In the previous articles, we have looked at the two different narratives about the origin of the State in the Shanti Parva, and how the narratives differ because of the differing nature of their contracts. We also concluded that these differences have paved way for exploring the various important political ideas associated with the theories of origin of State, however by maintaining the primacy of Dharma. In this concluding article of our series, we shall try to understand certain important political ideas that are associated with the origin of State.

The State could be regarded as one of the most important topics around which most of the political theorisation even in the West revolves. Therefore, the political ideas such as Power Dynamics, raison detat of the State, the relationship between State and Individual, Human Nature, Political Obligation etc., can be more efficiently studied in the light of the theories of origin of State. For example, in Western Political Thought, when John Locke put forth his ideas of Natural Rights, he explained it in the light of the Social Contract Theory that was the philosophical basis of the establishment of State. ‘Rights’ today are a universally accepted important political value, and the pioneer of Liberalism had interestingly given his ideas on Natural Rights when he was giving his theory of Social Contract. Therefore, one can say that the above-mentioned political ideas/values can be effectively studied in the light of the theories of Origin of State.

We have already looked at these theories, and also tried to understand how they gave way to study various political concepts of the Shanti Parva. An enquiry into the nature of contracts has given us an idea of certain important political concepts, and our method of enquiry has allowed us to study these ideas in a broader spectrum. Therefore, while studying the basis of political obligation, we can study the sources of authority, and while studying the circumstances in which the State emerged, we can study about Human Nature and Political consciousness, so on and so forth. We have looked at some of these ideas in the previous article, and we shall try to understand these ideas more clearly in this article.

Human Nature:  

In this section we shall try to analyse the Human Nature in Shanti Parva in the pre-political phase. The description of Human Nature in the pre-political phase in both the chapters do not show any sharp differences. The description of the conduct of human beings as unrighteous, covetous, greedy and lustful in the pre-political society is the same in both the chapters. However, this description is more extensively mentioned in the 67^th Chapter even though it appears in 59^th chapter first. This may be attributed to the context and description of Matsyanyaya in this chapter. The deceitful and covetous nature of humans is cited by Manu as a reason for not ruling them. The 67^th Chapter also provides a sociological perspective of Human Nature, when the individuals decided to make an agreement amongst themselves to come out of the Matsyanyaya. However, they were not able to do so all on their own. This facet of Human Nature becomes a rationale for the people to enter into an agreement for the creation of State.

Even though the Human Nature described here may show certain resemblance to Hobbesian Human Nature, we cannot compare the two. The Hobbesian human nature which was ‘a war of each against all’ required a Leviathan to rule the people after signing a contract. However, the humans in the Shanti Parva didn’t require a Leviathan, because the individuals were willing to abide by dharma, and when they could not do so on their own, they entered into the State.

Power Dynamics:

Power dynamics form the bases of any political set-up. The magnitude of power that the power holder enjoys, how and on whom the power is exercised, where does the power holder derive his power from etc., form the core of the analysis of any political set-up. The Shanti Parva provides an interesting account of power dynamics of ancient India.

The power relations in the pre-political phase are such that they lead to a state of anarchy. However, what is more important for us is the means through which this power was exercised. A primary enquiry into the pre-political phase may reveal to us that the human relations started deteriorating when the institutions of private property and family started taking shape in the society[1]. Thus, when men started getting sense of ‘thine and mine,’ they started acquiring, and those who had more possessions exerted power on others by snatching from others.

When the State came into existence these power relations got amended. The power that the king gained was ‘political power,’ in the sense that it was accepted by all. Since it was authorised by the subjects, it may also be termed as ‘authority.’ The powers of the King are defined in the terms of his duties as a King and not merely his privileges or rights of ruling. If he fails to perform his duties rightfully, he might be ousted.

The king’s authority therefore, does not merely derive from his divinity. It derives from various sources. Mainly from the divinity and the contract[2], and other sources like the dandniti, the knowledge and wisdom he possesses and more importantly his subjects. The 59^th Chapter makes it clear that the factors such as Gods and sages keep a check on the King’s authority; and non-performance of duties results in ousting. In the 67^th Chapter, the King’s authority is legitimised by the contract. Therefore, the power that the King holds is not absolute because it does not derive from a single source, and is subject to various checks.

The reading of power dynamics and human nature also provide us some understanding of the raison detat of the State. The main reason that the state was formed was to protect dharma. Both the chapters, despite of the varying nature of their contracts stress on the importance of dharma. Therefore, the end of political theorisation in India can be said to be upholding of dharma.

The description how the people gained political consciousness and the contract tell us about the State-Individual relationship. This relationship based on the contract is more clearly visible in the 67^th Chapter than in the 59^th Chapter.

How is the political theorisation in India different from that of the West?

When we look at both the theories of origin of State, it is quite natural for us to read them in comparison to the theories of the West. The closest theories of origin of State comparable to these theories are the Social Contract Theories. These theories might show a lot of resemblance, as we have seen, to the Hobbesian Human Nature, or the contract itself. The dual contract that is described in the 67^th Chapter may show resemblance to John Locke’s social contract and governmental contract. However, the Shanti Parva does not mention the formation of civil society, even though it provides a sociological outlook while describing the first agreement. The individuals are not seen to be giving away any of their rights to the State, nor are they demanding any rights from the State as citizens. The rationale behind the creation of the State is protection of dharma, and protection of dharma is equated with welfare of all. We can, however, see that in both the cultures, society precedes the State, and that State is not a natural institution. But the way the theories are proposed exhibit fundamental differences. This fundamental difference, as we have seen, arises from the purpose of theorisation in both the cultures.

Another important inference that we can draw after reading both the theories is that the Indian monarch does not hold any ‘Divine Right’ that is absolute in nature to rule the citizens. In fact, his powers are translated into a set of duties. If he fails to perform his duties, he could be ousted. Therefore, he is not the ultimate power holder. The citizens are also not interested in demanding for any individual rights, but are interested in securing the collective interests of all through protection of Dharma.

This article series has tried to analyse the important facets of Indian political thought and what are the driving forces that shape political theorisation in India. These facets of importance of dharma, and a chastise authority to ensure social harmony are not just abstract political concepts, but are the values which the Indian society is built upon, and how the Indian society has been socialised in millenniums together. Therefore, it is necessary to change our perspective while we look at Indian socio-political issues even today, and try to inculcate these Indian values too while contemplating on these issues.  

References

Altekar, A. (1949). State and Government in Ancient India: From earliest times to c.1200 A.D. Varanasi: Nawa Bharat Press.

Chousalkar, A. (2018). Revisiting the Political Thought of Ancient India Pre Kautilyan Arthashastra Tradition. Mumbai: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.

Jha, S. (n.d.). Western Political Thought: From the Ancient Greeks to the Modern Times . Noida: Pearson.

Mukhi, D. H. (n.d.). Political Sociology. New Delhi: SBD Publishers’ Distribution.

[1] ‘Role of Property, Family and Caste in the Origin of the State in Ancient India’, by Ram Sharan Sharma.

[2] ‘Political Ideas of Shanti Parva, by Sushma Garg.