Chandragupta Maurya: The first emperor of united India

Chandragupta Maurya - sketch done by me

Mauryas were the first dynasty to rule over a unified India. Chandragupta Maurya was the first emperor of India. He created one of the largest empire of his time and no other king of India after him (barring his own grandson) could rule over a land of that stretch.

His kingdom ranked third among the list of ancient empires with a population of 68 million.

My analysis - Source: Wikipedia

To give a background on the story of Chandragupta Maurya, let me talk about Magadha a bit. Kingdom of Magadha in central eastern India was ruled by Nanda dynasty in around 340 BC. This was the third powerful dynasty in the northern Indian region ruling Magadha after the times of Mahabharata. Before this dynasty, a dynasty named Shishunga used to rule the kingdom of Magadha. The last king of Shishunga dynasty had many sons. One of them from a Shudra woman named MahaPadma Nanda. As per the society following Vedic lifestyle that time, shudras were considered those with humble origin. MahaPadma Nanda was a powerful contender of the the throne of Magadha but he was despised by his half brothers. Later MahaPadma Nanda killed all of his half brothers and became the sovereign ruler of Magadha and later by defeating the different dynasties ruling the other northern and north western regions and formed the biggest kingdom of that time on the Indian land.

Since Nandas were believed to be of humble origin, the growth of MahaPadma Nanda was seen as beginning of Kali Yuga (the age where impurity will grow). This was indeed manifested by Nanda's son, Dhana Nanda who, as per various records, was corrupt and cruel ruler.

The story of Chandragupta what we know of today is mostly attributed to western historians and some contradictory pointers mentioned in our puranas.Many sources claim that Chandragupta was related to the Nanda dynasty and was one with low birth. But since, Nandas themselves are considered as shudras, we can believe that Chandragupta was born in a family or to a mother who was at a social level even below among the shudras.
Greek historians also mention about Chandragupta with the name "Sandracottos" or "Andracottus". It is said that at a younger age, he was spotted and later recruited by a learned brahmin named Chanakya. Chanakya, who was a professor in Taxila, the ancient university in Gandhar, then trained Chandragupta. It was common desire of both Chanakya and Chandragupta to usurp the kingdom of Magadha from Dhana Nanda though their intentions were far beyond Magadha. They wanted to have a kingdom stretching from Gandhar to Anga (present West Bengal) and wide and strong to oppose any foreign attack.

(To know more about Chanakya and his tactics please read my blog posts about Chanakya and Alexander-Hydespas battle, here: Porus - the unsung hero , Chanakya - God of Political Science , Chanakya TV series - tweaking history with noble intentions)

Dhana Nanda had a massive army at his disposal in Magadha. The sheer size of the army was enough to scare the soldiers of the mighty Alexander.
It is said that Alexander left India after conquering north western kingdoms and without entering Magadha. Before leaving he appointed his satraps (perfects) Phillips and Eudemes for the territories he had won.

After Alexander's departure, Chandragupta with the advice of Chanakya attacked the satraps of Alexander and played part in the killings of Nicanor and Phillip. Upon Alexander's death later, he focused on Magadha and after making powerful army out of north western kingdoms raged war against  Dhana Nanda. After series of battle with Dhana Nanda and his commader Bhadrasala, he finally was managed to defeat and kill Dhana Nanada in 321 BC and took over Magadha.
Thus Chandragupta formed a great and strong kingdom. His empire extended from Bengal and Assam in the east, to Afghanistan and Balochistan, eastern and south-east Iran in the west, to Kashmir in the north, and to the Deccan Plateau in the south.

But forming such a big kingdom is not an end of it. You also have to protect and administer it. Seleucus I Nictar, a Macedonian satrap of Alexander came to reclaim the lost lands. He had a great battle with Chandragupta but was defeated. Seleucus gave his daughter in marriage to Chandragupta and formed an alliance. Chandragupta too, in gesture of friendship, gave some elephant troops to Seleucus. Seleucus sent an ambassador Megasthenes to Chandragupta. The later records of Megasthenes tell us the wealthy lifestyle of Magadhans at that time.

Chandragupta with his excellent administrative skills undertook major political and economic reforms. Due to strong military position, there was stability and trade thrived. There was an all round development in India in fields of economics, art, culture, trade, productivity, etc.
He had a son named Bindusara, whom he ascended to throne in 298 BC.

At the age of 42, Chandragupta felt inclined to Jainism and became a disciple to a Jain monk Bhdrabahu. He went in forest and led his remaining life as a Jain saint. He left his mortal body at Shravan Belagola in Karnataka. The place where he died is called Chandragupta Basadi.


The personality of Chandragupta Maurya is amazing. Though he has been drawn by many artists and has been portrayed by many actors in various adaptations based on his life, one thing that always stands out when I think of him is that he was a great visionary and a great achiever. Imagine he was quite young when he captured those kingdoms and he became the first emperor of unified India at a very young age.
I also tried to sketch him by putting a trademark peacock feather on his turban which is popularly associated with his image linking the word 'Maurya' derived from Mayura (peacock).

Indian Government honored Chandragupta by issuing a postal stamp in his name in 2001. He was the first hero of India as per recorded history and indeed was a legend and I salute him.

-M

Chanakya : The God of Political Science

When I am to write about the great legendary historic personalities of our country, I should start it with them who established the first united kingdom in India and those who supported them.
Chanakya is a very popular figure in Indian history. He and his works have inspired not only Indians but also various historians and intellectuals world wide.

I have already written about Chanakya and his story in my posts dedicated to a television serial which used to come long ago. You can read the posts here: part 1 and part 2.

Chanakya was a scholar and philosopher who was responsible for the establishment of the first dynasty which ruled India as a unified India. Though not real historical evidences are present of that era, many religious texts and available scriptures and documents and study of various historians give a fair idea about the story of Chanakya.

Chanakya was a teacher in Takshashila, the most revered university of India and the one of earliest universities of the world. (Takshashila is situated near Rawalpinidi in Pakistan at present). He was a professor of political science and economics. This was in around 327 BC. It is quite possible that Chanakya was teaching at Takshashila at the time of Alexander's entering India when the king of Takshashila supported him.
Various historical and other tales suggest that Chanakya was once insulted by Dhana Nanda, the last of the Nanda kings, who were ruling the powerful kingdom of Magadh. He was thrown out of Dhana Nanda's court. At that time Chanakya took vow of vengeance that he will uproot the Nandas out of Magadh.
The kingdom of Magadh was very vast stretching from south west region of present Pakistan and going up to Eastward region of present West Bengal. The Nandas had an extensive army comprising of numerous war elephants enough to scare the army of Alexander the Great. It is believed that Alexander went back to his kingdom from Beas river when his army revolted against march to fight the Nandas (however, this is debatable). It was difficult to defeat the powerful Nanda kingdom.

It is believed that Chanakya once saw a boy of low caste playing with his friends. Impressed by the leadership skills of that boy Chandragupta, he decided to make Chandragupta Maurya his disciple. He got Chandragupta trained in Takshashila. Between 325 BC to 321 BC Chandragupta under the able guidance of Chanakya tried to win over the kingdoms where Alexander had left his satraps. Then building a good army and with help of other kings (including the king Parvateshwar aka Porus) he began to attack fiercely the Nanda capital.
Their initial attempts were unsuccessful. It is said that once Chanakya overheard a mother scolding her son who was trying to eat hot rice from the center of the plate. The mother scolded that rice is hottest at the center. It is better to separate the center rice portion from the rice at the sides and should first target the rice near the edges of the plate.
Chanakya got the idea. He made Chandragupta to win over the neighboring small kingdoms and forming a formidable army to attack Nandas when they were weakened. Chandragupta eventually overthrew the Nandas in 321 BC and Dhana Nanda was killed. Chanakya had his vow fulfilled.

Chanakya then helped Chandragupta to establish his kingdom, the Maurya Kingdom, the first kingdom of united India which stretched from present Kashmir region to the entire Deccan plateau covering the entire present Nepal and present Pakistan. Looking at the outcome of his policies, it can be deduced that Chanakya had a vision of united India. He would have felt it threatened at the time of Alexander's invasion. His dream of a united strong India fortified from enemies was realized by his disciple.

The most important contribution of Chanakya to Indian history apart from helping in formation of the Mauryan empire was the writing of Arthashastra.
Arthashastra is the oldest treatise on Political Science and Economics. It is believed to be written by someone named "Kautilya" which many believe to be none other than Chanakya. However there are debates and contradictions. I won't go into that. For me the discussion on content of the treatise is more important than discussing who really wrote it. Arthashastra was written many years ago and had been preserved for long. It is quite possible that even if Kautilya was not Chanakya, Chanakya's work had definitely inspired to write the book.

Arthashastra talks about the Duties of a king, the knowledge he must possess, the type of ministers he must keep, etc. I will not be discussing the entire book here as I am in the process of reading it. However there are few interesting points:

• Kautilya said that the thread ceremony should be done for Brahmins at the age of 8, for Kshatriyas at the age of 10 and for Vaishyas at the age of 12; followed by 16 years of compulsory education
• Kautilya says that Economy is meant to create and enhance Military might and it is fear of danda (punishment) that friends and foes behave properly
• Kautilya mentions 4 pillars of Governance as Wisdom, Wealth, Punishment and Secrecy
• Kautilya has written many chapters dedicated to Secret services and espionage. It is said that the falling of Nanda empire was a result of its weaking because of a conspiracy engineered by Chanakya and involving heavy usage of spy network, which may contribute to the opinion that Kautilya and Chanakya are the same person.
• Kautilya's text surprisingly does not derogate women and people of low caste. He has said that single women and physically handicapped people can also become great spies.
• Kautilya has said that income tax collected should comprise of 1/6th of the total agricultural produce, 1/10th of commercial profit, small portion of gold from citizens, 1/6th from ascetics of what they collect through alms or in forest.
• He has also mentioned about duties of the king, princes and even duties towards harem
• He has also mentioned about the individual duties of the superintendents of various departments like agriculture, tax department etc.

At the end of Arthashastra, it is mentioned that 'Having seen discrepancies in many ways on the part of the writers of commentaries on the Sástras, Vishnu Gupta himself has made (this) Sútra and commentary' and the name 'Vishnu Gupta' is popularly associated with Chanakya.

It is said that when Chandragupta's wife was pregnant, he fed him some of the meals prepared for him out of affection, unaware of the fact that Chanakya was mixing small quantities of poison in his food to make him immune of any toxics. Chandragupta's wife got sick after eating that food and was about to die. When Chanakya came to know of this he cut the queen open and saved the fetus. Since the child was believed to be touched by a drop of poison, he was called "Bindusar".

Little is known about Chanakya's later life. Jain text tells a story that after Chandragupta's retirement into Jainism as a monk, Bindusar's ministers who were jealous of Chanakya, misguided Bindusar to that Chanakya was responsible for his mother's death and Bindusar expelled Chanakya from his ministry and Chanakya too became a monk like his disciple. Then the jealous minister set the forest in which he went on fire and Chanakya died with other monks. When the minister went to Chanakya's house to see some secret documents he believed the clever brahmana has hidden in a box, as soon as he opened the box he died of some poisonous gas kept inside it already by Chanakya. Thus Chanakya had already planned his revenge.

The concept of using Sama (conciliation), Dama (offer money/ material wealth) Danda (punishment or violence), Bheda (cause dissension) tactics for dealing with enemies find prominence in Chanakya's methods. Chanakya had all the methods to deal with the enemies once and for all. He once stepped on a thorn. Without showing slightest pain, he removed the thorn and the thorn plant. Then he poured a mixture of milk and honey on the spot where the thorn plant used to be. The milk would be absorbed by the remaining roots of the plant under the soil and this would attract ants and ants will make sure that remaining roots are destroyed. This is complete annihilation of enemy.

The teachings of Chanakya tells a very basic and core value. The strength of a man or king or a kingdom is through knowledge and favorable surroundings (Vedic knowledge for man and king, trusted and loyal advisers for king and kingdom/ country) and a man or king or a country falls because of internal weakening (submitting to senses pleasure for man and king, internal weakening because of spies, terrorists within the country or a kingdom).

After many thousands of years, the teachings of Chanakya (or if you want to call him Kautilya or Vishnu Gupta) and his personality still shines and his theories are applicable for large sized businesses, organization and administration of the country. 

Porus - the unsung hero

In 326 BC, the famous battle of Hydespas was fought between the God like figure from Greece, Alexander 'the great' and an Indian king Porus. King Porus used to rule kindom near Jhelum river, which according to various puranic sources is Gandhar or Kekaya regions. The Jhelum river was also called "Hydespas".

King Alexander of Macedonia (Greece) was on his quest for victory. He had already won a large number of kingdoms in bloody battles covering the entire eastward region beyond Greece.

When he entered India, he was greeted by the king of Takshashila (Taxila), Ambhi. Ambhi had bitter relations with his neighbor king Porus (sometimes called as Parvateshwar or Purushottam). It is said that he helped Alexander to rage a battle against the mighty Porus.

The ever present sad mentality of people of our country to even help an outsider to settle scores with the known ones was exploited by Alexander. Alexander's army was habitual of fighting large cavalry but was never accustomed to fight war elephants and Indians were known for the use of elephants in the battle. Huge elephants with tusks dipped in poison used to carry number of archers, kings, commanders and these warriors would use the height as an advantage to attack the enemy.

Porus, was believed to be of Puru clan. Puru clan is mentioned in Rig Vedas and also in Hindu epic Mahabharata. It was believed to be started by king Puru, who was a son of king Yayati. The descendants of Puru like, Bharatas, Kurus, Pauravas used to rule various North Indian kingdoms. Porus is mentioned as the king ruling near Jhelum river, which most possibly could be Gandhar and Kekaya kingdoms.

Porus, though being a mighty figure in the story of Alexander, is somehow I believe, an unsung hero. He is mentioned as a tall 7 ft. man with huge physique. He was a great warrior. Sitting on the back of his elephant, he along with his army created havoc in the Macedonian ranks. Battle of Hydespas is believed to be most difficult, bloody and also the last battle fought by Alexander. He lost his dear horse at the hands of Porus.

The history as we read today generally says that Alexander's army though being routed by forces of Porus, eventually was able to defeat Porus because of Alexander's military tactics. It is said that Porus lost his son in the battle and Alexander asked Ambhi to bring Porus to him alive. Ambhi, who went to take Porus as prisoner, narrowly escaped the fury of the Paurava hero.

Later when Greek army was able to subdue Porus, he was brought in front of Alexander. Alexander asked him "How should I treat you Porus ?" to which Porus proudly replied, "treat me, O Alexander, as a king !".

It is said that Alexander was so much impressed by these words and also with the bravery of Porus that he not only gave him his kingdom back and also added few of his won territories to his kingdom and appointed him as his general, who were called at that time as 'satraps'.

Porus surrenders to Alexander - art by Mrinal Rai

Now there has been a lot of debate about was Alexander actually able to defeat Porus ? or is it fabricated history that we are reading. Of course, I believe that history is written by winners and all that we know about Alexander and of his era is mainly from western historians. There are lot of things to take into consideration. I did a little research from my side over Internet and there are few points to consider:

• It is said that after defeating Porus, Alexander wanted to defeat the powerful Nanda empire in Magadha. But the soldiers of Alexander already frightened by the war elephants of Porus, became paranoid of the Nanda army when they came to know of its strength in numbers. It is said that the soldiers rebelled against the idea of marching ahead and asked Alexander to return home. Alexander tried to persuade them but in vain. It is said that Alexander returned back from the Beas river to his land without fighting the Nandas in 326 BC. Before his departure he appointed his general Phillip as satrap of the provinces he won in west of Hydespas, and Porus and Ambhi were asked to act as satraps too.
• Phillip was murdered soon, a year later in 325 BC, as part of a conspiracy. Alexander appointed Eudemus and Taxilas as satraps till he appoint any replacement for Phillip. But Alexander died in 323 BC from illness, which left Eudemus and Taxila started ruling on their own.
• It is mentioned in Indian history that a king named Chandragupta Maurya defeated the satraps left by Alexander and overthrew the Nanda king in 321-320 BC and became the emperor of Magadha. It is said that he took help of a king from mountain regions (sometimes mentioned as a Himalayan king) Parvateshwar, who also claimed a share in Magadha kingdom. The clever minister of Maurya, Chanakya conspired and get this king Parvateshwar killed by sending a Vishkanya (poison maiden), or sometimes it is mentioned that he was killed by giving poison. This story is particularly backed up by an ancient play called 'Mudra Rakshas'.
• It is mentioned in Greek history that Eudemus went to help another Greek hero Eumenes in a war against a Macedonian general Antigonus in 318-317 BC. It is said that he went from India, never to return, with a plenty of war elephants that he has got from kingdom of Porus after 'treacherously murdering him'.
• It is said that after conquering Magadha, Maurya successfully routed all the Macedonians by 316 BC

King Parvateshwar (sometimes identified as Porus) killed in a conspiracy by Chanakya- art by Mrinal Rai

Keeping all these points in place, it seems that  the king who helped Chandragupta Maurya to defeat the Nandas was none other than the king Porus himself who was later killed in a conspiracy by the mastermind of Chankya.  

Maurya did fight against a number of Macedonian satraps. He may have fought Eudemus too. Eudemus may have sought for a peace treaty and Chandragupta may have given the war elephants to him in his fight against Eumenes, and these he may have procured after capturing Magadh and killing Porus treacherously (should be somewhere between 319-317 BC).

Now to get to our point whether Alexander actually defeated Porus or not, lets take the scenario where Alexander was unable to defeat Porus. He might have surrendered and Porus may have let him go (as general gesture of Indian kings, example, Prithvi Raj Chauhan), or, Porus, who was eyeing for Magadha might have asked Alexander to help him defeat Nanda, to which his army mutinated fearing another defeat and he was forced to go back.

It must be noted that Alexander appointed Phillip as satrap of provinces west of Hydespas and Porus's kingdom was in the east. Phillip's muder can be linked to Chanakya and Chandragupta again as they were trying to win the territories in that region that time.

Timeline of the events

According to those who believe that Porus defeated Alexander at Hydespas, this entire theory of treating Porus like a king even after defeat is so 'unlike' Alexander who had a lust of victory. Returning a defeated king with his kingdom and helping him annex other territories and then suddenly started feeling 'home sick' after a great victory sounds a bit absurd. May be westerners don't want to belittle their God like figure.

Moreover it is mentioned that army of Porus was carrying figure of Herakles, who can be made synonymous with Krishna of India.

If we believe that Porus did defeat Alexander, the personality of this great king deserves a bow. The king who may have defeated the greatest conqueror who ever walked on this earth, was defeated and killed in a treacherous way.

Whether the theory is true or not, I would say that king Porus was definitely a legend of India and deserve due respect. 

  

Buddha: the celebrated Guru

Today 22nd July is the Guru Poornima, a day we dedicate to accept the magnanimity of all teachers in the world. I have big respect for all those who have taught me something or anything in any field. I consider teachers to be the most important people in this world.
Guru Purnima is celebrated by Hindus to celebrate the birth of a great Rishi and teacher, sage Vyas. Vyas wrote many purans including Mahabharat.

Buddhists celebrate this day to honour Lord Buddha. It is believed that Buddha gave his first sermon at Sarnath on this day. The life of Gautam Buddha is inspiring and well known to people across the world. He gave birth to a new sect, a new religion when Vedic system had practically declined to an end.
Buddha is definitely one of the greatest teachers who ever walked on this earth. He inspired lives of many. Here I will outline some of the famous stories associated with Buddha and his period.

• Angulimal: The story of bandit Angulimal is very well known. A bandit, who kills every traveller that would come to his jungle and would cut his victims' fingers and wear a garland of those fingers around his neck. This man represents the fierce and deformed face of humanity. Buddha, who was a messenger of peace and non-violence met him in the forest. When Angulimal saw Gautam Buddha walking on the path, he rushed to kill him. But in spite of running fast he couldnt catch to the speed of Buddha who is walking slowly and calmly. This represents the hysteria and frenzy that violence carries with it, against the sober calmness of peace and non-violence. When frustrated Angulimal asked Buddha to stop, Buddha replied that he had already stopped and it was now Angulimal's turn to stop. When Angulimal asked the explanation, Buddha replied that the act which involves suffering and pain of others should be stopped and he (Buddha) has already stopped doing that (by taking path of non-violence). Now, it was Angulimal's turn to do the same. Angulimal was moved. He came to a realization that violence serve no purpose. He renounced his weapons and the life of bandit and he became a monk.

Buddha and Angulimal

• Amrapali: Amrapali, the famous royal courtesan of  Vaishali, described by Acharya Chatursen as 'Vaishali ki nagar vadhu' (the bride of the city, Vaishali) was the most beautiful woman in her town. The king of Magadha, Bimbisar was in love with her and because of her love he abandoned the mission of attacking and destroying Vaishali. He stayed with Amrapali at her house and Amrapali bore him a son. The love between two souls again conquered the bloody imperialist mindset. Bimbisar had to bear the blame of being a coward for not being able to defeat his enemies. His other son Ajatshatru imprisoned him and invaded Vaishali. Meanwhile Amrapali was convicted by her own people for she gave shelter to an enemy. She was imprisoned. It is said that Bimbisar's son Ajatshatru was so moved by the beauty of Amrapali that he burned the city of Vaishali as a revenge for imprisoning her. When Amrapali saw the carnage caused because of her, she renounced the worldly affairs. It is said that once she invited Gautam Buddha at her house for meal. Buddha, to much dismay of others, accepted the invitation. After meeting Buddha, Amrapali realized the nothingness of worldly attachments. It is said that later she too became a monk.

Amrapali

• Virudhak: King Prasenjit of Kosal once attacked the Shakya republic, from where Buddha originally belonged. Prasenjit demanded a princess from Shakyas. The devious Shakyas sent a girl; daughter of a salve Shakya woman (Dasi). Prasenjit married that girl and the son born to them was Virudhak. When Virudhak came to know of real identity of his mother and the different treatment slaves used to get at that time, he became furious. He decided to attack the Shakya republic. Virudhak was fueled with rage and went to Shakya capital and ordered his troops to kill all the Shakyas. Some versions say that Buddha tried to stop him and some say that he attacked Shakyas after Buddha's death.An old man from Shakya republic, (Virudhak's own grandfather according to some sources) told Virudhak that he will submerge himself in water and asked the soldiers to launch attack only if he is not able to sustain for long in the water and come out. Looking at the poor state of the old man, Virudhak agreed. The old man dipped himself in the water but didn't come out for a long time. When the soldiers of Kosal dived in, they found that the man had tied his leg to a stone and had died. But the old man's sacrifice couldn't save the Shakyas and Virudhak and his army killed every single Shakya man, woman and child. It is said that Virudhak along with his army too get swooped away in a flood soon after the annihilation of Shakyas. 
  

  
  

  King Virudhak and the annihilation of Shakya

These three stories tell about the basic teachings of Buddha.
Buddha described dukh (grief) as "Birth is dukh, Life is dukh, death is dukh". At the core of the dukh is Trishna (lust/attachments for fruits). Only f you leave trishna, could you go on path of knowledge..

Angulimal had a lust of violence. He saw the dukh in life of a bandit, and retaliated with lust of violence. Amrapali saw the dukh in death of her people. The attachment she bore was being the nagar vadhu and royal status, which she later renounced. Virudhak, on the other hand, saw dukh in birth, core of which was lust for revenge. However, he could not suppress the lust; may be because he did not get the blessings of Buddha.

"Guru" literally means the one who removes the darkness with the light of knowledge. Gautam Buddha, the legendary guru of all times was a source of light for all those who have been blinded by lust and who have seen pain and suffering in life..

"I am not God, I am Sachin, please keep me away from this number Game !"

When Sachin R. tendulkar was asked about his feelings after completing his 100th century, the God of the cricket gave a really thought provoking reply.
He said that since it was taking a long time to complete his 100th 100 after his last (99th) hundrerd, so during this time he has seen so much hussle for his next century thanks to the media hype. He said that he had seen the concern for his next century in the eyes of everyone including all the house keeping people of the restaurants where he visited. He said that "No one was talking about the 99 hundreds I had scored, everyone just spoke about the 100th hundred".
This is really thought provoking. World salutes those who excel or those who finishes a great feat. No one remembers for long "nearly complete" tasks. No one worships a rising moon (except on Karwa Chauth). Making 99 centuries in itself is a record. But just the addition of one to this number would make something extra ordinary. Ofcourse it created a mental pressure on Sachin and thats the reason it took him so long to complete this task. But his astonishment around this topic is quite debatable and it again shows the humbleness of this great personality.
This incident reminds me of my all time favorite film "Jo Jeeta Wahi Sikander", in which the father of the main protagonist says that no matter how well you perform till the end, what matters is that whether you actually did it or not, whether you won or not ?
For a batsman who has been playing so well for so long, another hundred should not be a big thing, but since this one hundred would make the count to "100", it created so much mental pressure on him. As per Sachin's thoughts, its not that important and the true patriot said that "It doesnt matter how many hundreds you score, you still have to put your head down and do your job for your team." Number system is after all created by human beings. Surprisingly, no one would take a 101st century as a big deal, though 101 is one more than 100.....
Strange thing, right ?

A Token of thanks

I had to mute the speaker. She might hear the sound of opening windows on my laptop. I have to type slowly as she should not hear the sound of keys. She is sleeping with her face on my lap holding my hand. I am typing with my left hand.
Why so much show off ?
Why should I have to sit uncomfortably and type all this ?
As compared to whatever she does for me, it behoves me to do atleast this little for her. She listens to all my harsh speeches, tolerates every bit of me, stands by me for my dreams and works hard for our better future.

As I write this, I realize that God gives us so much in the form of relations. He gives us loving parents, like-minded siblings, understanding friends, soul mate spouse, even then we all crib...
Sometimes its better to take sometime off from cribbing and thank those who suffer for us.. thats I am doing right now...

Chanakya: part II- Tweaking of history with noble intentions

Chanakya is a story of Magadha, the then existing Patna in Bihar. The great king Mahapadam Nanada of Nanda dynasty ruled the Magadha empire and Pataliputra was its capital. This kingdom was vast and very strong. So strong to fear away the soldiers of Alexander who has penetrated deep in the then existing Indian Subcontinent.


The administration of Pataliputra under the Nanda rule, consisted of a council of ministers, the prime minister, the senapati (commander-in-chief) and a special position of Amatya; who sometime acts a chief advisor of the king and sometimes as the principal administrative head under the king.

Though very little is known about the story of Chanakya, various sources confirm this flow: Chanakya a.k.a. Vishnugupta was a Brahmin and a learned scholar and acharya of Taxila, a great university of that time, and Chanakya was thrown out of the Magadha court after being insulted by the king Dhana Nanda, the son of Mahapadam Nanda. Infuriated Vishnugupta swore revenge and later he helped a brave man named Chandragupta Maurya to overthrow the Nanda dynasty and established him as the ruler of Magadha.

The serial has expanded to this basic story by telling that Dhana Nanda was an unjust and corrupt ruler (which most historic sources agree with). The chief minister of Dhana Nanda rebels against him and is imprisoned. Then an acharya Chanak, a friend of the minister, rebels against the king and he too is imprisoned and later dies in cell. Vishnu Gupta is the son of Chanak, who leaves Pataliputra and reaches Taxila where he learns Vedas by heart and becomes a great acharya himself in Taxila.

It was a time of the invasion by Alexander the great in India. Taxila was the northwestern frontier of the then existing Indian subcontinent and the security of all Indian kingdoms were dependent on the protection provided by Taxila. But the ambitious king of Taxila forms alliance with Alexander and opens the gates of India for him. Vishnu Gupta Chanakya was annoyed by the ideologies of the then existing small kingdoms in the Indian Subcontinent (which were called janapadas) which was limited to safeguarding their own boundaries. Disregarding his hatred he begs help to Magadha king Dhana Nanda and his ministers and asks them to lead the forces against the Greek incumbent forces, but affluent with his position, king Dhana Nanda insults Chanakya and throws him out of his court.

A furious Chanakya vows revenge and opens his shikha (hair), an act which was consider unworthy for a Brahmin, and swears that unless he uproots the Nanda king and all those who will be hurdle in establishment of a united and fortified India, he will not tie his hair.

Vishnu Gupta takes with him to Taxila, a cowherd boy Chandragupta from Pataliputra after watching possibilities of him in becoming a king. He teaches Chandragupta and several other Brahmins about the national integrity and sovereignty.

Meanwhile after defeating many kingdoms in India Alexander defeats mountain king of Kekaya, Parvateshwar, popularly known as Porus. Porus accepts the friendship of Alexander which only turns out to be a slavery of his men when he has left India. Alexander’s forces tired of fighting and fearing of encountering another huge force similar to that of Porus again in India, refuse to march ahead and Alexander had to return and he appoints his chieftains, known as satrap, in the provinces he has won.

Chandragupta and Chanakya’s mission starts after Alexander’s departure. With the help of growing rebels Chanakya compels king of Taxila to help him and he forms a small army under the leadership of Chandragupta. Chanakya’s strategies led to the assassination of the satrap of Alexander and after the death of Alexander in Greece, Chandragupta leads a force and frees all the kingdoms previously won by Alexander. With the help of the his long time friend and minister in Kekaya, Chanakya makes king Porus an ally of Chandragupta and under the alliance, many kingdoms of Northern mountain countries come under the leadership of Chandragupta and with the advice of Chanakya, Chandragupta marches with that army towards Magadha to overthrow the Nanda king.

But Magadha was not an easy target. With exceptional military strategies, spy networks, dedicated loyal army chieftans, an honest prime minister and the ever watchful Amatya Kartikeya, popularly known as Amatya Rakshasa, it was not possible to uproot Magadha. But Chanakya returns to Pataliputra with a plan. He exploits the deep rooted corruption in the system led by the aging and retiring king Dhana Nanda, corrupt Commander-in-chief and jealous princes. He creates a situation of civil war and the sons of the king and the commander is killed and king has to leave the city. Amatya Rakshasa goes in hiding seeking plot to revenge the downfall of Nanda dynasty.

When Chandragupta enters Pataliputra, he faces no opposition. Chanakya is appointed as new amatya and he appoints to the council all those loyal to Magadha. Meanwhile, the supporter kings of Chandragupta want a share of either kingdom or wealth of Magadha. Chief among them is Laghu Paurav, the nephew of king Porus. Paurav is looking for a way to remove Chandragupta to become sole ruler of Magadha. For this, he takes help of amatya Rakshasa who is living in hiding. But Chanaky plays above all of them. He, with his guile and techniques, kills all the enemies of Chandragupta and compels amatya Rakshasa to surrender before him. When he does so, Chankaya humbly appoints him the amatya of Chandragupta and thus King Chandragupta is crowned as ruler of Magadha.

Now the serial does tweak a lot with the historical information that we know. But since most of the information about that period is either ambiguous or unconfirmed so it does no harm in accepting Dr. Dwivedi’s version. There are many differences.

The most startling difference is the mentality of unity of Indian subcontinent by Vishnu Gupta which does not seem possible at that time because the concept of Indian subcontinent and something known as “Maa Bharati” was not known at that time. Chanakya’s motives as the historians put it, was to overthrow Nanda king. But the serial shows hiss motive of united and protected India, which is very soothing.

Another difference is that Chandragupta is mentioned as a cowherd boy and not a Kshatriya. Most sources say that Chandragupta was a Kshatriya and was dissatisfied with Nanda king.

Perhaps the greatest difference is the overthrowing of Nanda. The historical sources say that Chandragupta does fight series of wars in guerilla techniques with the Nanda army and Chanakya’s initial attempt to defeat Nanda failed and then he changed his strategies by weakening enemy at around its edges. In the serial, however, Dhana Nanda’s empire is brought down in just one night by a series of activities happening outside the king’s palace which are actually result of Chanakya’s strategies. Infact Chandragupta did not fight at all with the Nanda king or his army. Rather it is shown that the army starts the civil war as it gets divided between the supporters of the commander-in-chief Bhadrashaal (beautifully portrayed by Irrfan Khan) and army chief Balabhadra (played by Narendra Suri).

Another difference is related to an old Sanskrit play “Mudra Rakshasa”. The later episodes of Chanakya which tells the story of post-Nanda is based on this play where Chanakya tries to win over the equally intelligent amatya Rakshasa who is living in hiding and seeking plot for revenge. According to the play, Rakshasa sends a poison damsel popularly known as Visha kanya to Chandragupta to kill him but Chanakya makes her kill Paurav king who was anyway a hurdle in Chandragupta’s ascending to throne. In the TV serial it is shown that Rakshasa does send a dancer played by Neena Gupta to kill Chandragupta as part of a plan formed by amatya Rakshasa and laghu Paurav. But before the dancer could kill Chandragupta, Chanakya reveals that laghu Paurava was already under his watchful eyes through spy networks and then Paurava is murdered and the dancer is sent back.

The story of the serial is gripping followed by excellent performances by lead actors. I would particularly quote the performance of Dr. Dwivedi as exceptional and a result of immense hard work. His silent glances, movements, walking style makes him a perfect Vishnu Gupt. Equally commendable performance was by veteran actor Surendra Pal, popularly known for his portrayals of Dronacharya in Mahabharata, Kilvish in Shaktimaan and Vikranta Jabbaar in ZEE horror show. Surendra Pal’s personality, tall figure, deep voice and very expressive face made the character of amatya Rakshasa loveable.

Also the producer of the serial, Prakash Dwivedi played two roles in the serial. One was Jeevasiddhi, Buddhist monk and another was of the wicked laghu Paurav. The latter was an awesome portrayal.

Popular actors Irrfan Khan, Sanjay Mishra, Manoj Joshi, Deepraj Rana, Sooraj Chaddha played important roles in the serial.

The flow of the serial was however flawed. I read over internet that there was some controversy over the serial and channel was not giving extension for further episodes so Dr. Dwivedi completed the serial in a hurry, it seems. The later episodes based on Mudra rakshasa does not gel well with the former episodes. Most importantly the serial doesnot show whether Vishnu Gupt was able to fulfill his vow.

But if these flaws can be ignored, the television serial is worth watching and the one thing that we learn from producers and directors of that age is that for providing good knowledge and imparting values, even if we have to tweak with history or to add items from our own side for non existing pieces or to club some historical facts, then its not only Ok but quite commendable work.