Would You Rather Live Under Gupta Or Mauryan As Your Indian Ruler And Why

Thanks for A2A.I love as a History student : Chandragupta 2 . His rule was exemplary.Chandragupta II - Wikipedia

The Nandas were powerful rulers and good administrators. They had become kings by virtue of their capacity. But they were sudra (they belong to Barber community to be precise). The Nandas were anti-brahmins, as the brahmanical society favoured caste system. They substitutes the Jains instead of Brahmins in their administrative posts/ministers. This led to their hatred amongst the brahmins. Soon the brahmins and other manuvadis led by Vishu Gupta (Chanakya) became a powerful pressure group and influenced and convinced the people that the Nandas are not capable of being kings as they were sudras and Only a Kshatriya has to become a King as per the dharma Shastras. This mindset became dominant in the kingdom. In addition to this, Chandragupta Maurya, who was the son of the Last Nanda - Dhana Nanda from his cocubine - Mura devi and who had hatred towards his father for neglecting him joined hands with the Chanakya and killed Dhana Nanda, by military coup. Chanakya supported Chandra Gupta Maurya, as he supported the brahmanical society and it was imminent to create such an order even with a sudra king. The hatred towards the Nandas was such that the Brahmins saw that their history is not recorded anywhere….As such there is very less information about Nandas in history and most of the time, the Nandas are shown as unimportant rulers, though their contribution to the Indian History was abundance and has made us proud, it is manipulated to suit the brahmanical Order….Alexander returned to greece, getting frightened about the army of Dhana Nanda. Though there were also other reasons. But the Historians have taken all of us for a ride to prove their Brahmanical loyalty….History has to be read as how it is. It should be left for the people to judge….

Yes, he was from the shudra caste. Oral tradition says he belonged to a tribe of peacock herders, the Maurya caste in present day UP/Bihar is also a so called backward caste.further evidence comes from the play Mudrarakshasa by poet Vishakhadatta who lived in the Gupta empire, possibly as a court poet in 4th century CE. The play is about court intrigues involving Chandragupta Maurya & his mentor cum prime minister, Chanakya.In the play, Chanakya’s nickname for his brightest student — Chandragupta, is “Brishal” — a word that means a person of shudra origins.Now, we have to remember that in Gupta era the Mauryans were hero-worshipped, so much so that two of the Gupta emperors took up the name ‘Chandragupta’ ! So, they had no reason to ascribe humble origins to their Hero, unless it was true. (when writing stories about people you admire, you are more likely to imagine him coming from some ancient and powerful family. The only case where you wont do so was if it was widely known that your hero came from a MudHut and not a Mahal and saying otherwise would make you, the writer, look ridiculous)What this shows is that caste was not rigid in that era, a person with talents could still move up from truly humble beginnings to become the Emperor of ALL OF INDIA ! And he was helped and guided in that journey by a brahmin who put more value and trust in a person’s ability rather than his birth-caste.