History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s21.9

v3.c41.s21.9

It is a pity that the keen intellect of the Hindus did not find out the true essentials of a state and did not evolve its true theory. But this is not to be wondered, as even in the west, the paternal theory of kingship was in the ascendancy so late as the eighteenth century. In India the same theory is propounded in its law treatises. It must be said, however, to the credit of Hindu kings, generally as of this period, that they always carried this parental idea into real practice and rarely oppressed their subjects by acts of wanton cruelty. The legend of the herb of longevity given by Ufi in his Jamiyat-ul-Hikayat (E. II. p. 174) is interesting in this connection and shows how Indian kings, in comparison with Mahomedan kings, were less oppressive and believed that tyrannical kings had their lives shortened by the curses of their oppressed subjects. Whatever the value of this story, it may be believed that the inspiring example of Rāma, the ideal king of Ancient India was always before the Hindu kings and we rarely meet with mention of tyrannical kings in mediæval records except perhaps in the history of Kashmir. The expenses again of Hindu states were very limited. The absence of standing armies and of foreign bureaucracies explains the inexpensiveness of mediæval Hindu kingdoms and the generally less cruel Hindu temperament made even despotic kingdoms of mediæval Hindu India well-governed and happy. They in fact secured internal and external peace with the minimum of taxation. It may seem paradoxical but it is nevertheless true that a despotic Hindu king in mediæval times was less expensive than a modern foreign bureaucracy. As we shall presently see, civil and military rule in mediæval Hindu kingdoms was much less costly than modern British or Mogul rule. Lastly, the Hindu kings had no legislative power and could not enact new laws or amend old ones or impose new taxes. Their zulum where it did exist was always personal. The common people were content to live under such limited monarchies and never consequently worked to obtain political power through popular assemblies as in the west. Moreover, popular assemblies also, according to the religious belief of the Hindus, had no power to enact new laws or to alter or abrogate old ones. Even civil law and the law of offences and punishments together with even the nature and amount of taxation was laid down by the Smritis. Hence the need of peoples' assemblies was never felt in Hindu kingdoms. The absence, however, of such institutions, coupled with the wrong theory of state wherein the king was looked upon as the owner of the kingdom and not the people, led to one baneful result viz. weakness of the sentiment of nationality which, completely dying in this sub-period, the Hindu kingdoms of India were easily destroyed.