The Mauryan Polity c7.s1.t7: Aśoka, no legislator

The Mauryan Polity c7.s1.t7

Language: English

Aśoka, no legislator

c7.s1.t7.1

It is sometimes claimed with no justification whatever that Aśoka’s Edicts were laws promulgated by the Emperor Aśoka in utter disregard of this sacred tradition.¹ It is an erroneous position taken by the historian. Aśoka has nowhere claimed that he made any departure in the legislation of the land. He simply enforced the regulations which had fallen into disuse by long and continual neglect. If Aśoka did anything he revived old practices and put them in working order. The idea that the Hindu king was a law-maker is not countenanced in Indian jurisprudence at all. To regard therefore the *śāsana* contained in the Edicts of Aśoka as amounting to legislation by the king is, to say the least, uncritical. What Aśoka did was the re-affirmation of old laws which had gone out of practice. Therefore the term *śāsana* (rendered ‘ordinance’ by V. A. Smith) occurring in the Sārnāth Pillar Edict² and continued in the pillar Edicts of Sāmchī and Kauśāmbī (Allahabad), does not mean promulgation of a new law, but does mean a declaration of the old law without prejudice to the customary law or the *samaya* of the *Arthaśāstra*³ and *Dharmaśāstras*.⁴ In this sense the Kauṭalīya uses the term *śāsana* as can be seen from the chapter *śāsanādhikāraḥ*.⁵ One punishment for infringing the

c7.s1.t7.2

¹ *See* Smith, *Asoka*, p. 92.

c7.s1.t7.3

² *See* Corpus, pp. 161-3.

c7.s1.t7.4

³ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. III, ch. 10.

c7.s1.t7.5

⁴ *Manu*, VIII, 218-21.

c7.s1.t7.6

⁵ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. II, ch. 10.

c7.s1.t7.7

ing a strong family likeness, before the sixth century B.C., and that her descendants were a great power in the state at the time of the Norman conquest!” (Intro. xiii-xiv, *History of Aryan Rule in India.*)

c7.s1.t7.8

monastic code was deportation of these monks to non-monastic places (*anāvāsa*), with a further penalty of replacing their yellow by white robes.¹ This is only a counterpart of the penalty of banishment to the misbehaved according to the *Dharmaśāstras*. That such cases of departure from monastic life were common is seen from the *Arthaśāstra* where stringent regulations are prescribed for donning the robes of a *sannyāsin*.² It is said that those who left the order of the monks for the world were entertained by the state for various purposes and especially as special intelligent officials who were let loose on the country so as to ascertain the honesty or otherwise of its officers.³

c7.s1.t7.9

¹ *Corpus*, pp. 160-61; Cp. S.B.E., Vol. 17, p. 388, n. 1.

c7.s1.t7.10

² *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. II, ch. I.

c7.s1.t7.11

³ *Ibid.*, Bk. I, ch. XI.

c7.s1.t7.12

Like the term *śāsana* the expression *samaya* occurring in the First and Second Separate Edicts of Dhauli and the First Separate Edict of Jaugaḍa⁴ has been used in the technical sense of resolution or decision especially of corporate bodies or of judges. The expression is preceded in all these cases by the word *sasvatam* and Hultzsch in rendering the phrase *sasvatam samayam* ‘at all times’ follows Kern⁵ and Lüders.⁶ The full sentence in the context as appears in the First Separate Rock Edict, Dhauli, is *nagala viyohālakā sasvatam samayam yūjevuti*. Hultzsch interprets ‘in order that the judicial officers of the city may strive at all times’. If the rendering ‘at all times’ is to be adopted the reading must be śaśvat. A plausible reading is śaśvatam meaning eternal or immemorial and hence customary. Besides śaśvat means ‘at all times,’ and therefore no significance is attached to the expression samayam. The translation suggested is ‘in order that the judicial officers of the city may be bound by the customary law of the land’. Thus śāsana and the samaya of the Edicts as well as the punishments mentioned correspond to those of the Arthaśāstra to which Aśoka was of course indebted. In the light of the peculiar judicial concept of law as eternal, and samaya an important factor of the law, it is misreading the history of Ancient India if we style any monarch as a law-maker. In the nature of things and in the circumstances in which he accepts the crown the king is bound to be non-autocratic and non-absolute. In fact there is no place for an autocrat in the polity of ancient Hindus.

Linked texts (2)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit