Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c7.s2.t2: The Theory of Contract

Hindu Administrative Institutions c7.s2.t2

Language
English

The Theory of Contract

c7.s2.t2.1

Another theory of the origin of the institution of monarchy is the individualistic theory which prevailed in the West in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is well known as the theory of contract. According to it the relationship between the ruler and the ruled was contractual. Such contractual relations find unmistakable expression in the Buddhist canon. From here is traced the origin of human kingship, with its notion of agreement as the basis of the political order.

c7.s2.t2.2

In this connection we cannot refrain from referring to the oft-quoted passage in the *Dīgha Nikāya*.¹ At first there was the original state of nature when everything was perfect and people lived in comfort. When decline began in the perfect state of innocence in nature, people assembled together to elect a king—a powerful individual from among them. He was called the Great Elect (*Mahāsammata*). A somewhat similar conception is seen in the *Mahāvastu Avadāna*.² These ideas correspond roughly to our modern conception of social contract. The idea of taxation and protection is involved here. Ghosal says that the Buddhist theory of contract virtually exists as an isolated phenomenon in the history of Hindu political thought.³ We quote Jayaswal in reply. ‘This theory of contractual monarchy found support in Vedic hymns and songs of royal election, in rituals of royal consecration which were based on elective principles, and in the coronation oath which made the king swear that he would rule according to law.'¹

c7.s2.t2.3

¹ *Aggañña Suttanta*, vol. iii, p. 93, P. T. S. Edition.

c7.s2.t2.4

² Senart’s Ed., vol. i, pp. 247-48.

c7.s2.t2.5

³ *Vide Hindu Political Theories*, pp. 118 and 119; the *Mahāvaṃśa*, chap. ii, pp. 10-11.

c7.s2.t2.6

¹ *Hindu Polity*, part ii, pp. 5-6.

c7.s2.t2.7

The notion then of taxation and protection underlying the Buddhist theory is not alien to Hindu literature. *Baudhāyana*² lays down that a king could claim one-sixth in the shape of tax and in return offer protection for the welfare of his subjects, and refers to the Brahmanical notion of the origin of kingship. The idea of compact is further seen from chapter lxvi of the *Śānti Parvan* and is postulated in the *Raghuvamśa*, i. 11 and 18. The *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭalya states thus:

c7.s2.t2.8

² 1. 10. 18. 1.

c7.s2.t2.9

इन्द्रयमस्थानमेतत् राजानः प्रत्यक्षहेतुप्रसादाः । तान् अवमन्यमानान् दैवोऽपि दण्डः स्पृशति तस्मान्राजानो नावमन्तव्याः । (i. 9.)

c7.s2.t2.10

This is commonly believed by scholars to explain the principle underlying the theory of divine origin. Kauṭalya no doubt invests the monarch with divine halo; his object clearly is not to ascribe a divine origin to the king but to describe his position in expressive terms.

c7.s2.t2.11

If any comparison could be made with the views of the modern writers on political theory, then the theory of Hindu writers approaches closely that of Hobbes whilst that of the Buddhist canon resembles the theory of Locke.

c7.s2.t2.12

Whatever may be the origin from which the institution of monarchy took its rise in ancient India, one fact is obvious: the elective principle plays an important part. Even where the character of monarchy is hereditary, the principle of election appears in one form or other. In the very ceremony of consecration we notice how the principle of election is an underlying factor. As a general rule monarchies were hereditary in India though the physical fitness of the succeeding monarch was an essential condition. Ancient India had two important lines of kings: the one of the solar race (सूर्यवंश) and the other of the lunar race (चंद्रवंश). The genealogy of these kings is found in all the Purāṇic texts which F. E. Pargiter has made an attempt to collate in his works *Ancient Indian Historical Tradition* and *Purāṇic Dynasties of the Kali Age*. Kālidāsa's *Raghuvamśa* shows how the principle of hereditary right was recognized and enforced. But still before the coronation, acquiescence of the *Prakṛti* (people) was a necessary factor of the utmost importance. That the notion of election is as old as the Vedic period is however clear. People assembled in what was known as the *samiti* to elect the king. There was to be no dissenting voice. The Vedic hymn of election is found in our oldest literature, the *Rig Veda Saṃhita*:

c7.s2.t2.13

आत्वाहार्यमंतरेधि ध्रुवस्तिष्ठाविचाचलिः ।
विशस्त्व सर्वा वांछंतु मा वद्राष्ट्रमधि भ्रशत् ॥ १ ॥
इहैवैधि मायच्योष्टाः पर्वत इव विचाचलिः ।
इंद्र इवेह ध्रुवस्तिष्ठेह राष्ट्रमुधारय ॥ २ ॥
. . . . .
ध्रुवं ध्रुवेण हविषाभिसोमं मृशामसि ।
अथोत इंद्रः केवलोर्विशो बलिहृतस्करत् ॥ ६ ॥ (x. 173.)

c7.s2.t2.14

More or less the same hymn occurs in the *Atharva Veda*.¹ According to the *Rig Veda Saṃhita*² the king was the sole taker of taxes and was offered a raised throne-seat. Jayaswal reads into this text an important interpretation, namely, that it signifies that the idea of state as an organism was realized even in Vedic days. The king's seat as the highest part in the body-politic is also seen in a text of the *Atharva Veda*.¹ From this

c7.s2.t2.15

¹ vi. 87-88, quoted in *Hindu Polity*, part. ii, p. 7.

c7.s2.t2.16

² x. 173. 6.

c7.s2.t2.17

¹ *Hindu Polity*, part ii, pp. 8-9.

c7.s2.t2.18

त्वां विशो वृणतां राज्याय त्वामिमाः प्रदिशः पञ्चदेव्यः ।
वर्ष्मन् राष्ट्रस्य ककुदि श्रयस्व ततो न उग्रो विभजा वसूनि । (iii. 4. 2.)

c7.s2.t2.19

Jayaswal thinks that there was the re-election of a *Rāja* who had been banished from the state for misconduct or other sufficient reason. Whatever it may be, election of a monarch was a settled idea and prevailed side by side with the hereditary notions of monarchy.

c7.s2.t2.20

In this connection is worth noting the acceptance and the possession by the king of an armlet called *maṇi* made of *palāśa* wood. According to the *Brāhmaṇas* these *maṇis* were presented by the ‘king-makers’, probably the higher officials of the state, namely, the ministers and the councillors. In the Buddhist work *Dīgha Nikāya*² there is an unmistakable reference to these *rājakartas* who belonged to the class of nobility. The jewel was also known by other names *parṇa*, *ratna*. Hence these king-makers went by the name *ratnins*. This was only a later introduction while in early Vedic times it was the custom for the king to receive this armlet from the folkmoot perhaps assembled on the great occasion of his election. Even workmen and artizans engaged in metallurgy and chariot-building had a right to take part in the proceedings of this popular assembly. On the receipt of this armlet from the folk assembled, the king made a speech in reply suitable to the occasion in which he invoked the assistance of all the people for successfully manning the ship of the state.¹ The term *viś* refers to this institution of folkmoot.² The re-election of exiled princes and the deposition of existing monarchs³ were rights enjoyed by the commonalty of the realm.

c7.s2.t2.21

² *Mahāgovinda Suttanta*, vol. ii, p. 233 : *rāja kattāro bhavantaṃ Reṇum rajje abhisin̄ceyyum*.

c7.s2.t2.22

¹ *Atharva Veda*, iii. 5. 6-7.

c7.s2.t2.23

² iii. 4. 6.

c7.s2.t2.24

³ *Atharva Veda*, vi. 8. 7.

c7.s2.t2.25

Historical instances of the deposition of ruling princes are not wanting. The useless and unworthy Vena was deposed and, what was more, executed. The deposition of Richard II was due to similar reasons but he did not meet the same fate as Vena.⁴

c7.s2.t2.26

⁴ *Śanti Parvan*, lviii. 103-10.

c7.s2.t2.27

Examples again corresponding to the glorious Revolution of 1688 are not unknown to Indian history. There are several cases in which the reigning king was expelled and a new dynasty was founded by the general will of the people. When king Nāgadāsaka pursued the path of *adharma* the anger of the people led not only to his deposition, but to the condemnation of the whole of his family as unfit to hold the reins of government. On this the Śiśunāga dynasty was established in B.C. 602.⁵ The same reason led to the dethronement of the royal family of the Nandas in Magadha and the founding of the Maurya dynasty by Kauṭalya and other responsible persons as could be gathered from the *Vāyu* and *Matsya Purāṇas*.⁶

c7.s2.t2.28

⁵ *Mahāvaṃśa*, chap. iv, p. 19.

c7.s2.t2.29

⁶ > ततः प्रभृति राजानो भविष्य्याः शूद्रयोनयः

c7.s2.t2.30

एकराट् स महापद्म एकच्छत्रो भविष्यति ।
. . . . .
सहस्रस्तत्सुता ह्यष्टौ समा द्वादश तेनृपाः ।
महापद्मस्य पर्याये भविष्यन्ति नृपाः क्रमात् ॥

c7.s2.t2.31

Another case of popular election¹ is that of Gopāla (c. 730-40) the son of a successful soldier who was asked by the people to accept the throne. Gopāla thus became the founder of the Pāla Empire of Bengal and Eastern India. This is what is meant by the following and other similar statements:

c7.s2.t2.32

¹ B. K. Sirkar, *Political Institutions*, p. 85.

c7.s2.t2.33

‘Thy opponents shall call thee. Thy friends have chosen thee.’²

c7.s2.t2.34

² *Atharva Veda*, iii. 3, 5.

c7.s2.t2.35

These demonstrate the fact that the office of the king was a creation of the people and the king held the throne conditionally, that is, under definite terms. Any violation of these agreed terms would lead to the banishment or deposition of the ruler. But this principle of election did not negative that of hereditary right. This was not interfered with except in extreme circumstances. The eldest son of king Nahuṣa turning an ascetic, his next brother Yayāti became the king. Dhṛtarāṣṭra being blind, Pāṇḍu his junior became the king. Bharata was installed the crown prince though Rāma was the eldest. Devāpi who suffered from skin disease was declared by the people as unfit to succeed as king, though his father the Kuru King Pratīpa wished for it. His second son Bāhlika having been adopted by maternal uncle, became also unfit to be the legal heir. Hence the third

c7.s2.t2.36

उद्धरिष्यति तान् सर्वान् कौटिल्यो वै द्विरष्टभिः ।
भुक्त्वा महीं वर्षशतं नन्देन्दुः स भविष्यति ॥
चन्द्रगुप्तं नृपं राज्ये कौटिल्यः स्थापयिष्यति ।
चतुर्विंशत्समा राजा चन्द्रगुप्तो भविष्यति ॥ (*Vāyu*, ch. 37. 321 ff.)

c7.s2.t2.37

*Bibliotheca Indica*, vol. ii, p. 449. Cf. *Matsya*, ch. cclxxi. 18, 22 (*Ānandaśrama* series, p. 553), *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*, Bk. xii, ch. i.

c7.s2.t2.38

and the last, Santanu was elected king by the people.¹ The rule was that by legal authority the younger brother had no right of succession when there was the elder.² But there were exceptions to this rule.³ From the foregoing accounts of Pratīpa and others we can safely conclude that kings were legally powerless in the matter of deciding their successors. They could, however, nominate one provided the nomination likely to be acceptable to the common will.

c7.s2.t2.39

¹ Mahābhārata, Udyoga Parvan, cxlix. 14-29.

c7.s2.t2.40

² इक्ष्वाकूणां हि सर्वेषां राजा भवति पूर्वजः । पूर्वेनावरः पुत्रो राज्येऽभिषिच्यते ॥ (Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 110. 34.)

c7.s2.t2.41

³ एवं ज्येष्ठोऽप्यथोत्सिक्तो न राज्येऽभिजायते । यत्रोयां सोपि जायन्ते राज्यं वृद्धोपसेवया ॥ (Udyoga Parvan, cxlix. 13.,

c7.s2.t2.42

Professor Hopkins holds that physical defects were no serious bar to succession to the throne. We cannot follow the learned scholar. Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s ruling the country for a short time after Pāṇḍu’s death, and Bharata’s being installed as the crown prince temporarily were inevitable, having been the result of causes beyond human control. As temporary measures people acquiesced in these arrangements. These would undoubtedly have met with vehement opposition from the public if these had been permanent measures.⁴

c7.s2.t2.43

⁴ J.A.O.S., vol. xiii, pp. 143 and 144; see Ancient Indian Polity, pp. 58-59.

c7.s2.t2.44

There is the other interesting question whether kings were elected for life or for a period of time. Kingship does not appear to have been limited in ancient India to any fixed period though such limitation was insisted on in other countries. Kingship was undoubtedly for life. But a king might abdicate the throne voluntarily.¹ Besides the theory of abdication in the *Kauṭalīya*, there is, in the *Mahāprasthānika Parvan* of the *Mahābhārata*, a practical instance of abdication where Yudhiṣṭhira abdicates in favour of Parīkṣit.² People did not at first consent to his abdication, but after much persuasion it commended itself to their approval. Then Yudhiṣṭhira, his brothers and Draupadī laid aside all royal ornaments and robes, and, dressing themselves in garments of fibre, started for the woods. Such abdications were usual in cases of extreme old age, or other physical disability, or because of a strong inclination for the performance of penance. Śīradhvaja Janaka, the father of Sītā and father-in-law of Rāma, went to the forest to do penance after relinquishing his throne. His is only one case among many who practised likewise. Otherwise there seem to have been no definite cases where the office of monarchy was fixed to any periodical limits.

c7.s2.t2.45

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. v. 6.

c7.s2.t2.46

² *Mbh.*, Bk. xvii, ch. 1.

c7.s2.t2.47

But periodical interregnums seem to have been a feature of our ancient Indian governments. Kauṭalya says³ let a kingless state be governed by a *kula*. If not there would be the evil consequences of a state without a head, namely, anarchy. Again in the *Mahāvaṃśa*⁴ after the death of the king of Lanka, Vijaya, the ministers took the reins of government for a period of one year till the nephew of the late king who was absent in India, was crowned king on his return.

c7.s2.t2.48

³ कुलस्य वा भवेद्राज्यं कुलसंघो हि दुर्जयः । अराजव्यसनाबाधः शश्वदावसति क्षितम् ॥ (Bk., i, sec. 17.)

c7.s2.t2.49

⁴ Ch. viii, p. 67.

c7.s2.t2.50

The character of ancient Indian monarchy was both hereditary and elective. It was elective in the sense that people acquiesced in the choice.¹ The principle of election worked not in conflict but in mutual harmony. We can call it a democratic monarchy because the *sabha*, the *viś*, and then the *samiti*, and then the *purohita* body decided the validity or otherwise of the succession to the monarchy. Even after election these exercised a check and influence over the conduct of the king. Each of these was a representative body of the whole people in the true sense of the term. It was democratic in the sense that the people had real control over the conduct of the king and even exercised rights of exclusion. The Atharva Veda hymn already quoted² refers undoubtedly to the re-entertainment of an exiled king. When the elected monarch had gone through the ceremony of consecration, the people felt it their duty to render unquestionable and full obedience to him. They paid him ungrudgingly the taxes that were due, and showed him the honours which one renders only to a deity. Therefore the theory of the divine right which James I of England claimed was not in India pushed to its extreme limits. People accepted divinity in a king only so far as he conducted himself properly and in a constitutional manner in the affairs of state. It was for the people to respect him because he possessed that divinity in him. It was not for the king, however, to abuse that right because it was accorded to him by general consent. There was thus an elasticity about the whole system. If the monarch proved to be absolute or despotic and therefore overruled the principle of protection, then the people entered an emphatic protest and asked him to redress their grievances. Failing this they rose in revolt and removed him.

c7.s2.t2.51

¹ J. A. O. S., vol. xiii, p. 143.

c7.s2.t2.52

² Supra, p. 65.

c7.s2.t2.53

in his exalted position. This fear made ing to the laws of the land while the people made them save themselves from emies to render unquestionable obedience

c7.s2.t2.54

general impression still prevails that the an monarchy was despotic in character. It mpression and does not rest on any valid of fact.¹ Distinguished savants like the late r. V. A. Smith and Mr. S. M. Edwardes hold of early Indian kings. How slender their t is, is in evidence from the following state- e late Mr. Edwardes. In the course of a letter d March 17, 1926, Mr. Edwardes writes:--

c7.s2.t2.55

¹ *Public Administration in Ancient India*, p. 74. Dr. Banerjee points the idea of an autocratic (*svatantra*) ruler was not congenial to the ind; also *Carmichael Lectures*, 1918, pp. 131-39.

c7.s2.t2.56

I am ready to admit that the Indian autocratic c 300 B.C. when faced by grave financial embarrass- was forced to resort to practices which we should as tyrannous and unjustifiable. This necessity rom the fact that at that early date and in a state or es of states despotically ruled and only prevented isruption by a very firm hand, the idea of patriot- ich now leads people voluntarily to support the ment in emergencies was wholly non-existent.'

c7.s2.t2.57

all examine the financial aspects of Hindu adminis- in a subsequent chapter where we shall answer estion whether the ancient financial practices rannous. But what we are concerned with at pre- the two assertions of the learned scholar, namely, e Indian state was an autocraey; and that the idea iotism was wholly non-existent. Our legal and *śāstra* literature furnish various checks and balances imposed upon the central government of the country. In spite of them if a king would have recourse to high-handed measures, open revolt, deposition, and choice of another king were weapons ready to hand to fight a refractory monarch with. Under these circumstances he could not conduct himself as an autocrat in any manner. Despotic monarchs have ruled in all countries and the history of the world furnishes many a name of despotic kings. Notwithstanding the growth of political consciousness for centuries in European countries we cannot say we have got rid of autocracy completely. It might be now and then, that one monarch or another was despotic or autocratic. But such despotism or autocracy did not go unnoticed. Manu says explicitly, ' That foolish monarch who is arbitrary and tyrannous is soon got rid of and loses his life with that of all his relations. A king loses his life through the torturing of the kingdom as the life of an ordinary human being is ruined through torture of the physical body.'¹ Chandragupta, the first Maurya king, is characterized by historians as a despotic emperor with no evidence whatsoever.

c7.s2.t2.58

¹ मोहाद्राजा स्वराष्ट्रं कर्षयत्यनवेक्षया । सोऽचिराद्भ्रश्यते राज्याज्जीवित्वाच्च सबान्धवः ॥ शरीरकर्षणात्प्राणाः क्षीयन्ते प्राणिनां यथा । तथा राजांमपि प्राणाः क्षीयन्ते राष्ट्रकर्षणात् ॥ (Manu, vii. 111 and 112.) Cf. Mbh., Santi Parvan, xcii. 8-10.

c7.s2.t2.59

It is strange that Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar who admits the existence of popular monarchy in the pre-Mauryan period points out to the absolutism of the Mauryas including Aśoka. He quotes the following in support of his theory: ' All men are my children and just as I desire for my children that they may obtain every kind of welfare and happiness both in this and the next world, so do I desire for all men' (Aśoka in the separate Kalinga Edicts). This is said to agree with the *Arthaśāstra* where the relation of the king to his subjects is mentioned to be that of the father to his children.¹

c7.s2.t2.60

¹ *Aśoka* by Dr. Bhandarkar, p. 63.

c7.s2.t2.61

तान् पितृवाननुगृह्णीयात् । (*Arthaśāstra*, ii. 1.)

c7.s2.t2.62

The paternal conception of the king's duty that underlies these notions is said to point to royal absolutism. This is further explained: 'Just as children are solely dependent upon their parents who can do with them just what they like, the subjects were at the mercy of the king who was thus no better than a despot.' Surely we do not agree with the learned professor in his conclusion. In our own view the passages in question warrant a contrary conclusion altogether. They undoubtedly refer to the great interest which the Mauryan monarchs displayed in governing their kingdoms. Rather they perfectly understood and realized the true conception of duty that devolved on them as the accredited guardians of the land. To compare the conduct of parents towards children as in any manner tyrannical or despotic is to disregard all the joy and peace of the family life which one ordinarily expects in the course of a normal life. We regret to say that Dr. Bhandarkar is just begging the question and spins out a theory on a mere analogy. It is commonly conceded that Chandragupta carried on the government under the regulations laid down by Kauṭalya. If the position of Dr. Bhandarkar were admitted Kauṭalya must have commended autocracy. As a matter of fact Kauṭalya is a great teacher of political morality. He has not sacrificed principles to gain his objects. He is a follower of the established schools of law. What he has preached is only the *svadharma* of the Kṣatriya which could not be put to the test of modern ethical and moral standards. In judging a question which belongs to nearly twenty-three centuries ago we must take into consideration the practices and convictions that guided the people of those days. Again in India everything was *dharma*—moral and legal—provided it had the authority of either the Vedas or the Smṛtis—the latter being merely commentaries on the Vedas.

c7.s2.t2.63

The fact was that the people felt the necessity for the office of the king to ensure their welfare; and the ruler equally felt that the subjects were as necessary for his prosperity.¹ This mutual understanding of both the people and the crown gave no occasion for the outbreak of civil wars which often disfigured the even course of history in other countries. Where would then be the room for the display of autocracy when there was no particular stimulus to call it into existence? An autocracy again could only be maintained by a strong king possessing a regular standing army. Hindu monarchy was not military but civil in character.² Their various

c7.s2.t2.64

¹ > राजा प्रजानां प्रथमं शरीरं

c7.s2.t2.65

² > नराधिपश्याप्नुशिष्यमेदिनों

c7.s2.t2.66

प्रजाश्च राज्ञोऽप्रतिमं शरीरम् ।
राज्ञा विहोना न भवन्ति देशाः
देशैर्विहोना न नृपाः भवन्ति ॥
(*Śānti Parvan*, lxvii. 59.)

c7.s2.t2.67

दमेन सत्येन च सौहृदेन ।
महद्भिरिष्ठा क्रतुभिर्महायशाः
त्रिविष्टपे स्थानमुपैति शाश्वतं ॥ (*Ibid.*, 61.)

c7.s2.t2.68

wars were fought not out of earth-hunger, but for a higher principle, viz., the attainment of Indra’s heaven. Even Samudragupta was imbued¹ with this principle as can be proved from the evidence of his coins.

c7.s2.t2.69

¹ ‘राजाधिराजा पृथ्वोम् अवजित्य दिवं जयति अप्रतिवार्यवीरः ’ Vide *Journal of Indian History*, vol. vi, part ii; *Studies in Gupta History*, p. 32. ² Sidgwick, *Development of European Polity*, p. 10 (Macmillan & Co., 1903).

c7.s2.t2.70

This was not a pious aphorism laid down by one king or another. It was the ruling principle of every monarch. The absence of militarism and the essentially civil character of the monarchy dominated by the paramount law was one of the reasons which gave a long lease of life to the Hindu state in general. Thus with the law above and the *paura-jānapada*, the council, etc., by his side, the king could not dream of an autocratic form of administration. Kauṭalya says the wrath of the people had led to the killing of the monarchs.

c7.s2.t2.71

प्रायशः कोपवशाः राजानः प्रकृतिकोपैः हताः श्रूयन्ते ।

c7.s2.t2.72

This means Kauṭalya had heard of cases wherein kings had fallen victims to the people’s outburst of anger. In the light of these observations if one could compare the interpretation given to the term despotism or absolutism in modern political parlance, ‘what is meant by calling him (a monarch) “absolute” is that there is no established constitutional authority—no human authority that his subjects habitually obey as much as they obey him—which can legitimately resist him or call him to account’,² there need be no hesitation in accepting that the democratic principle of the welfare of the people underlay obviously the monarchical governments of ancient India. The fact was that kingship was a sacred trust and the king existed for the welfare of his subjects and not they for his welfare. The king-in-council must promote interests tending to the common good of the community.¹ The sacredness of the mutual trust led to united endeavours towards the material and moral progress of the community. The best type of a culture-state was almost realized under the Emperor Aśoka who belonged also to the ‘vanished epochs’ of Hindu India.

c7.s2.t2.73

Another criticism offered is that the idea of patriotism was not a phenomenon realized in ancient India but is one entirely of modern growth. The statement is undoubtedly true of the Western countries where the idea of a state as a nation grew only very recently. In England the common sentiments of nationality were reckoned only after the Reformation. In other countries of Europe it was only a later idea of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This was not so in ancient India, which had realized an organized state composed of organized nations long before the dawn of the historical period. The oneness of the country and the ideal of every monarch to make a *digvijaya* and achieve sole rule over the world extending from the Cape Comorin to the Himalayas indicate beyond doubt the existence of a strong national feeling in the country. Intercourse between the southern regions and the north of India was sufficiently frequent as is evident from the two epics the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata*, not to speak of other literature. Towards a common enemy all the nations of India, north and south, could be called to join arms.

c7.s2.t2.74

प्रजासुखे सुखं राज्ञः प्रजानां च हिते हितम् ।
नात्मप्रियं हितं राज्ञः प्रजानां तु प्रियं हितम् ॥
(Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, sec. 19.)

c7.s2.t2.75

Every ambitious conquering monarch was actuated by the legitimate aim of a *digvijaya*, a victorious progress through the country.¹ Evidence, literary and epigraphical, is not wanting to corroborate these statements as embodying a common feeling or general sentiment. What is patriotism if it is not the love of the native land! Here it was sung ages ago and it is still a common place among the people that² mother and motherland are greater than heaven itself. What a grand conception for a nation bent upon the ideals of *mokṣa* or heaven. The fact was the ideal of *mokṣa* was only one of the four *puruṣārthas*, and that, the ultimate. *Mokṣa* comes to those who have fulfilled three *puruṣārthas*,—*dharma*, *artha*, and *kāma*, properly and rightly. The conception of motherland being equal to the mother herself is a lofty ideal for a nation's progress. In the face of this testimony could we maintain that the ancient Hindus were devoid of patriotism?

c7.s2.t2.76

¹ Kālidāsa describes the victorious tour of Raghu who attained the title of *samrāt* and performed the *viśvajityajña* (*Raguvaṃśa*, ch. iv).

c7.s2.t2.77

² जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी ।

Linked texts (16)