Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c51: Chapter XXXVII: Imperial Systems

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c51

Language
English

Chapter XXXVII: Imperial Systems

c51.2

The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa places after the republican group of states the monarchical group which consists of these varieties: (1) Monarchy,¹ (2) Great (or High) Monarchy (*Mahārājya*); (3) Over-Lordship (*Ādhipatya*), and (4) Pan-Country Sovereignty† (*Sārvabhauma*).

c51.3

¹ The *Rājya* is qualified with *pārameshṭhya*, apparently to distinguish it as *the rājya*, the *rājya* superior, *i.e.*, monarchy: "सर्वेषां राज्ञां श्रेष्ठा अतिष्ठां परमतां गच्छे यम्. It is also possible that *Pārameshṭhya* was some sort of distinct monarchical constitution (cf. राजानं राजपितरं परमेष्ठिनं पारमेष्ठ्यम्. Aitareya Br. VIII. 12). I remember having seen a passage in the Mahā-Bhārata where some king is styled *Parameshṭhin*. The rare *Svāvalya* (VIII. 12) if technical, was probably a reminiscence of the discredited 'autocracy' which the oath in the Mahā-Bhārata specifically excludes from Hindu kingship.

c51.4

† [Transcriber's note: text has single quote instead of footnote mark]

c51.5

The High Monarchy is not defined. But the word *mahā-* (*mahat*) connotes relativity, *e.g.*, superiority between States of the same kind. *Māhā-rājya* probably meant a large monarchy, larger than its neighbours, with certain constitutional features at present not known. *Ādhipatya* in its technical sense evidently signifies an over-lordship embracing protected states; the *Brāhmaṇa* after the mention of the Ādhipatya has "May I be (sovereign) enveloping neighbours "² *Ādhipatya* thus seems to mean an imperial system in which suzerainty or 'over-protection' (Ādhipatya) on states outside its frontiers was exercised by the dominant state. Khāravela who had taken the consecration of *Mahārājya*, was described obviously in consequence of his conquests and *rājasūya*, as *Adhipati* and *Chakravartin*.¹ The wish to be a Sārvabhauma is expressed to become "(the sole) *monarch of the land up to its* (natural) *frontiers, up to the sea, over all human beings*."² This is a variety of large monarchy which is based on territory as opposed to nationality (*e.g.*, *Jānarājya* of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa). It however claims the whole area (sarva-bhūmi) within natural boundaries, the country with "natural frontiers." The "natural frontiers" notion is expressed by Kauṭilya in his *chāturanta* sovereignty ('an empire up to the four limits')³ and he defines it to be the *imperial field* as lying between Cape Comorin and the Himalayas, *i.e.*, the whole of India.⁴ The ideal of one-king empire extending up to the seas probably arose in Magadha from where the field for conquest lay open up to the Bay of Bengal. Its non-Aryan population, unlike the Aryan Janas or nations of the Doab, was no moral barrier to the Hindu imperialist.

c51.6

² VIII. 15— साम्राज्यं भौज्यं स्वाराज्यं वैराज्यं पारमेष्ठ्यं राज्यं माहाराज्यमाधिपत्यमयं समन्तपर्यायी स्यात्

c51.7

³ *Ibid.*, समन्त पर्यायी स्याम्.

c51.8

¹ Jayaswal, *J. B. O. R. S.*, III. 434, 459 ; IV. 376, 396.

c51.9

² *Aitareya Br.*, VIII. 15— सार्वभौमः सर्वायुष आन्तादापरार्धात् पृथिव्यै समुद्रपर्यन्ताया एकराट्

c51.10

³ *Artha-Śāstra*, III. 1. 58, p. 159.

c51.11

⁴ *Ibid.*, IX. 1, p. 338.

c51.12

We have thus two main systems : one is the Suzerainty or *Ādhipatya* system and the other is the Pan-Country Monarchy or the *Sārvabhauma*.⁵ The latter system was extended and applied even to the Aryan India by the kings of Magadha which shocked the principle of *Jānarājya*. Hindu historians denounced the "one-king," "one-umbrella" sovereignty of Mahā-Padma established over the ashes of the houses of Vedic antiquity⁶ § 363).

c51.13

⁵ The *Sārvabhauma* does not relate to the 'whole Earth.' See *bhūmi*—country (§ 351); *Prithivī*—country. 'desa,' according to Artha-śāstra, p. 338.

c51.14

⁶ See *Purāṇa Text* (Pargiter), P. 25. Jayaswal, *J. BORS*, I. 111.

c51.15

§ 363. At the same time there was the system called the Sāmrājya. This was older than the *Sārva-bhauma* and also probably the *Ādhipatya*. This is the favourite of the Vedic literature. It is significant that the Aitareya detaches it from the monarchical systems and treats it as distinct. What is still surprising is that the *Brāhmaṇa* places it at the head of the list of non-monarchial systems. We can understand the reason if we analyse the system. *Sāṃ-rājya* indicates a "collection of states" under one acknowledged super-state. In modern phraseology it was a Federal Imperial system. The federal character distinguished it from the 'one-king' system. According to the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa the rulers in the Prāchī (East) took the consecration of Sāmrājya, *i.e.*, the Prāchī or Magadha had become the imperial seat. The *Śukla Yajurveda* knows the system as prevalent in another part of India (West, xv. 12) Prāchī was under the house of Jarāsandha, called in history after his ancestor Bṛihadratha. The Mahā-Bhārata says that the position of Samrāṭ was acquired by Jarāsandha. Jarāsandha was the President or Samrāṭ of the Federal Organisation and Śiśupāla, king of the Chedis, was the common generalissimo. In this detail we detect an inter-state basis of originally free nature. In the first book of the Mahā-Bhārata we actually find a free election of an emperor by a collection of kings and his consecration to that position.¹ The datum of the Sabhā-Parvan also implies that the system had been introduced by the rulers for self-protection,² but that Jarāsandha had abused it and reduced other sovereigns to slavery.

c51.16

¹ *Sabhā-Parvan*, Ch. XIX.

c51.17

² Cf. *Adi-Parvan*, Ch. 100,7.

c51.18

In view of our interpretation we can easily imagine how a small king like Janaka of Videha had obtained the position of Samrāṭ.¹ Any outstanding personality could be elected leader of the organisation. It seems that owing to the character of the organisation the Aitareya classed it with the popular constitutions.

c51.19

¹ See *ante* (II.) p. 4, *n* 3.

c51.20

The system which won the day in the post-Bārhadratha² period was the sārva-bhauma. The system began to take shape about 700 B.C. when the national states began to give way (§ 247). The old dynasties, come down from Vedic times, began to dwindle. In the next century, large, non-national monarchies greatly developed. There were about three of these One, but not yet the foremost, had its seat in Magadha, another in Kosala and the third in Avantī.³ Competition follows between the three and Magadha finally wins under Nanda-Vardhana.⁴ A permanent Sārva-bhauma is set up about 450 B.C. A century later, the old traditional houses are finally wiped off the tablet of history by the Śūdra Emperor of Magadha (§ 362). Literally a 'one-umbrella' empire covering the whole of Northern India except the Punjab was erected: Hindu historians marked it as the beginning of a New Period.

c51.21

² C. 700 B.C. Jayaswal, *J. B. OR S*, IV, p. 26.

c51.22

³ First under the *Vītīhotras* and then the *Pradyotas*.

c51.23

⁴ Jayaswal, *J. BORS*, 187, 107.

c51.24

In 600-450 B.C. people began, as it were, to question "Why should the old dynasties be allowed to live on ?" And the two first cases of usurpation were enacted—in Avantī and in Magadha A political thinker actually formulated a theory of usurpation against degenerate houses.⁵ The old dynasties seem to have outlived themselves and ceased to perform their function.

c51.25

⁵ Cf. Bhāradvāja, quoted and refuted by Kauṭilya in Artha-śāstra, V. 6. 95, pp. 253-4. Kauṭilya points out the immorality, the fact that the ministers do really rule, and above all the great danger of punishment by the people. Bhāradvāja was a ruthless writer. Kaṇika was his personal name. He preached, according to the Mahā-Bhārata, in Western India, to a Sauvīra king Govinda-rāja, Rāmāyaṇa A.K., 100, 39, calls his a 'crooked policy.'

c51.26

§ 365. This type of Hindu Imperialism was also known as "Chakravartin-system". It has reference to '*the arena where the imperial wheel moved unobstructed*'. The basic idea again is territory. In the place of the old 'up-to-ocean' limit it substituted a new definition—from Cape Comorin to Kashmir.¹ The Chakravartin ideal had been in the air certainly as early as 570 B. C. and presumably earlier. The Buddha took it from the phraseology of politics and proclaimed the foundation of the Empire of his Religion (Dharma-Chakra). 'Conquest', 'Conquest,' 'nothing but Conquest,' and to create oneness by that Conquest, was the breath of the eastern Hindus in 600-500 B. C. The Buddha claimed to be a Chakravartin-emperor and the Mahāvīra, another great teacher, claimed to be the Conqueror (Jina) of his time. As in the Moghul period the air was surcharged with the idea of founding Badsbahis both in religion and in politics, so some two thousand years before people thought nothing but of unifying the continent by conquest in religion and in politics.

c51.27

¹ Artha-Sāstra, p. 338:—देशः पृथिवी। तस्यां हिमवत्समुद्रान्तरमुदीचीनं योजन-सहस्र-परिमाणं तिर्यक् चक्रवर्तिक्षेत्रम् 'Country is the whole land (i.e., India). In it from the Himalayas up to the Ocean—straight north, 1000 yojanas in measure, is the Chakravartin-arena.'

c51.28

The idea of unity was the only element therein which would find approval of the historian. Apart from that element, there was nothing in the system to commend itself to the experience of the country. The system, meant development of a tremendous power, but it was a power attained under intoxication. The after-effect was sinking into exhaustion. It never became an approved system. The law books and political thinkers went back to the ideals of the Federal System and the Adhipatya They preached that individual states had a right to live.¹

c51.29

¹ Vishnu, III 47-58 राजा परपुरावाप्तो तु तत्र तत्कुलीनमभिषिचेत्। न राजकुलमुच्छिन्दात्. See also Manu, VII. 202.

c51.30

§ 366. The great feature of the Magadha imperialism was its centralization. Justice had become royal, even law tended to be royal.² The village came under the royal officer. All ships were owned and let by the state. Virtues alone did not come under the focus of the Crown, also vices were brought under the imperial vigilance. Prostitutes were placed under a royal department, gambling was centralised in government buildings or buildings licensed by government, hotels and wine shops were put under an imperial department. Mines were monopolised or, to quote the old phrase, brought under one outlet (ekamukha). Some of these measures were beneficial, others injurious.

c51.31

² Artha-Sāstra, p. 150, धर्मश्च व्यवहारश्च चरित्रं राजशासनम् ।

c51.32

Centralisation was against the genius of the race. The Buddha founded his empire, but the machinery of that empire was self-government, and it flourished. On the other hand under the Magadhan machinery, the soul of the country was chained round the imperial standard, and it failed.

c51.33

§ 367. The system which was tried next was a compromise The Gupta system tolerated a few substates under it, but in reality it was neither a Federalism nor the inferior type, the pure *Ādhipatya*. In essentials it remained a large monarchy. A real federalism with something like equal treatment to other states remained to be revived.

c51.34

§ 368. For our purposes of constitutional study the second³ and the third⁴ empires are but mere monarchies. The power of constitutional bodies under them must have varied to some extent according to the periods of peace and war. In periods of war and stress they must have become somewhat weak and in periods of peace they would have grown powerful. The popular forms, at any rate, still lived.

c51.35

³ Of the Guptas.

c51.36

⁴ That under Harsha, the Maukharis, and others.

Linked texts (8)