Q. Ashoka’s policy of dhamma
What stands out vividly in the depictions of dhamma in Ashokan inscriptions is the advocated path of ‘ahimsa’ (non-violence). Rock edict 1 prohibits the killing of certain animals. Romila Thapar, however, in “Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas”, says this was probably due to the collapse of pastoral economy in the post-Vedic times, to be followed by an agricultural base that didn’t require the killing of animals. Texts record a claim that the number of animals being killed in the royal kitchens was reduced to 3, 2 peacocks and a deer, and that even these lives wouldn’t be snuffed out in future.
The Ashokan inscriptions also expose the king’s undertaking of welfare measures as a part of dhamma to better the quality of life led by his subjects. Rock edict 2 reveals advancements in the fields of medical treatment, digging of wells and road communication, made at the behest of the state. Further, rock edict 6 showcases one of the goals of Ashoka to “discharge the debt he owes to all human beings”, as Upinder Singh puts it. In the 1st separate rock edict at Dhauli, his claim, “all men are my children”, reflects that Ashoka regarded his role as king vis-à-vis his subjects, as a parent would with his children.
This brings us to how the ruler projected himself to his “children”. The employment of grandiose titles like “Devanampiya” (‘beloved of the Gods’), “Piyadassi” (‘pleasant to behold’) and “chakkavatti” (“chakravarti” in Sanskrit, meaning ‘universal ruler’) would surely have inspired awe among people. Using the title ‘chakkavatti’, particularly, would have evoked the politico-military prowess of Ashoka in his subjects’ minds, in addition to making him synonymous with divinity. This contrasts sharply with his declaration in the 10th rock edict that he seeks neither glory nor fame, only that people follow their dhamma.
Edicts and texts meant for the general public are distinguished from those addressed to the sangha. A noticeable example of the latter is the purge of the sangha described in the Pali tradition, Sri Lankan chronicles, and the Schism Edict inscribed on the Sarnath, Sanchi and Allahabad-Kosam pillars. Here, Ashoka orders cleansing the sangha of all its non-orthodox Buddhist monks and nuns (i.e., the non-followers of the Vibhajja doctrine). In some traditions, this event is said to have been succeeded by the third Buddhist council at Pataliputra. Often, such inscriptions reflected Ashoka’s personal Buddhist beliefs and manifestoes,as in the Minor Rock edict at Yerragudi in South India.
Moreover, in publicising his own faith, as he makes clear in the 7th and 12th rock edicts, he doesn’t desire the undermining of another person’s faith, and appeals to his subjects to exercise self-control and be pure of mind, to achieve the end of religious tolerance. However, only dhamma was said to bring merit in this world and in the next.
The transmission of the message of dhamma would require the people to be able to read the inscriptions. Given the limited literacy of the times, which Ashoka seems to have realised, he encouraged oral recitation of the inscriptions by literate members of society. Even this seems not to have been enough, for the 5th major rock edict brings to light one of the most decisive innovations of Ashoka: the system of ‘dhamma mahamatas’, or special officials appointed for the sole purpose of going to the far-flung areas of the empire and disseminating dhamma. For the women, there were the ithijakka mahamattas. They enumerated to the people the concern of the ruler about their welfare, particularly the upkeep of prisoners and the need to make the servant-master relationship more humanitarian.Indeed, in the 6th major rock edict, Ashoka empowers them to report the ministerial council’s ad hoc decisions to him, thus adding to their position the role of ‘pativedika’ (reporter).
A highly interesting aspect about the ways of propogation of dhamma are the trips made by Ashoka himself to important Buddhist sites like Bodh Gaya (where the Buddha attained enlightenment) and Lumbini (modern-day Rummindei, the birthplace of the Buddha). This finds mention in major rock edict 8, where Ashoka mentions how he has replaced the royal ancestral tradition of going on vihara-yattas (pleasure trips) by dhamma-yattas (tours for the cause of dhamma). These excursions were aimed at, other than for piety, visiting Brahmans, shramanas, aged folk, and people of the countryside, to all of whom gifts were given.
Finally, the most creative adaptation of Ashoka to suit the policy of dhamma was ‘dhamma-vijaya’, i.e., conquest through dhamma. This included annexing territories through non-violent means rather than seizing control over them through outright war (since that would have gone against the vital tenet of ahimsa), fair treatment of captured peoples, and preaching dhamma to them. Rock edict 4 reflects this, in the statement that the sound of beating of the drums (‘bherighosha’) was replaced by ‘dhammaghosha’.
The pillar inscriptions, issued a few years after the rock edicts,mark a slight move away from the conciliatory nature of dhamma, reflecting its dissemination as a near-obsession with Ashoka with use of coercive tactics to get people to follow dhamma. Upinder Singh cites the Kandahar inscription, which refers to “the subjects’ devotion to the king’s interest as being an important part of dhamma.” The 1st and 2nd pillar inscriptions talk of the need to convert the ‘waverers’, while the 3rd one differentiates between virtuous and evil doings, clearly indicating that this concept of ‘relative morality’ went in favour of those practising dhamma. Thus, as Thapar puts it, “The germ of fanaticism and megalomania [had begun] to show itself.”
What was the reason for this urge to spread dhamma so vociferously? Indeed, why was Ashoka so taken up with Buddhism? According to Thapar, his “historical background”, with his grandfather Chandragupta Maurya taking to Jainism, and his father Bindusara patronising the Ajivika sect, influenced him. Indo-Greeks contemporaneous to both these rulers, such asSeleucus Nikator, Alexander and Megasthenes, tell us this.
Thapar goes on to show the political viability of popularising dhamma. It would have increased administrative efficiency, for it would have acted as a means of assertion of central authority. In addition to this, it provided an alternative to Brahmanical orthodoxy while not totally going against the latter, therefore tactfully garnering the support of pro-Brahmanical as well as anti-Brahmanical sections in society.Indeed, Ashoka was the first Mauryan ruler to realise the importance of the rural population, perhaps because of the substantial contribution it made, through land revenue, to the state economy. Thirdly, dhamma would have encouraged unity among a heterogeneous mass. Later, in her “Mauryas Revisited” and “Early India”, however, Thapar takes a different line in saying that dhamma failed as a unifying strategy, since social tensions and sectarian conflicts persisted, and Ashoka’s overarching obsession became his weakness.
The 13th rock edict states how an overpowering grief overcame Ashoka when he took in the catastrophic devastation that the military conquest over Kalinga (present-day south Odisha) had wreaked. His remorse then is famed to have been agonising and anguish-ridden. It was stereotypically accepted for decades, on the basis of this edict that consequently he immediately converted to Buddhism; a suggestion considered improbable today. Ashoka himself admits in one of the inscriptions, that he had been a passive Buddhist for two and a half years, and that only in the past year had his intimacy with the sangha increased, a clear indication of his gradual rather than sudden acceptance of the faith.
Was Ashokan dhamma Buddhist? Thaparargues that it was not, since it was a “practicaland convenient” way of life that was, in most part, an Ashokan innovation. Indeed, Ashoka’s own connection with Buddhism remains shrouded in mystery. While some sources claim that he was a Buddhist monk, others say he was its ecclesiastical head. A third view is that he was a ‘bhikkugatika’(an intermediate position between a householder and a full-time monk). He has even been associated with Brahmanical Hinduism and Tantric Buddhism.
Upinder Singh acknowledges the conspicuous absence of elements like the Eight-fold Path, the goal of nibbana and dukkha, but cites the presence of good conduct, social responsibility and particularly, ahimsa, all of which are Buddhist concepts. She agrees that certain aspects related to upasaka(layman’s) dhamma, such as the elephant motif, perhaps symbolising the Buddha-to-be, at Girnar, Kalsi and Dhauli, but even here, she points to the Buddhist remains close at hand, at rock edict sites.
The last question we ask here is the possible role of dhamma in bringing an abrupt end to Mauryan rule in 185 BCE, not even half a century after Ashoka’s death in 232 BCE, when Pushyamitra Shunga, a general in the Mauryan army, overthrew the last Mauryan ruler, Brihadratha. Two views surface here. One is presented by Haraprasad Shastri in the 1910 edition of the journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, that since Shunga was a Brahman, it was a Brahmanical revolution/revolt against the subversive tactics to undermine the authority of the upper-castes. The second argument was presented by H.C. Ray-Chowdhuri in the 1930s, where he held responsible Ashoka’s pacifist policies, stemming from dhamma, for weakening the military might of the empire and ultimately causing its demise.
Shastri highlights the edict banning animal sacrifice as an attack on Brahmans, since the latter practised frequent slaughter of animals for sacrificial purposes in ceremonies. This leads him to refer to rock edicts 9 and 11 where Ashoka’s attitude towards ceremonies is one of complete antagonism,calling them worthless and a misuse of money. Moreover, Shastri argues, these instructions were perhaps resented owing to the Shudhra origins of the ruler. In addition, the dhamma mahamatas, according to him, tried their best to reduce the power and prestige of the Brahmans. Issues like ‘vyavaharasamata’ and ’dandasamata’ (uniformity in legal procedures and punishments) are drawn on to verify this. The authority of the Brahmans was definitely questioned and even mocked, referring to them as ‘amissa’(perhaps meaning ‘unmingled’, but could be inferred as ‘false Gods’). Finally, he argues, these anti-Brahmanical policies being continued by Ashoka’s successors was the final straw for Brahmanas, who went up in arms.
Ray-Chowdhuri categorically refutes each of these arguments. Firstly, only certain animals were slaughtered, not all of which were meant to be sacrificed. Ashoka admits that 3 animals were still being killed in the royal kitchens every day. Secondly, Ashoka called for due respect to be given to and honour bestowed upon Brahmans and shramanas, evidenced in rock edict 3, even if he criticised rituals in other edicts. Thirdly, the origins of the Mauryas are obscure; they could have been Kshatriyas, as some texts claim, and not Shudhras at all. Fourthly, Ashoka’s policies did not substantially reduce any of the Brahminical privileges. Indeed, the Rajatarangini informs us that one of Ashoka’s ministers, Jalauka, was a Shaiva Brahman. And to top it all, no archaeological evidence supports the view that Pushyamitra Shunga was anti-Buddhist; despite his fabled destruction of 84,000 stupas, we know of considerable expansion of stupas during the Shungas.
Chowdhuri himself makes the argument that Ashoka’s policy of ahimsa had softened the army, making the land susceptible to Greek invaders’ attacks, while it became difficult to control officials, who therefore became oppressive, unruly and rebellious. Thapar refutes this, saying that ahimsa existed only in theory. In practice, meat-eating continued, death penalty wasn’t abolished (except for a brief 3-day respite in Ashoka’s 27th regnal year), his army not disbanded, and forgiveness granted only to those crimes that deserved it. Politically, ahimsa was a viable policy at the time, since after having quelled the Kalinga uprising (which was never reinstated as an independent state), no internal disturbances remained, while the sole potential external threat was from Antioch of Syria, with whom Ashoka had good relations. Therefore, Ashoka was neither a naïve nor an extreme pacifist; his policies were in sync with pragmatic considerations.
Increasingly, other reasons are being given to explain the fall of the Mauryas, such as Kosambi’s argument of economic stagnation, manifested in the debasement of coins and emergency taxes levied on actors and prostitutes, and Thapar’s explanation of lack of nationalism, loyalty to the ruler rather than the state, an absence of centralisation and therefore socio-political unity, of representative bodies, and a highly competitive system of examinations for bureaucracy. Others draw our attention to opposition to the provincial administration and its oppressive nature, as well as to the interference of foreign elements like Greeks and Syrians.