Discuss the main features of the Ashokan Policy of Dhamma. Why did he follow it and what was its impact?
Ans: The Ashokan policy of Dhamma has been something which has been portrayed by many as the deliberate efforts on the part of emperor Ashoka to patronize Buddhism among his subjects. Dhamma is the Pali version of the Sanskrit word Dharma which means righteousness or universal law. In Buddhist canons the word is also used for the teachings of Buddha. The way in which Ashoka has used the word seems to suggest a wider meaning. The Dhamma of Ashoka emerges as a way of life incorporating a number of ideals and practices. Abstinence from killing was an important principle, as also was the insistence of considerate family relationships and social relationships, whether these were between parents and children, elders and young people, friends or various ideological sects. It can be widely seen as a Programme of social welfare. There were no coercion of any kind and every individual was left to make their own choice. The pillar edict 6 reveals the practice of having the inscriptions on Dhamma in various parts of the empire began 12 years after the abhisheka (i.e. ascension).
Many argue there are many parallels between Buddhism and Dhamma to rule out the possibility of Ashoka’s Dhamma being Buddhism. The major one being the stress on the non-violence, especially against animals. It can also be seen that Ashoka started his famous Dhamma yatas after his pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya.
The sculptural motifs associated with the pillars also have Buddhist influence. The carving of the elephant, symbolizing the Buddha-to-be, who is supposed to have entered his mother’s womb in the form of a white elephant have been found on many edicts giving rise to claims these were Buddhist stamps on the edicts which preached Ashokan Dhamma.
The fact that Buddhist remains have been found in the vicinity of many Ashokan pillars suggests the possibility that many of them marked the sites monasteries or stupas established by the emperor. However we have to consider the fact that Ashokan inscriptions do not contain certain key ideas associated with Buddha’s teaching such as the Eight-fold path, the doctrine of impermanence or the goal of Nibbana. Early Buddhism preached the theory of Mahasammata, in which the king was regarded as serving the state and collection of taxes as being his due. However as we can see in the edicts Ashoka often address his subjects as children who show an attempt to create a paternal relationship between the king and the subjects? If his policy of Dhamma had been merely a recording of Buddhist principles, Ashoka would have stated so quite openly, since he never sought to hide his support for Buddhism.
Ashoka it seems made a distinction between his personal beliefs as a supporter or Buddhism and his obligations as a king and a statesman to insist that all religions must be respected. Even his inscriptions can be categorized into two. One which bears the tone of a king as lay Buddhist, addressed to the Buddhist Sangha. These edicts describe his relationship with the Sangha and there is voice of a confirmed believer with intolerance of differing opinion. For instance in a passage he proclaims in no uncertain terms that dissident monks and nuns should be expelled from the Sangha. In another one he mentions the various teachings of Buddha which Buddhist and Buddhist monks in particular should be aware of.
What were more important were those edicts which were for the common man of his empire. These were the Major and Minor Rock edicts and the pillar edicts, which Ashoka uses to define the concept of Dhamma. The principles of Dhamma were in such way that they were acceptable to any religious sect. Ashokan Dhamma emphasized tolerance and ahimsa. Ashoka however was not adamant on his insistence on non-violence. He recognized there might be instances when violence is inevitable like when the forest dwellers became troublesome.
In the first major rock edict announced the ban on animal sacrifices and certain festive gatherings that probably included the killing of animals. He also pared down the cooking of meat in the royal kitchen allowing for only deer and peacock meat. He also made a list of animals and bird that should not be killed.
In rock edict 2 he mentions his Dhamma as a king. He refers to having made provisions for medical treatment. Planting medicinal herbs, roots, fruits and the digging of wells. This was done not just in his own kingdom but also in kingdoms of neighboring rulers like the Cholas and Pandyas in the South.
In rock edict nine he criticizes ceremonies and sacrifices held, particularly by women on occasions such as illness, marriage, birth, setting forth on journeys etc. In the 11th rock edict Ashoka also mentions the gift of Dhamma being the best of all gifts. It talks of proper courtesy to slaves and servants, obedience to mother and father, generosity to friends, acquaintances and relatives as well as to Brahmanas and shravanas and abstaining from killing living beings.
In the 12th major rock edict, there was a plea to accommodate differences in the interests of harmonious living. There was concern that differences should not lead to disharmony. Occasions that might encourage disharmony or become the starting point for opposition were discouraged. It also makes it clear that the king expected restraint on the part of the people on criticizing other sects and praising their own.
The 13th major rock edict gives the account of the Kalinga war which took place 8 years after his ascension and his consequent feeling of remorse. This is followed by a reasoned critique of the war pointing out that it led to the direct and indirect suffering for all. Dhamma-vijaya is considered as the best kind of conquest. This was not conquest in the literal sense, but making the opponent to embrace Dhamma was seen as the victory.
To implement the policy of Dhamma Ashoka instituted a special category of officials known as the Dhamma Mahamattas. Their concern was the well-being of the citizens. With the passage of time, there appeared certain changes in Dhamma. There seems to be a continual stress laid on sin and the actions that are sinful. Possibly Ashoka’s increasing association with Buddhism brought with it the fear of sin and the fear of involvement in actions which may be called sinful.
If Ashoka took such effort to spread his idea of Dhamma and if this not was not in essence not to spread the idea of Buddhism as seen from his support of all religious sects and many other differences from the Buddhist philosophy, what exactly made Ashoka to embrace the idea of Dhamma?
There was a efficient bureaucracy, good communication and a strong ruler under the Mauryas as it is evident from the Arthashastra. The central control had to be maintained and this could be achieved by either one of the two policies: one was ruthless control through armed strength and the other one was more subtle in which the king declared himself in favour of a new belief. By moving away from orthodox Brahmanism and not opposing it , and by giving open support to Buddhism and certain other sect like the Ajivikas, he was trying to win support of the non-orthodox elements as well. These sects also had the support of the newly arisen Commercial classes and since the new beliefs did not violently oppose the old ones, there was the possibility of bringing a compromise. Thus Ashoka saw the practical advantage of adapting the idea of Dhamma.
Another factor was that it would help in unifying small political units, of wielding divergent groups into a basic cohesion. Cultural differences were tremendous in the Mauryan Empire. The adaptation of a new faith, welding the smaller units could be used as a measure to consolidate conquered territory, provided that it was used wisely and not forced upon the conquered population. Just like Charlemagne conquering the Saxons using Christianity as the means to glue them together. The new religion can be used as the symbol of unity and used in the propaganda.
In the 6th pillar edict Ashoka briefly explains the purpose of the edicts in general. The primary reason was for the happiness and welfare of his subjects, who, if they ordered their lives according to Dhamma would attain happiness. He claims that in his effort to bring Dhamma to his people, he has been impartial to all classes an sects. He wished Dhamma to be a means of communication between him and his subjects and the glue which would hold the vast and diverse empire together.
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 Sudras 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 centralization 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.
I believe it would be logical to conclude that Dhamma was Ashoka’s own invention. It may have borrowed from Buddhist and Hindu thought, but was in essence an attempt on the part of the king to suggest a way of life that was both practical and convenient as well as being highly moral.