Biography of Chandragupta Maurya: Ancestry, Early Life and His Conquest
Financial Express - Business News, Stock Market News Chanakya mentored Chandragupta for big battles as well as small tactics. and respecting mind, body, spirit, compassionate relationships and having faith. Many of the thigs shown in Star Plus' Chsndra Nandni revolving Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya is wrong. Know the facts. Thereafter, Chanakya brought Chandragupta to Takshila, where he took him in establishing the first diplomatic relations between China and India. in the south as well as market reforms and price control measures.
Saif Tahir Unlike Lahore — where the city sounds off frequently in recognition of the poet and philosopher Allama Iqbal — Taxila, a much older city, is devoid of any reference to its son, Chanakya. Some time ago, there was an attempt to create a university in his name ; however, the political rifts and bureaucratic hurdles relegated it to an unending limbo. Today, the only references to his existence are the shattered monasteries and the shambled remains of the once-great Takshashila.
Of these monasteries, Mohra Muradu is still a thriving village: A view of the Pipplan monastery.
Bio: Chandra Gupta Maurya ( B.C.) | Indian History
Saif Tahir A young university graduate, Anis ur Rehman, runs the only private school in the village. It was always a centre of education and is still an educated village with many graduates and PhDs, some pursuing higher degrees outside the country.
While showing his small school library, named after Chanakya, Anis continues: Chanakya is damned for obvious reasons. He is presumed to be a representative of the Brahmin mindset and Hindu culture which we have parted from a long time ago.
Merely this was enough to disqualify him from the stature of a learned philosopher of the soil. Hence, not a single reference of him is found in the country, whereas we already have buildings and campuses named after scientists and philosophers from different eras and places.
Nothing can describe this irony better than The Indus Sagain which Aitzaz Ahsan writes in the preface: But when it chooses to adopt an extra-territorial identity, it becomes a prisoner of propaganda and myths This is the Pakistan of today, not the Pakistan of its founders. But the word Vrashal was not always used in a disrespectful sense.
Dr Ray Chaudhry has opined that this word was used for those Kshatriyas who did not observe religious rites strictly.
Biography of Chandragupta Maurya: Ancestry, Early Life and His Conquest
The same way the word Kulhina does not always mean a Sudra. It may mean a person of an ordinary standing. Besides, all scholars have agreed that Chanakya helped Chandra Gupta in becoming the ruler of Magadha. If Chandra Gupta would have been a Sudra, it could not be possible because Chanakya, a Brahamana, strictly adhered to Varna-system. He had vowed to displace the Sudra-king of the Nand dynasty. Then how could he support other Sudra to become the king of Magadha. The Brahamans accepted the claim of only the Kshatriyas to become kings.
Therefore, Chanakya must have supported Chandra Gupta only because he believed him to be a Kshatriya. The Jaina-texts have also described Chandra Gupta as a Kshatriya.
It is now the accepted view of the majority of scholars that Chandra Gupta belonged to the Kshatriya clan called the Moriyas originally ruling over Pipphalivana which probably lay in modern Uttar Pradesh. After the death of her husband, the mother of Chandra Gupta shifted to Pataliputra for safety where she gave birth to her illustrious son.
Chandra Gupta was first brought up by a cowherd, and then by a hunter. Chanakya who was a renowned teacher at the University of Taxila, saw him while once passing through his village. He was attracted by his promising personality, took him to Taxila and gave him education for nearly eight years with a view to making him capable of leading the war of liberation against the Greeks and also to depose Dhana Nand from the throne of Magadha. Chanakya had been to Pataliputra to seek the help of Dhana Nand in turning the Greeks out of the country but, instead, was humiliated by the king.
Hence, he had taken a vow to depose Dhana Nand. He marked out Chandra Gupta for these twin tasks and prepared him for the same. It is now generally believed that this Chanakya and Kautilya, the author of Arthasastra were the names of same person. The classical writers have described that Chandra Gupta had visited Alexander who felt offended by his behaviour and gave orders to kill him.
However, Chandra Gupta managed to escape.
After the return of Alexander, he, with the help of Chanakya, raised an army, recruiting soldiers mostly from the warlike people of republican states of Punjab which had given fierce resistance to Alexander. He kept before the people the ideal of turning out of the country the foreign Greek invaders and succeeded. He was supported by Parvataka, a hill- tribe chief who became his friend.
- Chandragupta Maurya pledges "Akhand Bharat"
- Learning by Comparison – Alexander – Aristotle Vs Chandragupta – Chanakya
- Bio: Chandra Gupta Maurya (324-300 B.C.) | Indian History
The desire of the Greek satraps and their soldiers to go back to their own country, their mutual conflicts, the revolt of the Indian satraps and assassination of Philippus, satrap of Upper Indus Valley in B. The next task of Chandra Gupta was to conquer Magadha. He failed to achieve this objective probably once or twice but ultimately besieged Pataliputra and killed Dhana Nand. The incompetence of Dhana Nand, his unpopularity amongst his subjects, the astute diplomacy of Chanakya and bravery and military skill of Chandra Gupta were mainly responsible for the downfall of the Nanda dynasty.
Chandra Gupta also kept Pataliputra as his capital.
Extension of the Empire of Chandra Gupta Maurya: When Chandra Gupta was busy in the extension and consolidation of his empire, Seleucus, one of the ablest generals of Alexander who had obtained possession of the Eastern empire of his master, proceeded towards India to recover the lost possession of the late emperor.
He reached India about B. The Greek writers do not give the details of the conflict. Thus, we find no description of the battle between Seleucus and Chandra Gupta in writings of the Greeks. It is also not certain whether a decisive battle took place between the two or not. But, in view of the terms of peace between the two, it is definite that Seleucus failed miserably in his expedition.
He had not only to abandon the idea of reconquering Punjab but to surrender to Chandra Gupta a part of his territories in the East with its capital cities Herat, Kandhar and Kabul and also the territories of Baluchistan. According to Plutarch, in return, Chandra Gupta gave him war elephants. Seleucus appointed Megasthenes as his ambassador in the court of Chandra Gupta and always maintained friendly relations with him afterwards.
Both of them entered into a matrimonial alliance also and it is generally held that Chandra Gupta married a daughter of Seleucus though it is not warranted by known facts. Thus, this settlement between the two extended the territories of Chandra Gupta in the North-West up to the borders of Persia and also secured his frontiers in that direction.
No written record is available of other conquests of Chandra Gupta, yet it is certain that he ruled over a vast empire. Therefore, it is believed that Chandra Gupta had conquered Saurashtra as well as the territory or the states lying in between, viz. Some Tamil-texts refer to the conquests of Chandra Gupta in the South and it is believed that he conquered a large part of south India.
Thus, it is believed that mostly Chandra Gupta passed his life in fighting battles. Bindusara, his successor is not known to history as a conqueror while Asoka conquered only Kalinga. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the empire of the Mauryas, which is believed to have extended from the border of Persia in the North-West to Bengal in the East and from Kashmir in the North to Mysore in the South, was mostly built up by Chandra Gupta.
According to Jaina traditions, Chandra Gupta renounced the world in his last days and went to the South with the Jaina monk, Bhadrabahu. The hill where he lived in his last days of life is known as Chandragiri where a temple known as Chandra Gupta Basti was also erected by him. It is in Mysore. He fasted unto death at this place.
Administration under Chandra Gupta Maurya: The way he carried on the administration of his empire was pursued by his successors and no change was felt necessary except that Asoka tried to liberalise it further and elaborated the public duties of state officials. The basic principles of administration of the Mauryas remained the same as established by Chandra Gupta till the weaker Mauryas lost their hold over it.
By the time of the Mauryas, the office of the king had become hereditary and the divine origin of monarchy had attained maturity and had given the king wide powers. But, strictly speaking, as Hindu political theory vests sovereignty in the Dharma or law in the widest sense of the term and the state is separated from the king who is a part of it, no king could be tyrannical or a wielder of absolute personal powers.
Of course, the necessity of a strong king was stressed but it was equally emphasized that he had to rule according to the Dharma and for the establishment of the Dharma which was conducive to the highest good. The Dharma actually upheld an ideal that elevated the soul to the loftiest heights and therefore, the function of the state was to create those conditions of life which would help every citizen in elevating his soul.
It also meant that the state would enjoy all-embracing powers. Therefore, its scope of activities was unlimited and no distinction was made between personal and civic rights and duties, or between moral principles and positive law.
Everything that had any bearing upon the moral, spiritual or material condition of a citizen came within the scope of state activities.
The state had the right to regulate the family life of the citizens, to promote true religion and control all professions and occupations as well. Thus, the State held the ring for the interplay of social forces, intellectual influences, economic enterprises and above all, the spiritual tradition. But in no case, the extensive activities of the state and the divine origin of the monarchy meant to support the divine right of the king.
Therefore, the power of the king had increased but not without an increase in his corresponding duties. No wicked son of a king was allowed to become the successor and consequently the right of the people to rebel against a wicked and tyrannical king was also recognised. For the same purpose, special care was taken to impart sound education and moral training to the future king and if the prince failed to reach a requisite standard, he forfeited his right to the throne. As regards the inter-state relations, the Arthasastra states that the normal relations between States can only be that of mutual hostility and material interests alone should guide the relations of one state with those of another.
A ruler should adopt the policy which is calculated to increase the power and wealth of his state, irrespective of any legal justice or moral consideration and for this purpose, he should adopt any or all the four instruments, viz.
Dam a giftDanda aggressive action and Bheda sowing dissensions in a hostile state or among different enemy states. Sometimes, the king could be elected but hereditary kingship was the established practice. The females were not excluded from the right of kingship but, in practice, it was rarely to be found.
His permanent duty was to protect the people and seek their welfare. Second criteria — Leadership Alexander and Chandragupta both were incredible leaders.
However, the soldiers of Alexander followed him for around ten years or even more and giving their entire life to him. Alexander had the convincing vision; he walked his talk; he was master executer, and he even planned for his succession. He was the tallest leader and great inspiration for generations to come. He did walk his talk and had master execution skills and ability to raise morale when needed.
I think, Alexander and Aristotle were marginally ahead in this area as well. Third Criteria — Sense of Achievement Human life is about, how much you achieve what matters to you most?
Alexander has the entire world in his mind, and he wanted to conquer fear and win the world, and he almost did it. Both are roughly equal in this area if compare them without data.
Chandragupta Maurya pledges "Akhand Bharat"
However, if you look at the land they possessed, Alexander will defeat Chandragupta by a large margin. Fourth Criteria — Sense of Fulfillment Human life is not only around achievement but about love, happiness and respecting mind, body, spirit, compassionate relationships and having faith.
Alexander did love his battles, his accomplishments, and his wife but then all were happening in the war-zone. There was no peace in his life after his childhood, as the major portion of his life spent on the battlegrounds. Even his mentor, Aristotle became livid over him when he was continuing battles and chose to prioritize his ambition over everybody else. If you look at Chandragupta on this aspect, you will be amazed to see that Chandragupta fought battles, however, lived a complete life.
He had family, loving wife and sons and he managed to give them enough time and love. Chandragupta lived a fulfilled life compared to Alexander. Chandragupt is ahead in this area of life. This is the significant insight that we have captured due to the logic of comparison. Summary and learnings — Well, both Chandragupta and Alexander were extraordinary leaders and exceptional human beings.