DECLINE OF THE MAURYAS

The decline of the Maurya Dynasty was rather rapid after the death of
Ashoka/Asoka. One obvious reason for it was the succession of weak kings.
Another immediate cause was the partition of the Empire into two. ad not the
partition taken place! the "reek invasions could have been held back giving a
chance to the Mauryas to re#establish some degree of their previous power.
Regarding the decline much has been written. Haraprasad Sastri contends that the revolt by
Pushyamitra was the result of brahminical reaction against the pro-Buddhist policies of
Ashoka and pro-aina policies of his successors. Basing themselves on this thesis! some
maintain the view that brahminical reaction was responsible for the decline because of the
following reasons.
$a% &rohibitino of the slaughter of animals displeased the 'rahmins as
animal sacri(ces were esteemed by them.
$b% The book Divyavadana refers to the persecution of 'uddhists by
&ushyamitra )unga.
$c% Asoka*s claim that he e+posed the 'udheveas $brahmins% as false gods
shows that Ashoka was not well disposed towards 'rahmins.
$d% The capture of power by &ushyamitra )unga shows the triumph of
'rahmins.
All these four points can be easily refuted. Asoka*s compassion towards animals
was not an overnight decision. ,epulsion of animal sacri(ces grew over a long
period of time. Even 'rahmins gave it up by the book Divyavadana! cannot be
relied upon since it was during the time of &ushyamitra )unga that the )anchi
and 'arhut stupas were completed. &robably the impression of the persecution of
'uddhism was created by Menander*s invasion who was a 'udhhist. Thridly! the
word *budheva* is misinterpreted because this word is to be taken in the conte+t
of some other phrase. -iewed like this! this word has nothing to do with
brahminism. .ourthly! the victory of &ushyamitra )unga clearly shows that the
last of the Mauryas was an incompetent ruler since he was overthrown in the
very presence of his army! and this had nothing to do with brahminical reaction
against Asoka*s patronage of 'udhism. Moreover! the very fact that a 'rahmin
was the commander in chief of the Mauryan ruler proves that the Mauryas and
the 'rahmins were on good terms.
After all! the distinction between
Hinduism and Buddhism in "ndia was
purely sectarian and never more than
the difference between saivism and
vaishnavism. #he e$clusiveness of
religious doctrines is a Semitic
conception! which was unknown to
"ndia for a long time. Buddha himself
was looked upon in his lifetime and
afterwards as a Hindu saint and avatar and his followers were but another sect in the great
Aryan tradition. Ashoka was a Buddhist in the same way as Harsha was a Budhist! or
%umarapala was a ain. But in the view of the people of the day he was a Hindu monarch
following one of the recogni&ed sects. His own inscriptions bear ample withness to the fact.
'hile his doctrines follow themiddle path! his gifts are to the brahmibns! sramansa (Buddhist
priests) and others e*ually. His own name of adoption is +evanam Priya! the beloved of the
gods. 'hich gods, Surely the gods of the Aryan religion. Buddhism had no gods of its own.
#he idea that Ashoka was a kind of Buddhist -onstantine declearing himself against
paganism is a complete misreading of "ndia conditions. Asoka was a kind or Buddhist
-onstantine declearing himself against paganism is a complete misreading of "ndia
conditions. Asoka was essentially a Hindu! as indeed was the founder of the sect to which he
belonged.
Raychaudhury too rebuts the arguments of Sastri. #he empire had shrunk considerably and
there was no revolution. %illing the .auryan %ing while he was reviewing the army points to
a palace coup detat not a revolution. #he organi&ation were ready to accept any one who
could promise a more efficient organisation. Also if Pushyamitra was really a representative
of brahminical reaction he neighbouting kings would have definitely given him assistance.
#he argument that the empire became effete because of Asokan policies is also very thin. All
the evidence suggests that Asoka was a stern monarch although his reign witnessed only a
single campaign. He was shrewd enough in retaining %alinga although he e$pressed his
remorse. 'ell he was wordly-wise to enslave and-and-half lakh sudras of %alinga and bring
them to the .agadha region to cut forests and cultivate land. .ore than this his tours of the
empire were not only meant for the sake of piety but also for keeping an eye on the
centrifugal tendencies of the empire. 'hich addressing the tribal people Asoka e$pressed his
willingness to for given. .ore draconian was Ashoka/s message to the forest tribes who were
warned of the power which he possessed. #his view of Raychoudhury on the pacifism of the
State cannot be substantiated.
Apart from these two ma0or writers there is a third view as e$pressed by kosambi. He based
his arguments that unnccessary measures were taken up to increase ta$ and the punch-marked
coins of the period show evidence of debasement. #his contention too cannot be up held. "t is
*uite possible that debased coins began to circulate during the period of the later .auryas.
1n the other hand the debasement may also indicate that there was an increased demand for
silver in relation to goods leading to the silver content of the coins being reduced. .ore
important point is the fact that the material remains of the post-Asokan era do not suggest any
pressure on the economy. "nstead the economy prospered as shown by archaeological
evidence at Hastinapura and Sisupal*arh. #he reign of Asoka was an asset to the economy.
#he unification of the country under single efficient administration the organi&ation and
increase in communications meant the development of trade as well as an opening of many
new commercial interest. "n the post - Asokan period surplus wealth was used by the rising
commercial classes to decorate religious buildings. #he sculpture at Barhut and Sanchi and
the +eccan caves was the contribution of this new bourgeoisie.
Still another view regarding of the decline of .auryas was that the coup of Pushyamitra was
a peoples/ revolt against .auryans oppression and a re0ection of the .aurya adoption of
foreign ideas! as far interest in .auryan Art.
#his argument is based on the view that Sunga art (Sculpture at Barhut and Sanchi) is more
earthy and in the folk tradition that .aruyan art. #his is more stretching the argument too far.
#he character of Sunga art changed because it served a different purpose and its donors
belonged to different social classes. Also! Sunga art conformed more to the folk traditions
because Buddhism itself had incorporated large elements of popular cults and because the
donors of this art! many of whom may have been artisans! were culturally more in the
mainstream of folk tradition.
1ne more reasoning to support the popular revolt theory is based on Asoka/s ban on the
sama0as. Asoka did ban festive meetings and discouraged eating of meat. #hese too might
have entagonised the population but it is doubtful whether these prohibitions were strictly
enforced. #he above argument (people/s revolt) also means that Asoka/s policy was continued
by his successors also! an assumption not confirmed by historical data. 2urther more! it is
unlikely that there was sufficient national consciousness among the varied people of the
.auryan empire. "t is also argued by these theorists that Asokan policy in all its details was
continued by the later .auryas! which is not a historical fact.
Still another argument that is advanced in favour of the idea of revolt against the .auryas is
that the land ta$ under the .auryas was one-*uarter! which was very burden some to the
cultivator. But historical evidence shows something else. #he land ta$ varied from region to
region according to the fertility of the soil and the availability of water. #he figure of one
*uarter stated by .agasthenes probably referred only to the fertile and well-watered regions
around Pataliputra.
#hus the decline of the .auryan empire cannot be satisfactorily e$plained by referring to
.ilitary inactivity! Brahmin resentment! popular uprising or economic pressure. #he causes
of the decline were more fundamental. #he organi&ation of administration and the concept of
the State were such that they could be sustained by only by kings of considerably personal
ability. After the death of Asoka there was definitely a weakening at the center particularly
after the division of the empire! which inevitably led to the breaking of provinces from the
.auryan rule.
Also! it should be borne in mind that all the officials owed their loyalty to the king and not to
the State. #his meant that a change of king could result in change of officials leading to the
demorali&ation of the officers. .auryas had no system of ensuring the continuation of well-
planned bureaucracy.
#he ne$t important weakness of the .auryan 3mpire was its e$treme centrali&ation and the
virtual monopoly of all powers by the king. #here was a total absence of any advisory
institution representing public opinion. #hat is why the .auryas depended greatly on the
espionage system. Added to this lack of representative institutions there was no distinction
between the e$ecutive and the 0udiciary of the government. An incapable king may use the
officers either for purposes of oppression or fail to use it for good purpose. And as the
successors of Asoka happened to be weak! the empire inevitably declined.
Added to these two factors! there is no conception of national unity of political
consciousness. "t is clear from the fact that even the resistance against the greeks as the hated
miecchas was not an organi&ed one. #he only resistance was that of the local rulers who were
afraid of losing their newly ac*uired territory. "t is significant that when Porus was fighting
Ale$ander! or when Subhagasena was paying tribute to Antiochus! they were doing so as
isolated rulers in the northwest of "ndia. #hey had no support from Pataliputra! nor are they
even mentioned in any "ndian sources as offering resistance to the hated 4avanas. 3ven the
heroic Porus! who! enemy though he was! won the admiration of the 5reeks! is left
unrecorded in "ndian sources.
Another associated point of great importance is the fact that the .auryan 3mpire which was
highly centrali&ed and autocratic was the first and last one of its kind. "f the .auryan 3mpire
did not survive for long! it could be because of the failure of the successors of Asoka to hold
on to the principles that could make success of such an empire. 2urther! the .auryan empire
and the philosophy of the empire was not in tune with the spirit of the time because Aryanism
and brahminism was very much there. According to the Brahmin or Aryan philosophy! the
king was only an upholder of dharma! but never the crucial or architecture factor influencing
the whole of life. "n other words! the sentiment of the people towards the political factor! that
is the State was never established in "ndia. Such being the reality! when the successors of
Asoka failed to make use of the institution and the thinking that was needed to make a
success of a centrali&ed political authority. #he .auryan 3mpire declined without anyone/s
regret.
1ther factors of importance that contributed to the decline and lack of national unity were the
ownership of land and ine*uality of economic levels. 6and could fre*uently change hands.
2ertility wise the region of the 5anges was more prosperous than northern +eccan. .auryan
administration was not fully tuned to meet the e$isting disparities in economic activity. Had
the southern region been more developed! the empire could have witnessed economic
homogeneity.
Also the people of the sub-continent were not of uniform cultural level. #he sophisticated
cities and the trade centers were a great contrast to the isolated village communities. All these
differences naturally led to the economic and political structures being different from region
to region. "t is also a fact that even the languages spoken were varied. #he history of a sub-
continent and their casual relationships. #he causes of the decline of the .auryan empire
must! in large part! be attributed to top heavy administration where authority was entirely in
the hands of a few persons while national consciousness was unknown.