Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c6.180

c6.180

The political thought of the Mahâbhârata is couched in terms of monarchy, the predominant form of Indian governance. But for once the discourse of Bhīṣma is directed to republics perhaps of the type which flourished for a while, chiefly in the sub-Himalayan region. These passages, if interpreted in terms of monarchy, make little sense. With a republican background, they are seen to emphasise the supreme need of union. If disunited, the Gaṇas, as the republics are called, fall an easy prey to enemies. If internal union is maintained, the republicans attain to happiness. Then outsiders seek their alliance. They should always act in concert. It behoves their wise people to nip in the bud any dispute that may be brewing. If the seniors of the race look with indifference on rising dissensions, members fall into violent quarrels among themselves. It is essential to guard against dangers from within. They may uproot the state in a single day. Republics are destroyed not by the courage, intelligence and gold of the enemy, nor by the fascination of female charms but by internal dissensions. Harmony is the very law of their being. Compared to internal risks, any external dangers are of little consequence. In every republic, people should be taught to practise their duties, to bow before learned persons. The republics should keep their treasuries full, should regulate their policy well, employ numbers of spies and should display courage, perseverance and steady prowess on the battlefield.¹