The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c21.96

c21.96

The Hindu system of administration has not yet received adequate scientific treatment. For long it was regarded as hardly worthy of serious study. More than one modern writer on Indian history has quoted with approval Gibbon's epigram that all oriental history is "one unceasing round of valour, greatness, degeneracy and decay." Relying apparently on the generalisations of some noted historians, T. H. Green laid down that "the great empires of the east are, in the main, tax-collecting institutions. They exercise coercive force on their subjects of the most violent kind, for certain purposes and at certain times, but they do not impose laws as distinct from particular and occasional commands. Nor do they judicially administer and enforce customary law."² The reaction against this attitude touched the other extreme. In a series of brilliant articles (in the Modern Review, Calcutta, 1913), later expanded into "Hindu Polity," K. P. Jayaswal endeavoured to prove that the ancient Hindu political system was one of republics, partly of the Athenian type, and of constitutional limited monarchies, not unlike that of Great Britain, with institutions like the assemblies of the Pauras or citizens and Janapadas or country-folk.¹ These organisations, as painted by Jayaswal, were more advanced than anything which modern Switzerland or the United States of America can show. The lead thus given was followed by several scholars who sought to reinforce Jayaswal's conclusions or to fill in the details of his outline. To all these attempts, however, there are a few objections. In the first place, the basis of these hypotheses is rather narrow. They rest on a very small number of passages in Hindu literature and Greek accounts and a yet smaller number of inscriptions which are more than counterbalanced by numerous other passages and inscriptions. It is these latter pieces of evidence which escaped the zealous pioneers. In the second place, the authenticity of some of the passages utilized is far from established. For instance, the Greek extracts, as given in the versions of much later writers, cannot always be taken at their face value. In the third place, the interpretation of some passages, for instance, in the Sûtras of Pânini or the work of Kâtyâyana, is more than doubtful. In the fourth place, many of the conclusions in question have been reached by combining data from widely distant epochs. To discuss the evidence of the Vedas and Brâhmanas in the same breath with that of Śukranîti is a violation of the canon of historical criticism. In like manner, to combine northern with southern and Ceylonese evidence and to draw therefrom conclusions for the whole of India is rather unscientific. In the fifth place, the connecting link in some of the arguments is lacking or extremely weak. To equate the theory of the procedure of the Buddhist monastic order with the practice of contemporary political assemblies, is, in the absence of definite evidence, hardly convincing. In the sixth place, the theory of the Epios, the Arthaśāstra or the Dharma Śāstras has often been taken to be an exact statement of contemporary practice. The scientific order of treatment seems to be that Hindu political theory should be extracted primarily from literature and secondarily from inscriptions but political practice should be gleaned primarily from coins and inscriptions, next from foreign accounts and, lastly, from literature. It may be added that some of the conclusions of recent writers do not harmonize with what we know with certainty about the intellectual influences, social institutions and economic conditions of ancient India. Real democracy, for instance, could not be reared on the social chasms of caste. Nor could a ‘national’ assembly ‘of country-folk’ function regularly in a large area which was split up into thousands of villages and which lacked the modern means of communications.