History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.43

v4.c62.43

Prof. Bhandarkar in 'Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity' (pp. 66–89), Jayaswal in 'Hindu Polity' part II p. 9, Prof. B. K. Sarkar in 'Positive Background of Hindu Sociology' Book II pp. 34–39 and others maintain that this ancient analysis of *rājya* into seven elements shows that the idea of the State as an organism, that is, the organic theory of the State was known to Hindu thinkers and that this doctrine of *saptāṅga rājya*21a satisfies the definition of the State given by Bluntschli and others. On the other hand Mr. Anjaria in chapter IV of his 'Nature and grounds of political obligation in the Hindu state' after pointing out how there are different versions of the organic theory of the state denies vehemently that the Hindu theory can be called a proper organic theory of the State, particularly because the Hindu thinkers did not regard the State as a moral organism, because they attached a permanent stigma of inferiority to large sections of the community on the bare ground of birth and that the Hindu conceptions did not harmonize the authority of the State and the liberty of the individual. It would be far beyond the scope of the present work to enter into any discussion of this problem. All that may be said is that Mr. Anjaria tilts the balance to the other side too much. The faults he points out in the Hindu theory and practice beset almost all theories of the State almost in all countries. Even in the times of Plato and Aristotle huge populations of slaves had no voice in the affairs of the state. Up to the 19th century true democracies never existed even in Europe.