Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c7: Chapter IV

Public Administration in Ancient India c7

Language
English

Chapter IV

c7.1

PHILOSOPHERS in all ages and of all countries have loved to speculate on the origin of the State, and it would be a matter for surprise if we were told that the Āryan sages of India did not exercise their imagination on so inviting a subject. As a matter of fact, however, we know that Indian philosophers did devote some attention to this matter, and that although their speculations were not elaborated with the same minuteness of detail as those of some of the European theorists, they would not perhaps be entirely devoid of interest to the student of political philosophy.

c7.2

The origin of the State has been thus described in the Mahābhārata :

c7.3

In the early years of the Krita Yuga, there was no sovereignty, no king, no government, no ruler. All men used to protect one another righteously. After some time, however, they found the task of righteously protecting each other painful. Error began to assail their hearts. Having become subject

c7.4

to error, the perceptions of men became clouded, and, as a consequence, their virtues began to decline. Love of acquisition got hold of them, and they became covetous. When they had become subject to covetousness, another passion, namely wrath, soon possessed their minds. Once subject to wrath, they lost all consideration of what ought to be done and what should be avoided. Thus, unrestrained license set in. Men began to do what they liked and to utter what they chose. All distinctions between virtue and vice came to an end. When such confusion possessed the souls of men, the knowledge of the Supreme Being disappeared, and with the disappearance of the highest knowledge, righteousness was utterly lost. The gods were then overcome with grief and fear, and approached Brahmā for protection and advice. Brahmā then created by a fiat of his will a son named Virajas. This son, born of the energy of Brahmā, was made the ruler of the world.¹

c7.5

¹ Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva (Rājadharma P.), Sec. 59.

c7.6

This imaginary picture of the ante-political condition of man and of the circumstances which necessitated a State organisation, appears to us as specially interesting when we remember that similar pictures have also been drawn by European thinkers of a later age.² Besides, this description of the birth of the State, fanciful as it is, embodies the belief which many people had, and still have, in the divine origin of the State. The State, according to this theory, is neither a voluntary association of men nor the natural result of the workings of human instinct and reason, but is a thing imposed upon human beings for their general good by a power superior to their own. It is “the immediate work of God.” Manu is another exponent of the belief in the divine origin of the State. He says, “When these creatures, being without a King, through fear dispersed in all directions, the Lord created a King for the protection of the whole creation.”¹ But the view of the less

c7.7

² Cf. Milton's view as expressed in his Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, where he says that all men were born free, that wrong sprang up through Adam's sin, and that to avert their own complete destruction, men agreed

c7.8

¹ Manu, Ch. VII. sl. 3.

c7.9

“by common league to bind each other from mutual injury and jointly to defend themselves against any that gave disturbance to such agreement.” Cf. also Locke, who regards the state of nature as “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature.” Two Treatises of Government, Bk. II. ch. 2.

c7.10

In the opinion of Hobbes, “The Finall Cause, End, or Designe of men (who naturally love Liberty and Dominion over others), in the introduction of the restraint upon themselves (in which we see them live in Commonwealths), is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent to the naturall Passions of men, when there is no visible Power to keep them in awe, and tye them by feare of punishment to the performance of their covenants, and observation of those Laws of Nature . . .” Leviathan, Ch. XVII.

c7.11

The circumstances which impelled individuals to organise themselves into the State are thus described by Rousseau: “I assume that men have reached a point at which the obstacles that endanger their preservation in the state of nature overcome by their resistance the forces which the individuals can cast with a view to maintaining himself in that state. Then this primitive condition can no longer subsist, and the human race would perish unless it changed its mode of existence.” Social Contract, Bk. I. ch. 6.

c7.12

spiritually-minded, but more practical, Chānakya is different. He is a believer in the human creation of the State. “When the weak,” says he, “began to be oppressed by the strong, the people made Vaivasvata Manu their King, and fixed one-sixth of the produce of the soil and one-tenth of merchandise as his remuneration.”¹ Chānakya adds: “In the absence of a government people behave like fish, the strong devouring the weak, but protected by a government, they flourish.”²

c7.13

¹ “Matsyanyāyābhibūtāḥ prajā Manum Vaivasvataṃ rājānaṃ cakrire.” Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 13. The Vāyu Purāṇa, on the other hand, says, “After the Manvantara, (Brahmā), with the concurrence of the Gods, bestowed the Kingship of the world on the great Vaivasvata.” Ch. XXIII. sl. 1.

c7.14

² This view is favoured in the Buddhist religious books. Vide the story in the Tibetan Dulva about the origin of the Kingship.

c7.15

Divergent as are the views of the two schools in some of the most essential particulars, there are two points on which they agree. Both schools hold (i) that the State had its origin in necessity, and (ii) that the object of its establishment was the common weal.³

c7.16

³ Cf. Aristotle’s famous lines: “If all communities aim at some good, the State or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims, and, in a greater degree than any other, at the highest good.” Politics, Bk. I.

c7.17

Speculation, however, is not of much help to us in ascertaining the origin of the State. Neither does our present knowledge of history assist us in any considerable degree in this matter. Perhaps the ultimate origin of the State in India, as elsewhere, is to be found in human nature. History, although unable to trace the origin of the State, gives us considerable aid in following its development. It tells us that men lived in India, as in most other countries, in some form or other of organised society from very early times. We know as yet very little of the condition of the pre-Aryan races of India, but the little knowledge that we do possess enables us to assert that some at least of these early inhabitants not only lived an organised political life, but even developed a fairly efficient system of public administration. It was, however, at the hands of the Aryans that the Indian State seems to have received its full development. The primitive Aryan State was perhaps based upon the family. It is probable that the family in the process of evolution grew into the clan, the clan expanded into the tribe, and finally, the tribe was absorbed in the State. The head of the family became the chief of the clan, then the leader of the tribe, and ultimately the ruler of the State. Although, however, the beginnings of the Indian State were connected with the family, the clan, and the tribe, the purely political idea gradually became more and more clear and dominant, with the result that in the course of time the State outgrew its original limitations, and became national. We do not know for certain at what period of time the patriarchal and tribal stages were passed in India, but the opinion may be hazarded that the national State had become firmly established in most parts of India many centuries before the commencement of the Buddhist period.

c7.18

We now pass on to a consideration of the nature of the State as it existed in the Hindu period of Indian history. This may be considered under five heads, namely, (1) the character of the State as an institution, (2) the sphere of State-action, (3) the extent of the power of the State, (4) the differentiation of functions in the State organisation, and (5) the rights of individuals in the State.

c7.19

In many ancient countries the State, in the earlier stages of its development, was theocratic; but in India, although the social organisation contained within its bosom the Brahmanic theocracy and was to a large extent dominated by it, the State itself never became a theocracy in the proper sense of the term. This becomes evident when we consider a few broad facts. First, the ruler was never regarded as the head of religion. Secondly, the primary object of the State was not spiritual salvation, but social well-being. Thirdly, law, mingled as it was with religion and morality, was the chief source of the authority of the State. And lastly, the political status of individuals was independent of their religious beliefs and convictions.

c7.20

The sphere of State-action was in the earliest period very limited. The State was then, in fact, what political scientists term a ‘Police-State.’ Security against foreign invasions and the maintenance of internal order summed up the activities of the State. The first step towards a higher type seems to have been taken when the State assumed the administration of justice. And as society became more complex with the progress of civilisation the sphere of State-activity tended gradually to extend, until about the sixth or fifth century A.D. it embraced almost the entire life of the people. Under the Emperor Asoka the State closely approximated to the highest type of a Culture-State, its aim being to secure the maximum well-being of the people in every department of life.

c7.21

During the period of the extension of the sphere of State-activity, the power of the State also tended to grow, but State-sovereignty in India never became quite absolute. The conception of political sovereignty as "independent, indivisible, perpetual, inalienable power" was never developed here to the same extent as in Ancient Greece or in Modern Europe.

c7.22

As for the differentiation of functions, we find that during the earlier stages of political growth, the same persons exercised various powers. But with the growth of the sphere of State-action and the increase of the authority of the State, it was found necessary to separate the different kinds of functions; and, as time went on, this separation was carried further and further, until in the fully-developed State it was as complete as it reasonably could be.

c7.23

The great drawback of the State in Ancient India was that the rights of man as man were not fully recognised. Individuals had rights and duties not as component parts of the body politic but as members of estates or classes in society; and consequently, as we have already seen in a previous chapter, the rights and obligations varied according to the class to which the individuals belonged.

Linked texts (3)