The Remorse of Ashoka - Poem

THE YOUNG WARRIOR stood motionless
On the bloodied ground where battle
Had raged yesterday with vehemence
Of heat and sound; of flashing metal
Clashing, slicing, piercing, battering,
Flying, falling, striking, slaughtering
Men and women in the battle of pride,
Filling the air with blood curdling cries
As bodies fell one after the other with sighs –
All now calmed; the violence, stilled; the battle, won.

“But, what did I win here?” the Prince thought,
As his eyes gazed around the tormenting scene
Of strewn bodies that had once valiantly fought
A battle of dignity and the right to be rightly free;
“What have I gained now?” the Prince sighed,
“An open grave, a banquet to worms and vultures,
A treat to hyenas.” “It’s not so,” the devil lied
“They deserved this for being against your culture!”
A little child came walking with tears in his eyes;
“My remorse shall equal all my sin,” the Prince began…

“For every act of violence that I have done,
Ten thousand acts of non-violence shall I return;
For every hand of cruelty that I did wield,
Ten thousand hands of kindness shall I yield;
For every single child that I did orphan,
Every child of the world as mine shall I reckon;
For every beast that this war has slaughtered,
Every beast of the field shall henceforth be preserved;
Let my remorse be so great that never a life I will annihilate;
May trees and beasts, as all humans, now freely live
And breathe peace in this Land of Non-Violence.”

“You are a fool to make such a pledge” the devil replied,
“Another fool for a Prince after Siddhartha, who shunned
The delight of palace for the wilderness’ plight,
The heroism of war for a monk’s bowl of rice,
The light of victories for a patch of worthless lies;
And what will you gain by all these?
The enemies will gain their upper hand –
He who refuses to slaughter will himself be slaughtered –
Then, you shall repent and relent; but, it shall be
Too late! For Fate will have switched her wand –
He who doesn’t listen to Time shall by Time be bartered –
So, be bold, O Great Maurya and do your duty;
It is the duty of the Kshatriya to slay the enemy;
Let Ahimsa be the delight of the weak herd
Who can neither string a bow nor wield a sword;
Leave non-violence to the monks and the nuns;
Let them pursue remorse, holiness, and all that is weird;
But, you must pursue power by sly and force;
And make all efforts to follow the violent course
Until you have finished with all and all is won,
And every inch of this land has become yours!”

“Begone, O Prince of Vices!” the Great Maurya roared,
“I will have none of yours; for, you are a concocter of lies:
What I have purposed I will with all my strength do;
As I said, the path of kindness and non-violence shall I pursue.
This shall be my penitence; this shall be my lot;
This shall be my inheritance, my only reward;
This shall be the evidence of the change of my heart
That I do what I do desiring no other reward
But the good of all, dharma as ahimsa, peace on earth.
My hands will sow kindness and reap kindness in return;
My eyes will sow goodwill and reap goodwill in return;
My thoughts will sow benevolence and reap benevolence in return;
My life will sow righteousness and reap righteousness in return –
Thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and hundred-fold; wasted, none!
I can barely atone for the sin I have done…
Yet, no more! What’s done is done, may Justice do His work!
I shall return to acts of kindness; to kindness is Ashoka won!”

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2012

---

After the Battle of Kalinga, King Ashoka (304-232 BC) renounced war and violence forever. He embraced the non-violent path of Buddhism and preached kindness to all living creatures. His reign is known as the Golden Age of Indian History. “Ashoka” means “without grief or sorrow.” The wheel in the center of the Indian Flag is called “Ashoka’s Chakra”; it symbolizes Truth, Justice, and Virtue.

---

Regarding Conversion
Quote added on August 16, 2012

"the tradition that Ashoka actually became a Buddhist monk is now discredited. The inscriptions never mention the Buddha and show no awareness of his 'Noble Eightfold Path' or any other Buddhist schema. Even the idea of 'conversion' is suspect, since codes like those of the Buddhists and Jains were not seen as exclusive...... conversion, in the sense of renouncing one set of doctrines for another, was meaningless." [John Keay, A History of India, London: Harper Perennial, 2000, p. 96]

See Also:
The War of Kalinga and Modern Religious Conscience
Emperor Ashoka and His Humanitarian Approach to Religions

The War of Kalinga and Modern Religious Conscience

In around 260 BC, King Ashoka of the Mauryan Empire invaded the Republic of Kalinga, now in modern day Orissa, engaging in a bloody battle that within a short period of time caused such massive destruction that it appalled the chronicles of time. It was the first and the only battle that Ashoka is said to have fought, following which he encountered a profound change of heart and gave up violence. The conquest did make Ashoka an absolute monarch over a great part of the Indian sub-continent; the change of heart, however, stripped him of any desire for further military conquests. The massive loss of life and suffering caused by this war weighed heavily on the mind of the King and plunged him into deep remorse. On the 13th of his 14 Major Rock Edicts, he inscribes:

On conquering Kalinga the Beloved of the Gods felt remorse, for, when an independent country is conquered, the slaughter, death and deportation of the people is extremely grievous to the Beloved of the Gods and weighs heavily on his mind... Even those who are fortunate to have escaped, and whose love is undiminished, suffer from the misfortunes of their friends, acquaintances, colleagues and relatives...

This inscription of dhamma has been engraved so that any sons or great-grandsons that I may have should not think of gaining new conquests, and in whatever victories they may gain should be satisfied with patience and light punishment. They should only consider conquest by dhamma to be a true conquest, and delight in dhamma should be their whole delight, for this is of value in both this world and the next. [as quoted by John Keay, India: A History, 92-93]

"Herein lies the greatness of Ashoka," writes R.K. Mookerji, "... at least no victorious monarch in the history of the world is known to have ever given expression to anything like it" [Ibid]. The conversion was total and it unleashed a rare time in the history of India known as the Golden Age of Indian history.

Though seemingly deriving several principles of statecraft from Kautilya's Arthasastra, Akbar resorted to the ideology of dhamma as derived from Buddhism to make the foundation of his rule. Ashoka's remorse had a ready remedy in the already existing Buddhist dhamma, with which he did have contacts from his previous stay at Avanti and his marriage to Devi (Vidisha-mahadevi), a Buddhist. The remorse was decisive, but even more important was the availability of the religion of non-violence in the form of Buddhism, and Buddhist chroniclers waste no efforts trying to depict the pre-Buddhist Ashoka as a monstrously demonic ruler, whose evil mind had to go through Kalinga to experience the decisive change. It is recorded that some 100,000 people were slain and 150,000 deported during the Kalinga War. The subjugated Kalingans were treated in accordance to the principles of Arthasastra: "having acquired new territory the conqueror shall substitute his virtues for the enemy's vices and where the enemy was good, he shall be twice as good. He shall follow policies that are pleasing and beneficial by acting according to his dharma and by granting favours and exemptions, giving gifts and bestowing honours." [Keay, 92]

The presence of a non-violent religious conscience was strongly felt throughout the Golden reign of Ashoka. It's absence was horrifically sensed in the modern fascist regimes rooted in the dehumanizing roots of Darwinism. Darwinism accomplished the reduction of man to a mere biological being. Spirituality was stripped of any significance. Two powerful ideologies, viz. Fascism and Marxism, that plunged the world into horrific crimes against humanity ensued from its principles. These philosophies stood strongly opposed against virtues of the religious conscience. In his book The Antichrist, Nietzsche blatantly expressed the logical political ethics of Darwinian ideology, ideas that went into shaping the fascist regimes of the 1930s. Not surprisingly, influenced by the Darwinian principles of natural selection, struggle for existence, and survival of the fittest, his doctrine of will to power stood ferociously opposed to the virtues of love and compassion. He wrote:

What is good?--Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is evil?--Whatever springs from weakness.
What is happiness?--The feeling that power increases--that resistance is overcome.
Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtue, virtue free of moral acid).
The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.
What is more harmful than any vice?--Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak...

I call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers, what is injurious to it. A history of the "higher feelings," the "ideals of humanity"--and it is possible that I'll have to write it--would almost explain why man is so degenerate. Life itself appears to me as an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces, for power: whenever the will to power fails there is disaster. My contention is that all the highest values of humanity have been emptied of this will--that the values of decadence, of nihilism, now prevail under the holiest names...

Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is multiplied a thousandfold....

Shortly after writing this book, Nietzsche suffered nervous breakdown and ended in an asylum where he soon died. But, his megalomaniac philosophy became the fuel of Fascism and Nazism. Both Mussolini and Hitler were influenced by Nietzsche’s vision of the Superman, the Overman (in Thus Spake Zarathustra), which they further interpreted along their socio-historical experiences. The fascist ideas did spread to as far as Japan and the century saw one of the most brutal and violent histories of all time plunging the world into a global Kalinga of World War II. The difference: "Supermen" didn't have the means of remorse this time. They either committed suicide or were executed by those that defeated them and saved the world from self-destruction. There are instances of crimes against humanity that send a shiver along our spine. The concentration camps of Hitler and the Nanking massacre to mention two. Though opposed to fascism, Communism also viewed man with the anti-spiritual spectacles of naturalism that dehumanized the individual, but with a Hegelian tint to its philosophy of history. Pity was substituted with brutality, where the enemy was not just destroyed, but his humanhood was stripped off. Man, in the age of technology, with advanced weapons, was back to barbarianism. The religious conscience was annihilated.

Among those who did speak of a religious conscience but perpetrated crimes against humanity, their violence was sanctioned by their religious authority, sectarian view of humanity (that dehumanized other people groups), quest for political supremacy, racism, and/or a history of hatred, revenge, and anger.

In the Indian soil, sadly, as Romila Thapar noted, "the ideology of dhamma died with the death of the emperor [in 231 BC]" [Keay, 99]. After Ashoka, there was none like Ashoka. The modern period was a period of petty kingdoms warring against each other, of numerous social evils like child marriage, sati, casteism, temple prostitution, female infanticide, etc. The East India Company that came into India did put an end to the petty kingdom wars by assuming control over most of the land, however, it didn't interfere with the local customs. It was missionaries like William Carey and reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy who first began to take a stand against the social crimes sanctioned by religion and community. Consequently, the British administration imposed a ban over several of these.

From this time forth till the Independence of the nation, three major influences could be felt throughout the land: British Evangelicalism, Italian and German Fascism, and Russian Communism. While people like Gandhi and Tagore were influenced by British Evangelicalism, Golwalkar and Hedgewar (RSS) were influenced by Fascism, and Bhagat Singh was influenced by Communism (though these influences had a unique blend with the Indian socio-historical experience). The non-violent and peaceful protest methods that Gandhi upheld had an immense impact on the conscience of the nation. Certainly, as Bertrand Russell noted (and his statement hangs emblazoned in Mahatma Gandhi's home in Ahmedabad), "It is doubtful that the method of Mahatma Gandhi would have succeeded except that he was appealing to the conscience of a Christianized people." One wonders if Gandhi's methods would have had any success in Hitler's Germany or in the Ottoman Empire. In addition, we do understand the importance of a military to defend the nation.

However, it is the quality of the religious spirit that fosters a sense of humaneness even at times of war. It teaches one the principle of treating ones neighbour as one would have treated oneself. "Love your neighbour as yourself," said Jesus and, in addition, "whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them" - the Golden Rule of ethics. The Divine Spirit of Grace works within the human heart against the animal instincts of unrestrained passion for power and pleasure. One can either succumb to the base forces and enter a world of meaningless void and striving with the wind, or submit to Divine Grace and become a beloved of God, Devampriya (a title of Ashoka). Leaders can either destroy or build the nation. History tells us who built and who destroyed. Let us dare to follow the truth!

Sources:
John Keay, India: A History, Harper Perennial, 2004
Kalinga War
Kalinga War
Ashoka
Superman
Social Darwinism
John Allen Tucker, Tokugawa Intellectual History and Prewar Ideology.
Fascism in Japan
Causes of World War II
Crimes against Humanity
The Nanking Massacre
Communism and Crimes against Humanity
Fascism in India
To everyone an answer: Essays in honor of Norman L. Geisler

© Domenic Marbaniang, Saturday, 26 November 2010

Emperor Ashoka and His Humanitarian Approach to Religion

From the book Secularism in India: A Historical Outline (2005)

As far as secularism is concerned, Buddhism is best remembered in India for its dearest adherent, the Emperor Ashoka, whose religious policies are some of the closest to the modern principles of humanism. Chandragupta Maurya died in 300 B.C. Bindusara succeeded him and, after his death in between 273-272 B.C, Ashoka ascended the throne in 269-268 B.C.[1] After his painful experience in the Kalinga war, he converted to Buddhism and, having united the whole of the sub-continent under his rule, gave India one of its rarest times of peaceful governance. Ashoka gave great importance to the ideal of tolerance towards different ideologies and religions. According to Romila Thapar, Ashoka’s definition of social ethics is based on a respect for all religious teachers, and on a harmonious relationship between parents and children, teachers and pupils, and employers and employees.[2]

The religious policies of Ashoka grew out of his concept of religion and its role in human society. Ashoka’s practice of the principle of non-violence, after becoming a Buddhist, led him to ban animal sacrifices to the great chagrin of the Brahmins. The principle of universality and inclusivism kept Ashoka from all forms of communalism that the caste-Hindus were so fond of. Ashoka’s religion contained gleanings from all religions.[3] Ashoka followed the policy of religious tolerance and made a law that prohibited anyone from any act or word against any religion.

According to Jawaid Quddus, during the reign of Ashoka, diverse religious sects, such as the Brahamas, Sramanas, Nirganthas, Ajivakas, etc., bore great hostility and sectarian rancor against one another. Quddus quotes from the ' Studies in Ancient India' by Provatansu Maiti, (1969 edition) following of the directives of Ashoka that aimed at religious tolerance and mutual respect among the various sects:
1.All sects must dwell at all places so that they could know one another and develop tolerance for each other.
2.All sects must observe restraint of speech and purification of heart when they deal with each other.
3.The exaltation of one's own religion and condemnation of others' creed is not permitted.
4.Different sects should study of the scripture of other sects and develop concord among themselves.
5.All people must practice Ahimsa (non- violence) towards each other and towards animals.
6.Ashoka renounced the policy of conquest by sword and urged people to adopt the policy of conquest by law.[4]
Although Ashoka’s policy of religious tolerance seems quite conforming to the principles of secularism, his declaration of Buddhism as the state-religion doesn’t apparently do so. Ashoka considered religion as the foundation of a stable state. By religion, Ashoka meant Dhamma, the principle of right duty and obligation. Though this Dhamma was much influence by Buddhism, it was not separated from reason but based on reason.[5]

Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries to foreign kingdoms and he also undertook religious journeys to inspire his people towards religiosity. He established a department of religion that was responsible for measuring the religious level of the people and also teaching them the principles of Dhamma. He used to organize religious discourses and shows for the education of the masses.[6] The various pillars and inscriptions dating from the time of Ashoka point to the seriousness with which he understood the inter-relationship between religion and the state. The goal was to instil in the people the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong and awake and motivate them towards right thinking and right action. No doubt, Ashoka succeeded in doing so.
Thus, though Ashoka’s religious policies cannot be called as purely secular-oriented, they do resemble secularism in practice in their laws of religious freedom, religious tolerance, and respect for all religions. To be sure, Ashoka’s religious policies were oriented to the well being of all people in the present, despite race, colour, language, creed, or gender.

_______________
[1] As cited by Ratibhanu Singh Nahar, Prachin Bharat Ka Rajnitik Aur Sanskritik Itihaas (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1956), p. 238.
[2] Romila Thapar, ‘Ashoka’, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (Microsoft Corporation: 2001).
[3] Ratibhanu Singh Nahar, Prachin Bharat Ka Rajnitik Aur Sanskritik Itihaas (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1956), p.245.
[4] http://www.truthindia.com
[5] Ibid, pp. 244-246.
[6] Ibid, p. 247.

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2005, 2010

_______________________________________

 Related Article

The War of Kalinga and Modern Religious Conscience