Discuss the main features of the Ashokan Policy of Dhamma.

Why did he
follow it and what was its impact?

Ans: The Ashokan policy of Dhamma has been something which has been
portrayed by many as the deliberate efforts on the part of emperor Ashoka to
patronize Buddhism among his subjects. Dhamma is the Pali version of the
Sanskrit word Dharma which means righteousness or universal law. In
Buddhist canons the word is also used for the teachings of Buddha. The way in
which Ashoka has used the word seems to suggest a wider meaning. The
Dhamma of Ashoka emerges as a way of life incorporating a number of ideals
and practices. Abstinence from killing was an important principle, as also was
the insistence of considerate family relationships and social relationships,
whether these were between parents and children, elders and young people,
friends or various ideological sects. It can be widely seen as a Programme of
social welfare. There were no coercion of any kind and every individual was
left to make their own choice. The pillar edict 6 reveals the practice of having
the inscriptions on Dhamma in various parts of the empire began 12 years
after the abhisheka (i.e. ascension).

Many argue there are many parallels between Buddhism and Dhamma to rule
out the possibility of Ashoka’s Dhamma being Buddhism. The major one being
the stress on the non-violence, especially against animals. It can also be seen
that Ashoka started his famous Dhamma yatas after his pilgrimage to Bodh
Gaya.

The sculptural motifs associated with the pillars also have Buddhist influence.
The carving of the elephant, symbolizing the Buddha-to-be, who is supposed
to have entered his mother’s womb in the form of a white elephant have been
found on many edicts giving rise to claims these were Buddhist stamps on the
edicts which preached Ashokan Dhamma.

The fact that Buddhist remains have been found in the vicinity of many
Ashokan pillars suggests the possibility that many of them marked the sites
monasteries or stupas established by the emperor. However we have to
consider the fact that Ashokan inscriptions do not contain certain key ideas
associated with Buddha’s teaching such as the Eight-fold path, the doctrine of
impermanence or the goal of Nibbana. Early Buddhism preached the theory of
Mahasammata, in which the king was regarded as serving the state and
collection of taxes as being his due. However as we can see in the edicts
Ashoka often address his subjects as children who show an attempt to create a
paternal relationship between the king and the subjects? If his policy of
Dhamma had been merely a recording of Buddhist principles, Ashoka would
have stated so quite openly, since he never sought to hide his support for
Buddhism.

Ashoka it seems made a distinction between his personal beliefs as a

supporter or Buddhism and his obligations as a king and a statesman to insist
that all religions must be respected. Even his inscriptions can be categorized
into two. One which bears the tone of a king as lay Buddhist, addressed to the
Buddhist Sangha. These edicts describe his relationship with the Sangha and
there is voice of a confirmed believer with intolerance of differing opinion. For
instance in a passage he proclaims in no uncertain terms that dissident monks
and nuns should be expelled from the Sangha. In another one he mentions the
various teachings of Buddha which Buddhist and Buddhist monks in
particular should be aware of.

What were more important were those edicts which were for the common
man of his empire. These were the Major and Minor Rock edicts and the pillar
edicts, which Ashoka uses to define the concept of Dhamma. The principles of
Dhamma were in such way that they were acceptable to any religious sect.
Ashokan Dhamma emphasized tolerance and ahimsa. Ashoka however was
not adamant on his insistence on non-violence. He recognized there might be
instances when violence is inevitable like when the forest dwellers became
troublesome.

In the first major rock edict announced the ban on animal sacrifices and
certain festive gatherings that probably included the killing of animals. He also
pared down the cooking of meat in the royal kitchen allowing for only deer
and peacock meat. He also made a list of animals and bird that should not be
killed.
In rock edict 2 he mentions his Dhamma as a king. He refers to having made
provisions for medical treatment. Planting medicinal herbs, roots, fruits and
the digging of wells. This was done not just in his own kingdom but also in
kingdoms of neighboring rulers like the Cholas and Pandyas in the South.

In rock edict nine he criticizes ceremonies and sacrifices held, particularly by

women on occasions such as illness, marriage, birth, setting forth on journeys
etc. In the 11th rock edict Ashoka also mentions the gift of Dhamma being the
best of all gifts. It talks of proper courtesy to slaves and servants, obedience to
mother and father, generosity to friends, acquaintances and relatives as well
as to Brahmanas and shravanas and abstaining from killing living beings.

In the 12th major rock edict, there was a plea to accommodate differences in
the interests of harmonious living. There was concern that differences should
not lead to disharmony. Occasions that might encourage disharmony or
become the starting point for opposition were discouraged. It also makes it
clear that the king expected restraint on the part of the people on criticizing
other sects and praising their own.

The 13th major rock edict gives the account of the Kalinga war which took
place 8 years after his ascension and his consequent feeling of remorse. This is
followed by a reasoned critique of the war pointing out that it led to the direct
and indirect suffering for all. Dhamma-vijaya is considered as the best kind of
conquest. This was not conquest in the literal sense, but making the opponent
to embrace Dhamma was seen as the victory.

To implement the policy of Dhamma Ashoka instituted a special category of

officials known as the Dhamma Mahamattas. Their concern was the well-being
of the citizens. With the passage of time, there appeared certain changes in
Dhamma. There seems to be a continual stress laid on sin and the actions that
are sinful. Possibly Ashoka’s increasing association with Buddhism brought
with it the fear of sin and the fear of involvement in actions which may be
called sinful.
If Ashoka took such effort to spread his idea of Dhamma and if this not was
not in essence not to spread the idea of Buddhism as seen from his support of
all religious sects and many other differences from the Buddhist philosophy,
what exactly made Ashoka to embrace the idea of Dhamma?

There was a efficient bureaucracy, good communication and a strong ruler

under the Mauryas as it is evident from the Arthashastra. The central control
had to be maintained and this could be achieved by either one of the two
policies: one was ruthless control through armed strength and the other one
was more subtle in which the king declared himself in favour of a new belief.
By moving away from orthodox Brahmanism and not opposing it , and by
giving open support to Buddhism and certain other sect like the Ajivikas, he
was trying to win support of the non-orthodox elements as well. These sects
also had the support of the newly arisen Commercial classes and since the
new beliefs did not violently oppose the old ones, there was the possibility of
bringing a compromise. Thus Ashoka saw the practical advantage of adapting
the idea of Dhamma.

Another factor was that it would help in unifying small political units, of
wielding divergent groups into a basic cohesion. Cultural differences were
tremendous in the Mauryan Empire. The adaptation of a new faith, welding
the smaller units could be used as a measure to consolidate conquered
territory, provided that it was used wisely and not forced upon the conquered
population. Just like Charlemagne conquering the Saxons using Christianity as
the means to glue them together. The new religion can be used as the symbol
of unity and used in the propaganda.

In the 6th pillar edict Ashoka briefly explains the purpose of the edicts in
general. The primary reason was for the happiness and welfare of his subjects,
who, if they ordered their lives according to Dhamma would attain happiness.
He claims that in his effort to bring Dhamma to his people, he has been
impartial to all classes an sects. He wished Dhamma to be a means of
communication between him and his subjects and the glue which would hold
the vast and diverse empire together.
The last question we ask here is the possible role of dhamma in bringing an
abrupt end to Mauryan rule in 185 BCE, not even half a century after Ashoka’s
death in 232 BCE, when Pushyamitra Shunga, a general in the Mauryan army,
overthrew the last Mauryan ruler, Brihadratha. Two views surface here. One is
presented by Haraprasad Shastri in the 1910 edition of the journal of Asiatic
Society of Bengal, that since Shunga was a Brahman, it was a Brahmanical
revolution/revolt against the subversive tactics to undermine the authority of
the upper-castes. The second argument was presented by H.C. Ray-Chowdhuri
in the 1930s, where he held responsible Ashoka’s pacifist policies, stemming
from dhamma, for weakening the military might of the empire and ultimately
causing its demise.

Shastri highlights the edict banning animal sacrifice as an attack on Brahmans,

since the latter practised frequent slaughter of animals for sacrificial purposes
in ceremonies. This leads him to refer to rock edicts 9 and 11 where Ashoka’s
attitude towards ceremonies is one of complete antagonism, calling them
worthless and a misuse of money. Moreover, Shastri argues, these instructions
were perhaps resented owing to the Shudhra origins of the ruler. In addition,
the dhamma mahamatas, according to him, tried their best to reduce the
power and prestige of the Brahmans. Issues like ‘vyavaharasamata’ and
’dandasamata’ (uniformity in legal procedures and punishments) are drawn
on to verify this. The authority of the Brahmans was definitely questioned and
even mocked, referring to them as ‘amissa’(perhaps meaning ‘unmingled’, but
could be inferred as ‘false Gods’). Finally, he argues, these anti-Brahmanical
policies being continued by Ashoka’s successors was the final straw for
Brahmanas, who went up in arms.

Ray-Chowdhuri categorically refutes each of these arguments. Firstly, only

certain animals were slaughtered, not all of which were meant to be sacrificed.
Ashoka admits that 3 animals were still being killed in the royal kitchens
every day. Secondly, Ashoka called for due respect to be given to and honour
bestowed upon Brahmans and shramanas, evidenced in rock edict 3, even if he
criticised rituals in other edicts. Thirdly, the origins of the Mauryas are
obscure; they could have been Kshatriyas, as some texts claim, and not Sudras
at all. Fourthly, Ashoka’s policies did not substantially reduce any of the
Brahminical privileges. Indeed, the Rajatarangini informs us that one of
Ashoka’s ministers, Jalauka, was a Shaiva Brahman. And to top it all, no
archaeological evidence supports the view that Pushyamitra Shunga was anti-
Buddhist; despite his fabled destruction of 84,000 stupas, we know of
considerable expansion of stupas during the Shungas.

Chowdhuri himself makes the argument that Ashoka’s policy of ahimsa had
softened the army, making the land susceptible to Greek invaders’ attacks,
while it became difficult to control officials, who therefore became oppressive,
unruly and rebellious. Thapar refutes this, saying that ahimsa existed only in
theory. In practice, meat-eating continued, death penalty wasn’t abolished
(except for a brief 3-day respite in Ashoka’s 27 th regnal year), his army not
disbanded, and forgiveness granted only to those crimes that deserved it.
Politically, ahimsa was a viable policy at the time, since after having quelled
the Kalinga uprising (which was never reinstated as an independent state), no
internal disturbances remained, while the sole potential external threat was
from Antioch of Syria, with whom Ashoka had good relations. Therefore,
Ashoka was neither a naïve nor an extreme pacifist; his policies were in sync
with pragmatic considerations.

Increasingly, other reasons are being given to explain the fall of the Mauryas,
such as Kosambi’s argument of economic stagnation, manifested in the
debasement of coins and emergency taxes levied on actors and prostitutes,
and Thapar’s explanation of lack of nationalism, loyalty to the ruler rather
than the state, an absence of centralization and therefore socio-political unity,
of representative bodies, and a highly competitive system of examinations for
bureaucracy. Others draw our attention to opposition to the provincial
administration and its oppressive nature, as well as to the interference of
foreign elements like Greeks and Syrians.

I believe it would be logical to conclude that Dhamma was Ashoka’s own

invention. It may have borrowed from Buddhist and Hindu thought, but was in
essence an attempt on the part of the king to suggest a way of life that was
both practical and convenient as well as being highly moral.