The Mauryan Empire, established by Chandragupta Maurya with the help of his cunning minister Kautilya, faced destruction within 50 years after Ashoka’s death (232 BCE). In 187 BCE (or according to some, 185 BCE), when the last Mauryan emperor Brihadratha Maurya was killed by his own Brahmin general Pushyamitra Shunga, this empire disappeared, and the Shunga Dynasty was established.
Major Factors Behind the Decline of Mauryan Empire
Although there are various debates in historical circles about the reasons behind the Decline of Mauryan Empire, some impartial reasons contributed to the background of this empire’s fall. These reasons, along with the debates in historical circles, are described below.
Brahmanical Reaction
One of the primary reasons behind the decline of Mauryan Empire was Brahmanical Reaction. The Mauryan Empire had become weak due to the hostility of the Brahmin community, and the empire fell. These Brahmins not only influenced the Mauryan Empire to form a new empire, but Brahmin Satavahanas established dominance in Andhra, and the Brahmin Kalchuri-Chedi dynasty captured Kalinga.
Mahamahopadhyaya Hara Prasad Shastri presented some arguments in support of this Brahmanical reaction, those are:
Ashoka’s ban on animal sacrifice had created obstacles in Brahmins’ ritual ceremonies. They did not view this order favorably. Ashoka himself was a Shudra king, so because of this, his order gradually created resentment in the minds of the Brahmins. Which they expressed this through rebellion.
In one of his rock edicts, Ashoka proudly said, “Those who were considered Gods on the Earth until now, he has proven them to be false or hypocrites.” Shastri said that this statement of Ashoka was aimed at the Brahmin community.
By appointing a class of religious preachers called ‘Dhammamahamatras’, Ashoka had reduced the rights and power of the Brahmins.
In terms of punishment, Brahmins used to enjoy some special privileges until then. Through the introduction of Ashoka’s policies of ‘equality in punishment’ and ‘equality in behavior’, those rights of the Brahmins were curtailed.
That is why this Brahmanical reaction became one of the reasons for the Decline of Mauryan Empire.
Criticism of Hara Prasad Shastri’s Statement
Dr. Hemchandra Raychaudhuri did not agree with Mahamahopadhyay Shastri’s arguments. Raychaudhuri’s reasons for not accepting Shastri’s arguments are:
He says the idea that Ashoka was of Shudra descent is probably wrong, as Ashoka was a son of the Kshatriya lineage. And it cannot be overstated that the Brahmins were enraged by Asoka’s ban on animal sacrifice. Because long before Ashoka, Brahmin sages in the Vedas and Upanishads had also condemned animal sacrifice.
The sarcastic comment that Shastri claims Ashoka made towards the Brahmins is incorrect. Because no such statement is found in any of Ashoka’s rock edicts. Dr. Sylvain Levi gave a different interpretation of that rock edict, which most historians accepted. Actually, the word ‘misa’ used in Minor Rock Edicts I was mistakenly taken by Mahamahopadhyay as ‘mrisha’, meaning ‘false’. But in reality, the word means ‘union’. That is, here Ashoka did not make any sarcastic remarks towards the Brahmins. He wanted to say that he had tried to achieve the union between gods and humans, which had not happened until then.
The appointment of ‘Dhammamahamatras’ did not bring any blow to the rights and authority of the Brahmins. Because there is no evidence that only non-Brahmins were appointed to this position. Brahmins could also be appointed to this position. Moreover, Ashoka was alert to the interests of the Brahmins, and one of his primary duties was to ensure the welfare of all subjects, including Brahmins.
Although Ashoka’s policies of ‘equality in punishment’ and ‘equality in behavior’ had somewhat curtailed the rights of the Brahmins, the main purpose of this policy was to end the arbitrariness of various high-ranking royal officials in judicial work. In fact, he wanted to curtail the power of his own officials through this policy. The application of this policy was very important for maintaining peace and order in all areas of the empire and maintaining happiness and peace among the subjects.
It is completely wrong to say that Ashoka was anti-Brahmin. Because his praiseworthy efforts for the progress of Brahmins were well-known. The last king of the Mauryan Empire, Brihadratha Maurya, was indeed killed by the Brahmin general Pushyamitra Shunga, but he was not just a Brahmin; he was also the chief commander of the Mauryan Empire. So, it can be said that he did not ascend to the throne through any Brahmin revolution but merely misused his position and took advantage of the opportunity for personal interest.
You can also read about: Blood and Iron Policy of Balban: Balban’s Path to Power
Ashoka’s Non-violence Policy
Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay, and Devadatta Ramakrishna Bhandarkar expressed the opinion that Ashoka’s non-violence policy and pacifist policy had caused the decline of Mauryan Empire. They argued that after the Kalinga war, Ashoka had been instructed to adopt ‘Dhamma policy’ instead of war policy and to follow the policy of religious conquest everywhere instead of any war. For which the army remained inactive for 29 years. As a result, the imperial order was destroyed, which led to the decline of Mauryan Empire.
Hemchandra Raychaudhuri stated that, when the chances of a Greek attack on India’s north-west frontier were intensifying, India needed a skilled ruler like Chandragupta Maurya. But at that time, India got a ruler like Ashoka who was non-violent and against war. This was one of the reasons for the decline of Mauryan Empire.
However, Dr. N.K. Sastri and Dr. Romila Thapar argued against this argument saying that, although Ashoka spoke of abandoning the policy of war, but he did not declare a policy of complete abstinence from war. He still maintained his imperial army in reserve and even said that he would bear arms if necessary. He even sent multiple expeditions to suppress neighboring tribes. Ashoka was a realist, that’s why he used the non-violence policy to maintain the integrity of the empire.
Weak Successors
Ashoka’s successors did not have the skillful personality and wisdom needed to protect such a vast kingdom. After Ashoka’s death, bloody conflict continued between the brothers over the possession of the throne. Due to internal conflicts among the rulers at the center, control over the officials in the empire gradually weakened.
The high-ranking royal officials lacked loyalty to the king, and there was also internal conflict among the groups. The loyalty of the subjects was an essential condition for safeguarding the interests of the empire. But Ashoka’s subsequent successors had lost it. As bureaucratic misrule and oppression increased at that time, discontent among the subjects also increased. As a result, subsequent rulers failed to gain the support of the subjects, which weakened the foundation of the empire.
Economic Decline
Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi attributed the decline of Mauryan Empire to economic decline. According to him, there were two main reasons for the economic crisis in the post-Ashoka period:
- At this time, the amount of alloy in the stamped coins was high.
- At this time, taxes were imposed at an excessive rate. Actors and prostitutes were not exempted from the burden of taxes. This hampered agricultural production and gradually led to a recession in agriculture, industry, and trade.
However, D.D. Kosambi’s arguments were weak. Because there is considerable doubt about the date of the coins he identified as post-Ashoka. Also, there is no clear evidence that the tax burden was high. Moreover, Megasthenes’ account, the abundance of rivers, extensive use of iron in agriculture, etc., do not bear witness to a distressed economy in the post-Ashoka period.
Romila Thapar also admitted that the Mauryan economy had weakened towards the end. But she blamed three reasons for this: the maintenance of a large army, a huge bureaucracy, and constant colonization. In the Mauryan economy, the role of the government or state was unhindered. And the success of this economy depends on the efficiency of the bureaucracy.
It cannot be denied that the inactivity of the bureaucracy in the post-Ashoka period had an impact on the economy. However, the economy did not completely collapse. This idea was strengthened by the picture of urbanization that was reflected in the excavations at Kaushambi, Hastinapur, Sisupalgarh, Pushkalavati and Mahasthan.
You can also read about: Doctrine of Lapse Policy: Impact on India’s Princely States
Mass Rebellion
Niharranjan Ray and a few other historians described Pushyamitra Shunga’s rebellion as a ‘mass rebellion’. The oppression of Mauryan rulers and high tax burden had created resentment among the people and paved the way for mass rebellion. But this argument was not appropriate. Because according to Megasthenes’ description, 1/4 of the land revenue was taken. But it was limited only to the fertile area near Pataliputra, not throughout the empire. Therefore, the theory of mass rebellion behind the decline of Mauryan Empire cannot be accepted.
Foreign Invasion
Greek invaders entered the interior of the Mauryan Empire through the northwestern frontier of India. The Greeks captured Mathura, Ajodhya, and Panchal one by one. Their next target was the capital city of Pataliputra. where the Mauryan royal power completely failed in confronting the foreign power.
Conclusion
It is a rule of history that an empire will have a time of rise and a time of fall. Although the Mauryan Empire was at the peak of prosperity at one time, it dissolved in the face of destruction due to various reasons. Nevertheless, the role of this empire and some of its rulers (Chandragupta Maurya, Bindusara, and Ashoka) cannot be denied in any way. So, after the entire discussion, it can be said that regardless of the reason for the decline of Mauryan Empire, the empire still sits on the highest seat of fame today.
