The Mauryan Polity c5.s4: Sec. iv. Inscriptions of Aśoka

The Mauryan Polity c5.s4

Language: English

Sec. iv. Inscriptions of Aśoka

c5.s4.1

Thanks to the energy and enthusiasm as well as transparent earnestness of scholars in the field of Aśokan script, we have to-day the history of Aśokan studies. The discovery, decipherment and interpretation of the Inscriptions of Piyadasi, as the late Senart styled them, cover a long and fruitful period of nearly two centuries commencing roughly from the middle of the eighteenth century. It would be interesting to know that Aśokan scholarship had an ancient history as well. In the everflowing and nay, overflowing stream of foreign travellers and visitors to this ancient land from very early times for some reason or other, one could reckon two celebrated names Fa-Hien and Yuan Chwang. These were two Chinese travellers who came to India at long intervals, the first visiting it in the fourth century after Christ and the second in the seventh century. Our thanks are due to these two savants, who have left behind them the invaluable legacy of their writings which has considerably contributed to enrich our knowledge of Indian History. These travellers endeavoured to get a true interpretation of Aśokan inscriptions though not with much success. When Fa-Hien visited this land in the fourth century A.D. hardly six centuries have passed after Aśoka and it is indeed a wonder that this traveller was not able to get at experts who would rightly and correctly interpret the script contained on the rocks and pillars where Aśoka had caused his ordinances to be inscribed. This mainly explains that the knowledge of the script had decayed so much that these inscriptions became sealed to an ordinary Indian of the fourth century A.D. According to a recent writer these travellers "have recorded wrong readings of those inscriptions, the results of mere guess work or hearsay information of local people not confessing to their own ignorance of the scripts."¹ This reminds us of the accounts left by Megasthenes some centuries earlier, some of which is treated as either drawn from imagination or from hearsay information. We do not know of any other attempt made afterwards in the direction of deciphering the script. As a matter of fact these accounts were forgotten by the sons of India, and the inscriptions stood dumb and silent for centuries together.

c5.s4.2

¹ R. K. Mookerji's *Asoka*, Prefatory Note, pp. vii and viii.

c5.s4.3

The first honour of discovery of these records so important to the study of Indian History goes to Padre Tieffenthaler who found a few fragments of the Delhi Pillar at the city of Delhi as early as 1750 or thereabout. In the year 1785 the Barābar and Nagarjuni Hill caves were visited for the first time by J. H. Harington. The next stage was when Captain Polier had the privilege of discovering the Delhi-Topra Pillar Inscription. Some of these discoveries were published in the *Asiatic Researches* in 1801.

c5.s4.4

The next stage was when Colonel James Tod discovered in 1822 the Girnār Rock Inscription and M. A. Court the Shāhbāzgarhī Rock Edict in 1836. The next year witnessed the discovery by Lieutenant Kittoe of the Dhauli Rock Edict. In 1840 Captain Burt discovered the Bairāt Rock Inscription otherwise known as the Bhābrā Edict. Other discoveries then followed: the Jaugaḍa Rock Inscription in 1850, the Kālsī Rock Inscription in 1860, and the Bairāt Minor Rock Edict in 1872, by Sir Walter Elliot, Forrest and Carlleyle respectively. The latter made also another important discovery in the Rāmpūrvā Pillar Edict. The Rūpnāth Minor Rock Edict was the other discovery of this time, and needless to say, that these discoveries enriched the Aśokan scholarship by attracting many a savant in this direction. A detailed study is bound to swell the section. Other important discoveries were the three Mysore Minor Rock Edicts found by Lewis Rice in 1891, the Nigliva Pillar Edicts and the Rummindēi in 1895 and 1896 respectively. Far more important than these was C. Beadon's discovery of the Maski Rock Inscription in 1915 in the Raichur District of the Nizam’s Dominions.¹ The very first line of this remarkable inscription records *Devānampiyasa Aśokasa*.² This is the key which opened to us the new knowledge that after all Piyadarśi of the Inscriptions is no one other than Aśoka. Last in the list but not least in importance is the new discovery made in 1928 of a set of Rock Edicts near Gooty in the Kurnool District.

c5.s4.5

¹ See *J. R. A. S.*, 1916, pp. 838-39. Also *Hyderabad Arch. Ser.* No. I (1915).

c5.s4.6

² *Corpus*, p. 174.

c5.s4.7

But what is more important and perhaps valuable is the study of decipherment, in which direction much energy and time have been spent not without profit to the scholarly world. The publication of drawing lithographs, impressions, and full copies of the inscriptions discovered next occupied the attention of Indologists. In 1834 in the *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* (Vol. III) James Prinsep, the father of the interpretation of these dumb Edicts, essayed to read and understand the Aśokan alphabet by the classification of vowels, consonants, etc. His attempt produced vast and fruitful results. For Prinsep was able to read the Delhi-Topra Pillar Edicts fully and successfully and published it with his translation in the *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* (Vol. VI). He pursued his studies with that critical and inquiring zeal characteristic of a born researcher. In 1838 he began a comparative study of the two inscriptions at Dhauli and Girnār and he found to his surprise that both of them were identical in every respect, whether it be in script, contents or otherwise. He translated them and had the whole published in the VII Volume of the *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*.¹ The year 1879 is memorable in the long and interesting story of Aśokan scholarship from a variety of standpoints. Then was published the first volume of the *Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum* by Cunningham on the Inscriptions of Aśoka. The *Corpus* embodied the Rock Edicts, the Pillar Edicts, and the Cave Inscriptions so far discovered. A quick succession of publications with different interpretations followed. Prominent among these early works were Senart's *Les Inscriptions de Piyadasi* (1881) and Bühlers' contributions to the *Z. D. M. G.* and *Epigraphia Indica* (Vols. I and II). The momentous publication of all is the new edition of the *Corpus* by the late Hultzsch in 1925 whose life-work for the cause of Indian History is too well known to need mention here. It is a monumental publication, very valuable to students of India's Ancient History.

c5.s4.8

¹ See Sylvain Levi's remarks in the *Journal of Department of Letters*, (Cal.) IX, p. 11.

c5.s4.9

In addition to these various publications in all the learned journals throughout the world, we have four biographical sketches on the life and career of that unique personality who satisfies the qualities and qualifications of a Rājasattama as described in the Epic literature. These are by V. A. Smith, D. R. Bhandarkar, J. M. Macphail and R. K. Mookerji. When Senart and Bühler tried to interpret these records, they had neither the facility nor the opportunity of a scholar of to-day in the shape of numerous Pāli publications, and above all the discovery and publication of the *Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra* which has very much modified the interpretation of these inscriptions. A comparative study of the different terms¹ and even of contents of both Aśoka’s Inscriptions and the *Arthaśāstra* has been attempted by many a scholar, sometimes leading to a thorough revision and a radical change in the original interpretation. In spite of the ever-growing voluminous studies in this particular direction, a vast field still exists for a critical student of comparative studies. In interpreting these records, one must be very familiar not only with the tradition handed down from earliest times, but also contemporary history, and the history and policy of Aśoka’s immediate predecessors. In the light of this study a new outlook and a new interpretation of the Edicts seems to be called for, with all due respect to scholars whose sincere endeavours in this direction no one can dispute. The next question to ask is whether the Edicts have materially helped the historian of Ancient India and if so, in what respects. A bird’s eye-view of the whole indicates that the Edicts enable us to construct a true history of the great Mauryan Emperor Aśoka. Before the discovery of all these inscriptions we had simply to depend on the legendary accounts of the Pāli texts and Buddhist literature which claim the Emperor to be a Buddhist. Such evidence could only be one view of his life and career and cannot be the unquestioned view. The inscriptions² have thrown welcome light especially with regard to his relations with his kith and kin though the legends make him out to be a blood-thirsty tyrant who killed his near and dear for the sake of the Magadha throne. This is only one instance among the many which go to show that fundamental differences exist between the accredited authority of the inscriptions and the Buddhist legends. The inscriptions again prove that Aśoka’s Dharma was not merely the Buddhist, as is repeatedly made out,¹ but was non-sectarian in character. Its aim was to bring satisfaction to all sects—orthodox as well as heterodox—of the Empire. Aśoka felt it the duty of the State to afford protection and peace to any faith or creed so long as that creed or faith did not interfere with the neighbouring faith, and so long as there was no misunderstanding among them. Aśoka promulgated a policy which helped the different religious sects to move on friendly terms, with no spirit of rivalry or rancour.

c5.s4.10

¹ See the last two pages at the end of the chapter.

c5.s4.11

² *Corpus*, Intro., p. xlviii,

c5.s4.12

¹ Corpus, Intro., ch. v.

c5.s4.13

The inscriptions of Aśoka are important from political and economic points of view also. It is the narrow view of the writer in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition) who remarks²: “The inscriptions, which contain altogether about 5,000 words, are entirely of religious import, and their references to worldly affairs are incidental.” Perhaps the same view is held by another authority, E. Hultzsch, who says: “His Edicts are not concerned with public affairs, but are of an almost purely religious character.”³ This is due to the want of correct understanding of the ancient Hindu ideal of politics and religion. To the ancient Hindus politics and religion were intertwined, and neither could exist by itself. In fact secular affairs, as we understand to-day, were largely governed by religious and ethical ideas and ideals.⁴ It was the dharma of the State, without which any function of the State would be ineffective and perfectly useless. Much of political and economic history could be gleaned from these inscriptions as could be seen from the following pages. Suffice it to say here that the inscriptions have enabled us to reconstruct an account of the central and provincial administration of the Mauryan empire. Aśoka's interest in live-stock, their improvement and efficiency, in agriculture, in the census for taxation and other purposes bears the testimony to prove that the Emperor was much concerned with the material welfare of the State.¹ This is the trivarga conception of the ancient political philosophers. A statesman like Aśoka must have known that both material welfare and moral welfare depended for their progressive realization on the political machinery of the land. Hence Aśoka took so much pains to carry on the administration of the land. In these respects the author of these inscriptions did not materially differ from the author of the *Arthaśāstra* and, on the other hand, the latter was the model for Aśoka to follow. Thus the inscriptions of Aśoka have a many-sided interest. They are in every way concerned with public affairs, the latter consisting mainly of the propagation and preservation of dharma in the wide sense of the term. In the absence of these records of incalculable value, there could be no authoritative history of Mauryan India. It is the discovery of the *Arthaśāstra* and the more important discovery of these Edicts that have enabled us to speak of Mauryan empire and Mauryan history. These have enriched the history of this epoch for which we had to depend till very recently only on the writings of Megasthenes and other classical writers. We are to-day in possession of different and independent sources of information, a comparative study of which bears the test that the Mauryan India was socially, economically, and politically in an advanced state, its institutions largely anticipating those of modern times.

c5.s4.14

² Vol. II, p. 764.

c5.s4.15

³ C. I. I., Vol. I, Intro., XXXVI.

c5.s4.16

⁴ See Author's paper Is Arthaśāstra secular? See Proceedings of the Third Oriental Conference, 1924, pp. 614-631.

c5.s4.17

¹ *Corpus*, p. xlix (Introduction).

c5.s4.18

The following are, among others, the terms whose interpretations have been arrived at by their identification with the Kauṭalīyan expressions:—

c5.s4.19

c5.s4.20

c5.s4.21

NOTE.—Since this was written I found a contribution on the subject of *Parallelism between Aśoka's Edicts and Kauṭalya's Arthaśāstra* by Dr. Radhakumud Mookerji in the *Proceedings of the Fifth Oriental Conference* (Lahore), pp. 329-347.

Linked texts (13)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Major Rock Edict I — Prakrit
Major Rock Edict II — Prakrit
Major Rock Edict III — Prakrit
Pillar Edict IV — Prakrit
Pillar Edict V — Prakrit
Major Rock Edict VI — Prakrit
Major Rock Edict VII — Prakrit
Major Rock Edict X — Prakrit
Major Rock Edict XIII — Prakrit
Separate Rock Edict I (Kaliṅga) — Prakrit
Girnār Rock Edict II (ed. Bühler 1894) — Prakrit
Shāhbāzgarhī Rock Edict II (ed. Bühler 1894) — Prakrit