Old World Empires

Cultures of Power and Governance in Eurasia

Ilhan Niaz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317913788
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Social History
• Index: History

This book is a sweeping historical survey of the origins, development and nature of state power. It demonstrates that Eurasia is home to a dominant tradition of arbitrary rule mediated through military, civil and ecclesiastical servants and a marginal tradition of representative and responsible government through autonomous institutions. The former tradition finds expression in hierarchically organized and ideologically legitimated continental bureaucratic states while the latter manifests itself in the state of laws. In recent times, the marginal tradition has gained in popularity and has led to continental bureaucratic states attempting to introduce democratic and constitutional reforms. These attempts have rarely altered the actual manner in which power is exercised by the state and its elites given the deeper and historically rooted experience of arbitrary rule. Far from being remote, the arbitrary culture of power that emerged in many parts of the world continues to shape the fortunes of states. To ignore this culture of power and the historical circumstances that have shaped it comes at a high price, as indicated by the ongoing democratic recession and erosion of liberal norms within states that are democracies.

1 The Realm of Chaos

The Indian Subcontinent¹

INTRODUCTION: MORE EBB THAN FLOW

The Indian subcontinent is known in history for a number of vast empires that managed to unite most of its territory and population under a single regime. The earliest of these was the Mauryan Empire (320 BC–180 BC), followed by the Gupta Empire (AD 300–AD 500), the Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526), the Timurid Empire (1526–1707) and the British Empire (1757–1947). These dates can, however, be somewhat misleading given that they often include the period of conquest and consolidation or cover up recurrent rebellions and, in the case of the Delhi Sultanate, recurrent dynastic revolutions. There is also relatively little historical data available for the period before the Delhi Sultanate, which might as well be referred to in the plural (Sultanates) given that it represents a succession of dynasties (Slave, Shamsid, Khalji, Tugluq, Saiyyid, and Lodhi), none of which managed to provide more than a generation of ef ective government. In the case of the Timurid Empire, the first two rulers (Babur and Humayun) failed to consolidate the empire and it wasn’t until the reign of Akbar (1556–1605) that the imperial project really took of . By the 1590s, Akbar had managed to bring most of the Indian subcontinent directly or indirectly under his control. Akbar’s successors unwisely sought to expand towards Central Asia and into the South Indian peninsula and got bogged down in long and bloody wars that did great harm to the sustainability of the Timurid Empire. By the 1680s the Timurid Empire was in decline, and in the 1720s it broke up into warring states nominally loyal to the emperor in Delhi. The British Empire that succeeded the Mughals took at least a century to take shape (1757–1857) and eventually provided most of South Asia with a centralized and effective government made up of autonomous institutions. Partly for that reason, British withdrawal in 1947 led to a mitigated breakup of the empire (India and Pakistan), which has been followed by a gradual breakdown of governance structures in the successor states.

What this means is that for much of its history the Indian subcontinent has been in chaos.² Invasions, rebellions, fragmentation, and warlordism are the conditions that have prevailed for the most part in this region. Chaos, in turn, has only occasionally given way to order imposed by unification brought about by a powerful imperial elite. As soon as the quality of the imperial elite has declined, or, the will to hold on diminished, as was the case with the British Empire in India, terminal decline set in paving the way for the resumption of chaos. This is a pattern as old as the history of the Indian subcontinent itself and the precarious present condition of many regional states combined with the rise of religious fundamentalists and militancy indicate that the historical legacy of chaos is threatening to reassert itself. Understanding why the Indian subcontinent’s historical experience of governance is characterized by such overwhelming and persistent failure necessitates an examination of those few states that managed to hold chaos at bay for a few generations, which, in turn, is the key to understanding the present and future direction of governance in the region.

EARLY INDIA AND THE ARTHASHASTRA STATE 2000 BC–AD 1000

There is a distinct possibility that the Indus Valley civilization was a continental bureaucratic empire. The environmental conditions that facilitated the emergence of hydraulic civilizations along the Nile and in Mesopotamia are found in the Indus region—aridity, flood plains bounded by natural obstacles such as mountains, deserts, and plateaus and a ready source of fresh water that served as a communications system. The exploitation of this environment required the capacity to organize labour on a large scale, a food distribution system, and an effective central authority. By 2250 BC this central authority appears to have exercised control over the heartland of the Indus River Valley and exerted influence through commerce and diplomacy as far as the Oxus and northern and western India. Greater in territorial extent than its contemporaries in Egypt and Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley civilization manifests several signs of effective governance.

The most important is this civilization’s urban development. In a later age Ibn Khaldun observed that urban centres “with their monuments, vast constructions, and large buildings” required “united effort and much co-operation.”³ Given the exertion and sacrifices required, people “must be forced and driven to build cities.”⁴ Either the “stick of royal authority is what compels them” or “reward and compensation” on such a large scale that only such authority could furnish, are necessary.⁵ In the Indus Valley civilization the cities displayed a striking degree of uniformity. Each city drew upon a hinterland for food and resources. The production and distribution of these involved scribal intervention on the Egyptian and Sumerian pattern. The regimentation and orderliness, of the cities also point to the existence of a powerful executive that operated through an effective enforcement mechanism. The instrument of control was probably a bureaucracy responsible for managing the agricultural cycle, maintaining order, collecting taxes, and supervising large construction projects. The rulers of what is sometimes described as the Harappan⁶ Empire were also quite possibly legitimated by a homogenizing religion or ideology. Until, however, the writings of this civilization are deciphered the nature of governance that prevailed in it will remain a mystery.

Less mysterious is the Aryan period for evidence indicates that in the sixth century BC continental bureaucratic empires emerged in the Ganges river valley. These states were able to mobilize resources and manpower more effectively than tribal republics or petty chiefdoms, and outfought less centralized and authoritarian forms of government.⁷ By the fourth century BC the Nanda dynasty had brought most of the northern plain under its control and is said to have fielded an army two hundred thousand strong. In or around 320 BC the Nandas were overthrown by their former army chief, Chandragupta Maurya, in collusion with his advisor and future prime minister Kautilya and other elements disaffected by Nanda oppression and harshness.

It is to Kautilya that posterity owes a remarkably precise and detailed account of the exercise of state power in Early India.⁸ At the heart of the absolutist Arthashastra⁹ State was the ruler who was advised “A king can protect his kingdom only when he himself is protected from persons near him, particularly his wives and children.”¹⁰ Few moral relationships could exist in this culture of power. Princes, compared to crabs, vipers, and fighting rams, were a grave threat to the ruler and so “It is better to kill them quietly if they were found wanting in affection.”¹¹ Queens and other members of the royal household are to be kept perpetually under surveillance by spies.¹² All those with access to the king were considered covetous of the throne. This was perfectly understandable as the reigning monarch was often a usurper and his arbitrary powers excited fear, resentment, and greed amongst his subordinates. As long as the monarch, who was “the embodiment of the state,” employed “without hesitation, the methods of secret punishment” against real or perceived enemies, the calculus of fear and greed produced servility.¹³ When the royal resolve or capability to inflict punishment was felt to weaken the same logic produced rebellion and instability.

The Mauryan ruler was the universal proprietor and “The metropolitan area was under a highly centralized system of administration.”¹⁴ The ordinary cultivator paid rent to the imperial treasury. The servants of the ruler were paid cash salaries and granted lands as transferable revenue assignments. The of cial priesthood and other recipients of imperial patronage also received revenue assignments in land. Arable land was held by the cultivators so long as they paid taxes and by imperial servants during their employment. The ruler owned or controlled hydraulic infrastructure, settled villages as insular caste-based units, and maintained a fine network of royal highways and state-owned caravanserais. Merchants operated under the threat of confiscation with their trade, organizations and profits, regulated by the state.

The management of the Mauryan imperial estate, which, at its height, stretched from Bihar to the Oxus, necessitated its organization into sub-units. The base unit of the administrative pyramid was the village. Ten villages made a sub-district, twenty sub-districts (two hundred villages), made a district, and two districts (four hundred villages) constituted a division. Two divisions (eight hundred villages) formed a province. Cities were organized into four divisions further divided into multiple wards. At the center, some three-dozen ministries or departments performed functions that included the maintenance of order, tax collection, regulating trade and industry, espionage, prostitution, and enforcing detailed rules and regulations for washer-men.¹⁵ Every task was entrusted to a salaried official hierarchy whose members were recruited, promoted, transferred, or liquidated at the ruler’s will with the adhyakshas, or department heads, reporting directly to the emperor. Kautilya warns aspirants to official posts “Service under a King has been compared to living in a fire. A fire may burn a part of one’s body and, at its worst, all of it; but a King may either confer prosperity or may have the whole family; including wives and children killed.”¹⁶ An intelligent officer, therefore, made “self-protection his first and foremost concern.”¹⁷ This goal was best achieved through complete obedience in action, word, emotion, and thought, for the imperial presence in the form of spies was pervasive, sensitive to the smallest signs of disloyalty.

The secret service or gudapurusha of the Arthashastra state had three principal objectives. The first was that it kept the ruler and his trusted servants informed of developments inside and outside the empire. The second was that the secret service conducted covert operations aimed at undermining both domestic and foreign enemies. And third, the secret service was responsible for the internal discipline and loyalty of the bureaucracy and military. A major operational principle that was not to be violated except in emergencies was that intelligence reports from three different sources were needed for the state to authorize action.

The intelligence apparatus was organized into distinct categories. Stationed agents constituted the heart of the machine and comprised all those operatives who stayed primarily in one location and answered to the well-paid and highly trained intelligence officers (kapatikas). Mobile agents comprising the secret operative (sattri), the assassin (tikshana), poison specialist (rasada) and wandering nuns (pariuvajrika) stood at hand to execute covert action and report on happenings within their circuits. Double agents, counter-espionage, and financial surveillance, had separate hierarchies and operational radii. Kautilya advises the ruler to ensure that the intelligence officers and secret operatives be particularly well paid, honored, and educated so that they may be able to make sense of the information and pass it on in a digested form. It was equally vital that spies of one category and in one post did not know the spies in other categories and posts. The collectors and interpreters of intelligence ought not to know much about field agents engaged in gathering information. Inefficient, disloyal and indiscreet spies were to be killed without hesitation. Disguise, secrecy and silence were vital to the entire enterprise for, “Miraculous results can be achieved by practicing the methods of subversion.”¹⁸

Disloyal elements within the country with the power and wealth to collude effectively with external rivals were particularly worthy objects for the secret service’s attention. In essence the Arthashastra state waged a continuous and largely unseen war to retain its internal cohesion and disrupt the internal equilibrium of its rivals. The most valuable intelligence operation toward this end was to corrupt or compromise high officials in both hostile and friendly states. This secured valuable insights into the workings of other states and led to a more accurate estimation of their motivations and capabilities. The next best use of spies was the assassination of rival rulers and troublesome dissidents. Given the personalized nature of absolutist states, the removal of the ruler was likely to trigger a civil war, which could be exploited. Properly deployed, “A single assassin can achieve, with weapons, fire or poison, more than a fully mobilized army.”¹⁹

The effectiveness and majesty of the empire depended upon the intellect and work ethic of the ruler and his servants. Of every twenty-four hours, the ruler was to spend separate ninety-minute periods to review reports on defence and finances, grant audiences, receive revenue and make official appointments, draft correspondence and consult with spies, inspect military forces, confer with his defence chiefs, manage secret agents, discuss matters of state with senior officers and appoint spies, respectively. In addition to these twelve hours of regular work, an additional six hours were devoted to secret deliberations and security-related matters. The ruler who stood at the heart of the Arthashast...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Maps
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 The Realm of Chaos: The Indian Subcontinent
• 2 The Dragon and the Phoenix: The Chinese Civil Service State
• 3 Empires of Will: The Rise, Fall, and Rebirth of Persia
• 4 European Orders from the Roman Empire to the Eurozone
• 5 From Sultanate to Secular State: The Rise and Fall of the Ottomans and the Successes and Limitations of Kemalism in Modern Turkey
• 6 The Origins and Legacy of Russian Autocracy
• 7 The Emergence and Crisis of the Japanese State of Harmony
• 8 The Freaks of History: The State of Laws and Britain’s Culture of Power and Governance
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Selected Bibliography
• Index