History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c11.5

v1.c11.5

The development of political ideas in India was exactly in the opposite direction. The Indo-Aryans were indeed in the beginning imbued with the same racial tendencies as their brethren in the west. The sovereignty so to speak belonged to the people and the king was merely their leader and agent. There were public assemblies of the people which advised the king on all important matters. Taxation was levied apparently with the consent of the people. The later tradition that the people promised Manu 1/6th of their land produce in consideration of his accepting their kingship contains the germ of this principle. Kings were often elected and in some tribes there were no kings at all, the people themselves regulating their affairs by a council of elders. In short, in the earliest period of Indian history the political condition of the people was developing in the same direction as in the west. Indeed the union of the people with the state and the king was so complete in ancient times that the names of the three were identical. The state was still tribal and the same word in the plural indicated the state and the people, while in the singular it meant the king. In the Vedic and even in Epic times this was the rule. For example the Kurus, the Madras, the Pāñchālas, the Kosalas and so on meant both the people and the country; and the singular Kuru, Madra, Pāñchāla and Kosala and so on meant the king. A similar state of things obtained in the west. The land was there also called after the people and the king was called by the same name. France was the land of the Franks, England of the Angles and Saxony of the Saxons; and France, England and Saxony meant also the kings of those lands. Thus the name of the people gave the name to the country and the king, both in the east and the west.