(VOL.XXXI. The Harmonist, July 26,1935, No.23, Tridandiswami B. H. Bon.)
The relation between Church and State is one of the important subjects that continue to engage the attention of both. The modern state takes its stand on common sense. It is in the habit of acting promptly and decisively for safe, guarding the secular interest of its members. It does not claim to be able to understand the subject matter of religion. It, therefore, does not ordinarily interfere with religions beliefs and practices. This at any rate was its attitude during the last century. This policy of almost unlimited toleration is being actually pursued by the British Government in India at the present day, although in India among the people at least politics has not yet been completety divorced from religion.
The Hindus traditionally regard the king as the protector of religion. In the Smritis the king is given quite a number of duties towards religious men and religious institutions. Sree Ramachandra is the ideal ruler according to the Hindus. When there was a drought in the country and people died prematurely, Sree Ramachandra was accused of neglecting bis duty of preserving religion in its state of purity. Sree Ramachandra admitted his responsibility for those calamities. He visited every part of his territory for ascertaining the cause of those occurrences. He at last found it out. He discovered a shudra in the act of performing austerities that are recommended by the Scriptures to brahmanas only after their renunciation of the world. Sree Ramachandra thereupon dealt with the offender in a summary fashion by cutting off his head with his own hand. This measure had the desired effect of restoring normal prosperity and wellbeing to his kingdom.
It is open to all persons to conduct themselves with the affairs of this life by the dictates of their ordinary common sense. This is what is done by most people and by the modern State which is governed according to the wishes of the people. But common-sense is different in different persons, countries and Ages. People in India prefer to be guided by the rules of the Scriptures. If the State orders them to go against those rules, they consider themselves aggrieved by such procedure. There are many things in the Smritis which are, however, not followed in practice. Those who do not obey their Scriptures are guilty of preferring their own unguided judgment. Such persons cannot consistently claim to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the secular law. The brahmanas always follow the Scriptures.
The shudras always follow themselves, independently of the Scriptures. Therefore, a shudra must not pose as a brahmana and claim the privileges of a brahmana. This would multiply the number of unworthy brahmanas. But as the State had no jurisdiction over the brahmanas, Sree Ramachandra considered it his duty to prevent the multiplication of unworthy brahmanas by making an example of a person who wanted to defy the authority of the king by hypocritical practices.
If every Hindu is asked whether he tries to follow his Scriptures in everything he does, there is hardly one person who could conscientiously reply in the affirmative. The plea that it is not practicable to follow the Scriptures in all cases is inadmissible, because such admission would make the person subject to no authority except his own. But in this world no one can be trusted to do what he likes. If a person professes to obey the Scriptures, he must be punished if he fails to do so on any occasion. But who is to punish such a person ?
The king was required, as every other person who was not a shudra, to be well versed in the Scriptures. The difference between the king and brahmanas was also one of functions. The brahmanas did not exercise any political power which belonged wholly to the king. No shudra could be king because he was a disbeliever. No vaishya could also be king because he did not possess the political capacity. The power of the Sovereign was sacred trust. The king exercised the function of Godhead Himself, because no one except God can have any power. A king is, therefore, not king by accident.He is king because God chooses to delegate His power to a person whom He wills to be ruler over others. This view of Sovereign power is not opposed to common-sense unless common-sense chooses to be a supporter of atheism.
A shudra king is not impossible. But no shudra king can exercise his power in the proper way. What is true of the Shudra king is equally true of the person who is entrusted with the sovereign power in a democracy. No people have it in their power to free their ruler from the responsibility of using ( the power given to him in the proper manner ). No people should be regarded as fit for self-government who are not prepared to elect capable and God-fearing persons for managing their political affairs.
If, therefore, a true kshatriya is always placed at the head of every State, the Church need have nothing to fear from such a ruler. On the contrary it is the interest of the Church to avail of the power of the State for maintaining its own purity against both internal and external evil.
The Scriptures exempt the brahmanas from the jurisdiction of the king. No brahmana could be taxed or punished by Royal authority. This does not mean that a brahmana could commit any crime with impunity. A brahmana, who was capable of committing crime on principle, automatically ceased to be a brahmana. The Church was entitled to receive the help of the king for degrading such a brahmana to the condition of a shudra. The king’s court judged and punished such persons. No brahmana was permitted by the Scriptures to perform any political duty or to enforce any moral or spiritual obligation even within the spiritual organisation. It was the duty of the king to do all this. The king could not make the laws that were binding upon the brahmanas. The law of the Church was part and parcel of the religion. That law was not made by any human agency. It could be applied in the proper manner only by the kshatriyas. It could be interpreted by the brahmanas. The religious code did not regulate the details of secular life. Neither did it confine itself to spiritual matter in the compartmental sense. The spiritual embraces everything. In this sense there was no limit to the spiritual jurisdiction. But still there was such a thing as legislation regarding the affairs of this world by the king and assembly of the kshatriyas. The vaishyas were excluded from politics as they were considered to be wanting in political sense. The shudras were excluded as bad men. It was no busi- ness of the brahmanas to meddle with secular affairs. The relation between Church and State thus rested on a classification of the people according to the natural disposition and capacity of individuals. No one was allowed to share in responsibilities which he was unfit to shoulder. No one was permitted to do less responsible work if he was fit for higher work.
The State was responsible for settling and maintaining the Classification of society according to natural disposition of individuals. But at the basis of it all was enlightened faith in Godhead. The ultimate object of every arrangement was the spiritual good of one and all. Those who may be inclined to object to the truth of the above characterisation of the relationship between Church and State described in the Scriptures of India should remember that deviation from the law is no proof of the non existence of the law.
India abounds in spurious codes framed by man who were devoid of religion. ‘There are also codes made by atheists in the name of religion. This is inevitable and need deceive no serious student who is willing to distinguish the true from the false. History is the best of teachers as it has preserved an account of every form of wickedness to which bad men have resorted to for opposing the purpose of God. The account of the wicked performances should be studied for the purpose of avoiding such conduct. It is certainly the duty of the historian to trace the consequences of godless conduct in politics.
Those who object to legislation by priests on the ground that priests do not possess political capacity misunderstand the nature of both priestly and political activity. No one is fit to be a priest who does not possess the disposition for the exclusive service of the Divinity. No one is fit to govern who does not realise that the service of Godhead indirectly includes all secular affairs. It is the duty of the truly farsighted politician to make politics serve the spiritual purpose in a subordinate way.
The real meaning of these propositions cannot be understood by those who are habituated to think that the secular purpose should be the end in itself. Politics for the sake of politics is bound to be an unmixed evil. The compartmental view of religion is the unfortunate cause of the growth of secular studies divorced from religion. Such studies have been the concomitants of a growing civilization directed to the purely secular ideal of human life.
The present world-crisis has not been the result of misguided activities by way of punishment inflicted by Godhead. It is the fulfillment of these secular purposes for which humanity has been trying in all seriousness ever since the first man appeared on this earth. It is in this Fight that the crisis is bound to appear as a matter for congratulations to all consistent thinkers.
Gaura HariHaribol