Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c42: Chapter XXIX: Opinion of Thinkers and General Public Opinion

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c42

Language: English

Chapter XXIX: Opinion of Thinkers and General Public Opinion

c42.2

§ 288. To the constitutional check exercised by the Paura-Jānapada we must add the great influence of thinkers and wise men.

The hermits and recluse thinkers living outside society, in the 'forest,'¹ were a political factor in Hindu life. The hermitage was representative of the whole Aryan Society. At the same time it was a repository of past experience in social and political matters and a seat of clear and impartial thinking. The retirements for the people in the third stage were marked out in close neighbourhood of the capital and other towns.¹ Hindu hermits, though in retirement, were not absolutely out of touch with the community and the world of politics. They with their wisdom and impartiality could take a correct view of a difficulty in administration and could advise the king thereon, without reserve or fear.

c42.4

¹ *Artha-S'āstra*, Bk. II, Ch. 2, (p. 49)— प्रदिष्टदिगभयावरमद्रव्यानि च ब्राह्मणेभ्यो ब्रह्मसोमारण्यानि तपोवनानि च, तपस्विभ्यो गोत्रपराणि प्रयच्छेत् । The Tapovanas were named after the seven original gotras. The Buddha went to one of such āśramas after leaving his home. The āśramas named after gotra-ṛishis in the Rāmāyaṇa were also such institutions, not that the original gotra-ṛishis were supposed to be still living.

c42.5

Then there was the floating wisdom of the yet older generation which could speak to the erring with the authority which no temporal power could command. They spoke in the name of morality and they were heard. It was their privilege to communicate their opinion even unasked for. Literature is full of references shewing the influence which the ascetic wisdom in Hindu race exercised on current politics. Nārada who was, as we now know from Pāli documents of early times, one of the class of Bhikshus called ‘Nāradas,’ advised Kṛishṇa on his republican difficulties. Coming to later historical times, the Buddha was approached by Ajātaśatru for advice before marching against the Lichchhavis. Viḍūrabha of Kosala once desisted from declaring hostilities against the Śākyas owing to the Buddha's opinion Alexander found the ‘gymnosophists’¹ formidable politicians, and with his usual ferocity towards free ideas could not comfortably bear their existence and had several of them executed. One of them when asked why he urged the leader of a particular state to oppose Alexander, replied because he 'wished him to live with honour or die with honour' (Plutarch LXIV). Another Sanyāsin is related by Greek writers to have given Alexander a lesson in politics by comparing Alexander's empire to a piece of dry hide without a centre of gravity, one edge rising up rebelliously while Alexander stood on the other. The old Dandin (*Dandamis*) of Taxila, when called upon by Onesikratês to present himself before Alexander, son of Zeus, master of the world, under the threat 'but if you refuse (he) will cut off your head,' 'complacently smiled' and replied that he was as much son of Zeus as Alexander, that he was quite content with India which supported him like a mother; and sarcastically indicated that the people on the Ganges (the army of Nanda) would convince Alexander that he was not yet the master of the world.¹ In the Artha-Sāstra the king is told that 'bad government offends ascetics and recluses.'² The Mahā-Bhārata in its book on politics enjoins upon the king to inform hermits of the affairs of state and to take counsel from one whose experience was large and whose original family was distinguished and who was now selfless.³

c42.6

¹ Cf. McCrindle, *Megasthenes*, pp. 124-126:— “God, the supreme king, is never the author, of insolent wrong, but is the creator of light, of peace, of life, of water, of the body of man, and of souls and these he receives when death sets them free being in no way subject to evil desire. He alone is the god of my homage, who abhors slaughter and instigates no wars. But Alexander is not god, since he must taste of death, and how can such as he be the world's master, who has not yet reached the further shore of the river Tiberoboas, and has not yet seated himself on a throne of universal dominion?......If his present dominions are not capacious enough for his desire, let him cross the Ganges river, and he will find a region able to sustain men if the country on our side be too narrow to hold him. Know this, however, that what Alexander offers me, and the gift he promises, are all things to me utterly useless... The earth supplies me with everything, even as a mother her child with milk......Should Alexander cut off my head, he cannot also destroy my soul. My head alone now silent, will remain, but the soul will go away to its master, leaving the body like a torn garment upon the earth whence also it was taken. I then, becoming spirit, shall ascend to my god......he is judge of all proud wrong-doing. For the groans of the oppressed become the punishments of the oppressors. Let Alexander, then, terrify with these threats those who wish for gold and for wealth and who dread death, for against us these weapons are both alike powerless, since the Bragmanes (=Brāhmaṇas) neither love gold nor fear death.” No wonder that the Greeks should say that ‘Dandamis...though old and naked, was the only antagonist in whom he, the conqueror of many nations, had found more than his match.’ The reader need hardly be reminded that the ascetic was quoting the Upanishads. His description of the Brahmin who neither wished for gold nor dreaded death is relevant to what we say below (§ 290).

c42.7

¹ See *n.*, p. 110 above.

c42.8

² *Artha-S'āstra*, Bk. I, Ch. 4; 1 (p. 9.)

c42.9

³ *Mahā-Bhārata* (Kumbakonam Ed). *S'ānti-Parvan*, Ch. LXXXVI, vv. 26-28.

c42.10

§ 289. The tradition came down through the whole course of Hindu history. It was so strong that in the period of Hindu revival it played once more a great role. Guru Rāmādāsa was

c42.11

दुष्प्रणीतः (दण्डः) कामक्रोधाभ्यामज्ञानाद्वाप्रवृत्तःप्रव्रजितवानप्रस्थानपि कोपयति ।

c42.12

आश्रमान् सर्वकार्याणि तापसे समुपेत्य च ।
निवेदयेद्यथावत्तं नित्यं प्रह्वश्च संवसेत् ॥
... ... ...
सर्वार्थत्यागिनं राजा कुले जातं बहुश्रुतम् ।
पूजयेत सादरं यज्ञा..........

c42.13

as great a guide to Śivājī as any Nārada to an ancient predecessor of the latter.

c42.14

§ 290. With the class of men in hermitage and post-hermitage stages of life, we should count the Vṛittastha Brahmin. Nobody can pretend to understand Hindu history without realizing the true social value of the teaching, studying, thinking and sacrificing Brahmin. With a culture of intellect ever developing, from generation to generation, he had grown into a leviathan of brain. That leviathan would have eaten up Hindu Society and burst up himself, but for the self-denying ordinance of poverty. He would engage not in what would bring him wealth. The little wealth he required for his sustenance, he would beg of the Society he had undertaken to serve. He thus became the true aristocrat of Hindu Society, with the differentia peculiar to him in the whole world: that he was the aristocrat-plus-poverty. By the vow of poverty he secured for him an imperishable intellectual existence rooted in independence of spirit and consciousness of virtuous superiority. The race in which he grew stood loyally by him, nourishing and maintaining that leviathan of brain and virtue.

c42.15

The Brahmin of poverty living inside society and state, and out-side Paura and Jānapada, with his little home and his fire-altars, was probably more mindful of current politics than any one else. In the Jātakas, the Brahmin versed equally in Dharma and Artha, Sacred Knowledge and Science of Politics, is a constant figure. Vasishṭha and Vāmadeva in the national epics typify the figures who would turn up at the court and advise the king and point out weaknesses in his administration. It is they that lead the Paura-Jānapada deputation in the Rāmāyaṇa to the king to announce the national decision about the appointment of Yuvarāja. And the king addresses them and the Paura-Jānapadas as 'Rulers' ('Kings'). The Bṛihaspati and Kauṭilya class was not merely concerned with systematizing theories of state; they made the politics of their country an object of their immediate concern. Kauṭilya was a Śrotriya or Vedic Brahmin.¹ At the same time Alexander's incoming and the stupid administration of the upstart (Nava) Nanda concerned him more than his Vedic studies. He thought it necessary to overhaul the existing system. The poverty-aristocrat emphasised again and again that State was a life on which depended social, individual and spiritual happiness. He reminded the people again and again that the bases of civilization of the Race are rooted in polity, that the Sword which protects the people is the womb of civilization.² The Brahmin idealised and idolised the country of the Aryas as much politically as religiously.³

c42.16

¹ चाणक्य इति विख्यातः श्रोत्रियः सर्वधर्मवित् । *Upodghāta*, Telang's Mudrā-Rākshasa, p. 44.

c42.17

² *Mahā-Bhārata*, (Kumbakonam Ed.) *Śānti-Parvan*, ch. CLXIV, vv. 66-69:

c42.18

³ See, for instance, the interpretation of *Āryāvarta* which Medhātithi gives on Manu, II, 22—

c42.19

§ 291. The opinion of organised bodies and of ascetics and hermits and Vṛittastha Brahmins apart, the administration

c42.20

येन शास्त्रं च शस्त्रं च नन्दराज गता च भूः। अमर्षेणोद्धृतान्याशु तेन शास्त्रमिदं कृतम् ॥

—*Artha-Śāstra*, (p. 429).

c42.21

क्षात्रे धर्मेण नीताने दण्डो यत्सद्व्रतं विधावे ॥

विद्धर्मेरोचयते पादान्कारीत्रिभोर्तेवास्य तम्।

सर्वार्थेभ्यो ददो खड्गसग्रवी त्राणनाय च ॥

अग्रेन्द्री लोकपालेभ्यो लोकपालानां दुक्षक।

ममये सूर्यसुकाय ददुः खड्गं सुविस्तारम् ।

ऋतुर्दस तथा यात्रां मानुषाणां समीश्वरः ।

चसिना धर्ममंशेण पालयस्व प्रजा इति ।

c42.22

आर्यो वर्तन्ते तत्र पुनः पुनरुद्भवन्त्याक्रम्याक्रम्यापि न चिरं तत्र म्लेच्छाः स्थातारो भवन्ति etc.

c42.23

had to take into consideration the opinion of the general public as well. That there was a real public opinion in the country, is proved by the passage in the Śānti Parvan of the Mahā-Bhārata,¹ LXXXIX 15-16:

c42.24

¹ व्यतीत दिवसे वृत्तं प्रशंसन्ति न वा पुनः। वृत्तं चारेणसम्भ्रातैः पृथिवीमनुसारयेत् ॥ जानीत यदि मे वृत्तं प्रशंसन्ति न वा पुनः। कञ्चिद्रोचस्वमपदे कञ्चिद्राष्ट्रे च मे यशः ॥ (Kumb).

c42.25

"The king should make secret and trusted agents travel "through the kingdom for ascertaining whether his "conduct of the previous day has, or has not met "with the approbation of the subjects.

c42.26

"'Ascertain whether my conduct is or is not approved, "'what action of mine in the country is "'agreeable and what reputation do I have in "'the realm.'"

c42.27

The King's policy and conduct were criticised in the country and the king was anxious to know those criticisms. The ideal is forcefully, though crudely, set forth in the national epic, the Rāmāyaṇa, in the alleged reason as to why Rāma parted with his queen. Though personally convinced of her innocence, he separated himself from her in response to the public will.

Linked texts (6)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Mudrārākṣasa — Viśākhadatta, Sanskrit
Bṛhaspatismṛti — Bṛhaspati, Sanskrit
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit