Mother's Chronicles - Book Six

13

Statecraft

Earth's little Wedge became the great Mother of a mighty civilization.

Worldwide there grew pockets of human development. The nomadic, hunting Palaeolithic people, using rude stone implements, gave way to the Neolithic people with greater skill, who used polished, improved implements.' An astonishingly long stride took place between the former and the latter. Neolithic tribes learned the art of agriculture, to domesticate animals, to make, paint and decorate potteries, to construct boats and go out to sea. In India, Neolithic people could spin cotton and wool, and weave cloth. Like their counterparts in other regions of the world, with whom they had similarities of social customs, they buried their dead, sometimes putting the body in a large urn. Remains of these cave dwellers are found in almost every part of India.

Apart from the basic needs of drinking and bathing, water

¹ This is based on R. C. Majumdar's Advanced Study of India. He further says that "an ancient factory for the manufacture of stone implements has been discovered in the Bellary district, Madras, where we can still trace the various stages of their construction."

Page 95

is needed for agriculture too, in fact much more. Indeed, there is an intimate connection of rivers with the well-being of a country. That is why the prehistoric (historic too!) peoples chose to settle near rivers. Once settled they began to develop rapidly. Facility of navigation and transport played an important part in the growth of trade and industry of a riverside town. Civilizations were born. The Nile, Euphrates and Tigris, have all played their role in nurturing various great human civilizations. After the last Ice Age,¹ floods of meltwater rushed down the mountainsides. Great rivers flowed across continents. One of the greatest rivers was the Saraswati. Born on the high Himalayas, she traversed long and wide plains—at places she flowed ten kilometres wide—to fling herself on the breast of Pashchima Payodhi.² On the banks of the great Saraswati grew up one of the most ancient and enduring civilizations. The Vedic Rishis hymned her in exalted terms. For, in this country, people worship rivers as gods and goddesses.

Civilizations are normally linked to empires. Like human life, civilizations grew, declined and passed away with the rise and fall of empires. They left some imprint in humanity's consciousness, to be sure, which often remained as legends: such

¹The last Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago. That time is generally considered as the end of the Pleistocene Epoch and the beginning of the Recent Epoch of the Quaternary Period of Earth history. At the height of the Pleistocene glacial ages, more than 30% of the land area of the world was covered by glacial ice, whereas at present only 10% is so covered. The flora and fauna of the Pleistocene began to resemble those of today. Among the significant mammals that evolved during the Pleistocene were humans.

²Now called the Arabian Sea.

Page 96

as the lost civilization of Atlantis. But they were no longer living.

The civilization that developed along the banks of the Saraswati had something different in it. The Vedic Rishis heard and saw and explored the mystery of creation. It was the sublime gift of the Saraswati. The Rishis were great travellers. The hymns sung on the banks of the Saraswati spread to the banks of Ganga and Narmada, of Godavari and Krishna, of Kaveri and Tamra-parni.... From the Himalayan peaks to Dakshina Jalanidhi (Indian Ocean), from Purva Sagar (Bay of Bengal) to Pashchima Payodhi (the Arabian Sea), India's air filled with a strange aroma. Swami Vivekananda of our own times put it so well. "India," he said, "shall rise only through a renewal and restoration of that highest spiritual consciousness which has made of India, at all times, the cradle of the nations and the cradle of the faith."

Although rooted in a spiritual civilization, India did not divorce spirituality and materialism. From very early times she evolved a happy blend of material resources with spiritual values. In the Veda, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, one finds a well-formulated system of governance. From olden times several systems of rule were known: monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy were all in vogue. Of these, hereditary monarchy was the more prevalent. It was understood, however, that the first and foremost duty of a ruler was to protect his people, destroy their enemies, and defend their territory—therefore his. Ideally, a ruler is the upholder of the law, dispenser of justice, bringer of prosperity to his people. Valmiki, in the epic Ramayana, includes universal education among the signs of a just society. The Rig-Veda emphasizes the need of people's approval if the rule were to be stable. In short, India developed a citizen-oriented

Page 97

governance. So much so that the arrogant Kuru prince Duryo-dhana never neglected the welfare of his subjects during his reign.

Naturally, all those systems of governance had taken thousands of years to take shape. At first when people settled down they began to form a social system. The first development was a tribal system or of clan. All freemen were considered equal, and treated as such. As the same clan began to inhabit a certain territory, they laid claim to it. "After the fixed settlement," explains Sri Aurobindo, "within determined boundaries the system of the clan or tribe continued, but found a basic unit or constituent atom in the settled village community."¹ Communities met for communal deliberations, for worship, for sacrifice, or for war. The leader of a clan or community soon became a king. "The religious institution of the sacrifice developed in time a class of priests and inspired singers, men trained in the ritual or in possession of the mystic knowledge which lay behind the symbols of the sacrifice." Thus was sown the seed of the Brahminic institution. Neither the kingship nor the priesthood was hereditary to begin with. In fact, there was an interclass mobility. But given human tendencies, it was easier for a carpenter's son to learn good carpentry. Therefore the hereditary principle emerged at an early stage of social development. But, mind you, the status of a man was not fixed by his birth, but by his capacities and his inner nature. With the passing of time came hierarchy, or a system of social classes. The classes were

' All quotes in this chapter are from The Foundations of Indian Culture, 'Indian Polity.'

Page 98

divided into caturvarna, miscalled the system of four castes. "The division of castes in India was conceived as a distribution of duties." Which means that the caste divisions were not at all an obstacle to the united life of the people. Up to a certain point the Indian line followed the ordinary line of evolution as in other world communities.

Nevertheless owing to the unique mentality of the Indian race, certain striking peculiarities fixed themselves, and gave a different stamp to the political, economic and social factors of Indian civilization. Because, as Sri Aurobindo says, "It was a marked feature of the Indian mind that it sought to attach a spiritual meaning and a religious sanction to all, even to the

most external social and political circumstances of its life____"

It imposed on all classes and functions an ideal of duties, "a rule of their action and an ideal way and temperament, character, spirit in the action, a dharma with a spiritual significance." It was the work of the Rishi—the man of a higher spiritual experience and knowledge, born in any of the classes—"to put this stamp enduringly on the national mind, to prolong and perpetuate it, to discover and interpret the ideal law and its practical meaning, to cast the life of the people into the well-shaped ideals and significant forms of a civilisation founded on the spiritual and religious sense."

As priests, legists, and spiritual preceptors, the Brahmins exercised considerable influence, but the active political power "remained with the king, the Kshatriya aristocracy and the commons. But, above them all, above the king himself, was the Dharma." It was the Rishi, exercising an authority by his spiritual personality over the rest, revered and consulted by the king,

Page 99

of whom he was sometimes the religious preceptor, who was "in the then fluid state of social evolution able alone to exercise an important role in evolving new basic ideas and effecting direct and immediate changes of the socio-religious ideas and customs of the people." It was neither the king nor even the Brahmins who had the authority to make at will any changes. The Brahmins were recorders and exponents of Dharma. The king in India "exercised supreme administrative and judicial power, was in possession of all the military forces of the kingdom and with his Council alone responsible for peace and war...." Indian monarchy, previous to the Muslim invasion, was not an autarchy.

"A greater sovereign than the king" Sri Aurobindo tells us, "was the Dharma, the religious, ethical, social, political, juridic and customary law organically governing the life of the people." And, let us note, with the Dharma no secular authority had any right of autocratic interference. "The king was only the guardian, executor and servant of the Dharma...." He was not the religious head of the people. There was no exclusive State religion. The religious liberties of the people were assured "and could not normally be infringed by any secular authority." Normally, there was no place in the Indian political system for religious oppression and intolerance.

The Indian social and political system was based on the conception of duty, not on rights and powers. As a rule the king could not disregard the will of the people. Exceptions there were, of course. "In spite of the sanctity and prestige attaching to the sovereign," to quote Sri Aurobindo, "it was laid down that obedience ceased to be binding if the king ceased to be

Page 100

faithful executor of Dharma." Incompetence and violation of the obligation to rule to the satisfaction of the people were causes enough for the king's removal. The much maligned Manu goes so far as to advise that "an unjust and oppressive king should be killed by his own subjects like a mad dog." That fate overtook Manu's own descendant Vena, who turned out to be such a wicked king that a cry arose, "Kill this wicked man." Vena was killed. Sri Aurobindo deduces that "this justification by the highest authority of the right or even the duty of insurrection and regicide in extreme cases is sufficient to show that absolutism or the unconditional divine right of kings was no part of the intention of the Indian political system."

It is regrettable that we know so little of the political organization of those times. But there is clear evidence that the summit of the political structure was occupied by three governing bodies. The topmost was the King in his ministerial council. The Council included a fixed number of all the four castes. Vaishyas outnumbered the others, because in those early times, they comprised not only of merchants and small traders, but also the craftsmen and artisans and the agriculturists. Thus the whole community was represented in the King's Council. Metropolitan assembly was the second governing body: it was constituted of representatives of the city guilds and the various caste bodies belonging to all the orders of society. The third one was the general assembly. These three bodies acted as a check on the royal power. The two assemblies sat either separately or together, as needed. Separately, for the exercise each of its separate powers. Together, for matters concerning the whole people. Between them they represented the mind and will of the whole country.

Page 101

The joint session of the Metropolitan and general assemblies was consulted on all questions of vital interest to the country, including on matters of succession. Because, together these assemblies could depose the sovereign, or alter the succession at this death. Dasaratha was a mighty king of the Solar dynasty. Counting from its founder, Vaivasvata Manu (the seventh and the present Manu), Dasaratha was the forty-second descendant in the line. Hereditary monarchy was therefore well established. Dasaratha could have proclaimed his eldest son Rama the Crown Prince. But the king was not an autocrat as we said. So, instead, he called together a joint session of various assemblies of the realm. "Delegates of the different provinces and various orders, religious, military and popular" came to his summons. When Dasaratha expressed his wish to anoint Rama as the Crown Prince, all of them gave their enthusiastic assent.

We see therefore that the "whole Indian system was founded upon a close participation of all the orders in the common life." Not even the Shudra was excluded from "his share in the civic life and an effective place and voice in politics, administration, justice." Consequently, we perceive that from early times the principle of democracy was in vogue. Not that the mass held the reins of government, but people had the certainty that their approval or disapproval of any action of the government would be effective; a sort of socialist democracy. In this way, a well-ordered civic life for the Indian people was assured. People were all for a good administration, as it allowed them to go about their daily lives unhindered, and lead a life of productivity and ease. In that commerce and industry had a big part to play. Because, as explains Sri Aurobindo, "In human life

Page 102

economic interests are those which are, ordinarily, violated with the least impunity; for they are bound up with the life itself and the persistent violation of them, if it does not destroy the oppressed organism, provokes necessarily the bitterest revolt and ends in one of Nature's inexorable retaliations."¹ The rulers were fairly well versed in the law of economics—production, wages, exchange, profit, rent, market, and so on. A set of guidelines existed for planning and budgeting, for the imposition and collection of taxes. Taxation was limited to a fixed percentage. But when State power declined, central control became weak, then local oppression became more and more unrestrained, and "instances are known of people from villages in an entire district meeting together and deciding upon common action to resist arbitrary and unusual imposts," declares Nilakanta Sastri.-

Villagers, whose principal occupation was agriculture were not neglected. Irrigation canals were dug to water cultivated fields, manure was used to fertilize the crops. Villagers themselves decided upon matters of common concern to them such as the regulation of land and irrigation rights in the village. Due importance was given to the rearing of cattle and other domestic animals. Roads were laid, and maintained, for travel and transport. Chariots drawn by horses, and wagons by bullocks, were the main means of transport by land. Boats³ plying on the rivers were another means of transport of men and material. Marine navigation served the external trade. Old inscriptions

¹ The Ideal of Human Unity, Sri Aurobindo.

2 A History of South India (1997).

' Different types of boats were used for shorter or longer voyages.

Page 103

record the execution of works of public utility including the construction of and repairs to sources of water such as lakes, tanks, channels and wells. Trees were planted along the roads to give shade to the midday travellers. Rest houses were provided for them. Wells were dug by the roadside for the use of men and animals. The State employed caretakers for this purpose.

That our ancients were well versed in civic administration of towns and villages, becomes clear from a simple perusal of the Mahabharata. Vyasa, its author, through the mouths of Bhishma and Vidura, explained in detail the intricacies of Statecraft.

Our later kings were no less experts in administration. For example, at the time of the Vijayanagar empire "the police system," says Nilakanta Sastri, "was fairly efficient, the rule being that when a theft occurred the property was recovered or made good by the police officers." Police regularly patrolled town streets at night. Justice was administered by a hierarchy of courts.

So we see that even when the Mughal grabbed a large chunk of the country and influenced its politics, a dharmic core of statecraft remained ingrained in a Hindu king who tried to secure the order and welfare of society.

More importantly, the old Indian social ideal did not accept the idea that poverty is noble. On the contrary, people were encouraged to be industrious, gain riches, and live a pleasant life. "Ancient India with its ideal of vast riches and vast spending was the greatest of nations." So wrote Sri Aurobindo. "Modern India with its trend towards national asceticism has fully become poor in life and sunk into weakness and degradation."¹

Thoughts and Aphorisms.

Page 104

Decline and degradation. Yes. Given human nature and its tendency towards the downward pull, a fall from the high ideal of the Dharma was inevitable. The nobler ethical ideals gave way to a habit of Machiavellian statecraft, leading to a coarsening of the national mind in the ethics of politics. A total lack of political principle gave full force to the unbridled egoism of princes and leaders, worse compounded by the indifference of the common people to a change of rulers that "gave the whole of the vast peninsula into the grasp of a handful of merchants from across the seas." The over two hundred years' rule of those 'merchants from across the seas' hastened the degeneration of Indian society.

In conclusion, we may say that with such lofty ideal did our ancestors give shape to Indian polity. A polity for the welfare of all its citizens. A polity for the common weal. It was a natural order of the life of the people. But the life of a people, Sri Aurobindo reminds us, is like the life of an individual. It has a communal soul, mind and body. And like a human being's life, the life of the society passes through a cycle of birth, growth, youth, ripeness and decline. "If we let it go unchecked, the course towards decadence will make it perish, as a man dies of old age."

"But," said Sri Aurobindo, "the collective being has too the capacity of renewing itself, of a recovery and a new cycle."

What is India going to do? Renew herself and begin a new cycle? Rise from her ashes like the Phoenix?

Page 105