Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c16.s2.t2: b) The Doctrine of Sârva-bhauma (World-Sovereign)

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c16.s2.t2

Language
English

b) The Doctrine of Sârva-bhauma (World-Sovereign)

c16.s2.t2.1

The Hindu theory of sovereignty did not stop, however, at the doctrine of a universal *mâtsya-nyâya*, that is of a world in which each state is at war with all. It generated also the concept of universal peace through the establishment of a *Weltherrschaft* as in Dante’s *De Monarchia*.¹ The doctrine of *mandala* as a centrifugal force was counteracted by the centripetal tendencies of the doctrine of *sârva-bhauma* (the ruler over the whole earth). With this theory of the world-state and *Pax Sârvabhaumica* we shall conclude our present study.

c16.s2.t2.2

¹ I, 4, I, 8, I, 10, etc.

c16.s2.t2.3

In Europe the idea or ideal of a universal empire took most definite shape towards the beginning of the fourteenth century “exactly when the actual development of the modern nationalities was rendering it practically impossible.”² This crisis and this transition in Western political thought are best represented in Bartolus (1314—1357), the “prince of jurists,” for he began³ by seeing a single universal empire, but he ended by recognizing a miniature empire in every *de facto* independent power. The same conception of a world sovereignty or a *federation de l’empire* is however as old in India as the political philosophers of the earliest Vedic period.

c16.s2.t2.4

² Carlyle, Vol. III, 179. But the concept of Dantesque universal monarchy is as old as Cicero. *Vide* Atger’s *Histoire des doctrines du Contrat Social*, p. 26.

c16.s2.t2.5

³ Woolf, 45, 109, 196.

c16.s2.t2.6

“Monarchy at its highest,” we read in the *Aitareya Brâhmana*,⁴ “should have an empire extending right up to natural boundaries, it should be territorially all-embracing, up to very ends uninterrupted, and should constitute and establish one state and administration up to the seas.” The ancient theorists were evidently thinking of the Indian continent as identical with the entire world. The achievement of a pan-Indian nationality was in their eyes the equivalent of a world federation just as in medieval European theory the unification of western Christendom was tantamount to the constitution of one state for all mankind, or as in the Eur-American world-peace movements of today “the world” is postulated to be the territories inhabited by albinoes or white races.

c16.s2.t2.7

⁴ VIII, 4, 1, in Mookerji’s *Fundamental*, p. 89.

c16.s2.t2.8

This theory of a world-nationalism (or, what is the same thing, a United Indianism) exercised a powerful influence on the political speculations of the Hindus. It gave rise to set formulae and slogans that fired the imaginations of the Alexanders, Charlemagnes and Fredericks of India through the ages. The *Aitareya Brâhmana*⁵ records some of the ambitions and ideals of the Young India of the sixth century B.C. and beyond. "I want to attain to lordship over all rulers," proclaims one aspirant, "I want to achieve the conquest of both space and time . . . I want to be *sârva-bhauma* . . . and be the *eka-rât* (sole monarch) of the earth up to the skies."

c16.s2.t2.9

⁵ VIII, i, 39.

c16.s2.t2.10

Hindu political thought produced several other categories to express the same idea of the world-state or universal sovereignty. We have, first, the doctrine of *chakravarti*. It indicates that the *chakra* or wheel of the state-chariot rolls everywhere without obstruction. The wheel is the symbol of sovereignty. Or, if *chakra*¹ be taken as denoting a country from sea to sea, the *chakravarti* would be the ruler of a state from sea to sea (i. e., extending to the farthest limits). It is this conception of a political "dominion," of a secular overlordship, that is employed metaphorically with a spiritual significance in the conception of the Lord Buddha as *Chakkavatti*. "A king am I, Sela," says Buddha² using the language of his contemporary imperialists, "the king supreme of righteousness. The royal chariot-wheel in righteousness do I set rolling on—that wheel that no one can turn back again."

c16.s2.t2.11

¹ Monier Williams' *Dictionary*.

c16.s2.t2.12

² *Sela-sutta* in *Sutta-nipâta*, III, 7, 7; Hardy's *Manual of Buddhism*, p. 126.

c16.s2.t2.13

Secondly, we have the doctrine of *sârva-bhauma* expressed in the more popular and conventional conception of *samrât*. The *Mahâbhârata*, for instance, uses this category in order to convey the idea of a world dominion. "There are *râjâs* (kings) in every home (state) doing what they like," we read in the Book on *Sabhâ*,³ "but they have not attained to the rank of *samrât*; for that title is hard to win." And this rank is at last won by Yudhisthira in the epic. Yudhisthira would thus be the *Veltro* of the *Divine Comedy*.

c16.s2.t2.14

³ *Mahâ*, *Sabhâ* XV, 2.

c16.s2.t2.15

Another category in which the doctrine of *sârva-bhauma* is manifest is that of *châturanta*, of which Kautilya⁴ availed himself in order to establish his ideal of imperial nationalism. The *châturanta* state is that whose authority extends up to the remotest *antas* (limits) of the *chatur* (four) quarters. The ruler of such a state *ananyâm prithivîm bhumkte*, i. e., enjoys the whole earth with none to challenge his might. In the *Arthaśâstra*, he is known also as *chakravarti*, for the territory of such a *châturanta* is called *chakravarti kṣetra* (dominion of a *chakravarti*).

c16.s2.t2.16

⁴ *Artha*, I, v, vii.

c16.s2.t2.17

The *sârva-bhauma*, *chakravarti*, *samrât*, or *châturanta* of Hindu political theory is identical with the *dominus omnium*, or lord of univer- *sitas quaedum* in Bartolus’s terminology,¹ the *hwangti* of the Chinese.² He is “the monarch of all I survey.” He rules a state whose limits extend from sea to sea (*âsamudra-kṣitîśa*), and his chariots have free passage up to the skies (*ânâka-ratha-vartma*), as Kâlidâs, the Virgil of India, puts it in his *Raghu-vaṁśa* (“The House of Raghu”). The pretensions of the doctrine of *sârva-bhauma* thus bear close analogy with the universal authority claimed by Hildebrand (c1075) for the Papacy, or with that rival conception of his opponents, the Ghibelline imperialism of the Hohenstaufens. Herein is to be perceived the Hindu counterpart of the doctrine, albeit from the monarchical angle, of a single state for entire humanity, the futurist version of which has embodied itself from time to time in diverse forms, — in the visions of “permanent peace,” or in the pious wishes for a “parliament of man” or for the now almost discredited “league of nations,” or for its antithesis, the communist “Third International” of the proletarian world.

c16.s2.t2.18

¹ Woolf, pp. 22, 196.

c16.s2.t2.19

² Hardy, p. 126.

c16.s2.t2.20

The doctrine of *sârva-bhauma* does not stand alone in Hindu political philosophy. It is backed up by several other concepts which may be regarded as its logical feeders. First is the concept of the gradation of rulers in the scale of *aiśvarya* (sovereignty). The *Rig Veda*,³ the *Śatapatha Brâhmaṇa*,⁴ and other ancient documents recognize a hierarchy or graded rank of states from the lowest unit up. According to the *Aitareya Brâhmaṇa*⁵ the smallest nationality is a *râjya*. From this rung the ladder gradually takes us through higher or larger “powers” like the *sâmrâjya*, *svârâjya*, *vairâjya*, and *mahârâjya* up to the greatest power, known as the *âdhipatya*.

c16.s2.t2.21

³ IV, 21, 1.

c16.s2.t2.22

⁴ XI, 3, 2, 1, 6.

c16.s2.t2.23

⁵ VIII, 4, 1.

c16.s2.t2.24

Another scale of small nationalities, medium states, and great powers is furnished in the following schedule of the *Śukra-nîti* thus:⁶

c16.s2.t2.25

⁶ Ch. I, lines 365—374. Vide Rao’s “Kings, Crowns, and Thrones in Ancient and Mediaeval India” in the *Mod. Rev.*, Feb. 1917.

c16.s2.t2.26

| *Title* | *Annual Income in Silver Karṣa*⁷ |
| 1. *Sâmanta* | 1 to 3 hundred thousand |
| 2. *Mândalika* | 3 hundred thousand to 1 million |
| 3. *Râjâ* | 1 million to 2 million |
| 4. *Mahârâja* | 2 million to 5 million |
| 5. *Svarât* | 5 million to 10 million |
| 6. *Samrât* | 10 million to 100 million |
| 7. *Virât* | 100 million to 500 million |
| 8. *Sârva-bhauma* | 500 million and up |

c16.s2.t2.27

⁷ A little more than 25 cents in present United States currency.

c16.s2.t2.28

The *sârva-bhauma* is further described as being that ruler “to whom the earth with its seven islands is ever bound.”

c16.s2.t2.29

This concept of a scale of nationalities or a rank of states, as “first class powers” or “great powers” and “small nations” or the like, according to income and title, is essentially linked up in Hindu theory with the concept of political *yajnas*, sacrifices and rituals, which are fully described in the *Brâhmanas*. The *Gopatha Brâhmana*¹ says that Prajâpati became *râjâ* by *râjasûya* sacrifice, *samrât* by *vâjapeya*, *svarât* by *aśvamedha*, *virât* by *puruṣamedha*, and so forth. We need not go into the details of these rituals. We have only to note that not every ruler is entitled to perform any and every sacrifice. Each sacrifice has its own value or mark of sovereignty attached to it; the dignity, might and rank of states being dependent on the character of the sacrifice performed.

c16.s2.t2.30

¹ Part I, pp. 77, 78, in the *Bibl. Ind.*; *vide* Law’s “Forms and Types of States in Ancient India” in the *Mod. Rev.*, Oct., 1916.

c16.s2.t2.31

According to the *Śatapatha Brâhmaṇa*,² again, the office of the king is the lower and that of the emperor the higher, and therefore one becomes king by offering the *râjasûya*, and by the *vâjapeya* one becomes emperor. But the *râjasûya* is known to be the highest sacrifice in the *Taittirîya Brâhmaṇa*,³ for according to this work, it can be performed only by universal monarchs exercising sovereignty over a large number of princes as the lord of an imperial federation. The *Aitareya Brâhmaṇa*⁴ also says that by virtue of the *râjasûya*, Janamejaya, Saryâta and ten other rulers, “subdued the earth” and became “paramount sovereigns.” In the *Âpastamba Śrauta Sûtra*,⁵ however, *aśvamedha* (horse-killing) sacrifice possesses the greatest dignity, for it can be performed by a *sârva-bhauma* (the ruler of the whole earth).

c16.s2.t2.32

² V, 1, 1, 13.

c16.s2.t2.33

³ Rajendralal Mitra’s *Indo-Aryans*, Vol. II, p. 2, 3.

c16.s2.t2.34

⁴ VIII, 21–23.

c16.s2.t2.35

⁵ XX, 1, 1.

c16.s2.t2.36

It is obvious that authorities differ as to the relative importance of the political sacrifices, but all are united in the concept that the rituals have a state-value on their face, and that it is the greatest power or the largest nationality alone that is entitled to the highest sacrifice (be it the *râjasûya* or the *aśvamedha*, or what not). The concept of *yajna*, like that of the scale of the states, is therefore an important element in the theory of *Weltherrschaft*, world-monarchy or federated universe embodied in the doctrine of *sârva-bhauma*.

c16.s2.t2.37

Last but not least in importance as a foundation for the doctrine of *sârva-bhauma* is the concept of *dig-vijaya*¹ or conquest of the quarters. It implies that there is no longer a mere *vijigîṣu* or aspirant, awaiting his chance, mewing his might, or watching the conjuncture for “the next war.” The Siegfried has conquered the quarters of the globe, he has realized his highest ambitions. The wheel of his chariot has rolled to the very extremities of the world, and there is none to question his power and prestige. All rival states have been subdued by him. He has brought them to subjection almost in the manner that Napoleon wished when he said in 1804: “There will be no rest in Europe until it is under a single chief, an emperor who shall have kings for officers, who shall distribute kingdoms to his lieutenants, and shall make this one king of Italy, that one of Bavaria; this one ruler of Switzerland, that one governor of Holland, each having an office of honor in the imperial household.” *Dig-vijaya* has conferred on the *vijigîṣu* the chiefship of such a Napoleonic league of nations.

c16.s2.t2.38

¹ *Aitareya Brâhmaṇa*, VIII, 4, 1; for instances of *dig-vijaya* in Hindu political tradition *vide* Mookerji's *Fundamental*, p. 87.

c16.s2.t2.39

It is under these conditions of a “conquest of the quarters” that the hero of the *Raghu-vaṁśa* is authorized to celebrate the *viśva-jit* (indicating world subjugation) sacrifice at the end of his Alexandrine exploits. *Dig-vijaya* brings about a situation in which there is absolutely no scope for the doctrine of *maṇḍala* or international *mâtsya-nyâya*. The world is at peace under the undisputed sway of the lord of the *universitas quaedum*, the *sârva-bhauma*. The unstable equilibrium of a *vijigîṣu’s* hypothetical *maṇḍala* has given way to the *pax sârva-bhaumica* established by the *de facto* monopoly of world control through *dig-vijaya*.

c16.s2.t2.40

A natural concomitant of the concept of *dig-vijaya* is the idea that the *sârva-bhauma* has all the other rulers related to him not as to the *vijigîṣu* of a *maṇḍala*, that is, not as to the ambitious storm-centre of an international sphere, but bound as to a *râja-râja* or king of kings, to whom allegiance is due as overlord. With the rise of the *sârva-bhauma*, the *maṇḍala* necessarily disappears. The old order of the “enemy,” the “neutral” and other states has vanished, the new order of the world-state has arisen. An epoch of universal peace has replaced the age of warring nationalities, conflicting *ententes*, armed neutralities, and militant attitudes. The doctrine of *sârva-bhauma*, as the concept of federal nationalism, imperial federation, or the universe-state, is thus the keystone in the arch of the Hindu theory of sovereignty. The message of *Pax Sârva-bhaumica*, in other words, the doctrine of unity and concord is the final contribution of *nîti-śâstras* to the philosophy of the state.

Linked texts (11)