The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c14.s9.t8: 8. The Marathi “Rājanīti” of Rāmachandrapant (1716)

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c14.s9.t8

Language: English

8. The Marathi “Rājanīti” of Rāmachandrapant (1716)

c14.s9.t8.1

A document known as *Sambhāji's Ādnāpatra* (Edict)¹ was issued on November 21, 1716 by Sambhāji II (of Kolhapur) (1712-50). The writer is believed to have been Rāmachandrapant Amātya. The work is generally described as his *Rājanīti*. The language is Marathi.

c14.s9.t8.2

¹ Available in English translation by S. V. Puntambekar as *A Royal Edict on The Principles of State Policy and Organization* (Madras 1929).

c14.s9.t8.3

This Royal Edict is stated to have been prepared “in accordance with the *śāstras*” (p. 14).

c14.s9.t8.4

The work begins with the short historical survey of the *Svarājya*, the Maratha state, from Śivāji the founder down to 1716, the year of the promulgation of the edict by Sambhāji II, son of Rājārām who began to rule at Kolhapur in 1712. In the course of this survey the author has tried to bring in general maxims of *nītiśāstras* by way of illustration. The historical portion is thus to a certain extent seen as a concrete embodiment of Hindu political philosophy.

c14.s9.t8.5

In one passage the Edict says that many soldiers firmly believed that "the servants whose lives are lost in the cause of their master attain that state which even the sages and *yogins* do not reach and went to heaven whilst fighting in the cause of their master in accordance with the duties of *Kṣatra*" (p. 5). Students of *Śukranīti* and other *nītiśāstras* like those of Mitra-Miśra and Vaiśampāyana will be interested to see how powerfully the Maratha mind was influenced by the traditional Hindu political speculations.

c14.s9.t8.6

The achievements of Śivāji are described in very general terms. In regard to the states subdued by him the processes are described in the following manner: "Upon some he made sudden attacks. Amongst some he fomented mutual quarrels. Between some he caused breaches of friendship. By entering the tents of some he fought with them. By personal venture he defeated some in single combats. With some he made alliances. Of his own accord he went to visit some. Some he forced to come and visit him. He imperilled the lives of some by creating mutual disunion. Others he conquered one after another by making other kinds of efforts without their knowledge." (p. 7) The hoary Kauṭalyan *śāstra* in regard to the four *upāyas* and six *guṇas* (strategy and tactics) can be seen here as exercising some sway over the Marathi *Ādnāpatra*. We are not interested for the present in Śivāji's exploits and policies but only in the manner in which they are being described by Rāmachandrapant in Marathi.²

c14.s9.t8.7

² As I do not happen to have the original text before me it is not possible to point to the Marathi words in which the echoes of Sanskrit treatises can be found.

c14.s9.t8.8

In connection with post-Śivāji political conditions there is an observation to the following effect : "A place or country when invaded by others continues to exist with outside help. Therefore at first they should be cut off. Then efforts should be made against it directly. This is proper policy" (p. 11). Rāmachandrapant is here functioning as a pupil of the Kauṭalya-Kāmandaka-Śukra complex in regard to the application of the doctrine of *maṇḍala* ("geopolitical" sphere).

c14.s9.t8.9

The category "*dharma*" occurs very often in this *Ādnāpatra*. (pp. 15, 16, 26, 37). While discussing some of the general principles of politics Rāmachandrapant is virtually paraphrasing all that the *smriti* and the *nīti śāstras* have to say about *dharma* in relation to the social order (pp. 15-16). The value of the paraphrase consists in the fact that the author is not dealing like, say, Kauṭalya, Manu, Śukra etc. with abstract entities called the state. The author is every moment conscious that he is writing of a particular state. And that is his "this kingdom" (pp. 3, 5, 7, 8, 15), "Hindu kingdom" (p. 13), *svarājya* (p. 3) etc. In this Marathi Edict we are in season and out of season made conscious of the great reality that the *Hindwī Svarājya* of Śivāji the Great, perhaps the greatest Hindu of all ages, and one of the profoundest remakers of mankind, is the "Kingdom of God" and that this kingdom is being governed according to the principles of the *śāstras*. "Out of compassion for the people", we are told, "God in his full favour has granted us this Kingdom" (p. 15). The patriotic ring is ever manifest in this treatise and the author is fully convinced of the noble mission of the Maratha state as the bulwark of *dharma* against the inroads of the *Tāmras* (Moghuls) or *Yavanas* and their allies (pp. 6, 11). This mission is not conceived in a futuristic manner but as something already : ..:.. ' : : as an achievement. For the student of Hindu political speculations from Kauṭalya to Mitra-Miśra and Śukra it is interesting to observe that even as late as the second decade of the eighteenth century an *Amātya* of a successful Hindu Empire should have felt proud to connect the methods, tactics, strategy and general policies of the state served by him with, and interpret them in the light of, the theories adumbrated by the "old masters" of political philosophy. The virility, tenacity and pragmatic utility of the *artha* and *nīti śāstras* of the Hindus are thus brought home to us in a remarkable manner. Simultaneously also the deeper foundations of Maratha political idealism and constructive statesmanship are laid bare. The *dharma*-mindedness of Maratha diplomacy and statecraft as well as the solicitude of the Maratha thinkers for affiliations to the permanent tradition of Sanskritic or Hindu culture are items that impress us most powerfully. Verily, in the eighteenth century the Maratha statesmen and generals were encompassed in their daily life with the same ideals and messages of philosophers, poets, and preachers as the Mauryas, Guptas, Vardhanas, Chālukyas, Pālas and Cholas of yore.

c14.s9.t8.10

Hindu positivism did not come to a close at the seventh century, or the tenth or the thirteenth or even the seventeenth century. It was living gloriously in the eighteenth century and came down to the nineteenth century, for instance, in Malhar Ram Rao Chitnis's *Rājanīti*, the Sanskrit treatise based like a *nibandha* on the *nītiśāstras*.

c14.s9.t8.11

In regard to the actual achievements of the *Hindwī Svarājya* of Śivājī and the Marathas one should not be too hypercritical. It would be desirable to get oriented to the military methods, external politics, diplomatic manoeuvres, criminal justice, religious policy as well as social and economic legislation as pervalent in contemporary Europe, say, the Europe of Louis XIV and Frederick the Great in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.³

c14.s9.t8.12

³ *Cambridge Modern History*, vol. VIII, (1902) p. 49; W. G. F. Phillimore: *Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace* (Boston 1918) pp. 13-61. Freeman: *The Historical Geography of Europe* (London 1903).

c14.s9.t8.13

There is a tendency among historiographers of today to sit in judgment on the Marathas with the canons of modern nationalism, democracy, social justice, "economic planning" and what not. This is an entirely fallacious method and ought by all means to be avoided. On the other hand, it is necessary also to be more critical and objective in regard to the achievements of the "golden age" of Hindu history, such, for instance, as those for which the Hindu states from those of the Mauryas to those of the Cholas and Senas are responsible. The contributions of the Marathas of the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries to the politics and culture of the Indian people would appear to be more or less on a par with, and the significant continuations of, those of the pre-Moslem Hindu races.

c14.s9.t8.14

The student of world-culture, one who is as much at home in the institutions and theories of the Orient as of the Occident, one who knows of the economic, political and social conditions of Europe from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, should be in a position to appraise the Marathas as having made substantial contributions to human freedom and progress. We cannot afford to withhold from "giving the Devil his due." In sociological evaluations and by the standard of comparative culture-history the Marathas do undoubtedly deserve the glorious credit of being "a people that put down the Muslim power, that for long resisted the British advance in all parts of India, that conquered and civilized the Gonds and other tribes in the distant north and south, that have left plentiful permanent marks of their influence in a triangular tract, of which the three corners may roughly be put down as Nagpur, Surat and Tanjore, and ever stood for order, peace and culture, and that finally saved the soul of India and enthused it with a new hope."⁴

c14.s9.t8.15

⁴ G. S. Sardesai: *The Main Currents of Maratha History* (Bombay 1933) pp. 27-28.

c14.s9.t8.16

In Rāmachandrapant's *Rājanīti* we are furnished with an analysis of *dharma* directly or indirectly in diverse contexts (pp. 8, 15, 35-38). And this should throw some light also on the doctrine of *mahārāṣṭradharma* as inculcated by Rāmdās (*Supra*, pp. 567-572).

c14.s9.t8.17

We understand indeed that the practices and customs such as are, generally speaking, dear to the Hindu heart are comprised in the category *dharma*. Thus considered, *dharma* would be virtually identical with the fourfold *āchāras* as analyzed by Rajwade, Bhat and others. It would, therefore, be more comprehensive than the more or less exclusively democratic and reformistic tendencies of religious thought and life as stressed by Ranade. Indeed, Rāmachandrapant, at any rate, is fundamentally orthodox in his conception, and his view of *dharma* gives hardly any support to Ranade's and can be cited in the main in favour of Rajwade's. But in Rāmachandrapant's analysis it is possible to come into contact with something which is wider even than the fourfold *āchāras* of Hindu life. We must observe that he is not writing an exhaustive digest on *dharma*. The treatment of the topic is incidental and merely suggestive.

c14.s9.t8.18

There is a strand of some undefined and undefinable traits of thought as well as practice,—''that which is traditionally the best and which his ancestors had followed'' (p. 15)—somewhat vague and elastic conceptions such as go beyond the concrete *āchāras* actually in force and are associated with the equally vague category, ideals, spirit, *Geist*, culture etc. of a people. We are led to feel that anything and everything, positive or negative, defined or undefined, which distinguishes the Hindus from those who are known to be non-Hindus is comprehended in the category *dharma*. Rāmachandrapant has not referred to Rāmdās's celebrated cult. But today it is patent to us that in Rāmdās's futuristic ideology as in Rāmachandrapant's analysis of past achievements the *dharma* of the *mārāthā titu* is something which distinguishes this Hindu people from the non-Hindu and anti-Hindu peoples. Rāmdās the prophet or apostle and Rāmachandrapant the historian or philosopher of events are talking the same language and they mean the same thing, namely, that the Maratha state, the *Hindwi Svarājya* = the organization of the Hindus and by the Hindus for the expansion of Hindu culture and the annihilation of everything inimical to the Hindus and their thousand and one interests.

c14.s9.t8.19

Rāmachandrapant is interpreting *Realpolitik* in terms of the political philosophy of the *nītiśāstras*. To a certain extent he is not a writer of political philosophy strictly so called. His *Rājanīti* is often a philosophical explanation of political history. He looks like an historian and his work appears to be somewhat of a contribution to the philosophy of history. But on the whole the general philosophical or speculative character of the work cannot be missed.

c14.s9.t8.20

In this Marathi treatise the general principles of the Sanskrit *nītiśāstras* are to be found, further, in the cult of prowess, courage, perseverance, industriousness, energism etc. (p. 6), the policy of foresight in international diplomacy (p. 13), the qualifications of the ruler and his relations with officials etc. (pp. 15-19, 23-25).

c14.s9.t8.21

The *Ādnāpatra* says, for instance, in the right *nīti* style that "while protecting what is already acquired, new achievements should always be attempted; and this should continuously remain the aim of the king." More concretely we are told that "if he regards the glory which he has achieved as satisfactory, then he does not feel inclined for further exertion. As a result the enemy would find the occasion for an invasion and the kingdom would suffer. This should not be allowed to happen." (p. 19). Students of the *Mahābhārata* (Book VI. ch. ii) will not fail to encounter here the Marathi adaptation of the ethics of "manliness" and "unceasing upward striving."⁵

c14.s9.t8.22

⁵ "The Theory of International Relations" in Sarkar: *The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus* (Leipzig 1922) p. 215.

c14.s9.t8.23

And here we may recall with interest that about a century after Rāmachandrapant, Fichte, the German philosopher, lecturing at Königsberg in 1807 declared his fundamental principles in the following words:⁶

c14.s9.t8.24

⁶ Meinecke: *Die Idee der Staatsräson* (Munich 1925) pp. 462-463.

c14.s9.t8.25

"1. The neighbour is always ready to enlarge himself at your cost at the first opportunity if he can do it safely. He must do so if he is clever enough and cannot avoid it even if he were your brother (*Er muss es tun und kann es nicht lassen, und wenn er dein Bruder wäre*).
"2. It is not at all enough that you are defending your own territory. Keep your eyes open on everything that can have an influence on your position. Do not by any means submit to the fact that anything within the boundaries of your influence should be changed to your disadvantage. Neglect no moment when you can use the situation to your advantage. Rest assured that the neighbour will do it as soon as he can. If you neglect it on your part you will remain behind him. One who does not grow decays while others are growing (*Wer nicht zunimmt der nimmt wenn andere zunehmen ab*)."

c14.s9.t8.26

In Rāmachandrapant's lengthy statement about the functions of the king we have a good summary of *nīti* literature on the subject (p. 26). In the statement that "a king alone cannot, even if he wishes to perform all these functions," and that "therefore he has to appoint as his representatives *pradhānas* (ministers) in order to conduct the affairs of the kingdom" we are, again, in the atmosphere of the *nītiśāstras* (pp. 26-30). But the author is an *amātya* (minister) of the Maratha state. So he introduces a good deal of objectivity and *Realpolitik* into his analysis of the position of ministers in the state. An interesting observation runs to the effect that "ministers are the pillars of the house whose name is kingdom" (p. 27). In the dictum that "when one is appointed a minister, one should not at all be disrespected and insulted at every turn" (p. 29) we feel that it is not a copybook maxim cited from *Śukranīti* or some other text but a bit of the author's own mind. This Maratha *amātya*, like many other ministers of Hindu states, nay, like the ministers of many royal dynasties of Europe—knew from bitter experience what it is to serve a king. In the capacity of a writer on *rājanīti* Rāmachandrapant is therefore but pleading the cause of his own profession throughout the world while offering the advice as to how the ruler should behave with the ministers. This piece of advice might be administered, be it observed *en passant*, as much to the Hohenzollerns, Bourbons and the British despots of the New Monarchy as to the Marathas.

c14.s9.t8.27

While dealing with the Marathi *Rājanīti* (1716) of Rāmachandrapant let us observe once more,—what we are always aware of in the discussion of Hindu political theories,—that his ideal of a king is the *rājarṣi* of the Kauṭalyan tradition. This *rājarṣi* (royal-sage), again, is none other than the philosopher-king of Plato. To cite a somewhat contemporary parallel from Europe we should to a certain extent envisage the milieu of the *Idea of a Patriot King* (1738) by Bolingbroke (1678-1751), in which the Hanoverian contemporaries of the Marathas used to live. For general orientations in regard to political ideas it is necessary likewise to remember some of the absolutist treatises like Bodin's *Les six Livres de la République* (1576) and Hobbes's *Leviathan* (1651) as well as the treatises of Bossuet and Filmer already referred to (supra).

c14.s9.t8.28

¹ 7 J. N. Figgis: *From Gerson to Grotius* (Cambridge 1907), *The Divine Right of Kings* (Cambridge 1914), F.J.C . Hearnshaw (editor): *Social and Political Ideas of Some Thinkers of the Augustan Age* (London 1928), Chapter on Bolingbroke.

c14.s9.t8.29

The economic interests of the *saptāṁga* organism are well taken care of in the categories, *koṣa* and *rāṣṭra*, of the *nītiśāstras*. The Marathi *Rājanīti* likewise devotes considerable attention to these considerations. Certain characteristic and rather new principles enunciated by Rāmachandrapant deserve however to be singled out. "Merchants are the ornament of the kingdom and the glory of the king," says he, "They are the cause of the prosperity of the kingdom. All kinds of goods which are not available come into the kingdom. That kingdom becomes rich" (p. 31). As a practical statesman he knows, besides, that the *nerfs de la république*, the "sinews of war" are furnished by the mercantile classes. "In times of difficulties whatever debt is necessary is available. With its help danger is averted. There is a great advantage in the protection of merchants."

c14.s9.t8.30

In Rāmachandrapant's *Rājanīti* the protection of merchants is comprehensive enough to include foreign traders. Freedom of intercourse in trade should be given to sea-faring merchants at various ports by sending an assurance of safety, says he. In *dicta* like these we realize that the Marathi treatise on politics is not a mere paraphrase or adaptation of the Sanskrit *artha* and *nīti śāstras*. The protection of foreign merchants is not unknown in Kauṭalya. But the language and form in which the doctrine is enunciated by the Maratha writer are original. The fact that it is the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,—the *milieu* of European traders and mercantile houses,—is forced upon us in his treatment of the subject. Rāmachandrapant has enriched the scope of Hindu political science by introducing the *Topīkārs* (the hat-wearers, Europeans) as merchants and the relations of the state with them during peace and war. For instance, we are told that the punishment which is inflicted on the servants of the enemy is not to be meted out to the European merchants who happen to live in enemy territory. They may, however, be fined but discharged with due respect (p. 33).

c14.s9.t8.31

Among the *Topīkārs* (hat-wearers) Rāmachandrapant mentions the *Firāṅgis* (Portuguese), the *Ingrāj* (the English), the *Valands* (the Dutch), the *Farāsis* (the French) and the *Diṅgmār* (the Danes) by name. It is interesting that they are described according to their countries and that there is no reference to them as Europeans or as Christians. The common name for them, however, is *Topīkārs* (hat-wearers).

c14.s9.t8.32

The special features of these sea-faring hat-wearers have commanded Rāmachandrapant's attention. They are not like other merchants, says he (p. 32). Their masters, every one of them, are known to be ruling kings. Rāmachandrapant knows that it is under royal orders and control that these European merchants come to trade, and asks, "How can it happen that rulers have no greed for territories?" The aims and ambitions of these *Topīkārs* are described by him as follows:—"They have full ambition to enter into these provinces, to increase their territories and to establish their own opinion (religion?)." Further, he describes them as obstinate and is aware that once a place falls into their hands they will not give it up even at the cost of their lives (p. 32).

c14.s9.t8.33

Rāmachandrapant would, therefore, restrict the intercourse of the hat-wearers to the extent of their coming and going for trade purposes only. He is positively against giving them places to settle. By no means are they to be given factory lands at the mouth of an inlet or on the shores of the sea. For they might become dangerous by building forts. The outstanding facts that the strength of the European lies in navy, guns and ammunition is recorded by the author as a positive reality. He should like by all means to avoid them. "It is enough," we are told, "if they occasionally come and go and do not trouble us; nor need we trouble them."

Linked texts (3)

Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
ལུགས་ཀྱི་བསྟན་བཅོས — Classical Tibetan