History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.534

v4.c62.534

In the preceding pages an attempt has been made to present a picture of the theory and practice of Government and statecraft as delineated by ancient and medieval Indian writers on dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra. One feature that would strike any reader is the religious colouring with which all theories and ideals are suffused. Another is that the ideal set before rulers and their officers is a highly moral one. Several faults have been found in the theory and practice inculcated by the writers. Except for some centuries before and after the Christian era, monarchy has been the only form of government known in India and monarchy alone is generally envisaged by Indian writers. The result has been that the king came in practice to be almost synonymous with government and the State, though a very lofty sense of his duties and responsibilities was impressed on the king. Another defect lies in the almost total absence of discussion on the form and working of oligarchical or republican States. Besides, once the main outlines of the theory of the State were established by the first writers on polity, for about two thousand years succeeding generations of authors were content to follow in the old grooves and hardly ever made any fresh approach to the problems of government or started any rival conceptions or theories. Ancient authors were content to induce the kings and the people to support as far as possible the *status quo*. They thus provided for a more or less static society and did not encourage any dynamic thoughts or movements. There was no strong or assertive middle class nor was there any organized Church. Though the brāhmaṇas were a sacred class, they were not organized as a body and had to depend only on exhortations and texts to exert influence on the monarchs. It may no doubt be pointed out that similar conditions prevailed almost all the world over. Small States, constant wars and invasions were the commonest phenomena in Europe till the 15th or 16th century and no reproach should be levelled at the Indian writers alone. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that even after experiencing the constant plundering expeditions and religious persecutions of Scythian, Hun and Moslem invaders from the 1st to the 11th and the following centuries the able thinkers, warriors and statesmen of India did not enlarge their limited horizon and find means to consolidate and weld together into a united block the numerous small States that were scattered all over India. They could have put forward a common idea and ideal before all the provinces and peoples of India viz. meeting the onslaught of plundering and fanatical invaders, which, if properly handled, would have acted as a unifying force. It was to some extent only in Vijayānagara and Mahārāṣṭra that in medieval times means were adopted to weaken the power of the invader, to present a solid front and establish powerful Hindu kingdoms. The old writers spun the same old webs of theories that had been there for centuries, they did not formulate new theories nor did they take steps to infuse into the common people a sense of solidarity and unity as Indians and did not inculcate deep and abiding sentiments of patriotism similar to those we find in Western countries for the last two or three hundred years. In spite of such drawbacks it will have to be conceded that ancient Indian writers made substantial and independent contributions to the theory and practice of Government and that their handiwork can stand comparison with the ancient and medieval thought of most countries of the world.