We relered carer to an eset conto on ty eeween ancient and modern Indian heh. Ths ony cel see nthe anaes of Dayananda Saraswat, Baral Chandra Chatterce, Vrckinnca ‘Aurobindo and Gandhi Thi ebhecver as aoweege ty Aone wasthe development of for of thought cotradkory ete nu At fe whieh the olf expres, but rather exprenne of tne tne Fesated, cuted of defect complied.” Simlarty, Canc acknoulcaged that is pracien pola experiments were meas tothrow ow igen many aod rt. What has dane, he sa wan pot eb opal interpretation spon te hcl aching the Cit the spirit of Hinduism.”* ae Because ofthis exert continsiy between the wad of Hinds volta thought and modern Inn poli hough we hare tat am anays ofthe former constitu proftgamenon io the sath othe Inter Hence, befoce turing ote conbuton fhe moder Ins Political thinkers, we shal nthe nex chapter, conser some dance Features of he Hinds radon of plea! ought 4S Attbinds, The Rmainac naa tary Awohinde Aram.) "° MK, Gandhi, tind Dharma (Anmedabod: Navairan, 1950)». 157 2 BHIKHU PAREKH Some Reflections on the Hindu Tradition of Political Thought In this paper 1 will examine critically some of the distinctive features of the Hindu tradition of political thought,” To avoid misunderstanding, it ‘would be useful to begin by making four pointsof clarification, First, asit forms a relatively coherent and analytically convenient subject of invest- zation, I shall concentrate on the Hindu tradition from its early Vedic beginnings to the arrival of the Muslims in the eight century a.0., and shall ignore its subsequent development altogether. ‘Second, 1 shall not summarise the ideas of individual Hindu political thinkers, but only explore the basic framework withia which they thought about politics, India was subjected to several foreign invasions and texperienced several social and economic changes during the period in ‘question. In response to these, Hindu political thinkers of different periods had to deal with different problems and approach familiar Problems from different angles. Despite these, however, their basic framework of thought—that is, theie basic concepts, concems and problems—retained a remarkable continuity. It isin this sense that one ‘can legitimately talk about the Hindu tradition of political thought. ‘Third, | shall use the term politics and its derivatives rather widely to refer to the affairs ofa territorially organised community held together by allegiance to a common authority. And, finally, | am concemed here with ‘examining not the unarticulate beliefs and assumptions underlying and informing Hindu politcal institutions and practices, but rather the body ‘of ideas Hindu political thinkers developed in their systematic treatises ‘on polities Hindu political thinkers conceptualised political life in terms of two central concepts namely, danda and dharma, For them political life or ruling a territorially organised community ultimately consisted in using danda 10 maintain dharma, The term danda means discipline, forse, restraint, constraint or punishment, Hindu political writers generally used it t0 refer to the punitive use of the coersive power of government, “+The Hindu politial ideas discussed in this paper ae outined i several standard com rmentares om the sje, sich a thse by Ben’ Prasad. U. Ghoshal KP. Jawa TR Marumdar, 3. Spelman and HN. Sinha Uhwve, therefore, ek aivable not later up the paper ith fotmctes” ‘Some Relectons.on the Hind Tradton of PoltialThowghe Dharmais a much more difficultconcept. Itcomes from the Sanskrit root hr, meaning to hold. Dharma is that which holds a society together ‘Since the Hindus thought a society was held together by each individual and group doing his or its specific duties, they used the term to mean ‘duties. Some writers used it broadly to mean all duties, whereas others Confined it to religious or religiously prescribed duties, ‘Hindu political thinkers described the systematic study of politica ife {8 niti or, more commonly sastra, Nici, which comes from the Sanskrit word meaning ‘to lead,’ refers to a study of policies. Thus dendani, a term sometimes used to describe a systematic study of political life means a study of the best ways of using the coercive power of government The term sartra means a systematic study of the general principles and detailed organisation of a specific form of human activity. Thus dharma ‘astra rofers toa systematic treatise on the general principles and detailed ‘content of righteous conduct. Sometimes the term sasira is given the additional connotation of an authoritative text, and the principles and rules laid down in a treatise are given the status of injunctions. Thus the Principles and rules of dharmasaswras are wot merely analytical and clucidatory but also authoritative and binding in nature. This additionel ‘connotation, however, is absent in other usages of the term. Thus the Principles laid down in Bharat's Natyasasira and Kautilya’s Arthasaséra are largely elucidatory and, at best, 1ecommendatOfy, ‘As we saw, the Hindu political thinkers regarded dharma and danda as the two most basic features of political life, Although the two features ‘were accepted by them as complementary, different Hindu writers chose toconcentrate on one or the other and explored politcal lite in terms fit, thereby giving rise to two different trends or strands of politcal thought, ‘The dharmasastra writers concentrated on exploring the dharma of individuals and social groups. including the government. They discussed the sources of dharma as well as what was to be done when these conflicted. And they also provided a detailed prospectus of duties, They ‘were not moral philosophers but law-givers, and generally didactic and Prescriptive, Since they did not concentrate on the government and attempted to provide a code of conduct covering the entire human life. they did not write books specifically on politics. Political dharma was ineidental to their main concern and did not form a distinct and ‘autonomous subject of investigation In contrast to dharmasasira writers, the authors of arthasasira were {terested in the organisation and meckanics of danda, thats, the way the government, the agent of dande, could be most effectively organised They concentrated on the nature and organisation of government, the nature and mechanics of power, the way power is acquired, weakened «and lost, the sources of threat to governmentand the best way todeal with them. and s0 on, Since the archasasira writers were primarily concemed. DHIKHU PAREKH » ment, their works were speifialy political. Further, Soot they ‘eoueentntd cn: tha-povonnneity thy epprecinod tho Autonomy of political ie and its distinctive problems to a much greater than the authors of dharmasasras. sr woul, howe, s& isate to daw tone scone erneen the mo sirands of Hindu political thowght. Ii tru thatthe authors af dtharmasastras were rather morals, ad those of arhasasras realistic tothe point of somctines ordering on ic. Howser, the former werent potial nave an ee acknowee the pote 0 sregard moral principles and valves under certain circumstances, even ts the antarasra witen acknowledged and Indecd tasted onthe observance of dharma, Again, its true thatthe dharmasasta writers fceasionally ignored the contingencies and fralies of human afar; however, hey were not nervous shout th nde fre, Sin the arthasastra writers cccasonaly tn power esenendetel they diet qrerly tov ghee ara {nds of government. It would also be wrong to suggest, a is smeries done, that the two approaches represent totally different views of man and society for, as we shall see, their views on these subjects were basically the same. {WO approaches differed primarily in their subiect matter, one choodegto copier: pleaifc om hetadpeat nea te her from that of danda’ This naturally led to diferences in emphasis and trientation. Since the dharmavatrar were concemed to lay down harm, they were legalistic and religious inorentation, whereas the athassras, concerned with analysing the strcture and functions of government, concentrated on institutions and policies and were secular in orientation. Neither approach was complete by itself, and thi was fully appreciated by is olomers, The two together consi the Hin Waton of politcal thought. The commentators who equate it with one of them a Eoniend that i is either wholly moralistic or wholly cynical oF either legalistic or institutional, offer a distorted account oft ‘The Hindu trade of policl thought delays remarkable continity Id of course, undergo mporantchanges reponse onew teeta tnd praia pole pone yt re tne gs meme (especialy Buddhism), new phicsophical movements (sped the trhayar)y new case, gsc corporation, eaves of asgn vars setement of foreigners, and soon, Ais al te changes, owes Ia thersial ener emaindmoreoriewcentn eted hy Seodkone fa charscureciy fate tebe= Some Rot hind io Po hg things. Sovity replicates the order of the universe and comes ordered whole when bel togetherby dharma, Forth Hindoe seca 20t4cllodon of mada of conmenitesitconsas ofcats, ach of which engaged inthe perfomance ceraincosraas functions andi elated tothe others in hierarchies! manne, chon acteristic functions and place in the social hierarchy define the p . of ts dharma, An inddsnls dharma is derived fens ee ate birth. For the Hindu, an india birt int paralas cane ee Accidental bua resi oths tarmac and karma ae integrally connected, his caste, and therefore his dharma, and a Positions. He isa father ora son, a husband, « brother, as nephew, « cousin, a neighbour, subject ora ic, nd 29 on aS ag incumbent of each ofthese roles, he has a specific dharma The tnd ‘writers divided man’s lft into four distinct chronological stages or dshrimms, and each stage was again characterised by a specific dharma. ; For the Hindu writers, dharmais the basis of personal and wcial lie alone holds society together; violation of it shakes the society tits very foundations and constitutes amoral threat its existence. As wat tobe Scriuton Uy vo peta the Rac ea tearful social disintegration. Accordingly they ad dows dese fereng ot re apt of han one se vaion tom hen spat torirealcics Bey nay stay to he dura Of hse sage Ee es Poston andl and aowe bias Doug fi eee ttotecaseisudirmaor nara. Te Cin ee eae wo dears svadhome cos aapoe ma en a Sater tae ding ont dharma ane tens tee eit, According Hind lrg wasn ee hts rns he tof retin hs oc esa ae ae Ouest nd epvedottrage clon ear een ‘According ona pe kes cachet eee in meal oaety. The here cone me fr dao oe nd voy assed te et Hidtthinken meron coin eeceeer e e had reraccry impr tryetoten ansehen eke tnd chacteandoy ope snd ceo ee spec recrnig cre sapestt aman orp ee en me corrupt and incapable of svaraj or: n 4a gore thet dara Tis tess vara ‘ofan i atin rianen macpanewaraene cet, Hind equivalent othe Westemiawof jungle acndngtouch ong MIKHY PAREKH bs {ish eat the small, and the eventual disintegration of the social order. For ‘some Hindu political thinkers such asituation did once prevail; for others itis only a definite possibility haunting every society. In any case, it must ‘it all cost be remedied or avoided, and hence the institution of govern- ‘ment becomes necessary. Although Hindu thinkers were familiar with the republican and other non-monarchical forms of governments, they concentrated on monarctiy "The king’s main function was to maintain the established social order. Since a society was believed to remain well-ordered only so long as each {individual observed his personal and caste dharma, the king's derma ‘consisted in maintaining the rule of dharma in society atlarge. In concrete terms, this meant that he was to facilitate the study of the Vedas and philosophy, encourage the development of industry and commerce, ‘maintain proper relations between different castes, ensure the observance of parental, filial, matrimonial and other duties, enforce dharma pertaining 1 different stages of individual life, and s0 on. The king derived his ‘authority from the fact that he needed it to maintain dharma. He was, therefore, to use it only for that purpose and in a manner consistent with It Ihe used it for other purposes, or to enforce adharma, or in amanner disallowed by dharma, he was considered a tyrant. Some Hindu thinkers (ged that a tyrant should he dicoheyed. and even Killed. Some athert ‘authorised disobedience only if led by ‘respectable’ men of status’; while others proscribed it altogether. ‘The king's duty to enforce dharma raised the obvious question as to who determined the content ofit. The Hindu writers generally pointed to the Vedas, thesmritis and vyavahara, The Vedas were not moral treatises, ‘and such moral principles as they contained were highly general. The smvitis were largely digests of prevailing social practices. And thus \wyavahdra or custom was the operative source of dharma, Fach caste had bbeen in existence for a long time, and had acquired a specific body of traditions and usages. So long ss they-were not in conflict with Vedic Injunctions, they constituied its dharma, Similarly, each family had developed a body of usages over time, and these constituted itsmembers! ‘kuladharma, Prom tine to time the Hindu law-givers made astudy of the traditions and usages of different social group and wrote detailed digests, Over centuries the social and political structure of Indig underwent important changes and many different types of social groups hegan to appear. Io the aftermath of successive foreign invasions, fainly large communities of foreign settlers came into existence. Heretical groups began to appear within the fold of Hindu society itself. New religious movements and communities—especially the Buddhists and Jains— appeared. With the development of commerce and trate, corporations ‘and guilds of traders, artisans and craftsmen began to appear. New castes sme into existence as a result of intermarriages of new occupations.2 ‘Some Reflections onthe Hind Traton of Pohica! Though Lap cap opty eta st Ope mee sates napa rat atte in peed wi ane ancazen eer anion fr alee cmp chr ran ct nn tata ars wane aca hci renngon hacer nth cs engi doves mea ingle angi tse Snare nee meancorcing commen ‘ious communities, heretics, even atheist, villages and districts, pulls eecriy ag e acne mean cena eaters ponmemit Crumlin silent about certain aspecs of socal conduct. In such cases the Eocwavo alco eet neh aoe bende eect nae ge a hes sce eect ee ron Freeper Sea erence saat por aca Se sa Bon Bak pc egal tc ctegeupeme ga peta a a Enjoying autonomy and their own distinctive structures of authority Like acute many age alert ke mo cat ctagr See eer ere uneined noe a Amt vaneless entire el derma Sate neta trey haere pe te very conceptual framework required by the idea of Oriental Despotism vevaent ag sere rn oe iessn earpiece aa k dno aan ian DHIKHU PAREKH 2 0 much the government as the religiously sanctioned social structure, hhelped no doubt by the goverament, was generally the source of oppression {n ancient India. Having briefly discussed dharma, we will now turn to the Hinds ‘examination of dada, in their exploration ofthe structure of government, Hindu political writers were guided by certain common considerations ‘The king's duty to maintain dharma meant that he was to rely on the advice of people well-versed in the Vedas and the Sasiras, The Brahmans, therefore, enjoyed considerable power and prestige. Indeed Hindu polities were for centuries based on and run by a ‘holy’ (or unholy?) alliance of the Ksatrivas and the Brahmans. Not surprisingly, almost the entire Hindu tradition of political thought was based on the unquestioned ‘assumption of a close alliance between the two highest castes. Itanalysed political life within the framework of the alliance, and rarely ventured to explore alternative modes of constituting the polity In India, political power never really shifted from the Brahmans and the Ksatriyas. The two did, of course, initially struggle for supremacy. However, over time, a modus vivendi was reached between them. The Brahmans acknowledged the Ksatnyas’ right to rule; in return the Ksatriyas acknowledged the Brahmans’ social superiority, gave them a share in the exercise of political authonty and made generous donations ‘of land andi money. The Kostsiyas had the monopoly of ciate power, the Brahmans that of earning and teaching. ‘The former were to specialise in danda, the latter in dharma, By and large the Brahmans were expected ‘hot to interfere with the use of danda, and the Ksatriyas with the inter~ pretation of dharma, The Ksatriya kings upheld the social order that gave the Brahnians moral and religious authonty and matenal wealth; the Brahmans, in turn, used their monopoly of “intellectual production’ to produce ideological systems jusutying the established political order, including the king's power and wealth. The corporate spit each ofthe ‘wo castes was most developed, as also the spirit of identity of interests between them. By contrast, the other castes were too fragmented and isolated 10 develop such a spirit, The Vaisyas and the Sudras could never unite, and. the Valsyas were too large and their range of occupations too varied 10 allow them todevelop a sense of corporate identity andcollective power, ‘Some Hindu political thinkers distinguished between authority and power. Authority implied an adhikar. Adhikar, a dificult and complex Hindu concept, meanta deserved right, aright one deserves to possess as judged by established social norms, A ruler acquired adhikar to power when he was judged o possess appropriate intellectual and moral qualifi- cations and was duly crowned by the Brahmans in aceremony known a8 ‘abliseka. In this ceremony the Brahmans annointed and blessed him, ‘symbolically raised him to the status of a Brahman and identified himu Same Reflections onthe Hin Trakion of Poical Thought with the territory and its people, and declared him satyaraja, a true or Fightful king. For most Hindu politcal thinkers, however, even aa usurper acquired authority if he had appropriate qualifications and ruled his Kingdom righteously Hindu political thinkers were constantly haunted by the fragility of Political authority. It could not be based on dharma slone, for people's Sense of dharma is generally weak and ambitious and powerful men would want to plot against the ruler. Nor could it be based on danda alone, for fear eannot sustain asociery long. Accordingly, Hindu political thinkers insisted that political authority rested on the twin foundations of dharma and dana (that i, on the popular recognition ofthe fact that the ‘king was devoted to the maintenence of dharma and would not hesitate to luse danda). They did not say much about the nature and basis of political authority and legitimacy, and devoted considerable attention to political power. ‘The Hindu political thinkers suggested various ways in which political Power could be acquired and maintained. They insisted that the king should be a man of great intellect and character and advocated his rigorous intellectual and moral training. They insisted also on him having reliable and competent counsellors and ministers. Most Hindu writers distinguished between manvrins and amatyas. The former were men of independent social catus, attended publie functions with the hing and acted as his advisors; the latter were executive officers in charge of day-to-day administ ‘The Hindu political thinkers insisted that since there was nothing more dear to a man than hiscustoms and usages, the king should not generally interfere with them, They also advocated the importance of efficient administration, constant checks on subordinate officials, programmes of welfare provision, and s0 0a. AAs for the exercise of danda and instilling fear in the subjects, the Hindu political writers relied on several devices of which two deserve some attention—namely espionage and punishiment. Neatly all of them stressed the need for an all-pervasive network of spies. According tthe Mahabharaia, every kingdom has “its roots in spies and secret agents Megasthenes found them so numerous that he referred to them as a special class of Hindu society. They were so pervasive and evoked such {error that they were referred to ina Pallavainseription as Samcaranuakas (moving agents of death), Kauitiya assigned considerable importance to them and indeed thought that their importance was next only to that of the ministers. He offered a detailed description ofthe cunsing ways in which they were to be planted in society and the techniques they were to deploy. They were ta goout in Such varied disguises as merchants, mendicants, classmates, prisoners and beggars, and were free to use all kinds of treachery, sacrilege, cruelty’ and immoral devices. According to Hindu thinkers, the spies DMIRHU PARERH s reported to the king the activities of his officers, family members, foreigners, courtesans and potential trouble-makers; they also spread false information and created divisions among the subjects; and they also spied on the private lives of the citizens and reported on the trends in blic opinion and feelings. pPAA ee Wada wher aoeatg et an eats ct Cf spies, they saw nothing wrong in imposing gruesome forms of punish- ment on those found guilty of violation of their legal and moral duties. They did, no doubt, insist that the utmost care should be exercised in deciding whether a’ man was really guilty of the alleged crime, and provided elaborate rules for collecting and assessing evidence, cross- ‘eximination and arriving at a verdiet. Once a man was found guilty, ‘specially ofthe violation of caste and other religious duties, most hideous Punishments were imposed on him, including some horrifying types of Neandertals ‘Auguttara Nikaya and others offered vivid lists). For the Hindu writers punihnent wae desired to create fear, fr without fear men donot at Highteouy: Brahaspa eles the cen view when he compared dando to a datk gocdes with red eyes inflicting brutal death on evil- doers. The Hindu writers insisted that while inflicting punishment, a ‘man’s easte should be taken into account. The higher castes were to receive lighter punishment and were ww be exemp! from corporal nishment, Teri Hat pow tinkors ce ta prcoeogld wit possible confliet between danda and dharma. They knew that the king may sometimes have to be untruthful, cruel, deceitful and so on, and questioned if and bow this was justified. They were al convinced that it ‘was justified, largely on the ground that the preservation of society was the highest political value. The preservation of society meant not just the physical security of the subjects but also the maintenance of the social ‘order and the preservation of dharma. In the Mahabharata, even Krishna, the Lord Himself, tells a few lies and practises deception on a few ‘occasions. These were all justified on the ground that they were required {0 uphold dharma, As fa: as relations with foreign rulers were concerned, the Hindu writers generally emphasised the considerations of self-interest and saw litte reason for moral restraint. . ‘The Hindu tradition of political thought met its most radical critique at the hands of Buddhism. Buddhism was atheistic in the sense thatitdid not see the need to postulate the existence of God; it denied the divine origin and the authority of the Vedas; it rejected the caste system: it admitted vromen to the religions erder inst had orgnaied wader republican (or rather semi-oligerchieal) system of government, it had pronounce Cluu-demertatcsympethes t founded monattce, orga them tong the lines of the republican assemblies and gave India the first» Somme Reflections onthe Hin Train of Polat Thought ‘experience of organised religion; and so on. More important, Buddhism attracted the loyalty and support of the economically powerful but socially inferior class of traders, cultivators, artisans, merchants and skilled craftsmen. It also welcomed and assimilated such forcign settlers as the Greeks, Shakas, Kushanas and Huns whom the caste-based Hindu society had kept out of its fold. Buddhism also attracted the Sudras, who could shed their low social status by joining a caste-free religion and improve their material circumstances by escaping the expensive religious rituals ‘required by the Brahmans. Buddhism thus represented amass movement consisting of the bulk of the Vaisyas, some Sudras, forcigners, women ‘and the isolated tribal republics that had still managed to survive, Buddhism developed a new political theory. It advanced a quasi ‘contractualist theory of the origin of the goverment. It postulated a Peaceful and harmonious state of social existence when mien had few desires and were at peace with themselves and with their fellow-men Over time men began to develop limitless wants and desires, and the institutions of private property and family came into being. Disorder and discord set in, and the institution of the government became necessary People elected one of the ‘noblest’ among them as @ ruler and authorised hhim to rule over the rest. He was to exercise his authority in cooperation with the assembly of people's representatives, who were not generally lected but were head: of noble farmilica and mea of status, The Buddhist ‘writers advocated legal and social equality, but did not extend it to the poor, the propertylessand the Sudras. They accepted the Hindu view that ‘the king’s principal duty was to maintain Dhamma, bu rejected its cast-based definition and content. Dhamma for them largely meant the basic social morality as expounded by the Buddha. They stressed the autonomy of corporations, guilds and sanghas, and advocated religious tolerance. ‘The Buddhist challenge did not, however, lead to a radical reformulation ‘of the Hindu tradition of political thought. The Buddhist political theary ‘was not sufficiently radical and subversive. It continued to share such ‘basic Hindu beliefs as, life is full of sorrow, desires are bad, a man’s ‘karma in his previous life determines his destiny inthis life, and the ruler ‘must maintain dharma, Furthermore, while it challenged the power and authority of the Brahmans, it upheld those of the Ksatriyas. Basically, Buddhism attempted to replace the Ksatriys-Brahman alliance with the Ksatriya-Vaisya alliance under the former's leadership. ‘Thus it did not involve a radical break with the traditional form of Political domination, only its reconstitution. The Buddhists did, of course, ‘challenge some Hindu beliefs, to which the Hindu writers typically responded by accepting some Buddhist criticisms, ignoring some others ‘and putting up a strong defence against the rest. Hence, in response to Buddhist criticisms such Hindu authors of dharmasasias (as Yajnavalkya, HIKHU PAREKH ” ‘Narada, Branaspati and Katyayana) accepted the autonomy of gukds and corporations, recognised vyavahara as a valid source of law, gave the YValsyas a larger share of power, laid greater stress on the importance of Jrthe, paid greater attention to the republican institutions than they bd ‘done 30 far, and so on. At the same time, however, the Hindu thinkers ejected the Buddhist criticism ofthe caste system and advocated aneven ‘more rig version of it. They also 100k a leaf out of the Buddhist book find relied on the ruler to take an active past in fighting Buddhism and fending the Hindu social order. Naturally, this led them to gority the tole of the government and to invest the ruler with even greater power fand majesty than he had enjoyed s far. have outlinedin the foregoing some ofthe base featuresof the Hinds {tradition of political thought. Obviously, a tradition that has developed ‘over several centuries is oo richand complexto permit an easy surnmary. ‘Our account of the Hindu traditon is, therefore, bound to involve distortions and omissions. It was intended, however, to provideneithera elailed summary of all its ideas, nor an outline ofall the important [phases in its development, but oaly to sketch the broad outines of the {general framework of ideas within which the Hindu writers attempted to ‘understand political life, ‘careful examination of the Hinds tradition of psitical thought shows that itis distinguished by several important features. It would be wseful 10 briefly spell out some of the more important ones in order that we can rasp its general character. First, the Hindu tradition is basically inegaitarian. Although it Aeveloped the idea of the moral equality of all men, and indeed of all sentient beings, it never developed the idea of social, legal and political equality. It made caste the basis not only of society but also ofthe polity, tnd integrated it into its very structure. As we saw, only the members of, higher castes were entitled tothe rights of citizenship otto be appointed ts royal advisors; different kinds and degrees of punishment were meted ‘Out 10 men of different castes; and so on. In the name of maintaining dharma, the Hinds poliial thinkers subordinated the polity to the ‘demands ofa hierarchical socal structure. Asa result, they were rendered incapable of grasping the polity asa qualitatively different kind of organ- sation from society, and the government as an agent of social change. Second, the Hinds tradition of political thoughts pluralist in entation. ‘As we saw. the Hindu political writers from the very beginning recognised the autonomy of social groups. Initially, of course, the castes alone enjoyed the autonomy. However, overtime, several different types of social groups were recognised as autonomous and self-governing. This™ ‘Some Reflections onthe Mind Tradton of Plies! Though had become such @ common feature of Hindu life and thought that it must not be regarded as accidental but « matter of deliberate policy growing ‘out of the considerations of not just political expediency buta deeply held ‘moral principle of respect for others. The policy had obvious advantages, 1t facilitated social harmony, encouraged diversity, developed habits of self-government, allowed the Hindu religion and moral values to survive in the midst of political upheavals, and so on. The policy, however, also had its drawbacks. It did not allow the institution of the state to grow: it left individuals atthe mercy of groups, some of which were oligarchically constituted; it allowed so many different systems of law to flourish that a ‘common legal system could not develop; it heightened the judicial role of the government and did not allow it to acquire a major legislative role; and soon, ‘Third, the Hindu tradition of political thought is largely uncritical and ‘apologetic of the established social order. Most Hindu political thinkers justified (or rather simply took for granted) the caste system, the caste. bbased conception of dharma, the largely fatalist concept of karma, the degradation of the Sudras and the slaves, the extensive moral interference of the state, and soon. There were, no doubt, several exceptions, such as the Buddhist, Jain and Carvak writers. However, the first two were ‘Outside the mainstream Hindu tradition, and the lest denied the value of ‘any kind of organised suciety and were largely apolitical ‘While the Hindu traction of political thought, therefore, lacked variety ‘and provided litle more than an elaborate justification of the hierarchical Social order, the Hindu philosophical tradition was very different. It threw up a remarkable variety of brilliant and imposing philosophical systems, some of which presented a formidable critique of the dominant Brahmanical tradition. The Hindu philosophets explored such areas as metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, logic, philosophy of language linguistics and grammar, and developed several different and fascinating theories, some of which have stood the test of time. Prima facie, it ‘appears paradoxical that a culture with a rich and critical tradition of philosophy should have a relatively poor and uncritical tradition of political though, ‘The paradox, however, is only apparent. Highly general and abstract ‘metaphysical theories have no direct social and politicalimpact. They do, no doubt, have social impli ‘cannot be easily chartered in the service of politcal movements. What more, abstract philosopHieal discussions invariably have a limited audience, usually confined to the members of the privileged cases. One ccan, therefore. ‘be radical, even revolutionary in one's metaphysical theories, knowing fully well that the Social structure and one’s own ‘material and social earevions are not inthe least likely 1 be affected by them. WMIKHU PAREKH » ery cy ctr foe ok ny, ts mae dart relied to the pottcal realm, can be bamessed inthe service of one ot SI eee ieaa idearchonee tcinn eeoncacnctety arora, ‘In short, radicalism in metaphysics is socially on less. ete ial than radicalism in political thought. It is not, therefore, necessary fosetich In coteal piosopicalhoopht shoud abo beri __elbiaperlepptornrieenctipersannninnprere Respitabewotelaner Pegi sas tbe lode wel of pln oughta ages _ os olhereabiellgrgraiieg mmepiean rere Meet neete Sec tana ain te nae cea interests, the reasons why social groups come into conflict, the way leat ns cadet csaecdah tere ol eal, I Gee sep pial porecond prio lnintretan potest I aeeesva iednerincachssctnortscopreaassaina ‘social order is or can ever be wholly free of disharmony. However, they I direc ectach pranindpoceegeoicndacinioncash furl tthe objcsive conics of terete coogy beeen socal Rice ecereecisctcincnensnenstecaiian {rambo openness pon i by eters seoonaconccenrocegat ateas pte tanetocherionstoashe nvcenngs eiocaaepeedreoan it, Not surprisingly, they remained haunted by the frailty of political futborigy tds tat cai o-7o on ck ante sa. ner ee eee ; "Fifth the Hindu tradition of politcal thought is largely didactic and (ay rigrainee three viral ro we many ihe enh er ei ce kell eciesclsomisiabaincoeuineconal date pain leper tear ermepnremetiphy op yt 9 ple mescraie are aroneman Nest pticacetoaes oon taeclache semen anaes tae aaa ncaa apeaereinccommaoeiee emit i sepemttacerteetpeens omnes eee cll lsacglonamm tte tlaparweme saaeosee ol pola ines sublantoon cas oncoee nora sieaentcaln Hectapitens Saulniicumalenaeeaecaonten Kio pet ccna Seeraionarn enolate Fre co aac meget anne See cconcacmentarnccen Secaeaee: telesntonenes comme narane een eekraeredaemeeenen oF palin Mannie Mieke apace tonite obs nena» Same Reflections onthe Hinds Train of Pcl Thought between different views can be articulated and resolved, the very diferent ays in which nyaya can be defined, how one view can be judged better than the others, andso on, The Maurya empire was one of themmest ‘complex and intricate in human history, distinguished by different types of ascending centres of power wielding different degrees of authority, Kautilya, its greatest student, made little attempt to analyse and distinguish all these oF to discuss some disturbing moral and political problems raised by the empire and in generalto provide a theory capable of illuminating its rich political structure. ‘Thisis not to say that the Hindu writers did not engage in philosophical exploration of political life. While the arthasasiras have litle philosophical content, other writings such as the dharmasasiras and the two epics Contain some penetrating and profound philosophical discussions of several political themes. As we saw, the Hindu thinkers conceptualised Political life in terms of the two basic concepts of danda and dharma and addressed themselves to three basic themes (namely, the nature and organisation of danda, the nature and basis of dharma, and the relation between the two). Each theme raises large philosophical questions, 10 some of which Hindu writers addressed their attention. They did not find anything philosophically problematic about danda and have lite of philosophical interest to say about it, Most of them concentrated on dharma and its relation to dands. They have much to say abwet dharma its nature and basis, how its grounded in the social nature of man, why ‘man cannot be dissociated from his social group, how dharma isa form of -yajna (or sacrifice), how it integrates man into the universal order, and so ‘on. They also have something to say about the relationship between anda and dharma; thatis, how the two can conflict, HOW the coaMlic can ‘be resolved, and if and when violence ean be justified. These and other discussions notwithstanding, it would not be inaccurate {0 say that the Hindus did not develop a tradition of politcal philosophy, ‘The discussions referred to above are incidental, fragmentary and episodic: they are often designed to solve personal problems, they are scattered in various texts; they are not comprehensive and exclude several large questions: they are sometimes not critical and probing enough, as, for example, the discussion ofthe nature of castes and theit dharma; they Sometimes consist of simple assertions, some of which ate penetrating and profound, but these are not backed by arguments; and soon. If we ‘added up the philosophical discussions of various themes scattered in several Hindu texts, we could certainly reconstruct Hindu political Philosophy. However. we would stil be left with the conclusion that the Hindus did not have politcal philosophers. One is hard put to nam even ‘one who offered a systematic philosophical analysis ofall (or a least most of) the important aspects of political fe. And without a number of ‘writers interested in philosophical exploration of political life over a HIKHU PAREKH ” ime, there obviously cannot develo 4 tacion of pole Pepa Sewn ashore wey ot ct sense nc poetic Euasions of political themes; however thee dscssonsin the abwence of Awelletablhed vaditon, remain tgle,emtive, non argumenaue, ems of ntllctal curtsty whichorhers admire ut with which he 0 Bok engage i's dislopue, snd which stimulate but do not satay the iesoptalaprete I fincas di wx destop « rrnemie weston of potaal Pilonophy is large question whic es Deyond the cep of his paper he asawer to it may perhape be fund in eral enamintion ofthe och tructuteofcusseal Athens where te Western tadtion ef ica Dlonophy fst made ts appearance. After al poiicalphlesoph, the thy other form of inquiry does not grow in asc aeuum, nr it Produced by creative minds out of thir heads comes into ensence When the wider soil sructure requires and cals fori hat when Becomes social necenity, We need to ask why and how te sca fontionsin ancient inca made potitial phosphy nets possble nor teceitry,