The Mauryan Polity c8.s1.t6: The interpretation of the term dharmavijaya in the Edicts

The Mauryan Polity c8.s1.t6

Language: English

The interpretation of the term dharmavijaya in the Edicts

c8.s1.t6.1

This ideal government of the Kauṭaliya became actually realised under Aśoka. His *dharmavijaya*⁵ has been anticipated by Kauṭalya to a large extent. Besides this mere inference from an elaborate statement of the means enabling the *dharmavijaya*, Kauṭalya gives us elsewhere¹ three kinds of victories which depend on the nature and quality of the rulers for the time being.² These are *dharmavijaya* where the conquering king is satisfied with the mere acknowledgment of his suzerainty by the conquered, *lobhavijaya* where the aim of the conquering monarch is to covet the territory and treasure of the enemy and then continue him in his kingdom, and *asuravijaya* where the enemy is deprived of his kingdom, treasure, sons and wives, and is himself captured as a prisoner of war, or slain. In the light of these statements in the *Arthaśāstra*, it would be incorrect to give a new interpretation to the term *dharmavijaya* occurring in the Aśokan inscriptions. F. J. Monahan who followed the old interpretation of *dhammavijaya* has remarked as follows: "As to the precise nature and effects of this 'conquest' we are left in the dark; it is unfortunate that Greek records are silent on the subject. From the edict we gather that 'conquest' was made through envoys (*dūta*). They were sent to the various countries to preach, not Buddhism, but 'dhamma', and in Aśoka's view, as we know, 'dhamma' was compatible with adherence to various creeds. We may infer that the envoys were politely received."³

c8.s1.t6.2

⁵ R.E. XIII.

c8.s1.t6.3

¹ Bk. XII, Ch. 1.

c8.s1.t6.4

² Cf. *Mhb*. *Śānti*, Ch. 59, 38.

c8.s1.t6.5

³ Early History of Bengal, p. 219.

c8.s1.t6.6

The true position becomes intelligible in the light of the *Arthaśāstra*. What Aśoka aimed at was to make known to the conquered states, as well as to neighbouring states through ambassadors or special messengers (dūtas) that the king had given up lobhavijaya and asuravijaya in which he had indulged in the early part of his rule, and had taken his stand at the pedestal of dharmavijaya. In other words, the emperor informed his subjects and the kings of other states that he would be satisfied with mere obeisance from them and he expected them at the same time to follow the śāstraic injunctions without recourse to any rebellion or war.¹ Any other meaning will have no legs to stand on. No wonder the Buddhist tradition has utilised this material for its own purpose when it mentions the conversion of Caṇḍāśoka to Dharmāśoka, furnishing the occasion for untenable theories. This then forms an unimpeachable evidence to demolish the theory that Aśoka was a Buddhist. For, this term dharmavijaya has been a convenient peg with scholars to hang the Buddhist theory on.

c8.s1.t6.7

¹ śāstrānugamaśastritam.

c8.s1.t6.8

*King consulted the council even on emergencies*

c8.s1.t6.9

That the king could not by himself pledge to anything relating to the state, even in extraordinary cases urging immediate attention, and that the decision of the council was binding on him is testified to by a remarkable statement of the Kauṭalīya. Whenever urgent and unexpected occasions arose for prompt action, the king summoned his council and placed the matter before them for final decision. He was to act on the considered advice of the best men in the council.²

c8.s1.t6.10

² Ar. Śās., Bk. I, ch. 15: yadbūyiṣṭhāḥ kāryasiddhikaram vā brūyuḥ tat kuryāt|

c8.s1.t6.11

*Unanimity, no majority opinion*

c8.s1.t6.12

Here the term bhūyiṣṭhaḥ as has been elsewhere said,³ does not connote majority opinion but refers to the mature opinion of the highly learned members, if we interpret the term in the light of the expression *buddhivṛddhāḥ* in the same chapter. This does not mean that the voice of the other members was not heard. On the other hand there is evidence to show that a frank discussion was allowed in the council and every one including the absentee members had his say. For the absentees had to send their views for discussion in the council.¹ But final decision rested with the council as a whole. In other words the ministers were consulted individually and then jointly.² It was the onerous task of the king as the president to convert the opposition to his side and thus act on the unanimous decision.

Linked texts (4)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Major Rock Edict XIII — Prakrit
Kāmandakīya Nītisāra — Kāmandaki, Sanskrit