POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN ANCIENT INDIA BY Upinder Singh

Thoughts after reading Political Violence in Ancient India by Upinder Singh.

         The book, as I understand brings out  the following:-

1.   India was and is not a non-violent country.

2.   Non-violence was preached by Mahavira, Buddha, Ashoka and others.  But it was not and it is not practiced to the extent it was preached.

3.   The claims that India was a tolerant country is not correct.  Indian was and is as violent as other countries are. It might even be impossible to follow non-violent path while ruling a nation.

4.   Non-violence was a concept that can only be conceived by human beings and it is against the order or nature.  It is not to state that Natural Instinct must be the guide.  Violent instinct may be overcome by practice like human beings had in the past learnt civilized conduct both in private life and public life without invoking violence.  Man has forgotten his barbarian instincts and has learnt to do agriculture, practice democracy This civility has benefited mankind.  The yearning for peace at the time of formation of states while fighting for control of land had resulted emergence of concepts of Non-violence etc. Similarly, man should overcome his instinct of violence against what he considers the ‘other’. 

While the author says that Gandhi and Nehru had presented a picture that India was a country which preached and practiced violence, history does not support this. It was a conscious decision of Nehru and others to incorporate Buddhist symbols of wheel in the national flag and Sarnath Lions as Government seal.  In a country like India where faultlines are numerous, this appears to be sensible suitable decision.  Nehru knew more about Indian History than any other politician of his time. 

The remarkable continuity and stability of Indiana Culture was the result of Ideas such as detachment and penance, extreme tolerance of others’ belief and centrality of Dharma.

Gandhiji’s non-violence is extension of the concepts of Mahavira and Buddha in Indian political situation.  He spun non-violence into the ideas of struggle for freeing the country from the imperial power.  For Gandhi modern Capitalist industrial civilization was based on greed, selfishness, exploitation and a great deal of violence against self, other and nature.  Bhagavat Gita inspired aggression and violence in many But Gandhiji read it as a manifesto of non-violence.  According to him, Gita rejects all acts that cannot be performed without detachment i.e. killing, lying and dissolute behavior. Ambedkar saw Buddha as a rationalist and social revolutionary. Savarkar saw ahimsa as effete and negative value.

       The books brings out that ancient India wss not without violence.  There was violence that was considered necessary to defend the king and the kingdom, social structure and polity.  Justifying the existing order however, inequitable and unequal it may be was not considered violence of human values.  For thousands of years violence has been practiced as essential instrument to maintain order.  The differences lie in interpreting what violence is.  Once violence is interpreted and limited to fulfilling certain  requirements or theoretical preconditions, instead of actual physicality violence, justifying violent acts as just and other acts as not just becomes easier. 

   All kingdoms including Buddhist states were violent in fighting their enemies, real or theoritical.  Enemies have to be defined.  Once a nation state is established with whatever conditions and whatever circumstances it entailed, violence as a threat is required to maintain the social and political order had to be maintained.  Speaking or acting against the King or his state has always been classified as a justification for inviting violence.

Vedic texts are pervaded with violence and allude to the ideas of extensive conquest, political paramountcy and empire.  Killing of animals in sacrifice was of some concern but killing of men in battle was not.  People who called themselves as Aryas fought dasas and dasyus and also battled among themselves.  Right from Vedic period this book traces texts on violence including Ramayana and Mahabharat, Arthashastra and Manusmruti. All yagnas are part of elaborate ritual and actual violence for domination.  The general View one gets from the book is that violence has been used by rulers, the powerful and educated for subjugating their enemies, subjects and ‘others’ who are treated as less than equal.  All violence against these people have been justified.  The educated and the State apparatus have actively aided the powerful in enforcing the violence be it caste category or gender or any other.

Even Ashoka, the emperor known for his preference for non-violence has in the some texts, i.e. Buddhisit texts, justified violence and used the threat of violence in the administering the empire.  Whereas his edicts on stones he appears as a non-violent and graceful emperor, keen on ensuring violence, the Ashoka of the texts written during his reign portray a different picture, where he uses violence. 

It is not true that India was a non-violent country or a tolerant civilization.  But it is also true that there were people like Buddha and Mahavira who preached non-violence, reasoning and living amicable in the oceans of violent conflicts.   Even the emperors of Buddhist states preached and followed non-violence and India is unique in that respect.

Everything said the book written in academic style could have been written in a more accessible style so that ordinary readers could also benefit.