Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c11.s1: Sec. ii. Dharma and the State

The Mauryan Polity c11.s1

Language
English

Contents

Sec. ii. Dharma and the State

Religion and politics

c11.s1.t1.1

Before we actually enter into the subject of the religion of the Mauryas, personal religion as well as state religion, it would be better if we would try to understand and realise the exact position of the Mauryan state in relation to dharma. A state and its institutions are, if judged by modern notions of polity, secular. They aim at human welfare, moral and material. But the concept of dharma connotes a religious significance that permeates the whole. Did religion, then, function in politics? Did religion largely guide and control the state policy and administration? These are indeed questions which require a satisfactory answer. It must be taken as a matter of fact that religion, to the extent it meant dharma, law and morality, exercised a moderate and healthy influence on ancient Indian polity and politics. It had a smoothening effect on the machinery of administration. Dharma, doctrinal or ethical, was considered to be the eternal law as against the man-made law of our legislature.

Ancient conception of law

c11.s1.t2.1

The ancient Indian conception of law was that it was something superhuman, and something transcendental. A great amount of sacredness was attached to it, not only by the people but also by the ruler with the result that law became the king of kings,¹ the kṣatra of the kṣatra. According to the Vedic tradition, which was handed down in unbroken succession, there is nothing higher than dharma, the observance of which will tend to universal moral welfare, and righteousness of a general kind. If we are to accept the definition of the term by the philosopher Kaṇāda that dharma is the source of material welfare in this world and spiritual welfare in the other,² then it is easy to realise the full import attached to it especially by the reigning sovereigns of the land. If the state emerged from a well-established society for the welfare of that society, and if the state represented the common will of that society, by upholding principles which tended to the common good and the common welfare, (the *yogakṣema* of the Hindu literature),¹ then necessarily that institution which we call state, must take cognisance of the social order, peculiar to that society, and function in such a way that that social order is maintained intact, and that an orderly progress is the ultimate result.

c11.s1.t2.2

¹ Bṛhad. Up., I-IV, 11-14; Chānd. Up., 11-23, 1-2.

c11.s1.t2.3

² Vaiśeṣika Sūtras 1, 1-2.

c11.s1.t2.4

¹ See in this connection the interpretation of the phrase *ityai artham* occurring in the *Ṛg Veda* in the *Economiques et Politiques Dans L'Inde Ancienne*, by H. C. Joshi, pp. 17-18 (Paris, 1928).

c11.s1.t2.5

With this end in view ancient Indian writers on polity rightly based their theories of state and its institutions on the lines of the *dharma* of the land. It proved an effective check on the arbitrary conduct of the monarch. For, the latter was expected to rule and reign according to the established law of the country. Transgression of that law would lead in the first instance to revolt from people, and ultimately to revolution and anarchy, disturbing the peace and security of the people.

c11.s1.t2.6

The primary function of the state was, according to the *Arthaśāstra*, the upkeep of the social *sthiti* or in other words, the maintenance of the social order. Society, in those days was divided into castes and orders, the castes being an economic classification on the principle of the division of labour. Castes were, therefore, so many occupational groups with this peculiar difference that these occupations were to be deemed hereditary. Viewed from an economic point of view the motive for this classification cannot be questioned, for, it drove the last nail into the coffin of economic ills.

c11.s1.t2.7

The competitive principle, as we experience to-day, produces more of evil than good. This was avoided by the principle known as *svadharma*, so much insisted on by Indian writers, secular or religious. This is the very principle on which the author of the *Arthaśāstra* has worked out the theory of the State. The *svadharma* of the king is to endeavour and protect the people according to *dharma* or law.¹ And the fruit of such *svadharma* is the attainment of heaven. This is exactly what the authors of the *Dharmasūtras* and *Dharmaśāstras* have prescribed.² The *Arthaśāstra* clearly states that the social polity, entitled *varṇāśrama dharma*, and the prosecution by the king of his duty demanded that the castes and the orders did not err from the ordained path, but pursued the path of *dharma* by sticking on to their own duties. This shows that the state punished that member of the society who gave up his own *dharma* and interfered with the *dharma* of the other communities. In a word the state expected every citizen to discharge his obligations according to the *dharma* of his caste and order.

c11.s1.t2.8

¹ Bk. III, ch. 1.

c11.s1.t2.9

² Āp. II, pp. 25-15; Baud. 1, 18, 1; Manu, VII.2; Yāj., I-335, etc. Also the article on '*Dharmaśāstra* and *Arthaśāstra*' by Dr. Winternitz, in *Sir Asutosh Memorial Volume*, Patna, esp. pp. 31-32.

c11.s1.t2.10

*The doctrine of Trivarga*

c11.s1.t2.11

We thus gather that the *dharma* of the state was to see that the respective *dharmas* of the people were followed and to exercise the rod of punishment towards him or her who would misbehave. Hence the *Mahābhārata* views the *dharma* of the state or the *kṣatra dharma* superior to all other *dharmas*.³ *Dharma* then, is the composite expression which, if properly analysed, will be the means for and the end of the progressive realisation of the *trivarga* or the *muppāl* of Tamil literature. This term is significant in more than one respect. It includes *dharma*, *artha*, and *kāma*. In other words every citizen of the state, whether male or female, was to pursue his or her *dharma*, which was the *svadharma* or the peculiar duties which he or she owed to the society at large. In performing these duties, let him or her use *artha* and *kāma*, so far as they help him or her to realise this object, namely, the fulfilment of his or her obligations. Over-indulgence would lead to the misuse of power with the result that there would be a conflict as regards the relations which exist among these three factors of life. The object underlying the principle of *trivarga* is the attainment of the last aim in life, namely, *mokṣa* or salvation, one form of which is heavenly bliss in after life. Life to the ancient Hindus of all faiths including the Buddhists and Jainas was a race to be run and the goal was absolute freedom from the fetters of the mundane world. The people required material comforts and welfare so as to realise this end. Towards this end the state came to function by looking after their material and moral welfare. These are exactly the motives which underlie the political philosophy of the *Kauṭalīya*. Kauṭalya envisages a social order of castes, and pinning his faith in the *trivarga* and the *caturvarga*, he prescribes means and methods by which the social order should be maintained. The means and methods laid down are *dharmaic* in the sense that they help the people to realise their chief aims in life. It is reasonable to assume that this idea must have profoundly influenced the administration of the first Mauryan emperor and his son, not to speak of Aśoka.

c11.s1.t2.12

³ Śānti 64, 6; 62, 30; 63, 29.

c11.s1.t2.13

*Sec. iii. AŚOKA'S DHARMA*

c11.s1.t2.14

*The practical aspect*

c11.s1.t2.15

The *dharma* of Aśoka's inscriptions has a twofold aspect—the practical and the doctrinal.¹ Under the first category come:

c11.s1.t2.16

¹ See Mookerjee, *Aśoka*, p. 194.

c11.s1.t2.17

1 Dutifulness (*śusrūṣā*) to parents.²

c11.s1.t2.18

² R.E. III, IV, XI, XIII and P.E. VII

c11.s1.t2.19

2. Reverence to elders³ and teachers.⁴

c11.s1.t2.20

³ R.E. IV.

c11.s1.t2.21

⁴ R.E. XIII, P.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.22

3. Dutifulness towards superiors⁵ *aghrabhūti*. The rendering of this term as 'men of high caste, or pay' is not convincing.

c11.s1.t2.23

⁵ R.E. XIII.

c11.s1.t2.24

4. Regard for Brahmans and Śramaṇas⁶ (*saṃpratipatti*). The term Śramaṇa means ascetic in the broad sense. It does not mean, as has been taken by almost all scholars, heretical sects of ascetics. Śramaṇa in Sanskrit literature of the period of our study is an equivalent and synonym for the *parivrājaka*, whatever might have been its meaning in later times. This *parivrājaka* is the Hindu Sannyāsin of the orthodox type. The term has been unfortunately taken to mean Buddhist and Jaina monks. But more of this later on.

c11.s1.t2.25

⁶ R.E. IV, P.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.26

5. Regard for family relationships.⁷ 6. Kind treatment of slaves (*dāsa*) and servants (*bhaṭaka*).¹

c11.s1.t2.27

⁷ M.R.E. II, R.E. IV, and XIII.

c11.s1.t2.28

¹ R.E. IX, XI, XIII and P.E. VII. ² P.E. VII. ³ R.E. XIII. ⁴ R.E. III, VIII, IX and XI. ⁵ R.E. III and XI. ⁶ R.E. VIII. ⁷ R.E. III, IV, XI and P.E. VII. ⁸ R.E. IX. ⁹ *Corpus*, p. 176. ¹⁰ R.E. IV, P.E. VII. ¹¹ R.E. XIII. ¹² P.E. II and VII. ¹³ P.E. II and VIII. ¹⁴ P.E. II and VIII.

c11.s1.t2.29

7. Kindness to the poor and the suffering (*kapa-na-valāka*).²

c11.s1.t2.30

8. Regard for friends, relatives, and others.³

c11.s1.t2.31

9. Gifts (*dānam*) to Brahmans and ascetics.⁴

c11.s1.t2.32

10. Gifts for friends (*mitra*), acquaintances (*saṃstuta*), and relations (*jñāti*).⁵

c11.s1.t2.33

11. Gifts of wealth to the aged.⁶

c11.s1.t2.34

12. *prāṇānāṃ anārambha*⁷ translated as ‘abstention from slaughter of living beings,’ *pāṇeṣu sayamo*⁸ translated as ‘restraint of violence towards living beings.’ Again in M.R.E. (II) there occurs *prāṇeṣu drahyitavyam*.⁹

c11.s1.t2.35

13. Non-injury to living beings (*vihimsā bhū-tānām*).¹⁰

c11.s1.t2.36

14. *Sava-bhūtānāṃ achhatim*¹¹ or non-violence towards all creatures.

c11.s1.t2.37

Thus the practice of *dharma* involved virtuous qualities of *dayā* or sympathy,¹² *dāna* or gifts, *satya* or truthfulness¹³ *śaucam* or purity of mind and body,¹⁴ mārdavam or kindliness,¹ sādhutā or goodness,² apavyayatā and apabhandata or economy in expenditure and in saving,³ samyama or restraint of the senses,⁴ bhāvaśuddhi or honesty of purpose,⁵ kṛtajñatā or gratefulness,⁶ dṛḍhabahktitā or abiding loyalty⁷ and dharmarati or morality in act and deed.⁸ To these are added also dharma-kāmatā or a desire to act righteously, parīkṣā or confidence in ones' own self, śusrūṣā or dutifulness, bhaya or fear of wrong action, and utsāha or enthusiasm.⁹ While the positive aspect of Aśoka's dharma consisted in doing good things,¹⁰ the negative aspect constituted in apariśravam or not doing evil deeds¹¹ generally caused by a host of dispositions like rage, cruelty, wrath, pride, and envy.¹²

c11.s1.t2.38

¹ R.E. XIII P.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.39

² P.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.40

³ R.E. III.

c11.s1.t2.41

⁴ R.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.42

⁵ R.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.43

⁶ R.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.44

⁷ R.E. XIII.

c11.s1.t2.45

⁸ R.E. XIII.

c11.s1.t2.46

⁹ P.E. I.

c11.s1.t2.47

¹⁰ bahūni kayānāni, P.E. II. Corpus, pp. 120-121.

c11.s1.t2.48

¹¹ R.E. X.

c11.s1.t2.49

¹² P.E. III, see Mookerjee, Aśoka, p. 71.

The doctrinal aspect

c11.s1.t3.1

In the category of the doctrinal aspect of Aśoka's dharma the doctrine of toleration occupies the first place. Every man was allowed religious liberty so far it did not undermine the social order. The next was that special care was taken to promote the noble virtues of all his subjects irrespective of their faith. The term kalāṇāgama of the inscriptions may be equated with the kalyāṇaguṇa of the Hindu literature.¹³

c11.s1.t3.2

¹³ See Bhagavad-Gīta, Chap. VI, st. 40; R.E. XII (Girnār), Corpus, pp. 20-21.

c11.s1.t3.3

Aśoka’s special insistence on the moral and ethical relations¹ among men and women because of the fleeting nature of life, has been taken by some scholars to mean that Aśoka had no respect for the rituals and ceremonials pertaining to the religion of the land. There is no evidence to demonstrate that Aśoka condemned them. Insistence on a general principle is not the negation of the existing practices. For example, the Bhagavad Gītā which insists on the svadharma so much in all its eighteen chapters concludes by saying “Give up all dharmas. Identify yourself with me. I shall emancipate you from the bondage of all sins.” On this account can we say that the Gītā teaches here against the practice of dharmas and prescribes giving them up? Certainly not. This is exactly the position with regard to the moral precepts of the Aśokan inscriptions.

c11.s1.t3.4

¹ R.E. IX.

c11.s1.t3.5

The third was the principle of an all round exertion² as prescribed in the Arthaśāstra. In the opinion of the Kauṭalīya, utthāna is the chief requisite of a monarch. One should exert oneself and cultivate this habit even though one has to sacrifice other qualities (sarvam parityajya). Likewise Aśoka simply glorifies active exertion, but does not recommend a serious giving up of other things.

c11.s1.t3.6

² R.E. X., See the Mahābhārata, Śānti, 57, 14-15.

c11.s1.t3.7

Fourthly, the term dharmadāna³ simply means gift to really deserving persons. Dāna is indeed one of the cardinal principles of the Hindu sanātana dharma; and various restrictions are ordained in the Dharmaśāstras regulating dāna or gift. The law-books do not advise any indiscriminate gift. They draw a line of demarcation between righteous gifts and unrighteous gifts. Aśoka wished that the gifts went for a worthy cause. Charitable and religious institutions were abundant in those days, and no wonder that the state patronised all creeds by helping them. Hence the *stūpas*, *caityas*, and other monuments were raised by the kings of the land whatever be their religious conviction.

c11.s1.t3.8

³ R.E. XI.

c11.s1.t3.9

Fifthly, there are other and similar doctrines such as the doctrine of *dharmavijaya*.¹ The phrase *dharma-vijaya* commonly translated into ‘the conquest by morality’ occurs in the thirteenth Rock Edict, immediately after describing the consequences of the Kaliṅga rebellion where there was heavy slaughter of men including innocents. Those who advocate Buddhism as the faith of Aśoka believe that the emperor susbtituted the ‘conquest by morality’ for the ‘conquest by arms’.² This is interpreted so as to suggest that Aśoka gave up his arms and became a monk, and again the same principle found acceptance with his vassals and neighbours. The general belief, that the preaching and practice of simple virtues like *ahiṃsā* constituted the *dharmavijaya* of Aśoka, is difficult to be accepted for the following reasons:—

c11.s1.t3.10

¹ See above p. 128.

c11.s1.t3.11

² See *Corpus*, Intro., p. 53.

c11.s1.t3.12

1. The Mauryan empire consisted of different peoples and tribes professing different faiths and creeds, and to them the cult of *dharmavijaya* in the sense of complete disarmament as is alleged could not have appealed.

c11.s1.t3.13

2. The Edicts mention that envoys were sent to various kingdoms, which fact shows, if anything at all, that there were extensive international relations between the empire and the frontier as well as the neighbouring kingdoms.

c11.s1.t3.14

3. There is no testimony to believe that Ptolemy, Antiochus, Antigonus, Magas of Cyrene and Alexander of Epirus preferred ‘conquest by morality’ to conquest by arms. More unconvincing is that the peoples and states outside the pale of the empire like the Coḷa and the Pāṇḍya accepted this cult.

c11.s1.t3.15

4. Aśoka feels satisfied that he has succeeded everywhere by extending the dharmavijaya, but adds that that satisfaction is of little consequence since his goal is the attainment of heaven. If dharmavijaya means ‘conquest by morality’, there is no occasion for Aśoka’s remark that dharmavijaya is of little consequence and the heaven is of much consequence and that is to be won by peaceful means and will be more stable and more effective. To achieve this a separate department was instituted and it was manned by officers called dharma-mahāmātras. Anything relating to this department was prefixed by the term dharma, such as dharma-lipi, dharma-gosha, dharma-maṅgala, dharma-sambandha, etc. Though the details of this department are not found in the Kauṭalīya, yet there is mention in it of some kind of that institution. But Kauṭalya’s recommendations are to a large extent creative and aid to spread a moral atmosphere and a moral force in the administration of the land. In fact, it is laid down that it is the duty of the best of kings to aim at the practice and observance of such moral virtues and qualities. Though this was expected of all the Kṣatriya monarchs, yet those who were occupied more with wars and foreign policy, could have had no time to attend to the internal progress on peaceful lines.

c11.s1.t3.16

6. According to the *Arthaśāstra* the expression *dharmavijaya* is a political term of much significance. There are three kinds of conquering monarchs—the righteous conqueror, the greedy conqueror and the demon-like conqueror. Of these the righteous conqueror is content with mere obeisance which is the acknowledgment of his overlordship¹ by other kings and chieftains.¹ Aśoka who indulged in *asuravijaya*, as for instance, in the Kaliṅga war, took to *dharmavijaya*.²

c11.s1.t3.17

¹ Gaṇapati Śāstri ed., Vol. III, p. 155. See also *Nayacandrika* comm., p. 213, Pun. Sanskrit Series, No. IV.

c11.s1.t3.18

² See for a parallel Yudhiṣṭhira's feeling after the Kurukṣetra incarceration in the *Mahābhārata*.

c11.s1.t3.19

7. This position is confirmed by the Edict itself. "Even (the inhabitants of) the forests which are included in the dominions of Devānāṃpriya, even those he pacifies and converts (instructs?). And they are told of the power to (punish them) which Devānāṃpriya (possesses) in spite of (his) repentance, in order that they may be ashamed (of their crimes) and may not be killed."³

c11.s1.t3.20

³ *Corpus*, p. 69, R.E. XIII, Shāhbāzgārhī.

c11.s1.t3.21

This means that (the forest tribes who were independent or semi-independent, Aśoka was afraid, might or might not acknowledge his overlordship. Hence *dūtas* were sent to them with instructions that, if they did not do obeisance, they would be attacked and killed. This explains unmistakably that Aśoka did not relinquish conquest by arms, for does he not say that he still possessed power to attack them? This is exactly the Kauṭalīyan policy of *dharmavijaya*.⁴ 8. That same Edict of Aśoka instructs that his successors should not abuse their power and engage themselves into deadly wars actuated by the land-grabbing ideal. But, if certain states showed cause for provocation, Aśoka was for engaging in righteous war, where mercy would be shown and light punishment be awarded. Thus runs the Edict: (His successors) "should not think that a fresh conquest ought to be made (that) if a conquest does please them, they should take pleasure in mercy and light punishments, and (that) they should regard the *dharma-vijaya* (conquest by morality) as the only (true) conquest".¹ It is therefore inferable that both the vassal and the independent states felt the might of Aśoka’s arms fully and acquiesced in his overlordship. Hence the proclamation that the whole world has been won over by means of *dharmavijaya*.²

c11.s1.t3.22

⁴ For similar ideas see the Pallava inscription published on p. 51, *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. V.

c11.s1.t3.23

¹ *Corpus*, p. 70.

c11.s1.t3.24

² *ye se(la)dha etakenā hoti savā vi(ja)ye piti-ase(se), Corpus*, p. 46.

c11.s1.t3.25

Aśoka who realised this point of view gave up further pursuit of territorial acquisitions and devoted his full attention to the promotion and prosecution of *dharma*.

c11.s1.t3.26

Attainment of heaven, the end and aim of life

c11.s1.t3.27

What were the guiding motives which impelled these monarchs of old to cling to this ideal? As has been already said, in those days the people believed, just as we do, in *svarga* or heaven, and the end and aim of life was supposed to be the attainment of that heaven. He who could not go to heaven would be condemned to the tortures of hell. Men feared hell and longed for heavenly enjoyment. It was a common belief shared both by the ordinary and aristocratic classes. So far as the Hindu king was concerned there were only two courses open to him to realise this end. One was to fight in the open field and heroically fall in battle. The other was to protect the people and administer justice according to dharma and thus earn heaven by well merited action in this world. The latter course appealed to Aśoka more effectively. "In this scheme of values he considered the other world as of supreme consequence and as the objective of life."¹ In the Rock Edict (X) there is the plain declaration as to why he was doing all that; it is all for the happiness in the next world.² In the Rock Edicts (VI), he re-affirms this by repeating once again that the one great obligation on the part of the ruler is to act in such a manner as would tend to the common good of the world.³

c11.s1.t3.28

¹ R.E. XIII; Mookerjee, Aśoka, p. 75.

c11.s1.t3.29

² Cp. R.E. IV and P.E. IV.

c11.s1.t3.30

³ nā(sti)hi kāmatara(ṃ)sarva-loka-hitatpā, Corpus, p. 12.

c11.s1.t3.31

These sentiments and beliefs are more characteristic of the Brahmanical Hinduism. A student of Sanskrit literature knows that most of the ideas that find expression in the Edicts are in no way new but are found scattered in ancient Hindu literature, especially the didactic epics. The dharma entrusted to the Kṣatriya is something real and fruitful, testifying to one's own self, stable, and tending to the common good.⁴ Perhaps parikṣa in the Edicts stands for ātmasākṣikam of the Śānti parvan, and mahāphala is the phala bhūyiṣṭha of the verse referred to above.

c11.s1.t3.32

⁴ pratyakṣaṃ phalabhūyiṣṭhamātmasākṣikamacchalam| sarvalokahitaṃ dharmaṃ kṣatriyeṣu pratiṣṭhitam|| —Śānti, 63, 5.

c11.s1.t3.33

The *utthānam* and *arthasamtīraṇā* which are said to be the roots of the administration in Edict (VI) are equivalent to the Sanskrit *utthānam* and *arthasamhitānam*. They are the main prescriptions of the Kauṭalīya and the epics. Bhīṣma in addressing Yudhiṣṭhira on the kingly duties says: “Oh Yudhiṣṭhira, you must ever cultivate exertion. Even gods do not help business (*artha*) of those kings devoid of activity.”¹ The *Arthaśāstra* contains similar prescriptions.² In fact Kauṭalya speaks of these as the essential requisites for a government to conduct itself to the satisfaction of its subjects. Much stress is indeed laid on the requisite *utthānam* by the author of the *Arthaśāstra*, for, on it depends the prosecution of state business. These prescriptions show that in the field of political administration as in others Aśoka was merely following the Kauṭalīyan tradition. We may now conclude this portion with Professor Kern’s remarks: “Nothing of Buddhist spirit can be discovered in his state policy. From the very beginning of his reign he was a good prince.”³

c11.s1.t3.34

¹ utthānena sadā putra prayatethā Yudhiṣṭhira| nahyutthānamṛte daivam rājñāmartham prasādhayet|| —Śānti, 55, 14.

c11.s1.t3.35

² “arthasyamūlam utthānam”, Bk. 1, ch. 19.

c11.s1.t3.36

³ *Ind. Ant.* Vol. V, p. 275. See also Ibid., Vol. III, pp. 77-81, where J. Muir gives an analysis of the essay of Prof. Kern on Aśoka’s religion. Cp. *J.R.A.S.*, XII, pp. 238-50, where H. H. Wilson discusses the religion of Aśoka; *J.B.B.R.A.S.*, 1850 and 1853; Burnouf, *Lotus de la Bonne Loi*, Vol. I, Paris, (1925), Appendix X, pp. 628 ff.

Linked texts (17)