Buddhist Political Theory
Social Contract Theory
of the Origin of State
Ish N. Mishra
“I teach because you and all beings want to have happiness
and want to avoid suffering. I teach the way things are.” -- Buddha
“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
1. Introduction
2. Life
and times
3. State
of Nature
4. Social
Contract
5. Rights,
Functions and Duties of the Sovereign
6. Revolutionary
implications
7. Concluding
Remarks
Introduction
Gautama Buddha epitomizes the motif: “To rebel is to create”. He rebelled against
existing Brahmanical order and the sacrificial religious rituals to create a
new order based on the rationally derived principles righteous life, the
Dhamma. His alternative, he provides, is quite radical – the egalitarian
collectives, modeled on the Sanghas (monasteries) founded by him. The practice of the Dhamma would
lead to creation of society free rom miseries and sufferings, the state of Moksha.
If transported from spiritual to material world, it would get paralleled by
the state of human emancipation, the state of the classless societyn 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 and active
campaign for the egalitarian, collective society free from human miseries. Like
Marx over 2000 years after him, Buddha was a philosopher, who not only sought
to interpret the world but also 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, 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 Mahasammat
– the great elect. The history of political theory in India in terms of the
theory of state can be traced to the Buddhist texts, Dighanikaya and Anuguttaranikay,
two of the five Buddhist Nikyas (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) on
account of compelling necessity of carrying on successful war against the
demons (Asuras”).
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 Aggǹǹa Sutta of Dighanikaya
that traces the source of the validity of its authority to the
popular consent of the people -- the social contract.
The history of state is, roughly, as old as
the history of civilization 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 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”. The first, being the
invention of the private property. Ever since separating themselves from the
animal kingdom around 3 million years ago, for most part of it, humans have
lived without private property in the egalitarian communes. Humans began to
distinguish themselves from the animal-kingdom by producing and reproducing
their means of livelihood by exercising labor 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 laboring by the development human species-specific attribute, the ability to
think, the mental development. Ever since, labor has been the continuing link
of livelihood through all the historical epochs. Thus the history of state,
i.e. the history of the civilized (class divided) world, is a miniscule small
part of total human existence.
In Vedic and post-Vedic literature, we do not
find any theorization about the state, as a law making and enforcing authority
over a fixed domain. They lived in tribal and clan organizations, authorities
of which operated on the basis of customs and kinship traditions and bonds,
with no fixed geographical territory. As RS Sharma informs us the first implicit,
divinized reference to the process of state formation is found in the Aitreya
Brahmin.
There was no theory of state as there was no
state. Ideas historically emanate from the object. State had not yet acquired
firm footing; it was still in the process of formation. From the clan and
kinship organizations in ancient India, emerged advanced political entities in
the form of 16 Mahajanpadas
and the Sanghas, known as the post-Vedic republics. The first reference
of the contract theory of state, found in in Aitreya Brahman is mythological.
The Suras (Gods) approached, Indra, the most efficient war leader among them,
for the imminent wars between Sura (Gods) and Asura (demons) -- a euphemism for Aryan-non
Aryan conflict.
By the time of Buddha, the state as a centralized 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 Sanghas about the Dhamma –
the principles of the righteous ways of life, they 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.
Life and time of Buddha
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 the 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 travelled 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 rrepublic. Buddha belonged to the Shakya republic of Kapilvastu in the
Himalayan foothills bordering the present day Nepal. One of the popular legends
is that son of the king Suyodhan, Siddhartha Gautama 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, in the present eastern
Uttar Pradesh, was not a monarchy but one of the post Vedic republics. The monarchies were known
as Mahajanpadas like Magadh, Kashi and Koshal on the south of the Ganga and the
post Vedic republics, the Sanghas on the north. Kautilya also refers them as Sanghas in
his Arthshastra.
The monarchies had the standing regular army. In the Sanghas 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 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 16 he was married to Yashodhra from a noted Shakya family. At the age of 20 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 face action. Siddhartha Gautama openly opposed the
war saying that it was inimical to the interest of Shakyas and humanity against
the public opinion. Like ancient Athens, in the political cases, in the ancient
Indian post Vedic republics also the accused had the choice of facing trial or
banishment. In Athens Socrates had chosen the trial and as is well known was
sentenced to death by the majority of the judicial assembly in BC 399,
Aristotle had chosen the banishment. Siddharth Gautama chose banishment and set
on the journey of seeking enlightenment at the age of 28 years. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were
passed down by oral
tradition and were
committed to writing couple
of hundred years later.
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 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 80 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 BC 3rd
century. 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, anticipating in some way, the
17th century Social Contract theories of 17th century AD
in Europe.
As mentioned above, two of the five Buddhist
Nikayas (compilations)—Digha and Anugattara (400-300 BC) contain Buddha’s teachings
regarding the state. These collections contain huge mass of Buddist canonical
literature in Pali language consisting of the discourses of Lord Buddha, his
sayings, songs and narratives etc. In Digha Nikaya 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. Dighanikaya also throws some light on the duties of the
ruler. Anugattaranikaya mentions essential qualities of the ruler. The
political ideas contained in them can be arranged under the heads: origin of
the state; importance of the state; essential qualities of the ruler and the
duties of the ruler.
The Origin of the State
The attempts have been made to find out the
counterparts of the Western theories of state in ancient Indian texts, a
difficult task owing to the uncertainties hanging over many texts regarding
their time and the content. For reconstruction of political theory on the basis
of these texts, it’s appropriate to go by the generally accepted chronology:
the Brahmanas; the Buddhist texts – Digha and Anugattara
Nikayas; Kautilya’s Arthasastra and the Rajdharma section of the Shanti
Parva of Mahabharata. As mentioned above the
Contract in Brahmanas 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 as essentially egoistic but as
specific historically arisen condition. 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, 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, 27th Sutta of the Digha
Nikaya. It is like other sections of the Nikaya,
in the dialogue form like Plato’s Republic. It is discourse imparted by
the 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 emphasizes the moral practices and the Dhamma. 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. Buddha
emphasizes the message of universality in the Dhamma. 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 of Dighanikaya, 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 dis appeared. When
they had ceased, rice appeared ripening in the open spaces ….” 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.” 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 civilized 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 Dighanaikaya, where “the men
live calling no goods their own, nor as their chattels any womankind.” Kautilya talks about Vairajya
(stateless society) in Uttar Kuru where the concept of family and
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). “In their account of earliest life of humankind,
“there were no Varnas””. 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 in land. “Come now let us divide off the rice fields and set the
boundaries round it”. 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 he rice. And 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 mined to believe him is the founder
of the civilization.”
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 plotstole another plot and made use of it.” People thought that to be evil and reminded
him to “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 and punishment became known.”
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; ….”
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 revolutionized the life and ruined
the humanity”,
as stated by Rousseau, many centuries after Buddha.
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 “certain inconveniences”.
These inconveniences. These inconveniences transgression 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 Dighanikaya
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.” As discussed above this
“pristine purity declined and there set in the rottenness.” This rottenness needed to be
corrected by punishment to the wrong doers as deterrent from wrong doing for
others. In order to legitimately institutionalize 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 institutionalize the system of just
punishment to take care of the rottenness set in the society, people assembled
to choose as chief a 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 should banish him who deserves
to be banished. But we will give him in return a proportion of the rice.”
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” and lastly the Raja, who
“charms the people by Norm” the Damma, “the third standing phrase to arise”.
The
description made in Dighanikaya 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.” 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 Dighanaikaya 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.”
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 institutionalized 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, as shall be discussed in subsequent pages. 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
it, therefore neither have a choice outside it.
The Mahasammat
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 se 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 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. In the Laws, 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 of Digha
nikaya, 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 symbolized 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 organized human society for 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.
Qualities;
Functions and the Duties of ruler
The “anointed
warrior Raja”, as described earlier is not a dynastic or a divine king but a
popularly chosen ruler is , “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. …”. The well born aspect of the
ruler’s quality seems paradoxical as the in the beginning of the discourse in
the Agganna Sutta Buddha refutes the Brahmanical superiority of birth to
Vasettha and Bhardwaj, the Brahmans who seek admission to Sangha and depicts
social division based on functional deeds.
As
said above, Buddhist state as depicted in Dighanikaya 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” (the law of truth and righteousness). This implies that the ruler
should be truthful and righteous in governance. “The sacred duty of the king
was to observe Dhamma”.
The ruler must use hid discretion of analyzing the crime reasonably and award
punishment righteously in accordance with the crime. “With Dhamma as his
standard, with Dhamma as his banner, with Dhamma as his mandate, he sets a
Dhamma watch, bar and ward for the folk within his realm.” 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 Raj dharma of Rakshan-Palan and
Yogakshema meaning security protection and well-being of the people, seems to be bearing the
Buddhist influence.
TT
T
