The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c8.3

c8.3

Many Eastern writers on politics imagine a ‘state of nature’ before the organization of society into a state; according to the Mahābhārata, passions and greed brought about anarchy and licence, so that the gods had to intervene and appoint a ruler.¹ The dread of anarchy also appears in the writings of Manū.² In spite of the prevalent myths of a golden age, most Hindu and Muslim philosophers did not believe, as Rousseau did, in the existence of a free and happy society prior to the organization of the state. The nearest approach to Rousseau’s idea is found in a passage by Ghazzālī where he speaks of the cities of the world living in a state of heavenly bliss before they were reduced to unwilling obedience and bondage by tyrants and wicked monarchs, but here he is hardly thinking of a pre-political society.¹ Like Hobbes, Hooker and Spinoza, most Hindu thinkers consider it impossible for a man to be happy in a state of anarchy. The Muslim thinkers are in entire agreement with this view, though a hypothetical state of nature generally does not find favour with them. They have a more rational theory, and consider the tendency to anarchy an inherent defect in human nature, a destructive weakness of the human race. On the one hand they believe with Aristotle that man is a social animal, and they deduce from this that he instinctively builds institutions; on the other, they recognize that he is always ready to break the bonds of organized life whenever he finds the opportunity.² Too logical an analysis of human nature has always resulted in contradictions. One example is Rousseau's attempt to explain the problem of freedom and bondage, in doing which he not only fails but completely side-tracks the issue. Burke, and, later, the idealists quibbled with the words 'freedom' and 'restraint' and even then produced a paradox. The Muslim philosophers recognized the difficulty but overcame it by adopting the idea of 'the golden mean' and then applying this concept in rather an ingenious manner to social philosophy.