Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c15.s1: Bhâsa

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c15.s1

Language
English

Bhâsa

c15.s1.1

Another outstanding figure in the history of the Sanskrit drama, Bhâsa, can be noticed as conveniently here as anywhere else. T. Gaṇapati Sâstrî who recently discovered and edited his plays, ascribed them to the seventh or eighth century B.C. But it has lately been argued that they are not the product of a single mind, that at most they can only be said to belong to one school and that they took shape about the 7th century A.D. Others will bring the date as low as the eleventh century A.D. On weighing the internal evidence and considering the arguments advanced to support the various hypotheses, one is inclined to think that the plays were composed by the same author sometime between the 4th and the 6th century A.D. In the seventh century A.D. Bâṇabhaṭṭa mentioned Bhâsa in the introductory verses of Harṣacarita and placed his name before that of Kâlidâsa.

c15.s1.2

It is uncertain whether the order of names is merely accidental or whether it implies chronological sequence.¹ But it is impossible not to attach some weight to the arguments of those who hold Bhâsa to be a forerunner of Kâlidâsa. For the present, however, no very definite date can be assigned to him.²

c15.s1.3

¹ Bâṇa, Harṣacarita, verses 15-16.

c15.s1.4

² For the date and authorship of the plays attributed to Bhâsa, T. Gaṇapati Śâstrî, Introduction to Svapnavâsavadattâ and Pratimânâṭakam; Bulletin of Oriental Studies, London Institution, III, p. 627; Bhâsa's Dramas, a criticism. For contrary views, L. D. Barnett, Bulletin of Oriental Studies, London Institution, III, pp. 107, 519. Jayaswal (J.A.S.B., New Series, 1913, pp. 259-70) places Bhâsa about the third century A.D. Keith (Sanskrit Drama, pp. 91-126; Bulletin of Oriental Studies, London Institution, III, p. 295) places him about 300 A.D. On the whole question see also Macdonell, J.R.A.S., 1913, pp. 186-90; F. W. Thomas, J.R.A.S., 1924, pp. 78-83; Ibid., 1925, pp. 100-104; C. R. Devadhar, Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, 1925-26, pp. 29-64; A. P. Banerji Sastri, J.B.O.R.S., 1923 (Vol. IX, Part I), pp. 49-113; V. S. Sukthankar, J.B.B.R.A.S., 1917-18, Vol. XXV, No. 1, pp. 230 et seq.; J.A.O.S., 1920, pp. 248 et seq.; Ibid., 1921, pp. 107 et seq.; K. R. Pisharoti, Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. I, 1925, pp. 108 et seq.; Bhaṭṭanâtha Svâmin, Ind. Ant., 1916, pp. 189-95; J. Ghatak, Journal of the Department of Letters, Vol. XII, 1925, pp. 1-46; Pisharoti, Journal of the Mythic Society, XI, pp. 353 et seq.; XII, pp. 58 et seq.

c15.s1.5

Like so many later dramatists, Bhâsa borrows his plots from the Râmâyaṇa, the Mahâbhârata and popular legends. Kings, ministers and ambassadors jostle one another on his stage but his plays are not political. Not even the Abhiṣekanâṭaka fulfils the expectations raised by its title and its plot which begins with the conflict of Râma’s ally, the monkey Sugriva, with his brother Bâlin and ends with the fall of the demon Râvaṇa. Another piece, Cârudatta, which might have supplied the plot to Śûdraka’s Mricchakaṭikâ, is no better from the political point of view, though it throws interesting side-lights on the manners of those days. In Avimâraka, Kauñjâyana, one of the two ministers of king Kuntibhoja, laments the sad plight of those fools whom vanity prompts to accept the office of ministers. If their projects are successful, the glory falls to the strength of the sovereign. But if they fail, they are denounced for incompetence.¹ Shortly after, the minister wants the king to honour the envoy of the Benâres sovereign. The king exclaims that the ministerial mind looks only to business, not to affection. When called in, he feels how heavy is the burden of the crown. Dharma or the law must be considered at first. The working of the minister's mind must be followed intelligently. The king must conceal his passions—desires and anger. A policy of mercy or sternness must be (determined and) followed as the juncture of events requires. Through spies—eyes of the king—the doings of the people must be perceived; so, too, the maṇḍala of neighbouring kings must be watched. The king must carefully guard his own person and yet expose it on the field of battle.² In the second Act, the hero Avimâraka incidentally remarks that according to the injunction of Śāstras one should hold consultation with two (councillors)³ In a single-act play, Dûtavâkyam, where the plot consists of Kṛṣṇa's futile mission to Duryodhana on the eve of the Great Civil War, sovereignty appears in all its pride. Duryodhana scoffs at the idea of reconciliation. Princes enjoy dominion after defeating their enemies. Dominion is not to be begged in this world. Nor is it to be bestowed on the helpless.⁴ The Pratijñâyaugandharâyaṇam enshrines a beautiful picture of ministerial loyalty. It also furnishes an interesting example of aristocratic pride (pp. 30-31). Apart from these and similar unimportant political touches, it is clear that Bhāsa upholds the Brahmanic order of things and recognises the supremacy of Brāhmaṇas. In another single-act play, called Madhyamavyāyoga, based on a Mahābhārata incident, Bhīmasena, proud of his Kṣatriya origin, feels that a Brāhmaṇa deserves the highest worship and is ready to sacrifice himself for his safety.¹ Vāsavadattā, Act VI, shows that the door-keeper and chamberlain were two distinct officers. There were a number of guards and police officers to maintain order. In Act I, they are seen turning away the people. Vāsavadattā also shows that the capital of a small kingdom could sometimes be no bigger than a village, but ambitions for wide conquest might still be there. The fourth Act brings a Viḍūṣaka—jester—as the companion and confidential friend of the king.

c15.s1.6

¹ Avimâraka (ed. Gaṇapati Śāstrī), p. 4. ² Ibid., p. 13. ³ Ibid., p. 31, stanza ii on the same page for another political touch. ⁴ Dûtavâkyam (ed. GaṇapatiŚāstrī), p. 38.

c15.s1.7

¹ Madhyamavyāyoga (ed. Gaṇapati Śāstrī), p. 17.

c15.s1.8

Here, too, may be noticed another work which is not the product of a single mind or age but which perhaps assumed its present shape sometime after the fall of the Gupta empire. The Uttarādhyayana Sūtra,² says Charpentier, “is a collection of materials differing in age and derived from different sources.” “It seems at least probable that the main texts already existed in their present shape before the final redaction of the canon at the Council of Valabhī (probably in 526 A.D.).”³ The text touches government in a rather left-handed manner. But the dialogue between Indra, the king of gods disguised as a Brāhmaṇa, and Nami who had just received enlightenment and renounced his family and dominion of Mithilā contains a few interesting political references. The federal-feudal idea is there. “Bring into subjection all princes who do not acknowledge you,” says Indra to Nami. Kings lived in great pomp and glory and constantly multiplied their treasure, jewellery, wardrobe and conveyances. Towns were often enclosed by walls, defended by battlemented gates, moats and those instruments of warfare which were called Śataghnīs. It was felt that the government must severely punish robbers, cut-purses and burglars and thus establish internal tranquillity.¹

c15.s1.9

² Ed. Jarl Charpentier, Archives D’Études Orientales, No. 21.

c15.s1.10

³ Ibid., Introduction, pp. 40-41, 48.

c15.s1.11

¹ Ibid., Adhyayana, IX, 22-39. For some interesting remarks on Brâhmaṇas, XXV, 24, 33.

Linked texts (13)