Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c14: Chapter VII. Hindu Literature on Politics

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c14

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII. Hindu Literature on Politics

c14.1

Hindu Literature on Politics.

Section 1. Political Speculation in Ancient India

c14.s1.1

Political Speculation in Ancient India.

c14.s1.2

It is with reference to all this *milieu* in life and institutions that Hindu political thought has to be understood. Unfortunately the impression has got abroad since Max Müller¹ wrote the *History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature* and *India: What Can It Teach Us?* that the literature of the Hindus deals mainly with vague idealism, unpractical mysticism, and other-worldly absurdities, — at best, with metaphysical philosophizing. Besides, a few alleged pessimistic passages from one or two Buddhist books in the Pali language are erroneously taken to be the watchword of all Hindu speculation.

c14.s1.3

¹ *His. Sans. Lit.* (ed. 1860), pp. 18, 25, 29—31; *India* (ed. 1883), 97—101, 105, 107, 117. Vide the author's "Hindu View of Life" in the *Open Court* for August, 1919, "Comparative Literature from the Hindu Standpoint" in the *Hindustan Review* (July 1919). *Hindu Art: Its Humanism and Modernism.*

c14.s1.4

A complete history of Hindu literature whether in Sanskrit² or the Prakrit languages it is impossible yet to attempt. A catalogue of catalogues, the *Catalogus Catalogorum*, has been compiled by Aufrecht. It contains the shortest possible notices of about twenty five thousand manuscripts in Sanskrit. Thousands of other manuscripts remain still to be explored, tabulated and indexed. In the meantime a hasty glance at Aufrecht's volumes is enough to convince us that Sanskrit literature is the literature of every human activity from cooking, dancing, painting, cattle-breeding, gardening and grooming to erotics, thieving, warfare, navigation, and manufacture of military implements, in other words, of *dharma*, *artha*, *kâma*, and *mokṣa*. Needless to observe, economic, political and legal treatises occupy a great deal of space.¹

c14.s1.5

² Vide Haraprasad Sastri's "Educative Influence of Sanskrit Literature" in the *Collegian*, 1916, for a concise but comprehensive account.

c14.s1.6

¹ Aufrecht's volumes have been used extensively in the author's *Positive Background of Hindu Sociology*, Vol. I.

c14.s1.7

For obvious reasons, in India as in Europe accounts of socio-political life and theory are to be met with in almost every branch of literature, prose and verse. Even literary epics like the *Raghu-vamśa* and the *Kirâtârjunîya*, and story-books like the *Pancha-tantra* and the *Daśa-Kumâracharita* can be exploited by sociological art-critics for the political message of the authors exactly in the same way as Virgil, Dante, Vondel and Milton have been used as interpreters of their ages. And of course in the two so-called epics, the *Râmâyaṇa* and the *Mahâbhârata*,² which according to the *Sâhitya Darpaṇa* ("Mirror of Literature"), a mediaeval work on rhetoric, are not poems at all but books of history, especially in the latter the serious student of politics would not have to labor hard in order to find rich material. To the same category belong also the *Purâṇas*, the storehouses of every conceivable information about India and Hindu culture. Nor would the *Brihat-Samhitâ* of Varâhamihira, the *Natural History* of the Hindu Pliny, fail to furnish important facts about polity and political speculation compiled, as they were, for a manageable *Encyclopedia Sanskritica*, by a distinguished scientist of Gupta India. Similarly the treatises on archery known as the *dhanurvedas* and the sexological works like the *Kâma-sûtra* of Bâtsâyana may be consulted for the subject matter of economics and politics, and of secular knowledge generally.

c14.s1.8

² For an almost exhaustive study of the general politics of the *Mahâbhârata* vide Hopkins' article in the *Journal of the American Oriental Society*, 1889. But Book XII (*Sânti*) needs a separate special treatment.

c14.s1.9

But it is not solely among *belles lettres* and books comprehended in the *trivium* or *quadrivium* of mediaeval European universities that the student of Hindu politics has to rummage. Law, public finance, constitution, town-planning, national defense, sovereignty, these and allied problems constituted in themselves the basis of two special literary categories. The first category is that of the *smriti-śâstras*, *dharma-śâstras* and *dharma-sûtras*,³ and the second is that of the *artha-śâstras* and *nîti-śâstras*. These two groups of *śâstras* (*Wissenschaften*) exhaust within them the entire range of Hindu social science. It is therefore to these treatises on *dharma* (law) and *smriti* (tradition) as well as *artha* (desired-for objects, i. e. human interests) and *nîti* (*mores*, or social duties) that we have to turn for the topics of a Montesquieu's *Esprit des Lois* or for what Aristotle would call "politics", i. e. the science of *samgha* or *samûha* (group) life. There is a difference, however, between these two classes of sociological literature. The *smriti* sciences are more social and religious, while the *artha* sciences are more, or rather exclusively, political and economic.

c14.s1.10

³ For the status of these *śâstras* in the "grammar" of Hindu science vide Oldenberg's *Grihya-sûtras of Gobhila* etc. (S. B. E. Series), Introduction, xxxiii—iv. See the section on the "Autonomy of Political Śâstra" in *Pos. Back*, Vol. II, pp. 12—18.

c14.s1.11

The *dharma-śâstras* which, like the Japanese *Kojiki* and *Nihongi*, incidentally treat of legal, economic and political matters in connection with socio-religious topics are named after about a score of promulgators¹ such as Manu, Atri, Viṣṇu, Hârîta, Yâjñavalkya, Uśanas, Angiras, Yama, Âpastamba, Samvarta, Kâtyâyana, Brihaspati, Parâśara, Vyâsa, Śamkha, Likhita, Dakṣa, Gautama, Śatâtapa, and Vasiṣṭha. The well known *Manu Samhitâ* and the *Institutes* of Yâjñavalkya are thus *smriti* or *dharma* books. All treatises on Hindu law (and custom) naturally fall within this group.

c14.s1.12

¹ The list varies with different authorities. *cf.* Sris Chandra Vasu's *Yâjnavalkya Smriti*, Book I, Ch. i, Introduction, 4—5. Jolly's *Recht und Sitte* offers the most comprehensive study of the material embodied in the law-books. See chapter I (*Die Quellen*).

c14.s1.13

It was to this legal literature of the Hindus, especially to the section bearing on inheritance and partition of property that the interest of European scholars was first directed. The plain reason was the exigencies of the newly imposed British administration about the time of the partition of Poland (1772). It is Manu and Yâjñavalkya, therefore, and subsidiarily the "law-books" of Brihaspati, Nârada, Gautama, Âpastamba, Viṣṇu, and Vasiṣṭha, popularized through the *Sacred Books of the East Series*, that obtained currency in the general culture of the nineteenth century. To students of comparative politics these so-called "sacred" books failed necessarily to furnish much data. Rather, on the contrary, this *Series* served to divert the attention of scholars from Hindu achievements in institutional (*samûha*) life, public law, social service and civic administration. All the same, some use of the oriental data has been made by Gomme for folklore and anthropological investigations; Gibelin and Maine succeeded in gleaning a few ideas for comparative jurisprudence; and Nietzsche² threw a new light on sociology by championing the claims of the *Manu Samhitâ* as against the *New Testament* of Christianity.

c14.s1.14

² *The Twilight of Idols*, p. 46; *The Will to Power*, Vol. I, Book II, p. 126; *The Anti-Christ*, pp. 214—215.

c14.s1.15

In this connection it is desirable to mention several treatises in the Pâli language which, although they stand apart from the general Sanskrit category, deserve a high rank as documents of Hindu public law. These are the statute-books of Buddhist monastic life and belong to the group of Śâkya’s *sîla* (conduct) teachings known as *Vinaya* (i. e. discipline, organization, government). Up till now Pâli literature has absorbed the attention of scholars solely from the standpoint of theological doctrines and psychological dogmas. But certain sections of it are rich in the material of civic and juristic institutions and ideals. The *Mahâvagga* and the *Chulla-vagga*,¹ no doubt treatises on ecclesiastical polity, may be singled out for studies in politics² similar to those which have been bestowed by European scholars on the Canon Law³ systematized by Gratian of Bologna (1150) in the *Decretum*, or on the writings of the Jesuit Fathers⁴ and the literature of the Oxford Movement.⁵ Buddhist compilations throw special light on constitutional law, conciliar (*samgha*) administration and republican nationalism, and are thus invaluable sources for an analysis of the democratic philosophy obtaining in pre-Maurya India.

c14.s1.16

¹ English translations in the *S. B. E. Series.*

c14.s1.17

² Figgis' *Fellowship of the Mystery*, V, VI; *Divine Right of Kings*, 219—220.

c14.s1.18

³ Carlyle, II, 94, etc.; Taylor's *Mediaeval Mind*, Vol. II, 265—275.

c14.s1.19

⁴ Figgis' *From Gerson to Grotius*, Lect. VI.

c14.s1.20

⁵ Laski's *Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty*, Ch. III.

Section 2. Nîti-Śâstras

c14.s2.2

The second class of Hindu sociological literature, viz., the *artha* and *nîti śâstras*, has been arresting the attention of scholars only for the last decade or so. As Kautilya tells us, many were the writers on politics⁶ in ancient India, though the works of very few are extant. There is a book that passes for the work of one Ghata-karpara. A second *nîti-śâstra* is by tradition fathered on Vidura, a statesman of the *Mahâbhârata*. The sage Vaiśampâyana is credited with a third, viz. the *Nîti-prakâśikâ*.⁷ Somodeva's *Nîti-Vâkyâmrita* is another such book. And there is a treatise, entitled the *Yukti-kalpa-taru*,⁸ attributed to king Bhoja of Dhârâ in Malwa (in the Middle West of India). This Bhoja may have been identical with Mihira Bhoja (c 840—90), the Napoleon of the Gurjara-Pratîhâra Empire. Finally, a *sûtra* or aphoristic treatise dealing with *nîti* topics is credited to Brihaspati, the same perhaps of the *Smriti* fame.

c14.s2.3

⁶ A complete list of these books based on Aufrecht is to be seen in Law's articles in the *Mod. Rev.*, 1916—1917. Another list specifically on arts and crafts has been prepared by the same author for his article on "Vârttâ or Hindu Economics" in the *Ind. Ant.*, 1918—19. See a brief summary in Bhandarkar's *Anc. His. Ind.*, pp. 87—113.

c14.s2.4

⁷ Edited by Oppert for the Madras Government. Banerjea cites a few passages from the *Nîti-vâkyâmrita* (*Public*, pp. 12, 72, 75, 98, 100, 103, 107, 111, 189, 190, 193, 271, 275).

c14.s2.5

⁸ *Yukti* has been edited by Ishvara Chandra Shastri for the Sanskrit Press Depositary, Calcutta (1917). For A *Brihaspati Sutra* by F. W. Thomas see *Le Museon*, March 1916.

c14.s2.6

But the only historically authentic, and for the present the most important *nîti* work is a volume of the late fourth century B. C., the *Artha-śâstra*¹ of Kautilya, the finance minister of Chandra-gupta Maurya. This treatise combines the theory of Machiavellian *Realpolitik* with the “blood and iron” statecraft of Bismarck. The dissertations of pre-Kautilyan philosophers seem to have been swallowed up in this volume and it proved be the bible not only of Asoka the Great’s imperialism, but also of the chauvinists of the Vikram-âdityan epoch; for Kâmandaka’s abridgment² of Kautilya’s principles, entitled the *Nîti-sâra*, appears to have been in circulation about the fourth century A. C. And as such it acquired a position like that of the *Prince* of the Florentine diplomat which used to be consulted by every English and Continental statesman of the “New Monarchy” period. The influence of the *Artha-śâstra* is accordingly to be noticed as much in the activities of Premier Bhandi the “king-maker” of the Vardhana House (seventh century) as in those of the Bengali premiers Darbha-pâṇi and Kedâramiśra (eighth and ninth centuries), through whose *nîti*, as the inscriptions assert it, the Pâla Dynasty became for a time the paramount power in Northern India.

c14.s2.7

¹ Discovered, edited and translated by R. Shamashastry, of Bangalore, Mysore; *Ind. Ant.* 1905, p. 5.

c14.s2.8

² Sanskrit text edited by Rajendralal Mitra for the *Bibliotheca Indica Series*; English translation by Manmathanath Dutt. See the prefaces to both editions. Kâmandaka acknowledges the Kautilyan origin of his book (I. 2—8).

c14.s2.9

Curiously enough, however, in the history of Hindu political speculation it is not the historic Kautilya but a *nom-de-plume*, that of Śukra, a “sage” like Manu, that happened to become the patronymic of *nîti-śâstras*. The volume attributed to this *âchârya*, “learned doctor” or professor, viz., the *Śukra-nîti*³ (*Śukra’s Laws on Politics*) is almost synonymous with *Staatswissenschaft* or political philosophy in the scientific tradition of India. In its present form it is evidently a later compilation than the *Kâmandakî-nîti*, but it contains materials that go back to the earliest epochs of Hindu history.⁴

c14.s2.10

³ Sanskrit text edited by Gustav Oppert for the Madras Government, English translation by B. K. Sarkar for the Panini Office, Allahabad. The text edited by Jivânanda Vidyâsâgara of Calcutta is different from the Madras text at various points.

c14.s2.11

⁴ For a discussion of the date of the *Śukra-nîti* see the author’s *Pos. Back.*, Vol. II, pp. 63---71.

c14.s2.12

The birth of *nîti-śâstra*, i. e., political science (science of punishment, “sanction” and sovereignty, or *danda-nîti* as it is sometimes called) is, like the origin of all other Hindu *vidyâs*¹ (sciences, known to be thirty two in number) and *kalâs* (arts, known to be sixty four), obscurely believed to be Minervan, or, in other words, divine. The conjectural account of its dim beginnings brings it down to Dr. Śukra as the last of the *riṣis* (sages) who cared to set his seal on civic, economic and political studies. Formerly, says the *Mahâbhârata*,² for the protection of creatures the science of polity was delivered by the Lord Himself. As it happened to be a huge volume Siva (a god) epitomized it in ten thousand sections. His work is known as the *Vaiśâlâkṣa* from his name *Viśâlâkṣa* (the “large-eyed”). An abridgment in five thousand sections was afterwards made by Indra (another god) and in three thousand by Brihaspati, a super-man or *riṣi*. This last was further boiled down to one thousand by Śukra. All this reduction in size was necessary because art is long and “life is short”. The story of this abridgment following abridgment is told by the compiler of the *Śukra-nîti*³ also. “For the good of men”, as we read, “Brahmâ” (the highest God) had spoken that treatise which contained ten million verses. By a process of selection the essence (*sâra*) of that *nîti-śâstra* has been abridged by Vaśiṣtha and others like myself for the increase of prosperity of the rulers of the earth and of others whose life is of short span”.

c14.s2.13

¹ Śukra, Ch. IV, sec. iii, lines 45—200. For the significance of the term *danda-nîti* *vide* *Pos. Back*, II, pp. 29—31.

c14.s2.14

² *Śânti* LIX, 76—86.

c14.s2.15

³ Ch. I, lines 4—7; *Vide* *Pos. Back*, Vol. II, pp. 12—18, 21—29.

c14.s2.16

It is clear, therefore, that in stead of comparing Aristotle, the father of European political science, with Ganeśa, the God of Success in Hindu mythology, who is invoked by priests at the commencement of all religious ceremonies Pollock should have commenced his *Introduction to Politics* with the name of Śukra, who in the estimation of India has monopolized the credit of systematizing and propagating *nîti-śâstras* among mankind. For the present, however, the real historic pioneer is Kautilya, the “guide, philosopher and friend” of the first Hindu Alexander, whose place may be compared to that of the chief justice of Bagdad, Mawerdi (972—1058), author of the Arabic *Artha-śâstra*, *El Akham es Soulthaniyah* (*Les Statuts Gouvernementaux*).

c14.s2.17

Scope and Province of *Nîti-śâstra.

c14.s2.18

Chronologically the latest book is, as we have seen, the *Yukti-kalpa-taru*. It treats of taxation, expeditions, espionage, siege, diplomacy, peace, embassies and city administration, besides other topics.¹ The *Śukra-nîti* deals with the duties of princes, functions of the crown-prince and state officials, characteristics of friends and allies, sinews of war, fortresses, army, general rules of statecraft, and social customs and institutions. In the *Kâmandakî-nîti* we have a summary of the entire Kautilyan system, except that it omits a discussion of the departments of state, civil and criminal laws and a few other items.

c14.s2.19

¹ Vide the summary of its contents from a manuscript in Bengalı character in the *Pos. Back. Hind. Soc.*, Vol. I, pp. 12—14. The dates of *Śukra* as of *Yukti* are open questions.

c14.s2.20

In addition to these themes, Kautilya's *Artha-śâstra* in its 150 sections grouped in 15 chapters deals with the training and personal safety of kings and ministers, relations between government servants and the monarch, the rise and growth of states, the "sixfold policy", the vices and calamities of kings, military affairs, and measures for the promotion of peace and opulence. The doctrine of *mandala* i. e. "sphere" of influence or of international activity is elaborately discussed in twenty sections (chapters VI and VII). Republics (*ganas*) form the subject matter of a separate chapter (XI); and to *aikaiśvarya* (one-man-rule) is devoted the section on consolidation and absolute sovereignty (Ch. V, sec vi).

c14.s2.21

To a certain extent Kautilya's book may be used as an Imperial Gazetteer² of Maurya India, as it furnishes descriptive information on subjects like the following: Working of mines, operating of irrigation works; establishment of factories; maintenance of preserves and grazing grounds; the laying out of highways of commerce, waterways, landroutes, and other facilities for communication; establishment of markets and stores; construction of embankments, dams and bridges; planting of fruit and flower trees, of medicinal plants and herbs; protection of the disabled, the helpless and the infirm, and also of beasts; famines; census; central and municipal government; livestock. These treatises will thus bear apt comparison with the political chapters of the Arabic *Prolégomènes Historiques*, viz. Ibn Khaldoun’s (1372—1406) *Mokaddemah* (section III), or with the Persian *Traité du Gouvernement*, the *Siasset Nameh* by Nizam-oul-Moulk (c 1063).

c14.s2.22

² Law's *Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity*, Vol. I, is based on the *Artha-śâstra*. Jacobi's German article (1912) on the authenticity of Kautilya has been translated for the *Ind. Ant.* (June, July, 1919). Jolly's date for Kautilya in the *Zeit. Deut. Morg. Ges.* (1914, p. 355) is disputed by Jacobi in the same journal (vide "*Ist das Daśakumâracharita gleichzeitig mit dem Kautilya Arthashâstra?*"). See also Mookerji's introduction to Law's book, and Keith's article in the J. R. A. S. (1916).

c14.s2.23

But we need not depend on the topical analysis of the contents of these volumes for an estimate of the Hindu conception of political philosophy. For, the proper sphere or function of *nîti-śâstra* was discussed by some of the writers themselves. According to Śukra¹, *nîti-śâstra* is to dictate policies about allies, enemies and neutrals. It is expected to suggest the art of winning over the hearts of men. It is, besides, to be efficacious in diplomacy and international measures. While, on the one hand, its practical character as a manual of guidance for rulers is thus emphasized, Sukra, on the other hand, takes special care to bring out its universal importance as a *sarvopajîvaka* (useful to all) body of knowledge.² “*Nîti-śâstra*”, says he, “ministers to the interests of all and hence is followed and respected by all. It is also indispensable to the prince since he is the lord of all men and things”.³

c14.s2.24

¹ Ch. I, lines 11—13, 25—26.

c14.s2.25

² *Ibid*, 9.

c14.s2.26

³ *Ibid*, 23—24.

c14.s2.27

How is it possible that a *śâstra* should be serviceable to all the orders in a community unless it is a science of all sciences, i. e. encyclopedic in its scope? The claims of *nîti-śâstra* are therefore presented by the utilitarian theorist on the strength of such a “synthetic” approach to human interests. “Other sciences” are *ekaika-deśa-bodhi*, i. e. they treat only of singled-out or specialized aspects of man’s life, and are limited as a matter of course.⁴ As Śukra observes, one can do without a knowledge of grammar,⁵ for the study of grammar is not a *sine qua non* for the mastery of words and their meanings. Similarly the study of logic⁵ nay be dispensed with by one who wants to acquire a knowledge of material substances. By like arguments can the comparative “uselessness” of Jaimini’s *Mimâmsâ*⁵ dealing with the rituals and ceremonies of religion, and of Vyâsa’s *Vedânta* philosophy⁵ which treats of the “eternal verities” of the universe, be easily demonstrated, as is done in the *Śukra-nîti*. But the one science which nobody can afford to ignore is the *nîti-śâstra*. “Without *nîti* the stability of no man’s affairs can be maintained just as without food no man’s physical body can be preserved.”⁶ Political philosophy is thus the very basis of social *sthiti* or equilibrium furnishing, as it does, the spiritual foundations of human existence.

c14.s2.28

⁴ *Ibid*, 8, 18—19.

c14.s2.29

⁵ *Ibid*, 14—17.

c14.s2.30

⁶ *Ibid*, 21—22.

c14.s2.31

A *vidyâ* or science that seeks to impart knowledge calculated to foster the "preservation of human society" and provide the man-in-the-street with skill and intelligence becomes necessarily comprehensive and all-embracing in its topics. *Nîti-śâstra* in the hands of Śukra assumes thereby the proportions not of ethics or politics in the circumscribed sense, but of sociology in the wide sense of Aristotle's "architectonic" or dominant science. The extensive range of the subject matter of the *śâstras* on *danda-nîti* is adumbrated in the *Mahâbhârata*¹ and the *Daśa-kumâra-charita*² also, and may on the whole be easily comprehended by students familiar with the multiplicity of topics in Montesquieu.

c14.s2.32

¹ ^1 *Sânti*, Ch. LIX, 139—143.

c14.s2.33

² ^2 Pt. II, Ch. viii. The importance of this book in the antiquarian study of the *Artha-śâstra* will be evident from a single word *idânîm* which has given rise to the Jolly-Jacobi controversy in the Z. D. M. G. (1914).

Section 4. Relativity of Political Śâstras to Politics

c14.s3.2

Neither merely pedagogic-ethical nor purely descriptive-anthropological are these political *vidyâs* of Sanskrit literature. As manuals of *râja-dharma* or duties for princes the *nîti-śâstras* have their natural analogues in Elyot's *Boke named the Governour* (1531), and in the works of John of Salisbury (twelfth century), Aquinas (thirteenth century), Occleve (fourteenth century), Patrizi (fifteenth century), and the like.³ For certain purposes, again, they may be slightly compared to treatises of the type of Fortescue's *Governance of England* (1476). Moreover, like the Arab encyclopaedist Al Farabi's (c 950) *Model City*, based as it was on Plato, and like the *Prince* and the *Utopia* the writings of Kautilya, Kâmandaka, Śukra and Bhoja are contributions to political "ideals" as well.

c14.s3.3

³ ^3 Croft's *Elyot's Governour*, Vol. I, pp. lxiii—lxvi; Plummer's *Governance of England* (text introduction, notes).

c14.s3.4

But, and here lies the chief difficulty in regard to every branch of Hindu thought including even psychology, logic and metaphysics, the machinery of "sociological criticism" is hardly applicable because of the paucity of "external evidences" with which to bear out, interpret or militate against, the "internal". In regard to the ancient and mediaeval works of political theory in the West modern scholarship has almost successfully decided as to which portions of which texts are descriptive-historical and which are normative, utopian or idealistic. This has been possible owing to the wealth of archeology. The evidences of literature have been systematically checked and appraised by reference to actual facts. "Pious wishes" of theorists have thus been disentangled from photographic accounts of institutions.

c14.s3.5

The discrepancy between theory and practice, paradoxical though at first sight, is today almost a postulate in the history of European political speculation. Marsiglio of Padua in his *Defensor Pacis* (1324) is known to have anticipated Martin Luther and Machiavelli in the thorough-going secularization of politics. According to this writer, as Bluntschli explains it in the *Geschichte der neueren Staatswissenschaft*, the supreme institution is the state, the Pope has no right to the election of prince or emperor, and the *plenitudo potestatis* or omnipotence of the Pope is a myth. But this anti-theocratic theorizing was, as Sullivan remarks in his essay on *Marsiglio and Ockam*, the exact antipodes of the facts of the political world.

c14.s3.6

Again, the Carlyles¹ have traced the *ideas* of natural equality, freedom, and justice, back to Cicero (first century B. C.) through Canonists and Church Fathers of the Middle Ages, and Roman jurists like Ulpian and Gaius. But during all this period slavery was recognized as a lawful and legitimate institution, privileges and inequalities in property were the rule, and the divine right of the king was an established fact. It was not until the French Revolution that legal effect was given to the doctrine of natural equality which had been promulgated ages ago by Stoics in opposition to the theory of the Aristotelians.

c14.s3.7

¹ *Med. Pol. Theory*, Vol. I, pp. 9, 48, 114, 199; Vol. II, p. 118; Vol. III, p. 89; Vol. I, pp. 75, 76, 86, 116, 264; Vol. II, pp. 119, 120, 129; Vol. I, p. 70.

c14.s3.8

Further, according to the *theory* of the lawyers, e. g. Ulpian (second century A. C.), the source of political authority was the people. But from Hadrian to Justinian (sixth century) the emperor's will was law. And in the fourteenth century Bartolus, the "prince of jurists", was but maintaining the jurisprudence of traditional *Realpolitik* when he affirmed that the Roman Emperor was *Deus in terris* and *sempiternus* and that to dispute him was sacrilege.²

c14.s3.9

² Woolf's *Bartolus*, p. 24. See Figgis' *Divine Right*, pp. 343—372, for an estimate of Bartolus in the history of European political philosophy.

c14.s3.10

Thus has the "historical school" of criticism established in Eur-America a distinction between the face-value of the political shibboleths and their real worth. But as yet, in spite of a legitimate presumption, there is not much rational ground for scientific scepticism in regard to the tenets of the political *sâstras* of India. Because, facts about the institutional environment of the Hindus can be gleaned only inadequately from indigenous sources. Nor do the contemporary accounts of Greek, Roman and Chinese writers on India afford much help in this direction.

c14.s3.11

Not a single event has yet been discovered for the whole century from 230 to 330 A. C. The history of the Deccan for three hundred years between the Andhra and the Châlukya periods is a blank, as also that of Northern India during the latter half of the sixth century. The name of Samudra-gupta (A. C. 330—375), the "Indian Napoleon", was unknown to historians before 1904. Other digvijayî or "world-conquering" empire-builders like Govinda III, the Râstrakûta (795—815), and Bhoja (*c* 840—890) of the Gurjara-Pratîhâra House have come into prominence since then, — but practically as mere names however. Not even by name are more than half a dozen of the distinguished premiers, generals, finance-ministers and viceroys known today.

c14.s3.12

Nobody could yet attempt a systematic history of Pâtali-putra, the Rome of the Hindus off and on for over a thousand years. Authentic information about gilds and other public associations of economic or constitutional importance is all but negligible. Fiscal and military institutions can rarely be described for any period excepting that of the Mauryas, thanks to the epoch-making discovery of the *Arthaśâstra*. A study of the Vikramâdityan empire in comparison, say, with the system of Roman imperialism from Constantine to Justinian, the contemporaries of the Guptas, the historic prototypes of Kâlidâsa’s legendary Raghu, or with the Bourbon monarchy from Louis XI to Louis XIV is out of the question for a long time to come.

c14.s3.13

It is superfluous to add that the conditions are not ripe yet for "intensive" works like Vinogradoff's *English Society in the Eleventh Century*, Brissaud’s *History of French Public Law*, Abbott’s *Roman Political Institutions* or Dopsch’s "Economic and Social Foundations of European Culture"¹ being undertaken on the history of Hindu polity. Nay, what may be called the "extensive" researches of Guizot in the origins and growth of representative government among the Teutonic peoples await the patient toil of a long roll of spade-workers in Indian coins, inscriptions and excavations.

c14.s3.14

¹ ^1 Vide Ulrich Wilcken’s "*Alexander der Grosse und die Hellenistische Wirtschaft*" in *Schmoller’s Jahrbuch* for 1921.

c14.s3.15

Details of social and economic environment and of the actual secular life in ancient and mediaeval India have however been coming out recently. But, as would have appeared from the preceding chapters, they are so very scrappy that the Spencerian doctrine of the "relativity" of philosophy to institutions can hardly be made use of for the satisfactory explanation of the epochs of Hindu culture. And, of course, a history of Hindu political theories, like that of European by Bluntschli, Janet, Dunning or the Carlyles, is not a problem of the near future.

c14.s3.16

The difficulties of appreciating the *nîti-śâstras* at the present moment can be understood if one were almost to imagine what would have been the value of Plato's *Republic* if only one of his *Dialogues* were accessible to modern scholars as the sole document of a period of, say, two hundred years, for which no other evidence of a political, economic, literary or numismatic character were available, or how much of the Renaissance in Europe would be intelligible today, if the sole evidence for it were More's *Utopia*. In the absence of trustworthy historical data, indologists, both Hindu and foreign, supposing that they were unbiased, have been led to understand or rather misunderstand a complex and varied culture-history of several thousand years from the popular verses of a few poets, or the traditional sayings of one or two religious teachers. But at least during the last ten or fifteen years archeology has been able to cry halt to this sort of uncritical over-valuation or under-valuation of India's achievements; for, the "positive background" of Hindu sociology is becoming clearer every day.¹

c14.s3.17

¹ And yet two otherwise excellent publications of recent date, Banerjea's *Public Administration in Ancient India* (1916) and Havell's *History of Aryan Rule in India* (1918), are vitiated by a fundamental fallacy because they have made no distinction between political theory and political institutions. They have, besides, accepted the statements in the *śâstras* at their face-value without discriminating between "pious wish" and *Realpolitik*. On the other hand, the fallacy of an opposite character is equally manifest in Smith's *Oxford History of India* (1919) because the author has made it a point to disparage the *śâstras* in a sweeping manner without trying to evaluate them in the perspective of European writings of the same class. In an article on "Oriental Monarchies" in the *Mod. Rev.* (March 1917) J. N. Sarkar points out the merits of K. V. R.Aiyangar's *Considerations on Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity* (Madras, 1916); but the book has not reached the present author yet.

Linked texts (23)