The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c21.103

c21.103

The principles which underlay the Hindu system of governance as a whole were different from those of ancient Rome or modern Europe. They bear a partial resemblance to the principles of medieval European polity. The state in ancient India was not unitary in the strict sense of the term. It was saturated through and through with the principles of what for convenience may be called federalism and feudalism. It must, of course, be emphasised that the modern notions of federalism—written constitutions, clear demarcation of spheres of power, the idea of the co-ordination of federal and state authorities—were unknown to ancient India. Nor was the economic side of medieval European feudalism present in the Hindu system of organisation. These words have to be used for the sake of convenience. But when applied to ancient India they must be shorn of some of their European associations. They are only meant to imply that, as a general rule, a Hindu kingdom comprised a number of feudatories who enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy, that they themselves might have sub-feudatories of a similar status under them and so on to the third, fourth or fifth degree. A big empire was partly a series of alliances, partly a series of relationships of suzerainty and vassalage and partly an area of directly administered territory. The high-sounding Digvijaya could lead only to such a consummation on a large or small scale. The bond which held an empire together was so slight that it could be snapped at any favourable moment. Under every regime, suzerain or feudal, the village was the ultimate unit of society. Even in the north it enjoyed a sort of social or legal autonomy, and was administered, at least from the Gupta period onwards, in consultation with village elders. Here was another type of localism. Finally, there were a number of associations and corporations, religious, economic and social, which enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. Sovereignty *de facto* was diffused among all these organisations and the influences which supported them.