Q- Account for the Decline of the Mauryan Empire

Introduction
The rise and fall of empires are a historical truth, but it is also an important
question whether despite knowing the reasons for the decline of empires, their
decline can ever be stopped. This means that the analysis of the causes of the
end of empires depends on the historian's own perspective. Nevertheless,
there must be an objective effort to know the reasons for the decline of the
empire. Ashoka's policies, the system based on the centralized bureaucracy of
the empire, the despotism of the provincial governors, the all-India nature of
the empire and excessive expansion, inept and weak successors, economic or
fiscal crisis or the feeling of regionalism are considered for the decline of the
Mauryan Empire
After the death of Ashoka, the Mauryan Dynasty fell apart quickly. The
succession of weak kings was one obvious reason. Another immediate cause
was the Empire's division into two halves. The Greek invasions could have been
held off if the partition had not occurred, giving the Mauryas a chance to
reclaim some of their former power.
In the following paragraphs, we’ll be digging into the causes that led to an
abrupt end of the Mauryan Empire.
Ashoka is considered responsible for the downfall of the Mauryan Empire from
three points of view, namely; his anti-Brahmin policies and reaction of
Brahmins towards Maurya dynasty, his desertion and decline of Mauryan
military power, fiscal crisis arose due to the increase in the expenditure of the
state during his time.
Anti-Brahmin policies
Much has been written about the decline. According to Haraprasad Sastri,
Pushyamitra's revolt was the result of Brahminical reaction to Ashoka's pro-
Buddhist policies and his successors' pro-Jaina policies. Some argue that the
decline was caused by Brahminical reaction for the following reasons, based on
this thesis. The prohibition of animal slaughter enraged the Brahmins, who
regarded animal sacrifices as sacred.
All four of these points are easily refuted. Asoka's compassion for animals was
not a spur-of-the-moment decision. Animal sacrifices piqued people's interest
for a long time. Even Brahmins gave up by the book Divyavadana, which cannot
be trusted because the Sanchi and Barhut stupas were completed during the
time of Pushyamitra Sunga. Menander's invasion, who was a Buddhist, most
likely gave the impression that Buddhism was being persecuted. Finally, the
word 'budheva' is misunderstood because it is meant to be used in conjunction
with another phrase. This word has nothing to do with Brahminism when
viewed in this light. Moreover, Pushyamitra Sunga's victory clearly
demonstrates that the last of the Mauryas was an inept ruler, as he was
overthrown in the presence of his army, and this had nothing to do with
Brahminical opposition to Asoka's patronage of Buddhism.
Desertion of Mauryan Military power
Raychaudhuri also refutes Sastri's arguments. There had been no revolution,
and the empire had shrunk significantly. The Mauryan King's assassination
while reviewing the army suggests a palace coup rather than a revolution.
Anyone who could promise a more efficient organisation was welcome to join
the organisation. Also, if Pushyamitra was truly a representative of Brahminical
reaction, he would have received assistance from neighbouring kings.
The claim that the empire became ineffective as a result of Asokan policies is
also flimsy. Despite the fact that Asoka's reign was brief, all evidence points to
him being a stern monarch. The pacifism of the state, according to
Raychaudhuri, cannot be substantiated.
As a result, military inactivity, Brahmin resentment, popular uprisings, or
economic pressure cannot adequately explain the Mauryan empire's decline.
The root causes of the decline were deeper. Only kings of considerable
personal ability could keep the administration and the concept of the state
afloat. There was definitely a weakening at the centre after Asoka's death,
particularly after the empire was divided, which inevitably led to provinces
breaking away from Mauryan rule.
It's also worth remembering that all of the officials owed their allegiance to the
king, not the state. This meant that if the king changed, the officials would have
to change as well, demoralising the officers. The Mauryas had no system in
place to ensure that well-planned bureaucracy would continue.
Fiscal crisis
Apart from these two major writers, Kosambi expresses a third point of view.
He argued that unnecessarily high taxes were imposed, and that punch-marked
coins from the time period showed evidence of debasement. This argument,
too, cannot be sustained. During the reign of the later Mauryas, it's possible
that debased coins began to circulate. On the other hand, debasement could
indicate that there was a higher demand for silver in relation to goods,
resulting in a decrease in the silver content of the coins. The fact that the
material remains of the post-Asokan era do not indicate any economic pressure
is even more significant. Instead, as evidenced by archaeological finds at
Hastinapura and Sisupalqarh, the economy thrived. Asoka's reign was
beneficial to the economy. The unification of the country under a single,
efficient administration, as well as the organisation and improvement of
communications, resulted in the growth of trade and the opening of many new
commercial opportunities.
But the argument that revolves against the Mauryas is that the land tax under
the Mauryas was one-quarter, which was a significant burden for the cultivator.
However, historical evidence suggests otherwise. The land tax varied from
region to region depending on the soil fertility and water availability.
Megasthenes' figure of one-quarter probably only applied to the fertile and
well-watered areas around Pataliputra.
Other factors of importance that contributed to the decline and lack of national
unity were the ownership of land and inequality of economic levels. Land could
frequently change hands. Fertility wise the region of the Ganges was more
prosperous than northern Deccan. Mauryan administration was not fully tuned
to meet the existing disparities in economic activity. Had the southern region
been more developed, the empire could have witnessed economic
homogeneity.
Also, the people of the sub-continent were not of uniform cultural level. The
sophisticated cities and the trade centers were a great contrast to the isolated
village communities. All these differences naturally led to the economic and
political structures being different from region to region. It is also a fact that
even the languages spoken were varied. The history of a sub-continent and
their casual relationships. The causes of the decline of the Mauryan empire
must, in large part, be attributed to top heavy administration where authority
was entirely in the hands of a few persons while national consciousness was
unknown.
Extreme centralization
The Mauryan Empire's next major flaw was its extreme centralization and the
king's virtual monopoly of all powers. There was no advisory institution that
represented public opinion at all. As a result, the Mauryas placed a high value
on the espionage system. In addition to the lack of representative institutions,
the government's executive and judiciary were not separated. An incompetent
king may use the officers for oppressive purposes or fail to use them for good.
And because Asoka's successors were weak, the empire inevitably fell apart.
Added to these two factors, there is no conception of national unity of political
consciousness. It is clear from the fact that even the resistance against the
Greeks as the hated miecchas was not an organized one. The only resistance
was that of the local rulers who were afraid of losing their newly acquired
territory.
The Mauryan empire and the philosophy of the empire was not in tune with
the spirit of the time because Aryanism and Brahminism was very much there.
According to the Brahmin or Aryan philosophy, the king was only an upholder
of dharma, but never the crucial or architecture factor influencing the whole of
life. In other words, the sentiment of the people towards the political factor,
that is the State was never established in India. Such being the reality, when
the successors of Asoka failed to make use of the institution and the thinking
that was needed to make a success of a centralized political authority. The
Mauryan Empire declined without anyone's regret.
Conclusion
Numerous factors can be regarded as significant concerning the fall of the
Mauryan empire. The empire that Ashoka's successors inherited from him was
not run with integrity by them. More crucially, the crisis was made worse by
the inherent flaws in the imperial system. The administration was entirely
based on the individual due to the highly centralised polity and the king's
loyalty rather than that of the State. This divided loyalty of officials and lack of
centralised Imperial control led to the decline of the Mauryan Empire. Though
the glory of the Mauryan Empire will be dictated for generations, the story of
the downfall of the Mauryan Empire proves to be a valuable lesson.