The Decline of The Mauryan Empire

The decline of the Mauryan Empire marked a significant turning point in ancient Indian history. From its zenith under Ashoka the Great, who ruled from approximately 268 to 232 BC, the empire began to decline and finally disintegrated in 185 BC. Several factors contributed to this decline. Internal strife and succession disputes weakened central authority, leading to a loss of control over vast territories. Financial strains due to military spending, along with widespread corruption, further eroded the empire’s stability.

The Mauryan Empire also faced external pressures from invasion attempts by foreign powers and regional rebellions. In addition, the implementation of Buddhism as the state religion under Ashoka, while promoting peace, led to a decline in income from ritual Brahmanical practices.

In this meta-description, we examine how a combination of internal and external factors led to the eventual fall of the once-mighty Mauryan Empire and left a lasting impact on the history and geopolitics of ancient India.

The Decline of The Mauryan Empire

Historical Events	The Decline of The Mauryan Empire
The time	187 or 185 BC
Brahmanical revolt	Haraprasad Sastri
Ashoka’s policy	H.C. Raychaudhuri
The last monarch	Brihadratha
Successor	Pushyamitra Shunga

Introduction

There is something almost dramatic about the way the Mauryan empire declined and disappeared after the death of Ashoka. The decline was complete within half a century after Asoka’s death. The reasons given by historians for such a rapid decline are as contradictory as they are confusing. Some of the very obvious and other controversial reasons for the decline of the Mauryan Empire are discussed as follows:

(i) Partition of the Mauryan Empire

The immediate cause of the decline was the division of the Mauryan Empire into two halves, as stated earlier. “Had it not been for the division, the Greek invasions of the northwest might have been held back for a while. The division of the empire also disrupted various services.”

(ii) Weaker, later Mauryan rulers

A succession of weak Mauryan rulers after Asoka completely disrupted the Mauryan administration The weakness of these monarchs can be imagined from the fact that as many as six monarchs could only rule for 52 years over the eastern part of the empire, and finally, the last Mauryan king was assassinated by his commander-in-chief, Pusyamitra Sunga. These weak later Mauryan rulers also could not continue the traditional politics of the Mauryas.

(iii) Responsibility of Asoka for the Decline

Many scholars have accused Asoka of being directly responsible for the decline of the Mauryan Empire. H. C. Raychaudhuri argues that Asoka’s pacifist policies were responsible for undermining the empire’s strength. He says: “From the time of Bimbisara to the Kalinga War, the history of India has been the story of the expansion and rise of Magadha from a small state in South Bihar to a gigantic empire stretching from the foot of the Hindukush to the borders of the Tamils. Earth. The Kalinga War was followed by a period of stagnation, at the end of which the process was reversed. The empire gradually diminished until it sank to the position from which it was raised by Bimbisara and his successors.” However, Raychaudhuri S’s view does not seem to be tenable, as Asoka did not become entirely pacifist after the Kalinga War because he neither demobilized the Mauryan army nor abolished capital punishment. Asoka renounced imperialist politics and preached non-violence only after the Kalinga War. Such practical pacifism could not have been responsible for the decline of the Mauryan Empire.

(iv) Brahmin Revolt

Harprasad Sastri is of the view that the decline of the Mauryan Empire was the result of the Brahmin revolt due to the prohibition of animal sacrifice and the undermining of the prestige of the Brahmins by “exposing them as false gods”. But Sastri’s views are only hypothetical because, firstly, Brahmanism itself emphasizes non-violence, and secondly, Asoka prohibited the unnecessary killing of certain animals only on certain auspicious days. Then again, Asoka’s frequent requests in his edicts for due respect to Brahmans and Shramanas hardly indicate that he is anti-Brahman.

(v) Pressure on the Mauryan economy

D.D. Kosambi expressed the view that there was considerable pressure on the economic condition of Mauryan India under the later Mauryas. This view is based on the increase in taxes and the debasement of the later Mauryan punch coins. But in contrast to the above, foreign accounts and material remains from this period paint a picture of an expanding economy.

(vi) Highly centralized administration

Prof. Romila Thapar is of this opinion. “The machinery of the Mauryan administrative system was so centralized that an able ruler could use it both to his advantage and the advantage of his people; it could equally become harmful to both under a weak ruler who would lose his central control and allow the forces of decay to disintegrate and destroy.” The weakening of central control under the later Mauryas automatically led to a weakening of the administration. The disintegration of the Mauryan Empire after the death of Asoka must have dealt another blow to the centralized Mauryan administration under the weak later Mauryan rulers, leading to the decline and disintegration of the Mauryan Empire.

(vii) Extent of empire

The Mauryan Empire was far too large. It included territory beyond the natural boundaries of India as well as the most remote areas of the Indian subcontinent. Due to the absence of communication, this expansion became a source of weakness rather than strength. The empire could not remain a tightly-knit political unit for much longer due to the vast distances involved. Chandragupta Maurya and Asoka left behind a complex administrative system. However, the entire mechanism was controlled by the center. The highly centralized nature of the government suffered from a serious disadvantage. All important politicians were dependent on the king. Since the king was the center of the system, the success of the administration depended on his personality. The center was powerful if the ruler was strong. If it was weak, so was the middle. As the center weakened, so did the administration of the outlying provinces. This is exactly what happened in the times of the later Mauryas. A vast empire could hardly be governed by a weak center headed by a weak monarch. As a result, the Mauryan rule disintegrated and the empire disintegrated.

(viii) Internal Rebellion

When Mauryan rule failed and the empire disintegrated within half a century of Asoka’s death, internal rebellion dealt the empire a fatal blow. When the Maurya King Brihadratha was ruling Magadha around 185 or 186 B.C., the leader of the Maurya army, General Pushyamitra, staged a revolt. “Pushpamitra (Pushyamitra) Senapati will take over the kingdom by murdering his own master,” the Puranas predict. According to Bana, the legendary author of the Harsha-Charita, Pushyamitra held a military parade, which he invited the king to watch, thus providing an opportunity to assassinate him on the spot with the assistance of the army.

(ix) Independence of Provinces

Although the Maurya administration from the time of Chandragupta was strong enough to handle the outlying provinces attached to the centralized system, the regional administrations also needed to be of corresponding strength. As the power of the center weakened and its authority weakened, the provinces became more self-sufficient. The various Maurya provinces separated from the center immediately after Asoka’s death. The personality of the monarch, as well as his magnificence, was the basic unifying force of imperial unity. As no son of Asoka was able to rule a united empire, their fragmented rule was the first indicator of disintegration. After his father’s death, Asoka’s son Jalauka ruled Kashmir as an independent monarch, according to Kalhana, the author of the classic Kashmiri chronicle, the Rajatarangini. He also captured various other places for his dominions, like Kannauj. This shows how distant regions of the empire developed into sovereign kingdoms.

(x) Foreign Invasion

The Greeks had access to the northwestern frontier of India from the time of Alexander’s invasion. Chandragupta Maurya expelled the Greeks from Indian land and established his power beyond Indian borders by conquering Seleukos Nikator. The Greek powers did not fear Bindusara and Asoka’s authority because they feared the Maurya army. However, after Asoka’s death, as the Mauryan Empire began to crumble and dissolve, the Greeks turned their hungry gaze back to India. The Greek historian Polybius mentions King Antiochus the Great’s futile attempts to conquer Indian kingdoms. He reached Indian territory through the Hindu Kush.

(xi) Neglect of the North-West Frontier

Shih Huang Ti (247–210 BC), a Chinese ruler, built the Great Wall of China around 220 BC to protect his empire from the Scythians, a nomadic Central Asian tribe in constant flux. On the northern frontier of India, Emperor Ashoka did not accept any such guarantees. The Parthians, Shakas, and Greeks were forced to flee the Scythians to India. The Greeks first entered India in 206 BC and established their state of Bactria in northern Afghanistan. This was followed by a series of invasions until the Christian era began

(xii) Dissemination of new material knowledge in remote areas

As the new knowledge of iron tools and weapons spread in the peripheral regions, Magadha lost its special advantage. Based on the material culture acquired from Magadha, new kingdoms such as the Shungas and Kanvas in Central India, the Chetis in Kalinga, and the Satavahans in the Deccan were founded and developed.

(xiii) Other Reasons

Other important factors contributing to the decline of the Mauryan Empire have been described as Brahmin rebellion against the pro-Buddhist policies of Asoka and his successors, repressive provincial governments and popular revolts against Mauryan oppression, a lack of representative institutions, and national unity in Mauryan India

But apart from the weak successors of the first two causes and the disintegration of the Mauryan Empire after Asoka’s death, the other causes described above have weaknesses in their arguments and therefore cannot be said to be positively responsible for the decline of the Mauryan Empire

Conclusion

The first great Indian empire, which had given the country a glorious epoch, was gone forever. The Mauryan Empire began to disintegrate after Ashoka died in 232 BC. In 187 BC–185 BC, Brihadratha, the last ruler, was assassinated by his Brahmin general, Pushyamitra Shunga. The Maurya dynasty disintegrated shortly after Ashoka’s death. One obvious factor was the succession of weak rulers.

(FAQ) Questions and Answers about The Decline of The Mauryan Empire