Sasigupta and Candragupta
By H. C. Seth
Summary
In this short note, the author addresses the debate surrounding the origins of Candragupta Maurya and the identity of a figure named Sasi‑gupta. Some early scholars, relying on Greek accounts and architectural similarities, suggested that Candragupta was of Persian origin. The article challenges this theory by examining literary and inscriptional evidence. It summarises Dr. Spooner’s hypothesis that Candragupta’s palace resembled Persian structures and therefore implied foreign ancestry. The author refutes this by pointing out that Indian sources depict Candragupta as belonging to the Maurya clan, with genealogies tracing his lineage to ruling families in Bihar. The note also considers the figure of Śaṅigupta, mentioned in some texts as a contemporary or subordinate of Candragupta; rather than being his father, Śaṅigupta may have been a local chief or ally who aided Alexander’s army at Aornos and later supported Candragupta’s rise. The author argues that conflating Śaṅigupta with Candragupta or positing Persian descent arises from misinterpretation of Greek sources and coincidental architectural parallels. The note emphasises that a critical reading of Indian inscriptions and later historical texts supports the indigenous origin of Candragupta and underscores the strength of local resistance against foreign invaders.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
The note concludes that Candragupta Maurya’s origins are rooted in Indian political traditions and not in Persian ancestry. By disentangling the identities of Śaṅigupta and Candragupta, the author dispels conjectures derived from superficial comparisons of architecture. The evidence indicates that Śaṅigupta was likely a regional ally whose role has been exaggerated. The article stresses that historical reconstruction must prioritise contemporaneous Indian sources over speculative readings of foreign accounts. Recognising Candragupta as an indigenous ruler reinforces our understanding of the Maurya dynasty’s emergence from local socio‑political dynamics rather than external imposition.