Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c15.89

c15.89

cultural homogeneity of large areas. In the absence of natural frontiers every powerful state was tempted to reduce its neighbours to vassalage. Protected states constitute one of the permanent features of Indian history. No political status is so difficult to define as protectorate. Hindu theory sometimes confuses it with independence and sometimes with a mere administrative sub-division but a careful writer like Kauṭalya grasps its character very clearly and specifies the immunities and obligations which accompanied it. He agrees with other Hindu writers in recommending that a subjugated dynasty should not be altogether uprooted. All Hindu theorists want the laws and customs of countries to be respected. What may be good for one region may not suit another. But the foreign relations, and certain important administrative and other matters must be placed definitely under the control of the suzerain. No offensive measures against any foe, no fortification of any kind, can be undertaken without the sanction of the overlord. Capture of elephants, which had a military significance in ancient India, must await his permission. The installation of heir-apparent, that is to say, the succession to the dynastic throne, depends on the suzerain’s will. Nor is a vassal competent, without the overlord’s permission, to punish fugitives from his territory. Commercial undertakings are also included by Kauṭalya among matters for which the protector’s permission is necessary. Then there are general directions on the behaviour of a feudatory. He should be like “a servant to his master by serving the protector’s occasional needs.” Again “on all occasions of worshipping gods and of making prayers, he should cause his people pray for the long life of his protector.”¹