How Ashoka Became "Great"

In an earlier blog, we saw how a coin tester was responsible for the “discovery” of Ashoka. The story we know today goes like this. Conquers Kalinga in a brutal war. Experiences extreme remorse. Converts to Buddhism. Spends the rest of his rule in positive acts of governance.

 

But is that what really happened? Devansh Malik explores the question. One, Ashoka lived 2,300 years ago and there are very few sources of info. Two, those famous inscriptions on rocks and pillars, well, Ashoka got them done, so can we be sure that they weren’t just “ancient press releases - public messages carefully crafted to shape his image”? Three, Buddhist descriptions of him were written centuries later, so how accurate were they?

 

To make matters worse, the different sources don’t always agree. In fact, they often flat out contradict each other! One thing they do agree on is that as a prince, Ashoka was very capable at administration and at military strategy. But he wasn’t the favourite of Bindusara. Yet Bindusara sent Ashoka to put down a rebellion in the key city of Taxila. And made Ashoka the governor of the important trading center of Ujjain.

“Maybe the legends exaggerated the tension between them. Or maybe Bindusara was just realistic - he didn’t like Ashoka, but he needed his skills. Or maybe keeping Ashoka far away from the capital city was strategic - a way to keep him away from politics and succession. We’ll never really know.”

 

When Bindusara died, a long, brutal war of succession broke out and Ashoka emerged the victor. A huge chunk of the Indian subcontinent was his. Except Kalinga, which was wealthy and the gateway to South East Asia. Both his grandfather and father had tried to capture Kalinga. And failed. For a while, Ashoka let Kalinga be.

“In the eighth year of his reign, he decided that Kalinga needed to be brought under Mauryan control. Maybe it was strategic. Maybe it was pride. Or maybe it was just what emperors did.”

It was a brutal war:

“Archeological excavations in Kalinga have found burnt fortifications, layers of ash and mass graves.”

 

Years later, details of the war started to show up via inscriptions (edicts) on rocks and pillars across the empire. From Afghanistan to Karnataka to Bengal. Not in Sanskrit, but in the language of the masses. He explains his thinkings. Even admits his mistakes. Says 1 lakh were killed, 1.5 lakhs deported. Says he felt remorse after that which is why he adopted the path of dhamma (Buddha).

“No other ancient ruler left behind anything like this.”

 

Yet strangely, these edicts are everywhere except Kalinga. Only edicts of good governance and compassion in Kalinga, nothing on remorse.

“Why tell everyone else about your guilt except the people who actually suffered through the war?”

Perhaps he felt it would undermine his authority. Maybe it felt awkward to admit regret over the scale of the violence but still rule the place. Or maybe he was exaggerating the numbers to instil fear and hence only mentioned them in other parts of the empire (where they couldn’t be verified). We can’t know for sure.

 

What we do know is that it was the last war he fought. The popular story is he converted to Buddhism right after. But a Minor Rock Edict issued in his 13^th year as emperor says he converted to Buddhism a couple of years after Kalinga. And even then, he admits his progress was slow.

 

But then look at the Buddhist texts in Sri Lanka. They claim Ashoka was a Buddhist building 84,000 monasteries years before Kalinga! And these texts make no mention of the Kalinga war at all. Why? Is it because the idea of a Buddhist king going on a killing spree didn’t make Buddhism look good? Or did they just get the dates wrong?

 

Regardless of when he converted, how tolerant was he? Some accounts say he was hugely tolerant; others cite mass killings of other religious folks. Was that based on religious animosity? Or just regular political actions? Which one to believe? Some accounts were written centuries after his reign. Were some glorifying him? And others vilifying him? It is hard to know for sure.

 

He did do a lot of public welfare, building hospitals and rest houses. And he did do a lot to help spread Buddhism far beyond his empire.

 

Such contradictory accounts aren’t surprising when you remember these are 2,300 year old events. Nobody kept great records back then. Myths mixed with facts. And of course, different narrators had agendas of their own.

~~

 

Which brings us to modern India. Gandhi chose the version of Ashoka being a symbol of India’s non-violent heritage. Of compassion and tolerance to all religions. Nehru saw in Ashoka a model of secular governance. A ruler who cared for public welfare.

“After independence, a representation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka placed above the motto, Satyameva Jayate, was adopted as the State Emblem of India.”

Because:

“The choice of using Ashoka’s symbols sent the message that India would be secular, committed to non-violence and ethical governance. Everything Ashoka represented in the nationalist imagination became what India aspired to be.”

Ever since, the story got streamlined.

“Clean. Simple. Inspiring. The messy timeline of his conversion? Simplified. The contradiction about his remorse and the edicts missing from Kalinga? Not mentioned.”

 

The interesting point to sum it all up:

“(What Gandhi and Nehru did was) Not because anyone was deliberately lying. But because the story served a purpose. A newly independent nation needed heroes. It needed symbols… That’s how Ashoka became - Ashoka the Great.”