Hindu Administrative Institutions c6.s2.28

c6.s2.28

This was, in short, protection of life and property of the citizens by the state. In return for this function by the state people paid taxes and revenue. The state in ancient India according to the available sources of information, can be said to have rested on an individualistic basis, individualistic in the sense that the individual strove for the attainment of his ultimate aim, namely, the salvation of his soul. Society, as conceived by the ancient Hindus, existed for the promotion of this aim of the individual, and the individual did not exist for the society as was the case in the early History of Greece. Maine says, ‘ Society in primitive times was not what it is assumed to be at present, a collection of individuals. In fact and in the view of the men who composed it, it was an aggregation of families. The contrasts may be most forcibly expressed by saying that the unit of an ancient society was the family, of a modern society, the individual.’¹ Society thus realized pales into insignificance before the state. State-control of social organization is to-day rapidly dethroning society as a separate entity, the latter being slowly but surely merged in the more powerful organization of the state. This conception was foreign to the genius of the Hindus. The ancient Hindus evolved distinct organizations of their own, both political and social, each functioning in its limited sphere of action. In this structure of society the individual was a member of the group, and was in the group. As a member he was to partake of the nature and the character of the group whatever it be; and by virtue of his position in the group he was guided by the policy of common will and common interest. He was free to express his own ideas on the question or questions engaging the serious consideration of that group, but he must subordinate his opinion to the common opinion. It was what is called the ‘sacrifice’ of the individual to the state. This group-feeling is the chief support for the power of the state, says Bertrand Russel¹ and makes the further remark, ‘almost every man finds it essential to his happiness to feel himself a member of a group, animated by common friendship and enmities, and banded together for defensive attack.’