The ancient Indian political ideas were much influenced by the general conditions prevailing in the country. Multiplicity of states and existence of despotic monarchy and republican systems in different states, offered a wide and rich field for investigation into different institutions, laws and customs prevalent in various parts of the country. All these factors sowed the seeds of political speculation in the ancient Indian political thoughts and institutions, which had certain distinct features. Some of the prominent features are as follows:

(1) Continuity

An important feature of Indian political thought is its continuity. Some scholars have contended that the later political thinkers merely reproduced the treatises of the earlier thinkers. This is not acceptable, as B. A. Saletore states it would be ‘incorrect to maintain that the ancient theorists merely echoed one another, on the other hand they carefully maintained what their predecessors had said in regard to political thought, recorded wherever necessary divergent opinions and thereby added to the totality and continuity of the subject. Their conservatism was by itself one of the factors which enable our subject to possess a continuity of its own.”

(ii) Religion and ethics

The ancient thought was intimately linked with religion and ethics as well as the development of the moral standard of the people. Though the offices of the king and priest were kept separate, yet religion occupied a position of prominence. The king and the priests never worked at cross purposes and their relations were based on mutual help and co-operation. As Beni Prasad said, “The conflict between the secular and religious powers which raged in medieval Europe and gave rise to a good deal of political theory, had no counterpart in ancient India. He asserted that the relations between the king and the priest were generally very smooth and cordial.

(iii) Realistic and practical character

Despite the religious and moral undertone, the political thought of ancient India was intensely realistic and practical in character. The political ideas of the Hindus were simple and laid down rules of policy, which were founded upon the accumulated wisdom of past masters that the rulers were expected to follow.

(iv) Monarchical states

The political ideas were to a large extent influenced by the monarchical states that were predominant, mostly in northern India.

(v) Conservative attitude

The Hindu political thought was often conservative. It justified caste system and inferior rank of Sudras. The ancient political thinkers were unprogressive and not prepared to accept any dynamic change.

(vi) Hindu habit of synthesis

In ancient India, politics was intimately linked with other subjects and was not treated as an isolated subject of study. It was intimately linked with other branches of human activities. This was in keeping with the Hindu habit of synthesis and all embracing idea of the state.

(vii) Dominant position in the society

A notably feature of ancient political thought is that the priestly and ruling classes occupied a dominant position in the society. However, later on the priestly class was not given this status and in Arthashastra, Kautilya excluded them from the list of component factors (angas) of government (rajayam).

(viii) Didactive and destructive

Ancient thought is largely didactic or instructive, ideological and practical. The writings of the ancient thinkers were mostly treaties on ethics and state administration.

Thus, one finds that ancient Indian political thought had some distinct features of its own and it would be wrong t to say that political thought did not make any significant progress during the ancient times.

One can trace the development of ancient Indian political ideas in Rigveda Samhita, the earliest literary works of Indo-Aryans and the famous epic Mahabharata. In the Mahabharata, Sri Krishna and Bhisma are described as great political philosophers and sages of all time to come. In fact, Sri Krishna is considered to be an Avatar (an incarnate God) and his message is well described in the famous Bhagavad Gita. Krishna Dvaipayan Vyasa is the author of the Mahabharata and hence it is pertinent to study his writings in order to know ancient Hindu political philosophy. The Mahabharata is a legend, but it vividly described the nature of ancient Indian polity.

Political Philosophy as Enshrined in Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Ramayana and Vedanta

The tradition of political thinking starts with the Vedas and Upanishads. Different theories of the nature of the state were formed and different forms of states have been experimented with over time. The historical development of political ideas find that the concept of Swaraj, self government, constantly inspired the mind. From the Vedas and Upanishads, through the writings of Jnaneshwara and Shivaji, to the political ideas of Tilak, Aurobindo, and Gandhi, Swaraj has been constantly discussed.

Ancient Indian political thought has been significantly represented by the Vedas, the Upanishadas, and the Bhagavad Gita. The political thought found in the great epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana is more complex and comprehensive. • The Manusmriti, along with other smritis, dealt with every political institutions and the entire panorama of human life vertically and horizontally. The vertical perspective led to the concept of the state. The horizontal perspective led to the concept of Dharma. Both these concepts were supported equally by philosophy and science. Therefore; it is no wonder that the contemporary Indian political thinkers have unanimously appreciated Raj Dharma as the sound basis of polity.

The intellectual and spiritual history of ancient India is marked by the coexistence and interaction of two broad traditions of thought: the Brahmanic and Shramanic. These traditions shaped Indian political and social thought, offering divergent and, at times, complementary perspectives on governance, society, and the nature of power. While Brahmanic thought is deeply rooted in Vedic traditions and emphasizes hierarchy, ritual, and dharma (duty), Shramanic thought is characterized by its rejection of Vedic orthodoxy, advocating renunciation, equality, and spiritual liberation. Together, these traditions provide a rich tapestry of ideas that influenced Indian political philosophy and its engagement with authority, law, and ethics.

Brahmanic Political Thought

Brahmanic thought originates from the Vedic texts, including the Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, and Atharvaveda, as well as their associated Brahmanas, Upanishads, and later legal and philosophical treatises like the Dharmashastras and the Arthashastra. These works form the basis of the orthodox Hindu worldview, which emphasizes social hierarchy, ritual order, and cosmic harmony.

Central Concepts

• Dharma: A cornerstone of Brahmanic thought, dharma represents the moral and social order that sustains the universe. In political terms, dharma encompasses the duties and responsibilities of rulers (kingship), citizens, and various societal groups. The Manusmriti, a key Dharmashastra text, elaborates on the roles and duties of individuals based on their varna (caste) and ashrama (stage of life).

• Varna System: The social order is structured around four varnas: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (traders and agriculturists), and Shudras (laborers). This hierarchical system underscores the division of labor and the primacy of the Brahmins as custodians of knowledge and dharma. Political power is vested primarily in the Kshatriyas, but their rule is legitimized and guided by the counsel of Brahmins.

• Kingship (Rajadharma): The king is viewed as the protector of dharma and the enforcer of justice. Texts like the Mahabharata and the Arthashastra emphasize the king’s role as a chakravartin (universal ruler) who ensures the well-being of his subjects while upholding cosmic and social order. The Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya (Chanakya), provides a pragmatic and detailed guide to statecraft, including diplomacy, espionage, and economic management, reflecting the fusion of Brahmanic ethical principles with realpolitik.

• Ritual and Sacrifice: Ritual practices and sacrifices, often performed by Brahmins, are central to maintaining cosmic balance and political legitimacy. The king’s authority is reinforced through rituals like the Rajasuya (royal consecration) and Ashvamedha (horse sacrifice).

Political Philosophy and Governance

Brahmanic political thought emphasizes a hierarchical and ordered society, where every individual fulfills their prescribed duties. The king’s authority is both temporal and divine, derived from his ability to uphold dharma. The emphasis on rule of law and the ethical conduct of rulers is reflected in texts that stress the importance of justice, truth, and the welfare of subjects.

The Arthashastra, while associated with Brahmanic thought, introduces a more pragmatic approach to governance, focusing on the acquisition and maintenance of power. It advocates a centralized and bureaucratic state, with the king at its apex, supported by ministers, spies, and a well-organized administration.

Shramanic Political Thought

The Shramanic tradition emerged as a reaction to Brahmanic orthodoxy, particularly its emphasis on ritualism, caste hierarchy, and materialism. Rooted in ascetic and renunciatory movements, Shramanic thought is associated with religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, and the Ajivikas. These traditions challenge the authority of the Vedas and promote equality, non-violence, and spiritual liberation.

Core Tenets

• Renunciation and Asceticism: Shramanic thought prioritizes self-discipline, renunciation of worldly attachments, and the pursuit of spiritual liberation (moksha or nirvana). Political power and material wealth are often viewed as sources of corruption and suffering.

• Egalitarianism: Rejecting the rigid caste hierarchy of Brahmanism, Shramanic traditions advocate for the equality of all beings, emphasizing that liberation is accessible to anyone regardless of birth or social status.

• Non-Violence (Ahimsa): A central tenet, especially in Jainism and Buddhism, non-violence extends to all living beings. This principle shapes Shramanic political thought by emphasizing ethical governance, the protection of life, and peaceful coexistence.

• Karma and Rebirth: The doctrine of karma underscores individual responsibility for one’s actions. Political leaders are encouraged to act ethically, as their actions have consequences in this life and beyond.

Political Philosophy

• Buddhist Political Thought: Buddhism, particularly during the reign of Ashoka the Great, offers a vision of governance based on dhamma (Buddhist teachings). Ashoka’s edicts promote non-violence, religious tolerance, and welfare policies, reflecting a model of compassionate and ethical rule. The Buddhist Sangha (monastic community) also served as a prototype of egalitarian governance, with decisions made collectively through consensus.

• Jain Political Thought: Jainism emphasizes the principles of non-violence, truth, and asceticism in political life. Jain kings and ministers were expected to govern with restraint and compassion, avoiding harm to living beings and practicing austerity.

• Ajivika Thought: Though less influential, the Ajivikas contributed to Shramanic discourse with their emphasis on determinism and the inevitability of fate. While their political ideas are less developed, they represent a critical counterpoint to Brahmanic and Buddhist views on free will and moral responsibility.

Comparative Analysis

The Brahmanic and Shramanic traditions represent contrasting yet interconnected approaches to political thought in ancient India:

• Authority and Power: Brahmanic thought legitimizes power through divine sanction and dharma, emphasizing hierarchy and order. In contrast, Shramanic thought critiques the pursuit of power and wealth, advocating for ethical and compassionate governance.

• Social Order: Brahmanism upholds a rigid caste-based hierarchy, while Shramanism promotes egalitarianism and challenges caste distinctions.

• Role of Religion: Both traditions intertwine religion and politics, but Brahmanism focuses on ritualistic practices and divine authority, whereas Shramanism emphasizes ethical living and spiritual liberation.

• Governance Models: Brahmanic texts like the Arthashastra present a centralized and pragmatic model of governance, while Shramanic rulers like Ashoka exemplify a moral and welfare-oriented approach.

Impact and Legacy

The interplay between Brahmanic and Shramanic traditions profoundly influenced Indian political thought and practice. The Mauryan Empire under Ashoka exemplifies the integration of Shramanic principles into statecraft, while subsequent Hindu kingdoms reflected Brahmanic ideals of kingship and dharma. The dialogue between these traditions enriched Indian philosophy, creating a pluralistic and dynamic intellectual heritage.

In modern times, these traditions continue to inspire debates on social justice, governance, and ethics. The Shramanic emphasis on equality and non-violence resonates with movements for social reform and environmental conservation, while Brahmanic concepts of dharma inform discussions on duty and moral responsibility in public life.

Conclusion

Brahmanic and Shramanic political thought, though distinct in their philosophies, collectively shaped the evolution of Indian governance and ethical theory. While Brahmanism emphasizes hierarchy, ritual, and cosmic order, Shramanism advocates for renunciation, equality, and compassion. Together, they offer a comprehensive understanding of ancient Indian political philosophy, highlighting the diversity and depth of its intellectual traditions.

Islamic political thought, grounded in the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), theology, and governance, presents a comprehensive framework for the organization of state and society based on the teachings of the Quran, the Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad), and subsequent interpretations by Islamic scholars. Syncretic political thought, on the other hand, arises from the fusion of Islamic principles with local traditions, pre-existing governance structures, and cultural contexts, producing unique forms of political philosophy that blend Islamic ideals with diverse influences.

Islamic Political Thought

Islamic political thought originates from the establishment of the first Islamic state in Medina under Prophet Muhammad. The principles that emerged from this period and subsequent Islamic empires address questions of governance, justice, leadership, and the relationship between religion and state. Central to Islamic political thought are the concepts of Tawhid (oneness of God), Sharia (Islamic law), Khilafah (caliphate), and Ummah (the Islamic community).

Core Principles

• Tawhid and Sovereignty: Islamic political thought begins with the principle of Tawhid, which asserts the unity and sovereignty of Allah over all aspects of life, including politics. Human rulers are seen as stewards (Khalifah) of Allah’s authority on earth, obligated to implement divine law and uphold justice.

• Sharia: Sharia serves as the cornerstone of Islamic governance, providing a legal and moral framework derived from the Quran, Hadith, Qiyas (analogical reasoning), and Ijma (consensus of scholars). It regulates not only individual conduct but also state policies, emphasizing justice, welfare, and adherence to divine commandments.

• Khilafah: The concept of Khilafah represents the Islamic system of leadership, wherein the caliph acts as the political and spiritual leader of the Muslim Ummah. The caliph is tasked with enforcing Sharia, protecting the community, and promoting its welfare. Historical caliphates, such as the Rashidun (Rightly Guided Caliphs), the Umayyads, and the Abbasids, reflect different interpretations and implementations of this principle.

• Justice (Adl): Justice is a fundamental tenet of Islamic governance, emphasizing the equitable treatment of all individuals, protection of rights, and accountability of rulers. The Quran and Hadith frequently stress the ruler’s obligation to act justly and prioritize the welfare of the people.

• Consultation (Shura): Islamic political thought advocates Shura, or consultation, as a mechanism for decision-making. This principle is rooted in the Quranic injunction to consult with others in matters of importance (Quran 42:38). While historically practiced within an elite council, Shura is often interpreted as an early form of participatory governance.

Islamic Political Institutions

Islamic political institutions evolved significantly during the early Islamic period and subsequent empires. These institutions include:

• The Caliphate: The central institution of Islamic governance, the caliphate was both a religious and political entity. It served as the unifying authority for the Muslim Ummah, though its power varied across regions and dynasties.

• Judiciary (Qadi): The judiciary, headed by Qadis (judges), played a critical role in upholding Sharia and resolving disputes. The independence of the judiciary was considered essential for ensuring justice.

• Hisbah: The Hisbah system, led by the Muhtasib, was responsible for enforcing public morality and market regulations, ensuring that societal conduct aligned with Islamic principles.

Philosophical Contributions

Islamic political thought was enriched by the works of scholars such as Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Khaldun, and Al-Mawardi. These thinkers integrated Islamic teachings with classical Greek philosophy and practical considerations of governance.

• Al-Farabi: Known as the “Second Teacher” after Aristotle, Al-Farabi developed a vision of an ideal state ruled by a philosopher-king guided by divine wisdom. He emphasized the harmony between reason and revelation in governance.

• Ibn Khaldun: Often considered the founder of sociology and historiography, Ibn Khaldun’s work, Muqaddimah, analyzes the rise and fall of states. He introduced the concept of Asabiyyah (social cohesion) as a determinant of political stability and decline.

• Al-Mawardi: In his work Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, Al-Mawardi outlines the duties of rulers and the principles of Islamic governance, emphasizing justice, accountability, and the caliph’s role in enforcing Sharia.

Syncretic Political Thought

Syncretic political thought in Islamic history reflects the adaptation and blending of Islamic principles with local traditions, pre-existing systems of governance, and cultural norms. This phenomenon is most evident in regions where Islam interacted with diverse civilizations, including South Asia, Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Characteristics of Syncretic Thought

• Adaptation of Local Practices: Syncretic political systems often retained pre-Islamic administrative and legal structures, modifying them to align with Islamic principles. For instance, in the Mughal Empire, Persianate and Indian traditions influenced governance and law.

• Incorporation of Cultural Norms: Islamic rulers frequently adopted local customs and languages to legitimize their authority and facilitate governance. The use of Persian as the administrative language in Mughal India exemplifies this integration.

• Tolerance and Pluralism: Syncretic regimes often emphasized religious tolerance and coexistence, reflecting the diversity of their populations. Policies of Sulh-e-Kul (universal peace) under Emperor Akbar exemplify this approach.

Examples of Syncretic Systems

• The Mughal Empire: The Mughal rulers of India blended Islamic principles with Indian traditions, creating a unique form of governance. Akbar’s policy of religious tolerance, his establishment of the Din-i-Ilahi (a syncretic faith), and his administrative reforms reflect this synthesis.

• The Ottoman Empire: The Ottomans combined Islamic principles with Byzantine administrative practices and local customs. The millet system, which allowed religious minorities to govern their own communities, exemplifies their pragmatic approach to diversity.

• The Sultanate of Malacca: In Southeast Asia, the Sultanate of Malacca incorporated Islamic law with indigenous customs (Adat) to create a hybrid legal system. This syncretism facilitated the spread of Islam in the region while respecting local traditions.

Challenges and Critiques

Syncretic political systems often faced criticism from orthodox Islamic scholars, who viewed certain adaptations as deviations from Sharia. The tension between adherence to Islamic principles and the practical demands of governance remains a recurring theme in Islamic political history.

Impact and Legacy

Islamic and syncretic political thought have left a profound legacy on global politics and governance. Islamic principles of justice, accountability, and welfare continue to inspire modern political movements, while syncretic traditions underscore the adaptability of Islamic governance in diverse cultural contexts.

In contemporary times, debates over the role of Islam in politics often draw on both Islamic and syncretic traditions, reflecting the enduring relevance of these ideas in addressing questions of identity, governance, and pluralism.

Conclusion

Islamic and syncretic political thought represent two dimensions of a rich intellectual tradition that has shaped the political landscape of the Islamic world and beyond. While Islamic thought provides a normative framework rooted in divine principles, syncretic traditions highlight the practical adaptability of these principles in diverse cultural and historical settings. Together, they offer valuable insights into the interplay between religion, culture, and governance.

The Manusmriti, often referred to as the Laws of Manu, is one of the most significant texts in ancient Indian legal and political thought. Composed during the early centuries of the Common Era, the text outlines a comprehensive system of law, ethics, and governance, deeply rooted in the religious and philosophical traditions of its time. Among its many contributions, the Manusmriti provides detailed views on law and punishment, emphasizing their role in maintaining social order and upholding Dharma (righteousness).

Manu’s Conception of Law (Dharma)

The foundation of Manu’s legal philosophy is the concept of Dharma, a multifaceted term encompassing righteousness, duty, morality, and law. In the Manusmriti, Dharma is presented as the cosmic order governing all aspects of life, including individual behavior, social relationships, and governance. Manu viewed the law as a divine mandate, with its ultimate goal being the preservation of social harmony and cosmic balance.

1. Sources of Law
   Manu delineated four primary sources of law:

   • Vedas (Sruti): The foundational scriptures seen as divinely revealed.
   • Smriti: Texts like the Manusmriti that interpret and expand upon Vedic principles.
   • Customary Practices (Achara): Local traditions and customs observed by communities.
   • Conscience of the Learned (Sadachara): The judgment and conduct of virtuous and wise individuals.

   These sources underscore the religious and moral orientation of Manu’s legal framework.

2. Dharma and Social Hierarchy
   Manu’s legal philosophy was intertwined with the Varna system, a hierarchical social order. Each caste (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras) was assigned specific duties and privileges under Dharma, with laws tailored to their roles. This stratification was justified as essential for maintaining societal stability, although it often led to inequality and rigidity.

Manu’s Philosophy of Punishment (Danda)

Punishment, referred to as Danda in the Manusmriti, occupies a central place in Manu’s legal system. Manu regarded Danda not merely as a tool for deterrence but as a sacred instrument to uphold Dharma and ensure justice. His views on punishment are characterized by a blend of pragmatism, moral reasoning, and hierarchical considerations.

1. The Divine Nature of Danda
   Manu personifies Danda as a divine force entrusted to the king, describing it as the embodiment of justice and authority. He states:

   “Danda alone governs all beings; Danda protects them; Danda watches over them while they sleep.”

   This underscores the sanctity and indispensability of punishment in governance.

2. Objectives of Punishment
   According to Manu, punishment serves multiple purposes:

   • Deterrence: To prevent individuals from committing crimes by instilling fear.
   • Reform: To correct the behavior of offenders and guide them back to the path of Dharma.
   • Retribution: To ensure that justice is served by imposing consequences proportional to the offense.
   • Restoration of Order: To maintain societal harmony and protect the vulnerable.

3. Gradation of Punishment
   Manu’s system of punishment is characterized by a graded hierarchy, reflecting the Varna-based social structure. The severity of punishment depended on the offender’s caste, the victim’s caste, and the nature of the crime. For example:

   • Crimes committed by a Brahmin often incurred lighter penalties, as they were considered custodians of Dharma.
   • Offenses by lower castes, especially Shudras, were punished more harshly, reflecting the rigid social hierarchy.
   • Crimes against higher castes were seen as graver than those against lower castes, emphasizing the protection of societal elites.

Types of Punishments

Manu prescribed various forms of punishment, which were both physical and monetary. These punishments were designed to align with the nature and gravity of the crime:

1. Corporal Punishment
   Manu sanctioned physical punishments, such as flogging, mutilation, or execution, for severe crimes like theft, treason, or murder. The severity was often dictated by caste considerations, with lower castes receiving harsher treatments.

2. Fines and Compensation
   Monetary penalties were a common form of punishment, especially for offenses involving property or contractual violations. These fines were often calibrated according to the offender’s caste and wealth.

3. Exile and Ostracism
   For certain crimes, such as adultery or defiance of caste norms, offenders could be exiled or ostracized from the community. This punishment aimed to preserve social purity and deter others from transgressing societal boundaries.

4. Religious Atonement (Prayaschitta)
   Manu also emphasized penance and ritual purification as means of atonement. Offenders could seek redemption through specific rituals, fasting, or pilgrimages, reinforcing the religious dimension of punishment.

Justice and Inequality in Manu’s Legal System

While Manu’s legal philosophy aimed to uphold Dharma, it has been criticized for its inherent inequality and rigidity:

1. Caste-Based Discrimination
   The graded punishments often favored the upper castes, particularly Brahmins, who were exempt from many harsh penalties. This discrimination perpetuated caste-based privilege and subjugation.

2. Gender Bias
   Manu’s laws also reflected a patriarchal worldview, with women subjected to strict controls and penalties. For instance, adultery by women was punished more severely than by men, and their rights in matters like inheritance and autonomy were heavily restricted.

3. Harshness Toward Shudras
   The Manusmriti imposed disproportionately severe punishments on Shudras and those who violated caste boundaries, reinforcing social stratification.

Manu’s Legacy and Modern Interpretations

Manu’s views on law and punishment have left a lasting impact on Indian legal traditions. While his principles of Dharma and justice influenced ancient Indian governance, their rigid application led to social inequalities that have been criticized in modern times. The Manusmriti’s hierarchical and patriarchal biases have drawn significant critique from social reformers like B.R. Ambedkar, who regarded it as a tool for caste oppression.

In contemporary India, Manu’s legal philosophy is studied more as a historical and philosophical text than a practical guide. The principles of justice, fairness, and moral governance, stripped of their discriminatory aspects, remain relevant, but they must be contextualized within modern values of equality, democracy, and human rights.

Conclusion

Manu’s views on law and punishment reflect a sophisticated yet deeply hierarchical legal system rooted in religious and moral principles. By intertwining Dharma with governance, he provided a framework aimed at maintaining social order and cosmic harmony. However, the caste-based and patriarchal biases in his philosophy underscore the limitations of his approach in ensuring universal justice. While the Manusmriti continues to be an important source of historical and cultural insight, its relevance lies more in its philosophical ideals than its practical application in a modern, egalitarian society.

• According to Indian traditions, Manu is manasaputra of Bramha (originator of the universe). He is the first law-giver, and he has told what is dharma of different varnas.

Introduction

• The Manusmriti is also known as the Manava-Dharmasastra or Laws of Manu.
• Manusmriti, belonged to the tradition of dharmashastra. It is believed to be the first ancient legal text and constitution among all Dharmasastras.
• It was one of the first Sanskrit texts to be translated into English in 1776, by British philologist Sir William Jones.
• It was used to construct the Hindu law code for the East India Company administered enclaves.

Manu’s ideas related to dharma

• The Manu-smriti prescribes to Hindus their dharma—i.e., that the set of obligations incumbent on each as a member of one of the four social classes (varnas) and engaged in one of the four stages of life (ashramas).
• Manu emphasized on the ‘principle of Dharma to implement the principle of justice’.
• He was an ardent believer of Justice and Dharma.

Components of dharma as per Manusmriti

• Purusharthas: These are four goals of life: dharma, artha, kama, moksa. These four purusharthas view life in a comprehensive sense, i.e. from the material to sensual pleasures. Hence these represent a balanced way of life.
• Ashrams: These are the different stages of life. There are specific goals in each stage. These are: Bramhacarya ashram, grihastha ashram, vanaprastha ashram, sanyas ashram.
• Varnas: Hindu society was divided into chatur-varna system of social and economic hierarchy, i.e. brahmin, kshatriya, vaisya, shudra. Each varna has to follow their dharma, i.e. the varna based economic division of labour and duties.
• Sanskar: There are sixteen essential rituals in Hinduism. These starts from garbhadhana samskara and ends with antyeshthi sanskar.

Justification of inequality

1. Social Justice

• Manu did not believe in equal treatment for members of all the classes, or in the equality of all human beings.
• To Manu, the Brahmins are superior human beings who deserve special treatment. As per him, “The Brahmin is declared to be the creator of the world, the punisher, the teacher, and a benefactor.”
• Even the kings are not permitted to show disrespect to the Brahmin.
• K.P. Jayaswal views that the theory of the divinity of the king was advanced by Manusmriti to support the Brahmin empire of Pusyamitra, and to counteract the Buddhist theory of the origin of the state by contract.
• V.R. Mehta is of the view that Vaishaya Varna is least preferred for manuscript because Vaishaya always seeks their own profit rather than working for well-being of others.
• V.R. Mehta also views that there are two contradictory features manuscript. On the one hand, Varna is based on birth, but on the other hand, it shows Varna is based on the Karma (Deeds).

2. Gender Justice

• In Dharmashastra, it is written that ‘God lived there wherever women are worshiped’.
• However, the public role of women is not permitted. Society appears patriarchal.
• Manu also says that women should be kept under the regulation of men. In childhood – under regulation of father, an adult lady – under control of husband, in old age – under control of son.

3. Varna System

• Manu viewed that caste system formed an essential part in ancient Hindu society.
• Varna system would preserve the social harmony of the society.
• He viewed that the king came into existence to protect the Varna system and any failure on the part of the ruler would make him unworthy ruler.

Manu’s Political Ideology

Manu’s Conception of Kingship

• Manu treats the king as a divine creation. According to him, this institution was created by God for the protection of the people against insecurity.
• In order to ensure social harmony and promote people’s welfare, the state should be governed by selfless and enlightened Yogi King, who would uphold principles of Dharma.
• The king possesses unique qualities of all the major God- Indra, Vayu, Yama, Kuber, Agni, Varuna and Chandra. Thus, king is considered as embodiment of God on earth.
• Any disobedience or betrayal to king’s order will be considered as betrayal to God.
• The king is neither allowed to create new rules nor to change the existing principles of Dharma. He is only expected to uphold and preserve it.
• According to Manu, everyone doesn’t possess the qualities of king. Thus, here he has openly supported monarchical form of governance, instead of democratic ruler.
• Lord Brahma, the creator, decided to give the King the duty to maintain law and order and punish those who encroached upon the rights of others.
• When individuals are swayed by evil tendencies, they violate the principles of Dharma. Dandaniti controls the evil tendencies of humans. According to Manu, King is symbol of Danda created by God in order to save the world from anarchy and evils.
• The king was bound to deliver duties. This included protection of subjects, providing security, maintaining the law and order, and the dispensation of justice.
• Manu did not disapprove the wars. He sees wars necessary for expansion and protection of territory. However, as per Manu, the king should use force only as a last resort. The king should use it to protect his kingdom and also to destroy its opponents.
• Manu also wants the king to perform certain social welfare functions. e.g. looking after the helpless and needy such as the poor, the sick, the old aged, widows, childless women etv.
• Manu specified certain things which the king should avoid. E.g. drinking, dice, woman, hunting, gambling, violence, seizure of property etc.
• If the king refuses to obey the dictates of Dharma, he should be doomed along with his family and will be denied Moksha. Hence, Manu’s view of kingship departs from western views where monarchy is considered as ‘Agent of God’ and believes in principles of ‘king can do no wrong’.
• In words of Dr. D.R. Bhandarkar, “For the first time, we find a trace of the real divine origin of the kingship similar to that propounded by the western thinkers.”

Political expediency

• Again Manu was also seen combining the principle of righteousness with political expediency.

Manu’s ideas on Political Administration

• The king should appoint seven or eight ministers taking into account the principles of hereditary and virtues of courage and wisdom.
• Besides appointment of ministers, the king must also appoint ambassadors to other states so that the king remains informed about the activities of the other states.
• Manu also has given guidelines which the king needs to follow while collecting revenues, organizing local government, maintaining army and appointing civil servant.

Manu’s Views on Danda and Justice

• According to Manu, harmony and order in a state are possible only if the element of punishment or Danda is made an integral part in running the administration.
• Manu wanted the king to use punishment and force at an appropriate time for the good of the community and not use it for the promotion of his personal interest.

Judicial system and justice

• He suggested that justice should be based on dharma or righteousness.
• He claimed that a king cannot rule without justice.
• He believed that a good ruler would always ensure quick and cheap justice to the needy and those who deserve it.
• He emphasized on reformatory theory in punishment rather than retaliatory.
• He expected the king to be well-versed in Dharma Shastras and other literature for the proper pronouncement of justice as per the well-established customs and practices.
• Manu also clarified that if a wrong judgment is given, it must be reversed.
• He also suggested corporal punishment and fines.

On taxation

• According to Manu the system of Taxation should be such as to enhance the nation’s wealth.
• He also empowered the king the right to collect taxes for providing protection to the people. Thus, taxation was linked to wage theory.
• He also mentioned very clearly that the tax must be collected from both land as well as cattle.
• He fixed the percentage of tax on land, and cattle as not less than 25 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
• Manu advised the king that taxes should be levied keeping in view the capacity of the subjects and their occupation.
• According to him the king is entitled to 1/50th of gold ,1/6th of crop and 1/12th of commerce.

Criticism

• The Manu Smriti is one of the most heavily criticized of the scriptures of Hinduism, having been attacked by colonial scholars, modern liberals, Hindu reformists, Dalit advocates, feminists, and Marxists.
• Much of its criticism stems from its unknown authority, as some believe the text to be authoritative, but others do not.
• There is also debate over whether the text has suffered from later interpolations of verses.
• The law in Manu Smriti also appears to be overtly positive towards the brahmin (priest) caste in terms of concessions made in fines and punishments.
• The stance of the Manu Smriti about women has also been debated.

Evaluation

• The Manu Smriti is written with a focus on the “should” of dharma rather than on the actuality of everyday practice in India at the time.
• Still, its practical application should not be underestimated.
• Through intermediate forces, such as the instruction of scholars, the teachings did indeed have indirect effects on major segments of the Indian population.
• It is also an invaluable point of common reference in scholarly debates.
• It seems likely that the book was written in a manner which was very mindful of the dangers facing the Brahmin community during a time of much change and social upheaval.
• The principal objectives of Manusmriti seems to be generalize and systematize the rules of conduct that had come over from previous “ages” for the purpose of reconstructing or reorganizing the hindu society.
• It is considered to be the most authoritative text of human religious, social and political organization.

The ancient Indian text Manusmriti, attributed to Manu, is a seminal work on Hindu law and philosophy. It serves as a comprehensive guide to dharma (moral and social duties), governance, and the principles of justice. Among its various contributions, the concept of the state and sovereignty stands out as a cornerstone of ancient Indian political thought. Manu’s vision of the origin of the state and the nature of sovereignty is deeply rooted in religious, ethical, and practical principles, reflecting the social and political realities of his time.

The Origin of the State

Manu traces the origin of the state to a divine mandate, emphasizing its sacred and moral foundation. According to Manusmriti, human society, in its early stages, lived in harmony, guided by the principles of dharma. However, as human desires grew, leading to conflicts, disorder, and lawlessness, the need for a governing authority became apparent. Manu’s explanation for the emergence of the state involves both a philosophical justification and a practical response to the challenges of social life.

1. The Age of Dharma and Decline into Anarchy
   Manu posits that in the Satya Yuga (the age of truth), people naturally adhered to dharma, and there was no need for a ruler. Society functioned harmoniously without governance, as individuals were self-disciplined and virtuous. However, as the ages progressed (Treta, Dvapara, and Kali Yugas), human behavior deteriorated. Greed, jealousy, and violence emerged, disrupting societal balance. This decline necessitated the creation of a central authority to enforce order and ensure the adherence to dharma.

2. Divine Creation of Kingship
   Manu emphasizes that the institution of kingship is divinely ordained. The Manusmriti states that the Devas (gods), witnessing the chaos on earth, created a king to restore order. The king is depicted as a manifestation of divine will, embodying qualities of justice, power, and protection. Manu writes that the king is a representative of deities such as Indra, Yama, Varuna, and Kubera, endowed with their virtues to execute justice and govern effectively.

3. Social Contract Theory in Manusmriti
   While Manu’s perspective is primarily religious, it hints at a rudimentary form of the social contract theory. He suggests that people, recognizing the need for order, willingly submit to the authority of a ruler in exchange for protection and justice. The king, in turn, is expected to rule according to dharma and ensure the welfare of his subjects. This mutual understanding underscores the functional necessity of the state in regulating society.

Nature of Sovereignty

Manu’s conception of sovereignty is deeply intertwined with moral authority and religious principles. Unlike modern notions of sovereignty, which often emphasize absolute power, Manu’s idea is both limited by dharma and guided by ethical considerations.

1. The King as the Embodiment of Dharma
   Manu envisions the king as the upholder of dharma, the moral law that governs individual and societal behavior. The king is not above dharma; rather, he is its executor, ensuring that all members of society adhere to their duties. Sovereignty, in this context, is not about arbitrary power but about the responsibility to maintain cosmic order (Rta).

2. Divine Authority of the King
   The Manusmriti elevates the king’s position by associating it with divine sanction. Manu describes the king as a representative of God, ruling on behalf of the divine. This divine legitimacy grants the king immense power, but it also imposes strict moral obligations. The king’s authority is seen as a sacred trust, and any abuse of power is considered a violation of divine will.

3. Responsibilities of Sovereignty
   Manu outlines specific duties of the king, reflecting his vision of sovereignty as a moral and administrative responsibility:

   • Protection of Subjects: The primary duty of the king is to protect his people from internal and external threats. This includes safeguarding their lives, property, and dignity.
   • Administration of Justice: The king is the chief judicial authority, responsible for resolving disputes and punishing wrongdoers. Manu emphasizes that justice must be impartial and in accordance with dharma.
   • Maintenance of Social Order: The king must ensure the proper functioning of the caste system (Varna), with each caste performing its prescribed duties. This hierarchical order is viewed as essential for societal harmony.
   • Welfare of the People: Sovereignty involves promoting the well-being of subjects through economic stability, public works, and disaster management.

4. The Limitations on Sovereignty
   Despite his extensive powers, the king is not above reproach in Manu’s framework. The king is bound by:

   • Dharma: The ultimate standard against which all actions are judged.
   • Counsel from Advisors: Manu advocates for a council of ministers and learned Brahmins to guide the king’s decisions.
   • Accountability to the People: While implicit, Manu’s writings suggest that the king must maintain the trust of his subjects to retain legitimacy.

5. Punishment as a Tool of Sovereignty
   Manu introduces the concept of Danda (punishment) as a cornerstone of sovereignty. Danda is portrayed as the king’s instrument for maintaining law and order. However, it is not merely punitive but also reformative, aimed at deterring crime and encouraging virtuous conduct. Manu likens Danda to a divine force, asserting that its proper use ensures societal harmony, while its misuse leads to tyranny and chaos.

Manu’s Contribution to Political Philosophy

Manu’s ideas on the origin of the state and sovereignty are a synthesis of religious doctrines, ethical values, and pragmatic governance principles. His framework reflects the socio-political realities of ancient India, where the state was deeply intertwined with religion and caste-based social structure. Key contributions include:

• Integration of Religion and Politics: Manu’s conception of the state is inseparable from dharma, highlighting the moral responsibilities of rulers.
• Theocratic Justification of Kingship: By rooting sovereignty in divine will, Manu provides a sacred legitimacy to the institution of kingship.
• Early Social Contract Theory: His acknowledgment of the people’s consent in accepting a ruler reflects an early understanding of governance as a mutual agreement.
• Focus on Welfare and Justice: Manu’s emphasis on the king’s duties towards his subjects anticipates modern notions of welfare-oriented governance.

Critique and Legacy

While Manu’s ideas on the state and sovereignty have been influential, they are not without critique. The rigidity of the caste system endorsed by Manu has drawn criticism for perpetuating social inequality. Additionally, his religious justification of kingship may appear inconsistent with secular governance models. However, Manu’s focus on the moral responsibilities of rulers and the centrality of dharma in governance remain relevant in discussions of ethical leadership.

In conclusion, Manu’s vision of the state and sovereignty in the Manusmriti provides a foundational framework for ancient Indian political thought, blending religious ideals with practical governance. By emphasizing the divine origin of the state, the moral responsibilities of the king, and the centrality of dharma, Manu creates a vision of sovereignty that is both authoritative and accountable. His ideas continue to resonate as a historical reflection of the intertwining of morality, religion, and statecraft in human society.

Introduction

• Kautilya was the great Prime Minister of Chandragupta Maurya.
• Kautilya’s Arthasashtra is a magnificent work on the art of government in ancient political thought which was composed between 3rd-2nd Century B.C.
• In his political and administrative ideas, the focus of attention was the king.
• According to his beliefs, for the smooth functioning of administration and for the welfare of the people, the king had to be acquainted in the four Vedas and four sciences of government (Anvikashaki Trai, Varta and Dandniti).

Thinkers views

• T.N.Ramaswamy said, “The Arthasastra is truly an anthology of political wisdom and theory and an art of statecraft, scattered in pre-Kautilyan writings, streamlined and reinterpreted by Kautilya in his attempt to construct a separate and distinct science of statecraft.”
• Arthashastra is defined by Dr. A.L. Basham as a ―treatise on polity, an encompassing enough view but not enough to separate it from other popular guides.
• Dr. D.D. Kosambi refers to Arthashastra as a ―science of material gain.
• Dr. R. Boesche translates Arthashastra as a ―science of political economy.

Kautilya’s view on working of the state and administration

• Kautilya’s administrative and judicial structure was hierarchical in nature.
• As for impartiality, he emphasised on the principle of equity and immediacy.
• As for law and order, he believed that law was an imperial command enforced by sanctions.

“Material well-being alone is supreme. For, spiritual good and sensual pleasures depends upon material well-being.” (Kautilya)

• Arhashastra, the ancient treatise on statecraft is firmly predicated on two seemingly divergent strands – artha and dharma, the former alluding to material well-being and the latter to spiritual good.
• Interestingly, and innovatively, Kautilya weaves these two together and presents to us a theory of state which is both rational-prudent and abstract-ideal.
• The primary theme of Arthashastra is ruling well.
• At the level of the state, government plays an important role in ensuring the material well being of the nation and its people.
• Therefore, Arthashastra includes guidance on the productive enterprises, taxation, revenue collection, budget, and is in this manner the ―scene of economics.
• According to Kautilya, a state policy which aims at material progress would necessarily bring about the happiness of the people.
• This interlinkage between economic progress and righteousness is a logical corollary of the text’s materialist stance – “Material well-being alone is supreme. For spiritual good and sensual pleasures depend on material well-being.”

Consequently, for Kautilya, there is no duality between life and livelihood; they are one composite whole.

• The term ‘artha’ denotes land (inhabited by humans) which is the well-spring of all economic activities.
• Arthashastra is the science of protection of this land as a source of material well-being.
• The materialist undercurrent of statecraft entwines both life and livelihood inseparably.

Elements of the state/Saptanga Theory

• One of the most significant contributions of Kautilya in the realm of political thought is his Saptanga theory (sapta prakriti) of the state.
• Kautilya held the view that a state is a combination of seven elements i.e.

Swamin (the Lord or the Sovereign)

• The ruler is equivalent to the head in a human body.
• Kautilya did not believe in divine origin of kinsgship. He believed it to be a human institution.
• An ideal king, according to Kautilya is one who has the highest qualities of leadership, intellect, energy and personal attributes.
• The king must be able to gain confidence in others.
• He must be easily accessible, truthful and a pioneer.
• He should have a sharp intellect, be brave, prompt and must possess a strong mind.
• To Kautilya, the swamin could be one person or a number of persons.
• However, to Kautilya the swamin is a veritable sovereign owing allegiance to none.

Some of the main duties assigned to the king by Kautilya are:

• Ensuring people’s welfare
• To maintain dharma or prescribed duties of all human being.
• To protect his subjects from internal and external threats.
• Protection of people from eight types of calamities
• Maintenance of law and order in the state.
• To ensure universal and free education for all the citizens
• To display Atma vrata (self-control) and to do this, the king had to abandon six enemies – kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), mana (vanity), mada (haughtiness), and harsha (overjoy).

Amatya (The ministers)

• Amatya represents eyes of the state.
• According to Kautilya the Amatya refers to a minister or any kind of high officials, who are involved in all functioning of the government.
• Kautilya says that the Amatya must be a native of the country and must possess devotion towards the Swamin.
• Apart from the king, there are three top positions in the council of ministers – the mantri or the prime minister (closest political advisor of the king), the commander-in-chief (involved in military planning and conduct of foreign policy) and the crown prince who alternates between political and military assignments.
• These four posts form the supreme body of political deliberations.
• Kautilya did not fix the number of ministers which depends on requirement.

Janapada (The population)

• Janpada represents the legs of the state.
• Janapada to Kautilya implies the land and the population.
• According to him fertility is an essential component of janapada.
• In this element, Kautilya discussed the functioning of the village and towns including their organization.
• Kautilya believed that the rural population has a stronger physical and mental make-up than the urban population.
• That is why; he did not approve of the urban style entertainment like alcohol consumption and gambling for the countryside.
• Under land reclamation policy, Kautilya favours allotment of land to shudra peasants for cultivation

Kosha (the treasury)

• Kosha is considered as the mouth of the state.
• Kautilya opined that a good state is one which is rich in gold and silver, as well as big and variegated that it may be capable of withstanding calamities for long and uninterruptedly.
• Kautilya attached great importance to the growth of treasury as he believed that treasury played an important part in the maintenance of internal and external independence of a state.

Durga (the fort)

• Durga represents the arms of a state.
• Security of treasury and army would depend on fortification of the state.
• Durga or the fort is considered as an extremely important element in a state, as it is related to the defence of the empire.
• Usually, forts were constructed on the borders of the territory.
• Kautilya divided the forts into four categories: surrounded by water (Audak fort), hills (Parvat fort), desert (Dhanvan fort) and forest forts (Van fort).

Bala (the Army)

• It is equivalent to brain in a human body.
• The military force consist of cavalry, infantry and chariot riders.
• He considered Kshatriyas as excellent material for the army as they are good warriors.
• He does not prefer the Vaishyas and Shudras for joining army when the state is confronted with emergency.
• Kautilya divides the armies into six categories i.e.
  • Hereditary forces
  • Hired troops
  • Soldiers of fighting corporations,
  • Troops belonging to an ally
  • Troops belonging to an enemy
  • The soldiers of wild tribes

Mitra (the ally)

• A mitra represents ears of a state.
• According to Kautilya, an ideal ally is one who is a friend of the family for a long time, constant and powerful in support, amenable to control, shares a common interest, can mobilise his army quickly and is not someone who would double cross his friends.

According to Kautilya there are two types of allies

• Sahaja mitra: It consists of those persons whose friendship was derived from the time of father and grandfather and were situated close to the territory of the immediately neighboring enemy.
• Kritrim mitra: Kritrim mitra refers to an acquired ally whose friendship was reported for the protection of wealth and life. Kautilya held that the ally of the first category was superior to the ally of the second category.

Welfare nature of the state

• According to Kautilya, the primary objective of the state is to ensure the welfare of the people.
• Kautilya gives immense power to the king. He also attaches an element of divinity.
• To Kautilya the powers of the king are derived from three sources i.e. prabhushakti (Power of the Army and The Treasury) Manta Shakti (advice of wise men specially the council of minister) and Utsha Shakti (Charisma).
• In Arthashasrtra Kautilya never advocated the “Theory of Divine Origin” of monarch. Kautilya was of the view that as the state is a human institution, so it should be governed by a human being. As such, the king should be the protector of the whole society.

“In the happiness of his subjects lies the king’s happiness; in their welfare his welfare.”

• In this statement (taken from Arthashastra), Kautillya refers that the King is a father figure for his subjects, so the king should treat his subjects in the same way as his children.
• Welfare of subjects is the first and foremost duty of a king.
• Kautilya identified an ideal ruler as one “who is ever active in promoting the welfare of the people and who endears himself by enriching the public and doing well to them”.
• The king should render selfless service to his subjects.
• It is the first and foremost duty of the King to protect the life and property of his subjects and to save the people from anti-social elements or as well as natural calamities, such as fire, floods, earthquakes etc.
• To Kautilya only when the subjects are happy, the King can be happy.
• Thus, Kautilya conceptualized the idea of a welfare state for the very first time in Ancient Indian political writings.

Principles of Statecraft

Introduction

• Statecraft theory is in political Science an approach to understanding politics, policy change and political leadership, which focuses on the interests of the political elite.
• It was first developed by British academic Jim Bulpitt to understand the government of Margaret Thatcher.
• In common parlance statecraft means skillful management of state affairs.
• Kautilya was a proponent of a welfare state but definitely encouraged war for preserving the power of the state.

Kautilya’s Views

• He thought that the possession of power and happiness in a state makes a king superior hence a king should always strive to augment his power. This actually coincides with Weber’s view that there is no morality in international politics which means that states must be at war all the time.
• Kautilya believed that for the prosperity of a state, the state must be devoid of internal conflict and the King should be in control of the state. To maintain this internal peace, he believed in a just and realistic rule of law.
• His definition of a state was one which had power and wealth and hence he put property rights and protection of wealth as one of the important themes in his jurisprudence. In fact, he advocated that one could get rid of corporal punishment by paying off fines.
• Kautilya believed that nations acted in their political, economic and military self-interest.
• He thought that foreign policy or diplomacy will be practiced as long as the sell-interest of the state is served because every state acts in a way to maximize power and self-interest.
• The protection and promotion of political, military and economic interests of a State rested on six constituent elements, viz. the king, the ministers, the fortress, the countryside, the treasury and the army.
• For the purpose of settlement of disputes, four methods were advocated, namely, ‘Sama’ (conciliation) , ‘Dana’ (appeasement), ‘Bheda’ (dividing), and ‘Danda’ (use of force) to be employed as the last resort.
• According to Arthashastra, the State should follow a six-fold policy with other States: (1) Sandhi (treaty of peace); (2) Vigrah (war); (3) Asana (neutrality) (4) Yana (marching) – presumably a threat; (5) Samsrya (alliance) and (6) Dwidibhava (making peace with one and end war with another).
• Among more cynical advices Kautilya offered to the king are about
  • his stress on diplomatic manoeuvres and espionage activity.
  • his ‘doctrine of silent war’ or a war of assassination against an unsuspecting king,
  • his approval of secret agents who killed enemy leaders and sowed discord among them,
  • his view of women as weapons of war,
  • his use of religion and superstition to bolster his troops and demoralize enemy soldiers,
  • the spread of disinformation.

Kautilya described three types of political system namely rule making, rule application and rule adjudication and has been recognized for his contributions to bringing diplomacy at the helm of state’s affairs.

Kautilya and Machiavelli

Introduction

• ‘Arthashastra’ is recognized as the masterpiece of Kautilya while ‘The prince’ earned laurels for Machiavelli.
• Comparison is often made between Kautilya and Machiavelli, (the great modern European thinker) as both these two thinkers evolved ways and means to ensure practical administration in the state.

Similarities between Kautilya and Machiavelli

• Both Kautilya and Machiavelli laid stress upon gathering first-hand information about the activities, designs and strengths of the neighboring enemy states.
• Besides another common element between Kautilya and Machiavelli was that they both relied upon earlier records of historical evidence about the actions of enemy states.
• Both believed in the principle of political expediency.
• Both Kautilya and Machiavelli hold almost similar views regarding the conception of the state. Both believe in a strong monarchy as the best form of government.
• Both attach importance to force and its use in keeping order and hence the necessity of a powerful king as head of the state.
• The law of punishment must remain ever vigilant to prevent the people of the four castes and orders from swerving from their respective duties and avocations. He looked upon Royalty as the most vital factor in the body-politics.
• Both emphasize the need for a strong and powerful army in a prosperous state. Both hate the idea of keeping mercenaries or discontented soldiers.
• Kautilya goes into greater details about the classification of armies and soldiers and how to deal with each arm than Machiavelli. The latter advises that a wise prince should not deem that “a real victory which is gained with the arms of others,” whether auxiliaries or mercenaries and must turn to his own arms.

Difference between Kautilya and Machiavelli

Background and Context

• Kautilya (Chanakya): Kautilya was an ancient Indian philosopher, statesman, and advisor to Emperor Chandragupta Maurya in the 4th century BCE. He wrote the treatise “Arthashastra,” which encompassed political, economic, and military aspects of governance.
• Machiavelli: Machiavelli was an Italian political philosopher and writer during the Renaissance period in the 15th and 16th centuries. He is famous for his work “The Prince,” which focuses on political leadership and the acquisition and maintenance of power.

Nature of Leadership and Morality

• Kautilya: Kautilya emphasized the importance of a virtuous and moral leader. He believed that a ruler should uphold dharma (righteousness) and work for the welfare of the people. However, he also recognized the pragmatic aspects of politics and acknowledged the necessity of employing certain unethical means to ensure stability and security.
• Machiavelli: Machiavelli argued that a ruler should prioritize political effectiveness over moral considerations. He famously stated that “the ends justify the means,” suggesting that a ruler should be willing to employ deceit, violence, and manipulation to maintain power and achieve political goals.

Purpose of the State and Governance

• Kautilya: Kautilya believed that the state’s primary purpose was to ensure the well-being and prosperity of its subjects. He advocated for a strong and centralized state, with a well-organized administration, efficient taxation, and a robust military. Kautilya’s Arthashastra encompassed various aspects of governance, including economic policies, diplomacy, and the management of internal and external threats.
• Machiavelli: Machiavelli focused on the acquisition and maintenance of power for the ruler. He believed that a ruler should prioritize stability and security, even if it meant using ruthless tactics. Machiavelli stressed the importance of maintaining a strong army and creating a sense of fear among the populace to deter potential challenges.

Relationship between the Ruler and the People

• Kautilya: Kautilya emphasized the importance of a symbiotic relationship between the ruler and the people. He believed that the ruler’s legitimacy stemmed from the consent and support of the governed. Kautilya advocated for a just and compassionate ruler who prioritized the welfare of the people.
• Machiavelli: Machiavelli viewed the relationship between the ruler and the people as one based on pragmatism rather than benevolence. He suggested that a ruler should be willing to act in ways that might be contrary to popular opinion if it served the interests of maintaining power and stability.

Contextual Factors

• Kautilya: Kautilya’s political thought was deeply rooted in ancient Indian culture, ethics, and the prevailing social order. He considered factors such as dharma, the varna system, and the role of the king within the broader framework of Indian civilization.
• Machiavelli: Machiavelli’s political thought emerged during the Renaissance in Italy, a period of political instability and power struggles among city-states. His work was influenced by the political context of his time, which included constant warfare, the influence of powerful families, and the emergence of nation-states.

Contemporary Relevance and Criticisms

• Kautilya: Kautilya’s ideas continue to be studied and applied in various fields, including politics, economics, and management. His emphasis on the welfare of the people and effective governance resonates with contemporary discussions on good governance and leadership ethics.
• Machiavelli: Machiavelli’s ideas have generated debate and controversy. Critics argue that his approach neglects moral considerations and promotes a cynical view of politics. However, his work continues to be studied for its insights into the realities of political power and the dynamics of leadership.

Views on corruption by Kautilya

• According to Kautilya, human nature possesses corruption. It is the human psyche.
• He said That as it is impossible not to taste the honey that is found at the trip of the tongue. So it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up at least a bit of the King’s revenue.
• The government servant employed by the government can never locate corruption.
• The level of corruption is steady and maybe there could have been marginal fluctuations.
• He believed that “men are naturally fickle minded” and are comparable to “horses at work who exhibit a constant change in their temper”.
• Kautilya provides a comprehensive list of 40 kinds of embezzlement.
• To gist those, practices and acts that can be termed corrupt such as, causing loss of government, misuse of government property, misappropriation of revenue, falsification of documents, inequality in work, false budgeting, inequality in  price, weight, numbering, and quality of the production, obstruction in lawful process, exploiting public, corrupting the officials, taking bribe, failure of expenditure under work, false measurement, allocating expenditure under wrong heads, cheating with weight etc.

Kautilya suggests ways to overcome corruption

• Psychology or mental set up of the corrupt officers should be changed so that it should be eliminated forever.
• To Prevent and control corrupt practices and officers, law should be  followed strictly.
• In corruption cases, all the concern senior or junior officers in  that  particular department  should  be checked.
• The non-corrupt supporter of corruption should also be treated as corrupt-hiding a crime of corruption is another crime.
• Working procedure of the officers should be supervised regularly. For that purpose a special supervisory officer should be appointed. This supervisor must be continuously  in  contact with  the  king  so  that  the king  should know  about malpractices taking place in the department.
• In collection of revenue and other cesses, if there     should     be any     difference, the concern officer or public    servants    should    be enquired immediately.
• The public servants should be transferred continuously from one department to another so that they should not get a chance to make corruption boldly in any new department.
• There should be ‘Information Organization’. The informer should inform the king about corruption in any department. A person who is working as an Informer should be kept undisclosed.

Theory of Mandala

Introduction

• Interstate relations and foreign policy find a prominent place in Kautilya’s Arthashastra.
• He has tried to explain the dynamics of interstate relations through his mandala theory.
• Kautilya has also explained upayas (peace politics) and shadgunyas (six war tactics).
• He also emphasised that a king should have a detailed system of diplomatic relations with different states.
• Kautilya argued that welfare of a state depends on its active foreign policy and he highlighted that there are links between the domestic factors and foreign policy of a state.

Concept Of Mandala

• Mandala is a Sanskrit word which means circle.
• Mandala projects the world in terms of geometry.
• Kautilya used the shape of mandala to develop a political geometry that accounts for different political realities.
• It was not a new concept given by Kautilya as it was earlier discussed by Manu and there were indirect references to it in Rigveda.
• However, it was Kautilya who gave a comprehensive theory of mandala for security and survival of state.

Basic understanding

• The Mandala concept is one in which there are circles of friends and foes with the central point being the King and his State.
• Mandala theory of foreign policy, is based on the geographical assumption.
• This embraces twelve kings in the vicinity and he considers the kingdoms as neighbors, the states which are the enemy’s neighbors are his enemies’ friends and the next circle of states are his friends.
• He also believes that the states which are his neighbors and are also neighbors of his enemies are neutral and should always be treated with respect.
• He believes that this circle is dynamic and the King should strive to be expanding his central position and reduce the power of the other kings in the vicinity.
• He also proposes to build alliances with states which are two degrees away from the center to create a balance of power.
• In the Kautilyan world he did recognize the importance of middle powers.
• In addition he mentions that war is an outcome of a power struggle and state sovereignty hence he treats diplomacy as a temporary phenomenon.

Peace Politics or Upayas

• There are four upayas to realise an objective or aim and they have existed since the period of epics and the Dharmashastra.
• These include Sama (conciliation), Dana (concession or gift), Bheda (punishment), Danda (dissension).
• These upayas were to be used in times of peace by the king in his foreign relations.
• He said that foreign relations would be determined by self-interest, not by ethical concerns.

War Tactics or Shadgunyas

He elaborates on the six forms of diplomacy which scholars find very interesting.

• Sandhi: This means accommodation, which means that kings seek to accommodate each other and do not resolve to hostile means.
• Vigraha: This means hostility shown to a neighbor or a state. Kautilya strongly believed that the states are always at war and seek power.
• Asana: This means indifference and he choose this policy for states which are neutral in his mandala concept of nations.
• Dvaidhibhava: This means double policy which was very well practiced by Bismarck. Kautilya advocates this foreign policy for states which are superior militarily. Kissinger followed this strategy where he made an alliance with China such that at no time Russia and China could become closer in ties than US and China. Kautilya advocated the same concept within his Mandala framework.
• Samsarya: This policy of protection is followed where a stronger state intervenes and shelters a weak state.
• Yana: This policy is to attack. Kautilya does mention that peace and stability in a state make the state even powerful but never shies away from attacking the weak and unjust king.

Conclusion

• Much of our knowledge about state policy under the Mauryas comes from the Arthashastra written by Kautilya.
• Though it was written at the end of the fourth century B.C, it appears to have been rediscovered only in 1905.
• Kautilya is described by historians as both the emperor’s prime Minister and economist of the Mauryan state.
• Most agree that his work can be read as an adequate description of his time yet also serving as a practical manual of how to govern.
• Kautilya stresses on the importance of religion as an important force to depoliticize the masses when confronted with state power, thus reducing the risk of rebellion.

Current relevance of Kautilya’s view

• It is obvious that according to Kautilya, the aim of statecraft in the present situation is to be focused on the population in terms of their well-being.
• Covering various topics on administration, politics and economy, it is a book of law and a treatise on running a country, which is relevant even today.
• He provided valuable basis for economic science.
• It contains very useful economic ideas on foreign trade, taxation, public expenditure, agriculture and industry.
• Good governance and stability are inextricably linked. If rulers are responsive, accountable, removable, recallable, there is stability. If not, there is instability.
• This is even more relevant in the present democratic setup.
• Heavy taxation should be avoided. If tax rates are high, public will not be willing to pay the tax and find out the ways of tax evasion.
• Low rate of taxation will yield more revenue to the state. He was fully aware that terms of trade were not just depending on economics but also on various parameters.
• Social welfare is the centre point of kautilya’s economic ideas.
• The State was required to help the poor and helpless and to be proactive in contributing to the welfare of its citizens.
• The emphasis that Kautilya gave to human capital formation is relevant in current times because development is not possible without human capital accumulation.
• Apart from these ideas there are a number of things in Arthsashtra which is very relevant such as conservation of natural resources.

INTRODUCTION

There is always a question comes to our mind that our great epics are having any relevance in political thought? The answer is certainly yes. Mahabharata is a great epic, which is not only a historical text but also it, is a text for educators. Researchers have an opinion that Mahabharata has been used to educate by one generation to other generation as a knowledge system. It is a philosophical text, which shows the multiple viewpoints about the society, human relations, and politics. It treats human beings as a multilayered being.

The Shantiparva of Mahabharata, a discourse on statecraft conveyed by Bhisma to Yudhishthira, largely describes the functions, duties of a good king, both during normal times and a during period of emergency, finally signifying the importance of a welfare state. In the ancient time when “law was the command of the sovereign” and citizens had to obey the orders of the king. Does the Shantiparva contain principles on the lines of sarvajana sukhino bhavantu? Kingship in ancient India characterized as ‘benevolent, patriarchal autocracy bound down by many instructions of service to the people. The duties of King considered a servant of the people. It expected that the king devote his life to the service and welfare of the people of his state. He was expected to assume different roles in accordance with the situations, such as abolishing the enemies, imposing punishments upon the wicked, giving rewards upon the good, sacking offenders etc. All duties of the king should be performed according to the provisions of dharma, which are to be respected in every possibility, not by the king but also by his public. The Shantiparva definitely maintains, “The king should involve all the public in their respective duties and instruct them to perform their allocated functions according to dharma”. The Mahabharata, like Kautilya’s Saptanga theory believes in the seven elements of the state-Raja, Mantri, Kosa(Treasury), Danda(Militory), Mitra(Friend), Rashtra and Nagar. The head of the state, council of ministers, treasury, punishment, allies etc were as important in ancient times as today.

VYAS AND MAHABHARATA

The Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Smirities represent ancient Indian Political Thought. The political ideas found in the great epics Mahabharata is very complex and comprehensive. Vyasa, the author is a mythical figure of uncertain identity. Vyasa means arranger or compiler. Though various authors of ancient time are so designated, the term is used especially as a title of the compiler of Vedas, who has also been the author of Mahabharata. Just as we find the series of fourteen different Manus, so the Puranas tell of twenty-eight Vyasas who compiled wisdom in different periods. The arranger of Mahabharata is Krishna Dwapayan Vyasa and it is between the decedents of his two sons Dhritrastra and Pandu, that the Mahabharata was contested.

Mahabharata is a historical Text, some of the noted historians as DD Koshambi consider Mahabharata to be a historical text. It is a longest epic that has also been used for educating the general public for their day to day life. It is a compilation of existing knowledge that was available at that period of time.

Mahabharata is important in the point of view of politics, because it discuss broadly in ancient Indian Political thought. The Shantiparva and the Rajdharmanusasana chapters which present a man-made and systematic view of the political thought of ancient India. In the Shantiparva of Mahabharta Dandniti, Rajdharma, Shasanpadhiti, Mantri Parishada and Kar-Vyavstha is discussing more about Duties of king and government system, different organs of the government and so on. Shantiparva establishes the principles of origin of monarchy-Rajtantra, and it is in the Shantiparva of Mahabharata that we come across the political thought of Bhishma, which forms the subject-matter of this chapter. Bhishma’s discourses in the Shantiparva as his most convincing description of Rajadharma. Yudhishthira at the end of the Great War asked Vyasa about the duties of kings as well as those of the four varna’s. The sage referred him to the well-informed and great intellectual Bhismhma, who was well versed in all the duties. Rajdharma, as given by Yudhishthira interpreting the basic ideas of Bhishma. Just as the rising sun scatters unholy darkness, so does the Rajdharma destroy all evil significances in this world. Shantiparva consists of 365 chapters and 13,716 numbers of Verses, and it further divided into three subparvas:

1. Rajadharmanushasana Parva: This part describes the duties of the king and his governance.
2. Apaddharmaanushasana Parva: This part describes the rules of conduct when one faces emergency.
3. Mokshadharma Parva: This Parva describes the behavior and rules to achieve moksha or salvation.

THE ORIGIN OF STATE

The origin of state, which is a major aspect of politics, has been defined in the Vana parva in Mahabharata. The Shantiparva clarifies that in the state of nature, the institution of state did not exist. There was no kingly office and the people there had sense of thine and mine. The point towards the fact that the absence of the ruler coincided with the absence of private property. Nearly all classical works and anthropological evidence make us determine that there was a golden age of harmony and happiness when people led happy and peaceful lives. This harmonious and happy life was destroyed by the discovery of the art of agriculture, which empowered people to produce more than they could consume. For the first time, they established houses, stored rice, and divided the fields with boundaries naming them as individual properties, but people began to snatch away the rice of others without their consent. This led to a search for some authority to protect their fields and properties.

Shantiparva speculates at one place that people went in search of a king in order to protect their property, family and Varna’s. They were also prepared to give him a certain share of their own property. Under such circumstances, Manu, finally accepted kinship to protect property, family and Varnas. From the 67th chapter of Shantiparva, we come to know that there was a contract of people to get rid of sinfulness. Shantiparva also explores the origin of the state on the grounds that when sinfulness prevails in the world, men cannot own and enjoy their own wives, animals, fields and houses. Shantiparva states that in the absence of the king, inter-mixture of castes would take place. Further, Shantiparva also stated that Dharma is meant to aid the acquisition and preservation of wealth – if Adharma increases, it causes confusion among the varnas. Therefore, it is believed that the king’s preservation of Dharma signified nothing but the defense of the social order based on family, property and the caste system. We can see the conditions existing in the state of nature, the necessity to uphold Dharma, protection of property, family and Varna system by the King.

This might have resulted in the creation of the state. From the above there are two points that come out clearly – (i) First, in the Shantiparva, we find the origin of the state or kinship, (ii) second, two theories of origin of state have been given – (i) the divine origin theory and (ii) the social contract theory. When Manu became the king with a large army, he set out to make conquest. People began to fear King and observe Dharma. This theory contains three elements – (1) the people lived under the law of jungle. (2) with the object of improving the situation, Brahma created the King, who was chosen by the people, (3) a contract was made between the King and the people.

Society and state are institutions which are very closely inter related. Ancient Indian political thinkers while dealing with the subject took recourse to legends and mythology and regarded the state as a divine institution which was created by god to ensure security and justice for mankind against the law of the jungle, which had somehow set in among them at the end of the golden age. The theory of divine origin speculates that the state is the creation of God, and the king rules in his name. The origins of this theory found in the Rigveda, which mentions that Brahma created the Kshatriyas or protectors. The Mahabharata also refers to it many times. The divine origin of state is further elaborated though the story of Prthu Vainya. His supernatural appearance, coronation by the Gods, and the entrance of Vishnu into his body, clearly indicate the divine origin of Kingship.

Matsyanyaya is known as the theory of force, and it pre-supposes an inherent propensity of man to encroach upon his weaker neighbor, and to be prone to commit acts of disorder and aggression. The Shantiparva refers to the seven elements of state, but it does not enumerate them in the same order as mentioned in other works like those of the Kautilya’s Arthasastra and the Manusmrti.

All the experts admit that the Atman (king) is an important element of the state. The king is the head of the state; He is the fountain of justice. He has to deal with judicial, taxation, religious and cultural problems. He has to protect and regulate the Varna organization and Ashram system. 

Amatya (minister and officials) is the second constituent of the state. In the Shantiparva, a sachiva is king’s helper and Amatya is regarded as his private secretary. The Amatya is an important element of formation of state in ancient India.

Treasury (Kosa) is another constituent of the state. The co-relation of king and his treasury is emphasized. The king should take care of seven limbs and Kosa is one of them. The rich treasury depends up on the righteous king.

Durg was considered the strength of the sovereign. It was believed that with a well-equipped fort, a king could defend his country against stronger enemy.

The next element Mitra (ally, Friend) is an important principal of state. Ally refers to different kinds of friends. Bhishma in the 80th chapter of the Santiparva says that there are four kinds of friends or allies-(l) Sahartha are those who are hereditary friends (2) Bhajamana (3) Sahaja are the kin-related ones and (4) Kritrima are the ones who had been turned into friends by gifts etc. In the 69th chapter of Shantiparva, it is said that when a king is attacked, then for his defence against the aggressors, he should see that the bridges over rivers are destroyed and water from ponds is not taken out.

KINSHIP

As R.S. Sharma says that “the cardinal supposition of Shantiparva in Chapter 67 is the appropriate theory of the origin of state. It is scientific because it involves the King and people. The people’s obligation to pay taxes and render military services to the King clearly implies the presence of the elements of Kosha and Danda. Thus, four important elements of the state out of seven can be clearly distinguished in the statement of the contract theory of the origin of the state.” Altekar observes that “the state was regarded as a divine institution; the King’s right to govern was partly due to his divine creation and partly due to the agreement of the subjects to be governed by him, in order to eliminate anarchy. ” The aims of the state in Mahabharata was to safeguard property, to maintain law and order in society. The main aim of man’s life was fourfold as Dharma, Artha, Kama & Moksha. Therefore, state’s main aim is to give help to people to attain all these aims. The 59th chapter of Shantiparva deals with danda and dandniti. It states that God helped humanity to escape from the law of the jungle by giving it a King. The King became a tyrant and the enraged sages destroyed him with their supernatural powers and asked Prathu (after him the whole world was named Prithvi) and swear to rule according to the principles of Dandniti. The sages asked Prathu, particularly, to consider the Brahmins above punishment and save the world from inter-mixture of castes. The duty of the King was to uphold Dharma and Varna Vyavastha. 

According to Mahabharata the creation of the word, ‘Raja’ refers to the origin of ‘Rajya’. To begin with, Bhishma bases the Kings authority in the first chapter of Shantiparva upon a rigid understanding of the King’s origin. The Shantiparva contains a list of five spheres of activity – orientations for a very good King – (1) defense (2) War (3) administration according to the Dharma (4) formulation of policies (5) the promotion of the happiness of the people. A King should be generous, modest and pure and should never refuse the performance of his duties towards his subjects. The protection of the people from outside ecological threats and internal enemies is the pre-eminent duty of the power in the political system.

GOVERNMENT

The king was the real executive. He has to perform the executive functions as established by dharma. The king was both an appointing and a removal authority. The Shantiparva suggests to the appointment of the ministers by the king. He has to keep in view one’s long administrative experiences and code of conduct. In inter-state relations, it was the duty of the king to appoint the spies and ambassadors. It was his duty to get information about the defense of state. The king had to perform some financial duties. He must realize one-sixth tax from the subjects in lieu of giving protection. On this ground, king has been treated as the servant of the people. Personal safety is an important duty of the king. He must be safe from external threats. The protection of all the Varna’s was one of the important duties of the king. There are some welfare duties of the king. The occupation of Trade and commerce also contribute to the economic prosperity of state, so the king have to treat the merchants harmoniously. For the defense of country and promotion of trade and commerce, the easy means of communications are essential, so the king has to build roads throughout his empire. It is the king’s duty to help the subjects with financial assistance during draught, flood and famine, as during such periods, they suffer more. The Vedas are the supreme source of dharma, so, their preservation is essential. Preservation of Vedas may be done by punishing those who create difficulties in the way of Vedic studies.

In Shantiparva, Rajdharma is understood as the duties and obligations relevant to political and administrative activities. Through government, peace, law and order essential to maintain in the state. The main work of government is the happiness of the people, ensuring to provide justice is the other aim of the government. In the state, the King is the head of the government. In good governments, administration people sleep carefully, fearlessly. Executive was made of the combination of King, ministers and other officials. Besides executive, legislature and judiciary were two other organs of government. However, importance given to the executive mainly. In Shantiparva, there was a great emphasis on the above ministers. In the absence of the dutyful and able ministers, King cannot run government properly. 

In Shantiparva, King advised to keep the intelligent, dutiful ministers. Bhishma’s general attitude towards the standard of the King government. In Sabha Parva, there is description about purohits. The duty of these Purohits was to bring King on ‘Sanmarg’ by these good sentences and speeches. These Purohits were intelligent, polite and belonged to high families. The Rajpurohits were fearless, Dharma followers and guided the King on various occasions. Therefore, protection of the people, in a wide sense, material and moral alike, was the chief function of the government.

JUSTICE AND DANDNITI

Dandniti, the term used in Mahabharata means the science of coercion. Viewed in the context as a whole, it is best rendered as the science of governance. As the reins check the steed or as an iron hook controls an elephant, so dandniti keeps the world under restraints. It destroys every evil as the sun destroys the darkness. About the importance of dandniti, Bhishma says, that if dandniti is destroyed, the three Vedas will disappear and the duties of the four varnas well mix up. On the destruction of dandniti and instability of Rajadharma, all people suffer from many evils. It is the prime duty of the king to be fully versed in dandniti. Danda protects the people and it awakes those who sleep; hence, Dand is called as Dharma. Because of the fear of danda (punishment), the sinners do not indulge in sin, people do not kill others. If danda is not observed, everything will be enveloped by darkness. There are four ends of life-Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha. Dharma is regarded as human justice and the set of duties. The concept of Dharma is the truth; it is the morality in true sense. All religious exercise is Dharma and it is the law. Artha includes all the means necessary for acquiring worldly prosperity. Artha refers to one of the ends of life on one hand, and on the other to one of the purusharthas that satisfies human desires. Kama refers to the desires in man including the sexual urge. Moksha in the fourth and the highest end of life. It paves the path for the progress of soul. Bhishma explains the fundamental importance of the king’s office for justice and dandaniti. According to Bhisma, people can live happily only if they live under the law. He also describes the four sources of law- Devasammat, Arsha Srota, Lok Sammat and Sanstha-Sammat. In the time of emergency, the ordinary rules must be suspended. If the people are in distress, the king must come to their aid with his treasure. If government face a crisis, as on the outbreak of war, it is justified adopting financial measures. In emergency, king should take his subjects into confidence. He should explain the whole situation to them and then impose extra tax. For the sake of saving life, it is right to make a treaty with an enemy. The treasure and the army are the sole root of the government. Shantiparva is one extended argument for the assigned interest of the community in the welfare of the king and government. 

INTER-STATE RELATIONS

It is an important division of the polity of inter-state relations that discussed by Bhishma. The king should breakup the enemy’s ranks by straightforward as well as cunning and diplomatic means. The powerful king must not neglect even his weak enemy, for even a small spark causes a flame and even a slight poison causes death, while the enemy taking refuge in a fort even if he is equipped with a single horse troubles the kingdom even of a prosperous king. Even after making a treaty with the enemy, he should not trust him. In the 95th chapter of Shanti Parva, it is said that Svayambhu Manu has included the practice of Dharma Vijaya. If a king obtains victory through recourse to Adharma, then only he prepares the ground for his own eventual destruction. Virtuous people, by taking choice to Dharma, can certainly defeat the evil-doers.

In Inter-State relations, spy system and ambassadors are a must. In the Santi Parva of Mahabharata, we see the Indian soul and culture. Various political ideas discussed very well through the epic. Duties of kings, citizens, ministers and rights of them discussed equally in Santi Parva. Origin of state, foreign policy, inter-state relations discussed well in Shanti Parva. To conclude, we say that Shanti Parva in Mahabharata is considered an unperishable treasury of history, religion, diplomacy, polity, philosophy & thought not only for us, but for the whole humanity.

Introduction

• Buddhism is not a single monolithic religion.
• Many of its supporters have combined the teachings of the Buddha with local religious rites, beliefs and customs.
• In this tradition, some conflict occurs, because Buddhism is a philosophical system to which such additions can be easily implanted.
• Buddhism includes a variety of rituals and practices, which are intended to help in the journey to enlightenment and bring blessings on oneself and others.
• While some activities are exclusive to certain expressions of Buddhism, there are others that are found in most of the popular forms of the belief system.

Buddhist political theory

Origin of the state

• Buddhist political thought associate it with fall of the man or corruption. Corruption comes into existence because of the emergence of materialism.

Origin of the king

• Buddhism represent republican tradition. King is called as Mahasammat which shows that the king has been elected by the council.

Qualities of the king

• Buddhist king resembles Plato’s philosopher king. People have chosen ‘the noblest of all’. King embodies wisdom. King as a source of knowledge. Purpose of knowledge is to check corruption, since knowledge enforces morality.
• They believed that one needed a King and a warrior for protection. Just as the tree is the refuge of birds, so is the King refuge of his people.
• It was the moral obligation of the ruler to give protection to the ruled in return for their obedience.

Buddhist foreign policy

• Buddhist foreign policy is based on peace and non-violence. Chakravarti Samrat wins others by Dhammachakra.

To the Buddhist thinkers, the powers of rulers were:

• The strength of arms.
• The strength of wealth.
• The strength of officials.
• The strength of the high birth.
• The strength of wisdom.

In Saundarananda, reference is made to the King’s application of five expedients, namely:

• Conciliation (sama).
• Bribery (dana).
• Creating dissensions (bheda).
• Force (danda).
• Restraint (nigama) against his enemies.

Ideology of a World-Ruler

• The early Buddhist canonists give a highly idealistic picture of the world-ruler (chakravarti).
• The attributes of the ruler comprised not only universal supremacy and successful administration at home and abroad, but also and above all, righteousness or dharma.
• The world-ruler was credited with seven jewels (or treasures) consisting of the wheel-treasure, the elephant-treasure, the house-treasure, the horse-treasure, the treasure of a woman, the treasurer and the adviser.

Thinkers perspective

• According to Mark W. Muesse, a professor of religious studies, “Buddhist spirituality promotes a form of life that provides an antidote to the stresses of modern living. As a counterpoint to the haste and hurry, the noise and confusion of this world, Buddhism prescribes a life of quietness and tranquillity, a life of contemplation and gentle awareness”.
• According to professor, V. R. Mehta, Buddhist tradition lack political thinking. Primarily Buddhism is a religious tradition.

Contributions of Buddhist tradition to Indian Political Thought

In many respects Buddhist ideals of statecraft embodying principles and practices such as the rule of law, deliberative democracy, procedures of governance and the social policies of the Ashokan welfare state bear a striking similarity to Enlightenment values in Europe.

• The principle of equality “universal egalitarianism” in Buddhism, applied equally to the relationship between the ruler and the ruled, and was a governing principle in matters of statecraft.
• The Buddha suggested to the republics that if they wished to maintain their independence they should strengthen their more democratic forms of governance.
• These include holding regular and frequent assemblies to discuss affairs of state collectively with each other, endeavouring to carry out the day to day tasks of governance in harmony, and paying due heed to established practices and customs.
• This form of monastic governance contained many features of statecraft present in the self-governing confederacies and republic rather than the large monarchical kingdoms of the North, such as Kosala and Magadha.

Principles of Political Righteousness of Dharma

• The most important contribution of the early Buddhist canonists to our ancient political thought consists in their ‘total’ application of the principle of righteousness to the King’s internal administration and to his foreign policy.
• The best King was one, who devoted himself to the welfare of the whole realm including animals.
• The King should avoid specified vices and practise specified virtues.
• Righteousness of dharma imposed some principles and policies of State like protection of the good, impartial justice, friendliness towards neighbouring Kings, and temporal and spiritual benefits to all classes of people.
• According to Buddhist theory, ethical standards were applicable uniformly to the ruler and his subjects and equally upon King’s public and private acts.
• The Buddhist thinkers rejected the Brahmanical ethics in relation to statecraft such as treacherous war and questionable methods in war and diplomacy.
• Many of the crucial features of the Buddhist approach to social philosophy and political governance derive from the principles and practices governing the organisation of the monastic community (the sangha).

Principles and policies of Government

• King should avoid falsehood and anger and whatever he has done in the past under the influence of passion and sin, he should not repeat.
• The King should choose as his ministers and other officials, who are steady, learned in affairs and free from the vices of gambling, drinking and so forth.
• The King should, himself, examine the income and the expenditure.
• Punishments for wrongdoers and rewards for good and efficient should be promptly given.

Four Noble truth

The four Noble Truths: The method for the four Noble Truths is perhaps based on the formula for a medical diagnosis. That is, it states the illness, the source of the illness, then the cure for the illness, and finally the way to bring about that cure.

It can be said that The Buddha’s first sermon after his Enlightenment focused on the Four Noble Truths, which are the basis of Buddhism. The truths are

• The truth of suffering (dukkha)
• The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
• The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
• The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga)

• Abul Fazl was the historian at Akbar’s court. He occupies a place of distinction among the many eminent scholars of medieval India. He wrote a treatise on Akbar’s reign known as Akbarnama. A part of it called Ain-i-Akbari explains the concept of monarchy.
• Akbar’s religious policy has evolved in the course of time depending on different internal and external factors. The final stage of Akbar’s religious policy, the Din-i-Ilahi (Religion of God), was a syncretic religious movement advocated by him in 1582 CE. It was one of the most substantial dimensions of mutual interaction and relationship between Hinduism and Islam.

Abul Fazl’s Concept of Monarchy

• The real manifestation of the concept of monarchy of the Mughals took place during the reign of Akbar. The state ideology of the Mughals was articulated by Abul Fazl.
  • While writing the history of Akbar, it seems that Abul Fazl felt the need of giving justification to the actions of his monarch.
  • That Akbar was an ideal monarch could be established by setting down standards for the institution of monarchy which would well conform to his actions.
• Though the institution of monarchy was in vogue in the Islamic civilization, yet Abul Fazl tried to provide a fresh interpretation. Scholars believe that it was influenced by the Timurid structure of the monarchy and the ideas of the famous Sufi saint Shihabuddin Suharwardy.
  • According to it he believed that there is a divine radiance (Farr-i-Izadi) in every person, but only the highest person can be the leader of his era. This ideology was also at the core of the kingship theory propounded by Abul Fazl. The following elements formed the Mughal concept of monarchy:

Divine Principle of Kingship

• Abul Fazl has explained Akbar’s views regarding the sovereign attitude towards his subjects. He says that the king was something more than an average human being. He was the representative of God on earth and His shadow. He was given greater knowledge and wisdom than any other human being. Kingship was God’s gift and was not bestowed till many thousand grand requisites were gathered in an individual.
  • According to him, “state-power is the light emanating from God and the ray emanating from the sun.” Akbar and other Mughal rulers assumed the title of Zill-i-Ilahi i.e. ‘Shadow of God’.
  • This divine principle of kingship increased the power of the Mughals and imparted a feeling of respect and admiration for the position of the emperor.
• Abul Fazl believed that the term Padshahat (Badshahat) meant ‘an established owner’ where Pad means stability and shah stands for owner. Therefore, Padshah means powerful and established owner who cannot be removed by anyone.
  • In the Mughal Empire, the Badshah had a superior place. He was the ultimate authority on all social, economic, political and judicial powers. This theory of Badshahat was a combination of Mongol, Turkish, Iranian, Islamic and Indian political traditions.
• While the rule of the king is legitimate in the divine light, but it does not imply that it liberates the ruler from his duties. He makes an important distinction between the just and the unjust ruler. It is only “a just ruler (kargiya)” who is able “to convert, like a salt- bed, the impure into pure, the bad into good. The just ruler was characterized by tolerance, respect for reason and fatherly love to all the subjects irrespective of their religion or creed.
• During the Delhi Sultanate, the king had no say in religious matters. But when Akbar became the king, he made himself the final authority even in religious disputes vis-à-vis the Imam-e- Adil because he followed the order of God and he could not be wrong. Therefore, people must follow his order. It is clear that Akbar was the ideal king for Abul Fazl and that’s why he viewed Akbar as a ‘complete man who could never be wrong.’

Communication of the Idea of Divine Principle by means of Pictures

• It is worth mentioning that the pictures to be painted with the details of the chronicles contributed significantly to the communication of these ideas. These pictures had an enduring impact on the mind of the beholders.
• From the 17th century, Mughal artists began to portray Mughal rulers with auras. Abul Fazl viewed these halos as symbolizing divine light in European paintings of Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

Separation in Religion and Politics

• Abul Fazl wanted to divorce religion from politics altogether. Akbar was interested in establishing the authority of the ruler over all other elements of the state and did not like the unwarranted interference of the Ulema class in politics. He wanted to eradicate the influence of the Ulema class and conduct his government policy on the basis of people-friendly principles.
• On September 2, 1579 CE through a decree named Mahzar, Akbar was acknowledged as the supreme power to make final decisions in the controversial issues arising out of the interpretation of the Quran.

Adherence to the Policy of Sulh-i-kul

• The policy of Sulh-i-kul (universal peace) pervades all of Abul Fazl’s political and religious theories. It occupied an important place among the elements that formed the Mughal theory of kingship. The most important feature of the Mughal theory of kingship was accepting the secular form of the state and adopting the policy of religious tolerance.
• Abul Fazl believes that the ideal of Sulh-i-kul was the foundation of enlightened governance. This doctrine of peace says that the agent of God could not practice discrimination among the various faiths present in the society.
• In Sulh-ikul all religions and sects had freedom of expression. The only condition was that they would neither harm the monarchy nor fight among themselves. Actually, this policy was the need of the hour to justify the religious policy of Akbar. Even sovereignty was not confined to any particular faith. It was thought that all religions were, in essence, the same but only the path differed. It became overarching.
• According to Abul Fazl, in a multi-religious country like India, the theory of monarchial sovereignty was more relevant. Here, sovereignty was not related to any religion because he considered that monarch was above all religions. He endorsed the good values of different religions and thus brought together different faiths for maintaining peace everywhere. He had to sustain those qualities by following an appropriate religious status.
• After assessing Abul Fazl, we may conclude that a sovereign must have the spirit of tolerance for the existing beliefs and he should not reject the traditional conduct of his people which was necessary and complementary. Abul Fazl justified Akbar’s views by promoting him as having a rationalist approach to social reforms. He argued that Akbar did so, as he wanted to build a country that could stand out in the world with greater confidence.

Implementation of Sulh-i-kul through State Policies

• The idea of Sulh-i-kul was implemented by means of state policy by the Mughal emperors. All the nobles like Irani, Turani, Afghani, Rajput, Deccan, etc. were included in the Mughal aristocracy. Abul Fazl strongly believed in the hierarchy, but he was more concerned about the need for talent for the empire.
  • He did not bother about the social background of a talented person. While conferring all these posts and awards, not their caste or religion, but their service and loyalty to the emperor were kept in mind.
• Akbar proved that his rule was not based on religious bias by abolishing the pilgrimage tax in 1563 CE and jizya in 1564 CE. The officers of the empire were also directed to follow the rules of Sulh-i-kul in the administration. The Mughal emperors provided grants for the maintenance and construction of places of worship.

Sovereignty as a Social Contract

• Abul Fazl can be compared with Ziauddin Barani of Delhi Sultanate in the political sphere. Both of them were concerned with social stability, however, Abul Fazl’s method of handling this concept was different.
  • His Ain-i-Akbari creates a theory of sovereignty on the basis of social contract instead of Shariah. He drew a picture of the society that existed before and explained the emergence of sovereignty.
  • He realized that there would be lawlessness and rebellion in society in the absence of a strong ruler and this will be harmful.
  • It represents a picture of Pre-State society which is similar to the negative picture of the Pre-Contract State given by Thomas Hobbes.
• Abul Fazl propagates a theory of ‘Social Contract’ to justify the need of political authority. According to this theory, sovereignty was a social contract between the king and the subjects.
  • The emperor protected the four entities of his subjects – life (jana), property (maal), honor (namas) and religion (din) and, in lieu of obedience from the subjects and a share in the resources.
  • Only the just ruler would have been able to honor these contracts with power and divine guidance. Akbar believed that a king is the greatest well-wisher and protector of his subjects.
  • A king is supposed to be just, fair and generous. He should consider his subjects like his own children and should strive for the betterment of his subjects every moment.
  • Akbar’s successors also kept this principle of public interest as the main basis of their monarchical ideas.
• Abul Fazl located the basis of sovereignty in the needs of the social order. Here his reasoning first follows the pure commands of reason (aql), appealing to the tradition of the philosophers (fìlasafa) and the scientists (hukama).
• According to Abul Fazl, sovereignty was in nature, a divine light (Farr-i-Izadi) and with this statement he, seems to dismiss as inadequate the traditional reference to the king as the shadow of God (Zill-i-Ilahi).

Criticism of Abul Fazl

• Abu Fazl is criticized for not being a true Muslim and for being a kafir. He did not believe in the superiority of Islam over all religions while Barani and other thinkers regarded it as supreme. It is because of this reason that many people called Abul Fazl a rebel, a kafir, Hindu or Agnipujak etc.
• He was too cynical of tradition and those hostile to him record that he had roughly brushed aside Ghazali’s criticisms of the scientists with the short remark that Ghazali had spoken nonsense. His cosmopolitan philosophy and Din-i-Ilahi met with partial success in India.
  • Policies such as Sulh-ikul and Din-i-Ilahi reinforced his governance and administration, but these new experiments were not as successful as Akbar hoped.
• There was inconsistency in his theory of social contract and the divine origin of sovereignty since the two theories were not logically compatible with each other.
• Indeed, he may be said to have attempted to combine the two, however, certain logical inconsistencies persisted.

• Kabir, a 15th-century thinker, presented political ideas reflecting an alternative society of his time. 
• His critique targeted the state, specifically the judicial and revenue administration. 
• Kabir envisioned Begumpura, an ideal village with no private property, taxation, or injustice. 
• His secularism was rooted in monotheism and syncretism, but he did not critique patriarchy despite advocating for gender equality. 
• Kabir’s praxis in private and public domains was fused, representing the avant-garde of subalternity. 
• A contemporary of Sikander Lodi, Kabir’s radical intellect made him a significant figure, akin to Basavanna from the 12th century. 
• Kabir’s works are compiled in texts like Adi Granth, Panchvani, Sarvangi, Bijak, and Granthavali, influencing social discourse, academic discussions, folk traditions, and radical praxis. 
• Scholars have compiled Kabir’s works in different regions, resulting in variations in language and content. 
• Critical review of Kabir’s works is ongoing due to compilation occurring 75 years after his death, requiring experts to discern authentic from spurious elements. 
• The methodology for understanding Kabir involves critical analysis of texts and folk traditions. 
• Despite numerous works on Kabir by various scholars, there is a lack of focused studies on his political ideas. 
• Notable scholars who have explored different aspects of Kabir include Kshiti Mohan Sen, Rabindranath Tagore, Hazari Prasad Dwivedi, Irfan Habib, and others. 
• Existing works primarily focus on literary, cultural, and historical aspects, leaving a gap in the exploration of Kabir’s political ideas. 

Political Ideas

• Kabir’s political ideas are contextualized in 15th-century Banaras, addressing prevalent issues like hegemonic culture, state structure, taxation, technology, caste, class, religion, and gender dominance. 
• The rising trade during this time facilitated social mobility but faced resistance from the elite, prompting Kabir, a weaver, to critique feudal reactions and discrimination. 
• Kabir’s universal categories and monotheistic praxis aimed to transcend social divides, focusing on class rather than caste in his writings. 
• Trade disrupted traditional structures, breaking old cultural moorings and influencing societal changes. 
• Kabir criticized the zamindari system, reflecting on the economic and political conditions of both Hindus and Muslims in the elite and subaltern classes. 
• Surplus extraction occurred through cultural hegemony and dominance, with the latter facing resistance, particularly against taxation/rent collection. 
• Kabir’s poetic manifestation expressed the social contradiction between classes, highlighting the struggles of the common people against exploitation. 
• The rise of trade created a monetized economy, impacting both urban and rural areas, leading to the spread of individual freedom and cultural changes. 
• Kabir’s critique extended to both economic and cultural exploitation, transcending religious and sectarian boundaries. 
• Kabir’s vision of Begampura was a utopian society without sorrow, private property, taxes, monarchy, or social hierarchy, emphasizing sovereignty, equality, and freedom for all. 
• Begampura was to be constructed through bhakti, reflecting collective participation and a break from prevailing socio-economic divisions. 
• Kabir’s monotheistic ideology set the stage for social change, with his followers (bhakts) becoming vanguards of Begampura. 
• Begampura reflected religious freedom, syncretism of ideas, and secularization of bhakti, challenging existing social and religious divisions. 
• Kabir’s critique extended to revenue and judicial administration, highlighting the oppression of the poor by the state and elite. 
• His utopia, Begampura, was an ideal polity without state, elite, corruption, or surplus extraction, emphasizing justice, equality, and freedom. 
• In the social domain, Kabir’s praxis involved rejecting idol worship and the concept of incarnation, emphasizing monotheism transcending religious divisions. 
• He also rejected traditional practices like the four stages of life (ashramas), six systems of philosophy, asceticism, fasting, and almsgiving. 
• Kabir viewed God as the only eternal emperor, equating the divine with an ancient sage, rejecting the idea of kings as divine incarnations and opposing social hierarchy. 
• His rejection of structural dominance was a form of cultural subversion, carried out in the ordinary aspects of everyday life rather than through open rebellion. 
• The protest was non-institutional, fluid, and unorganized, yet managed to transcend regional, linguistic, and caste boundaries through various communities like singers, musicians, listeners, vairagis, sadhus, and householders. 
• Kabir’s bani, or compositions, were considered “counter-hegemonic,” challenging the established social and political order, anti-authority, and subversive. 
• His alternative politics through composite narratives laid the ideological foundation for future acts of resistance against dominance. 

Critique

• Critics argue that Kabir was uncritical of patriarchy, and his discourse lacked gender equality. 
• Unlike Basava, who advocated gender equality in twelfth-century Karnataka, Kabir’s perspective glorified the ideal wife within patriarchal values. 
• Basava argued for equality between men and women based on the oneness of the soul (aatman) in both genders, while Kabir focused on protesting patriarchy’s failure to recognize women’s labor within the household. 
• The feudal-patriarchal society considered women’s labor in the private or public domain as inconsequential and lacking merit. Kabir’s glorification of the ideal wife challenged these values. 
• Recognizing the work of wives within the private domain was revolutionary in the 15th century, offering a counter-narrative to feudal-patriarchal norms. 

Conclusion

• Kabir is seen as an organic, subaltern intellect with a radical intent, embodying an alternative perspective. 
• His concept of Begumpura symbolized a rupture from the past, envisioning a land of freedom and abundance. 
• In Begumpura, sovereignty rested with the people, both in temporal and spiritual matters, rejecting the monarchy and the idea of the monarch as a divine incarnation. 
• Kabir consistently worked to subvert the authority of the elite and its cultural norms that perpetuated dominance. 
• Despite his subversive stance, Kabir’s inclusivity extended to the oppressed, making his cultural movement emancipatory. 
• Tagore referred to Kabir as Muktidoot (Messenger of Liberation) and hailed his poems as Chir adhunik (Ever Modern), recognizing Kabir’s representation of the modernity of his time. 
• Kabir’s modernity was indigenous (desaj) and deeply rooted in subalternity, reflecting alternative political ideas of his age.