Power and Piety: The Maurya Empire, c. 324– 187 BCE

Power and Piety: The Maurya Empire, c. 324– 187 BCE

Chapter – 7

Harshit Sharma

Political Science (BHU)

Contact

In 1905, a Sanskrit manuscript of a text called Arthashastra was handed over to R. Shamashastry.
The text was written in Grantha script and had a commentary by Bhattasvamin, with 15 books divided into sections.
Shamashastry initially believed the manuscript to be only a century or two old but recognized it as an older work on statecraft.
His translations of the text were published, generating interest and leading to the discovery of more manuscripts and commentaries.
Controversy arose about the age and authorship of the Arthashastra, with some attributing it to the Maurya period and Kautilya/Chanakya.
The Maurya empire (c. 324–187 BCE) established a vast rule over much of the Indian subcontinent.
Sources for the Maurya period include Puranas, Jaina works, historical dramas, and Buddhist texts.
Ashoka, one of the prominent Maurya kings, is extensively featured in Buddhist texts and is known for his exemplary rule.
Textual sources, particularly Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Megasthenes’ Indica, play a significant role in understanding the Mauryas and their era.

The Arthashastra of Kautilya is a sophisticated treatise on statecraft.
It emphasizes “artha” (material well-being) as superior to “dharma” (spiritual well-being) and “kama” (sensual pleasure).
The Arthashastra comprises 15 books, dealing with internal administration, inter-state relations, and miscellaneous topics.
There is a debate about the date and authorship of the Arthashastra.
The traditional view attributes it to the 4th century BCE, written by Kautilya, who served as Chandragupta Maurya’s chief minister.
Some argue that the mention of Kautilya’s name could mean ‘as taught or held by Kautilya.’
Megasthenes’ Indica has been used to question the Arthashastra’s dating, but it has its own inaccuracies.
The Arthashastra is a theoretical work on statecraft, not a description of an actual state.
The text can be used as a source for certain aspects of the Maurya period, with the understanding of possible interpolations and later modifications.
The Arthashastra is valuable for understanding elements of Maurya statecraft and society but should not be taken as a direct historical account.

Thomas R. Trautmann conducted a statistical analysis of the Arthashastra to identify differences in word frequencies.
He concluded that three or four authors contributed to the composition of the Arthashastra.
Book 2 is attributed to one author, possibly connected to Book 1.
Book 3 is attributed to another author, and Books 4 and 5 are possibly connected to it.
Book 7 is attributed to yet another author, possibly connected to Books 9 and 10.
Books 12 and 13 form another cluster, possibly with Books 11 and 14.
Trautmann suggests the compilation of the Arthashastra may have been completed by c. 250 CE.
Critics argue that differences in word frequencies within chapters of the same books depend on the subject matter.
The use of “cha” and “va” is influenced by the need to discuss policy alternatives and specific details in different sections of the text.

The Maurya period witnessed increased trade and diplomatic interactions with Hellenistic kingdoms in the Western world.
Greek accounts mention Indian kings Sandrocottus (Chandragupta) and Amitrochates (Amitraghata or Bindusara) and their capital, Palimbothra (Pataliputra).
Megasthenes, a representative of Seleucus Nikator, served as an ambassador at the Maurya court.
Megasthenes wrote a book called the Indica based on his experiences in India; although the book itself is lost, fragments exist in later Greek and Latin works.
These accounts, by writers like Diodorus, Strabo, Arrian, and Pliny, provide descriptions of various aspects of India, but their perspectives were influenced by Greek traditions and interests.
These accounts contain descriptions of India’s geography, climate, plants, animals, society, and legends.
They highlight similarities between India and Greece, along with curious differences, and sometimes include fantastic or erroneous stories.
These accounts serve as a lens into how ancient Greeks perceived and interpreted India in the 4th century BCE.

Later Graeco-Roman writers had differing opinions about Megasthenes’ accuracy and reliability in describing India.
Strabo was critical of accounts of India due to their inconsistencies, reliance on hearsay, and contradictions among travelers.
Strabo expressed doubts about the credibility of Deimachus and Megasthenes, considering them unreliable.
Arrian was relatively more trusting of Megasthenes, as he had resided at the courts of Indian kings, Sandrocottus and Porus, and witnessed more than those who accompanied Alexander.
Pliny acknowledged the knowledge of India conveyed by Greek writers like Megasthenes and Dionysius but found their accounts conflicting and incredible.
The writings of these later scholars reflect their skepticism and challenges in interpreting and accepting accounts of India.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

Already a member? Log in here