Book Read Free

Glimpses of World History

Page 20

by Jawaharlal Nehru


  Apart from their success in war, the Cholas were long famous for their sea-trade. Their fine cotton goods were much sought after, and their port, Kaviripaddinam, was a busy place, with ships carrying merchandise coming from and going to distant places. There was a settlement of Yavanas or Greeks there. There is mention of the Cholas even in the Mahabharata.

  I have tried to tell you, as briefly as possible, about several hundred years of South Indian history. Probably this attempt at brevity will only confuse you. But we cannot afford to lose ourselves in the maze of different kingdoms and dynasties. We have the whole world to consider, and if a small part of it, even though it may be the part where we live, took up much of our time, we would never get on with the rest.

  But more important than the kings and their conquests is the cultural and artistic record of those times. Artistically, there are far more remains in the south than the north has to offer. Most of the northern monuments and buildings and sculptures were destroyed during the wars and Muslim invasions. In the south they escaped even when the Muslims reached there. It is unfortunate that numerous beautiful monuments were destroyed in the north. The Muslims who came there—and remember they were the Central Asians and not the Arabs—were full of zeal for their religion and wanted to destroy idols. But another reason for their destruction was perhaps the use of old temples as citadels and fighting places. Many of the temples in the south even now seem to resemble citadels where people can defend themselves if attacked. These temples thus served many purposes, apart from that of worship. They were the village school, the village meeting-place, panchayat ghar or parliament, and finally, if this became necessary, the village fort for defence against the enemy. Thus all the life of the village revolved round the temple, and naturally the people who must have bossed over everything were the temple priests and Brahmans. But the fact that temples were used sometimes as citadels may explain why the Muslim invaders destroyed them.

  Of this period there is a beautiful temple at Tanjore built by Rajaraja, the Chola ruler. At Badami there are also fine temples—so also at Conjeevaram. But the most wonderful of the temples we have of those days is the Kailasa temple of Ellora—a marvel carved out of the solid rock. This was begun in the second half of the eighth century. There are also beautiful pieces of sculpture in bronze, notably the famous Nataraja— Shiva’s dance of life.

  Rajendra I, the Chola King, had remarkable irrigation works constructed at Cholapuram—an embankment of solid masonry, sixteen miles long. A hundred years after these were made an Arab traveller, Alberuni, visited them and he was amazed. He says of them: “Our people, when they see them, wonder at them and are unable to describe them, much less construct anything like them.”

  I have mentioned in this letter the names of some kings and dynasties, who lived their brief life of glory and then disappeared and were forgotten. But a more remarkable man arose in the south, destined to play a more vital part in India’s life than all the kings and emperors. This young man is known as Shankaracharya. Probably he was born about the end of the eighth century. He seems to have been a person of amazing genius. He set about reviving Hinduism, or rather a special intellectual kind of Hinduism called Saivism—the worship of Shiva. He fought against Buddhism—fought with his intellect and arguments. He established an order of sanyasins open to all castes, like the Buddhist Sangha. He established four centres for this order of sanyasins, situated at the four corners of India, north, west, south, east. He travelled all over India, and wherever he went he triumphed. He came to Benares as a conqueror, but a conqueror of the mind and in argument. Ultimately he went to Kedarnath in the Himalayas, where the eternal snows begin, and he died there. And he was only thirty-two, or maybe a little more, when he died.

  Shankaracharya’s record is a remarkable one. Buddhism, which had been driven south from the north, now almost disappears from India. Hinduism, and the variety of it known as Saivism, becomes dominant all over the country. The whole country is stirred up intellectually by Shankara’s books and commentaries and arguments. Not only does he become the great leader of the Brahman class, but he seems to catch the imagination of the masses. It is an unusual thing for a man to become a great leader chiefly because of his powerful intellect, and for such a person to impress himself on millions of people and on history. Great soldiers and conquerors seem to stand out in history. They become popular or are hated, and sometimes they mould history. Great religious leaders have moved millions and fired them with enthusiasm, but always this has been on the basis of faith. The emotions have been appealed to and have been touched.

  It is difficult for an appeal to the mind and to the intellect to go far. Most people unfortunately do not think: they feel and act according to their feelings. Yet Shankara’s appeal was to the mind and intellect and to reason. It was not just the repetition of a dogma contained in an old book. Whether his argument was right or wrong is immaterial for the moment. What is interesting is his intellectual approach to religious problems, and even more so the success he gained in spite of this method of approach. This gives us a glimpse into the mind of the ruling classes in those days.

  It may interest you to know that among Hindu philosophers there was a man, named Charvaka, who preached atheism—that is, who said that there was no God. There are many people today, especially in Russia, who do not believe in God. We need not enter into that question here. But what is very interesting is the freedom of thought and writing in India in the olden days. There was what is known as freedom of conscience. This was not so in Europe till very recent times, and even now there are some disabilities.

  Another fact which Shankara’s brief but strenuous life brings out is the cultural unity of India. Right through ancient history this seems to have been acknowledged. Geographically, as you know, India is more or less of a unit. Politically she has often been split up, though occasionally, as we have seen, she has almost been under one central authority. But right from the beginning, culturally she has been one, because she had the same background, the same traditions, the same religions, the same heroes and heroines, the same old mythology, the same learned language (Sanskrit), the same places of worship spread out all over the country, the same village panchayats and the same ideology and polity. To the average Indian the whole of India was a kind of punya-bhumi—a holy land—while the rest of the world was largely peopled by mlechchhas and barbarians! Thus there rose a common Indian consciousness which triumphed over, and partly ignored, the political divisions of the country. Especially was this so as the village system of panchayat government continued, whatever the changes at the top might be.

  Shankara’s choice of the four corners of India for his maths, or the headquarters of his order of sanyasins, shows how he regarded India as a cultural unit. And the great success which met his campaign all over the country in a very short time also shows how intellectual and cultural currents travelled rapidly from one end of the country to another.

  Shankara preached Saivism, and this spread especially in the south, where many of the old temples are Saiva temples. In the north, during Gupta times, there was a great revival of Vaishnavism and Krishna-worship. The temples of these two branches of Hinduism are different from each other.

  This letter has become long enough. But I have still to say much about the condition of India during these Middle Ages. That must wait till the next letter.

  45

  India in the Middle Ages

  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 Arthashastra, 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 today 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 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 panchayats 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 today!

  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 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 Kshattriyas. 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.

  46

  Angkor the Magnificent and Sri Vijaya

  May 17, 1932

  We shall now pay a brief visit to Farther India—the colonies and settlements of people from South India in Malaysia and Indo-China. I have already told you how these settlements were deliberately organized and arranged. They did not just grow up anyhow. There must have been frequent journeys across the seas and a sufficient mastery over the seas, to permit of this deliberate colonization simultaneously at several places. I have also told you that these colonies began in the first and second centuries of the Christian era. They were Hindu colonies bearing South Indian names. After some centuries Buddhism gradually spread, till nearly the whole of Hindu Malaysia had become Buddhist.

  Let us go to Indo-China first. The earliest col
ony was named Champa, and was in Annam. There we find in the third century the city of Pandurangam growing up. Two hundred years later the great city of Kamboja flourished. It was full of great buildings and temples of stone. All over these Indian colonies you will find mighty buildings growing up. Architects and master builders must have been taken across from India, and they carried on the Indian traditions in building there. Between the different States and islands there was a great deal of competition in building, and this competition resulted in a high type of artistic development.

  The people living in these settlements were naturally seafaring folk. They or their ancestors had already crossed the seas to reach these places, and all round them was the sea. Seafaring folk take to trade easily. So these people were traders and merchants, carrying their wares across the seas to the different islands, to India in the west and to China in the east. The different States in Malaysia were thus controlled largely by the merchant classes. Often there was conflict between these States and great wars and massacres. Sometimes a Hindu State waged war against a Buddhist State. But the real motive for many of these wars in those days seems to have been trade rivalry. Just as in these days wars take place between great Powers for markets for the goods they manufacture.

  For 300 years or so, up to the eighth century, there were three different Hindu States in Indo-China. In the ninth century a great ruler arose— Jaya-varman, who united all these and built up a great empire. He was probably a Buddhist. He began building his capital at Angkor, and his successor, Yaso-varman, completed it. This Cambodian Empire lasted for nearly 400 years. As empires go, it was supposed to be splendid and powerful. The royal city of Angkor Thom was known all over the East as “Angkor the Magnificent.” It was a city of over a million people, larger than the Rome of the Caesars had been. Near it was the wonderful temple of Angkor Vat. In the thirteenth century Cambodia was attacked on several sides. The Annamese attacked in the east, the local tribes in the west. And in the north the Shan people were driven south by Mongols, and finding no other way of escape, they attacked Cambodia. The kingdom was tired out by this constant fighting and defending itself. Still the city of Angkor continued to be one of the most splendid cities in the East. In 1297 a Chinese envoy, who had been sent to the Cambodian king, wrote a glowing description of its wonderful buildings.

 

‹ Prev