Differentiate between nations of kingship developed …

During the Early historic era we see that the Brahmanas producing different texts. And there is close proximity between Brahmanas and the ksatriyas. Through there knowledges the brahmans began to prescribe roles to the diffrent section of the society. And we see that the main role of Ksatriya was to rule over the people and it was ksatriya who had the right to rule, collect taxes, raid etc. But After the decline of the Mauryan empire we see many groups from central asia, such as Shakas and Kushanas forming empire and whose social background were not clear. And we see that the throne was open to anyone who had the power to grap it.

For example in the kingdoms of Tamilakam (the name of the ancient Tamil country, which included parts of present-day Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, in addition to Tamil Nadu) Cheras, Cholas, Pandyas, were ruled by chiefs or kings. And the positiond of chief were not hereditary like the Mauryas.

We also see that many rulers who came from central asia like Shakas , satavahanas had vey obscure social backgrounds. However one of the most important idea that emerged during the Kushanas (c. first century BCE first century CE), who ruled over a vast kingdom extending from Central Asia to northwest India. They began to portray themselves as divine, there are evidence of kushana rulers statue inside temple.

During this time we also see that the position of king or ruler were not secure, for example we see that the Gupta Empire forged a huge empire depended on huge samantas, men who maintained themselves through local resources including control over land. They offered homage and provided military support to rulers. Powerful samantas could become kings: conversely, weak rulers might find themselves being reduced to positions of subordination.

Thus we see that after Mauryas there was a huge change in the idea of kingship.