EXAM GUIDE

2022 Edition(New) INDIAN POLITICAL

THOUGHT 1
BA Hons Semester 5

• Past 4 year’s Question

papers

• Key points on all themes

• Model Answers to
important Questions

• 3 sets of Sample Question

Papers

• Answer Writing Tips

By the Author of
POL SC HELP
Dear students…Welcome Back to the new edition of the IPT-1 Exam
Guide !
This guide is intended to be best resource for your semester or term end exams!
What it contains?
• Past four year’s paper (taken from DU)
• Key points on all themes
• Answer templates to past year’s and other important questions
• 3 sets of sample question papers.
• Answer writing tips
How to use the Guide for the best results?
• First, watch the videos on the theme/topic from POL SC HELP- at least 4-
5 times, first in normal speed, later on with faster speed and selectively.
Final watching shouldn’t take more than 5 min.
• Second, read the key points on the theme/topic very carefully. In fact,
even if you only remember the key points, you can write answers in the
exam.
• Third, read the answer templates at least 5 times. Again, the final reading
may not take more than 5-10 minutes.
o I have chosen the questions to cover the entire syllabus.
o Note the key phrases repeated in the answers. You should
remember and reproduce them in your answers.
o Also, note the standard words I have used in the answer. Their
easier meaning/synonyms are given in bracket.
• Fourth, read carefully the sample question papers (3 sets). I have given
hints to those questions, too. Read them carefully.
• Finally, read the answer writing tips; use them in the exam

GOOD WISHES!

1
 Where is What?
INDEX

Theme/Chapter Page Number

Past 4 Year’s Papers 3
Brahmnic Vs Shramnic Political Thought 9
Islmaic Political Thoughts 28
Veda Vyasa- Raja Dharma 40
Manu Smriti 54
Kautilya- Arthashastra 69
Aggannasutta (Digha Nikaya): Theory of Kingship 90

Barani: Ideal Polity 102

Abul Fazl: Monarchy 118
Kabir: Syncretism 132

2
 SECTION 1

Past 4 Year’s
Question Papers
(Taken from DU)

3
 OBE PAPER-2021
INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT-1
There are Six(6) questions; answer any four(4)

1. Discuss various meanings of “dharma” in ancient tradition of Indian Political

Thought.

2. Is Kautilya a theorist of Realism? Give reasons in support of your answer.

3. Compare Ziauddin Barani’s and Abul Fazl’s views on Kingship.

4. Examine the relationship between caste and gender in Manusmriti.

5. Reflect on the origin and nature of political community in Digha Nikaya.

6. Analyze the nature of individual and society envisioned by Sant Kabir.

4
 OBE PAPER-2020
INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT-1

There are Six (6) questions. Attempt Any Four questions.

1. What are the basic differences between Brahminic and Shamanic traditions to
the study of Indian political thought? Is it fair to say that the Shramanic tradition
emerged against the Brahmanic tradition?

2. Examine the social laws of Manu as explained in Manusmriti।.

3. Discuss Kautilya’s views on theory of state. How it is relevant today?

4. Explain the idea of ‘Rajadharma’ as mentioned in Shantiparva of the

Mahabharata.

5. ‘Barani is theocratic but Fazal is liberal’. Do you agree with the statement?
Give arguments in favour of your answer.

6. In what ways do you think Kabir’s philosophical tenets represent the idea of
‘Syncretism’. Discuss.

5
 2019 PAPER
INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT-1

There are Eight (8) questions. Attempt Any Four questions.

1. Elaborate the basic postulates of Brahminic tradition in relation to the

emergence of shramanic tradition.

2. Critically describe the nature of political obligation as portrayed in

Shantiparva.

3. Critically examine the social laws as prescribed by Manu

4. Examine Kutilya‘s Mandal theory and its significance in the context of modern
nation state.

5. Elaborate the theory of kingship as described by Buddha in Digha Nikaya.

6. Discuss the nature and functions of King as emphasised by Ziauddin Barni

7. Illustrate the syncretic traditions of Indian political thought. In what ways do

you believe Kabir contributed towards strengthening of these traditions?

8. Writes notes on any two of the following:

1. Perspectives on the engagement between Islam and India

2. Kabir on social inequality
3. Abul Fazl on Kingship
4. Kautilya’s Saptanga Theory

6
 2018 PAPER
INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT-1

There are Eight (8) questions. Attempt Any Four questions.

1. Compare the Brahminic and Shramanic traditions of ancient India.

2. Discuss the idea of the Rajdharma as portrayed in Shantiparva.

3. Discuss Manu's understanding of social order.

4. Examine the importance of ‘Swami’ in Kautilya’s theory of Saptanga

5. Examine Barni's concept of ideal state/Sultanate.

6. Write an essay on Abul Fazl’s theories of kingship.

7. Define syncretism. In what ways Kabir contributed to strengthening syncretic

traditions in India.

8. Writes notes on any two of the following:

1. State in Digha Nikaya

2. Mandala Theory
3. Islamic tradition
4. Kabir on social inequality

7
 SECTION 2

Chapter Wise
Key Points
and

ANSWERS
Past Year
Questions

8
 THEME 1: TRADITIONS OF PRE-COLONIAL INDIAN
POLITICAL THOUGHT

1.A: CBCS Syllabus:

a. Brahmanic and Shramanic Traditions
b. Islamic and Syncretic Traditions

1.B: KEY POINTS

• Pre-colonial Indian thought has multiple traditions. 3 most prominent traditions are
Brahminic, Shramanic, and Islamic. 4th tradition- Syncretic- is the synthesis of these
traditions.
• Ancient Indian political thought, before Islam came into India, has two main traditions-
Brahminic and Shramanic.
• Brahminic tradition belongs to mainstream Hinduism. 4-fold Varna system (Varna
Vywastha), Veda as true, ultimate, and infallible knowledge, belief in God as primal
person and creator of the world, hierarchical social order based on ascriptive (birth
based) status, rights/entitlements, etc. are pillars of the Brahminic tradition.
• Shramanic traditions (originating from Sanskrit word ‘Shram’- labour) include
heterodox (unorthodox) traditions such as Nath Panth, Yoga, Siddha, Tantric, Bhakti,
Jainism, Buddhism, Ajawika, Lokayata of Charvaka etc.
• Except Jainism & Buddhism, remaining of Shramanic traditions are considered
branches of Hinduism and were more and less absorbed into it. Hence, Shramanic
traditions basically denote Jainism & Buddhism.
• Shramanic traditions rejected main pillars of Brahminic tradition- caste system,
superiority of Brahman in caste hierarchy, birth-based rights/entitlements, validity of
Veda, and belief in God and world as his personal creation.
• Shramanic traditions, in comparison to Brahminic tradition, was reformative, humanist,
individualistic and inclusive. Hence, it attracted lower Hindu castes, out castes (Dalit,
tribal, and foreigners), and women.
• In the domain of political thought, there were much in common between Brahminic and
Shramanic tradition. Both supported Monarchy as most acceptable form of rule,
considered ‘Danda’ or ‘Dandaniti’ (art of governance, punishment) and ‘Dharma’

9
 (righteousness, duty) as twin features of political life, accepted superiority of ‘Dharma’
over ‘Danda’, limited sovereignty of Kingship, and pluralism.
• However, they differed on some political thoughts. Shramanic didn’t accept divine
origin and divine rights of kingship. They considered kingship as social contract.
State/king is not supposed to maintain the caste system or Varna Vywastha, rather he
is to ensure equality and social harmony. Separation of religion (Dharma) and politics
( Danda or Dandaniti) was attempted more seriously in Shramanic tradition. In place of
Brahman-Kshatriya alliance as the ruling elites in Brahminic tradition, Shramanic built
Kshatriya- Vaishya alliance as the ruling elites.
• What we call Hindu political thought is basically a syncretic political thought arising
out of synthesis of both Brahminic and Shramanic traditions.

Islamic Political Thoughts in India

• Political Islam first came in India with the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad Bin
Qasim, an Arab Muslim in 712. But it remained confined there.
• Next Islamic interaction of Indians were with series of raids/attacks by Mahmud of
Ghazni, a Turkish slave Muslim, between 1000-25 AD. But he didn’t establish any
Kingdom here except in some parts of Punjab
• Muhammad Ghuri, a Turk sultan of Ghor (Afghanistan), defeated s Prithviraj
Chauhan in series of battles and left behind his slave general Qutb din Aibak who
laid foundation of the Delhi Sultanate in 1206
• Delhi Sultanate was the first time when a religious minority ruled non-Muslim
majority. This posed several challenges to the ruler, solution to which formed the major
theme of Muslim political thoughts.
• Babur, a Turkish Mongol warrior from Afghanistan, established Mughal Kingdom in
1526 by defeating the last Delhi Sultan, Ibrahim Lodhi
• The Mughal rule effectively lasted till 1707, till death of Aurangzeb, after which it
continued for name shake till 1857.
• Thus, Muslim kings/sultan ruled India for more than 600 years. Naturally, it left an
indelible mark on the socio-cultural milieu of the country.
• Politically it resulted into coming into being 3 separate nation state- India, Pakistan,
and Bangladesh

Different Streams of Islamic Traditions in India

• Different strands of Muslims came and settled in India
• Arabic Muslim in Sindh and Multan
• Turkish Sunni Islam- Delhi Sultanate- mainstay of political Islam in India

10
 • Turkish Mongol and Sunni Islam- Mughals- Mongol traditions- Chengizid legal
code
• Shia Muslims from different regions in different times
• Afghani, Iranian, Turani (Central Asia) Uzbeks, etc in different times
• Ancient Persian Strands- through political thinkers and Turk/Mughal Kings
• Converted to Islam starting since Delhi Sultanate
• Shia vs Sunni
• Shia, minority sect of Islam( about 10-15%), believes Ali was the rightful
successor to the Prophet Muhammad
• Sunni are in majority in India, but large Shia population( about 25%)
• Sufis:
• Ba- Shari’a: Chisti, Suhrawardi, Qadri, Naqshbandi
• Be- Shari’a: Qualandar
• Other Streams: Khoja, Moplah, others who practice a mix of traditions
• Judicial traditions:
• Sunni: Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafii and Malik
• Shia : Jafari, Zaidi

11
 1.C: ANSWER TEMPLATE OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q. 1: Discuss various meanings of “dharma” in ancient tradition of Indian

Political Thought.

Introduction:
In Indian philosophy Dharma has multiple connotations and multiple meanings
associated with it. It may mean righteousness, duty, moral obligation, essential nature
of being, properties held by any entity, code of conduct or way of life to lead a virtuous
life in this world and attain salvation in the transcendental world. Finally, it may also
mean religion or spirituality in modern sense. Dharma, as per Manusmriti, is the set of
moral principles, to be followed by every member of society in accordance with one's
Varna, Asrama and sex, which has the sanction of Veda, tradition/customs of holy men
and satisfaction of one's conscience.
In many senses, Dharma is like Plato’s justice. Individuals are placed in different class
( Varna) and are supposed to perform the duties of that Varna to best of their abilities
without interfering the domains of other Varna.
Dharma denoted spiritual sovereignty. It was the means or medium to connect to the
transcendental world. It was also the means to attain salvation. Dharma anchored the
human life in the uncertain physical world. It enabled individual to wade through the
challenges of human life. It gave meaning and purpose to human existence. Dharma is
the guiding light for other pursuits of life. Ideal individual is one who is guided by
Dharma in his pursuit of Artha( money, wealth), Kama( sensual pleasure), and attaining
Moksha( Salvation).
Types of Dhrama:
Sadharan Dharma( Common Dharma): 10 in numbers; to be followed by all
individuals all times; these are the 10 Sadharan Dharma:
• (1)‘Steadiness’, Patience —the feeling of contentment even at the loss of
property and such things; expressed by such feelings as ‘if it has been lost, what
does it matter? It can be acquired again.’ Similarly at separation from a beloved
person, the man regains former equanimity by thinking that ‘such is the way of
the world.’
• (2) ‘Forgiveness’— the excusing of wrongs committed; not seeking to do injury
to a person in return for an injury that might have been done by him.
• (3) ‘Self-control’—absence of haughtiness, renouncing of pride due to superior
learning &c.

12
 • (4) Not steal::‘Abstention from unrighteous appropriation
• (5) ‘Purity’—cleanliness in thought, word and deed
• (6) ‘Control of the Sense-organs’—not allowing them to be drawn even
towards unforbidden things.
• (7) ‘Wisdom’—discrimination of right and wrong
• (8) ‘Knowledge’ Education, Vidya
• (9)Truth: speaking ‘agreeable’ truth
• (10)‘Absence of anger’: freedom from anger.
Vishist Dharma ( Special Dharma) : refers to the particular duties which depend on
one's specific caste and stage of life.-
• Examples of Vishist Dharma : Dharma of Husband (पति धर्म), Dharma
of wife (पत्नी धर्म), Dharma of father (तपिा धर्म), Dharma of King (राज धर्म )
Aapda Dharma( Emergency Dharma): Acceptable actions at the time of
Emergency
Individuals are normally expected to follow Sadharan Dharma at all the times.
However, in times of great calamities like war, floods or famine, when the
whole social fabric becomes disturbed, or during a period of severe crisis in the
individual’s life, it may not be strictly possible for them to do so. During such
periods of āpad or calamity, the dharmaśāstras, such as manusmriti, allow
people to take to any dharma or duties, even the ones allotted to others, as an
emergency measure, to sustain themselves.
Thus a Brāhmaṇa, during emergency, can take to fighting or trade, or a kṣattriya
to agriculture or commerce. Both may accept menial service under others. As
soon as normalcy returns they are expected to go back to the original way of life
and follow the Sadharan Dharma.
Since life is most precious, to save it in times of grave danger, one can transgress
all normal rules. Viśvāmitra’s readiness to consume the flesh of a dog after
stealing it from the house of an outer cast during a severe famine is the classic
example quoted in Manusmriti to illustrate Aapda Dharma.

Dharma vs Danda: Separation of the realms of spirituality from politics

Like in any culture, Hindu political thought also faced the challenge of
separating the realm of spirituality and politics. Dharma represented spiritual
sovereignty which was kept above the temporal sovereignty represented by
Danda. ‘Danda’ literally means punishment by force. But it actually means
maintaining peace and social order by way of just force by the rural/ government
having the mandate and legitimacy to use that force. Hence, ‘Danda’ or
‘Dandaniti’ actually denotes politics/governance/statecraft. Danda was

13
considered as a means to achieve the Dharma, which was the end/goal. Hence,
Danda was subordinated to Dharma. In fact, the King or the temporal sovereign
was duty bound to maintain the social order as per the Varna Ashram Dharma.
He himself was bound by the Raja Dharma. If every member of society follows
his or her Dharma, that is, perform their duty and moral obligations as expected
of them, there would be perfect peace, order and Justice in the society. In such
a perfect social system state laws and corrective justice system ( Dandaniti) is
not actually required. It is only when people start flouting the Dharma, social
order is disturbed and anarchy prevails. State or Kingship are then required to
bring back the peace and order with just force or Danda.
We can see that in Hindu political thought there is a very thin separation
between the realm of spirituality and politics. Dharma was supreme and above
all pursuits, including politics. Dharma was the end or goal of human life, for
which politics was one of the means or medium. In fact, politics seems to be a
mere adjunct (support, aide) to spirituality represented by Dharma. Separating
the two realms- Dharma and politics (Dandaniti or Statecraft) became the major
challenge of Indian political thought. Ancient political thoughts, as contained in
Dharmashastra and Mahabharata, placed Dharma above all pursuits of life.
There was not much of a separation between the two realms of spirituality and
politics. Dharma included moral laws, duties, obligations of politics. For
example, Dharma guided the king to become an ideal king following the
Rajadharma. King was supposed to maintain the social order based on Varna
Ashram Dharma. In many ways ancient kingdoms were like theological city
states. Both the ruled and the rulers were bound by the duties and moral
obligations denoted by Dharma.
Kautilya was one political thinker in ancient India who attempted to give
politics autonomy, independent of spirituality and Dharma. To him ‘Artha’ and
‘Danda’ were superior to Dharma. This because only when material
requirements are fulfilled and peace and order maintained, Dharma can be
followed. Kautilya’s Arthashastra also attempted to set politics free from the
conventional morality and ethics represented by Dharma. Politics follows its
own rules which cannot be judged by the standards of conventional morality. In
this tradition of political thought politics, represented by Dandaniti, is almost at
par with Dharma, both independent and autonomous of each other. But
otherwise, overarching theme of Hindu or Brahminical political thought is such
that Dharma is considered as end and superior to Danda, which is considered as
means to achieve the end, that is Dharma.
Buddhist political thought attempted to separate the two realms of spirituality
(Dhamma) and statecraft( Ana) more effectively. It gave an alternate theory of
origin of state based on social contract between the ruled and the ruler. People
elected the king Mahasammata (the great ‘elect’) to maintain peace and order

14
 for which they offered 1/6th of their rice produce. However, progressively
Buddhist political thought also moved towards merger of two realms. First, the
Mahasammata became Khattiya or overlord of the fields. He had much more
powers and responsibilities towards the people over whom he ruled. Finally, the
king became Cakkavatti Dhammiko Dhammaraja( chakravarti Samrat), in
which both the spiritual and temporal domain merged. The Chakravarti Samrat
was not only the temporal sovereign but also the spiritual leader of the people.
Therefore, it is obvious that the brilliant attempt of Buddhist political thought
to separate the two realms was ultimately an unsuccessful project. To counter
the rising popularity of Hinduism among the absolute monarchs it had to accept
the merger of both the realms in the kingship.

Conclusion
In sum, from the above discussion it is clear that Dharma was essentially a way
of life and mechanism to lead virtuous and fulfilled life. It gave an anchor(
support) to the chaos of human life. It conveyed many meanings and
connotations. It denoted moral obligations, righteousness, duties, essential
properties of anything and an ideal way to lead life. It also provided the means
and mechanisms to connect to the transcendental reality and attain salvation.
Dharma was the companion of human not only in their earthly life but also
remains with them in their afterlife. Dharma represented the cosmic order of the
universe of which the earth and life on it is only a tiny part. By following the
Dharma all the things in the universe, including the Sun, the stars and planets
hold their position and maintain their order. By following the Dharma an
individual can hold his life together and can overcome the challenges of the
uncertain life, can lead a fulfilled and virtuous life, connect to the ultimate
reality beyond the earthly world, and attain salvation. In this sense Dharma was
a kind of guiding light to human life.
The challenge of Indian political thought was how to separate Dharma from
politics. In Brahminical political thought the separation always remained very
thin. Dharma was supreme. Politics was merely means to the end represented
by Dharma. Buddhist political thought, however, attempted seriously to
separate the realms of Dhamma and Politics (Ana). But progressively to counter
the popularity of Hinduism among the absolute monarch it also accepted the
merger of the two realms in the concept of Chakravarti Samrat.
Hence, the entire spectrum of Indian political thought, be it Brahmanic or
shramanic, ultimately failed to separate the realms of Dharma and politics. We
should realise this challenge in the context of present debate of secularism in
India, which attempts to is strictly separate the realms of Dharma and politics.

15
Q2: Discuss Shramanic critique of Brahminic traditions.
Similar questions:
1. How Shramanic traditions was a heterodox tradition in comparison to Brahminic
traditions?
2. On what grounds Shramanic traditions rejects the main pillars of Brahminic Hinduism?
3. What are the main pillars of Brahminic Hinduism? How Shramanic traditions rejects
them?
4. “Shramanic traditions were reformative, more egalitarian, and inclusive in comparison
to Brahminic traditions” Elaborate the statement.

Answer Template:
Introduction:
Shramanic traditions, which is represented mainly by Jainism & Buddhism, were a kind
of reaction against Brahminic Hinduism. They rejected the rigidity and hierarchy of
caste system, validity of Veda as God’s revelations and hence ultimate truth & perfect
knowledge, and belief in God as primal person and world as his personal creation. Thus,
Shramanic traditions were unorthodox or heterodox traditions in comparison to
Brahminic orthodox traditions. While rejecting main thoughts/ideologies/belief of
Brahminic Hinduism, they offered counter arguments supported by their own sets of
logic.
Shramanic rejected the caste system on logical and rational ground. To them, human
species is one and therefore within that there cannot be any further racial division.
Different Varna originating from different body parts of ‘Brahma’ was called
unscientific and a lie. Caste based social hierarchy and highest position of Brahmans in
that social order was rejected on grounds of equality. In fact, Shramanic gave different
meaning to being Brahman. Validity of Veda was rejected by counter argument that it
is human creation and hence cannot be perfect truth & infallible. Finally, they rejected
God as a primal person, omniscient, omnipotent whose personal creation is the human
& natural world. For this, they offered arguments based on reason, rationality, and
perceptibility.
I will discuss some of the key arguments offered by the Shramanic against the main pillars of
Brahminic traditions in the next part of the answer.

Shramanic critique of Brahminic traditions:

Varna or caste system, social hierarchy based on caste, validity of Veda , and belief in
God were the main points of departure between Shramanic and Brahminic traditions.
Following were the arguments offered by the Shramanic against these pillars of
Brahminic traditions:

16
1. Caste System:
• Human species is one, hence there cannot be any physical difference between
people of different caste. Hence, purity and physical superiority of any caste is
irrational and unscientific.
• Different ‘Varna’ originating from different body parts of ‘Brahma’ is illogical,
against law of nature, and plain lie.
• One does not become Brahman by birth, but by purity of heart, purity of thought,
speech, and act.
• Brahman is not name of caste but title or designation ( ‘upadhi’) for those who
have moral & spiritual qualities, and are detached from worldly pleasures and are
wise.
• Varna system is merely a functional social arrangement, nothing divine about
it.
• Hence, superiority and entitlements based on caste is unjust and un-natural.
• Any one, irrespective of his caste, is capable of moral & spiritual progress.
• Pure lineage of high caste is suspect due to births from inter- caste and many
other kinds of sexual unions. Hence, distinctive heredity of any particular caste is
difficult to ascertain.
2. Validity of Veda:
• Vedas seems to have been authored by individuals- sages- hence they are neither
eternal nor authoritative
• Since no person has perfect knowledge, Veda cannot contain perfect
knowledge, eternal and ultimate truth.
• Vedas refer to particular persons and places, hence could not be said to have no
beginning or being eternal.
• Vedas preach sacrifices, violence and many faulty doctrines, such as,
origination castes from body parts of Brahma. Hence, they cannot be regarded as
authoritative.
• Eternity and stable meaning of ‘words’ are false. A single word has many
meanings, no word has any absolute or self-standing meaning. Meaning of words
changes with time. Hence, words of Vedas cannot have eternal meaning.
• Nothing divine in Vedic chants being musical and magical. Many non-Vedic
‘mantra’ have similar powers. Such powers in words come from the energy of the
virtuous saintly and charismatic speakers.

17
 3. Belief in God:
• Creation of world by some supreme primal person (God) is neither logical nor
perceivable by sense of reason.
• God cannot be perceived by human senses or in natural arrangements/orders.
• Whatever we assign to God is what human already know. Hence, Knowledge
attributed to God is not something previously unknown to humans.
• No logical basis to believe that there is perfect mind working to cause and hold
laws of nature. Nature changes, hence such perfect person also need to change.
Hence, he cannot be eternal, unchanging.
• Nothing can be beyond human reason, rationality, and perceptibility, not even
God. Human get this sense of reason from the nature.
• Religious scriptures may be revealed by supreme spiritual person having true
knowledge, piety(piousness), compassion, and purity of heart and mind (omniscient
human teacher)- revelation of God not required.
• The omniscient and virtuous spiritual teacher can be the religious saviour, can
help in salvation; for that, belief in God as personal creator of the world may not be
required.
4. Hierarchical social order, no autonomy to individuals:
• Rejected Brahminical notion of society as part of cosmic order held by Dharma,
especially ‘Varna Ashram Dharma’.
• Society is human creation for fulfilment of life goals of individuals. Hence,
individuals are autonomous, not merely part of the organic whole, i.e. the society.
• All individuals have equal moral worth, and capacity for moral and spiritual
progress.
• Social status should be function of one’s ‘Karma’ not birth (Jati). Hence, social
order based on ascriptive (by birth) entitlements and hierarchy based on caste based
social status are unjust and un-natural.
• Dharma is interior and individualistic. Individuals can attain salvation only by
deeply diving deep inside them, by self-illumination, and not by grace of God or
any external help.
Discussion:
Thus, we see that Shramanic rejected the mainstay of Brahminic belief and thoughts on
the basis of logic, rationality, reason, and common sense. In comparison to Brahminic
traditions, Shramanic traditions were more humanistic, individualistic, rational, and
egalitarian. This was bound to happen as the Shramanic traditions arose as reaction
against the ritualism, rigidity of caste based social hierarchy, formalisation, and external
pretentions (showiness) of mainstream Hinduism.

18
 Shramanic traditions also criticized and rejected many other Brahminic political
thoughts. Shramanic didn’t accept divine origin and divinity of kingship. They
considered kingship as social contract. People pay tax as compensation for King’s
services. Hence, the king is merely servant to the people. State/king is not supposed to
maintain the caste system, rather he is to ensure equality and social harmony. Separation
of spirituality/religion (Dharma) and politics (Dandaniti) is more pronounced in
Shramanic tradition. In place of Brahman-Kshatriya alliance in Brahmanic tradition as
ruling elites, Shramanic built Kshatriya- Vaishya political alliance.
We must acknowledge that there were much in common also in political thoughts of
these two traditions. Both supported Monarchy as most acceptable form of rule,
considered ‘Danda’( art of governance, statecraft) and ‘Dharma’ (righteousness, duty)
as twin features of political life. Both accepted superiority of ‘Dharma’ over ‘Danda’,
limited sovereignty of Kingship, and pluralism.
Conclusion:
Shramanic traditions which arose in ancient India as reformation and reaction against
the Brahminic Hinduism rejected most of the main beliefs, thoughts and ideologies of
the latter. Shramanic tradition objected and rejected the rigidity and hierarchy of Hindu
caste system, the validity of Vedas as eternal and authoritative text and belief in God
and the world as his personal creation. For rejecting these main pillars of Brahminical
Hinduism they offered the arguments based on logic, reason, rationality and common
sense.
As far as political thoughts are concerned there are much commonality between these
two traditions. For both, politics is the interplay of ‘Danda’ and ‘Dharma’ in which
‘Dharma’ is superior to the ‘Danda’ which is merely a means to achieve the end that is
‘Dharma’. Both supported Monarchy as most suitable form of rule. Both attempted to
separate the realm of ‘Danda’ and ‘Dharma’, though Brahminical Hinduism was not
much successful in this endeavour.
However, there were many differences also. Shramanic criticised and rejected the
divine origin of kingship. For them it is a kind of social contract in which people pay
tax as compensation for obtaining services of the king. In Shramanic traditions there is
nothing divine about the kings. Shramanic absolved ( made free) the king from the duty
to maintain the Verna Ashram Dharma - the hierarchical caste system.
In conclusion, we can very well say that Shramanic presented very viable alternative
spiritual and political thoughts to the people of ancient India. Because of their
unorthodox belief and thoughts, which ware more humanistic, egalitarian and inclusive,
many Hindus particularly of lower castes, out-castes such as Dalits, tribal, forest people,
foreigners, and also women were attracted towards Shramanic tradition.
Rising popularity of Shramanic compelled the Brahminical Hinduism to introspect and
do some course correction. One was to accommodate some of the objections of
Shramanics. This resulted into a syncretic tradition which was synthesis of both these

19
traditions. Actually, what we say as Hindu tradition and Hindu political thought is a
synthesized syncretic tradition and political thought in which elements of both
Brahminic and Shramanic traditions can be found.

20
Q3: Compare the Brahminic and Shramanic traditions of ancient India.
Similar questions:
1. Compare and contrast Brahminic and Shramanic traditions.
2. In what ways Shramanic traditions was different from Brahminic traditions?
3. How Shramanic traditions was a heterodox tradition?
Answer Template:
Introduction:
In ancient India Brahminic tradition represented mainstream Hinduism. 4 fold Varna
system (Varna Vywastha), Veda as true, ultimate, and infallible (foolproof) knowledge,
belief in God as primal person and creator of the world, hierarchical social order based
on ascriptive (birth based) status, rights/entitlements, etc. are pillars of Brahminic
tradition. After 6th century BCE, Jainism and Buddhism along with many other
branches of Hinduism- Nath Panthi, Yoga, Sidhha, etc- rose as reformation and reaction
to rigidity, ritualism, exclusiveness, and external pretentions ( ‘Dhong’, ‘Adambar’) of
Brahmanic Hinduism.
Originating from Sanskrit word ‘Shram’- labour, Shramanic traditions include
heterodox (unorthodox) traditions such as Nath Panth, Yoga, Siddha, Tantric, Bhakti,
Jainism, Buddhism, Ajawika, Lokayata of Charvaka etc. Except Jainism & Buddhism,
remaining of Shramanic traditions are considered branches of Hinduism and were more
and less absorbed into it. Hence, Shramanic traditions basically denote Jainism &
Buddhism.
Shramanic traditions rejected the main pillars of Brahmanic tradition- caste system,
superiority of Brahman in caste hierarchy and birth-based rights/entitlements, validity
of Veda, and belief in God as primal person and world as his personal creation. It
stressed ‘Karma’ and individual effort- self illumination- for attaining salvation. Thus,
Shramanic traditions was reformative, humanistic, individualistic and inclusive. Hence,
it attracted lower Hindu castes, out castes (Dalit, tribal, and foreigners), and women.
Comparing Brahminic traditions and Shramanic traditions:
We can make comparison at two level - spiritual and socio-political.
Spiritually, both traditions had many things in common but they differed also on some
of the thoughts/belief. Both believed in transmigration- cycle of birth and death. In both
traditions salvation means getting out of the cycle of death & birth. Both gave highest
status to ‘Dharma’ which denoted righteousness, moral obligation, duty, purity of
speech, thought, and action, etc. Both traditions believed in authority of holy scriptures.
However, they also differed on many counts. Generally, Shramanic didn’t believe in
soul (‘atma’), neither in God as primal person whose personal creation is world. In
Brahminic traditions Salvation is freedom of the soul from cycle of birth & death to

21
 attain the highest spiritual state; in the philosophy of adaivtwad ( monism, no duality),
salvation is unification of the soul with God (‘atma se parmatma ka milan’). External
illumination & grace of God are needed to attain salivation. Whereas in Shramanic
traditions freedom from cycle of birth & death can be achieved by individual effort,
self-illumination under guidance of spiritual leader. Salvation can be attained by self-
will, meditation, purification of speech, act, thought, and following the path of
‘Dhamma’ in the guidance of a spiritual teacher.
Socio-political thoughts and beliefs of the two traditions:
Shramanic traditions diverges sharply from Brahminic traditions on Socio-political
thoughts and beliefs. They rejected caste system and associated rigid hierarchical social
order in which status, rights and entitlements are decided by birth in a particular caste.
Brahminic believed that birth in particular caste is result of ‘Karma’ of past births. One
can take birth in higher caste, in the next birth, by doing the ‘Karma’ appropriate for
his/her caste in the present life. ‘Karma’ associated with each caste is part of the
‘Dharma’- Varna Ashram Dharma. Thus, in this thought, individual had no option then
to religiously follow the rules of the caste system and do whatever is allowed to him of
being member of a particular caste. Not abiding by this rule, one will break the
‘Dharma’ and hence shall commit sin which will be punished by the God.
Against such fatalistic, and rigid socio-religious system, Shramanic reacted by rejecting
the caste system and associated hierarchical social order. They argued that human
species is one, hence there cannot be any physical difference between people of
different caste. Hence, purity and physical superiority of any caste is irrational and
unscientific. They redefined the term ‘Brahman’ and asserted that Brahman is not name
of caste but title or designation for those who have moral & spiritual qualities, are
detached and wise. Anyone, irrespective of his caste can become a ‘Brahman’. For
Shramanic, different ‘Varna’ originating from different body parts of ‘Brahma’ is
illogical, against law of nature, and plain lie. Thus, we can see that major departure
point between the two traditions on socio-cultural point was rejection of the caste
system and social hierarchy by the Shramanic traditions.
On the issue of role and status of Individual, Brahminic traditions had been
communitarian. For them, society is part of the cosmic order held by ‘ Dharma’- varna
Ashram Dharma’. Individual are part of the society which is like organic whole.
Individual, therefore, had to follow the varna Ashram Dharma, perform duties and
‘Karma’ appropriate or assigned to his/her caste and hence had little autonomy in socio-
religious domain. Against this, Shramanic stressed upon autonomy of the individual
and importance of human agency. For them, society is human creation for fulfilled and
virtuous life of the individuals. As explained above, salvation in Shramanic traditions
was possible only by self-effort. Thus, in comparison to Brahminic traditions,
Shramanic traditions was more humanistic, individualistic and egalitarian.

22
Comparing political thoughts of these two traditions:
There were were much in common in political thoughts of these two traditions. Both
supported Monarchy as most acceptable form of rule, considered ‘Danda’ (art of
governance, statecraft) and ‘Dharma’ (righteousness, duty) as twin features of political
life. Both considered ‘Dharma’ as end and ‘Danda’, as merely the means to achieve the
end of ‘Dharma’. Thus, in both traditions ‘Dharma’ is given higher position than
‘Danda’ or politics/governance. Both believed in limited sovereignty of Kingship,
which was required to uphold the ‘Dharma’, both for himself (Rajadharma) and for the
society (Vrana Ashram Dharma). In both the traditions, pluralism, that is relative
autonomy of multiple communities, groups such as caste, caste guilds, trader/merchant
guilds and associations, people’s assembly, etc were accepted. Thus, king was not an
absolute sovereign but most important part of such plural political arrangement.
However, on many political issues Shramanic traditions diverged sharply from the
Brahminic traditions. Shramanic didn’t accept divine origin and divine rights of
kingship. They considered kingship as social contract. People pay tax as compensation
for King’s services. Hence, the king is merely servant to the people. State/king is not
supposed to maintain the caste system, rather he is to ensure equality and social
harmony. Separation of spirituality/religion (Dharma) and politics (Dandaniti) is more
pronounced in Shramanic tradition. In place of Brahman-Kshatriya alliance in
Brahmanic tradition, Shramanic built Kshatriya- Vaishya political alliance.
Overall, if we compare the political thoughts of two traditions, Brahminic seems to
support religious or theological theory of political life, in which kingship/ state is
considered as intervention of a creator- God. In contrast, Shramanic traditions is more
humanistic. They considered state/kingship as a human institution, an institution
created by the people, for the people. Against the Brahminic traditions of hierarchical,
ascriptive, and status based socio-political order, Shramanic supported egalitarian and
inclusive social order. Finally, Brahminic traditions was conservative and status quoist,
whereas Shramanic were reformative and pro-change.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, we can see that Shramanic traditions which arose around 6th-7th century
BCE was a kind of reaction against the mainstream Brahminical Hinduism. in
comparison to Brahminic traditions, Shramanic adopted more humanistic, egalitarian
and inclusive approach. They rejected the caste system and associated rigid hierarchical
social order based on rights and entitlement associated with caste membership. They
also rejected the validity of Vedas as eternal and authoritative text as a revelation of
God. Shramanic did not believe in God as a Primal person who created the world.
On both spiritual and socio-political issues there were something common between
these two traditions but they also differed sharply on many issues. Major departure
points were spiritual thoughts pertaining to belief in God, validity of Vedas and
meaning and methods to attain salvation.

23
In political thought, there were much in common between these two traditions. Both
accepted monarchy as most suitable rule, political life as interplay between ‘Danda’
(governance/statecraft) and ‘Dharma’(righteousness, duty), in which ‘Dharma’ was
assigned superior status, and limited sovereignty of the King, who was a part of the
plural political arrangement. However, Shramanic rejected the divine origin of
kingship, offered an alternative explanation in form of social contract theory in which
the kingship was human creation for maintenance of peace and order for which king is
paid the tax as compensation. In Shramanic traditions king was not supposed to
maintain Varna Ashram Dharma. Instead of that, he was supposed to strive for equality
and social harmony.
Thus, we can see that Shramanic reacted and rejected the core spiritual and socio-
political thoughts of Brahminical Hinduism. Despite this, both traditions had many
things in common. Brahminic Hinduism on face of reaction from the Shramanic and its
growing popularity attempted to accommodate some of the objections to make it more
acceptable. In course of time ancient India developed a syncretic tradition which was
synthesis or mixture of both Brahminic and shramanic tradition. What we call Hindu
political thought is in essence a syncretic or synthesised political thought in which
elements of both the tradition coexist.

24
 NOTES:

1. Dharma and Danda.

In Indian political thought ‘Dharma’ and ‘Danda’ represent the realm of spirituality and
politics/state-craft respectively. Dharma has multiple connotations and multiple
meanings associated with it. It may mean righteousness, duty, moral obligation,
essential nature of being, properties held by any entity, code of conduct or way of life
to lead a virtuous life in this world and attain salvation in the transcendental world.
Finally, it may also mean religion or spirituality in modern sense. ‘Danda’ literally
means punishment by force. But it actually means maintaining peace and social order
by way of just force by the rural/ government having the mandate and legitimacy to use
that force. Hence, ‘Danda’ or ‘Dandaniti’ actually denotes
politics/governance/statecraft.
like in in any culture, Hindu political thought also faced the challenge of separating the
realm of spirituality and politics. Dharma represented spiritual sovereignty which was
kept above the temporal sovereignty represented by Danda. Danda was considered as a
means to achieve the Dharma, which was the end/goal. Hence, Danda was subordinated
to Dharma. In fact, the King or the temporal sovereign was duty bound to maintain the
social order as per the Varna Ashram Dharma. He himself was bound by the Raja
Dharma. If every member of society follows his or her Dharma, that is, perform their
duty and moral obligations as expected of them, there would be perfect peace, order
and Justice in the society. In such a perfect social system state laws and corrective
justice system ( Dandaniti) is not actually required. It is only when people start flouting
the Dharma, social order is disturbed and anarchy prevails. State or Kingship are then
required to bring back the peace and order with just force or Danda.
We can see that in Hindu political thought there is a very thin separation between the
realm of spirituality and politics. In fact, politics seems to be a mere adjunct (support,
aide) to spirituality represented by Dharma. Kautilya was one political thinker in
ancient India who attempted to give politics autonomy, independence of spirituality and
Dharma. To him ‘Artha’ and ‘Danda’ were superior to Dharma, for only when material
requirements fulfilled and peace and order maintained, Dharma can be followed.
Kautilya’s Arthashastra also attempted to set politics free from the conventional
morality and ethics represented by Dharma. Politics follows its own rules which cannot
be judged by the standards of conventional morality. In this tradition of political thought
Danda is almost at par with Dharma, both independent and autonomous of each other.
But otherwise, overarching theme of Hindu political thought is such that Dharma is
considered as end and superior to Danda, which is considered as means to achieve the
end, that is Dharma.

25
2. Shramanic Traditions.
Originating from Sanskrit word ‘Shram’- labour, Shramanic traditions include
heterodox (unorthodox) traditions such as Nath Panth, Yoga, Siddha, Tantric, Bhakti,
Jainism, Buddhism, Ajawika of Makkhali Gosala, Lokayata of Charvaka etc. Except
Jainism & Buddhism, remaining of Shramanic traditions are considered branches of
Hinduism and were more and less absorbed into it. Hence, Shramanic traditions
basically denote Jainism & Buddhism.
Shramanic traditions rejected the 4 pillars of Brahmanic tradition- caste system,
superiority of Brahman in caste hierarchy and birth-based rights/entitlements, validity
of Veda, and belief in God as primal person and world as his personal creation. It
stressed ‘Karma’ and individual effort- self illumination and self-effort- for attaining
salvation. Thus, Shramanic traditions was reformative, humanist, individualistic, more
egalitarian and inclusive. Hence, it attracted lower Hindu castes, out castes (Dalit, tribal,
and foreigners), and women.
Popularity of Shramanic traditions among Hindus, particularly lower caste people,
compelled Brahminical Hinduism to introspect and do some course corrections. It
accommodated some of the concerns raised by the Shramanic such as possibility of
salvation by individual effort, (Bhakti movement), virtue of medicant life that is
‘Sanyas’, more rights and opportunities to lower castes , attempt to becoming more
egalitarian, etc but overall Brahminical Hinduism remained steadfast in holding caste
system as part of ‘Dharma’-Varna Ashram Dharma, belief in infallibility of Veda and
God as personal creator of the world.
However, the interaction of the Brahminical and Shramanic traditions for centuries of
years gave a mixed, sythetic or syncretic cultural tradition in ancient India. What we
call today the Indian cultural traditions and Indian political thought are actually
syncretic culture and political thought having elements drawn from both Brahminic and
Shramanic traditions.

3. Brahminic tradition.
Brahminic tradition was mainstream Hinduism of Aryans in ancient India. 4-fold Varna
system (Varna Ashram Dharma), Veda as true, ultimate, and infallible knowledge, belief
in God as primal person and creator of the world, hierarchical social order based on
ascriptive (birth based) status, rights/entitlements, etc are pillars of Brahminic tradition.
Starting 6th century BCE, Jainism and Buddhism rose as reformation and reaction to
rigidity, ritualism, exclusiveness, and external pretentions ( ‘Dhong’, ‘Adambar’) of
Brahminic Hinduism. Popularity of Shramanic traditions among Hindus, particularly lower
caste people, compelled Brahminical Hinduism to introspect and do some course
corrections. It accommodated some of the concerns raised by the Shramanic ( heterodox
traditions mainly Buddhism & Jainism) such as possibility of salvation by individual effort,
Bhakti movement, virtue of medicant life that is ‘Sanyas’, more rights and opportunities to

26
lower castes , attempt to becoming more egalitarian, etc but overall Brahminical Hinduism
remained steadfast in holding caste system as part of ‘Dharma’- Varna Ashram Dharma,
belief in infallibility of Veda and God as personal creator of the world.
In course of time Brahminical Hinduism accommodated multiple traditions in its fold.
Through the idea of incarnation or Avatar it accommodated even Buddha as one of the ten
avatars of God Vishnu. Similarly, the idea of Supreme God-Vishnu, Shiva and Durga- acted
as a unifying force among different traditions of Brahminical Hinduism in different part of
India. Through the mythical account of Hindu belief system, greatness of God, and moral
stories, the ‘Puranas’ were able to accommodate many little and local traditions into the
greater Brahminical Hinduism.
In politics also, Brahminical Hinduism was more successful in getting royal support and
patronage in comparison to the Shramanic traditions. Being a King following Brahminical
tradition was easier and gave more autonomy and power than those by the Shramanic
tradition. This was because of divinity attached to Kingship in Brahminical political
thought. Also, overarching role of Dharma in regulating the social order made job easier
for the King. If everyone follows his/her Dharma, peace and order will prevail
automatically without need for force. King was only to maintain the ‘Varna Ashram
Dharma’. This is why we find that it all across India Brahminical Hinduism got more royal
support and patronage.
Starting 13th century, Brahminical Hinduism faced existential crisis with the onslaught of
Islam with the establishment of Delhi Sultanate. But it held together the Hindu society with
the strength of its eternal philosophy of Veda, Upanishad and universal conception of
Dharma in all walks of life. Hence, if today India is having a strong majority Hindu
population credit must be given to robustness and resilience(flexibility) of Brahminic
traditions. Its concept of Dharma is still the mainstay of Indian Philosophy. Many of its
political ideas such as Raja Dharma are still relevant and often referred to.

27
 THEME 2: ISLAMIC AND SYNCRETIC TRADITIONS.

2.A: KEY POINTS:

• Political Islam first came in India with the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad Bin Qasim,
an Arab military commander of the Umayyad Caliphate in 712. But it remained
confined there only.
• Series of raids by Mahmud of Ghazni, a Turkish slave Muslim ruler of Ghazni
Afghanistan , between 1000-25 AD, was 2nd interaction but it didn’t result into Muslim
rule in India.
• Muslim rule started in India in 1206 with the foundation of Delhi sultanate by Qutb-
din- Aibak, slave general of Muhammad Ghuri, a Turk sultan of Ghor (Afghanistan).
• Thus, Turks were the first Muslims to rule India,
• Muslim rule continued with Mughals, who were Turk Mongols. Mughal rule effectively
lasted till 1707 ( death of Aurangzeb), but notionally till 1857.
• With the rulers of Delhi sultanate and Mughals, Muslims of many strands/traditions-
Arabian, Turkic, Turk-Mongol, Persian, Afghani, Turani, Sufi, came into India.
• Muslim population grew with large scale conversion of non-Muslims, particularly
lower caste Hindus and out castes into Islam since 13th Century.
• Major political challenge for Muslim rulers in India was to combine the requirements
of real politic (to rule in the land of non-Muslims) with demands of Shari’a (Quranic
laws) and classical Islamic traditions.
• All prominent Muslim political thinkers attempted to offer solution to this problem.
• They offered two types of strategies to tackle this issue, first was to accommodate non-
Islamic traditions in Shari’a itself, as offered by Nizam al- Mulk Tusi; 2nd strategy was
by Al-Ghazali and others; it was to interpret Shari’a in such a way to accommodate
non-Islamic traditions.
• Two prominent Indian Muslim political thinkers, Zia Barni and Abul Fazl, offered very
different solutions to this problem.
• Barni took conservative approach. He rejected anything against Shariá as non-Islamic
and Sin. But he allowed such sins by the Sultan for maintaining the state. He also gave
Zawabit, practical state laws, for cases not covered by Shariá. He attempted to separate
two realms- Religion and Politics (State-craft/kingship- Dindari and Duniyadari). For
this, Barni is compared to Machiavelli.

28
• Despite such conservative approach by most of the political thinkers, the Delhi Sultans,
by and large, tried to adopt secular approach, maintain social harmony, and dispense
Justice based on practical laws
• Abul Fazl, secretary to Akbar, through his Ain-i-Akbari offered most liberal solution
to the problem of dichotomy of statecraft vs demands of Shari’a and classical Islamic
traditions.
• Fazl vested both spiritual and temporal sovereignty in the Mughal King, who became
the spiritual leader of the nation, above any particular sect/religion.
• Sulh-i-kul (universal peace) and Din-i-Ilahi was twin pillars of the statecraft and
spiritualism. Endeavour of Fazl and Akbar was truly novel in which complete merger
of spirituality and statecraft is done for secular purpose.
• Such liberal approaches, long interactions, and Bhakti-Sufi movements gave a syncretic
(synthesized, mixed) Indo-Islamic culture which manifested in spiritualism, art &
culture- architecture, music, literature, paintings, dance, dress & food, etc.
• Akbar in political realm and Nanak and Kabir in spiritual domain represent such
syncretic traditions.

29
 2.B: ANSWER TEMPLATE OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Examine different streams of Islamic traditions in India.

Similar Questions:
1. “Islam came into India in multiple strands”. Discuss

Answer Template:
Introduction:
Islam, the latest of the organized religions, originated in 612 AD in Arabia by the advent
of Prophet Mohammad, last and most virtuous of series of Prophets. Political Islam first
came in India with the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad Bin Qasim, an Arab military
commander of the Umayyad Caliphate in 712. But it remained confined there. Delhi
Sultanate, established by Turk slave Muslims (Mamulk) from Afghanistan in 1206, was
first instance of Muslim rule on mainland India. Mughals, who were Turk Mongols,
continued and expanded Muslim rule into entire Indian sub-continent.
With these rulers of Delhi sultanate and Mughals, Muslims of many strands/traditions-
Arabian, Turkic, Turk-Mongol, Persian, Afghani, Turani, Sufi, etc- came into India.
Muslim population grew with large scale conversion of non-Muslims, particularly
lower caste Hindus and out castes into Islam since 13th Century.
Thus, when we say Islam or Muslims in India, we mean particular religion and people
of that religion. But Islam has many different sects, branches, and cultural traditions.
Turk Sunni Muslim is very different from Persian Shia Muslim. An Indian Muslim of
erstwhile lower caste Hindu belong to different traditions than those of Pathans of
Punjab. Thus, Islam in India came into multiple strands. Islam in India has multiple
cultural traditions.
In next part of the answer I will attempt to list out different strands and traditions of
Islam in India since early 8th Century.
Different streams of Islamic traditions in India:
Islam originated in central lands of Arabia, naturally its first adherents were Arabs. But
with territorial expansion in central Asia, north Africa, and south Asia many warrior
tribes such as Turks, Uzbeks, Turani, Irani, Mongols, Afghans etc adopted Islam. But
the new converts maintained their pre-Islamic cultures and traditions. Thus, Turk
Muslim who established Delhi Sultanate were of different traditions than the Arab
Muslims who occupied Sindh in 712. Similarly, the Mughals, of mixed Turk Mongol

30
 race, belonged to different Islamic tradition than those of Turk Muslims of Ghazna and
Ghor.
In further course of expansion and development, like any religion, Islam also branched
into different sects and traditions. Very early after its evolution, Shia sect branched out
from Sunni Muslims. Sufism developed as mystic traditions in Islam; Sufism itself
branched into multiple orders and traditions. Even the Judicial system of Islam has
multiple traditions. Islam has multiple traditions and therefore it entered into India in
multiple strands as well. Multiple traditions were further added into Indian Islam in its
long existence in India.
We may examine the multiple traditions in Islam in two broad category, spiritual and
political.
Multiple traditions or strands in socio-cultural and spiritual Islam:
following are the brief description of Islamic Traditions in India:
• Different strands of Muslims, having distinct socio-cultural background came
and settled in India:
• Arabic Muslim in Sindh and Multan since 712 AD.
• Turkish Sunni Islam- ruling class of Delhi Sultanate- mainstay of political
Islam in India.
• Turkish Mongol and Sunni Islam- Mughals- they had mixed Turk and
Mongol traditions, for example Babur introduced Chengizid legal code but
wrote in Turkish.
• Shia Muslims from different regions in different times. Many fled to India
because of oppression and persecution.
• Mughals had very close relation with Safavid Iran, Shia dominated Muslim
Country. This also resulted into sizeable Shia Muslims in India. Mughals
continued with Persian as the official language of Mughal court.
• Afghani, Iranian, Turani (Central Asia) Uzbeks, etc. came as nobility and
ruling elites of Delhi Sultans and Mughals.
• Ancient Persian Strands- through political thinkers such as Nizam-al- Mulk
Tusi, Al-Ghazali and Turk/Mughal Kings who cherished the ideals of
ancient Iranian Sassanid empire. As stated above, Persian, and not Turkish
was the official language of both Delhi Sultanate and Mughals.
• Non-Muslims, especially low caste Hindus converted to Islam starting since
establishment of Delhi Sultanate. Such newly converted Muslims continued
with their pre-Islamic cultural traditions.
• Shia vs Sunni
• Shia, minority sect of Islam (about 10-15%), believes that Ali, son in law of
Prophet Muhammad, was his rightful successor. Remaining majority are

31
 called Sunni Muslim. Shia observe Muharram in memory of Hussain, the
grandson of Prophet Mohammed and his companions.
• Thus, Sunni are in majority in India, but there are large Shia population also.
• Sufis: Mystic Islam, similar to Bhakti movement within Hinduism, have 2
branches:
• Ba- Shari’a: accept authority of Shari’a ( the holy Quranic laws) ; have four
main orders (Silsila) : Chisti, Suhrawardi, Qadri, Naqshbandi.
• Be- Shari’a: They don’t accept the authority of Shari’a, called Qualandars
• Other Streams: Khoja, Moplah, and others who practice a mix of Hindu-Muslim
traditions.
• Judicial traditions:
• Sunni: Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafii and Malik ; In India Hanafi tradition is
followed
• Shia : Jafari, Zaidi
Different traditions of Political Islam in India:
In political thought three distinct traditions are noticeable in political Islam. First was
the Persian tradition represented by Nizam al- Mulk Tusi and Al-Ghazali, both were
political thinkers under Saljug Sultan of Iran during 11-12th century. In this tradition,
ideal kingship was of the type of ancient Sassanid Kingdom of Persia. Prime duty of
Sultan was to protect the dignity of Shari’a and uphold the true faith. But the Sultan
was also to perform practical duties according to principles of Justice. in fact, Ghazali
was first to attempt separation of the two realms of religion and politics.
Second political strand was those following the ideals of caliphate (institution of
Khalifa) and classical Arabian Islamic traditions. Abul Hasan- al-Mawardi, an 11th
century Arabian political thinker, represents this tradition.
Third political tradition in Islam was Akhlaq tradition represented by Khwaja Nasir al-
Din Tusi, political thinker in 13th century Iran. He did not use Shari’a in strict juridical
sense. Rather, he reminded of the Quranic verse that there is a single God who has sent
prophets to different communities, with Shari’a to suit their time and climes. In this
tradition Justice in the ideal state is defined as social harmony, and the coordination and
balance of the conflicting claims of diverse interest groups that may comprise people
of various religions/cultures.
Two of most prominent political thinkers of medieval India -Zia Barani and Abul Fazl-
represent two different Islamic political traditions. Zia Barni, most prominent political
thinker during the Delhi sultanate, took up the political thoughts propounded by Nizam
al- Mulk Tusi and Al-Ghazali but formulated different political thoughts in
comparison to either Tusi or Ghazali. instead of interpreting the Sharia to accommodate
non-Muslim traditions or practices or to either accommodate some of the non-Muslim
practices in the Shari’a, he completely rejected whatever was against Shari’a. This was

32
 of course a very conservative view for which he is criticized. It's another matter that he
proposed Zawabit, a practical state law separate from Shari’a. It was his attempt to
separate the realm of spirituality from statecraft.
Abul Fazal, the secretary and philosopher friend of Akbar, on the other hand, followed
and promoted the Akhlaq tradition. It was the liberal political Islam. Abul Fazal
attempted a very novel political idea. He vested both temporal and spiritual sovereignty
in the Mughal King. Thus, instead of separating the realm of spirituality and politics,
he merged them into the kingship. But the king was above any particular sect or
religion. He followed secular politics giving equal protection to all religions and
cultures, maintaining social harmony and promoting religious tolerance.
Conclusion:
Islam, like any mainstream religion, assimilated and accommodated different cultures,
traditions and practices with its expansion in different parts of the world. We have seen
that before political Islam came into India multiple strands were already developed in
the Islamic thought. When it came to India new traditions where further added into its
fold. The Sufism was influenced by Bhakti movement. The newly converted Hindus
and other non-Muslim Indians continued following their pre-Islamic cultures and
practices. This gave way to syncretic Indo-Islamic culture.
Different traditions of Islam can be analysed in two broad domains-spiritual and
political. In the Spiritual domain the different Islamic traditions entering India in
different times where Arabic Islam, Sunni Turk Muslims, Turk- Mongol Muslims, that
is, the Mughals. Irani, Turani, Uzbek, Afghani etc. as nobility and ruling class during
the Muslim rule; and finally the newly converted non-Muslims and native Indians gave
altogether new strands to Islam in India.
Islam is divided into two main sects Sunni and Shia, the former being in huge majority.
But in India there is also sizeable Shia Muslim population. The Sufi Islam has also
multiple traditions and orders. It is mainly divided into two categories- Be-Sharia and
Ba-Shari’a, and within themselves there are multiple orders or Silsila.
In political Islam two distinct traditions are represented by Zia Barni and Abul Fazl.
The former adopted and modified the political thoughts of Nizam ul Mulk Tusi and
Ghazali. This tradition was conservative, stressing King’s duty to uphold the true faith
and maintain the dignity of Shari’a. Abul Fazal represented the Akhlaq tradition which
was liberal and accommodative political face of Islam. Abul Fazal did a novel political
experiment by merging and vesting both spiritual and temporal sovereignty in the
Mughal King who, however, was above any particular sect or religion and followed
secular politics.
Thus, in conclusion, we may say that Islam, both spiritual and political, came into India
in multiple strands, carrying different traditions. Process of multiple traditions of Islam
continued with its expansion in India. Also, osmosis (seamless movements) of ideas
and cultural practices between Muslims and non-Muslims in India happened

33
continuously. These interactions gave a syncretic cultural tradition which added to the
diversity of cultures and traditions of Indian subcontinent.

34
Q.2: Illustrate the basic perceptions of Islamic traditions in relation to the
emergence of Syncretic traditions in India.
(Note : the question is similar to the question discussed above. Only more emphasis needs to
be given in explaining how with long interactions of multiple traditions of Islam with multiple
traditions in India resulted into a syncretic Indo-Islamic tradition. Hence, only a very brief
answer template is given.)

Introduction:
Islam evolved in the central land of Arabia. With its expansion into different part of
Asia, Africa, and Europe it added multiple cultural traditions in its fold. Different tribes
adopting Islam carried forward and maintained their pre-Islamic cultural traditions.
This process gave multiple Islamic traditions before it arrived in India. With the advent
of Delhi Sultanate, this process of multiple traditions adding into the Islamic fold
continued with its expansion in India. Mughals, especially Akbar accelerated this
process through his liberal and syncretic policies. Sufism was influenced by Hindu
Bhakti movement.
Political requirement to maintain the state by a Muslim ruler in the land of non-Muslims
compelled the Delhi Sultan and Mughals to adopt somewhat secular policies in
governance/politics. Such political requirement to maintain social harmony and
religious tolerance further gave boost to evolution of a syncretic (synthesised or mixed)
socio-political culture, which was distinct from both the Islamic and Hindu tradition.
Akbar in political realm and Nanak and Kabir in spiritual domain represent such
syncretic traditions.

Multiple traditions of Islam in India: same as in first question with following addition.

Evolution of Indo-Islamic syncretic tradition:

Meaning of Syncretism: the combination (synthesis) of different religions, cultures, or
schools of thought. Composite culture which evolves when people of multiple religion,
language, culture live together and interact for long period of time. Seamless interactions and
exchanges of ideas and cultural practices between Muslims and non-Muslims in India
happened continuously for several centuries. These interactions gave a syncretic Indo-
Islamic cultural tradition which added to the diversity of cultures and traditions of Indian
subcontinent.
Factors for evolution of syncretic Indo-Islamic culture:
• Political requirement for both the ruler and the ruled

35
 • Ruler: social harmony was essential to maintain the state in the non-
Muslim nation. Religious tolerance and syncretism help maintain social
harmony.
• Ruled: adopting culture of elites/ruler to gain favour of the state,
employment, to get out of rigid caste system, etc.
• Two cultures living side by side for a long period of time
• More than 1300 years of close interactions.
• Bulk of Muslim population in India are Non-Muslims adopting Islam during
Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Rules. They carried forward their pre-Islamic
cultural practices mixing them with cultural practices of the new religion.
• Hindu Muslim marriages: resulted into population having allegiance to both
the religion/culture.
• Bhakti and Sufi traditions
• Both were reformist and inclusive.
• They rejected ritualism, rigidness, external pretentions, and
pompousness of mainstream Hinduism and Islam.
• They promoted local languages, local cultures, traditions and practices.
• Sufism presented softer, liberal, and inclusive face of Islam, to which
the non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim rule could relate easily.
• Attracted devotees from both the religion.
Manifestations (evidences or examples) of Indo-Islamic syncretic culture:
We may analyse this in two domains- spiritual and socio-political.
Syncretism in Spiritual domain:
• Monotheism and formless supreme God, core of Islamic religion, influenced
Bhakti philosophy (Advaitwad- unity of soul and God and idea of supreme God)
• Bhakti-Sufi Movement: Love, compassion, piety, extreme devotion to one
supreme God, individual spirituality (direct connection of ‘Bhakt’ with God),
etc. were common in both Bhakti and Sufi philosophy- Guru Nanak, Kabir,
Dadu Dayal, etc. are the best example of syncretic spiritualism.
• Hindus visiting ‘Mazar’ of ‘Pir’ and Sufi saints.
• Bhajan in local language and ‘Zikr’ of ‘Hari’- by Sufis.
• Hierarchical division of society, rank, status creeped into Islamic traditions (4
fold division of society by Abu Fazl;( Asraf vs Ajalf ); Sayyid, Shaikh, Mughal,
or Pathan.
• Policy of Sulh-i-Kul and syncretic religion- Din-i-Ilahi by Akbar.

36
Syncretism in socio-political domain:
• Language
• Urdu- synthesis of Persian and Hindi languages- became most popular language
of daily use in north India.
• In fact, what we call the ‘Hindustani’ language, spoken by people of Indian
Subcontinent, is a syncretic language.
• Arts & Culture
• Architecture: distinct Indo-Islamic patterns- Arches, Domes, Minarets,
exquisite paintings/motifs on walls, Bangla roof (Chala), Stone instead of
Bricks.
• Dance form: Kathak- both Hindu and Muslim gharanas and cultural elements,
include Urdu Ghazals and commonly use instruments brought during Muslim
rule.
• Paintings: Mughal painting- blend of Persian and Rajput schools: Miniatures,
Portrait and Mural Painting.
• Music: ‘Khayal’ influenced by Persian music, Qwaallis, new instruments-
Tabla (Muslim modification of Hindu musical Mirdang) & Sitar (synthesis of
Veena and the Iranian Tambura)
• Political:
• Hindu Nobles in Mughal Rule.
• Sulh-i-Kul and Din-i-Ilahi of Akbar, which was a synthtic and syncretic
religion. Din-i-Ilahi was like like civic culture, socio-cultural and spiritual
tradition which was mix of best of all existing spiritual traditions and at the same
time was non-sectarian.
• Others
• Dress and food habits: Salwar-Kurta, Sherwani. Mughali dishes are still relished
in all parts of India.
Conclusion:
Islam came in India starting early 8th century in many strands/traditions- Arabian,
Turkic, Turk-Mongol, Persian, Afghani, Turani, Sufi, etc. Since 1206, Political Islam
became the ruling dispensation in India for which the major challenge was to combine
the requirements of real politic with demands of Shari’a and classical Islamic traditions.
Despite conservative approach by most of the political thinkers of those times, the
Muslim rulers, by and large, tried to adopt secular approach, maintain social harmony,
and dispense Justice based on practical laws. Such approach and long interactions gave
a syncretic Indo-Islamic culture which manifested in spiritualism, art & culture-
Architecture, Music, Literature, paintings, dance, dress & food etc. Akbar in political
realm and Nanak and Kabir in spiritual domain represent such syncretic traditions.

37
 NOTES:
1. Islamic Traditions.
Answer Template:
Islam evolved in the central land of Arabia. First to adopt Islam were the central Arabian
tribes such as Quraysh (which Prophet Mohammed belonged to) and Bedouin. With its
expansion into different part of Asia, Africa, and Europe it added peoples of multiple
cultural traditions in its fold. People adopting Islam carried forward and maintained
their pre-Islamic cultural traditions.
Issue of legitimate heir of Prophet Mohammed to lead the Islamic world divided it into
Shia and Sunni sects. This also gave rise to institution of Khalifa as spiritual as well as
temporal sovereign. Later on, Sultanate evolved in eastern lands of Iran (Khurasan in
Persia) and Afghanistan. The Sultans were temporal sovereign accepting spiritual
sovereignty of the Khalifa and ruling as their regents. Sufis emerged as mystique,
philosophical, and extreme devotional strand within the Islam. These events, and
processes produced multiple Islamic traditions even before it arrived in India. With the
advent of Delhi Sultanate this process of multiple traditions being added into the Islamic
fold continued with its expansion in India. Mughals, especially Akbar accelerated this
process through their liberal and syncretic policies. Sufism, which was influenced by
Hindu Bhakti movement, also helped this process.
Thus, what we call today the Islamic tradition is not a single monolithic cultural or
religious tradition. Despite united by a single religion, Islam has multiple sects,
traditions, and cultures. Thus, when we say Islam or Muslims in India, we mean
particular religion and people of that religion. But Islam has many different sects,
branches, and cultural traditions. Turk Sunni Muslim is very different from Persian Shia
Muslim. An Indian Muslim of erstwhile lower caste Hindu belongs to different
traditions than those of Pathans of Punjab. Thus, Islam has multiple strands of varied
culture and traditions.
Main strands of Islam in India are: Arabic Muslim in Sindh and Multan, Turkish Sunni
Islam- ruling class of Delhi Sultanate, Turkish Mongol and Sunni Islam- Mughals- they
had mixed Turk and Mongol traditions, Shia Muslims from different regions in different
times. Afghani, Iranian, Turani (Central Asia) Uzbeks, etc as nobility and ruling elites
of Delhi Sultans and Non-Muslims, especially low caste Hindus, converted to Islam
starting since 13th century. Shia vs Sunni are the two major sects within Islam. Sufis
belongs to mystic and devotional Islam, similar to Bhakti movement within Hinduism.
They are further divided into- Ba- Shari’a, who accept authority of Shari’a and Be-
Shari’a, they don’t accept the authority of Shari’a and are called Qalandars. Sunni Islam
has four different jjudicial traditions: Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafii and Malik ; whereas Shia
Islam has two traditions : Jafari, Zaidi.

38
In political Islam also we find multiple tradition. Zia Barni and Abul Fazl represent two
different political traditions. Former is conservative theological tradition stressing
King’s duty to uphold the true faith and maintain the dignity of Shari’a. The latter,
represented by Abul Fazal, was one variant of Akhlaq tradition which was liberal and
accommodative and inclusive political face of Islam in India.
Thus, in conclusion, we may say that Islam, both spiritual and political, came into India
in multiple streams, carrying different traditions. Process of multiple traditions of Islam
continued with its expansion in India. Also, osmosis of ideas and cultural practices
between Muslims and non-Muslims in India happened continuously. These
interactions gave a syncretic cultural tradition which added to the diversity of cultures
and traditions of Indian subcontinent.

39
 THEME 3: RAJADHARMA: SHANTIPARVA
(MAHABHARAT)
3.A: CBCS Syllabus
Concept of Rajadhrama as contained in Shantiparva of Mahabharat by Veda Vyasa.

3 B: KEY POINTS:
• Conception of Rajadharma is contained in Shantiparva, largest of 18 Parva (books) of
the epic Mahabharat composed by sage Ved Vyasa.
• Literal meaning of Rajadharma is duty or moral obligations and duties of the King, i.e.
Dharma of King. But it denotes a range of political thoughts- Good Governance,
Statecraft, Politics, political obligation, and art & science of Governance (Dandaniti).
• Rajadharma also entails Dispensation of Justice impartially, framing just laws, using
state force judiciously to maintain peace & order and obedience to laws, that is, political
obligation.
• Rajadharma requires King to maintain peace and order, protect his subjects from
internal & external aggression, work tirelessly for happiness, prosperity and welfare of
people.
• King, following Rajadharma, does not discriminate between his subjects (is impartial),
is just, temperate, virtuous, role model for his people. He cares for happiness of his
people disregarding his own interests, likes/dislikes and happiness.
• Shantiparva gives semi- contractual origin of the state/kingship. King was chosen by
God. King entered into an agreement with Gods and sages. He possessed Godly power,
is visible symbol of God on earth, but he is bound by the oath of good governance and
Rajadharma.
• State originated, by divine intervention, to maintain Peace, Order, Prosperity, and
Dharma. State enable achievement of Individual and common Good by ensuring each
one performing his/her duties appropriate to his/her status and stages of life following
Dharma.
• King is duty bound to maintain Dharma in both private and socio-political life. He is
also bound of Dharma (duty, moral obligation, righteousness, justice) for the King-
Rajadharma.
• King not following Rajadharma cannot maintain his state. People may criticize, defect
to King’s opponent, may not follows his orders, and may revolt and leave the states.
• Grounds for Political obligation, i.e. why people should obey king’s order and laws, are
need for peace and social order for meaningful life, divinity of Kingship, King

40
 following Rajadharma and upholding Dharma in all walks of life, and fear of
punishment ( Danda).
• Rajadharma include politics & statecraft. King can take any action to maintain his state.
He needs to nurture 7 limbs of the state (Saptanga theory), righteously collect moderate
taxes, choose his ministers/advisors carefully, take their advice, promote
decentralization, and dispenses justice impartially but strictly.
• Rajadharma denotes Dandaniti, which is art and science of Governance, administration
by using just force. It also denotes coercion, punishment, a fine, or simply justice.
• Danda (force, coercion, fear of punishment) is prime force which maintains Dharma.
King following Rajadharma knows exactly how much, when, in what way ‘Danda’ is
to be used for punishing the bad and protecting the virtuous.
• Modern political principles of Rights, Equality, Justice, and Welfare state is inherent in
the notion of Rajadharma.
• Principles of Rajadharma are applicable to anyone who heads –corporate, business, and
political leaders, departmental heads, head of a town, village, and family.
• Hence, the concept of Rajadharma is timeless, and very much relevant even today not
only in politics but also in many other walks of life.

41
 3 C: ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

Q.1: Critically describe the notion of Rajadharma in Shantiparva with

special reference to the duties of the king.
Similar Questions:
1. Discuss the idea of Rajadharma as portrayed in Shanti Parva
2. Critically describe the notion of Rajadharma. Does this help the King in
maintaining his state?
Answer Template
Introduction:
Notion of Rajadharma, as explained in Shantiparva of Mahabharat, covers a
whole range of ideas from its literal meaning of duty and moral obligation of
the King to statecraft, politics, and arts of governance (Dandaniti). Rajadharma
also entails dispensation of justice impartially, framing just laws, using state
force judiciously to maintain peace & order and obedience to laws, that is,
political obligation.
Rajadharma requires King to maintain peace and order, protect his subjects from
internal & external aggression, work tirelessly for happiness, prosperity and
welfare of people. King following Rajadharma does not discriminate between
his subjects, is just, temperate, virtuous and role model for his people. He cares
for happiness of his people disregarding his own likes/dislikes and happiness.
Rajadharma also denotes Dandaniti, which is art and science of Governance,
administration of force. Dandaniti also symbolizes coercion, punishment, a fine,
or simply justice. In fact, modern political principles of Rights, Equality,
Justice, and Welfare state is all included in the notion of Rajadharma.
In the next section of the answer, I shall attempt to list out King’s duties as conveyed
by the conception of Rajadharma.
Duties of the King following Rajadharma:
Following are some of the duties of the King who is bound by the Rajadharma:
•Prime Duty of the King is to maintain peace, order, and ‘Dharma’
•Protection of people from internal and external dangers.
•By proper ‘Dandaniti’ uphold ‘Dharma’ in all walks of life.
•Punishing the evil, rewarding the virtuous, protecting the weak and innocents by using
the force of ‘Danda’ in just manner.

42
 •King (Rajan) is one who pleases (Ranj) and protect his subjects/people.
•Work tirelessly for welfare and prosperity of the people living in the State.
•Be impartial, strict, and just while dispensing Justice- following ‘Dandaniti’
•Taking whatsoever decisions and actions required for maintenance and expansion of
the State.
•Giving preference to interest and happiness of his people over his own interest,
likes/dislikes and happiness.
•He should be truthful, trustworthy, and virtuous. He should be conscientious
(meticulous) and simple, hospitable and merciful, yet pragmatic and unbiased.
•King must subdue his senses(self-control); then only can he subdue enemies, and
maintain Dharma in all walks of life.
•Should be efficient, enterprising, industrious, energetic, enthusiastic.
•His conduct should be different in different situations- sometimes mild hard, kind
cruel, helpful helpless etc., like a peacock exposing its various form in the time of
capturing a snake.
•Should perform yajna, sacrifices for maintenance, expansion of the State and welfare
of the people.
•Should keep virtuous advisers/counsels (Raja Purohits), Ministers, Councils.
•Should become a role model for his people
•King always should try to be good to his own subjects and destroy his opponents/
enemies by any means.
•Should be like Sun, like clouds/rain, his temperance should be like spring Sun, neither
very hot nor very cold.
•A king should be a seeker of Good (shreya) and Not the pleasurable (preya).
•Above all, a king should be the follower of truth & non-violence in spirit. A king
following the principles of Rajadharma does not despise(hate) the weak, slight the
enemies, hate any one, do any work in haste and procrastinate.

Critical analysis of notion of Rajadharma:

As stated above, notion of Rajadharma is very wide and include almost everything
related to spirituality and statecraft. Hence, it has no specific and stable meaning as it
can be said to mean anything. Also, notion of Rajadharma mixes religion with
statecraft. The king is expected to maintain ‘Dharma’ in all walks of life. He is to
maintain social order based on ‘Varna Ashram Dharma’. Anyone not following the
‘Dharma’ of his Varna/caste is liable to be punished by the King. Hence the notion of
Rajadharma is not secular, if secularism means strict separation of religion from
statecraft/politics. Rajadharma bounds the king to his own ‘Dharma’. We have seen that

43
 the virtues and duty expected of the king is so stringent (strict) that those are difficult
to be fulfilled by any mortal King.
Rajadharma also allows very narrow path for the king to tread in his effort to maintain
his state. Strictly following truth, non-violence, honesty, trustworthiness, overlooking
his own interests, etc. may be against the political requirement for maintenance of the
state. ‘Arthashastra’ by Kautilya and ‘Prince’ by Machiavelli gave more pragmatic and
realistic account of personal qualities of Kings and requirements of statecraft. Both
allowed Kings to break the conventional code of morality and ethics for political
expediency (requirements). These are the realities of politics from which the notion is
Rajadharma seems to be oblivious of. It expects King to be good, virtuous, adopt moral
choices and also maintain his state by any means. Such dichotomy and contradictions
make Rajadharma a vague notion than a concrete political concept.
Thus, in sum, the notion of Rajadharma is normative, idealistic and problematic. It is
vague, all inclusive, very tough to follow, and sometimes may be against the interest of
the state. Hence, in real politic, notion of Rajadharma may be of little help. Kings/ruler
may be seen to be breaking the Rajadharma more often than following it strictly in order
to protect their own interests and interests of the state.

Conclusion:

Notion of Rajadharma is very wide ranging. It is an umbrella concept denoting a range

of ideas of both spiritual and political domain i.e. ‘Dindari’ and ‘Duniyadari’ or
‘Dandaniti’ and ‘Dharma’. Literally Rajadharma means duty and moral obligation of
the King. But it also denotes statecraft, arts of governance, good governance, justice
and impartiality, and political obligation. Rajadharma enjoins (advices) upon the King
to follow truth, non-violence, honesty, in letter & spirit.

Rajadharma entails( requires) strict duties, virtues, and moral obligation on part of the
king. His prime duty is to maintain peace, order, and ‘Dharma’. He is supposed to work
selflessly and tirelessly for the happiness, well-being, and welfare of his people. He
should possess Godly virtues, should be role model for his people, ready to do anything
to maintain his state. Dharma in the state can be maintained only if the king follows
Rajadharma. Hence, Rajadharma is the highest order of Dharma in Hindu political
thought. Only if King follows the Rajadharma, all others in the state, even the nature,
follow their Dharma. Therefore, King’s duty is also of the highest order and the
toughest.

In fact, strictly following Rajadharma may not be possible for the king. Political
requirements to maintain the state may compel him to break often the strict moral

44
guidance of Rajadharma. Also, the notion of Rajadharma is so wide ranging and all-
encompassing that it has lost any specific and stable meaning. Rajadharma mixes the
two realms of spirituality and politics/statecraft. Politics, as per Rajadharma, becomes
a mere adjunct to ‘Dharma’ in socio-political life and king nothing more than a part,
though most important, of the overall scheme of things held and maintained by the
‘Dharma’.

45
 Q.2 Discuss the insights of Shanti Parva on political obligation.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
Notion of Rajadharma is very wide ranging and all encompassing. It includes a range
of ideas of both spiritual and political domain i.e. ‘Dandaniti’ and ‘Dharma’ or
‘Dindari’ and ‘Duniyadari’ . It not only binds the king by very strict duties towards his
state and people but also entails ( requires) political obligation from the people. Political
Obligation provide the basis or reasons for the people to obey the orders and laws of
the King/State. It provides the answer to the question- why the people or the subject
should obey the laws of the state?
As per then notion of Rajadharma, if a king is following his Dharma, that is, the duty
of maintaining peace, social order, dispensing justice impartially, striving hard for
happiness, well-being, and welfare of his people then the people are duty bound ( as per
‘Dharma’) to obey his orders and the state laws.
Rajadharma also provides for many other grounds of Political Obligation which I shall
explain in the next part of the answer. But we may note here that most important
grounds for Political Obligation as contained in Rajadharma is the king himself
following and acting as per the Rajadharma. Thus, political obligation becomes a part
of overall scheme of social order upheld and maintained by the force of ‘Dharma’. If
the King is following his Dharma, the people are supposed to obey his orders and state
laws (Raja Shasan) as part of their ‘Dharma’.
Grounds for political obligations: Notion of Rajadharma as contained in Shantiparva of
Mahabharat provides for the following grounds for political obligation on part of the people
living in the state:
• Dharma is supreme and sovereign. It guides both the King as well as the subjects;
political obligation is ‘Dharma’ of people if the King follows his ‘Dharma’ i.e.
Rajadharma.
• The king is created for the protection of ‘Dharma’ and the social order based on
‘Dharma’. Following Rajadharma a king becomes divine, epitome of ‘Dharma’. Hence,
people should obey his order as part of following their ‘Dharma’.
• Living in anarchy could be the worst thing, hence people should obey state laws and
King’s orders if he is able to maintain peace and order. This ground is similar to what
Hobbes gave in 17th century.
• People can live happily only if they live under the law and abide by the rules and
regulations of the state. Since the state laws flows out of Dharma, obeying them make
people follow Dharma and attain fulfillment and happiness. This ground can be
compared with Rousseau’s views that obeying laws flowing from general will make
one attain moral freedom.

46
 • King is visible symbol of God on earth; hence, people should obey him for peace and
prosperity as they obey God. This is similar to the divine right theory of kingship.
• Hence, whatever laws the king promulgates for the good of the righteous/virtuous and
destruction of evils - they should not be disobeyed.
• People obey laws for fear of punishment (Danda). Force becomes the ultimate sanction
of government. This can be compared to John Austin’s view that law is command of
the sovereign backed by force/sanction.
Grounds for not offering political obligation:
• A delinquent ruler, one who fails to follow Rajadharma, is criticized for his non-
performance and he may also be punished for his wrong doings.
• King becomes demon like if he fails to follow his ‘Dharma’- Rajadharma. People have
every right to resist and punish such Kings.
• People have following options if their King becomes cruel, fails to protect them and
doesn’t follow Rajadharma:
• People may defect to King’s opponent, i.e. they shift their allegiance and loyalty
to rival king, who may occupy the state.
• May not follows his orders and obey the state laws.
• May revolt against him.
• And as last resort may leave the state to settle elsewhere. This is similar to
Gandhian idea of ‘Hijrat’- voluntary exile as a form of satyagraha.

From the above description it is clear that grounds for Political Obligation lies in following
Dharma in every walk of life. If the king is following his own Dharma, that is the Rajadharma,
the people have no reason not to offer their Political Obligation to the king, for it would be
against their Dharma. Thus, Dharma guides both the king as well as his subjects in their
political behaviour. Both the king and his subjects are bound by the demands of the Dharma
which require them to follow their duties which for king is to maintain peace, social order,
happiness, well-being and welfare of his people and for the people to obey the king’s order and
the state laws.
It may be noted that that notion of Rajadharma mixes spirituality and politics. Political
Obligation does not remain a secular concept. It is part of the overarching scheme of social
order maintained by the force of Dharma.

Conclusion:
Notion of Rajadharma as contained in in Shanti Parva of Mahabharat is an umbrella (all
inclusive) concept. It denotes a range of ideas of both spiritual and political domain.
Political Obligation on part of the people becomes part of their Dharma. But people are
expected to offer their Political Obligation only when the king is following his own

47
Dharma, that is, Raja Dharma. Hence, in this notion of Political Obligation both the
king and his subjects are bound by their own Dharma which is the cosmic force
upholding the social order. Political obligation is part of one’s Dharma but only if the
King is also following his own dharma, that is the Rajadharma. Shantiparva also
mentions situations which do not warrant political obligation. Hence, political
obligation on part of the ruled is conditional and contingent.

48
Q3. “King is self-disciplined in Shanti Parva”; In the light of this statement
describe the attributes of the ideal king as per Veda Vyas.
Similar questions:
1. As per Shanti Parva, what virtues an ideal king should have? how should he behave and
conduct himself? Explain.
2. Explain advices to kings as contained in Shanti Parva of Mahabharata.

Answer Template:
Introduction:
Notion of Rajadharma, as explained in Shantiparva of Mahabharat, covers a whole
range of ideas from its literal meaning of duty and moral obligation of the King to
statecraft, politics, and arts of governance (Dandaniti). Shanti Parva, through the notion
of Rajadharma also entails kings to strictly maintain discipline, self-control (Jitendriya),
and temperance (neither very tough nor very lenient). In fact, Shantiparva advices a
range of moral code of conduct and duties to the King.
Kings should possess Godly virtues, and maintain a very high standard of behavior
matching to his exalted position. He should be role model for his people. Only when
the King follows his Dharma, i.e. Rajadharma, Dharma is followed by people and even
the nature in his state. Hence, the notion of Rajadharma expect very strict and tough
standard of moral code of conduct from the King. But at the same time, like
Machiavelli’s Prince and Kautilya’s Swami, he is to maintain his state by any means.
Balancing both-demands of Rajadharma and political requirement to maintain the state
( Dharma vs Danda or Dindari vs Duniyadari) may become impossible to fulfil by any
mortal being. But in Shantiparva King is supposed to represent divinity and hence such
tough and contradictory behavior is demanded from him.
Attributes of the ideal king: Following are some of the key virtues and code of conducts
expected of an ideal king as per Shanti-Parva in Mahabharat:
• The King is considered having God’s part in him, visible symbol of God on earth.
Hence, he should have Godly virtues.
• He should be truthful, trustworthy, and virtuous. He should be
conscientious(meticulous) and simple, hospitable and merciful, yet pragmatic and
unbiased.
• Shantiprava enumerate 36 virtues in the ideal king which can be categorised in
following types
• Of inviting nature: which attract people towards him. Handsome, strong,
charming, having aura, pleasing personality, etc.

49
 • Of intelligence/intuition: having thorough knowledge of Vedas, Shastra,
Smiritis, and other treaties. Practical knowledge of warfare, statecraft,
economics (Arthashastra), philosophy, etc.
• Of enthusiasm: should be punctual, enterprising, and possess strong resolve.
• Of self-restrain: should have self-control over his senses (Jitendriya), should
not have lust for worldly pleasures. King must subdue his senses(self-control),
then only can he subdue enemies, and maintain ‘Dharma’ in people.
• Should be efficient, enterprising, industrious, energetic, enthusiastic.
• Flexible disposition: his conduct should be different in different situations- sometimes
mild, otherwise hard, kind and cruel, helpful and helpless etc., like a peacock exposing
his various forms at the time of capturing a snake. It can be compared to Machiavelli’s
advise to Prince to be like fox sometime and lion, the other times.
• Should perform yajna, sacrifices for maintenance, expansion of the State and well-
being, happiness, and welfare of the people
• Should select virtuous advisers/counsels- Raj Purohits, Ministers, Councils. He should
listen to his advisors.
• By his conduct should become a role model for his people.
• King should always try to be good to his own subjects and destroy his opponents/
enemies by any means.
• Should be like Sun, like clouds/rain, that is his benevolence is received equally by all
in his state, without any discrimination.
• His temperance should be like spring Sun, neither too hot nor too cold. Thus, kings
should adopt the principle of Golden mean in their personal attribute and behaviour.
• He should follow the Dandaniti to maintain Dharma. He should be master in statecraft,
but should not falter (fail) on ‘Dharma’ while performing political duties.
• Life of a King is a mission and that he must always remind himself that he happens to
be a king only for fulfilling his obligations towards society and not for deriving worldly
pleasures.
• King must give up his likes and dislikes. The king should act fearlessly and perform
acts based on ‘Dharma’ and should always behave in an impartial manner.
• He should always subordinate his own interests to the interests of his subjects. As a
matter of fact, the king should treat his subjects as his own family without any bias and
should not avoid punishing even if the offences are committed by his own sons and
favourite persons.
• A king should be a seeker of Good (shreya) and Not the pleasurable (preya).
• Kings should collect wisdom from various sources, should apply those wisdoms so that
moral laws conforming to Dharma are observed.

50
 • Above all, a king should be the follower of truth & non-violence in spirit. A king
following the principles of Rajadharma does not despise ( hate) the weak, slight( take
lightly) the enemies, hate any one, do any work in haste and procrastinate( delay,
hesitate).
Conclusion:
In sum, Shantiparva advices a very exacting, strict, and tough code of conduct to the
king. The ideal king has Godly virtue and behave in such a manner that he becomes the
role model for his people. He maintains a fine balance between the demands of
‘Dharma’ and ‘demands of real politic’. He has the prime duty to maintain peace, order,
well-being, happiness, and welfare of his people, maintain his state from internal and
external aggression/threats. But while performing such duties he is to follow the moral
code of ethics as per the ‘Dharma’.
Not only he has to follow his own ‘Dharma’ i.e. Rajadharma but also ensure that
‘Dharma’ is followed by all and in all walks of life. Of course, such almost impossible
code of behavior and attributes is possible only in an ideal king. In real life no mortal
king can fulfil such contradictory and strict code of conduct. In fact, reconciling the
demands of spirituality, i.e. ‘Dharma’ and demands of real politic (Danda or
Governance challenges) has been the greatest challenge for the Kings in all time, in all
cultures, ancient Indian Kings being no exception. Notion of Rajadharma underline this
eternal challenge.

51
 NOTES:
1. *Capital Punishment in Shanti Parva.
(*Offbeat question, asked in DU in year 2015, not likely to be repeated.)
As per Shanti Parva of Mahabharata, state originated as punitive institution to end
anarchy, Matsyanyaya ( law of fish- big fish eating small ones) by punishing the wicked
and protecting the week and the virtuous. Society vests all its forces into the state which
has the monopoly of force/coercion for establishing peace and order. Hence,
punishment or Danda is essential job of the state.
But can the king take away life, that is give capital punishment, to the people who
committed grave crimes? Is this part of Raja Dharma to kill human by force of society
under his command? Is it not violence of very high grade on part of the king to take
away life of people, even criminals? How a king can protect his subject without
violence? These dilemmas and questions arose in the minds of Yudhishthira, who asked
these questions to dying Bhishma. Bhishma in reply narrates an old conversation
between prince Satyavat and his father, Dhyumatsena who says, 'One should use only
the system of punishment that does not dismember the body. Neither should anybody be
punished without first carefully examining the alleged offence of a person and applying
to it the established principles of law.' On putting a criminal to death, the king renders
his family without any means of sustenance, which is like putting them to death as well.
Therefore, the king must think carefully. The purpose of governance is not to kill the
wicked, but to create conditions in which the people can be good.
Prince Satyavat goes on to decry(criticize) capital punishment by giving the logic that
wicked persons can acquire goodness by living in company of virtuous people, he can
produce virtuous children, may have virtuous relatives dependent of him. Hence, by
killing him all chances of increasing goodness (through the culprit) in the society are
destroyed. Here views of first law giver Manu were also cited. Manu stated that just
punishment should be inflicted against persons who acted unjustly. This was the
essence of the law governing punishment. Though the act committed by the criminals
was illegal and unjust, the punishment must be lawful and just.
Thus, Shantiparva, perhaps first time raised the moral and ethical questions for giving
capital punishment by the state. It linked the justification of capital punishment to
Dharma which preaches non-violence. How combined force of society can take away
the life of a human through the state? is it not violence of highest grade? these questions
were dealt in by citing dialogue between Satyavat and his father in Shantiparva. The
prince put forward many arguments against the capital punishment. His prime assertion
though was that destruction of individuals can never be a virtuous act by the state.
The relevance of arguments put forward against capital punishment in Shanti Parva is
evident from the fact that these are cited by philosophers, great leaders such as Mahatma

52
Gandhi, and even by judges in their decisions on this issue. Today more than 100
countries have stopped awarding capital punishment. But it is ironical that India still
has the capital punishment.
Shantiparva raises very important questions for continuance of capital punishment even
in modern times. Indeed, by elaborating in such a rational manner about futility of
capital punishment, Shantiparva was much ahead of its time, very modern and relevant
even today.

53
 THEME 4: MANU: SOCIAL LAWS

4.A CBCS Syllabus:

• Social order and Social laws of Brahminical Hinduism as contained in Manusmriti.

4.B : Key Points

• Manusmriti, one among many Dharmashastra or Smriti, was compiled probably in 200
BC to 400 AD by mythical first man and lawgiver, Manu.
• Also called Manava Dharmasastra, that is, treaties on Dharma for mankind. Classified
as Smriti, i.e. God’s revelations as remembered by the sages/saints, it explains
‘Dharma’- code of conduct- for virtuous and fulfilled individual and social life.
• ’Dharma’ in Hinduism has several connotations; it may denote duties, righteousness,
moral obligations, moral & social laws, code of conduct, virtues, attributes, religion,
and mechanism to live a virtuous and fulfilled life.
• As per Manusmriti, society is part of cosmic order held by the supreme force of
'Dharma'- moral command of God keeping order in the universe.
• It is the 'Dharma’ which keep the universe, the solar system-Sun Moon and Earth and
all parts of nature in a perfect harmony and order. Similarly, ‘Dharma’ holds the society
together as harmonious organic whole.
• But this is only possible when each individual, as limbs/part of the society( which is
like an organism), performs his/her duties as per the ‘Dharma’ assigned to his/her
‘Varna’.
• Thus, Manu, like Aristotle, gives an organic and integrative theory of society/state.
• ‘Varna Ashram Dharma’ holds the society together. It maintains the social order. Only
by following the ‘Dharma’ of one’s ‘Varna’, fulfilled & virtuous life and salvation can
be achieved. This may be compared with Plato’s idea of justice as 3 classes performing
their duties without interfering into the domains of other classes.
• Not following the ‘Dharma’ including the ‘Varna Ashram Dharma’ is sin punishable
by God.
• 3 categories of 'Dharma'
• Ordinary or common 'Dharma' (साधारण धर्म): 10 in numbers; to be followed
by all double-borns all times
• Steadiness, Forgiveness, Self-control, Not steal, Purity, Control of the
Sense-organs, Wisdom, Knowledge, Truth, No anger.
• Specific 'Dharma' (विविष्ट धर्म) : refers to the particular duties which depend on
one's specific caste and stage of life, nature (form) of being- Dharma of

54
 Husband, wife, father, king, Varna, and nature (पति धर्म, पत्नी धर्म, तपिा धर्म, राज धर्म , वर्ण
धर्म, आश्रम धर्म, गुण धर्म)
• 'Dharma' during emergency (आपदा धर्म- Apda Dharma): Acceptable actions
at the time of Emergency
• Each of the 4 Varna- Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Shudra- has specific 'Dharma'
associated with them.
• Varna Ashram Dharma:
• Brahmana- teaching and studying Veda, sacrificing for their own benefit and
for others, giving and accepting alms (‘Dana’).
• Kshatriya- protect people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study Veda and
abstaining from sensual pleasures.
• Vaisya: to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study Veda, to trade,
to lend money and to cultivate land.
• Shudra: service to 3 Dvijas (double born-विज) Varna.
• First 3 Varna were considered double born-विज, for they believed to have their spiritual
re-birth after ‘Upanayan Sanskar’; Shudra were not considered double born ; they are
once-born or एक जाति.
• ‘Varna’ was not simply a division of labour in the society, it was hierarchical (rank
ordering), and ascriptive, i.e. rights/entitlements and duties depending on birth in a
particular ‘Varna’.
• Thus, the social order as per the ‘Varna system’ was inegalitarian (inequal),
hierarchical, ascriptive, and had notions of purity & impurity.
• ‘Varna system’ was not based on reason, logic, rationality, rather it was considered
divine creation as part of the cosmic order, all held by the supreme force of 'Dharma'.
• Purushartha: Goals or Aims of a human life : 4 Goals- Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha
; goals are also arranged in hierarchy, 'Dharma' at the top.
• Action for ‘Artha’( economic activities) and ‘Kama’( pleasure of the senses,
love, desire, passion) should be in accordance with 'Dharma' then only
Moksha(salvation) can be achieved.
• ‘Ashram Dharma’: 4-fold chronological (as per time) division of life: Celibate
studentship- ब्रह्मचर्म, Family life, worldly affairs- गृहस्थ, retreating from worldly affairs,
preparing for Moksha- िानप्रस्थ, and wandering medicant- संन्र्ास.
• In recent times Manu Smriti has become controversial and politicized. it's mainly on
account of its treatment of women and Shudra Varna.
• Different commentaries and interpretation of the Manusmriti, however, indicate
towards both good and bad things said and prescribed for women and Shudra. But some
of its verses (shlokas) suggest subjugation and dependence and limited property rights

55
 to women. Similarly, for Shudras some of the slokas are illogical, inhuman and not in
good test.
• But we should remember that texts like Manu Smriti might not have been authored by
a definite person in a definite time. It might have been compiled over centuries by
several authors who might have inserted text suiting to their thoughts and belief.
• Also, interpretation of Manu Smriti has been carried out mainly from western or
European perspective. What we call ‘Orientalism’ and ‘Eurocentrism’ might also have
affected its distorted interpretation.
• Hence, the best way to deal with Manusmriti is to take away good thing in it and leave
the illogical and distasteful portions; this was what Gandhiji advised.

56
 4.C: ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1 : Discuss Manu’s understanding of social order.

Similar questions:
1. Evaluate the structural formulation of Manu on social system.
2. Critically analyze the hierarchical social order as propounded in Manu-smriti.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
As per Manusmriti society is part of cosmic order held by the supreme force of
'Dharma'- moral command of God- maintaining order in the universe. It is the
'Dharma’ which keep the universe, the solar system-Sun Moon and Earth and
all parts of nature- in a perfect harmony and order. Similarly, ‘Dharma’ holds
the society together as harmonious organic whole.
But this is only possible when each individual, as limbs or part of the society,
performs his/her duties as per the ‘Dharma’, most important of which is the
‘Varna Ashram Dharma’. Social order is maintained only when individual
follows the ‘Dharma’ assigned to his/her ‘Varna’. Thus, ‘Varna Ashram
Dharma’ holds the society together. It maintains the social order. Only by
following the ‘Dharma’ of one’s ‘Varna’, fulfilled & virtuous life in this world
and salvation in other (transcendental) world can be achieved. Not following
the ‘Dharma’ including the ‘Varna Ashram Dharma’ is sin punishable by God.
Another feature of the varna system, as per Manusmriti was that it was
hierarchical, the four varnas are rank ordered. Brahman were at the top followed
by Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra at the bottom. Each Varna had specific duties
and rights associated with it. Varna system also denoted ascriptive (based on
birth) rights and entitlements. Notion of purity and impurity was also associated
with this system.
Hence, in nutshell, the social order visualised in Manu Smriti was integral part
of the spiritual domain, hierarchical, ascriptive, having notion of purity and
impurity. Of course, this system was inegalitarian and somewhat oppressive for
the Shudras/ lower castes and women.

Brief of the Social Structure as per the Manusmriti:

• Society as part of the cosmic order held by ‘Dharma: Society, for Manu, is the
creation and manifestation of the self-existing supreme Brahman (स्यमं भ)ू . Society is an

57
 expression of unified social forces for attainment of supreme personal and social Good.
The Creator created society like it created Sun, Moon, Earth, water, tree, air, etc. Not
only God created the society but also made certain rules for its conduct which
Manusmriti compiled as social laws. For Manu the ideal society is one in which each
one is following his/her Dharma, the cosmic force holding together the world and
maintaining order. Thus, as per Manusmriti society is part of the cosmic order held by
the supreme force of 'Dharma'.
• Society as an organic whole: Manu conceives the ideal society as an organic whole
having the four Varnas or social classes as its limbs. Individuals are integral part of the
society.
• The four fold division of the society: Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Shudra (ब्राह्मर्,
क्षतिय , वैश्य, शद्रू ). ‘Varna’ was not simply a division of labour in the society, it was
hierarchical (rank ordered) , and ascriptive, that is, rights/entitlements and duties
depend on birth in a particular ‘Varna’. Thus, each Varna has specific duties and rights
associated with it. Following is the brief of duties of each Varna:
• Brahmana- teaching and studying Veda, sacrificing for their own benefit and
for others, giving and accepting alms(‘Dana’).
• Kshatriya- protect people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study Veda and
abstaining from sensual pleasures.
• Vaisya: to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study Veda, to trade,
to lend money and to cultivate land.
• Shudra: service to 3 Dvijas (double born-विज) Varna.
• This can be compared to Plato’s 3 fold division of society into Philosopher
Kings, Soldiers, and Producers. Viasya and Shudra are like Producer class of
Plato’s Republic.
• This division of society is not just functional but rank ordered, for it supposes a specific
social hierarchy. The position of each Varna in the social hierarchy depends on the limb
of the creator (Brahma) from which the Varna is believed to have originated:
• Brahmana orginated from Mouth, Kshatriya from Shoulder, Vaisya from thigh,
and Shudra from feet of the creator (Brahma).
• This can be compared to golden lie stated in Plato’s Republic wherein Souls of
philosopher kings, Soldiers, and Producer class are cast in Gold, Silver, and
Bronze respectively.
• Dvija (विज) Vs Eka-Jati (एक जावि) : The first three Varnas i.e., Brahmana, Kshatriya and
Vaisya are twice born or Dvija (तिज). Every Dvija has to undergo upanayana Sanskar or
the ritual of initiation, which is considered as spiritual re-birth. A Sudra is not supposed
to undergo this rite and thus remain eka-jati (एक जाति) or once-born. Women were also

58
 not to undergo upanayana Sanskar. Many of rights/entitlements were reserved to the 3
Dvija Varnas, denied to Shudra and also perhaps to Women.
• Varna Vs Caste (िणम Vs जावि) : 4 fold division of society was based on personal aptitude
and qualities. It was, initially, perhaps not hereditary. Caste was social groups having
same occupation forming a professional guild. Caste was hereditary- father passes on
the teachings to son. Manusmriti attempted to reconcile Varna and caste. Thousands of
castes were bracketed into 4-fold Varna. Manusmriti also tried to accommodate social
groups falling outside of Hindu Varna and caste, such as mixed castes, foreigners, tribal,
and forest dwellers.

• Unity of personal and common good: Common good depends on proper discharge
of duties by all the members of society. Similarly, personal good depends on the
functioning of society as a whole, just like the health of body and of its limbs are
identical. This was also an attempt to reconcile rights of individuals and societal
Common Good.

• Thus, the social order as per the ‘Varna system’ was inegalitarian (inequal),
hierarchical, ascriptive, and had notions of purity & impurity.

• ‘Varna system’ was not based on reason, logic, rationality, rather it was considered
divine creation as part of the cosmic order, all held by the supreme force of ‘Dharma'

Here it may be noted that Manusmriti didn’t prescribed the Varna system, it presupposes it as
it was existing before the Manusmriti was compiled. It perpetuated (helped it continues) the
Varna system by describing it as natural, universal and eternal, part of cosmic order and
linking it to 'Dharma'. Manusmriti also attempted to reconcile the hereditary castes and Varna
system. It also tried to integrate non-Hindus into the Varna and caste system.

Conclusion:
Social order based on varna system was not the creation of Manu Smriti but it gave it a
new meaning by declaring society as part of the cosmic order held by the supreme force
of Dharma. By declaring that different Varnas originated from different body parts of
the supreme creator Brahma, it gave Varna system a divine sanction. Thus, in the
scheme of Manu Smriti social order is part of the cosmic order like solar system held
by the supreme force of Dharma.
By giving varna system divine sanctity and linking it to spirituality, Manu Smriti
perpetuated hierarchical, inegalitarian and somewhat oppressive Varna and caste
system. For this reason, Manu Smriti is criticized as being conservative and status

59
Quoist. It is also criticized for illogical doctrine of Varnas originating from different
body parts of Brahma. Low social status and poor treatment of Shudras and women are
also cited as minuses of the Manu Smriti.
But by giving a robust hierarchical social structure and giving it divine sanctity, Manu
Smriti helped Hindu society to be held together during the onslaught of Muslim and
Christian rules for thousands of years. This is perhaps the biggest plusses of the social
structure formulated by the Manu Smriti.

60
Q. 2 Critically analyze the role of Manu Smriti in the formulation of social
laws.
Similar Questions:
Q.1: Examine the social laws of Manu as explained in Manusmriti
Q.2: Critically examine the social laws as prescribed by Manu

Answer Template:
Introduction:
Manusmriti, one among many Dharmashastra or Smriti, was compiled probably in 200
BC to 400 AD by mythical first man and lawgiver, Manu. Manusmriti is also called
Manava Dharmasastra, that is, treaties on Dharma for mankind. Classified as Smriti,
i.e. God’s revelations as remembered by the sages/saints, it compiled and codified
social structure and social laws of Brahminical Hinduism. As per Manusmriti both the
society, its structure and social code of conduct were held up by ‘Dharma’ as supreme
cosmic force and therefore had divine sanction.
Hinduism unlike other institutionalized religion does not have a single authoritative
holy book (scripture) containing social code of conduct. Manu Smriti was first attempt
to codify social laws of Brahminical Hinduism. It referred multiple sources, Shruti, that
is, Vedas & Upanishad, customs and practices of those times and compiled them into a
coherent code of social conduct. This was a monumental achievement in Hinduism.
Manu Smriti provided the Hindu society a definite Path to lead a virtuous and fulfilled
life in this world and attain salvation in the transcendental world. By following the
social laws of Manu, both personal and common Societal Good could be achieved. By
Linking the social structure and social laws to ‘Dharma’- Supreme cosmic force having
divine sanctions- it gave spiritual foundation to the social laws. By giving divine
sanctity to social laws, Manu Smriti helped Hindu society to be held together during
the onslaught of Muslim and Christian rules for thousands of years. This is perhaps the
biggest contribution of Manu’s social laws to mainstream Hinduism.
In the next part of the answer, I will try to explain some of the most important social
laws of Manu.
Social Laws of Manu:
Basis or Sources of Manu’s Social Laws:
• Shrutis: Vedas and Upanishads
• Social practices, traditions, conventions, and conduct of virtuous people who
know Vedas

61
 • Self-satisfaction: satisfaction of one's conscience
• Analysis: Inferences, Perception, Authority as the three proofs but not logic and
reason
Scope of Manu’s social laws: What it contained?
• 4-fold division of the society- Varna System.
• Purushratha: Goals or aims of human life -Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha
• ‘Dharma’- duties of the Four Varna (वर्ण).
• Varna Ashram Dharma
• Three Guna ( attributes)-Satwa, Rajas, Tamas
• Rules relating to marriages, inheritance, food (dietary), pollution and
purification, rules for women and wives.
• Rules relating to Crimes, Punishments, dispensation of Justice.
• Rules of Action in Normal Times and Times of adversity(emergency).
• ‘Dharma’ of a Brahmin.
• Rules of Action for a King, Vaisyas and Sudras.
• Rules Relating to fasting and Penance.
• Fruits of Action and Actions for supreme Good.
Following are the explanation of some of the above-mentioned social laws
Everyone to follow ‘Dharma’ in all walks of life:
• Dharma: Supreme moral command which hold the cosmos in order. It denoted
Righteousness, Virtues, Moral obligation, Duties, Just thoughts and actions, natural
qualities or characteristics or properties of anything, law, Justice, Religion, etc.
• Ten Dharma- Steadiness, Forgiveness, Self-control, Not steal, Purity, Control of the
Sense-organs, Wisdom, Knowledge, Truth, No anger- must be followed all the times,
in all situations.
• Specific Dharma refers to the particular duties which depend on one's specific caste and
stage of life, nature (form) of being- Dharma of Husband, wife, father, king, Varna, and
nature
• 'Dharma' during emergency (Apda Dharma): Acceptable actions at the time of
Emergency

Varna Ashram Dharma:

• Each of the 4 Varna- Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Shudra- has specific 'Dharma'
associated with them.
• Brahmana- teaching and studying Veda, sacrificing for their own benefit and
for others, giving and accepting alms (‘Dana’).

62
 • Kshatriya- protect people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study Veda and
abstaining from sensual pleasures.
• Vaisya: to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study Veda, to trade,
to lend money and to cultivate land.
• Shudra: service to 3 Dvijas (double born) Varnas.
• First 3 Varna were considered double born, for they believed to have their
spiritual re-birth after ‘Upanayan Sanskar’; Shudra were not considered double
born ; they are once-born or Eka-Jati.
Purushartha: Goals or Aims of a human life:
• 4 proper goals or aims of a human life:
• Dharma : righteousness, moral values, virtues, just thoughts & actions
• Artha : prosperity, material well being
• Kama : pleasure of the senses, love, desire, passion
• Moksha : spiritual liberation, salvation, emancipation, self-realization
• Dharma should govern and guide pursuits of ‘Artha’ and ‘kama’ ; then only
Moksha(salvation) can be attained
Life divided into four Ashrams:
• Brahmcharya: Celibate studentship- 25-36 years
• Grihastha: 25-50 years; Family life, worldly affairs (अर्ण, काम ) but as per धमण
• Vanaprastha: Retreating from worldly affairs, preparing for मोक्ष
• Sanyas: wandering medicant in search of मोक्ष
• One who undergoes these four stages, according to the prescribed Dharma, is said to
have lived a meaningful life and would attain emancipation
Doctrine of Debt:
Each one has to repay the debts to Gods, teachers, parents and society at large.
Social Laws related to Women:
• Respect for Woman: “women must be honored and adorned”. Gods smile on the family
where females are honoured or held in respect. Families and societies prosper in which
women are respected.
• Mother’s position is above than father and Teacher (Guru).
• Autonomy of Women: Women should be given complete charge of managing the
finances, maintaining hygiene, spiritual and religious activities, nutrition and overall
management of home
• Both husband and wife should keep each other happy and satisfied.
• Wife is the soul of her husband ; wife and husband together to perform ‘Puja’ and
‘yagya’
63
 • Women is neither an object of enjoyment nor a wage earner.
• legal means for a woman to remarry when her husband has been missing or has
abandoned her.
• Best Marriage is one where Women chooses the husband: ‘Brahma Marriage’ ; no
Dowry
• Property Rights of Women ; inheritance rights to unmarried daughters; A daughter
alone has the right over personal property of her mother.
• Strict Punishment for harming Women
• Ladies First: Even before the guest, pregnant, old, newlywed and sick lady should be
fed
• Women should be protected but shouldn’t be confined indoor.
Many illogical and uncharitable things also were stated about women in Manu’s Social Laws.
Those are not stated here.
Discussion and Conclusion:
Manusmriti did a unique service to Hinduism by codifying social laws based upon
Vedas, Upanishads, acquired knowledge of that time, customs and traditions, Social
practices, conventions, and conduct of virtuous people who know Vedas, etc , analyzed
them by three methods- Inferences, Perception, Authority- and compiled the verified
knowledge into its social code of conduct.
Dharma was the core of Manu’s social laws. Dharma was supreme, sovereign, all
encompassing. It must be followed in all walks of life. Each one was to follow one’s
own Dharma as per one’s station in life. If everyone follows one’s Dharma, the social
order would be just and virtuous. By following Dharma an individual can lead fulfilled
and virtuous life. It would ensure attainment of both personal and social good.
Despite such positives, critics find many minuses in Manu’s social laws. Like Platonic
ideal society/state, Manu’s social laws was rigid and regimented. It supported unequal
hierarchical social order. It divided society into double-born privileged class and single-
born exploited class. It supported a closed and regimented society. Mobility among four
Varnas became increasingly rare. With time, varna degenerated into thousands of caste
as closed endogamous groups. Unjust, unequal, and oppressive caste system is,
therefore, attributed to Manusmriti.
Role and status of women in Manu’s social laws are divergent and contradictory. In
many respects, it praises women, advocates for their rights. But it also derides women’s
nature and put many restrictions on them. For Shudra Varna there is nothing
praiseworthy in Manu’s Social laws. In fact, it is harsh and unhelpful for them.
Despite such minuses, the contribution of Manusmriti in prescribing a verified, and
unified code of conduct for Hindu society, linking the social conduct to spirituality and
divine sanction, helping bind the Hindu society and make it robust & resilient during

64
the Muslim & Christian rules for thousands of years cannot be discounted. Best way to
deal with Manusmriti is what it preaches. Its acceptance should be based on our
conscience. Whatever is good in it, we should follow, leaving behind illogical,
uncharitable, and dogmatic codes/laws.

65
Q.3: Write a short note on intersection of caste and gender in Manusmriti

Manusmriti was essentially a compilation of the social law and normative account of a
social order based on brahmanical Hinduism. On two counts Manu Smriti became
controversial; first was its treatment of lower castes, especially the shudras and second
was equally uncharitable role and status to women. This might be reflection of twin
structures of Hindu society- patriarchy and caste system.
Manusmriti supported the Varna-Ashram Dharma. It not only supported but also
provided a divine sanctity by giving an illogical doctrine of different varnas coming out
from different body parts of the supreme creator Brahma. It was similar to the golden
lie stated in Plato’s Republic. While assigning the duties to different varnas, manusmriti
was quite unchartable to shudras to whom it prescribed duty of service to three higher
varnmas. It also denied shudras the status of double born( Dwij), that is , those Varnas
which are considered to have re-born intellectually after the upnayan Sanskar( secred
thread ceremony). Out of the four Varnas, only Shudras were called Eka-Jati (single
born).
By these discursive mechanisms Shudras were not only placed at the bottom of the caste
hiearachy but also were excluded from many socio-economic activities. Shudras were
denied education, excluded from economic pursuits, not allowed to read Vedas, and
were physically segregated. They were condemned to live at the outskirts of the village.
Manusmriti also mentioned many uncharitable comments on the lower castes,
especially shudras.
Manusmriti’s treatment of women in terms of their status, role and duties were equally
unchartable and controversial. At many places it also said good things about women.
women must be honored and adorned. Gods smile on the family where females are
honoured or held in respect. Families and societies prosper in which women are
respected. Mother’s position is above than father and Teacher (Guru). It also talked
about autonomy of Women- women be given complete charge of managing the
finances, maintaining hygiene, spiritual and religious activities, nutrition and overall
management of home. It also stated that wife is the soul of her husband ; wife and
husband together should perform ‘Puja’ and ‘yagya’.
• But in many other instances it supported and prescribed very limited role to women
mostly in private domain. It also said uncharitable things about nature of women- their
fondnes for ornaments, beds and cushions, intense erotic feelings, anger, crookedness,
and scandalous nature, etc. It is the nature of women to seduce men in this world,
declared Manusmriti.
• Manusmriti seems to have supported or rather prescribed Dependence, discrimination
& subjugation of women. Following are some of statements from the text in this
context.

66
 • woman should always worship her husband as a god ;Wife subjected to
punishment for disobeying husband
• Women denied learning of Vedas/Shastras, No upanayana Sanskar for them
• In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband,
when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent..
• Women could not perform sacrifices independently; Women‟s inseparability
with man in religious matters with inferior place to women
• Many restrictions on women’s actions during menstruation
• Daughter occupied secondary position concerning mental and physical abilities
• Child marriage and Polygamy: Lowering of marriageable age of girls (pre-
puberty marriages)
• In general, opposed to the marriage of the Widows.
• No share in inheritance to married women; limited rights of widow on her
husband’s property

It was obvious that the social law and order prescribed by manusmriti were in favour
of the higher Varnas, especially Brahmin and Kshtriya. Also, they were more
favourable to men than women. The caste system put Shudras and other lower castes
lower in the social hierarchy. The patriarchical system put women below men in all
walks of life. Thus, both the lower castes/ Vernas and women were given raw treatment
in the social laws and order prescribed by Manusmriti. They were placed lower in
hierarchy and assigned subsidiary and less significant roles, responsibilities, and rights.
We should also realise that the scheme of things supported by manusmriti were merely
the reflection of the caste ridden patriarchal Hindu society in those eras. We should also
acknowledge that Manu Smriti did not create the social law or social order, it only
compiled the prevailing social laws, practices, tradition and put them in order. In this
sense manusmriti simply reflected the social order of those times.
We should also acknowledge and understand the intersection of caste and gender
underlined in the social laws and social order mentioned in manusmriti. Being member
of lower Verna/caste was a great disadvantage. Born in the lower caste was considered
as the outcome of the sin committed in the previous life. Thus, the present life of the
lower caste people was a kind of amends for the sin committed in previous life.
Similarly, being a female was also a great disadvantage. Women were expected to be
under the control of men, should not participate in public life, and were denied
properties rights.
We can very well understand the plight of lower caste women. They faced double
whammy (curse). They faced disadvantage and discrimination because of the caste
system in which they were placed at the bottom. At the same time, they also faced

67
discrimination and disadvantage due to patriarchical system in which female wear
placed below men and assigned less significant role, responsibilities, and rights.
In sum, intersection of caste and gender reflected the marginalization of a large segment
of population of the caste based patriarchical Hindu society at the time of compilation
of Manusmriti. This has plagued the Indian society for thousands of years. Even today
the nation struggling to remove the discrimination and provide equal opportunities to
both the lower castes and the women. But this endeavour is still a work in progress.

68
 THEME 5 : KAUTILYA: THEORY OF STATE-
ARTHASHASTRA

4.A: CBCS Syllabus

• Theory of state as contained in Kautilya’s Arthashastra
• Saptanga Theory of State
• Mandala theory of Inter-state relations

4.B : Key Points

• Arthashastra, one of the greatest treaties on statecraft and art of governance, is assumed
to have been written by ‘Kautilya’ also called ‘Chanakya’ and ‘Vishnu Gupta’ in
about 4th century BC.
• Manuscipts of Arthashastra was found by Rudrapatna Shamashastry, chief librarian of
Mysore Oriental Library in 1905.
• As a text it is categorised as ‘Nitishastra’.
• What it contains?
• Statecraft: theory of State- ‘Spatanga’
• Science of Politics- practical ways to maintain state
• Political Economy- taxation, state revenue, welfare State
• Social norms & customs- law of marriages, inheritance
• Civil & criminal law, justice system
• Inter-state politics- managing foreign affairs-’Mandla’ Theory
• Diplomacy, Warfare, Criminology, Intelligence & Espionage
• Arthshastra was First Shastra or treaties to make politics autonomous of Religion,
ethics & morality (Dharma), first to prescribe policies of Statecraft based on national
interest and pure power politics, first to provide detailed description of public
administration, and art of governance. (Economics, law, foreign policy/diplomacy,
military strategies and intelligence), first treaties on real politic.
• ‘Artha’ literally means the peace of Earth inhibited by men which also represent
economic well-being. Thus, Arthshastra is the science of acquiring, maintaining and
expanding the ‘Earth’ for economic well-being.
• But actually, it is science of politics, for politics is nothing but interplay of power and
interest involving acquisition and distribution of resources that is the ‘Artha’.

69
• As per the Arthashastra, ‘Dharma’ is possible only when material well-being is secured.
Hence, it reverses the hierarchical order of the goals of life (Purushartha), placing
‘Artha’ above ‘Dharma’.
• It separated conventional morality, ethics and religion from statecraft/politics. There is
no stand-alone morality in politics, it is linked to power, interest and wealth.
• Thus, Arthashastra made politics autonomous, independent from religion, morality and
ethics. Politics follows its own rules, independent of laws of conventional morality,
guided by the considerations of Interests and relative Power.
• Thus, Kautilya’s Arthashastra did what Machiavelli’s Prince tried to do many centuries
later ! It made politics an autonomous domain of human endeavour, separate from
ethics, morality, and religion.
• Max Weber said "Kautilya's Arthashastra exemplified radical Machiavellianism, compared
to it, Machiavelli's Prince is harmless”
• Arthshastra gave two very important theories in state craft. First was the theory of seven
elements of state that is the Saptanga theory and the second was the theory of circle of
kingdom known as the ’Mandla’ Theory of inter-state relations and foreign policy.
• Saptanga theory: State as organic whole having 7 limbs or elements. State power is
the aggregate of the 7 state elements. By development and optimization of these
elements state power can be enhanced.
• Seven Constitutive Elements (Prakrti) of State: •Swami (स्िार्ी), Amatyas (अर्ात्र्),
Janapada (जनपद), Durgas (दुगम), Kosha (कोि), Danda (दंड), Mitra (वर्त्र)
• Mandala or Raja Mandala denotes circle of Kings/Kingdom which were close to each
other geographically
• The theory denotes an international system based on premises of natural ambitions,
natural enemies, and natural friends based on geography (relative location- national
interests), and 7 state elements (relative power).
• It prescribes foreign policies and diplomatic strategies to the Kings in the circle to
become the conqueror of all other kings of the circle- ‘Vijigishu’.
• Saptanga and Mandala theories are interrelated. By optimising the seven elements of
the state, national power can be maximized. Relative power of the state vis a vis its
neighbours should guide the inter-state relations.
• Mandala theory gives three level of analysis for international relations. first level is the
4 Mandala (of Vijigishu, his Ari(enemy), Madhayma, and Udasina Kings); second level
is 3 kings in Alliance (Vijigishu, his Mitra(ally), and Mitra Mitra (friend’s friend)) and
third level is the state aspiring to be the conqueror by optimizing its 7 elements
(Saptanga), effectively only 6 elements as Mitra is included in system of alliance- the
2nd level.

70
• Multiplying numbers of elements in the three level ( 4x3x6) we get total 72 elements
which determines the foreign policy and inter-state relations. Note that we have taken
6 out of 7 elements from 3rd level, removing ‘Mitra’ which is included in 2nd level.
• Arthashastra also prescribed 6 strategies( Shadguna -षडगुर्) and 4 ways/methods
(Chatur Upayas-4 उपार्) as strategies for deciding foreign policy and diplomacy.
o Shadguna: Sandhi , Bigraha, Yāna, Āsana, Dvaidhībhāva and Samśraya
o Chatur Upayas: Sama, Daana, Danda, Bheda

• Arthashastra was far ahead of its time in in describing the practical policies of statecraft
based on real politic. It was thousands of years before Machiavelli tried to separate
politics from religion and morality. Contemporary real politics or realism in IR
resembles the ideas contained in Arthashastra making it contemporary, modern, and
relevant.
• Hence, Kautilya, through his eternal creation Arthashastra, lives through the political
actions, strategy, and system of today’s global politics.

71
 5.C ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1 “Kautilya made politics autonomous”. Examine

Answer Template:
Introduction:
From the ancient times the realm of politics has been intermingled with the realm of
spirituality/religion in all cultures. Politics denotes social arrangements to find solutions
to common problems of society through dialogues, negotiations and social interactions.
It involves authoritative allocation and distribution of resources, which includes social
values and status. Politics is essentially the game of interest and power. Spirituality, on
the other hand denotes moral laws & obligations, and how individuals and society relate
to the transcendental supernatural power believed as creator and upholder of the world.
During the ancient period, politics was more or less subsumed in the realm of
spirituality in all cultures. If everyone follows the universal moral laws having divine
sanctity and performs one’s duty to best his abilities and attributes there is no need for
state or politics. But such ideal condition is not found in reality. Human nature is such
that without the fear of punishment by a common superior power anarchy prevails, in
which strong crush and devours (demolishes) the weak. This is what we call
Matsyanyaya (laws of fish), that is bigger fish eating the smaller fish. State and kingship
arose to end anarchy and Matsyanyaya, and restore peace and order in the society.
With establishment of state and kingship the realms of spirituality and politics started
to get separated. In ancient India it was the Arthashastra that first advocated and
prescribed the separation of politics from spirituality. We have seen that in Manusmriti
the Dharma was all pervasive, all inclusive. It included politics, too. The king was
supposed to follow his own Dharma, that is Raja-Dharma, and strive to uphold Dharma
by all others in all walks of life including politics. It was Arthashastra that separated
politics and statecraft from religion and ethics/morality. Arthashastra was first text to
declare that politics has its own laws and principles separate from conventional morality
and religion. Aim of politics is acquisition and maintenance of State. To that end any
action, even if considered wrong on the basis of conventional morality, is justified.
Thus, Arthashastra separated the domain of politics from other domains of human
endeavour. It gave autonomy to politics.
In the next part of the answer, I will try to further elaborate the points stated above.
How Arthashastra made politics autonomous:
In the scheme of Arthashastra politics follow its own path and have its own laws &
rules which are independent from the rules of religion and conventional morality. The

72
king can take decisions and actions which may seems to be against the conventional
morality to maintain his state. His political decisions and actions, therefore, may be
amoral and a-ethical. He may use spies, deceit, breaking his words, double crossing,
violence, cruelty, etc to crush his enemies and protect his state.
Politics, in Arthashastra, is guided by the consideration of Interest and relative Power.
As per Arthashastra, national interest is supreme, the king can take any action to protect
his state. Other consideration for the king is the relative power which is represented by
the seven elements of the state-Saptanga. Thus, we can see that Arthashastra made the
domain of politics separate and independent from the domain of spirituality & religion.
It recommended separate rules and considerations for political decisions.
For an individual, Arthashastra reversed the order of 4 goals of life- Dharma, Artha,
kama, Moksha- called ‘Purushartha’ in Hinduism. As per Manusmriti, Dharma should
guide the pursuits of ‘Artha’ and ‘Kama’. But Arthashastra gave preference to ‘Artha’
over the ‘Dharma’. ‘Dharma’ is only possible when economic well-being, that is,
‘Artha’, is secured. Economic well-being of the individual as well as the society/state
is dependent on right political decisions and actions because politics is nothing but
acquisition, maintenance and distribution of resources both physical and normative.
Thus, Arthashastra placed the domain of politics at top of human endeavours( human
activities) and separated it from conventional morality, normative values, spirituality,
and religion. It made politics both secular and autonomous.
Saptanga and Mandala theory of Arthashastra further depict how politics was separated
from religion & morality and was made autonomous. Seven elements of the state
represent seven limbs or organs of the state which is considered as an organic whole.
The State Power depends upon the full development and optimisation of these seven
elements. In developing and optimising these elements the king or ‘Swami’ is free from
the rules/laws of religion and conventional morality. He can take decisions and actions
seemingly contrary to the conventional morality and ethics.
Mandala theory is guidance for foreign policy and inter-state relations based on the
independent laws of politics, separated and autonomous from religion and conventional
morality. For the ‘Vijigishu’ only two consideration matter- national interest and
relative power. We have seen that the relative power of the state is represented by 7
elements of States under consideration. Mandala theory is very similar to realism in
international relations. Morgenthau is considered to have separated politics from
religion & morality and give it an autonomous status. But Arthashastra attempted such
separation and assigned autonomous status to politics thousands of years before
Morgenthau. Similar attempt was made in 16th century by Machiavelli in his ‘Prince’.
Again, we see that Kautilya was much ahead in his time to attempt such separation (of
politics from spirituality) in 4th century BC.
What we call secularism today is nothing but separating statecraft and politics from
religion. Since ancient times, all great philosophers struggled to separte the domain of

73
 politics from the realm of spirituality/region. Following accounts of 3 great philosopher
elaborate this point.
In Manusmriti, we see that Dharma representing religion include Raja Dharma that is
statecraft and politics. In Manusmriti ‘Dandaniti’ which represents politics and
statecraft is subordinate to ‘Dharma’ representing the spirituality and religion. ‘Danda’
was merely the means to achieve ‘Dharma’- the end. Hence politics had no independent
ground, laws or rules other than the laws & rules of Dharma.
In Plato’s thought the state was moral and ethical institution based on knowledge as
virtue and justice. Three classes representing three elements or spirits of the soul
perform their duties according to their spirit and abilities. In such an ideal Platonic state,
politics had no independent status. There was no need of practical state laws, fear of
punishment, and policing to maintain peace & order. Thus, in Platonic state, politics
was merged with rational social order created by design; it had no separate ground to
stand.
Aristotle rejected Platonic state based on perfect virtue and justice. For him, second
best state of Plato, State based on laws, was the best practicable state. Thus, Aristotle
attempted to separate statecraft/politics from religion and spirituality. But his separation
of politics and spirituality/region was not so pronounced. To Aristotle the state was
essentially a moral and ethical institution.
Arthashastra changed all this. It gave politics separate laws & rules, separate
considerations from the rules and laws and consideration of Dharma. This was the same
endeavour, as referred above, by modern political scientist in western political thoughts.
Now, such separation of politics from religion and morality is accepted universally. But
it was Kautilya and his Arthashastra which attempted such separation in 4th century
BC.
Conclusion:
One of the eternal challenges for political philosophical has been the separation of two
realms of spirituality/religion and politics. All cultures in all times have faced this
dilemma. In ancient Hindu political thought ‘Dandaniti’ represented politics/statecarft
and ‘Dharma’ represented religion & spirituality. Dharma was assigned highest status
among all other goals- endeavours of life. ‘Danda’ was merely a means to achieve
Dharma.
It was Kautilya's Arthashastra which first time attempted to separate two realms of
politics and spirituality. It gave preference to ‘Artha’ representing political economy
over ‘Dharma’ representing spirituality. It prescribed separate rules, laws and
considerations for political decisions and actions. These laws, rules and consideration
where different from those of Dharma. Hence, many of the political actions and
decisions may seems to be amoral and a-ethical but are justified on the grounds of
political requirements. This is real-politic or realism which made politics self- standing
and autonomous subject or field of knowledge.

74
In mediaeval and modern time many political thinkers attempted separating politics
from spirituality and giving politics autonomy. Machiavelli in 16th century and
Morgenthau in modern times are most prominent among them. But Kautilya's
Arthashastra attempted such separation giving autonomy to politics thousands of years
before these thinkers. ‘Saptanga’ and ‘Mandala’ theory of Arthashastra are political
theories having their own laws, rules & principles independent from religion and
conventional morality. Hence. Kautilya made politics autonomous. There can be no
doubt about this statement.

75
Q.2: Examine the importance of ‘Swami’ in Kautilya’s theory of State.

Introduction:
Kautilya's theory of state basically deals with 7 elements of the state which is
considered as organic whole. Hence, the constitutive parts of the state are like limbs of
an organ. We may include the theory of origin of state also as part of the theory of a
state in Arthashastra; but this was dealt in only as passing reference and is not much
different from theory of origin contained in Manu Smriti. Hence, I am focussing on the
Saptanga theory of state and King’s position in that.
Arthashastra list out 7 constitutive (which makes) elements of the state. These were :
Swami (स्िार्ी), Amatyas (अर्ात्र्), Janapada (जनपद), Durgas (दुगम), Kosha (कोि), Danda (दंड),
Mitra (वर्त्र). Out of this, Swami or king is the most important element. In fact, King and
his kingdom (Janapada) are the two essential elements of state. All other elements can
be recreated from these two essential elements. Without the Swami or king, the state
cannot be imagined. King is one who own the state. The word Swami denotes such
ownership. If the king is virtuous and industrious, he can make other elements of state
good and virtuous, on the reverse despite other elements being in best shape a bad king
may ruin them. Because of this, State and the King are used synonymously. In the next
part of the answer importance of Swami in the Saptanga theory of state shall be further
elaborated.
Swami, the most important element of State:
• Swami denotes owner, sovereign -one who is only ruled by himself. There is no
superior authority over him.
• Thus, the Swami or King owns the State- acquire it, maintain it, develop, and expand
it. Sovereignty of the State is vested in him.
• King and state are synonymous- King is the State.
• Seven elements are reducible to King and his Kingdom. All other elements can be
recreated from these two essential and basic elements of the state.

Virtues and attributes of the Swami or King:

• King should be best among all on whom he rules- God like virtues.
• 4 Types of virtues:
• Of inviting nature: which attract people towards him. Handsome, strong,
charming, having aura, pleasing personality, etc.

76
 • Of intelligence/intuition: having thorough knowledge of Vedas, Shastra,
Smiriti, Nitishastra, and other treaties. Practical knowledge of diplomacy,
warfare, statecraft, economics, philosophy, etc.
• Of enthusiasm: should be punctual, enterprising, and strong resolve.
• Of self-restraint: should have self-control over his senses (Jitendriya- winner
of senses), should not have lust for worldly pleasures. King must subdue his
senses-self, then only can he subdue enemies, and maintain ‘Dharma’ in people.
• Should have highest qualities of leadership, intellect, energy and personal attributes.
• He should be wise, trained in 4 sciences, righteous, truthful, resolute, enthusiastic &
disciplined, not breaking his promise, showing gratitude, having lofty aims, being
stronger than neighbouring king & having ministers and advisers of high quality. He
should be free from vices and should be role model for his subjects.
• He should have Knowledge of 4 Sciences: Anviksiki ( Philosophy), Treya (3 Vedas),
Varta (Science of Wealth), Dandaniti (science of governance).
• The aim of all sciences is nothing but restraint of the organ of sense. Hence, the King
should be winner of senses, like sage king, like the Philosopher King of Platonic state.
Why Swami or King is most important element of the state?
• A strong and able king having other six elements poorly developed can turn around the
State into a powerful and strong state.
• On the contrary, a weak and unvirtuous King endowed with well-developed 6 elements
will ruin the State.
• Swami is one who acquire or build the state, maintain and expand it.
Duties of the King : Raksha, Palana, Yogshema
• Raksha: to maintain peace, order, dharma, protecting weak from strong, dispense
Justice by just power/force.
• Palana: Economic well-being, livelihood, fulfilled life.
• Yogshema: Social Welfare- care for destitute, orphans, widows, old age, weak.
• Should utilize every bit of his time: daily time table from 1.30 am to 10.30 pm with
only 4 hours of sleep.
• King is bound by ‘Rajadharma’, but he can adopt any means to save his state, not bound
by conventional morality/ethics.
• King is the source of rational/positive laws (Raja-Shasna), which gets precedence over
Shastra Laws; other sources of laws which King should honour are traditions
(Vybhahar), and social customs.
• The King should subordinate his own interests and happiness to the interests and
happiness of his subjects. In the welfare and happiness of the people lies the King’s
welfare and happiness.

77
Conclusion:
Swami or King is the most important element of the state as per the Saptanga theory of
state in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. King is the fulcrum(pivot) of the state, around whom
all other elements of state are constituted. He is one who acquire, build and maintain
the state. Without the king state cannot be imagined. He is the creator of the other
elements of the state. In fact, all the elements of the state can be reduced to king and his
Kingdom, that is, the Janapada. By his acumen and industriousness, the King can
optimise even the poorly developed state elements.
But such exalted position of the king in the state entails (requires) him to
conform(follow) to very tough standards of conduct and duties. He is expected to
possess godly virtues, should be best in every respect, a role model for his subjects and
take care of the protection, happiness, economic well-being, and welfare of his subject.
The king is bound by Raja Dharma but to maintain his state he can adopt any means
and for that it is not bound by conventional morality and ethics. No doubt Kautilya
consider Swami as the first and foremost element of state in his Saptanga theory of state
in Arthashastra.

78
Q.3 : Do you agree that Kautilya's conception of state in Saptanga and
Yogakshema is 'surprisingly modem' in character? Elaborate your response.
Similar Question:
Q: Discuss Kautilya’s views on theory of state. How it is relevant today?

Answer Template:
Introduction:
Kautilya’s Arthashastra does not give any elaborate theory of origin of state. It is
mentioned only as a passing reference. Kautilya, from the mouth of one spy in
Arthashtra, describes how state originated to end Matsyanyaya, the laws of fish denting
lawlessness in the state of nature without any supreme political authority.
As per the account of that spy, in due course of time Matsyanyaya prevailed. This was
because of inherent weaknesses in human nature- lust, greed, striving for
power/domination, ego, selfishness. There were lawlessness, chaos, and anarchy.
People tired of Matasyanyay approached Manu to lead them as King, establish peace,
order, and Dharma. For this, they agreed to give 1/6th of their grain and 1/10th of their
profit from trade/business. Thus, State originated as punitive institution to maintain
peace, order, and welfare of the people. State was allowed combined force of the
society. Thus, it had monopoly of use of force/coercion to maintain peace and order.
Kautilya's Arthashastra gave proper theory of state, called ‘Saptanga’, which perceive
organic conception of the state consisting of seven elements or limbs. Seven elements
of state are: Swami (King), Amatyas (Higher Bureaucracy-Ministers), Janapada
(Territory and people), Durg (Forte), Kosha (Treasury), Danda (Force/coercion), Mitra
(Allies).
In fact, Kautilya compared these 7 elements of the state as 7 body parts. Swami- head,
Amatya-Eye, Kosha- Mouth, Danda-Mind, Durgs- Arms, Janpada-Legs, and Mitra- Ear
were the pairing for comparing state elements to body parts.
Elements are arranged in hierarchical order, and higher order elements generate lower
order elements. Thus, Swami is the prime and top order element and generates Amatya.
Swami & Amatya then generate Janapada, and so on. State power is the aggregate of
the seven state elements. By development and optimization of these elements State
power can be increased.
The end state or primary goal of politics is Yogakshema – protection, security and
stability of the State. Yogakshema denotes welfare state and Good Governance. State
exists for happiness, well-being, and welfare of the people. Prime duty of King is
Raksha- protection, Palana- economic well-being, and Yogakshema - social welfare
& good governance.

79
 Both these conception of ‘Saptanga’ and ‘Yogakshema’ are very modern and relevant
today. In the next section of the answer, I will attempt to explain this statement.

Relevance of theory of state as mentioned in ‘Saptanga’ and ‘Yogakshema’ of Kautilya’s

Arthashastra :
Both the conception of State, Saptanga theory and Yogkshema, are very modern and
relevant today. Necessary elements of state in in modern Westphalian state system are
territory with a defined border, population, government, and Sovereignty. If we
compare the modern conception of state and its elements with the Saptanga theory, we
realise that Kautilyan state has 4 additional elements which are ‘Danda’(Army),
Kosha(treasury), Durga (Forte), and Mitra (allies). Also, sovereignty is not specifically
mentioned as element of the state in the Saptanga theory. Sovereignty is represented by
the Swami or king. Durga, Kosha and Danda can be thought of as part of government
of the modern state element. Of course, allies or Mitra is an additional state element in
Saptanga, not found in modern conception of state elements. Hence, State elements of
Saptanga theory can easily be mapped onto the elements of modern state. In fact,
Saptanga is more elaborate and comprehensive. Therefore, Saptanga theory is very
modern and relevant today
Yogkshema denotes social welfare and good governance. This is the ultimate objective
of having a state. This is very similar to the modern conception of primary role of the
state which is to ensure social welfare and provide a good governance. Modern
conception of good governance denotes efficient, effective, just, transparent,
accountable, responsive government which strive for equality, social justice and social
welfare. Statecraft in Arthashastra has also the same goal, insuring happiness well-
being and welfare of the people. Elements of good governance as defined in modern
times are inherent in the concept of Yogkshema as explained in Arthashastra.
Thus, both Kautilya's conception of state in Saptanga and Yogakshema are very much
relevant and modern. They can be used even today by little bit of adjustments. His
theory of state is even more comprehensive than modern theory of state. His idea of
Yogkshema contains the elements of welfare state and good governance. Hence both
his theory of state and Yogakshema are relevant, contemporary, and modern. This is
surprising as the text was written thousands of years before the modern era.
Conclusion:
It is obvious from the above discussion that the conception of state element in the
Saptanga theory and Yogakshema in Kautilya's Arthashastra is very modern and
relevant in contemporary times. Modern conception of state and its elements can be
readily mapped into the seven elements of the Saptanga theory. The latter provides for
some additional elements such as Mitra, Durga, Kosha, and Danda which makes it even
more elaborate and comprehensive then the conception of Westphalian state and its
elements.

80
The conception of Yogakshema which denotes social welfare and good governance is
inherent in the statecraft and art of governance (Dandaniti) of Arthashastra.
Yogakshema is the ultimate goal or end state of the State in Arthashastra. Prime duty
of king is to ensure happiness well- being and welfare of the people. King is supposed
to provide just, accountable, efficient, effective, and responsive governance which is
nothing but modern conception of good governance. Hence, both the conception of state
element as per the Saptanga theory and Yogakshema in Kautilyan Arthashastra is very
much relevant today.

81
Q.4 : Examine Kautilya’s Mandala Theory and its significance in the
context of modern nation state.
Answer Template
Introduction:
Mandala or Raja Mandala denotes circle of Kings/Kingdom which were close to
each other geographically. The theory denotes an inter-state system based on premises
of natural ambitions, natural enemies, and natural friends based on geography (relative
location- national interests), and 7 state elements (relative power). Mandala theory
prescribes foreign policies and diplomatic strategies to the Kings in the circle to become
the conqueror- ‘Vijigishu’, of all other kings in the circle. Mandala theory was pre-
curser( coming before) to realism in IR of contemporary times. Many of the ideas
contained in the theory are much ahead of its time, modern, and relevant today.
Brief explanation of the ‘Mandala’ theory:
Following are the definitions of circle of kings involved in the inter-state system in the
‘Mandala’ theory:
• Mnadala (र्ंडल): circle of states/kingdoms, also denotes sphere of influence, ambitions,
interests, enterprise, alliance, diplomacy.
• Vijigishu (विवजगीषु): King aspiring to conquer the world, that is all the kingdoms in the
circle of kings. Anyone among the circle of King can become Vijigishu.
• MADHYAMA (र्ध्र्र्ा): Powerful Kingdom close to both the Vijigishu and his
immediate enemy; capable of helping both kings and resisting either of them
individually.
• UDASIN (उदासीन): Neutral state out of the circle of States of Vijigishu; more powerful
than any of the kings in the circle.
• Ari (Enemy-दुश्र्न) at front; Parashanigraha (पाव्णमग्रह) : enemy at back
• Mitra (Friend, Ally, दोस्ि) at front; Akranda (आक्रंदा) : friend at back
• Parashanigrahasara (पाव्णमग्रह सार): friend of enemy at back
• Akranda sara (आक्रंदा सार): friend of friend at back
Basic premises of the Mandal theory:
• Geographical Determinism: States sharing boarders develop hostility- neighbours are
natural enemy.
• Enemy of Enemy is friend.
• Friend of friend is friend.

82
 • Friend of Enemy is Enemy.
• No permanent friend or enemy in politics.
• Matasyanyaya (Law of Fishes) or anarchy in international politics. No higher authority
to settle inter-state disputes.
• Constant warfare: kingdom was either at war or was preparing for a war and
diplomacy was yet another weapon used in this constant warfare.
• Power is the means to maintain the state, happiness and welfare of the people. The
King may adopt any means to protect & maintain the State.
• 3 types of state power: Prabhu Shakti (vision, force, Danda), Mantra Shakti (mission,
Intellectual) and Utsah Sahkti (motivation, enthusiasm, enterprise).

Now let us see the theory in brief. Following diagram depict the circle of state/kingdom
and their relationship to Vijigishu:

Immediate neighbours to the Vijigishu both at front and back are his natural enemies, which
are shown in red arc. 2nd circle of kingdom, which are neighbour to enemy of the Vijigishu are
natural ally (friend). Friendly circles of states are shown in green colour. By the basic premises
stated above, Circle 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 represent Enemy Kings and Circle 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 denote
Friendly Kings.
• Basis of foreign policy and strategies to become Vijigishu: 3 level of analysis
involving 72 elements should determine the foreign policy. 1st Level: 4 Mandala: of
Vijigishu, his Ari(enemy), Madhayma, and Udasina Kings. 2nd level: 3 Kings in

83
 alliance: Vijigishu, his Mitra, and Mitra Mitra. 3rd Level: State Power as represented
by ‘Saptanga’: 7 elements minus the Mitra= 6 elements
• Total Elements: 4(mandla)x 3 (allies)x 6 (Saptanga)= 72 elements of Foreign Policy
Based upon the analysis of 72 elements, Vijigishu may choose one out of 6 strategies (
Shadguna - Sandhi , Bigraha, Yāna, Āsana, Dvaidhībhāva and Samśraya- and one of the 4
ways/methods (Chatur Upayas)- Sama, Daana, Danda, Bheda.
Brief exaplanation of these strategies are as below:
6 Gunas
Sandhi: Treaty, Truce: unequal relation, not between equal. lots of concessions to the strong
and lots of restrictions on to the weak.
Vigraha (war, hostility) : suitable when the rival state is vastly inferior in power
Yana(Marching): war preparation, coercive diplomacy : should be adopted when one's own
power is rising vis-à-vis the rival state
ASANA: condition of armed neutrality or holding a post against an enemy.
Samasraya: policy of protection where a stronger state intervenes and shelters a weak state.
Stronger state gets lots of concession.
Dvaidibhava: Duplicity, Double Policy: making peace with one and waging war with another
4 Upayas:
• Sama : It means a general attitude of friendliness and innocent persuation, the way of
polite argument, an approach based on reason and interest.
• Dana : Conciliation by means of material concessions
• Bheda : policy of divide and rule; use of spies, and the lure of money, other incentives
to cause rapture and defection among enemy ranks.
• Danda : Punitive measures, use of force as last resort if diplomacy fails.
Interpreting the Mandala Theory:
• Premised or based upon natural aspiration of the king/state, natural friend, natural
enemy.
• Doctrine of Mandala: science of enmity, intrigue, espionage, and diplomacy as
‘preparedness of war’
• For Kautilya war is necessary for expansion of state and diplomacy is nothing
but preparation for war.
• Ultimate aim: to become king of the World (चक्रििी सम्राट), whose kingdom is spread
endlessly in 4 direction (चिुरानंिं), attainment of happiness and welfare of the kingdom-
Yogkshema.

84
 • This can be attained only by acquiring power and conquest. And to attain this goal, the
king must be prepared to do anything and everything, for nothing is superior to the
maintenance and welfare of the state
• Denote Unstable Equilibrium-Very fluid, unstable inter-state relation, no rank
ordering, no balance of power.
• Any of the Kings in the system may emerge as the Vijigishu.
Critical evaluation of the Mandala Theory and its relevance in the modern
state system:
From the above analysis we can find many pros or pluses in the Mandala theory which makes
it pre-curser to modern realist IR theory. Following are some the pluses of the theory:
Pluses:
Was first model of an international system in ancient times
It has high degree of sophistication and detailing
It gave value free realist IR model more than 1500 years before Machiavelli or any
western scholar gave such theory.
It is very much relevant- most of the aspects of Kautilyan diplomacy- Realism,
pragmatism – found in modern day diplomacy in some or the other way.
However, we may find few cons or minuses also in the theory. Some of them are as below:
Minuses:
Geographic determinism- Neighbours to be natural enemies is questionable.
Assume many small kingdoms sharing boarders in plains of northern India; redundant
in today’s world.
Ambiguous role of the ‘Madhyama’ and ‘Udasina’ kings.
Highly Unstable, lacks stabilizing force, and in the long run, a self-destructing system,
does not pass the test of the theory of evolutionary survival,
and finally, no prescription for balance of power; or not explained relation between
equal powers.

Conclusion:
In the context of multiple small states in the 4th century BC in India, the Mandala theory
describes circles of State/ Kingdom which are engaged into a tussle to maintain and
expand their states. The central Kingdom is termed as Vijigishu who aspire to win over
all other Kingdoms in the circle. The theory is based on the premises that geography
determines the natural enemy or friend. The kingdoms sharing border are natural
enemies. Friend’s friend is friend, whereas friend’s enemy is enemy; also, enemies of
enemy are friend. Based upon these premises the Vijigishu find himself surrounded by
alternate circles of enemies and friends both at front and at back.

85
 By analysing the 72 elements of three level analysis, the Vijigishu may adopt one out
of 6 strategies(Shadguna) and one of the four ways (Chatur Upaya) as part of its foreign
policy to win over all other states.
Mandala theory can be said to be a precursor to the modern theory of realism in
international relations. Most of the aspects of Kautilyan diplomacy expounded though
‘Mandala theory’- realism, pragmatism – are found in modern day diplomacy in some
or the other way. Hence, Kautilya lives through the political actions, strategy, and
systems of today’s global politics through his Mandala theory.

86
 NOTES:

1. MANDALA THEORY:

Mandala theory was comprehensive theory of Inter-state relations and foreign policies
given by Kautilya in the context of multiple emerging small kingdoms during 4th BC in
northern Indian plain. Mandala or Raja Mandala denoted circle of Kings/Kingdom
which were close to each other geographically. The theory prescribed an inter-state
system based on premises of natural ambitions, natural enemies, and natural friends
based on geography (relative location), national interests, and relative power represented
by 7 state elements (Saptanga). Mandala theory prescribed foreign policies and
diplomatic strategies to the Kings in the circle to become the conqueror- ‘Vijigishu’, of
all other kings in the circle.
The theory is based on the premises that geography determines the natural enemy or
friend. The kingdoms sharing border are natural enemies. Friend’s friend is friend,
whereas friend’s enemy is enemy; also, enemy’s in enemy are friend. Based upon these
premises, the Vijigishu found himself surrounded by alternate circles of enemies and
friends both at front and at back.
Mandala theory analyses inter-state relations at three level. 4 Mandla- the Vijigishu ,
his enemy, Madhyama, and Udasin, 3 circles of Kings in alliance- Vijigishu, his Mitra,
and Mitra Mitra. And finally, unit level analysis of a particular kingdom/state
represented by ‘Saptanga’: 7 elements minus the Mitra= 6 elements of the state. Thus,
we get total elements: 4(Mandla)x 3 (Allies)x 6 (Saptanga)= 72 elements of Foreign
Policy. By analysing the 72 elements of three level analysis, the Vijigishu may adopt
one out of 6 strategies (Shadguna) and one of the four ways (Chatur Upaya) as part of
its foreign policy to win over all other states. Thus, the Mandala Theory gives one the
most comprehensive basis for deciding foreign policy of a state.
Mandala theory can be said to be a precursor to the modern theory of realism in
international relations. The theory was much ahead of its time, modern, and relevant
even in present times. Most of the aspects of Kautilyan diplomacy expounded(
explained) though ‘Mandala theory’- realism, pragmatism – are found in modern day
diplomacy in some or the other way. Hence, Kautilya and his Arthashastra are timeless.
They lives through the political actions, strategy, and systems of today’s global politics
through his Mandala theory.

2. SIX-FOLD POLICY
Six fold policy ( Shad Guna) or six measures on diplomacy was strategies of foreign
policy based on Mandala theory of Inter-state relation in Kautila’s Arthashastra. The

87
 six policies were: Sandhi (alliance), Bigraha (conflict), Yāna, (March) Āsana (armed
neutrality), Dvaidhībhāva ( double policy) and Samśraya ( protection). These policies
cover almost all the aspects of foreign policy, which are relevant even today. Combined
with theory of Chatur Upayas ( 4 ways)- Sama, Daana, Danda, Bheda- the policy offers
the complete range of diplomacy to enforce the king's hegemony in the Raja Mandala.
Both the 6- fold policy and 4- ways (‘Chatur Upaya’) are policies based on political
expediency (requirements) considering the state power and national interest. Altogether
72 elements of 3 level analysis of foreign policy forms the basis of choosing one out of
the 6 policies. It had no consideration for conventional morality and ethics. These
diplomatic policies are to be used in various permutations and combinations depending
on the given time and situation to gain the maximum benefits.
Policy of Sandhi (alliance) is to be adopted when the rival state is stronger and will
remain so in the foreseeable future. When the rival state is vastly inferior in power,
policy of Vigraha (war, hostility) is preferred. Yana (Marching), that is the coercive
diplomacy, is recommended when one's own power is rising vis-à-vis the rival state.
When the correlation of forces is balanced the king should adopt the policy of armed
neutrality (Asana). Samasraya is the policy of protection where a stronger state
intervenes and shelters a weak state. Stronger state gets lots of concession. This is
preferable for alliance building, when the rival state's power is rising faster than one's
own. Finally, the policy of Dvaidibhava, duplicity, double policy, making peace with
one and waging war with another, is recommended for both weaker and stronger state
when inter-state relation is very fluid, that is, power balance is shifting very fast.
Six-fold policy under the Mandala theory given by Kautilya in Arthashastra was
comprehensive range of foreign policy and diplomatic strategies to be followed by the
king in the context of multiple states in close geographical proximity engaged into
tussle of territorial supremacy. The range of the six-fold policy is very broad and
relevant in any context. It denotes realism in international politics at its best. Countries
adopting foreign policies and diplomatic strategies in present time resembles one way
or other to these six-fold policies recommended by Kautilya more than 2300 years
before. Thus, Kautilya lives through the political actions, strategy, and systems in
today’s global politics

3. KAUTILYA’S MATASYANYAYA

Matsyanyaya denotes state of nature before the state came into existence. Literal meaning
of Matsyanyaya is the laws of fishes where it is accepted that bigger fish will eat the
smaller one. In social system Matsyanyaya denotes might is right, anarchy, lawlessness
where everyone is the judge, jury, and executioner in one’s own cases and cases of others.
Of course Matsyanyaya would have made life miserable for people. They were not able
to have a peaceful family life and enjoy private property. State arose to end Matsyanyaya,

88
to restore peace and order. Such feature of the state of nature has been the common theme
among all the political thinkers. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau who propounded social
contract theory of origin of state described state of nature similar to what Matsyanyaya
denotes. We can say that the concept of Matsyanyaya in Kautilya's Arthashastra is a
universal concept to denote the state of nature before the state originated.
Kautilya, from the mouth of one spy in Arthashtra, describes Matsyanyaya, its causes,
and fall out. It was part of the Arthashastra giving a kind of theory of origin of state. In
due course of time Matsyanyaya prevailed. This is because of inherent weaknesses in
human nature- lust, greed, striving for power/domination, ego, selfishness. There were
lawlessness, chaos, and anarchy. People tired of Matasyanyay approached Manu to lead
them as King, establish peace, order, and Dharma. For this, they agreed to give 1/6 th of
their grain and 1/10th of their profit from trade/business. Thus, State originated as punitive
institution to maintain peace, order, and welfare of the people. State was allowed
combined force of the society. Thus, it had monopoly of use of force/coercion to maintain
peace and order.
The concept of Matsyanyaya is relevant even today. The term is cited to denote
lawlessness anywhere, in any regime. The concept is intimately related to another
political concept in Hindu political thought that is ‘Dandaniti’. To end Matsyanyaya and
maintain peace and social order just force of the king/ruler is required. Hence, in larger
sense Matsyanyaya relates to politics and statecraft. One of the prime duties of the
king/ruler in anytime, anywhere has been to end Matsyanyaya and restore peace and
order. this is the bare minimum role of state allowed by even hard-core neo-liberals.
Hence, Kautilya’s conception of Matsyanyaya has multiple connotations, is related to
theory of origin of state, is eternal fact of social life, and hence relevant in present time.

89
 THEME 6 : AGGANNASUTTA (DIGHA NIKAYA): THEORY
OF KINGSHIP

5.A : CBCS SYALLABUS

Buddhist Political Thought
• Theory of Kingship: Origin of State, Role & Functions of King
• Buddhist Dhamma vs Hindu Dharma
• Comparing Buddhist and Brahminical Hindu Political thought

5.B : Key Points:

• Early Buddhist political thoughts, particularly theory of origin of state/kingship is
contained in Aggañña Sutta, 27th of 34 Sutta(formulations) under Digha Nikaya (Long
Discourse).
• Digha Nikaya is 1st of the 5 Nikaya in Sutta Pitika, which is one of the 3 Pitikas(
basket of knowledge), other two being Vinay Pitika and Abhidhamma Piṭaka
• Aggañña Sutta gives cosmic theory of origin of life, human attributes, and consider
family, private property, and resultant vices as fall from bliss.
• Since eternity, floating Ethereal (delicate, body-less, other worldly) and self-
luminescent beings lived in bliss.
• Much later, they acquired body, lost luminescence (light), developed different
body colour/form, sex, family, private property- all as fall from body less
blissful life.
• Kingship arose as human arrangement (social contract) to end anarchy, maintain peace
& order
• Tired of anarchy, people chose amongst themselves the best and most able (most
handsome, attractive, strong, capable) person- Mahasammata- to maintain peace,
order by punishing the wicked and protect the virtuous.
• Gradually, role & status of King/state expanded, first King became lord of fields
(Khattiya), then Raja, and finally Universal Benevolent Monarch (Cakkavatti), who
also became spiritual guide to people, protector and promoter of Dhamma.
• State developed as an ethical institution drawing its authority from the Dhamma,
guiding people to live virtuous life and attain salvation (Nibbana).
• 3 phases of progressively wider conception of Kingship/state denote evolution of
Buddhist conception of State, how it adjusted itself with social order and real-politic of
those times.

90
• In Buddhist political thought there is an attempt to separate the 2 realms of spirituality-
‘Dhamma’- and Politics/statecraft- ‘Ana’. But gradually with expansion of role of
state/kingship both the realms got merged into state ruled by Cakkavatti Dhammiko
Dhammaraja (chakravarti Samrat who was protector and promoter of Dhamma).
• Dhamma vs Dharma: Buddhist Dhamma is more like natural laws- cosmic force
maintaining order in nature, including human life- understood by human through sense
of reason.
• Unlike Hindu 'Dharma', Buddhist Dhamma is agnostic (do not believe- sceptic)
to existence of God, Soul, divinity; Dhamma is not God’s command, not beyond
reason and rationality.
• Comparison with Brahminical Hindu Political Thought: more humanistic (believe
in human agency- Karma, society and state as human creation not of divine origin),
egalitarian (reject hierarchical caste system, stress equality), attempt to separate
spirituality- ‘Dhamma’- from Politics/statecraft- ‘Ana’(two wheel theory).
• Buddhism is the main stream under the Shramanic tradition. Synthesis of Brahmanic
and Shramanic traditions gave a syncretic (mixed) tradition in ancient India.

91
 6.C: ANSWER TEMPLATE TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Discuss the theory of kingship as described by Buddha in Digha Nikaya.

Similar questions:
1. Discuss the origin, nature and functions of State in Digha Nikaya.
2. How conception of state/kingship changed in Buddhist political thought.
3. “Conception of state in Buddhist political thought was humanist and secular”.
Critically evaluate this statement.

Answer Template:
Introduction:
Buddhist theory of origin of state/kingship is contained in Aggañña Sutta, 27th of 34
Sutta (formulation) under Digha Nikaya (Long Discourse). It gives a kind of semi-
contractual theory of origin of state. It was somewhat similar to much expanded and
elaborate social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in modern era.
As per the Aggañña Sutta, in the state of nature, human being lived in bliss following
Dhamma as natural law. This was the life without private property and family life. With
the advent of private property and family life, vices such as vanity (empty pride), ego,
lust, greed, theft, desire, crime, punishment etc. made life miserable, as there was no
supreme power with force to punish the wicked and protect the weak.
Tired of anarchy, people chose amongst themselves the best and most able person to
maintain order by punishing the wicked and protect the virtuous. In return for this
service, people promised to give 1/6th of their ‘Rice’ to the great ‘elect’-
Mahasammata. Thus, as per Buddhist thought State/Kingship arose as a punitive
institution having monopoly of coercion to end anarchy, maintain peace & order.
State/kingship was created by human for specific purpose, there was nothing divine
about it. This was a major deviation from Brahmanical Hindu political thought.

Origin of life, society, and state as per Aggañña Sutta:

Aggañña Sutta describes successive contraction and expansion of universe,
temperature and climate change and evolution of life forms as result of this. Life existed
before formation of Solar System (Earth, Sun, moon). Floating Ethereal (delicate,
body-less, other worldly) and self-luminescent(lighted) beings lived in bliss. They
were floating over earth feeding on air. Subsequently, water appeared on earth and the
92
 floating beings first fed only on water, then they fed on the savory(wholesome) earth.
Afterwards fungi like plants appeared, the floating beings fed on them, then they fed on
turnip and finally on rice, which started growing afterwards. As they fed on earthly
matters, the blissful body-less entity lost luminosity(radiance), acquired body,
developed thick skin, their colour started varying, some white/fair, some dark, concept
of beauty/ugliness began. As they lose self-light, they could perceive light & darkness.
Thus, appeared the Sun, moon, day and Night. Subsequently sex developed, attractions
for opposite sex compelled them to have family life in secluded hut, people started
hoarding rice, claiming portion of earth as their own. This gave rise to private property.
With the advent of private property and family life, vices such as vanity, ego, lust,
greed, theft, desire, crime, punishment etc. made life miserable, as there was no
supreme power with force to punish the wicked and protect the weak. In this situation
everyone would be judge, jury, and excutioner. Life would be chaotic, anarchic and
very uncomfortable. Such state of nature is very similar to ‘Matsya-Nyaya’ of
Brahmanical Hinduism, under which might is right, and strong crush the weak. It was
also similar to Hobbesian state of nature.
Description of the origin of life and state of nature in Aggañña Sutta as re-produced in
very brief above may seems like a fable (story), but it has got a deeper meaning. It
envisages eternal and pre-existing life in form of body-less spirit. This was the life of
bliss as there was no body, no birth, no death, no beauty, no property, no family, no
lust, no anger, no crime, no punishments. As human life acquired body of various
colour, sex, concept of beauty and ugly, sex life and family started. This gave rise to
private property and with that human life fell from bliss to have all kinds of vices-
vanity, ego, lust, greed, theft, desire, crime, punishment. This made life miserable.
State/kingship was a human solution to end anarchy and bring back peace & order.
King was chosen to restore peace & order, to punish the wicked and protect the virtuous.
The elected king was best among equal- Prime Inter Pares. In return for this service,
people promised to give 1/6th of their ‘Rice’ to the great ‘elect’- Mahasammata. Thus,
tax was a kind of compensation for King’s services to the people. State/Kingship arose
as a punitive( disciplinary) institution having monopoly of coercion to end anarchy,
maintain peace & order by using combined force of the society.
Nature of the contract:
The contract to form state/kingship was Semi-Contractual, Not Divine. The contract
was only between the people & Government/King, for limited purpose. There was no
contract among the people themselves ( as in modern social contract theory) to establish
a sovereign political community. There was reciprocal obligation between king and
people- King to command & protect, maintain order, people to obey, pay tax and offer
political obligation. Thus, the state/kingship was necessary human arrangement, there
was nothing divine about it.

93
Changing conception of state/kingship in Buddhist political thought:
Gradually, role & status of King/state expanded, first King became lord of fields
(Khattiya from kheta-field), then Raja (one who ‘ranj’ or pleases his people), and finally
universal benevolent monarch (Cakkavatti), who also became spiritual guide to people,
protector and promoter of Dhamma. Thus, State developed as an ethical institution
drawing its authority from the Dhamma, guiding people to live virtuous life in this
world and attain salvation (Nibbana) in other(transcendental) world.
3 phases of progressively wider conception of Kingship/state denote evolution of
Buddhist conception of State, how it adjusted itself with social order and real-politic of
those times
Dilemma of separation of realms of spirituality and politics:
In Buddhist political thought there is serious attempt to separate the 2 realms of
spirituality- ‘Dhamma’- and Politics/statecraft- ‘Ana’. But gradually with expansion of
role of state/kingship both the realms got merged into state ruled by Cakkavatti
Dhammiko Dhammaraja (Chakravarti Samrat who is protector and promoter of
Dhamma).
Nature of the state: Mostly monarchical.
Kingship was synonymous with state. This is enigmatic as Buddha himself came from
‘Shakya’, a republican State. Also, ‘Sangha’- Buddhist monasteries, were following
republican ethos and governed on democratic principle. State was absolutely
necessary to maintain the institution of private property & family, for peace & order is
not possible without state. The terms commonly used for the state are Rattha
(country), Rajja (kingdom) or Vijita (subjugated territory). The state is a sovereign
entity and its sovereignty is expressed by a variety of terms such as Ana, Adhipacca,
Issariya, Vasa and Siri ; Sovereignty connotes total authority, an ability to reward and
punish, capacity to give orders to all and receive orders from none
An ideal State is described as the territory which is without thorns (akantaka) and
untroubled and in which people live in peace, happiness, harmony, and without fear.
Ideal state is rational, ensure social equality and social justice, balanced, progressive,
altruistic, and moralistic.
Conclusion:
Buddha was perhaps first to give a kind of contractual theory of origin of state/kingship
more than two thousand years before western social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke,
and Rousseau were propounded. It was a humanist approach to State/kingship which
were human arrangements, created to solve problems of human life, and there was
nothing divine about them. Pre-state social life( state of nature) became miserable as
human fell from their blissful life in which there were no private property and family
life.

94
However, in the state of nature, all were master of their own act. There was no supreme
power to punish the wicked and protect the virtuous. People selected best among
themselves, gave him the authority to use force on behalf of them to restore peace and
order. For this service, they agreed to pay 1/6th of their rice/produce as tax to the king.
However, role and functions of state grew with changing political situation. First the
king became Ádhipati’or Kahttiya ( lords of the filed), then Rajan (one who pleases his
people), and finally Cakkavatti Dhammiko Dhammaraja, Chakravarti Samrat who is
protector and promoter of Dhamma.
In the final phase, State developed as an ethical institution drawing its authority from
the Dhamma, guiding people to live virtuous life and attain salvation (Nibbana). Both
temporal and spiritual sovereignty was vested in the King, who became spiritual guide
to his people. Thus, Buddhism adjusted with changing political realities to drift way
from an elected king with limited role to all powerful and all-encompassing
state/kingship. It also failed to separate politics/statecraft from spirituality/religion. In
fact, both the realms (politics and religion) were merged in the conception of
Chakravarti Samrat- the supreme king/monarch.

95
Q.2: Buddha’s Dhamma was alternative to Dharma of Brahminical Political
Order; give your Views
Similar Question:
Q. In what ways Buddhist ‘Dhamma’ is different from Brahmanical 'Dharma’? Explain.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
The dilemma of separation of the realms of spirituality and politics has been the
common challange to both Brahmanical and Buddhist political thought. Buddhist
Dhamma is Pali word for Dharma in Sanskrit. Both represent spirituality. Both
Dhamma and Dharma have multiple connotations (meaning), they may mean
righteousness, moral obligation, duty, and code of conduct for a virtuous moral and
ethical life. Both Dhamma and Dharma help individual attain salvation.
In both Buddhism and Brahmanical political order Dhamma and Dharma have very
exalted status. Dhamma/Dharma are sovereign, even the kingship or politics is
subordinated to them. The king himself is supposed to follow his Dharma, that is the
Raja-Dharma.
Only slight difference between Dhamma and Dharma in political order of both the
traditions was extent of separation between Dharma and politics. In Buddhism,
Dhamma was somewhat separate from ‘Ana’(command/politics), whereas politics or
Dandaniti was mere adjunct ( support) to Dharma in Brahmanical political order.
‘Danda’ was merely means to achieve the Dharma, which was considered as end or
goal.
Conception of State evolved with time in Buddhist political thought. From merely a
punitive institution, the State came to seen as an ethical institution which ensures
virtuous life in this world and salivation in other world. Similarly, from a very limited
role to maintain peace & order, kingship evolved to become important in all walks of
life. Cakkavatti Dhammiko Dhammaraja was vested with both spiritual and temporal
sovereignty. Hence, the separation of Ana and Dhamma was at best very thin even in
Buddhism. Hence, we can see that Brahminical Dhamma was an alternative to Dharma
of Brahminical Political Order.
But the conception of Buddhist Dhamma is different in many other ways then Dharma
of Brahminical tradition. Dhamma is more like cosmic force or natural law holding
together the universe including human society but unlike Hindu Dharma, Dhamma is
not divine command, neither it except the existence of soul and God. Another major
difference is that Brahminical Dharma cannot be subjected to test of reason, rationality,
and logic unlike Buddhist Dhamma which can be tested by reason/rationality. In fact,
Buddhist Dhamma are those natural laws which is innately (naturally) known to human
by their sense of reasoning.

96
 In sum, in political order Buddha's Dhamma is very much like an alternative to
Brahminical Dharma but spiritually Dhamma is more humanistic and secular concept
then Brahminical Dharma which is more theological and divine concept.
Now, I am going to list out the similarities and differences between Buddhist Dhamma and
Brahminical Dharma:
Similarity between Buddhist Dhamma and Brahminical Dhamma:
• Both denote righteousness, sense of duty, supreme moral obligation, purity of thought,
speech, actions, natural laws, and code of conduct for virtuous life.
• Both help achieve salivation, Moksha in Hinduism and Nibbana in Buddhism.
• Both denote nature or form (essence) of being- Dharma of water, tree, snake, etc.
• In context of socio-political arrangements, both denote duty and moral obligation of
each one according to his/her role/position.
• Rajadharma and Rajadhamma denote duties and moral obligation of King.
• Both Dharma and Dhamma are considered superior than Kings and are guiding and
regulating force for the Kingship/state.
• Both are more like way of life than Religion.
Differences between Buddhist Dhamma and Brahminical Dharma:
• Buddhist Dhamma, unlike Hindu Dharma is agnostic (non-believer) to existence of
God, Soul, and divinity.
• Dhamma is like cosmic force which maintain the order in the nature, nothing divine in
it.
• Dhamma, unlike Hindu Dharma, does not denote maintenance of Varna system ( Varna
Ashram Dharma)
• Hindu Dharma is considered divine command, breaking which will be punished by
God, whereas Buddhist Dhamma is supreme moral command based on law of nature
which is known to humans innately from their sense of reason.
• Unlike Buddhist Dhamma, Hindu Dharma is not subjected to test of rationality, reason,
logic.
• Hence, Hindu Dharma is more religious or theological- like God’s command than the
Buddhist Dhamma which is more like natural laws understood by human through sense
of reason.
But politically, both have the same position, role and functions in their respective political
orders:
• Both Dharma and Dhamma have a Dialectical (contradictory, having tension)
relationship with Politics or statecraft.

97
 • Both Buddhism and Hinduism attempted to separate the realms of Spirituality,
represented by Dharma/Dhamma and Politics/statecraft, represented by ‘Dandaniti’ in
Hinduism and ‘Ana’ in Buddhism.
• Both Dharma and Dhamma are considered autonomous and sovereign from the
kingship.
• Kingship in both Buddhist and Hindu political thought is subordinate to
Dhamma/Dharma. Both are guiding and regulating force for the Kingship/state.
• Kings themselves were bound by their Dharma/Dhamma, that is the Raja-Dharma.
• In both Buddhism and Hinduism, it is assumed that unless the kings follow their
Dharma, no one, not even the nature follow their Dharma in those state/kingdoms.
Hence, almost in all respect Brahminical Dharma was an alternative to Dhamma of
Brahminical Political Order. Both have similar meaning, position, and roles in political system
of the two traditions.
Conclusion:
There may be some differences between Buddhist Dhamma and Brahminical Dharma
on spiritual basis, but in political thought both have similar status, meaning, roles and
functions. In both Brahminical and Buddhist political order Dharma or Dhamma get
status higher than politics or statecraft. Both were autonomous and sovereign to which
even the kings were subordinate. Kings themselves were supposed to follow their
Dharma, that is the Raja Dharma.
Dharma or Dhamma had a dialectical relationship with politics. Both the traditions
struggled to separate the two realms of Dharma and politics. Buddhism became more
successful in this endeavour but with changing time and political situation it also
accepted the merger of both the realms in the kingship in which both the spiritual and
temporal sovereignty was vested. King become the spiritual guide to his people. Hence,
in almost all respect Buddhist Dhamma was an alternative to Brahminical Dharma in
the political order of these traditions.

98
Q. 3: Reflect on the origin and nature of political community in Digha
Nikaya.

In comparison to Hindu political thoughts the origin and nature of political community
in Buddhist political thought was very different. In ancient times political community
were not considered to be formed through a social contract but was considered part of
the cosmic order held by supreme force of Dharma. The king as the head of the political
community and was considered a divine creation. He was given by God to society
(political community) to have a peaceful and orderly life on earth.

In contrast, the Buddhist political thought, as contained in Digha Nikaya, refuted the
divine origin of state and political community. It asserted that people themselves chosen
one best person among them to maintain peace and order. That chosen person was
called mahasammata (the great elect). He was the first among the equals. The political
community which was led by the mahasammata, however, had no social contract
amount themselves. The contract was only between the people and the king/
mahasammata.

The contract was simple and straight forward. The mahasammata or the king was duty
bound to maintain peace and order and use the combined force of the political
community in just manner. The people as part of the political community were duty
bound to obey the instructions and orders of the king and offer political obligation to
him. Also, they had to pay compensation to the king for his service by giving him 1/6th
of their rice. Either side breaching the contract would make the contract null & void.

Here we should note the contrast between the Hindu and Buddhist political thought. In
the former the king was the divine entity, divinely created to lead the political
community and maintain peace and order by ending the anarchy or the ‘Matsyanyaya’.
Whereas in the Buddhist political thought the political community was created through
a social contract between the ruled and the ruler.
Buddha, in Digha Nikaya, also sketched the origin of life on earth which led to
formation of a political community. Digha Nikaya envisaged eternal and pre-existing
life in form of body-less spirit. This was the life of bliss as there was no body, no birth,
no death, no beauty, no property, no family, no lust, no anger, no crime, no
punishments. As human life acquired body of various colour, sex, concept of beauty
and ugly, sex life and family started. This gave rise to private property and with that
human life fell from bliss to have all kinds of vices- vanity, ego, lust, greed, theft, desire,
crime, punishment. This made life miserable.
State/kingship was a human solution to end anarchy and bring back peace & order.
King was chosen to restore peace & order, to punish the wicked and protect the virtuous.
The elected king was best among equal- Prime Inter Pares. In return for this service,
people promised to give 1/6th of their ‘Rice’ to the great ‘elect’- Mahasammata. Thus,
tax was a kind of compensation for King’s services to the people. State/Kingship arose

99
as a punitive (disciplinary) institution having monopoly of coercion to end anarchy,
maintain peace & order by using combined force of the society/ political community.

Howver, in late phases, nature of political community and state underwent changes in
the Buddhist political thought. It moved from a purely social contract based political
community led by Mahasammata to one led by Chakravarti Samrat in whom both
temporal and spiritual Sovereignty were vested. First, the Mahasammata became
Khattiya or overlord of the fields. He had much more powers and responsibilities
towards the people over whom he ruled. Later on, the king was called ‘Rajan’ or
Adhipati. This was a kind of absolute monarchy. Finally, the king became Cakkavatti
Dhammiko Dhammaraja ( chakravarti Samrat), in which both the spiritual and temporal
domain merged. The Chakravarti Samrat was not only the temporal sovereign but also
the spiritual leader of the people.
Therefore, it is obvious that nature of political community and state almost became
same as in the Brahminical political thought. The political community as part of the
larger society was held together by the Dhamma, the protector of which was the king.
Thus, progressively State developed as an ethical institution drawing its authority from
the Dhamma, guiding people to live virtuous life in this world and attain salvation
(Nibbana) in other(transcendental) world.
3 phases of progressively wider conception of Kingship/state denoted evolution of
Buddhist conception of State and political community, how it adjusted itself with social
order and real-politic of those times.
This way the idea of political community and state in Buddhist political thought
ultimately became same as those of the Hindu political thought. In both the political
community and state became an ethical institution held by the forces of Dharma. The
king was was supposed to maintain the Dharma in all walks of life of people and also
maintain his own Dharma, that is, the Raja Dharma. Thus, ultimately both branches of
the Indian political thought- Brahmnic and Buddhist- held almost same idea about
political community and state in ancient India.

100
 NOTES:
1. State in Digha Nikaya
Answer Template:
Buddhist theory of origin of state/kingship is contained in Aggañña Sutta, 27th of 34
Sutta under Digha Nikaya (Long Discourse). It is a kind of semi-contractual theory,
which may be considered as precursor to social contract theory of state by Hobbes,
Locke, and Rousseau in modern era.
As per the Digha Nikaya, in the state of nature, human being lived in bliss following
Dhamma as natural law perceived through innate sense of reason. This was the life
without private property and family life. There was no competition for wealth, no fight
for property, no differential status, no rich, no poor. With the advent of private property
and family life, vices such as vanity (empty pride), ego, lust, greed, theft, desire, crime,
punishment etc made life miserable, as there was no supreme power with force to
punish the wicked and protect the weak.
Tired of anarchy, people chose amongst themselves the best and most able person to
maintain order by punishing the wicked and protect the virtuous. In return for this
service, people promised to give 1/6th of their ‘Rice’ to the great ‘elect’-
Mahasammata. Thus, as per Buddhist thought State/Kingship arose as a punitive
institution having monopoly of force/coercion to end anarchy, maintain peace & order.
State/kingship was created by human for specific purpose, there was nothing divine
about it. This was a major deviation from Brahmanical Hindu political thought.
However, role and functions of state in Buddhist political thought expanded with
changing political situation. First the king became Ádhipati’or Kahttiya (lords of the
filed), then Rajan (one who pleases his people), and finally Cakkavatti Dhammiko
Dhammaraja, Chakravarti Samrat ( the great king) who is protector and promoter of
Dhamma.
In the final phase State was developed into an ethical institution drawing its authority
from the Dhamma, guiding people to live virtuous life in this world and attain salvation
(Nibbana) in the transcendental (other) world. Both temporal and spiritual sovereignty
was vested in the King, who became spiritual guide to the nation. Thus, Buddhism
adjusted with changing political realities to drift way from an elected king with limited
role to the state/kingship to all powerful and all-encompassing state/kingship.

101
 THEME 7: BARANI: IDEAL POLITY

6.A : CBCS SYALLABUS

Political Thoughts of Ziauddin Barani
• Theory of Kingship : Origin and Nature
• His ideal King
• His Advices (Nasihat or Hidayat) to the King
• His attempt to deal with the challenge of reconciling demands of Shari’a with
challenges of real-politic and statecraft

6.B : Key Points:

• Ziauddin Barani ( 1283–1359) is the most noted historian and political thinker of Delhi
Sultanate period.
• His political thoughts are mainly contained in his Fatwa-i-Jahandari (theory of
Governance, world-keeping- Duniyadari).
• He supported divine theory of Kingship of the type of ancient Sassanid Iranian state:
• King (Padshah) is one of the most wonderful creations of God.
• He is shadow of God on earth, his vice-regent, representative of God.
• The heart of King is the object of the sight of God.
• His ideal Sultan/king was Mahmud of Ghazni in Fatwa-i-Jahandari, and Balban
in Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, through their mouth he describes such exalted (very
high) status of Kingship.
• His own view of Kingship was mixed: not comfortable with hierarchically
conceived, aristocratic, non-Islamic Sassanid state model. Also, kings like any
other creation of God may be good or bad; nothing inherently divine in the
Kingship.
• Like in any other philosophies, Islamic Political thinkers also faced the challenge of
separation of 2 realms of Spirituality and Politics- Din-dari Vs Duniya-dari; demands
of Shari’a vs political requirement to maintain the state in non-muslim nation.
• Muslim political thinkers proposed two types of strategies to tackle this issue, first was
to accommodate in Shari’a non-Islamic traditions, as offered by Nizam al- Mulk Tusi;
2nd by Al-Ghazali which was to interpret Shari’a to accommodate non-Islamic
traditions.

102
• Not following the above strategies, Barni took conservative approach. He rejected
anything against Shariá as non-Islamic and Sin. But he allowed such sins by the Sultan
for maintaining the state.
• But he attempted to balance the demands of Shari’a and rule of faith with challenges of
statecraft of Muslim rule in the land of non-Muslims.
• For this, he gave Zawabit, practical state laws, for cases not covered by Shariá.
• This was his attempt to separate the two realms of spirituality and politics/statecraft-
Dindari and Duniyadari. For this, Barni is compared to Kautilya and Machiavelli.
• His ‘Fatwa’ contained 24 advices to Kings ( Muslim Kings in non-Muslim Lands)
covering all aspect of statecraft and governance; some key advices ( Nasihat,
Hidayats) were:
• Follow the Shari’a in personal and political domain.
• Dispense justice on the principle of equality.
• Adopt any means to maintain and strengthen the state.
• Ensure peace, truth, justice, economic well-being and welfare of the subjects.
• Maintain stability of ruling class by adopting principle of heredity and closing
the doors of nobility to low-birth, ignoble (low-born), upstarts, and infidels.
• Protect old nobility and ruling families and treat them carefully after the
conquest of any new territory.
• Check and suppress Ignoble, Hindu Priestly class, and Philosophers/rationalists.
• Suppress the rebellious elite, both Hindus and Muslims, ban education to the
under-privileged, low born and nondescript people including Muslims.
• Maintain price stability- fixing price, checking weights & measures, hoarding,
malpractices, state procurement, etc.
• King, Nobility, Justice, Laws, Intelligence system, Bureaucracy were important
elements of the state on which his ‘Fatwa’ contain elaborate descriptions and
prescriptions.
• For advising the King to adopt any means to maintain and strengthen the state, he is
compared with Machiavelli and Kautilya in giving politics an autonomy from
conventional morality.
• But his conservatism. Theological approach, and dislike for low born, Hindu elites, and
philosophers made him out of tune with both the new nobility and real politic adopted
by Delhi Sultans.
• Delhi Sultans hardly seemed to have followed his conservative advices. Despite this,
his Fatwa-i-Jahandari is considered the best political treaties of Delhi Sultanate
period.

103
• His contributions are invaluable in separating the two realms of spirituality and politics,
Zawabit as secular state laws, and elaborate advices on all aspect of
governance/statecraft.

104
 7.C : ANSWER TEMPLATE TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Examine Barani’s Hidayat (advices) to his ideal King.

Similar questions:
1. Discuss the Barni’s advices (Hidayat) to Sultans. How far were they followed by the
Delhi Sultans? Discuss.
2. “Barni’s advices (Hidayat) to Sultans were mix of conservatism and pragmatism”
Discuss.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
Barni’s Fatwa- i- Jahandari is written in the style of ‘mirror to the king’ genre like
‘Prince’ by Machiavelli and ‘Siyasat Nama’ by Nizam al- Mulk Tusi. These advises
were primarily addressed to Muslim kings in non-Muslim nation such as India. In
‘Fatwa’, advices to kings are conveyed through Mahmud of Ghazni as sermons to his
fictitious sons. In all, Barni gave 24 advices to his ideal Sultan.
The advices cover broad range of virtues in the king, duties, role and functions of the
king and art of governance. Some of the key Advises were to follow Sahri’a both in
private and public domain, stabilize the ruling elite/noble class by adopting the
hereditary principles, closing the doors of nobility to low born, ignoble and infidels,
protect the old nobility of previous regime, dispense justice following the principles of
equality, ensure peace, truth, justice, economic well-being and welfare of the subjects,
and adopt any means to maintain the state.
Barni’s Advises have curious mix of conservatism and pragmatism. On one hand he
hates non-Muslims, especially high class Hindus, but on the other hand he accepts
Hindu nobility in Mahmud’s regime; he advises following shari’a in all walks of life
but also recommend Zawabit as practical and secular state law; he advises the Sultan to
avoid falsehood, changeability, deception, wrathfulness and injustice but also advises
him to adopt any means to maintain and protect his state. He follows the ideals of
ancient Sassanid Iranian empire but feels uncomfortable with its pomp and show,
regality, and hierarchical status conscious socio-political order.
Such contradiction in the political thoughts of Barani might have been the result of
changing situation of political Islam, that is, Islamic rule in in foreign lands such as
India where the ruler and nobility were Muslims but vast majority of subjects were non-
Muslims. Barni’s Advices to the king is an attempt to reconcile the dilemma of meeting

105
 the demands of Shari’a with challenges of political requirements and
governance/statecraft in a non-Muslim state.
In the next section of the answer, I will list out the most important of his 24 advices or hidayats.
I will also attempt to discuss the contradiction in his advises, their impact on the Delhi Sultans,
and their relevance.
Barni’s Hidayat (advices) to his ideal Sultan:
Following are some of the most important of his 24 advices or Hidayats:
• Follow the Shari’a in personal and political domain; flexibility allowed in personal
domain but not in public.
• Dispense justice on the principle of equality. There should be balance between
punishment and forgiveness.
• To maintain and strengthen the state king may adopt any means.
• Ensure peace, truth, justice, economic well-being and welfare of the subjects.
• Maintain stability of ruling class by adopting principle of heredity; closing entry of low
born, mean, up-starters, and infidels to nobility.
• Check and suppress Ignoble, Hindu Priestly class, Philosophers/rationalists.
• Maintain price stability- fixing price, checking weights & measures, hoarding,
malpractices, state procurement, etc.
• Keeping strong, satisfied and loyal Army by taking care of all needs of the soldier- their
arms, equipment, salary, housing, family.
• Formulate Practical state laws, policies, rules & regulations- Zawabit, for
cases/situations not covered in Shari’a.
• Keep himself fully informed about the happenings in the state through strong network
of intelligence, and espionage system.
• Suppress the rebellious elite, both Hindus and Muslims, ban education to the under-
privileged, low born and nondescript people including Muslims.
• Protect old noblity and ruling families and treat them carefully after the conquest of any
new territory.
• Should have firm resolve/determination based on high lofty ideals.
• Should keep the subject in fear and awe with pomp and splendour but should not
become despotic/tyrannical- shouldn’t be hated.
• Frame good policies, rules and regulations to establish the strong & efficient
administration.
• Carefully select high officials, judges, counselors, companions.
• Should consult scholars, experts, intellectuals, Consultative Assembly, and his
companions.

106
 • Remain loyal and obedient to God especially in later years of his rule. Because of his
breaking many Islamic principles to maintain his state, he should pray for forgiveness
and blessings of God/Allah.

Contradictions in his advices/Hidayats:

• King to uphold faith & Shari’a but may follow un-Islamic policies & practices to
maintain his state.
• Denying nobility to low born, ignoble, infidels, up-starters, and baser people but
accepting such practices by Mahmud of Ghazni and Delhi Sultans.
• King should follow the ideals of Khalifa as pious and poor king but allowed pomp and
show, regality to keep the subjects in awe.
Pragmatism in his advices:
• Formulate Practical state laws, policies, rules & regulations- Zawabit, for
cases/situations not covered in Shari’a.
• Kings may adopt any means including un-Islamic policies & practices to maintain his
state.
• Protect old noblity and ruling families and treat them carefully after the conquest of any
new territory. This was to minimize old nobility helping the enemy forces against the
King/Sultan.
• Maintain price stability- fixing price, checking weights & measures, hoarding,
malpractices, state procurement, etc.
• keep himself fully informed about the happenings in the state through strong network
of intelligence, and espionage system.
Conservativism in his advices:
• His hatred towards low born, Non-Muslims, especially Hindus, merchant/trading class,
Philosophers, scientists.
• He even advised banning education to low born people.
• To him, virtues comes naturally to high and noble born.
• Maintaining dignity of Shari’a in all walks of life- both private & public.
• His hatred for Philosophers/rationalists.
• Anything against Shari’a was not acceptable.
• Maintain stability of ruling class by adopting principle of heredity. This was a very
pragmatic advice.
Effect of his advice on Delhi Sultans:
In the real politic of Delhi Sultanate, Barni’s ‘Fatwa’ merely represent one point of view.
Perhaps he imagined an ideal Muslim state, but while doing so he also prescribed many

107
 such contradictory principles which logically made his own advises impossible to follow.
Example of such contradictory advices are his advice on Justice, which should be based on
equality but may be differential, Practical Law Zawabit should conform to Shari’a, Political
Obligation based on force but also on justice, King to maintain trust with his people but
should treat many sections harshly, leniency and benevolence towards needy, poor,
indigent, but same time hatred for low born, ignoble to the extent of denying education to
them. Hence, his advices were difficult to follow. Because of their conservatism, they were
also out of tune with the real politic of Delhi Sultanate. Therefore, Barni’s advices seem to
have little effect on Delhi Sultanate. Views and actions of some of Delhi sultans prove
ineffectiveness of Barni’s advice on Delhi Sultans:
• Iltutmish: ‘ Muslims in terms of strength , were still like salt in a dish’ and hence waging
all-out war against ‘infidels’( as advised by Barni) was meaningless.
• Balban: kept theologians and theorists (Ulma) at a distance dismissing them as seekers
of narrow worldly gains.
• Alauddin Khalji: Followed policies which best served the interest of his power and the
state.
• Muhammad Bin Tughlaq: accorded high positions to Hindus.
• Firuz Tughlaq: showed interest in Hindu traditions and monuments.
• Sikandar Lodhi: encouraged Hindus to learn Persian for their fuller participation in state
administration
Conclusion:
Ziauddin Barani’s political thoughts are contained in his seminal work called Fatwa-i-
Jahandari (theory of Governance, world-keeping- Duniyadari). ‘Fatwa’ is written in
the style of ‘Mirror to the King’ genre in which the political thinker advices how a King
should conduct himself to maintain his state. Barni gave twenty-four advices to his ideal
Sultan. His advices covered entire range of statecraft and arts of governance.
His most important advices were to uphold the dignity of Shari’a in all walks of life,
stabilize nobility by adopting hereditary principles, closing doors of nobility to low
born and ignoble, protecting old nobility of earlier regime, dispense justice on principle
of equality, maintain price stability, and ensure peace, truth, justice, economic well-
being and welfare of the subjects.
Barni’s advises had curious mix of conservatism and pragmatism. Many of his advises
were contradictory. But his advices had seemed to have little impact on real politic of
Delhi Sultans, who found many of his advices impossible to follow. One such advice
was to wage all round war against the infidels such as Hindu priestly class. This was
impossible for the Delhi Sultans in the land of Hindus. Also, his hatred for low born
and ignoble was generally not shared by the Delhi Sultans.
Despite this, his advices are valuable for range of the political ideas of
Kingship/statecraft. Also, his advice of practical state law-Zawabit- is his unique

108
contribution in separating the two realms- spirituality and politics. Hence, Barni is very
important but an enigmatic political thinker of Muslim India.

109
Q.2 : Examine Barani’s concept of Ideal State/ Sultanate.
Introduction:
Ziauddin Barani (1283–1359) was most important political thinker during Delhi
Sultanate period. His political thoughts are mainly contained in his seminal creation
Fatwa-i-Jahandari (theory of Governance, world-keeping- Duniyadari). Before Barni,
during 11-13th century, political thinkers of Islamic world were engaged into a dialogue
on two issues; first was what should be the features of ideal state/ Sultanate, and second
was how to resolve the contradictions between demands of Shari’a and challenges of
governance in lands of diverse religion and cultures.
On the first issue, which is the theme of this question, two lines of thoughts emerged,
one visualizing ideal state/ Sultanate on the pattern of ancient Sassanid empire of Iran,
while the other supported the ideals of caliphate, Islamic state ruled by Khalifa in which
both spiritual and temporal sovereignty were vested. Nizam al- Mulk Tusi (11th century)
and Al-Ghazali ( 11th-12th century) were political thinkers who supported first model(
Sassanid empire) whereas Abul Hasan- al-Mawardi (11th century) supported caliphate
and classical Arabian Islamic traditions as ideal state/kingdom.
Barni contributed in this political dialogue with his own unique thoughts. Though he
supported ideal state/ Sultanate on the pattern of ancient Iranian Sassanid empire but
was not comfortable with the hierarchically conceived, aristocratic, non-Islamic
Sassanid state model. For him, the ideal Sultan should live like first four pious Khalifa
following the principles of classical Islam according to which the leader/ruler should
be equal in all respect to his subject. But same time Barni also advised grandeur,
splendour and pompousness of the kingship/Sultanate to keep the people in awe. He
allowed the sultan to live with un-Islamic way in his private life but maintaining the
dignity of Shari’a and principles of classical Islamic traditions in public life. Such was
the contradictions in Barni’s political thought. His concept of ideals State/ Sultanate
was also full of such contradictions.
In the next part of the answer, I will attempt to further explain his concept of ideal State/
Sultanate.
Barni’s Ideal State:
Barni’s ideal state is theological Islamic state ruled according to the principles of
Shariá. He supported ideal state/ Sultanate on the pattern of ancient Iranian Sassanid
empire but with many conditions. His ideal sultan represents his ideal state. For him
King (Padshah- taken from Sassanid empire of Iran) is one of the most wonderful
creations of God. He is shadow of God on earth, his vice-regent, representative of God.
The heart of King is the object of the sight of God- wonderful object to view on whose
status (light of God) depends virtues of all good people in the state. Such exalted and
divine position of King was conveyed through Mahmud of Ghazni in ‘Fatwa-i-
Jahandari’, and Balban in ‘Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi’.
110
Ideal Sultan of Barni has God like virtues; Some of these virtues, acumen, and abilities
are:
• Noble born, preferably belonging to the family of the monarch.
• Having an innate (natural) sense of justice, wise, alert, enterprising,
punctual, best utilizer of time.
• Upholder of true faith, that is Islam, dignity & supremacy of Shari’a ,
which he should follow both in his private and public life.
• Reflect supplication (begging for something humbly), helplessness,
poverty and humility- Islamic ideals of holy king, followed by first 4 Khalifa,
but same time dazzling display of pomp & splendor to keep people in awe.
• Should have High resolve/determination, lofty ideals, fair
administration, distinctiveness from other monarchs, command obligation of
people.
• Flexible qualities: good & bad, cruel & kind, strict (punishment) &
lenient (forgiveness). He should represent duality of good and bad in this world.
• Ensuring welfare of his subjects, and protect the prestige & position and
wealth of old noble class.
• Shouldn’t have these 5 mean qualities: falsehood, changeability,
deception, wrathfulness and injustice.
• Dispense justice on the principle of equality.
• Ensure peace, truth, justice, economic well-being and welfare of the
subjects
• Maintain stability of ruling class by adopting principle of heredity;
closing entry of low born, mean, up-starters to nobility.
• Check and suppress Ignobles (low born), Hindu Priestly class,
Philosophers/rationalists.
• Maintain price stability- fixing price, checking weights & measures,
hoarding, malpractices, state procurement, etc
• Keeping strong, satisfied and loyal Army by taking care of all needs
of the soldier- their arms, equipment, salary, housing, family
• Formulate Practical state laws, policies rules & regulations- Zawabit,
for cases/situations not covered in Shari’a.
• Keep himself fully informed about the happenings in the state through
strong network of intelligence, and espionage system.
• Keep the subject in fear and awe with pomp and splendour but is not
despotic/tyrannical- people fear him but do not hate.

111
 • Is like a good physician, is able to diagnose in advance what is troubling
his state and take advance actions for impending emergencies.
• Consult scholars, experts, intellectuals, Consultative Assembly, and his
companions.
• Remain loyal and obedient to God, is conscious of breaking many
Islamic principles to maintain his state, he prays for forgiveness and blessings
of God/Allah.
• He should be ready to adopt any means to maintain and protect his state.

From above description, we can see the contradictions in his conception of ideal
state/sultanate. He tried to mix both the piousness, pity, and simplicity of early
Caliphate and pomp and splendour of ancient Sassanid empire of Iran (King-Padshah).
His ideal king is upholder of true faith and dignity of Shari’a in public life but lives un-
Islamic life in private domain. He may adopt amoral and a-ethical means to protect his
state. He is free to rule by practical state laws- ‘Zawabit’, but those must not violate
Shari’a. Such contradictions make him an enigmatic( puzzling) political thinker.
In ‘Fatwa’ sultan Mahmud of Ghazni and in ‘Tarikh’ sultan Balban represent his ideal
Sultan.
Conclusion:
Contradictions is constant feature of political thought of Ziauddin Barni, the most
important political thinker of Delhi Sultanate Period. His conception of Ideal state/
sultanate also suffers from the many contradictions. As explained above he supports
ancient Sassanid Iranian state as his ideal state. But he was not comfortable with many
of its features, especially hierarchically conceived, aristocratic social order and non-
Islamic practices. Barni’s ideal Sultan represents his ideal state. Iranian king-Padshah
was his is model of ideal Sultan but at the same time he wanted him to live a simple
and pious life as lived by the early Khalifas. But on the other hand his ideal Sultan
should also indulge in pomp, show and splendour to keep his subjects in awe. His ideal
state should be run as per the Sharia laws but also have practical and secular state laws
to meet the requirements of governance. He allowed his ideal Sultans to follow un-
Islamic practices in private life and adopt any means to maintain his state. We have
seen that such contradictions run through entire conception of his ideal state/Sultanate.
Perhaps such contradictions were the manifestations of peculiar challenge of the
political Islam when it arrived in India in thirteenth century. Muslim King ruling non-
Muslim subjects threw challenges of managing the contradictions of demand of Sahri’a
versus political requirement to maintain a non-Muslim state. His conception of Ideal
state/sultanate was an attempt to reconcile the contradictions but it made his concept of
Ideal Sultan itself contradictory. Hence, Zia Barani is considered an enigmatic political
thinker of mediaeval India.

112
Q3: How did Barani’s association with Sultanate shaped his political views?
Introduction:
Ziauddin Barani (1283–1359) was most important political thinker during Delhi
Sultanate period. His political views are mainly contained in his seminal creation
Fatwa-i-Jahandari (percepts or theory of Governance, world-keeping- Duniyadari).
Barni was not pure academician. He was rather a practitioner of real politic. His
Association with Delhi sultanate was long, close, and intriguing (interesting). His
father, uncle, grandfather all held important position in Delhi Sultanate. He himself was
the servant of the court and companion or Nadeem of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq for 17
years. Naturally, he would have seen the working of Delhi Sultanate from inside.
Two of his most important Creations- Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi and Fatwa-i-Jahandari-
were realized when he lived an isolated and discredited life after falling out of favour
from Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq. Frustration and indignation (anger) arising from
isolation and being pushed aside from the position of importance might have affected
his political views in the ‘Fatwa’. His hatred towards low-born, ignoble, up starters and
baser people might have arisen because preference given to such people by Sultans in
his nobility and administration. He could have seen the rise of such ignoble and fall of
people of repute and noble birth like him. He might have closely observed the way
sultans think and act.
While closely working with Delhi Sultans, he would have compared Sultan’s actual
thoughts and actions with demands of Shari’a and principles of classical Islam. He
would have realized the challenges of maintaining a non-Muslim state by a Muslim
ruler. This might have underpinned (based) his conception of an ideal state/Sultanate.
This also would have influenced formulation of his Advices or Hidayats. Therefore,
both- reason for writing ‘Fatwa’ and content of it- might have been deeply influenced
by his close association and subsequent falling out of favour with the Delhi sultanate.
Some of the most important political thoughts of Barni and how they would have been
influenced by his close association with the Delhi Sultanate are explained below:
The ideal king must uphold the faith, maintain exalted position of shari’a, dispense justice
as per shar’a but he should also rule by secular state laws- Zawabit :
He might have observed the tension between demands of Shari’a on one hand and
requirements of governing a non-Muslim population on the other hand. This was his
solution to reconcile the contradiction. It is another matter that his advice itself became
contradictory.
No inherent goodness in kingship; depends upon the personal virtues, thought, and
actions of the King:
This was his own view based on his insider information of the actual working of the
Delhi Sultanate. This is Despite getting ‘Mahmud’ to pronounce in ‘Fatwa’ that King

113
 (Padshah) is one of the most wonderful creations of God, he is shadow of God on earth,
his vice-regent, representative of God, the heart of King is the object of the sight of
God, etc. In a way, divinity of the Sultan is conveyed through Mahmud in ‘Fatwa’.
But his own view on nature of Kingship/Sultanate is based on his personal experience
of close association with Delhi Sultanate. To him, such divine features were more like
false pretentions, to keep the subject and adversaries in awe, gain political obligation,
and help maintain the state. There is no inherent goodness or Godliness in the Kingship.
Sultans can be both good and bad. It depends upon the personal virtues, thought, and
actions of the Sultan.
The Sultan should follow the Shari’a in personal and political domain; flexibility allowed
in personal domain but not in public:
Why he thought so? He might have seen that in personal life the Sultans are hardly
following the traditions of classical Islam. But to create false pretentions in the subject
he should seem to follow them in public life. Such pragmatism in his political thought
was directly influenced by his close association with Delhi Sultante.
To maintain and strengthen the state king may adopt any means:
Because he knew by his experience that political requirements to maintain the state
cannot be met by following moral laws of the faith and Shari’a. This is very similar to
Machiavelli’s view which also informed by his close association with real politic of
Florentine state in Italy.
Sultans should maintain stability of ruling class by adopting principle of heredity; closing
entry of low born, mean, up-starters to nobility:
He might have seen rise of such baser people and fall from grace of people like him.
Hence, he might have developed such hatred for low-born and baser people. He also
would have experienced the cycle of violence by conflict between the nobility/ruling
elites of past and present regime. This was his solution to break this cycle of frequent
changes of dynasties/regime and resultant violence.
The sultan should protect old, noble and ruling families and treat them carefully after the
conquest of any new territory:
Same as above; his personal experience might have influenced this view. His way to
make the ruling dispensation stable. We should note that regime change was frequent
during Delhi Sultanate. It witnessed 5 ruling dynasties and 32 rulers in the span of 300
years.

Conclusion:
Political views of Barani were deeply influenced by his close association with Delhi
Sultanate. His family held high positions in Sultanate administration. He himself held
a significant position during the later years of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq. Hence, he had
first-hand information and experience of actual working of the Delhi sultanate. He also

114
had access to personal accounts of his family and friends who might have given many
hidden facts of actual working of the Delhi sultanate to him.
Both, the experiences his own and as narrated to him by his close friends & relatives,
influenced his political views which he reflected in his ‘Fatwa’. Contradictions we
notice in his political thought might also have been the result of the way he experienced
the actual working of the Delhi sultanate which itself would have been full of
contradictions. This was because of the peculiar political situation of his time- a Muslim
rule in the lands of non-Muslims.

115
 NOTES:

1.Concept of Ideal Sultan in Barni.

Answer Template:
Ziauddin Barani (1283–1359) was most important political thinker during Delhi
Sultanate period. His political thoughts are mainly contained in his seminal creation
Fatwa-i-Jahandari (theory/percept of Governance, world-keeping- Duniyadari).
Before Barni, during 11-13th century, political thinkers of Islamic world were engaged
into a dialogue on two issues; first was what should be the features of ideal state/
Sultanate, and second was how to resolve the contradictions between demands of
Shari’a and challenges of governance in lands of diverse religion and cultures. On the
first issue, two line of thoughts emerged, one visualizing ideal state/ Sultanate on the
pattern of ancient Sassanid empire of Iran, while the other supported the ideals of
caliphate, Muslim state ruled by Khalifa in which both spiritual and temporal
sovereignty were vested. Nizam al- Mulk Tusi (11th century) and Al-Ghazali (11th-12th
century) were political thinkers who supported the first model( Sassanid empire)
whereas Abul Hasan- al-Mawardi (11th century) supported caliphate and classical
Arabian Islamic traditions as ideal state/kingdom.
Barni contributed on this ongoing political dialogue with his own unique thoughts.
Though he supported ideal state/ Sultanate on the pattern of ancient Iranian Sassanid
empire but was not comfortable with the hierarchically conceived, aristocratic, non-
Islamic Sassanid state model. For him, the ideal Sultan should live like first 4 pious
Khalifa following the principles of classical Islam, according to which, the leader/ruler
should be equal in all respect to his subject. But at the same time Barni also advised
grandeur, splendour and pompousness of the kingship/Sultanate to keep the people in
awe. He allowed the sultan to live with un-Islamic way in his private life but
maintaining the dignity of Shari’a and principles of classical Islamic traditions in public
life. Such was the contradictions in Barni’s political thought. His concept of ideals
State/ Sultanate was also full of such contradictions.
For him, King (Padshah- taken from Sassanid Iranian empire) is one of the most
wonderful creations of God. He is shadow of God on earth, his vice-regent,
representative of God. The heart of King is the object of the sight of God. His Ideal
Sultan possess God like virtues. He is noble born, preferably belonging to the family of
the monarch, having an innate (natural) sense of justice, wise, alert, enterprising,
punctual, best utilizer of time. He is upholder of true faith, dignity & supremacy of
Shari’a. He should have high resolve/determination, lofty ideals, fair administration,
distinctiveness from other monarchs, command obligation of people. He should ensure
welfare of his subjects, and protect the prestige & position and wealth of old noble
class.

116
Balban in ‘Tarikh’ and ‘Mahmud of Ghazni’ in ‘Fatwa’ represent his ideal Sultan. Of
course, such account of ideal Sultan was not real. It would have been impossible to find
a Sultan possessing such virtues, and personal qualities. Hence, it was Barni’s
imagination and aspirations. He himself knew that in reality the Sultans, like any other
human being, may be good or bad. Conception of Ideal Sultan was more like a
yardstick, benchmark to compare the Kings in real life to the ideal one.

117
 THEME 8 : ABUL FAZL: MONARCHY

8.A: CBCS Syllabus

• Theory of Kingship
• Idea and elements of sovereignty
• Ideal 'Badshah’/Kingship
8. B: Key Points:
• Abul Fazl (1551 –1602), was the most noted historian and political thinker of Mughal
period.
• He was the most prominent face of liberal Islam in India.
• He was friend and philosopher to Akbar and was his secretary and companion; was one
of the nine jewels in Akbar’s court.
• His political thoughts are spread across in Ain-i-Akbari, 3rd volume of Akbar Nama,
his most remarkable work.
• He supported social contract and need for social order as basis of sovereignty but also
gave divine authority to the King through his theory of divine light. Thus, his idea of
Sovereignty was semi-contractual and semi-divine.
• Through his idea of Sulh-i-Kul as state policy, he liberated the temporal sovereign from
any particular faith, religious laws, dictates of the theologians.
• He combined both temporal & spiritual sovereignty in the Godly King- the just
sovereign, who not only maintains his state but also promotes social harmony, religious
tolerance, and becomes spiritual guide to the nation.
• The king, by virtue of receiving direct light from God, was not product of any particular
sect or religion. But he had authority of God. He follows secular politics giving equal
protection to all religions and cultures, maintaining social harmony and promoting
religious tolerance. Such was the Fazl’s vision of the ideal Badshah.
• Along with Sulh-i-Kul, promoting science, reason, rationality was also duty of the
King/state.
• Like Plato, he proposed 4-fold division of society and state/kingship;
• 4-fold social division: 1. The warriors 2. the learned men 3. husbandmen &
labourers 4. artificers & merchants
• 4-fold division of the Royalty/state: 1. Nobility 2. Assistants of victory 3.
companions of the King 4. Servants
• He raised the status, role & functions of State as highest moral & spiritual institution
• Despite such path breaking liberal political ideas he is criticized for being contradictory,
idealistic/utopic, not original, and having little impact on later Mughals.

118
 8.C : ANSWER TEMPLATE TO PAST YEAR’S AND
OTHER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1 : Write an essay on Abul Fazl’s theory of Kingship.

Similar Questions:
1. “Abul Fazl’s theory of Kingship is semi-contractual as well as semi-divine”;
comment.
2. “Abul Fazl gave a novel theory of Kingship which was mix of contractual and divine
theory.” Explain.
Answer Template
Introduction:
Abul Fazl (1551 –1602), was the most noted historian and political thinker of Mughal
period. His political thoughts are contained in Ain-i-Akbari, 3rd volume of Akbar Nama,
his most remarkable work. His theory of Kingship is mix of social contract and divine
theory. As per his theory, Kingship arose as punitive institution having monopoly of
force/coercion to end anarchy by punishing the trouble makers.
King protects the four essences of his subjects- life, property, honour and faith, and in
return, demands political obligation and a share of resources(taxes). Thus, tax is like
wages for service by the king, especially maintaining peace, order, and protection. This
is a kind of contractual theory of Kingship. But unlike the modern social contract
theory, there is no contract among the people themselves, neither the people have any
options to change the King in case he becomes tyrannical and unjust.
Abul Fazl also gives divinity to Kingship by his theory of divine light. He visualized
Kingship as the highest station in the hierarchy of objects receiving light emanating
from God (farr-i izadi ). Hence, King is possessor of illuminated wisdom, and reflector
of the Godly light to all others in his state. Kings directly receives this light without any
intermediary. Hence, he is not dependent on theologians to interpret holy laws. King is
not merely shadow of the God, but "light of God“, directly linked to God, part of God.
Sublime halo around face of Mughal Kings in royal paintings represented the divine
light.
Thus, Abul Fazl offers dual theory of Kingship, which is mix of semi contractual and
semi-divine theory. In a way he breaches the duality of contractual vs divine theory by
making them one in defining the sovereignty/kingship.
In the next section of the answer, I will attempt to explain in brief the theory of kingship given
by Abul Fazl.

119
Semi-contractual theory of Kingship:
• Difference and inequality are natural among human; some will be strong, other
weak; some virtuous/good, other wicked/bad.
• In the state of nature, that is before origin of state and government, desire, lust,
anger, competition led to constant disturbance- anarchy.
• Before the origin of state/kingship, there was constant conflict, but no supreme
power to punish the guilty, there was no one to establish Justice. This was very
similar to state of nature described by Locke. Life would be miserable when
each one is judge, jury, and executioner.
• Kingship arose as punitive institution having monopoly of force/coercion for
punishing the trouble makers, the bad one, the wicked and to protect the weak,
the virtuous.
• Just force/terror of King is like lifesaving medicine to end anarchy and maintain
peace, order.
• The King protects the four essences of his subjects- life , property, honour and
faith, and in return demands political obligation and a share of resources(taxes).
• Thus, tax is wages or compensation for protection assured by the King.
Features of his social contract theory:
• No contract among the people themselves; people didn’t form any political
community out of such contract. This was similar to nature of political
community mentioned in the Buddhist Political Thought.
• Absolute sovereignty to the King- no restraint on his power.
• People had no option to change the king in case he becomes tyrannical, cruel
and unjust or not able to protect them.
• Only just sovereigns are able to honour the social contract with power and
Divine guidance/blessings. Thus, no guarantee that the King would honour the
contract.
• Not well developed like the social contract theory of origin of state by modern
western political thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
Divine Light Theory of Kingship:
• Based on Ishraq theory: theory of divine light emanating from Sun was developed by
12th century Sufi philosopher Shihabuddin Suhrawardi.
• Basic tenets (beliefs) of the theory can be traced from ideas of Plato- Sun as Form of
absolute goodness, from which all receives light and, and goodness derives its virtue.

120
 • Temporal Sovereignty/kingship as the highest station in the hierarchy of objects
receiving light emanating from God (farr-i izadi). Hence, King is possessor of
illuminated wisdom, and reflector of the Godly light to all others in his Kingdom.
• Thus, royalty is light emanating from God, a ray from the sun, essence of the books of
perfection, and assemblage of excellence.
• God directly transfers this divine light to kings, without any intermediary. This implied
that for interpreting holy laws King does not need the help of theologians. He may be
the final arbiter of Interpreting the Shari’a.
• King is not shadow of the God, but "light of God “, directly linked to God, part of God
not merely his shadow. Sublime halo represents the divine light.
• The king was, therefore, deemed to be divinely appointed, divinely guided and divinely
protected. He was not product of any religion but having authority of God.
• The ray of divine wisdom banishes from his heart everything that is conflicting, guide
him to be just like Sun, like rain, maintain harmony raising above mean
conflicts/differences, makes him ‘perfect man’ ( İnsan-ı Kâmil ) and spiritual guide to
the nation.
Conclusion:
In sum, Abul Fazal’s theory of kingship broke the duality between the contractual and
divine theory of origin of kinship. Traces of both theories can be found in his theory of
kingship/state. On the one hand he describes kingship as a human arrangement for
ending anarchy and restoring peace, order and protect the four essence of human life;
people pay taxes as compensation for the service of protection received from the king.
But on the other hand, he gives an exalted and divine status to the kingship by
describing him as highest station receiving divine light directly from God. In this view
the king is not merely a shadow of God rather he becomes a part of the God- receiver
of divine light and reflecting that light to illuminate all others in his state.
Breaking the duality in political ideas was the essential feature of Abul Fazal political
thought. He also breached the duality of spirituality versus politics by vesting both
spiritual and temporal sovereignty in the kingship. But he also created duality of Just
versus unjust sovereignty. For him, only the just sovereign receives the divine light
directly from God and only the state ruled by just sovereign is long lasting, virtuous
and ethical.
Overall, his theory of kingship unifies the dichotomy between contractual and divine
theory. Also, his idea of making the Kingship secular and above any sect despite vesting
both temporal and spiritual Sovereignty in it was a very innovative concept. His theory
of kingship, unlike Barni, was secular, liberal, and modern. It was an interesting attempt
by a medieval political thinker who seems to have been much ahead of his time.

121
Q.2 : Analyze the element of sovereignty in Abul Fazal's Ain-e-Akbari. To
what extent it supports divine theory of 'Badshahat’/Kingship? Elaborate
your response.

Introduction:
Most interesting part of Abul Fazal’s political thought is the way he described
Sovereignty. First, he broke the duality between the realms of spirituality and
politics/statecraft by vesting both spiritual and temporal sovereignty in the kingship.
Second, he created a duality between just and unjust sovereignty. Third, he mixed both
the social contract and divine theory in his conception of Sovereignty. The theory of
divine light underpins( supports) Abul Fazl’s concepts or elements of sovereignty.
In the next section of the answer, I will attempt to elaborate on the above assertions
(statements).
Ideas and elements of sovereignty in Abul Fazal’s thought:
• Sovereignty vested in the absolute Monarch
• Sovereignty is absolute, undivided, unalienable, like personal property of the
King.
• Quasi divine idea of sovereignty
• Sovereignty as social contract but theory of divine light makes it Quasi-Divine.
• Sovereignty receiving direct light from Sun, not dependent on any specific
faith/sect; it has got God’s authority.
• Sovereign as illuminated Godly virtue, no disharmony or disunity; cannot
differentiate among subjects.
• Supremacy of Temporal Sovereignty
• Temporal sovereignty is also vested with spiritual sovereignty.
• Akbar got rights from ‘Ulma’ the power to decide on disputed point of
Law. Thus, he became ‘Infallible Authority’- ultimate interpreter of
Shari’a.
• Sovereign is not product of any religion but has the authority of the God.
• The sovereign becomes the spiritual guide to people.
• A divinely inspired King has supreme sovereignty over his people and complete
control over his enemies.
• The sovereign was not bound by dictate of religious laws (Shari’a), theological
doctrine, or duties to promote any particular faith/sect.

122
 • Religious Tolerance, Sulh-i-kul (social harmony, universal peace) were
important aspects of Mughal Sovereignty.
• Abul Fazl’s theory of Sovereignty is close to the central Asian and Perso-
Islamic traditions of sovereignty- absolute, undivided- in which both temporal
& spiritual sovereignty were vested.

Features of the ideas of Sovereignty propounded by Abul Fazl:

• Basis of sovereignty: need for social order in the temporal realms – based on reason &
logic, not theology.
• Sovereignty as service: The Sovereign is supposed to protect life, property, honour
and faith of the people. Taxes are the compensation for the service by the Sovereign.
• Just vs unjust sovereignty:
• Only just or Godly ruler receives divine light, which burn from his heart
everything that is conflicting. A Just king will, therefore, observe the element
of harmony in seemingly conflictual things.
• Only just sovereigns are able to honour the social contract with just force and
divine guidance. His aim is to remove oppression, maintain social harmony,
promote universal Good.
• Godly rule and Just Sovereignty are long lasting, virtuous, just and peaceful.
• Unjust sovereignty does not receive the divine light, cannot honour the social
contract, is selfish, attached to external pretentions, pomp & show of royal
power, transient, short lived, cruel, and unjust.
• Unjust sovereignty brings turmoil, disturbance, terror; everywhere there is
insecurity, unsettlement, strife, oppression, faithlessness, violence/terror.
• Sulh-i-Kul (absolute peace) was an important aspect of Mughal Sovereignty. Policy of
Sulh-i-Kul was not linked to any specific faith/religion.
• Forcing a particular religious law such as Shari’a was not the duty of the sovereign;
Sovereignty was relieved from the dictates of theologians.
• Temporal sovereign was vested with spiritual sovereignty.
Conclusion:
We can see that the idea of sovereignty in Abul Fazal’s political thought is very
interesting and unique. It was a synthesis of both the social contract as well as divine
theory of kingship/sovereignty.
Basis of sovereignty was need for social order and protection by a supreme authority
having monopoly of force/coercion. But at the same time the sovereignty acquires a
divine status by directly receiving God's light.

123
Sovereignty is therefore above any specific faith, sect or religion. Sovereign, who is the
recipient of illuminated wisdom of God, does not see any disunity or disharmony; for
him there is no difference between his subjects on the basis of faith, religion, language,
culture, etc. This is the idea of just sovereignty of Abul Fazl. Religious tolerance and
social harmony are the prime duty of the just sovereign.
His idea of sovereignty also absolves (make free) the king from the responsibility of
maintaining the dignity of Shari’a in all walks of life. Such a secular idea of sovereignty
was much ahead of its time. Modern conception of a liberal, secular and responsive
sovereignty has its roots in in ideas and elements of sovereignty put forward by
medieval political thinkers like Abul Fazl.

124
Q.3 : ‘Abul Fazal’s ideal 'Badshah’ is representative of God’; Discuss.

Similar questions:
1. Explain the conception of ideal king in Abul Fazl’s thought.
2.Abul Fazl imagined the Badshahat in a new way. Outline the novelty of his
conceptualization.

Introduction:
Abul Fazal visualisation of an ideal king is closely linked to his idea of kingship and
sovereignty. For him, the ideal king is just sovereign who honour the social contract to
maintain peace, order and protect his subject with just force. His ideal king is the
recipient of divine light and illuminated wisdom which banishes from his heart disunity
and disharmony. In a nutshell, his ideal King is like mighty and pure Padshah
(Badshah) of ancient Sassanid empire of Iran.
Fazl unite the reals of spirituality and politics in his conception of ideal King. Spiritual
sovereignty is also vested in the just temporal Sovereign. Hence, he is also the spiritual
guide of his people who offer him Political Obligation not due to fear but out of trust
and respect.
His ideal Badshah is representative of God, in fact, part of God as he directly receives
divine light. His ideal King is divinely appointed, divinely guided and divinely
protected- not product of any religion but having authority of God. In the next section
of the answer I will try to further elaborate on Abul Fazl’s idea of an ideal King or
Badshah.
Abul Fazl’s Ideal King/ Badshah:
• His ideal king is just sovereign monarch, receiving divine light directly from God.
• By virtue of the divine light, the ideal king acquires divinity, is like representative of
God, part of God, not mere shadow of God.
• Divine light burns disunity and disharmony from his heart. Hence, his ideal King is free
from any conflict, disunity, and dis-harmony. He is able to see harmony in seemingly
disharmonious things/situation.
• He has the Godly vision to see truth and act justly without any discrimination between
his subject, for which he is the spiritual guide.
• Ideal Kingship is based on the principle of Universal peace, religious tolerance and
social harmony. Policy of Sulh-i-kul represent these ideals.
• Ideal king is able to honour the social contract with just force and divine guidance.
• The ideal king has Strong will, does God worship, is wise, not wrathful, considerate,
believe in science & reason, and provide quick relief to poor, needy, justice seeker.

125
 • Rule of the ideal king is long lasting, just, and peaceful; Justice is the highest virtue
of the ideal ruler.
• Both spiritual and temporal sovereignty are vested in his ideal Badshah. The Badshah
is the ultimate arbiter of Shari’a laws. He rises above any sect/religion. He becomes
spiritual guide to his people.
• Abul Fazl’s Badshah is free from the duty of any particular sect/region. He is not
compelled to protect any one faith and suppress others. To him, prime duty is social
harmony and welfare of his subjects. He does not discriminate his subjects on the basis
of faith/sect/relgion.
• Thus, Abul fazl’s ideal king is divinely inspired perfect man ( İnsan-ı Kâmil), who
has supreme sovereignty- both temporal & spiritual-over his people and complete
control over his enemies.
Conclusion:
The statement in the question ‘Abul Fazl’s ideal king is representative of God’ is only
one aspect of his idea of an ideal King or Badshah, which is multi-dimensional. We
have seen that his ideal Badshah is a just sovereign who honour social contract to
protect, maintain peace and order. By virtue of receiving divine light he also becomes
part of the divinity. He receives illuminated wisdom from God which burns disunity
and disharmony from his heart. Hence, his ideal Badshah maintain social harmony,
religious tolerance and does not discriminate among his subjects.
Both temporal and spiritual sovereignty is vested in his ideal Badshah. Hence, his ideal
king is also the spiritual guide of his nation. Both his theory of kingship based on social
contract and divine light underpin his conception of an ideal Badshah. The concept is
also closely linked to his idea of just sovereignty. Thus, his idea of an ideal King is
multidimensional.

126
Q.4: ‘Barani is theocratic but Fazal is liberal’. Do you agree with the
statement? Give arguments in favour of your answer.
Similar Question
Q: Compare and contrast political thoughts of Ziauddin Barni and Abul Fazl.

Introduction:
Ziauddin Barni and Abul Fazl are undoubtedly two most prominent political thinkers
of medieval India. Both were historian and political thinkers during the Muslim rule in
India. Both were insiders to the ruling dispensaions of their times. Barni was companian
to Sultan Muhhamd bin Tuglaq; Fazl was friend and caompanian of Akbar, the greatest
Mughal King. But the commonality between them ends here.
They belonged to very different era and political system. Barni saw frequent change of
regimes, violence, and socio-political turmoil during the Delhi Sultanate. Fazl, on the
other hand, lived during the most stable and glorious years of Mughal rule. Barni’s
challenge was how to reconcile the demands of Shari’a and requirements of governing
a non-Muslim population. For this, he adopted a conservative and theocratic stance. He
rejected anything which was against Shari’a, calling them sin. He recommended
following Shari’a in all walks of life. Even the Sultan was to follow it in both his private
and public life. To Barni, the ideal Sultan must protect and further the dignity of Islam
and ensure observance of Shari’a. He was to crush and suppress the infidels. Thus,
along with maintaining the state, prime duty of Sultan was also to maintain the dignity
of Islam and Shari’a laws. Hence, Barni conceptualized a theocratic or religious state.
In contrast, Abul Fazl was secular and liberal. For him, just Sovereign is above any
sect/religion. By directly receiving divine light, the just Sovereign has an illuminated
soul, full of goodness. He makes no distinction between his subjects on the basis of
religion, caste, or any primordial identity. For his subjects, the king is spiritual guide.
Both temporal and spiritual Sovereignty are therefore, were vested in the just
Sovereign/king. Fazl conceptualised Sovereignty as service. The Sovereign is supposed
to protect life, property, honour and faith of the people. Taxes are the compensation for
the service by the Sovereign. Thus, Sovereignty was like a social contract. Forcing a
particular religious law such as Shari’a was not the duty of the sovereign; Sovereignty
was relieved from the dictates of theologians. In fact, maintaining social harmony was
the duty of the Sovereign.
Sulh-i-Kul (absolute peace) was an important aspect of Fazl’s idea of Sovereignty.
Policy of Sulh-i-Kul was not linked to any specific faith/religion. In fact, Abul Fazl was
instrumental in formulation of a secular and liberal faith called din-i-Ilahi. Therefore,
Abul Fazl was much more liberal and secular in his approach in comparison to Ziauddin
Barni.

127
Following Table further points out the difference in political thoughts of Barni and Fazl

Political Barani Abul Fazl

thoughts

Sovereignty Force as basis for Social contract, need for social order,
sovereignty and political divine illuminated wisdom of mystic
obligation tradition- Basis of sovereignty

Nature of state Theocratic state Secular and liberal state

Duties of stability of ruling class, Justice, religious tolerance (Sulh-i-

Kingship/state elimination of cycle of kul), social harmony, promoting
violence, maintaining rationalism/science/logic
dignity of shari’a in all
walks of life, protecting
the true faith(Islam),
suppressing infidels

Temporal vs Temporal sovereignty of Both temporal & spiritual sovereignty

spiritual King subordinate to vested in the King who is above any
sovereignty Religion/faith and particular faith & its dictates
religious laws (Shari’a)

Importance to His ideal state was He freed the King from the dictates of
Islam and theocratic. An ideal theologians (Ulma). He vested
theologians in Islamic state. The Sultan temporal and spiritual sovereignty in
Governance was duty bound to expand Mughal King. The king was above any
Islam and its ideals. sect/religion.

Conservatism Quite conservative in his He was liberal. His idea of social

political thoughts. contract, sovereignty as service, Sulh-
i-Kul, etc. showed liberal face of
Muslim rule in India.

Realism More Realistic- king can Idealistic, mysticism, utopic- King as

adopt any means for perfect man, spiritual guide, Sulh-i-kul
political expediency(
requirements); Force as
basis of sovereignty &
political obligation

128
 Theory vs Though his ideas had No independent political ideas, merely
practice originality and novelty, articulated thoughts & visions of other
they were out of sync with great Muslim philosophers and
his time and context; not political ideas of Akbar; not followed
followed by the Sultans by later Mughals, especially
Aurangzeb

Conclusion:
Ziauddin Barni and Abul Fazl belonged to two very different era of Muslim rule in
India. Barni witnessed (saw) from inside the start of Muslim rule in India during the
Delhi Sultanate. Fazl witnessed the glorious period of Mughal rule. Delhi Sultanate
faced frequent and violent regime change. On the contrary, Early Mughal rule was
characterised by its stability. Contrast in times in which these two political thinkers
lived reflected in their political thoughts.
Barni supported conservative and theocratic state. To him, Muslim ruler in lands of
Non-Muslim had twin duty of maintaining the state as well as the true faith, that is
Islam. The Muslim King was to protect the dignity of Shari’a and implement it in all
walks of life. Although he allowed for the practical state laws- Zawabit- yet it must
conform to Shari’a. Barni advised Sultans to crush and demolish the infidels and stop
giving high posts to Hindu Nobles. He kept temporal Sovereign below the spiritual
Sovereign, which for Barni was the faith and the Shari’a.
Fazl, in contrast, was secular and liberal. He made the Mughal king free of the dictates
of the theologians. King got the right to interpret the Shari’a in specific situations. He
also made the King free of the duty of protecting the dignity of any particular
faith/religion. The Just Sovereign as receiver of divine light becomes part of the God.
He is above any sect/religion. His duty is to maintain social harmony. He does not make
any distinction between his subjects on the basis of faith/religion. Fazl vested both
spiritual and temporal Sovereignty in the Mughal Kingship. The King becomes the
spiritual guide for his people. Thus, Fazl had a radically secular and liberal political
thought.
Therefore, the statement that ‘Barani is theocratic but Fazal is liberal’ is correct. It
reflects the contrasting political thoughts of two of the greatest political thinkers of
medieval India.

129
 NOTES:
1. Din-e-Ilahi
Din-e-Ilahi was a novel experiment in both spiritual and political domain by Akbar, the
greatest of the Mughal Kings. Abul Fazal, the friend, philosopher and companion of
Akbar, attempted to vest both temporal as well as spiritual sovereignty in the Mughal
King. The process started in 1579 when Akbar was given the right to interpret the Sharia
law. Thus, the king and not the theologians (Ulma) became the final authority to
interpret Sharia, the holy law.
Abul Fazl and Akbar did not stop there. Akbar held religious discourses in ‘Ibadat
khana’(hall of prayer) established for this purpose. Scholars of all major faiths, religion,
thoughts and philosophies such as Hindu Pandits, Muslim Ulmas, Zoroastrian,
Christian, Jain, and Buddhist scholars, Sufi saints etc gathered in Ibadat khana and
engaged into a series of dialogues & discourses on what could be the best religion to
solve the problem of religious and social disharmony.
The outcome of these efforts was Din-e-Ilahi (religion of God), a syncretic religion
promulgated by Akbar in 1582 by mixing or synthesizing the elements taken from
multiple religion and belief system. Din-e Ilahi emphasized morality, piety (devotion)
and kindness. Just like Sufism, it regarded the yearning (desire & love) for God as a
key feature of spirituality; it took celibacy to be a virtue and condemned the killing of
animals. As for its rituals, it made fire and the sun objects of divine worship. The new
religion had no scriptures, no priests, no Prophet, or any specific God.
Thus, Din-e-Ilahi was culmination of Idea to vest spiritual sovereignty in the temporal
sovereign. Naturally, in this scheme of things, the king becomes the spiritual guide to
the nation and is supposed to lead them to a virtuous and spiritual path. Combined with
the duty to maintain social harmony and religious tolerance, the king as spiritual guide
is supposed to promote secular spiritual path separate from any specific sect, faith, or
religion. Din-e-Ilahi was a secular religion, if we can say so. By following Din-e-Ilahi
the king rose above any specific faith or religion despite having the authority of God to
maintain peace, order and social harmony.
It was natural for the conservatives to oppose the attempt by Akbar and Abul Fazl to
promote a religious order separate from Islam. It was also difficult for people to adopt
a new religion which had no God, Prophet, Holy scripture, and fixed rules or rituals.
Din-e-Ilahi therefore, was seen more as a political device than any serious spiritual
novelty. Even during the Akbar's lifetime, only a handful of people adopted the new
religion. After his death the successive Mughal kings, especially Aurangzeb, went back
to the traditions of classic Islamic religion and followed sharia.

130
 Thus, the experiment of floating a spiritual order had little impact on socio-religious
life of Indian people and was vanished from the scene with the death of Akbar. Despite
this, the non-Muslim majority population of mediaeval India cherished the idea of such
a liberal and secular religious order promoted by a Muslim King. For this, Akbar is still
remembered as the most liberal, tolerant and the greatest Mughal king.

2. MANSABDARI SYSTEM

Mansabdari system was an administrative novelty of Mughal regime. It was given a definite
shape during the Akbar’s regime and continued by later Mughals. In essence Mansabdari
was a system of combined administrative and military rank, position and associated duties
and responsibilities. Mansabdars where like higher bureaucracy in Mughal regime but they
were also assigned military duties. This was indicated by two numbers denoting the civil
and military rank and status of the Mansabdar. The first number was called Zat number,
which denoted a personal rank, which ranged from 10 to 10000, the numbers higher than
5000 were assigned only to the Mughal Princes and very few of governors and regional
rulers under the Mughals; the second number was the Sawar number, a cavalry rank, which
indicated the numbers of horses a mansabdar is supposed to maintain for the service to the
Mughal King at the time of War.
Mansabdari was modified and upgraded form of Iqtadari system of administrative
mechanism during the Delhi sultanate. The Iqtadars were administrative offices who were
assigned the right of revenue collection of a territory called Iqta. In lieu of that they were
expected to do to military services to the Delhi Sultan. Similarly, the mansabdar, for their
services, were either paid in cash or given a territory from which they were entitled to collect
revenue and keep a part that in lieu of their salary and upkeep of forces under them. Territory
assigned to mansabdars was called a Jagir and therefore mansabdars were also called
Jagirdars.
During later Mughals, the mansabdari system became very complicated. ZAT ranks of more
than 10000 became numerous. Lots of record keeping, coordination, reconciliation, and
monitoring were required to maintain the list of Mansabdars, their Zat and Sawar ranks,
monitoring of their duties, number of horses they kept, revenue they collected from their
Jagir etc. But the system was so robust that it endured the British rule and continued in one
or other form at the time when India got independence. Still in rural India the popular usage
of terms Jagirdars and zamindars underline the popularity and robustness of the mansabdari
system of Mughals.

131
 THEME 9 : KABIR: SYNCRETISM

9.A : CBCS Syllabus

Syncretism in Kabir’s Thought
• Kabir’s political thought, especially about class less, caste less, stateless egalitarian
rural community
• Kabir’s on social order- caste system, inequality, injustice
• Kabir’s spiritual ideas: Monotheism, mysticism, interior (inward looking) spiritualism,
radical reformer.

9.B : Key Points:

• Kabir, who most probably lived in Varanasi in 15th century during Delhi Sultan
Sikandar Lodhi, was radical social reformer, ‘Bhakti Sant’, and icon of syncretic culture
of medieval India.
• Spiritual ideas: Monotheism-one supreme God which exists in every worldly thing,
which are creations of the God; God is one with many names in different religion; by
leaving aside ego, desire, and with extreme love, devotion, and meditation one can
attain salvation.
• Radical Social reformer: rejected and ridiculed ritualism and pomp & show of
institutionalized religion, caste system, social hierarchy, socio-economic inequality,
and exploitation of common man by the state and the powerful.
• His ideal society was stateless, casteless, private property less, having no taxes,
hierarchy, sorrow, fear, hate, competition. Both temporal & spiritual sovereignty is
vested in the people. Thus, an individual is sovereign in all respect. He can attain
salvation without any external help and blessings.
• Best Icon of Syncretic Culture of India: Muslim parents but Hindu Guru, rejected &
ridiculed ritualism and pompousness of both Hinduism and Islam, preached social
harmony, religious tolerance, individual spiritual sovereignty. Hence, his legacy is
claimed both by Hindus and Muslims.

132
 9.C : ANSWER TEMPLATE TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1 : Define syncretism. In what way Kabir strengthened the Syncretic

traditions in India?
Similar question:
Q.‘Kabir has been the greatest icon of syncretic tradition of mediaeval India’; elaborate.

INTRODUCTON:
Syncretism denotes combination (mixture, amalgamation, synthesis) of different
religions, cultures, or schools of thought. Syncretism is feature of society in which
people of diverse faith and culture live together for long period of time. India has been
the land of people of diverse faith, language, culture, traditions. Beginning 1206, the
country, though having Hindu majority, was ruled by first Muslim and then English
rulers. All this gave a syncretic cultural tradition to Indian society. Kabir in spiritual
and Akbar in political domain have been the greatest icon of syncretic tradition of India.
Role of Kabir in strengthening the Syncretic traditions in India:
• He rejected ritualism, pretentions, and hollowness of both Hinduism and Islam, yet
his legacies are claimed by both Hindus and Muslims. This is because he made
individuals sovereign in spiritual domain. Anyone with pure heart, love & devotion,
and meditation can find truth & God within himself. For this, help of any elaborate
ritual, blessings of priest, membership of institutionalized religion was not required.
Hence, both Hindus & Muslims could follow the self-directing spirituality to attain
salvation. This, strengthened syncretic traditions which drew elements from both
Hinduism and Islam.
• It may be noted that he didn’t try to synthesize the Hindu and Muslim traditions.
Actually, he rejected the illogical, irrational, and ritualistic aspects of both the
traditions. Despite this he is considered as greatest icon of syncretic tradition because
he drew followers from both traditions, took good elements from multiple traditions,
and set free the spirituality from organized communal religion. It may also be noted
that he didn’t reject Hinduism or Islam per se, rather rejected their formalization,
external pomp and show, ritualism, rigidity and insignificance of individuals in the
formal institutionalized religion.
• His life and acts symbolized syncretism: He had Muslim Parents but Hindu Guru
(Sant Ramanand), called his supreme God- Rama; Preferred to die at ‘Maghar’a place
near Gorakhpur believed to be inauspicious for dying. This act was to challenge the
dogmatic religious beliefs; though he was Muslim and belonged to weaver, a low
caste, was accepted as a great Hindu Saint.

133
• He combined ideas, traditions, and practices from different strands of Hinduism
& Islam:
• One Supreme God (Monotheism) and formless God (Nirakar) from Islam.
• Naam (Sabd) Japna from Sufi Zikr.
• Extreme love and devotion to supreme God from Vaishnavite tradition and
Sufism.
• Purity of conduct and behaviour, emphasis on the importance of Guru, Sharp
criticism of caste system and his use of popular language to Preach his
audience etc. from Nath Panth.
• Mysticism from Yoga, Siddha, tantric, and Sufi traditions.
• Idea of salvation as freedom from cycle of birth & death from Buddhism.
• Syncretism in Kabir’s Thought:
• God is one, known by different names- Hari, Khuda, Allah, Ram, Krishna,
Raheem.
• Ridiculed external pomp, show, pretentions, and ritualism in both Hinduism
and Islam.
• Salvation only through extreme love, devotion, meditation, having pure heart
and knowing your true self.
• Look inside for faults, better to be deceived then to deceive. This was aspect
of his interior (inward looking) spirituality.
• He represented as well as strengthened the religious ferment and evolving
syncretic culture of 15th Century India- Sufism, Bhakti Movement, Sikhism.
It is not that he was out of synch with the socio-political thoughts of that time.
He, like any other great thinker, was child of his time. That was a transition
phase. Islam was gaining ground as faith of the ruling elites. Large numbers of
non-Muslims, especially lower Hindu caste, were converting into Islam.
Hinduism, to protect onslaught of Islam, was becoming inward looking and
rigid. Bhakti movement in Hinduism & Sufi movement in Islam broke
antagonism and separation of Hinduism & Islam. They put individual as
spiritually autonomous entity at the center. Individuals could find God by their
own effort with intense love & devotion, purity of heart, and meditation. Kabir
was part, but one of the most important pillar, of this religious ferment and
evolving syncretic culture of 15th Century India.
CONCLUSION:
Syncretism denotes composite culture which evolves when people of multiple
faith, religion, language, culture, etc. live together for long period of time. India
has been the melting pot of diverse faith, religion, language and culture. Hence,

134
syncretism has been the essential feature of socio-cultural aspect of Indian
society.
One of the greatest icon of syncretic Indian tradition is Kabir, a 15th century
Bhakti saint. His life itself was represented syncretism. He was believed to have
born as Brahmin, brought up by Muslim parents, had a Hindu Bhakti Saint as
his ‘Guru’(preceptor), known as one of the greatest Bhakti saints, his legacy is
claimed by both Hindus and Muslims.
It is interesting to note that Kabir didn’t try to synthesize the two traditions,
rather he rejected negative aspects- rigidity, hollow ritualism, irrationality,
pretentions- of both the religions. Despite this, he is considered as the greatest
symbol of syncretic tradition because through his ideas and preaching he made
individuals autonomous in spiritual domain, independent of mainstream
religion. He drew elements as well as followers from multiple religious
traditions. He became above any religion/faith, still very much rooted to
traditions of mainstream religions. Therefore, he became the symbol of
syncretic culture of medieval India.

135
Q.2: Analyze Kabir's concept of equality with special reference to gender
equality.
Similar Question:
Q. “Kabir was a radical social reformer” Support the statement highlighting Kabir’s
views on social inequality and injustice.

Answer Template:
INTRODUCTION:
In addition to being one the greatest Bhakti saint, Kabir was also a radical social
reformer. He rejected caste system for its rigid hierarchical doctrine, which was
inegalitarian (inequal). To him, each one is equal as integral part of God’s creation. God
is creator as well as creation. Hence, part of God exists in each being. Hence, everyone
is equal. Humans have taken birth in same manner, live with same faculty, with same
issues, and die in same manner. Hence, difference if any, of wealth, power, status, etc.
are transitory and meaningless. Thus, king and destitute (poor) are equal, both have
same fate.
Kabir also advocated equality in spiritual domain. To him, individuals are autonomous
and independent of any group/community/religion for connecting with God and
attaining salvation. Each one can realize his true self, which is part of God itself, and
attain salvation by having pure heart, intense love, devotion, meditation, and guidance
of virtuous teacher/preceptor. Thus, spiritually each individual is sovereign and
therefore equal to others. To him, hierarchy is essential feature of institutionalized
religion and community life. Hence, he proposed interior (inward looking) spirituality
which makes individual sovereign in spiritual domain. In fact, in Kabir’s thought both
temporal & spiritual Sovereignty are vested in the people, not in any King/monarch.
This was indeed a very radical egalitarian concept.

Some of Kabir’s thought on equality reflected in his sayings (Doha):

His rejection of the caste system:
• In one ‘Doha’ attributed to him, Kabir says that people of all castes are born by
same method, created from a drop of supreme creator- Brahma- therefore, how
one can be called ‘Brahman’ and other ‘Shudra’? Here Kabir, is hitting at
irrationality of unequal and inegalitarian caste system. He took help of science-
Biology- as well as spirituality- idea of universe created by a single drop of
supreme creator- Brahma. The latter idea is kind of big bang theory of creation
of universe, and hence scientific, too.

136
 • In another verse, he says that birth in high caste does not automatically gives
virtue, as golden pot may have wine filled in it. Virtue to him is independent of
birth in a particular caste. Person of any caste can acquire knowledge, wisdom,
and virtue.
• Kabir says that caste of saints is irrelevant. What matters is their knowledge.
Same way as quality of sword, and not the sword holder (म्यान) matters. He forbids
people to visit the village where not virtue and knowledge but caste matters. Thus,
we can see that Kabir was rejecting the caste system forcefully.
His views on social inequality:
• Kabir, in one of his ‘Doha’ says that his heart trembles (shakes) by seeing the
gross inequality where few are living in grand palaces and majorities living in
thatched roof mud houses from which rain and sunlight comes inside.
• In another Doha, he underlines the importance of seemingly insignificant poor
people, which he compares with dry grass straw which otherwise remains on
ground but gives lots of pain if it enters into eye by flying in air. Here he seems
to be warning the rich and powerful not to treat the poor & marginalised as
meaningless and insignificant. The poor can inflict great damage to rich and
powerful when their time comes.
• In other Doha, he laments the transitory nature of richness and material resources.
After death the rich will lie in grave on top of which grass will grow; hence, the
poor should not get dejected by high rise house of the rich today.
• Kabir, in another verse/Doha, highlight the virtue of being low/down; water
doesn’t stay on top, it flows down. Whoever is at top, will remain high and dry.
• Thus, from all these sayings of Kabir, we can infer his complete rejection and
ridicule of caste system and unequal hierarchical social order. Indeed, he was a
radical social reformer and champion of equality in all walks of life- temporal as
well as spiritual.

Kabir’s thoughts on gender equality:

Since Kabir believed innate(natural) equality of all beings as creation in which part of
God reside, hence, to him equality of gender was obvious. Thus, in spiritual domain
female are as sovereign as the male. Both can realize their true self, God, and attain
salvation by following same process.
But in temporal domain he seems to have kept female subordinated to males. He praised
women as virtuous wife in service of her husband. Wife should be obedient, should
have good conduct and character, and always obey her husband. To him, women invite
sins from men. Beauty and passion of women induce vices in men.

137
 He also seems to have praised bravery of women agreeing to be burnt on pyre of her
dead husband, that is the tradition of Sati at that time. For such views about women he
is criticised also. But we should appreciate that Kabir couldn’t have been totally against
of the social traditions of thousands of years. Also, verses attributed to Kabir have been
compiled in centuries by many of his disciples, who in all probability might have
inserted verses reflecting their own views. Hence, it cannot be said with surety that
some of low views about women attributed to his ‘Doha’ actually reflect the views held
by Kabir or not.

CONCLUSION:
First and foremost, Kabir was a radical social reformer. He not only rejected all notions
of inequality and social injustice but also lamented and ridiculed them. To him, each
individual was sovereign in both temporal and spiritual domain and hence equal. He
also supported such absolute equality on biological, scientific, and spiritual ground. All
beings are creation of supreme God, who exist in all his creation. Hence, each one has
God’s part in him/her and hence essentially equal. Money, power, status all are external
and ephemeral (transitory) phase. In birth and in death, in life processes, and in trial &
tribulations of life, all human beings are equal. Thus, Kabir was one the greatest
champion of social equality in medieval India.
His views on gender equality are mixed. On one hand he stressed equality of gender in
spiritual domain but on the other hand seems to have placed women subordinate to men
in household and temporal matters. He also seems to have supported the traditions of
Sati. But we cannot be sure that these are actually his views, as he has not written
anything himself. His sayings were compiled over a long period of time by his followers
in multiple traditions. But overall, there is no doubt that he was a radical social reformer
and champion of radical egalitarianism.

138
Q.3: Discuss Syncretism in Kabir’s ‘Bijak’

INTRODUCTION:
Kabir didn’t write anything himself, all his ‘sayings’ or ‘advises’ were orally
transmitted by his disciples/common people. Later on, perhaps during 17th century, they
were written and compiled in 3 different traditions- by Sikhs in ‘Adi Granth’, by
Dadu Dayal Panth in Rajasthan in form of ‘Kabir Granthawali’ and ‘Panchvani’, and
By Kabirpanth in Eastern India- in form of ‘Bijak’.
Out these three traditions of Kabir’s thoughts, Bijak is direct, personal, and hard hitting.
It is in Bijak that Kabir’s radical social reformist character is most visible. In the
verses/Doha of Bijak, Kabir act like lone wise man knowing truth wandering in the
midst of people indulged in transitory illusions of money, power, material resources,
empty pride, and false status.
In the Doha of Bijak, Kabir rejects ritualism, irrationality, pretentions, and hollowness
of both Hinduism and Islam. He also rejects the false differences among religion. At
the level of spirit, all human beings are same, part of God reside in all. He drew elements
from multiple tradition to form a syncretic path of spiritualism which is individual
centric. Individuals for a virtuous and spiritual life in this world and salvation in
transcendental world are not dependent on organized religion and their elaborate and
costly rituals. Anyone with pure heart, intense love & devotion, meditation, and
guidance of virtuous Guru can attain salvation by his own effort. This was a kind of
interior (inward looking) spirituality. Hence, both Hindus & Muslims can follow the
self-directing spirituality to attain salvation. Thus, Kabir strengthened syncretic
traditions which drew elements from both Hinduism and Islam.
Syncretism in Kabir’s ‘Bijak’:
• Kabir preaches Monotheism in many of his Doha/verses in Bijak- God is creator as well
as creation; he is everywhere in everything; hence to find God one need not search
outside in Temples or Mosques, they need just to look inside, deep inside to find their
true self, you will find God with love, compassion, devotion, and meditation.
• One of his Doha says God is one, known by different names- Hari, Khuda, Allah, Ram,
Krishna, Raheem.
o In other Doha he says ‘Hari’ (Hindu God) has home in East direction, whereas
West direction is abode of ‘Allah’, but search within your heart where both Hari
& Allah reside.
• In many of his Doha he Ridiculed external pomp, show (आडम्बर), and ritualism in both
Hinduism and Islam

139
 • He says, how is your God Mulla? Is he deaf that you need to cry his name from top of
Mosque? And you Pandit! You pretend to sit in mediation remembering God’s name
by counting beads, but your heart is full of lust & deceit, and all this are visible to your
God. This was his way, to cut brutally the ritualism of both Hinduism and Islam.
• In another Doha he ridiculed false meditation by repeatedly taking God’s name without
feeling the essence of God in heart. If by taking name of sweet your mouth is filled by
sweet then only merely by taking name you will find God, said Kabir.
• His famous Doha in Bijak- ‘Pothi Padh Padh Jag Mua….’ Preaches universal power
of love, which is more powerful than the holy scriptures, which divide peoples in
different faith, whereas love unite them.
• In another Doha he ridiculed ritualism of purity by taking holy bath by citing example
of fish whose smell does not vanish by living in water permanently. Same way dirt of
heart does not go away by taking ritual bath.
• In many of his verses he conveyed that Salvation can only be attained through extreme
love, devotion, meditation and knowing your true self. Look deep inside you, God is
there, truth is there, he says in one of most famous doha- Kasturi kundal base, Mrig
(deer) dhoondat ban mahi- Kasturi ( the scent) is inside it but deer wanders in forest to
search the scent.
• He preaches looking inside, within oneself also in day to day life. This would help in
social harmony. ‘Bura jo dekhan mai chala…mujhse Bura na koi’ also another Doha
says it is better to be deceived than to deceive. Even if one does bad to you, better you
do good to him, for your goodness will be with you and others vices with them. This
was another jewel of his thought for social harmony and religious tolerance.

CONCLUSION:
Bijak was Eastern Indian tradition of Kabir Panth and was compiled probably in 17th
century. This was one among the three traditions in which Kabir’s sayings have been
compiled and written. We have seen that through his verses or Doha in Bijak, Kabir
strengthened the syncretic cultural traditions in mediaeval India. In fact, his Doha in
Bijak help spread secularism, multiculturalism and liberalism even in our times. From
Prime Minister to common man on street in India recite Kabir’s Doha from Bijak to
further the syncretic cultural tradition of India.

It is also interesting to note that Kabir himself did not try to synthesise the Hindu and
Muslim traditions to form a syncretic tradition. He actually rejected the ritualism, and
false pretentions of both the religion. But he definitely mixed the elements taken from
multiple traditions such as Sufism, Bhakti movement, Nath Panth, Yoga Tantric,
Siddha, Vaishnavism and Buddhism to pronounce a unique path of spirituality and
social order. This drew both Hindus and Muslims towards his path. Because of this he
became the greatest icon of syncretic cultural tradition of India.

140
 NOTES:
1. Syncretism of Kabir
Syncretism denotes combination (mixture, amalgamation, synthesis) of different
religions, cultures, or schools of thought to produce a mixed or syncretic culture.
Syncretism is feature of society in which people of diverse faith and culture live
together for long period of time. India has been the melting pot of diverse faith,
language, culture, traditions, etc. Beginning 1206, the country, though having Hindu
majority, was ruled by first Muslim and then English rulers. All this gave a syncretic
cultural tradition to Indian society. Kabir, 15th century Bhakti Saint and radical social
reformer is considered as greatest icon of syncretic tradition of India.
Syncretism of Kabir can be seen at multiple level and ways. His life itself was symbol
of syncretism. He was believed to have born as Brahmin, brought up by Muslim parents,
had a Hindu Bhakti Saint as his ‘Guru’(preceptor), known as one of the greatest Bhakti
saints, his legacy is claimed by both Hindus and Muslims.
It is interesting to note that Kabir didn’t try to synthesize the two traditions, rather he
rejected negative aspects- rigidity, hollow ritualism, irrationality, pretentions- of both
the religions. Despite this he is considered as greatest symbol of syncretic tradition
because through his ideas, practices and preaching he made individuals autonomous in
spiritual domain, independent of mainstream religion. He drew elements as well as
followers from multiple religious traditions. He became above any religion/faith, still
very much rooted to traditions of mainstream religions. Therefore, he became the
symbol of syncretic culture of medieval India.
Through verses or Doha attributed to Kabir, he strengthens the syncretic cultural
traditions in mediaeval India. To him, God is one having multiple names- Ram,
Raheem, Allah, Hari. God is creator as well as creation. God’s part exists in each being.
Hence, by looking deep inside oneself God can be realized, for this one need not do the
pilgrimage.
Many of his Doha stresses these ideas. In fact, his Doha help spread secularism,
multiculturalism and liberalism even in our times. From Prime Minister to common
man on street in India recite Kabir’s Doha to underline the syncretic cultural tradition
of India. This is despite the fact that Kabir himself did not try to synthesise the Hindu
and Muslim traditions to form a syncretic tradition. He actually rejected the ritualism,
and false pretentions of both the religion. But he definitely mixed the elements taken
from multiple traditions such as Sufism, Bhakti movement, Nath Panth, Yoga Tantric,
Siddha, Vaishnavism and Buddhism to pronounce a unique path of spirituality and
social order. This drew both Hindus and Muslims towards his path. Because of this he
became the greatest icon of syncretic cultural tradition of India.

141
2. Kabir on social inequality.
In addition to being one the greatest Bhakti saint, Kabir was also a radical social
reformer. He was champion of social equality and justice. He rejected caste system for
its rigid hierarchical doctrine, which was inegalitarian (inequal). To him, each one is
equal as integral part of God’s creation. God is creator as well as creation. Hence, part
of God exists in each being. Hence, everyone is equal. All human has taken birth in
same manner, live with same faculty, with same trial & tribulations, and die in same
manner. Hence, difference if any, of wealth, power, status, etc, are transitory and
meaningless. Thus, king and destitute (poor) are equal, both have same fate. They came
into this world in same manner and leave in same way. Many of his Doha stressed his
ideas on social equality.
Kabir also advocated equality in spiritual domain. To him, individuals are autonomous
and independent of any group/community/religion for connecting with God and
attaining salvation. Each one can realize his true self, which is part of God itself, and
attain salvation by having pure heart, intense love, devotion, meditation, and guidance
of virtuous teacher/preceptor. Thus, spiritually each individual is sovereign and
therefore equal to others. To him, hierarchy is essential feature of institutionalized
religion and community life. Hence, he proposed interior (inward looking) spirituality
which makes individual sovereign in spiritual domain. In fact, in Kabir’s thought both
temporal (worldly affaires- Duniyadari) & spiritual Sovereignty are vested in the
people, not in any King/monarch. This was indeed a very radical egalitarian concept.
He not only rejected all notions of inequality and social injustice but also lamented and
ridiculed them. Through his Doha, he highlighted the transitory(temporary) nature of
material wealth, power, status. His heart trembled seeing gross socio-economic
inequality but he consoles the poor that the rich will be buried deep inside earth and
grass will grow on top of their grave. He compares high palaces of the rich and mighty
as high places where water does not stand, it flows down to lower ground, which he
compared to the poor. Water here indicates real happiness and virtue. In many ways,
through his Doha, he laments inequality, ridicules them, and advocates equality &
justice.
He gave both scientific and normative reasons for rejecting social inequality. To him,
each individual is sovereign in both temporal and spiritual domain and hence equal. He
also supported such absolute equality on biological and scientific grounds. Each human
takes birth in same manner, have same body parts/faculties, same natural endowments,
goes through similar life processes and die in same manner. Money, power, status all
are external and ephemeral (transitory) phase. All beings are creation of supreme God,
who exists in all his creation. Hence, each one has God’s part in him/her and hence
essentially equal. Thus, Kabir was one the greatest champion of social equality in
medieval India.

142
3. Nature of individual and society envisioned (proposed) by Kabir

Kabir was radical humanist tinker. His radicalism and humanism is manifested in his
idea of individual and society. Much ahead of his times, he declared individual as
autonomous, sovereign in both spiritual and temporal domain. To him, all individuals
are equal, have equal worth as they originated by the same process from the supreme
creator Brahma. Each one is equal as integral part of God’s creation. God is creator as
well as creation. Hence, part of God exists in each being. Hence, everyone is equal.
Humans have taken birth in same manner, live with same faculty, with same issues, and
die in same manner. Hence, difference if any, of wealth, power, status, etc. are transitory
and meaningless. Thus, king and destitute (poor) are equal, both have same fate.
Kabir advocated equality in both spiritual and temporal domain. To him, individuals
are autonomous and independent of any group/community/religion for connecting with
God and attaining salvation. Individuals could find God by their own effort with intense
love & devotion, purity of heart, and meditation. He/she can directly connect to the
supreme creator, the God, without any intermediary- priests, and without performing
any elaborate rituals. Hence, for spiritual fulfilments help of any elaborate ritual,
blessings of priest, membership of institutionalized religion was not required. Hence,
each individual, disregarding his religion, caste, gender, could follow the interiror (self-
directing) spirituality to attain salvation. Thus, Kabir made individual sovereign in
spiritual domain.
Event in temporal domain, Kabir exerted that hierarchy, rank, status all are transitory
and meaningless. Since each individual is equal part of the supreme creator, has same
life processes, faculty, endowments, hence no one is above or below. Temporal
sovereignty should be vested in people not in kings or monarchs. It is the people who
make the society/state and not the other way round. Individuals are end in themselves.
They are sovereign in all respect. Kabir rejected the divine rights of Kings/Monarch to
rule. To him, a poor individual and a King, both were equal, have same fate. Thus,
Kabir proposed popular sovereignty centuries before Locke and Rousseau came up with
this idea.
Kabir had equally radical ideas about the society. His ideal society was stateless,
casteless, class less, without private property, tax, sorrow, fear, hate, competition. Kabir
rejected hierarchical social order and force based formal authorities of
Kings/Monarchs. Many centuries later, Marx, Gandhi, and many philosophical
anarchists gave similar ideas about was stateless, casteless, class less society.
Kabir called his stateless, casteless, property less, hierarchy less ideal society as
Premnagar or Amarpura; sant Raidas called it Begumpura. Begum-pura, the kingdom
of God, was an ideal village society without any sorrow, private property, taxes,
monarchy or social hierarchy. It was a land of virtuous people without any fear, greed,
anger, competition, discrimination, crime and scarcity. There was no distinction and

143
discrimination on the basis of birth based identitiy of caste, religion and gender. It was
an egalitarian and humane society.
In Begampura, temporal and spiritual sovereignty was vested in people- individuals. It
had no organized Government. People collectivily participated in decision making.
Love, compassion, social harmony, and religious tolerance was essence of the social
order in Kabir’s ideal society. Bhakts (virtuous people following ideals of love &
devotion) were vanguard (forerunner) of his utopic society. His Begumpura was an
imagined, ideal polity, the kingdom of God, that had no State, no elite, no corruption
and no surplus extraction. It was premised on justice, equality and freedom. Thus, Kabir
proposed ideas of stateless, class less society 400 years before Marx!
From above it is clear that Kabir held radical thoughts about the individual and society.
He rejected hierarchy and ranking among individuals based on primordial (birth based)
identities. Individuals being equal part of the supreme creator were having equal worth
and same fate. Differences among them based on birth-based identity and private
property were transitory, illogical and meaningless. His idea about society was equally
radical. He envisioned stateless, casteless, propertyless, classless egalitarian and
humane society. His utopic society was led by virtuous people, lived in harmony,
individuals were sovereign in both temporal and spiritual domain, people participated
in collective decision making, and related to others as equals.
We can visualize philosophical anarchism of Gandhi, Marx, and many other socialist
anarchist thinkers in the radical idea of society in Kabir’s thought. It is evident that
Kabir’s envisioning of individual and society was radical, surprisingly modern and
much ahead of his time.

144
 SECTION 3

SAMPLE
PAPERS
(3 Sets)
 SAMPLE PAPER
SET 1

There are 8 questions; attempt any 4.

1. Compare and contrast Brahminic and Shramanic traditions in ancient
India.
(Hint: Straightforward question. see the answer at page 21)

2. Explain the basic tenets of Rajadharma as mentioned in Shantiparva of

Maha Bharat.
(Hint: Question is asking what are different meanings/connotations of Rajadharma. Literal
meaning of Rajadharma is duty or moral obligations and duties of the King, i.e. Dharma of
King. But it denotes a range of political thoughts- Good Governance, Statecraft, Politics,
political obligation. and art & science of Governance (Dandaniti). In the answer one should
explain in brief how Rajadharma denotes all these terms. Refer the answer at page 42)

3. Critically analyse the role of Manu Smriti in the formulation of

hierarchical social order and social laws in ancient India.
(Hint: see the answer at page 61)

4. “Kautilya’s Mandala theory is still relevant in the context of Westphalian

state system.” Critically examine the statement.
(Hint: one should explain the Mandala theory in brief and then compare it with realist IR-
balance of power, IR as interplay of national interest and relative power. Also, the conception
of state as per Westphalian state system and Mandala theory (7 elements of state determining
its power) should be explained. See the answer at page 82 )

5. Discuss the theory of kingship/state as described by Buddha in Digha

Nikaya. Also compare that with Brahmanical theory of kingship/state.
(Hint: See the answer at page 92)
6. Barni’s concept of Ideal State/Sultanate was out of synch with real politic
of his times.” Examine the statement.
(Hint: One should critically analyse Barni’s political thoughts, especially his conception of
Ideal State/Sultanate to highlight how those were conservative, theocratic and out of sync with
real-politic of his times. Those were hardly followed by the Delhi Sultans and ruling elites.
Refer the answers at page 105 )

7. “Abul Fazl’s theory of Kingship was semi-contractual as well as semi-

divine” Examine the statement by bringing out main features of theory of
Kingship by Abul Fazl.
(Hint : Fazl put forward both a kind of semi-contractual as well as semi divine theory of
Kingship. Please refer to answer at page 119.)

8. ” Kabir has been the greatest icon of syncretic traditions in India” Discuss.
(Hint: please refer answer at page 133)

2
 SAMPLE PAPER
SET 2

1. Discuss the features of Ancient Indian Political Thoughts.

(Hint:You need to list out and explain in brief main aspects of Ancient Indian political
thoughts which comprises of both Brahmnic and Shramanic traditions. In essence, this is
same as explaining the features of both Brahmnic and Shramanic traditions. Syncretism is
one of the most important feature of Indian political thought. How both Brahmnic and
Shramanic traditions intermingled to give synthetic/syncretic Indian political thought
should be explained. Another essential feature of Ancient Indian political thoughts is how
it attempted to deal with two realms of Spirituality/religion and politics/statecraft. In
Brahminical political thought Politics was mere adjunct to Dharma, which was supreme
and sovereign. Shramanic, especially Buddhism, gave a serious attempt to separate the two
realms with its two-wheel theory. But with time, Buddhism merged both the realms in its
conception of Cakkavatti Dhammiko Dhammaraja (chakravarti Samrat who was protector
and promoter of Dhamma). This feature of Ancient Indian political thoughts should be
explained in detail. Another important feature was functional division of society into
different occupational classes. Each class was expected to perform its duty as per the Varna
Ashram Dharma. This was similar to Platonic society/state. In such society/state formal
positive state laws were not required. Dharma as supreme moral command guides actions
of both individuals, society, and even the king/sovereign. You may find many other features
in the answers at pages 12 and 21)

2. “Rajadharma in Shantiparva covers entire range of Kingship/statecraft” Discuss with

special reference to origin and duties of Kingship/state, concept of an ideal King, and
political obligation as mentioned in Shantiparva.
(Hint: After explaining in brief different political concepts denoted by Rajadharma, the
answer should focus mainly on origin and duties of Kingship/state, concept of an ideal
King, and political obligation. Refer to answers at pages 42, 46, 49)

3. Discuss the dimensions of Caste and Gender in Manusmriti.

Hint: The answer should focus on views of Manusmriti on Varna Ashram Dharma, role
and positions of Shudra and women, and how they became controversial and politicized.
Refer the answers at page 66.

3
4. Highlighting the features of ‘Saptanga’ theory of state by Kautilya; compare it with
modern conception of elements of State.
(Hint: refer answer at page 79)

5. ” Conception of kingship/state in Digha Nikaya in humanistic and secular.” Examine

the statement by highlighting the theory of kingship/state in Digha Nikaya.
(Hint: refer to answer at page 92)

6. “Barni’s Hidayats were never actually followed by Delhi Sultans.” Explain the
statement by giving brief of Barni’s advices/Hidayat to Kings/Sultan.
(Hint : refer to answer at 105)

7. “Abul Fazl vested spiritual sovereignty into the temporal sovereign”. Explain the
statement by underlining elements of sovereignty in Abul Fazl’s political thoughts.
(Hint: refer to answer at page 122)

8. “Kabir was a radical social reformer” Support the statement highlighting Kabir’s
views on social inequality and injustice.
(Hint: refer to answer at page 136)

4
 SAMPLE PAPER
SET 3

1. Discuss Islamic political traditions as it came to India. How it combined with Hindu
political thoughts to give a syncretic Indian Political Thought.
(Hint: First discuss about different strands of political Islam when it arrived in India.
Discuss in brief the challenge of reconciling the demands of Shari’a and real politic of
governing a non-Muslim population. How different political philosophers offered solutions
to tackle this challenge? In what way Barni and Fazl contributed to this ongoing dialogue.
May also discuss different strands of Islamic traditions, juridical system, sects- Shia, Sunni,
Sufis, etc. In the 2nd part highlight the Indo-Islamic syncretism in all walks of life including
political thoughts. Refer to answers at page 30 and 35.)

2. Discuss the relevance of Rajadharma in present times by highlighting the essential

features of Kingship/state as mentioned in Shantiparva of Maha Bharat.
(Hint: You should explain how notion of Rajadharma is still relevant as the duties, and
moral obligation it entails on part of rulers can provide Good Governance. Refer to answer
at page 42.)

3. ” Manu Smriti didn’t formulate social order and social laws, it took former as given
and compiled the latter based on Shruti, Shastras, Smritis, convention, practices, and
inferences.” Critically examine the statement.
(Hint: another way to ask the role of Manusmriti in formulating social laws. Refer to the
answer at page 61.)

4. “Kautilya was first political thinker in India to separate the realms of politics and
spirituality.” Discuss the statement by underlining how Kautilya made politics
autonomous.
(Hint: refer the answer at page 72.)

5. ” Digha Nikaya was more successful in separating politics/statecraft from spirituality

in comparison to Shantiparva.” Do you agree with the statement? Provide reasons for
your answer.

5
 (Hint: though Buddhism attempted more earnestly to separate the two realms of spirituality
and politics through its two-wheel theory, but in its attempt to adjust to the changing times
and requirements to get royal patronage, it accepted supremacy of temporal ruler/king in
spiritual matters. Its notion of Cakkavatti Dhammiko Dhammaraja effectively merged the
two realms. Hence, Digha Nikaya was successful only to some extent in separating the two
realms. Refer to the answer at page 92)

6. “Both conservatism and pragmatism are found in equal measure in Barni’s political
thought.” In the light of the statement bring out the contradictions in the political
thought of Ziauddin Barni.
(Hint: Barni was an enigmatic(puzzling) political thinker. On one hand he formulated
Zawabit, secular state laws, but on the other hand he advised strict adherence to Shari’a
in all walks of life. Such contradictions are hallmark of political thought of Barni. You
should highlight them. Also give some possible reasons for such contradictions such as
peculiar political situation of Muslim rule in lands of non-Muslims, frequent change in
ruling dynasties, tension between demands of Shari’a and requirements of real politics, his
own life and career, etc. Refer to the answer at page 105.)

7. ”Abul Fazl gave most liberal and secular theory of Kingship and Sovereignty in
medieval India.” Explain the statement by highlighting the theory of Kingship and
Sovereignty propounded by Abul Fazl.
(Hint: Straightforward question. Refer answer at page 119 and 122.)

8. Despite rejecting rigidity, ritualism, and pretentions of both Hinduism and Islam,
legacy of Kabir is claimed by both Hindus and Muslim” Highlight syncretism in
Kabir’s thought in light of the statement.
(Hint : Most usual question. Refer to answer at page 133)

6
 SECTION 4

ANSWER WRITING TIPS

7
 Scoring Answer Writing Tips

How to Write Best Answers in University Exam?

BA Hons Pol Sc Exam Help

• Yes, one may score better marks by writing strategically.

• Essay type answers require different skills than MCQs. Structure (Template),
organization, flow, and style matter in essay types of answers. Here are my Tips:

8
 First Tips : Analyse Past Year’s papers

Select the topics asked

Topic wise analysis of
repeatedly- select
3-4 year’s question
topics to cover at least
papers shall reveal the
70%- 5-6 questions for
question pattern
sure

• This I have done for you. I have analyzed past four year’s paper of DU on Indian
Political Thought. Provided standard answer template on all of those questions.
• In fact, the questions cover the entire syllabus. Thus, only by reading the answers in
this guide carefully and repeatedly, yes at least 7-8 times, you will be covering the entire
syllabus.
• When exam is very near, you may leave some of themes/topics by an intelligent guess.

9
 2nd Tips: Make Intelligent Guess !

Yes, by carefully
analysing past papers Do it with
you can guess confidence!
expected questions.

• Yes, you should do it. Examiners set paper by going through past 3-4 year’s paper.
They have to meet 2 conditions, 1st the question should be within the syllabus and 2nd
they should be on similar pattern and difficulty level as asked in earlier years. Hence,
the paper setter normally set questions very similar to one asked earlier. They also
alternate the theme/topic. Thus, if a topic is asked in 2017, they repeat that in 2019, and
like that.
• Therefore, you can guess!

10
 3rd Tip: use the question as answer clue!

Answers are
Attentively read Provide standard
expansion of ideas,
question at least 3 Answers to twisted
issues stated in the
times, yes 3 times! questions
questions

• Answers are hidden in the Questions!

• While framing the question, the examiner is thinking about the answer. Hence, by
carefully and on multiple reading you can visualize the answer hidden in the question.
• And, yes, also read the Hindi translation of the question. Sometime, you may not know
exact meaning of the key word in the question. Hindi translation may give the meaning.
Also, many a times, wording of Hindi question disclose more about the hidden answer.
This is due to translation issue. Take advantage of questions in two languages.

11
 4th Tips: cleverly organise your answers

Write 1st answer on your best Choose 2nd best topic as last
prepared topic question

Because examiners pay more

Least prepared topics as 2nd attention to your first
and 3rd answers; Why? question, then the last, and
least to middle answers…yes!

• Yes, examiners actually browse through your answer, they don’t read word by word.
• Also, they assess your standard by your 1st answer. 2nd and 3rd answer may not change
your assessment. They assign you marks in range in accordance with the bracketing
they do in the 1st answer.
• Hence, write your best prepared topic as 1st answer. 2nd best as last, why? Because
examiner try to put some attention while browsing your last answer. Make use of his
attention. He may revise the marks bracket he decided while reading your 1st answer.

12
 5th Tip : Strategic writing?

How many words per

question? No fixed rule- Use standard answer
Normally, 800-1200 words structure (template)
(4-6 pages)

Numbered or bulleted Sprinkle and underline key

points in ‘Body’ phrases

• How many words to write?

• Actually, it shouldn’t matter. But unfortunately, in our country it does matter.
• Average writing speed is 25 words per minute. In a 180 minute (3 hour) exam, one may
write for about 160 minute, leaving 20 minutes for reading paper and organizing
thoughts. Therefore, in 160 minutes, maximum 4000 words can be written. This comes
to 1000 words per question.
• Write in bigger font, maximum 200 words in one page. Use bullets/number and
indenting. Leave good space between paragraph. They consume space.
• Examiners are used to see answers written in a particular template(structure). Follow
them. Carefully observe how I have tried to write in a fixed structure. I have given a
standard structure in next slide.
• Yes, insert standard phrases in your answer, sprinkle ( scatter) them across your answer.
Why? Examiners are interested in seeing the key words/phrases in your answer, this
help them quickly browsing your answer. If the found them they assume that rest of
your answer is also okay.
• And finally, repeat key phrases. Yes! You may write the key phrase in Introduction, in
body and in the conclusion. Why? Simple, because examiners are compelled to note
the key phrase/concept in your answer even if he is browsing through the answer.
Hence, don’t hesitate to repeat. It pays.
• Take one example; key phrase in Indian political thought is separation of the two realms
of Politics and spirituality (Dharma and Danda). Examiner will search for this phrase
in your answer.

13
 Answer Template: Example: Explain the notion of
Raja Dharma as contained in ShantiParva
• Introduction- 20 % of the total words in answer
• Introduce the theme , e.g. Raja Dharma
• Provide definition, meaning, and overview of the theme
• Give a glimpse of your answer or arguments as asked in the question on the theme:
say in very brief what you want to say finally.
• Body: 60-70 % of the total words in answer
• Elaborate Contextual Information and your arguments
• Write one point/argument in one paragraph
• Sub points in paragraph may be bulleted or numbered
• Analysis and Discussion
• Analyse/discuss the theme in view of question asked and information stated above; for
example the relevance of Raja Dharma in modern times.
• Provide your own view – crux of your answer
• Conclusion: 10-20% of the total words in answer
• Summarise key points: Paraphrase introduction
• State your final view and concluding remarks

• Introduction is where you should focus most. Why? Because examiner read first few
lines of Introduction carefully. It is here he is putting you in a bracket or grade for
marking.
• Conclusion is basically introduction in other words. Both give an overview/summary
of the theme, explain a bit about the question asked and give very brief of their final
argument. Difference is in wording. Introduction says I will explain or as explained
below, whereas conclusion say, as I have explained above and so on.

You can break the body of the answer in two parts. One informative and other analytical. In the latter
part you may critically analyze the statement or theme in context of the question. You may term the
analytical section as Discussion. You may even merge these two parts into one. Alternatively,
discussion can be merged into conclusion.

14