Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c18.45

c18.45

Kauṭilya discusses the constitution called *Dvairājya* in connection with the *Vairājya*. He characterises the Dvairājya, "the rule of two," as a constitution of rivalry and mutual conflict leading to final destruction.² It should be noticed that the Āchārāṅga Sūtra also refers to this constitution and treats it as distinct from the Gaṇa government. This 'rule of two' was neither a monarchy nor an aristocracy. It is a constitution peculiar to the history of India. Historical instances of this constitution are known to our literature and inscriptions. Avanti in some period of Hindu history was under this constitution, for the Mahā-Bhārata relates that Avanti was under Vinda and Anuvinda, two kings ruling jointly.³ The inscriptional instances have caused much confusion to Indian epigraphists and they found no solution of the riddle. In the 6th and 7th centuries of the Christian era, Nepal was under such a constitution. Simultaneous inscriptions of the kings of the Lichchhavi family and the Thākuri family are found at Kāṭhmāṇḍu.⁴ These are orders issued from two places in the same capital, and the dates prove that the two dynasties were ruling simultaneously. Epigraphists not knowing the Dvairājya form of government could not see the real significance. They were therefore forced to suppose an imaginary divided jurisdiction. It is, however, excusable, as the idea of *Dvairājya* is so foreign to modern mind. *Primâ facie* such a constitution is unthinkable and unworkable. Its working in India constitutes a unique constitutional experiment and success. The constitution in Nepal lasted for a long time. Hobbes' doctrine of indivisible sovereignty would not allow a foreign student to grasp the inscriptions of Nepal. But in India, where joint-family is a living doctrine it is explicable. Such a constitution was feasible only in a country where the juristic notion of the Mitāksharā family could develop into a practical principle. It seems that the legal principle of joint property and joint enjoyment was transferred to the region of politics and acted upon, whereby 'conflict,' 'rivalry' and 'annihilation' could be avoided for centuries. The Nepal families were not related by blood. It was only the constitution which made them joint twins in sovereignty. The references in the Artha-Śāstra and the Achārāṅga Sūtra indicate that the constitution was not a very rare thing in Hindu India.