Chapter
Chapter
CHAPTER-1
Chapter-1 commences with a meticulously crafted title “Maurya”, setting stage for turbulent
political developments along with murky details on matronymic pedigree of Mauryas. It also
highlights Paul Kosmin clauses on ‘Treaty of the Indus’ that led to the radical transformation
of West Asia and synchronic coexistence of bounded kingdoms in south. However, it remains
silent on socio-economic dimensions that necessitated the consolidation of power under the
reign of Chandragupta or any archaeological evidence for that matter. Professor Olivelle's
scholarly inquiry reveals a profound interest in the Hellenistic influences within the Mauryan
court, prompting conjecture regarding their potential impact on Ashoka's transformation into
a philosopher king. Olivelle posits that Ashoka's upbringing in a cosmopolitan, multilingual,
and multicultural environment fostered a milieu conducive to philosophical and ideological
evolution.
The chapter critically examines Ashoka's apparent departure from the traditions of his
ancestors, arguing that Ashoka deliberately distanced himself from the legacy of his
predecessors- bloody and gruesome- and did not uphold their established identity and
legitimacy. Olivelle's analysis, grounded in inscriptional sources, suggests that Ashoka sought
to redefine his kingship, presenting himself primarily as a Buddhist ruler and thus inaugurating
a new era of moral kingship in Indian history. However, Olivelle's attempt to pinpoint the exact
motivations behind Ashoka's break with his ancestral traditions remains inconclusive, leaving
the precise reasons for this historical shift obscure.
Chapter- 2
Chapter 2, “Ruler,” commences with an intriguing thesis on Ashoka's aversion to the sacrificial
killings integral to the elaborate ritual practices of anointing. This repugnance compelled him
to diverge from these traditions and align with Buddhist morals, thereby rebranding his reign
as that of a Buddhist sovereign. Olivelle then probes deeper into the geographical expanse
and demographic intricacies of the Maurya Empire, critically evaluating the logistical
conundrums of administering such an expansive dominion and accentuating the role of
regional governors and a centralized bureaucracy.
However, ramifications of Ashoka’s policies on local governance structures and their long-
term viability are merely alluded to, not exhaustively explored. Olivelle’s reliance on
inscriptional evidence constitutes both a strength and a limitation. While the inscriptions
furnish direct insights into Ashoka’s intentions and administrative stratagems, they also
reflect the idealized visage Ashoka endeavored to project. The disjunction between this ideal
and the pragmatic realities of governance remains a pivotal area for historical scrutiny.
Furthermore, the practical challenges and constraints of instituting a moral governance
system in a vast and heterogeneous empire are not thoroughly interrogated. The potential
dissonances between ethical ideals and the exigencies of maintaining order and control are
underexamined.
The last two chapters, Olivelle masterfully articulates the linguistic and rhetorical strategies
employed by Ashoka, underscoring his innovative use of the Brahmi script and Prakrit
language to ensure accessibility across diverse sociolinguistic groups. However, Olivelle's
analysis, while thorough, sometimes borders on overemphasizing Ashoka's intentions as
entirely benevolent and universally accepted, potentially glossing over the socio-political
resistance and interpretative plurality that might have existed.
The book also focuses on Ashoka's architectural and infrastructural contributions, positioning
him as a pivotal figure in the physical and cultural transformation of his empire. Olivelle
critically assesses the symbolic and practical implications of Ashoka's construction projects,
such as stupas, pillars, and monastic complexes. The chapter excels in highlighting the
symbiotic relationship between Ashoka's religious convictions and his architectural endeavors,
arguing convincingly that these constructions served both devotional purposes and imperial
propaganda. Yet, Olivelle's argument occasionally risks conflating Ashoka’s personal piety with
political strategy, not fully accounting for the possible pragmatic motivations behind such
grandiose undertakings.