Mauryan Collapse – Can we really Understand it¿

The Mauryan Empire was the largest empire of ancient Indian history. And based on the Puranas, historians argue that this great empire of ancient India came to an end around 187 BC when the Mauryan commander-in-chief Pushyamitra Shung killed his emperor Brihadarath. So this is what we know. But still there are many questions of whose answers we do not know. Firstly, how come the Mauryan emperor had become so weak that the commander-in-chief would not only think of killing him but he actually did it. Secondly, why we do not hear of any opposition of this killing. Like for instance, why did the other members of the Mauryan family did not oppose the accession of Pushyamitra Shung as the new emperor. So for most historians, this situation was the result of factors that had deep roots in Mauryan history. And it is these factors that ultimately led to the abrupt end of the empire. So what we will do in this video is we will look at what are the theories which different scholars over time have presented to explain the Mauryan decline. And we will also see what kind of evidence do these historians present when they talk about how the Mauryan empire came to an end. Also we will try to see whether we can really understand the Mauryan collapse. Now when we talk about historians who wrote about Mauryas, one of the earliest scholars was Vincent A. Smith. In his book, The Early History of India, Vincent Smith wrote that soon after the end of Ashoka's reign, the Mauryan empire broke up. Now Vincent Smith does not provide us the reasons or what kind of factors which he think were responsible for this breakup. But after Vincent Smith, we find that there are many historians who have tried to explain how the Mauryan empire declined. And when we look at what they wrote about this decline, we can say that broadly there are three different theories which come up. The first theory is quite simple. Here it is Ashoka who is the main villain. But Ashoka's role in this decline has been understood in two different ways. If you look at one of the earliest scholars who wrote about this theory, he is Hariprasad Shastri. In his 1910 article, Causes of the Dismemberment of the Mauryan Empire, here Hariprasad Shastri argued that Ashoka's allegiance to Buddhism earned him enemies, particularly those of other sects who resented Ashoka's patronage of Buddhism. In this explanation, which was later propagated by other historians, we also hear of the term Brahmanical revolution, in which it is argued that the assassination of the Mauryan emperor Brihadrath by Pushyamitra Shung was the culmination of the Brahmanical reaction, which had its roots in the anti-Brahmanical policies of Ashoka. Now you might want to know what kind of evidence which Hariprasad Shastri and other scholars who made this rather bold claim used. So mainly Ashokan edict and particularly the first major edict of Ashok where he says and I quote, here no living being must be killed and sacrificed and no festival must be held. Based on this statement of Ashok, Hariprasad Shastri argued that this ban on animal sacrifice by Ashok was directed against Brahmins as they were the priestly class and their livelihood was attached to sacrifices. Now if we are to believe this interpretation of Shastri, then it appears that Ashoka's relation with Brahmin were not that great and it appears that there was a kind of antagonism that prevailed between Ashok and Brahmins. So can we see this antagonism also in other edicts of Ashok? The answer is no. In fact, if we analyze or read Ashokan edicts, we find that the situation here is completely different. If we look at Ashoka's edict, for example, major rock edict 3, 4 and 11, here Ashok tells us that one should be respectful and courteous towards Shramanas and Brahmanas. Now if Ashoka's relation with Brahmins were not that great, then why would he also tell us or tell his subjects that they should be respectful and courteous towards Brahmanas. This does not make any sense. Now coming to the second way Ashok was responsible for the decline of the Mauryan empire, here it is argued that Ashoka's pacifist policy were the cause of Mauryan decline. Basically it is argued that after the Kalingan war, Ashok became a pacifist and he renounced violence. He did not pay much attention to military matters. That ultimately led to the Mauryan decline. Now if we look at the evidence which these scholars use to propagate this theory, they again use Ashokan edicts. And for example, if we look at the fourth major rock edict of Ashok, here Ashok categorically tells us that now Bheri Ghosh has been replaced by Dhamma Ghosh. So let's first understand what these two terms Bheri Ghosh and Dhamma Ghosh means. Bheri means cattle drums and Ghosh means sound. So the sound of cattle drums. So this particular term signifies military victory whereas Dhamma Ghosh means sound of Dhamma. So by saying that the Bheri Ghosh has been replaced by Dhamma Ghosh, Ashok is telling us that now there is no military victory. Instead Ashok has established or Ashok is achieving victory through Dhamma. Besides this edict, in other edicts of Ashok, he talks about non-violence. So all of these evidence has been used by these scholars to argue that Ashok after the Kalingan war became pacifist and he adopted non-violence. Now the question comes, is it really the case? So first of all we have to understand that these phrases of Ashok can be interpreted in different ways and Ashok in his edicts never mentions that he has abandoned war. And if we look at the 13th major rock edict, here Ashok addresses his sons and great grandsons and he tells them this inscription of Dhamma has been engraved so that any sons or great grandsons that I may have should not think of gaining new conquests and in whatever victories they may gain should be satisfied with patience and light punishment. They should only consider conquest by Dhamma to be a true conquest. Now in this statement, we can see that although Ashok is emphasizing conquest of Dhamma but he is also talking about future victories and these future victories which his sons and great grandsons would undertake, this would not happen without armies. So basically those scholars who are trying to paint Ashok as a pacifist, they are taking Ashoka's word literally. They should understand that Ashok in these edicts is trying to paint a picture of himself. He is projecting himself as a pacifist. He does not want to be seen as a warmonger. One of the best examples of this attempt by Ashok can be seen in the 13th major rock edict. Here Ashok is telling us that he is quite sorry for the suffering which he has caused to the people of Kalinga. He tells us and I quote, On conquering Kalinga, the beloved of the gods, that is Ashok, felt remorse. For when an independent country is conquered, the slaughter, death and deportation of the people is extremely grievous to the beloved of the gods and weighs heavily on his mind. So we can see that Ashok is quite distressed about the suffering which he has caused and we would assume that Ashok would make sure that the people for whom Ashok had this remorse, that is the Kalingan people, they should know about this. But that is not actually what we see. So if you look at Ashokan edicts and their location, we find that there are two places, Dhauli and Jaugad, which fall in the Kalingan territory. And in these two places, the Ashokan edicts are there. But this particular edict where Ashok is talking about the suffering which he has caused to the Kalingan people and how sorry he is, this particular edict is absent. Instead, we have two separate edicts which scholars call the separate Kalingan edict. Here, there is no mention of any remorse and feeling sorry for the suffering which is caused to the Kalingan people. The tone of these edicts, these separate edicts is also quite stern. So let's see what Ashok has to say about his Kalingan people. The king desires that they should have no trouble on his account. They should understand that the king will forgive them as far as they can be forgiven and that through him, they should follow dhamma and gain this world and the next. All of this goes to show that Ashoka was a pragmatic ruler and we should not take Ashoka's word literally. Now let's look at some other theories which scholars have put forward. So some scholars argue that the governors of the Mauryan empire were oppressive and this led to the Mauryan decline. Then there are some scholars who argue that after Ashok, the Mauryan economy was in considerable stress and to relieve this stress, the taxes were increased and this led to the Mauryan collapse. Frankly, if you ask me, we do not have enough evidence to support these two claims. Another popular theory is that the Mauryan emperors who came after Ashok did not rule the empire for long and these short reigns created instability. Now about this particular theory, there are some evidence which points to the short reign of the emperors who came after Ashok. Based on the sources, it is generally argued that the Mauryan empire lasted for 137 years and of these 137 years, the first three Mauryan emperors, Chandragupt, Bindusar and Ashok, their reigns lasted for 85 years total. This means that the rulers who came after Ashok, they ruled for a total of 52 years. Now if we look at the chronology or the list of the rulers who came after Ashok, we find that different sources give us different lists. If we look at the different Puranas, here are the lists of the Mauryan emperors who came after Ashok that different Puranas provide. If we look at Buddhist sources, this is the list which we get of Mauryan emperors who came after Ashok. So based on these lists, one study argued that after Ashok, there were six Mauryan emperors. So based on this study, we can see the list of emperors and how long they ruled. What you will notice that if we compare the reigns of these later Mauryan emperors to the reigns of the first three Mauryan emperors, Chandragupt, Bindusar and Ashok, we will see that these later Mauryans ruled for a considerably short period of time. And according to the scholars who argue for this theory, they point out that these short reigns were responsible for the instability that the Mauryan empire found itself in after the reign of Ashok. Now there are also some scholars who argue that immediately after Ashok, the Mauryan empire was divided into two parts. Now if this division ever happened, then it surely must have greatly contributed in to the instability that prevailed. So we have seen the different theories which scholars put forward to explain the Mauryan decline. But the question comes, can we really understand the Mauryan collapse? In my view, it is quite hard. Because we have to understand that to understand the decline or the collapse of a particular empire, we have to look for specific evidence. And in the case of Mauryan empire, these specific evidence are not present. We have, if we are talking about contemporary sources, only Ashokan edicts. And Ashokan edicts, as we have seen, does not provide us enough detail about the working of the Mauryan empire. We have to also understand that when we talk about the evidence related to the Mauryan empire, it is so little that we do not know about the political developments that took place after Ashoka's reign. So how can we precisely understand the Mauryan collapse? What we can have is a broad explanation that can explain how an empire, which is the size of a subcontinent, declines. Any attempt to introduce specificity into the understanding of this decline would lead to erroneous theories. If you like this video, do watch this playlist as well, where I have talked about different aspects of the Mauryan empire. If you like this channel, do subscribe. Thank you for watching.