2 BHIKHU PAREKH

Some Reflections on the Hindu

Tradition of PoliticalThought
In this paper I willexamine critically some of the
the Hindu tradition of political thought. To avoiddistinctive features of
misunderstanding, it
wouldbe usefulto begin by making four points of clarification. First, as it
forms a relatively coherent and analytically convenient subject of
gation, I shall concentrate on the Hindu tradition from its earlyinvesti
heginnings to the arrival of the Muslims in the eight century A.D.,Vedic
and
shall ignore its subsequent development altogether.
Second, Ishall 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 ihat one
can legitimately talk about the Hindutradition of political thought.
Third, Ishall use the term politics and its derivatives rather widely to
refer to the affairs of a territorially organised community held together by
allegiance to a common authority. And, finally, Iam 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
onpolitics.

Hindu political thinkers conceptualised political life in terms of two

centralconcepts namely, danda and dharma. For them political life or
ruling a territorially organised community ultimately consisted in using
landu to maintain dharma. The term danda means discipline. force,
restraint, constraint or punishment. Hindu political writers generally
used it to refer to the punitive use of the cOercive power of govenment.
"The Hindu political ideas discussed in this paper are outlined in several stan dard com
mentaries on the subject, such as those by Beni Prasad, U. Ghosha.. KP Jaiswal,
R. Mazumdar, J. Spellman and H.N. Sinha. Ihave, therefore, felt it |dvisanie not to
Clutter up the paper with footnotes
 Sore Reflecnons on the Hindu Tradiion of Poliuical Thoueh
BHIKHU PAREKH

Dharma is a much more difficult concept. It comes from the Sanskrit root
dhr, meaning to hold. Dharma is that which holds a society together with the government, their
Since the Hindus thought asociety was held together by each individual since they concentrated onworks were specifically
the zovernment, they politkal. Further
and eroup doing his or its specific duties, they used the term to mean
duties. Some writers used it broadly to mean all duties, whereas others
autonomy of political life and its distinctive problems oappreczted
z much yyeater
the
degree than the authors of dharmasastras
contined it to religious or religiously prescribed duties. It would,
however, be a
the two strands of Hindu mistake draw too neat a contrzst betwer
Hindu political thinkers described the to
as niti or, more commonly sastra. Niti, systematic study of political life political thought. It is true that the zuthors t
word meaning to lead,' refers to a studywhich comes from the Sanskrit dharmasastras
to the point of
were rather moralistic, and thoe of
arthusastras realstK
term sometimes used to describe a of policies. Thus dandaniti, a sometimes bordering on cynicism. However,
were not politically naive and the tormer
means a study of the best ways of using systematic study of political life.
the coercive power of
freely
disregard moral principles and valuesacknowledzed the political need o
The term sastra means a systematic study government.
of the general principles as the arthasastra writers under certain circumstances, even
detailed organisation of a specific form of human and acknowledged and
observance of dharma. Again, it is true that theindeed insisted on the
sastrarefers to a systematic treatise on the activity. Thus dharma dharmasastra
content of righteous conduct. general principles and detailed occasionally ignored the contingencies and frailties of hurman writers
Sometimes the term sastra is given the however, they were not nervous about the need to use force. affairs.
additional connotation of an authoritative text, and the principles and although the arthasastra writers occasionally tended to treatSmilarty.
rules laid down in a treatise are
given the status of injunctions. Thus the power as an end-in-itself, they did not generally lose síght of thepohtical
principles and rules of dharmasastras are not merely analytical and ends of government. It would also be wrong to suggest, 2s is mora!
elucidatory also authoritative and binding
but done, that the two approaches represent totally different views sornetimes
connotation, however, is absent in other usages in nature. This additional of mar.
andsociety for, as we shall see, their views on these subjects were
principles laid down in Bharat's Natyasastra and of the term. Thus the basically the same.
are largely elucidatory and, at best, Kautilya's Arhasastra The two approaches differed primarily in their subject mzter, oe
As we saw, the Hindu political recommendatory.
thinkers regarded dhamaand danda as choosing to explore political life from the standpoint of dharma, the othe
the two most basic
features of political life. Although the two features from that of danda. This naturally led to differences in emphzsis z
were accepted by them as orientation. Since the dhamasastras were concerned to lay down dhama
toconcentrate on one or thecomplementary, different Hindu writers chose
other and explored political life in terms of it, they were legalistic and religious in orientation, whereas the arhasastra
thereby giving rise to two different trends or strands of political thought. concermed with analysing the structure and functions of 2overnmen
The dharmasastra writers concentrated on institutions and policies and were secular in orientatoc
concentrated
individuals and social groups, including the on exploring They the dharma of Neither approach was complete by itself, and this was fully pprecate
the sources of dharma as well as government.
what was to be done when discussed by its followers. The two together constitute the Hindu tradition d
conflicted. And they also provided a detailed prospectus these political thought. The commentators who equate it with one of them an:
were not moral philosophers but law-givers., and of duties. They contend that it is either wholly moralistic or wholly cynscal, or erthe
prescriptive. Since they did not concentrate on generally didactic and
the government and
legalistic or institutional, offer a distorted account of it.
attempted provide a code of conduct covering the entire human life,
to
they did not write books specifically on
incidental to their main concern and did politics. Political dharma was
not form a distinct and
autonomous subject of investigation. The Hindu tradition of political thought displays remarkable cont1nut.
In contrast to
dharmasastra witers. the authors of arthasastra were It did, of course, undergo important changes in response to new theotetxz
interested in the organisation and mechanics of danda, that is, and practical problems posed by the rise of new rel1gous movemet.
government. the agent of danda. could be most effectively the way the (especially Buddhism). new philosophical movements (espeaally tte
They concentrated on the nature and organised. Lokayata), new castes, guilds and corporations, waves of foresgn nvas
organisation of goverment, the
nature and mechanics of power, the way power is settlements of foreigners, and so on. Amidst all these changes,hoe
and lost. the sources of threat to acquired, weakened its basic theoretical concerns remained mote or less constant
government and the best way to deal with
them. and so on. Since the urthasastra writers were For the Hindu politucal thinkers the un1verse is an or dered wt
primarnly concerned governed by fixed laws. It is charactensed bv Ria, the involable ordet
 BHIKHUPAREKH 21
Thoch
Sam Reienar or hr Sndu Tradinon f Palinal

zhines Socen renicaIs the order oÉ the universe and beomes an fish eat the small, and the eventual disintegration of the social order. For
arieed whoir when held nogether by dharme. For the Hindus, soiery is some Hindu political thinkers such a situation did once prevail; for others
nx colieian af nuduak but s aommunity of communis. It oonsists itat isallonly adefinite possibility haunting every socicty. In any casc, it must
af castes. cach af whhch is engared in the periormane of certain common cost be remcdicd or avoided, and hence the institution of govem
Tunians and s related 1o the others in hierarchical manner. lts char ment becomes necessary. Alrhough Hindu thinkers were familiar with
aieist Tuncaans and place in tht soial ierarchy deñne the perimeter the republican and other non-monarchical forms of governments, they
concentrated on monarchy.
af 1s dname. An iniduzT's charma is derived from the caste of his
hrù For the Hniu, an indviual's birtth into a particuiar caste is Dot The king's main function was to maintain the established social order.
aciienta but a rsut of his karma or actions in his previous hfe. D'arma Since a society was believed to remain well-ordered only so long as each
and kom are interaly connected An individual's kerma determines individual observed his personal and caste dharma, the king's dhama
hs ceste nd thereiore his dharme, end is dharma deffnes his ightful consisted in maintaining the ruBe of dharma in society at large. In concrete
kama Ih aiinon to caste, en inividual also ocCupies other soGal terms, this meant that he was to facilitate the study of the Vedas and
Dsions B: s a father o a son,a hushand, brother, an uncde or s philosophy , cncourage the evelopment of industry and commerce.
nephes, 2 cousin, 2 neighbour, subjet o a ruler, and so on. As an maintain proper relations between different castes, cnsure the observance
ncumbem of each of these rols, be has a speiffc dhama. The
wnes did man's iie into four dstinct Hindu of parcntal, flial, matrimonial and other duties, enforce dhama pertaining
and each stage w25 again dcharacterised bychronologcal stages or ashrams, to different stages of individual lite, and so on. The king derived his
For the Hindu witers, dhama is the
a specifc dharma. authority from the fact that he needed it to maintain dhama. He was,
zione boids soierv together, iolation basis
of personal and social life. It therefore, to use it only for that purpose and in a manner consistent with
of it shakes the soiety to its very it. If he used it for other purposes, or to enforce adharma, or in a manner
ioundaions and constütutes a mortal threat to its
expected in asoiety under constant foreign existence. As was to be disallowed by dharma, he was considered a tyrant. Some Hindu thinkers
Gomination by the two highest invasion and bRSed on unged that a tyrant should be disobeyed, and even killed. Some others
iearial af sociai isintegraion. castes, the Hindu thinkers were most authorised disobedience only if led by 'respectable' men of 'status'; while
governing amost every 2spect Accordingly they laid down
of human conduct, and detailed rules
others proseribed it altogether.
deviaion irom them spelt insisted that any The king's duty to enforce dharma raised the obvious question as to
stricty to the dema ofdisorder and chaos. Every
his speciñc stage in life,Hindu was to adhere who determined the contentof it. The Hindu writers generally pointed to
his specfic social the Vedas, the smritis and vyavahara. The Vedas were not moral treatises.
positions and roles, and above all his caste.
anorher caste is adhama or immoral. The Doing things that pertain to and such moral principles as they contained were highly general. The
who isegards svadhama Gua observes that an mrtis were largely digests of prevailing social practices. And thus
courts unhappiness and individaal
better to ãe doing one's dhama destruction; and it is vavahàra or custom was the operative source of dharma. Each caste had
ese's. Acooraing to Hindu than to attempt to performn someone heen in existence for a long time, and had acquired a speafic body of
Öuies runs the risk of law-givers, whoever
his social status;deviates from his caste traditions and usages. So long as they.were not in conflit with Vedic
outcaste and deprived offorfeiting
his right to folow certain he may be made an injunctions, they constituted its dharna. Similarly, each famuly had
developed a body of usages over time, and these oonstituted its members'
in Acoording
to Hindu political types of occupations.
an idezl societv. thinkers, each individual kuladharma. From time to time the Hindu law-givers made a study of the
ior danda or íorce. andThere is, therefore, disorder, anddoes
no his dharma
hence no need traditions and usages of different social groups and wrote detailed igests
Hindu thinkers men were obviously
once in
no need for
government. For some
Over centuries the social and political structure of Inia underwent
had such a state;
znd reiractory impulses. for yet others human for others they have always important changes and many different types of social groups began to
characterised by a regular and inexorablehistory cyclical
epochs
is in nature appear. In the aftermath of successive foreign invasONs, farh large
once men Tepresenting different degrees of humanalteration four
become corrupt
of distinct communities of foreign settlers came into existence Herrtical groups
10 igDoTe theit dharma. This and incapable of svarajcorruption. In any
or self-rule, they case,
hegan to appear within the fold of Hindu sOiety itself New religous
results in varnasan kara or beg1n novements and communitiesespenally the Budthists and Jains
czstes. ara;akata or appeared. With the developmen of commerce and trade, vmratons
lawlessness. matsyanvava or the law of'confusion
Hindu equvalent ofthe of
and guilds of traders, art1sans and erattvmen tegan to appear New castes
Western law of jungle) accord1ng to the sea (the (ame nto exstence as a reult ot ntemaRe r nCW Nrupations
which the hIg
22
Some Reflections on the llindu
Traditlon of Poltical Thought pIKHIU PAREKH
Large empires (cspeccially thosc of the
rulc ovcrMauryas
on the sccnc,and they had to and the Guptas) appearcd a0 (much the government as the
which rather different far-flung territorics within some of helpcd no doubt by the government,religiously sanctioned uxial
conceptions
The Hindu writers dealt of caste
with the situationdharma prevailed. in ancicnt India,
was yenerally the wue dstructure.
gpresMM
in terms of their
concept of dharma. Even as they had traditional Having briefly diwussed dhurma, we will
maintaincd that
traditional dharmawhich it had the authority to cachthecaste had its evanination of dundu, Inthei exploration of the now turm to the Hindu
vening only when nccessary, the Hindu writers enforce, king inter Windu political writers were yuided by structure of gvernment,
certain ommon nsderatons.
groups must be accepted as autonomous and argued that the new social The king's duty to maintain dharma meant that he was to rely on the
entitled to have their self-governing
customs upheld and tocommunities advice of people well-versed in the Vedas and the
own rules. Thus the traditions and make their therefore, cnjoyed considerable power and prestige,Sustras, The Brahmans,
communities foreign settlers, corporations,
gious communities, heretics, of
were for centuries bascd on and run by a 'holy' (or Indeed Hindu polties
cven atheists, villages and districts, reli
and new castes, were recognised guilds the Ksatriyas and the Brahrmans. Not surprisingly,unholy!) alliance ot
which they were free to enforce onas their
having their own distinctive dharma, almust
Hindu tradition of political thought was based on the the entire
was accepted by the king. The Vedic members and whose legitimacy assurmptionof a close alliance between the two highest castes.unquestioned
It analyed
those groups that either consisted of injunctions were not binding on political life within the framework of the alliance, and rarely ventured to
economic in nature. The Hindu writersnon-Hindus or were essentially cxplorcalternative inodes of constituting the polity.
traditions of various groups realiscd that the customs and In India, political power never rcally shiftcd from the Brahmans and
or remain silent about certainmight be ambiguous, or harm public
interest,
aspects of social conduct. In such cases
the Ksatriyas. The two did, of course, initially strugple for supremacy.
king was to make appropriate laws. In short the Huwever, over time, a modus vivendi was teached between them The
broadened their earlier theory and recognisedthevyavahara
Hindu political thinkers Brahmans acknowledged the Ksatriyas' right to rule,n return the
customs), caritam (conduct of good man) and rajsasan (royal (traditions and Ksatriyas acknowledged the Brahrnans' social superor1ty. gave them a
civillaws) as the legitimate bases of dharma. cdicts and share in the cxercisc of political authority and made generous donatom
The Hindu political thinkers did not of land and money. The Ksatriyas had the monopoly of state porwer, the
invest the ruler with arbitrary and Brahmans that of lcarning and teaching. The former were to peciale in
despotic power as the theorists of Oriental Despotism
They viewed society as an organic structure articulated have maintained. danda, the latter in dharma. By and large the Brahmans were cxpected
not to interfere with the use of dunda, and the Ksatr1yas with the intet
groups. Each group had its own dharmawhich was not inlaidterms of social
down by the pretation of dharma. The Ksatriya kings upheld the social order that gave
ruler and with which the ruler could not generally
of the groups were quite powerful. The castes were interfere. Further many the Brahn1ans mnoral and rcl1gous authorty and materal wcalth theto
strong social groups, Brahmans, in turn, uscd their monopoly of ntellectual pr.ductn
enjoying autonomy and thcir own distinctive structures politcal otder
the castes, many villages too had a long tradition of
of authority. Like produce ideological systems just1fy1ng the establshed
spirit in cach of the
including the king'spowcr and wealth The corporasevdent1ty
many guilds and corporations consisted of powerfulself-government.
and wcalthy
And
two castes was most developed, as alsw the
sp1ritof of intetests
The ruler was therefore an integral part of a highly men.
uncentralised social order. He did not stand above differentiated and betwecn them.
were too fragmented and solatedandto
was one of its several parts, albeit an important part,the social order. He By contrast, the other castcs
Vaisyas
develop such a spirit. The and theirand the Sudras could never unite,
His authority was hedged in by the relatively but stillonly a part. range of occupations too vared to
inviolable the Vaisyas werc too largc ident1ty and collective poser
various autonomous centres of power, and regulated by authority of the
allow them to develop a sense of corporate
betwcen authorits and
dharma. Since he was never seen as outside of, let alonehisaboveown specific
Some Hindu political
thinkers dist1ngusshed
Adhikar, a d1fficult and comple
the very conccptual framework required by the ideaof socicty, an adhikur to posessas
Oricntal Despotism powcr. Authority implied a nght onc deserves
was absent. The king did, of course, somctimes a descrvcd rght,ruler
Hinduconcept, ncant social acquircd ddhikur to power
misusc his
interfered with the private lives of his subjects. However, authority and
his authority
norms A
Judged by ctablished posses approprate ntellectual and moral
qual1t
was considerably limited by the autonomous was juged to brahmans in a ceremony knn
when hc
his crcations and had independent sources ofinstitutions which were not duly Ltow ncdhy the
aions and wis ceremony the Hahman, aonted
and blevsed him
hr
Irade and commerce from around the third centurylegitimacy, and the rise of nbmehu ln this Hrahman and dent1f
#.c. meant that the (othe status t
rovai nonopoly of land was nolonger a formidable source of Vmbohcally icd hm
power. Not
24
Some Reflections on the Hindu Traditlon of Politlcal 25
Thoughi DHIKHUPAREKH
with the territory and its people, und
declarcd hinn satyaraja, a true or
rightful king. For most Hindu political thinkers, reported to the king the activies of his officers, family members,
however, even an usurper
acquired authority if he had appropriate qualifications forcigners, courtesans and potertial trouble-makers: they also spread
and ruled his false information and created divisions among the subjects, and they aso
kingdom righteously. private lives of the citizens and reported on the trends in
Hindu political thinkers were spied on the
political authority. It could not beconstantly
based on
haunted by the fragility of public opinion and feelings.
sense of dhama is generally weak and dharma alonc, for people's Even as thc Hindu writers saw nothing wrong in an extensive nctwork
gruesome forms of punish
would want to plot against the ruler. Norambitious and powerful men of spies, they saw nothing wrong in iroposing
of their legai and moral duties.
alone, for fear cannot sustain a socicty long. could it be based on danda ment on those found guilty of violation should be exercised in
thinkers insistcd that political authority restedAccordingly, Hindu political
on the twin foundations of
Thcy did, no doubt, insist that the utmost care
guilty of the alleged crime, and
dharma and danda (that is, on thc popular deciding whether a man was really evidence, crOSS
recognition of the fact that the provided elaborate rules for collecting and assessing
king was devotcd to the maintcnance of dharma Once a man was found guity.
use danda).They did not say much about the and would not hesitate to Cxamination and arriving at a erdict.
other religious duties, most hideous
nature and basis of political
authority and legitimacy, and devoted considerable cspecially of the violation of caste and
some horrifying types of
power. attention political
to punishmcnts were imposed on him, including Gautama, Prahaspati, Kautilya.
torture (of which Manu, Vasistha,
The Hindu political thinkers vivid lists). For the Hindu writers
power could be acquired and suggested various ways in which political Auguttara Nikaya and others offered for without fear men do not act
maintaincd.
should be a man of great intellect and They insisted that the king punishnIent was designed to create fear, common view when he compared
character and advocated his
rigorous intellectual and moral training.They insisted also on him righteously. Brahaspati reflccts theeyes inflicting brutal death on evil
reliable and compctent counsellors and ministers. Most having danda to a dark goddess with red that while inflicting punishment, 2
distinguished between mantrins and amatyas. The formerHindu writers doers. The Hindu writers insistedinto account. The higher castes corpora
were to
were men of man's caste should be taken exempt from
indepcndent social status, attended public functions with the king and reccive lighter punishment and
were to be
actcd as his advisors, the latter were
exccutive officers in charge of
day-to-day administration. The Hindu political thinkers insisted that punishment. possible
were also preoccupied with theking ma.
sincc thcre was nothing morc dear to a man The Hindu political thinkers that the
and dharma. They knew and so on. anc
the king should not generally than his customs and usages, conflict between danda untruthful. cruel, deceitful
interfere with them. Thcy also advocated sometimes have to be that r
the impórtancc of justifed. They were all convinced we
efficient administration,constant checks on questioned if and how this was preservation of soiery
officials. programmes of wclfarc subordinate on the ground that
the
societ meant not just the
As for the exefcise of dunda provision, and so on. Was justified, largely The preservation ofmaintenance sOa
and instilling fear in the political value. of the
Hindu political writers relied on several subjects, the Ihc highest subjects but also the Knshna
some attention-namely espionage and devices of which two deserve physical security of the of dharma. In the Mahabharata, evenon a te
preservation practises deception
stressed thenced for an all-pervasive networkpunishment. Nearly all of them order and the tells a few lies and ground that they were requre :
of spies. According to the the Lord Himself, on the concerned
Mahabharuta, every kingdom has 'its roots in spies and secret
agents'. occasions. Thesc werefar all justifed
foreign rulers were
as relations with considerations of self-interes
Megasthenes found them so numerous that he referred to them touphold
dharma. As
generally emohasised
the
special class of Hindusocicty. They were so as a
The Hindu writerS a'
terror that they were refcrred to in a Pallava pervasive asund cvokecd such moral restraint. most radicalcritique
poliical thought met its sensethatit did n
reason for
inscription Samcarantakas and saw little
(noving ayents of death). The Hindu tradition ofBuddhism wasatheisticinthe the divine
ong1
Kautilya asigncd considerable importance to them and indeed it denied admittec
thought the hands of Buddhism the existence of God, caste svstem; it
that their importance was next only sce the nced to postulate rejected the rcpublca"
to that of the ninisters, He offered a offthe ledas; it orng.nated under apronounce
detailed description of the cunniny ways in which they were to be planted nd the authority
rcligious order: since it had
government. it had
organiscd
ther
insMociety and thc techniques they were to deploy.
They were to go out in women tothe svstem of monastenc Ind1a the fir
Uch varied disguises as rmerchants, semobgar hical)
founded
nendicants, (ot ather Sympathues: t assembics and rvc
classrmates, prioners usdlemic 22/0
and heggars. nd were free to use al kinds of treachery, tepublican |22/v0
22/PC
|22/C
Cruelty and imoral devices. Acording to Hindu thinkers, sacrilege, 22/PC
the spies 22/P.22/P
 BHIKHU PAREKH
26 Some Reflections on the Hindu Tradiion of Politeal Thou

experience of organised religion; and so on. More important, Buddhism Narada, Brahaspati and Katyayana) accepted the autonumy h puith a
attracted the loyalty and support of the economically powerful but socially ornorations, recognised vyavahara as a valid source of law, pave the
inferior class of traders, cultivators, artisans, merchants and skilled Vaisvas a larger share of power, laid greater stress on the importanA A
craftsmen. It also welcomed and assimilated such foreign settlers as the artha, paid greater attention to the republican institutions than they rd
Greeks, Shakas, Kushanas and Huns whom the caste-based Hindu society done so far, and so on. At the same tine, however, the Hindu thinkers
had kept out of its fokd. Buddhism also attracted the Sudras, who could reiected the Buddhist criticism of the caste system and advocated an evet
shed their low social status by joining a caste-free religion and improve more rigid version of it. They also took aleaf out of the Budthist heet
their material circumstances by escaping the expensive religious rituals and relied on the ruler to take an active part in fighting Buddhsn a1d
required by the Brahmans. Buddhism thus represented a mass movement defending the Hindusocial order. Naturally, this led them to gerity the
consisting of the bulk of the Vaisyas, some Sudras, foreigners, women role of the government and to invest the ruler with even yeater penet
and the isolated tribal republics that had still managed to survive. and majesty than he had enjoyed so far.
Buddhism developed a new political theory. It advanced a quasi Ihaveoutlined in the foregoing some of the basic features of the Hinds
contractualist theory of the origin of the government. It postulated a tradition of political thought. Obviously, a tradition that has develepes
peaceful and harmonious state of social existence when men had few over several centuries is too rich and complex to permit an easy summary
desires and were at peace with themselves and with their felow-men. Our account of the Hindu tradition is, therefore, bound to invotve
Over time men began to develop limitless wants and desires, and the distortions and omissions. It was intended, however, to provide neither a
institutions of private property and family came into being. Disorder and detailed summary of all its ideas, nor an outline of all the importanm
discord set in, and the institution of the govermment became necessary.
People elected one of the 'noblest' among them as a ruler and phases in its development, butonly to sketch the broad outlines of the
him to ule over the rest. He was to exercise his authority in autborised general framework of ideas within which the Hindu writers attemped to
with the assembly of people's representatives, who were not cooperation understand political life.
elected but were heads of noble families and men of status. The generally
Buddhist III
writers advocated legal and social equality, but did not extend it to the
poor, the propertyless and the Sudras. They accepted the Hindu A careful examination of the Hindu tradition of p itical thought shoas
the king's principal duty was to maintain Dhamma, but view that be useful o
cast-based definition and content. Dhamma for them largelyrejected its that it is distinguished by several important features. It would that we car
basic social morality as expounded by the meant the briefly spell out some of the more important ones in order
Buddha. They stressed the grasp its general character.
autonomy of corporations, guilds and sanghas, and advocated religious First, the Hindu tradition is basicaly inégalitanan Although
tolerance. men, and indeed of ai
The Buddhist challenge did not, however, developed the idea of the moral equality of allsocial, legal and politcal
lead to a radical sentient beings, it never developed the idea of
of the Hindu tradition of
was not sufficiently radicalpolitical thought. The Buddhist reformulation cquality. It made caste the basis
the poiry.
not only of society but also ofmembers
political theory we saw, only the of
basic Hindu beliefs as, life and subversive. It
is full of sorrow, continued to share such
structure. As
and integrated it into its very the rights of citizenship or to be appounted
karma in his previous life determines his desires are bad, a to
higher castes wereentitled kinds were meted
destiny in this life, and theman's advisors; different and degrees of punishment maintainuns
must maintain dharma. ruler as royal on. In the name of
authority of the Brahmans,Furthermore, while it
it upheld those ofchallenged the power and out to men of different
castes: and
Hindu political thinkers
so
subordinated the polityrendered
were
to the
Buddhism attempted to replace the the Ksatriyas. Basically. dharma, the hierarchical social structure. As a result, they
Ksatriya-Brahman different kind of orzar
Ksatriya-Vaisya
Thus it did notalliance under the former's
a radical break leadership.
alliance with the demands of a
incapable of grasping the polity as a qualitatively
government as an agent of social change
involve
political domination, only its with the traditional form of Isation from society, and the orientatk
is pluralist in recognised
traditionof poitical thought beginning
challenge some Hindu beliefs, reconstitution. The
to which the Buddhists did, of course,
Secord, the Hindu
Hindu political writers
rom the very
course. the castes
alooe
responded by accepting some Hindu writers typically Aswe saw, the of social groups. lnitially, of several ditferent types f
and putting up a strong Buddhist criticisms, ignoring the autonomy However, over time, and sell-governing Tha
defence against the rest. Hence, insome others
Buddhist criticisms such Hindu cnjoyed the autonomy.recognised as autonomous
authors of response to social groups were
dharmasastras (as Yajnavalkya,
28
Some Reflections on the Hindu Tradiion of
Political Thou
BHIKHUPAREKH
had become such a common feature of 29

not be regarded as accidental but a Hindu life and thought that it must
out of the considerations of not just matter of deliberate policy growing Dalitical theory is avery different form of inquiry. It is tnore directly
moral principle of respect for others.political expediency but a deeply held
The policy had obvious advantages.
calated to the political realm, can be harnessed in the service of one of
It facilitated social another group, has a wider audience and can become socially subversive
harmony, encouraged diversity, developed habits of In short., radical1sm in metaphysics is socially much less consequential
self-government, allowed the Hindu religion and moral values to
in the midst of political upheavals, survive than radicalism in polittcal thought. It is not, thereforc, necessary that a
had its drawbacks. It did not allow and the
so on. The policy, however, also ciety rich in critical philosophical thought should also be radical in its
left individuals at the mercy of groups, institution of the state to grow: it political thought, or that asociety hospitable to the former must also be
hospitable to the latter.
constituted; it allowed so many differentsome of whicl1 were oligarchically
systems of law to flourish that a Fourth, since the Hindu tradition of political thought was largely
common legalsysten could not develop;it heightened the judicial role of apologetic or hostile to change, it almost entirely ignored the whole arca
the government and did not allow it to
and so on. acquire a major legislative role; of social conflict. No Hindu thinker examined the nature of sectional
interests, the reasons why social groups come into conflict, the way
Third, the Hindu tradition of political
apologetic of the established social order.thought is largely uncritical aDd political conflicts arise from clashes of material interests and ideologies,
Most Hindu politicai thinkers how a group acquires political power and presents its interests as general
justified rather simply took for granted) the castesystem, the
(or interests, andso on. The Hinduwriters did, of course,appreciate that no
based conception of dharmna, the largely caste social order is or can ever be wholly free of disharmony. However, they
fatalist concept of
degradation the Sudras and the slaves, the extehsive moral interference
of karna, the Iraced disharmony to such personal desires as greed and ambition, and
of the state, and so on. There were, no rarely to the objective conflicts of interest and ideology between social
the Buddhist, Jain and Carvak doubt, several exceptions, such as
writers. However, the first two were eroups. In other words, they overlooked the very essence of political life
outside the mainstream Hindu tradition, and the last denied the value of (namely, latent and open conflicts between organised groups). Since they
any kind of organised society and were ignored social confict. they were unabie either to explore its basis or to
largely apolitical.
While the Hindu tradition of develop an institutional structure for expressing, articulating and resoBving
and provided little more than anpolitical thought, therefore, lacked variety It. Not surprisingly, they remained haunted by the frailty of
political
elaborate justification of the hierarchical
social order, the Hindu philosophical
tradition was very different. It authority and felt compelled to rely on such methods as extensive
threw up a remarkable variety of brilliant and imposing philosophical espionage and harsh punishment. largely didactic and
systems, some of which presented a formidable Fifth, the Hindu tradition of political thought is dharmasastras or
Brahmanical tradition. The Hindu philosopherscritique
explored
of the dominant practical. Many Hindu writers, whether they wrote
rulers, and their works
metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, logic, philosophy such arcas as urthasastrus, wrote mainly for the attention of the The authors of dharma
or of administration.
linguistics and grammar, and developed several different andof language, ure largely manuals of ethics
statements of the duties of indi
theories, some of which have stood the test fascinating sastras aimed to lay down authontative were concerned with
appears paradoxical that a culture with arich ofandtine. Prima facie, it VIduals and social groups; those of arthasastras
organising the governrment and
philosophy should have a relatively poor and uncritical critical tradition of
tradition of political
discussing the most effective manner of
concerns were essentially didactic and
thought. maintaining power. S1nce their understand and explain political
attempted to interpret,
The paradox, however, is only practical, neither comprehensive philosophical theory
metaphysical theories have no directapparent. Highly general and abstract lite-that is, to offer a systematic and
discussion of political life is
true that no systematic
no doubt, have social implications,social
but
and political impact. They do, of i. I is, of course, theorising However the theorising in Hndu political
cannot be easily chartered in the service ofthese are rather general and
political movements. What is
psible without some
incidental, patchy.implicit and
Kautilya.
lacking in rigour.decripive
texts is largely arthasatra trad1tion, is largely
more, abstract philosophical discussions invariably have a limited representauve of the representative of the dharmu
audience, usually confined to the members of the privileged classes. One lhe greatest Manu, the best known little by way of
can. therefore., be radical, even revolutionary in one's nd claNticatory; dogmatic and assertive and proviles nvuva, rujan.
ladiuon, is COncepts as
metaphysical a analvses such basIC basCpresupppostofs
theories, knowing fully well that the social structure and one's own theoreical analvsis, ether examnes the
d, or lct
material and social condiions are not in the least likely to be affecied by rat and svama
knowledee seyuites thc wa cn
them political ite, the kund of
o
 BHIKHU PARKH
Some Reflectionson he Mindu Iraditton of Poltical Thought 31

between different views can be articulated and resolved, the very different period of time, there obviously cannot develop a tradition of political
ways in which nyaya can be defined, how one view can be judged philosophy. Some thinkerS may ask or stumble into philosophical dis
better than the others, and so on. The Maurya empire was one of the most cussions of political themes; however these discussions, in the absence of
awell-established tradition, remain fragile, tentative, non-argumentative.
complex and intricate in human history, distinguished by different types
of ascending centres of power wielding different degrees of authority. items of intellectualcuriosity which others admirc but with which they do
Kautilya, its greatest student, made little attempt to analyse and not engage in a dialogue, and which stimulate hut do not satisfy the
distinguish all these or to discuss some disturbing moral and political philosophical appetite.
problems raised by the empire and in general to provide atheory capable Why the Hindus did not devekop a systematic trad1t1on of political
of illuminating its rich political structure. philosophy is a large question which lies beyond the scope of this paper.
This is not to say that the Hindu writers did not engage in The answer to it may perhaps be found in a critical examination of the
exploration of political life. While the arthasastras have little philosophical
philosophical socialstructure of classical Athens where the Western trad1ton of pol1tical
content, other writings such as the dharmasastras and the two epics philosophy first made its appearance. After all. political philosophy. like
contain some penetrating and profound philosophical discussions of any other form of inquiry, does not grow in a social vacuum, nor is it
several politicál themes. As we saw, the Hindu thinkers produced by creative minds out of their heads. It comes into existence
political life in terms of the two basic concepts of danda and conceptualised when the wider social structure requires and calls for it. that is, when it
addressed themselves to three basic themes (namely, the dharmaand becomes a social necessity. We need to ask why and how the social
organisation of danda, the nature and nature and
between the two). Each theme raises basis of dharma, and the relation conditions in ancient India made political philosophy neither possible nor
some of which Hindu writers addressed large philosophical
their attention. Theyquestions,
to necessary.
anything philosophically problematic about did not find
philosophical interest to say about it. Most danda
dharma and its relation to danda. of them
and have little of
its nature and basis, how it is They have much to say about dharma
concentrated on
man cannot be dissociated from his grounded in the social nature of man, why
socjal
yajna (or sacrifice), how it integratesfnan group, how dharma is a
ínto thc universal order,form of
on. They also have and so
danda and dharma; that something say about the
to
be resolved, and if and is, how the two can conflict,relationship between
how the conflict can
when violence can be
These and other discusions justified.
to say that the Hindus did notwithstanding, it would not be
The discusions referred notto develop a tradition of political inaccurate
episodic; they are often designed above are incidental, philosophy.
cattered in various texts, they are not to solve fragmentary
personal problems; they and are
large questions; they are
for exanple, the discusionsometimes
comprehensive
not critical and
and exclude several
sometimnes
of the nature of
consist of simple assertions, castes andprobing enough, as,
their dharma, they
and profound, but thee are not some of which are
added up the backed by arguments; penetrating
scveral Hindu philowphical
and so on. f we
dscussions of various themes
texts, we could scattered in
phlosophy. However, certainly reconstruct Hindu
we would st1ll
Hindus did not be left with the political
bave
one who offered a political philosophers. One is hard conclusion that the
put to nameeven
of) he mportant systematsc philowophical analysis of all(or at least
Witers terested inaspects of poliucal life, And without a numherinoof
philoophcal caploatton of political lite over