Indian Antiquary Vol 45

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 34

30
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ FEBRUARY, 1916
great a master of statecraft, as Chânakya was, could have supplanted a reigning emperor on the throne, an emperor whose army was doubtless extensive and efficient.63 According to the Jatakas and the Arthasastra of Kautilya, the army was no mere rabble, but was splendidly organised in various arrays-- in the form of a lotus, or of a waggon, or of a circle. Nor have we clear evidence that any part of the army deserted to the Maurya, nor that he had anything like the means required to raise forces equally strong. There could have been no national (liscontent in any of the provinces of the empire, for each conquered tract was apparently allowed to retain its old institutions. When Kautilya says tu ar HITS and cites the Lichchhavis as an instance, we presume that the tribal republics of the clans were not stamped out by the autocracy of the Saisunagas. So too the rules of international law given by the author of the Arthasastra indicate that the kiagdoms of the empire enjoyed a large measure of autonomy within the imperial jurisdiction. Only one explanation seems possible of the Maurya usurpation-that Chandragupta had the assis. tance of some foroign powers to back up the diplomatic efforts of Kautilya.
We have to rely mostly on the Greek writers as to how Chandragupta conquered Magadha, as Chanakya never drops a hint on the subject. A curious story is given by Justin.st Chandragupta became king in a miraculous fashion with the help of a lion and an elephant which came to him. This is a legendary way of representing the fact that he received substantial aid from kings, whose emblems were the lion and the elephant. The kings of Kalinga had the elephant as their emblem. There is even now an important town there named Gajapatinagaram. As late as Kalidasa's time the kings of Kalinga were famous for their clephant force.65 Ancient dynasties of Kalinga are mentioned in the Puranas, and we find that the Kalingas were an independent kingdom in the account of Megasthenes. If then the ruler of Kalinga helpedco Chandragupta Maurya in effecting the dynastic revolution at Magadha, we could easily explain why it remained unconquered under the first two Maurya's. A breach in the relations of the two kingdoms in Asoka's reign led to his conquest of Kalinga.
The other kingdom which assisted Chandragupta may be identified with Simhapura or Salt Range, where was a kingdom of as ancient fame as Taxila. The chief of that region Saubhauti was one of those who readily submitted to Alexander. It is possible that when the death of the conqueror became known, he gave up the cause of the Greeks and allied himself with the rising Maurya power, taking advantage of the general Hindu rebellion that was set up against Macedonian rule in India, 5s
Having expelled the Macedonian garrisons, Chandragupta won from Seleucus the cession of Ariana, including Kabul, Herat, Kandahar and Makran. On the western side the empire now extended as far as the Hindu Kush. On the east, probably the river Brahmaputra formed likewise a scientific frontier. On the south, there is no clear evi. dence that the empire extended beyond the Vindhyas. The Aśöka inscriptions in Mysore
According to Greek writers it amounted to 80,000 horses, 200.000 foot, 8,000 chariots and 6,000 elephants
TG Justin's Historiae Philippicae Book XV, Translated by McCrindle (Invasion of Alexander the Great. See pp. 327, 328).
6 Rayhuraniša, Canto. IV verse 10, where Kalinga Raja is styled TSATU:
Co The passage in Justin is to the effect that the elephant " fought vigorously in front of the army of Chandragupta and the lion "first inspired him with the hope of winning the throne." McCrindle. Ibid, p. 328.
V... Smith; Early History of India (1914) page 80.
I am unable to accept Mr. Jayaswal's conjecture (See ante) as to Chandragupta receiving help from the Aratta robbor-tribe. That view is based on the torturing of a text which is easily explained as it is foref: is simply in twice eight 'ie., 16 (years). One VAyu Ms. has recent: 'in 12 years.) This agrees with the Matsya version : TTT Teard. It is beyond doubt that the passage refers to years (12 or 16) and not to any tribe.