The Mauryan Polity c5.s4.9

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.