Why is it unlikely that the Mauryan Empire had a uniform administrative system?
1) The regions were too similar in culture and geography.
2) The capital and provincial centers were poorly connected.
3) The regions included in the empire were too diverse in terms of terrain and culture.
4) The empire was too small to have a centralized administration.

3

The Mauryan Empire was characterized by five major political centers - the capital Pataliputra and the provincial centers of Taxila, Ujjayini, Tosali, and Suvarnagiri. As evident from the inscriptions of Asoka, the same message was engraved across these regions, spanning from present-day North West Frontier Provinces of Pakistan to Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and Uttarakhand in India. The question arises - could such a vast empire have functioned under a uniform administrative system?

Historians have increasingly realized that this was unlikely due to the diverse nature of the regions encompassed by the empire. The topography of Afghanistan significantly contrasted with the coastal plains of Orissa, making it challenging to maintain uniformity in administration.

It is speculated that administrative control was strongest in areas around the capital and the provincial centers. The strategic selection of these centers played a crucial role in governing the empire effectively. Taxila and Ujjayini were located along significant long-distance trade routes, while Suvarnagiri, named "the golden mountain," likely served as a vital resource for accessing the gold mines of Karnataka.