Chandragupta Maurya
Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya Empire, was undoubtedly one of the Indian sub-continents greatest monarchs.
Not much is known about Chandragupta’s family ancestry but where most historians concur is that he was not born into considerable power and his rise to prominence began when he came under the tutorship of the legendary philosopher Chanakya, who took a young Chandragupta from his birthplace of Magadha (southern Bihar) to the Takshashila (north-west Pakisthan) and tutored him for around 8 years.
With Chanakya architecting his military and political strategies, Chandragupta initially established his rule in regions around Magadha (southern-Bihar) by 321 BCE and then looked towards expanding his dominance over the Nanda Empire. The Nanda Empire was – at the time – the dominant power in the subcontinent. The legends of its military capabilities were so awe-inspiring that it had forced a mutiny within the army of Alexander the Great when his soldiers fearfully refused to engage the Nandas in battle, forcing Alexander to retreat from the Indian sub-continent.
What followed was a bitter war of around a decade which ended with Chandragupta Maurya – guided by the strategies of Chanakya – defeating the Nandas and assuming control of the Nanda capital, Pataliputra. By 312 BC, having established is rule over most of north and north-west India, Chandragupta Maurya began to look further west towards the regions which had been conquered by Alexander of Macedonia.
Seleucus I Nicator
Seleucus I Nicator was a member of the infamous Diadochi – a group of Alexander the Great’s generals and friends who battled of the control of his empire after his death in 323 BC.
Post the death of Alexander, Seleucus was one of the most powerful participants in the War of the Diadochi and managed to wrest control of the eastern territories of Alexander which also included regions in the Indus Valley.
After having established his dominance in the east, Seleucus engaged his major rival amongst the Diadochi, Antigonus, in the Babylonian War. The war ended in a decisive victory for Seleucus and Antigonus was forced to retreat westwards.
Soon after Seleucus, following the tradition of Greek kings founding cities in their names, constructed the city of Seleucia (within present day Iraq) and proclaimed himself king of the regions he controlled.
The Mauryan-Seleucid War
With his rule over northern India secure, Chandragupta and Chanakya saw the sudden death of Alexander and the disarray amongst his generals as on opportunity to expand their rule towards the west.
Alexander had left his Prefects in control of the regions he had conquered in the Indus Valley. Chandragupta is said to have taken control over the areas governed by four such Prefects – Nicanor, Phillip, Eudemus and Peithon, resulting in Mauryan control being established until the banks of the Indus River. Chandragupta’s conquest of these regions and his military prowess is vividly described by the Roman historian Marcus Junianus Justinus who went onto claim that the Mauryan king was even revered by ‘wild lions and elephants’.
News of Chandragupta’s western forays reached the ears of Seleucius, who decided that he needed to secure his eastern flank and thus began the Mauryan-Seleucid War.
The war is estimated to have begun in 305 BC, with Seleucius crossing the Indus and engaging Chandragupta’s forces in the Gandhara (north-west Pakisthan) region.
While no accounts of the actual battled fought exist today, the historical consensus is that Chandragupta Maurya emerged victorious against the Greek forces. Post the battle, Chandragupta continued control over all the regions he had conquered previously. Seleucius also ceded to Chandragupta his territories in Arachosia (Kandahar), Gedrosia (Balochisthan) and Gandhara. Around the same time, Chandragupta is said to have taken over the Hindu Kush, eastern Iran, Punjab and east Afghanistan – greatly growing his empire and expanding his victory of Seleucius to establish his dominance from modern-day Afghanistan to Bihar.
The Roman historian Appian of Alexandria also suggests that the terms of terms of peace negotiated by Seleucus with Chandragupta went beyond the ceding of Greek territories to the Indian monarch. Seleucus is also speculated to have married off his daughter to Chandragupta while receiving 500 war elephants in return – either as a gift or dowry.
Aftermath
Seleucus would put the 500 elephants he received from Chandragupta to good use soon after. The beasts were said to have played a decisive role in Seleucus’ final battle with his great rival Antigonos in the Battle of Ipsus. In the battle Seleucus inflicted a final defeat onto Antigonos and then added Antigonos’ regions into his own empire. With this victory, Seleucus was able to found what came to be known as the Seleucid Empire which ruled over large parts of the Mediterranean and the Middle East until its collapse in 63 BC.
Chandragupta Maurya, of course, had already established the Mauryan Empire by the time he came into conflict with Seleucus. Nevertheless, his victory in the Mauryan-Seleucid War and his tremendous expansions towards the west lifted him to exalted status in the region. He would soon turn his focus towards the south beyond the Vindhyas and into the Deccan. At the zenith of his reign, Chandragupta is said to have ruled over most of the Indian sub-continent.
Chandragupta’s legacy went beyond his military conquests as well.
The Mauryan Empire, which he founded from next to nothing, became one of the largest empires in the world at the time. Under the guidance of Chanakya – unquestionably one of the greatest philosophers of all time – Chandragupta implemented administrative systems which allowed trade and agriculture to flourish under his rule, starting off a period of great economic activity in the Indian subcontinent. Chanakya’s mastery of economics, finance, defense and statecraft also enabled Chandragupta to ensure peace, prosperity and security for his citizens under his rule. This was also a time when the region enjoyed great religious peace and harmony along with flourishing art and culture. More importantly, the systems and structures which Chandragupta put in place lived beyond him – allowing his successors Bhindusara and Ashoka to build on his achievements and take the Mauryan kingdom to greater heights.
For his towering military and administrative achievements, Chandragupta Maurya is today remembered across India as Chandragupta Maurya the Great – one of the few monarchs to have been bestowed the epithet.
Unfortunately, this great conquest of Chandragupta – and those of others like him – are almost forgotten today. An intellectual project, spearheaded by Leftist academia, ‘rationalised’ out the great achievements and victories of Indic monarchs and generals from our textbooks and consequently, from the minds of our people.
However, for India to truly become the power that it deserves to be, it is important for its citizens to remember its real history and to truly appreciate the greatness of some of its successes.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.