Part 3 - Conventional Thought concerning Early-Medieval India

In retaliation to Emile Senart’s view in her Caste in India (1898), that India never attained the idea of state or it could not evolve any political constitution even in conception. Spirited nationalist works of K.P. Jayswal, A.S. Altekar^[1] came out, which have little theorization of earliest formation of state in India. They pushed the origin of state to the earliest historical times. Pre-state society and origin of state have been studied in reference to the Buddhist sources^[2] . But, little attempt was made to delineate an overall picture of the pre-state society in the literary sources like Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas and in other religious tradition.^[3]

The works of early Nationalist scholars discussed mainly the political institutions and the prevalence of the concept of state but did not address the process of state formation. Importance of Republics, democratic forms of government, constitutional monarchy, and the nature or character of state as monolithic or unitary, are represented in a fashion of an ideological weapon to counter the imperialists.^[4]

Nationalist sentiment is expressed in contemporary journals too. Calcutta Review, Modern Review, Hindustan Review and Indian Antiquity were some of the platforms where scholars like R.C. Dutta place his article in 1887,^[5] expressing that ancient kings did justice to all. Where Purnendu Narayan Singh propounded for ‘limited monarchy’ in ancient India^[6] , A.C. Das in 1907, instead pointed out that “local self-government existed in ancient India even in a better form than that in which it exists at present under British rule.”^[7] With some supporting evidence S.K. Aiyangar in his article on Chola administration discussed about the working of villages in early medieval times.^[8]

K.P. Jayswal contributed several articles in the Modern Review in around 1912 to 1915 which came out as Hindu Polity in 1924. Dealing with the subject he divided Indian polity into Republics and Monarchy. It is worth to be mentioned that the works of Rhys Davis revealed at first the existence of Republics at the time of Buddha, which was thoroughly examined by Jayaswal and traced the references about Republics in ancient India.^[9] Apart from the Republican tradition he also pointed out the constitutional experiments made by the ancient Indians. He discussed Bhujya, Swarajya, Vairajya, Dvairajya, and Arajaka as forms of state that were known to the early Indians.^[10]

In discussing monarchy, his observation was that the office of the king was creation of the people and was held conditionally. Above him there was always the National Assembly, the Samity which was...... above the real sovereign.^[11] Pauro, Janapadas were the other popular assemblies that acted as checks on royal authority. He tried to establish that ancient Indian monarchy was even limited, responsible, and under the checks of constitution as well as popular assemblies in comparison to British monarchy and was an ideal form of political system.

Again this time, several monographs on Hindu political theories and institutions were coming out. In 1916, P.N. Banerjee and K.V. Rangaswami Aiyanger,^[12] propounded more or less same trend of ideas. In 1918, R.C. Majumder in his dissertation manifested the spirit of co-operation acted behind all most all field of activities, such as social, political, religious and economic life in ancient India.^[13] R. Shyamsastri in 1920 claimed in his Evolution of Indian polity, that there was never the existence of the idea of ‘divine birth’ or ‘right of kings’ in Vedas or Arthasastra. Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity by N.N. Law and Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus by B.K. Sarkar came out in 1921 and in 1922. Both the publication put stress on the fact of antiquity of political institutions in India. R.K. Mookerjee; in 1920, well documented literary and epigraphic sources, expressing the relevance of studying ancient Indian institutions as a guideline for future development and reconstruction and to be proud of a rich legacy of self-rule.^[14]

In 1923, U.N. Ghoshal published. ‘A history of Hindu Political Theories’ reissued in 1959 as ‘A history of Indian Political Ideas: The Ancient Period and the Period of Transition to the middle ages’. In his introduction he wrote, ‘the Indians belong to the category of peoples who have left their impress over the pages of history as founders of original systems of political thought’.^[15]

Simultaneously, he refused to accept the opinions of western writers on Indian political thought like Max Muller, Bloomfield, Willoughby and Dunning, as they propagated the theory of the inability of the Indians to conceive the idea of a state because of religious influence over every aspect and incapability to free their politics from its theological and metaphysical environment.^[16] In post independence era, ‘A History of Hindu Public Life’ (1957) was published by the same author. U.N. Ghoshal’s contribution was criticised by R.S. Sharma, ‘He substantially adds to our information on political ideas and institutions but does not try to link them to social and economic development. Moreover some problem is created because of the methods he adopts in using the sources.’^[17]

D.R. Bhandarkar, delivered in a series of six lectures^[18] , on “Some Aspects Ancient Hindu Polity”, articulated that ‘Hindu Science of Politics’, Dandaniti or Rajniti was the glimpses of ancient political science. He added ‘the Hindu mind did not conduce to the development of political theories and that the Indians never set up politics as an independent branch of knowledge’.^[19] He discussed ‘Hindu Conception of state’, and as well as ‘Different Types of States’, to understand the forms of state prevailed in ancient India as Royal title holders. Samrajya-Samrat, Bhaujya-Bhoja, Svarajya-Svarat, Vairajya-Vairat, Rajya-Rajan, were the forms of state in ancient India, where according to him the idea of Imperialism was conceived even before Chandragupta Maurya and various types of govt. he discussed such as monarchical, tribal or oligarchic (Sangha or Gana).

In his lecture on ‘Origin of state’ his view consists of two theories, namely, the ‘social contract theory’ and the ‘divine origin of kingship theory’, traced in the law books of ancient India. In discussing ‘The Nature and End of the Hindu State’, where the duties of the state authorities were outlined. On the whole, Bhandarkar showed his affinity with the Nationalist feeling as well as his belief of the higher antiquity of the Indian culture and civilisation.

Later on in 1927, N.C. Bandopadhyaya, strongly opposed that India was always the home of the Despotism. In his publication, ‘Development of Hindu Polity and Political Theories’, he opines that the early communities were free and democratic in nature which with gradual development of monarchy the state power prevailed. In his view, the forces of change traced in the enhancement of monarchical power ‘yet the history of political institution has something to speak on behalf of the genius of temperament of her people’.^[20] In his view, the venerated king with his Divine forces and functions, the people of India never accepted this vice regent of the omnipotent deity. He added that ancient Indian king neither could claim divinity nor possess any prerogatives^[21] . About republics, ‘the true character of their pluralistic political discipline’ he commented.^[22]

In 1930, S.K. Aiyangar, in his Sir William Mayer Lectures discussed about ‘The Evolution of Hindu Administrative Institutions in south India’. In his view Hindu Monarchy, may sometimes be autocratic in an emergency ‘satisfied the exacting demands even of a pure and complete democracy not only in form but more completely in spirit.’

This wide number of ‘conventional’ construct of state in early India and its forms in pre modern India is clustered by Kulke in 1995 as the ‘Indian Historiographical Model” to understand the process of the state formation. It denotes a rather, unitary, centrally organised and territorially defined kingdom with a strong bureaucracy, which also designated as ‘Classical’ Indian State and its administration. There are several publications in this genre, namely, Beni

Prasad’s The state in India in 1928; and ‘Theory of Government in Ancient India’ also in 1928; 1986; V.R.R. Dikshitar’s ‘Hindu Administrative Institutions” in 1929; ‘Mauryan Polity’ in 1932 and ‘The Gupta Polity’ in 1952 was published. T.V. Mahalingam’s ‘South Indian Polity’ in 1955; K.A.N. Satri’s monumental work ‘The Colas’ (1^st. edn in 1935-37), A.S. Altekar’s ‘The Rastrakutas and their times’ (1934, rev. edn. 1967); and the ‘State and Government in Ancient India’ (1949, 1997); and R.C. Majumder’s ‘History of Bengal’ came out in 1943.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

A.S. Altekar, Hindu Polity, State and Government in Ancient India, Delhi, 1958

[2]:

U.N. Ghoshal, Hindu Political Theories, pp.118-20; D.R. Bhanderkar, Carmichael Lectures, 1918, pp.115-22; N.C. Bandopadhyaya, Development of Hindu Polity and Political Theories, pp. 275-77; P.N. Banerjee, Public Administration in Ancient India, p.34; Beni Prasad, Theories of Government in Ancient India, p.235-36; V.R.R. Dikshitar, Hindu Administrative Institutions, p.17-18; A.S. Altekar, op.cit., pp.12-14. Alternative observation we found in R.S. Sharma; Material Culture and Social Formations in Ancient India, 2^nd. edn. Macmillan, 2007(1983)

[3]:

R.S. Sharma, Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991

[4]:

Ibid.

[5]:

R.C. Dutta, ‘Civilization in the Brahmana Period,’ Calcutta Review, xxxv, 1887, p.226

[6]:

Calcutta Review, XCVIII, 1894, p.301

[7]:

A.C. Das, ‘Limited Monarchy in Ancient India’, Modern Review, II, 1907, p.346ff

[8]:

S.K. Aiyangar, Ancient India, 1911, pp.158-91

[9]:

K.P. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, chap-iv of part-I

[10]:

Ibid. pp.89-101

[11]:

Ibid. p.13

[12]:

Public Administration in Ancient India: Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity (based on the lectures delivered in 1914)

[13]:

R.C. Majumder, Corporate Life in Ancient India, Calcutta, 1918

[14]:

R.K. Mukherjee, Local Government In Ancient India, 1920, pp.21-22

[15]:

Chap-1, p.1

[16]:

Ibid. pp.9-13

[17]:

In his book, Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India, intro, p.XXV, Reprint in 1999.

[18]:

Delivered at the Benaras Hindu University, the Manindra Chandra Nandi Lectures, in 1925.

[19]:

Ibid.

[20]:

Book I, Chap-I, p. 5

[21]:

Book-II, Chap-I, p. 94

[22]:

Book-I, Chap-I, p. 6