Ingeniería de Proyectos Agroforestales y de Desarrollo Rural

May 14, 1932

You will remember my telling you of the Arthashastra, the book written by Chanakya or Kautilya, who was the chief Minister of Chandragupta Maurya, the grandfather of Ashoka. In this book we were told all manner of things about the people and methods of government of those days. It was almost as if a window were opened which enables us to have a peep at India in the fourth century before Christ. Such books giving intimate details of administration are far more helpful than exaggerated accounts of kings and their conquests.

We have another book which helps us a little to form an idea of India in the Middle Ages. This is the Nitisara of Shukracharya. This is not so good or helpful as the Arthaskastra, but with its help and that of some inscriptions and other accounts we shall try to open a window into the ninth or tenth century after Christ.

The Nitisara tells us that " neither through colour, nor through ancestors can the spirit worthy of a Brahman be generated ". Thus, according to it, caste division should not be by birth, but by capacity. Again, it says : "In making official appointments work, character, and merit were to be regarded—neither caste nor family ". The king was not to act upon his own opinions, but upon the opinion of the majority of the people. " Public opinion is more powerful than the king as the rope made of many fibres is strong enough to drag a lion."

These are all excellent maxims, good even to-day in theory. But as a matter of fact, they do not take us very far in practice. A man can rise by capacity and merit. But how is he to acquire the capacity and merit ? A boy or a girl may be quite smart and may become a clever and efficient person if suitable education and training are given. But if no arrangements are made for the education or training what is the poor boy or girl to do ?

In the same way, what is public opinion ? Whose opinion is to count as the opinion of the public

? Probably the writer of the Nitisara did not consider the large number of shudra workers as entitled to give any opinion. They hardly counted. Public opinion was perhaps just the opinion of the upper and ruling classes.

Still, it is interesting to notice that in Indian polity in the Middle Ages, as before, autocracy or the divine right of kings had no place.

Then we are told of the king's Council of State and of the high officers in charge of public works and parks and forests; of the organization of town and village life; of bridges, ferries, rest-houses, roads and—most important for a town or village—drains.

The village panchayat had full control over the affairs of the 131

village, and the panches were treated with great respect by the king's officers'. It was the panchayat that distributed lands and collected taxes and then paid the government tax on behalf of the village. There appears to have been a big panchayat or mahasabha, which supervised the

work of these panchayats and could interfere if there was need for it. These panchayats also had judicial powers and could act as judges and try people.

Some old inscriptions from South India tell us how the members of the panchayata were elected, their qualifications and disqualifications. If any member did not render accounts of public funds he was disqualified. Another very interesting rule seems to have been that near relatives of members were disqualified from office. How excellent if this could be enforced now in all our councils and assemblies and municipalities !

There is mention of a woman's name as a member of a committee. So it appears that women could serve on these panchayats and their committees.

Committees were formed out of the elected members of the panchayats, each committee lasting for a year. If a member misbehaved he could be removed at once.

This system of village self-government was the foundation of the Aryan polity. It was this that gave it strength. So jealous were the village assemblies of their liberties that it was laid down that no soldier was to enter a village except with a royal permit. The Nitisara says that when the subjects complain of an officer, the king " should take the side not of his officers but of his subjects "; and if a large number of people complain, the officer was to be dismissed, " for," says the Nitisara, " who does not get intoxicated by drinking of the vanity of office? " Wise words which seem to apply especially to the crowds of officials who misbehave and misgovern us in this country to-day !

In the larger towns, where there were many artisans and merchants, guilds were formed. Thus there were craft guilds, banking corporations and mercantile associations. There were, of course, religious organizations also. All these organizations had a great measure of control over their domestic affairs.

The king was enjoined to tax people lightly so as not to injure them or bear heavily on them. He was to levy taxes as a garland-maker gathers flowers and leaves from the trees in the forest, not like a charcoal-burner.

Such is the fragmentary information that we can pick up about the Middle Ages in India. It is a little difficult to find out how far practice fitted in with the theory laid down in the books. It is easy enough to write of fine theories and ideals in books, but it is more difficult to live up to them. The books, however, help us to realize what the ideology or the ideas of the people were at the time, even though they may not have practised them wholly. We find that the kings and rulers were far from being autocratic rulers. Their power was kept in check by elected panchayats. We find also that there was a fairly advanced system of self-government 132

in the villages and towns, and that there was little interference with this by the Central Government.

But when I talk of the ideology of the people, or self-government, what do I mean ? The whole social structure in India was based on the caste system. In theory, this may not have been rigid, and may have been open to merit or capacity, as the Nitisara says. But in reality this means very little. The ruling classes or castes were the Brahmans and Kshaltriyas. Sometimes there was conflict between them for mastery, more often they ruled jointly and accommodated each other.

The others they kept down. Gradually, as trade and commerce increased, the merchant-class became rich and important, and as it grew in importance, it was given certain privileges and freedom to arrange the domestic affairs of its guilds. But even then it had no real share in the power of the State. As for the poor Shudras, they remained the bottom dogs right through. And even below them were others still.

Occasionally men from the lower castes made good. Shudras were even known to become kings.

But this was a rare thing. A more frequent method of rising in the social scale was for a whole sub-caste to go up a step. New tribes were often absorbed into Hinduism at the bottom; slowly they worked themselves up.

You will see, therefore, that although there was no labour slavery in India as in the West, our whole social structure was one of gradations—one class over another. The millions at the bottom were exploited by and had to bear the weight of all those at the top. And the people at the top took care to perpetuate this system and to keep the power for themselves by not giving opportunities of education or training to these poor people at the bottom of the ladder. In the village panchayats perhaps the peasantry had some say and could not be ignored, but it is highly likely that a few clever Brahmans dominated these panchayats also.

The old Aryan polity seems to continue from the days when the Aryans came to India and came into touch with the Dravidians to the Middle Ages of which we are speaking. But there appears to be a progressive deterioration and weakening. Perhaps it was growing old; and perhaps the repeated incursions from outside gradually wore it down.

It might interest you to know that India was great in mathematics in the old days, and among the great names is that of a woman—Lilavati. It is said that it was Lilavati and her father,

Bhaskaracharya, and perhaps another man, Brahmagupta, who first evolved the decimal system.

Algebra is also said to be of Indian origin. From India it went to Arabia, and from there to Europe. The word Algebra is from the Arabic.

133

46 ANGKOR THE MAGNIFICENT AND