The ancient and medieval architecture of India: a study of Indo-Aryan civilisation

xxvi INTRODUCTION

thosewhohavetamperedwithit,

knowinglyorignorantly,have

hadtomeettheactiveorpassive resistanceof

all—towhatever

raceor

sect

theymight belong—who had learned to

love the

freedom ofIndo-Aryan

institutions.

Itmayseemparadoxical tothose

whohavebeentaughtas

schoolboysthatthebasisofIndianpolityhas

alwaysbeenwhat

is called

"

oriental despotism,"to speakof

India as aland of

freedom.

"

Oriental despotism" is one of those

historical

fallacies uponwhich British administratorsof India are

nur-

tured. Ofdespotism like that of Imperial Rome, or of the

Greek Tyrants,there areveryfewrecordedinstances inIndian

history,either before

Muhammadan timesor after. One was

the Hun

king, Mihiragula, but his tyrannywas short-lived.

His freedom-lovingAryan subjects

rebelled

and escorted

him

beyond the

confines

of

India. Aurangzib

was

a tyrant of

the

Western

pattern. Hethrew

Indiainto

chaos

andshattered

theMogul Empire.

Therewere two

things

which most

impressed the Greek

MegasthenesinwhathelearntofIndianpoliticsasambassador

at

theCourtofChandraguptaMaurya—first,that"it

wasa

great

thing in Indiathat all Indianswerefree," and, secondly, that

the powerof Indian kingswasrestrainedbythe

"

FiveGreat

Assemblies

"

ofthepeople. Takinginto

considerationthatthe

Indianfranchisewasthe franchiseofintellect, notof

wealthor

physical force,and that it was limited tothose

whowore the

sacredthread, i.e.thethreehighestcastesandskilled

craftsmen

attached to the temple service, India, down to

the time of

Aurangzib, probablyenjoyed as much politicalliberty

as any

European country before the eighteenth century.

Evidently

the Indian systemofserfdom seemedtoMegasthenes

likefree-

domcompared withthehelotageof Greece, and

atits worstit

may be questionedwhether itwas more cruel

and tyrannical

thanthe feudal systemofEurope.