Talk:Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale by the India project.

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Article is property cited: criterion not met Article has one or more sections including LEAD: criterion not met Article is comprehensive: criterion not met Article includes some graphics (i.e., pictures or infoboxes): criterion not met Article is free of grammatical errors: criterion not met
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Following is the discussions over the article , mainly on the origin of him. The article was tagged NPOV. I have now created a separate article (this one) and request the intersted parties to discuss about the origin here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 False references used 1.1 Deletions 2 More examples of Bias 3 Deletions in Chandragupta Maurya 4 Reply to PHG 5 Further challenge based on Megasthenes and Arrian 6 More evidence against Fraudsters 7 IS THE FRAUDSTER CASTIEST, Mura and Maurya 8 Devi-Bhagtam & Markendeya Purana on Mauryas 9 Baseless Fraud and Juvenile Reply by Satbir 10 OPEN CHALLENGE TO FRAUDSTER ON REFERENCES 11 ON THE ORIGIN OF NANDAS/MAURYAS, PER TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTS 12 Modern Views on Maurya Origin 12.1 Scythian origins view 12.2 Northwestern origin 13 Vandalism 14 Bias 15 Vandalism 16 Here ends the copied talks

[edit] False references used

It seems like in History of India related links a new trend has started. Some speculators have started a vicious, fraudulant and hostile campaign to show that all great rulers in India had origins in North-west or Punjab. Blatant unsubstantiated work by some authors is being presented as "Another View or Fifth view and so on...".

The speculators are so drunk with haughtiness that they think If there was an ancient ruler of India it must have been from North-west. The traditional view known to India for Centuries is being presented as "Just Another View out of many different possibilities". Wild speculations are being presented as "matter of fact".

One example is a wild speculation that how could an "inexperienced" person from Bihar conquer the "hardy Punjabis" and establish his rule all across India? And that he himself must have been of Punjabi origins. Plutarch's words are presented as assured truth whereas traditional view is presented as highly sketchy is nature. If this is not fraud, what is? We would like to know in which ancient and historical work ChandraGupta Maurya is referred as belonging to some North-Western region.

Even in Modern times there are plenty of examples that Heartland of India, Uttrapradesh, bengal, Bihar, Madhyapradesh, Gujarat and South States have produced leaders of great stature who commanded the allegience of All Indians. Subhash Bose, Mahatma Gandhi, Viekananda, Aurobindo, Dayanand Saraswati and even in pre-british times the Marathas, the empire of Vijaynagar, and most assuredly Mauryas who most honest Indians know originated unequivocally from Bihar. These Leaders were as good or better than any leader North-West has produced.

This article therefore needs major changes. SanjayMohan 21:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hell, the article is very intersting as it stands now. It has given several alternatives on Chandragupta Maurya's origin and ancestry. Let it be left to the readers to make decisions as to which view to accept. There is no need to do any major overhaul for the article. If there are differences of opinions, let they be discussed here in the talk page before making any changes to the article. Satbir Singh 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

The readers are being fed on false POVs and they shall be removed. SanjayMohan 01:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate your views on POVs. If one reads carefully, the contributers have listed several view points, each of which has its own supporter among the scholars. Satbir Singh 03:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh.

I have checked with some of the references through Library of congress. The information quoted is highly speculative with no clear corelation. I will bring this up on discussion if need be. There is absolutely no historical account of these speculations. If you can scan the image or original text from plutarch or megasthenes saying Chandragupta was a Punjabi, then I will be happy to accept it. SanjayMohan 10:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Hi SanjayMohan. Thank you for your research on the sources. Should they be inexistant, they have to be eliminated, but please refrain doing so until you do clarify the situation. In the meantime, I will reinstate the article in its original form. Your previous comments clearly indicate your dislike for alternative views, but that's no basis to erase them. Wikipedia policy of No original research means that individual opinions or interpretations have no place in the editing of article, but instead only referenced/ published work should be relied on. Conversely, a published opinion, even if marginal or to your dislike, has the right to be presented on the page. I didn't write any of the article content, so please consider my intervention as quite neutral. PHG 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

TO PHG: Your intervention is not neutral. The sources are existing, but they do not support the text. I have no dislike for alternative views. But they must be grounded on solid evidence. There is no evidence here. Pure rumor mongering. The text of this article is purely POVs. You are also wrong in stating that "published opinion" should be part of the content. If I publish some garbage by paying a few dollars to someone should then my "published opinion" be trumpeted too? A credible encyclopedia must be thorough and particular even on the published sources. What are the authors stating? What are the authors sources? After refering the sources, what conclusions have they arrived at? Are these conclusions based on figments of imagination, hot-gas or something substantial.

Are the authors misrepresenting their sources to artificially arrive at a conclusion? All this matters! A solid well-research book honestly and faithfully basing conclusions based on ancient and original source should not get the same amount of coverage and writing space as a work which is highly speculative and possibly intentionally fraudulant in nature.

You have not written the article. But that does not mean you are a healthy or a neutral mediator. besides the mediator must read the article carefully and must also have some knowledge of the subject with an impartial and unbiased mind.

These article is replete with such blatant non-sense and speculation, that I am not sure if Wikipedia is serving as a free source of credible information or a free source of fraudulant information in the garb of "well researched work".

The most dangerous part is the poisoning of minds who will read this.

 Here are some examples to show outright fraud and speculation:

1. 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" [27]. This important factor again points to north-west connections of Chandragupta Maurya.

Note: The fact that ChandraGupta Led an army of north-western tribes does not "automatically" mean that he himself was north-western in origin. This is just like saying that since an Iberian Spaniard rose to become Caesar of Rome, therefore he was also a Roman.

2. Some small particulars which happen to be recorded are sufficient to show that in the time of the early Maurya Emperors, the court was affected by Iranian practices. The Arthashastra of Kautiliya advises that the king when consulting the Physicians and ascetics should be seated in the room where the sacred fire has been kept. Likewise, there was a custom of burning sacred fire in the room where the meetings of Council of Ministers were held. This attests that the Zoroastrian rituals were practiced and honored at Mauryan court. Moreover, the ceremonial washing of king's hair was made the occasion of a splendid festival when courtiers offered rich tributes to the king. This observance recalls the ancient Persian hair-washing ceremony on the sovereign's birthday as described by Herodotus......

Note: The text says that mention of a sacred fire means "Persian origin of Ch. Maur.". This is false interpretation. Sacred fire has been kept in India since at least as long as Persia and probably much earlier. In India its called Agnihotra. All Hindu ceremonies in India including marriage rites, entering a new home, birth of a child, cremation of the dead etc etc involve fire altars with sacred fire. This is well-documented in Rig-Veda which is at least 1000 years older than Ch. Maur.

3. Scholars of this school are also not convinced as to "how an inexperienced youth far from Bihar with no social, political or military standing in the north-west and with inadequate monetary and other resources of his own" could have conquered the TOUGH AND HARDY people of Punjab and north-west frontiers. It had taken Alexander, the world conqueror, over 16 months to subdue the land from east Afghanistan to river Bias spanning over a distance of just 500 miles. This calculates to conquering only one mile per day.[25] The scholars also argue that it is not a custom to assume a family name after one's mother's name. Thus, to say that Chandragupta had adopted the Maurya name after his Dasi mother Mura does not sound at all convincing. Moreover, Chandragupta would have certainly disliked to be recognised as the son of dasi (Hindi:maid) Mura, a keeper of pea-cocks (Mayuras)......

Note: The scholars of this school have wild theories. The text says "how can an inexperienced youth from Bihar...". This is blatant speculation. "How could he?", "...Does not sound at all convincing...", CONVINCING TO WHOM?. Speculators of course! Should ChandraGupta rise from the ashes to convince these morons that he really did it?

Note 2: Who said it is not customary to go after mother's name. Customary to whom? To the speculators of course! The word customary itself is highly speculative in nature. The customs of today can be quite different from customs of yesterday.

4. Dr J. W. McCrindle thinks that they both POSSIBLY belonged two different sections of the Ashvakas [21]......

Note: This is again a speculation. There is no ancient source which says ChandraGupta belonged to Ashvakas.

5. Appian of Alexandria (95CE-165CE), author of a Roman History attests that Chandragupta, the king of the Indians, lived near river Indus which evidence again points at the north-west frontier borderlands....

Note: Just because a german lives in France, should we interpret that this German is French. Blatant non-sense. We do not even know during which years exactly or approx. Ch.Maur. Lived on Indus. How can we make such sweeping claims that he was "from" Indus. There is a light year gap between "from Indus" and "Lived in Indus". Even today millions of Indians live away from their native provinces. bengalis live in Punjab. Punjabis live in Karnataka. Rajasthanis live in Orissa. etc etc.

6. Plutarch: Plutarch himself is not sure what and who he is mentioning. Even today it is a matter of open debate whether the person whom Plutarch mentions as Sandrokottus was ChandraGupta or not. IMPORTANT NOTE: There was not just one person by name ChandraGupta. Chandra and Gupta are very common names in India. Besides, Plutarch has mentioned several different variations of Ch. throughout.

SO, unless you have solid unspeculative sources, these speculations are worth and legitimately worth deleting. Your statement also shows that you havent paid any attention to the article itself and simply jumped to conclusions. SanjayMohan 12:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More examples of Bias

...Lastly, there is yet another school of scholars like redoubtable B. M. Barua, J. W. McCrindle, Dr D. B. Spooner, Dr H. C. Seth, Dr Hari Ram Gupta, Dr Ratanjit Pal, Gur Rattan Pal Singh and many others who connect...

Note: To artificially boost the claims a subtle and subliminal word has been in above sentence. "ReDoubtable". Redoubtable to whom? By the fraudster who wrote this text of course!

[edit] Deletions in Chandragupta Maurya

The quotes you are mentionning are from published sources (when I mean publish, I mean from a reputable, regular, publisher), and, honestly, the suggestions made cannot be totally rejected. I have long read, in numerous books, that Chandragupta Maurya may have been from the northwestern area. You cannot just reject such sources just because of your judgement that they are "speculations": this is just your POV. I suggest you keep them in the article, and relabel them something like "Alternative hypothesis" if you wish. I agree that some of the parts are poorly written , but that it rather a grammatical issue. Regards PHG 13:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to PHG

They have to be totally rejected because these are speculations without "any historical basis".

You have long read, in numerous books. Which books? May I know? Which books tell you he was from North-Western Area. Your wishy-washy language makes me extremely suspicious of your agenda here. And you are using the word "quite honestly"?

Till now you have not provided a single ancient source which points to these north-western origins. My judgement that they are speculations is because they are. When some modern author is writing an account of something more than 2000 years ago, he/she must provide references from that era. This is not my POV. THIS IS COMMONSENSE! I also strongly feel that you are accusing me of POV so that you can put me on a defensive! This strategy will not work.

From my side I am providing a link on the entire online work from Plutarch, the famous Greek Author who was close to the times of ChandraGupta and Alexander. http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Plutarch.html I challenge you to show me where it is written Ch.Maur was from Punjab.

I will also report you to the "administrators" if you dont fix your rumor mongering as I suspect that you have some hidden agenda here.

All I am asking/requesting the writer of the text is to show where in ancient sources like Plutarch, Megasthenes or Mudrarakshas all three of which are from the same or closely following era explicitely say that ChandraGupta Maurya was from North-West? Is that too much to ask? The anonymous author of this speculative text should come out and show me where in the above mentioned writings of Plutarch is mentioned that Ch.Maur was a Punjabi?

It is not me who is engaging in False POVs it is you. SanjayMohan 15:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further challenge based on Megasthenes and Arrian

I have gone through this book and I challenge you to show me on which page and which line does it say Ch.Maur. was a Punjabi? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8121509483/qid=1141659082/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-7354507-4281747?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 Mark my words!! You and the writer of this fabrication have been caught RED-HANDED. I am not sure if your assertion has any more weight than James Frey. SanjayMohan 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More evidence against Fraudsters

In another book by JW McCrindle, it is clearly mentioned that Megasthenes referred to or spoke of several different chandraGuptas. There is Sandrokottus, Sandrokoptus, Androkottus and so on. Was megasthenes a lunatic that he referred to Chan. Maur. by three different meaningless variations or was there more to it? SanjayMohan 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is very easy go type baseless speculation thinking that no one will go to original sources, but very difficult to be honest. SanjayMohan 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IS THE FRAUDSTER CASTIEST, Mura and Maurya

Fraudster argues that "...Moreover, Chandragupta would have certainly disliked to be recognised as the son of dasi (Hindi:maid) Mura, a keeper of pea-cocks (Mayuras).[26]...".

WOULD HAVE? VOW what an original evidence! I would like to know from which ancient source this "would have" claim arises? I suspect this as another case of reckless fraud.

There are countless examples in ancient India where sons of low class women have rose to attain status even higher than the "so called kshatriyas" which Frauster is not probably aware of because of his lack of knowledge. Example one, Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa the author of Mahabharat and the greatest living sage of his era was born from the womb of Satyavati, a shudra fisher woman. He fathered, Dhritrashtra the father of Kauravs and Pandu the father of Pandavs and Vidur. That means MOST of the warriors in MAHABHARAT had LOW-CLASS BLOOD.

Example two, Mark! Vidur was again born from the womb of a Shudra Daasi, or servant, and drank the milk from her breasts. And went on to write a celebrated work on Statecraft which is revered throughout India as Vidur-Niti.

There are other countless examples in ancient times. By all means ChandraGupta would never feel low or depressed, if anything, he would be proud of his inter-caste heritage. It is only the castiest Fraudster who is anxious to prove that Ch.Maur. was some sort of Pure Warrior! SanjayMohan 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have following comments to make here.

Moriya or Maurya obviously seem s to be a clan name derived from the Mor (a region in Swat/Kunar) as this article refers to. There is one evidence I like to quote here. The Devi-Mahatam (Ancient Hindu Mythological story----In Markendeya Purana) describes a war between the Devas and Danvas (or Asuras). Among the Asuras are mentioned all the tribes of Afgfhanistan like Kambus (Kambojas), Kotiviryas, Kalakas, Daurhrdas, Kalakeyas (Afridis) and also interstingly the Mauryas and the etc.

Illustration: Now let the eighty-six asuras - upraising their weapons - with all their forces, and the eighty-four Kambus, surrounded by their own forces, go out. 5. 'Let the fifty asura families of Kotiviryas and the hundred families of Dhaumras go forth at my command. 6. 'Let the asurasa Kalakas, Daurhrdas, the Mauryas and the Kalakeyas hasten at my command and march forth ready for battle.' 7. After issuing these orders, Sumbha, the lord of the asuras and a ferocious ruler, went forth, attended by many thousands of big forces [1].

This Durga-Devi-vs-Danvas (Asuras=Ahuras= i.e Ahuramazda worshippers = i.e Iranians) war had taken place around region involving Hindukush (also called Caucasus, Himalaya, Imaos, Himados etc). The region was pure Iranian as even a reader with average IQ would know of. Does any one thinks that the Mauryas mentioned in this war in the north-west were a clan derived from the Mura, so-called maid-servant mother of Chandragupta and did this Maurya clan of Devi-Mahatam really belong to Bihar? This Moriya/Mauria clan (of Devi-Mahatam) obviously refers to the people/clan from the Mor region (or Meros of the Classical writings) in eastern Afghanistan/around Hindu-Kush.

Besides this, the contributors of this article have provided creditable reference which must be respected. And, yes I see some minor POV in this article which needs to be corrected.

Satbir Singh 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

[edit] Devi-Bhagtam & Markendeya Purana on Mauryas

How can you associate a MYTHOLOGICAL STORY "in your own words" with reality? besides does this passage say that ChandraGupta belonged to Mauryas who were asuras? Is this a work of history or giving a historical allegory? Do we even know when it was approximately written? Is it not pure speculation? I can also reverse question you by asking "How can we associate the Mura-putra ChandraGupta Maurya with Iran and Punjab? Even the Singh Surname is widespread in India. In south its called Simha, In north its Singh in Gnagetic as well as Indus belt.

LETS FOR A MOMENT IMAGINE THAT YOUR WILD SPECULATION HAS SOME TRUTH, EVEN THEN, ON WHAT BASIS ARE YOU ASSERTING THAT A CERTAIN MYTHOLOGICAL MAURYA TRIBE IS SAME AS CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA?

I feel that Punjabis are in desperate need to show that they too produced great leader in the past, so they are resorting to fraud.

There are Sharmas in Bihar, Uttarpradesh, Punjab and even South India, such as karnataka. Are all these Sharmas from SAME CLAN? IS there a limit to such non-sense? SanjayMohan 05:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What a non-sense?

The sources being cited here sources are from your own Hindu-texts. They are not anybody else's creation. How can you disbelieve your own ancient sources?. Even if the legend is mythological, still the clans named are real characters which belonged to north-west region and many can still be identified.

And, read Political History of Ancient India, 1996, pp 4-5 by Dr H. C. Raychaudhury and Dr B. N. Mukerjee. These scholars identify the Maurya clan omentioned in the Devi-Bhagtam/Markendeya Purana with the Maurya Clan of Chandragupta and take it as Asura/Demon. There are further references citing King Ashoka as an incarnation of Maha-Asura---i.e. great Demon (See: Adiparva I.67.13-14).... Even Buddha has been spoken ill of by Brahmanical sources etc. The instances are endless.

Satbir Singh 05:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

Satbir, You are drunk with violence and anger. Please have self-control. I have confirmed this one ref. provided by you and incorporated in the text. But there are major speculations and fraud in the text you keep reverting. This is not healthy. Please refrain and discuss it on Talk page with me and others. I am only interested in accuracy and honesty. I am myself not a Bihari, so you cannot call me a fanatic. If that were true, I would try to locate Ch.Maur. in Andaman and Nicobar Islands or some really exotic place like antarctic. SanjayMohan 06:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable:

• Sanjay your statement that the ancestry of Chandragupta is definetly established is a baseless and reflects your personal opinion only. In reality, there is no agreement among the scholars on this issue. The ancestry of Mauryans is still shrouded in mystery (Dr V. D. Mahajan, Dr H. C. raychaudhury). The Scholars are still at variance regarding Maurya origin and their background. The information provided by ancient Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jaina texts differ materially from each other. Sometimes, the two texts of the same canon also are at wide discordance, therefore, making them quite unreliable to give a decision on this issue. Hence, there are still justifiably several views among the scholars who take none of these ancient texts as completely trustworthy.

• It is true that while some Indian and foreign historinas link Chandragupta to Magadha, there are other scholars like B. M. Barua (a distinguished Indian scholar of ancient History), Dr J. W. McCrindle, Dr D. B. Spooner (both foreigner schoars of repute), Dr Hari Ram Gupta (A note scholar, Head of History Deptt, Punjabi University Patiala), Dr H. C. Seth, Dr Ratanjit Pal and many other scholars who reject the Magadhan origin of Chandragupta and rather connect him to north-western frontiers, including the Taxilla, Gandhara, Paropamisadae (Kunar/Swat valleys). This land was indisputably the land of the Ashvakas, who were Kshatriyas and were a sub branch of the ancient tribe known by the general name Kamboja (Dr K. P. Jayswal, Dr E Lamotte, Dr Buddha Parkash, Dr Romila Thapar, Dr R. C. Majumdar, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury etc).

• The statements of classical writers like Justin, Plutarch and Appian if read carefully support north-west origin of Chandragupta Maurya. Based on Plutarch’s statement, Dr J. W. MccRindle, B . M. Barua, Dr Rattanjit Pal etc tend to identify Chandragupta with north-west region i.e Greater Punjab.

• The Devi-Bhagtam/Markendeya Purana reference ALSO supports Iranian Origin of the Mauryans.

Devi-Bhagtam on Mauryans:

• There is a reference to a Maurya clan in the Srimad Devi Bhagawatam (verses 5.28.1-12) and Markandeya Purana (verses 8.1-6). In the war between the Daevas (Vedic Indo-Aryans ) and Asuras (Iranians) the Mauryas were allies of the Asura forces like the Kambojas, Kalakeyas, Kotiviryas, Dhaumras, Kalakas and Daurhrdas—---all belonging to the north-west/Afghanistan. The scene of action was around Himalaya (See: Devi-Mahatam 5.89,90) as is clear from the text of the story. The Himalya of ancient traditions included Pamirs and Hindukush also (Himalaya of ancient Indian traditions is said to extend from from eastern Occean to western Occean: See: Kumarasambuvam, I.1; Critical Study of early Puranas, 1972, p 65, Dr M. R. Singh). A group of scholars identify the Maurya Asura clan of the above ancient texts with the Maurya clan of king Chandragupta and king Ashoka (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 4-5, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukherjee). The Adiparva of Mahabharata brands king Ashoka also as an Asura i.e. an incarnation of Maha-Asura (Mahabharata I.67.13-14 cf also XII.5.7), where in the present context, the term Asura is the Indian equivalent of Iranian Ahura (follower of Ahura-Mazda). This ancient reference therefore, obviously tends to prove the Iranian affinities of Chandragupta Maurya.

SANJAY's REPLY: The Bhagvat Puran says so because Ch.MAur became a Jain monk which did not go well with Brahmans of those days, so they condemned him by calling him an Asura. Your assertion that Maurya was an ally of NW tribes just does not hold water. SanjayMohan 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanjay Mohan writes:

• “However the views of these speculators have been widely rejected by mainstream media. These speculators are mainly punjabi or colonial in origin and have used ficticious evidence to locate ChandraGupta Mauryas ancestry to Punjab or somewhere in North-Western India. Besides, no new material or literary evidence linking ChandraGupta Maurya to any place other than Magadha has been discovered. The aforementioned speculators have also failed to answer why ChandraGupta Maurya did not re-locate the Capital of Mauryan Empire to somewhere in North-West India such as "Bhatinda" instead of Patliputra in Eastern India.”

[edit] Baseless Fraud and Juvenile Reply by Satbir

My answers:

• So you say that a distinguished Buddhist Scholar B. M. Barua (an Indian), noted Dr J. W. McCrindle, Dr D. B. Spooner (foreigners) , Dr Hari Ram Gupta etc etc are colonial or biased Punjabi scholars who wrote fictious history using fictious evidence!. Come on guy, you need to grow a little bit. BTW, what are your credentials?

These authors have first of all not given any primary sources in their writings which would state that ChndraGupta Maurya was a "PunJabi Puttar" or "Son of Iranian Pashas" and so on. They have "ASSUMED" that since CH.Maur. had some Frontier NW tribes in his army he was also a son of NW. This assertion is so laughable that no further comment is needed on this. Just because MARATHAS FAUGHT IRANIANS AND AFGHANIS in PAnipat and ATTOck does not mean they were from NW. You have lost all sense it seems!

PRIMARY SOURCES: PLUTRACH, ARRIAN, MEGASTHENES' original texts without footnote interpolations by McCrindle can be one Primary source. Another is MudraRakshas of course.

• There are ancient references which connect Chandragupta to Sakya clan of Nepal and to Moriya clan of Rajasthan. Some ancient texts connect him to solar race of Yuvanashva/ Mandhatri. Interstingly, James Tod connect the Yuvanashva with the Assakenois/Assacani/Ashvakas of east Afghanistan (See Origin of Rathor Rajput, Vol II, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan). Note that the ancient Indian traditions---whether Brahmanical, Buddhist or Jaina---they only give general outlines but not the precise picture.

HOW DO THEY CONNECT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT: DO the ancient sources clearly say "Ch.M was a scion of Moriya clan". Or just because of similar sounding words they are asserting it. If it is clearly written some whee that he was Moriya-Nandan, or Moriya-Putra of Moriya clan in Rajasthan, or mnetion some nearby town in Rajasthan then I will be the first one to add it in the article.

HOW has James tod connected him? HOW? If he is quoting a reliable primary source then yes, his secondary rendering should be included, otherwise not.

Only "RELIABLE AND SCHOLARLY" sources can be considered, not fraud.

• Chandragupta had conquered an established monarchy viz Nanda dynasty with capital at Pataliputra/Magadha. Theoretically, he was an outsider and an invader of Indian-mainland from Afghanistan. From strategic point of view, his keeping of the existing Capital at Pataliputra was more important than to establish a new one in the north-west since he was an inheritor to Nanda Empire. Hence, after stabalising and securing his north-west frontiers, Chandragupta had prefered to move to and establish his dynastic headquarters permanently at Magadha. Again, strategically, it was the right decision for Chandragupta to headquarter at Magadha.

ANSWER: This assertion of yours is clearly farudulant speculation. How do you know he was an outsider? Were you his Uncle? Besides the origins of Muslim invaders are clearly in Central Asia. There is no doubt in that. They always faced stiff and murderous rebellion from almost all parts of India all the time. "THEY WERE CONSTANTLY AT WAR WITH INDIANS". In Ch.Mr case only the NW rose in rebellion, so he had to go there to subdue them again. You yourself have written it. "Where as there were little or no rebelllions from Indians".

If at all, the needle strongly points to Ch.Mr being a native magadhan and a son of Nanda ruler. That is why entire India rallied behind him against Selucus Nicator and other outsiders. It is well-known throughout history how galvanized people become around the scion of a ruler in times of conflict.

Panna Daayi replaced her own son to save the live of the scion of the maratha rulers. In the same manner Shivaji's father was a local cheiftain, veryone saw Shivaji as the future ruler and rallied around him. Besides, it is entirely possible that Ch.Maur. rebelled against his own father since he was corrupt. The whole Mahabharat epic is filled with Grandson killing Grandfather, Son killing father, Uncle killing nephew, brother killing brother on fight over noble values.

It is "YOU WHO IS IGNORANT OF INDIAN HISTORY". PLEASE REFRAIN FROM THIS FRAUD.

THE word "connections" is very different from "origins". I can have connections with europe, America and China through friends, business and so on, but my origin is in India.

The TOPIC IS "ORIGINS"! NOT CONNECTIONS.

• The Lodhis, Pathan and Mogul invaders of India etc were all foreign invaders from Afghanistan/and Central Asia. Like Chandragupta, they too had conqurered India. Did they make some city in Afghanistan/Central Asia as their Capital? Dear Sanjay, read Indian history carefully, whenever a foreign invader had conquered India, most often, he made the existing capital as his own capital.

That is again a non-sensical assertion. None of the Invaders origins are contested. They were all clearly from Central Asia. Ch.Maurya's times were much different from medieval times. The Medieval wars were either for Independence or for Islamic LOOT and ARSON which is well documented.

As I said again you have shown serious ignorance of Indian History. Please dont POISON OTHER PEOPLE's MINDS. SanjayMohan 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OPEN CHALLENGE TO FRAUDSTER ON REFERENCES

If you can show even one reference clearly saying that Ch.Maurya was a scion of NW Iran Kingdoms or Punjab, I will immediately revoke all my rights to change this article. But simply leading an army does not mean he was a "Punjabi Puttar", or some such un-civilized non-sense.

Satbir Singh 05:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh.

[edit] ON THE ORIGIN OF NANDAS/MAURYAS, PER TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTS

PART I

A: ON NANDAS:

• The Puranic accounts (Brahmanical literature) say that Mahapadama Nanda (Mahapadapati, Ugersena), the founder ruler of Nanda dynasty was the son of the last Saisunaga king plus a Sudra mother (Vrishalamata).

• According to Jaina tradition preserved in Parisishtaparvana, the first Nanda was son of a Barber and a courtesan (ganika).

• According to Greek historian Curtius, the last king of Magadha whom he calls Agrammes was the son of Barber father and last queen of the preceeding line of rulers i.e queen of last king of Saisunaga line. The Agrammes is same as Xandrammes and is taken to be the classical equivalent of Augrasaina i.e son of Ugersena. King Augrasaina was the same as Dhana Nanda, the last ruler of Magadha. This classical information teaches that Mahapadama Nanda was of a Barber lineage.

• The Mudrarakshasa describes the Nandas as hailing from Prathita kula i.e illustrious or noble lineage.

• Scholars like Dr Buddha Parkash, Dr B. C. Law etc conjecture that the Nandas were from Kshatriya lineage.

COMMENTS: The above information is being given here simply to illustrate the fact that the ancient references must be given very careful scrutiny before accepting any of the historical information contained in them. It is very amusing to note that there are glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies in the various hypotheseis on the origin and ancestry of Nandas as seen from the above ancient references. Which is taken to be more trustworthy and reliable?.

QUESTION HERE: How can a dynasty of Barber or Nai (a lowly caste) rulers be considered of noble/illustrious lineage as Mudrarakshas wants us to believe? (Note: The Indian Brahmanical caste-system treats the Barbers/Nais as of low caste).

B. ON THE MAURYAS: Mudrarakshas and Brahmanical literature:

• Mudrarakshasa Play (act II, V 5) calls Chandragupta a Maurya-putra (son of a Maurya) but act IV refers to him as Nandanvaya i.e of Nanda lineage (Act II, pp 134-136, 141-143 etc).

• Mudrarakshas play also labels Chandragupta as of Vrishala (Sudra/degraded) and Kula-hina i.e of degraded lineage.

• Pandits Kshmendra and Somadeva (mediaval age Sanskrit writers) call him as a Purva-Nanda (i.e Real/genuine/authentic son of Nanda king) as opposed to Yogananda i.e illegitimate or pseudo son of Nanda.

This Kshamendra's and Somadeva's evidence calling Chandragupta as a genuine/legitimate/real son of Nanda does not fit with the evidence of Mudrarakshas which certifies that the Nandas belonged to the noble/illustious lineage and Chandragupta belonged to the Vrishala/Kulhina i.e degraded lineage.

• Commentator of Vishnu Purana states that Chandragupta was son of king Nanda from a women named Mura (IV.24 Wilson, IX.187). Hence he was called Maurya after her mother’s name.

• Dhundiraja, 18th century commentator of Mudrarakshasa however states that Chandragupta was eldest son of someone called Maurya. This Maurya is said to have been the son of Nanda king Sarvarithasiddhi from a keep girl named Mura who was daughter of a Vrishala (Sudra) father.

JAINA TRADITIONS:

• Jaina tradition describes Chandragupta Moriya as the maternal grand son of the headman of the village of peacock-tamers (Mayurapshaka). Note that there is no reference to king Nanda here.

BUDDHIST TRADITIONS:

• The Buddhist traditions preserved in Mahavamsa describe him as son of the Chief of the Moriya (peacock) clan. Again note that there is no reference to king Nanda here.

• Mahavamsa describes Chandragupta as coming of Kshatriya clan of Maurya:

Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata. (Geiger Trans p 27).

• Mahavamsa further testifies connection between the Moriya/Maurya and the Mayura/Mora (i.e. peacock) (Turnour, Mahavamsa xxxiv, f).

• Divyavadana (Cowel and Neil, Ed p 370) describes Bindusara Maurya, the son of Chandragupta Maurya, as an anointed Kshatriya (Kshatriya Murdhbhishika).

• Same text Divyavadana also describes Ashoka as Kshatrya (Cowel and Neil, Ed p 409).

(Note: compare this Kshatriya lineage with Vrishala or Sudra lineage of Mudrarakshasa and some Brahmanical texts)

• The Buddhist Mahaparinanibbana Sutta refers to one minor clan of Pippalivanna (in modern UP) whom it calls Moriya and labels it as of Kshatriya caste (Sacred Books of the East, XI, pp 134-135). Based on the data furnished above, it has been SPECULATED by many scholars that the ancestors of Chandragupta were from this above Moriya clan of Pippalivana.

Buddhist traditions also attest that a clan called Moriya was ruling in 6th c BCE in Pippalivana, which lay between Rumindei and Kasia, about 56 miles west of Kusinagar. This minor tribe, which finds only a passing reference in some Buddhist traditions, is speculated by scholars to have disappeared politically under Nanda expansionism.

COMMENTS: One may read the above references and note wide variations on the origin and ancestry of Chandragupta. Some texts call the Mauryas as Vrishalas, while the others say they were Kshatriyas. Some say Chandragupta was son of a mother called Mura but others say he was son of a father called Maurya. Some seem to link him with Nanda line while the others do not make any such reference. Some seem to connect him with Pea-cock tamers (Mayurapokshaka) while the thers link him to a minor clan of Kashatrias called Moriyas. All these versions of the story can not be true at the same time. Therefore, there definitely exists an element of untrustworthiness and unreliability on the origin of Mauryans. All the references which are presented on the ancestry of Mauryas were written several centuries after the Maurya reign. This implies that the authors of these ancient texts only resorted to conjecturs or speculations at the time of writing. The historical truth of these speculations can only be taken with a grain of salt. Since, the political and residential head-quarters of the Mauryans, the inheritors to the Nanda empire happened to be in eastern India, many scholars tend to connect Mauryan dynasty either with the Nandas or else with a minor insignificant clan called Moriya which had ruled in Pippalivan during 6th century BCE. THe clan is speculated to have been merged into the Maggadha empire by Nandas in fouth century. But the substantive evidence to support either of these claims is lacking and the proposed connection is therefore based on mere speculation only.

It is important to note that Chandragupta Maurya had become very tyrannical in the last years of his rule before he died in ~300 BC (Ref: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 235, fn 1). It is therefore not too difficult to conceive that he may have been scandalised by his subjects as an alter image of the Nandas. Though earlier considered as an emanicipator, but due to tyranny committed by him on public in later years, Chandragupta must have been thought no better than his predecessors, the Nandas. The Indian chroniclers appear to have invented or relied on baseless and juicy stories about Chandragupta, designed to slanderise his character and image in commensurate with his tyranny. Otherwise also, baseless stories and myths get spread among the illiterate masses about the royal lines, which sometimes unfortunately become a part of the authentic history.

HISTORY & CULTURE of INDIAN PEOPLE writes:

"It is now generally believed that the old clan name Moriya offers a more satisfactory explaination of Maurya, the name of the dynasty founded by Chandragupta than the supposed derivation from his mother named MURA or father named MAURYA. We may therefore readily accept the view that Chandragupta belonged to the KSHATRYA clan called Moriya originally ruling over Pippalivanna which probably lay in U.P..." (Views from: Hist and Cult of Indian People, The Age of Imerial Unity, p 56, (Ed) Dr R. C. Majumdar, Dr A. D. Pusalkar, forward Dr K. D. Munshi etc).

Besides above, other texts like Political History of Ancient India, 1996 p 236-37 ... by Dr H. C. Raychaudhury and Dr B. N. Mukherjee, and the Ancient India, 2002, p 284-85 --- by Dr V. D. Mahanjan scholars also hold similar views.

CONCLUDING TEXT OF HIST & CULT of INDIAN PEOPLE:

"According to tradition preserved in Buddhist texts, Chandragupta's father was the chief of the Moriya (Maurya) clan, who was killed in a border clash, leaving his wife destitute. She had to seek safety at far-off PUSHAPURA where she gave birth to a child, Chandragupta. The boy was brought up first by a cowherd and later by a hunter (who has bought Chandragupta from the cowherd). THe child grew up in the village and asserted his predominance among his rural companions by playing the king with them (Rajakilam). This attracted the notice of Chanakya who happened to pass through that village and seeing the promise of greatness the child, he bought him from hunter and took him away his native city Taxila. There he gave him through education in all the arts and sciences to fit him for his appointedf task." (Hitory and Culture of Indian People, The Age of Imerial Unity, p 56 (Ed) Dr R. C. Majumdar, Dr A. D. Pusalkar, forward by Dr K. D. Munshi etc).

COMMENTS: WHO WAS A THIS MORIYA CLAN??: It is notewothy that the ancient Buddhist traditions are very vague and do not clearly and indisputably specify the identity of the Maurya/Moriya clan which Chandragupta belonged to. Based on circumstancial evidence, the scholars have speculatively identitified the Maurya clan of Chandragupta with the Moriya clan of Pippalivanna. This Moriya clan finds reference as a mere passing shadow in Indian history and only in the Buddhist text alone. It was indeed a very minor and insignificant clan living/ruling in the north of UP during 6th c BCE. Since political and residential headquarters of the Mauryans were located in Pataliputra/Magadha, and since the Mauryans were also the immediate successors to the Nanda empire of Magadha, some ancient chroniclers have naturally connected the Mauryans to the Magadha or to East India. But there is no indisputable and substatintive evidence to firmly support Chandragupta and his Mauryan line to Eastern India. Rather the available evidence is such that there is a school of noted scholars who like to affine Chandragupta and his clan to north-west India.

ISSUE OF PUSHPAPURA

• There is a reference to PUSHPAPURA as the birth place of Chandragupta (per Buddhist traditions). Two Pushpapuras are attested in the Indian literature.

• (i)Pushpapura is stated to be ancient name of Pataliputra. Personally I know for sure that Kusumpura was the ancient name of Pataliputra which name is attested in the Brahmanical texts of second/First c BCE. But I'm not sure if Pataliputra was ever called Pushpapura in ancient period. My gut feeling is that Pushpapura, as an alternative name for Kusumpura/Pataliputra, if any is of Mediaval era origin, unless some reader comes up with ancient reference/evidence to prove it otherwise.

• (ii)The second Pushpapura was located in north-west. This PUSHPAPURA is powerfully attested in the ancient inscriptions belonging to the Saka age i.e Christian times (See: Acta Orientalia, xvi, para iii, 1937, pp 234ff, Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 392, Dr H. C Raychaudhury). The following three strapies are attested in these ancient inscriptions of Saka period belong to the start of Christian era and they all belong to Gandhara/Kamboja in the north-west:

(i)Kapisi, (ii)Pushpapura (iii)Abhisara-prastha (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 392, Dr H. C Raychaudhury on Pushpapura and its geographical location)

The strapy of PUSHPAPURA was so named after the city of Pushpapura which was located between Kapishi (Begram) and Abhisara (Doab of Indus and Jhelum). It is said to be ancient name of Peshawar. In Parthian and Greek inscriptions, the name Pushpapura is said to have appeared as Pushkbur/Pasikaboura which city was the limit of Sassanian empire in the east (See: The Pathans, 1958, pp 33, 441, Olaf Caroe).

• The Ananga Ranga (The Hindu Art of Love) also groups the city/place name PUSHPAPURA with the Madda-Desa (Madradesa = north-western Punjab) and attests both of them lying in the north-west division of ancient India (See: The Ananga Ranga/Hindu Art of Love , 2003, p 52, Kessinger Publishing, Richard F. Burton).

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Author of The Political History of Ancient India (Dr H. C. Raychadhury), though very through in his treatment of the subject, no where refers to the Pataliputra as Pushpapura. He however refers to Pataliputra as Kusumpura which is understandable.

To me, the Pushpapura of the Buddhist traditions most likely is the Pushpapura of north-west frontiers which was an ancient city of Gandhara. This may imply that the (Moriya) clan of Chandragupta may have belonged to the Mor region of Swat/Kunar. After the death of Chandragupta’s father in the upper KUnar/Swat valley border clash (Mor region), Chandragupta’s mother may have found a refuge in the Pushuppura (i.e Peshawar of Gandhara) accross Kabol river.

NOTE: Let some reader come up with an ancient evidence attesting Pushpapura as the ancient name of Pataliputra or some other place in east India. Until then, it can tentatively be assumed that name Pushpapura (for Pataliputra, east India) had originated later than the Pushpapura (for Peshawar, the north-west).

• The Mor-Coh or Mer-Coh, the name of the hilly region between river Indus and Kabol river is located in the Swat/Kunar valleys. Also called Koh-i-Mor i.e Mor hill. It was known as Meru since very remote antiquity as per Sanskrit texts. Greek writings call it Mt Meros. According to some scholars, the people of Mor region, to all probability, were the Maurya Asuras of the Devi-Mahatam and of the Markendeya Purana. The Mor region was the abode of the Ashvakas. The people of this region appear to have also been called Mauryas/Moriyas after the place-name epithet since they belonged to place called Mor/Mer.

• Mauriyas, as an Asura clan, are clearly referenced in Brahmanical texts like Srimad Devi Bhagawatam (verses 5.28.1-12) and Markandeya Purana (verses 8.1-6). These Mauryas had formed a battle-alliance with the Hindukush tribes such as the Kambojas, Afridis etc which evidently connects them with north-west frontiers, and more specifically, with eastern Afghanistan. The land of action is obviously the region around Hindukush (See: Devi-Mahatama 5.89,90; See also: The Shrimad-Devi-Bhagawatam, trans: Swami Vijnanananda 1921-22, p 451). The Mauryas are branded as an Asura clan in these Brahmanical texts. The event alludes to a war between ancient Indo-Aryans and the Iranians. On the surface, this ancient war seems to be mythological but in reality, it alludes to a remote historical event which refers to some faintly remembered border clash between the Daevas (Indo-Aryans) and the Iranians (Asuras =Ahura-Mazda followers, the Iranians) around/following the great divide.

Kambojas, Sakas, Yonas, Mauryas in Sri Lanka

• A ruler called Moeres (king of the Moris) finds mention in the classical accounts. This king is stated to have been ruling in lower Indus during Alexander’s Invasion (326 BCE)(Diodorus evidence; See: Alexander’s Invasion of India, p 256, J. W. McCrindle). According to Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, the name Moeres of this ruler of lower Indus probably implies reference to Maurya clan (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 229, Dr Raychaudhury).

• (i)It is very likely that some population of these Moeris of lower Indus had moved to Sri Lanka. Ancient cave inscriptions of Sri Lanka (Second c BCE) make mention of ethnic groups such as the KABOJA, MURIDI, MERAYA, JHAVAKA, DAEMEDA, MILEKA as living in Sri Lanka around/earlier than second c BCE. According to scholars, the Kabojas were Kambojas, the Muridis were Murindas (Sakas) and the Merayas were Mauryas. The Daemedas were Dravids and Milekas were Mlechchas i.e the Veddas or the aborigines of Sinhala (See: History of Ceylone, Vol I, Part I, p 88-89, Dr S. Parnavitana)

See Also Internet Link: http://www.infolanka.com/org/srilanka/hist/hist18.html

Evidence on Yona/Yavanas in Sri Lanka. Besides the above referenced communities living in Sri Lanka as specifically mentioned in the ancient Sinhalese inscriptions, there is also evidence that the Yonas/Yavanas had also reached Sri Lanka in Pre-Christina times. Buddhist texts attest that the Yonas or Yavanas had reached Sri Lanka in pre-Christian times and founded a Yona colony "Pandukabhaya" in Anuradhapura/Sri Lanka. (See: History of Ceylone, Vol I, Part I, pp 88-89, Dr S Parnivatana, Ancient Kamboja, People and the Country, 1981, p 343, Dr Kamboj). (Also see Dictionary of Pali Proper Names). The EVIDENCE BELOW from Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (DPPN) also lends credibility to this view:

"Alasanda: A city in the land of the Yonas. There was a large Buddhist community there and it is said, in the Mahávamsa (See: Mahavamsa xxix.40), that on the occasion of the foundation of the MaháThúpa by Dutthagámani, the thera Yonaka Mahá Dhammarakkhita came to Anurádhapura from Alasanda with 30,000 monks." [2]

ONLY the Damedas (Dravidians) and the Milekas [the Mlechchas--- the Veddas (the aborigines of Sinhala)] of the Inscriptions were the two important non-Aryan ethinic groups living in ancient Sri Lanka before Christian times. The Kabojas (Kambojas), the Muridis (Sakas/Murindas), Yonas or Yavanas and the Merayas (Moriyas) were the four Aryan/Scytho_Aryan ethnic groups which had found access to this far-off island and are attested to have been living in Sinhala.

Thus a communication of the people from north-west with ancient Sri Lanka is confirmed from ancient Buddhist traditions and Sri Lankan inscriptions. The joint reference to Kabojas/Kambojas, Yonas/Yavans, Sakas/Muridis and the Meryas/Mauryas in Sri Lanka connects the Sri Lakan Mauryas with Moeris of lower Indus, the Moris of Chittor and further also with the Mauryas/Moryas of the Kabol valley (Meros of the classical writings).

Since originally, the Kambojas, Sakas and the Yavanas are known to belong to the north-west, the fourth community i.e the Meryas/Mauryas, by corolary, also appears to have been from the north-west.

• (ii)There are inscriptional references to a Mori clan in the Annals of Mewars/Rajasthan. In seventh/eigth century AD, Udaipur was under the rule of Maun Mori (Mori is a branch of Parmars) who was then the ruling king of Chittor. (Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2002, pp 77, 78, 87, 185, 187-188; also see Inscription details at p 626-627 in the same text, James Tod). Scholars like James Tod connect this Mori clan of Rajputana inscriptions with the clan of Chandragupta Morya (op cit, p 77).

We very well know that the Kambojas are also attested as living in Gujarat/Saurashtra in post-Christian times..SEE: [3] [4]. Thus, it appears very likely that the Mori ruling clan of Avanti/Rajasthan (of 7th c AD) was obviously a section from the Moeris clan attested to have been living in the lower Indus during Alexander's times. A part of these Moeris (from lower Indus) and the Kambojas are likely to have moved to Sri Lanka during third/second century BCE. The remainder population of Moeris may have moved to south-western Rajasthan around Christian times and founded a kingdom there. The Kambojas had also established their kingdom in this region as is referenced above.

Dr H. C. Raychaudhury writes that "In Rajputana Gazetteer, the Moris (Mauryas) are described as a Rajput clan" (Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 236; also: The Mewar Residency, II A, compiled by Major K. D. Ersekine, p 14). They are most likely the same Moris people whom James Tod makes reference in his Annals and Antiquities as stated above (Ibid).

GREEK ACCOUNTS:

• Classical historian Appian attests that Antrocottos (Chandragupta), king of Indians dwelt on Indus on its eastern banks (Appian XI-55). The time frame which this references refers to is 310-305 BCE. This evidence attests that king Antrocottos belonged to north-west region.

• Plutarch makes a statement that Androcottos had met Alexander when the former was a mere lad (small boy). The time of this event was 326 BCE ("Chandragupta’s first emergence from obscurity into the full view of history occurs in 326-25 B.C. when he met Alexander" says Dr H. C. Raychaudhury), when Alexander was in the heart of Punjab. Based on Plutarch's evidence, Dr J. W. McCrindle concludes that Chandragupta belonged to north-west region (Greater Punjab). Since the date of birth of Chanakya is stated to be 345 BCE and Chandragupta was probably 4-5 years younger to Chanakya, hence the age of Chandragupta at the time of this meet with Alexander was probably 14-15 years. A young lad of 14-15 can not be expected to have come all the way from eastern India to far-off north-west to meet the World conqueror. It seems very probable that Chandragupta had belonged to some local ruling family of north-west. Classical accounts tell us that several princes from the ruling families of north-west frontiers (like Omphes (Ambhi of Taxila), Sangaeus of Peukelaotis (Pushklavati), Kophaios (ruler of Kubha or Kabol), Sisikottos (of Assakenois) and Assagetes etc) had met Alexander personally and cooperated with him in his compaigns. It is not unreasonable to think that Chandragupta may also have met Alexander in similar context, like the above several princes from north-west, and may also have actually cooperated with him initially. The circumstantial evidence strongly points to north-west origin of Chandragupta and also indicates that he was from royal family.

• Greek writer Justin attests that Sandrocottos had annoyed Nandrum (i.e. Nanda king--Dhana Nanda) and sensing danger had to flee to save his life. One school of scholars believe that this incidence had occured when Chanakya had visited Magadha to make presentation for his Political thesis called "Arathshastra" to the Acharyas at Pataliputra in the presence of king Nanda of Magadha. Chandragupta, the most illustrious and devoted student of Chanakya had accompanied the latter during this visit to Magadha. Chanakya had won competetion and the award for his outstanding contibution to Political Science but for some reasons, Dhanna Nanda was annoyed at Chanakya and insulted him badly. It was at the same occasion that Chandragupta, Chanakya's dedicated student, had annoyed Nanda with his bold and outspoken speech (probably in support of his teacher) and subsequently had to flee from the scene to save his life. As a result of series of these events, Chanakya had pledged to destroy Nanda kingdom of Magadha using Chandragupta, his illustruious student, as his most powerful weapon. (See: Was Chandragupta Mauryan a Punjabi?, Punjabi History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, pp 32-35, Dr H. R. Gupta, The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, p 151-152, S Kirpal Singh).

There is another version of the above story according to which Chanakya had gone alone to Pataliputra. On being insulted, he had left Pataliputra in disgust but had silently vowed to destroy Dhana Nanda. On his way back to Taxila, he chance-met a small kid Chandragupta playing the role of king with his friends in the outer skirts of Pataliputra. Shrewed Brahmin Chanakya is said to have immediately spotted great potentialities in the young kid and bought him from the hunter so that he could give practical shape to his plan to destroy Dhana Nanda.

As can be seen, this version of story seems to sound more like a Phantasy than a historical fact.

Hence, it is more probable that young Chanakya was accompanied by his young and brilliant desciple Chandragupta when the former had visited Pataliputra. This version which is based on the evidence of Justin, as corolary also belies the often-held view that on his return journey to Taxila, Chanakya had purchased Chandragupta from Magadha. If at all Chandragupta was purchasded by Chanakya, the purchase may have been done in Gandhara/Kamboja region in the north-west (which region is attested for slavery as per Majhhima Nikaya) and not in Magadha. This again implies that Chandragupta may have belonged to the north-west rather than eastern India.

But the higher proability is that Chandragupta was a young boy from a royal lineage from the north-west frontiers and had joined Taxila University to learn Political Science from Chanakya aka Kautiliya. Taxila was the grooming center for the boys of royal families from surrounding countries in north-west.

• Justin also attests that Santrocottos had collected a band of local robbers (which according to the Mudrarakshas play, were the Sakas, Yavanas, Kamboja, Bahlikas, Parsikas etc....all Iranians) and also instigated the Indians to overthrow the Greek prefects of Punjab. Chandragupta was was 14-15 years in 326 BCE. At such a raw age, and to collect a band of local robbers and instigate and mobilise the north-western Indian (hardy Punjabis) for rebellion, it is very imperative that he must have been a native of this region. It is well neigh impossible for an outsider to accomplish this marvellous feat which Chandragupta had accomplished in the north-west if he were not a local/native, and was not familiar with the pulse of the people of north-west. In nut-shell, it was necessary for him to have belonged to this people to accomplish what he had accomplished. THe Bihar origin of Chandragupta does not sound convincing.

Part III

Summary of the Discussion:

1. The upshot of above discussion is: There is vide variation on the origin/ancestry of not only of the Nandas but also of the Mauryas. The traditional Indian sources i.e. Buddhist, Jaina and Brahmanical do not converge, and further, within the same school, there are still discordances and discrepancies. Hence, there is no unanimity on the origin of Mauryas.

2. The Nanda-Mura conne ction on the origin and ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya has been rejected by most scholars of note.

3. Many scholars now believe that Chandragupta belonged to Maurya/Moriya, a Kshatriya clan which gave him the epithet of Maurya.

4. One school of scholars identify the Maurya Kshatriya clan of Chandragupta with the Moriyas of Pippalivana. While the other school identify him with the Mauryas of Kabol region (from the Mor/Mer region). The Moriyas or Mauryas of Swat/Kunar are believed to have been Ashvakas (q.v.) who lived in the Mor/Mer mountainous region (Meru of Sanskrit, Mt Meros of classical writings, Mor of the locals).

5. The PUSHPAPURA was the city where Chandragupta's mother had sought refuge after her husband, who was Chief of his clan, had died in a border clash. Chandragupta was born in Pushpapura after the death of his father. The boy was deposited with a cow-herder as the mother was too destitute to look after the child. This Pushpapura is attested by a Saka inscriptions written around Christian times. Ancient traditions states that Chandragupta was sold as a slave by the cow-herder to a Hunter who further sold it to Chanakya (Kautiliya). Now the slavery was a custom which is known to have been prevalent in north-west at the time under reference. For example, Majjhima Nikaya (II.149) attests that in the land of Yonas and Kambojas and some other border countries, there were only two social classes....Arya (Ayyo) or Master (freeman) and the Dasa (Serf or Slave). This special social custom was prevalent in north-west only. This evidence favors to link this Buddhist tradition to the frontiers of north-west/Greater Punjab where the slavery was routinely practiced in Pre-Christian times. It is highly important to note that the slavery was practiced and the salaves are purchased and sold routinely in Kaffirstan (land of ancient Kambojas) till as late as 1896 AD as is attested by 19th century British investiogators like George Robert Scott and M. Elphinstone. The reference to cow-herder, hunter etc also seem to point to a milieu of north-west.

6. As seen earlier, Brahmanical texts like Srimad-Devi-Mahatam and Markendeya Purana etc attest a Maurya clan which was an ally of Kambojas and Afridis etc and further identify it as an Asura clan. These Maurya/Morya warriors seem to belong to the Ashvakas of the Swat/Kunar region which since ancient times is known as Mor. The Maurya/Morya is simply the place-name epithet or cognomen which got attached to Chandragupta's dynasty since he may have come from this Mor region.

7. Very interestingly, Maurya King Ashoka is referenced in the Mahabharata (1.67.13-14 & XII.5.7) and has been labelled as Maha-Asura as well as an incarnation of Aswa or Aswaka in the Adiparva of Mahabharata. The reference to Aswa implies connection with horse/horse culture:

yastvashva iti vikhyAtaH shrImAnAsInmahAsuraH |.

Ashoko nAma rAjAsInmahAvIryaparAkramaH. ||14||

tasmAdavarajo yastu rAjannashvapatiH smR^itaH |.

daiteyaH so.abhavadrAjA hArdikyo manujarShabhaH ||15.||

(See: MBH 1/67/13-14)

English Translation: "That great Asura who was known as Aswa became on earth the monarch Asoka of exceeding energy and invincible in battle."

"And, O king, the younger brother of Aswa who was known as Aswapati, a son of Diti, became on earth the mighty monarch Hardikya." See link: [5]

Kamboja king Chandra Verman is also connected with Asuras/Daityas and is stated to be an incarnation of Chandra, the foremost among the sons of Diti.

chandrastu ditijashreShTho loke tArAdhipopamaH |

chandravarmati vikhyat kambojanam nRadhipah .||30||

(MBH 1/67/31-23)

English Translation: "The foremost, among the sons of Diti known by the name of Chandra and handsome as the lord of the stars himself, became on earth noted as Chandravarman, the king of the Kamvojas (Kambojas)". See Link: [6]

Please note that in the above epic text, king Asoka is linked to Aswa/Ashva or Aswaka/Ashvaka. The name Aswa/Ashva/Asvaka obviously implies horse culture or connection. It is important to remark here that the Aswa/Ashva (horses) was predominantly the field and specility of the ancient Kambojas only. The Ashvakas (q.v) of Kunar/Swat were clans of the Kambojas. Therfore, it looks like the above epic evidence implies some connection between the Kamboja king Chandra-varman and Maurya king Ashoka.

According to James Tod, "The Aswas were chiefly a Indu-race (i.e Chandravamsi); yet a branch of Suryas (i.e solar race)also bore this designation. It appears to indicate their (Aswas') celebrity as horsemen" (Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2002 edition, p 53, James Tod). The Aswakas of the classical accounts stated that they were Chandervamsis. And Megasthenes attests that Chandragupta was from Chandravamsa. At another place in his classic, James Tod connects the Aswas/Aspasio/Assaceni/Asi calns with horse-culture and labels them as Scythic stock (Op cit, p 64).

It is difficult to state at this moment if there is any connection between Kamboja king CHANDRA-varma of epic reference and the Maurya king CHANDRA-gupta, the grand father of Ashoka. But it is noteworhy that both are stated to be incarnations of Asuras, both are connected with Aswa/horse culture (i.e. Kambojas as Asvakas), and both, as the epic attests, are connected with goddess Diti, a deity cult practiced in the north-west.

8. There is a reference to king Moeres i.e king of Moris in the classical accounts which attests this king to be ruling in lower Indus at the time of Alexander's invasion (327-326 BCE). This king was called Moeres since he was the king of the Moeris or Moris. These Moeris are identifiable with Mori/Moria as Dr H. C. Raychaudhury also suggests. The Mori/Moria people living in lower Indus appear to have migrated from north-west and especially from Swat/Kunar valleys (Mor region, hence Moris). Section of Kambojas are also attested to have moved to lower Indus in pre-Christian centuries and set up their colonies in west and south-west India. SEE: [Kambojas in south-west India].

9. The joint presence of Kamboja, Sakas (Muridis =Murindas) Yavanas and Maurya population in Sri Lanka around second century BCE also point to close affinities of the Kambojas, Sakas, Yavanas and the Maurya people, thus again attesting that the Mauryas of Sri-Lanka and of Lower-Indus must have originally been an off-shoot from the Mor/Mer region in Swat/Kunar in eastern Afganistan.

10. All these references make us think that Chandragupta was, to all probability, from North-west region and most probably belonged to Mor region in Swat/Kunar valley---the land of Ashvaka Kambojas. Hence he may have been indeed from Ashvakas, a sub-tribe of the Kambojas.

11. So the upshot of this discussion is that Chandragupta most likely belonged to north-west region. He was an illustrious student of Chanakya who himself was a native of Taxila/Gandhara. Thus most probably, it was this brilliant and dedicated Brahmin and Kshatriya duo from the north-west region of Gandhara/Kamboja which was responsible for rasising a powerful empire in India on the ruines of Nanda empire of Magadha and the Greek strapies of north-west.

[edit] Modern Views on Maurya Origin

[edit] Scythian origins view

A Jat writer B.S.Dehiya published a paper titled The Mauryas: Their Identity (Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), p.112-133) in 1979 and a book titled Jats the Ancient rulers (Jats the Ancient rulers, Dahinam Publishers, Sonipat, Haryana, by B. S. Dahiya I.R.S.) 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.

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 whatsover, to the Sakas, Shakas or the Scythians. See: Rock Edict No 5 [7] and Rock Edict No 13 [8] ( Shahbazgarhi version).

The Rajputana Gazetteer describes the Moris (Mauryas?) as a Rajput clan (II A, the Mewar Residency by Major K. D. Erskine, p 14).

These several references, at least, tend to establish the Kshatriya lineage, if not the nativity of Chandragupta Maurya.

[edit] Northwestern origin

Lastly, there is a school of scholars like B.M. Barua, J.W. McCrindle, Dr D.B. Spooner, Dr H.C. Seth, Dr Hari Ram Gupta, Dr Ratanjit Pal, Gur Rattan Pal Singh and others who connect Chandragupta Maurya to north-western frontiers including the Gandhara/Paropamisadae, if not exactly Taxila itself.

Based on Plutarch's evidence, Dr J.W. McCrindle writes that Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi and belonged to the Ashvaka (Assakenoi) territory (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)).

B.M. Barua calls him a man of Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila and thus seem to invest him with Persian affinities (Says Barua: '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)). Dr D.B. Spooner, the official excavator of Pataliputra (Bihar), also believes that Mauryas (Chandragupta, Ashoka) were Iranians ( Journnal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1915, (Pt.II) , p.406, Dr D.B. Spooner).

Appian of Alexandria (95CE-165CE), author of a Roman History attests that 'Antrokottos (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians, dwelt on river Indus' (Appian (XI, 55)) which again would suggest an origin in the north-west frontier borderlands. Other historians of this school state that he belonged to Kunar and Swat valleys (The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 150-51, Kirpal Singh).

Ashvakas said that they were Chandravamsi (Ref: Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi? Article in Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 32-33, Dr H. R. Gupta; cf James Tod writes: 'The Aswas were chiefly of Indu race (i.e. Chandravamsi), yet a branch of the Suryas (solar race) also bore the Aswa designation. The name indicates their celebrity as horsemen' See: The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2002, Vol I, p 53). Megasthenes writes that Chandragupta was also a Chandravamsi (Cambridge History of India, I, p 400; See also: Op cit., p 33, fn.2. Dr Gupta). Many scholars see a connection between "Chandragupta" (Sandrocottos or Androkottos) and the strap Sisicottos (Diodotus of Erythrae) of the classical writings, stating that the Sashi- part in Sashigupta (Sisicotos) also means Chandra or moon (Sanskrit Sasi = moon, chandra) ("Sashi" is a synonym of "Chandra"-- Sashi, SASIGUPTA AND THE POISONING OF ALEXANDER, Dr Ranajit Pal)---hence asserting that Sashigupta (Sisicottos) and Chandragupta (Sandrocottos) was probably one and the same historical personage. Sisicottos had been a ruler of a petty hill state located at the base of Paropamisos (Hindukush) range in former Kamboja. Like Sandrocottos (Chandragupta), this Sisicottos (Sashigupta) was also a refugee at the time of Alexander's invasion. He had left his country and first helped Bessus of Bactria and later had co-operated with Alexander throughout the Sogdian campaigns (Arrian. iv, 30. 4.) Such men had every reason to encourage Alexander to invade cis-Hindukush and he himself also needed little encouragement (Bosworth). During Alexander's compaign of Kabol and Swat valleys, Sisicottos had rendered great service to Alexander in reducing several principalities of the Ashvakas i.e the free tribes of Aspasios, Assakenois, Guraeans, Andakas, Arigaeums and Aornos etc. During war of rock-fort of Aornos, where Alexander had to face very stiff resistence from the tribals, Sashigupta was put in command of this fort of great strategical importance. Arrian calls Sisicottos the governor of Assakenois. This suggests that Sisicottos had been a Kamboja himself. [It appears that after being kicked out by his own people (the Ashvakas), Sisicottos had first sought refuge in Bactria and fought against Alexander. Later on, he joined Alexander and instigated the latter to invade cis-Hindukush countries so that he (Sisicottos) could settle his scores with his opponents (Ashvakas) as well as regain his lost position in Paropamisadae]]. Dr J. C. Vidyalankar identifies Sashigupta as a Kamboja (Itihaas Parvesh, pp 133-34, Dr J. C. Vidyalankar; Kamboj Itihaas, 1973, p 58-59, H. S. Thind). It is however not quite clear if this Sisicottos was the same as Sandrocottos or if they were brothers. It appears probable that they may have been related in someway. Dr H. R. Gupta and Dr J. W. McCrindle think that they both possibly belonged two different branches of the Ashvakas (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 further says that the name Afghanistan is evidently derived from the Ashvakas or Assakenois of Arrian (Megasthenes and Arrian, p 180; Alexander's Invasion of India, p 38). Thus, Dr McCrindle connects the Ashvakas with the Kambojas. It is asserted by scholars of this school that the epithet Moriya or Maurya comes from the Mor of Koh-i-Mor or Mer-Koh i.e Mor hill (Meros & Mt Meros of the classical writings), which was important ancient territory located in the Paropamisadae region between river Kunar and Swat in the land of Ashvakas. Dr Holdich also says that Nysa was a capital city of the Ashvakas located in the Koh-i-Mor valley (Indian Borderland, 1901, pp 270, 322, Dr H. D. Holdich; cf also: The Gates of India, 1910, pp 123-124, Op. cit, p 32, Dr H. R Gupta). Meri was probably another political centre of the Mor or Meros (i.e. Ashvaka) people. These scholars assert that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to the Meros (Mor) region/people and was called Morya or Maurya after his motherland. (Op. cit., pp 32-35, Dr H. C. Gupta; Also: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 149-154).

Gur Rattan Pal Singh 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).

Scholars of this school are not convinced as to how an inexperienced youngman far from Bihar with no social, political or military standing in the north-west and with inadequate monetary and other resources of his own could have conquered the people of the Punjab and north-west frontiers (Op cit. p 32, Dr. H. R. Gupta). It had taken Alexander, the world conqueror, over 16 months to subdue the land from east Afghanistan to river Bias spanning over a distance of just 500 miles. This calculates to conquering only one mile per day (See: Op cit., p 32, Dr H. R. Gupta). The scholars also argue that it is not a custom among the Indians to assume a family name after their mothers' names as the Nanda-Mura story wants us to believe.

Many scholars identify the Ashvakas as a branch of the Kambojas [9]. They were so-called since they (the Ashvaka branch of the Kambojas) were exclusively engaged in horse-profession and their services as cavalrymen were frequently requisitioned in ancient wars.

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" (Journnal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1915, (Pt.II), p.416-17, Dr D. B. Spooner).

The Arthashastra of Kautiliya advises that the king when consulting the Physicians and ascetics should be seated in the room where the sacred fire has been kept. Likewise, there was a custom of burning sacred fire in the room where the meetings of Council of Ministers were held. This has been cited as a theory that Zoroastrian rituals may have been practiced and honored at the Mauryan court. Moreover, the ceremonial washing of king's hair was made the occasion of a splendid festival when courtiers offered rich tributes to the king. This observance recalls the ancient Persian hair-washing ceremony on the sovereign's birthday as described by Herodotus. Persian nobles (E.g, Tushaspa-- apparently an Ashvaka Kamboja, was governor of Kathiawad. Likewise Whšu (Vakshu?) was the governor of Kamboja province in Afghanistan; See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, pp 590-91, 610 & 617 Dr B. N. Mukerjee) were working as governors of Mauryan provinces and similarily the Persian women (Yavananis) were employed by Mauryan emperors as their bodyguards. The Ashoka inscriptions and the Architecture at Pataliputra also appear to bear some impression from Persia. The pillars of Ashoka with round bell-shaped abaci and bull or lion capital and the use of winged animals as capitals of pillars are also similar to Iranian artwork. The use of Kharosthi script, a variety of Aramaic, in the provinces near the frontiers may also point to the Iranian origin of the Mauryans. (Dr V. A. Smith, Oxford History of India).

Though Mahavamsa calls Chandragupta a Khattiya (Kshatriya), Mudrarakshasa by Vishakhadatta describes him as a Vrishala (i.e. Mlechha) as well as Chandrasra & Pryadarshana (i.e very handsome, comely). And Adiparava of Mahabharata (Mahabharata 1.67.13-14) refers to Ashoka Maurya as a Maha-asura i.e. a great Asura or Demon.

Note: The term Vrishala was applied to the high class Kshatriyas who did not follow the sacred codes recommended in the Brahmanical texts (Ref: Chandragupta Maurya, National Book Trust, India, p 31-32, Gopal Lallanji).

Exactly similar attributes (i.e. Kshatriyas, Vrishala (Mlechhas), Pryadarshanam/Handsome, Asuras, Danvas etc) have been applied to the Kambojas as well as their princes as is attested by ancient texts like Panini's Ashtadhyayi(Sutra 4.1.168-175...attesting the Kambojas as one of the fifteen prominent ruling Kshatriya clans of his times), Manu Smriti(Manusmriti x.43-44; Mahabharata 13.33.21: Both Manusmriti as well as Mahabharata attest that the Kambojas were originally noble Kshatriyas, but later on, when they discontinued to entertain the Brahminas in their country and ceased to follow sacred Brahmanical rituals & codes, they earned the Vrishala status as aresult of the wrath of the Brahmanas), Mahabharata (Mahabharata 1.67.31.32; 7.23.43; 7.82.74; 8.56.111, 8.56.113.114: Mahabharata verses 1.67.31-32 term the Kamboja king Chandravarman as Diti-ja i.e. incarnation of Chandra, son of Diti-- a great Asura ruler. The other verses attest the Kambojas as prabhadarkastu Kambojas (MBH 7.23.43) i.e very handsome Kambojas. Also their princes Chandravarman, Sudakshina and Prapaksha are labelled, sudarshaniya (MBH 7/82/74), pryadarshanam (MBH 8.56.113-14) i.e exceedingly handsome, of gaura varna and tall (MBH 8.56.113-14) etc), Ramayana, (Ramayana verse 1.55.1-3 calls the Kambojas as ravisanibhah i.e Kambojas having faces brighter and illustrious like the Sun). Markendeya Purana (verses 8.1-6) label the Kambojas as Asuras. Srimad Devi-Bhagawatam (verses 5.28.1-12) also label the Kambojas as Asuras and other ancient Indian sources.

The Asura Maurya clan mentioned in the Brahmanical texts like Devi-Bhagtam, Markendeya Purana etc has been identified with the Maurya Clan of Chandragupta. The Mauryas are also labelled as a Asura clan in the Mahabharata (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, pp 4-5, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukherjee). It is noteworthy that Maurya clan of these Brahmanical references had allied with the Kambojas, Afridis and other clans of east Afghanistan and scene of action is indicated as Himalaya/Hindukush in Afghanistan. The Himalaya of ancient Indian traditions is said to extend from from eastern Occean to western Occean: (See: Kumarasambuvam, I.1; Critical Study of early Puranas, 1972, p 65, Dr M. R. Singh). The Devi-Bhagtam story seems to refer to some faintly remembered border-clash between Daevas (Indo-Aryans) and the Asuras (Iranians) in remote antiquity. The Maurya of these legends seems to refer to a people inhabiting the Mor region (modern Koh-i-Mor) in Swat/Kunar valleys. These Mor (or Moriya) people seem to be same as the Ashvakas.

See also: [10] [11].

On Iranian Affinities of the Kambojas, see: Language and ethnicity of Kambojas

---

Sanjay: Please append your responses if any HERE-TO-AFTER and in a sequence if you want to argue against the above. Pleaee do not embed your comments/responses within body of main discussion page.

Regards

Satbir Singh 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

[edit] Vandalism

Dear Sanjay. By Wikipedia standards, the only one practicing vandalism here is you. You are not supposed to delete references and secondary sources by published authors, even if their views are not in accordance with yours. Please respects alternative theories on the origins of Chandragupta Maurya. Please do not vandalize other's Talk Pages. Please do not make empty threat about refering to Administrators, when you are yourself reverted by Administrators. Please do not make personal attacks. Please do not make anonymous edits. Please do not edit other's comments in Talk Pages. Thank you PHG 01:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I am not really sure if the "alternative theories" proposed have any basis in truth or not. However, a charge in foul play can be made in terms of presentation alone. For starters, the size of the text of alternative theories alone make it seem like the dominant theories to a casual reader. Also, the choice of words make all theories of equal standing when the fact, whether you like it or not, is that the alternative theories presented here are speculative in nature and not the majority (even one of the reference in support of the alternative theory claims this - check references).

Also, I suspect their is a lot of slipping of personal bias going on in between references. For instance, "Scholars of this school are not convinced as to how an inexperienced lad far from Bihar with no social, political or military standing in the north-west and with inadequate monetary and other resources of his own could have conquered the people of the Punjab and north-west frontiers. It had taken Alexander, the world conqueror, over 16 months to subdue the land from east Afghanistan to river Bias spanning over a distance of just 500 miles." I would like to see a citation with a page numbers on this. Also, once again, even if their are some scholars out there who are not convinced based on the aforementioned reasons that should not make the alternative theory the dominant one. However, the presentation of this article does this quite openly.

Wikipedia clearly states this: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."

In my opinion, their is a strong bias in this article towards the alternate theories and as a result, I am throwing the bias flag. It is all fine and dandy to have alternate theories but it is not ok when you have half the article dedicated to them with some questionable claims being made.

Added later: If no one is willing to defend the current structure, their will be editions made. I will wait for ten days to give original authors a chance to defend against these allegations. (Blacksun 10:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree here. The ancestry section needs to be overhauled so that these new theories aren't passed off as equals to the mainstream theories. Gtmshine 18:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving attention to this article. I was fighting these vandalists alone for the past few weeks. I live in Boston area and I have access to Harvard libraries, which in my opinion are second only to library of congress. I confirmed several references and they are all fraudulant. I need some assistance in this regard. Please read my comments on this whole whole discussion page above. I ave dealt with this POV issue at length. The main problem with the ancestry section is that there are very few "PRIMARY SOURCES" provided and most of the references are "SECONDARY SOURCES" which are fraudulant and highly biased in themselves. The writer of this article is clearly biased and wants to show that Ch.Maur was from Punjab and not any other place in India. SanjayMohan 13:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanjay, take a deep breath and relax. Now, please provide here (sorry if you have already done this) in a nice list all the sources that are cited incorrectly. I am not asking the credibility of the sources but whether or not they are cited incorrectly (as you claim, I think). If you can provide proof (scan a page maybe?). Thanks.(Blacksun 23:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes - the sentences you quote as objectionable are poorly written. Also, as a lot of the data comes from folklore and verbal history, I think there is a need for more references and citations. Also, there is a need for paraphrasing - dramatism and graphic details in language is not acceptable. Rama's Arrow 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, there is a lot of good in the citations already in place. This article's POV problems can be easily addressed. Rama's Arrow 18:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Somebody please do something about SanjayMohan. He has been vandalizing several pages and inserting text reflecting not just bias, but hate.

Look:

On Sarasvati_River http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&oldid=44305890

He writes: "Saraswati to the east of Indus, now called Ghaggar served as boundary between Vedic Aryans on the east and Dasyu savages on the west"

That would make people of a region of India (including Panini the Sanskrit grammarian, Charaka the physician etc) savages.

He had inserted this in Punjabi Khatri page at one time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Punjabi_Khatri

"Madra was the most prominent Khatri state which covered all the six rivers from Indus (Sindhu) to Beas (Vipas). The people of this state were extremely corrupt, were chronic liars"

"Hindu-Khatris never pay taxes. Due to this they have hoarded a lot of wealth from Indians, much like the nazis who usurped wealth from the Jews."

Does it look like an unbiased view?

--ISKapoor 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely unbiased view since I have provided valid "online references" from Ramayana and Mahabharat, not fraudulant and unsubstantiated references by Satbir Singh. Most of the references used in Ch.Maur. Article are downright fraud and have nothing to do with his ancestry. It is just one long monotonous story of fabrication and lies like the Aryan Invasion Theory. Moreover, this is the discussion for Ch.Maur not Khatris SanjayMohan 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

---

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Hello All,

Could both sides please refrain from attacking each other? It's no wonder India had a rough thousand years with this kind of bickering. To top it all off, there's enough garbage masquerading as Indian History floating out there to annoy both sides of this argument. Regarding the question of Chandragupta's origins, as a periodic editor of this page prior to this debate, I also recognize that it is difficult to construct an accurate narrative. There is a significant amount of evidence pointing to a Magadhan heritage; however, as we cannot be certain, we also may want to consider the possibility of his origins in the Panjab. SanjayMohan, I recognize that, setting aside the punjabi contestation, many of th alternative theories are outright garbage (i.e. scythian and zoroastrian). As Rama's Arrow notes, these "alternative theories" are legitimized by questionable sources and made to seem as if these are genuinely viable ones in mainstream history. It's bad enough that there are people out there aching to associate every Indian accomplishment (including Chandragupta's unification of northern indian to the greeks and other foreigners without real evidence). Accordingly, this Dr. Spooner (who wrote on this topic in 1915, I might add, with many incredulous and unsubstantiated theories) that is referenced, also theorized that the Buddha was Persian as well. Whether Punjabi or Bihari, at least we should be taking pride in that fact that Chandragupta was Indian, which evidence points to be the only certainty. Second of all, we should all refrain from explosive language, irrespective of the side. Could we please reach some sort of compromise here? There are definitely a number of potential brokers that have floated the possibility of restructuring this article in a fair manner. Please take this into consideration.

Regards,

Devanampriya

I have to say, as an "outside observer", i.e. someone who hasn't been editing this article, that the edits by SanjayMohan that you point to seem inappropriate. However, I'm not sure why this comment is on this talk page? I went through some of SanjayMohan's edits on this page, and nothing seemed objectionable. Admittedly, I haven't been around these pages, and I'm sure there could be a bunch of history amongst the people here which I don't know. But in any case, can't we all just get along? --Deville (Talk) 03:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

==This is absurd==--70.238.2.87 05:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Satbir Singh refuses to respond to the issues that I raised in "Bias" post and he continues to keep reverting changes made by anyone. This is so sad. I dont know what the heck to do about this. (Blacksun 03:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

Blacksun, you can't ignore the alternative views of a school of scholar community. Somebody has already suggested you to read some of the original sources I have listed in this discussion page and also in the main article. Read them and come up refutation giving reasons.

Satbir Singh 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

What are you talking about???? No one has suggested no such thing to me. Nor have I suggested that the "alternate theories" should not be presented. Have you even read my complaint?? Their are REAL ISSUES. Over 50% of the article is about your alternate theories with half of it not supported by your so called sources. Article will NEVER reach featured or good article level in your format. If you really really want to have four pages on alternate theories than make a separate article about it and link it in this article. Furthermore, you cannot connect the dots like the ones you made with Kambojas and asura thing. Heck afte reading the article, I am not quite sure if its about chandragupta or your kambojas. Furthermore, the fact that spooner also claimed that Buddha was a Persian shows just how speculative his research is. Please go read my post "bias" and then post again. (Blacksun 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

That Buddha was Iranian is also accepted by mainstream historians like Dr Michael Witzel of Harvard Univ who say that Sakyas are in fact Saka or Shaka (who were Iranians) off-shoot. Even there is a school of scholars who link the Licchavis (Nichavis of Manusmriti Kulluka's) as from Nisivis---an Iranian clan in the north of ancient Ariana.

Why can't you connect the Mauryas with Asuras? Even the ancient Brahmanical sources do it.

Satbir Singh 14:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

You have obviously still not read my "bias" post. Maybe you should go add 2 pages of Buddhas alleged Iranian origins and see what people say to that. Let me copy paste again Wikipedia's guideline and hopefully you will read it and respond to it this time: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." If you do not think that the article goes against this policy than I guess their is nothing more for us to talk about. --Blacksun 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Blacksun, you dont need unnecessarily spew your anger at me. I only responded to your attempt at your belittling of Dr Spooner's scholarship. Who knows, Dr Spooner may prove right in the end?. Indian history is still very much ambiguous and imperfectly known. It has been constructed on lot of speculations. And the ancestry of Nandas and Mauryas is not an exception. There is a school of scholars who do believe that Buddha's clan was Iranian too and others who also believe that the Lichchavis were so too and there is also a powerful group of scholars who say that Pallavas are derived from Iranian Pahlavas which make sense if even if one goes by Puranic evidence. Among the most noted modern scholars (there are several of them) who believe that Buddha /his Sakya clan were Iranians is the most distinguished Harvard Scholar Dr Michael Witzel who heads the Sanskrit and Indology Deptt of the same University whose Library your friend states as second only to Library of Congress. Dr Michael's detailed Paper on Buddha-Saka-Iranian connection is in the offing and will soon hit the Internet as he has pointed out in one of his monograph. And probably you/me will learn lot of new things. But most important thing to remember is that one must not close one's mind to new ideas and research. Regards Satbir Singh 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

lalala and you continue to keep talking without responding to the matter of concern. Good job. You can obviously not comprehend the wikipedia policy that I have displayed in bold or chose to ignore it. Great. Wonderful. Keep it up. --70.238.2.87 05:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Professor Witzel is a fabricator and a fraudster. He has been exposed by Dr. Subhash Kak of LSU and Shrikant Talageri of Mumbai long time ago. By using the Harvard name he is spreading fraud. Most of his research is fabricated but is being propagated due to Harvard policies of "divide and rule" by which they want to psychologically subjugate India forever. This Buddha-Saka-Iranian connection is also concocted and a major fraud. This paper is going to be presented by Witzel in China, to subtely tell the chinese that Buddha was "White Guy" and not "Brown India". By doing so he will also send an implicit message that Chinese should now all become christians since that is the most followed religion by the white people these days. Romila Thapar the Punjabi fraudster author and Mike Witzel are leading this fraudulant campaign and Satbir is their supporter.

Satbir and other Punjabi fraudsters want to pose as the leaders and harbingers of Aryan culture and all the aristocracy in India, despite all the evidence pointing to the fact that Punjabi Khatris are Asuras. SanjayMohan 18:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is this guy?. 66.81.185.225 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was just casually reading Wiki when I thought of seacrching Chandragupta Maurya. What I found was shocking. The whole discussion page seemed 10 times longer than the actual article. The article hardly mentions the true glorious history of Chandragupta. Rather, the whole article seems mudded in "Alternate Theories". Sorry to say, but the "Alternate Theories", seem at the very least, absurd, ridiculous and rival some of the greatest [Conspiracy Theory]s. That Chandragupta was of north-western origin seems a frivilous claim only made to highten the glory of a particular community, while painting others as socially backward and mentally retarded. Sanjay seems to fighting a lone battle. The [Indian School Certificate] board followed a Hindi novel called 'Jwalamukhi Ke Phool' by Sushil Kumar. It deals with the times of Mahapadma Nanda, how Chankya trained Chandragupta, the invasion of Alexander, the overthrow of Nanda Dynasty and the consolidation of Chandragupta's power with the help of Chanakya. I cannot vouch for it's authencity, but nowhere does it come even close to endorsing the pseudo history as Satbir Singh would like have us believe. The whole article in its present form is utterly confusing and lacklustre. Hopefully, the biasing will end so that we can have a proper article as a tribute to one of India's greates kings. Giko 19:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course this article is not neutral. Any indian who has studied history in school will tell you that. There is no mention of the glorious chandragupta. Heck, the whole article is just about alternate views. And in the talk page is the real surprise. The defendant of the article appears to strongly believe in Prof Witzel's thoughts. That alone is sufficient enough to dispute the originality of the article. Sabarish Sasidharan 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here ends the copied talks

The talks copied from the talk page of Chandragupta Maurya ends with the above last post.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)