The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c21.114

c21.114

The Hindu state was never a theocracy. The occasional appearance of Brahmanic ruling dynasties was a mere accident like the existence of Vaiśya and Śūdra dynasties. As a rule, the sceptre was wielded by Kṣatriyas or those who were fictitiously recognised as Kṣatriyas.¹ The inscriptions and the foreign accounts indicate that the extreme Brahmanic claims, set forth in the Dharma Sūtras, Dharma Śāstras and Purāṇas, were not fully conceded in practice. The privileges which Brāhmaṇas did actually enjoy in practice were seriously curtailed under Buddhist and Jaina regimes. Nevertheless the Hindu state, though not a theocracy, was often influenced by the Brāhmaṇas, who posed as the depositories of learning, law and religion. The Purohita was always beside the king. Brāhmaṇas supplied many counsellors, judges and other officials. Doubtful points of law were often referred to Brāhmaṇa pariṣads. The state recognised the facts of caste and sat rather hard on the lower classes. Apart from the evidence of the theoretical Dharma Sūtras, Dharma Śāstras, Arthasāstras and Purāṇas, Alberūnī testifies to the disabilities imposed on Śūdras in the matter of justice and all that pertains to the higher life of man. The inscriptions show that most of the grants of land or presents of money and articles were made to Brāhmaṇas. Suzerains or feudatories, in the north or south, when addressing their subjects through inscriptions, begin by mentioning the Brāhmaṇas and thus recognise their social primacy. Forced labour, which is alluded to in so many inscriptions, must have fallen on the lower classes. It is from the dominance of caste that Hindu administration