The theory of divine origin is found in the Manusmriti,20 Shantiparvan of Mahabharata and in Kautilaya’s Arthásastra. These ancient texts have talked about political and moral obligations of the subjects by implying the divine origin of rulers. L. N. Rangarajan, in his translation of Kautilaya’s Arthdsastra, states that while Dharmashastras are addressed to the individual, teaching him his dharma and regard deviations as sin, ‘the Arthashastras are addressed to the rulers and regard transgression of law as crimes to be punished by the state.’21 Vaivasvata Manu (as he was known, son of Vivasvat) and Kautilaya or Chanakya advocated divine origin of kings and sanctified the rule of emperors and princes. Manusmriti mentions that a king is an incarnation of the eight guardian deities of the world—the Moon (Chandrama), the Fire (Agni), the Sun (Surya), the Wind (Vayu), the Lord Dispenser of Favour (Indra), the Lord of Wealth (Kubera), the Lord of Water (Varuna) and the Lord Dispenser of Punishment (Yama).
In his Arthádsastra, Kautilaya too presents the king as occupying the position of both Indra, the god who is dispenser of favour and Yama, the god who is dispenser of punishment. A combination of these two qualities in the king makes him possess divine rights. Kautilaya’s king emerged because of prevalent disorders in society. He mentions that Manu was made the king to bring order and welfare to society. In fact, by invoking such a theory of origin, Kautilaya justifies the obligation of the people not only to pay obedience as religio-moral duty but also assign ‘to the king one-sixth part of the grains grown by them, one-tenth of other commodities and money’.22 This enjoins upon the subjects not only to pay political acquiescence to the king and the State, but also part with a portion of their products as share of the king and the State. Kautilaya’s Arthdsastra elaborately discusses the scheme of taxation and share of produce that the subjects are required to part to the king.
Political obligation in such a scheme appears in two ways: one, subjects have religio-moral duty to obey the king as a divinely ordained power, and two, they should pay taxes and share in their produce to the king. Modern citizens are no different; they oblige by paying homage to the nation’s flag and the national sovereignty on the one hand, and variety of taxes on the other. Kautilaya’s rulers were obligated to render a threefold duty to the people; protection from external aggression (Raksha), administration and internal order (Palana) and welfare of the people (Yogákshema).23 In Kautilaya’s scheme, we have political obligation of the subjects and reciprocal duty of the king. Kautilaya devotes a separate chapter in his Arthdsastra on revolts, rebellion, conspiracies, treason and disaffection amongst the subjects and provides elaborate methods for dealing with them. He also discusses the types of revolts, their instigators, abettors and seriousness and methods of tackling them. We will discuss these in the section on revolts and revolutions.
Issue of political obligation in medieval India was partly to be viewed with reference to feudal relations and partly with reference to the relationship between the majority Hindu subjects and their rulers—Hindu, Muslims and others. Due to the feudal nature, political obligation was not towards any central authority but in a hierarchically defined chain of obligations and services. In different parts of India, pattern was not uniform and affiliation was largely to local feudatories or rulers. During the rule of certain Muslim emperors, non-Muslim subjects were required to pay poll tax (Jaziya), though this was neither permanent not a favoured practice.
It may be mentioned that early Islam did allow followers of other religions, particularly the Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to stay in Medina and other parts covered with Islamic religion though they had to pay poll tax. Karen Armstrong notes that it was common among the Arab Tribes to extend protection to weaker clients (mawali). After the onset of Islam, the followers of other religions became protected subjects (dhimmis) and paid poll tax in return for military protection and were permitted to practise their own religion.24 During the period of Muslim rule in medieval India, poll tax on followers of religions other than the religion of the ruler might have the same root and the same logic. Political obligation of non-Muslims in a Muslim ruled state was mediated by the poll tax. This was in lieu of military protection and permission to practice own religion. As mentioned above, only a few rulers applied this and Akbar disallowed it during his time.
During the medieval period, because of an absence of a secular concept of citizenship, political obligation was either feudal or religious. Political obligation of the Indian people during the early British rule was based either on feudal and colonial relations. It was only after the political consciousness of nationalism started bringing people together that the problem of political obligation in a colonial context was debated and questioned.
Leave a Reply