The following is an excerpt from Upinder Singh’s Ancient India: Culture of Contradictions, republished with permission from Aleph books.
The Maurya emperor Ashoka has rightfully earned the reputation of being a remarkable king who renounced war and devoted his life to making people follow dhamma, which included non-violence. Kautilya, on the other hand, was a proponent of realpolitik for whom the ends justified the means and the ruthless pursuit of power justified deceit, subterfuge, and killing. So it may be a bit surprising that there are several similarities in their ideas.
Both Ashoka and Kautilya associated kingship with benevolent paternalism, ensuring the welfare and happiness of all beings in this world, and helping them attain heaven in the next. In Ashoka’s dhamma, the appropriate conduct towards all living beings is one of compassion, gentleness, and abstention from injuring and killing. The Arthashastra acknowledges the ethics applicable to everyone, which include non-violence, truthfulness, purity, freedom from malice, non-cruelty, and forbearance.
Upinder Singh
Ancient India: Culture of Contradictions
Aleph 2021
Ashoka considered all living beings as part of his moral constituency, so non-violence includes non-violence towards both humans and animals. Rock Edict 1 talks of the king’s attempts to curb violence towards animals in sacrifices, in certain popular festive gatherings, and in the royal kitchen. In Rock Edict 8, Ashoka announces that royal pleasure tours, which must have included hunting, had been replaced by dhamma tours. Rock Edict 2 announces positive welfare measures undertaken by the king for animals—the provision of medical treatment; the planting of herbs, root plants, and fruit trees; digging wells and planting trees along roads. The most detailed and remarkable statement about the protection of animals is in Pillar Edict 5, which contains a series of commands that were issued in the twenty-seventh year after the king’s consecration. There is a ban on killing female goats, ewes, and sows who are pregnant or lactating, as well as young animals less than six months old. Animals that used to be hunted in the elephant forests were not to be killed. The killing and selling of fish in the fishermen’s preserves was banned on certain specific days. Husk containing living animals was not to be burnt. Forests were not to be needlessly burnt. Living beings were not to be fed with other living beings. Cocks were not to be castrated. Bulls, goats, rams, and boar were not to be castrated on certain specific days. The branding of horses and bulls was banned on certain specific days. What this amounted to was not an elimination of violence against animals, but a regulation and reduction. Of course, it is unlikely that Ashoka or his administration would have been able to enforce these measures effectively throughout the empire.
While Ashoka’s concern for animals is well known, Kautilya’s is not. The Arthashastra lays down punishments for causing injury to humans, animals, and plants. It refers to abhaya-vanas (animal sanctuaries). Kautilya recommends that the highest fine should be imposed on those who bind, kill, or injure animals living in these sanctuaries. Those who do not take proper care of state elephants, including those who strike an elephant in an improper place, should be fined. If horses under state care were incapacitated by war, disease, or old age, they should receive food for maintenance; those no longer fit to be used in war should be used as stallions for breeding. Veterinarians should tend to elephants suffering as a result of a long journey, disease, work, rut, or old age. Hurting domesticated animals is a punishable offence. Fines are prescribed for those riding a temple animal, stud bull, or pregnant cow. Pregnant females or those with young are singled out for special consideration. A fine should be imposed on a driver of a bullock cart who injures the animals on account of a broken nose string or yoke. So both Ashoka and Kautilya extended the principle of non-injury to animals and expanded it to include measures for animal welfare.
However, there is a big difference in rationale and emphasis. Ashoka’s commitment to non-violence was rooted in a moral stance based on his faith in the Buddha’s teaching and his own reflections on the problem of violence. His edicts imply that the reason why violence towards other beings is to be avoided is that it injures life and leads to the incurring of papa (sin) and apunya (demerit). Kautilya’s valorization of non-violence might sound hypocritical, considering the numerous places where he advocates ruthless actions involving injuring and killing human beings. But as mentioned earlier, Kautilya was not a votary of unrestrained state violence; he sanctions all measures that are necessary for the king to maintain and enhance his political power. For Kautilya, while human life has the greatest value (although this value varies depending on social status), the value of animals lies in their being an important item of private property and an economic and political resource for the state. This is why they have to be protected against injury, theft, and killing. While there are occasional glimmers of compassion that extend beyond the utilitarian frame, Kautilya’s general perspective is a pragmatic one, where the chief aim is maximizing economic gain from animals, especially for the state. Ensuring their welfare is essential for this. So although both Ashoka and Kautilya talk about the protection of animals, they do so from very different points of view.
Another major difference between the ideas of Ashoka and Kautilya can be seen in their attitude towards war. Ashoka’s Rock Edict 13 is a remarkable reflection on the consequences of war. It describes the king’s victory in a terrible, bloody war against Kalinga (in eastern India), which occurred in the ninth year after his consecration. The inscription informs us that in this war, 150,000 people were carried away as captives, 100,000 were killed in action, and many times that number perished. This was a transformative event for Ashoka. Filled with shame and remorse, he eschewed war and devoted himself to the propagation of dhamma. Rock Edict 13 also talks about the killing, death, and deportation that accompany war in general and the nature of the injury and pain it causes. It extends the scope of war-time injury beyond those who suffer physical injury, death, or capture, to include the emotional injury caused to all those who are loved by or are attached to the direct sufferers. The king announces that he has given up military victory for dhamma-vijaya (victory through dhamma), which consists of propagating dhamma within and beyond the frontiers of his empire. Dhammic victory is the best because it leads to fruits in this world and the next. But while heralding a new idea of dhamma-vijaya, there is also an element of pragmatism in Rock Edict 13. Ashoka urges his sons and grandsons to aim at dhamma-vijaya but recommends mercy and moderation in punishment if they do engage in warfare. After exhorting the forest people to follow dhamma, he reminds them of the power he wields in spite of his repentance, and warns them not to provoke him lest they be killed.35
For Kautilya, war is a normal part of political life but should be waged after a clear calculation of the likelihood of victory. In his listing, the dharma-vijayi (righteous victor) is one who is satisfied with mere submission. There is a big difference between Kautilya and Ashoka’s idea of righteous victory. The former is the most noble form of military victory; the latter is not a military victory at all but consists of the propagation of virtue and goodness.
While there are some similarities between Ashoka and Kautilya’s vocabulary and even their ideas on non-violence, there are also significant differences arising from different premises and goals. Ashoka wanted to make people good and virtuous. Kautilya wanted to control subjects and harness their interests to those of the king. Ashoka’s aim as king was to create a new world moral order. Kautilya was concerned with material rather than moral welfare, but his great achievement was to demonstrate that furthering the welfare of the subjects was in the political and material self-interest of the king.
