Indian Political Thought: Dharamshastra, Arthashastra & Buddhist Traditions | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introuction

The systematic study of ancient Indian political thought can be traced back to the nationalist movement. This was a period when many significant works on Indian political thought were written, primarily as a response to the criticism that ancient India did not contribute to political thought, and that political science was not a separate and distinct discipline in India. This belief, though incorrect, may have arisen due to the different terms used for concepts like 'politics', 'political science', and 'state' in ancient Indian texts.

Many scholars face challenges in studying the development of political thought in the context of Western analysis, as the historical and socio-cultural contexts of India are vastly different from those of Europe. It is important to recognize that social and political thought is closely tied to the social and political environment in which it originates. Therefore, any study of ancient Indian political ideas must consider the perspectives of ancient Indians, the prevailing systems of social organization, and the characteristics of Indian monarchy, among other factors.

Nature of Early Indian Political Thought

Until recently, many scholars believed that India did not contribute significantly to the evolution of political thought. It was thought that any political ideas in ancient India were merely part of Hindu philosophy or religion, and that Hindu political science did not have a separate identity. However, by examining various sources, it becomes clear that ancient Indian thinkers did have a distinct notion of politics that was separate from both philosophy and religion. The misconception that some scholars had was likely due to their preconceived notions of politics and political science, which were primarily derived from Western thought. If we define "politics" as the "affairs of a territorially organized community held together by allegiance to a common authority," it is difficult to agree with the notion that there was no systematic development of political thought in ancient India.

1. Problem of Nomenclature: The confusion arises because of the numerous terms used in ancient India for politics. Some of these terms include Rajadharma (duties of the ruler), Kshatravidya (knowledge that the ruler should have), Rajyasastra (statecraft or the science of state), Dandaniti (ethics of awarding punishment), Nitisastra (science of ethics regulating the lives of both the ruler and the ruled), and Arthasastra (the art of acquisition and maintenance of land).
2. Concept of Matsyanyaya: Ancient Indian political thought contains the concept of Matsyanyaya, which is equivalent to the Western idea of the state of nature. This concept describes a situation where the strong prey upon the weak in the absence of force or danda (discipline, restraint, or punishment). Force is considered the ultimate sanction behind the state, but it is emphasized that force cannot be used arbitrarily. Various checks and balances have been introduced to ensure that those in power cannot misuse force.
3. Dharma and Danda: According to Bhikhu Parekh, Hindu political thinkers conceptualized political life in terms of two central concepts: dharma and danda. Both concepts are interdependent. Dharma refers to the principles that hold society together, and is derived from the Sanskrit root "dhr," meaning to hold. Society can be held together when each individual and group performs their specific duties, which can be achieved by following the principles of varnashrama dharma (adhering to one's caste duties). The king's duty is to maintain varnadharma and prevent the mixture of different castes (varnas).
   • The dharmashastra writers focused on exploring the dharma of individuals and social groups, including the government. However, they did not attempt to provide political dharma as a distinct and autonomous subject of investigation. Instead, they provided a code of conduct that covers all aspects of human life, with politics being incidental to this main concern.
   • In contrast, the authors of arthasastras were interested in the organization and mechanics of danda. Kautilya's Arthashastra provides a detailed account of the nature and organization of government, the nature and method of exercising coercive power, strategies for acquiring and retaining power, potential threats to the state, and the best ways to deal with these threats. The arthasastra works were specifically political.
   • The two approaches of dharmasastras and arthasastras differed primarily in their subject matter. The dharmasastras explored political life from the standpoint of dharma, whereas the arthasastras did so from the standpoint of danda. The former was legalistic and religious in orientation, while the latter focused on institutions, politics, and secularism. Neither approach was complete by itself, and it is essential to understand that both together constitute the Hindu tradition of political thought.

Indian Political Thought: Sources

Indian politics has always been deeply intertwined with religious and philosophical aspects of human life. As a result, political thought in India is not found in a single text but drawn from a variety of sources. These sources include Vedic literature, Dharmasutras and Smritis, Epics and Puranas, Arthasastras, Buddhist and Jain literature, coins and inscriptions, Greek and Chinese accounts, and other literary sources and epigraphy.

• However, there are certain drawbacks and limitations to studying Indian political thought from these sources. Since most sources are religious in nature, it is challenging to separate political facts from religious beliefs. Furthermore, Dharmasutras often present an idealized version of society and politics that may not accurately reflect reality.
• Another issue is that much of the scholarship on Indian political thought was produced during the nationalist movement, with the aim of countering Western imperialist ideology. Western scholars who studied ancient Indian history often assumed that Indians were primarily interested in philosophy and lacked political or material speculation. They also believed that Indians never experienced a sense of nationhood. These assumptions led to the conclusion that Indians were incapable of governing themselves and should be subjected to autocratic rule.
• In response, Indian nationalist historians developed their own interpretations of Indian history to disprove these claims. They argued that ancient India practiced a limited monarchy rather than autocratic rule. Some, like K.P. Jayaswal, even compared ancient Indian polity to the republics of ancient Greece and the constitutional monarchies of countries like Great Britain.

While the work of these nationalist scholars is valuable for instilling a sense of self-confidence among Indians during the nationalist movement, it is essential to recognize the limitations of their approach. R. S. Sharma, a renowned historian, has identified four key limitations:

• By glorifying ancient Hindu institutions, nationalist scholars risked alienating Muslims.
• This approach can create a false sense of past values, ignoring the fact that both monarchy and republics in ancient India were dominated by the two upper varnas, excluding the two lower varnas from political offices.
• Scholars often avoided discussing the religious aspects of ancient Indian polity and tried to prove its secular character, even though theocracy existed in the Western world until the 18th century.
• Nationalist scholarship often focused on proving the superiority of Indian civilization and showed little interest in studying ancient institutions in light of the evolution of primitive tribes as known from anthropology.

In order to study early Indian political thought, it is crucial to keep these limitations in mind and approach the subject with a balanced and objective perspective.

Characteristics of Indian Political Thought

• Political life within the framework of Dharma: Indian political thought incorporates a supernatural element, with the divine playing a role in the formation of society and government. However, this should not be mistaken for the reality of ancient India, where there was a gap between traditions and people's actual lives. Non-Brahminical traditions, such as Buddhism, contributed significantly to the development of Indian political thought.
• Influence of ethics: Indian social thought is closely tied to ethics, with the king expected to promote virtue and morality. However, when it comes to international relations, Indian political thought can be more realistic, as seen in Kautilya's writings on diplomacy.
• Caste-based social structure: The caste system played a significant role in ancient Indian society and politics, with each caste assigned specific functions. The king's duty was to ensure that individuals adhered to their caste's role, and this system influenced the political structure.
• Government as a partnership of upper castes: The Kshatriyas, Brahmanas, and Vaisyas formed the ruling class in ancient India, while the Shudras were the serving class. The priest held the highest status and served as the chief adviser to the king.
• No clear distinction between state and society: Government and politics were seen as part of the larger whole called society. As a result, there was no clear conception of the state or government, with both terms used interchangeably.
• Monarchy as the normal form of government: With the Kshatriya caste holding ruling power, monarchy was the natural outcome. However, non-monarchical forms of government also existed, such as "ganasanghas," which were similar to modern republics.
• Government not sovereign: The government in ancient India was not sovereign in the modern sense, as its existence was dependent on the divine will. Sovereignty was ultimately sourced in the divine will, and individuals' allegiance was to society as a whole.
• Other distinguishing features: Indian political thought has several other features, such as being in-egalitarian, pluralistic, uncritical and apologetic of the established social order, and largely didactic and practical in nature. Many Hindu writers wrote for the attention of rulers, producing works that were primarily manuals of ethics or administration.

Buddhists’ Contributions to Indian Political Traditions

Origin of Kingship: Buddhist literature presents a different view of the origin of kingship compared to Brahminical literature, rejecting the divine origin theory. In numerous Jataka tales, kings are elected based on their qualities and the approval of the majority (Mahajana-Sammata). While Kshatriyas from good families were generally chosen, caste was not a barrier to the royal office. The Jatakas recount instances of Brahmins and low-caste individuals being elected kings. If a king proved tyrannical, the people could revolt, as kingship was based on a contract between the subjects and their chosen leader. The king's sovereign rights were limited to protecting subjects and punishing wrongdoers, and he was bound by the law. People maintained their rights and privileges through their numbers and organizations.

1. Democratic Nature of the Buddhist Sangha: Prof. Rhys Davids believes that the Buddhist Sangha was founded on democratic principles. He notes that the Sangha operated as a republic, with decisions made through resolutions agreed upon in regular meetings of its members, who observed established regulations and used specific forms of words. The democratic nature of the Buddhist order is further evidenced by rules regarding the form of resolutions, the requirement of a quorum, majority voting, committee decision-making, and rules on absentee votes.
However, there is no evidence that the democratic procedures in the Buddhist Sangha, which was primarily a religious order, were reflected in the 'Ganasangha,' a political organization. Nonetheless, Buddhist political ideas were distinct from those found in Dharmasastras or Arthasastras, as seen in their theory of the origin of the state.

2. Theory of the Origin of the State: The Buddhist theory of the origin of the state is found in the Dighanikaya, which posits that a golden age of harmony and happiness once prevailed on earth. People were virtuous and led peaceful lives, but eventually became greedy and selfish, leading to the decline of the ideal state. The people then chose the best person among them to punish wrongdoers, promising to provide a portion of their harvest in return. This chosen leader was known as the Maha Sammata, or the 'Great Elect,' and the institution of kingship arose from a contract between the community and the most distinguished individual.
The Buddhist theory of social evolution emphasizes the continuous moral and physical decline that necessitated a social and political order. As a result of this decline, institutions of property, state, and society emerged in succession. In the Buddhist social order, Kshatriyas took precedence over Brahmanas, as virtue and knowledge determined superiority. Buddhists did not believe in the caste system and denied that the king's duty was to maintain Varnashramadharma. They also rejected the restriction of kingship to the Kshatriya caste and the sanctity surrounding the king's person.

3. The Principle of Righteousness: In Buddhist literature, the principle of righteousness differs from the Brahminical concept of dharma, aligning more closely with the Western notion of virtue. Unlike Brahminical literature, which prescribes a different set of ethical principles for the king (Rajadharma), Buddhism holds that the king is bound by the same set of ethical principles as his subjects. The king's conduct significantly influences the behavior of his subjects, and political righteousness is considered a cosmic principle of creation.
The concept of a world ruler, or chakravartin, encompasses not only universal supremacy and successful administration but also righteousness. In internal administration, righteousness connotes reciprocal love and affection between the ruler and his subjects. In foreign relations, the chakravartin's conquests are achieved not by force but by righteousness. The principles of righteousness include right views, right intention, right speech, right actions, right livelihood, right effort, and right-mindedness.

Contribution of Muslim Rule to Indian Political Traditions

• The Muslim rule in India during the medieval period made significant contributions to the country's political traditions. Although there were no specific texts on politics, works such as Tarik-IFiroz by Ziauddin Barni provide insight into the political ideas of Muslim rulers. The political thought during this period can be examined under three categories: the nature of the state, the divinity of kingship, and the duties of the king.
• The nature of the state under Muslim rule was, at least in theory, theocratic. Rulers adopted a dual policy for their subjects, treating Muslims and non-Muslims differently. While it was the state's duty to protect the lives and property of Muslims, non-Muslims had to pay a special tax called "Jizya" to ensure their safety within the state. The state was also identified with royalty, as according to Abul Fazal, "no dignity is higher in the eyes of God than royalty." The king was considered the source of stability and possession, and his presence was necessary for people to obey the laws of the state.
• The divinity of the king was emphasized in works like Ain-I-Akbari, which described the king as a divine light emanating from God. This divine light bestowed the king with various qualities, such as paternal love towards subjects, a generous heart, increasing trust in God, and devotion to prayer.
• The duties of the king included ensuring the safety and security of subjects' lives and properties, punishing lawbreakers, delivering justice impartially, and protecting the state from external aggression. The king was expected to lead by example, as his conduct influenced the effectiveness of any course of action. He was advised to avoid excessive indulgence in hunting, incessant play, constant intoxication, and frequent interactions with women. The king was also expected to be truthful, focused on conquest, and maintain a well-trained army.
• Abul Fazal's Ain-I-Akbari distinguished between two types of kings: the true king and the selfish king. Both types possessed treasuries, armies, servants, obedient subjects, wise men, and skilled workmen. However, under the true king's reign, these assets were lasting, and he focused on removing oppression and promoting truth, faithfulness, and sincerity. In contrast, the selfish king placed too much importance on external forms of royal power, leading to insecurity, lack of faith, oppression, and robbery within the kingdom.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ancient Indian political thought was a rich and diverse field that evolved over time and was influenced by various religious and philosophical traditions. Despite misconceptions that ancient India did not contribute to political thought, it is clear that distinct notions of politics existed, with concepts such as dharma and danda playing a central role. The study of Indian political thought requires a careful examination of various sources, including Vedic literature, Dharmasutras, Smritis, Epics, Puranas, and Arthasastras. Moreover, it is essential to recognize the limitations of nationalist scholarship, which sought to counter Western imperialist ideology and uphold the superiority of Indian civilization. The contributions of non-Brahminical traditions, such as Buddhism and Muslim rule, also significantly enriched Indian political thought, offering alternative perspectives on the nature of kingship, the origin of the state, and the duties of a ruler. By acknowledging these diverse sources and maintaining a balanced and objective perspective, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of the development and characteristics of ancient Indian political thought.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) of Indian Political Thought: Dharamshastra, Arthashastra & Buddhist Traditions

What is the main difference between dharmasastras and arthasastras in ancient Indian political thought?

The main difference between dharmasastras and arthasastras lies in their subject matter and focus. Dharmasastras explore political life from the standpoint of dharma, focusing on the principles that hold society together and the duties of individuals and social groups. In contrast, arthasastras focus on the organization and mechanics of danda (force), discussing the nature and organization of government, coercive power, strategies for acquiring and retaining power, and potential threats to the state.

What are some sources of Indian political thought?

Some sources of Indian political thought include Vedic literature, Dharmasutras and Smritis, Epics and Puranas, Arthasastras, Buddhist and Jain literature, coins and inscriptions, Greek and Chinese accounts, and other literary sources and epigraphy.

How does the Buddhist theory of the origin of the state differ from the Brahminical theory?

The Buddhist theory of the origin of the state, as described in the Dighanikaya, posits that kingship arose from a contract between the community and the most distinguished individual, who was chosen to punish wrongdoers and protect the people. This theory rejects the divine origin of kingship found in Brahminical literature, emphasizing instead the role of morality and ethical principles in the development of the state.

What were some of the contributions of Muslim rule to Indian political traditions during the medieval period?

During the medieval period, Muslim rule in India contributed to Indian political traditions through its emphasis on the theocratic nature of the state, the divinity of kingship, and the specific duties of the king. The state was identified with royalty, and the king was considered a divine light emanating from God. The duties of the king included ensuring the safety and security of subjects, punishing lawbreakers, delivering justice impartially, and protecting the state from external aggression.

What challenges do scholars face when studying the development of political thought in ancient India?

Scholars face challenges in studying the development of ancient Indian political thought due to the historical and socio-cultural differences between India and Europe, the variety of terms used for political concepts, and the limitations and drawbacks of the sources available for study. Additionally, much of the scholarship on Indian political thought was produced during the nationalist movement, which aimed to counter Western imperialist ideology and may not provide a balanced or objective perspective on the subject.