Nationalism and patriotism have been admirable concepts. There must now be a new term to describe "zeal for separate state"; perhaps, it should be "State Nationalism," for the term "Cultural Nationalism" has weak political bearings. The independence struggle symbolized a unity against foreign rule. The modern freedom fighter seeks independence from his own brother. Well, we do have much talks about brotherhood, though in practicality "brother" is nowhere, while hoods are everywhere. The Gorkhas of Darjeeling dream of a Gorkha Land; the Bodos, of a Bodo Land; the Karbis of a separate Karbi state; in Andhra, it's been a 40 year old struggle for Telangana; in Assam, again, for Dimaraji state; in Jammu and Kashmir, for Ladakh; in Uttar Pradesh, for Harit Pradesh and Purvanchal; in Bihar, for Mithilanchal; in Madhya Pradesh, for Vindhya Pradesh and Bundelkhand; and in Maharashtra, for Konkan, Marathwada, and Vidarbha [For a full list click here]

There are various reasons advanced for separate states. Whether such bifurcation of states is commendable or not is a matter of administrative judgment. Even the human cells bifurcate (mitosis) while the human body grows. Well, that doesn't mean that such divisions should regularly occur in the nation; for that would leave the whole as composed of city states. Yet, where the rationale is proper administration and healthy supply in the system, one must always remember that the soundness of the State is the goal, and such soundness can only be a reality when each member of this massive organism has the means and opportunity to exercise his or her fullest potential. This also means, accepting our differences; yet, preserving the feelings of love and unselfish generosity towards our neighbors. What about the migrants? Don't they serve as the blood vessels that link the whole nation through interspersing of cultural values and riches of our heritage? What about the wicked and corrupt, the pests of society, some of whom also serve in the administrative system? I believe that if the cells, molecules, and organs in the body preserve their integrity and immunity, the whole system will automatically be disease free. It first starts with spiritual renewal and faith in God, who gives the transcendental meaning in the life of each individual.

From the book Secularism in India: A Historical Outline (2005)

Samrat Chakravartin Ashoka
As far as secularism is concerned, Buddhism is best remembered in India for its dearest adherent, the Emperor Ashoka, whose religious policies are some of the closest to the modern principles of humanism. Chandragupta Maurya died in 300 B.C. Bindusara succeeded him and, after his death in between 273-272 B.C, Ashoka ascended the throne in 269-268 B.C.[1] After his painful experience in the Kalinga war, he converted to Buddhism and, having united the whole of the sub-continent under his rule, gave India one of its rarest times of peaceful governance. Ashoka gave great importance to the ideal of tolerance towards different ideologies and religions. According to Romila Thapar, Ashoka’s definition of social ethics is based on a respect for all religious teachers, and on a harmonious relationship between parents and children, teachers and pupils, and employers and employees.[2]

The religious policies of Ashoka grew out of his concept of religion and its role in human society. Ashoka’s practice of the principle of non-violence, after becoming a Buddhist, led him to ban animal sacrifices to the great chagrin of the Brahmins. The principle of universality and inclusivism kept Ashoka from all forms of communalism that the caste-Hindus were so fond of. Ashoka’s religion contained gleanings from all religions.[3] Ashoka followed the policy of religious tolerance and made a law that prohibited anyone from any act or word against any religion.

According to Jawaid Quddus, during the reign of Ashoka, diverse religious sects, such as the Brahamas, Sramanas, Nirganthas, Ajivakas, etc., bore great hostility and sectarian rancor against one another. Quddus quotes from the ' Studies in Ancient India' by Provatansu Maiti, (1969 edition) following of the directives of Ashoka that aimed at religious tolerance and mutual respect among the various sects:
1.All sects must dwell at all places so that they could know one another and develop tolerance for each other.
2.All sects must observe restraint of speech and purification of heart when they deal with each other.
3.The exaltation of one's own religion and condemnation of others' creed is not permitted.
4.Different sects should study of the scripture of other sects and develop concord among themselves.
5.All people must practice Ahimsa (non- violence) towards each other and towards animals.
6.Ashoka renounced the policy of conquest by sword and urged people to adopt the policy of conquest by law.[4]
Although Ashoka’s policy of religious tolerance seems quite conforming to the principles of secularism, his declaration of Buddhism as the state-religion doesn’t apparently do so. Ashoka considered religion as the foundation of a stable state. By religion, Ashoka meant Dhamma, the principle of right duty and obligation. Though this Dhamma was much influence by Buddhism, it was not separated from reason but based on reason.[5]

Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries to foreign kingdoms and he also undertook religious journeys to inspire his people towards religiosity. He established a department of religion that was responsible for measuring the religious level of the people and also teaching them the principles of Dhamma. He used to organize religious discourses and shows for the education of the masses.[6] The various pillars and inscriptions dating from the time of Ashoka point to the seriousness with which he understood the inter-relationship between religion and the state. The goal was to instil in the people the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong and awake and motivate them towards right thinking and right action. No doubt, Ashoka succeeded in doing so.
Thus, though Ashoka’s religious policies cannot be called as purely secular-oriented, they do resemble secularism in practice in their laws of religious freedom, religious tolerance, and respect for all religions. To be sure, Ashoka’s religious policies were oriented to the well being of all people in the present, despite race, colour, language, creed, or gender.

_______________
[1] As cited by Ratibhanu Singh Nahar, Prachin Bharat Ka Rajnitik Aur Sanskritik Itihaas (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1956), p. 238.
[2] Romila Thapar, ‘Ashoka’, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (Microsoft Corporation: 2001).
[3] Ratibhanu Singh Nahar, Prachin Bharat Ka Rajnitik Aur Sanskritik Itihaas (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1956), p.245.
[4] http://www.truthindia.com
[5] Ibid, pp. 244-246.
[6] Ibid, p. 247.

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2005, 2010

_______________________________________
 Related Article



©Domenic Marbaniang, 2010