This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/2/2019 Bring Back the Kshatriyas: A Philosophical Primer for the Indian Political Animal
Let’s start with the Horsemen, for they were the first Indian political animals. The taming of
the horse – just somewhere north of the Himalaya Mountains – was the watershed politicalevent. The art of horse taming spread wildly across the plains and mountains and four major
tribes: Indians, Iranians, Greeks and Romans, were the first ones to master it and put it to
excellent use. Armed with horses they overran the infantry armies of all other tribes that
existed and from these four races arose the four ancient civilizations of Greece, Rome, Persia
and India.
And these were the civilizations that first developed the two concepts of Heroism and
Aristocratism. The political order of these civilizations – created by horse riding warriors –
was also significantly different from that of the political order created by the commanders of
infantry soldiers of ancient Egypt or ancient China.
There is a term that provides a glimpse behind the first political order of Ancient India. A title
bestowed on the coronation of a new King especially the first of a new dynasty, “Shatrapati”
translated as leader of the warriors.
The King of Ancient Indians was the warrior commander who led the horsemen to victoryand in exchange they crowned him their leader. This was the first political order, the first
state and we will call it Warrior Aristocracy.
We get the warrior part, but what about aristocracy? What does that word even mean?
Where does it come from? Does it have an original political meaning or was it a later day
word to denote an elite ruling a state? Look closely at the first three letters ‘Ari’ for that is the
root that holds the key to deciphering many mysteries. It sounds very similar to ‘Ary’. Know a
politically-historically contentious Indo-Iranian word that follows from that? Of course you
do, “Arya”. Perhaps this word has vaused more mischief in history than any other.
The old Greek word ‘Aristoi’ and ancient Sanskrit-Persian word ‘Arya’ are cognates with the
same root. And that is where Aristocracy comes from, both the concept and the word. In
Ancient Greece, as well as Persia and India; the best warriors were referred to with those
words. And it was the belief of these civilizations that the state that governed best was
governed by the best warriors. Hence, the warrior aristocracy as the first political state of
these civilizations.
8/2/2019 Bring Back the Kshatriyas: A Philosophical Primer for the Indian Political Animal
In the first order of warrior aristocracy, the warriors held the power. The reason behind it
was that the clan-state faced an environment of perpetual struggle for power and hence
having the best warriors to lead the state would bring the most victories and biggest
expansion. In the proceeding development of a landed aristocracy, when land became the
major source of power and wealth, the clan-state would have benefited the most when the
ambitions of young men were turned towards acquiring the land – either by conquest from
other states or making productive previous empty land – as a way for these young ones to
earn titles and status in the polity as landowners.
In the development of a hereditary monarchy – which developed on more fertile lands – the
emphasis would have been on good order and stability. More wealth could be generated by
better cultivation of existing lands inside the country than conquering more rugged lands
outside. And hence the emphasis on centralization of power in one big landlord: the King,
better to avoid fights amongst different landowners and their allied warriors.
A common idea from these three different types of polity emerges. The political
understanding of those times was that the goal of the state was to enhance the power and
wealth of the clan and country. And the means to do that was to put political power in the
hands of those actors who would be best in the position to do so: warriors, landowners or a
king in different circumstances.
Lack of a formal theory of the political as the
major problem
We have to evaluate whether these political orders were effective or not, and if not where the
defect lay. The egalitarians and the liberals claim that the problem was inherent in these
orders themselves. But we have to consider them in their context, their time and place. The
world was a much more warlike place historically. States battled states constantly for land,
rivers, forests, cattle and the like. Any polity that was not evolutionary competitive with others
would have gone the way of dodos. That these orders survived over centuries indicates that
the logic underlying them: putting state in the hands of those best positioned to deal with
challenge in the particular context, was fundamentally sound.
Nevertheless, there was a major problem proven by the fact that these polities were not ableto deal with two major attacks, the first by Turko-Mongol hordes culminating in the Moghool
8/2/2019 Bring Back the Kshatriyas: A Philosophical Primer for the Indian Political Animal
They brought about a period of stagnation. And then the period of retreat under the two
invasions of Mongols and East India Company. Stagnation leads to a sapping of the strength
and slow degeneration which inevitably means retreat when a powerful enemy appears on the
scene.
It is interesting to note the same phenomenon occurring in the intellectual sabotage of the
other three civilizations founded by horse clans.
Edward Gibbon, perhaps the most famous historian of the Roman Empire, wrote in his book
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that the rise of Monkish theologies
sapped the philosophical strength of the Romans who earlier derived energy from their older,
majestic Olympian gods of strength and vitality.
“The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of
society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large
portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion;
and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the
merits of abstinence and chastity.”
(Edward Gibbon. Chapter 39, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire)
Professor Nietzsche of Germany also noticed this phenomenon of the resentment of the slaves
at work with regards to both Greece and Rome. He postulated that weaks and slaves, who felt
resentment towards the majestic heroes, concocted monkish theologies as a method of devious
revenge against their betters.
In Persia as well spread monkish theologies that attacked the older theology based on sun and
fire worship and the virtues that went with it. And soon enough in the historical time framePersia, once a powerful and mighty kingdom that could send its armies all the way to Greece
was overrun by desert tribes.
Coming back to Indian political history, we can’t help but notice a general pattern at play
here. Rise of great heroes in a time and a place and their great deeds, generates the
resentment of weaks and slaves, some of whom with an intellectual bent of mind create
theories and theologies that denigrate strength and glorify weakness.
But what prevented the Indian political actors from dealing properly with such subversion?
8/2/2019 Bring Back the Kshatriyas: A Philosophical Primer for the Indian Political Animal
who want a state that protects property rights. The TechnoAristocratic state will be governed
by the best individuals and its goal will be to promote the flourishing of the civilization.
Now what is this notion of an Aristocratic state? Certainly I do not mean anything involving
politically powerful landowners, but I merely use the word to denote the concept of ‘Rule by
the Best’ which was its original, ancient meaning.
I name the political philosophy as TechnoFuturist Aristocratism and define it as the
comprehensive and thorough application of the philosophy of Heroism to the Political.
It is less important for me now to define a concrete structure for a state based on this theory,
than to elucidate what the basis for it will be. The idea here is that individuals within
themselves have various ‘powers’ such as strength, honor, scientific ability. Application of some of these powers widely and the pursuit to increase them leads to great good for the
country. And who is in better position to apply these powers on an entire civilizational scale
than that one entity: the state. Then it becomes imperative for the state to be made up of the
political actors who have the highest quality and quantity of such powers in their personal
constitutions.
Now in different contexts, different of these powers will be of greater utility to the civilization,
while individuals themselves will have growth or decay of these powers in their character and
self.
Then the state must be both aristocratic and dynamic, that is it must be made up of the best
powers but there must also be a dynamic interplay between these powers. The state cannot be
hereditary or fixed for life; at the same time there is no nonsense of equal access to the state
for all either. Heroes rise and heroes fall, champions rise and champions fall, and the goal will
be for the state to induct within its ranks as many of the heroes and champions as possible
who are at the peak of their power, energy, and glory.
And I will go ahead and propose a concrete structure for just such a type of state anyhow,
because I do not want to leave my readers unsatisfied.
What are the powers that are requiem for civilizational progress in our age? And who possess
those powers? First, we need warriors to defeat the enemies. Second, we need scientists and
philosophers to put forth great ideas. Third, we need businessmen to build massive industrial
empires. Then following my theory if the state is to bring the fight to the enemies and score
8/2/2019 Bring Back the Kshatriyas: A Philosophical Primer for the Indian Political Animal