Hindu Administrative Institutions c6.s2.22

c6.s2.22

Jayaswal’s interpretation of the term *arājaka* seems unacceptable and we are inclined to take it, on the explicit authority of the *Rāmāyaṇa*, that the ‘*arājaka*’ state meant a state in *mātsya nyāya* or anarchy. Rather the *mātsya nyāya* was one form of ‘*arājaka*’ which inspired people with fear of its consequences. Peculiar doctrines have been prevalent in every kind of constitution, and in the *arājaka* state the ‘doctrine of fish’ alone gained more currency than any other. Undoubtedly then both ‘*arājaka*’ and *mātsya nyāya* theories point to anarchical forms of the state. A close study of the various texts gives indication of the fact of the historical or evolutionary development of the state government. To use modern political terms, the original state was one of democracy of the ideal type. This led directly or indirectly to a stage of anarchy, confusion, and blood-shed. Consequently the purest democratic form was deemed ill-adapted as a working principle and gradually given up. Soon definite laws were established and kingship was made a living institution, and this king was not an absolute uncontrolled autocrat, but he was what we understand to-day by the term a constitutional monarch.