Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c10.s2: Was the Ancient Indian State Theocratic?

State and Government in Ancient India c10.s2

Language
English

Was the Ancient Indian State Theocratic?

c10.s2.1

It would be convenient here to examine how far the ancient Indian state was under the influence of theology and to what extent it can be described as theocratic. A theocracy may arise when a king usurps the functions of the Church, as was the case with the Khalifas, or when the head of the Church becomes the king as is the case with the Dalai Lama of Tibet and the Pope of the Vatican kingdom. Or, the king may be a mere agent or instrument of the church, as was the case for some time in Europe during the 8th and the 9th centuries A. D. The Pope and the bishops at this time claimed the right to punish the king, if he was not ruling according to the will of God. Some rulers like Charles the Bold admitted the right and even the duty of the prelates to suspend the execution of the orders of the state regarded as objectionable by them. Orders of the Pope were to be regarded as of greater moment and validity than those of the Emperor, as they had the authority over the soul as well. Of course, the majority of the emperors were not disposed to recognise this claim and the early medieval European history presents an interesting tussle between the Church and the State.

c10.s2.2

Faint echoes of a similar conflict between the king and the church can be heard in the early Indian literature. *Gautama-Dharmasūtra* (*c.* 500 B. C.) claims that the royal authority does not touch the priest¹ and reminds the king that he can prosper only if supported by the latter. If he does not employ a qualified Brāhmaṇa priest, says the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*,² gods will not at all accept his oblations. At the time of the coronation, the king three times bows before the Brāhmaṇa ; he thereby accepts his subordinate position, and as long as he does so, he will prosper.³ Priests like Vasishṭha exercised profound influence of the royal court. Rituals were also devised to ensure the subordination of the Kshatriyas and the Vaiśyas to the Brāhmaṇas.⁴ In the *Ṛigveda* there is a clear passage to show that a king, who honoured his chaplain properly, could secure an easy mastery over his subjects and a smashing defeat over his enemies.⁵ In Europe the Pope claimed the right to confirm the election of the emperor made by the nobles ; we do not know whether such a right was advanced in ancient India.

c10.s2.3

¹ राजा वै सर्वस्येष्टे ब्राह्मणवर्जम् । I. 11.

c10.s2.4

² न वै अपुरोहितस्य देवा बलिम्नुवन्ति । *A. Br.*, VII. 5, 24.

c10.s2.5

³ स (नृपः) यन्नमो ब्रह्मणे इति……त्रिष्कृत्वो ब्रह्मणे नमस्करोति ब्रह्मण एव तत्क्षत्रं वशमेति तद्राष्ट्रं समृद्धं तद्वीरवदाह । *A. Br.* VI II. 1.

c10.s2.6

⁴ तद्यत्र वै ब्रह्मणः क्षत्रं वशमेति तद्राष्ट्रं समृद्धं तद्वीरवदाह । *A. Br.* VIII. 9 ब्रह्मणे क्षत्रं च विशं चानुगे करोति *P. Br.* XI, 11, 1.

c10.s2.7

⁵ तस्मिन्विशः स्वयमेवानमन्त यस्मिन्ब्रह्मा राजनि पूर्वमेति । स इद्राजा प्रतिजन्यानि विश्वा शुष्मेण तस्थौ अभि वीर्येण । *R.V.* IV, 50-7-9

c10.s2.8

The above evidence shows that down to the end of the Brāhmaṇa period (*c.* 1000 B. C.) the priests tried to extend their sway over the monarch and through him over the state. It is natural that many kings, should have opposed this tendency ; the bitter curses that are pronounced against the rulers who confiscate the cows, *i.e.* the wealth of the Brāhmaṇa⁶, seem to be directed against those monarchs who were opposing the efforts of the priests to forge a theocratic state, where their voice was to reign supreme. Unfortunately we have no detailed information about any specific and individual cases, as we have in the case of early medieval Europe.

c10.s2.9

⁶ *A. V.*, XII, 5; XIII. 3. 1-25.

c10.s2.10

In the course of time, however, the church and the state or the Brāhmaṇas and the Kshatriyas made up their quarrel. It was realised that the two could prosper only if they cooperated with each other. Each conceded a qualified divinity to the other, as both realised that they could prosper only if there was a complete harmony between them. It is interesting to note that this view agrees closely with that of Gregory VII, who maintained that the kingship and the Popedom were both divine, their position being comparable to that of the two eyes of the human body.

c10.s2.11

The general trend of the evidence of the Brahmanical literature is to show that the prince or the state was under the leading strings of the Brāhmaṇas or the church. The royal chaplain (*purohita*) knew rituals which could either promote or retard the welfare of the king and the state. The aim of the government, as shown already, was to promote *dharma*, and the laws which it enforced were regarded as divine in origin or inspiration. *Varṇāśramadharma*, which the state had to enforce, was largely moulded by the priests, who were the writers of the books on the subject. They not only claimed to be above the state, but they also put forth the right for exemption from taxation and capital punishment. The punishments that could be given to them were to be milder than those to be inflicted upon others. The appointment of the *dharmamahāmātras* by the Mauryas and the *vinayasthitisthāpakas* by the Guptas to regulate religious practices and moral conduct of the population would be a natural corollary of the swing towards theocracy.

c10.s2.12

There is, therefore, a considerable force in the view that the ancient Indian state was theocratic to a great extent. We should, however, note the limits to the theocracy and the period during which it was operative. The claims that have been put forth on behalf of the Brāhmaṇas in the Brahamanical literature are to a great extent exaggerated. They represent the wish more than the reality. There is no doubt that the influence of the royal chaplain over the king was great during the age of the Vedas and the Brāhmaṇas. Its extent, however, should not be judged merely by the implications of the passages referred to above. For there are other passages in the Brāhamaṇa literature itself, which give the other side of the picture. A passage in the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa* confesses that a king, at his sweet will, can lord it over the Brāhmaṇas.¹ Another in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* admits that a king can expel the Brāhmaṇas at will². The *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad* states that it is the Kshatriya or the king who enjoys the highest status in society ; the Brāhmaṇa sits lower than and next to him³ When princess Śarmishṭhā suspected that Devāyanī, the daughter of the royal chaplain, was assuming an air of superiority, she sharply reprimanded her:— 'Enough of presumptuousness. Sitting in a humbler place your father goes on flattering my father day and night. You are the daughter of him who begs and flatters, I am the daughter of him who donates and is praised.⁴

c10.s2.13

¹ यदा वै राजा कामयते अथ ब्राह्मणं जिनाति । III. 9. 14.

c10.s2.14

² (ब्राह्मणः) आदायी आप्यायी अवसायी यथाकामं प्रयाप्यः । VII. 29.

c10.s2.15

³ तस्मात्क्षत्रात्परं नास्ति तस्माद्ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियमधस्तादुपास्ते । I. 4. 10.

c10.s2.16

⁴ आसीनं च शयानं च पिता ते पितरं मम । स्तौति बन्दीव चाभीक्ष्णं नीचैः स्थित्वा विनीतवत् ।। यांचतस्त्वं हि दुहिता स्तुवतः प्रतिगृह्णतः । सुताहं स्तूयमानस्य ददतोऽप्रतिगृह्णतः ।। *Mbh.* I. 72. 9-10.

c10.s2.17

It would, therefore, be wrong to suppose that even in the Vedic period, the king or the state was under the leading strings of the Brāhmaṇa or the Church. Generally speaking the priest was treated with decorum ; the spiritual help offered by his rituals and sacrifices was welcome. But the king was far from becoming a mere instrument in the hands of the priest ; he could show him his proper place or even expel him, if he tended to become presumptuous. Brāhmaṇas no doubt claimed a number of privileges including exemption from the taxation and the capital punishment, but it will be shown in Chap. XIII how they existed more in their law books than in actual practice. In the course of time, the divinity of the king was recognised as will be shown in Chap. V. This, however, did not make the king infallible or even the sole interpreter of the divine will. Laws, though regarded as divine, were really based upon social customs and traditions. By sanctioning their operation, the state did not become an instrument in the hands of the Church or the priests ; it rather became the mouthpiece of the social will.

c10.s2.18

From about the 4th century B. C. the influence of theology on the state began to decline further. The Vedic sacrifices themselves fell into disgrace and disuse, which naturally undermined the influence of the chaplain . Politics developed into a special science and princes naturally studied it assiduously in preference to the Vedic lore or the Upanishadic philosophy. Positive law began to be differentiated from religious rituals and traditional customs ; and the school of politics began to aver that the former was more important than the latter.¹ Hindu polity thus succeeded in emancipating itself from the leading strings of theology by the beginning of the Christian era. The king was no doubt regarded as the protector and enforcer of Dharma, but we have shown already how this did not make the state theocratic. His duty was to promote piety and religiousness by extending equal patronage to all sects and religions and to enforce customary laws approved by the social conscience ; he discharged this function through officers like the *dharmamahāmātras* and the *vinayasthitisthāpakas*. He was not to be an agent of a particular religion or sect working to promote its interests or seeking to carry out its commands. The crusade of a Hindu state against Bauddhism or Jainism is rarely met with in ancient Indian history.

c10.s2.19

¹ धर्मश्च व्यवहारश्च चरित्रं राजशासनम् । विवादार्थश्चतुष्पादः पश्चिमः पूर्वबाधकः ॥ *Arthaśāstra* III. 1. धर्मशास्त्रविरोधे तु युक्तियुक्तो विधिः स्मृतः । व्यवहारो हि बलवान्धर्मस्तेनावहीयते ॥ *Nārada* I. 41.

Linked texts (10)