ANCIENT HISTORY
7. MAURYAN EMPIRE
Foundation of the Mauryan Empire, Chandragupta, Kautilya and Arthashastra;
sources of information for Mauryan dynasty
Arthasastra
The Arthasastra is an important treatise on the polity and administration of the Mauryan times written by
Kautilya who was also known as Chanakya. However for many other scholars, the work is of a much later
period. Probably it was written in the early centuries of Christian era and that the author was a different person
and not the Prime Minister of Chandragupta Maurya. The generally accepted opinion amidst the controversies
regarding the authorship and its date is that the kernel of the Arthasastra belongs to the Mauryan age and was
written by Kautilya but it contains some later day additions and interpolations.
Arthasastra consists of 15 books. The first five deals with internal administration (tantra), the next eight with
inter-state relations (avapa) and the last two with miscellaneous topics.
The Arthasastra is a treatise on statecraft for a king and discusses a potential, not an actual state.
1. Arthasastra presents a state that controls the people, produce and resources of its domain with all
encompassing and robotic precision. However, in reality, the empire had only some elements of
centralized control along with a significant amount of delegation of authority to functionaries at provincial
district and village level.
2. The ideal of paternalistic rule is reflected in Arthasastra which states that the king should be like a father
towards his needy subjects. Ashoka’s ideals of kingship partially match those of the Arthasastra but bear
the impress of his own ideas. They include ensuring the welfare of all beings and of his subjects in this
world and the next.
3. Arthasastra recommends that the king must be accessible to the officials at all times. Ashoka’s rock
edict VI also emphasizes the king’s accessibility to the officials.
4. Arthasastra emphasizes the importance of the purohita. He advises the king to follow the purohita. Given
the eclectic religious beliefs and practices of the Mauryan kings, it is quite possible that the purohita was
not the major presence in their courts.
5. The Arthasastra mentions officials like samahartari (chief collector of revenue), samnidhatri (treasurer),
dauvarika (chief of palace attendant), antaravamshika (chief of the palace guards) and a large number of
, Addhyakshas (departmental heads). There must have existed many of these officials but not all of them.
6. Kautilya talks of extensive state participation, regulation and control over the economy. It talks of strict
control over market, trade, and artisan guilds etc. This indicates heights of power and control a state
could aspire rather than the actual situation in the state.
7. Although both the Arthasastra and Ashokan edicts speak of Dhamma Vijaya, they understand this term
very differently. In Arthasastra, military conquest was an important activity of the state and righteous
conquest was its most noble form. For Ashoka on the other hand Dhamma Vijaya was based on a
renunciation of military conquest.
The Arthasastra can be used as a source for certain aspects of the period. At the same time, we have to be
careful not to read the book as a description of Mauryan State and society.
Problem in using it as a source of history: There are differences in opinion about it's dates and authorship.
Traditional view: The traditional view is that it is a work of the 4th century BCE written by Kautilya,
also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupta, who became Chandragupta Maurya's chief minister after
helping him overthrow the Nandas. This view is supported by :
Two verses of arthashastra itself: Which says it has been composed by kautilya and also mentions
Nanda.
Later works : Kamandaka's Nitisara, Dandin's Dashakumaracharita, Vishakhadatta's
mudrarakshasa and Bana Bhatta's kadambari.
Kangle (1965) has pointed out that there are good reasons to support the traditional view, which
places Kautilya and the Arthashastra in the Maurya period.
On grounds of style, the book seems to be earlier than Vatsyayana's Kamasutra, Yajnavalkya
Smriti, and Manu Smriti..
The mention of the Ajivikas as an important sect, fits in with the Maurya period.
The references to sangha polities.
The discussion of the large-scale establishment of agricultural settlements.
The adminisirative structure reflected in the text does not match that of any other historical
dynasty.
According to Kangle, Vishnugupta seems to be the personal name of the author, Kautilya his
gotra name, and Chanakya (son of Chanaka) a patronym. He suggests that Kautilya a may
have written the book after having been insulted by the Nanda king, before
joining Chandragupta.
Questioning of traditional view:
The two verses dismissed as later interpolations.
It is argued that mentioning kautilya's name could mean “as taught or held by kautilya”.
There is no reference to kautilya in Patanjali's Mahabhashya(which mentions the Mauryas and
, the assembly of Chandragupta)
Couter view: Mahabhashya is a book of grammer, refers to historical personalities only
incidently.
Megasthenes doesn't mention Kautilya in his Indica.
Couter view: Megasthene's Indica survives only in fragments
Several differences between Arthashastra and megasthene's Indica in their discussion of
fortification,city administration, army administration and taxation. So, two books should not
belong to the same period, and since we know for sure that Megasthenes was Chandragupta
Maurya's contemporary, the Arthashastra must belong to some other.
Counter view: Megasthenes was not the most acute of observers and got many things
wrong': (e.g., his statements that in India land belongs to the king, that there are no slaves,
and that the Indians do not know writing).
Indica survives only in second hand paraphrases in later texts. For such reasons, the
Indica cannot be used as a yardstick against which to gauge the date of the Arthashastra.
The Arthashastra does not contain any references to the Mauryas, their empire, Chandragupta,
or Patirputra.
Counter view: This could be because it is a theoretical, not a descriptive work.
The Arthashastra's discussion of inter-state relations seems to refer to a small or moderate-
sized state, not a large empire of the maurya type.
Counter view: The text does emphasize imperial ideals and ambitions. The entire
discussion of statecraft is from the point of the vijigishu-the would-be conqueror- who
desires to conquer the entire subcontinent. Moreover, the outline of an elaborate
administrative structure and the generous salaries recommended for officials do suggest
that the author had a large well-established polity in mind.
Counter-views shows objection against traditional view is not convincing. In fact, almost all the
objections to the traditional view of the age and authorship of the text can be countered by this one
basic point : The Arthashastra is a treatise on statecraft for a king and discusses a potential,
not an actual state.
Although the Arthashastra does have a certain element of unity; it is very likely that there were later
interpolations and remoulding. But there do not yet seem to be sufficient grounds to abandon the
idea that some part of the text was composed in the Maurya period by a person named Kautliya,
allowing for later interpolations stretching into the early centuries CE.
Since it has some moorings in the maurya period, the Arthashastra can be used as a source for
certain aspect of the period. At the same time, we have to be careful not to read the book as a
description of Maurya sate or society.
Megasthenis - in other folder
, Ancient India- Megasthenes' Account.pdf 1 MB
Ashoka’s inscription
By far the most reliable source of information about the Mauryan history are the large number of Asoka’s
Inscriptions in the form of Rock Edicts and Pillar Edicts put up by him in different parts of his vast empire. Their
number and variety coupled with their value as contemporary records composed under the orders of the
emperor himself is a valuable source of our knowledge. They help us to know about his noble ideals and
outlook, besides throwing light on the religion, society and administration of the Mauryas. The language of the
Edicts is Prakrit and the Script used is Brahmi. He used another script called Kharosthi in certain parts of North-
Western India like Mansehra and Shahbazgarhi. Some inscriptions are Bilingual-in Greek and Arabic like those
found near Kandahar.
The three major sources for Mauryan dynasty may actually mask the ground realities. All of them were in one
way or other connected with the Mauryan court. They project the point of view of the political- intellectual elites
at the centre and perhaps exaggerate the level of central control.
Archaeological and numismatic evidence
Archaeological investigations are rather inadequate and reliable dates are few and far between. Archaeological
remains display a greater diversity of artifacts and heightening of urban features.
The coins as a source became significant during the Mauryan period. The coins of this period not bear the
names of the kings. They are called Punch-marked coins as different symbols are punched on them separately.
Certain symbols such as the crescent-on-arches, tree-in-railing and peacock-on-arches have been associated
with the Mauryan kings.
The punch marked coins of the Mauryan period were issued probably by a central authority as it indicated by
the uniformity of the symbols used.
However, there are some limitations of this statement:
There are many problems with the sources of Mauryan period.
Even the origin and caste affiliation of the Mauryas still remains obscure. o Some problem with chronology
and still persists.
There is an uncertainty about whether Chandragupta Maurya routed the foreigners (Greek garrisons in
north-west) first or defeated the Nandas.
7. MAURYAN EMPIRE
Foundation of the Mauryan Empire, Chandragupta, Kautilya and Arthashastra;
sources of information for Mauryan dynasty
Arthasastra
The Arthasastra is an important treatise on the polity and administration of the Mauryan times written by
Kautilya who was also known as Chanakya. However for many other scholars, the work is of a much later
period. Probably it was written in the early centuries of Christian era and that the author was a different person
and not the Prime Minister of Chandragupta Maurya. The generally accepted opinion amidst the controversies
regarding the authorship and its date is that the kernel of the Arthasastra belongs to the Mauryan age and was
written by Kautilya but it contains some later day additions and interpolations.
Arthasastra consists of 15 books. The first five deals with internal administration (tantra), the next eight with
inter-state relations (avapa) and the last two with miscellaneous topics.
The Arthasastra is a treatise on statecraft for a king and discusses a potential, not an actual state.
1. Arthasastra presents a state that controls the people, produce and resources of its domain with all
encompassing and robotic precision. However, in reality, the empire had only some elements of
centralized control along with a significant amount of delegation of authority to functionaries at provincial
district and village level.
2. The ideal of paternalistic rule is reflected in Arthasastra which states that the king should be like a father
towards his needy subjects. Ashoka’s ideals of kingship partially match those of the Arthasastra but bear
the impress of his own ideas. They include ensuring the welfare of all beings and of his subjects in this
world and the next.
3. Arthasastra recommends that the king must be accessible to the officials at all times. Ashoka’s rock
edict VI also emphasizes the king’s accessibility to the officials.
4. Arthasastra emphasizes the importance of the purohita. He advises the king to follow the purohita. Given
the eclectic religious beliefs and practices of the Mauryan kings, it is quite possible that the purohita was
not the major presence in their courts.
5. The Arthasastra mentions officials like samahartari (chief collector of revenue), samnidhatri (treasurer),
dauvarika (chief of palace attendant), antaravamshika (chief of the palace guards) and a large number of
, Addhyakshas (departmental heads). There must have existed many of these officials but not all of them.
6. Kautilya talks of extensive state participation, regulation and control over the economy. It talks of strict
control over market, trade, and artisan guilds etc. This indicates heights of power and control a state
could aspire rather than the actual situation in the state.
7. Although both the Arthasastra and Ashokan edicts speak of Dhamma Vijaya, they understand this term
very differently. In Arthasastra, military conquest was an important activity of the state and righteous
conquest was its most noble form. For Ashoka on the other hand Dhamma Vijaya was based on a
renunciation of military conquest.
The Arthasastra can be used as a source for certain aspects of the period. At the same time, we have to be
careful not to read the book as a description of Mauryan State and society.
Problem in using it as a source of history: There are differences in opinion about it's dates and authorship.
Traditional view: The traditional view is that it is a work of the 4th century BCE written by Kautilya,
also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupta, who became Chandragupta Maurya's chief minister after
helping him overthrow the Nandas. This view is supported by :
Two verses of arthashastra itself: Which says it has been composed by kautilya and also mentions
Nanda.
Later works : Kamandaka's Nitisara, Dandin's Dashakumaracharita, Vishakhadatta's
mudrarakshasa and Bana Bhatta's kadambari.
Kangle (1965) has pointed out that there are good reasons to support the traditional view, which
places Kautilya and the Arthashastra in the Maurya period.
On grounds of style, the book seems to be earlier than Vatsyayana's Kamasutra, Yajnavalkya
Smriti, and Manu Smriti..
The mention of the Ajivikas as an important sect, fits in with the Maurya period.
The references to sangha polities.
The discussion of the large-scale establishment of agricultural settlements.
The adminisirative structure reflected in the text does not match that of any other historical
dynasty.
According to Kangle, Vishnugupta seems to be the personal name of the author, Kautilya his
gotra name, and Chanakya (son of Chanaka) a patronym. He suggests that Kautilya a may
have written the book after having been insulted by the Nanda king, before
joining Chandragupta.
Questioning of traditional view:
The two verses dismissed as later interpolations.
It is argued that mentioning kautilya's name could mean “as taught or held by kautilya”.
There is no reference to kautilya in Patanjali's Mahabhashya(which mentions the Mauryas and
, the assembly of Chandragupta)
Couter view: Mahabhashya is a book of grammer, refers to historical personalities only
incidently.
Megasthenes doesn't mention Kautilya in his Indica.
Couter view: Megasthene's Indica survives only in fragments
Several differences between Arthashastra and megasthene's Indica in their discussion of
fortification,city administration, army administration and taxation. So, two books should not
belong to the same period, and since we know for sure that Megasthenes was Chandragupta
Maurya's contemporary, the Arthashastra must belong to some other.
Counter view: Megasthenes was not the most acute of observers and got many things
wrong': (e.g., his statements that in India land belongs to the king, that there are no slaves,
and that the Indians do not know writing).
Indica survives only in second hand paraphrases in later texts. For such reasons, the
Indica cannot be used as a yardstick against which to gauge the date of the Arthashastra.
The Arthashastra does not contain any references to the Mauryas, their empire, Chandragupta,
or Patirputra.
Counter view: This could be because it is a theoretical, not a descriptive work.
The Arthashastra's discussion of inter-state relations seems to refer to a small or moderate-
sized state, not a large empire of the maurya type.
Counter view: The text does emphasize imperial ideals and ambitions. The entire
discussion of statecraft is from the point of the vijigishu-the would-be conqueror- who
desires to conquer the entire subcontinent. Moreover, the outline of an elaborate
administrative structure and the generous salaries recommended for officials do suggest
that the author had a large well-established polity in mind.
Counter-views shows objection against traditional view is not convincing. In fact, almost all the
objections to the traditional view of the age and authorship of the text can be countered by this one
basic point : The Arthashastra is a treatise on statecraft for a king and discusses a potential,
not an actual state.
Although the Arthashastra does have a certain element of unity; it is very likely that there were later
interpolations and remoulding. But there do not yet seem to be sufficient grounds to abandon the
idea that some part of the text was composed in the Maurya period by a person named Kautliya,
allowing for later interpolations stretching into the early centuries CE.
Since it has some moorings in the maurya period, the Arthashastra can be used as a source for
certain aspect of the period. At the same time, we have to be careful not to read the book as a
description of Maurya sate or society.
Megasthenis - in other folder
, Ancient India- Megasthenes' Account.pdf 1 MB
Ashoka’s inscription
By far the most reliable source of information about the Mauryan history are the large number of Asoka’s
Inscriptions in the form of Rock Edicts and Pillar Edicts put up by him in different parts of his vast empire. Their
number and variety coupled with their value as contemporary records composed under the orders of the
emperor himself is a valuable source of our knowledge. They help us to know about his noble ideals and
outlook, besides throwing light on the religion, society and administration of the Mauryas. The language of the
Edicts is Prakrit and the Script used is Brahmi. He used another script called Kharosthi in certain parts of North-
Western India like Mansehra and Shahbazgarhi. Some inscriptions are Bilingual-in Greek and Arabic like those
found near Kandahar.
The three major sources for Mauryan dynasty may actually mask the ground realities. All of them were in one
way or other connected with the Mauryan court. They project the point of view of the political- intellectual elites
at the centre and perhaps exaggerate the level of central control.
Archaeological and numismatic evidence
Archaeological investigations are rather inadequate and reliable dates are few and far between. Archaeological
remains display a greater diversity of artifacts and heightening of urban features.
The coins as a source became significant during the Mauryan period. The coins of this period not bear the
names of the kings. They are called Punch-marked coins as different symbols are punched on them separately.
Certain symbols such as the crescent-on-arches, tree-in-railing and peacock-on-arches have been associated
with the Mauryan kings.
The punch marked coins of the Mauryan period were issued probably by a central authority as it indicated by
the uniformity of the symbols used.
However, there are some limitations of this statement:
There are many problems with the sources of Mauryan period.
Even the origin and caste affiliation of the Mauryas still remains obscure. o Some problem with chronology
and still persists.
There is an uncertainty about whether Chandragupta Maurya routed the foreigners (Greek garrisons in
north-west) first or defeated the Nandas.
