The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c5.s6: Secularization of Hindu Politics in Masson-Oursel and Berr
The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c5.s6
- Language
- English
Secularization of Hindu Politics in Masson-Oursel and Berr
c5.s6.1
The "new indology" is in evidence to a certain extent in French scholarship also. *L'Inde Antique et la Civilisation Indienne* (Paris 1933) is the work of several authors headed by Paul Masson-Oursel, who contributes nearly half the material. The general editor, Henri Berr, embodies the new spirit when he declares in the *avant-propos* that Indian character has been defined in a very incomplete manner (*d'une façon très incomplète*). "The great mass of the peoples of India," says he, "is represented as plunged in dream or mystical contemplation, as lost in the hope and anticipation of *nirvāṇa*. People exaggerate their detachment from the worldly reality (*On exagère leur détachement de la realité terrestre*)." He suggests that it is necessary to distinguish the milieux and the epochs of such phenomenon (p. xii).
c5.s6.2
According to Masson-Oursel, scholars ignore much the fact that India was one of the greatest maritime and colonising powers of the past (*une des plus grandes puissances maritimes et colonisatrices du passé*). The extension of Indianism is described as a "mighty radiance" (*puissant rayonnement*), of which the area extended from Madagascar to Tonkin (pp. 128-129).
c5.s6.3
The emancipation of the political power from that of the priests has been well recognised by him. The state in India has thus been understood to be untheocratic "in spite of the assertions to the contrary in the sacerdotal literature". *Rien ne domine le pouvoir royal* (Nothing dominates the royal power), as he quotes the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*. The secular character of the Hindu state he discovers in the very science which governs it, namely, *Arthaśāstra*. Kauṭalya's treatise, says he, proceeds from an entirely lay inspiration (*procède d'une inspiration toute laïque*). Masson-Oursel is convinced that the Brāhmaṇas did not possess in the society the power which their literature leads us to suppose. The politics, not theoretical but concrete, depended on the authority of the Kṣatriyas and on the infinitely diverse circumstances rather than on the Brāhmaṇic ideals, says he. In spite of the monopoly of *dharma* by the Brāhmaṇas the Kṣatriyas considered themselves to be the organizers of justice no less than the wielders of force, and that is why, in his view, the "pretentions of the priest remained more speculative than operative" (pp. 99-101).
c5.s6.4
Leaving the question about the relations between *dharma* and *artha*, *dharmaśāstra* and *arthaśāstra*, Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas open, we notice at any rate that Masson-Oursel has caught the real spirit of Hindu states, namely, that they were at bottom conducted by *motifs utilitaires*. The "positivism" or non-religious and secular character of Hindu politics has been grasped by him in a distinct manner.
c5.s6.5
The position is summarized by Berr as follows. The power of the Brāhmaṇas was restrained by varied circumstances which served to furnish the nobility and the military element with considerable importance and sometime preponderance. An ample evolution of politics was consummated always on account of real necessities, namely, the need for external or internal defence. The situation was rather that of a gendarmerie than of anarchy. In spite of all, even the tendency towards unification of groups, so powerful elsewhere, was not non-existent in India. Royalty was established by the nobles and it “appeared as an institution entirely human and did not claim any divine right.” To the *fait accompli* of political power the Brāhmaṇas were forced to accord their religious consecration (pp. xi-xii).
c5.s6.6
The French publication is, however, not completely emancipated from the traditional *indianisme*. By the side of positivism and rational as well as realistic interpretation of Hindu economic and political activities we come across ultra-idealistic statements to which conventional indology is used.
c5.s6.7
India has been described by Masson-Oursel as the *terre par excellence de l’ascetisme* (the land specific of asceticism), which seeks to enrich the spiritual life by detaching the individual from his *milieu*. And this country is alleged to owe its complex originality to its separation from the rest of the planet (p. 1). These two statements with which the work begins contradict some of the more important conclusions established by the author himself, as we have seen above, namely, the “utilitarian motives”, devotion to *artha* etc. as well as the extension de *l’indianité* from Madagascar to Tonkin.
c5.s6.8
Another statement is worded as follows :
c5.s6.9
“It is not before our own times that India becomes a *patrie* (fatherland) to her own children” (p. 116). One remembers Sénart's expression already quoted.
c5.s6.10
We are told, further, that “no unity was ever established in the Indian *milieu* which would be comparable not only to our modern states but to our ancient cities” (p. 98).
c5.s6.11
Such passsages indicate that the bearings of positivism on Indian culture-history and the data of comparative methodology have not been fully assimilated as yet. It is interesting, however, to observe that in Berr's preface the "individuality" of India is *non-politique mais psychologique*, i.e., not to be found in politics but in psychology (p. v). We see, therefore, that in any case the political aspects of Hindu civilization have been lifted out of their splendid isolation. The recognition of India's affinities with the rest of the world in political genius by the French scholars of today constitutes undoubtedly an important event in the reconstruction of Hindu positivism.