History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s6.32

v3.c33.s6.32

As regards political apathy the Panjab at this time was also in a worse condition than the rest of India. No doubt political consciousness had been dormant not only in the Panjab but all over India from the most ancient times. The political ideas indeed of all Eastern peoples are even now yet undeveloped. The idea that the country belongs to the people and not to the king is only slowly developing in recent years. The usual political conception under despotic rule is that the country belongs to the king and not that the king belongs to the country. The king, therefore, need not be from among the people. The Vedic Aryans had more advanced political ideas, it must be admitted, for the people then in reality formed the nation. In Vedic times the country and the king were both named after the people, the 'peoples' named in the singular denoting the king and in the plural the country; e. g. Madra, Śālva, Kuru, Pāñchāla etc. Even down to the days of Alexander, there were nations or peoples in the Panjab among whom there were no kings. The Mālavas, the Yaudheyas, the Śalyas, and others according to Arrian were without kings; and had the republican form of government. These peoples are called gaṇas in the Mahābhārata. Whatever may be the case in Vedic or epic days, in later times, however, the kingly form of government became the rule throughout India and the country with its people came to be looked upon as the king's property. Nationality could not develop under such a form of government. But while in Northern India there were native kings and there was some national feeling alive, in the Panjab owing to long continuous foreign rule even this modicum of national feeling did not exist and the people were entirely apathetic as to who ruled them. This is the reason why the people generally offered no resistance when Anandapāla lost his battle and they quietly acknowledged Mahmud as ruler.