What Is Materialism? [A History of Materialism From Ajita to Udbhaṭa - Part I]

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

The word “materialism,” as the name of a distinct approach to nature, including human nature, in the context of philosophy is found only relatively recently. The first recorded occurrence of the term in English, presumably borrowed from French, dates from the mid-eighteenth century. “Idealism,” the contrary of “materialism,” is not found in English before the late eighteenth century. The systems of philosophy that can be so branded, however, existed long before the names were coined. A clear distinction between the vulgar and technical senses of these two terms should be maintained —philosophically, materialism is the doctrine that every object, whether living or non-living, has a material substratum. Attributes of higher living beings, such as senses, consciousness, and intelligence, presuppose the existence of matter. Materialism does not consider consciousness itself to be material; it does not claim that matter (or body) and consciousness are one and the same. It simply asserts the primacy of matter over consciousness. Conversely, idealism holds that consciousness is primary, matter secondary.

The global history of philosophy bears out that materialism emerged in India, China, and Greece, presumably independently of one another. Nevertheless, a fundamental similarity of approach justifies the use of the term “materialism” to denote each manifestation. Among the seven issues noted below, the first five are common to all materialist traditions everywhere and at all times, while the last two are specifically Indian:

(a) Matter is the first cause (jagat-kāraṇa); it precedes consciousness.

(b) Consciousness (variously called self, spirit, or soul) ceases to exist after the death of the body. (c) There is no other-world (paraloka), that is, heaven and hell.

(d) There is no rebirth or reincarnation (metempsychosis).

(e) Verbal testimony (āptavākya; śabda) is not a valid instrument of cognition (pramāṇa); perception is the first and the best instrument.

(f) Performance of sacrificial rites (yajña) and post-mortem rites for dead ancestors (śrāddha) is useless.

(g) No benefit follows from paying donations and gifts (dāna) to priests and Brahmins.

Pre-Vedic urban centers in what is now northwest and west India existed already in the third millennium BCE; yet in the absence of written records we cannot conjecture about the intellectual aspects of the Indus Valley civilization. The three sections of Vedic literature—the Saṃhitās, the Brāhmaṇas, and the Āraṇyakas—were largely preoccupied with sacrificial rituals. There were skeptics and deniers of the cult of sacrifice even in early Vedic times, but their doubts and denials did not form a cluster of thought that can be called “philosophy.” The oral tradition embodied in the Upaniṣads may therefore be taken as the point of departure. The struggle between sacrificial ritual (karman) and knowledge (jñāna) in Īśā Upaniṣad 2 marks one such moment of transition, when a compromise is reached between the two without denying the importance of either. It is followed by another question, whether or not there is life after death and the existence of the other-world (paraloka). This debate forms the focus of Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.1.20. In the longer Upaniṣads, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya, we read of contests between the sages concerning the character of the Universal Principle (brahman). In the Upaniṣads, materialism is said to be associated with the demons (asuras, lit. non-gods). In any case the Upaniṣadic philosophy of ātman and brahman replaces both the Vedic sacrificial cult and the primitive materialism expounded by Uddālaka Āruṇi (see below).

The sixth/fifth century BCE was indeed witness to great philosophical upheavals, not only in India but also in Greece, China, and Iran. The existence of no fewer than fifty-two itinerant preachers is attested by Buddhist texts such as the Brahmajāla Sutta in the Dīgha Nikāya, although only six are explicitly named. The Ājīvikas formed a large community during the sixth/fifth century BCE, but unlike the Jainas and the Buddhists disappeared from India. The emergence of a number of itinerant thinkers and their followers is recorded in Maitrī Upaniṣad 7.8. They are denounced as non-Vedic (avaidika) (7.10) and negativisist (nāstikya) (6.5)[i]. In Maitrī Upaniṣad 7.9 we come across the precursors of such plebian gurus and their followers in the Āul, Bāul, Sāhebadhanī, Balāhāḍi, and Kartābhajā communities. The Atharvaveda, a product of the acculturation between the Vedic people and the non-Vedic, was for a long time not recognized as a Veda at all. There were differences of opinion even among the Vedists, with Manu, the lawgiver, opposing the entry of the Atharvaveda in the Trayī (the three Vedas: Ṛk, Sāman and Yajus only), and Kumārila and Jayanta, two philosophers belonging to Mīmāṃsā and Nyāya schools respectively, supporting the claim of the Atharvaveda and thereby upholding the concept of “four Vedas.”[ii] Originally the non-Hindus were counted as three: Buddhist, Jaina, and Cārvāka (a later school of materialism; see below). Later they were counted as six: the four schools of Buddhist philosophy, namely, Madhyamaka (or Mādhyamika), Yogācāra, Sautrāntika, and Vaibhāṣika, along with the Jaina, and the Cārvāka[iii]. In another division, the Cārvāka, Buddhism, Jainism, Vaiśeṣika, Nyāya, and Sāṃkhya are treated as “six systems of speculation” (ṣaṭtarkī). In still another account the Cārvāka is replaced by Mīmāṃsā; in yet another, Vaiśeṣika is excluded and the Cārvāka is brought back[iv].

Before the systematization of the schools, the history of Indian philosophy seems to have been concerned with one focal problem: what or who is the first cause (jagat-kāraṇa; literally, the cause of the world)? Several alternatives appear to have been proposed[v]. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.2 speaks of six “competing causalities”; they are kāla (time), svabhāva (lit., own being, meaning inherent nature), niyati (destiny), yadṛcchā (accident), bhūtāni (the natural elements), and puruṣa (primeval man, or the self, ātman, or God). In the works of later philosophers the doctrine of own-being/inherent nature is made to be associated with the Cārvāka, although originally this doctrine was distinct from the doctrine of elements (as in Śvetāśvatara 1.2). The word svabhāva too was later interpreted in two diametrically opposite ways: svabhāva-as-accident and svabhāva-as-causality. For some strange reason in later times svabhāva came to signify both accident and causality. The former became identified with the doctrine of accident (yadṛcchā) while the latter was assimilated to the doctrine of natural elements[vi].

Indeed, this doctrine of natural elements may have been the earliest precursor of materialism. The separation of earth, air, fire, and water as the basic constituent elements of all natural objects marks a point of departure from mythology to philosophy. As in Greece, so in India, these four basic elements constitute the basis of much philosophical speculation. All scientific speculation too, whether in the field of natural sciences or of medicine, accepted the concept of the elements as at the root of all phenomena. Unlike the Greeks, however, Indian speculators spoke also of a fifth element, sky (ākāśa, vyoma) or emptiness (śūnya), the five-element formula made to correspond to the five senses: thus, earth corresponds to smell, air to touch, fire to heat, and so on. Even the early, pre-Cārvāka, materialists adopted it. The medical compilation Caraka-saṃhitā is at bottom materialistic and adheres to the five-element theory. The later, Cārvāka, materialism, on the other hand, adopts a four-element scheme. In any case, one conclusion is inescapable: the material basis of everything was universally accepted to be these four or five elements.

Bibliography

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. Studies on the Cārvāka/Lokāyata. Firenze: Società Editriche Fiorentina, 2009; London: Anthem Press, 2011.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. “The Social Outlook of the Cārvāka/Lokāyata: A Reconstruction.” Indologica Taurinensia 36 (2010): 37–42.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. “The Wolf’s Footprints: Indian Materialism in Perspective.” Interview with Krishna Del Toso. Annali 71 (2011): 183–204.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. “Svabhāvavāda and the Cārvāka/Lokāyata: A Historical Overview.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 40, no. 5 (2012): 593–614.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. “Verses Attributed to Bṛhaspati in the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha: A Critical Appraisal.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 41 (2013): 615–630.

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad. In Defence of Materialism in Ancient India. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1989.

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad, and M. K. Gangopadhyaya, eds. Cārvāka/Lokāyata. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1990.

Dixit, K. K. “The Ideological Affiliation of Jayarāśi—The Author of Tattvopaplavasiṃha.” In Cārvāka/Lokāyata, edited by D. Chattopadhyaya and M. K. Gangopadhyaya, pp. 520–530. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1990.

Franco, Eli: Perception, Knowledge and Disbelief: A Study of Jayarāśi’s Scepticism. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1994; 1^st edition, Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 35, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1987.

Jayarāśibhaṭṭa. Tattvopaplavasiṃha of Jayarāśibhaṭṭa. Tr. Esther Solomon; ed. Shuchita Mehta: Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa’s Tattvopaplavasiṁha. An Introduction, Sanskrit Text, English Translation and Notes. Parimal Sanskrit Series 111. Delhi: Parimal Publications, 2010.

Saṁghavī, Sukhlāljī; Pārīkh, Rasiklāl C., eds. Tattvopaplavasimha of Shri Jayarasi Bhatta. Edited with an introduction and indices. Gaekwad Oriental Series 87, Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1940; reprinted, Bauddha Bharati Series 20, Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati, 1987.

---

[i] Nāstikya is derived from nāstika, which literally means “one who says (or believes) that (it) does not exist.” The opposite word āstika similarly signifies “one who says (or believes) that (it) exists.” Originally it was the assertion and denial of the existence of the other-world, that is, life after death. In course of time āstika and nāstika came to suggest the upholder and defiler of the authority of the Veda, the most sacred book of the brahmanical people, the theist and the atheist, and similar affirmation and denial of any doctrine. See Ramkrishna Bhattacharya, Studies on the Cārvāka/Lokāyata (Firenze: Società Editriche Fiorentina, 2009 and London: Anthem Press, 2011), chap. 23.

[ii] For details, see Dipak Bhattacharya, “Trayī, Triads and the Vedas” (forthcoming) and his “Introductions” to the ongoing edition of the Atharvaveda of the Paippalāda school, particularly vol. 4 (forthcoming). I am indebted to the author for permitting me to read the drafts of both.

[iii] Of these four, the first two were idealist, preaching the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyavāda) and that of the momentariness (kṣanikavāda), while the last two, realist. Madhusudana Sarasvatī (seventeenth century CE), in his Prasthānabhedaḥ (Poona: Ananda Ashram, 1977), 1, first identifies these as “six [negativist] philosophies” (ṣaḍ [nāstika] darśanāni). Cimanabhaṭṭa (Āryavidyāsudhākara, ed. Sivadatta D. Kudala [Lahore: Motilal Banarsidass, 1923], 89–90) repeats it, emphasizing their anti-Vedic character. See also Radhakanta Deva, Śabdakalpadruma (Kalikata: Hitavadi Karyyalaya, 1836 śaka), s.v. nāstika. “The six systems of Indian philosophy,” however, refer to the affirmativist systems only.

[iv] See Gerdi Gerschhiemer, “Les ‘Six doctrines de spéculation’ (ṣaṭtarkī)—Sur la categorization variable des systems philosophiques dans l’Inde classique,” in Expanding and Merging Horizons (Wilhelm Halbfass Memorial Volume) (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2007), 239–258.

[v] See Ramkrishna Bhattacharya, “The First Cause: Rivals of God in Ancient Indian Thought,” Indian Skeptic 14, no. 11 (2001): 19–23; “The first Cause: Syncretic Bias of Haribhadra and Others,” Jain Journal 35, no. 3–4 (2001): 179–184; “Svabhāvavāda and the Cārvāka/Lokāyata: A Historical Overview,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 40, no. 5 (2012): 593–614.

[vi] See Bhattacharya, “Svabhāvavāda and the Cārvāka/Lokāyata.”

Prof Ramkrishna Bhattacharya taught English at Unversity of Calcutta, Kolkota and was an Emeritus Fellow of University Grants Commission. He is now Fellow of Pavlov Institute, Kolkota


 

Read More

The Holy Cow

Subhendu Sarkar

The cow is now the most important politico-religious icon in India. The self-proclaimed custodians of Hinduism and their political representatives in power are desperate to impose ban on cow-slaughter and beef-eating. As a result, there have been incidents of violence not only in a relatively unknown town like Dadri but also on the floors of State Assembly. More-over, efforts are on to raise it to the status of national animal. For the right-wing Hindu nationalists, the cow is the new fulcrum of communal agenda (as it was Ram Janmabhoomi in the 1990s).

Of course, the fracas surrounding the cow has been in existence for ages. The Hindu traditionalists have considered the cow 'holy' and beef-eating a 'sin'. On the other hand, attempts have also been made to prove, on the basis of scriptural evidences, that the animal was, after all, not always sacred and beef-eating had been a regular habit among the Hindus in the past. Even men like Rammohun Roy and Swami Vivekananda came forward to argue that beef-eating and Hinduism were not always incompatible. But the issue continued to plague Hindu India as, since the nineteenth century onwards, beef-eating became a serious bone of contention between the liberals and the conservatives.

Modern scholars, however, have approached the problem in another way. They not only confined themselves to cite a plethora of literary and historical data to uncover the past but also provide logical explanations as to why the practice of beef-eating, after a certain time, became unacceptable to the Hindus. But despite such efforts not much seems to have changed as regards the issue of the 'holy cow'. The principal reason for this is, of course, a vested interest that seeks to help a few remain socially and politically powerful. In fact, it is this politics of 'identity' that has been at work since the time when the Brahmins discouraged eating beef. It is also known as communalism.

The early Aryans who came to India were semi-nomadic people with a dominantly pastoral economy. Cattle were the chief form of wealth for which they even fought inter-tribal wars. It is, therefore, natural that cattle (the most valued possession) would be sacrificed to propitiate supernatural powers. The Rigveda abounds in references to the flesh of animals (including the cow) being offered to various gods. This continued even during later Vedic centuries. Not only that, killing of the cow and eating its flesh on occasions like birth, upanayana (initiation ceremony), marriage, sraddha (rites for the ancestors) and entertaining guests (Panini uses the term yoghna for a guest) were quite regular in ancient times. The much-respected priests and sages (most notably Yajnavalkya) were also fond of beef. The Brahmanical lawgivers like Manu, Brihaspati and Parashara found killing of the cow and beef-eating a minor sin at the most, not major (upapataka, not mahapataka). Besides, the medical treatises of Caraka (first-second century) and Susruta (third-fourth century) unequivocally prescribe the flesh of the cow and other animals to cure various ailments. Epics like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana too bear testimony to the fact that eating beef was widespread among the Brahmins.

Dietary preferences of the later Vedic people, however, gradually changed with time. The growing importance of agriculture (agrarian economy gained predominance with the diffusion of iron technology in particular) necessitated protection of cattle. Therefore, recommendations against animal sacrifice were laid down in the later scriptures. Further, the new social order that thrived on the varna system created a class-divided society from which the Brahmins and the kshatriyas benefited at the cost of the vaisyas and the shudras. Again, deforestation and the subjugation of the indigenous tribes formed the basis of the early kingdoms. It is natural that opposition to such a system would become inevitable.

Jainism and Buddhism advocated an ideology which looked back to the days of tribal collectives when equality prevailed among the brethren and private property was non-existent. Therefore, the thrust on asceticism and non-injury (ahimsa) of all kinds. The new economic reality (plough agriculture and animal husbandry) which created surplus like never before and the growing popularity of an ideology that threatened the yajna-centric Vedic religion forced the Brahmins to think about a new strategy. In order to establish supremacy over Buddhism which had achieved state recognition by the time and regain their lost power and prestige both in royal court and among the masses, the Brahmins initiated image worship and building temples as an answer to building stupas and setting up images of the Buddha. Moreover, to score yet another point over Buddhism, Brahmanism began to discourage the yajna as a form of worship and the sacrifice of the cow and promote vegetarianism. Advocating the sacredness of the cow and its products (pancagavya) was also a part of this stratagem.

But the truth is that in spite of the Brahmanical ruling on the pardonable offense of cow-killing and beef-eating such practices continued till about the twelfth century. Buddhism, being more practical than Jainism, accommodated dietary practices of the regions to which it spread. The so-called Untouchables (Dalits) among the Hindus too carried on eating flesh of the dead cow (they were the worst victims of the class-divided Hindu society).

However, the need to establish 'Hindu identity' became all the more important with the advent and spread of Islam since the medieval times. But it was particularly during the British period that it consolidated as a socio-political force. Many Brahmanical dictums were re-introduced as a part of the Hindu revivalist programme. This, at the same time, created a sharp division among the conservatives and the liberals. Brought up on the foundations of Western liberalism and guided by rationalism, it was first the intelligentsia of Bengal who revolted against such senselessness that came to pass for Hinduism. The initial reaction of adopting Christianity gradually gave way to an approach towards social and religious reforms which later culminated into secular nationalist ideology. Of course, Hindu elements were initially exploited to rouse and spread nationalist ideology which somehow alienated the Muslims who, as a result, played into the hands of the British imperialists who were eager to divide and rule. It was indeed difficult for many patriots to anticipate, in the face of the need of the hour, the future course of Indian politics. The divisive forces of communal politics (both Hindu and Muslim) would remain a permanent bane of India, even after the Partition.

But why would there be any need to re-assert 'Hindu identity' now? What purpose would it serve to the ruling party and its stooges? It is a fact that they have secured power through a mathematical miracle by getting a little more than thirty percent of the total votes cast. For the Hindutva forces to stay secured in power and to bring the rest of the Hindu population under its sway they have no option but to unabashedly play the communal card.

And thanks to the ignorance of the Indian masses, the cow is certainly the icon they are clinging on to for smooth sailing. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) [or its earlier avatar Jan Sangh] had always banked on the communal ideology. And the post-1992 success has certainly strengthened their belief. The point is: shall these Hindutva people be given a free rein to make India a Hindu rashtra by radically altering the essence of the Constitution? Will the progressive forces that have fought for long against obscurantism and bigotry to help make India a unique country whose basis is plurality be cowed into silence? But, every fascist epoch had to end. The history has always favoured the progressives.

Works Cited

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad. Religion and Society. Delhi: Aakar, 2013

Jha, D N, The Myth of the Holy Cow. New Delhi: Navayana, 2015

Early India. A Concise History (From the Beginning to the Twelfth Century). New Delhi: Manohar, 2014

Kosambi, Dharmananda, Bhagaban Buddha (in Bangla). New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2001

Sharma, R S, Material Culture and Social Formations in Ancient India (in Bangla). Trans. Gautam Niyogi. Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1998.

This essay was first published in Frontier [Vol. 48, No. 21, Nov 29 - Dec 5, 2015] and is reproduced here with the permission of the author.

Read More

Is Astrology a Science?

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

Astrologers in India and abroad claim that their ancient discipline of study is to be recognized as a branch of science. The issue was resolved in Europe long ago. As early as the fourteenth century, a clear distinction had been drawn between astronomy and astrology, the first regarded as a science, the second as an art. Previously astrology itself was supposed to be of two kinds:

(a) Natural astrology - the calculation and foretelling of natural phenomena, such as the measurement of time, fixing of Easter, prediction of tides and eclipses, and of meteorological phenomena, and

(b) Judicial astrology - the art of judging the reputed occult and non-physical influence of the stars and planets upon human affairs. (Oxford English Dictionary,  'Astrology') 

Since the end of the sixteenth century, natural astrology became a part of astronomy while astrology meant judicial astronomy alone.

How can astrology be admitted as a branch of science? Science, by definition, is a systematized body of knowledge, based on observation and experiments, which can be verified by further observation and experiments conducted under similar or simulated conditions, and from the results of these some laws can be formulated which may be applied in practice. Astrology fails to satisfy these basic requirements. It is based on an imaginary concepts of the wheel of the zodiac, consisting of twelve constellations, Aries, Taurus, Gemini etc. Astronomy now recognizes nearly ninety constellations.

According to astrology, the orbits of the six planets (the Earth, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), the Sun, the Moon, and the two imaginary 'planets', Rahu and Ketu, pass through this imaginary arc. All this was based on naked-eye observation and sheer ignorance of the existence of other planets in our own solar system. The very ideas of the 'nine planets' (navagraha-s) has been proved wrong. The Sun is a star, not a planet; the Moon (of the Earth) a mere satellite; and there are other planets like Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

Another characteristic of science is that it is ever progressive. New observations and discoveries necessitate modifications of what had so far been known. For example, the geo-centric concept which held sway since times immemorial had to give place to helio-centric one propounded and proved by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Astrology, on the other hand, is a closed system. The invention of the telescope and more sophisticated device of observation revolutionized the whole of old astronomy. Astrology, however, remained unaffected. Some astrologers do claim that they have incorporated the new findings in their own calculations. By saying so they also admit their own texts are hopelessly inadequate and need drastic revision.

Science attempts to find out the casual relationship between two events. The cause is to be an invariable, unconditional and immediate antecedent of the effect that follows. So there has to be different causes for different effects. And the two events— one that precedes and the other that follows— must be inter-related. Astrology, however, believes that there is one and only cause behind such diverse events as childbirth, scoring high marks in examinations, happy marriage, increase in wealth, etc. If one cause, the influence of planets, could account for everything on earth, life would be uncomplicated indeed. 

Prof Ramkrishna Bhattacharya taught English at Unversity of Calcutta, Kolkota and was an Emeritus Fellow of University Grants Commission. He is now Fellow of Pavlov Institute, Kolkota


 

Read More

Did Ashoka’s embracing Buddhism and promoting Ahimsa Weaken India?

Ram Puniyani 

Past is used by communal politics for their present political agenda. In India on one hand we have the use of medieval history where the Muslim Kings are presented as ‘aggressors due to whom Hindu society had to suffer’, on the other now we are witnessing the distortion of ancient history being marshaled to undermine Buddhism vis a vis Brahmanism. 

The figure chosen to make this point by communal forces is that of Emperor Ashoka. Incidentally Noble Laureate Amrtya Sen regards Ashoka and Akbar as the two greatest Emperors to have ruled India. A publication from RSS progeny, Rajasthan Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad claims that it was due to Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism and his promotion of ahimsa that India’s borders opened up to foreign invaders. It also goes on to say those followers of Buddhism under Ashoka played a seditious role, they assisted Greek invaders with the goal that they would destroy “Vedic religion” and restore Buddhism. Here, what is being referred to as Vedic religion is Brahmanism as such. 

A c. 1st century BCE/CE relief from Amaravati,Andhra Pradesh (India). The figure in the centre may represent Ashoka. (Courtesy: Wikipedia)

Interestingly the article regards Ashoka to be a great ruler till he embraced Buddhism, while most of the thinkers show that his humane policies, making him a great emperor, were brought in after he embraced Buddhism. There are many components of this formulation which are concocted as per the political requirement of Brahmanical Hinduism. One of these concoctions is the very notion of India being the state from times immemorial. One understands that India as a nation state emerged during freedom struggle. The earlier formations were kingdoms, Empires. The boundaries of these kingdoms were not fixed and depending on the bravery and other associated factors kings were expanding their area of rule or had to retreat into smaller areas or even getting decimated at times. Even before Ashoka came to power Alexander had attacked India. Such forays of kings into other territories are not unknown. Mauryan Empire was a major Empire the sub continent has seen. 

So many dynasties have ruled large parts of the subcontinent, no single ruler has ruled whole of what is India today. So why is Ashoka being targeted today? Ashoka was successor to Bindusar, from Maurya lineage. Chandragupta Maurya had built the Empire and Ashok’s annexed Kalinga (modern Orissa) into his kingdom. This battle was very bloody and as is famously known the bloodshed shook Ashoka and he decided to embrace Buddhism. From this point on the transformation of an aggressive insensitive king to a very humane person began with the embracing of Buddhism. He undertook the measures for welfare of the people, opposed the Brahmanical rituals and opened the gates of his palace for listening to woes the people of his empire. Inspired by the teachings of Buddhism he took steps towards building a compassionate state, the guardian state.  

His ideas and polices are deciphered from the number of edicts carved on pillars and stones which are vast in number. What emerge from these edicts are very compassionate and impressive norms being propagated as back as in the period of third Century BC. What is remarkable is that though he embraced Buddhism he accepted the diversity as the norm of society. One of his edicts says that a ruler must accept the diversity of his subjects’ belief. He did transform Buddhism in to a World religion. The spread of his ideas was not through force but through moral appeal and persuasion. His message was to reduce suffering and to pursue peace, openness and tolerance. This is why he is regarded as Great contrary to the said articles’ claim that he was great till he embraced Buddhism.  

Ashoka’s was the largest Empire in the history of the sub continent. His Dhamma was a moral code for the ruler as well as for the subjects who were exhorted to follow the moral path. His Rock Edict XII is something which we need to remember in current times as well as it has great relevance even today. It is a call for religious tolerance and civility in public life or as he puts it, ‘restraint in speech’,  “not praising one’s own religion or condemning the religion of the others without good cause…Contact between religions is good.” (Sunil Khilanani, Incarnations, ‘India in 50 Lives’ page 52). ‘He did not foist his faith, Buddhism on his subjects…He is important in history for his policy of peace, non aggression and cultural conquest’. (R.S. Sharma, Ancient India, NCERT, 1995, 104) Ashoka inspired the leaders of freedom movement for his principles of justice and non-violence. He did represent the agenda which symbolized cultural and religious pluralism which were central to the ideology of Gandhi and Nehru in particular. His symbols of four lions adorn Indian currency and the wheel has become part of Indian flag. 

The problem with Ashoka’s rule was not the military one. His Empire continued till 50 more years. In 205 BC Greek Emperor Antiocus attacked from North West and established his rule in some part (North-West: Punjab, Afghanistan). The bigger problem was from within the empire. This is related to Brahminical counter reaction to the spread of Buddhism. Ashoka had put a ban on the slaughter for rituals. This led to reduction in the income of Brahmans. The spread of Buddhism led to the erosion of Varna-caste system. What the communal forces are calling as Vedic religion is as such the dominant stream which was prevalent then, Brahmanism.  

These factors led to the counter revolution. Pushyamitra Shung, a Brahman, the Chief Commander of Brihadrath, who was Ashok’s grandson, led the counter revolution. He killed the Emperor and founded the Shunga dynasty in Sindh part of Ashoka’s empire. The counter revolution launched in the society led to the disappearance of Buddhism from this land. Ambedkar writes, “Emperor Ashoka proclaimed complete ban on killing animals. So nobody engaged Brahmans to perform rites and rituals. The Brahman priests were rendered jobless. They also lost their former importance and glory. So the Brahmans revolted against the Maurayan Emperor Brihadrath under the leadership of Pushyamitra Shung, a samvedi Brahmin and the army Chief of Brihadrath.” (Writings and Speeches, Vol 3 P 167)  Eighth Century onwards Shankara led the ideological battle against the philosophy of Buddhism. Buddhism urged the people to focus on the life in this World. The Shankara’s philosophy called this World as illusion and restored Brahmanism here in full glory. Due to ideological and social counter revolution Buddhism disappeared from this land around 1200 AD. 

So why is Ashoka’s reign coming under criticism now? Ashoka embraced Buddhism and this was a setback to the Brahmanical system. Brahmanism is the dominant part of Hindu religion as understood today. Ashoka talked of non-violence and promoted pluralism. All these stand totally against the Hindu nationalist agenda of sectarian nationalism where violence is part of the politics. This wants to promote neo Brahmanical values. So on one hand there is the attempt to co-opt Dalits and other hand the aim is to keep the ideological message of social hierarchy loud and clear and so Buddhism is attacked. The symbols of casteless ideology of Buddhism and accompanying respect for pluralism and peace are being attacked as a part of Hindu nationalist agenda, the garb in which it is presented is ‘weakening of India’ due to non-violence. As such Maurayan was an Empire, not a nation state, empires rise and fall due to social political factors of the time. Despite adopting non-violence the Empire continued well till 50 more years. The weakness starts coming in due to Brahmanical counter-revolution. The forays of communalists in the ancient Indian history are an attempt more to denigrate the Buddhist values under the garb of attacking Ashoka.     

Read More

A World Gripped by the Cancer of Terror

Ram Puniyani

The current times are very disturbing as so many innocent lives are being lost and social resources being destroyed due to the dastardly phenomenon of terror. To cap it all, this phenomenon has been linked to religion in the popular perception. Just during last two weeks (July 2016) we witnessed with horror the massacre of 49 people at the Pulse club in Orlando, US.  This deadly incident had two interpretations, one that it is an act of Jihadi terror and two it was prompted by a man gripped by homophobia. One of the commentators pointed out, “It turns out that he may have been motivated by both homophobia and Islamic radicalism…Terrorism or homophobia? The answer is yes. Both.” 

In another incident 119 people were killed in Baghdad blast by Islamic State. In Bangla Desh on 1^st July 28 people were killed. Those who lost their lives were identified as foreigners. There are some reports that the terrorists belonged to Jamaat Ul Mujahideen and were not affiliated with Islamic State. One commentator points out that ISIS and the Al Qaeda are currently engaged in a fierce competition across our sub-continent aiming to outdo each other in spreading their terror tentacles. But the malignant growth of Islamist extremism in Bangladesh can be easily traced back to the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEB) and its militant student wing, Islami Chhatra Shibir. 

What connects these diverse destructive phenomena? At the surface it seems these are the manifestations of Islamic terrorism, as the phrase has become popular since 2001 after the 9/11 tragedy. If we go slightly deeper we can discern some clear strands of very different underlying pathologies operating in each of these. The one in Orlando has a lot to do with the prevalent gun culture in US. and this has woken up the law makers to the prevalent norms of possession of the gun. While this may be most horrific of such cases, similar one’s at lesser intensity has been occurring in US off and on unrelated to the Islamic terrorism so to say. In case of Baghdad mostly it is the one related to the Islamic State.  

As far as the case of Bangla Desh terror is concerned this seems to be a continuation of the terrorism which has roots in the fundamentalist streaks in Bangla Desh politics. Such terror acts have been stalking Bangla Desh since quite some time, manifested in the murders of progressive-secular liberal bloggers and Hindus. This has indigenous origin to which the present regime had turned a blind eye and violence came to the fore in this dastardly way due to the failure of the state and society to curb the rising fundamentalist trends in politics. Currently in many countries of South Asia the militancy has origins in fundamentalism-communalism as seen prominently in Pakistan, Bangla Desh and India among others. 

In Pakistan fundamentalist doctrine was given the official status during Zia Ul Haq’s regime. To get the cover for his dictatorial ambitions he resorted to alliance with feudal forces and Mullahs and brought in the doctrines of Maulana Maududi (Deoband Islam). This is what is referred to as Islamization of Pakistan. The focus of this was to push back the civic social norms around the Sharia as interpreted by Maududi; the focus was to bring in feudal conservative values, suppression of women and of civil liberties. In India the politics in the name of religion manifested more in the form of communalism, communal violence, where the religious minorities have been the victim. The extreme form of this ideology manifested in organizations upholding Hindutva ideology which have been alleged to be responsible for the acts of terror in Malegaon, Makka Masjid (Hyderabad), Ajmer and Samjhauta Express. The communal-fundamentalist ideology is an attempt to restore pre-modern, feudal values of birth based hierarchy of caste/class and gender in the garb of Sharia law or glorious traditions of the past, presented as religion. 

Terrorism related to Al Qaeda-Islamic state variety has its roots in the politics of oil control in which the policies of United State has played a major role. It is the policy of US which funded the Madrassas based in Pakistan and brought in the Maulana Wahab’s version of Islam. Here the major focus is killing the infidel (kafir) as a part of jihad. In this variety the central focus is on violence against those differing with these dominant groups. It had a reason; as they wanted to fight communism, Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and so the killing of infidel. If we see the case of Pakistan one can see the Islamization of Pakistan during Zia’s regime getting a continuum through the Al Qaeda variety taking over later, and Al Qaeda in turn laid the ideological foundations of Islamic State. Hillary Clinton clarified the US role very succinctly. There is adequate reference to show that US has been supporting the terrorist groups in more ways than one.      

So two strands of terrorist actions are creating havoc in contemporary times. One has the motive of restoring the pre-modern values as seen in the case of Pakistan (inspired by Maulana Maududi), Bangla Desh (similar variety), India (Hindutva) and in Mynmar and Srilanka as well. The latter have used particular interpretation of Buddhism. The other has its support system derived from the global politics of oil control. The tragedy is that both these varieties draw their foundation and legitimacy in the name of religion, particularly Islam. Religion has many streams, like Islam has Sufi as well as Wahabi tendencies and Hinduism has Bhakti and Brahmanism. US picked up Wahabi version for political goals in West Asia, Zia had picked up Maududi for strengthening dictatorship, Hindu Nationalism-Hindutva has picked up Neo-Brahmanism, for its own political agenda. Various streams of religion do prevail as such but become dominant only when propped up by political forces who can use that cover to enhance their political goals. Recognizing this may be a major step in combating terrorism, and make it clear that it is political agenda masquerading as religion.

Read More