A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c10.29

c10.29

The authors of the Śāntiparvan and the Manusaṃhitā characteristically take over from the Arthaśāstra the category of the seven elements of sovereignty.∗ This of course involves the exclusion, as before, of the ‘purohita’ or the royal chaplain.† In this connection it ought to be particularly noticed that Manu develops an idea that is at best latent in the system of the Arthaśāstra, for while arranging the ‘calamities’ of the ‘limbs’ in an order of descending importance, he immediately qualifies its effect by saying, “Yet in a kingdom containing seven constituent parts, which is upheld like the triple staff (of an ascetic), there is no (single part) more important (than the others), by reason of the importance of the qualities of each for the others. For each part is particularly qualified for (the accomplishment of) certain objects, (and thus) each is declared to be the most important for that particular purpose which is effected by its means''[^ *]. This important extract exhibits, we think, for the first time, the application of two principles in relation to the category of seven 'limbs.' These principles would be called, if we were to borrow Western equivalents, those of integration and differentiation. It follows from the above that Manu presents a completer conception of the organic unity of government than had occurred to his predecessors.