The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c14.s9.t7: 7. Rāmdās's Mahārāṣṭradharma Bārhwāwā

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c14.s9.t7

Language: English

7. Rāmdās's Mahārāṣṭradharma Bārhwāwā

c14.s9.t7.1

In Rāmdās's *Ānanda-vana-bhūvana* as in Paramānanda's *Śiva-Bhārata* Śivaji is a deliverer. Gāgā Bhaṭṭa in his *Śiva-rāja-praśasti*¹ also compares Śivāji's work with that of "Viṣṇu who in his *Kamaṭha* (*Kūrma* or Tortoise) Incarnation rescued the Vedas immersed in the ocean." One of his verses reads in part as follows :

c14.s9.t7.2

¹ B. V. Bhat : *Mahārāṣṭradharma* (Dhuliya, 1925) p. 89.

c14.s9.t7.3

"*Avarangajeba yavanādhipa bhīta vipra-*
*Trāṇāya yah parigrihīta navāvatārah.*"

c14.s9.t7.4

Śivāji is here described as having assumed a new *avatāra* (incarnation) for the protection of the Brāhmaṇas who were terrified by Aurangzeb, the Moslem monarch.

c14.s9.t7.5

It is interesting to observe that in Śivāji's times (1626-80) the European mentality was used to such conceptions of Divine incarnation in regard to the political emancipation of certain territories from the tyranny of an impossible despot. The legends afloat in the Dutch atmosphere in the period of unrest and rebellion against Louis XIV enable us to realize how William of Orange was virtually looked forward to as one of the *avatāras* or Divine incarnations such as had been popular in the Old Testament stories.

c14.s9.t7.6

The Dutch situation in 1687 is described in the following manner:² "Religion gave her sanction to that intense and unquenchable animosity (against France). Hundreds of Calvinistic preachers proclaimed that the same power which had set apart Samson from the womb to be the scourge of the Philistine and which had called Gideon from the threshing floor to smite the Midianite had roused up William of Orange to be the champion of all free nations and of all pure churches."

c14.s9.t7.7

² Macaulay: *History of England* (London 1896), vol. II. p. 183.

c14.s9.t7.8

From the history of the Netherlands in the sixteenth century also we can cite ideological parallels in connection with the rise of the Maratha power. The charges of the Dutch people (1560-80) against Philip II of Spain bear close analogy with what the Maratha saints and chroniclers of the seventeenth and perhaps of the eighteenth centuries make out against Aurangzeb, described in their own words as the Mlechchha and the Yavana tyrant in regard to the pre-Śivāji political and social conditions of the Deccan, nay, of India.³ It is the "terrors of the *kaliyuga*" that constitute Śivāji's *Apology*, so to say, corresponding to the *Apologia* of the Prince of Orange (1580). The following statement of the Dutch hero is in keeping with the spirit of the Maratha champions of Hindu liberty:

c14.s9.t7.9

³ Some of the charges may be read in Bhat: *Mahārāṣṭradharma*, pp. 84-88, 143-144, 154-164, 166, 169-186.

c14.s9.t7.10

"I am in the hand of God, my worldly goods and my life have been long since dedicated to His service. He will dispose of them as seems best for His glory and my salvation."'⁴

c14.s9.t7.11

⁴ J. L. Motley: *History of the Rise of the Dutch Republic* vol. III. (London 1904) pp. 5-12; *The United Netherlands*, Vol. I. (London 1904), pp. 5-12; *Cambridge Modern History*, Vol. III. (1907) pp. 191, 253.

c14.s9.t7.12

It is something like this religious fervour of the Calvinist William that the Maratha saints propagated. In Maratha ideology the *kaliyuga* or iron age was to a considerable extent the "*Aurāngyā pāpī*" incarnate, so to say. The orientations of the Netherlands to Philip II of Spain and Louis XIV of France were identical with those of the Marathas *vis-à-vis* this *pāpī* (sinner). It is with reference to the problems and achievements of the Dutch people that the politics of Maratha independence, *Hindwī Svarājya*, and the expansion of the Hindu states-system by Śivāji and his successors can be appreciated.

c14.s9.t7.13

In the present study we are not concerned with the details of Śivāji's political views or of his political institutions. The political theories of his *Hindwī Svarājya* cannot but be of profound interest. For the present, however, to get the approximate philosophical perspective we have but to mention the works like the British treatises on paternal despotism, e.g., the *Patriarcha* of Filmer (1590-1653), published during the year of Śivāji's death (1680). In France about the same time Pascal in his *Pensées* was adumbrating the doctrine of obedience to custom, and in Bossuet's *Politique* (1709), based on the Scriptures, the people were being taught "*O rois, vous êtes des dieux!*" (O kings, you are gods). In that age the Bible of contempt towards the people was Richelieu's *Testament Politique* (1668).⁵

c14.s9.t7.14

⁵ P. Janet: *Histoire de la Science Politique* (Paris 1913), Vol. II. chapter on "Bossuet and Fenelon"; F. J. C. Hearnshaw (editor): *The Social and Political Ideas of Some English Thinkers of the Augustan Age* (London 1928), chapter on Filmer.

c14.s9.t7.15

Śivāji, be it remembered, is the contemporary of the Stuarts and *le grand monarque*. As in connection with the previous epochs of Hindu political thought, in regard to the Hindu political ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries also the comparison with European ideas is not to be taken in a literal and detailed manner. The analogies must not be stressed too far in any case. The differences in the institutional milieu will always have to be noted.

c14.s9.t7.16

Writing on Frederick the Great the following observation is made by Meinecke:⁶ "*Rationalisierung der aus dem Mittelalter her entwickelten sozialen Kräfte für die Zwecke des Staates, das war die Summe seiner inneren Politik*" (The rationalization of the social forces developed since the Middle Ages in the interests of the state,—this was the gist of his internal politics). It is by rationalization of the army, finance, the middle class and the farmers that Frederick the Great sought to transform Prussia into a real *Grossstaat*, i.e., great state (*mahā-rāṣṭra*). This short and pithy description can be used likewise as the key to Śivāji's political life. And he established not only the *Machtstaat* (power-state or military state) but the *Kulturstaat* (culture-state or *dharma*-state, humanitarian state) also of Frederick the Great's *Anti-Machiavel* (1739) and *Das Politische Testament* (1768).

c14.s9.t7.17

⁶ *Die Idee der Staatsräson* (Munich 1925), pp. 349, 350, 353, 354.

c14.s9.t7.18

Certain interesting items call for notice, however, at this stage of Hindu evolution in positivism. By the middle or rather end of the seventeenth century Hindu political philosophy embarks upon a career of profound enrichment, renovation, and remaking. For the first time in the history of Hindu India it is possible to encounter certain entirely new categories. For the first time do we find ourselves in an atmosphere in which the political theorist does not think in terms of the *saptāmga* (seven-limbed organism) at all. And it is curious that this remaking of Hindu political theory is consummated by one who is not a professional *artha* or *nīti* writer. The man who without being a professor of an *Artha*, *Smriti* or *Nīti* Academy yet succeeds in imparting to *artha* and *nīti śāstras* an epochmaking form and spirit is Rāmdās. The most intensely original of Hindu political philosophers and the profoundest remaker of Hindu political theory—second perhaps to none but Kauṭalya, the *avatāra* of political science,—be it repeated, did not write anything on politics. His great work, *Dāsabodha*, is a wonderful treatise on universal morality of the most non-political character. Excepting a few stray references to *rāya karaṇa* (king's functions) there is nothing political in this book. And yet this is the man to whom India owes the rebirth of her political science, the transformation of her *arthaśāstra*.

c14.s9.t7.19

In *Dāsabodha* it is hardly possible to find any political teachings. The politics of the kind such as might be useful to Śivāji is the farthest removed from it. This work is, as we have observed, essentially a treatise on morals. It is well calculated to promote noble and lofty ideals as well as help forward the building up of strenuous habits and righteous personality. But there are other writings attributed to this saint-philosopher-poet in which political messages may be detected.

c14.s9.t7.20

For instance, we are taught in one connection that *kaliyuga mahāghora sarva dosāchā ākāra*.⁷ It is the terrible Iron Age and is the source of all sorts of vices. Among the evils are mentioned short life, premature death, the sale of daughters by Brāhmaṇas, the miseries of cows, the neglect of duties by the castes, etc. It is also pointed out that

c14.s9.t7.21

⁷ B. V. Bhat: *Mahārāṣṭradharma* (Dhuliya, 1925) pp. 169-170.

c14.s9.t7.22

*mlechchha rājya hoilo pravala*
*pīdā pāweli dvijakula*.

c14.s9.t7.23

That is, the Moslem state has become powerful and the Brāhmaṇas are in trouble.

c14.s9.t7.24

Besides, a special political message is generally attributed to Rāmdās, which runs thus:

c14.s9.t7.25

*Mārāthā titukā melwāwā*
*Mahārāṣṭradharma bārhwāwā*.

c14.s9.t7.26

(Unite all the Mārāthās and propagate the *dharma* of *mahārāṣtra*).

c14.s9.t7.27

There are some difficulties in connection with the source of this text, however. The message is alleged to have been communicated to Sambhājī⁸ by Rāmdās. The first mention of this message is perhaps to be found in Ranade's work. But regrettably enough he does not cite the original source. Indeed, he reports it as a traditional information.

c14.s9.t7.28

⁸ M. G. Ranade: *Rise of the Maratha Power* (Bombay 1900) pp. 53, 143.

c14.s9.t7.29

The letter⁹ of Rāmdās to Sambhāji (1680) on the occasion of the latter's coronation contains pieces of advice like the following:

c14.s9.t7.30

⁹ Text edited by K. N. Sane (Poona 1915) pp. 6-7.

c14.s9.t7.31

(1) *Bahut lok melwāwe* (unite many people or bring together many persons),
(2) *Jīvita triṇāsamān mānāwem* (consider life like a blade of grass).

c14.s9.t7.32

This letter is complete in twenty-one verses. But it does not furnish us with the text in question. The letter is quoted in the Marathi work entitled *Sambhāji and Rājārām* by Malhar Ram Rao Chitnis (*c.* 1810).

c14.s9.t7.33

The alleged message of Rāmdās is quoted on the title-page of a modern treatise entitled *Mahārāṣṭradharma*.¹⁰ The author quotes it also at pp. 25 and 184. In regard to the first reference we are told, perhaps on the authority of Ranade, that Rāmdās wrote it to Sambhāji. In the second instance, the message is found in the midst of a letter from Rāmdās to Śivāji. It is clear, therefore, that the authenticity of the message is not free from doubts.

c14.s9.t7.34

¹⁰ By B. V. Bhat (Dhuliya 1925).

c14.s9.t7.35

But let us accept the tradition as such. We understand, then, that Rāmdās wants, first, a "union among the Marathas." And secondly, as Ranade interprets it in one context (p. 53), Rāmdās is looking for an expansion of the *dharma* or duty of *mahārāṣṭra* (a large or unified state). Thus considered, the category *mahārāṣṭra* did not imply any particular geographical region, namely, Mahārāṣṭra, the country of the Marathas, but a great or powerful nation. The unification of the Marathas was the first item in Rāmdās's policy. This corresponds to the *Einheit* or unity for which Fichte made propaganda in Germany.¹¹ The second item was the establishment of a large state. In other words, the territorial expansion of a Hindu state under the auspices of the united Marathas may be taken to have been the goal of action recommended by Rāmdās in the popular adage ascribed to him by tradition.

c14.s9.t7.36

¹¹ Reden an die Deutsche Nation (1808), First Address.

c14.s9.t7.37

In another context (p. 172) Ranade explains *mahārāṣṭradharma* in quite a different manner. He considers it to mean the "religion" of Mahārāṣṭra, the country of the Marathas. This religion, again, is interpreted by him to mean not the conventional religion of the Hindus, but the reformed and somewhat liberalized religion and morality as is alleged to have been preached by the "saints and prophets of Mahārāṣṭra" in the days of Rāmdās.

c14.s9.t7.38

Since Ranade's interpretation or interpretations in 1900 the category *mahārāṣṭradharma* has been the subject of much controversy and historical, philosophical or sociological criticism. The diverse interpretations have been brought together in the treatise entitled *Mahārāṣṭradharma* by B. V. Bhat (1925), which has been already referred to several times. An interpretation of a very suggestive character is that offered by Rajwade, according to whom *mahārāṣṭradharma* is neither to be taken as a category similar to Christian *dharma*, Mohammedan *dharma*, Jewish *dharma* etc. nor as simple Hindu *dharma* (p. 36). He says that *mahārāṣṭradharmāchi vyākhyā hindudharmāchyā vyākhyehun jāst vistrita āhe* (the content of *mahārāṣṭradharma* is more extensive than that of Hindu *dharma*). He thus takes *dharma* in the sense of religion just as Ranade does. But while Ranade takes a reformist view of religion, Rajwade takes the traditional, *varṇāśrama* view. It appears that Bhat also, the author of the Marathi treatise, takes virtually the same orthodox view as Rajwade (pp. 411-457). This indeed is the *Leitmotif* of his thesis.

c14.s9.t7.39

It is not surprising that *mahārāṣṭradharma* should have so many interpretations. Under our very eyes we notice that a corresponding European category has been passing through the same diversity of treatment. The French sociologist Bouglé, for instance, is the author of a work entitled *Qu'est-ce que l'Esprit Français*? What is the French spirit (*Farāsī dharma*)? And he offers twenty-five different definitions.

c14.s9.t7.40

On an examination of the material as brought together in Bhat's book it should appear that the orthodox view is more in keeping with the facts of Maratha social history than the reformist view.

c14.s9.t7.41

*Mahārāṣṭradharma*, as thus interpreted by Rajwade, Bhat and recently Sardesai, becomes virtually nothing but Hindu religion as generally understood, i.e., in the narrower sense of the term. It comprises (1) practices towards gods (*deva-śāstrāchāra*), (2) local practices (*deśāchāra*), (3) family practices (*kulāchāra*), and (4) caste practices (*jātyāchāra*).¹²

c14.s9.t7.42

¹² G. S. Sardesai: *The Main Currents of Maratha History* (Bombay 1933) pp. 12, 65.

c14.s9.t7.43

It is questionable, however, if we are justified in attaching either a reformist or an orthodox view of "religion" to the category *dharma*. From the earliest times when the word *dharma* is used in Vedic and post- Vedic texts down to Hemādri's *Chaturvarga-chintāmaṇi* (c. 1300 A.C.) and still later down to Moghul-Maratha times (c. 1650), it is not possible to confine *dharma* exclusively to this narrowly circumscribed religious sphere. In the *dharma-sūtras*, *dharma-śāstras*, *smriti-śāstras* and *nīti-śāstras*, the category *dharma*¹³ is very comprehensive, implying law, justice, duty and what not, although it comprises no doubt the four practices enumerated above and of course also the reformed modes of life. It cannot be taken as identical with "religion" as understood by the folk, by the priests or by the moralists. If any European equivalent is to be sought for this Sanskrit term, perhaps the vague word, culture, civilisation, spirit, *Geist*, ideals, nay, "life," may be conveniently used. Anything and everything for which an individual or group stands and in extreme cases is prepared to die is virtually the *dharma*.

c14.s9.t7.44

¹³ On *dharma* see "The Doctrine of Property, Law and Social Order in Hindu Political Philosophy" in B. K. Sarkar: *The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus* (Leipzig 1922).

c14.s9.t7.45

It is this *dharma* of the Aryans, Hindus, Indians, etc. i.e. the life, culture, spirit, or ideals of these races that was "protected," "saved," promoted and expanded by the *yugāvatāras* like Chandragupta Maurya and Skandagupta the Gupta in earlier times. The Rāyas of Vijayanagara also became *yugāvatāras* by functioning as the saviours and protectors of the same life, culture and ideals. In Rāmdās's and Śivāji's *mahārāṣṭradharma bārhwāwā*, likewise, we are to see the life, culture and ideals of the Hindus as being first "saved" from foreign aggression and then promoted under benevolent protection.

c14.s9.t7.46

It is now necessary to analyze *mahārāṣṭra* in *mahārāṣṭradharma*. By all means it is a territorial or regional concept. But are we to understand simply the geographical area for which the expression Mahārāṣṭra is used?

c14.s9.t7.47

On the face of it, *mahārāṣṭradharma* might indeed mean simply the *dharma* of the territory known as Mahārāṣṭra, the Maratha country. In a sense it may not be wrong to take *mahārāṣṭra* here as implying only this geographical area. But perhaps it might be considered more relevant and reasonable to take it as the name of a more extensive region. Here we have an instance of where “more is meant than meets the ear.” The item deserves a discussion.

c14.s9.t7.48

In my judgment *mahārāṣṭradharma* is not to be taken as the *dharma* exclusively of the region Mahārāṣṭra or of the races and castes constituting the people (Maratha) living in Mahārāṣṭra. It is the *dharma* of the Aryans, Indians or Hindus of all regions. We are to understand by this category the eternal or *sanātana dharma* of the Hindus in the diverse regions of India. We have then the following equation: *Mahārāṣṭradharma* = *Hindu-rāṣṭradharma*.

c14.s9.t7.49

When Rāmdās exhorts Sambhāji to propagate and expand the *mahārāṣṭradharma*, we are to understand that the great saint of Mahārāṣṭra wants Śivāji’s son to hold forth as the champion, embodiment and missionary of this Hindu *dharma*, protect this culture of the Hindus from non-Hindu and anti-Hindu attacks, nay, march on conquering and to conquer in regions where Hindu culture is being menaced by non-Hindu and anti-Hindu aggressions. Rāmdās is not preaching anything short of the aggressive nationalism of Fichte for the Prussians.

c14.s9.t7.50

Rāmdās is speaking as a Maratha to a Maratha. To him naturally, for the time being, Maratha and Hindu are virtually convertible terms. The men and women of Mahārāṣṭra, the Maratha *antyajas* (lower castes), saints, Brāhmaṇs and all other occupational and social groups are nothing but Hindus. And in his "geopolitical" perspective the Hindus are for all practical purposes all to be found among the Maratha Brāhmaṇs, saints, *antyajas* and other socio-professional groups or castes. Sambhāji is therefore to appear throughout India as the champion of Hindu *dharma*, determined to carry forward its expansion (*bārhwāwā*) or *charaiveti* in all directions.

c14.s9.t7.51

The local or geographical colouring associated with the expression *mahārāṣṭra* in *mahārāṣṭradharma* should not by any means mislead us in regard to its real import as having bearing on the Hindus of all India. Rāmdās is not addressing his message to a Rajput. Nor is a Rajput or, say, a North Indian saint, poet or patriot (like Bhūṣaṇa) trying to inspire a Maratha ruler with a call to duty. That is why the pan-Indian category of, say, *Bhāratadharma* or *Dakṣiṇidharma* (Deccani *dharma*) or *Āryadharma* has not been employed. It is as a Maratha patriot that the saint Rāmdās is reminding Sambhāji of the great task that lies before him, and no regional category can possibly be more normal and natural than that about the land in which he is born and bred,—the land which has already shown the way to *Hindwī Svarājya*.

c14.s9.t7.52

It is to be understood, besides, that the pan-Indian category which we use so glibly in the twentieth century was unthinkable in the seventeenth century. Moreover, the exploits of the Marathas which subsequently rendered them the virtual rulers off and on over the most diverse regions of India thereby enabling the emergence of a pan-Indian Hindu states-system could not have been foreseen by Rāmdās or even by Śivāji. Indeed, it is perhaps to the realisation of the dream or ideal of such a Hindu Empire or states-system extending as it should over all India that Rāmdās is spurring his prince. It is when the duty of *mahārāṣṭradharma bārhwāwā* has been done into life that the pan-Indian Hindu states-system would come into being, thanks, it might be dreamt of, to the glorious military feats of a son of Mahārāṣṭra. This sort of local pride can be honourably credited to Rāmdās and it is this sort of local patriotism to which Sambhāji is being incited.

c14.s9.t7.53

It is a political message, pure and simple, that is embodied in the wish, command or exhortation, *mahārāṣṭradharma bārhwāwā*. Sambhāji understands and Rāmdās means that, situated in the Moghul *milieu* as the country is, the message involves two equations, negative and positive.

c14.s9.t7.54

Nagatively, the command = remove the enemies of the Hindu state.

c14.s9.t7.55

Positively, it = carry forward the *digvijaya* of Hindu culture, which is tantamount to the expansion of the Hindu state.

c14.s9.t7.56

The message of Rāmdās is thus ideologically akin to and sociologically identical with, the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* (VII, 15) cult of *charaiveti* (march on) for Hindu culture, of which the thousand and one expressions have been encountered in the diverse regions of India all through the ages. Altogether, the political philosophy of Rāmdās as exhibited in *mārāthā titukā melwāwā, mahārāṣṭradharma bārhwāwā* implies, in plain words understandable to Sambhāji and his compatriots, nothing but the *digvijaya* or expansion of the Hindu Empire or statessystem under the auspices of the Marathas. And since (1) Hindu = Maratha and (2) Maratha = Hindu, the two messages of Rāmdās combined imply more concretely the expansion of the Maratha Empire. We are to understand that in Rāmdās's survey of the Indian "geopolitics" none but the Marathas are in a position to protect and propagate the *dharma*, culture, spirit, *Geist* or ideals of the Hindus. It is nothing but extraordinary political insight and dare-devil mentality of the most virile type that can conceive and promulgate such a fruitful *sūtra* for the guidance of a *vijigīṣu* (aspirant to conquest). Rāmdās does not perhaps know the Kauṭalyan categories of the *maṇḍala*-complex ("geopolitical" sphere) but he has carried India on his shoulders over to the next higher flights of constructive statesmanship. The jump from Kauṭalya to Rāmdās must, however, be considered to be tremendous.

c14.s9.t7.57

Such a jump is, however, not unparalleled in the world's political speculations. We may recall the French chauvinist of the early fourteenth century, Pierre Du Bois,¹⁴ who in his *De Recuperatione Terre Sancte* (1307) was inspiring his prince Philippe le Bel with extraordinary ambitions for France, little as it was. Rāmdās's dream of an Indian empire,—a *chāturanta* or *sārvabhauma* state,—under the Marathas, naturally in substitution of the Moghul, Tāmra, Mlechchha or Yavana Empire, may be compared to Pierre Du Bois's conception of the French Empire in Europe in replacement of the Holy Roman Empire. It is worth while to note that this French treatise deals with the "recovery of the Holy Land" and naturally, the crusade against the enemies of Christendom. It is just such a crusade in order to recover one's *dharma* that Rāmdās stands for.

c14.s9.t7.58

¹⁴ F. J. C. Hearnshaw (editor) : *The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Middle Ages* (London) Chapter on Pierre Du Bois.

c14.s9.t7.59

Another more celebrated dream may be remembered in this connection. That is the dream of Dante about the universal empire as developed in his *De Monarchia* and as often referred to in the *Divine Comedy*. That Italian conception of the fourteenth century furnished, *en passant*, as it is, with the idea of a *Veltro*, the Messiah or the Deliverer, corresponds to the eternal Hindu doctrine of *Pax Sārvabhaumica* (peace of the *sārvabhauma* or world-state). It is in the Dantesque world-empire that students of Maratha political theories, pious wishes and ideals can see a natural analogy of Rāmdās's *mahārāṣṭradharma bārhwāwā*. Ultimately, it is interesting that we find ourselves in the conception of *mahārāṣṭra* as equivalent to a "large" or "great" state, i.e. an empire, e.g., the *sārvabhauma* or *chāturanta* monarchy of traditional Hindu political philosophy.¹⁵

c14.s9.t7.60

¹⁵ For the doctrine of *Sārvabhauma* see B. K. Sarkar: *Political Institutions etc.* (Leipzig 1922) pp. 222-226.

c14.s9.t7.61

In the atmosphere of this Maratha cult we are easily reminded also of the *Prince* (1513) of Machiavelli (1469-1527). The *imminente pericolo delle usurpazioni straniere* (imminent danger of foreign usurpation) of which the Italian treatise speaks is the fundamental consideration with Rāmdās and the other saints. The very title of the last chapter of the *Prince* is an "exhortation to liberate Italy from the Barbarians" (*Exortazione à liberare l'Italia da Barbari*). It is the war of self-defence for the people and culture of Mahārāṣṭra that furnishes the moral inspiration not only to these saints but also to Śivāji, constituting thereby the bed-rock of *Hindwī Svarājya*.

c14.s9.t7.62

It is very important to observe that in Rāmdās’s formula as presented in this message or in other writings of his, e.g., in the *Dāsabodha* or elsewhere no prejudice against or ill will towards Islam as a religion is perceptible. This is a remarkable feature of Rāmdās’s mentality. He speaks of *Aurāngyā Pāpī*, of Aurangzeb the sinner, but he is vehement only against the tyrannies perpetrated on the Hindus and their men, women and institutions by this Moslem, Mlechchha or Yavana monarch. Rāmdās’s ire is not exhibited against Moslem mosques, Moslem men and women, and Moslem doctrines. It is a war against tyranny and a struggle for freedom that Rāmdās is engineering in and through his teachings. Thus considered, he is essentially secular and territorial in his political views. A state in which the Hindu is no more discriminated against than the Moslem is implied in his conception of *mahārāṣṭradharma bārhwāwā* as in everything else he propagates in regard to the deliverance from the horrors of the *kaliyuga*.

c14.s9.t7.63

The concept of unification of all the groups, communities or castes within the race or the people speaking the same language is a brilliant contribution of Rāmdās to Hindu politics. He is to be appraised as perhaps the first conscious exponent of linguistic nationalism in India. In the annals of *artha*, *dharma* and *nīti śāstras* down to the middle of the seventeenth century Hindu political philosophy is hardly in a position to produce a single *sūtra* in this strain. With Rāmdās Hindu *rājanīti* makes its *début* in an altogether novel domain.

c14.s9.t7.64

The doctrine of *mahārāṣṭradharma* is regional or territorial just as that of *mārāthā titu* is racial or linguistic. As promulgator of the *mahārāṣṭradharma* cult Rāmdās is formally introducing an altogether unknown alphabet into the *artha* or *nīti śāstras* of the Hindus. Not that territorial patriotism as a fact was unknown in Hindu history previous to Rāmdās. Rather, the factual state-systems of the Hindus from the earliest times were sometimes racial but mostly regional or territorial. It is often round race-groups or linguistic nuclei but oftener round territorial units that the political *śaktiyoga* or *parākrama* (energism) of the people manifested itself. But it is questionable if it is possible to cite from the vast mass of *artha*, *nīti* or allied texts any passage which can approach the doctrine of *mahārāṣṭradharma* as a deliberate and consciously designed promulgation of a territorial patriotism.

c14.s9.t7.65

While assuming this position we do not by any means overlook the consideration that the eternal Hindu doctrine of *saptāmga* (the seven-limbed organism) includes *rāṣṭra* or territory as a limb. The territorial concept is organically bound up with the most traditional theory of Hindu politics. But even in this theory we are to see nothing but a statical analysis of a societal complex, the state. The doctrine which exhibits the interdependence of the seven limbs on one another has certainly a value of its own. In the doctrine of *mahārāṣṭradharma*, however, the territorial unit, the region or the *rāṣṭra* is posed in its solitary greatness and is enabled to tower above every other factor of societal organization into an extraordinary prominence. This isolation of the regional or territorial unit in the political consciousness must be considered to be something unique in Hindu political theory. By contributing the doctrine of territorial nationalism as a war-cry Rāmdās has carved out for himself a position of paramount significance in the world of political speculation. In mankind's history of nationalist philosophy Rāmdās, as the creator of these two epoch-making categories, should be treated as a forerunner of Herder (1744-1803) and Fichte (1762-1814), the prophets of nationalism in Europe.¹⁶

c14.s9.t7.66

¹⁶ Herder: *Sämmtliche Werke* (Berlin 1877-1913), Vol. XIII, pp. 258, 384-385, Vol. XVII, pp. 58, 59, 288-289; Fichte: *Reden an die Deutsche Nation*, First and Fourth Addresses; K. Francke: *A History of German Literature as Determined by Social Forces* (New York 1911); J. Baxa: *Einführung in die romantische Staatswissenschaft* (Jena 1923); P. Kluckhohn: *Die deutsche Romantik* (Leipzig, 1924); B. K. Sarkar: *The Political Philosophies Since 1905* (Madras 1928), *From Herder to Hitler* (Calcutta 1933); R. E. Ergang: *Herder and the Foundations of German Nationalism* (New York 1931), pp. 238-266.

Linked texts (3)

Aitareyabrāhmaṇa — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit
Śivabhārata — Paramānanda, Sanskrit
Dāsabodha — Samartha Rāmdās 1654, Marathi