The Snarl Of Lions And The Sniping of Jackals

Another day, another needless controversy. As night follows day so must controversy follow any major or minor steps taken by the current government and its head. This is the nature of the opposition.

This time it is the national symbol of Bharat, adapted from the Lion Capital of the Mauryans found during an excavation in March 1905 at Sarnath by Friedrich Oertel.

This is an exact description of the capital:

“As it once stood in the deer park at Sarnath…, the pillar was thirty-seven feet above ground, the plain shaft contrasting with the sophisticated design of its capital. The capital had four main parts: (I) a conventional 'bell' with petal-like ornament (sometimes interpreted as an inverted lotus); (2) a circular abacus decorated in relief with four animals (bull, lion, horse and elephant) alternating with chariot-wheels; (3) quadruple lions squatting back-to-back in sejant posture, their jaws open wide and tongues protruding; and (4), crowning the whole, a large symbolic Wheel-of-Law (dharmacakra), now vanished except for a few fragments. Conspicuous among its features is a lustrous finish to the sand-stone, giving its buff tones a jade-like texture…”

The national symbol was adapted from this, the inverted lotus base being removed; the four lions and the abacus with the chakras and the bull, the elephant, the horse and the lion around the circular abacus retained. The dharmachakra on top was already broken, found only in pieces around the capital itself.

Figure 1 shows the original proportions of the pillar. Figure 2 shows the Lion Capital, a familiar picture for all Indians and yet not familiar enough, it seems.

(Image credits: Geetali Tare)

The charge against the symbol atop the new Parliament building is that it misrepresents the actual national symbol of Bharat which was based on this Lion Capital; the lions are angry, snarling, muscular, with their teeth showing, not the peaceful, graceful and elegant beings which adorn our Constitution or are used every day in our governmental transactions. The current representation is an ”insult” to the nation and to the national symbol.

There seem to be few takers amongst the critics for the sculptor, Sunil Deore’s clarification that he has been faithful to the 3rd century BCE original.

On a close examination, however, his contention is correct, the proportions and the representation are the same, it is only much larger than the original and we have seen pictures taken from below while we look at the lion capital at eye level. Yes, the lions are snarling and looking ferocious, showing their teeth. They have muscular chests and manes and a fierce glint in their eyes, nothing has been changed. Anyone who is familiar with ancient Indian sculpture and iconography will reach this conclusion after studying the two together.

Such was the Mauryan Lion which has also been depicted in other places such as the Dhauli Pillar and the Vaishali Pillar; see figures 3 and 4 and notice the snarl and the stance.

(Geetali Tare)

(Geetali Tare)

These were not sweet lions smiling elegantly, they were meant to strike fear in the eyes of the beholder. They were the symbols of the mighty fourth century BCE world power, the Mauryans, who were the models for the Vijigishu or world-conqueror of the Kautilyan universe. They conquered through their army which has been mentioned with awe in Greek and Roman sources based on the Indica of Megasthenes.

It is ridiculous to think of these royal and powerful symbols as being “peaceful” and “elegant”; such commentators have absolutely no idea of the world which existed before their air-conditioned rooms came into being; the blood sweat and tears needed to make an empire.

A short digression here into why calling these structures as “Ashokan Pillars” is a misnomer although colonial historiography and its faithful followers built up this story to contrast peaceful non-violent Buddhism (followed by Ashoka Maurya) with savage, violent, barbaric, exploitative Hinduism (followed by earlier samrats) which the former tried its best to “reform”.

It is true that Ashoka Maurya embraced the teachings of Gautam Buddha but this was not a Constantine moment as Christian historiographers who are the torchbearers of colonial Indology would have one believe. In keeping with the ethos of this land, Mauryan samrats were eclectic in their belief systems; Jain, Ajivika, Buddhist believers who also patronised Sanatana Dharma while simultaneously pursuing and furthering their personal religious philosophy.

The pillar with the capital atop therefore is neither exclusively Ashokan nor exclusively Buddhist. Let us understand the latter first:

Buddhist iconography was extensively borrowed from the Vedic one with most meanings retained. The dharmachakra is from the Vedic idea of sacred, cyclic time which moves likes the wheels of a chariot, it moves in a spiral, it is the cosmic rhythm or ऋत (reeta). It also symbolises the rule of a Chakravarti Samrat, which all three of the great Mauryans were.

The bull is sacred to this land from the times of Harappa and Rakhigarhi as is the horse, the elephant and the lion. Much before Gautama Buddha, Mitra-Varuna, the all-powerful Vedic deity is likened to the white lion in the Rig Veda. The lion occurs in various contexts in all the mandalas of the Rig Veda. In the Bhagawad Gita, while describing his vibhutis or characteristics, Bhagwan Krishna says, amongst the animals I am the lion or Mrigendra (B.G. 10.30).

As for pillars, the tradition of pillar worship in Sanatana Dharma goes back into the mists of time, sthambha and dhwaja worship still appear in the poles and flags atop Hindu temples. Remains of ancient temples such as those of Temple 40 at Sanchi (reputedly built by Bindusara Maurya), remains found at Vidisha, Chittor, Ghosundi and many more and the so called Heliodorus Pillar is a very good extant example.

Now for the other point, were these pillars all 'Ashokan'? It is telling that reconsidering evidence around 'Ashokan' pillars leads to the conclusion that many of them existed before his time and he merely had his inscriptions carved on them. This is stated in so many words in his own edicts.

In the 1st Minor Rock edict in the 11th year of his reign he says his message should be carved wherever stone pillars were available. Again, in the 7th Pillar edict of his 26th regnal year, he says that he is erecting certain pillars to propagate his message but also that his messages must be engraved whenever stone pillars were available.

Thus it seems clear that stone pillars existed before his advent and there is also evidence to show that large festivals and worship of these pillars happened before, during and after his reign, even up to relatively modern times. Sthambha and dhvaja worship were exemplified in the most important annual festival of ancient India, the Indra Dhvaja Makha, which has now been lost except in Nepal.

The pillars are therefore, not all Ashokan, some have symbols of other Mauryan kings found in the copper bolts which connected the capital to the pillar. Again, Mauryan kings also shared symbols so often it is not possible to name the exact Mauryan king referred to. In their zeal to attribute all to Ashoka, V A Smith, John Marshall and Mortimer Wheeler preferred to forget these important pieces of evidence.

It is also forgotten that Ashoka Maurya was perhaps the Rajiv Gandhi of his time, the inheritor of the political mantle of two generations above him. His were not the blood sweat and tears which built up the Mauryan Empire, he inherited it after quite a bit of court intrigue led by his mother and then proceeded to run it into the ground through his long, long, rule.

The build-up of the Kalinga War, which was more likely to have been a local rebellion if one reads the inscription of Kharavela along with certain other evidence, was done by Buddhist hagiographers and has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by our gullible history writers. Ashoka does express regret in one of his inscriptions but what we know is more the Taranath version written in the seventeenth century by a Buddhist hagiographer and full of unlikely stories.

I will conclude with discussing that which is peculiarly special to the Mauryans, the fact that they are the symbols of the sovereignty and political unity of the Indian sub-continent, Jambudweepa, and there is a subliminal memory of this in the people of Bharat.

The Mauryans were the first to unite the sub-continent politically into Bharat or Jambudweepa and have never been forgotten. Why is it that the puissant Guptas of the fourth to the sixth century CE took the name Chandragupta, two of them? Or that Firoz Shah Tughlaq, Akbar, Jahangir, all tried to partake of that sovereignty and subtle power by uprooting and dragging Mauryan pillars to their own domain and inscribing their own words on these pillars such as the one in Prayagraj?

The nation state which came into being in 1947 did not, perhaps could not, even after many efforts, forget this. Thus our national symbol is that of the Mauryans, our national bird, the peacock, is another symbol of the Mauryans, our NH1 is based on the Uttarpath of the Mauryans, our national currency is named after the silver coin or 'rupyarupa' of the Mauryans!

We are the modern Mauryans, we share the geography (some parts lost), the multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multilingual populace. Our political, civilisational, cultural and social parameters were set by the Mauryans; the duo of Chandragupta and Chanakya rather than his grandson, Ashoka. Thousands of years have laid a thick patina of dust on this truth; as we learn and discover more, that disfiguring skin will be stripped off.

The lion capital, the symbol of modern-day Bharat, symbolises the parallels between us and the Mauryan Empire. This is the new India, more and more certain of itself, looking up, not down. This new India is a fresh reflection of the old. It is now time to come into our own as a world power to be reckoned with, as the Mauryans were, snarling lions and all.