Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c6.s1: Sec. ii. Origin of State and Society

Hindu Administrative Institutions c6.s1

Language
English

Sec. ii. Origin of State and Society

c6.s1.1

So far the discussion has been about the nature and scope of *daṇḍa nīti*. As to its origin, our one source of information is tradition as embodied in ancient literary works. Here both the divine and human origins of the state and society find mention in a form apparently historical. More and fuller details as to the origin of the state are given in the *Mahābhārata*. Bhīṣma says to Yudhiṣṭhira: ‘Listen how the state came into being at first in the Kṛta Yuga. Then, there was no kingdom or king, *daṇḍa* or *dāṇḍika*. It was a state of nature when all people without exception pursued the path of *dharma* and conducted themselves towards one another in an absolutely righteous manner; but in course of time poverty and delusion possessed the minds of the people and this led to embarrassment and affliction of all kinds: Covetousness (*lopa*), lust (*kāma*) and desire (*rāga*) preponderated in the minds of the people. In such a state there was no distinction between right and wrong, between what is moral and the opposite. People yielded to all sorts of unhealthy feelings, spoke what should not be spoken, ate all kinds of food prescribed or prohibited. It appeared that King Dharma was completely dethroned. Devas became subjected to fear and appealed to Brahma for help and grace. The creator composed a science for the social advancement and well-being of the world in a hundred thousand chapters.¹ It included not only the science of *daṇḍa nīti* but also the *trayī*, *ānvīkṣikī* and *vārttā*. It further dealt with the *trivarga*, namely, *dharma*, *artha* and *kāma*; and *ṣaḍvarga*, namely *ātma* (a clear and free mind), *deśa* (country capable of being turned into a good one), *kāla* (time well used), *upāyas* (means), *kṛtyam* (good deeds resulting in profit) and *sahāya* (allies).²

c6.s1.2

¹ Cf. Manu, vii. 14 ; Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra, chap. vi.

c6.s1.3

² Rāja Dharma, chap. lviii. 1-33.

c6.s1.4

Bhīṣma continues: ‘Śankara, otherwise known as Śiva or Viśālākṣa, condensed this *Nītiśāstra* into ten thousand chapters. Indra who learnt this from Mahā-dēva further summarized it into five thousand chapters. This is well-known as *Bahudantaka*. Bṛhaspati made it into three thousand chapters, while Śukrāchārya further condensed it into a thousand.¹ From the extant *Vaiśampāyananīti* (apparently a later work) it is clear that the process of condensation went on for a long time. Bharadvāja summarized this science into seven hundred chapters and Gaurīśiras and Vyāsa into five hundred and three hundred chapters respectively. It would be legitimate to inquire why this process of condensation went on continuously. The answer is furnished by the authors of the *Śukranīti* and the *Vaiśampāyananīti*. They advance the argument that, as the tenure of life of the people was growing shorter as ages passed by, the political theorists of the various periods felt the need of a book which could be mastered in the short span of life available.²

c6.s1.5

¹ *Rāja Dharma*, chap. lviii. 82-92.

c6.s1.6

² *Śukra*, i, ii, iv; *Nīti Prakāśa*, i, vs. 21-25.

c6.s1.7

Tradition as to the human origin of the science of *daṇḍa nīti* is not wanting. In the same book of the *Mahābhārata*³ the authorship of the science is attributed to eight sages. After composing the said science the sages placed it before God Nārāyaṇa for approval. The God was exceedingly pleased with that great and useful work, and remarked that this original work of the sages would last down to the period of King Uparichara and vanish at his death. It would further be a guide to Svāyambhuva Manu who will promulgate the principles of *dharma* to the world at large, and it would also prove a fruitful source of information for the treatises of Bṛhaspati and Sukra.

c6.s1.8

³ Chap. cccxxxv; see *Carmichael Lectures*, 1918, p. 93.

c6.s1.9

Whatever was the origin, human or divine, the fact was that there was a science extant in the world, *daṇḍa nīti*. The object of the science was to make the world happy and prosperous. This could not be effected by the science itself. It required an authority to enforce its practical application. Towards this end the institution of kingship came into being. Here again there are two traditional schools of thought, one describing the origin of kingship as divine and the other human. In the *Mahābhārata* Bhīṣma recounts how kingship was instituted. When the world was in a state of nature (in the sense in which Hobbes uses the term) and when people suffered untold misery arising from a state of anarchy, the Devas approached Viṣṇu and requested him to appoint the best leader of men. Then from His Mind sprang Virājasa. But he did not wish for the overlordship of the earth. His son Kīrtimān and his son Kardama were of the same temperament. But Anaṅga, son of Kardama, ruled the people according to *daṇḍa nīti*. So also his son Atibala. But his son Vena conducted himself badly by taking to unrighteous ways. The sages had him killed by the use of a charm (*mantra*). Out of his right thigh sprang Niṣādas (hill-tribes) and Mlechchas. Out of his right hand came Vainya, accoutred in military attire and versed in *daṇḍa nīti*. He satisfied the sages by promising to rule according to the laws of *dharma*, and to render even-handed justice by looking upon friend and foe alike. On this the sages vested him with the office of kingship and appointed Śukrāchārya his *Purohita* while the Vālakhilya sages and Sārasvata *Gaṇas* became his ministers. Gārga was appointed astrologer, Sūta and Māgadha entered into their respective duties, and Vainya's government was an ideal government. Wealth and treasure flowed from the mines of the land and the ocean as well as from mountains. Under his rule the whole earth was tilled and cultivated with seventeen kinds of grain. He first got the name *rāja* by giving his subjects the greatest amount of happiness. He got the name *Kṣatriya* for having freed the peoples from all their troubles. Under him again the earth became *pṛthivi* for the king's name was Pṛthu. Even Lord Viṣṇu was pleased with his great acts and deeds and entered his body. From that time forward Pṛthu became infused with divinity.¹

c6.s1.10

¹ *Śānti Parva*, lviii. 95-153; *Nīti Prakāśa*, chap. i. 26 ff.

c6.s1.11

In the *Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra* of Bhoja the account of the origin of kingship resembles that of other *nīti* texts in regarding Pṛthu as the first king. Here he is described as possessing prowess like Indra and the Lokapālas, and the strength and valour of the lion, the king of the beasts. While consecrating him, the Creator addressed the people: ‘ Pṛthu is the overlord of you all. He will afford protection to the good and punish the evil-minded. He will be a *nṛpa* by ridding you of all your fears. He will render even-handed justice and carry on an efficient administration so as to preserve the well-being of *varṇas* (castes) and *āśramas* (stages of life).’ On this the people addressed the king: ‘O lord of the earth, shelter us from the sea of troubles in which we are struggling hard.’ Pṛthu replied: ‘Do not entertain any apprehension. I shall free you from all your difficulties. I shall establish the *svadharma*, *varṇadharma* and *āśramadharma*, and enforce them with the rod of punishment. I shall establish hamlets, villages, townships and cities, and make the earth yield plenty. In this manner I shall endeavour to increase your happiness and prosperity to the utmost.'¹

c6.s1.12

¹ Chap. vii.

c6.s1.13

There is vast testimony to the fact of the human origin of the institution of kingship. The *Kauṭalīya* says:

c6.s1.14

मात्स्यन्यायभिभूताः प्रजाः मनुं वैवस्वतं राजानं चक्रिरे ।

c6.s1.15

Under the storm and stress of anarchy the people elected Manu as their king. In this passage Kauṭalya lends the weight of his authority to the human origin of the state. The word ‘प्रजाः’ distinctly emphasizes the human origin of kingship. The state of nature became so depressing that the people had Manu, son of Vivasvān, appointed as king. The terms on which the office was conferred on him are also given. The people agreed to pay one-sixth of the grains in kind, one-tenth of other articles of merchandise, besides a portion of the gold in their possession. Such wages to the king were in return for his guaranteeing to the people their *yogakshema* or social welfare. Towards this end the king enforced order and obedience by varied forms of punishment and by means of levy of several fees. In return for the king's protection even hermits in the forest had to give one-sixth of their forest-produce to him. The king was the visible awarder of punishment as well as favours, and hence he occupied a position only equal to that of Indra, the lord of heaven, and Yama, the lord of justice. To disregard him was to incur punishment. On this account it was ruled that kings ought not to be disrespected.²

c6.s1.16

² Bk. I, chap. xiii.

c6.s1.17

The *Śānti Parvan* of the *Mahābhārata* has also reference to the story how Manu became the first overlord of the earth. Here we meet with the peculiar doctrine of *samaya* or contract. When anarchy showed its abhorred head, people felt the need for peace. Hence they entered into a compact among themselves to the effect that the boaster (वाक्शूरः), the cruel man, the violator of women's chastity, and of agreements in general, should be banished from the land so as to create ease and confidence among all the communities. But still the arrangement was not fruitful. They appealed to Brahma who in his turn appointed Manu, the best among men, to rule as well as reign. Manu realized to the full the responsibilities of overlordship and expressed his unwillingness to rule over a people addicted to untruth and all other sins. On this the people agreed to give one cow for every fifty cows sold or bought, one-fiftieth of gold, and one-tenth of grains, besides an accomplished maiden in marriage and a number of armed men to follow him. In return they asked for peace and protection. Manu accepted the office and set out for conquest. People took to *svadharma* and the social welfare of the world was accomplished.¹

c6.s1.18

¹ *Rāja Dharma*, chap. lxvi. 18-30. There are then two schools with different traditions, one describing Manu as the first king, and the other Pṛthu as the first king. At first sight it would appear that the two accounts are contradictory. Both of them agree in the theory of an original state of nature when the laws of nature were highly respected and adhered to. The original state of nature became in course of time transformed into the Hobbesian state when on appeal the Creator appointed Pṛthu to rule over the earth for the preservation of social *sthiti* (well being) according to *Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra* and other texts. After the lapse, perhaps, of several centuries commencing with Pṛthu, there again set in a state of anarchy, another form of the state of nature when the practice of *mātsyanyāya* held sway in the realm of mankind. It was so

c6.s1.19

It is worthy of remark that these ideas of election and contract are quite in keeping with the Buddhistic theory of the origin of kingship. In the *Digha Nikāya* mention is made of the concept of the state of nature when kingship was instituted on the basis of contract.¹ The king is known as a Mahāsammata and a Khattiya. The state of nature represents here a stage of pre-political society in which the institutions of family and property are recognized though the enjoyments thereof are uncertain. It was a social state in which there was no fixed standard, nor a political authority which could prevent the violation of the rights pertaining to property and family. Towards this end a Mahāsammata was appointed whose duty it was to enforce the already existing rights and thus be a ‘protector of the fields’. ² It would then appear that both the Brahmanic and Buddhist texts agree as to the existence of the social state in the first instance, and the election of a king on the basis of contract in the second. To use modern political phraseology, the agreement with Pṛthu was a sort of political or social contract which is reckoned as the origin of civil society. That which Kauṭalya refers to is possibly a governmental contract as it deals with certain definite agreements between the ruler and the ruled. It may also be noted in passing that this contractual theory of a governmental compact was not a figment of Kauṭalya’s imagination, but a theory already existing. This is evident from the Kauṭalīya itself.³

c6.s1.20

¹ Aggañña Suttanta, vol. iii. p. 93.

c6.s1.21

² Rockhill, Life of Buddha, pp. 1-7.

c6.s1.22

³ Bk. I, sec. xiii.

c6.s1.23

distressing that people elected from among themselves the best, namely Vaivasvata Manu as their overlord by entering into a contract with him. In this way both the traditional accounts can be easily and satisfactorily reconciled. That Pṛthu was an earlier king than Vaivasvata Manu is evident from the fact that while there is reference to Pṛthu in the Vedic literature as the first of the consecrated monarches: (Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda Tait. Brāhmaṇa, i. 7. 7. 4.) there is no such reference to Vaivasvata Manu.

Linked texts (9)