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. c14: Appendix: A Comparison of the Hindu and some Western theories of kingship

A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c14

Language
English

Appendix: A Comparison of the Hindu and some Western theories of kingship

c14.2

In view of some recent attempts to establish points of analogy and contrast between the Hindu and certain Western theories of the king's origin, it seems desirable to consider the question with some fulness in the present place. Before doing this we think it necessary to mention a point that has, we hope, been sufficiently indicated above, namely that the Hindu theories do not admit of a clear-cut division into two distinct types, such as those of the divine and the human origin of the State, or of Social Contract and the divine creation of kingship.[*] Consider, for example, chapter LXVII of the Śāntiparvan which has been held[†] to represent the theory of social contract. In this case, as we have seen, Manu, the original king, is declared to have been first ordained by Brahmā and afterwards to have entered into a kind of contract with the people.[‡] In an earlier verse of the same chapter and in the same context it is categorically stated that the kings are created by the gods. On the other hand the story of the creation of kingship in chapter LIX of the Śāntiparvan and in the Manusamhitā—the first of which has been taken* to represent the divine creation of the king—combines, as we have observed before, the latter idea with the notion of a preliminary state of nature, and in the first-named instance that of a coronation-oath as well†.

c14.3

∗ The former division is adopted by Prof. Pramatha Nath Banerjea (op. cit. pp 35-37), the latter by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (pp 119-126).

c14.4

† e.g. by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar, loc. cit.

c14.5

‡ Supra, pp 174-175.

c14.6

It thus appears that the Hindu theories involve at least in the later examples a composite blending of the ideas of contract and divine creation. With this preliminary word of caution we shall now proceed to compare them with the Western theories of social contract on the one hand, and those of Divine Right on the other. As regards the first article, it is well to begin by emphasising a point that is apt to be lost sight of in the current estimates of the two groups of theories. It appears that none of the Hindu theories approaches the character of a system, and that while embodying rational speculation they are placed in a mythological setting. On the other hand, Hobbes, to mention one example of a Western political philosopher with whom it has been sought‡ to establish a close resemblance on the part of the Hindu thinkers, was the author of a great system uniting in itself the principal currents of contemporary thought, and he carried the spirit of rationalism to a point unknown even to his great forerunner Grotius.§ The Hindu theories of contract in this respect fall below the level attained by the European exponents of the contract theory in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

c14.7

∗ See, for instance, Prof. D.R. Bhandarkar, loc. cit. † Supra pp. 176-178. ‡ See, for instance, D. R. Bhandarkar, op. cit., p. 122. § Cf. Dunning, Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu, pp 300-301.

c14.8

Passing from these general observations to the detailed study of the problem, it may be observed that the antecedent state of nature as conceived by the Hindu thinkers is, like the European, not of the same uniform type, but varies according to different authors. In Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra and in chapter LXVII of the Śāntiparvan this makes the closest approach to the Hobbesian formula of *bellum omnium contra omnes*, while the description in the Buddhist Dīgha Nikāya and in chapter LIX of the Śāntiparvan which involves an original state of perfect peace and happiness followed after an interval by strife and violence, is reminiscent of Grotius, Pufendorf, and Locke. As regards the specific nature of the pact terminating the period of anarchy, it would seem to follow from what has been told above that while Kauṭilya and the author of the Mahāvastu imply or mention what should be strictly called Governmental compact in Western political philosophy, the Dīgha Nikāya and chapter LXIX of the Śāntiparvan contemplate two or more successive compacts resulting in the creation of society and the state. The notion of contract, then, in the latter case alone would approach the view of Hobbes, who, as has been observed, first developed in Europe the conception of social contract as distinguished from the earlier Governmental Pact.∗

c14.9

∗ For the above reason the generic designation of Social Contract given by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar and other scholars to the group of Hindu theories that we are now considering, is, we think, not quite apposite.

c14.10

Finally as regards the mutual relations of the sovereign and his subjects following from the contract, we have already endeavoured to show that the Hindu exponents of the contract theory, with the exception of the Buddhist canonists who fail to connect their views with any system of rights and duties, press their notion into service for the purpose of justifying the authority of the ruler and the essential prerogatives of his office. In this respect, then, the Hindu view must be distinguished alike from the theory of Hobbes, and that of Locke and Rousseau.∗

c14.11

∗ It has been alleged (vide D. R. Bhandarkar loc. cit.) as the ground of superiority of the Hindu theory over the Hobbesian, that while the latter involved the irrevocable transfer of absolute power to the ruler, the former contemplated the king to be still a servant of the people. We are not quite sure whether this view can be accepted as correct, for apart from the fact that even Hobbes permits the subjects to cancel their obligation to the sovereign in the event of the latter's failure to protect them from the evil of anarchy, the Hindu thinkers, as we have insisted before, do not appear to have developed the case for popular sovereignty into a complete system (cf. p. 272 supra). [^*] Cf. the views of Profs. P. N. Banerjea and D. R. Bhandarkar, quoted, p. 182 footnote, supra.

c14.12

We have endeavoured to analyse the Hindu theories of kingship in so far as they present points of contact with the Western Social Contract. Let us next consider them from the point of view of their relation to the theories of Divine Right. As we have observed before, the Hindu authors frequently lay down doctrines of the king's ordination by the Supreme Being, and ascribe divine attributes to the ruler. These points suggest obvious analogies with the ideas of the Western thinkers. But the analogies turn out on a closer inspection to be more or less illusory. We do not refer for this purpose, as some have done, to the distinction drawn in the Śukranīti between the good king and the tyrant from the standpoint of the king’s divine nature; for we hold this particular view to be peculiar to Śukra. Nor do we set much store by the contention† that the Hindu doctrine of the king’s divinity is a metaphorical expression of the attribute of sovereignty, for we find that the king’s title to rule is expressly derived at least in the Śāntiparvan from his absorption of Viṣṇu’s essence.‡ The true difference, it appears to us, is to be sought elsewhere. The divine creation of the king, it is conceived by the Hindu authors, imposes upon him the duty of protection rather than the right to rule, while his divine nature signifies that he is the manifestation of the Divine protecting powers of the universe,—of Viṣṇu, the World-Preserver, or of the eight guardians of the quarters.

c14.13

† See, for instance, Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar in the *Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus*, pp. 179-180.

c14.14

‡ Supra, pp. 181-182.

c14.15

Turning to the other points, it may be remarked that the king in the Hindu theory is not accountable to God alone for his actions. For much as we deny the claim of the Hindus to have worked out the idea of popular sovereignty, we might, we think, argue from the conception of the all-embracing Law (Dharma) that the Brāhmaṇas were conceived as qualified to supervise the conduct of the king.§ Furthermore, it has been shown that none of the Hindu authors with the possible exception of Nārada countenances the unlimited obedience of the subjects : on the contrary, they develop in the course of their argument principles tending to justify the right of deposition, and even that of tyrannicide.* Finally, it may be mentioned that the Hindu theory contains no trace of the doctrine of indefeasible hereditary right which is an essential element of Divine Right in the Western system.

c14.16

§ Cf. p. 112, supra.

c14.17

∗ Vide p. 271, supra.

Linked texts (5)