The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c11.t16: 7. The Richelieus of India

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c11.t16

Language: English

7. The Richelieus of India

c11.t16.1

Thus in Manu’s¹ scheme every township or village was presided over by a vicegerent, who was subordinate to the ruler of ten townships. The ruler of ten was subordinate to the ruler of twenty; and the ruler of twenty to the ruler of a hundred, who, again, was subordinate to the ruler of a thousand villages. The civil service could be recruited from among the priestly, the military as well as the mercantile classes. The officers were responsible for the collection of revenue and preparation of reports relating to the area under supervision. And they had to protect their territories from robbers and criminals. It was the function of the village magistrate to keep his jurisdiction free from thieves to the distance of two miles in all directions. If the township were large, the police duties of the collector were more extensive. The distance that he had to guard against robbers was eight miles of the country surrounding his station. These officers were bound to repay to the loser whatever was stolen within their district.²

c11.t16.2

¹ Manu, VII, 115—117, 118—122, 123—125; *cf.* *Śukra*, I, lines 381—384, V, 162—169.

c11.t16.3

² *Âpastamba*, II, 10, 26, 6—8; *Gautama*, X, 46—47.

c11.t16.4

None of these magistrate-collectors of any grade had judicial functions. Institutionally, the judiciary of every rank appears to have been totally separate from the executive (i. e. the police and fiscal staff). In the gradually extended circle, based as it was on the decimal system, the lower grade magistrates collected revenues, received reports and passed them on to the higher grade men in succession, until the sinews of war and the news of the realm were finally focussed in the king or emperor, the lord of all.

c11.t16.5

If it may be allowed to combine this plan of imperial constitution laid down in the *smriti-śâstras*, *nîti-śâstras*, and the epic with the few epigraphic facts, if not as supplement, at any rate, as an illustration of the channels along which Hindu administrative *śakti* (genius) worked, we have in Maurya India (B. C. 322—185 B. C.) a picture of France organized under the *Intendants* of Richelieu for an area seven times as large.³ How many such Maurya Empires can be credited to the political capabilities demonstrated in European history?

c11.t16.6

³ Brissaud, p. 396. There is hardly any evidence to support Mookerji's contention that the Hindu empires were decentralized and minimum-functioned states (*cf.* *Local*, pp. 9—10). But see *Supra*, pp. 58—60; Sarkar's *Pos. Back*, Vol. II, 59—62.

c11.t16.7

National Finance.

c11.t16.8

Budget-making is an essentially modern institution. It is only since the time of Napoleon that regular estimates of receipts and expenditures have been yearly prepared in France.¹ And in spite of the comparative abundance of reliable data no ingenuity of modern research has been able to reconstruct the sheet of liabilities and assets for any period of the Roman Empire. But the administrative history of Hindu India is yet in its beginnings. It is out of the question therefore to attempt such wide guesses about the annual expenses even of the Maurya Empire (B. C. 322—185) for which information is more plentiful than for others as have been done in regard to the Athenian state by Bökh² or about the total revenues as have been done in regard to the Roman Empire by Gibbon and Guizot.³ Nor of course is it possible to test the fiscal policy of Hindu states by the modern canons of taxation, especially on the complicated questions of justice, faculty, i. e. ability to pay, or equality of assessment.

Linked texts (3)

Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Āpastambadharmasūtra — Āpastamba, Sanskrit
Gautamadharmasūtra — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit