Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c12.s1: I

A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c12.s1

Language
English

I

c12.s1.1

We have endeavoured in the preceding chapters to describe the more or less connected theories of politics that are presented by the Hindu authors. The writers who shall immediately occupy our attention in this chapter, namely, the commentators of the two great Smriti treatises of Manu and Yājñavalkya, fail from their very nature to formulate such theories. On the contrary they touch, in the course of their survey of the rājadharma sections of the original works, on some of the points raised therein. The scholiasts, moreover, are distinguished from the earlier authors by their peculiar method which involves, as we shall presently see, a curious admixture of verbal interpretation and reasoned argument. With all these disadvantages the authors whom we are now treating deserve to occupy an important place in the history of Hindu political ideas. To them belongs the credit of clarifying the conception of the king's duties which was in danger of being obscured by a narrow and pedantic interpretation of the canonical texts, and in the case of Medhātithi, the greatest of them all, that of amplifying as well the rights of the subjects beyond the point reached by the canonists.∗

c12.s1.2

∗ The three great scholiasts of this period whom we propose to treat in this section are Medhātithi, Vijñāneśvara, and Aparārka. The first is the author of the oldest extant commentary of the Manusaṃhitā, and he is believed to have lived not later than in the tenth century A. D. (Vide Bühler, S. B. E., Vol. XXV, Introduction, p. cxxi). The second wrote the famous commentary on Yājñavalkya called the Mitākṣarā which is to this day the text-book of all schools of Hindu law except that of Bengal. He is said to have flourished in the latter half of the eleventh century A. D. (Vide West and Bühler's *Digest*, p. 17). The third author Aparārka who wrote a fresh commentary on Yājñavalkya is said to have been a king of Western India and to have reigned between 1140 and 1186 A. D. (Vide Mayne, *Hindu Law and Usage*, seventh edition, p. 28).

c12.s1.3

Before taking up the theories of these authors relating to the king and his subjects, let us consider briefly Medhātithi's treatment of the allied, if not identical, concepts of rājadharma and daṇḍanīti. To understand this point, it is necessary to remember that much as some authorities (especially the Śāntiparvan) expressly declare some branches of the rājadharma to be based not upon the Vedas but upon reason and experience,∗ the association of this concept with the great doctrine of varṇāśramadharma would of itself suggest its descent from the Vedas which form the primary source of the dharma. We must further observe in this connection that Manu (VII 43) applies the epithet eternal (*śāśvatī*) which is usually reserved for the Vedas alone to the science of Daṇḍanīti, while the Śāntiparvan (ch. LIX) ascribes its creation to the god Brahmā. Medhātithi takes up an attitude that is opposed to these tendencies. Commenting on the opening verse of Manu's seventh chapter he writes, “Here indeed the duties having other authorities (than the Vedas) for their source are explained. All duties have not the Vedas as their source. With regard to duties having other sources, what is not inconsistent with the sacred canon is explained.” Again, while expounding the verse in which Daṇḍanīti is characterised as above, Medhātithi explains away the term ‘eternal’ by calling it a mere eulogy. In the above extracts, it will be observed, the author's meaning is expressed in a negative fashion. We may perhaps put it positively by saying that rājadharma is based, in so far as these are not inconsistent with the canon, upon the lessons of reason and experience, and that ‘daṇḍanīti’ is a science of historical origin.

c12.s1.4

∗ *Cf.* pp. 197—198, *supra*.

c12.s1.5

Turning to the next point which relates to the concept of kingship, we may begin by observing that the canonical doctrine of varṇāśramadharma implied that the duty of protecting the people was ordinarily reserved for the Kṣatriya alone. Accordingly Manu, while introducing his description of the king's duties, expressly ascribes them to an individual of the Kṣatriya caste.∗ Medhātithi, however, applies his mixed method of verbal interpretation and reasoned argument to enlarge the connotation of kingship beyond the bounds of the Kṣatriya order. He writes (commentary on VII 1), "The word 'rājan' (king) here does not signify the Kṣatriya caste alone, but (it) applies to a person possessing (the attributes of) coronation, lordship and such other qualities. Therefore the expression 'what conduct the nripa (king) should follow' is used. The use of the word nripa signifies the right of one possessing the lordship of a territory." Commenting on another verse† he says, "By (the use of) the words 'by the Kṣatriya etc.' it is indicated that the Kṣatriya alone is entitled to (the possession of a) kingdom. The expression implies that in the Kṣatriya's absence assigning (atideśa) (of his functions) is also to be allowed, otherwise there would follow the destruction of the subjects." Lastly, while explaining the first verse of the eighth chapter of Manu, Medhātithi states, "The word pārthiva (*i.e.* king) signifies that this precept applies not merely to the Kṣatriya, but also to another lord of territory who is a ruler on earth. For otherwise the kingdom would not be stable." The gist of the above extracts may perhaps be expressed by saying that the incidents and duties attached to the Kṣatriya ruler apply to anyone else who discharges the functions of the former. This conclusion is based, as far as the reasoned argument is concerned, upon the plea that the observance of the limitations imposed by the sacred canon upon the ruler is a necessary condition of the security of the kingdom.

c12.s1.6

∗ Manu VII 2: "A Kṣatriya, who has received according to the rule the sacrament prescribed by the Veda, must duly protect this whole (world)." S. B. E. Vol. XXV p. 216.

c12.s1.7

† VII 2.

c12.s1.8

The above conception of the king's duties as transcending the limitations of the Kṣatriya order is amplified by Vijñāneśvara. Commenting on the introductory verse of Yājñavalkya's chapter on judicial procedure he observes, "The use of the word 'nripa' shows that this duty (namely, that of protection) does not belong to the Kṣatriya alone, but (it extends) to any other person that is occupied with the task of protecting the people (prajāpālanādhikritasya). Explaining an earlier verse ∗ he states, "Though this aggregate of kingly duties is laid down with reference to the king, it should be understood to apply to (an individual) of another caste who is engaged in the work of governing a district, a province etc. (viṣayamaṇḍalādiparipālanādhikritasya); for the word 'nripa' in the texts 'I shall speak of the kingly duties (rājadharma)' and 'as the king (nripa) should behave' is separately used, and because the collection of taxes has protection for its object, and protection depends upon the exercise of the sceptre." According to these passages, then, the duties of kingship appertain not only to the Kṣatriya ruler, but also to all other persons including governors and district officers who are charged with the task of government. This contention, it should be observed, is upheld as far as rational argument is concerned, by the old principle of the necessary connection between taxation and protection.

c12.s1.9

∗ Yāj. I 368.

c12.s1.10

Aparārka, finally, inculcates the above idea of the incidence of the Kṣatriya duties by insisting that the government of the subjects necessarily involves the fulfilment of the duties attached thereto, and in particular that the collection of taxes involves the duty of protection. He observes, in the course of his commentary on a verse of Yājñavalkya,∗ "All this is laid down for the Kṣatriya who governs the kingdom. When, however, a non-kṣatriya does the duty of a Kṣatriya, he too should perform this whole (set of duties) by virtue of the maxim 'from having recourse to that (particular) occupation follows the acquisition of that particular duty,' and because the protection of the people is involved in the acceptance of taxes. Every one, indeed, who offers wealth seeks a benefit inseparably attaching to himself. Moreover, offering of taxes has no other reason than self-protection. Therefore it is proved that he who takes the taxes is bound to protect the people."

c12.s1.11

∗ Yāj. I 366.

c12.s1.12

Next to this remarkable extension of the canonical duties of the king beyond the charmed circle of the Kṣatriya order,† may be mentioned Medhātithi's insistence upon the principle that the king’s duty of protection is applicable to all classes of his subjects. The key to the author’s conception lies, we think, in the connection traceable as early as in the Dharmasūtrascont between the collection of taxes and protection. This, when interpreted in the narrow dogmatic sense, would lead to the view that the taxable classes alone were entitled to the benefit of the king’s protection. Medhātithi’s observations may be construed as an emphatic denial of this extreme dogmatic position. Manu states in one place, “A Kṣatriya, who has received according to the rule the sacrament prescribed by the Veda, must duly undertake the protection of this whole (world).”[^\dagger] Commenting on this verse Medhātithi writes that the use of the word ‘sarvasya’ (of the whole) in the text shows that it includes the subjects paying taxes along with those who are poor and friendless. Again while commenting upon another verse which enjoins the king to restore stolen property to the owners thereof,[^\ddagger] Medhātithi says that by the mention of the word ‘all’ in the text it is to be understood that property should be restored even to the chaṇḍālas.” The third extract bearing on this point is more important than the preceding ones in as much as it is based upon sound reasoning. Manu writes in one place, “By protecting those who live as (becomes) Aryans and by removing the thorns, kings solely intent on guarding their subjects reach heaven.”¹ Commenting on this verse Medhātithi states, “By them (namely, those who live as become Aryans) are understood the indigent, the friendless and the Śrotriyas who are exempt from taxes and tolls. Attainment of heaven by protecting them is justified. In the case of others, since (protection is) purchased by means of subsistence (vṛttiparikrītattvāt), its denial gives rise to sin,—while from the exchange of propitiation by (means of) protection follows only the absence of sin, and thence heaven (is attained).” Here, it will be observed, the author agrees that there is a difference in the nature of the obligations devolving upon the king with reference to his taxable subjects and the rest, for while the protection of the former is held to ensure the king’s immunity from sin, that of the latter is conceived merely as ensuring a spiritual reward. Medhātithi, indeed, goes so far as to refer in the immediately following sentence to an opinion according to which Manu’s text relating to the king’s attainment of heaven is a mere recommendation (arthavāda). In the next passage, however, the author takes up a bolder position and affirms that the king’s protection of the non-taxable classes is his obligatory duty. He writes, “Even in the matter of protecting those who do not pay the taxes, the (duty) laid down by way of livelihood belongs to the king." This lesson is driven home in the following lines with the help of analogies. "Artisans employed in crafts as a means of livelihood are made by the king to perform work by way of taking taxes from them in accordance with the rule 'artisans should perform some required work every month,' so the king engaged in the performance of his duties and in protecting the people is made by the sacred canon to protect the Aryans (in the same way) as he is made to perform obligatory duties, just as the householder keeping the sacred fire performs obligatory duties in accordance with the sacred texts recommending desired objects, not for the attainment of heaven." "These (duties)," the author sums up, "are not uttered for their power of producing (any visible) result, yet they are done; similarly this (viz. the king's duty of protecting the non-taxable classes) should be understood."

c12.s1.13

† The above discussion relating to the incidence of the Kṣatriya duties may, we think, be connected with one of the most important events in the history of India during this period, namely the rise of the Rajputs. In the interval of six or seven centuries between the death of the emperor Harṣa c. 648 A. D. and the Muhammadan conquest Rajput houses ruled most of the kingdoms of Northern India and the Deccan. These families, in spite of their claim to Kṣatriya ancestry, derived their origin in reality from the Hinduised foreign immigrant or indigenous tribes (Cf. Vincent Smith, *Oxford History of India*, p. 172). In these circumstances the relations of the ruling families with their subjects would, it might be supposed, become a burning question of the times, and this, it might be, was treated by the canonical scholiasts in the passages quoted above.

c12.s1.14

∗ Vide p. 65, *supra*. [^\dagger]: VII 2. [^\ddagger]: VIII 40: “Property stolen by thieves must be restored by the king to (men of) all castes (varṇa): a king who uses such (property) for himself incurs the guilt of a thief.”

c12.s1.15

¹ IX 253.

c12.s1.16

Allied to the above idea of Medhātithi—namely that the king's duty of protection extends to all classes of his subjects—is the opinion of Aparārka that the duty of punishment of the guilty is a compulsory duty. The duty of punishment, it seems, much as it is inculcated by the Hindu authors, is often supported as in the following passage from Yājñavalkya by the promise of spiritual rewards alone In accordance with the rule of interpretation applicable to such cases this would signify that the above duty was not compulsory, but optional. Aparārka meets this possible argument by quoting the canonical texts that impose penances for the king's default in the infliction of punishment. He observes with reference to a verse of Yājñavalkya requiring the king to punish the guilty,∗ " 'By these words it is not to be understood that punishment is a duty performed for some particular object (and therefore optional). Because Vaśiṣṭha prescribes penances for not carrying out this function: 'if people deserving punishment are set free, the king should fast one (day and one) night, and the purohita three (days and) nights; if those not deserving punishment are punished, the purohita should perform a krichchhra penance (and) the king should fast three days and nights.' "*

c12.s1.17

∗ I 357. [^\dagger]: VIII 348-349.

c12.s1.18

From these extracts that emphasise the king's essential duties of protection and the punishment of the guilty, let us turn to those which seek to extend the rights of the subjects. First among these may be mentioned the right of taking up arms. "Twice-born men," says Manu in one place, "may take up arms when (they are) hindered (in the fulfilment of) their duties, when destruction (threatens) the twice-born castes (varṇa), in (evil) times, in their own defence, in a strife for the fees of officiating priests, and in order to protect women and Brāhmaṇas; he who (under such circumstances) kills in the cause of right, commits no sin."[^\dagger] Commenting on these verses Medhātithi first explains the meaning of the author by saying, "When the king is neglected and destruction ensues, recourse should be taken to arms. At other times, however, when the kingdom is well-governed, the king himself protects his people. Thus this is the sense." Then he proceeds to amplify the author's precept in the following way.

c12.s1.19

"The king indeed cannot stretch his arms to reach every individual. There are some wicked persons who obstruct even the royal officers (that are) very valorous and intent upon (the discharge of) their duties. But one always fears a person wielding weapons. Hence using weapons on all occasions is justified." In the following lines Medhātithi reverts to the rule of Manu and says, "On such occasions recourse should be taken to arms for protecting one's own wealth and relations. According to others the interests of other people also (should be served) in such times." In the above extract, it will be observed, the author extends the canonical rule so as to open to the subjects the right of bearing arms even in normal times, and for the purpose of self-defence as well as the protection of others. This is based on the very sound argument of insufficiency of the state administration and the value of self-help.

c12.s1.20

We may mention in the last place a remarkable passage inculcating what may be called the right to rebellion on behalf of the subjects. Manu says in one place,∗ "The (man), who in his exceeding folly hates him, will doubtlessly perish; for the king quickly makes up his mind to destroy such a (man)." This injunction, Medhātithi observes, applies when men seek the kingdom out of sin (pratyavāyāt), but not when they do so out of longing for a desired object (abhipretārthalābhena). "By seeking redress from an incompetent king," Medhātithi explains in the same context, "payment of the king's judicial dues becomes a waste of money. The accumulated wealth too assumes a different complexion through witnesses changing their minds and prospective wealth does the same." This passage evidently involves a deliberate modification of the canonical doctrine relating to the submission of the subjects. Rebellion, the author implies, is justified provided it is based not on the lust of power but on what may be called the 'will to sovereignty.' This startling doctrine is characteristically supported by the plea of the public good in as much as the author's argument turns upon the inability of an incompetent ruler to serve the interests of his subjects.

c12.s1.21

∗ VII 12. S. B. E. Vol. XXV, p. 217.

c12.s1.22

While the great commentators of the Smritis maintain on however modest a scale the earlier traditions of original and vigorous speculation, the authors whom we have now to consider do not, it seems to us, present any points of original interest so far as our point of view is concerned. This result may, we think, be explained in the case of the latter writers by considering the circumstances in which they were placed. The Jaina canon, unlike that of the Buddhists, seems to have been wanting in germs of political thought that might be developed in later times. The Jaina writers of this period, it may be further remarked, had the misfortune to live in an age when Hindu political thought had passed its meridian, and there was nothing in their genius that might compensate for the lack of outward inspiration. Hence when they undertook the systematic examination of the phenomena of the State, they had no other alternative than to copy more or less completely the rules and principles that had been bequeathed by their Brahminical rivals in the past.

c12.s1.23

Of the two works which we propose to examine in the present section the first in chronological order is the Nectar of the Maxims of Polity (Nītivākyāmṛitam) of Somadevasūri, who flourished sometime in the tenth century A. D. In matter and in form it agrees most closely with Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra. It is in fact a poor copy of the latter work, although its author characteristically conceals his debt to the earlier writer. The second treatise is the Laghu-arhannīti of the renowned Jaina divine and scholar Hemachandra (1089-1173A.D.). It consists of four sections (adhikāra) dealing successively with the good qualities of the kings and the state officials, the rules of warfare and public policy, the administration of justice (vyavahāra) and, lastly, penances (prāyaśchitta). It is therefore in spite of its title a work of the same nature as the Brahminical Smritis.

c12.s1.24

The Laghu-arhannīti, it appears to us, makes no contribution to political theory properly so called. Nevertheless it deserves a passing consideration in this place because of its remarkable theory relating to the origin of the science of polity (rājanīti). Once upon a time, the author says in opening his treatise, the Lord Mahāvīra was staying in a garden outside Rājagriha, attended by Gautama and other pupils. King Śreṇika (Bimbisāra), having heard of his arrival, sallied forth to meet him, and after the usual salutation, asked him a question in the following terms: "By whom, O Lord, were the rules of the science of polity (rājanīti) disclosed in the past, what were their kinds, and what was their nature?" In reply the sage declared that the first king in the present age was the chief Jina R̥iṣabha. This personage found the people of India (Bhāratas) plunged in misery and subject to the snares of the Iron Age in consequence of the trees of plenty having lost their potency through the influence of time. Out of pity he tore out the primeval law (dharma) and disclosed the division into castes and orders, the rules relating to the sacraments, the means of livelihood and the principles of judicial administration, the rules of public policy followed by the kings, and the means of founding towns and cities,—in short, all sciences and all duties relating to this and the next world.∗ The above story obviously belongs, unlike the theory of the origin of daṇḍanīti in Ch. LIX of the Śāntiparvan to the realm of pure mythology,—in fact it is based upon the Jaina canonical account of the mythical prophet—king R̥iṣabha such as is found, for example, in the Kalpasūtra.† Nevertheless it is interesting as showing how the Jaina author ingeniously contrives to annex the Brahminical science to the literature of his own sect by claiming for it an orthodox origin.

c12.s1.25

∗ I 8-17.

c12.s1.26

† Cf. S. B. E. Vol. XXII, pp. 281-285.

c12.s1.27

Turning to the Nītivākyāmritam we find that the only branch of speculation touched by the author—and here again, as we have already observed, he is anything but original—is the theory of kingship. With Kauṭilya Somadeva believes the king to be the root of the seven ‘limbs’ of sovereignty (prakritis). “With the king as their root,” he writes,‡ “all the prakritis become (fitted) for fulfilling their desired ends, (but) not those without the king.” In the following extract Somadeva repeats the familiar view of the paramount importance of the king’s office from the point of view of the subjects. “The king is the cause of the Golden Age ; if he protects the people justly, the quarters satisfy all desires of the subjects and the god Indra pours forth rain in the proper season.”[^ *] With this is combined the old doctrine of the king’s divinity which, as before, is based upon his function of protecting the people. “All the guardians of the quarters,” Somadeva writes,† “truly wait upon the king. Therefore though the king is an intermediate guardian of the quarters, he is held to be the best of them.” In another passage the king is declared to be the only visible deity on the ground that he assumes the forms of the Creator (Brahmā), the Preserver (Viṣṇu) and the Destroyer (Śiva) according as he fulfils his three separate functions. Somadeva, moreover, follows the authority of the Brāhmaṇa writers in inculcating the duty of obedience upon the subjects. The king’s orders, he says, must not be transgressed by any one, and the king should not tolerate even his own son who disregards them.‡ It should, however, be observed as indicating the strong monarchic

c12.s1.28

‡ p. 62.

c12.s1.29

† p. 114.

c12.s1.30

‡ p. 64. In the Digests of the Jaina Sacred Law belonging to this period, it may be observed in this connection, loyalty to the king is enjoined as a religious duty. Thus both Haribhadra (fl. latter half of the 9th century A.D.) in his Dharmabindu (I 31) and Hemachandra in his Yogaśāstra (I 48) include the act of refraining from disrespect to the king in the list of duties that are binding on the householder.

c12.s1.31

[^ *]: p. 66.

c12.s1.32

leaning of the author that he ignores the principles imposed by the earlier writers for the purpose of checking the abuses of the king's power. On the contrary he contents himself with an impotent sigh when considering the case of a bad ruler. If even a king who is a god, he asks, were to keep the company of thieves, how should the welfare of the people be secured?∗ Further on he states that the king's commission of wrong like the ocean's crossing its shores, the sun's nourishing darkness and the mother's devouring her own child is the fruit of the Iron (Kali) Age.†

c12.s1.33

∗ p. 65.

c12.s1.34

† p. 66.

c12.s1.35

CHAPTER VII.

c12.s1.36

THE LAST PHASE—THE ESSENCE OF POLITY (NĪTISĀRA) OF ŚUKRĀCHĀRYA—MĀDHAVA'S COMMENTARY ON THE SMRITI OF PARĀŚARA—THE RĀJANĪTIPRAKĀŚA OF MITRAMIŚRA, AND THE NĪTIMAYŪKHA OF NĪLAKANTHA. CIRCA 1200—1625 A.D.

c12.s1.37

Influence of the Moslem conquest upon political thought—The Śukranīti is a work of compilation but contains original elements—The conception of Nītiśāstra and of its use as compared with that of the other sciences—The king's rule by virtue of his personal merit, and the equivalence of his functions to those of the deities—The doctrines of perpetual dependence of the subjects upon the king and of the king's immunity from harm—Principles tending to counteract the abuses of the king's authority:—(1) the king is the servant of the people by divine creation; (2) the distinction between the good king and the tyrant; (3) the right of deposition.

c12.s1.38

II

c12.s1.39

The king, according to Mādhava, is an incarnation of the gods and he is created out of divine elements—The incidence of the rights and duties belonging to the Kṣatriya ruler.

Cites (9)