Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c10.s1: The Aims of the State

State and Government in Ancient India c10.s1

Language
English

The Aims of the State

c10.s1.1

The Vedic literature does not specifically discuss the aims or ideals of the state. Incidental observations made therein, however, enable us to gather that peace, order, security and justice were regarded as the fundamental aims of the state. The king or the head of the state was to be like god Varuṇa, the upholder of the law and order (*dhṛitavrata*); he was to punish the wicked and help the virtuous. Religion was to be promoted, morality was to be encouraged and education was to be patronised.¹ The state, however, was to secure not only the moral but also the material wellbeing of its citizens. The kingdom of king Parīkshit, idealised in the *Atharvaveda* (XX. 127), flowed with milk and honey. All round welfare of the public was clearly regarded as the chief aim of the state during the Vedic and Upanishadic ages, *i.e.* down to *c.* 600 B. C.

c10.s1.2

¹ न मे स्तेनो जनपदे न कदर्यो न मद्यपो नानाहिताग्निनाविद्वान्न स्वैरी स्वैरिणी कुतः। *Cha. U.*, V. 11. 5.

c10.s1.3

When the literature on politics proper began to be developed, we find that promotion of *dharma*, *artha* and *kāma* are usually mentioned as the aims of the state. The state was to promote *dharma*, not by championing any particular sect or religion, but by fostering a feeling of piety and religiousness, by encouraging virtue and morality, by extending help to the establishments belonging to all religions and sects, by maintaining free hospitals and feeding houses for the poor and the decrepits and last but not least, by extending patronage to literature and sciences. The promotion of *artha* was to be procured by encouraging trade, industry and agriculture, by developing national resources, by bringing fresh land under cultivation, by building dams and canals to make agriculture independent of rain, and by encouraging extensive and systematic working of mines. The state was to promote *kāma* by ensuring peace and order, so that each individual may enjoy life undisturbed, and by offering encouragement to fine arts like music, dancing, painting, sculpture and architecture in order to promote aesthetic culture. The state was thus expected to maintain peace and order and promote moral, material and aesthetic progress of society.

c10.s1.4

Our writers have thus practically recognised the ideal of perfect development of the individual to the full development of the society, when they laid down that it was the business of the state to promote Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Moksha; only they have not used the modern terminology. The ideal of *sarvabhūtahita*, which is emphasised in several places, refers not only to the spiritual but also to the mundane sphere.

c10.s1.5

² कृपणानाथवृद्धानां विधवानां च योषिताम्। योगक्षेमं च वृत्तिं च नित्यमेव प्रकल्पयेत्॥ *Mbh*, XII, 86, 24.

c10.s1.6

The inclusion of the promotion of *dharma* among the aims of the state has given rise to a considerable misunderstanding in modern times, which has been to some extent caused by the habit of later writers of describing the king as the champion of *varṇas* and *āśramas*. It is contended¹ that *varṇadharma* or the caste-system in particular is based upon iniquitous principles; it exhalts the Brāhmaṇa and confers almost divine honours upon him, while it reduces the Śūdras and Chāṇḍālas almost to the position of slaves, denying them the most elementary rights of ordinary citizenship. The Śūdras were prevented from holding property and were subjected to more heavier punishments than those meted out to the Brāhamaṇas for identical offences. The Chāṇḍālas were treated worse than dogs. When the state became a champion of *varṇas* and *āśramas*, it became a party to all these iniquities. It enforced the iniquitous *varṇāśrma-dharma* at the point of the sword to the detriment of the lower classes. It was thus based upon social injustice. It confounded *dharma* with the existing iniquitous social order. It idealised the actual instead of trying to actualise the ideal.

c10.s1.7

¹ Anjaria, *The Nature and Ground of Political Obligation in Hindu State*, pp. 175-188.

c10.s1.8

The above criticism is mostly based upon a misunderstanding of the factors that have promoted the development of the Hindu social institutions. Customs and traditions changed in ancient India by the silent operation of social approval or disapproval and not by the noisy process of a legislative enactment or repeal. The state only enforced what had been previously approved by the social conscience. When society in early period was sanctioning intercaste dinners and marriages, the state had no objection to them. When later on it disapproved both these practices, the state did not propose to encourage them. In early days widows had no right of inheritance; the property of a person having no heir other than a widow escheated to the state. Later on society decided to recognise widow as an heir of her deceased husband, and though this change adversely affected the interest of the excheqor, the state cheerfully sanctioned it. The recognition of the promotion of *dharma* as one of the duties of the state did not result in the apotheosis of the *status quo*; every student of Hindu social institution will concede that changes were gradually and continously taking place in them. Levirate (*niyoga*), once approved, was later stamped out of existence; not only the proprietary rights of women, but also those of the Śūdras were being constantly enlarged in spite of the opposition of the earlier writers.

c10.s1.9

It would, therefore, be unfair to attribute the existence of certain iniquities in the Hindu social order to *dharma* being considered as one of the aims of the Hindu state. The state no doubt claimed to be the champion of *varṇadharma*, but it did not support the Brāhmaṇas’ claim to their exemption from the taxation and the capital punishment. It is extremely doubtful whether many cases had occurred in ancient India of the state punishing the Śūdras and Brāhmaṇa women for presuming to study the Vedas. The prohibition was regarded by the society, including the Śūdras, as divinely ordained, and as there was no material benefit whatsoever to be gained by its violation, there was no incentive to break it. The number of Brāhmaṇas themselves, who studied the Vedas, was microscopically small and provision was made to meet the needs of the religiously minded persons among the Śūdras and Brāhmaṇa women by throwing open the epics, the *Gītā* and the Purāṇas to them.

c10.s1.10

There is no doubt that some iniquities existed in the Hindu social order and their number increased in the first millennium of the Christian era. But that was due to the narrowmindedness of the Hindu society of that age and not to the state’s making *dharma* as one of its aims. Of course it can be argued that the state should have given a lead in the matter by encouraging a more liberal policy. We should, however, not forget that legislation did not come within the normal activities of the state. Recent experience in our country about the Sharda Act also shows that legislation, far in advance of the social views on the point, tends to remain dead letter. The state was not interested in enforcing caste iniquities; if any cases actually arose, they must have been decided by the caste or the village Panchāyats, which were purely non-official bodies. The state sought to encourage *dharma* by promoting piety and religiousness, by extending equal patronage to all sects and religions and their establishments and by financing works of public utility like tanks, canals, wells, poor houses and hospitals, and not by becoming an instrument in the hands of the church or the priests.

Linked texts (3)