Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c15.70

c15.70

The function of legal interpretation which rested with Brâhmaṇa scholars naturally threw some political power into the hands of Brâhmaṇas. The royal priest who figures so conspicuously in all governmental theory constituted another distinctively Brâhmaṇic influence. The employment of Brâhmaṇas in high offices of state is the third great factor which deserves notice. The intellectual supremacy of the class and the general reverence it commanded constituted a force by itself. Yet theory insisted in clear and unambiguous terms that the actual political power should be wielded not by Brâhmaṇas but by Kṣatriyas. Ancient India actually knew Brâhmaṇa and Śûdra kingship but theory, except in the legal commentators, would not recognise them as legitimate. The Brâhmaṇa should guide the king who is, indeed, sometimes depicted as merely the executive arm of the priest, philosopher and lawyer. But the latter should not himself hold the sceptre. The Mahâbhârata will have it that the experiment of Brâhmaṇic rule had been tried in antiquity and that it had failed egregiously. Political sovereignty had, therefore, been transferred to Kṣatriya hands. The tale is repeated in several Sanskrit works and a version of it was current at least until the eleventh century A.D. To Alberûnî, the great Arab Sanskritist, the Hindus related that "originally the affairs of government were in the hands of the Brâhmaṇas but the country became disorganised, since they ruled according to the philosophic principles of their religious codes, which proved impossible when opposed to the mischievous and perverse elements of the populace. They were even near losing also the administration of their religious affairs. Therefore they humiliated themselves before the lord of their religion. Whereupon Brahman intrusted them exclusively with the functions which they now have, whilst he intrusted the Kṣatriyas with the duties of ruling and fighting. Ever since the Brâhmaṇas live by asking and begging, and the penal code is exercised under the control of the kings, not under that of scholars.”¹ So, Brâhmaṇic secular dominion was out of the question. Some earlier writers had derived the kingly from the priestly power,² but this line of argument was soon given up. The king was extolled independently as a god. He had a rightful place of his own in the social system. Here Hindu theory has not much in common with doctrines like those of St. Augustine in his Civitate Dei or Aquinas’s De Regimine Principium.