History of Asia

Evaluation of Emperor Ashoka the Great

Ashoka is one of the greatest rulers not only of Indian history but of world history. Ashoka well-known as a Vijigishu ruler, great conqueror and empire-builder, devout and religion-tolerant, kind, generous, public interest-thinker and unique nurturer of humanity, for his advanced religious thought, high ideals, spiritual thinking, sacrifice, systematic administration. India is not only unique among the great emperors of the world, but because of its heartfelt desire for the supernatural and transcendental happiness of the people and the colossal effort for the welfare of the living beings of the whole world. Namna 'Devanampriya', but in practice 'Prajanampriya' Ashoka, in whatever way is evaluated, proves to be absolutely worthy. His greatness, the greatness of his empire and the invincibility of his army, depend not on the wealth and opulence of the empire, but on his clean and pure character, his great moral ideals, his unshakable piety, his devotion to duty and his great generosity. There are luminous grounds for his indelible fame. He had power like Chandragupta Maurya, versatility like Samudragupta and tolerance like Akbar.

India experienced unprecedented political unity and stability during the reign of Ashoka. He showed his military prowess by suppressing the revolts of Taxila and conquering a kingdom like Kalinga. As the ideal Prajapalak emperor, he realized the concept of patriarchal kingship by reforming the field of administration. In his sixth inscription, expressing his kingly views, he says, 'The interest of all is my duty. There is no other karma than the welfare of all. Whatever might I do, it is so that I can be free from the debt of ghosts.'

Ashoka efficiently solved the national problem by applying one language, one script, and one type of rules and regulations throughout the empire. The establishment of penal-equality and behavioral-equality in the field of justice administration was definitely Ashoka's revolutionary work.

Ashoka's reputation is not so much as a great conqueror, but as a religious conqueror. He abandoned the idea of ​​fighting after the Kalinga war and resolved to hoist the flag of victory in the field of religion by chanting Dharmaghosh in place of Bherighosh. The victory of Dharma was not an easy task, because it was not of muscle power, but of self-power and love. This victory was to be done not on the state or the land, but on the mind and spirit of the living being. It was not a victory of unrest, it was a victory of peace. His righteous Chaturangini army of truth, good deeds, goodwill and good behavior went in different directions and bowed down not only to Indians but also to foreigners. He sent the flag of Dharma to many countries by appointing Dhamma-Mahamatras, Rajukas, Territorials etc. and conquered Dhamma. This spiritual and cultural victory proved lasting. Such great idealistic emperors are rarely found in the pages of world history.

Some scholars have criticized Ashoka's religious and pacifist policy, saying that he frustrated the military power of the Magadha Empire, which ultimately led to its decline. But there is no evidence that Ashoka's policy of righteousness and pacifism in any way diminished Magadha's strategic prowess. He followed a pacifist policy because the atmosphere of complete peace and harmony prevailed throughout his empire and its external borders were also completely secure. The way he gives strong warnings to the marginal and wild castes, it is self-evident that there was no military laxity of any kind in the empire.

There have been many victorious rulers in the world whose works have filled the pages of history. Among them the names of Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon etc. are prominent. It is true that these three were superior to Ashoka as warriors and administrators, but the measure of greatness of an emperor is not war and empire-expansion, he is great because of his attitude towards humanity and his work done for him. is formed. These three conquerors were cruel, ruthless and bloodthirsty. The empire established by them disintegrated with them and there is no permanent contribution of these world conquerors to mankind. Historian H.G. Wells writes about Alexander, 'As his power increased, so did his drunkenness and fierceness. He used to drink a lot and used to kill mercilessly…..he died at the age of thirty three. Almost immediately his empire began to crumble. Similarly, Caesar was a very dissolute and disorderly person. At the time when he was at the height of his power and could do good to the world, he celebrated Rangrelia with Cleopatra in Egypt for about a year, though she was fifty-four years old. This makes him appear to be possessive of a low order, and not a superior ruler. As far as Napoleon is concerned, Wells is also right in his view that if he had had the slightest seriousness of vision, creative imagination and selfless desire, he would have done such a thing for mankind which would make him the sun in history. Gives. Whatever good he has done for his country, the work done by him towards human welfare is almost zero. In the personality of Ashoka, none of the demerits of these victorious rulers are found. It is Ashoka whose philanthropic works and lofty ideals are respected in the world even today. Undoubtedly, it is Ashoka who deserves world-wide and eternal fame due to the public welfare works done for the material and spiritual welfare of his subjects.

Various scholars have compared Ashoka with different figures of world history, such as Constantine, Antonisus, Akbar, St. Paul, Napoleon, Caesar, etc., but among these No one can match Ashok's versatility.

Ridge Davids compares Ashoka to Constantine. The only similarity between Ashoka and the Roman Emperor Constantine is that the way Ashoka adopted and propagated Buddhism, in the same way Constantine had accepted and propagated Christianity. But even before its rise, Christianity had become very popular in Rome and it became a compulsion for Constantine to adopt it. He patronized and encouraged this religion inspired by political reasons, whereas there was no political trick behind Ashoka's religion. Ashoka's tolerance was an inspiration of a sincere heart. Constantine turned reactionary towards Paganism towards the end of his life, and his religion became a strange slang. On the contrary, no such decline is seen in Ashoka.

Similarly MacPhail compares Ashoka with another Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius Antonius. There is no doubt that Antonius was a great philosopher, but, as Bhandarkar writes, Ashoka was far above the Roman emperor in terms of the loftiness of the ideal and the delusional and balanced enthusiasm. He considered the propagation of Christianity to be fatal to Roman prosperity and for this reason he also systematically persecuted Christians. On the other hand, there was a complete absence of religious fanaticism or intolerance in Ashoka. In such a situation, Ashoka's position is much higher than Antonius.

Many historians compare Ashoka with the Mughal emperor Akbar. Undoubtedly, Akbar had tolerance and he also wanted to do the welfare of his subjects with a sincere heart. By accepting the good and good things of different religions and sects, he also started a new religion called Dine-Ilahi for the welfare of the common people. But as explained by Bhandarkar, Akbar was first of all a political and worldly person. He was not ready to risk his kingdom for the sake of religious truth. He got the religious debate closed to avoid opposition from the Muslim subjects. Again he was not even tolerant towards everyone. Akbar did not even have religious zeal like Ashoka. For this reason his religion could not go outside the court and ended with his death. On the other hand, there is no intolerance to be seen anywhere in Ashoka. His religion became the world religion. Neelkanth Shastri writes that Ashoka had better knowledge of human nature than Akbar. Thus Ashoka was much greater than Akbar.

MacPhail takes the name of St. Paul in reference to Ashoka. Just as Ashoka is a great person in the history of Buddhism, so is Saint Paul great in the history of Christianity. Both made their respective religions welfare for the common man. But other than that there is no similarity between the two. Similarly, Ashoka is compared with rulers like Alfred, Charlemagne, Umar Khalifa etc., but none of them was as versatile as Ashoka. Historian H.G. Evaluating the personality and character of Ashoka, Wells writes, 'Among the kings, emperors, clergymen, saints, mahatmas, etc., who fill the pillars of history, the name of Ashoka is illumined and he is often resplendent in the sky like a lonely constellation.' Volga From Japan till today his name is respected even today. Similarly, Charles Eliot wrote that in the gallery of the holy emperors he stood alone, perhaps like a man who had a fondness for a kind and pleasant life. He was neither of great aspirations, nor engrossed in his soul, he was only a benefactor of man and animal.

rc. Describing Ashoka as the greatest emperor of India, Datta writes that no emperor of India, not even Vikramaditya, has achieved such prestige and no one has created such a great influence on world history because of his zeal for righteousness and virtue. Not as much as the Maurya emperor Ashoka did.

Thus the place of Ashoka in world history is absolutely unique. In the true sense, he was the first national ruler. Today, when the countries of the world are not able to succeed even after being constantly determined to stop the arms race and avert the horrors of war and there is a serious threat of nuclear war for humanity, then the importance of Ashoka's works and their relevance itself. becomes clear. Ashoka's lofty ideals continue to guide the establishment of world peace. The government of independent India has paid its true tribute to this great ruler by accepting the lion-head of the Sarnath-pillar as the state emblem.