By: Mrinmoy Ghosh
Introduction:
In the history of India, which is by and large a history of empire, only two monarchs have been awarded the title of ‘the Great’ by posterity. The first was Ashoka, grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, responsible for the colossal surge in Buddhism both in the Indian subcontinent and beyond, especially in the Far East. The second was Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar, grandson of Babur, who, although nowhere nearly as successful as Ashoka, did play an important part in religious reform in the mid-sixteenth century. In European history we have often noticed the vast differences between the crown and the Church being cause for general instability in many states (The formation of the Holy Roman Empire, England at the time of Henry the Eighth). We have also noted how monarchies that have appropriated religious power via the act of divine representation (the king is represents the rule of God on earth) have been especially stable, powerful and long-lasting ones (the British Empire, post Elizabeth I suffices as an example).
In India, such a process of reconciliation between the crown and the religious institution would be expected to be much more difficult, on account of the enormous religious diversity that the peoples of the subcontinent display. It may be partly due to this that Ashoka and Akbar have both been called the Great, because they have surmounted the insurmountable, taken religion into their own hands and attempted to direct the religious machinery towards progressive, real, social change. Ashoka succeeded. Akbar did not succeed as Ashoka did, but he nevertheless left his mark on the history of religiosity in India, with a practice that would come to fruition only with the advent of modernity – the practice of amalgamating all the good that resides in different religious practices and creating a wholesome worldview and a better way of life. In this article, I shall try to compare the processes that drove both these emperors towards a unifying code of living and also the features of both these codes and their merits and possible failings, if any.
Exploring Dhamma:
Romila
Thapar, in her treatise ‘Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas’, writes, “The
single man who dominates his race, his society, his community, often in
opposition to the larger body of his compatriots, is not an isolated prophet or
an evil genius, or a man of supernatural vision born out of his time...It is
largely the reactions to the particular conditions of a given society which are
responsible for the attitudes of its individual members.”1 In the
context of the popularly known history of Ashoka’s rule, wherein he is
represented as a ruthless (albeit efficient) ruler who undergoes a personal
catharsis on seeing widespread bloodshed and is plagued with immense self-doubt
– whereupon he turns to the greatest philosopher of that age, Siddhartha
Gautama, known to posterity as the Buddha – and transforms into a compassionate
ruler, an emperor who paid attention to his subjects’ needs and the propagator
of a new way of life, such a transformation may seem mythic in its
construction, and as students of history we need not pay attention to the
mythic grandeur of children’s tales about Ashoka the emperor or the
philosophical debacle that confronted Ashoka the man. We do, however need to
confront the development of a train of thought in him, a train that grew into a
policy that remained the legacy of his rule and continues to shape and
influence people even today. The durability expressed in the historical met
narratives perpetuated by Ashoka are what make him so very intriguing to
explore. And as is suggested, the particular conditions of the society that
Ashoka lived in and ruled over are of importance to us, as they point towards a
reaction within the individual, a reaction that drove a silent revolution, a
complete abandonment of the previous way of life.
·
The Mauryas had a habit,
borne out of strategic ruling practice, of associating with and identifying
with the common practices of the people. Reducing the distance between the
subject and the ruler served to strengthen the metaphorical position of the
king as a benevolent ruler. Chandragupta’s patronage of Jainism, Bindusara’s
strong association with Buddhism in his later life – these repetitions only
reinforces that notion.
·
The royal court was a
predominantly fluxional space – one where members of various religious sects
moved freely. As prince, it would have been part of Ashoka’s responsibilities
to associate with and converse at length with these representatives. Buddhists,
Ajivikas and Nirgranthas were common at the court.
·
Brahmanical Hinduism,
with its pedagogical baggage of Sanskrit and ritual, had developed into a
complex, hierarchical, watertight and rigid system. The varna system of
division of labour had long been forsaken for a hereditary system that
consolidated and classified power in the form of exclusive social functions
that could only be performed by members of a particular caste. Practices like
untouchability only added to the milieu, and in the vast, lower-class majority
of the populace, Hinduism truly represented a veritable ‘chamber of horrors’,
to borrow a phrase from a modern social reformer.
· The change in the way of life, from the pastoral and tribal modes of the later Vedic age, to that of empire – primarily due to the increase in ironwork, the increase in navigation along rivers, the incumbent rise in trade and economic benefit, and the attendant need to shift from the sabha and samiti of pastoral communities to a centralised, efficient bureaucracy.
The above points are the main pillars that defined the space that permitted the rise of a new order on all fronts – religious, economic, social and administrative.
Dhamma was an invention made by Ashoka himself, a
compromise, a perfect balance between the practical and the convenient, drawn
from Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, as well as a deeply moral stance. It was
intended for the majority of his subjects who could not afford to adhere to
serious religious pontification and yet could adopt and lead productive and
recognizably moral lives. An important perspective may be gained by asking
ourselves what the major forces were that drove Ashoka on the path to
expounding Dhamma. As a man, we know that Ashoka was deeply attached to the
philosophical teachings of Buddhism, but as a prince and later as an emperor, the
role that Buddhism could play as an intellectual and social reforming agency
must have been apparent to him. The only reconciliation between these two
opposing agencies – one that drove his mind inward, towards personal salvation,
and the other that drove his mind back to his responsibilities as an
administrator over a society – the only reconciliation that he could put
forward, was in the form of a universal code, a method that could apply to
every citizen in the society, from the lowliest peasant to the emperor himself.
This was Dhamma.
In looking at the postulates of Dhamma, we must turn
to the only source we have for them – the Rock Edicts that date back to around
250 B.C.2 The postulates themselves contain implications as to their
social import:-
1. “Here
no living thing is to be killed and sacrificed, and no assembly is to be held.”3
Although the translation is imperfect, we understand that this points to the
ban on ritual sacrifices and points to an emphasis on non-violence as stressed
upon by the monarchy. It does not point to vegetarianism as a lifestyle,
because the same edict details the animals killed in the royal kitchen for
food. It does however stress the need to try to be non-violent as much as
possible, despite the needs of the flesh. As for the curbing of assemblies, the
practice of wanton revelry and attendant disorder is pointed out and
discouraged. Economic waste and casteist opportunities for discrimination are
thus inhibited.
2. “Here
men and animals shall find rest, and passengers shall find repose and healing.”
This point to the establishment of communication lines and the enhancement of
trade and commerce. It also indicates a far better means for the propagation of
the royal ideals by word of mouth or by communications from the capital.
3. “Liberality
to Brahmins and Sramanas is a virtue”. This is a statement of tolerance and
broad-mindedness, and it also helps the emperor retain social favour from the
upper-caste Hindus, as well as posits the political position of tolerance for
all people universally.
4. The
4th edict goes on to describe the general immorality that had
plagued the land, and assumes with absolute conviction that Dhamma has helped
people rise to a position of greater welfare, and that society as a result has
improved radically. It also places Ashoka, Piyadassi,5
Beloved of the Gods, on a stand that is beyond human criticism. This represents
one of the founding principles of Dhamma. It also signifies a paradigmatic
shift of metaphor. The drum – herald of battle, has now become indicative of
all things auspicious, and invites people to a common arena, to witness a
particular event that is designed to generate and nurture morality and
righteousness. Celestial and mythological metaphors and images could be used in
public performances, accompanied by a message that reiterates and propagates
Dhamma. This would have been an extremely useful means of spreading a message,
especially to the general populace en masse.
5. The
Fifth Edict orders the establishment of a corps of Dhamma Mahamattas6
– a mobile group of citizens, almost like a police force that operates on the
principles of Dhamma, catering to the needs of the people. They were a group
with special powers, as they had to operate above and beyond the reach of all
religious authorities, beyond all casteist separations.
The Fifth Edict also stresses on the rights of
prisoners to humane treatment and basic necessities. It deputes the dhamma
mahamattas with the responsibility for ensuring that prisoners were not
subjected to torture. The prison was to be akin to the modern-day notion of a
penitentiary.
6. The
Sixth Edict expands upon the Fifth, and talks about the relationship between
the emperor and the people, through the dhamma mahamattas. The mahamattas would
be given the freedom to report to Ashoka at any time of the day or night,
regardless of what situation the emperor would have been in. This would
facilitate the emperor to take emergency decisions that would be necessary for
the service of the people.
7. The
Seventh Edict orders the dhamma mahamattas to pay attention to the needs of
both the Brahmins and the Ajivikas. This is a reiteration of Ashoka’s policy of
universal tolerance, except it applies specifically to a populace that had been
oppressed by both the Brahmins and the Buddhists, especially prior to the Third
Buddhist Council at Pataliputra.
8. The
Eigth Edict declares how the establishment of Dhamma has brought about an ideal
state of affairs, one where even the “celestial gods come down to Earth and
mingle with the common man”, possibly a well known allusion to the Kretayuga
when legend held that the gods and mankind mingled freely. The metaphors refer
to an ideal state. It goes on to describe the concept of Dhamma-Yatras,7
tours made by the emperor over the country to personally oversee the governance
of the system of Dhamma, as adopted and put to practice by the Dhamma
mahamattas.
Not only did these tours bring the emperor closer to
the people, it permitted him to quell religious and other classist modes of
conflict by showering gifts upon all and sundry, by visiting and thus honouring
Brahmins, Ajivikas and Nirgranthas alike.
9. In
the Ninth Edict, we see a more severe aspect of Ashoka, criticising the more
wasteful and lavish practices of Brahmanical Hinduism, especially ceremonial
yajnas with definite chagrin.8 Ashoka maintains that the practice of
morality is far better than the observance of such meaningless ceremonies.
10. In
the Tenth Edict, Ashoka renounces worldly fame and glory and declares that the
only form of fame he would be grateful for would be that his subjects would
lead morally and principally sound lives based on the code of Dhamma. Ashoka
maintains that his glory lies in having been able to serve his people by
putting forth Dhamma as a way of life.9
11. The
Eleventh Edict details the implications of Dhamma, whereby it is said one can
make a gift of Dhamma, that people can distribute Dhamma and that people can be
bonded through kinship by Dhamma.10 It must be remembered that
Dhamma is inspired by Buddhism, but is not doctrinal Buddhism at all. It is not
a religion, but a secular code of conduct, a mode of living. Ashoka does not
counsel the common man to prioritise the teachings of Buddha or any other
religious reformer over any other. Ashoka simply advocates a path that everyone
can follow, and for the pursuit of which nobody can either persecute someone
else, or be persecuted for the same. The following attributes are prized
aspects of Dhamma:
a. Respect
for both religious elders in the community space as well as familial elders at
home.
b. Liberality
towards friends, acquaintances and those who have taken religious orders.
c. Charity
towards the needy.
d. Abstinence
from killing without dire need.
e. A
high degree of social ethics and civic responsibility.11
12. The Twelfth Edict is an earnest plea for
tolerance among the various religious sects prevalent within the empire. In the
face of growing criticism by sectarian religious representatives, no doubt the
fallout of their dwindling influence as a result of the popular acceptance
towards dhamma and also as a result of minimalism in religious extravaganza, Ashoka
maintains that all sects are being honoured, but that the ‘progress of the
essential doctrines of all sects’ constitutes the greatest honour.12
And Ashoka emphasises that this progress is contingent upon tolerance.
13. The Thirteenth Edict is among the most
important historical records of Ashoka’s reign. It recounts the Kalinga War and
the vast devastation and bloodshed therein, and emphasises with a tone
previously not seen, of the need of conquest by Dhamma instead of by martial
practices and war. That it came much later than the other Edicts proves that
Ashoka’s remorse concerning the Kalinga war manifested a long time after the
war itself, and that it grew with time, causing Ashoka to turn towards an increasingly
zealous practice of Dhamma. Ashoka goes on to express how war devastates the
social rubric and even wipes out entire generations of Brahmins and Sramanas.
This mention of diasporic suffering is relevant as Ashoka goes on to say that
such classes exist in every civilisation, save the Greeks, whose form of
representative democracy was unparalleled across the then civilised world.
14. The last of the major Edicts is the Fourteenth. It takes a bibliographical note, whereby Ashoka talks about the establishment of these edicts throughout the empire for the viewership of the general public. Ashoka declares that through these edicts he has done his utmost towards the propagation and permeation of Dhamma, and that the code of conduct would have to live on in the collective imagination of the people in whose trust he was placed as ruler.
The Rock Edicts of Ashoka are a priceless historical record. Quite apart from their historical value, however, they serve a reminder that at times of immense social crisis, a rare conjunction of practicality and statesmanship may be found, as indeed was the case with Ashoka himself, and with the third ruler of the Mughal dynasty, 1800 years later. Though separated by such a wide schism in time, the similarities in tenor between the two formalisms- Dhamma and Din-i-Ilahi, are staggering, as we shall see in this next section.
Akbar and his
visualisation of the ideal religion – Din-i-Ilahi:
The Din-i-Ilahi was a syncretic religion
founded by Akbar in 1582 AD, intending to merge the best elements of the
religions prevalent in the empire and thereby
attempt to reconcile the religious differences operating between
subjects in the empire. The elements were primarily drawn from Hinduism and
Islam, but Jainism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity also seem to have played an
influence on the formation and genesis of the Ilahiya code.
In the same vein as the construction and employment of the Ibadat Khana,
Akbar’s policy of religious non-discrimination needed to be extended to a
unifying code. This was what he tried to achieve through Din-i-Ilahi, though
the number of his followers never exceeded nineteen, and all were part of the
imperial court. As a matter of fact, Abul Fazl writes that Din-i-Ilahi was not
even called Din-i-Ilahi during Akbar’s reign, but was called Tauhid-i-Ilahi. It
was only later that historical penmanship put it in record as Din-i-Ilahi.
The major propositions of Din-i-Ilahi have been obtained from a text called the
Dabistan-i-Mazahib, written by Mohsin Fani,15 who outlines ten
virtues that lie at the heart of the Emperor’s religion :-
1. Liberality
and beneficence.
2. Forgiveness
of the evildoer and repulsion of anger with mildness.
3. Abstinence
from worldly desires.
4. Care
of freedom from the bonds of worldly existence and violence as well as
accumulating precious stores for the future real and perpetual world.
5. Wisdom
and devotion in the frequent meditation on the consequences of actions.
6. Strength
of dexterous prudence in the desire of marvellous actions.
7. Soft
voice, gentle words, pleasing speeches for everybody.
8. Good
treatment with brethren, so that their will may have precedence to our own.
9. A
perfect alienation from creatures and a perfect attachment to the Supreme
Being.
10. Dedication of the soul in the love of God and union with God, the preserver of all.
In one sentence, the essence of Akbar’s
philosophy concerning this new religion was: “The pure Shast and the pure sight never err.” 16
It is certainly worth noting that the new religion – Din-i-Ilahi came with a
baggage of ritual that was not entirely novel, and drew much inspiration from
the practices, rituals and symbolicism of the Sufi sect, which had a major
influence on Akbar’s life. In this connection, the name of the Sufi mystic Salim
Moinuddin Chisti is worth noting.17
As far as the longevity of the new religion was concerned, two points immediately strike us – the fact that Akbar alone did not treat it as a religion, but his presence as promulgator and Emperor in the same vein added a measure of fervour to all those devoted to his rule, particularly several nobles at the court, driving them to adopt the new religion. Secondly, not all those who entered into the new order did so out of a deep-seated religious fervour; they did it merely for the sake of obtaining imperial favour, although Akbar tried measures to dissuade such characters.18 Akbar did not believe, although he could have, that his role as Emperor extended to pontificating on religious matters as well. In any case, the dynamics of religious conflict within the court were rather tense. As Akbar was the first Mughal emperor who had any vision of expansionism and as such made political alliances through marriage, many of them to Hindu, particularly Rajput princesses, the Ulemas at court were not particularly pleased with him. However, as Emperor he could not be slighted, and a tussle over piety and interpretation seemed to continue throughout his reign, albeit only to facilitate the end of the Ulemas’ continuing presence at court and the benefits it entailed.
As we have seen before, the institution of Din-i-Ilahi was closely intertwined with and dependent on the administrative institutions of the empire itself. And so empire officials were crucial in the propagation of an instruction from the Emperor, via an imperial farman that stressed on the duty of state officials to cater to the spiritual development of all state subjects. 19 The same farman paid attention to two other important points – first that there would be no state-directed policy of religious reformation via oppression or taxation or measures that would force a subject to adopt a religion simply on the grounds of benefit. The second was that within Din-i-Ilahi could adhere only those who acted and thought well of others and bore friendship to every sect. 20
The basis of these instructions was, of course, promoting an atmosphere of tolerance. And so adoption of the religion was a matter of choice for his subjects, a philosophy that bore a great deal of support from the Quran.21 In response to a question by Prince Salim regarding the adoption of policies similar to those of Shah Ismail of Persia as regards the control of non-state religious sects, Akbar is believed to have stated that leadership was a matter of time and good counsel, and did not require the sword.2
Initiates were required to offer signs of loyalty, signs that arose out of the politico-religious fabric of the Mughal society. Surrendering one’s property, one’s life, one’s honour and one’s religion for the sake of empire were accepted as appropriate and powerful indications of one’s loyalty to the empire. And naturally these signs were appropriated into the religious mainstream.
The Din-i-Ilahi was essentially an ethical system, prohibiting such sins as lust, sensuality, slander, and pride and enjoining the virtues of piety, prudence, abstinence, and kindness. The soul was encouraged to purify itself through yearning for God (a tenet of Ṣufi mysticism), celibacy was condoned (as in Catholicism), and the slaughter of animals was forbidden (as in Jainism). There were no sacred scriptures or a priestly hierarchy. In its ritual, it borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism, making light (both from the sun and from fire) an object of divine worship and reciting, as in Hinduism, the 1000 names of the Sun in Sanskrit. 24
The
initiation required an oath, whose text ran as follows:
“I, so and so, do voluntarily, liberate and dissociate myself from traditional
and imitative Islam which I have seen my father’s practice and heard from the
speak about, and attend the Din-i Ilahi of Akbar acknowledging the four degrees
of devotion, which are the sacrifice of property, life, honour and religion”2
A characteristic feature of the Din were the practice of greeting each other with phrases like “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) or “Jalle jalaluhu” (Exalted be his glory) as opposed to the traditional “Al Salam Walekum”. Another distinguishing feature of this movement was that each disciple of the Din-i-Ilahi should prepare a eulogic dinner during his lifetime. This rule differed from the classical Muslim and Hindu customs according to which such a dinner generally would have had to be organized after a person’s death. Besides, each member is to give a party on the anniversary of his birthday, and bestow alms in order to prepare provisions for his next life. The struggle to abstain from eating meat was another outstanding rule for the members of the Din-i Ilahi. In this sense disciples should not benefit from the same vessels used by fishermen, bird-catchers and butchers. They should not also live together with pregnant, old, and barren women or with girls under the age of puberty.26
An
exploration of Din-i-Ilahi by itself would constitute a treatise, but that is
not my objective. My objective is to posit the two formalisms vis-a-vis one
another and attempt to trace a colinearity between them. This I shall do in the
next section.
Looking at Akbar’s Din-i-Ilahi vis-a-vis Ashoka’s Dhamma:
To
begin with, certain points must be made by way of comparison to truly achieve
some insight:-
·
First – Din-i-Ilahi was
visualised as a religion by Akbar, as opposed to Dhamma being a secular code of
conduct.
·
Second, the adoption of
Din-i-Ilahi though explicitly voluntary, came to be known throughout the
country via an imperial farman, as we
understand from Badauni’s record of Akbar’s rule. This drove many nobles
scattered throughout the empire to adopt the religion simply to draw nearer to
the imperial court. This is in contrast to Ashoka’s method of declaring the
code of Dhamma at several places throughout the empire in view of the common
populace, which suppressed such acts of prioritisation.
·
Third, Dhamma had
elements of Buddhist philosophy in it, but it was formulated in an entirely new
formalism. Din-i-Ilahi was more of a compilation of the religious philosophies
existing at that time and prior to that time as well, almost like a summing up
of antiquity.
Though I place these differences first, their objective is to provide a negative space against which one can trace the almost curious coincidence of two philosophies, separated by such a vast schism in time.
The
similarities between the two formalisms, as mentioned earlier, are staggering,
and much more powerful than the differences.
·
Like Dhamma, Din-i-Ilahi
had the same aim of reducing religious bigotry, undermining differences and
attempting to unify a population torn by religious strife as a result of
religious preferences exhibited by earlier rulers, who had absolutely no
unifying foresight on the lines of religion.
·
Just as Dhamma was deeply
influenced by Buddhist philosophy, so too, Din-i-Ilahi was influenced by Sufi
philosophy.
·
The administration of
Dhamma was overseen by Dhamma mahamattas and there was no organised ‘priesthood’
per se, the need being eliminated by the fact that Dhamma was not a religious
sect but a secular code of conduct. Likewise, the absence of priesthood is
notable in the case of Din-i-Ilahi. The propagation of Din-i-Ilahi seems to
have relied on the institution of the Emperor himself.27
·
Like Ashoka, Akbar issued
a general order to all the officials of state to take care of and to look after
the spiritual development of all the subjects of the empire. 28
·
The formation of the
brotherhood of Chelas (disciples) is reminiscent of the council of Dhamma
mahamattas, especially since the role of the Chelas would be essentially the
same- the propagation and glory of the Din.
·
The Sufi influence on the
Din is most keenly felt in the idea of the Shast,
the Supreme Being, designated by a syllable, Hu. The depiction of the Supreme
Being resonates with Ashoka’s beliefs in the same entity arising through
Buddhism.
· Meetings and communication between the Chelas were achieved through prayer. One can note a Christian influence here, that of Holy Communion. However the purpose remained the same, just as the councils of the Dhamma mahamattas held office to communicate among themselves, so too; these prayer meets achieved the same end, as well as reiterating the principles of the Din among the members of the creed.
In moving towards a conclusion, one must take note of why one must study history. It is to learn from the past, to understand the forces that drive humanity through certain changes and to learn from them. The great benefit that mistakes in the past have, especially those in the distant past, is that they do not constitute so great a causal threat to the observer as to cause threat of life or well being. That said, the benefit of hindsight allows for correction, for seeking answers from precedence. It is on this note that I must bring the discussion to a conclusion.
Conclusion:
Today’s world sees a staggeringly vast populace, subscribing to an even larger milieu of opinions, religious beliefs, ethnic practices and the like. The struggle for power is always ambient, as it always has been throughout the course of history and now, it is mired in the immense complexity of the manifold discourses that society harbours. In India itself we see religion rising a terrifying prospect- that of exclusionary determinism, with minorities being regularly, systematically, efficiently and repeatedly oppressed at the hands of maleficent politico-religious intent. History itself is being distorted, rewritten and repackaged into the young minds that are growing up in certain parts of India today. The isolation of political agency around religious adherence is deeply worrying, a marker of which is the increasing propensity of the modern citizen to veer towards atheism.
That immense war and bloodshed can give rise to a profound change in worldview is evidenced by Ashoka himself, as history tells us. That even an expansionist emperor can adopt practices unifying all religions is evidenced by Akbar. In times of profound crisis, visionaries such as these arise, as a direct reaction to the social parameters that define individual and group identity at these times.
Today, one witnesses the rise of the Hindutva brigade and their abysmally divisive rhetoric. Emperors like Akbar are written out of history by political intent. And everywhere, people are dying en masse. Terrorist attacks in the name of religion surround us in their incidences. And as a people we have become anaesthetized, almost lethargic, completely uncaring about our need to respond in order to survive.
This
is what makes the study of Dhamma, and that of Din-i-Ilahi, especially relevant
today – the fact that religion itself matters nothing before the welfare of the
people, the fact that in the right hands, agency itself can be wielded to great
effect in diminishing religious ostracism, that people from differing faiths
can be reconciled to a common reality, that people from different religions can
live together in peace.
Because, if anything, the fact that history itself exists should teach us something – that humanity needs to endure. And under the current circumstances, one sees very little hope that it will. Nevertheless, as a student, especially since I am a student, I need to draw hope from history, and hold out that hope against all odds – the hope that mankind can know peace, through retrospection, by learning from history. Indians certainly can learn to coexist, especially since identifying with their own history should not be too difficult unless one is bent on the opposite. And that is why Ashoka, and Akbar are both immensely relevant today. Because they showed us a path - a path to coexistence and harmony.
Citations:
1. Thapar,
R. Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas; OUP 1961
2. Smith, V.A. Asoka-The Buddhist Emperor of
India; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1901
3. Pande,
Studies on the Origin of Buddhism, pp. 319-20.
4. FRAS Hultzsch, Corpus Inscriptionum Indiscorum, Vol I, 1910, p. 166, 1310.
5. Kern, Manual of Buddhism, p. 73
6. Bloch, R.E. ; Les
Inscriptions d’ Asoke; p. 64, 101, 103
7. Bloch, R.E. ;
Les Inscriptions d’ Asoke; p. 109
8. Bloch, R.E. ;
Les Inscriptions d’ Asoke; p. 111
9. Eggermont,
The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Morrya; p.81
10. Bloch, R.E. ; Les
Inscriptions d’ Asoke ; p.113
11. Bloch, R.E. ;
Les Inscriptions d’ Asoke ;
p.117
12. Bloch, R.E. ;
Les Inscriptions d’ Asoke ;
p.119
13. Bloch, R.E. ;
Les Inscriptions d’ Asoke ;
p.121
14. Bloch, R.E. ;
Les Inscriptions d’ Asoke ; p.125
15. Bloch, R.E. ;
Les Inscriptions d’ Asoke; p. 127
16. Bloch, R.E. ;
Les Inscriptions d’ Asoke; p. 129
17. Commentary
on the Ain-i-Akbari (No. 77), Blochmann, p.166
18. Happy Sayings, Abul Fazl.
19. Ain, Blochmann, Ain. No. 77, p.165
20. Dabistan, I, p. 97 and p. 429
21. Payne, op.
Cit. p. 25, footnote; Dabistan, I, p.97.
“There is no compulsion in religion.” (Quran)
22. Du Jarric; The Reign of Akbar.
23. Shea and Troyer, p. cxlvii
24. Muzaffar Alam ;State-Building Under the
Mughals: Religion, Culture and Politics; pp 105-128.
25. Kutlutürk, C.
(2016). A critical analysis of Akbar‟s religious policy: Din-i Ilahi. International
Relations and Diplomacy, 4(6), 407-417.
26. Badauni, II/304.
27. Abul Fazl, I/110; Blochmann, 1939, pp.175-176
28. Commentary on the Ain-i-Akbari, Blochmann, p.212-
Bibliography:
1. Thapar,
R. Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas; OUP 1961
2. Smith,
V.A. Asoka-The Buddhist Emperor of India; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1901
3. Raychaudhury,
Political History of Ancient India. OUP.
4. Harry Falk, Ashokan
Sites and Artefacts: A Source-Book with Bibliography (Mainz am Rhein, 2006)
5.
Mahajan V.D. (1960, reprint 2007). Ancient
India, S.Chand & Company, New Delhi, pg
350-353
6. Inscriptions of Ashoka by
Alexander Cunningham, Eugen Hultzsch. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of
Government Printing. Calcutta: 1877
7. Ashoka, Emperor, Edicts of Ashoka, eds. N. A.
Nikam, Richard P. McKeon, 1978, University of Chicago Press
8. Krishnaswamy, C.S., Sahib, Rao, and Ghosh,
Amalananda, "A Note on the Allahabad Pillar of Aśoka", The Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 4 (Oct., 1935), pp. 697–706
9. Makhanlal
Roychoudhury, Din-i-Ilahi or The Religion of Akbar. 1941
10. Schimmel,Annemarie
(2006) The Empire of the Great Mughals: History, Art and Culture, Reaktion
Books, ISBN 1-86189-251-9
11. Irfan Habib, Akbar and the Mughal State-The
Quest for Legitimization in Hindustan, OUP New Delhi, 1997
Post a Comment