Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c49.8

c49.8

§ 357. Again, the Hindu Monarchical State was essentially a civil state. Standing armies appear as early as the 6th century B. C. and probably had existed before it for some centuries. At times very large armies, three quarters of a million strong, were maintained.¹ But the State never lapsed into a military polity. The governors of the provinces were civil officers. All the known orders in inscriptions are addressed to civil functionaries. The Commander-in-Chief and all other military chiefs were appointed by the Council of State where the Commander-in Chief had no place. We do not find the army making and unmaking kings. All the traditions of depositions,—*e.g.*, that of *Nāga-Darśaka*, of *Pālaka* or of the early *Vena*, relate dethronements brought about by the Citizens of the Capital and other constituents of the civil population, not by the army. The king among his several titles—*Narapati* (Protector of the People), *Bhūpati* (Protector of the Country) *Bhaṭṭāraka* (Lord), *Great King* and others—has not got an epithet indicating an official military character, although his personal heroism is often extolled. He as the head of the executive was undoubtedly the head of the army, and in practice he very often led the army and fought, but that was a personal matter. There is no theory which gives him a military halo. He was not the generalissimo of the army of inherent right; that office was quite distinct from that of kingship from Vedic times (§ 211).