The Mauryan Empire, one of India’s most powerful dynasties, was established by Chandragupta Maurya after overthrowing the Nanda dynasty in 321/324 BCE. According to the Puranas, Mauryan rule lasted for 137 years until 187/185 BCE, spanning from the late fourth century BCE to the first quarter of the second century BCE.
The Mauryan Empire emerged as one of the most significant and influential empires in Indian history. At the time of Alexander the Great’s invasion of India, the region of Magadha, under the rule of the Nanda dynasty, was already a formidable power. The influence of Magadha expanded further under the Mauryas, marking a pivotal moment in Indian history when a vast portion of the subcontinent was united under a single central power.
Chandragupta’s origins remain debated. While texts like Mudrarakshasa describe him as of humble birth, Jain sources link him to the peacock-tamer clan (Mayura-poshakas). Buddhist texts attempt to legitimize his rule by associating him with the kshatriya Moriyas of Pipphalivana. Greek accounts (Justin, Plutarch) confirm he lacked royal descent.
Following Alexander’s withdrawal, Chandragupta consolidated power and signed a treaty with Seleucus Nikator, acquiring territories like Arachosia (Kandahar), Gedrosia (Baluchistan), and Paropomisadai (Afghanistan-India border). In return, Seleucus received 500 war elephants, strengthening Indo-Greek relations.
His reign, spanning nearly 24 years, saw the empire extend across the north-west, Ganga plains, western India, and the Deccan, though regions like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and the northeast remained outside Mauryan control.
Chandragupta’s origins are debated. Some texts describe him as of humble birth, while Buddhist sources claim he belonged to the kshatriya Moriyas of Pipphalivana. Greek accounts confirm that he established a new dynasty after Alexander’s departure from India.
Chandragupta's empire expanded rapidly. His treaty with Seleucus Nicator granted him territories of Arachosia, Gedrosia, and Paropamisadai, in exchange for 500 war elephants. This agreement also acknowledged intermarriage between Greeks and Indians.
Greek sources credit Chandragupta with an army of 600,000 men, demonstrating his military strength. He ruled for 24 years before renouncing his throne and embracing Jainism, ultimately dying at Sravanabelgola.
Bindusara, Chandragupta’s successor (297–273 BCE), was known as Amitraghata (Slayer of Enemies). While maintaining territorial integrity, his reign saw a revolt in Taxila due to oppressive administrators (Divyavadana).
Greek sources mention Bindusara’s diplomatic exchanges with Antiochus I of Syria, requesting luxury items like figs and wine but being denied Greek philosophers due to legal constraints.
Chandragupta’s son, Bindusara, ruled from 297 to 273 BCE. Known as Amitraghata ("Slayer of Enemies"), he maintained the vast empire and suppressed revolts, notably in Taxila.
Greek sources mention Bindusara’s diplomatic ties with Antiochus I of Syria, from whom he requested wine, figs, and a sophist (philosopher). While Antiochus sent wine and figs, he declined the philosopher, citing Greek laws.
Ashoka ascended the throne in 273 BCE. Initially engaged in power struggles, he later expanded the empire. The conquest of Kalinga (260 BCE) was pivotal—though strategically significant, its bloodshed led Ashoka to embrace Dhamma, replacing war-drum (Bherighosha) with the sound of Dhamma (Dhammaghosha).
His remorse was documented in Rock Edict XIII, yet he warned rebellious forest tribes of his power. Interestingly, he avoided inscribing his regret in Kalinga, replacing it with Separate Edicts emphasizing administration.
The empire spanned from Kandahar (Afghanistan) to Odisha, with inscriptions in Prakrit, Greek, and Aramaic, reflecting its diverse linguistic and cultural makeup. The south remained under Cholas, Pandyas, Keralaputas, and Satiyaputras.
For centuries, Ashoka’s identity remained unknown until James Prinsep deciphered a Brahmi inscription in 1837, identifying him as Devanampiya Piyadasi ("Beloved of the Gods").
Ashoka ascended the throne in 273 BCE. Initially, he was the Viceroy of Taxila and Ujjain and had to fight his brothers for the throne. His most notable conquest was Kalinga (260 BCE), a region rich in resources and crucial for trade.
The Kalinga War was devastating, with thousands killed and many taken prisoner. The destruction filled Ashoka with remorse, as expressed in Rock Edict XIII. However, he warned that while he embraced peace, he retained the power to punish rebels.
Ashoka’s rule stretched from Kandahar (Afghanistan) in the northwest to Odisha in the east. His inscriptions mention various regional powers:
Ashoka’s Inscriptions are among the most important historical records of the Mauryan era. These inscriptions, representing the earliest examples of Indian epigraphy, provide direct insights into the policies and personal beliefs of Emperor Ashoka. Written in Prakrit using the Brahmi script (and Kharosthi in the north-west), Ashoka’s inscriptions also include edicts in Greek and Aramaic.
Key findings include bilingual Greek-Aramaic inscriptions in Shar-i-Kuna (modern-day Afghanistan) and Taxila (Pakistan), part of Ashoka’s Dhammalipi (Edicts of Piety). His inscriptions are categorized as:
The study of coins and archaeological findings provides crucial evidence about the Mauryan period. Punch-marked coins, primarily made of silver, lacked inscriptions but bore specific symbols linked to the Mauryan government. These coins, known as karshapana coins, indicate centralized authority.
Numerous archaeological sites offer material evidence of the empire’s existence and grandeur. Key sites include:
These findings reflect a highly developed urban civilization, showcasing the architectural and cultural advancements of the Mauryan period.
The Mauryan Empire declined rapidly after Ashoka’s death. Later Mauryan rulers had short reigns, leading to fragmentation. The Bactrian Greeks invaded, and the last Mauryan ruler, Brihadratha, was assassinated by his general Pushyamitra, who founded the Shunga dynasty in 187 BCE.
Early scholars viewed the Mauryan state as a highly centralized bureaucracy, but historian Romila Thapar revised this perspective. She identified three administrative layers:
Unlike a traditional kingdom that exploits existing resources, an empire restructures them for maximum revenue. The Mauryan economy achieved this through agricultural expansion and increased commercial activity.
By the 6th century BCE, agricultural expansion and urbanization had surged. The Arthashastra highlights the role of iron in agrarian growth. New lands were cultivated using Shudra settlers, granted fiscal concessions, seeds, and cattle. Labor needs were met with war captives—150,000 people deported post-Kalinga war likely served this purpose.
The Mauryan economy thrived on two pillars:
The Jatakas describe caravan traders traveling vast distances. Secure trade routes enhanced commerce, with key centers like Pataliputra, Rajagriha, and Kaushambi positioned along the Ganges and Himalayan foothills.
Major trade routes linked northwest India to West and Central Asia via Taxila. The southern route (Dakshinapatha) connected Ujjain to Gujarat and the Deccan. Eastern routes led to Tamralipti, a major seaport facilitating overseas trade.
River transport improved as state initiatives cleared forests along valleys. Mauryan diplomacy—particularly under Bindusara and Ashoka—strengthened trade relations with the Greeks.
Mauryan artisans operated within guilds—metallurgists, carpenters, potters, weavers, and leatherworkers. While guilds were largely independent, the state controlled certain industries (e.g., armorers, shipbuilders). These artisans were tax-exempt as they provided essential services to the state.
Urban centers flourished, housing merchants, officials, and traders. Kautilya’s Arthashastra notes that the state established towns through Durganivesa (fort-settlement planning). A key development was the widespread use of metallic coinage, replacing barter systems. Officials received salaries in cash, marking a shift towards a monetized economy.
The empire weakened post-Ashoka. Later Mauryan rulers had short reigns, and regional governors gained autonomy. The Bactrian Greeks invaded, further destabilizing the state. In 187 BCE, Brihadratha, the last Mauryan ruler, was assassinated by his general Pushyamitra Shunga, who founded the Shunga dynasty.
The Mauryan Empire was India’s first large-scale imperial state. It pioneered administrative frameworks, economic policies, and diplomatic strategies that influenced future dynasties. The shift from war-driven expansion to governance through Dhamma under Ashoka remains a landmark in world history, shaping India’s cultural and political landscape.
The Arthashastra is the first South Asian text which offers a theory of the State as being composed of seven constituent elements. Kautilya puts forward the concept of saptanga rajya to understand the State – a system of seven interrelated and interlacing constituent limbs or elements (angas or prakritis). This concept of the saptanga-rajya was accepted and found in much later texts, including the Dharmashastras, the Puranas, and the Mahabharata, with a few modifications.
These seven elements were, in the order below:
Dividing the State into seven basic constituents allowed one to assess the individual strength or weakness of each constituent. Each of the seven constituent elements is defined by a group of ideal qualities. The elements are not equal.
Monarchy is considered the norm by the Arthashastra, and all its teaching is addressed to the king. For Kautilya, the fate of the king was closely tied to that of his subject population. If the king was energetic, then his subjects too would be energetic. Conversely, if he was lazy, his subjects too would be lazy and eat into the kingdom’s wealth. Thus, Kautilya advocated for a constantly alert, diligent, and sensible king.
Ashoka’s inscriptions give us a sense of kingship that was quite close to what Kautilya prescribed. We know from his Minor Rock Edicts that Ashoka adopted a very unassuming title, the raja of Magadha, as opposed to the very grand titles of later times like maharaja or maharajadhiraja. However, the preferred epithet in the inscriptions is ‘Devanamapiya’ or the ‘beloved of the gods’, suggesting attempts to proclaim a divine connection. Ashoka also laid the foundations of a new kind of ‘paternalistic kingship’ by stating ‘All men are my children’ in Rock Edicts I and II. He elaborated further on his ideals of kingship by committing to ensure the welfare of all beings and his subjects in this world and the next.
The term ‘amatya’ was an umbrella term that included all the high-ranking officials, counsellors, and executive heads of department. The Arthashastra mentions two kinds of consultative bodies. The first was a small consultative body of mantrins (ministers) called the mantra-parishad. The other was a larger body of all the executive heads of the department, called the mantri-parishad.
An important functionary in Kautilya’s administration was the purohita (royal priest). The Arthashastra states that the purohita should belong to a reputed family and should be thoroughly trained in the Vedas, the interpretation of divine signs and omens, as well as the science of politics. We can also assess the purohita’s importance by looking at the figures of salaries given by Kautilya. According to Kautilya, the highest officials were paid extremely well, with the chief minister, the purohita, and the army commander receiving 48,000 panas and the treasurer and the chief collector 24,000 panas. Even if Kautilya’s estimates are only approximate, we can assume that the higher officials in the administration were extraordinarily well-paid, and their salaries would have constituted a large chunk of the total revenue collected.
This referred to a recognized territory as the realm of the empire. The Janapada was a major source of income for the king, and the text demonstrates the various investments, rewards, and punitive strategies used by the State to maximize its tax income based on agricultural production. Additionally, attention to trade routes and port cities demonstrates the extent that economic interests dominated the king’s sense of his own greater territory.
Crucial to the defense of the realm, fortified cities protect important border regions, serve as sanctuaries during times of attack, and house the major economic and administrative centers of the state. The ideal state of the Arthashastra possesses a number of fortresses, differing in geographical setting and purpose. The largest of the fortresses is the capital city, which operates as an administrative, economic, and military hub for the kingdom. Kautilya says that it should be constructed with mud ramparts and parapets built of brick and stone, and the fort should be well stocked with supplies of grain and necessities in case of a siege. Interestingly, the Greek accounts describe Pataliputra, the Magadhan capital, on a similar grand scale.
Kautilya also suggested stationing troops along the approaches to the fort. He refers to a standing army with four main divisions – infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants. From Ashoka’s edicts, we know that after the Kalinga war, Ashoka made efforts at pacifism and committed himself to dhamma-vijaya (victory through dharma), rather than war. Yet, significantly, he did not disband the army.
Danda can be understood as a reference to force or justice. The Arthashastra lays out the judicial system in detail with references to dharmasthas (judges) and pradeshtris (officers responsible for the suppression of criminals). Punishments for offences and crimes ranged from fines to mutilation of limbs, or even capital punishment. For Kautilya, the nature of punishment depended not only upon the nature and gravity of the crime but also on the varna of the offender. For the same crime, Kautilya set aside lighter punishments for higher varnas. For example, if a kshatriya had sexual relations with a brahmin woman, he was to pay the highest fine. For the same offence, a vaishya could have his entire property confiscated. The worst punishment was reserved for a shudra.
In Ashoka’s inscriptions, the judicial responsibilities lay with the city mahamatas. The edicts urge the mahamatas to be impartial and ensure that people are not imprisoned or punished without sufficient evidence. Pillar Edict IV contains Ashoka’s claim that he had introduced samata in judicial procedure. According to some interpretations, this meant that he had established a uniform rule of law, abolishing varna distinctions in punishments.
This element refers to ‘friends’ of the realm, or political allies. At the centre of Kautilya’s polity is the vijigishu – the would-be conqueror. The inter-state policy is about the several players around the vijigishu – the ari (enemy), madhyama (the middle king), and the udasina (the indifferent or neutral king). Kautilya further listed various policies and strategies that the king could adopt according to the circumstances, ranging from a peace treaty (sandhi) if the enemy was stronger, to vigraha (hostility) if the enemy was weaker. Other options included military expeditions or teaming up with the enemy’s enemy and attacking together.
Ashoka sent missions to the Hellenistic kingdoms in the northwest, with the purpose of enhancing trade with them. Of these, the most prominent was the Mauryan relationship with the Seleucids, right from the treaty signed under Chandragupta. Diplomatic exchanges continued with subsequent rulers. Ashoka also mentions other contemporaries with whom he exchanged missions. His inscriptions mention the Greek king Amtiyoga, as well as the lands of the kings Tulamaya, Anetika, Make, and Alikyashudala. These have been identified by historians, respectively, as Antiochus II of Syria (260-246 BCE), Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-247 BCE), Antigonus Gonatus of Macedonia (276-239 BCE), Magas of Cyrene, and Alexander of Epirus. Ashoka also dispatched special ministers on dhamma missions to frontier regions and neighbouring realms, to spread the word of Dhamma and the teachings of the Buddha.
The Mauryan Empire was vast, necessitating a complex administrative structure. This structure was crucial to manage the empire’s territorial expanse and to facilitate efficient governance. Sources like the Arthashastra, Greek accounts, and Ashokan inscriptions offer valuable insights into the administrative framework. Let’s break down the administration:
The empire was divided into provinces, each governed by a prince (kumara) or royal family member. The inscriptions mention four such provinces:
Additionally, pradeshikas (senior officers) toured the empire every five years to audit and supervise the provincial administration. There were also judicial officers (rajukas) in urban and rural areas, responsible for justice and tax assessment.
The central administration can be divided into several categories:
The king was central to the administration. His powers included:
The king’s power could override even religious instructions when necessary. King qualities as per the texts included high birth, sharp intellect, and the ability to control both officials and kings.
Ashoka, as an example, epitomized the ideal king with his paternalistic approach towards his subjects. His title Devanampiya (beloved of the gods) highlighted his divine connection, which gave him direct control over religious matters.
The council played an advisory role. Ministers (amatyas) helped in the administration, ensuring policies were executed well. However, the king’s decision was final. The council emphasized a majority opinion but had to report back to the king immediately.
There were specific qualifications for ministers, like purity, lack of greed, and resistance to pressure. The mantri parishad had an inner group of ministers (mantrins) who were consulted on urgent matters.
Megasthenes describes the administration of Pataliputra (modern-day Patna), where the city council was divided into six sub-committees:
While the Arthashastra doesn’t specifically mention these committees, similar roles existed, such as:
The Nagarika (city head) oversaw urban administration, assisted by officials like Gopa (head of registration) and Rakshi (police).
The Mauryan army was extensive and included infantry, cavalry, elephants, chariots, and transport. The Greek and Indian accounts suggest massive army numbers, including mercenaries. The army was organized into divisions under separate commanders:
Megasthenes confirms this army structure and mentions the inclusion of medical services for the soldiers.
The Arthashastra mentions a detailed espionage system with two types of spies:
The samahartta was in charge of this system, reporting to the king. Spies used various disguises, and even women were employed as spies.
The Mauryan Empire had a structured judicial system with dharmasthas (judges) and pradeshtris (officers). The king was the ultimate source of justice. Various punishments, from fines to mutilation or capital punishment, were detailed in the Arthashastra.
Ashoka's inscriptions also reflect an emphasis on impartiality in judicial matters, ensuring no one was punished without sufficient evidence.
Ashoka’s reign was marked by a strong focus on public welfare. For instance, irrigation was prioritized, with officials overseeing water management. The State invested in infrastructure like roads, dams, and medical services. Citizens were protected against natural calamities like famines and floods.
Ashoka’s emphasis on welfare extended to the care of orphans, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups.
The Mauryan administrative structure was comprehensive, reflecting the vastness and complexity of the empire. Key elements like the centralization of power, specialized roles for ministers and officials, and a focus on welfare laid the foundation for a highly organized state.
According to the Arthashastra, the smallest unit of administration was the village. A few villages were grouped as one district, and a collection of districts formed a province.
Each district was to have an accountant to maintain records of boundaries, registered land and deeds, and a census of population and livestock. There was also a tax collector for every district, responsible for various types of revenue.
At the district level, the officials listed were:
The officials had the following duties:
At times, the king was in direct contact with these officers.
At the village level, the most important functionary was the village headman, who was accountable to the district accountant and tax collector. Local officials in the village were referred to as gramika.
There were two types of officers acting as intermediaries between the district and village level administrative units:
Their responsibilities included:
Despite the presence of such officials, the villages enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy in administering their affairs.
The administrative system largely revolved around the efficient collection of taxes. We know from Ashoka’s inscription at Lumbini that land revenue was of two kinds:
The assessment of taxes varied from region to region. For example, the peasants paid 1/4th of their produce as tax. However, Ashoka’s Lumbini Edict mentions that during his visit to the birthplace of the Buddha, he exempted the village from paying bali and reduced bhaga to 1/8th.
Other kinds of taxes also existed:
Some of these taxes, like pranaya, could have become obligatory over time. According to Megasthenes, all land belonged to the king, and the cultivators tilled the land with the understanding that they paid a portion of the produce as tax.
There were crown lands, referred to as sita, which were directly controlled by the king. These lands were cultivated under the supervision of the State, either by sharecroppers, tenant cultivators who paid taxes, or by wage labor.
The Arthashastra mentions a Sitadhyaksa (superintendent of agriculture), who likely supervised the cultivation of these crown lands.
Other lands in the Mauryan state, known as Janapada territories, were probably under private cultivators. The Jatakas mention gahapatis and grambhojakas, who were land-owning gentry and employed hired laborers.
The State’s role in irrigation was crucial for a strong agricultural setup. The Arthashastra mentions a water cess, which was levied only on irrigated lands, and the amount ranged from a fifth, a fourth, to a third of the produce.
Collection of land revenue through taxes was one of the most important affairs of the State.
The highest officer in charge of land revenue collection was the Samaharta. The Sannidhata was the chief custodian of the State treasury.
The State was also responsible for providing storage facilities for grains since revenue was collected in kind. Labour was provided by dasa-karmakaras (slaves and hired laborers).
According to the Arthashastra, various categories of labor included:
Megasthenes and later Greek authors describe Indian society at the time of the Mauryas as being divided into seven distinct groups – philosophers, cultivators, hunters and herdsmen, artisans and traders, overseers (spies), and the king’s counselors. The Greek authors describe these groups as the seven ‘genos’.
Megasthenes notes that these occupations were hereditary in nature, and intermarriage between groups was not allowed – two features crucial to the functioning of the caste system. Let us look and compare Megasthenes’ categories with other primary sources.
Megasthenes describes the ‘philosophoi’ (sophists and philosophers) as being held in very high esteem in India. Strabo divided them further into two groups: the brachmanes (Brahmanas) and garmanes (shramanas). They were considered as public benefactors, making prophecies and were exempted from paying taxes.
We know from other texts that Brahmanas and Shramanas were used as general descriptive terms in later periods. The Shramanas, for example, referred to a range of ascetic groups and sects – Buddhist, Jaina, Ajivika, etc.
About the second category, Megasthenes writes that cultivators were the most numerous of all groups. Clearly, the bulk of the population was engaged in agriculture. Greek writers were struck by the large scale of agrarian operations. All accounts speak of the profusion and diversity of crops, achieved due to the profitable combination of highly fertile soil, the presence of rivers, and plentiful rainfall.
The third category mentioned by Megasthenes is that of hunters and herdsmen. According to him, these people lived outside agrarian settlements. Hunters and gatherers cleared the country of unwanted beasts and birds.
According to the Arthashastra, forests could not be privately cleared, and clearance was supervised by the State. The State was involved in collecting and taxing forest produce. Non-agrarian activities such as herding of animals were practiced even within villages. Kautilya even listed animals amongst items that were assessed and taxed.
Megasthenes’ fourth group also relates to non-agrarian activities – artisans and traders. Some Greek authors suggest that all artisans (technitai) were employed by the State and exempted from paying taxes. According to Strabo, apart from independent artisans, the armourers and shipbuilders were employed by the State and paid a wage.
Most of the artisans either worked individually or as members of associations. These associations – shreni or puga – gradually became powerful and were extremely influential as patrons of religious sects and visual arts.
Megasthenes was wrong in stating that Indians did not borrow or lend money on interest, since money-lending was known and practiced from early times.
The fifth group noted by the Greeks was the soldiers, the second largest group in terms of numbers. The Mauryas had a standing army; the size and estimates vary across sources. According to Pliny, the army comprised 700 elephants, 1,000 horses, and 80,000 infantry. One can conclude from the vast size that recruitment to the army was not limited to the kshatriyas, the traditional warrior group.
Maintaining such a large army would have been a burden on resources and may have encouraged frequent and high taxation.
Closely associated with the army was the sixth group, the overseers (spies or inspectors). According to Greek accounts, they were the most trusted persons in the realm and never lied. However, Kautilya recommended that a spy’s report should be corroborated by three other sources to be deemed acceptable.
The last group that Megasthenes mentions is the king’s counselors. This group was the smallest in number. They included the highest administrative functionaries of the realm, including army generals, revenue heads, etc. The nearest equivalent of this group in the Indian sources is the amatyas or mantris.
Megasthenes seems to think that there was no concept of slavery in India. On the other hand, we know from other sources of situations that led to enslavement – a person could be a slave either by birth, by voluntary selling themselves, by being captured in war, or as a result of judicial punishment.
We also know of a tax termed vishti that was paid in labor to the State. Kautilya also described different kinds of slaves.
Megasthenes was originally a representative of Seleucus Nikator at the court of Sibyrtios, the governor of Arachosia (present-day Kandahar region in Afghanistan). After the treaty between Chandragupta and Seleucus was settled, Megasthenes was sent as Seleucus’ envoy to Chandragupta’s court. Based on his travels and experiences in India, he wrote a book called the Indica. This work is lost, and what survives of it is in the form of ‘quotations’ from later writers (Diodorous, Strabo, Arrian, and Pliny) concerned with the Hellenistic world.
Megasthenes’ Indica described the country, its size and shape, rivers, soil, climate, plants, animals, agricultural produce, administration, society, and folktales. The animals in the subcontinent particularly captivated the Greek writers, and they describe in detail the exotic animals such as elephants, monkeys, and activities such as horse training and elephant training. They also noted the similarities with their own lands, especially in terms of legends and mythologies.
Whether Megasthenes is a reliable historian is a debatable question. There are a number of absurd statements that we find attributed to Megasthenes, such as:
When juxtaposed with other indigenous sources of the subcontinent, we know for a fact that these statements bear no truth.
Thus, information on the Mauryas from Greek sources comes to us through a double filter – the first was Megasthenes’ interpretation of what he saw or heard, and the second was the later Graeco-Roman writers and their interpretations of Megasthenes.
As a historian reading these texts, one needs to be aware of the perceptions of the authors and of those who later paraphrased the original. The study of texts from the ancient period remains a complicated process and requires the removal of such filters. Thapar believes that Megasthenes’ account was influenced by the fact that he was familiar with the Seleucid satrapy, and hence, the Indica may have carried both Hellenistic and Seleucid imprint.