Emperor Ashoka v Mahatma Gandhi

Manmohan Singh's daughter, Upinder  Singh- a History Professor- has written an essay comparing Ashoka and Gandhi.

I can hear the protests about the exercise. On their own, Ashoka and Gandhi would make it to any list of famous proponents of non-violence. But an attempt to connect them, even through comparison, could be summarily dismissed as anachronistic and pointless.

Surely, the story of Ashoka influenced Gandhi? The British had rediscovered and popularized the story of the Emperor whose Ahimsa could do what incessant war could not- viz unify the country and give the 'kshatriya' ruling class an alternative means of establishing hegemony through the renunciation of violence and material possessions and the use of moral suasion rather than the threat of punishment to spread an 'isonomia'- a universal normative body of law. Since the British in India faced little military opposition save on the North West and North East frontier, and since they ruled through the 'Heaven born' ICS, whose members were supposed to be incorruptible and sternly attached to their duty, they may have thought of themselves as being like Ashoka. 

Gandhi would have been aware, through Gujarati stories of Jain origin, of other Mauryan Emperors but by the end of the Nineteenth Century it was Ashoka who was being built up as the greatest 'Chakravartin'- or Universal Emperor. Theosophy, drawing on Sri Lankan Buddhist texts played a role in this. Gandhi's fascination with the 'chakri' (spinning wheel) caused it to be the emblem used on the INC flag. It was only in 1947 that it was replaced by the Ashoka chakra.

Why compare two men who were separated from each other by over two millennia?

I think Nehru was more enamored of Ashoka whereas Gandhi would have retained the Gujarati Jain distaste for him. (Ashoka had slaughtered Jain monks till, by mistake, a Buddhist monk he was attached to was killed by his soldiers at which point Ashoka called off the pogrom.)

Why compare an ancient emperor with a person who, many centuries later, devoted himself to dismantling an empire?

Gandhi wanted the INC to inherit the entire Indian Empire- save Burma which went its own way in 1937. However, the Muslims voted overwhelmingly for the Muslim League in 1946 and thus the Muslim majority areas became Pakistan. 

Is it meaningful to compare an individual whose ideas are compressed into a few sets of monologues inscribed on pillars and rocks with one who has left to posterity a copious record of his thoughts and actions, his collected works running into almost a hundred published volumes?

No. But one could ask whether an ancient King influenced the thinking of a later politician. I should mention that Kautilya's Arthashastra was rediscovered in 1905 and published in 1915. Thus it could influence Nehru and temper his idealism with its realistic description of Statecraft. However, Gandhi would have found it distasteful. Consider, for example, Kautilya's prescriptions for the regulation of drinking establishments. Kautilya sees them as places which generate revenue but which should be sensibly regulated. Gandhi sees them as an evil which must be abolished. The American adoption of Prohibition suggested the wind was blowing in Gandhi's direction in the early Twenties. 

We do not know what Ashoka looked like.

He is spoken of as ugly and having a pumpkin like face. 

Gandhi’s face and figure are well known within India, indeed, all over the world. Ashoka is the only ancient Indian king who speaks in the first person in his inscriptions; yet his biographical details are few.

But they weren't 'few' in his own time. We know a lot about Gandhi because he died only recently. Ashoka's people probably knew a lot about him. 

He lived in the third century BCE. Inscriptions and Sri Lankan texts call him Devanampiya (“beloved of the gods”) and Piyadasi (“of gracious mien”). Four of his inscriptions give the name Asoka (Ashoka is the Sanskritised form), “free from sorrow”. This may have been a name he chose after seeking refuge in the Buddha’s teaching, whose core deals with suffering and its elimination.

Which isn't really a big problem for most people. You may say that I am suffering terribly because of the emptiness of my life. But I like watching Netflix and eating Pizza. You may say 'but you will die!'  So what? Everybody dies. Why get worked up about it?  

Ashoka tells us – and there is no reason to disbelieve him – that the Kalinga war was a life-transforming experience. But, apart from this, we know little about his inner demons

He was a fucking Emperor! Everybody was trying to kill him so as to grab the throne. Why worry about 'inner demons' when it's your brothers or cousins or sons you have to watch out for?  

and much more about the resolve that emerged from his struggles with them. Ashoka lives on through his inscriptions, but he lives on even more strongly in legend, as a paradigmatic king in the Asian Buddhist world.

I think Gandhi was influenced by the legend of Raja Harishchandra but much less so by Ashoka against whom, like most Gujeratis influenced by Jainism, he would have had a prejudice.  

In sharp contrast, the factual details of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s life are minutely documented. Apart from the year, month, and date of his birth and death, a great deal is known about what happened in between. Gandhi’s experiments with truth are revealed in his autobiography, diaries, articles, letters, and speeches, as well as through the records maintained by his close associates, admirers, and others with whom he interacted.

We also know a lot about other politicians of the period. This is because they belong to our recent past. 

He too had his transformative moment, not on the battlefield but when he was thrown out of a train in South Africa.

He had previously been ejected from the office of a British official in his native State. 

It was one of many personal and political crises that he described meticulously in his own words.

E.M Forster describes an incident where some Britisher tried to eject Syed Ross Massood out of a first class carriage. Apparently such incidents were common at the time.  

Despite the immense chronological distance and the asymmetry in information, a case can be made for comparing Ashoka and Gandhi, and it does not rest on the desire to say something new and startling.

Ashoka unified territory. Gandhi was part of the reason India broke up on confessional lines. Gandhi's mistake was to insist that the INC speak for all Indians though he conceded that it was a high caste Hindu affair.  

Their writings (let us consider Ashoka’s inscriptions as his writings, even though he may have dictated them orally), marked by a unique kind of reflection, introspection, honesty, and frankness, allow an exploration of the ways in which two very different men, living in very different times, struggled with the problem of violence.

Ashoka killed a lot of people. But sooner of later, if not he himself then his son or grandson would meet a like fate. As a matter of fact then Jain King of Kalinga did inflict a defeat on Magadha about a century later. For a while he prosed on about non-violence but other Buddhist or Jain Kings did so as well. 

Gandhi served in the Ambulance Corps in two South African Wars and volunteered to do the same in the First World War. He tried to recruit soldiers for the British. Later he became more of a Pacifist. However, he died witnessing the terrible blood-letting of Partition.  It seemed Pax Brittanica did have its merits.

A comparison reveals many surprising similarities, as well as many striking differences...

Ashoka and Gandhi were political beings who sought to connect the political, social, and moral spheres, asserting the supremacy of the moral.

Ashoka had sovereign power. Gandhi did not. Anyone can assert the supremacy of anything they like but without power, those assertions are but words lost to the wind. 

Both were political and moral activists who at a certain point in their lives, began to consciously, consistently, persistently, and passionately practice and propagate non-violence as an essential basis for a good life.

What violence could Gandhi have practiced? The Brits were hanging people like Bhagat Singh. Gandhi may have led, if not a good, then a long life. This was because he stayed away from violence. This was his chief appeal. The young Ghanshyam Das Birla had to go into hiding as a youth because he might have been implicated in the Roda cartridge case. By becoming a Gandhian he acquired an immunity from suspicion of revolutionary conspiracy.  

In Ashoka’s case, this commitment to non-violence emerged primarily, but not exclusively, from a creative, idiosyncratic engagement with Buddhism, and in Gandhi’s case, from a creative, idiosyncratic engagement with a variety of philosophical and religious traditions, including Hinduism, Jainism, Christianity, and Islam.

But none of these religions- including Jainism- say that a State ought not to use coercive violence. However for Jains and Hindus, abstaining from violence, meat, alcohol, sex etc could get you reborn in Paradise or an age when a 'Tirthankar' was active such that you attained ultimate liberation.  

Both men believed in persuasion and saw their persuasive skills as having a profound social impact.

Everybody, from childhood onwards, believes in persuasion. But they also believe in using coercive means to safeguard their vital interests- if it is safe to do so.  

Both adopted a dialogic approach based on communication and direct mass contact.

Ashoka set up massive machinery to spread dhamma (goodness, virtue), including a special cadre of dhamma officials whose responsibility was to go around spreading goodness. The emperor himself was involved in a marathon 265-day mass contact dhamma campaign. 

But it may have been more like peripatetic Imperial durbars where local magnates offered fealty and monks and priests received alms. No doubt, ordinary people were treated to some fine sermons and got a glimpse of pomp and pageantry. 

Since Gandhi lived in the locomotive era, the extent of his travels and public outreach far exceeded those of Ashoka. And yet he wrote to Kasturba, “One cannot propagate dharma by travelling in trains or cars, nor in bullock carts. That can be done only on foot.” Ashoka would have agreed.

Upinder Singh believes that Ashoka wandered around his kingdom like a Buddhist bhikku. It is more likely that his was a Royal tour. 

Ashoka and Gandhi believed in the connection between the inner and outer worlds and between the personal and the social.

Who does not? 

They led through example, energy, and commitment.

Most leaders do. 

Both believed in human imperfection and perfectibility, and the need to live in accordance with a transcendent, higher dharma.

All religious people have the same belief. 

They believed in grounding action in ethics and were obsessed with non-violence, truth, and controlling the passions.

Those with such obsessions seldom command power but it can happen. However, that power tends to melt away or to have disastrous consequences. Pragmatism, not obsessional behavior, better befits the leader of a Nation. 

Although Ashoka talks about controlling the passions, we do not know about his personal attitude towards sexuality;

he seems to have had a lot of wives 

Gandhi’s obsession with brahmacharya is well known, as are his unorthodox experiments to test his commitment to complete and true celibacy. Ashoka’s dhamma included individual virtues such as self-control, truthfulness, purity of thought, liberality, and gratitude. The idea of duty is central to how he thought of his role as a king and in the code of ethics he propounded to his subjects.

This ethical quality does distinguish Ashoka from other great conquerors of the period. In this matter, he exceeds Alexander and Cyrus and Caesar. 

Proper social conduct comprised obedience to mother and father; respect for elders; courtesy and liberality towards Brahmins and renunciants; courtesy to slaves and servants; liberality towards friends, acquaintances, and relatives; moderation in expenditure and possessions; and guarding one’s speech. The appropriate behaviour towards all living beings – humans and animals – included gentleness, compassion, and abstention from injuring and from killing.

Sadly, this obsession with not killing tended to reinforce caste prejudice such that Buddhism became a vector for the spread of the notion of untouchability to distant countries. 

Gandhi would have agreed with all of this, especially the emphasis on non-violence, self-control, and frugality as part of the definition of the good. He would have agreed with Ashoka’s view that a life lived according to the dictates of goodness, virtue, and duty was the foundation for happiness in this life and the next.

Ashoka's reign probably saw increased security, if not prosperity, for the people of India. Gandhi's epoch saw the reverse. First famine returned and then ghastly ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale. Ashoka succeeded, at least while he lived. Gandhi failed. Thus the chakri was replaced in the Indian flag with the Ashoka chakra.  

Ashoka and Gandhi practised non-violence personally and sought to create non-violent societies.

But Ashoka kept his army and would use cruel and unusual punishments to deter crime. Ashoka, it seems, largely succeeded. Gandhi failed.  

Both had a strong sense of self and mission; they saw themselves as important, innovative figures within the longer-term politico-intellectual tradition. Both engaged with the world in order to change it.

No. Ashoka may have known as much as was known at the time. Gandhi did not know most of what had been learned over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. In particular, he did not know- or refused to believe- the findings of modern economics and political science. The result was that India pursued very foolish policies which left it weaker and hungrier than before. 

Ashoka and Gandhi’s obsession with ethics was combined with shrewd political pragmatism.

But Gandhi's shrewdness was self-defeating. Allying with the Muslims on the Khilafat issue seemed shrewd. But leaving them in the lurch was not shrewd at all. In March of 1922, the Muslims realized that the Viceroy had been quietly lobbying Westminster on their behalf. Meanwhile Gandhi had broken his word and unilaterally surrendered. Why? Gandhi had thrown open INC membership to the riff raff. In Chauri Chaura some of these new Congress members, protesting high meat prices, ran riot and killed native policemen. This meant, from the legal point of view, there was prima facie evidence that Congress, as an organization, was involved in seditious violence. Gandhi could have fought the matter out in the Courts. He chose to unilaterally surrender. He conceded the die-hard Tory claim that India was not ready for self-government. Thus India did not get what Ireland and Egypt and Afghanistan all got at around this time. 

Gandhi’s calling off of the Non-cooperation Movement due to the violence at Chauri Chaura displayed a stubborn unwillingness to compromise on the issue of non-violence,

Gandhi had written to the Viceroy saying he wouldn't call of his agitation even if there was violence. Then he did a U-turn- probably because some of his members were running scared. So off to Jail he went like a good little lamb.  

but in many other situations, his strong political instincts led him towards pragmatic compromise.

The problem with Gandhi's compromises was that nobody believed he, or his party, would stick to their letter and spirit once they got the upper hand. Moreover Gandhi would keep saying- 'only the INC can represent India. Power- including control of the Army- must be transferred to the INC'. If any minority or weaker group asked for safeguards he would first say 'I myself am a Muslim- because I read Quran and keep fasts' or 'I myself am a Harijan- because I clean toilets' or 'I myself am a woman- because I sleep naked with little girls' etc etc. Gandhi was the INC and the INC was India. This was Fascism. Govind Vallabh Pant said 'Italy has its Il Duce, Germany has its Fuhrer, India has the Mahatma'. By 1946, it was obvious that Fuhrers and Il Duces were shit. But then so was the Maha-crank. By contrast Ashoka died ruling over a great and reasonably secure Empire. He may have had his little crochets and obsessions but they hadn't done the commonweal any grave harm. 

In his thirteenth rock edict, where Ashoka gave a strong, reasoned critique of war, he also struck a pragmatic note when he warned the forest tribes that he would not hesitate to use force against them, if required.

Whereas Gandhi, during the Second World War, was saying that India would not lift a finger to defend itself. The Brits were welcome to quit the country and abandon it to the fate that had overtaken Japanese held South East Asia.  

There is a similarity in Ashoka and Gandhi’s attitude towards religion.

No there isn't. Ashoka promoted Buddhism though no doubt he was kind to Brahmins. Gandhi promoted his own brand of stupidity.  

Both were deeply religious but rejected institutional religious authority.

No. Ashoka strengthened institutional Buddhism.  

Ashoka’s personal religion included a faith in Buddhism combined with a belief in the gods, heaven and hell, karma, ethics, punya (merit), and papa (demerit).

These beliefs were and are common in India. 

Although Gandhi did not believe in the outer trappings of religion, he was a devout Hindu; at the same time, he had an intense curiosity about other religions.

But this childish curiosity wasn't helpful at all. The country was divided on the basis of religion. Had the Sikhs been a majority in an economically viable area they would have got Khalistan. Since they were a minority in every district of the Punjab it took a long time for them to get a Sikh majority State. But the demand for Khalistan has not gone away- as Upinder Singh well knows.  

Ashoka and Gandhi recognised the existence of religious conflict and struggled to foster interaction and harmony between religious communities. Ashoka’s plea for concord (samavaya, similar in meaning to the Hindi word samvad) between the various pasandas (religious sects) was a plea for mutual respect and dialogue, much more than what is conveyed in the bland and rather negative phrase “religious tolerance”.

The Brits had got Indians of various castes and creeds and languages and ethnicities working well together. India was able to project force into Europe and China and the MENA. Gandhi helped undo that. He and his successor left India unable to feed or defend itself.  

Religious concord was close to Gandhi’s heart too.

But the shit inside his head was one cause for violent religious discord and the partition of the country causing a big refugee problem which encompassed Upinder's own family. 

Of course the magnitude of religious conflict and violence that he dealt with,

which he provoked. He said in 1939 that Hindus- apart from Punjabis and Gurkhas- were non-violent and thus should control the Army so as to be protected from Muslims allied with Punjabi and Gurkha Hindus. Since Muslims knew that plenty of Hindus were martial- e.g. Marathas, Garwalhis, Dogras, Coorgis, Madrasis, Bhumihars, Rajputs, Jats etc, etc- they considered Gandhi to be a big fat liar.  

especially during the prelude to and aftermath of the Partition, were much more frightening in scale and intensity than anything that Ashoka might have faced or even imagined.

Ashoka secured power and then used it in a way pleasing to himself and not too damaging to the country. Of course, had he instituted a proper Imperial Army and bureaucracy instead of wasting his time promoting Buddhism, India would have been better off. Still, since no other Indian King achieved much in that direction- preferring to let the Caste system burgeon- we can't single out Ashoka for blame.

Gandhi, however can be blamed for betraying the Khilafat-Congress combine by unilaterally surrendering in 1922. It may be argued that British rule was preferable to Indians squabbling over how to rule the country. But if that argument is valid then Gandhi's entire political program misconceived. India should have chosen the path of cooperation, not non cooperation. It should have become more and more Anglo Saxon in its institutions. It should have spent the Twenties and Thirties building up an indigenous Naval and Military capacity so as to better contribute to Imperial defense. Instead of burning foreign cloth, the Indians should have ensured that the handloom sector had access to the finest foreign yarn. The textile industry should have grown by responding to competition. Instead of 'Nai Talim', Indians should have backed good schools teaching Maths and English and Science. It should have set up Research Universities and specialist Institutes, not more and more Degree mills. It should have knocked the whole Urdu vs Hindi conflict on its head by pursuing Romanization like Kemal Pasha's Turkey. 

India should simply have imitated what other poor countries had done so as to get ahead. It should not have listened to a crack-pot. But then, I suppose you will argue, it wouldn't have been India. Shame, but there it is.