Page:An Essay On Hinduism.pdf/180

Let us consider the case of a nomadic tribe, with its own chief, its own customs or laws, and with its own aristocracy. Suppose this tribe occupies a territory with substantial permanence, leads a more settled life and develops agriculture and arts. See the difference which such a change may entail. The first change which is likely to be created is that it may make the assimilation of an individual foreigner easy. As long as the tribe is nomadic the chances of foreigners coming into the tribe are less, though they are not entirely non-existent. Such tribes often get individual men who may be refugees from a rival tribe; or they may adopt kidnapped children or may enslave some outsiders. By these methods some foreigners come into their fold. But when they lead a more civic life the tribal laws and customs become territorial laws and customs. The chief of the tribe becomes the king of the territory and taxes foreigners and gives them protection. The foreign individuals often marry with the natives or citizens and become guided by the territorial laws, and thus become united with that territorial society.

The foreigners are often subjected to disabilities. They are denied some civic privileges, and their social life often neglected. They are allowed to manage their own affairs, and are permitted to follow their own customs regarding, say, marriage inheritance, wills, etc. In a case of this kind the tribalism of the society is greatly preserved. But if the citizens create new laws by methods similar to that which gave rise to Jus Gentium among the Romans, that is, by selecting some laws and customs of the foreign tribes and execute those laws themselves among foreigners only, then the foreigners become more closely united with the body politic. If they subject themselves to the Jus