Causes of downfall of Mauryan Empire

  The Maurya Empire Decline after Asoka | Asoka Responsibilities | What were the reasons for the decline of the Mauryan Empire |Decline and Disintegration of the Mauryan Empire 

The Maurya Empire Decline  | Asoka Responsibilities

Asoka died in 236 B.C. Soon after Emperor Asoka died, the great Maurya Empire began to fall apart and the  vast mighty kingdom broke into pieces. In 187 B. C. Pushyamitra Sunga, a general, overthrew Brihadratha, the last Maurya. when the last Imperial Mauryas of Magadha Brihadratha was murdered by his General Pushyamitra Sunga in 187 B.C., the empire collapsed totally.

 The Brahmanical Reaction Theory by H.P. Sastri

   The historians and the scholars have cited several reasons for this downfall of the Maurya Empire.  The historian Pandit H.P. Sastri forwards a theory that “a reaction promoted by the Brahnanas had sapped the foundation of the Maurya authority and dismembered the empire." This was because the Brahman, Pushyamitra Sunga murdered the last Maurya king and the Satavahanas and the Chetas of Kalinga who captured vast portions of the Maurya Empire on its decline were also Brahmins. For this Prof. Sastri had blamed the pro-Buddhist policy of Asoka and the pro-Jainish policy of his successors which had enraged the Brahamanical sentiment against the Maurya rule. In order to substantiate his arguments he placed forward few evidences. Such as Asoka's edict against animal sacrifice had offended the Brahmans for whom animal sacrifice was an essestial part of the religion. Since the caste system was very much in vogue in the then India, the Brahmins could not accept the edict issued by a Sudra king, Asoka. In one of his edicts Asoka had exposed the reality behind the higher strata of the so called Brahmans which also made the latter angry. This officer or Dhamma Mahamatra practically had directly infringed the rights of the Brahmans. Their privileges were crippled. The introduction of Dandasamata and Vyavahara Samata or equality of punishment and equality of law suit had violated the age old privileges of the Brahmins, as the system was introduced irrespective of race, caste, colour and creed. Till the introduction of this system the Brahmins were immune from capital punishment. Obviously the Brahmins as a class took it seriously. Hence Dr. N. P. Sastri came to the conclusion that the Brahmins dared not to protest against the system so long Asoka was alive. But the moment the mighty ruler died his successors were so weak that the Brahmins eagerly grabbed the situation to rise against them and put an end to the Maurya empire.

Strong Counterarguments from Other Historians

   However, this theory did not go unchallenged. Historians like Dr. H.C. Raychoudhury and Dr. Bhandarkar offered strong rebuttals. Criticising on Prof. Sastri's theory Dr. H. C. Ray Chowdhury pointed out some fallacies of the theory. Firstly Asoka should not be credited for the prohibition of animal sacrifice which, as alleged, had enraged the Brahmins because long before Asoka, the Sruti and the "Upanisadas," the two most lamented traditional book of the Hindus, had definitely condemned the animal sacrifice and uphold non-violence. So what Asoka did was nothing new. The Brahmins were well aware of the issue. Neither was Asoka a Sudra because both Buddhist and Jaina texts established that Asoka was a Kshatriya. It is also alleged that the passage which Prof. Sastri had referred as exposure of Brahmanical character was not properly interpreted by Sylvain Levi, who interpreted the Asokan edict. Dr Raychowdury found nothing objectionable and offensive in this passage of Asokan edict to the Brahmins. Nor he could agree with Prof. Sastri's view that the appointment of Dharma Mahamatras infringed in any way the rights and privileges of the Brahmins. Instead these officers were asked to look after the interest of all class of people alike including the Brahmins. Moreover, it would be totally wrong to say that the ancient laws and usages had made the Brahmins immune from capital punishment. The Mahabharata and the Arthasastra gave us enough of evidences of this. Thus the introduction of equality of punishment and equality in law suits had nothing to do with the right and privileges of the Brahmins.

  Not only this, we have no positive evidence to prove the theory of Brahmanical revolt as postulated by Prof. H.P. Sastri. Rather many of the Brahmin writers like Kalhan of Kashmir and Banabhatta had highly praised the Maurya rulers. The Brahmins in the later Maurya days were also accepted wormly by the kings. Had it not been so, how could Pushyamitra Sunga, or Brahmin could be appointed as the Maurya General? Moreover if we blame Asoka for his partisan spirit and ill treatment against the Brahmins, we will surely do great injustice to Asoka since the later was far above this narrow sectarianism. Rather Asoka always praised the Brahmins very high. If Pushyamitra Sunga was successful in launching a revolution against the Mauryas, it was not because that the Brahmins were behind him, but for the fact that he had a tremendous hold over his army of which he was the general.

  Asoka  responsibility for the fall of the Maurya

      Before accounting for Asokan responsibility for the fall of the Maurya dynasty it would be prudent to analyse the direct cause of the fall. It cannot be denied that the Maurya Empire died a natural death. Ibn Khaldun rightly commented-"Kingdoms are born, attain maturity and die within a define period which rarely exceeds three generations of 120 years." The comment is equally applicable in case of the Maurya Empire. Moreover the Maurya Empire was a dynastic empire and it could only survive so long the monarchs were strong. After Asoka the subsequent rulers of Maurya Empire were all weak and unworthy. They were nourished in the non-violent measures and Dhamma Vijay of Asoka but had no heritage of aggressive militarism of Chandragupta. Undoubtedly they lacked both the will and the strength to grab the process of disintegration. Similarly we cannot deny that the Maurya Princes who were governors in different parts and provinces of the empire gradually became so much ambitious for autonomy that they gradually shook off their allegiance to the mother-kingdom and became eager to partition the empire into pieces. It cannot be denied that the Maurya empire was actually fragmented into pieces long before Pushyamitra Sunga had hurld a death blow to it. Kalhan's Raj Tarangini gave us an evidence how Asoka's sons and grandsons became over ambitious and broke out the empire into pieces. It cannot be denied either that the high handedness of the provincial governors in the outlying regions were equally responsible for repeated revolts in the Maurya Empire. The later Maurya kings were unabled to check them and the inevitable repeated revolts took place in the far provinces specially in the province of Taxila. These causes had made the Maurya Empire almost at its knees and the final blow for its fall was offered by the Greek invasion under Demetrius and the Coupd'etat by Pushyamitra Sunga, the able general of the Maurya Empire itself.

     Let us now assess how far Asoka was responsible for the fall of the Maurya Empire. Dr Bhandarkar, Dr. H. C. Roychowdhury and many other scholars had blamed the doctorine of Ahimsha or non-violence as a policy of state and the ideal of Dhamma Vijaya of Asoka as the fundamental cause of the fall of the Maurya Empire. Dr. R. C. Mazumder went a step further and commented that "The empire had been founded by a policy of blood and iron and could be maintained by the same policy. The moral effect of Asoka's non-violent policy had made the Hindu mind far more spiritual that what it normally was. To quote Bhandarkar this spiritualism might "have created apathy to militarism, political greatness and material well being." It is true Asoka was an idealist, a dreamer. While politically, India needed a calibrous man like Puru and Chandragupta to intigrate her political fragments, "She got a dreamer." "Magadha after the Kalinga war frittered away her conquering energy in attempting a religious revolution. The result was politically disastrous." For long 29 years of Asoka's reign the army remained inactive, and the tiring atmosphere of peace, non-violence and Dhamma Vijay had forced the army to loose its skill, energy and discipline. Asoka spent huge amount of money for lavish gifts to the Shangas, and erecting Buddhist Viharas and Stupas. This had made the royal treasury empty The Empire lost its stability. and the eventual result on the empire as a whole was disastrous. vong spi Though these criticisms are all charged against the noble deeds of Asoka, yet it would be unwise to hold Asoka fully responsible for the fall of the Maurya Empire. Though Asoka followed non-violence, he never decreased the strength of his army. Neither he weakened the defence of the empire. The empire lasted for more than fifty years after his death. Thus the fall of the Empire was not essentially for Asoka alone, other reasons were there. Might be Asoka's policy was a reason of the fall but not the only reason in any way.