In 1947 the modern Republic of Bharat adopted certain ancient symbols as its own, among these were the so-called Ashok Chakra, the Lion Pillar from Sarnath, the peacock as the national bird. What do they have in common? They were symbols of the Imperial Mauryans who ruled the sub-continent many millennia ago.

The modern Indian nation therefore sees itself as a successor of the Mauryans; but of which Maurya?

There is a tendency to forget the actual conqueror, Chandragupta, and make the Mauryans all about Ashoka Maurya.

In the mainstream narrative Ashoka is the great Maurya, the Emperor who ruled almost all of the subcontinent in accordance with “enlightened Buddhist” principles (in opposition to Hindu ones). The story also goes that he became a Buddhist horrified by the ravages of the war he had waged on Kalinga.

Many strands have to be untangled here; made up narratives that the Nehruvian establishment wished to push. Ashoka is the Chakravarti who conquered all of India and ruled long and gloriously over Jambudweepa. The difference between the reformist Buddhist religion and the retrograde Hindu religion is carefully underlined.

Having spent more than 15 years researching the Mauryans, writing books and articles on them and in the process of making a web series “Mauryalok” I will clarify a few matters here.

Political Unity of the sub-continent

Who established the political unity of the sub-continent? Was it Ashoka or was he merely the inheritor of the mantle of his grandfather? One which he could not maintain, too well, incidentally.

“Ashokan” inscriptions have been found from Afghanistan to Karnataka and this fosters the impression that the conquest was also his. In actual fact, apart from the gaps in the evidence of who is Piyadassi of the inscriptions (a completely different story) and the evidence which points to the “Ashokan” pillars being pre Ashoka it is also true that he has been a favourite of the intellectual establishment in India and has been played up as the “Great Buddhist Emperor”, the likes of whom have never been seen again.

Here I will provide evidence and reasoning to support the statement that Chandragupta and Chanakya were the true political unifiers of the sub-continent from Northern Kabul or Kubha (in Afghanistan) to Southern Karnataka; Eastern Saurashtra to Western Chandraketugarh (Bangladesh now). The modern Indian state is, of course, much smaller than that.

Chandragupta took over the kingdom of the Nandas after defeating the last Nanda King around 321 BCE. What was the extent of the empire of the Nandas?  According to Greek, Roman and Pauranic sources they ruled from Punjab to Odisha, down to Andhra Pradesh and Mysore.

The Roman historian, Plutarch (in his LIVES) tells us that Chandragupta, after dethroning the last Nanda, commanded an army of 600,000 soldiers and over ran the entire country.

For the southern part of India, we get to know from Sangam era poets and inscriptional sources that the influence of the Mauryans existed in the South, too. The Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas and Satiyaputas were independent kingdoms but in the sphere of influence of the Mauryans.

Chandragupta’s war with Seleucus, the successor of Alexandar of Macedon, gained for him the 4 provinces of Kabul, Kandahar, Herat and Baluchistan in Afghanistan

Now to the special case of Kalinga. Was it originally conquered for the Mauryans by Ashoka Maurya? The balance of evidence does not agree.  Rock Edict 13 mentions the war with Kalinga but was it against an independent kingdom or was it an uprising such as the one in Takshshila Ashoka himself had gone to subdue earlier?

It is most probably the latter because as we have seen the Nandas had brought Kalinga under Magadha during their rule. This is also attested to by Kharavela’s Hathigumpha inscription mentioning the earlier rule of the Nandas over Kalinga. Evidence suggests therefore that it was already part of the Mauryan Empire right from the time of Chandragupta.

In sum, the political unifier, the establisher of the First Empire of Bharat was Chandragupta Maurya, under the guidance of his Guru, Chanakya. It is Mauryan symbols, indestructible through the centuries, that guide us as we carry our civilisation forward.

The “Great Buddhist Emperor”?

Buddhism as a reform of Hinduism is a bogus idea which is a favorite of Western Indologists. They were influenced by the Protestant reform of Catholicism and seized on Gautam Buddha as an Indian Martin Luther who had reformed the regressive Hindu religion. This story has been peddled for the past many decades and Eurocentric centuries without any evidence.

In actual fact Gautama Buddha, like Vardhamana Mahavir and Makkali Ghosala and others were all part of the Indic tradition along with all other Aastik and Nastik traditions. They were all part of the same tree, just different branches.

This hard division between these Indic religions is a modern phenomenon manufactured by those who misunderstand the comprehensiveness and unity of Indic traditions. The gaze and framework of the Christian tradition has completely misunderstood the Indic tradition and this narrative has been bought by large numbers of Indians.

Ashoka favoured Buddhism, even spent time effort and resources to spread it. He was a follower of Gautama Buddha as can be seen from his pillar and rock inscriptions. But this did not mean that other Indic traditions were wiped out. All Mauryan emperors were eclectic in their beliefs, Jaina, Buddhist, Ajivika traditions derived from Sanatana Dharma and lived alongside it. That, too, is evidenced by different cave, rock and pillar inscriptions and textual sources.

Now for the much vaunted “progressive” ideas contained in the pillar and rock inscriptions of Ashoka.

Are they all influenced by Buddhism and so contain ideas external to Hinduism? No and No.

Not only do the ideas of Buddhism but also the concepts of Kingship and rule in the inscriptions emerge from the womb of the same Sanatana Dharma

Ideas of the King as the father of his subjects, of the welfare of the people, of social welfare, animal welfare, upkeep of the kingdom etc all have their roots in Indic philosophy. They can be traced to the Arthashastra as well as other Indic texts.

Here is an example from Chapter 1 of the Arthashastra regarding the role of the king. He has to work for and uphold the prosperity of the praja. In their welfare lies his welfare, not the other way around. The two shlokas are reproduced here.

१.१३.७:

तेन भृता राजानः प्रजानां योगक्षेमावहाः

।७।

१.१९.३४

प्रजासुखे सुखं राज्ञः प्रजानां च हिते हितम्।

नात्मप्रियं हितं राज्ञः प्रजानां तु प्रियं हितम् ।। ३४।।

As a student of history and of the shastras it seems astonishing and incomprehensible to me that the Indic sources and roots of Ashokan inscriptions are blandly ignored by scholars. In this specific case anyone who has read the Arthashastra and the inscriptions of Ashoka cannot but be struck by their similarity. So why has this fact been ignored by academia? One or two who comment say that the role of the king as described in the Arthashastra may sound good but was merely hypocrisy with no existence in real governance! I wonder why the same charge may not be levelled against Ashokan pillars! As for ignoring facts which stare the student in the face, Leftist history has notoriously made a habit of it.

A small example has been given above (books can and should be written on it) but it is true that all Ashokan ideas come from our own shastras and the Mauryan era Arthashastra can be seen as a direct source. Not for nothing has Buddhism been called old wine in new bottles and the inscriptions of Ashoka, too have deep, deep roots in the philosophy and ethos of this land.

In sum, the Mauryans were the first empire of Jambudweepa. Chanakya and Chandragupta built it together. For reasons of its own the Nehruvian establishment stole this credit and gave it wholesale to Ashoka. The ideas of Gautama Buddha, derived from the principles of Sanatana Dharma, were also erroneously presented as a radical departure from the regressive faith of the Hindus, a reform of a crumbling, exploitative and backward philosophy.

It is time to correct those errors. The Mauryans are the fountainhead of royal power, Rajalaxmi, in Bharat, rooted in Indic traditions. All those who came after them have tried to partake of that essence of Bharatiya royalty; whether it be the Guptas, who even borrowed the name of Chandragupta or Firuz Shah Tughlaq who uprooted an Ashokan pillar to inscribe his own message on it or the modern Indian state.

The Mauryans live…in us!

Note:

The author writes a historical fiction series set in the Mauryan Empire called “Urnabhih” available on Amazon Kindle.

She is also producing a weekly web series “Mauryalok” which tells the story of Mauryan India through the Arthashastra. 14 simple modules on different aspects of the Mauryan State.

Watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1LiO0IyCEyXPXi632DUIBQ