Did Ashoka exist?

Did Ashoka exist?

As investigative historians, many around the world are probing the nooks and crannies of historical archives. South Asian history is still being unraveled. Many knots are being solved. The cloak of Hindu scripture and British colonialist dogma has been lifted and the rays of sunshine are now displaying the true history of the land of the Indus and land of the Ganges.

Pakistani history is being hijacked by people outside the borders of Pakistan.

New Delhi considers itself the successor state to Ashoka. This is the only figure that the bigots can find to justify the unity of the conglomeration of more than 570 states. The 80 year rule is considered the map of “Greater India.” The figure of Ashoka has a larger than life presence for the Hinduvata and New Delhi. Many extremist Hindus base their ideology on Ashoka and try to build a case that Ashoka’s empire should be resurrected as “Akhand Bharat“. Now scholars are questioning the existence of Ahoka and many others.

For centuries historians have been trying to establish the chronology of early “India”. The question of whether Chandragupta can be identified with the figure known in Western texts as Sandrokottas is an important element in fixing the chronology. The philologist William Jones began the systematic study of the chronology in the late 18th century. His work and that of his contemporaries are still highly regarded.[4] However, even William Jones could not believe in the antiquity of the Bharata War since…

Very little is known about the entire Maurya dynesty. For example little is known about Chandragupta’s youth. Much of what is known about his youth is gathered from later classical Sanskrit literature, as well as classical Greek and Latin sources which refer to Chandragupta by the names “Sandracottos” or “Andracottus”. He was paragon for next rulers.

Dr. Naveed Tajammal has written some fascinating articles on Ashoka. He claims that Ashoka never existed and is simply a figment of the imagination of the Hinduvata who needed a figure to justify the myth that India belonged to the Hindus and on one else.

As, per the records submitted to Sir William Jones, acclaimed as father of Indianology by Pandit Radhakantta of Calcutta.in 1770-1780, a period when world chronology was redefined,the term

It is a fact that the name Ashoka did not exist in the chronologies of historians before the British Indianologist started talking to the religious figures of the Hinduvata. Is it possible that Ashoka might have been a composite figure made out of many kings and his stature embellished with the passage of time.

James Princep was the first to coin the term

Dr. Naveed Tajammal, an American educated and trained scholar claims that:

• Mother India or Bharat Mata is a figment of the fertile Brahman mind. Historically, such a state never existed in the annals of history. Even the very term,”ASHOKA” is a post -1837, creation.a term coined by a James Princep an English man!
• As, per the records submitted to Sir William Jones, acclaimed as father of Indianology by Pandit Radhakantta of Calcutta.in 1770-1780, a period when world chronology was redefined,the term ‘ASHOKA’ does not EXIST.
• (Rādhākānta Tarkavāgīśa, a pandit of Bengal who toward the end of his career became involved with the British, first with Warren Hastings and then Sir William Jones. Through his career one can see how for many pandits living at the close of the eighteenth century service to British courts had become a way of life. http://www.jstor.org/pss/604088),
• Researching ancient Subcontinental, Greek and Chinese narratives, we find no record of Ashoka or many of the kings attributed to be alive at the time.
• Nehru wanted a creation of a Mahabharata inclusive of Afghanistan ,from Oxus to Burma. down to Ceylon(Sri Lanka) inclusive of Tibet.
• (Dubious Foundations of Historical records:Calcutta’s intellectual life received a great boost in 1784 with the foundation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal by Sir William Jones, with the encouragement of Warren Hastings, himself no mean Oriental scholar. Jones worked closely with the pandits of the Kalighat Temple, together with the local ulema, in translating and producing new editions of rare and forgotten texts. His study of Sanskrit with Pandit Ramlochan at Nadiya led him to posit the existence of the Indo-European family of languages. Many distinguished scholars, English and Bengali,such as Henry Thomas Colebrooke, James Prinsep and Pandit Radhakanta Sarman would grace the Society’s meetings and publications over the following century, vastly enriching knowledge of India’s culture and past.)
• In the Greek accounts, we find the statements of the Greek and Roman writers belonging to the period from 4th century BC to 2nd century AD None of them have mentioned the names of Kautilya or Asoka.
• As, per the records submitted to Sir william jones, acclaimed as father of Indianology,(any one would would declare him being indian for how he distorted our past ) by pandit Radhakantta (Rādhākānta Tarkavāgīśa, a pandit of Bengal who toward the end of his career became involved with the British, first with Warren Hastings and then Sir William Jones. Through his career one can see how for many pandits living at the close of the eighteenth century service to British courts had become a way of life. http://www.jstor.org/pss/604088), of callcutta.in 1770-1780–a period when world chornology was redefined,the term ‘ASHOKA’ does NOT exit.
• Dr. Ahmed Hassan Dani has agreed on this point (Journal of Central Asia.vol.20, July 1997. page 193.). Chandragupta Maurya’s rise to power is shrouded in mystery and controversy. On the one hand, a number of ancient Indian accounts, such as the drama Mudrarakshasa (Poem of Rakshasa – Rakshasa was the prime minister of Magadha) by Visakhadatta, describe his royal ancestry and even link him with the Nanda family. A Kshatriya tribe known as the Maurya’s are referred to in the earliest Buddhist texts, Mahaparinibbana Sutta. However, any conclusions are hard to make without further historical evidence. Chandragupta first emerges in Greek accounts as “Sandrokottos“…

James Princep monument: James Princep was the first to coin the term

The Indologists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were reluctant to believe in the veracity of Indian history books or to accept the antiquity of Indian history. Arthur A. McDonnell wrote,

Early India wrote no history because it never made any. The ancient Indians never went through a struggle for life like the Greeks, the Persians and the Romans. Secondly, the Brahmanas early embraced the doctrine that all action and existence are a positive evil and could therefore have felt but little inclination to chronicle historical events.

Later scholars took this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya as proven and carried on further research. James Princep, an employee of the East India Company, deciphered the Brahmi script and was able to read the inscriptions of Piyadassana. Turnour, another employee of the Company in Ceylon, found in the Ceylonese chronicles that Piyadassana was used as a surname of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The inscription bearing the name of Asoka was not found till the time of Turnour. In 1838, Princep found five names of the Yona kings in Asoka’s inscriptions and identified them as the five Greek kings near Greece of the third century BC who were contemporary with Asoka

Almost all of the Ancient Greek works was lost because of the incidents like fire in the library of Alexandria and just because the mode of storing the knowledge was perishable. This is in stark contrast with much of ancient Indian work, which was in Sanskrit and had to memorized from one generation to the next. There was no contradiction in the works from different parts of the country. The works attributed to Strabo, etc. are translations from the later work in Arabic and hence a lot got mixed into the actual facts. To analyze linguistically based on that is more than a stretch.

Unanswered doubts
According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts.

In the Greek accounts, we find the statements of the Greek and Roman writers belonging to the period from 4th century BC to 2nd century AD None of them have mentioned the names of Kautilya or Asoka. Kautilya’s work on polity is an important document of India’s mastery on this subject. It was with his assistance that Chandragupta had come to the throne. Asoka’s empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta and he had sent missionaries to the so-called Yavana countries. But both of them are not mentioned. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkus though that was the flourishing religion of that time with the royal patronage of Asoka. Roychaudhari also wonders why the Greek accounts are silent on Buddhism

Nanda Dynasty affiliation
Some Indian literary traditions connect him with the Nanda Dynasty of Magadha in eastern India. The Sanskrit drama Mudrarakashasa not only calls him Mauryaputra (Act II) but also a Nandanvaya (Act IV). Dhundiraja, a commentator of 18th century on Mudrarakshas states that Chandragupta was son of Maurya who in turn, was son of the Nanda king Sarvarthasiddhi by a wife named Mura, daughter of a Vrishala (shudra). Mudrarakshas especially uses terms like kula-hina and Vrishala for Chandragupta’s lineage. This reinforces Justin’s contention that Chandragupta had a humble origin.[7][8] On the other hand, the same play describes the Nandas as of Prathita-kula i.e illustrious lineage. The commentator on the Vishnu Purana informs us that Chandragupta was son of a Nanda prince and a dasi (Hindi:maid), Mura. Pandit Kshmendra and Somadeva call him Purvananda-suta, son of genuine Nanda as opposed to Yoga-Nanda i.e pseudo Nanda.

Peacock-tamer theory
Other literary traditions imply that Chandragupta was raised by peacock-tamers (Sanskrit: Mayura-Poshakha), which earned him the Maurya epithet. Both the Buddhist as well as Jaina traditions testify to the supposed connection between the Moriya (Maurya) and Mora or Mayura (Peacock). While the Buddhist tradition describes him as the son of the chief of the Peacock clan (Moriya), the Jaina tradition on the other hand, refers to him as the maternal grandson of the headman of the village of peacock tamers (Moraposaga).[9] This view suggests a degraded background of Chandragupta. (The same Jain tradition also describes Nanda as the son of a barber by a courtesan).

According to some scholars, there are some monumental evidence connecting the Mauryas with peacocks. The pillar of Ashoka in Nandangarh bears on its bottom the figures of a peacock which is repeated in many sculptures of Ashoka at Sanchi.[10] According to Turnour,[11] Buddhist tradition also testifies to the connection between Moriya and Mora or Mayura or peacock. Aelian informs us that tame peacocks were kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pataliputra. But scholars like Foucher[12] do not regard these birds as a sort of canting badge for the dynasty of Mauryas. They prefer to imagine in them a possible allusion to the Mora Jataka. Moreover, besides the peacocks, there were also other birds like pheasants, parrots as well as a variety of fishes etc also kept in the parks and water pools of the Mauryas.

Moriya clan view

Silver punch mark coin of the Mauryan empire, with symbols of wheel and elephant. 3rd century BCE.

Yet there are other literary traditions according to which Chandragupta belonged to Moriyas, a Kshatriya (warrior) clan of a little ancient republic of Pippalivana located between Rummindei in the Nepalese Tarai and Kasia in the Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Tradition suggests that this clan was reduced to great straights in the 4th century BCE under Magadhan rule, and young Chandragupta grew up among the peacock-tamers, herdsmen and hunters.

The Buddhist text of the Mahavamsa calls Chandragupta a scion of the Khattya (Kshatriya) clan named Moriya (Maurya). Divyavadana[13] calls Bindusara, son of Chandragupta, an anointed Kshatriya, Kshatriya Murdhabhishikata, and in the same work, king Ashoka, son of Bindusara, is also styled a Kshatriya. The Mahaparinnibhana Sutta[14] of the Buddhist canon states that the Moriyas (Mauryas) belonged to the Kshatriya community of Pippalivana. These traditions, at least, indicate that Chandragupta may have come from a Kshatriya lineage.

The Mahavamshatika connects him with the Sakya clan of the Buddha, a clan which also claimed to belong to the race of Aditya i.e solar race.[15]

A medieval age inscription represents the Maurya clan as belonging to the solar race of Kshatriyas.[16] It is stated that the Maurya line sprang from Suryavamsi Mandhatri, son of prince Yuvanashva of the solar race. [17]

Alternate views on Maurya origin
As it can be noticed from above, there is no concrete evidence on Chandragupta’s origin and all the above referred to theories are quite divergent. Therefore, additional views have been proposed by an alternative school of scholars.

North-western origin view
There is school of scholars like B.M. Barua, Dr J.W. McCrindle, Dr D.B. Spooner, Dr H.C. Seth, Dr Hari Ram Gupta, Dr Ranajit Pal and others who connect Chandragupta (Sandrokottos) to the north-western frontiers.

B.M. Barua calls him a man of Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila.[18]

Based on Plutarch’s evidence, Dr J.W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta write that Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi and belonged to the Ashvaka (Assakenoi) territory.[19]

Appian of Alexandria (95CE-165CE), author of a Roman History attests that ‘Antrokottos (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians, dwelt on river Indus’.[20] This reference also seems to indicate that Chandragupta belonged to north-west rather than East India.

These scholars relate Sandrocottos (or Androcottos) with Sisicottos of the Classical writings. Sisicottos was the ruler of Paropamisos (Hindukush) who had helped Bessus of Bactria against Alexander but later co-operated with the latter throughout the Sogdian campaigns.[21] During Alexander’s campaign of Kabol and Swat valleys, prince Sisicottos had rendered great service to Alexander in reducing several principalities of the Ashvakas. During war of rock-fort of Aornos, where Alexander faced stiff resistance from the tribals, Sisicottos was put in command of this fort of great strategical importance. Arrian calls Sisicottos the governor of Assakenois. It is however not quite clear if this Sisicottos was same as Sandrocottos or if they were brothers or else they were related in someway. Dr J. W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta think that they both possibly belonged two different branches of the Ashvakas.[22] Meri was probably another political centre of the Mor or Meros people. It is asserted by scholars of this school that the name Moriya or Maurya comes from the Mor (Modern name Koh-i-Mor i.e Mor hill—the ancient Meros of the classical writings) located in the Paropamisadae region between river Kunar and Swat in the land of Ashvakas (q.v.). It is pointed out that since Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Mor (Meros of classical writings) hence he was called Moriya or Maurya after his motherland.[23][24]

It is notable that Adiparva of Mahabharata (verses 1/67/13-14) also seem to connect Maurya Ashoka with the Ashvakas.[25]

Dr Spooner observes: “After Alexander’s death, when Chandragupta marched on Magadha, it was with largely the Persian army (Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika) that he won the throne of India. The testimony of the Mudrarakshasa is explicit on this point, and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in matter of this kind“.[26] Thus, Dr Spooner’s comments also point to the north-western origin of the Mauryas.

It is however interesting to see that the scholars also identify the Ashvakas as a branch of the Kambojas. They were so-called since they were specialised in horse-profession and their services as cavalrymen were frequently requisitioned in ancient wars.

Calcutta’s intellectual life received a great boost in 1784 with the foundation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal by Sir William Jones, with the encouragement of Warren Hastings, himself no mean Oriental scholar. Jones worked closely with the pandits of the Kalighat Temple, together with the local ulema, in translating and producing new editions of rare and forgotten texts. His study of Sanskrit with Pandit Ramlochan at Nadiya led him to posit the existence of the Indo-European family of languages. Many distinguished scholars, English and Bengali,such as Henry Thomas Colebrooke, James Prinsep and Pandit Radhakanta Sarman would grace the Society’s meetings and publications over the following century, vastly enriching knowledge of India’s culture and past

Scythian origin view
A Jat writer B.S.Dehiya published a paper titled The Mauryas: Their Identity[27] in 1979 and a book titled Jats the Ancient rulers[28] in 1982, wherein he concludes that the Mauryas were the Muras or rather Mors and were jatt of Scythian or Indo-Scythian origin. It is claimed that the Jatts still have Maur or Maud as one of their clan name.[29]

The Rajputana Gazetteer describes the Moris (Mauryas?) as a Rajput clan.[30]

• Notes
• ^ Peter Turchin, Jonathan M. Adams, and Thomas D. Hall. East-West Orientation of Historical Empires. University of Connecticut, November 2004.
• ^ Roger Boesche (2003). “Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India”, The Journal of Military History 67 (p. 12).
• ^ Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones (1978), “Atlas of World Population History”, Facts on File (p. 342-351). New York.
• ^ Hindu Books Universe – Content
• ^ Strabo II,I, 9
• ^ Plutarch 62-3
• ^ “He (Seleucus) next made an expedition into India, which, after the death of Alexander, had shaken, as it were, the yoke of servitude from its neck, and put his governors to death. The author of this liberation was Sandrocottus, who afterwards, however, turned their semblance of liberty into slavery; for, making himself king, he oppressed the people whom he had delivered from a foreign power, with a cruel tyranny. This man was of mean origin, but was stimulated to aspire to regal power by supernatural encouragement; for, having offended Alexander by his boldness of speech, and orders being given to kill him, he saved himself by swiftness of foot; and while he was lying asleep, after his fatigue, a lion of great size having come up to him, licked off with his tongue the sweat that was running from him, and after gently waking him, left him. Being first prompted by this prodigy to conceive hopes of royal dignity, he drew together a band of robbers, and solicited the Indians to support his new sovereignty. Some time after, as he was going to war with the generals of Alexander, a wild elephant of great bulk presented itself before him of its own accord, and, as if tamed down to gentleness, took him on its back, and became his guide in the war, and conspicuous in fields of battle. Sandrocottus, having thus acquired a throne, was in possession of India” (Justin “Epitome of the Philippic History” XV-4)
• ^ There is however, a controversy about Justin’s above mentioned account. Justin actually refers to a name Nandrum, which many scholars believe is reference to Nanda (Dhana Nanda of Magadha), while others say that it refers to Alexandrum, i.e. Alexender. It makes some difference which version one believes
• ^ Parisishtaparvan, p 56, VIII239f
• ^ A Guide to Sanchi, pp 44, 62, Sir Johmn Marshal.
• ^ Mahavamsa (Mahawamsa), xxxix f.
• ^ Monuments of Sanchi, 231.
• ^ Edited by Cowel and Neil., p 370
• ^ Mahaparinnibhana Sutta, page 409
• ^ also Avadanakalpalata, No 59.
• ^ Epigraphia Indica, II, 222.
• ^ For prince Mandhatri, son of prince Yuvanashva, please refer to Mahabharata 7/62/1-10
• ^ ‘To me Candragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila’ (Indian Culture, vol. X, p. 34, B. M. Barua).
• ^ Invasion of India by Alexander the great, p. 405. Plutarch attests that Androcottos had seen Alexander when he (Androcottos) was a lad and afterwards he used to declare that Alexander might easily have conquered the whole country (India); Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi? Article in Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 32-35
• ^ Appian (XI, 55). Some historians state that he belonged to Kunar and Swat valleys. See: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 150-51, Kirpal Singh.
• ^ Arrian. iv, 30. 4.
• ^ Invasion of Alexander, 2nd Ed, p 112, Dr J. W. McCrindle; Op cit., p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta; Dr McCrindle further writes that modern Afghanistan was the ancient Kamboja and that the name Afghanistan is evidently derived from the Ashvakas or Assakenois of Arrian See: Megasthenes and Arrian, p 180; Alexander’s Invasion of India, p 38; Dr J. C. Vidyalankar identifies Sisicottos as a Kamboja ruler: See Itihaas Parvesh, pp 133-34, Dr J. C. Vidyalankar; Kamboj Itihaas, 1973, p 58-59, H. S. Thind.
• ^ Op. cit., pp 32-35, Dr H. C. Gupta; Also: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 149-154.
• ^ Tribune writes: “Most historians are of the view that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Bihar, and that he called himself Maurya because his mother was the keeper of royal peacocks (mor) at Pataliputra. He came to Punjab and conquered it. Afterwards, with the help of the Punjab army he seized the Nanda empire. However, there are reasons to believe that Chandragupta belonged to the Kshatriya caste of the ruling Ashvaka tribe of the Koh-i-Mor territory. He called himself Maurya after his homeland” (Ref: Article in Sunday Tribune, January 10, 1999 They taught lessons to kings, Gur Rattan Pal Singh; Also cf: Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi?, Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta)
• ^ yastvashva iti vikhyAtaH shrImAnAsInmahAsuraH |. Ashoko nAma rAjAsInmahAvIryaparAkramaH. ||14|| tasmAdavarajo yastu rAjannashvapatiH smR^itaH |. daiteyaH so.abhavadrAjA hArdikyo manujarShabhaH ||15.|| ( See English Translation): “That great Asura who was known as Aswa became on earth the monarch Asoka of exceeding energy and invincible in battle.”
• ^ op cit., (Part II), p.416-17, Dr D. B. Spooner
• ^ Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), p.112-133.
• ^ Jats the Ancient rulers, Dahinam Publishers, Sonipat, Haryana, by B. S. Dahiya I.R.S.
• ^ This view may become creditable only if it is accepted that the Jatts evolved from the Madras, Kekayas, Yonas, Kambojas and the Gandharas of the north-west borderlands of ancient Indian sub-continent. This is because king Ashoka’s own Inscriptions refer only to the Yonas, Kambojas and the Gandharas as the most important people of his north-west frontiers during third century BCE. They do not make any reference whatsoever, to the Sakas, Shakas or the Scythians. See: Rock Edict No 5 [1] and Rock Edict No 13 [2] ( Shahbazgarhi version).
• ^ II A, the Mewar Residency by Major K. D. Erskine, p 14.
  Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_Chandragupta_Maurya

source::http://rupeenews.com/2008/09/10/did-ashoka-exist-did-pandit-radhakantta-create-him-for-james-princep-in-1837/