Jignasa Journal Of History Of Ideas And Culture Part 02

Author(s): Vibha Upadhyaya and Others
Publisher: University of Rajasthan

Page 142

358
/
Jijñāsā
Dhamma ghosha than of Bheri-ghosha. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that they proved unequal to task of maintaining the integrity of the mighty fabric reared by the genius of Chandragupta and Chankya".
In all the three pronouncements cited above, Asoka is held responsible for the trials and tribulations and the decadence and downfall of his descendents and successors, for his disobedience to the behest of the political wisdom of Kautilya and departure from the traditional state policy of Magadha. Dr. Raychoudhuri has attacked Asoka on the basis of his having pursued a policy of non violence with such vigour and determination that it resulted in a completely effete nation from a military point of view and one that was not therefore able to withstand the Greek invasion. But this judgement on Asoka policy is not acceptable in the light of the edicts.
The unconventional nature of the government of Asoka did not lie in his taking to heart the doctrine of ahimsa. It lay in the fact that he was personally convinced that a greater degree of non violence and mutual respect would be to the benefit of society, and further more that his personal conviction was so great that even as a king he did not refrain from preaching and requesting people to observe such behaviour. As far as possible he determined his administrative policy in accordance with such principles.
Had he indeed been so complete a pacifist, as Raychoudhuri would have us believe that he would surely have abolished the death penalty. But capital punishment continued throughout his reign. The only form of alleviation was introduced in his twenty seventh regnal year, when a three day respite was granted to those who were condemned to death”. Raychoudhuri maintains that the successors of Asoka were incapable of standing up to an armed force as they had heard more of dhamma ghosha than of bheri ghosha.
From the above argument it would appear that Asoka issued an order for the demobilization of all armies and settled down to a rule of non violence in its literal sense. There is no hint of this in the edicts. The rock edict contains evidence, which entirely contradicts Raychoudhauri's contention, that Asoka wished his successors to forswear conquests of territory, Asoka states that he believes that no further conquest is necessary, which is logical enough considering the fact that the Mauryan empire covered practically the entire sub continent, but that, if his successors should have to make a conquest in the future, it was to be hoped that they would be merciful where possible and deliver light punishments
Asoka was in a position to maintain pacific policies because his frontiers were secure and so was the territory within the empire. The only area that might have been troublesome. Kalinga, he conquered in the early part of his reign. The absence of innumerable conquests does not in any way suggest that Asoka merely wished to retain what his father and grandfather had conquered before him. That he himself was filled with the grandiose ideas of a conquer cannot to doubted. It is strange that his pacifism did not lead him to reinstating Kalinga as an independent state. But being a practical ruler, he accepted the conquest of Kalinga as a fact and did not raise any moral doubts on the question. Moreover he did not publicize his confession of remorse over the conquest in Kalinga itself.
Military conquests are not the only ones of any value, and the greatness of a king does not lie in the number and quality of such conquests. It is clear that Asoka was not the naive and extreme