Talk:Chandragupta Maurya

"Dr. Ranajit Pal" on Origins

Under the "Origins" heading, there is a large section of views of a certain Ranajit Pal, whose website strikes me as a very odd piece of, errm, "original research" (to put it politely). It'd be nice if someone with more knowledge on the topic than me could have a look at those passages. They should either be condensed into a summary or deleted altogether. Varana (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Varana: I agree totally. Ranajit Pal seems intent on rewriting practically the whole history of India and Persia. I have just gone through his website and found it full of accusations, suppositions and unsupported speculations. I will now have a look at this article and remove these speculations and give a reference to Pal's website for those who might be interested in some alternative views. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Repair work on this article. Help requested

Further note to the above: I have just started editing the main page and removed all the academic titles as per Wikipedia policy as well as some of the discussions of Ranajit Pal's speculations (but left a link to his site in case any one is interested in his alternate views). However, I then started looking at some of the so-called "quotes" only to find that some of them seem to be completely made up (I have removed a couple of those), while others seem to be poorly rewritten versions - not the originals given at the place where the links take one to. I have started replacing them with the proper quotes from the English translation by Rev. John Selby Watson on the same site. However, this article on Chandragupta (and all the quotes and references in it) needs to be carefully checked - as someone has been really misusing the Wikipedia. I will try to get back to it soon - but it would be very helpful if others could also check and, where necessary, repair "quotes" and claims. We should probably also check other articles that are linked to it in case there has been similar vandalism on those pages. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Hill,

The current issue of the classics journal Scholia (vol. 15, pp. 78-101) carries an article by Ranajit Pal whom you characterize as a vandal. Prof. M. Witzel of Harvard calls Pal a hijacker which appears to be more appropriate. In this article Pal discusses some issues like the location of Palibothra which are of prime importance in world history. He maintains that Palibothra cannot be Patna because not a single artifact of any Maurya or Nanda king has been unearthed here. I believe that apart from elaborating the current academic position, even if one detests 'original research', it is the duty of the writer to point to the problems in the current theory. Why are no archaeological relics of Chandragupta known from anywhere in the world? Is this something that we should be silent about ? Pal maintains in his book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander" (p. 88) that Orontobates was Chandragupta who was Rantivarma of the Mudrarakshasa. According to him Diodotus of Erythrae was also Chandragupta. The book has been reveiwed by Jan-Mathieu Carbon of Corpus Christi college, Oxford University,( http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/05-19pal.htm ) and also in the prestigious Bryn Mawr Classical Reveiw ( http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-12-39.html ) . Also your exasperation is evident in that the sentence in the Wiki article "H.C. Raychaudhuri noted that the name Priyadarshi was adopted also by Chandragupta and as noted by W. W. Tarn," ends with a coma. The next sentence, "Robin Lane Fox has written that Sisines the Persian who is said to have met Alexander in Cilicia was in fact an ally of the latter." is also meaningless as it is without any context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Hill,

I think the repair work was very damaging. Someone who probably reads little else than textbooks says he does not know enough to form an opinion but dislikes what was there and you oblige him by removing all that he does not like. This may also be vandalism. This gentleman is in good company. Ranajit Pal states in the website http://www.ranajitpal.com that Romila Thapar who is the co-recipient of the one million Dollar Kluge prize also admitted she did not know enough to comment on Pal's work. Coming back to the repair work again the sentence "H.C. Raychaudhuri noted that the name Priyadarshi was adopted also by Chandragupta and as noted by W. W. Tarn" is still incorrect and strange. Tarn had nothing to do with Priyadarshi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Repair Work Is Another Instance of Editorial Intransigence

The editor and his advisor Varana are strongly advised to read the paper by Dr. Ranajit Pal recently published in Mithras Reader III. The famous scholar Prof. Thomas McEvilley also acclaims Pal's work. Two important history websites, historyfiles.co.uk [1] and Historyhunters International [2] also attach great importance to his work. Pal is strongly critical of the SOAS-JNU version of Indology, but his arguments are recognized also by the University of Utrecht [3], one of the oldest and most respected universities of Europe. The prestigious Bryn Mawr Classical Review (University of Pennsylvania)[4] also acclaims Pal's work. The editor clearly needs to educate himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gdprasad (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Gdprasad: The authors on Maurya Empire have to show in literature proof that 'Sandracottus' really correaponds to 'Chandra Gupta Maurya' and not to "Gupta Chandra Gupta of Gupta Dynasty' or to any other Chandragupta, and that the assumption is not a mere guess, conjucture or speculation of the authors of referances cited.

Sandrokotos couldn't very well be Chandra Gupta of the Gupta dynasty, as he lived around 600 years too late. Bazzalisk (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Gdprasad (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC):In the literature of India there is no allusion anywhere to an invasion or inroad into India by foreign nations upto the time of the Andhra Kings; and the only person who bore the name of Chandragupta answering to the description of Sandracottus of the Greeks who flourished about the time of Alexander the Great in India, according to Puranas, was Chandragupta of the Gupta Dynasty who established the mighty empire of the Guptas on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra Dynasty about 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, corresponding to 328 B.C., but he is now placed in the 4th century A.D.,on the sole strength of this mistaken Greek Synchronism by our Savants of Indian History. God save us from our friends!

Ref: History of classical Sanskrit literature: By M. Krishnamachariar, Motilal Banarsidass Publisher, 1989 - 1124 pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdprasad (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction on death year

This article states 298 BC as likely death year; over at Megasthenes the year 288 BC is given. This contradiction should be resolved somehow. AxelBoldt (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct the Salutation of Emperor chandragupta Maurya to "The Great"

Chandragupta Maurya is considered "The Great" and this "The Great" must be added to his name. From India, there have been 5 greats. Astonishingly, out of 5 "The Greats", 4 were from the land of Magadh, the present day Bihar. The names are: Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Samudragupta, Vikramaditya... under these Emperors India was mightiest and known to world as "Golden Bird". —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/210.212.45.114|2sejmxyumkjultdshyyhyhyhyhyhyhyyj yd j y uj s rors indeed, but Chandragupta Maurya's name was never stylized as "Chandragupta Maurya the Great". utcursch | talk 05:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In a sorry state

This article is in a sorry state. A celebratory tone of Indian Nationalism runs all the way through it in defiance of wikipedia's neutrality policy. (This seems to be a more widespread problem in Indian history articles than in any other part of wikipedia I have seen). Religious tradition and historical fact are muddled. Implausible statements from ancient texts are accepted uncritically. Much of the English is poor. I don't have the knowledge to fix the article, but it needs to be fixed by someone, preferably with a firm understanding of and commitment to wikipedia's policies. Luwilt (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Maurya.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Maurya.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any portraits surviving?

It would be nice if there were.Ericl (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox 'Jain' religion inserted by blocked user

As brought to notice on WP:ANI in this thread, User:Rahul RJ Jain has attempted to stamp historical great rulers with his religion by citing very poor or no sources. In infobox he has inserted 'Jain' religion of the subject. But as lead section is too long, I can't edit to remove his insertion. I request to remove 'Jain' religion from infobox. Thanks. neo (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You removed the edit without explaining what is unreliable about the source. I am re-adding it as of now. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Article infobox was showing either Hindu or both Hindu and Jain religions since Jan 2009 until this edit. It was changed back to Hinduism. And since this edit by another user on 19 March 2013 you are trying keep Jainism religion in infobox. There are sources like these which state that Chandragupta was Kshatriya. Due to conflicting nature of info about his religion I propose to leave religion field blank and include info about Kshatriya and Jain relation in the article section with sources. Until consensus is made, I will leave religion field blank. neo (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Kshatriya is a caste, not a religion. There is no conflict at all. Reverting. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And castes exist without religion? Your arrogance continues. You do whatever you want with articles, don't discuss, throw weird statements and claim on ANI that I don't even try to discuss. I am reverting. neo (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources clearly mention that Chandragupta Maurya was a Jain. Where are any contradictory source? All the Jain tirthankara were of Kshatriya Caste. The disciples of the last tirthankara were of Brahmin caste. Saying that one is a Kshatriya isn't contradictory to saying that one is a Jain. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Pls provide refs to prove that Kshatriya is Jain caste also. I am not finding any info on google and in this article. And even if such Jain caste exist, how do you know that my sources are mentioning Jain kshatriya and not Hindu kshatriya? When no admin or user is coming forward to resolve dispute, this is what happens. Reverting. neo (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to svetambara Jain tradition, the last tirthankara Mahavira's embryo was first in Devananda. However, Devananda was Brahmin by caste and the birth of tirthankara always happens in Kshatriya caste, so the embryo was transferred into Trishala, who was a kshatriya. Refer to any reliable text on Jainism, you would find it. Point being, caste system of Brahmin, Kshatriya etc. is related to India, not to any specific religion. Even in Buddhism, the list of Buddhas mention their respective caste of Buddha. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What Mahavira got to do with Chandragupta? Mahavira was born to Kshatriya-Brahmin, hence every Kshatriya and Brahmin person is Jain? Same sources also claim that mother of Chandragupta was Shudra. Are Shudras also Jains? You are hijacking all Hindu culture and naming it Jainism. And google don't show that Kshatriya is accepted caste of Jainism. Pls give refs which specifically state that 'kshatriya is jain caste'. Until then accept dispute and leave religion field blank. neo (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolute Straw man argument. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Section break

(just in case edit box limit exceeds) Reply to User:Rahuljain2307 dated 04:23 16 June 2013 post: I asked, sources also state that Chandragupta's mother was Shudra. Is Shudra Jain caste also? Your claim that if 'Hindu' word is not associated with Kshatriya then all Kshatriyas are Jain is not acceptable. Pls provide sources which make it clear that 'Kshatriya is Jain caste' and specifically write that 'Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Jain Kshatriya caste'. For detailed argument about origin, religion, caste of Chandragupta, pls see Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya . Historians have made it absolutely clear that his origin, religion, caste is debated. Pls don't override historians to claim that Chandragupta was Jain. Allow to leave religion field blank and include all sides in article. neo (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what caste was chandragupta's mother, or what lineage did she belong to. Whether he was Kshatriya, Shudra etc does not effect what religion he belonged to. I have mentioned sources that clearly state that he followed Jainism. If any contradictory claim exists, its your burden to bring the sources for it. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Castes are associated with religion. Kshatriya, Maratha, Yadav, Bramhin, Chamar etc are Hindu castes. You can't say that they are irrelevant and go on claiming Jain or Christian or Islam religion of them. I have given sources above and also there are many sources in Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya which contradict your claim. As per this site of Archaeological Survey of India of Government of India and other sources mentioned in Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya historians also identify Chandragupta with Greek King Sandrokottos. Pls provide sources which state that Greeks are also Jain. neo (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that all the Jain tirthankara were of Kshatriya Caste. This completely contradicts your assertion that "Kshatriya, Maratha, Yadav, Bramhin, Chamar etc are Hindu castes". Mahavira was a Jain. His parents followed the teaching of Parshva, the twenty-third tirthankara. Yet he was a Kshatriya. This destroys your argument. What further proof you need to know that belonging to any caste is not same as being a follower of Hindu religion? Rahul Jain (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)