Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T05:38:05.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dissent and Protest in the Early Indian Tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Romila Thapar
Romila Thapar*
Affiliation:
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For many decades now it has been maintained that Indian civilization has shown an adsence of dissent and protest. This has become so axiomatic on the Indian past that those who have occasionally questioned it have been labelled as anti-Indian. Such a view stems from a nationalistic over-simplification of Indian society as a vision of harmonious social relations in a land of plenty. Superimposed on this were the preconceptions of idealist philosophy that dissent required materialistic underpinnings, and philosophical themes of materialism in Indian thought have generally received short shrift from contemporary commentators. It is only in recent years that some attempts are being made to suggest that neither materialist philosophy nor dissent were wholly marginal to Indian society. It still remains fashionable in some circles to deny the opposition between forms of orthodoxy and heterodoxy in the ideological traditions of the past, arguing that Indian religions were not based on dogma. Yet the history of groups identified as having a community of religious beliefs, rituals and behaviour, among Buddhists, Jainas, Vaisnavas, Saivas and Tantrics, is strewn with sectarian dogmatism which found expression not only in inter-religious but also in inter-sectarian rivalries, sometimes of a violent kind.

Type
Research Article
Information
Diogenes , Volume 29 , Issue 113-114 , March 1981 , pp. 31 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie / International Federation of Philosophical Societies (FISP)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Such as the studies of D. Chattopadhyaya, as for example, Lokāyata, New Delhi, 1968.

2 Pratap Chandra, ‘Study of Ideological Discord in Ancient India’, in S.C. Malik (ed.), Dissent, Protest and Reform in Indian Civilisation, p. 85 ff., Simla, 1977.

3 Romila Thapar, ‘Renunciation: the making of a counter-culture?’ in Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations, p. 63 ff., New Delhi, 1978.

4 Panini, VI.2.34.

5 Kunāla Jālaka, p. 1 ff., London, 1970.

6 Gautama Oharmasūtra, XVI.43, Apastamba Dharmasūtra, 1.3.9.4., Vasistha Dbarmasūtra, XIII.1.

7 Manu VIII.410, 418; IX 334-335.

8 Śānti Parvan 67.19-24.

9 II. 61.7 ff.

10 Dīgha Nikāya III. 93 ff.

11 As in the dānastuti hymns of the Kg Veda, V.27; V.30.12-14; VI.63.9; VI.47; VIII.1.33; VIII.5.37; VIII.6.47.

12 K. Kailasapathy, Tamil Heroic Poetry, Oxford, 1968.

13 Maitrāyana Brahman Upanisad, VII.8, S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upanisads, p. 793 ff., London, 1953.

14 Taittirīya Sambita IV.5.2. ñamo sūtāya ahantyāya.

15 N. Zeigler, ‘Marwari Historical Chronicles,’ Indian Economic and Social History Review, April-June 1976, XIII, No 2, p. 219 ff.

16 Such as those in the vicinity of Rājagriha, Śrāvasti, and Kauśāmbi. N. Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism, p. 147 ff., p. 167 ff., Calcutta, 1973.

17 D. D. Kosambi, Ancient India, p. 183 ff., New York, 1965.

18 The concept of “monastic landlordism” was used by Max Weber to indicate the change in the function of the monastery: The Religion of India, New York, 1958. Of the monasteries endowed with land, Nālanda was among the richest with as many as a hundred or even two hundred villages. S. Beal, Life of Hsuan Tsang, p. 212, London, 1911; J. Takakusu (Tr.), Records of the Buddhist Religion, p. 65. Delhi, 1966 (reprint).

19 Diodorus XVII, 86; Curtius VIII. 12.

20 K.N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, London, 1963. D. Chattopadhyaya, op. cit.

21 Dīgha Nikāya 1.27 1.55.

22 A. L. Basham, The Wonder that was India, p. 300, London, 1954.

23 J C. Heestermann. “Vrātya and Sacrifice”, Indo-Iranian Journal, 1962, VI, pp. 1-37. L. Dumont, “World Renunciation in Indian Religions”, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 1960, IV, pp. 33-62.

24 Ronfila Thapar, “Dāna and Sakṣinā as forms of Exchange”, op. cit. p. 105 ff.

25 Mahāvagga I.15.1-20; I.9.1-4. Cullavagga VI.4.9.

26 Manu IV. 205-25, 247-50; V. 5-56; XI. 153-162.

27 Vinaya II. 160-175.

28 Mahāvagga I.61.1. ff.

29 S. B. Deo, The History of Jaina Monachism, p. 60 ff., p. 239 ff., Poona 1965.

30 Rock Edict VII. X, XIII, Pillar Edict VI.

31 Rock Edict XIII.

32 Vyākarana Mahābhāsyam. II.4.9. Patanjali explains that they are permanently opposed. I.476: Yeśām ca virodhah śāśvatikah.

33 Strabo, XV. I. 59.

34 Māhāvamsa, V. 270.

35 Schism Ėdict. J. Bloch, Les Inscriptions d'Asoka, p. 152-4, Paris, 1950.

36 Brbaddharma Vurāna III. 19.

37 D. Schlumberger and E. Benveniste, “A new Greek inscription of Aśoka at Kandahar”, Epigraphia Indica, XXXVII, Part. V., No. 35, pp. 193-200 H. W. Bailey suggests a possible Iranian root for the word pāṣaṇda which he argues might have been Iras + anda meaning the one who asks. This would not be very close to the Greek translation of Diatribe. H. W. Bailey, “Kuṣānica”, BSOAS 1952, XIV, Pt. 3, pp. 420-34.

38 This is apparent from the enhancement of the power of the religious donees to include not merely the right to collecting a large number of taxes, but also to taking over judicial administration. R. S. Sharma. Indian Feudalism, Calcutta, 1965.

39 H. Kulke. “Royal Temple Policy and the Structure of Medieval Hindu Kingdoms”, in A. Eischmann, et al. I'he Cult of Jagganath and tre Regional Tradition of Orissa, p. 125 ff.. New Delhi, 1978.

40 K. K. Dutta, Some Firmans, Sanads and Parwans, Calcutta, 1953.

41 Narada XVIII. 20-22, Bhāgavata Purāṇa IV.13.23, Arthaśāstra XI. 229.

42 Almi Purāṇa CCXXV.12.

43 XIII. 60. 19-20.

44 Viṣṇfu Purāṇa I.13.

45 Kbandahāla Jātaka No. 542.

46 Manicora Jātaka No. 194.

47 Padakusalamānava Jātaka No. 432. In the Gaṇatindu Jātaka No. 520, the peasants migrate and desert their villages.

48 Arthaśāstra IX.3.

49 Divyāvadāna C. 372, p. 234, C. 407, p. 262, ed. P.L. Vaidya, B.S.T. No. 20, Darbhanga, 1959.

50 Artbaśāstra XIII.1.20-21.

51 Ibid., II.17.

52 Arrian, Indika, XI.

53 R. S. Sharma, op. cit., p. 268.

54 Irian Habib, The Agrarian System of the Mughal Empire, p. 303 ff., Bombay, 1961. R. Kumar, “The Transformation of Rural Protest in India”, in S. C. Malik (ed.), op. cit. p. 268 ff.

55 e.g. Jātaka I. 451; I, 402; II. 428.

56 Viṣṇu Vurāna, IV. 24.

57 Digha Nikāya, III. 74; Mahāvamsa XXXII, 81 ff, Milindapañho 159.