No
While Chānakya says धर्मस्य मूलं अर्थ, that was the never the mainstay of Hindu polity
Shruti proclaims unity of rāshTra in spite of fragmented polity
It is the glue of 4-fold varNāshrama-purushārtha dharma that held the civilisation together irrespective of state or polity
While Chānakya says धर्मस्य मूलं अर्थ, that was the never the mainstay of Hindu polity
Shruti proclaims unity of rāshTra in spite of fragmented polity
It is the glue of 4-fold varNāshrama-purushārtha dharma that held the civilisation together irrespective of state or polity
https://twitter.com/harshmadhusudan/status/1451850138935193603
There is a reason why Arthashāstra was a neglected political treatise until Brits excavated it out of oblivion. And there was not much memory of Maurya in general public discourse of Hindus.
Stories of vikramāditya or Bhojaraja are still popular. What does it tell us?
Stories of vikramāditya or Bhojaraja are still popular. What does it tell us?
I like to call the chāNākyan school of polity as the “left handed polity”. Otherwise known as āpaddharma.
The main reference point of Hindu polity is either mahābhārata and rāmāyaNa (for example) and anushāsana parva of MBH for the theory of political and economic sciences.
The main reference point of Hindu polity is either mahābhārata and rāmāyaNa (for example) and anushāsana parva of MBH for the theory of political and economic sciences.
The anushāsana parva is the “right handed path” of Hindu polity.
Kings like rāma, yudhishThira, vikramāditya, Bhoja etc among many others (locally cited or on pan Indian) are model kings who act as standards against which others measured the “dhārmik quotient” of their policies
Kings like rāma, yudhishThira, vikramāditya, Bhoja etc among many others (locally cited or on pan Indian) are model kings who act as standards against which others measured the “dhārmik quotient” of their policies
So getting back to point - no. Lack of strong polity in dharma is not the reason why SEAsia converted to Islam.
The central pillar of right handed polity is 4-fold varNāshrama dharma.
Where this is properly entrenched, conversions did not happen on such a large scale.
The central pillar of right handed polity is 4-fold varNāshrama dharma.
Where this is properly entrenched, conversions did not happen on such a large scale.
The limited but very strong state that chāNakya proposes (as put by @sanjeevsanyal ji) was not much to the liking of Hindus.
Hence in spite of defeating everyone in India during ashwamèdha and rājasūya, Yudhishthir was still king of Kuru. Rāma was still the king of Kosala.
Hence in spite of defeating everyone in India during ashwamèdha and rājasūya, Yudhishthir was still king of Kuru. Rāma was still the king of Kosala.
We have this example in very recent history. Shivaji Maharaj.
Now it is highly unlikely that Shivaji read kauTilya’s arthashāstra (the book was very obscure then). All his teachings were of the traditional right handed path.
However he ended up creating a chāNākyan state.
Now it is highly unlikely that Shivaji read kauTilya’s arthashāstra (the book was very obscure then). All his teachings were of the traditional right handed path.
However he ended up creating a chāNākyan state.
Shivaji’s Hindavi svarājya was exactly that - a limited but very powerful centralised state with no other power centers.
What happened to this construct? Within 10-12 years after his death, the third Chhatrapati had to change it and make it decentralised. A confederacy.
What happened to this construct? Within 10-12 years after his death, the third Chhatrapati had to change it and make it decentralised. A confederacy.
So this fascination of “huge empires” etc is distinctly non-Hindu. Hindus understand in current times of crisis, we need to have a strong chāNakyan state (hence 2014 happened)
But the 4-fold varNāshrama-purushārtha dharma is at its nature a decentralizing force.
But the 4-fold varNāshrama-purushārtha dharma is at its nature a decentralizing force.
Knowledge-weapons-money-numerical superiority otherwise known as “jñāna-bala, shastra-bala, dhana-bala and jana-bala” should remain separated.
No one social group should have more than one of these four forces. So they will HAVE TO coexist in a dhārmik framework.
No one social group should have more than one of these four forces. So they will HAVE TO coexist in a dhārmik framework.
Conversions (on the scale that @harshmadhusudan is talking here) happen (I have neglected the forcible conversions here) when this bond between these four forces of varNāshrama dharma is or has been abused or deteriorated or never existed to a point below a certain threshold.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
