GOPAL HARI DESHMUKH (LOKHITWADI)

 

-       Assess the contribution of Lokhitwadi Gopal Hari Deshmukh to the growth of Liberal Thought in Maharashtra

-       ‘The Shatpatre and the Swadkyaya hold the key to an understanding of Lokhitwadi G. H. Deshmukh’. Elucidate

-       critically examine N.R.Pathak’s statement that ‘Lokhitwadi was the first Maharashtrian to attempt an analysis of the Hindu society from the economic point of view’.

-       Discuss the nature of religious dissent and social protest expressed by Lokhitwadi Gopal Hari Deshmukh through the press.

-       Examine Lokhitwadi Gopal Hari Deshmukh’s critique of the contemporary society.

The English educated generation in Maharashtra began to examine the old traditions, the old institutions, old values, old customs and visages, subjugating them to the test of reason. On such re-examination, they felt the urgent need to reform the society to suit the new environment. Three thought currents of different types emerged as a consequence. These were represented by three outstanding personalities viz. Gopal Hari Deshmukh alias Lokhitwadi, Vishnubuwa Bramhahari and Jyotiba Phule. These thought currents may be designated as ‘all sided reformism’, ‘revivalism’ and ‘populism’ respectively.

Gopal Hari Deshmukh, popularly known as Lokhitwadi, was the pioneer of all sided reformism in Maharashtra. He was a fine product of the new learning of the West. He laid the foundation of a broadbased intellectual renaissance in western India. He possessed a rare foresight and could predict the future course of events. Lokhitwadi was active throughout his life.

His name is connected with the establishment of a number of public institutions. His greatest impact however, was made through his journalistic and literary work. He wrote a number of booklets on current religious, social and economic problems.

His bigger books are mainly on historical topics. From 1848 onwards, he published a series of short articles in the periodical ‘Prabhakar’ on religious, social, political, economic and educational subjects. These one hundred and eight articles known as Shatapatre, were collected in 1860 as part of ‘Lokhitwadikrta Nibandhasangraha’. The Shatapatree represents an outspoken, impatient, penetrating analysis of the ills of society. He published a book entitled Svadhyaya Athava Aryavidyancha Krama, Vichar ani Pariksana (study of sequence of the Aryan learnings, thought and review) which is more moderate in its diction, gives the opinions of the experienced, mature reformer. The Shatapatree and the Svadhaya hold the key to an understanding of Lokhitwadi. Both books contain basically the same teaching; but the latter is more clearly in praise of the vedic times.

The Shatapatree reveals his unusual grasp of the new trend of events. One is surprised to see the modernity and the secularity of his outlook in so young an age. As he explained the effect of writing these letters in letter no.100, he wished that the people should know the real situation, reform themselves, achieve well-being in this world and attain happiness in the other. He wanted people to renounce their time-honored prejudices, indiscretion and foolishness. He appealed to his readers again and again to think for themselves and welcome the new learning with open mind. He spared no body and no follies of his countrymen, which were responsible for the present downtrodden state of the country. He was the first to challenge the age-old authority and traditions. He realized the importance of the western learning and the power of knowledge. True learning is search for knowledge. He earnestly wished to place before his fellowmen the new thought and the new vision.

He was convinced that this was essential to reform the society. He defined reform as a way to public good. The hundred epistles reveal his considered reflections on religion, politics, economic, social matters and administrative affairs. His criticism of social matters had a comprehensive bearing. The Epistles show his patriotic fervor and the deep love for his own country. They express the poignant grief felt by the intellectual class of Maharashtra at the loss of political independence of the country. He was the first to ponder over the causes, which were responsible to the loss of our independence. He attributed the loss to eight causes, which he called as ‘Hindushashtak’ (eight aggregate causes of the ruin of Hindus). To avoid overlapping in his argument, the causes he enumerated were ignorance, loss of learning, dominance of foolish Brahmin’s, misguided notions about religion, fatalism and blind traditionalism.

He had not produced a fictitious description based on somebody’s words or teachings. He did not write for profit or wealth, not with the purpose of gaining fame. He laboured so that the people might recognize their true condition and improve and some long outstanding opinions, which have taken firm root through thoughtlessness or stupidity may become fewer and disappear. For this purpose, he had laboured without renumeration as well as he could and of his own free will.

To many an old-fashioned person, several opinions of Lokhitwadi will appear unfavorable and against the Hindu religion. But this is mere imagination on their part, because there is nothing in them, which is unfavorable to the Hindu religion. All it is against is stupidity.

His letters give us an insight into what guided his journalism and his reform efforts throughout his life. He wrote: ‘I request all you people to begin to read, to read new books and newspapers and observe what is happening around you. Begin to realize that the British have many a good quality. God brought the British and you together in order that you may acquire these qualities. Become religious and intent on God. Without these virtues, everything is vain. Speak the truth, give up vicious desires, work for the improvement of religion and do not cast it aside, but interpret it according to the times. Spread the knowledge of God and the world among all the people. Stop being lazy. Appoint the really intelligent among you as leader. Proceed according to his directions. Let there be unity among all men. Keep in mind that there should be no split among us. Increase your knowledge and forge ahead. Watch continuously how the government functions, who is ruling and how he behaves. Stay well informed.

Compare with your ancient sciences, books, opinions, ideas, a hundred times better as many more. Sciences have now risen, examine them all. In your regard for wealth, do not stick to your laziness. Know that the bhats and pandits are just fools. Search for true morality. Learning means knowledge, it makes man pure, inquisitive, powerful’.

This text exhorts the people to open their minds to become inquisitive, to improve. At the same time Lokhitwadi pointed out equally clearly that their society was crippled by abuses.

Blue prints for a new outlook on life

Lokhitwadi used these and strong words to arouse people. But his criticism did not remain negative. He strove to pull down the ramshackle old hut, but he already had the blue prints of a new building to be erected in its place. The positive substance of his writings had stood the test of a century, and has kept its value even to this day.

 

Religion

In Lokhitwadi’s view a rational approach must be made to religion. He wrote: ‘Hindus have not yet started to think for themselves. It is still not clear to them that the mind is a big sacred book and that the written sacred books are all inferior to it’.

Judging his own religion from a practical point of view he came to the conclusion that the saying of the holy scriptures needed to be tested by reason. The Vedas were written by rishis who were writers and great saints, but not divine persons. Castes were originally based on the qualities of the people and their occupations, and not on a divine dispensation. The avatars were brave and virtuous heroes. The belief in reincarnation arose only in the Puranas. The effigy of mantras is imaginary. Astrology is false. It is proper to fight against the customs of Sati, cutting of hair of the widows, child marriage, prohibition of remarrying widows and similar practices. But religion, understood as a way to God, should not be disapproved.

The philosophical outlook of Lokhitwadi was that of the Prarthana Samaj. He held that there is only one ruler of the universe. The human soul and the absolute being are essentially different. The human soul is of inferior nature and God is almighty without limitation. The origin, preservation and destruction of the universe depends on him. The changes which effect the universe do not make it unreal. The reality of the world is a fact of experience. Lokhitwadi restricts the content of our knowledge of God, more than other members of the Prarthana Samaj did.

He also contributed his share to the growth of a liberal philosophy of political government. For this, he drew his main inspiration from the dynastic sequence of Jeremy Bentham, James Mill and J.S. Mill.

The state, he held is established to bring about the good of the people. After mentioning in praise of the British government, the new system of appointments based on competitive examinations, he wrote approvingly that: ‘all thoughtful people admit that the second aspect of the present form of government is that it preserves happiness and peace and promotes learning, justice, good behavior, freedom and many a work useful to the people. By this it strives to keep the people flourishing and satisfied; and the result of this can be easily experienced’.

The same utilitarian function of the government is also mentioned in a list of thirty-nine propositions, which in his view, had been neglected in India for a long time, but revived again through the influx of new ideas. One proposition runs as follows: ‘It should be the policy of the government to increase the knowledge and the wealth of the people day by day. Government has the duty to protect the freedom of the individual. In a good state, the views of the people are considered and its administration is based on their consent. The ruler should be elected by the people and can be removed if he abuses his position. Kings are not constituted by divine institution. The exercise of government should be based on law. All the citizens have the same rights and duties. For the protection of the state, the legislation should therefore be equal for all without distinction of caste or creed.

Lokhitwadi understood that this principle of equality should be applied also to the relations between the English and the Indians. He stated impatiently that both are men and contradiction some of his other statements, he added that the present form of government was not for the good of the Indians and did not give them the rights which were due to them. He wrote this as early as 1848. He called for the establishment of a Parliament in India for which the wisest should be elected irrespective of caste or religion or whether they were foreign or indigenous. This was a bold proposal. M. G. Ranade never went so far. 

According to Mathew Lederley, ‘Lokhitwadi was not an utilitarian. He was not baffled therefore by the problem of how to reconcile in the utilitarian scheme, the clash of interest between Indians. The utilitarian tells the Indian to give up his interest, his ‘self regarding interest’ in Bentham’s words and to accept the assurance of his governors that in doing this he is following his true interest.

 

Views on economic matters

Lokhitwadi had acquired a varied experience in the course of his official duties in different parts of Maharashtra and a place like Ahmedabad which formed a part of Bombay Presidency. His rationalism inspired him to spot out inconsistencies, pretensions and absurdities. Just as he critically viewed the social condition of the Hindu society, he also turned his attention to the inequalities and injustices perpetuated by the nature and English officials in matters of taxes and levies. The excise on liquor gave the exchequer a substantial amount. Drinking was being encouraged so that more money could be available to the government. He condemned the attitude of the government to ruin the health of the people for filling the coffers of the government. He declared, ‘People are the mother of the government. If the government, disregarding the health of the people, would result in the poverty of the people the government finance would be adversely affected.

In 1894, he wrote, ‘History of Gujarat’. He added an appendix entitled, ‘Comparison of Governments’ (Rajyatulana). He compared the merits and demerits of the native and foreign rule. He concluded that in the British regime taxes, customs, excise duties and other charges were excessive as compared to the late government. It does little credit to the enlightened government of the East India Company that they have kept the rayat dissatisfied with their revenue policy. It would be better if this government would adopt welfare measures as the Marathas had done. He also denounced the policy of favoritism and distinctions followed in dealing with natives and European persons. In the course of his official duty, he came across many instances of Partisan spirit and economic injustice to the people of Maharashtra.

 

Swadeshi and boycott

Padhye and Tikekar would consider Lokhitwadi as a pioneer of the Swadesh and boycott movements of later years. While analyzing the poverty and unemployment in Maharashtra, he focused light on the dumping of goods by the Englishmen in our markets to the detriment of native merchants. Our people should resolve not to buy goods of other countries and buy only indigenous articles even though they may be of inferior quality. The cotton buyer should decide not to sell raw cotton to the foreigners and sell them only textile goods. He advised them to stop buying English goods and selling our finished goods. We should shun the foreign goods and patronize indigenous goods even if they might be coarse textiles. It is remarkable for Lokhitwadi to show the audacity to hurt the rulers at the most vulnerable points inspite of his being in the service of the English government. However the approach was amateurish.

Lokhitwadi respected Justice Ranade in more than one respect. Like Ranade, he considered social reform absolutely necessary for the political emancipation of India. Like Ranade, he regarded British rule in India as divinely ordained but he was not a blind admirer of the British rule. Both were students of economics and champions of swadeshi. Both advocated industrialization of the country. He was however, so very radical in his prescription of the method of achieving self government that he may be called the morning star of the National Movement of India.

THE RISING OF THE RAMOSIS AT POONA (1826-29)

The Ramosis served in the Maratha police administration in the lower ranks. After the final defeat of the Marathas in 1818, the British administration of the Bombay province found it difficult to restore order in the region immediately. The new administration was unable to absorb the Ramosis in the police administration. Consequently, a vast body of unemployed but assured men, included Ramosis, were thrown open – the former territories of the Peshwa. They were prepared to train anyone who would provide them suitable employment and even to help in the attempt to overthrow the British power.

In 1825, the economic distress resulting from scarcity and reduction in the number of soldiers in the local Poona garrison, adversely affected the Ramosis. Hence under the leadership of Umaji Naik and Bapu Trimbabji Sawant, they rose in revolt and restored to outlawry. From 1826 to 1829, they committed many excessed in the hills around the fort of Torna. They proved to be so turbulent that the government was forced to pardon many of their crimes and placated them by granting lands as well as recruiting them as hill police. However, their risings were quelled by the British garrison.

Nevertheless, the Ramosis continued to cause trouble to the authorities by attacking their oppressors like money lenders.

UMAJI NAIK

Leader, courageous man and patriot

Ramoshis are a predatory tribe that migrated from Telangana and settled down in Maharashtra during the Maratha period. Maratha rulers utilized their services in an effective manner. Important duties like night patrolling were entrusted to them. In the new British Raj, they were not ready to reconcile.

Umaji Naik was their leader, he had set up small principalities, small Vatandars. He gave harsh treatment to British officials and to the people who were loyal to them. Bhar and Kolhapur rulers were also supporting him. Some influential brahmins gave him necessary guidance.

In 1828, he demanded Watan rights from the British officials, if not, he threatened them that ‘thousand rebellions will arise’. Special police force were raised in Ahmednagar to check Umaji Naik. In 1829, he got 129 Bighan land and thus a trust came into force.

In 1830, there were fresh troubles. Mackintosh led on behalf of British (10^th December 1830). Umaji naik was captured. The British took the help of his sisters who were promised four villages, employing such treacherous means he was captured and hanged. He gave up his life for the country.

He was not a decoit or a plunderer. He kept Shivaji as his ideal. Bombay Gazetteer described him as ‘Second Shivaji’. He is a hero of several anecdotes in Maharashtra and is a legendary figure. Several literary marks of films are made on his Robinhood style of life.

DADOBA PANDURANG TARKHADKAR (1814-1882)

Dadoba Pandurang was associated with Bal Shastri Jambhekar when they studied together and lived at Bapu Chhatre’s house. He outlived Bal Shastri by 36 years. He acted as a link between the reformers of the early forties and was also associated with the reformers of the eighties. He was very much influenced by Ram Mohan Roy and other leaders of the Bramho Samaj. The movement that he started had however an origin and growth of its own.

Dadoba Pandurang was an educator. His grammar book acquired great popularity in Mahar. He was principal of Gujarati school at Surat, then a part of Bombay Presidency. There he was joined by Dayaram Mancuram, one of the teachers of that school in promoting social reforms.

They founded the Association of Religion of Manking (Manava-Dharma sabha) in 1844. In his book ‘Dharma Vivechana’ published in 1843 he had expressed his ideas about God and religion. The Association which was founded in 1844 practically borrowed its contents and formulated them as the tenets of the Association of the Religion of Mankind. The Association represented a universalism in religion and social life. This new religion was given a broad base of rationalism. This association could hardly survive after the departure of Dadoba from Surat in 1846.

Jamshedkar had already attempted to remove some absurd features and superstitious beliefs under the name of religion. Dadoba went one step ahead and wanted a rethinking on this very sensitive and vital subject of common interest.

Dadoba’s rationalism makes a special contribution to the thought of the western educated gentry in Bombay and the cities in Maharashtra. His campaigns against sorcerers and enchanters suggested that he considered it a duty of the educated people to clear the cobwebs of superstitions from the minds of the mass of people. The foundation of the ‘Paramhansa Sabha’ showed the way for others to follow. It was nor religion that was the chief concern of the Sabha but the rational attitude that was provoked in the public mind against unscientific ideas, was its chief objective.

There were quite a number of educated people entertaining ideas to reform Hinduism and save the society by eradication fo all sorts of defilement. Among those who held identical views on religions and social matters were Dadoba's younger brother Dr. Atmaram Pandurang Tarbhadkar, Ram Balkrishna Jaykar, Moroba Vinoba, Tukaram Tatya, Balubhau Shintre, Sakharam Shastri, Laxmanshastri Halve, Bhikoba Laxman and Sakharam Laxman Chavan were prominent. They regarded these two features of Hinduism as highly objectionable.

 

EXAMINE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PRAYAG ASSEMBLY OF HARSHAVARDHAN'S TIME

Prayag was an important town where Harsha used to hold his quinquennial assemblies. It was one of the great nerve centers of Hinduism. The assemblies at Prayag, where he distributed all his wealth among the Buddhists, the Brahmans and the poor people, after performing religious rites of Buddhism and Hinduism, stand unparalleled in the history of the world.

After the conclusion of the special assembly at Kanauj, Harsha invited Hiuen Tsang to attend his sixth quinquennial assembly of distribution of alms (Mahamokshaparishad) and religious festivities at Prayag at the sacred confluence of the Ganges and the Yamuna in 643 A.D. Harsha had held five such assemblies earlier. On such occasions, he distributed among the poor and religious all the accumulated wealth. The assembly of 643 A.D. was attended by Dhruvasena II of Valabhi, Baskaravarman of Assam and several other subordinate kings and a huge crowd of 500,000, belonging to different religions. The assembly was opened with an impressive procession and the proceedings lasted for seventy-five days in the vast sandy plain between the rivers.

The proceedings at the Prayag assembly curiously manifested the eclectic blend of mind. On the first day the image of Buddha was set up in one of the temporary shrines built upon the sands and was worshipped with costly offerings and lavish distributions. On the second day the image of Adityadeva (Sun) was worshipped and on the third day the idol of Siva was adored. On the fourth day, generous gifts were distributed to ten thousand select Buddhist monks. Each received one hundred gold coins, a pearl, a cotton garment, besides food, drink, flowers and perfumes. During the next twenty days the Brahmins received royal gifts. Jains and members of other sects were similarly given gifts for the next ten days. They were followed by mendicants for equal number of days. It took a month to distribute alms to the poor, destitute and orphans. This generous and lavish distribution exhausted Harsha’s accumulated wealth for the last five years. Finally, Harsha even gave up his personal belongings. At the end of the assembly, Harsha offered worship to the Buddha of the ten regions. Shortly after the end of this spectacular Prayag assembly Hiuen Tsang took leave of Harsha and returned to China with 657 volumes of rare manuscripts.  

EXAMINE THE EFFECTS OF ALEXANDERS INVASION

EFFECTS OF ALEXANDERS INVASION (REF: B. N. LUNIA)

Alexander’s invasion did not create any impression on the minds of the Indians as it was confined to the western part of India. His expedition at best remained a mere raid on frontier provinces. Though he annexed Gandhara and the Indus Valley to the Macedonian Empire, they soon became independent and all traces of the short-lived Greek rule disappeared from India within two years of Alexander’s death. There is, therefore, little wonder if Indians ignored Alexander’s expedition. He came like a hurricane, stayed in India for nineteen months and departed from India leaving the heart of the country untouched.

For Indians he was a mere invader who disturbed the peace of a part of the country for some time and went away, eclipsing Chengiz Khan and Timur in committing atrocities and shedding considerable blood. Viewed from the broader stand-point, Alexander’s invasion, therefore, could have no importance. It was a mere raid that did not attract even the attention of the Indian writers.

Then, judging his generalship from the events in India, Alexander does not appear to be an outstanding figure and distinguished military genius. All that he achieved in India was a hard fought victory over Porus – a king of a petty state in Punjab, and that too, with the help of an Indian king, Ambhi, a bitter enemy of Porus and one who had betrayed the nation by unhinging the doors of India to a foreigner. In fact, it was a victory of a great general over a petty chief in a distant corner of India. His defeat did not affect the rest of India, much less was it a triumph of the West over the East.

But it seems that if the Indians have underestimated the importance of Alexander’s expedition, the Greeks have equally exaggerated it. The Greek writers like Arrian Curtius, etc., have exaggerated the significance of the event by devoting page after page to its description. They have taken pains to describe his campaigns and conquests in minutest details. To them Alexander was one of the greatest conquerors of the world.

However, it is wrong for the Indians to ignore Alexander’s invasion completely. It had direct and immediate result on the course of Indian History.

1. By seriously crippling the number of small warring kingdoms and tribes that abounded in the Punjab and Sind, Alexander paved the way for Chandragupta to give to the north-west India a political unity and make it a strong integral portion of the empire of Magadha. Thus, if Mahapadmananda was the predecessor of Chandragupta Maurya in the east, Alexander was the fore-runner of that Empire in the West.

2. Though the Punjab and Sind began to enjoy the blessings of a unified rule as the direct and immediate result of Alexander’s invasion, the Indians ignored the superiority of the Greek art of warfare. The Indian rulers and their military captains seem to have paid no heed to the Greek mode of warfare. They stuck to their traditional methods of fighting and continued for centuries to place their chief reliance on their elephant brigades.

3. But there is one historical gain in the date of Alexander’s invasion i.e., 326 B. C. The clearly dated records of Alexander’s Indian campaign left by his companions helped to build Indian chronology for subsequent political events on a definite basis. The date of Alexander’s invasion, in fact, forms the sheet anchor of Indian chronology.

In addition to this, the invasion brought in India a number of Greeks of eminence, who wrote the accounts of that time, and they have become important source of early Indian history. The original works of these Greek writers are lost, but quotations taken from them by latter writers are available today and it is from these fragments that we get a detailed picture of the political, social and religious conditions of India at that time.

4. Some historians think that Alexander’s campaign resulted in the opening up of new lines of communication and new routes for trade and maritime enterprise, which brought India and the West into closer contact with each other, facilitating cultural exchange between them.

Strabo points out that the Oxus (Amu Daria) joined a link in an important chain along which the Indian goods were carried to the European countries by way of the Caspian and the Black Sea. Patroclus, an admiral in the service of Antiochus I, the successor of Seleucus Nikator, also remarked that the route was a popular one in the third century B.C. Evidence of a brisk trade with India is also furnished by the coins of Greek models minted in Babylon and found in large numbers in the frontier province of India.

5. in addition to the above effects, the following distinct cultural effects of Alexander’s campaign must also be noted. The Greek kingdoms in Syria, Bactria and other parts of Asia which had been established on the disruption of Alexander’s Empire, produced, in the course of time, close cultural contact between India and Europe. It was this contact with these Indo Greek or Indo Bactrian kings that was responsible for the improvement of the Indian coinage. The coins of the Indo Greek rulers which were discovered in Taxila replace the older Indian Punch marked and ill shaped ones and the subsequent coins of India were cast on well shaped Greek models.

Another result of the contact, it is said, is that the system of Indian astronomy is largely influenced by the Hellenic system.

Again, during the reign of the great emperor Kanishka, Bactria formed a part of his empire. He invited, it is said, many Greeco-Bactrian sculptors to Gandhara for making images of the Buddha and Boddhisattvas. They blended the Greek and the Indian Art in image making. This led to the growth of a new type of sculpture, known as the Gandhara School of Art. It is another distant and distinct effect of Alexander’s campaign.

As regards to the Greeks, they learned a good deal of sciences, arts, philosophy, mathematics and medicine from India during the period of this contact. Indian philosophy greatly influenced Greek thought and culture. A host of Indians went to Greece and Asia minor and there the ideas of the East might have percolated. It has been also suggested that after the formation of the Greek kingdom in the northwest of India, Indian philosophy affected even Christianity.

WHAT LED TO THE DOWNFALL OF THE MAURYAN EMPIRE? WAS ASHOKA RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?

The causes for the downfall of the Mauryan Empire (Mauryan Empire broke up 50 years after the death of Ashoka 232 B.C.)

There is something almost dramatic in the way in which the Mauryan Empire declined and disappeared after the death of Ashoka. The decline was complete within half a century after the death of Ashoka. The reasons given by historians for such a rapid decline are as conflicting as they are confusing. Some of the very obvious and other controversial causes for the decline of the Mauryan empire are described as follows:

1. The partition of the Mauryan Empire – An immediate cause for the decline was the partition of the Mauryan Empire into two halves. ‘Had the partition not taken place, the Greek invasions of the north-west could have been held back for a while. The partition of the empire disrupted the various services as well’.

2. Weak later Mauryan rulers – The succession of weak Mauryan rulers after Ashoka completely disrupted the Mauryan Administration. The weakness of these rulers can be imagined from the fact that as many as six rulers could rule only 52 years over the Eastern part of the Empire and finally the last Mauryan King was assassinated by his own commander-in-chief Pusyamitra Sunga. These weak late Mauryan rulers could also not continue the traditional policies of the Mauryas.

3. Ashokas responsibility for the decline – Many scholars have accused Ashoka as being directly responsible for the decline of the Mauryan Empire. H. C. Raychaudhari maintains that Ashoka’s pacifist policies were responsible for undermining the strength of the empire. He says, ‘From the time of Bimbisara to Kalinga War the History of India the story of the expansion of Magadh form a tiny state in South Bihar to a gigantic empire extending from the foot of the Hindukush to the borders of the Tamil country. After the Kalinga war ensued a period of stagnation at the end of which the process is reversed. The Empire gradually dwindled down in extent till it sank to the position from which Bimbisara and his successors had raised it’. However, Raychaudhuri’s view does not seem to be tenable because Ashoka did not turn complete pacifist after the Kaling War in view of the fact that he neither demobilized the Mauryan army nor abolished capital punishment. Ashoka only gave up the imperialist policy and preached non violence after the Kalinga War. Such practical Pacifism could not have been responsible for the decline of the Mauryan Empire.

Harprasad Shastri holds the view that the decline of the Mauryan Empire was the result of the Brahmanical revolt on account of ban on animal sacrifices and undermining the prestige of the Brahmanas by ‘exposing them as false gods’. But Shastri’s views are merely hypothetical because first, Brahminism itself stresses nonviolence and secondly, Ashoka only banned the unnecessary slaughter of certain animals on certain auspicious days. Then again Ashoka’s frequent requests in his edicts for due respect to Brahmanas and Sramanas hardly points to his being anti Brahmanical in outlook.

4. Pressure on Mauryan Economy – D. D. Kosambi has expressed the opinion that there was considerable pressure on Mauryan economy under the later Mauryas. This view is based on the increase of taxes of taxes and debasement of later Mauryan punch marked coins. But contrary to the above, the foreign accounts and the material remains of the period give a picture of an expanding economy.

5. Highly centralized administration – Prof. Romila Thapar is of the view ‘The machinery of the Mauryan administrative system was so centralized the an able ruler could use it both to his own advantage and that of his people. To the same degree it could become harmful to both under a weak ruler who would lose its central control and allow forces of decay to disintegrate and wreck it. The weakening of the central control under the later Mauryas led automatically to a weakening of the administration. The division of the Mauryan empire after the death of Ashoka must have given further blow to the centralized Mauryan administration under the weak later-Mauryan rulers, leading to the decline and disintegration of the Mauryan Empire.

Other factors of importance contributing to the decline of the Mauryan empire have been described as Brahmanical revolt against the pro Buddhist policies of Ashoka and his successors, oppressive provincial governments and people’s revolt against Mauryan oppression, lack of representative institutions and national unity in Mauryan India. But except for the first two causes – Ashokas weak successors and division of the Mauryan Empire after Ashoka’s death – the other causes described above have weaknesses in their argument and therefore, cannot be called as positively responsible for the decline of the Mauryan Empire.