Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c28: Chapter XX: Criticism on Hindu republican systems

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c28

Language
English

Chapter XX: Criticism on Hindu republican systems

c28.2

§ 168. Before parting with the republics it is necessary to pass some general criticism on their systems. The *laws* and the administration of law in the republican states of India are unanimously praised by the Greek observers and their praise is confirmed by the Mahā-Bhārata. Some of them, at least, were careful to preserve precedents of decided cases in books. Even their sworn enemy Kauṭilya says that a republican chief in his state has the beneficial propensity of *justice*.¹ A high sense of justice was maintained. Without it no republic can last very long. *Discipline* was another virtue of theirs. Kauṭilya notices as a feature that the republican chief was a man accustomed to discipline.² The Mahā-Bhārata points out, as we have seen, that discipline was maintained amongst members, both junior and senior, by responsible leaders. The leaders, further, made themselves and their actions popular.³ Kṛishṇa in the Mahā-Bhārata is reported to mention his difficulties in conducting his federal council to his friend Nārada. The latter rebukes Kṛishṇa for his want of control of his speech in public discussions. He advises the Vṛishṇi leader to cultivate the habit of bearing oratorical attacks with patience, and to sacrifice feeling of personal umbrage, to maintain the integrity of the Saṅgha.⁴

c28.3

¹ संघमुख्यश्च संघेषु न्यायवृत्तिर्हितः प्रियः । Arthaśāstra, p. 379.

c28.4

² दान्तो युक्तजनस्तिष्ठेत् Ibid.

c28.5

³ सर्वचित्तानुवर्तकः Ibid.

c28.6

⁴ See Appendix A.

c28.7

Likewise they were always ready to take the field. *Bravery* was a point of ambition and honour amongst the citizens.

c28.8

As the Mahā-Bhārata says, *equality* prevailed in the Gaṇa. This was naturally necessary. The more democratic an institution, the greater emphasis on equality must have been laid.

c28.9

In addition to moral virtues the republics had administrative virtues. They were specially successful, on the evidence of the Mahā-Bhārata, in their financial administration. Their treasury remained always full.

c28.10

A great reason of their political strength was that a republic was *nation-in-arms*. The whole community was their army. They were a citizen army and therefore immeasurably superior to the hired levies of monarchies. And when they formed an offensive and defensive league they were regarded, as Kauṭilya says, 'invincible.' Hindu Republics were prone to form leagues. The league of the Six-Trigartas of the grammarians, the league of the Kshudraka-Mālavas, the league of the Videhas and Lichchhavis, (the federated Vajjis of the Pāli Canon), the league of the Andhaka-Vrishṇis are examples in point. According to the Mahā-Bhārata it was almost impossible for the enemy to crush federal republics. The Buddha as well gave his opinion to the Chancellor of Magadha that the federal Vajjis could not be conquered by the Magadha King.

c28.11

The *wealth* of the Hindu republic is a matter of admiration both in home and foreign records. The Greeks noticed their riches and the Mahā-Bhārata also bears testimony to it. A citizen had ambition to be the leader of the trade association or of the guild merchant failing to be a political leader (§ 117). The art of peace and the art of war, discipline and perseverance, habits of ruling and being ruled, thought and action, home and state, went hand in hand. A highly practical and keen individual and citizen would have been the result of this life. With these virtues and this culture, there is no wonder that the Mahā-Bhārata says that their alliance was courted, and that they took delight in reducing their foes, and saw to their material prosperity. This is explained by the fact that their training and genius were not one-sided. They were not solely political animals. They were economic animals equally. Kauṭilya characterises them as martial and industrial in the same breath; they were forced to be industrial and martial by their laws. Attention paid to trade and agriculture kept their treasury and themselves rich.

c28.12

§ 172. On the evidence of the Greek witnesses they were not only good soldiers maintaining a very high tradition of bravery and skill in war, but also good agriculturists. The hand which wielded the sword successfully, was accustomed to use the scythe with equal facility. According to the Artha-Śāstra and Buddhist documents, they were both agricultural and industrial.

c28.13

§ 173. Separation of powers and functions, which will be noticed in the data given above, for instance, command of the army and executive government amongst the Patalas, judiciary, military command, and executive authority amongst the Lichchhavis, similarly elective generalships in several states noticed by the Greeks, and complete absence of sacerdotal element in the chiefs, denote a highly developed sagacity and a vast constitutional experience in the republics.

c28.14

§ 174. Technical books which have come down to us are of the monarchist school. If we recovered a book of the republican school, it would undoubtedly disclose the theories of state of Republican Polity. That there were such books is extremely probable. The chapters on Gaṇa and Vṛishṇi Saṁgha in the Mahā-Bhārata indicate their past existence. So does the verse in Kauṭilya which is evidently quoted from another work, as the verse is the only matter in the chapter which has republican point of view, the rest

c28.15

being all a monarchist look-out.¹ The discussion on the Arājaka state in the Mahā-Bhārata also shows familiarity with a written theory of state of the Arājaka constitution. All these data indirectly prove the existence of well-considered philosophic bases on which republican constitutions were founded. This basis explains to a great extent the variety which we have noticed in republican constitutions. They were not unconscious, instinctive institutions. There could not have been a lack of philosophic thinking in the country of Kapila and the Kaṭhas who tackled much more abstruse problems of philosophy than state.

c28.16

¹ Artha Śāstra, p. 379.

c28.17

§ 175. The evidence of the Chatuś-Śatikā of Āryadeva, a fragmentary manuscript of which was discovered by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasad Shastri,³ establishes that the elected ruler in a Gaṇa was regarded as a servant of the Gaṇa (*gaṇa-dāsa*). The same principle is declared by Kṛishṇa in the discussion cited in the Mahā-Bhārata. 'It is the servant's duty (dāsya) which 'I have to perform under the name of rulership (*Aiśvarya-Vādena*).'²

c28.18

³ *J. A. S. B.*, 1911, 431.

c28.19

² See Appendix A.

c28.20

§ 176. It seems that the Kaṭhas and the Saubhūtas regarded the individual as mere part of the state. By himself he did not exist. Hence they claimed an absolute right over the child born to individuals. It is evident that other republics did not subscribe to this view. They, as evidenced by coins, take gaṇa, the Government, as distinct from the community; the individual is not lost in the state. At the same time the unity between the two is so complete that the two are very nearly identical. The extreme case of individualism on the other hand, was the theory of the Arājaka state, the No-ruler-state.⁴ Government itself was regarded by the theorists of that class of state as an evil. No one was vested with executive power. Only law was to rule, and the only sanction they prescribed for one found guilty of crime was ostracism. The sovereignty of the individual was not to be delegated to any one man or a body of men. Of course, a state founded on such a basis, to be practical, must have been exceedingly small. Such states, however, did exist in Hindu India as noticed in the Jaina sūtra referred to above.mark The monarchist may very well exclaim: ‘No Government is more miserable than the ‘Arājaka Government.¹ If a powerful citizen obeys the (law) ‘it is all well, but if he rebels, he can work total destruction.’²

c28.21

⁴ See § 101.

c28.22

mark [Handwritten check mark inserted here in print]

c28.23

¹ १ नहि राज्ञा व्यापतरमस्ति किंचिदराजकात्। *Sānti-Parvan*, LXVI, 7. (Kumb.)

c28.24

² २ स चेद्राजनुवर्तेत समर्थः कुशलभवेत्। प्रसह्यतु विप्रकुर्वीत कुर्यान्निःशेषतामपि॥ *Ibid.*, verse 8.

c28.25

And the monarchists may very well pick up the Arājaka theory from the republicans to justify their own theory of monarchy. But they could not ignore the Arājaka theory of Social Contract as the primary basis of state. On the basis of a mutual contract amongst the citizens, according to the Arājaka democrats, the state was founded.³ This, of course, was true of the Arājaka state. When the monarchists postulate a contract between the king and the people (to take office on condition to rule honestly and to receive taxes in return)⁴ they clearly say that this contract was resorted to when the contract of the Arājaka constitution failed in practical working. Here we find the monarchists really adopting the *social contract theory* originally postulated by the Arājakas. Probably a theory of social contract was common to all classes of republics. Its counter-part, applied to monarchy, was already known to Kauṭilya as an accepted truth.¹ Its origin in India is very ancient, evidently the most ancient in the world.² It is to be remembered that in its full exposition it was a republican theory. Such a theory was of immense value in its beneficial effect on the rulers in general.

c28.26

³ ३ समेत्य तास्ततश्चकुः समयानिति नःश्रुतम्। *Ibid.*, verse 18. [Devanagari text] [Devanagari text]॥ *Ibid.*, verse 19.

c28.27

⁴ See chapters XXIV, XXV, XXXVI, and XXXVII, on Monarchy, below.

c28.28

¹ Artha-Śāstra (I. 14), pp. 22-23. मात्स्यन्यायाभिभूताः प्रजा मनुं वैवस्वतं राजानं चक्रिरे। धान्यषड्भागं पण्यदशभागं हिरण्यं चास्य भागधेयं प्रकल्पयामासुः। तेन भृता राजानः प्रजानां योगक्षेमवहाः। 'People oppressed by anarchy made Manu, son of Vivasvat, their king. They settled one-sixth of agricultural produce and one-tenth of merchandise, in cash, as his share. Kings salaried herewith carry on government (yoga) and well-being (kshema) of the people.' For the meaning of भृग see corresponding passages quoted under Monarchy, where king's 'wages' are mentioned. The meaning of योग given here is in accordance with the sense of the word in Manu XI. 62, and the Mitāksharā's definition of योग. The meaning of Yoga becomes clear by the succeeding line, तेषां किल्बिषमदण्डकरा हरन्ति, where *adaṇḍakāra* or 'king failing in government' is referred to in contrast. Compare also on yoga, -युक्त 'member of executive service' in the Artha-Śāstra.

c28.29

² Kauṭilya, 300 B.C., quotes it as a well-known theory. The Vedic hymns of election disclose clear germs of this theory. See chapter XXV, (Pt. II) on coronation for references in the Brāhmaṇas. The Buddhists have it in their old books. *Aggañña S.* 21 (*Digha*) = MV., I., 347-8—एतञ्चित्तेतं यु वयं शालिभागं ददाम । सभता जनकायेन सम्मतो ति महासम्मतो...राजा ति संज्ञा उदपादि ।

c28.30

The best test of the success of a state system is the length of *life* which it can secure for the state. The republican system of India, as a class, proved very successful in securing longevity. As pointed out above the system is mainly post-Vedic. Taking then the age of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa as our earliest landmark, the Satvat Bhojas had a life of about 1000 years. If the Uttara-Madras and Pāṇini's Madras were identical, they lived for about 1300 years, otherwise for 800 years. The Kshudrakas and Mālavas had long existed free before 326 B.C., as they told Alexander. The Mālavas continued on in Rajputana up to *c.* 300 A.C. They thus enjoyed free life for about 1,000 years. And so did the Yaudheyas. The Lichchhavi record covers a full millenium. The principles regulating the life of Hindu republics thus stood well the test of time.

c28.31

§ 178. But after all the Hindu republics, normally speaking were not large units. Although they were larger in many cases than the ancient republics of Europe, they were, except for the Mālavas and the Yaudheyas and a few others, miniatures in comparasion with the vast experiments of our own times, *e.g.*, the United States of America, France, and China.

c28.32

This *smallness* was the very weakness of the polity. Nations and states which remain small, whatever their virtues, are not allowed to exist. Large states which developed greedy fangs, devoured up small sovereignties. The Mālavas and the Yaudheyas who survived mighty empires and great conquerors, were large territorial units. They must have extended their laws and rights like the Lichchhavis and Madras to the arena of their expansion.¹ They, on account of their largeness, avoided the fate of their early contemporaries of smaller stature.

c28.33

¹ The form *Mālavaka* in the Mahābhāshya II, 296, points to that. See discussion on *ujṅ* supra § 118. *AS.* gives *Lichchhivika* and *Madraka*; and Samudragupta, *Mādraka*.

c28.34

§ 179. The Mahā-Bhārata says that Arājaka states could be easily conquered; that when an encounter took place between them and a strong foe, they broke like wood which does not know to bend.² This was true of all democratic republics. Once conquered they ceased to exist as a community. Their life was so much bound up with their state that life proved only co-extensive with the state and no further.

c28.35

² **

c28.36

In the time of Chandragupta, they were discredited by their not very successful opposition of Alexander. It is significant that young Porus, King or President of Gāndhāra, when faced

c28.37

**
**
—*Mahā-Bhārata, Śānti Parvan*, LXVI, 6-7. (Kumb.)

c28.38

Cf. ** । *Ibid.*, 10.

c28.39

with the foreign invaders, looked towards the imperial power of Magadha, and that Kauṭilya, a man of Taxila, should advocate their abolition in his Science of Commonwealth.

c28.40

It appears that republics were liable to fall victims to intrigues. In aristocratic bodies *personal rivalry and greed of power* were marked out by statesmen like Kauṭilya, as the fit soil for *sowing seeds of dissension*. Varshakāra, a former Chancellor of Magadha, replied to the Buddha, who had said that the Vrijis could not be broken, 'they can only be broken by mutual dissension.' Sources of dissension were not limited to enemy intrigues. As in popular forms of government in all ages, bitter hostilities arose out of discussions in the public assembly. Kṛishṇa in the Mahā-Bhārata talking about his difficulties as leader of the republic says that his heart was roasted by terrible speeches. The Mahā-Bhārata (in Śānti-Parvan, on gaṇas in general) alludes to this sort of unpleasantness and the consequent cessation of discussion on public affairs which lead to final disruption of the whole body.¹ The Buddhist tradition in describing the cause of the temporary discomfiture of the Lichchhavi body-politic against Ajātaśatru, says that the Lichchhavis, owing to disagreement, had ceased to come to the Public Assembly when the tocsin sounded the call.² Then in some cases, the politicians were divided in opposing parties. This feature of the difficulty is put very graphically in the complaint of Kṛishṇa. 'As regard Āhuka and Akrūra, if they are in one's favour, there is no greater misery for that man; if they are not in one's favour, there is no greater misery for him either, I can not elect the party of the either. Between the two I am like a mother of two gamblers staking against each other who cannot wish for the victory of one and the defeat of the other.'³

c28.41

¹ See Appendix A., and chapter XIV above.

c28.42

² *J. A. S. B.*, 1838, 994-5;

c28.43

³ App. A.

c28.44

Internal dissension is said in the Mahā-Bhārata to be the real danger to a republic. Fear from outside enemies as compared to that was 'nothing.'

c28.45

§ 181. Dissensions led to *breaking-up of ganas*. By this as pointed out above, we should understand that sometimes schisms occurred and new states were formed. Thus small units to start with, and a tendency to become smaller, jealousy and rivalry amongst politicians, and license in public speaking seem to be the chief points of weakness of the Hindu Republican Polity.

Linked texts (7)