Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c5.s1.36

c5.s1.36

The reaction of these theories was bound to be far-reaching on Hindu political thought. Hindu religious ideas began to predominate in both the State and the Church, in fact the State began to represent only an agency to enforce a part of the religious ordinances. To every part of the State religion assigned its proper function, to transgress which was not only a crime against the State but also a sin against the Divine Being. According to this conception of the State, the king was held to rule by divine right and to be in a sense a God himself, being only tied to the advice of a Brahman. Provisions were made to secure a sort of benevolent and paternal monarch, without, however, any right of rebellion on the part of the subjects if he turned out otherwise. The appeal was limited to his conscience, and if he violated the *Dharma*, consolation, if any, could be drawn from the belief that the outraged law would avenge itself on a tyrant in a second and inevitable birth.² The Hindu monarchs who arose, especially during our period when the possible check of Brahman hierarchy had ceased to operate, approximated to the Muslim ideal of a Sultan.³ In one prominent instance, when Maharaja Sanga was once wounded and disfigured in a battle against the Lodi Sultan Ibrahim, he hesitated to mount the throne, as it was an ‘ancient and well-established rule in India that when an idol was injured and a part of it knocked off, it ceased to be a fit object of worship and another was installed in its place. Similarly, the royal throne being a place of worship for the people, its occupant should also be a person who is entire and who is able to render full service to the State’.¹ This is not the proper place to discuss the merits of the theory of divine monarchy, but one observation may be made to explain the political situation on the eve of Muslim conquest. When a king aspires to the position of a divine being, he deprives himself of the privilege of suffering misfortunes and miseries like other human mortals, while maintaining his position in spite of them. He rules only so long as he succeeds ; one little disaster, one chance defeat, and the whole fabric of the State breaks down. Under such a scheme of government, the masses of people, already living in intellectual isolation, become ever more indifferent to the fortunes of their monarch and the political destiny of their kingdom. It may be questioned under these circumstances if a feeling of patriotism ever extends to the people as a whole outside the ruling classes.² The political situation in India was still more aggravated by the inborn incapacity of the Rajputs to form a strong and united government, and consequently their willing or unwilling assent to the existence of the supremacy of an outside power.³