6.3. Character of Candragupta

[Full title: Characterisation in Mudrārākṣasa (3): Character of Candragupta]

Candragupta Maurya is the king and the sovereign ruler of the Maurya dynasty. According to the Indian dramaturgy he must have been the hero of the present play.

Dhanañjaya, in his Daśarūpaka has mentioned about the characteristics of hero that we have discussed earlier i.e.—

“The hero should be well-bred, charming, liberal, clever, affable-popular, upright, eloquent of exalted linage, resolute, and young; endowed with intelligence, energy, memory, wisdom, (skill in the) arts, and pride; heroic, mighty, vigorous, familiar with the codes and a just observer of laws.”

All seems to be present in Candragupta. But as Viśākhadatta the dramatist himself is a bit partial to glorify the character of Cāṇakya, the character of Candragupta becomes dim, although, he is an important character just after Cāṇakya in the drama.

Candragupta is a devoted and well-disciplined pupil of Cāṇakya having proper regards, nay veneration, for his Guru. It can be known in the soliloquy of the third Act when he particularly says—

“In this world a pupil, acting in the right way, experiences no check (from his preceptor); when, however, he strays from the proper path through infatuation, the preceptor becomes a goad to him, hence good men who delight in acting according to instruction are ever free from restraint; we for our part are averse to any independence beyond this.”^[1]

As Candragupta possesses so much regard for Cāṇakya, he is simply unwilling to go against any desire of the latter or to do anything without consulting him. Therefore, in his soliloquy he clearly tells us how he is much worried over the command of Cāṇakya to the effect that he should pick up a quarrel with him and conduct the state affairs independently for some time. He is ashamed for having disrespected his preceptor at his own command and wonders how others dare actually do it.^[2] Candragupta is a very competent prince who has the good sense to put absolute confidence in the ability and diplomatic skill of his preceptor. He regards himself humbly as the pupil of Cāṇakya, who incidentally calls him vṛṣala which means a ‘helot’ (Śūdra), may be on account of his birth or flattering him with royal tittles.

By birth he is the son of a slave woman who was Śūdra by caste from king Nanda, which can be known from the speech of Rākṣasa in act II.7 where he utters the word kulahīna, Cf.—

pṛthivyāṃ kim dagdhāḥ prathitakulajā bhūmipatayaḥ/
patiṃ pāpe mauryaṃ yadasi kulahīnaṃ vṛtavati//^[3]

But perhaps not for this reason alone Cāṇakya calls him vṛṣala because

Cāṇakya loved him very much and tried every effort to make him the sovereign ruler. Here, the word Vṛṣala signifies ‘the greatest king’—rājñāṃ vṛṣaḥ.^[4] With the blessings of Cāṇakya, Candragupta becomes the kings of the kings. He is the sovereign ruler of the earth i.e. pṛthivīpati.^[5] From the north of the Himalayas to the South of the Seas all the kings of the country are under the rule of Candragupta.^[6] The qualities of such a great leader are noticed even by persons like Rākṣasa from his childhood. It can be known by the statement of Rākṣasa, while he says–“who when yet a boy gave distinct promise of his future exaltation, and who has gradually obtained sovereignty like an elephant obtaining mastery over a herd of elephants.”^[7] Yet in some places in this drama Candragupta is seen under estimated by Rākṣasa.

Rākṣasa thinks that Candragupta is habitually dependent on his minister for success in an undertaking and is, therefore like a blind man, in conversant with the affairs of the world. Cf.—

candraguptastu durātmā nityaṃ sacivāyattasiddhāveva sthitaścakṣurvikala ivāpratyakṣalokavyavahāraḥ kathamiva svayaṃ pratividhātuṃ samarthaḥ syāt/^[8]

For this reason, the mock quarrel between Cāṇakya and Candragupta is believed by Rākṣasa as the original one and thinks that a difficulty arising from a minister may be no difficulty in the case of other kings; but with Candragupta it is so.

Cf.—

anyeṣāṃ bhūpatīnāṃ kādacidamātyavyasanaṃ avyasanaṃ syāt/ na punaścandraguptasya//^[9]

Rākṣasa again thinks that it is his credit that he appointed spies like Stavakalaśa against Candragupta. But Candragupta has full faith in Cāṇakya, and is not likely to be deceived by spies like Stavakalaśa, was devoted, intelligent and self-controlled.

Candragupta was no doubt a valorous king. He might have the power to defeat his enemies by fighting. But ārya Cāṇakya becomes able to defeat the whole power of the enemies’ camp.

This makes Candragupta ashamed and thus Candragupta says—

vinaiva yuddhādāryeṇa jitaṃ durjayaṃ parabalamiti lajjita evāsmi/^[10]

Candragupta’s powers and valour goes in vain. So his powerful arrows also seem to become ashamed off for that case.^[11]

Candragupta is a lover of Nature. Due to his love for Nature he is seen very much eager to perform the kaumudīmahotsava. But his preceptor Cāṇakya does not like so. Because the time was not proper for performing the kaumudīmahotsava, rather it is the time to prepare for the wear.^[12] Candragupta was well acquainted with the ways of the world.

This fact is supported by Cāṇakya when he says—

abhijñaḥ khalvasi lokavyavahārāṇāṃ.^[13]

He is a competent ruler, a religious person and a great wearier. For all these merits Rākṣasa thinks of him as a perfect person and a pupil who is called dravya and while Malayketu is adravya.^[14]

We have also to notice the intelligence and artistic spirit played by Candragupta in his soliloquy describing the worries of a king—

rājyaṃ hi nāma rājadharmānuvṛttiparatantrasya nṛpatermahadaprītisthānam^[15];

The fickleness of Lakṣmī—

durārādhyā hi rājalakṣmīrātmavadbhirapi rājabhiḥ^[16]

And the autumn season.^[17]

He also shows his brilliance in the sham quarrel with his preceptor by putting him every appropriate question. Candragupta, so far as our play goes, has little independent existence of his own. He however is too much under the tutelage of his teacher, unwilling to take up responsibility and shows such complete dependence upon Cāṇakya that he is almost incapable of taking any initiative.

Cāṇakya himself declares about the detachment of Candragupta with the administration of the kingdom. Cf.—

vṛṣala eva kevalaṃ pradhānaprakṛtirasmāsvāropitarājyatantrabhāraḥ satatamudāste/^[18]

But in whatever existence he has, he is shown himself to be a worthy disciple of Cāṇakya, the consummate politician, who also has describe him [Candragupta] as a king more interested in his subjects’ welfare then in their money,^[19] and as entirely dependent on him in the affairs of the state. No wonders that he expresses full appreciation of this monarch by contrasting him with the Nandas more than once.^[20]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

iha viracayan sādhvīṃ śiṣyaḥ kriyāṃ na nivāryate tyajati tu yadā mārgaṃ mohāt tadā gururaṅkuśaḥ/ vinayarucayastasmāt santaḥ sadaiva niraṃkuśāḥ paratarmataḥ svātantryebhyo vayaṃ hi parāṅmukhāḥ// Mudrārākṣasa, III. 6

[2]:

āryājñayaiva mama laṅghitagauravasya buddhiḥ praveṣṭumiva bhūvivaraṃ pravṛttā/ ye satyameva hi gurūnatipātayanti teṣāṃ kathaṃ nu hṛdayaṃ na bhinatti lajjā// Ibid., III. 33

[3]:

also see, iṣṭātmajaḥ sapadi sānvaya eva devaḥ/ śārdūlapotmiva yaṃ paripoṣya naṣṭaḥ//Ibid., II. 8

[4]:

nandairviyuktamanapekṣitarājarājairadhyāsitaṃ ca vṛṣalena vṛṣeṇa rājñāṃ// siṃhāsanaṃ sadṛśapārthivasaṅgataṃca prītiṃ parāṃ praguṇayanti guṇā mamaite//Ibid., III. 18

[5]:

Ibid., IV. 10

[6]:

Ibid., II. 22

[7]:

Ibid., VII. 12

[8]:

Ibid., pp. 301-302

[9]:

Ibid., p.299

[10]:

Ibid., p.467

[11]:

phalayogamavāpya sāyakānāṃ vidhiyogena vipakṣatāṃ gatānāṃ. na śuceva bhavatyadhomukhānāṃ nijatūnīśayanavrataṃ pratuṣṭha//Mudrārākṣasa. VII. 10

[12]:

sayam vyayamakato notsavakato iti/Ibid., p.239

[13]:

Ibid., p. 61

[14]:

dravyaṃ jigīṣumadhigamya jaḍātmano’pi neturyaśasvini pade niyatā pratiṣṭhā/ adravyametya tu viśuddhanayo’pi mantrī śīrṇāśrayaḥ patati kūlajavṛkṣavṛtyā//Ibid., VII. 14

[15]:

Ibid., p. 184

[16]:

Ibid., also see III. 5

[17]:

Ibid., III. 7-9

[18]:

Mudrārākṣasa, p.41

[19]:

cf. bhoḥ śreṣṭin, candraguptarājyamidaṃ na nandarājyam/ yato nandasyaivārtharucerartha sambandhaḥ prītimutpādayati candraguptasya tu bhavatāmaparikleśa eva /Ibid., p. 78

[20]:

III, 12; 18 and VII, 14 where Rākṣasa also suggestively compares Nanda and Candragupta