Ashoka: The lynchpin behind Mauryan decline

In Indian history, Ashoka the Great (Also Asoka) is always depicted as one of the influential, iconic emperors of the ancient Indian Kingdoms. There are no other kings who could emulate his fame and personality even nowadays, the symbol of our currency is engraved on his name, ‘Ashoka Chakra’. R.S Sharma tells of him in his book ‘India’s ancient past’ “He (Ashoka) is important in his history for his policy of peace, non-aggression and cultural conquest, there is no model in early Indian history for the pursuit of such personality”. Obviously, does Ashoka deserve an iconic image in Indian history? Then, Why Mauryan Dynasty declined soon after his retirement in 232 BC? Was Ashoka responsible for the destruction of the Mauryan Empire?

Ashoka the Great, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, is the third foremost emperor of the Mauryan Dynasty. He played a great role in the expansion of the Mauryan Empire throughout the Indian Subcontinent. Besides, he is also one of the chief propagators of Buddhism and helped globalize this religion over the entire world. Though at first, he was a cruel monarch as he fought the Kalinga War, in which the death toll is about 150,000 solely on the Kalinga side, later, he was deeply affected by this tragedy and embraced Buddhism, adopting Dhamma in the rest of his life. He also became one of the foremost propagators of Pacifist policy viz. the opposition to war, militarism, or violence and tried to make others realize the importance of Pacifism. 

In essence, some historians theorize that these two reasons: the pacifist policy of Ashoka and his conversion to Buddhist ideology are the pre-eminent causes for the decline of the Mauryan Empire. You may be suspicious of how they might lead to its destruction? Let’s prove it…

Pacifism is morally wrong because it means not to take a sword against any other country. This attitude, of course, put an end to the further developments of a nation as only the Mauryans, or the existing dynasties would rule India for the entire age. Is that what one intends to keep? Think a moment if a dynasty continues to rule a territory throughout the whole period, will they forge any developments after a long period of its accession? Never, because change is always in need, that is only done by war and conquest. Secondly, the Pacifism fails to resist aggression and violence, as well as the pacifists, are probably devalued as a coward group, which leads to less historicity of their empire. That is what exactly happened to the last Mauryans rulers who were destined to lead a weak ruling system with less military strength as much as the last ruler, Brihadratha Maurya, was publicly overthrown and murdered by Pushyamitra Shunga, the founder of the Shungama dynasty. 

Thirdly, Pacifism cannot be taken as a national policy, particularly, for such an extensive empire because it will facilitate the other outside kingdoms to invade easily to the territory. Therefore, it is very hard to keep the private security of its citizens to live peacefully and free-mindedly. In other words, the citizens of a pacific country are always on the verge of insecurity. Moreover, ignoring all these challenges and consequences, Ashoka took Pacifism as his Major policy, which is, quite undoubtedly, the real cause behind the decline of the Mauryan dynasty.

As mentioned earlier, the second argument that was alleged against Ashoka is his adoption of Buddhism and its infliction over the whole of India. In fact, his complete submission to Buddhism (some records show that he killed 18,000 Jains in an Arikani referring to his religious persecution) extremely provoked the Brahmins even it fomented the cleavages among the Mauryans. Subsequently, there formed two rival groups among Mauryans: the Mauryans (under Buddhist influence) and the Shungamas (under Brahmanical influence), who overthrew Mauryans in the later period. Both Buddhism and Brahmanism, their policies are almost identical, but, what makes the Brahmins too arrogant of Ashoka is his division of four Varnas based on one’s lifestyle, not over his birth. Besides, he squandered the public royal treasury to the Buddhist monks and temples and eventually, while he died, the royal treasure was almost empty, creating a financial crisis in later periods too. 

Unfortunate to Ashoka’s Policy, none of his successors retained his policy of Pacifism and all of his governors declared their independence soon after his retirement. But, due to the lack of a better military organization, they hardly could survive long.

Inevitably, though Ashoka is one of the significant rulers of the Mauryan Age, it is not oblivion that he is also the lynchpin behind its destruction. Most of the historians bombast and exaggerate his beloved character, expunging the other side of his complexion, the worst part of his character. Romila Thapar’s ‘Ashoka and the Decline of Mauryans’ is the foremost book in this case, as she tries to stabilize the innocence of Ashoka In Mauryan downfall in order to magnify the legendary of Ashoka. It’s exactly, unhistorical and impartial towards the tendencies of the majority. Though his good deeds outnumber the evil deeds, to reveal, to disclose the accurate biography of a character is responsible for a historian. I only wanted to be an impartial historian, never admitted to blaming Romila Thapar. Unlike this book, her book on Medieval India is one of the successful, authentic texts on the medieval age. To sum up, it is badly in need to cross-check our history, to rewrite them authentically.