0% found this document useful (0 votes)
101 views8 pagesHindu Political Thought
Uploaded by
MaclainCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
101 views8 pagesHindu Political Thought
Uploaded by
MaclainCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 8
2 BHIKHU PAREKH
Some Reflecticns on the Hindu
Tradition of Political Thought
1
In this paper I will examine critically some of the distinctive features of
the Hindu tradition of political thought." To avoid misunderstanding, it
would be useful to begin by making four points of clarification. First, as it
forms a relatively coherent and analytically convenient subject of investi-
gation, I shall concentrate on the Hindu tradition from its early Vedic
beginnings to the arrival of the Muslims in the eight century a.p., and
shall ignore its subsequent development altogether
Second, I shall not summarise the ideas of individual Hindu political
thinkers, but only explore the basic framework within which they thought
about politics. India was subjected to several foreign invasions and
experienced several social and economic changes during the period in
question. In response to these, Hindu political thinkers of different
periods had to deal with different problems and approach familiar
: problems from different angles. Despite these, however, their basic
' framework of thought—that is, their basic concepts, concerns and
problems—retained a remarkable continuity. It is in this sense that one
can legitimately talk about the Hindu :radition of political thought.
‘ Third, I shall use the term politics and its derivatives rather widely to
refer to the affairs of a territorially organised community held together by
j allegiance to acommon authority. And. finally, lam concerned here with
examining not the unarticulate beliefs and assumptions underlying and
informing Hindu political institutions and practices, but rather the body
of ideas Hindu political thinkers developed in their systematic treatises
| on politics,
q
i
Hindu political thinkers conceptualised political life in terms of two
central concepts namely, danda and dharma, For them political lite or
ruling a territorially organised commiut iy ulumately consisted in using
danda to maintain dharma. The term danda means discipline. force.
restraint, constraint or punishment. Hindu political writers generally
used itto refer to the punitive use of the coercive power of government.
* The Hindu political ideas discussed in this paper are outlined in several standard com-
mentaries on the subject, such as those by Beni Prasad, U. Ghoshal, K.P. Jaiswal
R. Mazumder, J, Spellman and H.N. Sinha, [ have.
clutter up the paper with footnotes
s Bu
erefore, felt it advisable not to Po
Some Reffvctions on the Hindu Tradition of Poll Thought
Dharma is a much more difficult concept. It comes from the Sanskrit root
dhe, meaning to hold. Dharma is that which holds a society together.
Since the Hindus thought a society was held together by each individual
and group doirg his or its specific duties, they used the term to mean
Guties. Some writers used it broadly to mean all duties, whereas others
confined it to religious or religiously prescribed duties
Hindu political thinkers described the systematic study of politcal life
as niti or, more commonly sastra, Niti, which comes from the Sanskrit
word meaning ‘to lead,’ refers to a study of policies. Thus dandaniti, a
term sometimes used to describe a systematic study of politcal life,
means a study of the best ways of using the coercive power of government.
The term sastra means a systematic study of the general principles and
Getailed organisation of a specific form of human activity. Thus dharma-
sastra refers to a systematic treatise on the general principles and detailed
content of righteous conduct. Sometimes the term sastra is given the
additional connotation of an authoritative text, and the principles and
rules laid down in a treatise are given the status of injunctions. Thus the
principles and rules of dharmasastras are not merely analytical and
elucidatory but also authoritative and binding ir. nature. This additional
connotation, however, is absent in other usages of the term. Thus the
principles laid down in Bharat's Natyasastra and Kautilya's Arshasastra
are largely elucidatory and, at best, recommendatory.
‘As we saw, the Hindu political thinkers regarded dharma and danda as
the two most basic features of political life. Although the two features
were accepted by them as complementary, different Hindu writers chose
to concentrate on one or the other and explored politicgl life in erms oft,
thereby ving rst two flere: ends orsrands of pale! ugh
The dharmasasira writers concentrated on exploring the dhdrma of
individuals and social groups, including the government, They discussed
the sourees of dharma és well as what was to be done whe) they
conflicted. And they also provided a detailed prospectus of dutie: re]
were not mora! philosophers but law-givers, and generally didactic an
sscriptive. Since they did not concentrate on the government and
-mpted to provide a code of conduct covering the entire human life.
swrite books specifically on politics. Political dharma was
wegig conser and cid nov form a distr and
autonomous subject o retin
In contrast to dharmasasira writers?
interested in the organisation and mecha di
government, the agent of danda, cOUld be most effect vel
They concentrated on the nature and organisation of governme:
nature and mechanics of power, the way power is acquired, weakened
and lost, the sources of threat to government and the best way to deal with
them, and so on. Since the arthasastra writers were primarily concerned
BHIKHU PAREKH »
SHIRAI PAREN eee
with the government, their works were specifically political. Further,
since they concentrated on the government, they appreciated the
autonomy of politcal life and its distinctive problems to a much greater
degree than the authors of dharmasasiras,
It would, however, be a mistake to draw too neat a contrast between
the two strands of Hindu political thought, It is true that the authors of
dharmasastras were rather moralistic, and those of arthasasiras realistic
to the point of sometimes bordering on cynicism. However, the former
Were not politically naive and freely acknowledged the political need to
disregerd moral principles and values under certain circumstances, even
as the arthasasira writers acknowledged and indeed insisted on the
observance of dharma. Again, itis true that the dharmasastra writers
occasionally ignored the contingencies and frailties of human affais;
however, they were not nervous about the need to use force. Similarly,
although the arthasastra writers occasionally tended to treat political
Power as an end-in-itself, they did not generelly lose sight of the moral
ends of government, It would also be wrong to suggest, as is sometimes
Gone, thatthe two approaches represent totally diferent views of man
And Secety for a8 we shall se, their views on these subjects were
The two approaches differed primarily in their subj
choosing explore political ife fom the sandpointol chore he on
from that of danda. This naturally led to differences in emphasis and
orientation, Since the dharmasasiras were concerned to lay down dhares
they were legalistic and religious in orientation, whereas the arihasosoan,
Soncermed with analysing the structure and funetions of government,
ed on institutions and policies and were secular in orientation,
legalistic or institutional, offer a distorted account of
The Hindu tradition of political thought dis
Itdid, of course, undergo important changes
and practical problems posed by the rise of new
ue Hindu political thinkers the universe is an ordered whol
AMS Tis characterised by Rea, the inviolable order of 20
Some Reflections on the Hindu Tradition of Political Thought
things. Society replicates the order of the universe and becomes an
ordered whole when held together by dharma, For the Hindus, society is
ot a collection of individuals but « community of communities. It consists
of castes, each of which is engaged in the performance of certain common
functions and is related to the others in a hierarchical manner. Its char-
acteristic functions and place in the social hierarchy define the perimeter
of its dharma, An individual's dharma is derived from the caste of his
birth, For the Hindu, an individual's birth into a particular caste is not
accidental but a result of his karma or actions in his previous life. Dharma
and karma are integrally connected. An individual's karma determines
his caste, and therefore his dharma, and his dharma defines his rightful
karma, In addition to caste, an individual also occupies other social
positions. He is a father-or a son, a husband, a brother, an uncle or a
nephew, a cousin, a neighbour, a subject or a ruler, and so on, As an
incumbent of each of these roles, he has a specific dharma, The Hindu
writers divided man's life into four distinct chronological stages or dshrams,
and each stage was again characterised by a specific dharma.
For the Hindu writers, dharma is the basis of personal and social life. It
alone holds society together; violation of it shakes the society to its very
foundations and constitutes a mortal threat to its existence. As was to be
expected in a society under constant foreign invasion and based on
domination by the two highest castes, the Hindu thinkers were most
fearful of social disintegration. Accordingly they laid down detailed roles
governing almost every aspect of human conduct, end insisted that any
deviation from them spelt disorder and chaos. Every Hindu was adhere
strictly to the dharma of his specific stage in life, his specific socal
positions and roles, and above all his caste. Doing things thet pertain
another caste is adharma or immoral. The Gita observes that an individ
who disregards svadharma courts unhappiness and destruction; angi
better to die doing one’s dharma than to attempt to perform someone
else's. According to Hindu law-givers sooorevistes rn Ne ae
runs the risk of forfeiting his social status; he may
outcasts and pie of hing oflon cet pesfosepeony
‘According to Hindu poitial thinkers, each individual does his hare
‘eal society. There is, therefore, no disorder, and hence
Hindu thinkers men were once in such state; for others they have alvays
ag refaciony impale neorole eran fou dn
ular and inexor on of
2 characte ating ferent degrees of human corruption In any ces
sre a a toe neo
. 1 or lawlessness, matsyanyaya or the law of
Cn ee ociogooheh heb
BHIKHU PAREKH Af
ay eat the small, and the eventual disintegration of the social order. For
some Hindu political thinkers such a situation did once prevail; for others
itis only a definite possibility haunting every society. In any case, it must
Btfall cost be remedied or avoided, and hence the institution of govern-
‘ment becomes necessary. Although Hindu thinkers were familiar with
the republicdn and other non-mosarchica forms of governments, they
concentratedon monarchy.
The king’s main function was to maintain the established social order.
Since a society was believed to remain well-ordered only so long as each
individual observed his personal and caste dharma, the king's dharma
consisted in maintaining the rule of dharmain society at large. Inconcrete
terms, this meant that he was to facilitate the study of the Vedas and
Philosophy, encourage the development. of industry and commerce,
‘maintain proper relations between different castes, ensure the observance
of parental, filial, matrimonial and other duties, enforce dharma pertaining
to different stages of individual life, and so on. The king derived his
authority from the fact thatrhe needed it to maintain dharma. He was,
therefore, to use it only for that purpose anid in a manner consistent with
it, Ifhe used it for other purposes, or to enforce adharma, or ina manner
disallowed by dharma, he was considered a tyrant. Some Hindu thinkers
urged that a tyrant should be disobeyed, and even killed. Some others
authorised disobedience only if led by ‘respectable’ men of ‘status’; while /
others proscribed it akogether. a Vv)
The king’s duty to enforce dharma raised the obvious question as to Y/
who determined the content of it. The Hindu writers generally pointed to
the Vedas, the smritis and vyavahara, The Vedas were not moral treatises,
and such moral principles as they contained were highly general. The
smiritis were largely digests of prevailing social practices. And thus
vyavahdra or custom was the operative source of dharma. Each caste had
been in existence for a tong time, and had acquired a specific body of
traditions and usages. So long as they-were not in conflict with Vedic
injungtions, they constituted its dharma. Similarly, each family had
developed a body of usages over time, and these constituted its members
Auladhazma, From time to time the Hindu law-givers made a study of the
traditions and sages of ditferent social groups and wrote detailed digests.
Over centuries the social and political structure of India underwent
important changes and many different types of social groups began to
appear. In the aftermath of successive foreign invasions, fairly large
communities of foreign settlers came into existence. Heretical groups
began to appear within the fold of Hindu society itself. New religious
movements and communities—especially the Buddhists and Jains—
appeared. With the development of commerce and trate, corporations
and guilds of traders, artisans and craftsmenbegan to appear. New castes
came into existence &s a result of intermarriages or new occupations. 2 Some Reflections on the Hindu Tradition of Polical Thought
Large empires (especially those of he Mauryas and the Guptas) appeared
on the scene, and they had to rule over far-flung territories within some of
which rather different conceptions of caste dharma prevailed
‘The Hindu writers dealt with the situation in terms of their traditional
concept of dharma. Even as they ad maintained that each caste had its
traditional dharma which it had the authority to enforce, the king inter-
vening only when necessary, the Hindu writers argued that the new social
groups must be accepted as autonomous and self-governing communities
entitled to have their traditions and customs upheld and to make their
own rules. Thus the communities of foreign settlers. corporations, reli
gious communities, heretics, even atheists, villages and districts. guilds
and new castes, were recognised as having their own distinctive dharma,
which they were free to enforce on their members and whose legitimacy
‘was accepted by the king. The Vedic injunctions were not binding on
those groups that either consisted of non-Hindus or. were essentially
economic in nature. The Hindu writers realised that the customs and
traditions of various groups might be ambiguous, or harm public interest,
or remain silent about certain aspects of social conduct. In such cases the
king was to make appropriate laws. In short the Hindu political thinkers
broadened their earlier theory and recognised vyavahara (traditions and
customs), caritam (conduct of good man) and rajsasan (toyal edicts and
civil laws) as the legitimate bases of dharma,
‘The Hindu political thinkers did not invest the ruler with arbitrary and
despotic power as the theorists of Oriental Despotism have maintained.
‘They viewed society as an organic structure articulated in terms of sbcial
groups. Each group had its own daarma which was not laid down by the
Tuler and with which the ruler could not generally interfere. Further many
of the groups were quite powerful. The.castes Were strong social groups,
enjoying autonomy and their own distinctive structures of authority. Like
the astes, many villages too hada Jong tradition of et-governmment|And
many guilds and corporations consisted of powerful and wealthy me
‘The ruler was therefore an integral part of a highly differentiated and
uncentralised social order. He dic not stand above the social order. He
was one of its several parts, albeit an important part, but still only a phrt.
His authority was hedged in by the relatively inviolable authority of the
various autonomous centres of power, and regulated by his own specific
dharma. Since he was never seen as outside of, let alone above society,
the very conceptual framework required by the idea of Oriental Despotism
was absent. The king did, of course, sometimes misuse his authority and
interfered with the private lives of his subjects. However, his authority
was considerably limited by the autonomous institutions which were not
his creations and had independent sources of legitimacy; and the rise of
trade and commesce from around the third century a.c. meant that the
royal monopoly cf land was no longer a formidable source of power. Not
BHIKHU PAREKH =
BHIKHU PARE
SO much the government as the religiously sanctioned social structure,
helped no doubt by the government, was generally the source of oppression
in ancient India,
Having briefly discussed dharma, we will now tum to the Hindu
examination of dara, In their exploration of the structure of government,
Hindu political writers were guided by certain common considerations.
The king’s duty to maintain dharma meant that he was to rely on the
advice of people well-versed in the Vedas and the Sastras. The Brahmans,
therefore, snloved considerable wer and prestige, Indeed Hindu polities
were for centuries based Oa and run by a ‘holy’ (or unholy?) alliance of
the Ksatriyas and the Brahmans. Not surprisingly, almost the entire
Hindu tradition of: political thought was based on the unquestioned
assumption of a close alliance between the two highest castes. It analysed
political life within the framework of the alliance, and rarely ventured to
explore alternative modes of constituting the polity.
In India, political power never really shifted from the Brahmans and
the Ksatriyas. The two did, of course, initially struggle for supremacy.
However, over time, a modus vivendi was reached between them, The
Brahmans acknowledged the Ksatriyas’ right to rule; in return the
Ksatriyas acknowledged the Brahmans’ social superiority, gave them:
share in the exercise of political authority and made generous donations
of land and money. The Ksatriyas had the monopoly of state power, the
Brahmans that of learning and teaching. The former were to specialise in
danda, the latter, in dharma. By and large the Brahmans were expected
Not to interfere with the use of danda, and the Ksatriyas with the inter-
pretation of dharma, The Ksatriya kings upheld the social order that gave
the Brahmans moral and religious authority and material wealth,
5 the
Brahmans, in turn, used their monopoly of ‘intellectual production’ to
Produce ideological systems justifying the established political ordes,
including the king's power and wealth. The cor
two castes was most develo,
between them.
By contrast, the other castes were too fragmented
y re too fragmented and isolate
develop such spin, The Vater dias ste and
the Vaisyas were too Targe and their range of occupations too varied to
allow them to developa sense of corporate identity and colleeth
: lective power,
Some Hindu political thinkers distinguished betweer athoriag and
power. Authority implied an adhikar. Adhikar, a difficult and complex
Hindu concept, meant a deserved right, aright one deserves to possers ag
ludged by established social norms, ruler acquited adhikar to power
-xhen he was judged to possess appropriate intellectual and moral saci
Gatigns and wes duly crowned by the Brahmans in a ceremony knonara
abhiseka, In this ceremony the Brahmans ad’ .
annointed and ble
symbolically rased him to the satus of @ Brahmas and ees
porate spirit in each of the
Ped. as also the spirit of identity of interests aM Sonte Reflections on the Hindu Tradition of Political Thought
ee
ee Ten
with the territory and its people, and declared him sanaraja, a true or
Eightful king. For most Hindu political thinkers, however, even an usurper
fcauired authority if-he had appropriate qualifications and ruled his
kingdom righteously.
Hindu political thinkers were constantly haunted by the fragility of
political authority. It could not be based on dharma alone, for people's
Sense of dharma is generally weak and ambitious and powerful men
would want to plot against the ruler. Nor could it be based on danda
alone, for fear cannot sustain a society long. Accordingly, Hindu political
thinkers insisted that political authority rested on the twin foundations of
dharma and danda (that is, on the popular recognition of the fact that the
King was devoted to the maintenance of dharma and would not hesitate to
uuse danda). They did not say much about the nature and basis of political
authority and legitimacy, and devoted considerable attention to political
power.
‘The Hindu political thinkers suggested various ways in which political
power could be acquired and maintained. They insisted that the king
should be a man of great intellect and character aid advocated his
Figorous intellectual and moral training. They insisted also on him having
reliable and competent counsellors and ministers. Most Hindu writers
distinguished between mantrins and amatyas. The former were men of
independent social status, attended public functions with the king and
acted as his advisors; the latter were executive officers in charge of
day-to-day administration, The Hindu political thinkers insisted thst
since there was nothing more deat'to a man than his customs and usages,
the king should not generally interfere with them. They also advocated
the importance of efficient administration, constant checks on subordinate
officials, programmes of welfare provision, and so on.
As for the exercise of dada and instilling fear in the subjects, the
Hindu political writers relied on severai devices of which two deserve
some attention—namely espionage and punishment. Nearly all of them
stressed the need for an all-pervasive network of spies. According to the
‘Mahabharata, every kingdom has ‘its roots in spies ang secret agents’
Megasthenes found them so numerous that he referred to them as a
special class of Hindu society. They were so pervasive and evoked such
terror that they were referred to in a Pallava inscription as Samcaraniekas
(moving agents of death).
Kautilya assigned considerable importance to them and indeed thought
that their importance was next only to that of the ministers. He offered a
detailed description of the cunning ways in which they were to be planted
in society and the techniques they were to deploy. They were to go out in
such varied disguises as merchants, mendicants| classmates, prisoners
and beggars, and were free to use all kinds of treachery, sacrilege.
cruelty and immoral devices, According to Hindu thinkers, the spies
t
BHIKHU PAREKH 2s
reported to the king the activities of his officers, family members,
foreigners, courtesans and potential trouble-makers; they also spread
false information and crated divisions among the subjects; and they also"
spied on the private lives of the citizens and reported on the trends in
Public opinion and feelings.
ven as the Hindu writers saw nothing wrong in an extensive network
of spies, they saw nothing wrong in imposing gruesome forms of punish-
meit on those found guilty of violation of their legal and moral duties.
They did, po doubt, insist that the utmost care should be exercised in
deciding whether a man was really guilty of the alleged crime, and
provided elaborate rules for collecting and assessing evidence, cross-
examination and arriving at a verdict. Once a man was found guilty,
especially of the violation of caste and other religious duties, most hideous
punishments were imposed on him, including some horrifying types of
torture (of which Manu, Vasistha, Gautama, Brahaspari, Kautilya,
Auguttara Nikaya and others offered vivid lists). For the Hindu writers
Punishment was designed to create fear, for without fear men do not act
Fighteously. Brahaspati reflects the common view when he compared
danda to a dark goddess with red eyes inflicting brutal death on evil-}
doers. The Hindu writers insisted that while inflicting punishment, a!
‘man’s caste should be taken into account. The higher castes were to
receive lighter punishment and were to be exempt from corporal |
punishment. RS
The Hindu political thinkers were also preoccupied with the possible \—
conflict between danda and dharma. They knew that the king may
sometimes have to be untruthful, cruel, deceitfil and so on, and
questioned if and how this was justified, They were alt convinced that it
‘Was justified, largely on the ground that the preservation of society was
the highest political value. The preservation of society meant not just the
physical security of the subjects but also the maintenance of the social !
order and the preservation of dharma. In the Mahabherata, even Krishna, |
the Lord Himself, tells @ few lies and practises deception on @ few
occasions. These were all justified on the ground that they were required
touphold dharma, As far as relations with foreign rulers were concemed,
the Hindu writers generally emphasised the considerations of self-interest
and saw little reason for moral restraint
The'Hindu tradition of political thought met its most radical critique at
the hands of Buddhism, Buddhism was atheisticin the sense that it did not
see the need to postulate the existence of God; it denied the divine origin
and the authonty of the Vedas: it rejected the caste system; it admitted
women to the religious order; since it had originated under a republican
(or rather semi-oligarchical) system of government, it had pronounced
Quasi-democratic sympathies: it founded monasteries, organised them
along the lines of the republican assemblies and gave India the first 26 Some Reflections onthe Hinds Tradition of Poles! Thought
experience of organised religion; and so on, More important, Buddhism
attracted the loyalty and support of the economically powerful but socially
inferior class of traders, cultivators, artisans, merchants and skilled
‘craftsmen. It also welcomed and assimilated such foreign settlers as the
(Greeks, Shakas, Kushanas and Huns whom the caste-based Hindu society
hhad kept out of its fold. Buddhism also attracted the Sudras, who could
shed their low social status by joining a caste-tree religion and improve
their material circumstances by escaping the expensive religious rituals
Fequired by the Brahmans, Buddhism thus represented a mass movement
consisting of the bulk of the Vaisyas, some Sudras, foreigners, women
and the isolated tribal republics that had still managed to survive
Buddhism developed a new political theory. It advanced a quasi
contractualist theory of the origin of the government. It postulated a
Peaceful and harmonious state of social existence when men had few
desires and were at peace with themselves and with thei fellow-men
Over time men began to develop limitless wants and desires, and the
institutions of private property and family came into being. Disorder and
discord set in, and the institution of the government became necess
People elected one of the ‘noblest’ among them as a ruler and authorise
hhim to rule over the rest. He was to exercise his authority in cooperation
With the assembly of people's representatives, who were not generally
lected but were heads of noble families and menjof staus. The Buddhist
writers advocated legal and social equality, but did not extend it to fe
Poor, the propertyless and the Sudras. They accepted the Hindu view tat
the king's principal duty was to maintain Dhamma, but rejected its
cast-based definition and content. Dhamma for them largely meant the
basic social morality as expounded by the Buddha. They stressed the
2utonomy of corporations, guilds and sanghas, and advocated religious
tolerance,
‘The Buddhist challenge did not, however, lead to a radical reformulation
of the Hindu tradition of political thought. The Buddhist political theory
was not sufficiently radical and subversive. It continued to share such
basic Hindu beliefs as, life is full of sorrow, desires are bad, a mats
arma in his previous life determines his destiny in this life, and the ruler
thust maintain dharma. Furthermore, while it challenged the power and
authority of the Brahmans, it upheld those of the Ksatriyas. Basically.
Buddhism attempted to replace the Ksatriya-Brahman alliance with the
Ksatriya-Vaisya alliance under the former's leadership.
‘Thus it did not involve a radical break with the traditional form bf
Political domination, only its reconstitution. The Buddhists did, of course,
challenge some Hindu beliefs, to which the Hindu writers typically
Fesponded by accepting some Buddhist criticisms, ignoring some others
and putting up a strong defence against the rest. Hence, in response to
Buddhist criticisms such Hindu authors of dharmasastras (as Yajnavalkya,
n
BHIKHU PAREKH.
Narada, Brghaspati and Katyayana) accepted the autonomy of gular
corporations, recognised vyavakara_as a valid source of law, gave bs
Vaisyas a larger share of power, id greater sess onthe importance of
artha, paid greater attention tothe republican institutions than they had
done so far, and so on, At the same time, however, the Hindu
rejected the Buddhist criticism of the caste system and advocated an even
more rigid version oft, They aso took a leaf out ofthe Buddhist book
and relied onthe ruler to take an active pat infighting Budchism an
defending the Hindu social order, Naturally, this led them to glorify the
role of the government and to invest the ruler with even greater power
ijesty than he had enjoyed so far.
a have outlined in the: toesgct some of the basic features ofthe Hind
tradition of political thought, Obviously, a tradition that has develope
over several centuries istoo rich and complex to permit an easy summary.
Our account of the Hindu tradition is, therefore, bound to involve
distortions and omissions. It was intended, however, to provide neither 2
detailed summary of all its ideas, nor an outline of all the important
Phases in its development, but only to sketch the broad outlines of the
general framework of ideas within which the Hindu writers attempted to
understand political life.
Mm
A careful examination of the Hindu tradition of p-litical thought shows
that itis distinguished by several important features. It would be useful to
briefly spell out some of the more important ones in order that we can
grasp its general character,
First, the Hindu tradition is basically inegalitarian, Although it
developed the idea of the moral equality of all men, and indeed of all
sentient beings, it never developed the idea of social, legal and political
equality. It made caste the basis not only of society but also of the polity,
and integrated it into its very structure. As we saw, only the members of
higher castes were entitled to the rights of citizenship or to be appointed
as royal advisors; different kinds and degrees of punishment were meted
out to men of different castes; and so on, In the name of maintaining
dharma, the Hindu political thinkers subordinated the polity to the
demands of a hierarchical social structure. As a result, they were rendered
incapable of grasping the polity as a qualitatively different kind of organ-
isation from society, and the goverament as an agent of social change.
Secorid, the Hindu tradition of political thought is pluralist in orientation,
‘As we saw, the Hindu political writers from the very beginning recognised
the autonomy of social groups. Initially, of course, the castes alone
enjoyed the autsnomy. However, over te, several different types of
social groups were recognised as autonomous and self-governing. This Some Reflections onthe Hinds Traditon of Poza Thoughe
‘als, and s0 on. The policy, however, alco
low the institution of the state to grow it
BOUpS, some of which wi
had its drawbacks, It did not al
left individuals at the mercy of
Third, the Hindu tradition of
x Political thought is largely unert
j2elotetc of the exabthed sonal order. os Hinds ed nas
rather simply. took for granted) th
based conception of dharma, th i concep of kare fe
; , the largely fataist concept of k
degradation of the Sudras and the sla, ve moral meres
slaves, the extensive mora interferenc
of he state, and soon. There were, no doubt severcneehon
¢ Buddhist, Jain and Carvak writers. However, the fa eo
am Hindu tradition, and the last denied the
society and were largely apolitical
adition of political thought, therefore, lacked variety
‘more than an elaborate justification of tbe hierarchical
Hindu philosophical tradition was very differ
able variety of brilia f pilosopicl
o were
any kind of organise value of
While the Hindu t
and provided little
social order, the
threw up a remar
metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, logic, philosophy of
linguistics and grammar, ped several iferetand eat
and developed several different and fascinating
theories, some of which have Stood the test of time. Prima facie, iv
appears paradoxical that a culture w :
ture with a rich and critical tradition of
philosophy should have a relatively poor and uncritical tradition of politieal
thought.
The paradox, however, is only apparent. Highly general and abstract
metaphysical theories have no direct social and politcal impact. They do,
no doubt, have social implications, but these are rather gen
cannot be easily chartered in the service of political movements, What is.
more, abstract philosophical discussions invariably have a limited
audience, usually confined to the members of the privileged elasses. One
can, therefore, be radical, even revolutionary in one's metaphysical
theofies, knowing fully well that the social structure and one’s own
‘material and social conditions are not inthe leas likely o be affected by
thém.
ral and
BHIKHU PAREKH ”
Political theory is a very different form of inquiry. It is more directly
related to the political realm, can be harnessed in the service of one or
another group, has a wider audience and can become socially subversive.
In short, radicalism in metaphysics is socially much less consequential
than radicalism in political thought. Iti not, therefore, necessary that a
society rich in critical philosophical thought should also be radical in its
political thought, or that a society hospitable so the former must also be
hospitable to the later.
Foutth, since the Hindu tradition of political thought was largely
apoldgetic or hostile to change, it almost entirely ignored the whole area
of social conflict. No Hindu thinker examined the nature of sectional
intergsts, the reasons why social groups come into conflict, the way
politjtal conGicts arise from clashes of material interests and ideologies,
how a group acquires political power and presents its interests as general
interests, and so on, The Hindu writers did, of course, appreciate that no
social order is or can ever be wholly free of disharmony. However, they
traced disharmony to such personal desires as greed and ambition, and
rarely to the objective conflicts of interest and ideology between social
groups: In other words, they overlooked the very essence of political life
(namely, latent and open conflicts between organised groups). Since they
ignored social conflict, they were unable either to explore its basis of to
develop an institutional structure for expressing, articulating and resolving
it, Not surprisingly, they remained haunted by the frailty of political
authority and felt compelled to rely on such methods as extensive
espionage and harsh punishment.
Fifth, the Hindu tradition of political thought is largely didactic and
practical. Many Hindu writers, whether they wrote dharmasastras oF
arthasastras, wrote mainly for the attention of the rulers, and their works
are largely manuals of ethies or of administration. The authors of dharma-
sastras aimed to lay down authoritative statements of the duties of indi-
Viduals and social groups; those of arthasastras were concerned with
discussing the most effective manner of organising the government and
maintaining power. Since their concerns were essentially didactic and
practical, neither attempted to interpret, understand and explain political
life—that is, to offer a systematic and comprehensive philosophical theory
of it. It is, of course, true that no systematic discussion of politcal life is
possible without some theorising, However the theorising in Hindu political
textsis largely iicidentel, patchy, implicit and lacking in rigour. Kautilya,
the greatest representative of the archasasira tradition, is largely descriptive
and classificatory; Manu, the best known representative of the dharma-
astra tradition, is dogmatic and assertive and provides litle by way of
theoretical analysis, Neither analyses such basic concepts as nyaya, rajan,
astra, svaraj, samrat and svamitva, ot examines the basic presuppositions
lof political life, the kind of knowledge it req) contflicis
es, the Ww: 0 Some Reflections on the Hindu Tradition of Political Thought
between different views can be articulated and resolved, the very different
ways in which: nyaya can be defined, how one view can be judged
better than the others, and oon, The Maurya empire was one of the mast
complex and intricate in human history, distinguished by differen types
of ascending centres of power wielding different degrees of authorty,
Kautilya, its greatest student, made little attempt to analyse and
distinguish all these or to discuss some disturbing moral and political
problems raised by the empire and in general to provide a theory capable
of illuminating its rich political structure.
This{s not to say thatthe Hindu writers did not engage in philosophical
exploration of political life. While the arthasastras have little philosophical
content, other writings such as the dharmasastras and the two epics
contain some penetrating and profound philosophical discussione of
several political themes. As we saw, the Hindu thinkers ‘conceptualised
Political life in terms of the two basic concepts of danda and dharma and
addressed themselves to three basic themes (namely, the nature os
organisation of danda, the nature end basis of dharma, and the relation
between the two). Each theme raises large philosophical questions! to
some of which Hindu writers addressed their attention. They did notfind
anything philosophically problemetic about danda and have little of
Philosophical interest to say about it. Most of them concentrated on
dharma and its relation to danda, They have much to say about dharma
its nature and basis, how itis grounded in the social nature of man, why
‘man cannot be dissociated from his social group, how dharma is a form ot
‘yajna (or sacrifice), how it integrates man into the universal order, and