The conception of “external” sovereignty was well established in the Hindu philosophy of the state. The Hindu thinkers not only analyzed sovereignty with regard to the constituent elements in a single state. They realized also that sovereignty is not complete unless it is external as well as internal, that is, unless the state can exercise its internal authority unobstructed by, and independently of, other states.

“Great misery,” says Shookra, “comes of dependence on others. There is no greater happiness than that from self-rule.” This is one of the maxims of theShookra-neeti bearing on the freedom of therastra, or the land and the people in a state. Kautilya also in his remarks on “foreign rule” expresses the same idea in a negative manner. Under it, we are told in hisArtha-shastra, the country is not treated as one's own land, it is impoverished, its wealth carried off, or it is treated “as a commercial article.” The description is suggestive of John Stuart Mill's metaphor of the “cattle farm” applied to the “government of one people by another.”

¹ Ch. iii, line 646. Sanskrit text edited by Gustav Oppert for the Madras Government. English translation by B. K. Sarkar in the Panini Office series, Allahabad. For a brief account of Sanskrit literature on politics, see the author's article on “Hindu Political Philosophy” in thePolitical Science Quarterly for Dec., 1918, pp. 488–491.

² Book VIII, ch. ii, Shamasastry's translation in theIndian Antiquary for 1910, p. 83. For older uses of the concept ofsva-raj (self-rule)vide theAtharva-Veda, XVII, i, 22, 23, also Macdonell and Keith'sVedic Index, Vol. II, p. 494.

³ IV, i, lines 39–43.

⁴ VII, 154, 156, 207, in theSacred Books of the East Series.

⁵ Ch. viii, Sanskrit text in theBibliotheca Indica Series.

⁶ Book VI, ch. ii.

⁷ Book XII, ch. 56, verse 15; V, 127, 19–20; V, 134, 39;Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XIII, pp. 156, 187–189.

⁸Indian Antiquary, 1909, p. 284.

⁹ VIII, 1, 3, 6.

¹⁰ VII, 102.

¹¹Manu, VII, 107.

¹² IV, i, lines 15–17.

¹³ VIII, 58, 67.

¹⁴ Book I, chs. ii, vi.

¹⁵ Book I, ch. viii.

¹⁶Lawrence's,Essays on Modern International Law,IV.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Page 101.

¹⁸Mahabharata, Book II, ch. 69, verse 15.

¹⁹Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XIII, pp. 187–189.

²⁰ VII, 154.

²¹Shookra-neeti, IV, i, lines 39–41.

²²Ibid., IV, i, lines 42–43.

²³Kamandaki-neeti, VIII, 20;Manu, VII, 156.

²⁴Artha-shastra, Book VI, ch. ii, in theIndian Antiquary for 1909, p. 283.

²⁵Ibid.

²⁶Ibid.

²⁷ VIII, 16, 17.

²⁸ Book VI, ch. ii,Indian Antiquary, 1909, p. 284.

²⁹ Kautilya, I, 4; Kamandaka, II, 40.

³⁰ Manu, VII, 20; Shookra, I, line 45.

³¹ I, 4, I, 8, I, 10, etc.

³²Carlyle's,Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, Vol.III,179.Google Scholar

³³Woolf's,Bartolas,45, 109, 196.Google Scholar

³⁴ VIII, 4, 1, inMookerji's,RadhakumudFundamental Unity of India, p.89.Google Scholar

³⁵ VIII, i, 39.

³⁶ Monier Williams’Dictionary.

³⁷Sela-sutta inSutta-nipata, III, 7, 7;Hardy's,Manual of Buddhism, p.126.Google Scholar

³⁸Maha, Sabha XV, 2.

³⁹Artha-shastra, Mysore edition, pp. 11, 33.

⁴⁰Woolf's,Bartolus, pp.22, 196.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Hardy, p. 126.

⁴² IV, 21, 1.

⁴³ XI, 3, 2, 1, 6.

⁴⁴ VIII, 4, 1.

⁴⁵ Ch. i, lines 365–374.

⁴⁶ A little more than 25 cents in present United States currency.

⁴⁷ Part I, v, paragraphe, pp. 77, 78, in theBiblioiheca Indica; vide Narendranath Law's “Forms and Types of States in Ancient India,” in theModern Review (Calcutta), Oct., 1916.

⁴⁸ V, 1, 1, 13.

⁴⁹Mitra's,RajendralalIndo-Aryans, Vol.II, p.2, 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ VIII, 21–23.

⁵¹ XX, 1, 1.

⁵²Aitareya Brahmana, VIII, 4, 1; for instances ofdig-vijaya in Hindu political traditionvide Mookerji, p. 87.