Religion and Patronage: An Epigraphical Survey from the Mauryas to the Guptas.
Authored by . Mihir Keshari
While capture and establishment of a dominion may involve armed domination, it’s largely agreed that for socio-political and economic consolidation, sustenance, and perpetuation of state power, something else is needed which is beyond the capacities of militaristic force. It’s here that the distinction between power and authority becomes apparent. Unlike the coercive nature of power, authority involves a component of acceptance of unequal relations and cooperation by the subjugated and this transformation of power into authority happens through the mechanism of legitimacy.
In pre-modern states, legitimacy was often achieved through the use of religious symbols, ideas, and institutions, “Acts of patronage with their ability to influence the domain of popular perceptions were integral to the legitimation process and strategies of domination... Legitimation allowed those in power to be perceived as moral agents, not just self-interested actors" (Sahu, 2003, pp. 44-76).
While within the Vedic corpus we can interpret the performance of certain rituals by the ruling elite as an endeavour to gain legitimacy, it’s only after coming of the Mauryan period that we start getting epigraphical evidence of the possible relationship between the state and religious sects.
Ashokan edicts build an image of the Mauryan Empire, as a centralized, highly bureaucratic, patrimonial welfare state[1]. The relationship between Ashokan polity and Dhamma can be best seen in Pillar edict 1, where he proclaims to protect, administer, please, and guard his empire through Dhamma. The Kandahar Greek inscription suggests subjects’ devotion to the king as an important part of Dhamma. Reading Ashokan edicts as a whole, one cannot but infer the ideological character of the Dhammic policy of Ashoka.
While scholars like Romila Thapar deny any particular leaning of Ashokan policy of Dhamma to any particular sect, Upinder Singh (2016) argues against the minimization of Buddhist elements in Thapar’s interpretation of Dhamma (pp 354-56). Ashoka publicly expresses his personal ‘Buddhist identity’. In Major rock edict 1 he calls himself a Upasaka (a lay Buddhist devotee), he engraved his visit to places important for Buddhism such as Lumbini and Bodhgaya (in Rumindei Inscription). However, irrespective of his leanings, Ashoka appears to not only tolerate but also patronize all sects as reflected in his edicts such as Major rock edict 8, 12 and Pillar edict 7, where one finds his insistence on donating to all sects.
This broad religious outlook mark one of the chief characteristics of the ancient Indian kingship. Upinder Singh (2017) notes that “royal patronage was extended to a variety of beneficiaries in a way that rules out the identification of any particular religion as a state religion” (p 197). Legitimacy and modes to achieve it necessarily involves confirmation to the established norms and justification of these norms emanates “with reference to beliefs commonly shared by the rulers and the ruled”. (Sahu, 2003, p. 46) Hence possibly this broad-based policy of toleration and plurality of religious patronage was a reflection of an overall religious fluidity and nature of contemporary religious ideological currents. However, this is not to suggest about the absence of any possible sectarian conflicts.
A degree of sectarian conflict is discernible during the time of Shungas who appear to favour Brahmanical faiths over Buddhism. D. N. Jha (2006) cites the story of the Buddhist text Divyavadana which “describes Pushyamitra Shunga as a great persecutor of Buddhists who announced a prize of one hundred dinar for every head of a Shramana” (p 5). However a near-contemporary Buddhist text Ashokavadana carries similar accusations against Pushyamitra Shunga with addition of describing Ashoka as carrying out massacre of Jainas and Ajivikas for alleged blasphemy against Buddhism (Stromg, 1989. p. 41). Hence how far sectarian narratives can be taken at face value is debatable; these texts are often concoction of the priestly elite class vying to secure royal patronage.
Though Buddhist Sangha might have lost the privileged position and patronage enjoyed during the Mauryan period, nevertheless it continued to flourish during and after the Shungas, as reflected through the archaeological evidence of building and renovation of stupas, particularly at Sanchi and Bharut, and donations made to them, belying any allegation of a sustained policy of persecution against Buddhism. Romila Thapar (1960) observes a lack of archaeological evidence to support the allegation of Shunga persecution of Buddhism (p 200).
The policy of religious eclecticism and plurality was carried forward by the Kushanas, despite their Buddhist leanings. Kushanas patronized Brahmanical faith; the religious syncretism is best reflected on the Kushanas coins, carrying Indian, Zoroastrian and Greek deities and symbols (Sahu, 2003, p 52). However Upinder Singh (2016) waters down the high praise to Kushanas for their religious plurality and states:
Such an interpretation is premised on a misperception of ancient Indian cults as mutually exclusive, aggressively antagonistic religious denominations”, “Kushanas policy was just an exaggerated version of the royal policies pursued by many other dynasties of ancient India. In later centuries, even in the case of dynasties that adopted consistent sectarian symbols on their coins and seals, royal patronage was not generally restricted by narrow sectarian boundaries” (pp.94-95).
Similar religious eclecticism is reflected in the policy of the Satvahanas, who though were more inclined towards Buddhism, pursued a policy of religious eclecticism and plurality.
The Naneghat inscription of Queen Naganika, records gifts of land to priest for performing certain Vedic rituals by her husband king Satkarni 1 (Singh, 2016, pp.198-99). The Nashik inscriptions of Gautami Balashri was issued during the reign of her grandson king Pulumavi; this inscription record gift of King Pulamavi to Buddhist monks. What’s interesting is that king Gautamiputra Satkarni son of Gautami Balashri is identified as a great Brahmana, with his virtues compared to that of Rama, Krishna, Arjuna, Bhima (Singh, 2016, pp.198-99). The inclusion of symbolism of the Brahmanical pantheon, in a donation to Buddhist monks suggest an absence of sharp sect based divisions and religious identities. Apart from it, inscriptions and donations issued by women are particularly interesting. B. P. Sahu (2003) suggested that royal houses employed the strategy of making donations to sects other than the one patronized by the king through women, in a bid to keep the royal patronage broad-based (p 57).
However we find donations by royal ladies to diverse sects, irrespective of the one patronized by the King as reflected in the Queen edict of the Ashokan period, which records Ashoka giving freedom to the Queen to donate as per her wish. What’s also to be noted is that these ladies were not mere tools at the hand of the king; they enjoyed considerable authority. Queen Naganika had her own lineage mentioned in her inscriptions and is depicted proudly on coins along with her husband, this reflects the authority enjoyed by her (Singh, 2016, p 382).
Moreover, donations to temples and monasteries by women were not limited to royal households. Patrick Olivelle cited works of scholars like Gregory Schopen, Leslie Orr and Cynthia Talbot, to show how women donated extensively to temples and monasteries, reflecting considerable economic agency and the “lived realities” of ancient Indian women, unlike what idealist, prescriptive texts like Manusmriti would want us to believe (Olivelle, 2011, pp. 247-260).
This broad based religious patronage in ancient India wasn’t limited to a particular time and space but possibly was a general policy. “Religious pluralism and the catholicity of the kings is noticed in the case of the Guptas and their contemporaries, such as the Matharas of Kalinga, Salankayanas of Andhra, Kadambas of Banavasi and the Vakatakas of the northern Deccan”(Sahu, 2003, p 57). The Imperial Guptas were great patrons of Vaishanavism. Chandra Gupta 1 has coins issued with motives of Goddess Laxmi. Samundragupa as known from his Prayag Prasasti was a patron of Brahmanical sects; the symbol of Garuda, the vahana of Lord Vishnu was adopted as his royal symbol, as reflected in the relief on his Gaya copper plate. However Prayag Prasasti has references to Pashupati and Ganga reflecting his reverence for Shaivism as well. Another great Gupta emperor Chandragupta-2, despite being a Vaishnav, took the title of Parambhagvata and continued to issue coins with motifs of Garuda and Laxmi. The Udyagiri Cave inscription mentions Chandragupta-2’s visit to a shaiva cave commissioned by his chief minister Virasena (Bakker, 2010, pp 461463). The Guptas, upto the last ruler, continued to personally incline toward one Brahmanical sect or the other, however, this didn’t stop them from tolerating other sects and in cases even patronizing heterodox sects (Darshini, 2005-2006, pp. 167-172).
The first Gupta King Sri Gupta, according to the accounts of I-tsing, is said to have build a temple for Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the east of Nalanda. Similarly, a Chinese source speaks of Samundragupa permitting the Sri Lankan king to build a vihara and rest house near Bodhi tree at Gaya. This patronage to Buddhist vihara appears to be a continued policy. Though an account of Hiuen-Tsang mentions King Buddha Gupta as patron of Nalanda vihara, the successors continued their patronage to Buddhist viharas (Darshini, 2005-2006, pp. 167-172).
Not just Buddhism, the Guptas appear to patronize Jainism as well. Ramgupta commissioned three Jaina images, which were found in old Besnagar with an inscription recording the donation (Bakker, p.463). Bakker elaborates on the possible influence of Guptas in shaping the religious tilt of Vakatakas. Prabhavatigupta, aughter of Chandragupta, was married to Rudrasena 2. Unlike the preceding and succeeding kings of his lineage, Rudrasena 2 became a patron of Vishnu, as appears in the Mandhal plates of Rudrasena 2. Bakker rightly observes the influence of the Guptas for this change and sees this “conversion” as part of an ante nuptial contract (p.467). However, Bakker does not cite any literary or epigraphical record to backup his assumption of an ante nuptial contract necessitating “conversion” to a different sect as a precondition for marriage alliance.
Hence, though we find strong possible personal affiliation of the royalty or kings toward a particular sect, from Mauryas, who were inclined more towards heterodox sects, to the Guptas, who inclined more towards Brahmanical sects, for political legitimacy or otherwise, however, this did not stop them from tolerating and in cases patronising other sects. This is not to deny the existence of some instances of sporadic sectarian violence, as in the case of alleged persecution of Buddhism by kings like Mihirakula and Shashanka. But as Upinder Singh (2017) observes that “Mihirakula and Shashanka are exceptions to the general trends of royal religious policy” (p 274).
Ancient Indian states employed religious patronage as a policy to gain legitimacy, cooperation, and acceptance in the eyes of the priestly class and the common populace. Horeover this policy lacked the concept of exclusion and persecution of differing sects in a bid to gain legitimacy. The broad picture of the relationship between the royal and religious sphere in ancient Indian history has been largely of coexistence, tolerance, and of plurality of religious patronage, something which would find resonance with the syncretic religious policy of the emperor Akbar during the medieval period of Indian history.
References
1.Bakker, Hans. (2010). Royal Patronage and Religious Tolerance: The Formative Period of Gupta–Vākāaka Culture. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 20. pp 461-475.
2. Darshini, Priya. Religion and Policy if Toleration in the Gupta Period: Numismatic and Epigraphical Facts. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Vol. 66. pp. 167-172.
3.Jha, D. N. ‘Brahmanical Intolerance in Early India’. Social Scientist. Vol. 44, No. 5/6, 2006. pp. 3-10.
4.Olivelle, P. (2011). Rhetoric and Reality: Women’s Agency in the Dharmaśāstras. In Language, Texts, and Society: Explorations in Ancient Indian Culture and Religion (pp. 247–260). Chapter, Anthem Press.
5.Sahu, B. P. (2003). Legitimation, Ideology and State in Early India. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Vol. 64. pp. 44-76.
6.Strong, John. (1989). The Legend of King Ashoka-A Study and Translation of Ashokavadana. Motilal Banarasidas Publishers.
7.Singh, Upinder. (2016). A History of Ancient And Early Medieval India. Pearson India.
8.Singh, Upinder. (2017). Political Violence in Ancient India. Harvard University Press.
9.Singh, Upinder. (2017). The Idea of Ancient India. Sage publications.
10.Thapar, Romila. (1960). Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Oxford University Press. (All the references to the Ashokan edicts is from the translation provided in this book).
[1] To read more about Ashoka and his policy of Dhamma refer to -https://itihaskar.wordpress.com/2021/04/08/ashoka-his-edicts-dhamma-and-other-themes/