In the last article, we have looked at two narratives in the Shanti Parva that describe the theory of the origin of State. We concluded by saying that the narratives show some amount of difference in the theories they propose, and this difference arises from the distinctive nature of the contracts mentioned in both the narratives.

In this article, we will try to understand what factors lead to this differing nature, and how they pave way for expanding our understanding of political theorisation in ancient India in general, and the Shanti Parva in particular.

On reading both the narratives, we can clearly decipher that both the narratives propose the theory of origin of the State in the form of a contract agreed upon by two parties. These two parties are of course, the ‘ruler,’ and the ‘ruled.’ The difference in the nature of contracts essentially arise from two important factors. First, who are the people involved in entering an agreement with the ruler in both the narratives, and second, in what circumstances did the people enter into the agreement.

One thing needs to be noted at the onset that despite of the differences in the way that the narratives are put forth, the primary rationale behind creation of State in both the narratives is protection of Dharma, and all other reasons arising out of the particular circumstances may be treated as ancillary reasons for creation of State. The circumstances mentioned in the pre-political phase of Human society in both the chapters, however, do not show sharp differences. But the ancillary rationale behind the creation of the State in both the narratives are different.

We will try to look at the difference in the nature of contract with the help of two important factors; first, the distinct contexts in which the theories emerged and second, the distinct grounds on which the citizens show obedience to the King.

Direct contexts of contracts are different:

After looking at both the chapters, we can clearly say that the narratives about the origin of state in both the chapters emerge in different contexts. The 59^th Chapter first gives a detailed description of the formation of dandniti, its importance, and how the king is expected to abide by dharma. The ground of contract then, for Prithu, during his anointment is showing abidance to dandniti and dharma. Another important factor which is at play in this chapter is the mention of the unrighteous King Vena who had been ousted on the grounds that he did not show abidance to dandniti, and thus even his divinity could not provide immunity to his Kingship. Prithu became the King when there was divine intervention (due to failure of the divine institution of Kingship) and when he agreed upon abiding by dandniti. A lot of moral connotations are seen to be attached to the institution of King. Also, the 59^th Chapter mentions only the sages and Gods as members of the Earth who entered into the contract. There is no mention of other subjects.

The 67^th Chapter has the context of Matsyanyaya while explaining the narrative about the origin of the State. The human relations in a society that lead to a State of Anarchy compelled the people to enter into a state of society that has the King and other political institutions. However, the people did not directly enter into the State. They first made a contract amongst themselves that they will abide by dharma, and act righteously. When they failed to do so, they requested Manu to rule them. Therefore, the first agreement amongst human beings also plays an important role while analysing the agreement that led to creation of the State. The agreement amongst people shows their readiness to abide by dharma, and more importantly, when they realised that they cannot do so all by themselves, they need a King. This realisation of need gave rise to political consciousness among the people of the society. And in this context the State emerged as a result of a contract that clearly exhibits a give and take nature, wherein the ruler promises to give protection, and the citizens promise to give a part of their livelihood to the ruler.

Thus, we can see that the differing contexts in which the State emerged lead to differing nature of the contracts, which lead to the distinct nature of both the theories.

Grounds of people’s obedience to the King:

The contracts in both the chapters stress on one fact that the King is not only accepted by the citizens, but also is shown obedience by them. Therefore, the power of the King is legitimised. However, the grounds of this obedience in both the chapters are different.

In the 59^th Chapter, because of the emphasis on the dandniti and the moral connotations attached to Kingship, the obedience of people towards the King arises not from the contract, but from the qualities that the King possesses. The citizens offer him the ‘divine worship’ because of the divinity attached to his institution. However, people obey him not only because of his divinity. People obey the King because of his knowledge of Vedas and dandniti, weapons and war. He is considered to be an extremely chastise and righteous individual. Therefore, these qualities of the King procure obedience from citizens.

In the 67^th Chapter, however, the contract becomes the basis of the people’s obedience towards the King. The King’s “charisma” seems to have no role in this narrative. The obedience of the citizens is described in tangible terms- the offering of a proportion of their livelihood to the King in exchange of protection. Therefore, even though the people readily obey the King, the rationale behind showing obedience in both the chapters are completely different.

Thus, we can now say that the nature of contracts in both the chapters are different on very important grounds.

The reason that we have considered only these two factors for evaluating the distinct nature of such vast theories is that they potentially provide us an understanding of a lot of other concepts. For example, the distinct contexts in which the theories of origin of State emerged potentially also explain the Shanti Parva’s understanding of pre-political phase of society and Human Nature. It also explains how the power relations in a pre-political society functioned and what were the means through which power was exercised. An understanding of the contexts also helps us to better understand the way in which people gained political consciousness, as also the raison detat of the State. Similarly, an understanding of the grounds of obedience to the King potentially explains the sources of the King’s authority, and what role does the contract play in the society and the State. It also explains the State-Individual relationship to some degree. We thus arrive at various political ideas by examining the nature of contracts on the basis of two factors- contexts of emergence of State, and rationale behind showing obedience to the King.

To sum up, we have seen how the distinct nature of contracts shape the distinctiveness of both the theories. We have also seen with the help of the two factors that how the differences in the way in which the theories are put forth pave way to understand a lot of different political ideas. In the next article, we shall try to understand certain important political ideas we have arrived at, in the light of the theories of origin of the State. 

References

Vyasa, V. (n.d.). Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyas Translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit text (Vols. VIII, S

Rao, K. S. S. (2007). VEDIC IDEALS AND INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 68(1), 105–114. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41858823

Garg, S. (2004). POLITICAL IDEAS OF SHANTI PARVA. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 65(1), 77–86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855798