To understand contemporary Indian political thought, it is essential to have a broad view of the historical procedures through which the modem polity has appeared. We have civilization which is comparable with the Greek civilization and as Plato and Aristotle are measured as the pioneers of western political custom, so are our ancient and medieval texts on statecraft. Whether it is the concept of monarchy, republicanism, council of ministers, welfare state, diplomacy, espionage system or any other political concept/institution which is recognized in contemporary political parlance, all these have references in our early political traditions. Stale, society and governance are interlinked to each other. If we seem at our past we will discover that there was a time when people used to live in small groups based on kinship ties and there was no require felt for a power to manage people's life. But with the growth of population and clashes flanked by groups of people, require was felt for a power who would give the required protection to his people and whose order would be obeyed through all. With the coming of groups of people jointly, society came into subsistence which was followed through the emergence of state and the art of governance. So in a method we can say that individual needs led to the emergence of society and it is the communal require of the society which in turn led to the formulation of several structures and theories related to state and governance. Therefore, the social-historical context becomes a determinant factor in the development of state as well as the thoughts related to statecraft. Keeping this in mind when we seem at our past we discover that starting from the Vedic society till the establishment of the British rule India passed through several phases and also had undergone several political experiments. All these traditions and experiences in one method or other have contributed in creation what we call contemporary Indian political thought. With the help of historical texts like Manusmriti, Arthasastra, Fatwa-i-Jahandari, and Ain-i-Akbari which are measured as significant treatises on statecraft, we will attempt to explain the development of the Indian political thought. We will introduce you to the custom based on Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain literature, then the Islamic political custom and finally, the connection flanked by religion and state in India.
STATE AND SOVEREIGNTY IN ANCIENT INDIA
In her seminal work on social formations in the mid-first millennium B.C. Romila Thapar has explained transition from lineage society to state. In lineage society the vital element was the extended family under manage of the eldest male member. The size of the family was dependent on economy and environment and it was the genealogical relationships which tied the families jointly. It was through kinship - and rituals, that the chief exercised his power in excess of the clans. Differentiation came in within society flanked by the ruler and the ruled because of kin connections and wealth. Though, shift from rustic to peasant economy, population growth, social and cultural heterogeneity beside with other factors led to the emergence of state systems. In the opinion of Romila Thapar conquest, extensive trade, the decline of political elite and democratic procedures led to the change towards state system. The Vedic era represented the lineage system but later on rising stratification in society indicated the tendency towards state formation. With the formation of state the issue of governance of the state became a major concern of the society. In the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata we discover the reference to Matsyanyaya, a condition in which small fishes become prey to big fishes. This analogy was given to explain the anarchic condition in a society where no power exists. To avoid this kind of crisis, people collectively agreed to have a set of laws and to appeal to the god for a king who will uphold law and order in society. It is also argued that without appealing to any divine agency people on their own selected a person on whom the power was vested to protect human society. We discover references to both Divine Origin of Kingship as well as Social Contract Theory of Kingship. Though theological and metaphysical environment had a strong power in shaping the ancient Indian thinking, several studies on ancient Indian polity suggest the emergence of polity as a self-governing domain. Whether it was a Divine Origin of Kingship or Social Contract, we discover monarchy as the dominant form of government in the early Indian polity. The seven constituents of the state as prescribed in the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata are as follows:
Swamin or the sovereign,
Amatya or the officials,
Janapada or the territory,
Durga or the fort,
Kosa or the treasury,
Danda or the Army,
Mitra or the Allies.
All these are measured as the natural constituents of a state. State is visualized as an organic body having seven organs. Swamin or the king is measured as the head of this structure. After that to him is the Amatya or the council of ministers through which the king governs the state. Janapada means territory having agricultural land, mines, forests, etc. Durga or fort suggests the fortification of the capital. Danda refers to the power of law and of power. Mitra is the friendly state. Looking at this structure of state one discovers lot of resemblance with the attributes of the contemporary state. Manusmriti strongly advocated for a political power. Manu was of the opinion that in the absence of a political power, there would be disorder in society. It is the duty of the king to ensure justice in the society and protect the weak. 'Through taking his due, through preventing the confusion of the castes (Varna), and through protecting the weak, the power of the king grows, and he prospers in this (world) and after death. Manu was in favor of social hierarchy and caste system and his notion of justice was based on diverse customs and practices of dissimilar castes. He suggested that though the king derived his power from god, in practice he should be guided through the Brahmanas. The rationale behind it was the assumption that Brahmanas possess knowledge and knowledge should rule. Manu prescribed the structure of State in conditions of villages, districts, and provinces which resembles our present day structure of administration. If one looks at the rationale behind this organizational structure, one may easily discover that the principle of decentralization of power was the guiding principle behind this organisation. He also advocated an assembly of the learned as well as the officers of the state to advise the king and this shows his concern for the public opinion. Members were expected to be objective and fearless in taking decisions on the foundation of dharma.
Village and district authorities were suggested to function independently and only when there was any require, the king was expected to help. Welfare of the common people was one of the major concerns of the king. 'If the inhabitants of the municipalities and the provinces be poor, the king should, whether they depend upon him immediately or immediately, illustrate them compassion to the best of his power Wiping the tears of the distressed, the helpless and the old, and inspiring them with joy, constitute the duty of the king'. (Mahabharata-Shanti Parva, cited in A. Appadorai, Indian Political Thinking). Commenting on the political thoughts explained in the Manusmriti, V.R,Mehta in his Indian Political Thought, has remarked that 'It is indeed astounding to know that extremely early in the development of Indian political thought, the thoughts of decentralization, welfare state and public opinion are so clearly spelled out'.
Scholars are of the opinion that Arthasastra is not the work of one Kautilya and the date of Kautilya is also a matter of debate in the middle of historians. It is also argued that there are interpolations in the Arthasastra. Whatever be the truth the information remnants that Arlhasastra, as a text, deals with several functions as well as the methods of running the state. Moving ahead of Manu, Kautilya advocated a strong monarchy but he was not favorable to the thought of absolute monarchy. While in the earlier custom, the king was guided through Brahmanical power; in Arthasastra the king is measured to have the last word in all matters. Arthasastra tells us as to how a king should manage his senses and discharge his duties, how a king should protect himself from any threat on his life and the importance of selection of right counselors and priests. There is an elaborate discussion on the civil law explaining several events required for an effective administration and on criminal law to take care of those people who are measured as a threat to the country. Kautilya cautioned the king to be vigilant in relation to the motives and integrity of his ministers and also talked in relation to the common selfish nature of people, bribery, and corruption inherent in administration. He suggested that through reward and punishment, the king should set a standard for others to follow. In his opinion, the king is above others but not above 'dharma'. Here dharma means obeying customary and sacred law and protection of his subjects' life and property. This was measured as the vital duty of a king. Suggestions have also been given to deal with friendly and hostile neighbors, organisation of armies, for spies to stay a watch on internal and external growths. We are told that army should be placed under a divided command since this is a sure guarantee against treachery. The notion of welfare state is further strengthened in Arthasastra. The king is expected to protect agriculturists from oppression and to take care of the orphans, the aged, and the helpless. Happiness of his people should always be the concern of a wise king, otherwise he may lose people's support; a good king should take up welfare behaviors in the interest of all. Just as to Kautilya 'in the happiness of his subjects lies the happiness of a king, in their welfare, his welfare. The king shall consider as good, not what pleases himself, but what pleases his subjects' (Arthasastra). Another significant concept which we come crossways in the ancient political custom is the concept of Danda. Danda primarily implies the sense of coercion or punishment. Danda is required for discipline. If the laid down norms of the state which are basically determined through sacred and customary laws are not obeyed through any individual or if anybody is involved in an action which goes against the interest of the state, the king has every right to punish the guilty. So disciplining the citizens was a significant action of the king. The Buddhist canonical literature suggests that a monarch should rule on the foundation of the Law of truth and righteousness; he should not allow any wrongdoing in his kingdom and should seem after the poor. A king was measured as a chosen leader of the people and his significant duty was to protect his people and to punish the wrongdoers.
Tiru-k-Kural, composed through Tiruvalluvar throughout the second century A.D., is measured as one of the well-known classics of Tamil literature. In this text, beside with other facets of life, we discover thoughts related to polity. It talks in relation to the an adequate army, an industrious people, ample food, possessions, wise and alert ministers, alliance with foreign powers and dependable fortifications as essentials of a state. King‘s qualities and duties, responsibilities of the ministers, importance of spies to stay watch on several behaviors within the state, diplomacy, etc. are other significant issues on which we discover mention in the Tiru-k-Kural. 'Statecraft consists in getting support without letting your weakness be recognized' (Tiru-k-Kural, cited in A.Appadorai, Indian Political Thinking).
Though monarchy was predominant in the ancient Indian polity, references to republic are also established in literary traditions. Since Alexander, the Great's invasion of India in 327-324 B.C. we come crossways references to several spaces governed through oligarchies from Greek and Roman accounts of India. Later on, the Buddhist Pali canon tells us in relation to the subsistence of several republics, mainly in the foothills of the Himalayas and in North Bihar. It is suggested that these were mostly tributary to the greater kingdoms but enjoyed internal autonomy. An instance of this was the Sakyas who were on the borders of contemporary Nepal and to whom the Buddha himself belonged. Another such instance was the Vrijjian confederacy of the Lichhavis who resisted the great Ajatasatru. Steve Mulilberger, in an article entitled 'Democracy in Ancient India' has written that in ancient India, monarchical thinking was constantly battling with another vision, of self-rule through members of a guild, a village, or an extended kin-group, in other languages, any group of equals with a general set of interests. This vision of cooperative self-government often produced republicanism and even democracy comparable to classical Greek democracy. In the Janapadas, there were Sanghas or Ganas managing independently their territory. Details of the working of such assemblies can be establishing both in Brahmanical and Buddhist literature. From Panini's explanation (5th B.C.), we discover references to the procedure of decision creation through voting. In the Buddhist literature, we discover rules concerning the voting in monastic assemblies, their membership, and their quorums. All these point to the information that democratic values and public opinion were extremely much respected in ancient political custom in spite of the dominant trend of monarchical government.
STATE AND SOVEREIGNTY
Coming of Islam in India and the establishment of the Muslim political power marked the beginning of a separate stage in the Indian political thought. Islamic political thought is centered approximately the teaching of Muhammad and the belief in the universality of the law of the Koran. In contrast to the Vedantic philosophy, the Musilms consider Koran as the only and final power. Before the corning of Islam, the political structure in India was not based on the philosophy and belief of a single text. Rather several religious traditions contributed towards the development of political traditions in ancient India. In Islamic thought the Shariat based on the Koran is measured as the final power and the purpose of the state is to serve the Shariat. In matters of governance, the Muslim elite were influenced through political thoughts in Islam. Based on two authoritative texts written throughout the Muslim rule in India- Fatwa-i-Jahandari and Ain-i-Akbari dealing with the nuances of governance- we can formulate our thoughts in relation to the dominant trend of the political thought of medieval India. Fatwa-i- Jahandari was written through Khwaja Ziauddin Barani. In this book Barani recapitulates and further elaborates the political philosophy of the Sultanate on the foundation of his earlier narrative, Tarikh-i-Firozeshahi. Some scholars are of opinion that Barani's thoughts carry a sense of religious fanaticism. Keeping in mind the information that Barani belonged to an era when Islam was presently creation its ground in India, we may overlook this limitation in Barani's thoughts. Separately from this limitation, Barani's thoughts related to kingship in medieval era are of immense importance. The king as the representative of God on earth is measured as the source of all powers and functions of the state. Barani is of the opinion that whatever means the king adopts to discharge his duties is justified as extensive as his aim is the service of religion. We discover Barani's suggestions to the king as to how to discharge his functions as the head of the state.
Just as to Al Barani, "It is the duty of the Sultans before they have made up their minds in relation to the an enterprise or policy and published it in the middle of the people, to reflect cautiously on the likelihood of its success and failure as well as its effects on their location, on the religion and the state, and on the army. In Barani's opinion the king should devote himself to governance of his state in such a method that helps him in reaching nearer to God. Welfare of the religion and the state should be the ideal of a good state. A king should be guided through wise men. Bureaucracy is required to run the administration and Barani is an advocate of blue blood aristocracy. He talks in relation to the necessity of hierarchy in administration and points out the composition, classification, nature, and relation of bureaucracy with the Sultan and the people of the state. He is emphatically against the promotion of low-born men. He writes that 'The noble born men in the king's court will bring him honor, but if he favors low born men, they will disgrace him in both the worlds'. He says that kingship is based on two pillars- administration and conquest and it is on the army that both the pillars depend. He also emphasizes on king's concern concerning internal security and foreign dealings. Along with the enforcement of the Shariat, to Barani, dispensing of justice is an essential function of a sovereign. Implementation of law and obedience to law should be the primary concern of a king. Barani refers to four sources of law:
Te Quran,
Te Hadish (traditions of prophet (Pbuh)),
Te Ijma (opinions and rulings of the majority of Muslim theologians and Qiyas (speculative method of deduction).
To this he added Zawabit or state law as a significant source of law in administering the state. With the changing complexion of society and the rising complexities of administration in addition to the accepted principles of traditional Islamic law, Barani advocated for Zawabit or the state laws whose base is non-religious. State laws cannot be contradictory to the orders of the Shariat and its primary objective is to regulate the works of several governmental departments and to foster loyalty. Barani also talks in relation to the recognition of individual rights, i.e. the rights of wife, children, old servants, slaves, etc. and he considers the recognition of people's rights as the foundation of the state. Punishment was measured as an essential means to uphold discipline in the state. Barani refers to several circumstances of the punishments, particularly the death punishment to be awarded through the king. The real importance of Fatwa-i-Jahandari lies in the information that it shows in what methods the original Islamic theory of kingship went through changes in excess of the years in the Indian context. Barani's vast experience in the working of the Delhi Sultanate and the prevailing social order get reflected in his political thoughts.
The other valuable text on statecraft explaining the dominant trend of political thoughts throughout the Mughal rule in India is Abul Fazl‘s Ain-i-Akbari; Abul Fazl was one of the mainly significant thinkers of the sixteenth century India. Being a great scholar having sound knowledge of dissimilar meadows of learning in the Muslim and the Hindu traditions, he had contributed in formulating several of Akbar's political thoughts. Abul Fazl was influenced through the thought of the divine nature of royal power. He made a distinction flanked by a true king and a selfish ruler. A true king should not be concerned much in relation to himself and power, rather people's well being should be his prime concern. To him, an ideal sovereign is like a father who rules for the general welfare and is guided through the law of God. Though Abul Fazl whispered in 'the divine light of royalty', he did not envisage any role for the intermediaries to communicate the divine order. Abul Fazl says,
'Royalty is a light emanating from God, and a ray from the sun....Contemporary language calls this light farri izidi (the divine light) and the tongue of antiquity described it kiyan khwarah (the sublime halo). It is communicated through God to kings without the intermediate assistance of any one‘, The Ulemas and the Mujtahids, like the Brahmins in Hinduism, acted as power and interpreter of customary laws to king. But in Abul Fazl's formulation, the intermediaries are not required to interpret religious and holy law and the king himself is expected to judge and interpret holy law. Abul Fazl writes that ‗when the time of reflection comes, and men shake off the prejudices of their education, the thread of the web of religious blindness break and the eye sees the glory of harmoniousness...although some are enlightened several would observe silence from fear of fanatics who lust for blood, but seem like men..,. The people will naturally seem to their king and expect him to be their spiritual leader as well, for a king possesses, self-governing of men, the ray of divine wisdom, which banishes from his heart everything that is conflicting. A king will, so, sometimes observe the element of harmony in a multitude of things.... Now this is the case with the monarch of the present age. He now is the spiritual guide of the nation'. At the core of his political thoughts was the belief that the king should be guided through the principles of universal good and to fulfill his royal duty, he could go beyond the holy law. This was an important shift in matters of governance compared to earlier political thinking. The reforms introduced through Akbar through the abolition of jizya composed from the non-Muslims or a ban on cow slaughter reflected the spirit of new political theory articulated in Ain-i-Akbari. Abul Fazl was a believer in strong centralized monarchical government and for better governance he advocated the sharing of works in the middle of several departments. It was with the help of a highly centralized bureaucracy that the Mughal sovereign ruled in excess of the empire. Abul Fazl's classified society into a four tier system, where rulers and warriors occupied the first location. Learned people were placed in the second category, artisans and merchants in the third and the laborers belonged to the fourth category. Although this was not based on an, egalitarian philosophy he talked in relation to the importance of each category for the welfare of the state. Therefore the picture of political power that emerges from the revise of Ain-i-Akbari was of a centralized monarchy and the governing principle of the state was the well being of its people.
RELIGION AND POLITY
Discussion on the pre-contemporary Indian political thought will remain partial if we do not take into explanation the connection flanked by religion and polity. Let us begin with the views shared through Gandhi and Maulana Azad concerning religion and politics. Gandhi said that those who talk in relation to the separation of religion and politics do not know what religion is. Maulana Azad wrote that there will be nothing left with us if we separate politics from religion.
It is motivating to note that these two great Indian thinkers belonged to two dissimilar religious traditions but both were of the opinion that religion cannot be separated from politics. It may be little bewildering as to how we can claim secularism as the guiding principle of the Indian political custom. It may sound contradictory but if we analyze cautiously, the inner meaning of political thoughts expressed in our several religious traditions, it would be clear to us as to how religion and state are integrated in our political philosophy. The history of India shows that ours is a unique civilization which has, in excess of the years, accommodated several religious traditions. In every religion, whether it is Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Sikhism or Christianity, with the development of society and new growths, several sects appeared having differences in expressing their loyalty to the almighty. Each religion talks in relation to the moral values and one's duty towards the other and the society at big. References to the virtues of honesty, humility, selflessness, compassion for the poor, etc. are scattered in the teachings of several religious orders. Nowhere the distinction has been made in the middle of subjects beside religious rows although there might have been individual rulers who deviated from this principle. Those deviations should be measured as aberrations rather than the guiding principles of kingship; here it would be pertinent to refer to Dr. S. Radhakrishnan who said that 'the religious impartiality of the Indian State is not to be confused with secularism or atheism. Secularism as here defined is in accordance with the ancient religious custom of India. It tries to build up a fellowship of believers, not through subordinating individual qualities to the group mind but through bringing them into harmony with each other. This fellowship is based on the principle of diversity in unity which alone has the excellence of creativenesses. The point to be noted here is that the meaning of secularism is based on our religious custom. When we seem at our past, we discover that in the days of Brahmanical power, a part of our society started looking for alternative methods to realize the ultimate truth, and this search resulted in the emergence of Jainism and Buddhism. Several people including the ruling power welcomed the new religious traditions. Likewise when Islam came to India there might have been attempts through a few to create Islam, state religion but we discover that the similar era witnessed the growth of Sufism or Akbar‘s Tauhid-i-Ilahi (described Din-i-Ilahi) which focused on universalism. The similar era is significant for the growth of Bhakti movement. The Bhakti doctrine preached human equality which is measured as direct impact of Islamic thought. It dreamt of a society based on justice and equality in which men of all creeds would be able to develop their full moral and spiritual stature. The Sufi orders had a power on the teachings of the Sikh Gurus, and in the middle of the followers of Guru Nanak were both Hindus and Muslims. A Muslim chronicler of Shivaji wrote that Shivaji, throughout military campaign, tried to avoid any insulting action against the Muslims 'and if a copy of the Quran was captured through his soldiers, it was supposed to be respectfully restored to the Muslims'. There will be no dearth of references in our several religious traditions to suggest that at the core of our several traditions lays the spirit of tolerance, universalism, and compassion for the humanity. These teachings from religious traditions are expected to be the guiding principles of governance. Rajdharma suggests more in relation to the sovereign's responsibility towards his subjects rather than misuse of power given to the sovereign through his subjects. It is within this framework that one should attempt to interpret the coexistence of religion and polity in India rather than finding the meaning of secular state as state divorced from religion. So when several contemporary political thinkers provide importance to religion in their political philosophy, we necessity attempt to understand its significance in proper historical perspective. At the similar time one has to be careful in relation to the misuse of religious sentiments for scrupulous sectarian interest.
Post a Comment