According to the blueprint of the Arthashastra, provinces should be subdivided into districts, each of these into groups of villages, the final unit of administration being the village: a system which has been implemented from time to time and has remained approximately unchanged. The group of villages was to be staffed with an accountant, who maintained boundaries, registered land and deeds, kept a census of the population and a record of the livestock; and the tax collector, who was concerned with the various types of revenue. The most frequently mentioned person in the village, the headman, functioned in some official capacity and was responsible to the accountant and the tax collector. Administrative divisions are referred to in the edicts, one of which was called ahara – a term with an intrinsic interest since it is derived from collecting and eating.
Urban administration had its own hierarchy of officers. The city superintendent maintained law and order and the general cleanliness of the city. He was assisted by an accountant and a tax collector, with functions similar to those of their village counterparts. Megasthenes’ description of the administration of Pataliputra states that the city was administered by thirty officials, divided into six committees of five members. Each committee supervised one of the following functions: questions relating to industrial arts; the welfare of visitors coming from distant places; the registering of births and deaths; matters relating to trade and commerce; supervision of the public sale of manufactured goods; and, finally, collection of the tax on articles sold (this being one-tenth of the purchase price). A similar administration is proposed by the Arthashastra, supporting supervision of production and exchange in urban centres, presumably to control revenues. If it was literally so, could it have acted as an inhibiting factor in exchange activities?
Whether the administration was quite as effective as suggested by these statements remains uncertain. There is for instance much emphasis on the keeping of records, but unfortunately such records have not survived, nor for that matter have records from later times. The communication between the province and the centre, which would be crucial to the kind of administration suggested, might have been difficult given the distances and the time taken for orders to be carried from Pataliputra to the other cities. Decisions on lesser activities were doubtless taken at the local level.
For the Mauryan administration espionage was a recognized official activity, one which was common to many other imperial systems. The Arthashastra advocates the frequent use of spies, and recommends that they should work in the guise of recluses, householders, merchants, ascetics, students, mendicant women and prostitutes. Ashoka also refers to agents who bring him news and generally keep him informed about public opinion. This was one of the means through which contact was maintained with even the more remote parts of the empire.
Ashoka’s Dhamma
It was against this background that Ashoka expounded an idea which was new to Indian political and social theory, which has also received much attention in recent years, enhancing the curiosity about Ashoka. It is based on his interpretation of the ‘philosophy’ or idea of Dhamma, a term he used frequently. Dhamma is the Prakrit form of the Sanskrit word Dharma, meaning, according to the context, the universal law or righteousness or, by extension, the social and religious order found in a society where Brahmanism was the norm. In the Buddhist Canon it was used for the teaching of the Buddha. However, the word had a much more general connotation at the time and, judging by the way in which he used it in his edicts, Ashoka gave it a wider meaning.
Early studies of Ashoka drew on the evidence from the Buddhist chronicles of Sri Lanka in conjunction with the King’s own edicts, and this naturally emphasized a Buddhist reading of the edicts. His supposedly sudden conversion to Buddhism after the battle of Kalinga was dramatized and he was depicted as a paragon of Buddhist piety following his conversion – one historian suggesting that he may have been both a monk and a monarch at the same time. Ashoka was certainly attracted to Buddhism and became a practising Buddhist. But the Buddhism of his age was not merely a religious belief; it was in addition a social and intellectual movement at many levels, influencing many aspects of social life. Obviously, any responsible and sensitive statesman would have had to locate himself in the context of the Buddha’s teaching, among others, and be aware of its impact on the society of that time. Ashoka’s edicts reflect this sensitivity, as also do his concerns for the ethics of those whom he was governing.
Ashoka, it would seem, made a distinction between his personal belief in and support for Buddhism and his obligation as a king and a statesman to insist that all religions must be respected. His inscriptions are therefore of two kinds. The smaller group consists of declarations of the King as a lay Buddhist, addressed to the Buddhist Sangha. These edicts describe his adherence to Buddhism and his relationship with the Sangha. Here the voice is that of a confirmed believer with some degree of intolerance of differing opinion, as for instance in a passage where he proclaims in no uncertain terms that dissident monks and nuns should be expelled from the Sangha. Another inscription mentions the various teachings of the Buddha with which Buddhists, and in particular Buddhist monks, should be familiar.
Far more important, however, is the larger group of inscriptions on rock surfaces known as the Major and Minor Rock Edicts, and the Pillar Edicts inscribed on specially erected pillars, all of which were located in places where people were likely to gather. Given that literacy would not have been widespread, these were presumably locations where the edicts would be read out to the gathered people. This was part of the propagation of ideas through the oral tradition. These may be described as exhortations to his subjects.
The versions of the Minor Rock Edicts reiterate the fact of his being a Buddhist and these, together with the Major Rock Edicts and the Pillar Edicts, define what he understands by Dhamma. The achievement of Ashoka lay in his exposition of this idea in the context of Mauryan India. He did not see Dhamma as piety, resulting from good deeds that were inspired by formal religious beliefs, but as conformity to a social ethic. Some historians have interpreted Ashoka’s Dhamma as a synonym for Buddhism, arguing that Ashoka’s intention was the propagation of Buddhism to make it virtually the religion of the Mauryan state. The edicts would belie such an intention. He appears to have been concerned with using a broader ethic to explore ways of governance and to reduce social conflict and intolerance. Dhamma was aimed at creating an attitude of mind in which the ethical behaviour of one person towards another was primary, and was based on a recognition of the dignity of human beings. It was couched in a language that was familiar to the discourse of that time. The ideas on which he focused, which do have some parallels in Buddhist teaching, were nevertheless central to contemporary debates on matters beyond the concerns of religious organizations.
This concept of Dhamma can perhaps be better understood by analysing it as a response to contemporary conditions. It was in part a policy that was nurtured in the mind of Ashoka, but, since he also saw it in relation to existing problems, it is in the light of these that its nature can be assessed. As a family, the Mauryas tended to be eclectic and favoured the heterodox sects – the Jainas, the Ajivikas and the Buddhists – although they were not hostile to Brahmanism. These dissident sects questioned brahmanical ideas and suggested alternative ways of life and thought. The strength of, and the support for, ideologies alternative to Vedic Brahmanism was apparent, and this would have made them all the more competitive. That the competition was sometimes expressed in contestation was unavoidable. There were other tensions, involving the status of newly emerging communities, such as the mercantile community, the assertion of craft associations in urban centres, the strain of an administrative system more complex than before and the sheer size of the empire.
It would seem that with such divergent forces a focus or common perspective was required. The empire included multiple cultural and social systems. In the north-west, Hellenistic society was characterized by two divisions, the master and the slave; in
the Ganges Plain and the core areas four varnas were more common, as well as innumerable jatis; among the atavikas or forest-people, scattered in many parts of the empire, there were no varnas. Such plurality could be juxtaposed or even minimally welded either by force or by persuasion. Ashoka chose the latter. Given the structure of Mauryan society and politics, in order to be successful such a focus had to derive from a central authority. He sought a group of unifying principles, influenced by the intellectual and religious currents of the time. Ashoka mutated Dhamma to his needs and explained it through a personal definition.
The principles of Dhamma were such that they would have been acceptable to people belonging to any religious sect. Dhamma was not defined in terms of caste duties and regulations and was left vague in details, referring itself to the requirements of social ethics. Of the basic principles, Ashoka emphasized tolerance. This, according to him, extended to tolerance towards people and towards their beliefs and ideas. He defined it repeatedly as consideration towards slaves and servants, respect for teachers, obedience to mother and father, generosity towards friends, acquaintances and relatives, regard for and donations to brahmans and shramanas, a concern for all living beings and an abstention from taking life. He went on to say:
But the Beloved of the Gods does not consider gifts of honour to be as important as the essential advancement of all sects. Its basis is the control of one’s speech, so as not to extol one’s own sect or disparage that of another on unsuitable occasions… On each occasion one should honour the sect of another, for by doing so one increases the influence of one’s own sect and benefits that of the other, while, by doing otherwise, one diminishes the influence of one’s own sect and harms the other… therefore concord is to be commended so that men may hear one another’s principles.
Major Rock Edict XII, tr. R. Thapar,Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, p. 155
Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, p. 155
This was a plea to accommodate differences in the interests of harmonious living. Differences can be openly expressed and admitted, while at the same time being tolerated. There was a concern that differences should not lead to disharmony. Occasions that might encourage disharmony or become the starting point for opposition, such as assemblies and gatherings, were discouraged.
Refraining from violence was another principle of Dhamma, which included the renunciation of war and conquest by violence, as well as a restraint on the killing of animals. But Ashoka was not adamant in his insistence on non-violence. He recognized that there were occasions when violence might be unavoidable, for instance when the forest-dwellers were troublesome. In a moving passage on the suffering caused by war, he declares that by adhering to Dhamma he will refrain from using force in the future. He also states that he would prefer his descendants not to conquer by force, but should it be necessary he hopes they will conduct this conquest with a maximum of mercy and clemency. He pared down the cooking of meat in the royal kitchen, allowing for only a little venison and peacock meat -evidently his personal preferences. He also lists a number of birds, animals and fish of a curiously mixed kind that he declares inviolable. The inviolability of some is linked to particular days of the calendar. This is frequently quoted today as an early example of the conservation of wildlife, but a more likely explanation of their preservation points to a ritual or medicinal connection. In another edict he refers to the planting of medicinal herbs to help both men and animals.
The policy of Dhamma included the state’s concern for the welfare of its people. The Emperor claims that:
On the roads I have had banyan trees planted, which will give shade to beasts and men. I have had mango groves planted and I have had wells dug and rest houses built every nine miles… And I have had many watering places made everywhere for the use of beasts and men. But this benefit is important, and indeed the world has enjoyed attention in many ways from former kings as well as from me. But I have done these things in order that my people might conform to Dhamma.
Pillar Edict VII, tr. R. Thapar, Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, p. 265
He criticized in no uncertain terms what he described as ‘useless ceremonies and sacrifices’, held as a result of superstitious beliefs, for example those meant to ensure a safe journey or a quick recovery from an illness. These were the stock-in-trade of the lower order of priests, who depended on such ceremonies for their livelihood. Yet he has no objection to spectacles and displays conjuring up divine forms as a means of attracting an audience to create an interest in Dhamma. This was propaganda of an obvious kind.
To implement the policy of Dhamma and publicize it, Ashoka instituted a special category of officers – the dhamma-mahatnattas. Their concern was with the well-being of his subjects. As can often happen with such categories of officers, although the intention was worthy they may have interfered more than was necessary in the lives of people, thus to some extent nullifying their very purpose. Had his interest been only to propagate Buddhism, then his support to the Sangha would have sufficed; but the appointing of the dhamma-mahatnattas points to wider concerns.
Yet the policy of Dhamma did not succeed. It may have been due to Ashoka’s over-anxiety for its acceptance, or to his own weakness when he became obsessed with Dhamma in the latter part of his reign. The social tensions and sectarian conflicts continued, or else were adjusted but remained. Nevertheless, Ashoka deserves admiration, not only for recognizing the need for a social ethic, but for attempting to both define and implement such an ethic in his capacity as emperor. Buddhist tradition depicts him as the chakkavatti – the universal monarch who ensures that the turning of the wheel of law is the essence of his rule. Universal monarchy was a concept rather than a reference to reality. Ashoka does not describe himself as a chakkavatti, possibly because this was not his intention.
Imperial Decline
Ashoka ruled for thirty-seven years and died in about 232 BC. Subsequently, a political decline set in and the empire began to break up. The last of the Mauryas, Brihadratha, was assassinated during an inspection of the troops by the brahman Pushyamitra, the commander of the army. Pushyamitra founded the successor Shunga dynasty. However, military coups were rare in the early history of India. This incident is frequently quoted as a case of the ineptitude of the ruler allowing himself to be removed.
The pattern of the break-up of the empire has its own interest in terms of the continuance of the metropolitan area and the evolving of the core regions into independent states. The Ganges Plain remained under the Mauryas, becoming the nucleus of the kingdom of their successors. The north-western areas were lost to the rising ambitions of the Bactrian Greeks, and remained vulnerable to the politics from across the borderlands. Interestingly, some of the gana-sanghas of the Punjab and Rajasthan seem to have survived and were able to reassert themselves. However, the gana-sanghas of the middle Ganges Plain had succumbed to monarchical rule. This is to some degree a commentary on the nature of the imperial administration. Other parts of the empire, erstwhile core areas, such as Gandhara, Kalinga and parts of the western Deccan, broke away into smaller states, some with occasional evidence of dynasties and others with more continuous dynastic control. The forest-dwellers continued to inhabit various parts of the subcontinent. It was not the ambition of the Mauryas to uproot local societies, nor did these become part of a single, uniform culture.
It has been asserted in the past that the decline of the Mauryan Empire can be attributed largely to the policies of Ashoka. He has been accused of causing a revolt of the brahmans because of his pro-Buddhist policy. But his general policy was not an active proselytizing in favour of Buddhism at the expense of Brahmanism. It was open to acceptance or rejection by all or any. He repeatedly states that respect is to be shown to both brahmans and shramanas. There is little evidence to suggest that Vedic Brahmanism was the prevalent religion in the Indian subcontinent at that time. It was still the religion of a small minority, although gradually becoming powerful. To the extent that Ashoka
patronized Buddhism it came to be established in some parts of the empire. But the more extensive spread and enhancement of Buddhism came from its new patrons in the mercantile community in the post-Mauryan period. It has also been said that his obsession with non-violence led to the emasculation of the army, thus laying the country open to invasion. Yet his propagation of non-violence did not override other considerations, as is evident from his advice to his sons and grandsons on the use of violence; nor do the edicts imply that he deliberately weakened the military strength of the state by pursuing a policy of non-violence.
More probable reasons are to be found elsewhere. The suggestion that the Mauryan economy was under considerable pressure seems a more likely cause, although this requires further investigation. The need for vast revenues to maintain the army, and to finance the salaries of the upper levels of the bureaucracy, not to mention the cost of establishing settlements on newly cleared land, could have strained the treasury. Although excavation of the Mauryan urban sites points to an expanding economy in the early stages, the view that there was a debasement of silver coins in the later Mauryan period would suggest a different picture. This has been interpreted as a severe pressure on the economy where the normal channels of revenue were not sufficient for the Mauryan state. However, the chronology of the coins remains uncertain and debased coins alone are not conclusive proof of a fiscal crisis. Kautilya suggested that double-cropping should be undertaken during times of financial need, but this was practised in some areas even before the Mauryan period.
The Penguin History of Early India Page 31
