The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c14.s3.17

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.