Shared legacy of Chandragupta Maurya between Buddhists, Jainas and Greeks

Dr Uday Dokras
Ms Kinjal Shah

The Elephant and the Caduceus on a coin of Demetrius I, the founder of the Indo-
Greek kingdom.

1
The name of India is “Bharat”. Some people also referred the Indian Subcontinent with name
“Hindustan”, because of combined region of modern India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Do you
know who at first united this entire region of India?

If you guessed Samrat Chandragupta Maurya, then you are absolutely right. He was the valiant
emperor who dedicated his life to keeping this vast land free from foreign invasions, laying the
foundation for one of the largest and most powerful empires in ancient India.

Chandragupta’s journey to power is woven with many assumptions due to scarce historical
records, yet what we do know is profoundly influenced by the guidance of his brilliant
mentor, Acharya Chanakya. A master of economics and polity, Chanakya believed that India
needed a strong, unified kingdom to withstand foreign invasions.

He already guessed the upcoming danger from forces like Alexander’s army. Under Chanakya’s
mentorship, Chandragupta dared to dethrone the greedy and selfish King Dhanananda of
Magadha, taking control of the throne and expanding his dominion.

Statue of Chandragupta Maurya depicted in traditional Mauryan attire, standing regally with a backdrop of
clear skies.

The Maurya Empire initially started with the territory of the defeated Magadha Kingdom. That
kingdom began around modern-day West Bengal and Bangladesh, but by the time of its defeat
by Chandragupta, it stretched across eastern and northern India into present-day Pakistan. The
empire was expanded by Chandragupta and included land from Burma along the Himalayas
westward to Iran and southward to the Deccan Plateau.
This empire, exerted power across ancient India. The Maurya dynasty was founded in 322 BCE
by Chandragupta Maurya, who lived from 340 to 298 BCE. The empire quickly expanded across
India, eventually consuming nearly the entire subcontinent. The Mauryan dynasty lasted only
137 years until 185 BCE but had nine emperors.Its main impact of religion in the Mauryan

2
Empire concerned its expansion. Emperor Ashoka expanded the empire to the tip of the Indian
peninsula after a bloody war. Afterwards, he converted to Buddhism and embraced peace, which
effectively stopped any further expansion of the empire. Buddhism was then spread across the
territory through art and architecture.
The Mauryan Empire was important for uniting the Indian subcontinent. It also was important
for spreading Buddhism across its territory and for producing art and architecture that
transitioned from wood to stone as a primary material.Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism were
the three main religions in the Mauryan Empire. Emperor Ashoka is known for spreading
Buddhism throughout the empire.The Mauryan Empire was best known for uniting the Indian
subcontinent for the first time as an empire. The empire reached its greatest territorial extent
under Emperor Ashoka.
During the Mauryan dynasty, trade, agriculture, and the economy thrived and expanded across
the empire. Chandragupta built solid financial and administrative systems and provided security
for the empire. The empire was highly organized and had both an army and civil service. The
Indian empire initially expanded with military force and agreements with tributary states but
later stopped warfare altogether. At its height, the Mauryan Empire was the largest to rule India
and one of the largest in the world. The legacy of the empire includes the Arthashastra, a work
on political economy and edicts. The time of Mauryan rule is one of the major formative periods
of Indian history.

Despite limited evidence about Chandragupta’s entire life, his achievements speak volumes. He
solidified a central authority where none had existed before, forging a robust military, defense,
and administrative system that shaped the course of Indian history. By extending Magadha’s
borders to the west and north, he successfully proposed the idea of a united India—transforming
it into the formidable Empire. Chandragupta remains a testament to courage, determination, and
the power of a visionary mind guided by a learned mentor.

3
Although a Greek population was already present in Bactria by the 5th century BC, Alexander
the Great conquered the region by 327 BC and founded many cities, most of them
named Alexandria, and further settled with Macedonians and other Greeks. After the death of
Alexander, control of Bactria passed on to his general Seleucus I Nicator. The fertility and the
prosperity of the land by the early 3rd century BC led to the creation of the Greco-Bactrian
kingdom by Diodotus as a successor state of the Seleucid empire. The Bactrian Greeks grew
increasingly more powerful and invaded north-western India between 190 and 180 BC under
king Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus. This invasion led to the creation of the Indo-Greek
kingdom, as a successor state of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, and was subsequently ruled by
kings Pantaleon and Apollodotus I. Historical records indicate that many rich and prosperous
cities were present in the kingdom, but only a few such cities have been excavated, such as Ai-
Khanoum and Bactra. The city of Ai-Khanoum, in north-eastern Afghanistan, had all the
hallmarks of a true Hellenistic city with a Greek theater, gymnasium and some houses with
colonnaded courtyards.

Hellinistic Connection

The Indo-Greek Kingdom, also known as the Yavana Kingdom was a Hellenistic-
era Greek kingdom covering various parts of modern-day Afghanistan, Pakistan and
northwestern India. The term "Indo-Greek Kingdom" loosely describes a number of various
Hellenistic states, ruling from regional capitals like Taxila, Sagala, Pushkalavati, and Alexandria
in the Caucasus (now Bagram). Other centers are only hinted at; e.g. Ptolemy's Geographia and
the nomenclature of later kings suggest that a certain Theophilus in the south of the Indo-Greek
sphere of influence may also have had a royal seat there at one time.

4
The kingdom was founded when the Graeco-Bactrian king Demetrius I of Bactria invaded India
from Bactria in about 200 BC. The Greeks to the east of the Seleucid Empire were eventually
divided to the Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Indo-Greek Kingdoms in the North Western
Indian Subcontinent.

During the two centuries of their rule, the Indo-Greek kings combined the Greek and Indian
languages and symbols, as seen on their coins, and blended Greek and Indian ideas, as seen in
the archaeological remains. The diffusion of Indo-Greek culture had consequences which are
still felt today, particularly through the influence of Greco-Buddhist art. The ethnicity of the
Indo-Greek may also have been hybrid to some degree. Euthydemus I was, according to
Polybius, a Magnesian Greek. His son, Demetrius I, founder of the Indo-Greek kingdom, was
therefore of Greek ethnicity at least by his father. A marriage treaty was arranged for the same
Demetrius with a daughter of the Seleucid ruler Antiochus III. The ethnicity of later Indo-Greek
rulers is sometimes less clear. For example, Artemidoros (80 BC) was supposed to have been
of Indo-Scythian descent, although he is now seen as a regular Indo-Greek king.

Menander I, being the most well known amongst the Indo-Greek kings, is often referred to
simply as "Menander," despite the fact that there was indeed another Indo-Greek King known as
Menander II. Menander I's capital was at Sagala in the Punjab (present-day Sialkot). Following
the death of Menander, most of his empire splintered and Indo-Greek influence was considerably
reduced. Many new kingdoms and republics east of the Ravi River began to mint new coinage
depicting military victories. The most prominent entities to form were
the Yaudheya Republic, Arjunayanas, and the Audumbaras. The Yaudheyas and Arjunayanas
both are said to have won "victory by the sword". The Datta dynasty and Mitra dynasty soon
followed in Mathura.

The Indo-Greeks ultimately disappeared as a political entity around 10 AD following the

invasions of the Indo-Scythians, although pockets of Greek populations probably remained for
several centuries longer under the subsequent rule of the Indo-Parthians, the Kushans, and
the Indo-Scythians, whose Western Satraps state lingered on encompassing local Greeks, up to
415 CE.

The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom (lit. 'Kingdom of Bactria') on the other hand was a Greek state of
the Hellenistic period located in Central Asia. The kingdom was founded by
the Seleucid satrap Diodotus I Soter in about 256 BC, and continued to dominate Central Asia
until its fall around 120 BC. At its peak the kingdom consisted of present-
day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and for a short time, small parts
of Kazakhstan, Pakistan and Iran. An extension further east, with military campaigns and
settlements, may have reached the borders of the Qin State in China by about 230 BC.

The kingdom reached its peak under Eucratides the Great, who seems to have seized power
through a coup around 171 BC and created his own dynasty. Eucratides also invaded India and
successfully fought against the Indo-Greek kings. However, soon the kingdom began to decline.
The Parthians and nomadic tribes such as Sakas and Yuezhi became a major threat. Eucratides
was killed by his own son in about 145 BC, which may have further destabilised the
kingdom. Heliocles was the last Greek king to rule in Bactria.

5
Even after the fall of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, their rich Hellenistic influence remained
strong for many more centuries. The Yuezhi invaders settled in Bactria and became Hellenized.
They subsequently founded the Kushan empire around 30 AD, and adopted the Greek
alphabet to write their language and added Greek deities to their pantheon. The Greco-Bactrian
city of Ai-Khanoum was at the doorstep of India and known for its high level of Hellenistic
sophistication. Greek art travelled from Bactria with the Indo-Greeks and influenced Indian art,
religion and culture, leading to new syncretic art called Greco-Buddhist art.

Bactria was inhabited by Greek settlers since the time of Darius I, when the majority of the
population of Barca, in Cyrenaica, was deported to the region for refusing to surrender assassin.
Greek influence increased under Xerxes I, after the descendants of Greek priests who had once
lived near Didyma (western Asia Minor) were forcibly relocated in Bactria, and later on with
other exiled Greeks, most of them prisoners of war. Greek communities and language were
already present in those regions.

Possible extent of Nanda Empire, ca. 325 BCE. There are no contemporary records of
Chandragupta's military conquests and the reach of his empire. The extent is deduced from
Greek and Roman historians and religious Indian texts, all written centuries after his death.
Based on these, Chandragupta's empire was extensive, here conceptualized at c. 303 BCE as a
network of core areas and trade- and communication-networks. Traditional representation of
extent of Chandragupta Maurya's empire c. 303 BCE, as a solid mass of territory. Some maps
include all of Gedrosia, e.g., south-east Iran.
Chandragupta Maurya’s (reigned c. 320 BCE – c. 298 BCE) rise to power began in the
period of unrest and local warfare that arose after Alexander the Great's Indian campaign and
early death in 323 BCE, although the exact chronology and sequence of events remains subject
to debate among historians. He was the founder and the first emperor of the Maurya Empire,
based in Magadha (present-day Bihar) in the Indian subcontinent. Chandragupta sponsored
Vedic sacrifices and Brahmanical rituals. While many religions thrived within his realms and
his descendants' empire, Buddhism, Jainism and Ājīvika gained prominence prevailing
over Vedic and Brahmanistic traditions,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Dr. Seth, H. C. (1937). "Did Candragupta Maurya belong to North-Western India?". Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 18 (2): 158–165. ISSN 0378-1143. JSTOR 41688339.
 Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi?, Punjab History Conference, Second Session, October 28-30,
1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 32-35, Dr H. R. Gupta

6
 intitiating, under Ashoka, the expansion of Buddhism and the synthesis of Brahmanic and non-
Brahmanic religious traditions which converged in Hinduism. Minority religions such
as Zoroastrianism and the Greek pantheon were respected.

No wonder that all 3 or 4 lay claim to his legacy- such was his benevolent impact

Dynastic marriage-alliance with Seleucus

According to Appian, Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's Macedonian generals who in 312
BCE established the Seleucid Empire with its capital at Babylon, brought Persia
and Bactria under his own authority, putting his eastern front facing the empire of Chandragupta.

Somewhere between 305 and 303 BCE Seleucus and Chandragupta confronted each other,
Seleucus intending to retake the former satrapies each of the Indus. Yet, Seleucus Nicator and
Chandragupta formed a dynastic marriage-alliance, Seleucus receiving five hundred elephants,
and Chandragupta gaining control over the regions bordering at the east on the Indus. Strabo, in
his Geographica, XV, 2.9 composed about 300 years after Chandragupta's death, describes a
number of tribes living along the Indus, and then states that "The Indians occupy [in part] some
of the countries situated along the Indus, which formerly belonged to the Persians."[

The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae,
above whom lies the Paropamisus Mountains: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next,
towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus
lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the
Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the
Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own,
but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus [Chandragupta], upon terms of intermarriage
and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants.
The exact extent of the acquired territories is unknown. A modest interpretation limits the
extension to the western Indus Valley, including the coast of eastern Gedrosia (Balochistan) up
to the Malan mountain raing (Hingol river), the Punjab, and the eastern part
of Paropamisadae (Gandhara). Arachosia (Kandahar, present-day Afghanistan), is a possibility,
while Aria (present-day Herat, Afghanistan) is also often mentioned, but rejected by
contemporary scholarship. Tarn, writing in 1922, and Coningham and Young,[14] have
questioned the inclusion of eastern Afghanistan (Kabul-Kandahar), Coningham and Young
noting that "a growing number of researchers would now agree that the Ashokan edicts may have
represented 'an area of maximum contact rather than streamlined bureaucratic control'."
Coningham & Young also question the extent of control over the lower Indus Valley, following
Thapar, noting that this may have been an area of peripheral control. Raymond Allchin also
notes the absence of major cities in the lower Indus valley.

The details of the engagement treaty are also not known. Since the extensive sources available
on Seleucus never mention an Indian princess, it is thought that Chandragupta himself or his son
Bindusara marrying a Seleucid princess, in accordance with contemporary Greek practices to
form dynastic alliances. The Mahavamsa states that Chandragupta married a daughter of
Seleucus not long after the latter's defeat. As well, an Indian Puranic source, the Pratisarga

7
Parva of the Bhavishya Purana, described the marriage of Chandragupta with a Greek
("Yavana") princess, daughter of Seleucus.

Chandragupta sent 500 war elephants to Seleucus, which played a key role in Seleucus' victory at
the Battle of Ipsus. In addition to this treaty, Seleucus dispatched Megasthenes as an ambassador
to Chandragupta's court, and later Antiochos sent Deimakos to his son Bindusara at the Maurya
court at Patna.

Megasthenes served as a Greek ambassador in his court for four years.

Silver punch mark coin

(Karshapana) of the Maurya Empire, with symbols of wheel and elephant (3rd century BCE)/
Chandragupta Maurya period Karshapana coin, circa 315-310 B.C.
After conquering northern India, Chandragupta and Chanakya passed a series of major economic
and political reforms. Chandragupta established a decentralised administration with provinces
and local governments, and a mantriparishad (council of advisers) advising the king. While it is
often thought that Chandragupta applied the statecraft and economic policies described
in Arthashastra, which was earlierly thought to be written by his minister Chanakya but it's now
thought by most scholars that the Arthashastra is not of Mauryan origin, and contains
prescriptions which are incompatible with Chandragupta's reign.

The Maurya rule was a structured administration; Chandragupta had a council of ministers
(amatya), with Chanakya was his chief minister. The empire was organised into territories
(janapada), centres of regional power were protected with forts (durga), and state operations
were funded with treasury (kosa).[147] Strabo, in his Geographica composed about 300 years after
Chandragupta's death, describes aspects of his rule in his chapter XV.46–69. He had councillors
for matters of justice and assessors to collect taxes on commercial activity and trade goods. His
officers inspected situations requiring law and order in the cities; the crime rate was low.

According to Megasthenes, Chandragupta's rule was marked by three parallel administrative

structures.

 One managed the affairs of villages, ensuring irrigation, recording land ownership,
monitoring tools supply, enforcing hunting, wood products and forest-related laws, and
settling disputes.
 Another administrative structure managed city affairs, including all matters related to
trade, merchant activity, visit of foreigners, harbors, roads, temples, markets, and
industries. They also collected taxes and ensured standardized weights and measures.
 The third administrative body overlooked the military, its training, its weapons supply,
and the needs of the soldiers.

8
During Chandragupta's reign and that of his dynasty, many religions thrived in India,
with Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika gaining prominence along with other folk traditions.

The empire built a strong economy from a solid infrastructure such as irrigation, temples, mines,
and roads. Ancient epigraphical evidence suggests Chandragupta, under counsel from Chanakya,
started and completed many irrigation reservoirs and networks across the Indian subcontinent to
ensure food supplies for the civilian population and the army, a practice continued by his
dynastic successors. Regional prosperity in agriculture was one of the required duties of his state
officials. The strongest evidence of infrastructure development is found in the Junagadh rock
inscription of Rudradaman in Gujarat, dated to about 150 CE. It states, among other things,
that Rudradaman repaired and enlarged the reservoir and irrigation conduit infrastructure built by
Chandragupta and enhanced by Asoka. Chandragupta's empire also built mines, manufacturing
centres, and networks for trading goods. His rule developed land routes to transport goods across
the Indian subcontinent. Chandragupta expanded "roads suitable for carts" as he preferred those
over narrow tracks suitable for only pack animals. According to Kaushik Roy, the Maurya
dynasty rulers were "great road builders". The Greek ambassador Megasthenes credited this
tradition to Chandragupta after the completion of a thousand-mile-long highway connecting
Chandragupta's capital Pataliputra in Bihar to Taxila in the north-west where he studied. The
other major strategic road infrastructure credited to this tradition spread from Pataliputra in
various directions, connecting it with Nepal, Kapilavastu, Dehradun, Mirzapur, Odisha, Andhra,
and Karnataka.Roy stated this network boosted trade and commerce, and helped move armies
rapidly and efficiently.

Chandragupta and Chanakya seeded weapon manufacturing centres, and kept them as a state
monopoly of the state. The state, however, encouraged competing private parties to operate
mines and supply these centres. They considered economic prosperity essential to the pursuit
of dharma (virtuous life) and adopted a policy of avoiding war with diplomacy yet continuously
preparing the army for war to defend its interests and other ideas in the Arthashastra.

He started a war against the unpopular Nanda dynasty in Magadha on the Ganges Valley,
defeated them and established his own dynasty. In addition, he raised an army to resist the
Greeks, defeated them, and took control of the eastern Indus Valley. His conquest of Magadha
is generally dated to ca. 322-319 BCE, and his expansion to Punjab subsequently at ca. 317-312
BCE, but some scholars have speculated that he might have initially consolidated his power base
in Punjab, before conquering Magadha; an alternative chronology places these events all in the
period ca. 311-305 BCE. According to Buddhist and Jain legends, Chandragupta was assisted by
his mentor Chanakya, who later became his minister. He expanded his reach subsequently into
parts of the western Indus Valley and possibly eastern Afghanistan through a dynastic
marriage alliance with Seleucus I Nicator ca. 305-303 BCE. His empire also included Gujarat
and a geographically extensive network of cities and trade-routes.

Only legends- no historical facts dominate Chandragupta's origins and early life, while the
narrative of his reign is mainly deduced from a few fragments in Greek and Roman sources, and
a few Indian religious texts, all written centuries after his death.

The prevailing levels of technology and infrastructure limited the extent of Chandragupta's rule,
and the administration was decentralised, with provinces and local governments, and large
9
autonomous regions within its limits. Chandragupta's reign, and the Maurya Empire, which
reached its peak under his grandson Ashoka the Great, began an era of economic prosperity,
reforms, infrastructure expansions. Buddhism, Jainism and Ājīvika prevailed over the non-
Maghadian Vedic and Brahmanistic traditions, initiating, under Ashoka, the expansion of
Buddhism, and the synthesis of Brahmanic and non-Brahmanic religious traditions which
converged in Hinduism. His legend still inspires visions of an undivided Indian nation.

 Chandragupta's confrontations with the Greeks and the Nanda king are shortly referred to in
a few passages in Greek-Roman sources from the 1st century BCE to the 2nd century CE.
Impressions of India at that time are given by a number of other Greek sources. He is further
mentioned in Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jain religious texts and legends, which give
impressions of his later reception; they significantly vary in detail. According to Mookerji,
Radha Kumud , in Chandragupta Maurya and his times the first extensive biography of
Chandragupta1 the main sources on Chandragupta and his time, in chronological order are:

 Greek sources by three companions of Alexander, namely Nearchus, Onesicritus,

and Aristobulus of Cassandreia, who write about Alexander and do not mention
Chandragupta.The Greek ambassador Megasthanes, a contemporary of Chandragupta, whose
works are lost, but fragments are preserved in the works of other authors, namely Greco-
Roman authors Strabo (64 BCE-19 CE), Diodorus (died ca. 36 BCE, wrote about
India), Arrian (ca. 130 CE-172 CE, wrote about India), Pliny the Elder (1st cent. CE, wrote
about India), Plutarch (c. 45-125 CE), and Justin (2nd cent. CE). According to Mookerji,
without these sources this period would be "a most obscure chapter of Indian history." The
Greek and Roman texts do not mention Chandragupta directly, except for a second-century
text written by the Roman historian Justin. They predominantly describe India, or mention
the last Nanda emperor, who usurped the throne of the king before him (Curtis, Diodorus,
Plutarch). Justin states that Chandragupta was of humble origin, and includes stories of
miraculous legends associated with him, such as a wild elephant appearing and submitting
itself to him as a ride to him before a battle. Justin's text states that Chandragupta "achieved
[India's] freedom, and "aspired to royalty by all men," as he offended Nanda and was ordered
to death, but saved himself "by a speedy flight."
 Plutarch states that Chandragupta, as a young man, saw Alexander the Great. He is described
as a great king, but not as great in power and influence as Porus in northwestern India or
Agrammes (Dhana Nanda) in eastern India.

 The Brahmanical Puranas (Gupta-times), religious texts which viewed the Nandas and
Mauryas as illegitimate rulers, because of their shudra background. Later Brahmanical
narratives include legends in Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa (4th-8th
cent), Somadeva's Kathasaritsagara (11th cent.)
and Kshemendra's Brihatkathamanjari (11th ). The Brahmanical Puranic texts do not discuss
the details of Chandragupta's ancestry, but rather cover the ancestry of the last Nanda king,
and the restoration of just rule by Kautilya (Chanakya; the identification with Kautilya, the
author of the Arthashastra, dates from a later period ).

The Nanda king is described to be cruel, against dharma and shastras, and born out of an illicit
relationship followed by a coup. According to Mookerji, the Arthasastra refers to the Nanda rule

10
as against the spiritual, cultural, and military interests of the country, a period where intrigue and
vice multiplied. In a later addition, the Arthasastra states that the text was written by him who
returned dharma, nurtured diversity of views, and ruled virtuously that kindled love among the
subjects for his rule, an insertion linking the Guptas to the Mauryans.

Mookerji includes the Arthasastra as a source, a text now dated to the 1st-3rd century CE, and
attributed to Chanakya during Gupta-times.

 The earliest Buddhist sources are dated to the fourth-century CE or after, including the Sri
Lankan Pali texts Dipavamsa (Rajavamsa section), Mahavamsa, Mahavamsa
tika and Mahabodhivamsa. Buddhist texts such as Mahavamsa describe Chandragupta to be
of Kshatriya origin. These sources, written about seven centuries after his dynasty ended,
state that both Chandragupta and his grandson Ashoka – a patron of Buddhism –
were Moriyas, a branch of Gautama Buddha's Shakya noble family. These Buddhist sources
attempt to link the dynasty of their patron Ashoka directly to the Buddha. The sources claim
that the family branched off to escape persecution from a King of Kosala and Chandragupta's
ancestors moved into a secluded Himalayan kingdom known for its peacocks.

 The Buddhist sources explain the epithet maurya comes from these peacocks, or Mora in
Pali (Sanskrit: Mayura). The Buddhist texts are inconsistent; some offer other legends to
explain his epithet. For example, they mention a city named "Moriya-nagara" where all
buildings were made of bricks colored like the peacock's neck. The Maha-bodhi-vasa states
he hailed from Moriya-nagara, while the Digha-Nikaya states he came from the Maurya
clan of Pipphalivana, The Buddhist sources also mention that "Brahmin Chanakya" was his
counselor and with whose support Chandragupta became the king at Patliputra. He has also
been variously identified with Shashigupta (which has same etymology as of Chandragupta)
of Paropamisadae on the account of same life events

 7th to 10th century Jain inscriptions at Shravanabelgola; these are disputed by scholars as
well as the Svetambara Jain tradition. The second Digambara text interpreted to be
mentioning the Maurya emperor is dated to about the 10th-century such as in
the Brhatkathakosa of Harisena (Jain monk), while the complete Jain legend about
Chandragupta is found in the 12th-century Parisishtaparvan by Hemachandra.7th-
century Bhadrabahu inscription at Shravanabelagola (Sanskrit, Purvahale Kannada script).

 This is the oldest inscription at the site, and it mentions Bhadrabahu

and Prabhacandra. Lewis Rice and Digambara Jains interpret Prabhacandra to be
Chandragupta Maurya, while others such as J F Fleet, V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar,
and Svetambara Jains state this interpretation is wrong.The 12th-
century Digambara text Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandra is the main and earliest Jain
source of the complete legend of Chandragupta. It was written nearly 1,400 years after
Chandragupta's death. Canto 8, verses 170 to 469, describes the legend of Chandragupta and
Chanakya's influence on him. Other Digambara Jain sources state he moved
to Karnataka after renouncing his kingdom and performed Sallekhana – the Jain religious
ritual of peacefully welcoming death by fasting. The earliest mention of Chandragupta's
ritual death is found in Harisena's Brhatkathakosa, a Sanskrit text of stories about

11
 Digambara Jains. The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of Bhadrabahu and mentions
Chandragupta in its 131st story. However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya
empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta lived in and migrated from Ujjain – a
kingdom (northwest Madhya Pradesh) about a thousand kilometers west of
the Magadha and Patliputra (central Bihar). This has led to the proposal that Harisena's
Chandragupta may be a later era, different person.

Chandragupta's confrontations with the Greeks and the Nanda king are shortly referred to in a
few passages in Greek-Roman sources from the 1st century BCE to the 2nd century CE.
Impressions of India at that time are given by a number of other Greek sources. He is further
mentioned in Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jain religious texts and legends, which give
impressions of his later reception; they significantly vary in details.

According to Appian, Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's Macedonian generals who in 312
BCE established the Seleucid Empire with its capital at Babylon, brought Persia
and Bactria under his own authority, putting his eastern front facing the empire of Chandragupta.
Chandragupta himself or his son Bindusara married a Seleucid princess, in accordance with
contemporary Greek practices to form dynastic alliances. The Mahavamsa states that
Chandragupta married a daughter of Seleucus not long after the latter's defeat. As well, an
Indian Puranic source, the Pratisarga Parva of the Bhavishya Purana, described the marriage of
Chandragupta with a Greek ("Yavana") princess, daughter of Seleucus.

In the south-west, Chandragupta's rule over present-day Gujarat is attested to by Ashoka's

inscription in Junagadh. On the same rock, about 400 years later, Rudradaman inscribed a longer
text sometime about the mid second–century. Rudradaman's inscription states that
the Sudarshana lake in the area was commissioned during the rule of Chandragupta through his
governor Vaishya Pushyagupta and conduits were added during Ashoka's rule through
Tushaspha. The Mauryan control of the region is further corroborated by the inscription on the
rock, which suggests that Chandragupta controlled the Malwa region in Central India, located
between Gujarat and Pataliputra.

Jain accounts of renunciation and retirement in Karnakata

As an Ascetic

Conversion to Jainism: The Jains both sects assert that Chandragupta converted to Jainism but
a closer look at the evidence for Chandragupta's conversion to Jainism and his and Bhadrabāhu's
association with Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa reveals that it is both late and problematic. In addition, except
for Jain sources, there is no evidence to support the view of Chandragupta's conversion and
migration." Jansari concludes, "Overall, therefore, the evidence as it currently stands suggests
that the story of Chandragupta's conversion to Jainism and abdication (if, indeed, he did
abdicate), his migration southwards and his association (or otherwise) with Bhadrabāhu and the
site of Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa developed after c.600 AD." The deduction of Chandragupta Maurya
retiring and dying in Shravanabelagola as the working hypothesis, since no alternative historical
information or evidence is available about Chandragupta's final years and death.

12
As with most ancient celebrities, historical records of Chandragupta Maurya are scarce. Almost
everything we know about the founder of the Maurya Empire has to be inferred from legends and
texts composed several centuries after his death.One such legend, a Jain legend, refers to how a
king-turned-monk called Guptigupta took care of Bhadrabāhu— the last of the Jain monks who
had heard the Jain Masters’ teachings— in Bhadrabāhu’s final days in South India. Why South
India? Bhadrabāhu had led the great migration of monks which introduced the South to Jain
teachings. How do we know Guptigupta was Chandragupta? Well, we don’t. It is simply a
conjecture, and that too a conjecture without any support from historians. Another problem with
this legend is that we know that the migration into South India took place several centuries after
Chandragupta died. There certainly was a Maurya on the throne, and his name may have been
Something Gupta, but he wasn’t the Chandragupta Maurya. The theory that Chandragupta
Maurya was a Jain is largely the work of a white chap, Lewis Rice, who based his claims on a
flawed analysis of the Sravana Belgola inscriptions and Jain texts composed many centuries after
the collapse of the Maurya empire.

The historian V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, who wrote a highly readable paper asking the exact
same question, presented several other lines of evidence which show that Chandragupta Maurya
wasn’t a Jain. For example, Kautilya (Chanakya) was a Brahmin and nothing in his classic text
Arthashastra suggests he was an advisor to a Jain king. The Mauryas saw themselves as a Hindu
empire, not a Jain empire.

1,300 years Old Shravanabelagola relief shows death of Chandragupta after taking the vow of Sallekhana. Some consider it
about the legend of his arrival with Bhadrabahu. A statue depicting Chandragupta Maurya (right) with his spiritual
mentor Acharya Bhadrabahu at Shravanabelagola. Chandragupta Maurya having 16 auspicious dreams in Jainism

That said, 800 BC - 800 AD was the Age of Aquarius. Several great religions came to be in this
thousand-year span. It is quite plausible that Chandragupta Maurya was aware, influenced and
persuaded by the ideas and precepts of Jain, Buddhist and any of the half-dozen other non-
Brahminical religious movements of the time. Wise kings maintain an interest, real or pretended,
in the religions of all their subjects. It’s why Akbar was interested in Hinduism. It’s why Obama
allowed a Diwali pooja ceremony in the White House, officiated by a Brahmin priest whose
forehead bore his caste marks. It doesn’t make Obama a Hindu or a believer in the caste system.

13
It makes him a clever politician. Chandragupta Maurya may or may not have been any number
of things, but he certainly was a clever king.

Chandragupta is a Jain monk in his latter days of life. Both historical evidence and popular belief
state that Chandragupta in his later years accepted Jainism.
Chandragupta Maurya followed Jainism after retiring when he renounced his throne and material
belongings to join a wandering group of Jain monks and traveled to south India. Chandragupta
was a follower of the Jain monk Acharya Bhadrabahu.
Around 297 BC, under the guidance of his divine guru Saint Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta Maurya
decided to give up his mortal body through Sallekhana. Hence he started fasting and on one fine
day inside a cave at Shravanabelagola, he breathed his last, ending his days of self-starvation.
Today, a small temple sits on the place where once the cave, inside which he passed away, is
believed to have been located. Getting to the top of Chandragiri Hill involves another climb up
another 200 hundred steps.

Chandragiri hill, Karnataka

Digambar Jain view is that around 322 BC (this is another discrepancy about begin and end date
of reign), Chandragupta, a soldier of the Magadha Kingdom, established Maurya dynasty. He
met a staunch believer in Digambara ideology, Acharya Bhadrabahu, probably in 300 BC, and
impressed by Jain ideology, followed and converted to Jainism. The 12th-century Digambara
text Parishishtaparvan by Hemchandra is the main and earliest Jain source of the complete
legend of Chandragupta. It was written nearly 1,400 years after Chandragupta's death. Canto 8,
verses 170 to 469, describes the legend of Chandragupta and Chanakya's influence on him. Other
Digambara Jain sources state he moved to Karnataka after renouncing his kingdom and

14
performed Sallekhana the Jain religious ritual of peacefully welcoming death by fasting. In
accordance with the Digambara tradition, the hill on which Chandragupta is stated to have
performed asceticism is now known as Chandragiri hill and Digambaras believe that
Chandragupta Maurya erected an ancient temple that now survives as the Chandragupta basadi.
The earliest mention of Chandragupta's ritual death is found in Harisena’s Brhatkathakosa, a
Sanskrit text of stories about Digambara Jains. The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of
Bhadrabahu and mentions Chandragupta in its 131st story. However, the story makes no mention
of the Maurya empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta lived in and migrated from
Ujjain – a kingdom (northwest Madhya Pradesh) about a thousand kilometers west of the
Magadha and Patliputtra (central Bihar). This has led to the proposal that Harisena’s
Chandragupta may be a later era, different person.

So if we go through all the above the circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death is still
unclear and disputed.

Now there is a Digambara version which states that both Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta spent
the remaining days of their lives meditating on Chandragiri hill near the town of Shravan
Belagola in South India but there is also discrepancy with this version as according to other
inscriptions Bhadrabahu probably died couple of years before.
Therefore, not surely whether Bhadrabahu accompanied Chandragupta or not, but we can
certainly conclude from the inscriptions written (especially between 5th and 15th century AD)
that Chandragupta went to Chandragiri hill where he spent life like a monk, meditating, fasting,
living in poverty, and eventually passing away.

Chandragupta Maurya lived at Shravanabelagola for several years in a cave. There he spent his
time worshipping the foot-prints of his teacher Bhadrabahu. He finally ended his life following
the Jain fashion.

⏩Maurya Empire was founded in 322 BCE by Chandragupta Maurya, who had overthrown the
Nanda Dynasty, and rapidly expanded his power,with Chanakya’s help, westward across central
and western India. His expansion took advantage of the disruptions of local powers in the wake
of the withdrawal westward by Alexander the Great’s armies.
⏩By 316 BCE, the empire had fully occupied Northwestern India, defeating and conquering the
satraps left by Alexander. Chandragupta then defeated the invasion led by Seleucus I, a
Macedonian general from Alexander’s army, and gained additional territory west of the Indus
River.
⏩Chandragupta Maurya lived at Shravanabelagola for several years in a cave. There he spent his
time worshipping the foot-prints of his teacher Bhadrabahu. He finally ended his life following
the Jain fashion.
⏩According to the Tibetan account Kautilya saw the abdication of Chandragupta Maurya.The
Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta Maurya retired to Shravanabelagola along with Bhadrabahu, a
disciple of Lord Mahavira around 300 B.C to become a Jain ascetic, after handing over his
kingdom to his son Bindusara.
⏩Thus, Jainism became popular in Karnataka during that period. There are some 500 inscriptions
in Shravanbelagola recording the slow death by starving of the Jain ascetics.

15
⏩Chandragupta was influenced to accept Jainism by the sage Bhadrabahu I, who predicted the
onset of a 12-year famine.
⏩When the famine came, Chandragupta made efforts to counter it, but, dejected by the tragic
conditions prevailing, he left to spend his last days in the service of Bhadrabahu at
Shravanabelagola, where Chandragupta fasted to death.
⏩There are some Jain temples (Bastis) and Jain mutts in the smaller Chandragiri hill.
⏩The most important among them is the Chandragupta Basti built by Emperor Ashoka who is
the grandson of Chandragupta.

Alternate Theorey

Others believe that Chandragupta Maurya did not adopt Jainism, and was not a Jain monk. His
great-great-grandson Samprati Chandragupta adopted Jainism and was a Jain monk.
It is a common misconception based on a combination of wrong interpretation of a name
occurring in an inscription, and concocted stories in late texts of Jainism.
Combine this with the fact that within the Jain textual tradition, the Digambara texts and
Shvetambara texts do not fully agree on this topic of Chandragupta Maurya migrating south and
settling down in Karnataka at that time (4th century BCE).

All of the references to Chandragupta migrating to Karnataka come from only the Digambara
textual sources.

The earliest reference to Chandragupta Maurya being a Jain is in a story which occurs in the 12th
century CE Sanskrit text Parishishtaparvan of Hemachandra, which has stories of various Jain
saints. So, this was written almost 1400 years after he lived. The same story also says that
Chanakya was a Jain, which is clearly false since we know from original sources, including
Chanakya’s own text Arthashastra, that he was a Vedic Brahmin. So, this story is clearly a later
concoction not based in actual historical facts.

The 4th century CE text Brhatkathakosha, by Harishena is another Sanskrit text of stories about
Digambara Jains. In the legend of Bhadrabahu, one Chandragupta is mentioned committing
Sallekhana. However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya empire, and says that this
Chandragupta lived in Ujjain, which is about a thousand kilometers west of Magadha and
Pataliputra, where the Mauryan kingdom was established by the Chandragupta Maurya. So, it is
evident that this Chandragupta is a different person.

Another important point to note is that the earliest and most authentic Jain texts were written in
Ardhamagadhi, at the time period of Mahavira and later Jain saints and philosophers, even in the
time of the actual emperor Chandragupta Maurya (4th century BCE). The earliest Sanskrit text
was written in around the 3rd century CE. None of these texts mention Chandragupta Maurya
adopting Jainism. Surely, these early texts would have mentioned such a great and momentous
event — the greatest emperor of Bharatavarsha at that time adopting Jainism would have been
recorded in contemporaneous accounts. But there is no mention of this important event.
Coming to the inscriptional evidence. The earliest inscription in Shravanabelagola is dated to
the 7th century CE. It is written in the Old Kannada (Purvahalegannada) script in Sanskrit
language.

16
(source: 7th-century Bhadrabahu Sanskrit inscription, Purvahale Kannada script,
Shravanabelgola Karnataka.jpg - Wikimedia Commons)
In this inscription, there is mention of the acharya Bhadrabahu and his disciple Prabhachandra.
Only Digambara Jain tradition interprets “Prabhachandra” as “Chandragupta Maurya”.
Shvetambara tradition does not agree with this. Most historians do not support this interpretation
either. There is no explicit direct mention of “Chandragupta Maurya, the emperor of the Maurya
empire” being the disciple of Bhadrabahu in the inscription.
However, all historical accounts unanimously show that it was actually Chandragupta’s great-
great-grandson Samprati Chandragupta who adopted Jainism, promoted Jainism throughout
central and southern India (especially Karnataka), became a Jain monk and committed
Sallekhana (fasting to death), in Shravanabelagola in Karnataka. The poet and scholar
Rashtrakavi M. Govinda Pai has shown this through his research of original sources.
Lineage: Chandragupta — Bindusara — Ashoka — Kunala — Samprati Chandragupta.

According to Digambara Jain accounts Chandragupta abdicated at an early age and settled as a
monk under Bhadrabāhu in Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka. According to
these accounts, Bhadrabāhu forecast a 12-year famine because of all the killing and violence
during the conquests by Chandragupta Maurya. He led a group of Jain monks to south India,
where Chandragupta Maurya joined him as a monk after abdicating his empire to his son
Bindusara. Together, states a Digambara legend, Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu moved
to Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka. Chandragupta lived as an ascetic
at Shravanabelagola for several years before fasting to death as per the practice of sallekhana,
according to the Digambara legend. In accordance with the Digambara tradition, the hill on
17
which Chandragupta is stated to have performed asceticism is now known as Chandragiri hill,
and Digambaras believe that Chandragupta Maurya erected an ancient temple that now survives
as the Chandragupta basadi.

The 12th-century Svetambara Jain legend by Hemachandra presents a different picture. The
Hemachandra version includes stories about Jain monks who could become invisible to steal
food from imperial storage and the Jain Brahmin Chanakya using violence and cunning tactics to
expand Chandragupta's empire and increase imperial revenues. It states in verses 8.415 to 8.435,
that for 15 years as emperor, Chandragupta was a follower of non-Jain "ascetics with the wrong
view of religion" and "lusted for women". Chanakya, who was a Jain convert himself, persuaded
Chandragupta to convert to Jainism by showing that Jain ascetics avoided women and focused on
their religion. The legend mentions Chanakya aiding the premature birth of Bindusara, It states in
verse 8.444 that "Chandragupta died in meditation (can possibly be sallekhana.) and went
to heaven”. According to Hemachandra's legend, Chanakya also performed sallekhana.

Textual sources
The Digambara Jain accounts are recorded in the Brihakathā kośa (931 CE) of
Harishena, Bhadrabāhu charita (1450 CE) of Ratnanandi, Munivaṃsa bhyudaya (1680 CE)
and Rajavali kathe,

Regarding the inscriptions describing the relation of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta

Maurya, Radha Kumud Mookerji writes that the oldest inscription of about 600 AD associated
"the pair (yugma), Bhadrabahu along with Chandragupta Muni." Two inscriptions of about 900
AD on the Kaveri near Seringapatam describe the summit of a hill called Chandragiri as marked
by the footprints of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta munipati. A Shravanabelagola inscription of
1129 mentions Bhadrabahu "Shrutakevali", and Chandragupta who acquired such merit that he
was worshipped by the forest deities. Another inscription of 1163 similarly couples and describes
them. A third inscription of the year 1432 speaks of Yatindra Bhadrabahu, and his disciple
Chandragupta, the fame of whose penance spread into other words. Along with texts, several
Digambara Jain inscriptions dating from the 7th–15th century refer to Bhadrabahu and a
Prabhacandra. Later Digambara tradition identified the Prabhacandra as Chandragupta, and some
modern era scholars have accepted this Digambara tradition while others have not, Several of the
late Digambara inscriptions and texts in Karnataka state the journey started from Ujjain and not
Patliputra (as stated in some Digambara texts).

Analysis

According to Jeffery D. Long, in one Digambara version it was Samprati Chandragupta who
renounced, migrated and performed sallekhana in Shravanabelagola. Long notes that scholars
attribute the disintegration of the Maurya empire to the times and actions of Samprati
Chandragupta, the grandson of Ashoka and great-great-grandson of Chandragupta Maurya,
concluding that the two Chandraguptas have been confused to be the same in some Digambara
legends.

Scholar of Jain studies and Sanskrit Paul Dundas says the Svetambara tradition of Jainism
disputes the ancient Digambara legends. According to a fifth-century text of the Svetambara
Jains, the Digambara sect of Jainism was founded 609 years after Mahavira's death, or in first-

18
century CE. Digambaras wrote their own versions and legends after the fifth-century, with their
first expanded Digambara version of sectarian split within Jainism appearing in the tenth-
century. The Svetambaras texts describe Bhadrabahu was based near Nepalese foothills of the
Himalayas in third-century BCE, who neither moved nor travelled with Chandragupta Maurya to
the south; rather, he died near Patliputra, according to the Svetambara Jains.

According to V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar – an Indologist and historian, several of the

Digambara legends mention Prabhacandra, who had been misidentified as Chandragupta Maurya
particularly after the original publication on Shravanabelagola epigraphy by B. Lewis Rice. The
earliest and most important inscriptions mention Prabhacandra, which Rice presumed may have
been the "clerical name assumed by Chadragupta Maurya" after he renounced and moved with
Bhadrabahu from Patliputra. Dikshitar stated there is no evidence to support this and
Prabhacandra was an important Jain monk scholar who migrated centuries after Chandragupta
Maurya's death.

The recorded history surrounding the hill started in 300 BC when

last Shruthakevali Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya visited the place in order to
attain kaivalya (beatitude). The small hill derives its name of Chandra because Chandragupta
was the first of the rishis who lived and performed penance there. Kalbappu was the early name
of the hill and it dominates the history of the town of Shravanabelagola between 3rd century BC
and 12th century AD. The Jain traditions link the Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta and his
teacher Bhadrabahu with this place. Of the total number of 106 memorials found at
Shravanabelagola, 92 are located on the small hill. Of these, about 47 memorials of monks, 9 of
nuns, and 5 of householders belong to the 7th and 8th century. This points out at the popularity
of the custom, and of its extensive prevalence on the small hill.

The Footprints of Chandragupta Maurya on Chandragiri Hill, where Chandragupta (the unifier of
India and founder of the Maurya Dynasty) performed Sallekhana.

19
Biographical information
None of the ancient texts mention when Chandragupta was born. Plutarch claims that
Chandragupta in his youth saw Alexander the Great during the latter's invasion of India (c. 326-
325 BCE):

20
Jansari, Sushma (2023) in Chandragupta Maurya: The creation of a national hero in India,
mentions that Androcottus [Chandragupta], when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and
we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself
master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low
birth.
Assuming the Plutarch account is true, it was proposed in 1923 that Chandragupta may have
been born after 350 BCE , There is also a passage of Justin's history which had been read as
referring to a meeting between Chandragupta and Alexander. However, according to Thomas
Trautmann, this was a due to mistranslation in early printed book, and the correct reading
was Nandrum (Nanada king), rather than Alexandrum.

Some early printed editions of Justin's work wrongly mentioned "Alexandrum" instead of
"Nandrum"; this error was corrected in philologist J. W. McCrindle's 1893 translation. In the
20th century, historians Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri and R. C. Majumdar believed
"Alexandrum" to be correct reading, and theorized that Justin refers to a meeting between
Chandragupta and Alexander the Great ("Alexandrum"). However, this is incorrect: research by
historian Alfred von Gutschmid in the preceding century had clearly established that "Nandrum"
is the correct reading supported by multiple manuscripts: only a single defective manuscript
mentions "Alexandrum" in the margin. Trautmann, Thomas R. (1970), "Alexander and Nandrus
in Justin 15.4.16.", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 51 (1/4)
According to other Greco-Roman texts, Chandragupta attacked the Greek-Indian governors
during a period of unrest and local warfare after Alexander's death (died c. 323 BCE), acquiring
control of the eastern Indus Valley. The chronology and dating of Chandragupta's activitities in
the Punjab is uncertain either before or after he took the Nanda-throne.[43] The defeat of the
Greeks is dated by Mookerji at 323; Jansari dates the arrival of Chandragupta in the Punjab at ca.
317, in line with the chronology of Greek history.

The texts do not include the start or end year of Chandragupta's reign. According to some Hindu
and Buddhist texts, Chandragupta ruled for 24 years, The Buddhist sources state Chandragupta
Maurya ruled 162 years after the death of the Buddha. However, the Buddha's birth and death
vary by source and all these lead to a chronology that is significantly different from the Greco-
Roman records. Similarly, Jain sources composed give different gaps between Mahavira's death
and his accession. As with the Buddha's death, the date of Mahavira's death itself is also a matter
of debate, and the inconsistencies and lack of unanimity among the Jain authors cast doubt on
Jain sources. This Digambara Jain chronology, also, is not reconcilable with the chronology
implied in other Indian and non-Indian sources. Chandragupta and Seleucus Nicator entered into
a dynastic marriage-alliance at ca. 305-303 BCE.

The circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death are also unclear and disputed.According to
Roy, Chandragupta's abdication of throne may be dated to c. 298 BCE, and his death between
297 and 293 BCE.

Name and Titles- Sandrakottos & Androcottus

Greek writer Phylarchus (c. third century BCE), who is quoted by Athenaeus, calls Chandragupta
"Sandrokoptos". The later Greco-Roman writers Strabo, Arrian, and Justin (c. second century)

21
call him "Sandrocottus". In Greek and Latin accounts, Chandragupta is known
as Sandrakottos (Greek: Σανδράκοττος) and Androcottus (Greek: Ανδροκόττος).

British orientialist and philologist Sir William Jones (1746–1794) was the first to propose, in
1793, that Chandragupta Maurya known from the Sanskrit literature must be equivalent to the
Indian king known as "Sandracottus" in Graeco-Roman historical sources. Jones' discovery "was
of vital importance," states historian Sushma Jansari, because "it meant, for the first time, that
Indian and Graeco-Roman history could be synchronised and dates assigned to this period of
ancient Indian history." Consequently, Chandragupta's reign has been referred to as "the sheet
anchor of Indian chronology."

The king's epithets mentioned in the Sanskrit play Mudrarakshasa include "Chanda-siri"
(Chandra-shri), "Piadamsana" (Priya-darshana), and Vrishala. Piadamsana is similar to Priyadasi,
an epithet of his grandson Ashoka.[55] The word "Vrishala" is used in Indian epics and law books
to refer to non-orthodox people. According to one theory, it may be derived from the Greek royal
title Basileus, but there is no concrete evidence of this: the Indian sources apply it to several non-
royals, especially wandering teachers and ascetics.[56]

Religion
In contrast to the Jain legends which developed 900 years later, contemporary Greek evidence
states that Chandragupta did not give up performing the rites of sacrificing animals associated
with Vedic Brahminism; he delighted in hunting and otherwise leading a life remote from the
Jain practice of ahimsa or nonviolence towards living beings.

Historical background

Around 350 BCE Magadha, ruled by the Nanda dynasty, emerged as the dominant power after a
internecine warfare between the janapadas kingdoms. Alexander the Great entered the
Northwest Indian subcontinent in his Indian campaign, which he aborted in 325 BCE due to a
mutiny caused by the prospect of facing another large empire, presumably the Nanda Empire,
and before Chandragupta came into power. Alexander left India, and assigned the northwestern
(Indus Valley) Indian subcontinent territories to Greek governors. He died in 323 BCE in
Babylon, whereafter war broke out between his generals.

Early life and Family background of Chandragupta

Historical information on Chandragupta's youth is sparse to non-existent. One medieval
commentator states Chandragupta to be the son of one of the Nanda's wives with the name Mura.
Other naratives describe Mura as a concubine of the king. Another Sanskrit dramatic
text Mudrarakshasa uses the terms Vrishala and Kula-Hina (meaning - "not descending from a
recognized clan or family") to describe Chandragupta. The word Vrishala has two meanings:
one is the son of a shudra; the other means the best of kings. A later commentator used the
former interpretation to posit that Chandragupta had a Shudra background. However,
historian Radha Kumud Mukherjee opposed this theory, and stated that the word should be
interpreted as "the best of kings". The same drama also refers to Chandragupta as someone of
humble origin, like Justin. According to the 11th-century texts of the Kashmiri Hindu tradition
– Kathasaritsagara and Brihat-Katha-Manjari – the Nanda lineage was very short. Chandragupta
22
was a son of Purva-Nanda, the older Nanda based in Ayodhya. The common theme in the Hindu
sources is that Chandragupta came from a humble background and with Chanakya, he emerged
as a dharmic king loved by his subjects.

Chanakya

Chandragupta's guru was Chanakya, with whom he studied as a child and with
whose counsel he built the Empire. This image is a 1915 attempt at depicting Chanakya.
Legends about Chanakya couple him to Chandragupta, acting as his mentor and spiritual teacher,
complementing the image of a chakravartin.

According to the Digambara legend by Hemachandra, Chanakya was a Jain layperson and a
Brahmin. When Chanakya was born, Jain monks prophesied that Chanakya will one day grow up
to help make someone an emperor and will be the power behind the throne. Chanakya believed
in the prophecy and fulfilled it by agreeing to help the daughter of a peacock-breeding
community chief deliver a baby boy. In exchange, he asked the mother to give up the boy and let
him adopt him at a later date. The Jain Brahmin then went about making money through magic,
and returned later to claim young Chandragupta, whom he taught and trained. Together, they
recruited soldiers and attacked the Nanda Empire. Eventually, they won and proclaimed
Patliputra as their capital.

The Buddhist and Hindu legends present different versions of how Chandragupta met Chanakya.
Broadly, they mention young Chandragupta creating a mock game of a royal court that he and
his shepherd friends played near Vinjha forest. Chanakya saw him give orders to the others,
bought him from the hunter, and adopted Chandragupta. Chanakya taught and admitted him
in Taxila to study the Vedas, military arts, law, and other shastras. According to this Buddhist
legend, Chanakya was chosen as president of the samgha which administered the Danasala, a
charity foundation, but was dismissed by Dhana Nanda due to his ugliness and manners.
Chanaky cursed the king, fled Pataliputra, and then met Chandragupta.

Rise to power due to unrest and warfare in the Punjab

The Roman historian Justin (2nd Century CE) states, in Epit. 15.4.12-13, that after Alexander's
death, Greek governors in India were assassinated, liberating the people of Greek rule. This

23
revolt led by Chandragupta, who in turn established an oppressive regime himself "after taking
the throne."

India, after the death of Alexander, had assassinated his prefects, as if shaking the burden of
servitude. The author of this liberation was Sandracottos [Chandragupta], but he had transformed
liberation in servitude after victory, since, after taking the throne, he himself oppressed the very
people he has liberated from foreign domination."

— Junianus Justinus, Histoires Philippiques Liber, XV.4.12-13

Chandragupta t is said organized an army of mercenary soldiers, hunters, or robbers.The nature
of early relationship between these governors and Chandragupta is unknown. Chandragupta was
a rival of the Alexander's successors in north-western India.

Buddhist text Mahavamsa Tika describes how Chandragupta and Chanakya raised an army by
recruiting soldiers from many places after the former completed his education at Taxila, to resist
the Greeks. Chanakya made Chandragupta the leader of the army. The Digambara Jain
text Parishishtaparvan states that this army was raised by Chanakya with coins he minted and an
alliance formed with Parvataka. According to Nath Sen, Chandragupta recruited and annexed
local military republics such as the Yaudheyas that had resisted Alexander's Empire. The defeat
of the Greeks is dated by Mookerji at 323 BCE; Jansari dates the arrival of Chandragupta in the
Punjab at ca. 317, in line with the chronology of Greek history.

Chandragupta offended the Nanda king ("Nandrum" or "Nandrus") who ordered his execution.
Mookerji quotes Justin as stating-

Sandracottus (Chandragupta) was the leader who achieved its freedom. He was born in
humble life but was prompted to aspire to royalty by an omen. By his insulent behaviour he
had offended Nandrus and was ordered to be put to death when he sought safety by a
speedy flight.
Justin narrates two miraculous incidents as omens and portents of Sandracottus (Chandragupta)
fate. In the first incident, when Chandragupta was asleep after having escaped from Nandrum, a
big lion came up to him, licked him, and then left. In the second incident, when Chandragupta
was readying for war with Alexander's generals, a huge wild elephant approached him and
offered itself to be his steed.

The Mudrarakshasa states that Chanakya felt insulted by the king, whereafter he swore to
destroy the Nanda dynasty. The Jain version states that it was the Nanda king who was publicly
insulted by Chanakya. In either case, Chanakya fled, found Chandragupta, and started a war
against the Nanda king.

24
War against the Nandas and seizure of Pataliputra
According to Mookerji, after defeating the Greeks, the army of Chandragupta and Chanakya
revolted against the unpopular Nandasand conquered the Nanda outer territories, and then
advanced on Pataliputra, the capital city of the Nanda Empire, which according to Mookerji they
conquered deploying guerrilla warfare methods with the help of mercenaries from conquered
areas. With the defeat of Dhana Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya Empire.

The Buddhist Mahavamsa Tika and Jain Parishishtaparvan records Chandragupta's army
unsuccessfully attacking the Nanda capital. Chandragupta and Chanakya then began a campaign
at the frontier of the Nanda empire, gradually conquering various territories on their way to the
Nanda capital. He then refined his strategy by establishing garrisons in the conquered territories,
and finally besieged the Nanda capital Pataliputra. There Dhana Nanda accepted defeat. In
contrast to the easy victory in Buddhist sources, the Hindu and Jain texts state that the campaign
was bitterly fought because the Nanda dynasty had a powerful and well-trained army. These
legends state that the Nanda emperor was defeated, deposed and exiled by some accounts, while
Buddhist accounts claim he was killed.

Historically reliable details of Chandragupta's campaign into Pataliputra are unavailable and the
legends written centuries later are inconsistent. While his victory, and ascencion of the throne, is
usually dated at ca. 322-319 BCE, which would put his war in the Punjab after his ascencion, an
ascencion "between c. 311-305 BCE" is also possible, placing his activity in the Punjab at ca.
317 BCE.

The conquest was fictionalised in Mudrarakshasa, in which Chandragupta is said to have

acquired Punjab, and then allied with a local king named Parvatka under the Chanakya's advice,
where-after they advanced on Pataliputra.

In contrast to the easy victory of Buddhist sources, the Hindu and Jain texts state that the
campaign was bitterly fought because the Nanda dynasty had a powerful and well-trained army.
Greco-Roman writer Plutarch stated, in his Life of Alexander, that the Nanda king was so
unpopular that had Alexander tried, he could have easily conquered India. Buddhist texts such
as Milindapanha claim Magadha was ruled by the Nanda dynasty, which, with Chanakya's
counsel, Chandragupta conquered to restore dhamma.

Legends narrate that the Nanda emperor was defeated, but was allowed to leave Pataliputra alive
with a chariot full of items his family needed. The Jain sources attest that his daughter fell
in love at first sight with Chandragupta and married him.Though daughter is not named the
source later name mother of Chandragupta's son as Durdhara.

Dynastic marriage-alliance with Seleucus

According to Appian, Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's Macedonian generals who in 312
BCE established the Seleucid Empire with its capital at Babylon, brought Persia
and Bactria under his own authority, putting his eastern front facing the empire of Chandragupta.

25
Somewhere between 305 and 303 BCE Seleucus and Chandragupta confronted each other,
Seleucus intending to retake the former satrapies each of the Indus. Yet, Seleucus Nicator and
Chandragupta formed a dynastic marriage-alliance, Seleucus receiving five hundred elephants,
and Chandragupta gaining control over the regions bordering at the east on the Indus. Strabo, in
his Geographica, XV, 2.9 composed about 300 years after Chandragupta's death, describes a
number of tribes living along the Indus, and then states that "The Indians occupy [in part] some
of the countries situated along the Indus, which formerly belonged to the Persians."[

The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae,
above whom lies the Paropamisus Mountains: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next,
towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus
lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the
Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the
Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own,
but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus [Chandragupta], upon terms of intermarriage
and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants.
The exact extent of the acquired territories is unknown. A modest interpretation limits the
extension to the western Indus Valley, including the coast of eastern Gedrosia (Balochistan) up
to the Malan mountain raing (Hingol river), the Punjab, and the eastern part
of Paropamisadae (Gandhara). Arachosia (Kandahar, present-day Afghanistan), is a possibility,
while Aria (present-day Herat, Afghanistan) is also often mentioned, but rejected by
contemporary scholarship. Tarn, writing in 1922, and Coningham and Young,[14] have
questioned the inclusion of eastern Afghanistan (Kabul-Kandahar), Coningham and Young
noting that "a growing number of researchers would now agree that the Ashokan edicts may have
represented 'an area of maximum contact rather than streamlined bureaucratic control'."
Coningham & Young also question the extent of control over the lower Indus Valley, following
Thapar, noting that this may have been an area of peripheral control. Raymond Allchin also
notes the absence of major cities in the lower Indus valley.

The details of the engagement treaty are also not known. Since the extensive sources available
on Seleucus never mention an Indian princess, it is thought that Chandragupta himself or his son
Bindusara marrying a Seleucid princess, in accordance with contemporary Greek practices to
form dynastic alliances. The Mahavamsa states that Chandragupta married a daughter of
Seleucus not long after the latter's defeat. As well, an Indian Puranic source, the Pratisarga
Parva of the Bhavishya Purana, described the marriage of Chandragupta with a Greek
("Yavana") princess, daughter of Seleucus.

Chandragupta sent 500 war elephants to Seleucus, which played a key role in Seleucus' victory at
the Battle of Ipsus. In addition to this treaty, Seleucus dispatched Megasthenes as an ambassador
to Chandragupta's court, and later Antiochos sent Deimakos to his son Bindusara at the Maurya
court at Patna.

Megasthenes served as a Greek ambassador in his court for four years.

26
 Silver punch mark coin
(Karshapana) of the Maurya Empire, with symbols of wheel and elephant (3rd century BCE)/
Chandragupta Maurya period Karshapana coin, circa 315-310 B.C.
After conquering northern India, Chandragupta and Chanakya passed a series of major economic
and political reforms. Chandragupta established a decentralised administration with provinces
and local governments, and a mantriparishad (council of advisers) advising the king. While it is
often thought that Chandragupta applied the statecraft and economic policies described
in Arthashastra, which was earlierly thought to be written by his minister Chanakya but it's now
thought by most scholars that the Arthashastra is not of Mauryan origin, and contains
prescriptions which are incompatible with Chandragupta's reign.

The Maurya rule was a structured administration; Chandragupta had a council of ministers
(amatya), with Chanakya was his chief minister. The empire was organised into territories
(janapada), centres of regional power were protected with forts (durga), and state operations
were funded with treasury (kosa).[147] Strabo, in his Geographica composed about 300 years after
Chandragupta's death, describes aspects of his rule in his chapter XV.46–69. He had councillors
for matters of justice and assessors to collect taxes on commercial activity and trade goods. His
officers inspected situations requiring law and order in the cities; the crime rate was low.

According to Megasthenes, Chandragupta's rule was marked by three parallel administrative

structures.

 One managed the affairs of villages, ensuring irrigation, recording land ownership,
monitoring tools supply, enforcing hunting, wood products and forest-related laws, and
settling disputes.
 Another administrative structure managed city affairs, including all matters related to
trade, merchant activity, visit of foreigners, harbors, roads, temples, markets, and
industries. They also collected taxes and ensured standardized weights and measures.
 The third administrative body overlooked the military, its training, its weapons supply,
and the needs of the soldiers.

During Chandragupta's reign and that of his dynasty, many religions thrived in India,
with Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika gaining prominence along with other folk traditions.

The empire built a strong economy from a solid infrastructure such as irrigation, temples, mines,
and roads. Ancient epigraphical evidence suggests Chandragupta, under counsel from Chanakya,
started and completed many irrigation reservoirs and networks across the Indian subcontinent to
ensure food supplies for the civilian population and the army, a practice continued by his
dynastic successors. Regional prosperity in agriculture was one of the required duties of his state
officials. The strongest evidence of infrastructure development is found in the Junagadh rock
inscription of Rudradaman in Gujarat, dated to about 150 CE. It states, among other things,

27
that Rudradaman repaired and enlarged the reservoir and irrigation conduit infrastructure built by
Chandragupta and enhanced by Asoka. Chandragupta's empire also built mines, manufacturing
centres, and networks for trading goods. His rule developed land routes to transport goods across
the Indian subcontinent. Chandragupta expanded "roads suitable for carts" as he preferred those
over narrow tracks suitable for only pack animals. According to Kaushik Roy, the Maurya
dynasty rulers were "great road builders". The Greek ambassador Megasthenes credited this
tradition to Chandragupta after the completion of a thousand-mile-long highway connecting
Chandragupta's capital Pataliputra in Bihar to Taxila in the north-west where he studied. The
other major strategic road infrastructure credited to this tradition spread from Pataliputra in
various directions, connecting it with Nepal, Kapilavastu, Dehradun, Mirzapur, Odisha, Andhra,
and Karnataka.Roy stated this network boosted trade and commerce, and helped move armies
rapidly and efficiently.

Chandragupta and Chanakya seeded weapon manufacturing centres, and kept them as a state
monopoly of the state. The state, however, encouraged competing private parties to operate
mines and supply these centres. They considered economic prosperity essential to the pursuit
of dharma (virtuous life) and adopted a policy of avoiding war with diplomacy yet continuously
preparing the army for war to defend its interests and other ideas in the Arthashastra.

Buddhist Religion
Chandragupta sponsored Vedic sacrifices and Brahmanical rituals, and hosted major festivals
marked by procession of elephants and horses. He was not a Buddhist rather a Jain monk at the
fag end of his life. Buddhists however usurped his legacy as Grandfather ofone of the greatest
Bddhist Kings Askoka-probably encouraged also by Ahoka who was head over heels in love
with Buddhism/

While many religions thrived within his realms and his descendants'
empire, Buddhism, Jainism and Ājīvika gained prominence prevailing
over Vedic and Brahmanistic traditions, intitiating, under Ashoka, the expansion of
Buddhism and the synthesis of Brahmanic and non-Brahmanic religious traditions which
converged in Hinduism. Minority religions such as Zoroastrianism and the Greek pantheon were
respected.

Bindusara (298BC-272BC) was son of Chandra Gupta Maurya and King of Mauryan Empire.
After Chandra Gupta’s death his son Bindusara ascended to throne of Magadha, in 298 BC.
Sufficient historical evidence is not available regarding his reign. He had assumed the title of
‘Amitraghata’ or the slayer of foes. Therefore it sounds that like his father he was also a
conqueror. During his rule the governor of Taxila rose in rebellion which was crushed by his
son Ashoka. Bindusara ruled for 25 years before he died in 273 BC.

28
A modern statue depicting Chandragupta Maurya, Laxminarayan Temple, Delhi. Chandragupta Maurya
stamp issued by Indian Government in 2001/A memorial to Chandragupta exists on Chandragiri
hill in Shravanabelagola, Karnataka.[170] The Indian Postal Service issued a commemorative postage
stamp honouring Chandragupta Maurya in 2001.

Ashoka (304BC-232 BC) was son of Bindusara and a very capable ruler and administrator of the
Mauryan Empire. He ruled from 273 BC - 232 BC. He was the third and the most popular of the
Mauryan Kings. He was born in about 302 BC. During his father’s reign he had served as the
governor of Taxila and Ujjain which had given him enough experience as an administrator. He
succeeded to the throne after his father’s death in 273 BC.
After the massacre at Kalinga in, in 261 BC, he felt deep remorse and became a follower
of Buddhism. He had built up a larger empire than any ruler before him had. He contributed a
great deal to the expansion of Buddhism. His son and daughter became Bhikshus for the
propagation of Buddhism. Unfortunately his successors were not capable. His son Kunal was
blind. His grandsons Dashratha and Sam Vrate were weak. Pushyamitra, a minister, killed the
last Maurya ruler and usurped the throne. This Brahmin ruler was very cruel. He embarked upon
mass persecution of Buddhists. According to the book Dev Vidhan he awarded 100 Dinars to any
one producing a head of Buddhist monk. His dynasty ruled for 112 years till another Brahmin
named Kanva whose descendants ruled for another 45 years killed its last ruler.
Satvahanas and Andhra Brahmins against Shaka Kshatriyas who were followers of Buddhism
carried out similar persecutions.
Mystery of Shashigupta vs Chandragupta
Scholars like Dr H. C. Seth and Dr H. R. Gupta theorize that Shashigupta was another name
for Chandragupta Maurya, founder of Maurya Empire, although other scholars appear to have
taken this theory lightly. According to these scholars, it is very conspicuous that Shashigupta
(Sisikottos) and Chandragupta (Sandrokotos) both names literally mean "moon-protected".
"Shashi" part of Shashigupta has exactly the same meaning in Sanskrit as the "Chandra" part
of Chandragupta—both mean "the moon". Thus, the two names are exact synonyms. Scholars
say that it is not an uncommon practice in India to substitute one's given name with a synonym.

29
Thus, it appears very likely, as many scholars believe, that Chandragupta may have been an
alternative name for Shashigupta and both names essentially refer to same individual. This view
is further reinforced if we compare the early lives of Shashigupta and Chandragupta. Both men
are equally remarkable, both are military adventurers par excellence, both are rebellious and
opportunists, both are equally ambitious, both are far-sighted and shrewd statesmen, and lastly
but more importantly, both emerge in history precisely at the same time and at the same place in
north-west India. Plutarch's classic statement that Andrakottos had met Alexander in his youth
days probably alludes to the years when Sisikottos had gone to help Iranians against Alexander
at Bactria in 329 BCE. J. W. McCrindle concludes from Plutarch's statement that Chandragupta
was native of Punjab rather than Magadha. Appian's statement: "And having crossed Indus,
Seleucus warred with Androkottos, the king of the Indians, who dwelt about that river (the
Indus)" clearly shows that Chandragupta was initially a ruler of Indus country. It was only after
Chandragupta's war with Seleucus which took place in 305 BCE and the defeat of the latter that
Chandragupta appears to have shifted his capital and residence from north-west to Pataliputra—
which was also the political headquarters of the regime he had succeeded to.

Dr Seth concludes: "If Chandragupta is identical to Shashigupta, then we find no difficulty in

assuming that he indeed belonged to the Kshatriya clan of the Ashvakas whose influence
extended from the Hindukush to eastern Punjab at the time of Alexander's invasion. With
Mauryan conquest of other parts of India, these Ashvakas settled in other parts of India as well.
From Buddhist literature, we also read of southern Ashvakas (or Assakas or Asmakas) on the
bank of river Godavary in Trans-Vindhya country. The Ashvakas are said to have belonged the
great Lunar dynasty..... In the region lying between Hindukush and Indus, Alexander received
terrible resistance from the Kshatriya tribe called Ashvakas".

Some scholars believe that the insurgency against the Greek rule in north-west had first started
probably in lower Indus. If this is true, then Moeris of Patala may indeed have been the pioneer
in this revolution and he may be assumed to be the same person as Meroes of north-west i.e.
Chandragupta Maurya, alternatively known also as Shashigupta originally a native of the
Swat/Kunar valleys west of Indus. Other scholars like Dr B. M. Barua, Dr H. C. Seth etc. also
identify Shashigupta with Chandragupta. As noted above, Dr J. W. McCrindle calls
Chandragupta a native of Panjab. American archaeologist David B. Spooner thinks that
Chandragupta was an Iranian who had established a dynasty in Magadha. Based on the classical
evidence, Dr H. R. Gupta thinks that Chandragupta as well as Shashigupta both belonged to
northwest frontiers and both, perhaps belonged to two different sections of the Ashvaka
Kshatriyas. Dr Chandra Chakravarti also relates Shashigupta and Chandragupta to northwest
frontiers and states that Shashigupta belonged to Malkand whereas Chandragupta Maurya was a
ruler of Ujjanaka or Uddyana (Swat) territory of the Ashvakas.

30
Interior of the palace of Shauh Shujah Ool Moolk, Late King of Cabul This lithograph is taken from
plate 3 of 'Afghaunistan' by Lieutenant James Rattray. This scene shows Shah Shuja in 1839 after
his enthronement as Emir of Afghanistan in the Bala Hissar (fort) of Kabul. Rattray wrote: "The
Shah was a man of great personal beauty, and so well got up, that none could have guessed his
age." He continued: "the wild grandeur of the whole pageantry baffles description." The
population watched Shuja's grand entry in absolute silence. He was then seated on a white and
reputedly ancient marble throne. From here he could be seen by the court in the quadrangle
below. The wooden arches and pillars surrounding him were carved and painted and the ceiling
richly decorated. A year later the sanctity of the scene was bloodily violated: Shah Shuja was
murdered and "the sacred throne, [became] a lounge, a pitch-and-toss table."
We are not certain that Shashigupta was a ruler of Paropamisadae (modern north-west Pakistan
and eastern Afghanistan), between the Hindu Kush mountains and Indus Valley during the 4th
century BCE. The name Shashigupta is a reconstruction of a hypothetical Indo-Aryan name,
based on a figure named in ancient Greek and Roman sources as Sisikottos (Arrian),
and Sisocostus (Curtius). Paropamisadae or Parapamisadae was a satrapy of the Alexandrian
Empire in modern Afghanistan and Pakistan, which largely coincided with
the Achaemenid province of Parupraesanna. It consisted of the districts
of Sattagydia (Bannu basin), Gandhara (Kabul, Peshawar, and Taxila), and Oddiyana (Swat
Valley). Paruparaesanna is mentioned in the Akkadian language and Elamite language versions
of the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great, whereas in the Old Persian version it is
called Gandāra. The entire satrapy,was subsequently ceded by Seleucus I
[
Nicator to Chandragupta Maurya following a treaty.

The root shashi is equivalent to chandra ("moon") in Indian languages. Consequently,

Shashigupta is often linked to various figures known as Chandragupta in ancient

31
Indian sources. Both names mean "moon-protected". However, there is no consensus amongst
modern scholars as to which of the historical Chadraguptas, if any, may be identified with
Shashigupta.

Nothing is known about early life of Shashigupta. He was presumably a military adventurer, a
leader of corporation of professional soldiers (band of mercenary soldiers) whose main goals
were economic and military pursuits.

In all probability, Shashigupta was a professional soldier and led a corporation of mercenary
soldier to help Persians especially Bessus, the Iranian Satrap of Bactria but once his case was
lost, Shashigupta, along with band of warriors (obviously as mercenary soldiers), threw his lot
with the invaders and thereafter, rendered a great help to Alexander during latter's campaigns of
Sogdiana and later also of the Kunar and Swat valleys.

As the Satrap of the eastern Ashvakas

.
In May 327 BCE, when Alexander the Great invaded the republican territories of the
Alishang/Kunar, Massaga and Aornos on the west of Indus, Shashigupta had rendered great
service to the Macedonian invader in reducing several Kshatriya chiefs of the Ashvakas of the
Alishang/Kunar and Swat valleys. He appears to have done this in an understanding with
Alexander that after the reduction of this territory, he would be made the lord of the country.
And Arrian definitively confirms that after the reduction of the fort of Aornos in Swat where the
Ashvakas had put up a terrible resistance, Alexander entrusted the command of this extremely
strategic fort of Aornos to Shashigupta and made him the Satrap of the surrounding country of
the eastern Ashvakas..

Shashigupta vs Meroes, the friend of Porus

Towards the end of battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum), Arrian mentions a certain Meroes and attests
him to be an Indian and an old friend of Porus (or Poros). Arrian further attests that he was
finally chosen by Alexander to bring the fleeing Porus back for concluding peace treaty with
Macedonian invader.[3] It is notable that at the time of Porus's war with Alexander, Shashigupta,
the satrap of the eastern Ashvakas had very cordial relations with Porus. In fact, he was on good
terms both with Porus as well as Alexander and was finally chosen by Alexander to effect peace
negotiations between him (Alexander) and Porus when Taxiles i.e. the ruler of Taxila had failed
in this endeavour. It is more than likely, as several scholars have speculated, that Shashigupta
may have alternatively been known also as Meroes (equivalent to the Sanskrit Maurya) after his
native-land Meros (Mor or Mer in Prakrit, perhaps Mt Meru of Sanskrit texts).. Another
possibility is that name Meroes (Maurya?) may have been derived from "Mer" (hill or mountain)
or "Mera" (hillman) as Sisicottos or Shashigupta was obviously a hilllman or mountaineer.

After the assassination of Nicanor

A few months later when Alexander was still in Punjab and was engaged in war with the
Glausais of Ravi/Chenab, the Ashvakas had assassinated Nicanor, the Greek governor of
lower Kabul valley and also issued a threat to kill Shashigupta if he continued to cooperate with

32
the invaders. While Phillipos was appointed to Nicanor's place, no further reference to
Shashigupta by this name exists in classical sources. It appears likely that as a shrewd politician
& statesman cum military general, Shashigupta had sensed the pulse of time and therefore, after
deserting Alexander’ camp, he had thrown his lot with the emerging powerful group of
insurgents. Thence afterward, Shashigupta seems to appear under an alternative name----Moeres
or Moeris of the classical chroniclers. It is notable that Moeres, Moeris, Meris and Meroes are all
equivalent terms. Arrian writes Meroes while Curtius spells it as Moeres or Moeris. Chieftain
Moeris of lower Indus delta (Patala) referenced by Curtius seems precisely to be the same person
as Meroes of north-west, attested to be old friend of Porus by Arrian. [7] Alexander was apparently
annoyed at this development and pursued Shashigupta who appears to have fled with his
followers to lower Indus. He probably appears there as Moeres of Curtius, a chief of Patala. [ It is
but natural that after joining the band of insurgents, Shashigupta alias Meroes or Moeres became
a leader of the group of rebels and started his struggle for realizing his bigger goals for bigger
regal power.

Identification with figures in Indian sources

Sisikottos/Sisocostus appears twice in Arrian's Anabasis and once in Historiae Alexendri

Magni by Curtius. Many scholars suggest that Shashigupta was a ruler of some frontier hill state
south of Hindukush, it is however, more appropriate to call him a military adventurer or a
corporation leader coming from the warlike background of the fierce Kshatriya clan of
the Ashvakas from Massaga or Aornos (Pir-Sir) or some other adjacent territory of the Ashvakas.
No ancient evidence is available which attests Shashigupta's royal background prior to his
appointment by Alexander as ruler of the Ashvakas of the Aornos country.

There are at least four schools of thought regarding any connection to one of the Chandraguptas.
Some scholars identify him with Chandragupta Maurya, while others say that Chandragupta
Maurya was a separate figure with origins in Eastern India and a third school sees Shashigupta
and Chandragupta as separate Paropamisadaen figures, both of whom had ties to separate
branches of the Ashvakas.

References
1. Albinski, Henry S. (1958), "The Place of the Emperor Asoka in Ancient Indian Political
Thought", Midwest Journal of Political Science, 2 (1): 62–75, doi:10.2307/2109166, JSTOR
2109166
2. Allan, J (1958), The Cambridge Shorter History Of India, Cambridge University Press
3. Allchin, F. R.; Erdosy, George (1995), The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The
Emergence of Citiesand States, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-37695-2
4. Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

33