Western scholars assume that India is not a place to look for political wisdom.
India is a place to
look for spiritual wisdom.
Indians have ignored the material well-being. Politics is ‘this worldly’ whereas Indians have been
concerned about ‘the other world'. Hence in the western world, the status of Indian political
thought remained contested.
To them, Indians were imbued with divine ordainment of their political and social institutions
Second, Indians were predominantly metaphysical and religious in their outlook and had little
interest in mundane matters. Therefore, Political Science could scarcely come into existence as
an independent branch of knowledge.
They have laid down that Hindu science of polity was infact a part of Hindu philosophy or Hindu
religion.
Max Muller and Prof. Bloomfield is worth mentioning in this regard. Max Muller, a German Scholar
pointed out “the only sphere where the Indian mind found itself at liberty to act, to create and to
worship was the sphere of religion and philosophy.” Bloomfield also pointed out “From the beginning of
India’s history, religious institutions controlled the character and development of its people to an extent
unknown elsewhere…. There is no provision in such a scheme for the interest of the state and the
development of the race”. Even Dunning, a Western Scholar, once said, “The Oriented Aryans never
freed their political from the theological environment in which it is embedded today. Therefore, he was
compelled to limit his study to the philosophy of the European People.” But, on the other hand, Indian
Scholars like Dr. B.R. Bhandarkar and Dr. Beni Prasad had different views. Prof. U.N. Ghosal, N.D. Palmer
and important Western Scholar like D. Mackenzie Brown etc. also can be bracketed in this category.
According to Dr. B.R. Bhandarkar, “it is absurd to affirm that Indian had subordinated the study of science
of politics to that of Theology and Philosophy and had never developed it as an independent branch of
knowledge.” He is of the opinion that the Hindu mind showed equal regard to the science-making or
material progress or spiritual culture at the time of Kautilya. Prof. K.N. Ghosal is of the opinion that the
Hindus belong to the category of people who have left their impression upon the pages of History as the
founders of original systems of political thought. According to N.D. Palmer, “Ancient Indian Political
thought deals with many subjects which have bulked large in political theory of the western world.
Among these are the nature and origin of the state, types of status, the relation of state and society the
forms of Govt., the origin of Kingship, the duties of Kingship, the duties of Kings, royal authority and its
limitations, power politics, diplomacy and administration, state of nature, the social contact and
sovereignty possibly even international level, conflicting theories of international relations can be found
in ancient
So, it is not correct to say that Indians lack political thinking. Political wisdom of Indian was not
reflected probably because *they were less concerned with notions of historical record keeping.
*There is no certain chronology of Indian history until the 7th-6th centuries BC, and much of
what we know about this derives from the writings of Greek visitors such as Megasthenes (ca.
350 – 290 BC).
*Emphasis on development of strong spiritual and social constructs that enabled their society to
maintain stability and continuity without strong political institutions.
*Ancient Indian Political thought did not form part of the world stream of political thinking and so,
failed to exercise any great influence on the political speculation outside our country.
*In addition to this, the opinion of the western scholars seems to have created on account of the
different names given to political science in ancient India. In ancient India, the Political Science
was known by several terms like the Rajadharma, Rajyasastra, Dandaniti, Nitisara,
Khastravidya and Arthanastra. in the early stages of the development of the science, it was
known as Rajadharma. Dandaniti became a more popular term a little later and Arthasastra was
suggested as an alternative to it. In course of time, however the word Rajanitisara abridged into
Nitisara became more popular and gradually supplanted the other terms. This has also created
confusion in understanding political wisdom of India.
Moreover, there are also scholars who believe that when west describes India empty of political
wisdom, it reflects their ethnocentric attitude. Similarly when west ignores Indian political
thinking, it can be seen as the western attempt to maintain its cultural ideological hegemony.
Indians dealt with everything in its own manner, a manner which reflects the dominant
characteristics of Indian personality. According to professor V R Mehta, the failure of west to
recognize Indian thought can be because of the lack of understanding of Indian way of life by
the people in the west. There is a big difference in the outlook of the west and east. West thinks
in dichotomous lines. West has made difference between man and society, nature and culture,
politics and ethics. On the other hand, Indians have always looked things in continuity. We have
never separated man and society, nature and culture, dharma and danda (ethics and politics).
Hence in order to understand Indian perspective on politics and statecraft, it is necessary to
understand Indian way of life or the unique way of Indian thinking.
According to professor Morris Jones, ‘the neglect of Indian political thought will result into the
impoverishment of the west’.
Max Muller has, however, acknowledged that “nowhere in the world, human mind has dealt with
the various questions of life in such a depth as in case of India.” India has been a source of
enlightenment for the world.
But, then even in the most ancient times, Hindu science of polity had a separate identity, Barker,
Dunning or Willoughby were not aware about the vast amount of political literature produced in
ancient India, as well as the existence of numerous schools of political thought that flourished in
the country centuries before Plato and Aristotle.
Also conclusion of the western scholars about the absence of political speculation in ancient
India was no longer valid after Shamasastri's discovery of Kautilya's Arthasastra. The discovery
of this book was an epoch-making event in the country. It not only silenced the western critics
but, what is more important, it revealed the existence of about a dozen and a half of
independent works on politics, and many names who were the founders of school1.3.1 Vedic
Literature
Thus, it would not be appropriate to say that Indians lack political wisdom. There are various
Indian texts like Manu smriti, Kautilya’s Arthashastra, Ramayana, Mahabharat, Sukra Niti and
other texts which contain huge political wisdom. Besides Hindu texts, the Buddhists and Jain
texts also discuss the principles of statecraft, the ideals of kingship and the objectives of
governance.
Sources:
Vedas and Brahmanas:
In the vedic period and the Brahmanas, there are scattered passages in the vedic literature
which throw considerable light on the theory and practise of government in contemporary times.
The material in the Rigveda is very scanty, but in the Atharvaveda is relatively more copious. It
however mostly refers to the institution of the kingship. In different samhithas of the Yajurveda
and in the Brahmana Literature, we frequently come across the description of the coronation
ceremony and of the different sacrifies laid down for the king either at the time of his accession
or at sometime later in his career. They give us valuable glimpses into the position of the king,
the prestige he enjoyed, the taxes he collected and the entourage that surrounded him. There
are numerous passages in this literature which discusses the relative position and privileges of
different groups especially the Brahmanas and the Kashatriyas which also are valuable to the
students of the political institutions.
Dharmasastras:
Dharmasastras are the commentaries on the Dharmic aspects of the vedic tradition. They deal
with the Dharma of the human beings. The social, economic, cultural, religious and political
aspects of life are discussed in these works. They give us the duties of the king, his ministers
and affairs as well as different groups of people. The study of Dharmasastras is essential for a
correct understanding of social or political life of ancient Indians. However, they are written from
the religious view point. Numerous scholars in different period have contributed to this branch of
literature by way of commentaries and digests. The Dharmasastra of Manu, Yajnavalkya,
Vishnu, Gautama. Bandhyayana, Apastanha and Narada are very important.
There is an opinion that Dharmasastras did not represent the actual state of things. They were
mere utopias, and they were never actually followed by any state. The sanction behind them
was not poltical and popular but only religious and they never exerted any influence on the
actual conduct of government anywhere. But in those days when popular sovereignity was not
dreamt of and when the people had not become sufficiently political minded, religious appeal
was the only means by which people could be roused to action, if neccessary against the ruler.
The Epics and the Puranas:
Ramayana is the story of an ideal monarch and it deals with the king's obligations as well as
sacrifies for the happiness of his subjects. A picture of an ideal state of the ancient Hindus can
be found in it.
Mahabharatha is an important source to the students of the science of polity. Shantiparva in
Mahabharatha has an extensive section devoted to the Rajadharma or the duties of the king.
The origin of state, the history of dandaniti and its scope, organisation of government, king's
service to his subjects and other topics of dandaniti are discussed. Mahabharatha also explains
Dharma, religion, social life and philosophy of life problems connected with the foreign policy
and peace and war naturally occupy a good deal of space. It is almost encyclopaediac in nature,
which gives a picture about the ideal administration.
A few chapters on these topic occur in some Puranas. But they usually summarise the
Dharmasastra views and therefore not very important. Further puranas have been, it seems at
later period, greatly modified. Therefore, they are not fully reliable
Buddhist Literature:
The sacred works of the Buddhist known as Tripitaka,
Vinayaka, Satta and Abhidhamma are valuable sources of information on political, social and
religions conditions of Buddhist's time. The Jataka stories also give us useful information on
these aspects.
The works of Arthasastra:
The most important work of this category is Kautilya's Arthasastra. It discusses the old topics
with a remarkable thoroughness referring to the views of earlier writers and advancing its own
theories. It throws ample light on the political life in ancient India. Kautilya's Arthasastra is more
a manual for the administrator than a theoretical work on polity discussing the philosophy and
fundamental principles of administration or of the political science. It is mainly concerned with
the practical problems of government and describes its machinery and functions both in peace
and war with an exhaustiveness not seen in any later works with the possible exception of the
Sukraniti.
The position of the Arthasastra in the realm of the literature on politics is analogous to that of
Panini's Ashtadhyay in the field of grammar. Like Panini, Kautilya superseded all his
predecessors. their works were therefore, lost in the course of time.
A few manuals with no particulars claim to originality were, of course, written during this period.
One such work is Kamandaka Nitisara. It was composed probably during Gupta period. This
work is nothing but the summary of the work of Kautilya. But it does not describe the
administrative machinery. The king and his courtiers dominate the picture showing the great
importance that monarchy had acquired. By this time, Kautilyas's chapter on Republican states
was omitted. Probably Republics were no longer in existence. Civil, criminal and personal law
were completely left out. Greater part of Kamandaka Nitisara deals with inter-state relations
The next work of this class is Sukranitisara. It is very important for the student of ancient Indian
polity. Like other works, it does not occupy itself with theoretical discussion of the principles of
polity and government, but it gives us a more detailed and comprehensive picture of the
administrative machinery than is given by any other work of the post-kautilyan period. Its polity
is monarchical, Besides discussing the duties of the king and the functions of the ministers and
officers, the work describes the problems of foreign policy and methods of warfare, Civil
administration is described in very great detail. We get a vivid picture of the judicial
administration. The state as envisaged by Sukra was an organisation for the welfare of the
subjects. For this purpose Sukra tells that state should suppress crime disorder, control
gambling and drinking, but to maintain hospitals. encourage learning ie, to promote education,
increase the resources of the country, encourage trade, business, develop mines, forests,
industries and execute schemes of irrigation. Infact, in several respects the work supplies
information not to be found in other works on polity
The other work namely the Barhaptya Arthasastra is a small, unimportant booklet doing justice
neither to its subject nor to the reputation of the supposed author. Like some of the earlier
Smritis, a few later Smirithi's also occasionally deal with administration, but not clearly. The
Puranas of the Gupta and post-Gupta period also deal with state and government, but no
originality of thought can be found.
From 1000 A.D. originality disappeared from most of the branches of Indian learning and the
science of polity was no exception.From: 1000 A.D. to 1700 A.D. a number of compendiums
were written giving a comprehensive treatment of Dharma in its different branches, Rajaniti or
politics also formed a section of most of these works. A few of these works are Abhilashitartha
chintamani of Someshwara, Yaktikalpatara of Bhoja, Rajanitikalpataru of Lakshmidhara,
Rajanitikanda of Devana-bhatta, Rajanitiratnakara of Chandelvara, Nitimayuktha of Nilakantha
and Rajanitiprakasa of Mitramitra. Most of these works were written from the theological rather
than from the political point of view. They were mainly occupied with the task of describing the
hobbies, luxuries and pastimes of the king, Political Science in the real sense of the term had
ceased to be cultivated. Thus, these works possess very little intrinsic value to the student of
political science. Original thinking had come to an end for reasons already explained.
Other Literary works:
Literary works like Dramas, Novels, Stories and Biographical sketches provide material for our
study. Among them the following are important.
Pratijnayougandarayana, the Raghuvamsa, the Malvikagnimitra, the Panchatantra, the
Hitopadesha, the Kadambari, the Harshacharita, the Daskumaracharitha, Rajatarangini. Mudra-
rakshasa and Shakuntala.
These works belonging to different epoch of ancient Indian history give us a relative picture of
life and society of their periods, They also give us a valuable theory of administration. We get
from them some idea regarding kingship and the quality of administration as well as reaction of
the people to tyrannical rule. Thus these provide a valuable glimpse into the contemporary
political theory or administration.
Foreign Commentaries:
The writings left by foreigners who visited India or stayed in the country for sometime also give
us valuable and reliable. information. Several foreign scholars visited India during the ancient
period. Though available in fragments, yet they help us to a considerable degree to understand
ancient Political theory. The work of Megasthenes Indica though fragmentary, is of very great
value to the student of the Mauryan administration. The accounts of Greek historian especially
relating to the invasion of Alexander the Great, are very valuable for getting a glimpse into City
States and Republics. The Chinese scholar Fahein Yuah Chwang and Htseing as well as the
Muslim scholar and historian Alberuni have also left their writings that help us to clearly
understand the conditions of India during the period from 4 century A.D. to 10 century A.D.
Inscriptions:
Inscriptions engraved in rocks, stones, wall of buildings, pillars copper plates etc are extremely
important source of information to the student of political science. Being written by the court
poets, they sometimes give us an idealistic picture, but a discerning student can well
differenciate between the courtly praise and prosaic facts. To a very great extent the inscriptions
represent the actual state of affairs in the government, machinery of the different administration
and enable us to ascertain facts and aspects sometimes altogether neglected in the works and
Nitisara. They are very useful in acquiring a correct picture of the territorial divisions and the
official hierarchy of the different administrations. They give us a valuable insight into the taxation
prevailing under different dynasties, idea of interstate relations, as also of the relation between
the suzerain and his feudatories. Inscriptions of ten enunciate interesting maxims about the
aims and ideals of government and the duties of kings and responsibilities of ministers. Many
doubtful points in the understanding of ancient Indian history, culture and administration have
been cleared by reference to inscriptions.
Numismatics:
Numismatics or the science of coins is also not without some value to the student of political
science. The coin legends often disclose the existence of a number of city-states, not otherwise
known to us. The existence of the republican constitutions of the Sibis, the Malayas, the
Arjunayanas, the kunidas, the Yaudheyas and the Lichchhavis is proved or confirmed by coin
legends.
The sources we have understood above have enabled us to fill a number of gaps in our
knowledge of ancient Indian polity.
Zzxzzzxx zzxzzzxx zzxzzzxx
Characteristics of Indian Political Thought
Influence of religion on Politics,
In ancient India we find intermingling of politics and theology. Religion claimed the whole
allegiance of human being and sought to be with him from birth to death and forever. The law
was taken from sacred books written by sages, which covered the whole life, whether private or
public life. Political institutions and ideas acquired religious tinge which never wholly left them.
The intimate contact of religion with the rest of life explains why Hindu social and political theory
is often presented in the same books with law and domestic rituals. On the other hand, the
authors of political works could not resist the temptation to survey many fields of human thought
and endeavour.
Supernatural element is frequently present in all the works. The divine hand is visible in the
formation of society and government: the divine punishment reinforces earthly punishment, and
sometime supplants it altogether.
Under the influence of the religion the social thought becomes part of the general theory of
universe and is fitted into the scheme which comprises theology, metaphysics, law, ethics and
economics.
Influence of ethics on Politics.
The influence of ethics on the nature and character of political theory is even more greater than
the influence of religion on it. The Indian social thought has a preeminently ethical motive. The
social thought not only assures certain fundamental principles of morality but it always seeks to
divert life. It does explain what is, but its primary concern is to point out what ought to be. In
India the state was never confined to hindrance of hindrances. Its function was not merely
negative and preventive. It must consciously and actively stimulate virtue and guide the moral
life. It must regulate the social order, so that everyone performs their duties. No governmental
action can extend to the inner thoughts and motives of man but Hindu theory wants the state to
ally itself with the forces and influences which touch with springs of action. Under the conception
the state figures considerably in the communal life and the theory of state proceeds to revolve
itself into a theory of moral. In short Political Science becomes the ethics of the whole society.
Though the Hindu theory has the ethical moorings, it does not neglect fact or reality. It does not
loose touch with the social conditions and political temper of the times. As a rule it reflects
statusquo. It assures the existing order, the traditional scheme of duties and the prevalent form
of political organisation. It idealises the actual.
India was a country divided into numerous small states, always in actual or potential hostility
with their neighbours. Therefore, diplomacy had departed from ethical moornings. There are
writers who advocated a return of the straight path of morality, but all who sought to be
counsellors of governments compromise with facts. They become realists after the fashion of
Machiavelli. In the same philosopher, one may notice a sudden fall from ethical heights to the
realism. At first sight the unity of aim seems to be destroyed but is allexplained by the practical
aim which the writers generally keep in view.
Influence of caste on Politics.
It was during the later Vedic period there grew up the institution of caste. Caste occupies a
prominent place in all subsequent social speculation and had a direct bearing on governmental
theory. The natural operations of economic forces and of warfare splits a community into
groups. The Hindu tendency to take an idea to its logical extreme produced caste, whereas
Europe stopped at class, Whatever may be the reason caste fixes the status of man according
to birth and restricts inter-marriages among groups. This caste enters into governmental theory
and organisation at innumerable points. At the base of the institution of caste lies the ideas of
function. Function dominates all associations. Every social purpose is on the basis of functions.
Every association or institution has an object. But Hindu theory created function into an ethical
principle. The individual is not to seek his own interest. Individual must primarily fulfill the
function assigned to him from the moment of his birth in the social whole of which he forms a
part. In the exaltation of society the human values are practically lost and much that is personal
gives way to collective elements. This theory strikes at the root of individuality and amounts
almost to a denial of personality. The duty of the individual is a social duty. His good is the good
of the society. This view implies the denial of natural rights, because the individual personality is
merged in society against which he has no rights. All his rights consists in the discharge of his
custe functions. In the discharge of his functions he is entitled to protection at the hands of
government and the society in general. But his rights are pre-eminently social rights. The
antithesis man versus state or society could not have occurred to the Hindu mind.2.3.4
Government as a king priest partnership Ancient writers considered the king and the priest in a
sense to be the basis of each others power. The union of the two being the perfection. However,
Brahmana was superior to the king, Kshatriya temporal power derived his strength and authority
from Brahma spiritual power. The priest held highest caste status. He was identified with the
God Brihaspati instead of the temporal power of Indra. His function was to interpret dharma and
preside over rituals. Coronation by the priest was a necessary prerequisite to the exercise of
royal power Symbolically it meant that kshatriya derived his power from Brahma
The caste which combined learning and priestly functions received many privileges. But, it must
be assumed that the Hindu state was not theocracy. The actual ruler was to wield power and
administer, punishment for the breach of dharma. Of course, he relied upon the learning of the
Brahaman for the knowledge of dharma and he was enjoined by the scriptures to protect the
priestly caste at all costs. In the making of politics the chief Brahmana or Purohita might act as a
minister in the king's administration. Apart from these considerations theocratic power did not
develop in India. The conflict between the secular and religious power raged Europe and it gave
rise to a good deal of political theory. This conflict had no counter part in ancient India. The
problem of relations of church and state which is still the topic of European Political thought
does not arise in the Sanskrit literature, or in ancient India. However, the influence of the
Brahmin on the general social life was of peculiar kind. He (Brahmana) had the monopoly of
imparting education. In theory as well as in practice education was not available to the great
mass of Sudras. All learning and knowledge was thus concentrated in his hands. He had the
monopoly priest craft. The religious life of the community was under his control. With his
intellectual leadership of the community and the control of its religious life in its hands,
thepriestly class exercised a power and influence not only in social life but also on government
and administration. It was not necessary for it to organize itself into a church as in Europe
because membership of the class was by birth. This position of pre-eminence was assured for
this Varna from earlier times. It was not challenged seriously at any time because the Varna had
come to regard the Varna system as not only natural but also divinely ordained. Such a
reconciliation: however humble it may be was easy because of the unquestionable belief in the
theory of Karma and rebirth. Such a hold on the spirit and mind of the vast community by a
small hereditary class is probably unique in the history of mankind.
No clear distinction between State and Society
The Hindu thinkers had a clear idea of society and regarded government as an instrument of
society. But they have not formulated a clear view of the state as distinct from society and
government Government was part of social organisation. Society was one whole Society was all
inclusive. It is at once religious, political, economic and military. It was generally viewed in a
comprehensive manner The habit of looking at it primarily from the political angle or vision was
not cultivated. As a result, the concept of State did not emerge very clearly and government was
used in the same sense in which the state is conveyed in modern times. Since, the government
was generally monarchical, the 'king became really synonymous with government and states.
Thus the Hindu thinkers had a comprehensive view of society.
Monarchy was the normal form of government.
The rulers were Kshtriyas Ruling was a function of the Kshatriya caste. There were some
examples of Republics or Ganas. K.P Jayaswasl and others argue that the existence of these
republics proves that ancient India had democratic tradition. They are mentioned in the Vedas
and were notable during the time of Buddha. But some writers argued that they were hardly
democracies in the modern sense. Since participation in government was limited to higher caste
male citizens, these writers argued that tribal republics would be a more appropriate
designation.
A true democratic tradition was, however to be found in the Panchayats of the villages. These
committees tended to be self- sufficient and to enjoy a degree of autonomy in local matters
under the direction of these panchayats. The village was the basic unit of Hindu Society and
higher government and administrative divisions were based upon groupings of these villages.
Thus self governing survived until modern times. And the ancient republics were submerged in
the Mauryan Empire of the third century B.C..
Government was not Sovereign
From the very nature of the social theory, government could not be regarded as sovereign in the
Autinian sense of the term. It did not impart validity to the orders, rather it shared in its validity. It
could not alter the order at its will. Government sustained the social order but it was merely its
function. It embodied the coercive power of the community and was bound to use it in the social
interest just as the priest or trader was bound to use his spiritual or economic power in the
social interest.
Sovereignty was diffused throughout the community. It was embodied in the law and law had
ultimate source in the Divine will. On the part of the individual there can be no unified allegiance,
no single loyalty, except to society as a whole. No component part of society, not even
government can claim to be absolute sovereign. Here the monistic theory of sovereignty as
applied to the state or government fails completely; only a pluralistic theory of sovereignty can
suit the Indian phenomena. The state was only one of the groups to which the individual
belonged or rather the state was merged in the social order as a whole.It is "Dharma" the ony
principle which lay at the root of social and moral order that is omnipotent. Dharma is the core
concept of Hindu Political Theory. It is profound in its implications and subject to varied
definitions. Ultimately it is more than law, because, it creates law in the universe. Dharma is
above all individuals or groups. It limits the power of the government, it regulates its exercise, it
is above man, it is divine. Government has the power of adjusting social relations, but the
adjustment must be proceeded according to Dharma.
Zzxzzzxx zzxzzzxx zzxzzzxx zzxzzzxx
The Features of Ancient Indian Political Thought:
Influence of Ethics: The social thought in ancient India not only assures certain fundamental
principle of morality, but it always seeks to direct the material life as well. The king must
consciously stimulate virtue and act as a guide to the moral life, morality as stipulated in the
Dharmasastras. The state figures considerably in the communal life and the theory of life
proceeds to resolve itself into a theory of morality. In short, political science becomes the ethics
of the whole society, a science of the duty of man found in the complex set of relations in
society. But when it comes to international relations, one can see the ethical meanings coming
to terms with the hard reality. Dealing about diplomacy, Kautilya for example, becomes realistic
in a manner similar to Machiavelli. One may notice a sudden fall from ethical heights to the
rankest realism in the same writer.
Government as a Partnership of the Upper Varnas: In ancient India, the Kshatriyas,
Brahmanas and later the Vaisyas together formed the ruling class. The Shudras were the
serving class. ‘Kshatra’ – the temporal power derived its strength and authority from ‘Brahma’ –
the spiritual power. The Vaisya engaged in such occupations as agriculture and trade provided
the economic basis of the state. The priest held the highest status. He was identified with the
God ‘Brihaspathy’ instead of the temporal power ‘India’. His function was to interpret dharma
and preside over the rituals. Coronation by the priest was a necessary pre-requisite to the
exercise of royal power. Symbolically, it meant that the Kshatriya derived his power from the
Brahman. The priest was the chief adviser to the king. Interestingly, unlike in Europe, priesthood
in India did not contend for temporal power, a phenomenon that raged in Europe for a
considerably long period. The influence exercised by the priestly class was of a peculiar kind.
They had the monopoly of education and were the sole interpreters of dharma. No one, not
even the king could go beyond their prescription. With its intellectual leadership of the
community and religious control, there was no need for the priestly class to organise itself into a
church or any such spiritual organization.
The Influence of Caste based Social Structure on Politics: Caste occupied a prominent
place in all social speculation during the later Vedic period and had a direct bearing on the
theory of government. Varnashramadharama in the society was fixed on the basis of caste.
Each Varna was assigned specific functions. It was the foremost duty of the king to see that
every individual confined himself to performing functions of the Varna to which he was born.
Caste was an ascribed status. The individual was not to seek his own interest or expression; he
was not to determine his own ambition or ends. Varnashramadharma exalted the society at the
cost of human values. Much that was personal gave way to collective elements. Not all castes
or varnas were equally privileged in their enjoyment of rights and duties assigned to them. The
super varnas – Brahmanas and Kshatriyas – were the ruling class. The duty of an individual
was social. Since the varnas were related to each other in such a fashion that together they
constituted the social order, if an individual transgressed his duty, he not only violated the order,
he, infact, became antisocial. It was in this way that the Hindu theory would overcome the
anti-thesis of man v/s state or society. Political
Life conceived within the framework of Dharma: One cannot find in ancient India any
classes exclusively dealing with political and social life, which is comparable to the ‘Republic’
and the ‘Politics’ of Plato and Aristotle. A supernatural element is present in all the writings. The
divine is omnipotent and is visible in the formation of society and government; the divine
purpose is to be enforced by the king, divine punishment reinforces earthly punishment and
sometimes supplants it. This is what we find in almost all the texts that deal with the life of the
people. But one should not be led to believe the reality. There was a wide gap between the
‘sastras’, traditions and the actual lives of human beings. The brahminical religion, which is
commonly taken as the Hindu religion, was not allpervasive. There were non-Brahminical
traditions, which were materialistic in nature and which played an important role in guiding the
activities of ordinary people. Buddhist contribution is significant in this respect. No Clear
Distinction between State and Society: The governmental organization and politics were looked
at as a part of the larger whole called society. In other words, society was at once religious,
political, economical and military. It was generally viewed in a comprehensive manner. The habit
of looking atsociety from a political angle was not cultivated. As a result, there was no clear
conception of either the state or the government. Both were interchangeable terms. Monarchy
was the normal form of Government: Since the four fold division of society entrusted the ruling
power with the Kshatriya caste, monarchy was s the natural outcome. There were also
non-monarchical forms of government. Kautilya’s Arthasastra for example, mentions ‘dvairajya’
(rule by two kings) ‘vyrajya’ (state without a king) etc., There were also ‘ganasanghas’ which
according to K. P. Jayaswal are comparable to modern republics. But still monarchy was the
normal form of government. Though there were non- monarchical forms, they were more of an
exception rather than a rule.
The Government was not sovereign: From its very nature of existence, the government in
ancient India could not be regarded as sovereign in the Austinian sense of the term. It did not
impart validity to the orders; rather, it shared in its j validity. On the contrary, the government had
no independent existence of its own. The sustenance of the social order was merely its function.
Sovereignty was, in fact, ultimately sourced in the divine will. On the part of the individual, there
was no unified allegiance, no single loyally except to society as a whole. ; Only the pluralistic
theory of sovereignty can grasp the Indian phenomenon.
Other Distinguishing Features: Apart from the above mentioned characteristics, Professor
Bhikhu Parekh mentions some other distinguishing features of the Hindu political traditions.
They are: First, the Hindu tradition is basically in-egalitarian. Although it developed the idea of
the moral equality of all men, it never developed the social, legal and political groups. Second,
the Hindu tradition of political thought is pluralistic in orientation. The Hindu political writers from
the very beginning recognized the autonomy of social groups. Third, political thought in early
India was largely uncritical and apologetic of the established social order. Most Hindu writes
justified the caste system as the caste based conception of dharma, the largely fatalist concept
of karma, the degradation of the Shudras and the slaves, the extensive moral interference of the
state and so on. It ignored the whole area of social conflict. Fourth, many Hindu writers wrote
mainly for the attention of the rulers. Their works are largely manuals of ethics or administration;
hence, it is largely didactic and practical
