CHAPTER 9
Title should be changed to –
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Buddhist
Theory of the origin of State
DĪGHA NIKĀYA (AGGAÑÑASUTTA):
THEORY OF KINGSHIP AND AṄGUTTARA NIKĀYA
Ish N. Mishra
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
|
CHAPTER OUTLINE |
Ø Introduction
Ø Backdrop
of the Study
Ø Origin
of the State
Ø Qualities,
Functions and Duties of the Sovereign
Ø Conclusion
Ø Summary
Ø Points
for Discussion
|
READER’S GUIDE |
Buddhist theory of the origin of state,
as contained in Digha Nikaya, one of
the collections of Buddha’s teachings) is a great ancient Indian contribution
to the history of political theory. Purpose of this chapter is to explain the
need of the state for the maintenance of the social order, arising due to
emergence of evils in the society. The origin of state is explained by a social
contract under which people gather together and through an agreement choose the
best person among them to take upon the responsibility of punishing the wrong
doer and commit to pay him taxes in the form of a portion of their produce.
‘I teach because you and all beings want to have happiness
and want to avoid suffering. I teach the way things are.’
— Buddha (The
Life of the Buddha)1
‘I can die happily. I have not kept a single teaching hidden
in a closed hand. Everything that is useful for you, I have already given. Be
your own guiding light.’
— Buddha
I
INTRODUCTION
Gautama
Buddha epitomises the motif: “To rebel
is to create” (Source?).
He rebelled against existing Brāhmanical
order and the sacrificial religious rituals to create a new order based on the
rationally derived principles of righteous life — the Dhamma. (DIACRITIC) His alternative, he provides, is quite radical
— the egalitarian collectives, modeled on the Saṅghas (DIACRITIC) (monasteries) founded by him. The
practice of the Dhamma would lead to
creation of society free from miseries and sufferings, the state of Mokṣa (DIACRITIC).
If transported from spiritual to material world, it would get paralleled by
the state of human emancipation,
the state of the classless society in the Marxist parlance. Buddha (BC 6th-5th
century), remains the greatest revolutionary thinker, teacher and activist in the
history, like Marx in the 19th century, in terms of the vision of an
active campaign for the egalitarian, collective society free from human
miseries. Buddha was a philosopher, who not only sought to interpret the world
but also to change it. His teachings
shall remain valuable till there are miseries and sufferings on the earth.
There is no scope or need to digress into the comparison of Buddha with Marx,
who too like him, envisaged a world free from miseries — a state of human
emancipation free from exploitation of human beings by other human beings. The
purpose of reference to Marx is to allude to the similarities in terms of
rational comprehension of society; the vision, worldview, conviction and
commitment towards a just society in their respective contexts, across the time
and space. The alternative is not only for the ethical and social realms but
the principles of Dhamma, (DIACRITIC) as envisioned by Buddha, are equally
desirable in the political realm also. The head of the political community, the
state, in the Buddhist teachings, is not a divine or dynastic ruler but a rule
of the Mahāsammata — the great elect. The history of ancient Indian thought in
terms of the theory of state can be traced to the Buddhist texts, Dīgha Nikāya and Aṅuguttara Nikāya, two of the five Buddhist Nikyās (collections). Though
these collections contain Buddha’s teachings of the Dhamma, the principles of the righteous life, to the monks, some
sections also contain the theory of the state. Thus, Buddhist theory of the
origin of the state is the first theory of state in India, though ‘the first
faint traces’ of social contract theory of the origin of state can be found in
two ‘Brahmanas which refer to the origin of kingship through election
among Gods (Sura) (DIACRITIC) on
account of compelling necessity of carrying on successful war against the
demons (Asuras) (DIACRITIC)’ (Sharma 1991: 63). Buddha was
the first Indian thinker to propound a theory of origin of state by social
contract not in the divine but in the real world, as it existed. This chapter
shall look into the theory of the origin and the development of the state as
mentioned in the Aggaññasutta of Dīgha Nikāya that
traces the source of the validity of its authority to the popular consent of
the people — the social contract (Ibid 65).
The history of state is, roughly, as old
as the history of civilisation itself that evolved with the rise and
development of private property and the consequent class division of societies
into the classes of the haves and the have-nots. Hence, the state, as an institution
of governance is not natural nor universal but historic. It is developed as an
instrument of the new status-quo, i.e. as an instrument of domination over the
classes of have-nots in the hands of the classes of haves. Rousseau calls it ‘the
second fraud played upon people’ that transformed the ‘theft into legal rights’.
Humans began to distinguish themselves from the animal-kingdom by producing and
reproducing their means of livelihood by exercising labour upon the nature,
with hands as the tool to begin with. Henceforth, the human history has been
the history of evolutionary and revolutionary development in the production of
livelihood and the development of the tools of production. Human are also
called as tool making animals. Humans
could develop the techniques and tools of labouring by the development of human
species — specific attribute, the ability to think, the mental development.
Ever since, labour has been the continuing link of livelihood through all the
historical epochs.
In Vedic
and post-Vedic literature, we do not
find any theorisation about the state, as a law-making and enforcing authority
over a fixed domain. They lived in tribal and clan organisations, authorities
of which operated on the basis of customs and kinship traditions and bonds,
with no fixed geographical territory. As R. S. Sharma informs us the first implicit,
divine reference to the process of state formation is found in the Aitareya Brahmana (DIACRITIC) (Sharma 1991: 64-65).
There was no theory of state, as there
was no state. Historically ideas emanate
from the object. State had not yet acquired firm footing; it was still in the
process of formation. From the clan and kinship organisations in ancient India,
emerged advanced political entities in the form of 16 Mahājanpadas
and the Saṅghas,
known as the post-Vedic republics.
The first reference of the contract theory of state, found in Aitareya Brahmana
(DIACRITIC) is mythological. The Suras
(Gods) approached, Indra, the
most efficient war leader among them, for the imminent wars between Sura (DIACRITIC) (Gods)
and Asura (DIACRITIC) (demons) — a euphemism for Aryan and non-Aryan conflict. By the time of Buddha, the state as a centralised
authority of making and enforcing decision in a particular domain had acquired
firm footings. The first secular theory of state is found in the Buddhist
teachings to his disciples. Though the teachings are meant for the monks of the
Saṅghas
(DIACRITIC) about the Dhamma (DIACRITIC) — the principles
of the righteous ways of life, also contain the theory of the origin of the
state. It is a social contract theory, anticipating the modern social contract
theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
II
BACKDROP
OF THE STUDY
Some people become
legends in their own life time. Gautama Buddha is one of such ancient legendry
figures. Most of the 20th century
historians concur that Buddha lived, taught, and
founded the monastic orders during the 6th-5th century BC,
during the successive reigns of Bimbisara and his son, Ajatasatru
over Magadha. The
most agreed time span of Buddha’s life among the 20th century
historians is BC 563-483. Plenty of legends and recorded
documents about his life and teachings have transferred to us through
generations. He was a committed teacher and an activist philosopher with the
life-long mission of imparting knowledge to enlighten people to become their own
light.
By
the time of Buddha, i.e. by the 6th century BC; the state as an
institution had clearly evolved and there were numerous, large and small states
in the north India. Of these, some were monarchical and some non-monarchical,
which could be termed as some kind of republic. Buddha belonged to the Shakya republic of Kapilvastu in the Himalayan foothills bordering the present day
Nepal. One of the popular legends is that
Śuddhodana, meaning ‘he who
grows pure rice,’ was the father of
Siddhartha Gautama. He was disillusioned with the worldly affairs
after seeing a dead body and left home in search of truth and peace of the
mind. But his parental place, Kapilvastu
was not a monarchy but one of the post Vedic
republics. The monarchies were known as Mahājanpadas like
Magadh, Kashi and Koshal on the
south of the Ganga and the post Vedic
republics, the Saṅghas
on the north. Kautilya also refers them as Saṅghas (DIACRITIC)
in his Arthshastra (diacritic). The monarchies had the standing regular army. In
the Saṅghas (DIACRITIC) all the men and women had necessary
military training. In normal times, they would be pursuing their normal socio-economic
occupation and would become warriors in the times of war. Under the leadership
of Vaishali, 12 republics had formed
a confederation for the war times. Siddhartha Gautam’s father was the head of
the Shakya republic of the Kapilvastu.
According to one of the
legends, he was born on the way to his mother’s parental house at Lumbini in
the present Nepal. Not much is authentically known about his childhood. The Shakya republic had many ruling families
who ruled by turn which is sanctioned by some sort of election. The head of the
ruling family was known as Raja. At
the time of Buddha’s birth, it was his father’s turn to be the Raja. Siddharth Gautam lost his mother
within few days of his birth. At the age of 8 years he was initiated in
education to be taught by learned Brahmans
and sages. From them he learned Vedas
and Upanishads. He also learned
concentration and meditation. Belonging to warrior class, he was also taught
archery and other related traits. At the age of sixteen he was married to Yashodhra
from a noted Shakya family. At the age of twenty, he was formally admitted
as a member of the Shakya Sangha.
He took the same interest in
the affairs of the Sangha as he did
in his own life. His conduct as a member of the Sangha was exemplary, and he had endeared himself to all.
Koliyas
the neighboring republic of Shakyas
of Kapilvastu was separated from it
by the river Rohini and there would
be dispute among the two regarding the sharing of the water for irrigational
purposes. When Siddharth was 28, there was a major quarrel between the two
tribal republics. The army chief (Senapati)
of Shakyas called the assembly of Shakyas to decide over declaration of
war on Koliyas. Siddhartha opposed
the resolution of war and proposed the matter to be solved by negotiations
between the elected representatives from the both the Sanghas. The war resolution was approved by the overwhelming
majority. Those siding with Siddharth’s resolution, i.e. the minority had the
dichotomous choice of submitting to majority or to face action. Siddhartha
Gautama openly opposed the war saying that it was inimical to the interest of Shakyas and humanity and against the
public opinion. With this matter, Siddharth Gautama chose banishment and set on
the journey of seeking enlightenment at the age of twenty eight years. Various collections of teachings
attributed to him were passed down by oral
tradition.
Over the next six years
of wandering, he met many talented meditation teachers and mastered their
techniques. Always he found that they showed him mind’s potential but not mind
itself. He continued his journey, contemplating, discussing and debating the
issues concerning happiness of humanity and the existing views and religions.
He is said to have his first discourse with learned men at Sarnath, near the ancient city of Varanasi, where subsequently emperor Ashok constructed stoops and
is one of the Buddhist pilgrimages. Finally, at a place called Bodhgaya, the future Buddha decided to
remain in meditation until he knew mind’s true nature and could benefit all
beings. After spending six days and nights cutting through mind’s most subtle
obstacles, he reached enlightenment and became ‘Buddha’, the enlightened one. Bodhgaya like Lumbini (the place of his birth) and Sarnath (the place of his first
substantial discourse) is also one of Buddhist pilgrimage.
Hence forth, he spent his life wandering
mainly in the regions in present Uttar Pradesh and Bihar teaching through
discussions, debates and sermons and creating monasteries for Bhikshus and Bhikshunis (monks and nuns), which functioned on the principles of
equality and collectivity. He was invited by many noted and prominent individuals
and the monarchs for teachings and debates. At the age of around eighty he died
after eating poisonous meat offered by an old woman in Kushinagar, another place of Buddhist pilgrimage. His teaching
spread in far off places through monks, particularly after the patronage of the
emperor Ashoka of Magadh in 3rd
century BC. He refuted the Brahmanical
principles of divinity and divinely created social order of inequalities.
Contrary to the Brahmanical divine
theory of origin of state and the kingship, Buddhist theory envisages the
origin of the state in popular consent through social contract. It also
anticipate in some way the 17th century Social Contract theories of
Europe.
As mentioned above, two of the five Buddhist
Nikāyas (compilations) — Dīgha and Anugattara (DIACRITIC) (400-300 BC) contain Buddha’s
teachings regarding the evolution of the society and subsequent formation of
the state (Appadurai 1992: 1). These collections contain huge mass of Buddhist
canonical literature in Pali language
consisting of the discourses of Lord Buddha, his sayings, songs and narratives etc.
In Dīgha Nikāya,
one comes across the need and the origin of state after the passing away of the
golden age of harmony and happiness on the earth due to emergence of greed,
selfishness and other evils. The story consists of all the basic factors of the
theory of the evolution of the society.
It talks of the time when people started building up houses, called agāra (huts). The primordial men and
women might live in the huts. There were two more units of inhabitant called gāma (village) and nigama (town: indicates some sort of urbanisation). Nigama might be the place where the
products were exchanged, the marketing place. The society, as mentioned in the sutta was an agricultural society. There
were the time when self-grown paddy appeared. But after it’s disappeared, then people
started cultivating paddy. It was the time of disintegration of communal
property and appearance of private properties and various safe guards of its
protection. Person who stole the paddy were banished. Thus, sense of morality
also arose and the decisions were taken in assembly. To institutionalise the
system of punishment arose the need of state. This proves the intimate link
between the rise of the private property and the state.
Dīgha Nikāya also throws some light
on the duties of the ruler. Anugattara Nikaya (DIACRITIC)
mentions essential qualities of the ruler. The political ideas contained
in them can be arranged under the following heads: origin of the state;
importance of the state; essential qualities of the ruler and the duties of the
ruler.
III
ORIGIN OF THE
STATE
In this section, an attempt has been
made to find out the counterparts of the Western theories of state in ancient
Indian texts, which is a difficult task owing to the uncertainties hanging over
many texts regarding their time and the content. For reconstructing the theory
about the origin of State on the basis of these texts, it’s appropriate to go
by the generally accepted chronology: the Brahmanas; the Buddhist texts
— Digha (DIACRITIC) and Anugattara Nikayas (DIACRITIC); Kautilya’s Arthasastra (DIACRITIC)
and the Rajdharma (DIACRITIC) section of the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata(DIACRITIC)
(Sharma 1991: 63). As mentioned above, the
Contract theory in Brahmanas (DIACRITIC) is
mythological — a war oriented contract among the Gods, hence the Buddhist
theory can be considered as the first theory of state formulated in terms of a
contractual power. Unlike the Western philosophers of 17th century, Buddha
did not depict the individuals in the social contract as essentially egoistic
but he refers to specific historically arisen conditions. Unlike Hobbes, the
sovereign emerging out of Social Contract is not an all-powerful Leviathan not accountable to people or
the Brahmanical incarnation of God but
a Maha Sammat, or the ‘Great Elect’ with the duty of observing and
preserving Dhamma, (DIACRITIC) the
righteous ways of life.
The
State of Nature
The origin of the universe and state out
of the original state of nature is explained in the Aggañña Sutta, the 27th Sutta of the Digha
Nikaya. (DIACRITIC)
It is like other
sections of the Nikaya, in the dialogue form like Plato’s Republic. It’s
discourse imparted by Buddha to two Brahmins, Bharadvaja and Vasettha, who left their family
and caste to become monks. Buddha, in his discourse negates the
importance of the lineage and emphasises the moral practices and the Dhamma. (DIACRITIC)
Anyone from any lineage can become a monk and achieve the
state of enlightenment. Then,
he explains about the beginning of the Earth and the birth and the rise of the social order. In
Buddhist discourse the universe appears Vivaṭṭa
kappa (opening up) and
disappears, Samvaṭṭa kappa
(closing down). In a very long span of time, the
society opens up in the particular time and it closes down after millions of periods
of that particular time; Buddha said in the sutta.
Buddha emphasises the
message of universality in the Dhamma. (DIACRITIC) Discussion on the rise
of social order that is the Varna
social division, is beyond the scope of this discussion. Buddha rejects the
divine origin of hierarchical Brahmanical
order, that everyone including Brahmans
are born through the biological process from the wombs of the mother and not
from different organs of Brahma, as
claimed by Brahmanical sources.
According to depiction of the State of
nature in Agnna Sutta (DIACRITIC) of Digha
Nikaya, (DIACRITIC) there was a time when people were perfect and
lived in a state of happiness and tranquility. This perfect state lasted for
ages but at last this pristine purity declined and there set in evils.
Distinction of sex and color manifested themselves and eventually the heavenly
life degenerated into earthly one. Now the shelter, food and drinks were
required. People gradually entered into a series of agreements to set up
institutions of family and property. But this gave rise to new set of problems,
for there appeared theft and other forms of unsocial conduct.
“The human
beings gathered themselves and said: Evil customs, sins, have appeared among
men. For in the past, we were made of mind, we fed on rapture; self-luminous,
we traversed the air in abiding loneliness; long-long period we so remained.
For us sooner or later after a long while, the savory earth had arisen over the
waters. We set to work to make earth into lumps and feast on it. As we did so,
our self-luminance vanished; when it was gone, moon and sun, star shapes and
constellations, nights and day months and half months, the seasons and years
became manifest. We enjoying the savory earth, feeding on it, nourished by it,
continued so for a long while. But since evil and immoral customs became
prevalent among us, these out growths disappeared. When they had vanished
creepers appeared clothed in color, odor and tastes them we turned to enjoy;
fed and nourished thereby. We continued so for a long while. But since evils
and immoral customs became prevalent among us, creepers also disappeared. When
they had ceased, rice appeared ripening in the open spaces”. (Source)
This description corresponds to the
origin of the universe that considers that in the beginning, there was water
all around and in course of time earth appeared.
The reference of creepers (Vanalata)
and some sort of roots (Bhumiparpataka) as the earliest means of
subsistence in pre state societies, in the Buddhist text, corresponds to the
Brahmanical and Jain traditions that
inform us that earliest means of subsistence was the fruits and the roots of
trees. In them “the description of Kalpvriksha as the main source of
livelihood of the people is very common affair” (Sharma 1991: 49). Naturally in
the earliest states of their lives, humans lived as food gatherer and not as
food producers, corresponding with the Rousseau’s description of the early
state of nature. This is also supported by the modern anthropological studies
that point out that the first livelihood was ‘natural subsistence upon fruits
and roots on a restricted habitat’. Nobody then conceived them as belonging to
anyone with any sense of possession or ownership that in distant civilised
future developed as a ‘commanding force in human mind.’
In the early state of nature there was
no institution like family based on supremacy of man over woman. There is
reference of the land of Kuru in Digha Nikaya (DIACRITIC), where the men live calling no
goods their own, nor as their chattels any womankind. Kautilya talks
about Vairajya (DIACRITIC) (stateless
society) in Uttar Kuru where the concept of family, mine, and thine were
unknown. There was no division of people into social classes. The absence of
social division is also mentioned in Puranas (Vayu Puran) (DIACRITIC). “In their account of earliest
life of humankind, there were no Varnas” (DIACRITIC)
(Sharma 1991: 50-51). Thus, in the early human societies, without the
institutions of family and the property, the state did not exist. Thus we see
that there is a vital connection between the existence of family, private
property and the state. This harmonious tenor of the state of nature was
destroyed by the discovery of art of cultivation and the idea of ownership of
land. Then the idea “Come now, let us divide off the rice fields and set the
boundaries round it” (Appadorai 1992: 2). The fencing of land and the
development of the art of cultivation enabled the people to produce more than
they could consume leading to the tendency of storing the rice. For the first time, people established their
separate houses that made people to claim, ‘this is mine and this is thine’. This
description finds echo in Rousseau’s view. ‘The first man who fenced a piece of
land and declared it to be belonging to him and found people simple mind to
believe him is the founder of the civilisation.
The repeated mention of rice is the
testimony of the fact that during those days the cultivation of rice was the
main economic activity. With the emergence of the family and private property
and the tendency to store, the evils like theft crept in. “Now some being, Vasettha of greedy
disposition, watching over his own plot stole another plot and made use of it”
(Appadorai 1992: 3). People thought that to be evil is bad and reminded the
person who steal that ‘not do such thing again’. On repetition ‘they took him
and admonished him’. “With such a beginning, Vasettha, did stealing appear and censure and lying of punishment
became known” (Ibid. 4).
The state of nature and human nature can
be summed up in following stages:
1.
In the process of the evolution of the
universe, the earliest stage in an indefinite imagined past was divine, where
people were “made up of mind, fed on rapture; ……traversed the air in the
abiding loneliness; ….” (Ibid. 3).
2.
With the stages appearance of evils the
divine stage transited into earthly State. The earliest inhabitants of the earth
were not food producers but food gatherers. They survived on creepers; fruits
and some sort of roots. This view is also supported by Brahmanical and Jain sources and also by anthropological studies
about the people of Paleolithic age. The institutions like family or private
property did not exist. The people were not divided into social classes. People
lived in egalitarian harmonious communities.
3.
With the development of art of
cultivation and plantation many stages of division of labour occurred and the
institutions of family and property in cattle and land came into existence.
People began to produce in surplus to the consumption needs. This was
accompanied tendency in human beings ‘to store rice and appropriate to
themselves’. The invention of iron and corn revolutionised the life and ruined
the humanity, as stated by Buddha many centuries before Rousseau.
4.
With the emergence of individual family
and property, evils like greed and theft also appeared. This state of nature
whose harmony and peace is disturbed by ‘evil customs’ like theft of rice and
stealing of the agricultural plot by certain errant individuals. This can be
compared with John Locke’s state of nature, whose state of ‘happy freedom’ is
disturbed by ‘certain inconveniences’. These inconveniences transgressed by some
individuals into natural rights of life, liberty and property of others in
violation of natural laws.
Thus, we see in the fourth stage, the
Rousseau kind of state of nature degenerates into Hobbesian state of nature via
Lockean state of nature in which people enjoy their natural rights including
right to property and right to sell and buy labour. The harmonious state of
nature, as described in the Digha Nikaya (DIACRITIC)
is disturbed owing to the emergence of the institution of property
accompanied by the evils like theft of rice or stealing of the rice producing
plots of land of others. Thus the story of creation reminds us of the ideal
state of nature of Rousseau followed by the one depicted by Hobbes. The
Buddhist description refutes the Brahmanical
claim of precedence of the members of one class over the members of the other
social classes. There was a time when “people were perfect and lived in a state
of happiness and tranquility that ‘lasted for ages’ (Sharma 1991: 64). As
discussed above this “pristine purity declined and there set in the rottenness”
(Ibid). This rottenness needed to be
corrected by punishment to the wrong doers as deterrent from wrong doing for
others. In order to legitimately institutionalise the system of punishment, the
need for a legitimate public authority was felt, for which people entered into
a social contract among them to choose an appropriate authority.
The
Social Contract
To institutionalise the system of just
punishment to take care of the rottenness set in the society, people assembled
to choose the chief as most favored and capable person from among themselves.
“Now these, Vasettha, gathered themselves together
and bewailed these things, saying: from our evil deeds, sirs, becoming
manifest, in as much as stealing censure, lying, punishment has become known,
what if we have to select a certain being, who should be wrathful, when
indignation is right, who should ensure that which should rightly be censured
and who deserves to be banished. But we will give him in return a proportion of
the rice” (Appadorai 1992: 4).
From the above two things are
manifested, the need of a legitimate authority elected by the people as a whole
with coercive power of punishment to the wrong doer and the system of taxation
in kind, in the form of the produce from people’s economic occupation.
“Then Vasettha, those beings went to the being
among them, who was the handsomest, the best favored, the most attractive, the
most capable and said to him: Come now, good being, be indignant at that
whereat one should rightly be indignant, censure that which should rightly be
censured, banish him who deserves to be banished. And we will contribute to
thee a proportion of our rice”. He acceded to their request and did so as they
gave him a proportion of their rice. The person thus elected came to hold the
titles of ‘Mahasammat’ (The
Great Elect) implying the one chosen by the whole people, ‘the first standing
phrase to arise’- the Khattiya, ‘Lord of the fields’, the next
expression to arise- the Raja, who ‘charms the people by norm’ the Dhamma -the third standing phrase to
arise’ (Ibid).
The
description made in Dīgha Nikāya seems to be the attributes of the stage
of social development of disintegration of tribal society, “giving rise to
clash of interests between men and women; between the people of different races
and colors; and between the people unequal wealth” (Sharma 1991: 65). From this,
the inference is made that the paddy cultivation was the basis of the economy
of the people in the middle Ganga plains, the region of Buddha’s sermons. It is
to be noted that no other crop than paddy is mentioned in the text, though
other crops find reference in subsequent Jataka stories and other texts
but nevertheless, paddy was the main produce. Originally the agreement takes
place between a single Kshatriya on the one hand and the people on the
other, but at a later stage it is extended to the Kshatriya as a class. Towards
the end, the Dīgha Nikāya talks about the circle of nobles, ‘the
Kshatriya mandala’. “This obviously is intended to justify and strengthens
the rule of oligarchies, which existed in the middle Gangetic plains, in the
age of Buddha” (Sharma 1991: 67).
Thus
we see that the state arises as a punitive institution with the aim of
maintaining order in the society, as a result of agreement between the ruled
and the ruler, in which the ruled transfers part of the sovereignty for specific
purpose. The contractual relationship between the people and the state involves
the institutionalised taxation on the condition of the state’s obligation of
the protection of life and property of the people.
“Unlike
Hobbesian contract, the obligation is not one-sided but like Locke’s contract
the obligation is mutual. If one party violates the terms of the contract other
party is not obliged to abide by it. But without the contract, there shall
prevail anarchy as it existed before, therefore, neither have a choice outside
it” (Gokhale 1987: 172-73).
The
Mahasammat (DIACRITIC) was not a law
giver or legislator but an executive head, which enforced the customary or the
tribal conventions and a punitive authority against the transgressors. It can
be compared to Lockean sovereign or commonwealth, who was not a lawgiver; he
only interpreted, codified and enforced the natural laws that already existed.
Thus we see that the text refers to the ideal state of life to start with,
followed by its degeneration due to emergence of evils like theft and falsehood
and establishment of family and property by a series of agreements and finally
establishment of state by electing the most gracious, capable and wise person
from among them as the legitimate ruler, Mahasammat (DIACRITIC) to
punish those who deserve punishment and cherish those who deserve to be
cherished. The contract theory of the origin of state is the original
contribution of ancient Indian thinkers, particularly Buddha. Ancient Greek
thinkers Plato and Aristotle considered to be the founders of political science
in the West did not envisage the origin of state as a result of contract
between the people and the rulers. In Republic,
Plato envisages the origin of state consequent to peoples’ coming together for
fulfilling the mutual needs that can be treated as some kind of contract by
implication. The state is established by
a lawgiver; subsequently people take oath in accordance with the common laws
applicable equally to the ruler and the ruled. The contract theory in ancient
India could be attributed to the existence of post-Vedic republics, which functioned through popular assemblies in the
age of Buddha. In modern times, the social contract theories of state were
propounded under monarchies, either to justify it (Hobbes); to limit it (Locke)
or to overthrow it and replace it with the popular government in which the
ruled is the ruler also functioning through the popular assemblies (Rousseau).
Thus,
we see that in Buddhist theory, the state is a human institution arising out of
state of nature, which is depicted synonymous with anarchy that was ended by
popular election of a ruler for the establishment of order. The ruler is
basically a punitive authority to deter people from wrong doing by inflicting
punishment to a bandit or a miscreant. Thus,
we see that in Buddhist discourse compiled in the Agganna Sutta (Diacritic) of Dīgha Nikāya, the state arises as a contractual,
punitive institution with the responsibility of making society orderly. The
laws enacted by state emanate from an agreement between the ruler and the
ruled, wherein the ruled transfer a part of their sovereignty to the state for
a specific purpose. The relationship between the state and the subject is a
contractual obligation in which one commands and the other obeys. The contract
is symbolised by the institution of taxation, which is payment for specific
work of maintaining the order in the society. The obligation is mutual, like in
Locke’s contract, if one party violates it unilaterally, the other is no longer
obligated by the terms of that contract. The contract is a basic condition of
organised human society and in the absence of such a contract before the birth
of the state, anarchy prevailed. It is, therefore existential, and neither the
people nor the state has any choice outside it. The state is the central
institution of the society, distinct from other social institutions typical of
some stateless societies, such as chiefdoms. The state under a popularly chosen
ruler is considered to be the mediator between various parts of the society.
IV
QUALITIES,
FUNCTIONS AND THE DUTIES OF RULER
The ‘anointed warrior Raja’ (diacritic),
as described earlier is not a dynastic or a divine king but a popularly chosen
ruler.
“Well born on both sides; pure in descent as
far back as seven generations both of mother and father, unchallenged and
without reproach in point of birth; he is rich with great wealth and resources
and his treasure and granaries overflow; and his strength is in four divisions
of his army loyal and alert to commands; his minister is wise, intelligent;
discreet, able to judge rightly the
future from past happenings; and these four things ripen to his glory; and with
the fifth quality of glory, wheresoever he abides he abides where he himself
has conquered. …” (Appadorai 1992: 6).
The
well born aspect of the ruler’s quality seems paradoxical as in the beginning
of the discourse in the Agganna Sutta
(DIACRITIC) Buddha refutes the Brahmanical view of superiority of birth
to Vasettha and Bhardwaj, the Brahmans
who seek admission to Sangha and
depicts social division based on functional deeds. According to a Srilankan
scholar, Sita Arunthavanathan; “A
ruler was expected to have ten personal qualities such as generosity,
liberality, virtue and so on. A king had to possess four cardinal principles which
were generosity (dana) (DIACRITIC), pleasant words (piyavacana),
welfare of the subjects, and equal treatment of all” (Ibid 9).
As said above, Buddhist state as
depicted in Dīgha Nikāya is basically a punitive institution,
which inflicts punishment on bandits and malefactors through a contractual
ruler, to deter others from wrong doing. In doing so, the ruler ‘should lean on
the norm, the ‘Dhamma’ (DIACRITIC) (the law of truth and righteousness)
(Ibid 9).
This implies that the ruler should be truthful and righteous in governance.
The sacred duty of the king was to observe Dhamma (DIACRITIC). The ruler must use his discretion of analysing the crime
reasonably and award punishment righteously in accordance with the crime. The
government’s other important obligation towards people is their protection from
external as well as internal forces. The wrong doers must be punished and no
wrong doing should prevail in the territory. Another important duty of king is
to provide wealth to poor, as poverty may lead to anarchy. Kautilya’s Rajdharma (DIACRITIC)
of Rakshana-Palana and yogakshema meaning security
protection and well-being of the people, seems to be bearing the Buddhist
influence.
Buddha said that the qualities of the subjects of a kingdom depend
largely on the behavior of the kingdom’s ruler. He then outlined ten qualities
--“Dasa-Raja-Dhamma (DIACRITIC) (‘ten virtues of the ruler’ to guide rulers and produce
virtuous subjects :
1.
Dana: (DIACRITIC) Literality, generosity. It is the duty of the government
to look after the welfare of his needy subjects. The ideal ruler should give
away wealth and property wisely without giving in-to craving and attachment.
2.
Sila: (DIACRITIC) Morality, a high moral character. He must observe at
least the five precepts and conduct himself both in private and in public life
as to be a shining example to his subjects. This virtue is very important,
because, if the ruler adheres to it, strictly, then bribery and corruption,
violence and indiscipline would be automatically wiped out in the country.
3.
Pariccaga: Making sacrifices if they are for the good of the people
- personal name and fame; even the life. By the grant of gifts etc. the ruler
spurs the subjects on to more efficient and more loyal service.
4.
Ajjava: Honesty and
integrity. He must be absolutely straightforward and must never take recourse
to any crooked or doubtful means to achieve his ends. He must be free from fear
or favor in the discharge of his duties. “If a person maintains justice without
being subjected to favoritism, hatred, fear or ignorance, his popularity grows
like the waxing moon.”
5.
Maddava: Kindness or
gentleness. A ruler’s uprightness may sometimes require firmness. But this
should be tempered with kindness and gentleness. In other words a ruler should
not be over - harsh or cruel.
6.
Tapa:
(DIACRITIC) Restraint of senses and austerity
in habits. Shunning indulgence in sensual pleasures, an ideal monarch keeps his
five senses under control. Some rulers may, using their position, flout moral
conduct - this is not becoming of a good monarch.
7.
Akkodha: Non-hatred. The
ruler should bear no grudge against anybody. Without harbouring grievances he
must act with forbearance and love.
8.
Ahimsa: non-violence.
Not only should he refrain from harming anybody but he should also try to
promote peace and prevent war, when necessary. He must practice non-violence to
the highest possible extent so long as it does not interfere with the firmness
expected of an ideal ruler.
9.
Khanti: Patience and
tolerance. Without losing his temper, the ruler should be able to bear up
hardships and insults. In any occasion he should be able to conduct himself
without giving in-to emotions. He should be able to receive both bouquets and
brickbats in the same spirit and with equanimity.
10. Avirodha: Non - opposition and non-enmity. The ruler should not
oppose the will of the people. He must cultivate the spirit of amity among his
subjects. In other words he should rule in harmony with his people.
A
Dhamma Rāja,
the righteous ruler, relies just on Dhamma
(DIACRITIC) saying (to his subjects),
“Follow such practice in deed, not that other; follow such practice in word,
not that other; follow such practice in thought, not that other; follow such
livelihood, not that other” (Appadorai 1992: 7). Thus the ruler apart from maintaining the
order by punishing the wrong doer; protecting the people and ensuring their
wellbeing also performs the role of a teacher of the people teaching them to
practice the principles of Dhamma, (DIACRITIC) the righteous life in deeds, words and
thoughts.
V
CONCLUSION
The
Buddhist theory of the origin of state is a great ancient Indian contribution
to the history of social contract theory. It rejects the prevailing Brahmanical (DIACRITIC)
divine theory of state and divinely ordained hierarchal social division,
the Varna (DIACRITIC)
system. In this text, the origin and development of the caste system is
critically examined, which was considered by Buddha as the gravest social
problem of the time. Dispelling the legends and myths shrouding the origin of
caste by the Vedic thinkers, Buddha
has explained how the caste structure gradually evolved on the basis of
physical and occupational factors in a onetime equal community, which was made
hereditary by Vedic thinkers in
course of time. By Buddha’s time, the egalitarian communal life has
disintegrated, the private property and family had been institutionalised and
evils like theft had appeared. Buddha in his teachings, as contained in the 27thSutta
(section) of Agganna Sutta (DIACRITIC) in
the Digha Nikaya, (DIACRITIC) rejects
the divine theory of the ruler being anointed by the God and propounds a Social
Contract theory, under which the popular assembly chooses the most competent
person among them to maintain the order in the society for which they pay him
taxes in the form of a portion of their produce, rice. This social contract
theory anticipates the thought experiment involving the interrelated concepts
of the state of nature, natural laws and the social contract. This social
contract is two way contract, between the ruler and the people. If the ruler is
unable to carry out its duty of maintaining order; protecting people’s person
and property and ensuring their wellbeing, the people may withdraw the consent
and choose another ruler.
A king had to rule with justice and equity ensuring security. Here,
it must be stressed that moral responsibility lay not only with the ruler but
also with the ruled. Each person in the society had a share of responsibility
so that the community could present a united front. According to Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta a king’s duty
could be summarised as protection of the state, elimination of crime, effecting
economic stability and ruling in consultation with the clergy (samana-brahmana) for watch, ward and
protection righteously. According to Cakkavatti
Sihanada Sutta, protection had to be provided not only to the subjects,
army, religious bodies etc. but even to beasts and birds. To sum up, it may be
said that Buddhist theory of State is a kind of democratic theory under which
the ruler is popularly elected and could be recalled. This, in Buddha’s time,
was an advanced form of social contract theory of the origin of the state.
|
SUMMARY |
Buddhist
theory of the origin of state is contained in the Anugattara Sutta (DIACRITIC) of Digha Nikaya, (DIACRITIC) one of the collections of Buddha’s
teachings. It refutes the prevailing Brahmanical
divine theory of the origin of state and propounds a social contract theory.
According to this theory, the ruler is not anointed by God but is chosen by the
people. State is not an eternal or a natural institution but historic that came
into existence at a historic time for historical reasons. In the earliest times,
there was no family and private property and no state. The emergence of state
is intimately linked with the emergence of the institution of private property.
The state of nature as depicted in Digha Nikaya (DIACRITIC)
is a pristine state in which people were perfect and lived in happiness and
tranquility. It refutes the Brahmanical
(DIACRITIC) claim of their class superiority
over other classes. The perfection of state of nature lasted for a very long
time, after which the pristine purity got corrupted, as there set in evils.
People started building shelters and occupying plots of lands for cultivation
of paddy for their livelihood.
Thus
at last the pristine primitive communal life where there were no private
families and property, disintegrated. “People gradually entered into a series
of agreements among themselves and set up the institutions of family and
property” (Sharma 1991: 65). This led to appearance of evils like theft and
other forms of wrong doings, which demands punishments to deter others from
indulging into similar unsocial acts. For this, people assembled to choose as a
ruler from among themselves, who ‘was the best favored, most attractive and
most capable’. They also agreed to contribute to him a portion of their paddy.
He was supposed to punish those who deserved.
The elected person had three titles, the Mahasammat, the one
chosen by the people; the Khattiya, (DIACRITIC)
the lord of the fields and the Raja, (DIACRITIC)
who ensures the observation of the Dhamma, the righteous
principles of life. The ruler does not have only rights but duties to ensure
protection and the well-being of the people.
|
POINTS FOR DISCUSSION |
1. Buddha’s Dhamma
(DIACRITIC) was
an alternative to the Dharma of the Brahmanical (DIACRITIC) political
order. Give your views.
2. Discuss the features of Buddhist theory of origin
of state and its functions.
3. Discuss the theory of kingship as described by
Buddha in Digha Nikaya. (DIACRITIC)
4. Critically examine the relationship between state
and religion in Digha Nikaya. (DIACRITIC)
5. Analyse the Social Contract theories described in Digha Nikaya. (DIACRITIC)
|
END NOTES |
1. The Life
of the Buddha, www.buddhist-pilgrimage.com/life-of-buddha.html
2.
Sanghas are the most fundamental institutions of Buddhism. Monks and nuns, trained in
them, are considered to be responsible for the preservation and dissemination
of the Buddha’s teaching and the guidance of people.
3.
In epistemological and psychological senses, moksha refers
to freedom from ignorance: self-realization, self-actualization and
self-knowledge.
4.
Other Nikyas (DIACRITIC) are Majjhima
Nikāya, Samyutta Nikāya, and Khuddaka Nikāya,
5.
The life of
the Buddha, www.buddhist-pilgrimage.com/life-of-buddha.html
6.
The Jataka (DIACRITIC) stories are
related to the former births of Buddha, probably narrated by some later
Buddhist teachers and monks to illustrate Buddha’s doctrines by appropriate
examples. Appadorai, op.cit. p. 11
7.
The Buddhist religion that essentially meant righteousness.
8.
www.lankalibrary.com
9.
Mathew J. Moore, Political Theory in Cannonical Buddhism, pp. 9,
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=poli_fac
10.http://dlib.pdn.ac.lk/bitstream/123456789/3071/1/Rev.Pandith%20Kamburupitiye%20Ariyasena%201981.pdf
11. Sita Arunthavanathan, Buddhist political thinking,
http://www.lankalibrary.com/Bud/politics.html
|
REFERENCES |
Appadurai,
A.1992. Political Thinking in India through Ages. New Delhi: Khanna Publishers.
Plato,
Republic, Book II, quoted in Ebenstein.
1960. Great Political Thinkers, New Delhi: OUP.
Sharma,
R. S. 1991. The Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India, Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas.
(Please put Reference on Gokhle….It is in In-text Citation)
|
FURTHER READINGS |
Provide list of further reading…..
|
GLOSSARY |
Digha Nikaya:(diacritic) Nikaya
(diacritic) means
collection, Digha Nikaya (diacritic) is one of the five collections of Buddha’s
teachings.
Dhamma(diacritic) (Dharma) (diacritic):
Buddhist Principles of righteous life
Sangha: (diacritic) The residential
monastery of Buddhist education to the monks and nuns. The non-monarchical,
republican states were also called Sangha. (diacritic)
Mahasammat:
(diacritic) The great elect, the ruler chosen by
popular consent
Mahajanpadas: (diacritic) The 16 big kingdoms that emerged around
6th century BC were known as 16 Mahajanpadas. (diacritic) Janpada (diacritic) meant populated territory.
Bimbisara: King of Magadh at
the time of Buddha’s birth
Ajatasatru: Son and
successor of Bimbisara and king of Magadh at the time of Buddha’s death.
Vaishali: One of the
republican states in Buddha’s time, under whose leadership 12 republics had
formed a military confederation.
Vivaṭṭa Kappa: (diacritic) Opening
up of the universe
Samvaṭṭa Kappa: (diacritic) Closing
down of the universe
Raja: (diacritic) The title of the ruler when he ensures
the observation of Dhamma (diacritic)
Khattiya: (diacritic) The title of ruler when he acts as the
lord of the fields
No comments:
Post a Comment