy

[edit]
A modern statue depicting Chandragupta Maurya, Laxminarayan Temple, Delhi[169]
Chandragupta Maurya stamp issued by Indian Government in 2001[170]

A memorial to Chandragupta exists on Chandragiri hill in Shravanabelagola, Karnataka.[171] The Indian Postal Service issued a commemorative postage stamp honouring Chandragupta Maurya in 2001.[172]

Historian Sushma Jansari notes that, in the 20th century, diverging views on Chandragupta have developed between western academics and Indian scholars.[99] While westerners tend to take a reserved view on Chandragupta's accomplishments, Indian authors have portrayed Chandragupta as a very successful king who established the first Indian nation.[99]

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Chandragupta Maurya (c. 340–297 BCE) was the founder of the , the first polity to unify most of the under centralized rule from approximately 321 to 297 BCE. With strategic counsel from his advisor (also known as Kautilya), he orchestrated the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty, which had dominated and eastern India, thereby establishing the Mauryan capital at around 321 BCE. Chandragupta subsequently expanded westward, clashing with of the between 305 and 303 BCE; the resulting treaty saw Seleucus cede control over , , , and parts of in exchange for 500 war elephants and a marital alliance involving Seleucus's daughter. These conquests marked the empire's extent from modern-day to , laying the groundwork for administrative innovations later detailed in Chanakya's . In his later years, Chandragupta abdicated in favor of his son ; Jain texts from centuries later claim he adopted under the guidance of Bhadrabahu and died by sallekhana (ritual fasting) at Shravanbelagola, though no contemporary records confirm this conversion.

Historiographical Sources

Literary Accounts

The primary literary accounts of Chandragupta Maurya derive from Greek ambassadors and historians who interacted with his court, providing the earliest external perspectives on his reign. , a Greek envoy dispatched by around 302 BCE, composed Indica, a detailed report on the Mauryan Empire preserved only in fragments quoted by later authors such as , , and . These describe Chandragupta—referred to as Sandrokottos—as a ruler of a vast domain centered at , commanding an of 600,000 , 30,000 , and 9,000 , organized into a professional standing force supported by state-maintained livestock for . portrays the administration as rigidly stratified into seven occupational classes, with the king residing in a wooden fortified by moats and watchtowers, emphasizing centralized control over resources and justice. These accounts, while valuable for their contemporaneity, reflect Hellenistic biases in interpreting Indian society through analogies to Greek systems, such as equating varnas to endogamous guilds, and contain inconsistencies like exaggerated sizes possibly inflated for dramatic effect. Indian secular texts offer complementary but later insights into statecraft and political intrigue associated with Chandragupta. The , attributed to Kautilya (also known as ), his purported Brahmin advisor, outlines pragmatic governance principles including espionage, taxation, and conquest strategies that align with Mauryan expansion from c. 321 BCE onward, such as designs and economic policies to sustain imperial armies. Composed likely in the 4th-3rd centuries BCE with later interpolations, it implies application during Chandragupta's unification of the subcontinent post-Nanda overthrow, though direct authorship linkage relies on traditional attribution rather than explicit references. Vishakhadatta's , a drama from the (c. 4th-6th century CE), dramatizes Chandragupta's rise through Chanakya's machinations, including alliances with frontier tribes and the strategic use of a signet ring to sway the Nanda minister , culminating in the capture of around 321 BCE. This narrative, while fictionalized for theatrical effect, draws on oral histories of , portraying Chandragupta as a low-born opportunist elevated by cunning counsel, without religious embellishments. Religious literatures provide dynastic and hagiographic details, often shaped by sectarian interests to claim Mauryan patronage. Puranic genealogies, compiled from c. 3rd century CE onward in texts like the , list Chandragupta as the founder of the Maurya line succeeding the Nandas, ruling for 24 years (c. 321-297 BCE) and expanding into regions like , with brief mentions of his conquests but no personal biography. Buddhist canon, such as the and Sinhalese Mahavamsa, trace the Mauryas to the Moriya clan akin to the Buddha's Shakyas, depicting Chandragupta as a consolidator of who supported monastic orders, though without evidence of personal conversion; these accounts prioritize Ashoka's piety, potentially downplaying Chandragupta to elevate later rulers. Jain traditions, elaborated in medieval works like Hemachandra's (12th century CE) drawing from earlier texts, assert Chandragupta's renunciation of the throne c. 297 BCE under Bhadrabahu I, followed by ascetic wanderings and death by voluntary starvation () at ; these claims, absent in contemporary records and first attested centuries later, likely served to retroactively link the empire to for legitimacy, contrasting with Greek silence on any such religious shift. Such religious narratives exhibit lower credibility due to their late composition and motivational agendas, prioritizing doctrinal continuity over empirical fidelity.

Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence

Archaeological evidence directly attributable to Chandragupta Maurya remains scarce, with most from the early Mauryan period providing indirect corroboration of his reign's urban and economic developments. Excavations at , the Mauryan capital in present-day , have uncovered remains of a grand wooden palace complex, including a pillared hall with approximately 80 octagonal pillars arranged in orthogonal patterns, datable to the late BCE through associated artifacts and stratigraphy. These structures reflect advanced carpentry techniques and centralized planning consistent with the administrative innovations described in contemporary literary accounts, though no inscriptions or artifacts bear Chandragupta's name. Recent digs by the at Kumhrar have further exposed Mauryan assembly halls and artifacts from around 600 BCE onward, linking to the empire's foundational phase under Chandragupta. The punch-marked silver karshapanas, weighing about 2.4–3.4 grams each and featuring incused symbols such as sun, animals, and geometric motifs, circulated widely during Chandragupta's rule from circa 321–297 BCE, marking a continuation and of pre-Mauryan coinage into an imperial . These coins, produced in large quantities, evidence a monetized network extending to the northwest frontiers, aligning with reports of Chandragupta's conquests and Seleucid . No uniquely diagnostic marks distinguish Chandragupta's issues from those of his successors, but their prevalence in early Mauryan hoards supports the empire's economic consolidation under his founding. Epigraphic evidence is similarly limited to later references, with no surviving inscriptions issued by Chandragupta himself, unlike the prolific . The rock inscription of the Western Satrap , dated to circa 150 CE, provides the earliest known epigraphic mention of Chandragupta, crediting his provincial Pushyagupta with constructing the Sudarshana Lake and its on the Suvarnasikata hill for purposes. This Sanskrit-prakrit text highlights Mauryan feats, repaired later by and Rudradaman, underscoring Chandragupta's infrastructural legacy in . Subsequent Jain inscriptions, such as those at Shravanabelgola from the CE, associate Chandragupta with the monk Bhadrabahu but rely on hagiographic traditions rather than contemporary records. The absence of direct epigraphy reflects the era's reliance on perishable materials or oral transmission, yet these attestations affirm Chandragupta's historical agency through corroborated administrative achievements.

Critical Evaluation of Sources

The historiography of Chandragupta Maurya relies predominantly on non-contemporary literary sources, as no inscriptions or artifacts directly attributable to his reign explicitly name him or detail his personal achievements. Greek and Roman accounts, preserved in fragments from historians like Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, and Pliny, provide external corroboration of his existence and encounters with Seleucus I Nicator around 305 BCE, but these derive from Megasthenes' Indica (c. 300 BCE), filtered through later compilations subject to transmission errors and Hellenistic biases favoring Greek perspectives on foreign rulers. Indian texts, including Buddhist works like the Mahavamsa (5th century CE) and Divyavadana (2nd-4th century CE), and Jain texts such as Merutunga's Prabandha Chintamani (14th century CE), introduce legendary elements—such as Chandragupta's humble origins as a herdsman or slave—that serve hagiographic purposes, prioritizing moral exemplars over empirical chronology. Religious biases undermine the neutrality of these Indian sources: Jain traditions, drawing from texts like the Parishishtaparvan (12th century CE), portray Chandragupta as a devout Jain ascetic who abdicated and fasted to death at (c. 297 BCE), aligning with sectarian claims of early royal patronage, while Buddhist accounts emphasize his role in convening councils or supporting the faith, reflecting competitive narratives between traditions absent in archaeological confirmation. The , ascribed to (Kautilya), offers administrative insights potentially reflective of early Mauryan practices but is compositionally dated by scholars to the 2nd century BCE or later based on linguistic anachronisms and interpolations, rendering its direct attribution to Chandragupta's era speculative rather than evidentiary. Puranic king lists provide regnal lengths (e.g., 24 years for Chandragupta) but suffer from genealogical inflation and inconsistencies across manuscripts, complicating precise dating without cross-verification from Seleucid-Mauryan treaties referenced in Greek sources. Archaeological evidence, including and from sites like and (c. 4th-3rd century BCE), substantiates Mauryan imperial infrastructure but lacks inscriptions linking these to Chandragupta specifically, unlike Ashoka's edicts which indirectly reference prior conquests. This paucity of contemporaneous material fosters historiographical challenges, including debates over Chandragupta's origins—ranging from low-caste to claims—and the identification of "Sandrokottos" in Greek texts as unequivocally him, occasionally contested in fringe theories proposing Iranian affiliations unsupported by numismatic or epigraphic data. Overall, while Greek fragments offer a check against Indian embellishments, the corpus demands cautious reconstruction, privileging convergent details like the Nanda overthrow (c. 321 BCE) over uncorroborated anecdotes, as later texts exhibit evident agendas of dynastic legitimization and religious propagation.

Personal Background

Name, Titles, and Chronology

Chandragupta Maurya, rendered in Graeco-Roman accounts as Sandrocottus, Sandracottus, or Androcottus, founded the Maurya dynasty circa 321 BCE following the overthrow of the Nanda rulers. His dynastic name, Maurya, derives from the Moriya clan, associated with the term Mora ( Mayura, peacock), reflecting possible totemic or regional origins in texts like the Mahāvaṃsa-ṭīkā. Ancient Indian sources accord him epithets such as Amitraghata ("slayer of enemies") in Viśākhadatta's Mudrārākṣasa, emphasizing his martial conquests, and Samrāṭ (emperor) in broader regal contexts. Greek writers like and Justin apply no formal titles beyond identifying him as the sovereign of a vast Indian realm, focusing instead on his interactions with Seleucus Nicator. Scholarly consensus dates his reign from approximately 321 BCE, aligned with the post-Alexandrine and Nanda collapse, to circa 297 BCE, yielding a duration of 24–25 years per Puranic and Buddhist king lists, though these derive from later compilations lacking contemporary corroboration. Uncertainties arise from the absence of Mauryan inscriptions under his rule—unlike Ashoka's edicts—and reliance on fragmentary Greek reports and hagiographic Jain/Buddhist traditions, which synchronize events via Seleucid treaty timelines around 305–303 BCE. He abdicated in favor of circa 297 BCE, retiring to Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa where Jain texts describe his death by , a voluntary fast unto death, though this lacks archaeological verification.

Origins and Early Life

Chandragupta Maurya's birth is conventionally dated to circa 340 BCE, though precise details are absent from contemporary records and rely on later reconstructions. His is placed in the region of ancient , corresponding to modern , amid the socio-political turbulence preceding the Nanda dynasty's dominance. Historical accounts of his emphasize origins of low social standing, with scholarly consensus identifying him as low-born rather than of lineage. One prevalent tradition describes his father as a peacock breeder (mayuraposaka) or herdsman from a pastoral , and his as Mura, a woman of , suggesting humble circumstances that contrasted sharply with his later imperial achievements. Jain texts, such as those compiled centuries after his death, occasionally elevate his lineage to status within a royal or noble context, potentially reflecting sectarian efforts to align him with higher varna ideals, though this diverges from broader evidentiary patterns favoring modest roots. Early life narratives, drawn from Buddhist, Jain, and Brahmanical sources composed 1,000 or more years post-event, portray Chandragupta as orphaned or abandoned in childhood, enduring or servitude before gaining notice for innate qualities. Buddhist legends depict him herding cattle or engaging in playful simulations of governance, hinting at precocious ambition amid Nanda-era instability, while Jain accounts vary in emphasizing his initial hardships without contemporary verification. These anecdotal elements lack archaeological substantiation and appear shaped by didactic religious agendas, underscoring the challenges in reconstructing verifiable personal history from hagiographic traditions.

Religious Evolution

Chandragupta Maurya's early religious orientation aligned with the dominant Vedic and Brahmanical traditions of the period, influenced by his Brahmin mentor , whose Arthashastra reflects orthodox Hindu principles of and statecraft. No contemporary records indicate adherence to heterodox sects like during his formative years or active rule. In his later years, circa 297 BCE, Chandragupta reportedly embraced Jainism under the guidance of the monk Bhadrabahu I, abdicating the throne to his son Bindusara and renouncing worldly power. Jain tradition holds that he migrated southward with Bhadrabahu to escape a prophesied 12-year famine, eventually attaining spiritual liberation through sallekhana—voluntary fasting to death—at Chandragiri Hill in Shravanabelagola, Karnataka. These events are primarily attested in later , such as Hemachandra's 12th-century , and supported by inscriptions from dating to the 7th–10th centuries CE, which commemorate the association between Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu. However, Greek accounts by , who resided at Chandragupta's court around 300 BCE, make no reference to or ascetic practices, suggesting the narrative may incorporate hagiographic elements developed centuries later to elevate 's historical prestige. The evolution reflects a shift from pragmatic, state-oriented Vedic Hinduism to the ascetic, non-violent ethos of Jainism, consistent with broader sramana influences in Magadha, though empirical verification remains limited to post-Mauryan Jain sources.

Rise to Power

Pre-Mauryan Political Instability

The Nanda dynasty governed Magadha, the preeminent kingdom in northern India, from circa 345 BCE to 321 BCE, establishing a centralized authority that controlled vast territories through a formidable military apparatus estimated at 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, 2,000 chariots, and 3,000–6,000 war elephants. Despite this strength, the regime encountered mounting internal challenges that eroded its stability, including widespread unpopularity stemming from the rulers' purported low-caste origins—often described as deriving from a barber family—and policies of oppressive taxation that burdened the populace and alienated key elites. These fiscal exactions, intended to sustain the expansive army and administrative machinery, fostered resentment among aristocrats and commoners alike, diminishing loyalty and inviting factionalism within the court. Dynastic succession disputes exacerbated this vulnerability, as evidenced by the overthrow of earlier rulers within the lineage and the final king's favoritism toward certain heirs, which fragmented internal cohesion. Administrative inefficiencies and overreliance on coercive measures further compounded these issues, creating opportunities for ambitious challengers to exploit divisions. External dynamics intensified the precariousness of Nanda control. Alexander the Great's incursion into northwestern India in 326 BCE, culminating in battles against local rulers like Porus along the Hydaspes River, did not directly confront Magadha due to troop mutiny at the Hyphasis (Beas) River, yet it destabilized frontier regions by subjugating tribal republics and installing Greek satraps. This fragmentation generated a power vacuum in the Indus Valley, indirectly straining Nanda resources through heightened vigilance against potential incursions and the influx of unsettled mercenaries and displaced warriors, thereby amplifying domestic discontent. The convergence of endogenous strife and exogenous pressures thus primed the political landscape for the rapid ascent of new leadership.

Mentorship under Chanakya

According to ancient Indian literary traditions preserved in Buddhist, Jain, and , , also known as Kautilya or Vishnugupta, played a pivotal role as Chandragupta Maurya's mentor, guiding him from obscurity to imperial power around 321 BCE. These accounts, including the Buddhist Mahavamsa, the Jain Parishtaparvan, and Hindu works such as the and Vishakhadatta's , unanimously depict as the strategist who identified Chandragupta's latent abilities and orchestrated his training in statecraft, military tactics, and political intrigue to overthrow the Nanda dynasty. The narrative of their initial encounter, drawn primarily from semi-legendary sources like —a play composed centuries after the events—relates that , a scholar from offended by the Nanda king Dhana Nanda's insult during a court assembly circa 325 BCE, vowed to topple the regime and untie his matted hair only upon success. Wandering in search of a suitable instrument for revenge, Chanakya reportedly discovered the young Chandragupta, then a herdsman or low-born youth exhibiting kingly qualities such as a commanding presence and physical prowess, and resolved to groom him as a ruler. He secured Chandragupta's release from servitude, possibly by purchasing him, and relocated him to Taxila for rigorous education. Under 's tutelage, which lasted several years, Chandragupta received comprehensive instruction in governance principles later codified in the , attributed to himself and dated to the late 4th century BCE. This mentorship emphasized , including , alliance-building, economic mobilization, and suited to challenging the Nanda's vast resources; amassed funds through alchemical pursuits or treasury manipulations to raise an army, training Chandragupta in guerrilla tactics against superior forces. Jain texts like Parishtaparvan further portray as prophesying his proxy rule through a capable king, underscoring a teacher-student bond built on mutual trust and strategic foresight. While these accounts lack contemporary corroboration—absent from Greek sources like Megasthenes' Indica, which describe Chandragupta's reign but omit —the cross-traditional consistency suggests a historical core to the mentorship, likely embellished with didactic legends in post-Mauryan compilations. Chanakya's influence extended beyond initial training to administrative reforms implemented during Chandragupta's early rule, with the mentor serving as chief advisor or , embedding doctrines that centralized power and expanded the nascent empire. This relationship exemplifies a rare alliance of intellectual acumen and martial ambition, enabling Chandragupta to consolidate control over by circa 321 BCE, though the texts' hagiographic tone warrants caution against viewing them as unvarnished history.

Overthrow of the Nanda Dynasty

Chandragupta Maurya overthrew the Nanda dynasty circa 321 BCE, ending their rule over Magadha and much of northern India, and founding the Maurya Empire with Pataliputra as its capital. The Nandas, established by Mahapadma Nanda around 345 BCE, had expanded through military conquests but incurred widespread resentment due to oppressive taxation and reliance on non-Kshatriya origins, which alienated traditional elites. Dhana Nanda, the last ruler, commanded a vast army estimated at 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, 2,000 chariots, and 3,000–6,000 elephants, yet internal discontent facilitated Chandragupta's challenge. Central to the overthrow was (also known as Kautilya or Vishnugupta), a scholar from who, according to multiple ancient traditions, vowed to destroy the Nandas after Dhana Nanda publicly humiliated him at court. identified the young Chandragupta—possibly of low birth or a minor prince—as a capable leader, providing him rigorous training in statecraft, warfare, and governance, principles later codified in the . Together, they mobilized resources by forging alliances with regional chieftains and mercenaries, particularly in the northwest, where the retreat of Alexander the Great's forces in 323 BCE had created instability among satraps and tribes. Buddhist, Jain, and Brahmanical texts unanimously credit 's , , and strategic deception—such as sowing discord among Nanda officials—for weakening the regime from within. Chandragupta's military campaigns progressed from consolidating and the Indus Valley, defeating local Greek remnants and Indian rulers, to invading the plain. By approximately 322 BCE, his forces laid to , employing tactics to isolate the city and exploit supply vulnerabilities, ultimately compelling Dhana Nanda's surrender or flight—accounts differ, with some Jain sources claiming exile and implying execution. The Nanda treasurer or reportedly defected, transferring treasury control to Chandragupta, enabling the Mauryan takeover without prolonged destruction. While these narratives derive from later sources like the Jain and Mahavamsa, which may embellish to align with sectarian views—especially given Chandragupta's eventual Jain conversion—the Puranic king lists corroborate the dynastic transition around this period, independent of legendary motifs. No contemporary inscriptions detail the events, underscoring reliance on textual traditions prone to hagiographic bias.

Reign and Expansion

Northern Consolidation and Greek Encounters

Following the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty around 321 BCE, Chandragupta Maurya focused on securing the northern frontiers, beginning with the expulsion of Greek satraps from and regions vacated by after his retreat in 326 BCE. These areas, including and the Indus Valley, had remained under fragmented Macedonian control, which Chandragupta systematically subdued through military campaigns, integrating them into his emerging by approximately 322 BCE. This consolidation extended his authority westward, establishing Mauryan dominance over key trade routes and fertile plains essential for . The Greek encounters escalated in 305 BCE when , one of Alexander's , initiated a campaign to reclaim the eastern satrapies by crossing the into Mauryan territory. The ensuing Seleucid-Mauryan War, spanning 305 to 303 BCE, involved clashes primarily in and along the Indus, where Chandragupta's forces leveraged superior numbers and local knowledge to repel the Seleucid advance. Greek accounts, such as those preserved in and , indicate no decisive battle victory for Seleucus, underscoring the campaign's failure and highlighting Mauryan military effectiveness against Hellenistic tactics. The conflict concluded with a in 303 BCE, under which Seleucus ceded the satrapies of (modern ), (), ( region), and to Chandragupta, securing Mauryan control up to the Hindu Kush passes. In exchange, Chandragupta provided 500 war elephants, which bolstered Seleucid forces in subsequent western campaigns, and a matrimonial was formed, likely involving Seleucus's daughter marrying into the Mauryan . This agreement not only affirmed Chandragupta's northern expansion but also initiated diplomatic ties between the Mauryan Empire and the Hellenistic world, preventing further invasions while facilitating cultural exchanges.

Treaty with Seleucus Nicator

Following Chandragupta Maurya's conquests in northern , Seleucus I Nicator, a Diadochus of , sought to reassert control over the eastern satrapies in approximately 305 BCE. Seleucus mounted a military expedition across the Indus region but encountered stiff resistance from Mauryan forces, leading to an inconclusive campaign that prompted negotiations rather than outright defeat. The resulting peace treaty, dated around 303–302 BCE by some reconstructions, formalized territorial concessions from Seleucus to Chandragupta, including the satrapies of (southern Afghanistan), (Baluchistan), and (Kabul region), effectively establishing the as the western boundary of the Mauryan Empire. In exchange, Chandragupta provided Seleucus with 500 war elephants, a valuable asset that bolstered Seleucid military capabilities in subsequent conflicts such as the in 301 BCE. A key diplomatic element of the treaty was a matrimonial , whereby Seleucus arranged the of his daughter—possibly named Helena in later traditions—to Chandragupta or a member of his , symbolizing mutual recognition of and fostering Indo-Hellenistic exchanges. This agreement, referenced in ancient Greek accounts by historians like and , reflected Seleucus's strategic prioritization of western consolidations over prolonged eastern entanglements, while enabling Chandragupta to secure northwestern frontiers without further warfare. The treaty's terms underscore the Mauryan Empire's military parity with Hellenistic powers at the time, as evidenced by the elephant tribute's scale—equivalent to a significant portion of Alexander's own captured herd—and the ceded territories' strategic value, spanning roughly 1,000 kilometers westward from the Indus. Post-treaty, diplomatic ties persisted, exemplified by the dispatch of the Greek ambassador to , yielding detailed ethnographical reports on Mauryan administration preserved in fragments by and .

Debates on Empire Extent

The extent of Chandragupta Maurya's empire, established following his overthrow of the Nanda dynasty around 321 BCE and consolidated through campaigns against regional powers, encompassed the core Gangetic plains from Magadha eastward to Bengal and westward across the Indus after defeating Greek satraps. By approximately 305 BCE, conflicts with Seleucus I Nicator led to a treaty in which Seleucus ceded control over Arachosia, Gedrosia, and the Paropamisadae—regions corresponding to modern southeastern Afghanistan, southern Balochistan, and the Hindu Kush area—while receiving 500 war elephants in exchange. Greek accounts, preserved in fragments by Strabo and Justin, describe these territories as "satrapies" relinquished due to military pressure, confirming Mauryan dominance up to the Indus River and beyond into satrapal holdings but excluding deeper Iranian provinces like Aria or Drangiana, which Seleucus retained. Debates center on the southern boundaries, where direct evidence is sparse and reliant on later textual traditions rather than contemporary inscriptions or artifacts attributable to Chandragupta. Jain scriptures, such as the , portray an expansive reach into the Deccan and , linking it to Chandragupta's eventual Jain renunciation and southward migration with Bhadrabahu around 297 BCE, potentially implying conquests up to the plateau to secure resources or flight from . However, these accounts, composed centuries later by Jain authors, exhibit hagiographic tendencies that prioritize religious narrative over verifiable geography, lacking corroboration from archaeological finds like or administrative edicts specific to Chandragupta's era in southern regions. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence, including the absence of Mauryan-style pillars or south of the during Chandragupta's reign (c. 321–297 BCE), supports a more limited southern frontier, likely extending only to the Vindhya Mountains or northern Deccan fringes through alliances or tributary control rather than direct annexation. Scholars contrast this with expansions under successors and , who extended influence via Tamil references in and Ashokan edicts mentioning southern polities as subordinates, suggesting Chandragupta's core efforts focused northward on consolidation against Greek threats and eastern integration of Nanda holdings. Greek observers like , reporting on around 300 BCE, describe a vast but centralized domain without detailing southern campaigns, reinforcing interpretive caution against overextending Jain claims into imperial geography. Eastern limits to and possibly face less contention, aligned with Nanda precedents and logistical feasibility from Magadha's base. These debates underscore the challenges of reconstructing boundaries from fragmented sources: Greek texts provide reliable western details via diplomatic records but second-hand transmission, while indigenous traditions blend history with , necessitating cross-verification with that remains underdeveloped for pre-Ashokan Mauryan phases.

Governance and Policies

Administrative Framework

Chandragupta Maurya established a highly centralized administrative system that emphasized autocratic royal authority, bureaucratic efficiency, and surveillance to maintain control over a vast territory spanning much of the by circa 300 BCE. The king served as the supreme executive, legislative, and judicial head, concentrating power in his hands while relying on a (mantriparishad) for advice on policy, revenue, and military matters. This structure drew heavily from principles outlined in the , a on statecraft attributed to his advisor (also known as Kautilya), which advocated for a merit-based of officials (amatyas) appointed to oversee diverse functions including taxation, , and . The empire was divided into provinces (janapadas), typically four to five in number—such as those centered at , , , and Suvarnagiri—each governed by a or prince (kumara or arya-putra) directly accountable to the king, ensuring loyalty through familial ties or close appointees. These provinces were further subdivided into districts (aharas or pradeshas) managed by district officers (raashtrikas or pradeshikas) responsible for local revenue collection, , and maintenance, with villages (gramas) at the base level led by headmen (gramikas) handling community disputes and minor taxation. A sophisticated network, comprising stationary and wandering spies (gudhapurushas), monitored officials and subjects alike to prevent and rebellion, reflecting a pragmatic emphasis on internal security over decentralized autonomy. Urban administration, particularly in the capital , was meticulously organized as described by the Greek ambassador around 302 BCE: the city was overseen by six boards of five members each, tasked with specialized duties including industrial arts, foreign visitors' welfare, vital statistics registration, commerce oversight, manufactured goods inspection, and marketable produce sales. This board system extended principles of division of labor to , minimizing overlap and enhancing accountability, while royal inspectors (mahamatyas) conducted periodic audits. Judicial functions operated through specialized courts, with dharmasthiyas adjudicating civil matters based on and royal edicts, underscoring the system's blend of ethical and coercive enforcement to sustain imperial cohesion.

Economic Measures and Infrastructure

The Mauryan economy under Chandragupta Maurya emphasized centralized revenue collection, with land taxation forming the primary source, typically levied as one-quarter to one-sixth of agricultural produce based on and availability. Additional imposts included tolls on , customs duties on imports and exports, and specific levies for state-supplied , ensuring fiscal sustainability while funding administrative and military needs. This system, informed by principles in the attributed to , prioritized equitable assessment to avoid overburdening producers and stimulate productivity. Agriculture served as the economic backbone, with state oversight on land classification, , and to maximize yields and resource extraction from mines and timber. flourished through standardized weights, measures, and punch-marked silver coins, facilitating internal exchange and external commerce, particularly with regions beyond the empire's frontiers as noted by . State monopolies extended to and certain crafts, reflecting a regulated approach to prevent private hoarding and ensure revenue flow. Infrastructure development included the initiation of extensive road networks, such as precursors to the route connecting the northwest to the Gangetic plains, enhancing military mobility and trade efficiency. canals and waterways were constructed under royal patronage to support in arid zones, though detailed attributions to Chandragupta's era remain intertwined with broader Mauryan efforts. in capitals like featured fortified structures and organized markets, underscoring a pragmatic focus on logistical integration across the vast territory.

Military Reforms

Chandragupta Maurya established a large , estimated by classical sources at 600,000 , 30,000 , 8,000 chariots, and 9,000 war elephants, which represented a significant expansion and professionalization over the preceding Nanda forces. This force was maintained year-round, supported by dedicated state revenues and , enabling sustained campaigns against regional powers and Greek satraps in the northwest. The army's organization featured specialized administrative oversight, as described by the Greek ambassador Megasthenes, through a war office comprising six boards of five members each: one for infantry, one for cavalry, one for elephants, one for chariots, one for the navy, and one for supply logistics and weaponry. This structure ensured coordinated recruitment, training, and maintenance, with the highest command under a senapati (commander-in-chief) who received substantial remuneration equivalent to provincial governors. Reforms emphasized discipline and merit-based advancement, drawing from Kautilya's Arthashastra, which advocated for a core of professional troops supplemented by tribal levies, rigorous espionage for intelligence, and fortified camps with moats and watchtowers during expeditions. Military tactics incorporated , leveraging elephants for against cavalry-heavy foes like the Seleucids, while units were bolstered through alliances and breeding programs in the Indus and regions. The Arthashastra's recommendations for , including sowing discord among enemies and using spies to assess loyalties, underpinned Chandragupta's successes, such as the guerrilla campaigns that weakened Nanda control before direct assaults. These reforms centralized control under the , reducing reliance on feudal levies and enabling rapid mobilization for conquests that unified much of the subcontinent by circa 305 BCE.

Later Years and Succession

Dynastic Marriages and Heirs

Chandragupta Maurya's marriages were primarily strategic, aimed at legitimizing his rule and forging international alliances. His chief consort, , bore him , the prince who would succeed him as emperor around 297 BCE. Jain texts, such as the 12th-century by , identify Durdhara as the mother of Bindusara and portray her marriage to Chandragupta as occurring circa 325 BCE, shortly after his overthrow of the Nanda dynasty; some traditions link her to the Nanda family, suggesting a union to secure loyalty among former elites, though this remains unconfirmed in contemporary records. A pivotal dynastic alliance came through the treaty with , concluded circa 303 BCE following military confrontations in the northwest. Greek sources, including Strabo's (15.2.9) and Appian's (55), attest that the agreement involved a between Chandragupta and an unnamed daughter of Seleucus, alongside territorial cessions to Maurya control (, , ) and Seleucus receiving 500 war elephants. This union symbolized mutual recognition of sovereignty and deterred further conflict, integrating Hellenistic diplomacy into Mauryan statecraft without evidence of issue from the marriage. Bindusara, born approximately 320–310 BCE, emerged as Chandragupta's sole documented heir and effective successor, with Puranic genealogies listing him as the second Maurya ruler who expanded the empire southward. No reliable ancient sources record additional legitimate children, though later legends occasionally mention unverified sons like Keshnak; these lack corroboration from Buddhist, Jain, or Greek texts and likely reflect embellishments. Bindusara's ascension followed Chandragupta's amid his of Jain asceticism, ensuring dynastic continuity amid the founder's withdrawal from governance.

Jain Renunciation and Death

Jain tradition holds that Chandragupta Maurya, influenced by the Bhadrabahu I, embraced in his later years following the sage's prophecy of a twelve-year famine afflicting . Bhadrabahu, recognized as the last schism-less leader of the , served as Chandragupta's spiritual preceptor, guiding him toward ascetic renunciation. This conversion prompted Chandragupta to abdicate the throne around 297 BCE in favor of his son , after which he accompanied Bhadrabahu southward to the region of present-day to evade the predicted calamity. As a Jain , Chandragupta undertook rigorous ascetic practices, including voluntary known as or santhara, a of gradual self-starvation to achieve spiritual purification and . He is said to have performed this at in , where he spent his final days in a , eventually succumbing to death circa 297 BCE at approximately age 43. The site, now a prominent Jain pilgrimage center, features the Chandragupta Basadi temple and inscriptions from later centuries associating the hill with his demise, though these postdate the event by over a millennium. Primary accounts of these events derive from Jain literature, such as the 12th-century by , which compiles earlier oral and textual traditions but lacks corroboration from contemporary non-Jain sources like Buddhist or Greek records. While archaeological evidence at , including footprints attributed to Chandragupta and references in medieval inscriptions to the Bhadrabahu-Chandragupta era, supports the locational tradition, the narrative's historicity remains debated due to its hagiographic nature and absence of direct epigraphic proof from the Mauryan period. Skeptics argue the story may reflect retrospective Jain claims to Mauryan patronage, contrasting with evidence of the dynasty's broader religious eclecticism under and .

Southern Influence Claims

Jain traditions assert that Chandragupta Maurya, influenced by the monk Bhadrabahu, renounced his throne around 297 BCE and migrated southward to the Deccan region, specifically to in present-day , where he practiced , a ritual fast unto death. This narrative, preserved in texts like the 12th-century by , portrays the migration as a response to a predicted 12-year in the north, leading Bhadrabahu to lead Jain ascetics south to preserve the faith. Proponents cite this as evidence of Chandragupta's personal influence extending to southern India through the dissemination of , potentially laying groundwork for later Mauryan administrative or cultural ties in the region. However, these claims lack corroboration from contemporary sources, such as Greek accounts or early inscriptions, which focus on Chandragupta's northern and western consolidations without mentioning southern ventures. Epigraphic evidence at , including 5th-century CE inscriptions and reliefs, references Chandragupta's presence and association with Bhadrabahu, but these postdate his era by centuries and reflect retrospective rather than direct historical records. The Chandragupta Basadi cave temple at the site is traditionally linked to his ascetic practices, yet archaeological analysis indicates construction or significant modifications occurred much later, undermining claims of immediate Mauryan-era influence. Some Jain sources extend the influence claim to military conquests in the Deccan under Chandragupta, suggesting he subdued southern kingdoms before his renunciation, but this is not supported by primary archaeological data or foreign testimonies, which attribute southern expansions primarily to his successors and . Historians note that while Mauryan artifacts appear in the Deccan, they align more with later imperial phases, indicating the southern claims for Chandragupta rely heavily on sectarian traditions prone to legendary embellishment for doctrinal purposes, without empirical verification from neutral or contemporaneous evidence. This meta-reliance on Jain texts highlights potential hagiographic biases, as they prioritize spiritual narratives over verifiable chronology, contrasting with the empire's documented northern focus during his reign.

Legacy and Assessments

Foundational Impact on Indian Statecraft

Chandragupta Maurya's conquests, culminating in the unification of much of the by approximately 305 BCE following his victory over , established the as the first extensive centralized polity in ancient , shifting from fragmented janapadas to imperial governance. This centralization, guided by his advisor Kautilya (also known as ), integrated principles of , administrative efficiency, and economic control, as detailed in the Arthashastra, a treatise attributed to Kautilya that emphasized state power through , taxation, and military organization. The empire's structure, with as the capital and provinces overseen by viceroys or mahamatras, ensured direct royal oversight, reducing feudal fragmentation and enabling uniform policy implementation across diverse regions. The Mauryan administrative framework profoundly influenced subsequent Indian statecraft by prioritizing bureaucratic rationalism over hereditary feudalism, a model that the Gupta Empire later emulated in maintaining political unity and security through organized officials and revenue collection. Economic measures, including state monopolies on key industries like mining and irrigation, alongside standardized coinage and trade routes, fostered prosperity and set fiscal precedents that bolstered imperial longevity, contrasting with less centralized Vedic-era systems. Military reforms under Chandragupta, featuring a professional standing army estimated at 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and significant elephant corps, integrated conquest with diplomacy, such as the treaty with Seleucus that ceded territories for 500 elephants, exemplifying strategic pragmatism in Arthashastra-style statecraft. This foundational emphasis on autocratic centralism tempered by institutional checks, including a vast spy network for internal stability, provided a causal template for imperial resilience, evident in later dynasties' adoption of similar and provincial to manage vast territories, though adapted to regional variances. The Mauryan legacy thus embedded a realist in Indian political thought, prioritizing empirical control over the land, resources, and populace to sustain , influencing from the Guptas through medieval kingdoms despite intermittent decentralizations.

Comparisons with Contemporaries

Chandragupta Maurya's rule from circa 321 to 297 BCE coincided with the fragmentation of Alexander the Great's empire following the latter's death in 323 BCE. Greek sources, including Plutarch's Life of Alexander, recount that a youthful Chandragupta—known to Greeks as Sandrocottus—encountered Alexander during his 326 BCE incursion into northwest India and advised him to advance against the unpopular Nanda dynasty in the Ganges plain, claiming even Chandragupta's herdsmen could defeat its forces. Alexander's army, however, mutinied at the Hyphasis River, halting further progress and allowing Chandragupta to later consolidate power in the power vacuum left by retreating Macedonian satraps. In contrast to Alexander's transient conquests, which spanned from to the Indus but dissolved into warring successor states without enduring administrative unity, Chandragupta established a stable, centralized empire through systematic conquest and governance, absorbing the Nanda territories and extending control over the subcontinent's core from the Indus to . This longevity stemmed from institutional reforms, including a vast reportedly numbering 600,000 , 30,000 , and 9,000 elephants, enabling defensive depth absent in Alexander's expeditionary forces reliant on and . A direct contemporary rival was , Alexander's former general, who by 305 BCE sought to reclaim eastern territories as founder of the . The ensuing conflict ended in a around 303 BCE, whereby Seleucus ceded the satrapies of , , , and possibly —encompassing modern southern , , and parts of —to Chandragupta in exchange for 500 Indian war elephants, which proved decisive in Seleucus' victory over Antigonus at the in 301 BCE. The agreement also formalized a dynastic , with Seleucus betrothing a daughter (possibly ) to Chandragupta, securing along shared borders and allowing Seleucus to redirect resources westward. This outcome underscored Chandragupta's strategic acumen in leveraging numerical superiority and terrain familiarity against Hellenistic incursions, while Greek accounts like those of and , preserved in later compilations, reflect the treaty's terms without detailing battle specifics, suggesting a negotiated stalemate favoring Mauryan expansion. These interactions highlight Chandragupta's focus on territorial consolidation and diplomatic realism over Alexander's relentless expansionism, fostering an empire that outlasted immediate Hellenistic threats and influenced subsequent Indian statecraft.

Historiographical Debates and Modern Views

The primary sources for Chandragupta Maurya's life and reign—Greek historical accounts, Puranic chronicles, Buddhist texts, and Jain literature—present fragmented and sometimes contradictory narratives, prompting ongoing debates about their reliability and mutual corroboration. Greek writers like Strabo and Arrian, drawing from earlier reports such as those by Megasthenes, confirm Chandragupta's northwestern conquests circa 305 BCE, including the defeat of Seleucus I and acquisition of territories up to the Indus River in exchange for 500 war elephants, but offer scant details on his origins or internal policies. Puranas provide a chronological backbone, dating his accession around 321 BCE after overthrowing the Nanda dynasty and his death circa 297 BCE, though these texts were compiled centuries later and prioritize dynastic lists over biography. Buddhist and Jain sources, while rich in legend, introduce variances attributable to sectarian agendas: the former emphasize his alliances with northwestern tribes amid post-Alexander fragmentation, while the latter glorify his purported piety. A central historiographical debate revolves around Chandragupta's social origins and , with ancient texts offering incompatible accounts that modern scholars scrutinize for legendary embellishment. Buddhist traditions, such as the Mahavamsa, depict him as born to a low-caste peacock-tamer (mura) in a , aligning with a of ascent through merit and in the power vacuum left by the Nandas and Macedonian satraps. Jain texts like the similarly stress humble beginnings but integrate him into prophetic lineages to legitimize Mauryan rule. Some later Indian traditions retroactively claim or royal ancestry to fit varna norms, yet archaeological and cross-textual evidence favors the low-origin view, as his consolidation of circa 321–317 BCE reflects guerrilla tactics and alliances rather than inherited legitimacy. Scholars caution against over-reliance on these sources, noting their composition 500–1000 years post-event and potential bias toward moralizing rulers' rises. The historicity and influence of (identified with Kautilya) remain contested, blending empirical policy insights with dramatized lore. The , ascribed to Kautilya, outlines strategies—spying networks, fiscal centralization, and —that plausibly informed Chandragupta's , as echoed in Greek descriptions of Mauryan efficiency. However, its layered composition, with core elements possibly from the BCE but additions up to the , complicates direct attribution. Legends in the drama portray Chanakya as a vengeful mentor engineering the Nanda downfall, yet these lack contemporary attestation and resemble folk etiologies; Buddhist and Jain parallels reinforce the trope without independent verification, leading modern analysts to view him as a composite figure symbolizing rather than a singular historical actor. Debates over Chandragupta's later religious life highlight tensions between tradition and evidential sparsity. Jain sources, including the Kalpa Sutra and later commentaries, assert his conversion to extreme asceticism around 297 BCE under Bhadrabahu, followed by abdication, southward migration, and death by voluntary starvation (sallekhana) at Shravanabelgola, Karnataka—claims tied to a 12-year famine prophecy and evidenced by a purported 7th-century inscription there. Yet these lack corroboration from Buddhist texts, which omit any such renunciation, or Greek records, which portray Mauryan rulers as worldly; no Mauryan-era artifacts or edicts link Chandragupta personally to Jainism, unlike Ashoka's explicit Buddhist pillars. Contemporary scholarship often regards this as a post-3rd century BCE Jain interpolation to retroactively affiliate the dynasty with the faith, possibly motivated by Bhadrabahu's historical schism and southern exodus amid northern persecutions, rather than verifiable biography. Modern assessments reconstruct Chandragupta's empire as a proto-imperial network spanning the Gangetic plains, , and northwest frontiers up to modern by 303 BCE, but not yet penetrating deep south or east as under successors—evidenced by punch-marked silver coins standardizing trade and Seleucid treaty terms, rather than uniform control. Archaeological data, including excavations showing Hellenistic-Mauryan , supports a centralized yet federated amid Iron Age transitions, countering overstatements of monolithic unity. Historians emphasize causal factors like exploiting Nanda overextension and Alexander's 326 BCE retreat, crediting Chandragupta with pioneering scalable governance that endured via , though debates persist on over-ascribing administrative sophistication to unverified texts like the . Overall, he is viewed as India's first empirically attested unifier, whose pragmatic realism—evident in diplomatic elephant exchanges and internal pacification—laid causal precedents for enduring state forms, stripped of hagiographic excess.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.