Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c8.s2: The History of Nītiśāstra

State and Government in Ancient India c8.s2

Language
English

The History of Nītiśāstra

c8.s2.1

We shall now proceed to describe the origin and development of the Nītiśāstra in ancient India. This will incidentally enable the reader to get an idea of the main sources available for reconstructing the picture of ancient Indian Polity and Administration and of the difficulties and limitations under which we have to work while engaged in this task.

c8.s2.2

Systematic literature on what we may call the Science of Polity does not go back to a time earlier than *c.* 500 B. C. This is but natural. Even semi-secular and semi-religious subjects like grammar, etymology and astronomy began to develop as independent treatises only from about the 8th century B. C. The science of polity, therefore, cannot be expected to have acquired an independent existence much before the sixth century B C.

c8.s2.3

Though there was no systematic literature on the political science composed in the earlier period, usually called the Age of the Vedas and the Brāhmaṇas, there are scattered passages in the Vedic literature, which throw considerable light, sometimes dim, somtimes clear, on the theory and practice of government in the contemporary times. The material in the *Ṛigveda* is very scanty,¹ but that in the *Atharvaveda* is relatively more copious; it however mostly refers to the institution of the kingship². In the different Saṁhitās of the Yajurveda and in the Brāhmaṇa literature, we frequently come across the description of the coronation ceremony and of the different sacrifices laid down for the king either at the time of his accession or at some later time in his career. These give us valuable glimpses into the position of the king, the prestige he enjoyed, the taxes he collected and the entourage that surrounded him.³ There are numerous passages in this literature which discuss the relative position and privileges of the different castes, especially the Brāhmaṇas and the Kshatriyas, which also are valuable to the student of the political institutions.

c8.s2.4

¹ Particularly noteworthy are the following :— X. 191; 173; 166; 124.8; 97.6; 78.1; IV. 42; IX. 92. 6; VII. 6.5; VI. 28.6; IV. 4.1; III. 43.5; I, 25.10-15; 67.1; 85.8; 130.1.

c8.s2.5

² The following references are important :— III. 4-5; VI. 88; V. 19; VII. 12; VI. 40.2; XX. 127; IV. 22; XIX. 31; VIII. 10. 8-13.

c8.s2.6

³ The following passages are important :— *T.S.* 3.4.5; 8.9. 1.; *K S.* XXXI. 10; XV. 4.; *S.Br.* I. 7. 3. 4.; V. 3. 1. 1; 3. 3. 6-9; 4. 4. 7; IX, 3. 4. 5; XIII. 1. 9. 8.; 2. 9. 2-5; 4. 4. 1.; *A. Br.* 1. 14; II. 33; VIII. 10-12; 14; 23; 31; *P. Br.*, XIX. 4.

c8.s2.7

From about the 8th century B. C. an age of specialisation commenced and the specialists in grammar and etymology, prosody and astronomy began to form separate schools and compose special manuals for the beginners as well as the advanced scholars. The beginning of a school of politics, properly so-called, has to be ascribed to this age of specialisation; it is however certain that it was somewhat later in origin than the above sciences and probably contemporaneous with the school of the Dharma-śāstra. The earliest works on polity, which unfortunately have all been lost, were probably composed in *c.* 7th century B. C.

c8.s2.8

It is also but natural that in about the 7th century B. C. the science of politics should have begun to develop. The country was studded with small kingdoms and the advisers of kings, who were sages and scholars of mature judgement, were naturally expected to discuss problems of administration with them. It is interesting to note that in the Śāntiparvan of the *Mahābhārata*, while answering to some of the questions of Yudhishṭhira, Bhīshma does not give his own opinion, but suggests it by referring to the dialogues between kings and sages of hoary antiquity, who had discussed similar problems. While discussing the divinity of the king, Bhīshma refers to a dialogue between Māndhātā and Indra (chap 65); while emphasising the importance of Daṇḍa, he draws attention to a dialogue between king Vasuhoma and Māndhātā, (chapters 68, 122); while exhorting the king to be righteous, Bhīshma quotes from a dialogue between Yauvanāśva and Māndhātā (chapter 90); while emphasising the importance of the priest, he draws attention to a dialogue between king Aila and Kāśyapa (chaps 73); while warning a king against depletion of treasury, he referes to a dialogue between sage Kālakavṛiksha and Kośala king (chaps. 82, 164); while referring to the problems of the republic, he quotes from a dialogue between Kṛishṇa and Nārada (chap. 81). It is quite obvious that these dialogues must not have been hanging in the air or in oral traditions only; some of them must have formed part of books on political science. The science of polity must have had a pretty number of books by about the 7th or the 6th century B.C.

c8.s2.9

Politics attained the status of an independent science in the west a couple of centuries later, when Aristotle composed his famous work, *Politics*, disentangling politics from ethics for the first time.

c8.s2.10

We are indebted to the *Mahābhārata* and the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya for an account of the works written and theories propounded by the pioneer writers in the field. It is interesting and important to note that these two works, which represent independent traditions and sources, agree with each other as far as the names of the early writers are concerned. The *Mahābhārata* account is semi-legendary and semi-historical. It states that a huge work on the science of polity extending over a lakh of verses was originally composed by Brahmadeva, the Creator, when he put an end to the prevailing anarchy and re-established the social order. It was then successively abridged by Śiva-Viśālāksha, Indra, Bṛihaspati and Śukra. Manu, Bhāradvāja and Gauraśiras are also mentioned by the epic as other authors on the science of polity.¹

c8.s2.11

¹ XII. 57 and 58.

c8.s2.12

The names of well-known works like the *Manusmṛiti*, the *Yājñavalkyasmṛiti*, the *Parāśarasmṛiti* and the *Śukranīti* show that in ancient India authors often preferred to remain incognito and attributed their works to divine or semi-divine persons. We need not therefore suppose that works on polity attributed to Brahmadeva, Manu, Śiva or Indra existed only in the imagination of a Kauṭilya or the author of the *Mahābhārata*.

c8.s2.13

This conclusion is supported by the data of the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya; for in numerous places² it refers to and discusses the various views of Viśāslāksha, Indra (Bahudanta), Bṛihaspati, Śukra, Manu, Bhāradvāja, Gauraśiras, Parāśara, Piśuna, Kauṇapadanta, Vātavyādhi, Ghoṭamukha, Kātyāyana, Chārāyaṇa and other scholars of the Science of Polity that are referred to in the *Arthaśāstra* (Bk. VI chap. 5)².

c8.s2.14

² See pp. 6, 13-17, 27-29, 32-3, 63, 177, 192, 253, 255,322, 328-30, 375, 382 of the *Arthaśāstra*, 2nd Edi., by Dr. Shamshastri.

c8.s2.15

As was the case with the other branches of knowledge, there were several schools among the students of the Science of Polity as well; some of them claimed Manu (the father of the human race) as their founder, others Bṛihaspati, the teacher of the gods and others still Śukra or Uśanas, the rival teacher of the Asuras. Some chose to affiliate themselves to Brahmā, some to Indra and some to Śiva. In the beginning very probably handbooks for the use of the beginners were composed, which were later developed into comprehensive works. It is these books, written by human scholars but ascribed to super-human authors, which are referred to by the *Mahābhārata* and the *Arthaśāstra*.

c8.s2.16

Unfortunately none of these books have survived to our times. It appears that the material contained in some of them was incorporated in the Rājadharma section of the Śāntiparvan of the *Mahābhārata* and that the others were superseded and thrown into the background by the masterly work of Kauṭilya. Some of them, however, existed down to the 9th century; for a verse of Viśālāksha has been quoted in the *Bālakrīdā*, a 9th century commentary of the *Yājñavalkyasmṛiti* by Sureśvarāchārya.

c8.s2.17

The references to the views of these authors made in the *Arthaśāstra*, however, enable us to get a fair idea of their contents.¹ The science of polity was a new one at this time and therefore many of these writers seem to have started their works with a discussion of its relative importance as compared to the Vedas, the philosophy and the economics. One of them, named Uśanas, went to the extent of advocating the extreme view that politics was the only science worth study. The polity which these writers were discussing was obviously a monarchical one, and they seem to have devoted considerable space to the discussion of the training of the prince and the qualifications of an ideal ruler. The relative importance that he should attach to the difficulties and calamities in connection with the treasury, forts and army were also exhaustively discussed. The constitution and functions of the ministry were described at length by most of them and they widely differed from one another about the number of the ministers and their qualifications. Principles of foreign policy also were debated upon, Bhāradvāja advocating submission to the strong when there is no alternative and Viśālāksha recommending a fight to the finish, even if it meant annihilation. Vātavyādhi did not subscribe to the theory of *Shāḍguṇya* but advocated that of *Dvaiguṇya*. Problems connected with taxation do not seem to have been discussed by these writers; at any rate the *Arthaśāstra* has no quotations from them bearing on that topic. The questions of the control over revenue and provincial officers were discussed, but the local government seems to have been left untouched. On the other hand these early works contained important sections dealing with civil and criminal law and laid down a scheme of fines and punishments for theft, robbery, misappropriation, etc. We would not be far wrong in concluding that the treatises of most of these writers were the precursors of the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya but dealing, of course in a much less exhaustive way, only with those topics dealt with in its Books I, II, III, IV, VI. and VII.

c8.s2.18

¹ Cf. especially the different views discussed at pp. 9, 68, 157, 161, 185, 192, 196, 198 (Shamasastri's ed.).

c8.s2.19

If the quotations from the works of his predecessors given by Kauṭilya can be taken as representative of their contents, we may well conclude that there was a fairly strong school of politics in India from c. 500 B.C. This school would be the counterpart of the Dharmsūtra school, which existed at this period. Whether the one school was Brahmanical and the other Kshatriya, it is difficult to state. It is, however, quite likely that some of the writers of the Nīti school may well have belonged to the class of the administrators of the age.

c8.s2.20

The *Mahābhārata* is an important source to the student of the science of polity. The Śāntiparvan has an extensive section devoted to the Rājadharma or the duties of the king and the government. It discusses the importance of the science of politics (Chaps. 63-64) and advocates its own theories about the origin of the state and kingship (Chaps. 56, 66, 67). The duties and responsibilities of the king are discussed at length in several chapters (Chaps. 55-57, 70, 76, 94, 96, 120), as also those of the different ministers (Chaps. 73, 82, 83, 85, 115, 118). Taxation is discussed in half a dozen chapters (Chaps. 71, 76, 87, 88, 120, 130), but the duties of the different officers are not laid down in detail as in Book II of the *Arthaśāstra*. Internal administration is briefly described only in one chapter (87). Problems connected with the foreign policy and peace and war naturally occupy a good deal of space (Chaps. 80, 87, 99, 100-103, 110 and 113). There is no doubt that the Rājadharma section represents a further advance over the works of the writers mentioned in it and in the *Arthaśāstra*; it is not unlikely that it incorporates some of their theories and chapters.

c8.s2.21

Apart from the Rājadharma section of the Śāntiparvan, there are some other chapters in the work where problems of government are discussed. Sabhāparvan Chap. 5 gives us a very good idea of the ideal administration. Ādiparvan Chap. 142 contains a justification of Machiavellianism under certain circumstances. Sabhāparvan Chap. 32 and Vanaparvan Chaps. 25, 32, 33 and 150 contain interesting discussions on the emergency policy.

c8.s2.22

As the *Mahābhārata* has undergone several recensions, it is not easy to fix the time of the above chapters. The treatment of the topics however suggests that the above chapters may be belonging to a period earlier than that of the *Manusmṛiti*, i.e. to about the 4th century B. C.

c8.s2.23

The next important source is the famous *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya. It belongs to the same category as the above works, but discusses the old topics with a remarkable thoroughness, referring to the views of the earlier writers and advancing its own theories. The setting of the work is secular. In Dharma-sūtra works, Rājadharma forms but one section. Here on the other hand the study of the state is the main topic, though the king is expected to master the Vedas and philosopy. After discussing in Book I the various problems connected with the king-ship, it gives an exhaustive picture of the civil administration in Book. II. The next two books deal with the civil, criminal and personal law. The Book V deals with the duties and respon-sibilities of the courtiers and retainers of the king and Book VI describes the nature and functions of the seven *prakṛitis* of the State. Then the work devotes its last nine Books to an exhaustive discussion of the problems connected with the foreign policy, the ‘circles’ of kings and the policy to be followed in connection with its different members, the ways and means by which to establish one’s ascendancy among them, the occasions suitable for war and peace, the manner in which the warfare was to be carried on or dissensions were to be sown among the enemies, etc.

c8.s2.24

The *Arthaśāstra* is more a manual for the administrator than a theoretical work on polity discussing the philosophy and fundamental principles of administration or of the political science. It is mainly concerned with the practical problems of government and describes its machinery and functions, both in peace and war, with an exhaustiveness not seen in any later work, with the possible exception of the *Śukranīti*.

c8.s2.25

There is a great controversy about the date of the *Arthaśāstra*. Messrs. Shamasastri, Ganapatishastri, N. N. Law, Smith, Fleet and Jayaswal hold that the work proceeds from the pen of of the famous minister of Chandragupta Maurya, while Messrs. Winternitz, Jolly, Keith and D. R. Bhandarkar hold that the work is a much later one, written in the early centuries of the Christian era.¹ Conclusive evidence supporting either view is lacking and the question has become complicated owing to the work being occasionally retouched in later times. The second school points out that if the book was really written by Kauṭilya, the Mauryan premier, it is strange that it should not contain some references to the Mauryan empire and its administrative machinery, so well known to us from Greek sources. It ignores the boards of town officials, and lays down no rules for the care of foreigners, for escorting them to the border and looking after their effects if deceased. The fact that the views of Kauṭilya himself are quoted in the 3rd person would suggest that the real writer of the work was different from him.

c8.s2.26

¹ Important references are the following; Shamasastri, Introduction to the *Arthaśāstra*; Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, Appendix C; N. N. Law, *Calcutta Review*, 1924; J. J. Meyer, *Das Alt-indische Buche vom Welt-und Staatsleben*, (Das Arthaśāstra des Kauṭilya) ubersetzt vom J. J. Meyer, 1925 Lepizic in support of traditional date; Jolly, Introduction to the *Arthaśāstra*; Keith *Sanskrit Literature*, pp. 458, and Winternitz, *Geschichte der Inder Literature*, Vol, III, pp. 519. ff. in support of a later date.

c8.s2.27

Shamasastri and Jayaswal demur to these conclusions. They point out that the colophon of the work distinctly states that it was written by Kauṭilya, who had rescued the country from the Nandas. To say that the author was not acquainted with a wide empire is incorrect, for he states (at p. 340) that the sphere of the jurisdiction of a *chakravartin* extends from the Himalayas to the ocean. The aim of the book is to describe the machinery of a normal state; the organization of a big empire which was only an occasional phenomenon in Indian history is not, therefore, discussed in detail. The *Arthaśāstra* no doubt refers only to the superintendents of the different departments ; the boards of five may have been omitted because they were mainly non-official in character. It is quite a common practice among Indian authors to refer to themselves by their own name in the third person singular, rather than in the first person plural ; so the references to Kauṭilya in the third person need not necessarily show that he was not himself the author of the book.

c8.s2.28

It is true that the name Kauṭilya is not very complimentary ; we need not however on that account doubt his historicity, because a number of his predecessors like Vātavyādhi and Kauṇapadanta had equally unflattering names. Nor can it be argued that Kauṭilya is later than Bhāsa, because the verse *Navaṁ śarāvaṁ* etc. occurring in Book X Chap. 2 of the *Arthaśāstra* is to be seen in *Pratijñā-Yaugandharāyaṇa* of Bhāsa. Kauṭilya never fails to mention the names of his sources ; he has mentioned by name a number of earlier writers on polity ; had he borrowed the above verse from Bhāsa, he would also have mentioned his name. The *Arthaśāstra* introduces this verse along with another with the remark ‘*Apīha ślokau bhavataḥ*’, ‘There are these two verses’, showing clearly that they were traditional ones ; both Kauṭilya and Bhāsa have obviously borrowed from the mass of floating popular verses. To argue that Kauṭilya was not a historical figure because his name is not mentioned by Megasthenes would have had some force, if the entire work of the Greek ambassador had come down to us ; as only fragments of the book are available, it is quite possible to presume that the name may have been mentioned in some of the lost chapters. Similarly Patañjali’s silence about Kauṭilya cannot go against his historicity. It is true that he mentions Mauryas and also the *sabhā* of Chandragupta. But the point at issue is whether there was an occasion for Patañjali to refer to Kauṭilya and whether he is still silent. No *sūtra* of Pāṇini or *vārtika* of Kātyāyana called for such a reference in the commentary. It may be pointed out that Patañjali is also silent about Aśoka and Bindusāra. Are we to conclude that they did not exist because of this silence ? The argument that the chemical and metallurgical knowledge presupposed by Book. II, Chap. 12 of the *Arthaśāstra* is too advanced for the 3rd century B. C. will hardly carry any conviction when it is remembered how our knowledge of the development of these subjects in ancient India is very meagre.

c8.s2.29

The society depicted by Kauṭilya permits levirate and re-marriages of widows, as also post-puberty marriages and divorces (pp. 151-159). This was the state of affairs in the Mauryan age. Scant respect is shown to the Buddhists (p. 199) and persons are prohibited from becoming recluses without providing for their families (p. 48). This would indicate that the work was written at a time when Buddhism had not yet become strong enough to induce people to leave their families and join the order. The work frequently uses the word *yukta* in the sense of an official, as is done in the edicts of Aśoka. In later centuries this term went out of vogue.

c8.s2.30

The reference to the Madras, the Kambojas, the Lichchhavis and the Mallas as republics in Bk. XI, Chap. I of the *Arthaśāstra* would also support the view that the book belongs to the early Mauryan times, when these republics are known to have been flourishing. In the 4th century A. D. very few knew of their existence as republics. Like Yāska, who was a predecessor of Pāṇini, the *Arthśāstra* refers to only four parts of speech, and not to eight as has been done by the great grammarian. This would suggest that Pāṇini's grammar had not yet become very authoritative in the days of Kauṭilya. He should therefore be placed in the 4th century B. C. rather than in the 4th century A. D.

c8.s2.31

It is worth noting that there are several striking points of resemblance between the *Arthaśāstra* and the extant fragments of Megasthenes. Like Megasthenes, the *Arthaśāstra* refers to the royal procession at the time of hunting and religious ceremonies (Bk. I, Chap. 20) and to the necessity of guarding the road on the occasion (Bk. I, Chap. 18). Both authorities refer to female body guards of the king and to his habit of shampooing (Bk. I, Chap. 1 19). Megasthenes' account of irrigation canals and sluices reminds us of the observations on the *setubandha* in the *Arthaśāstra* (Bk. VII, Chap. 14). Megasthenes' overseers moving up and down and reporting to the king are obviously the spies of the *Arthaśāstra*.

c8.s2.32

Megasthenes’ officials for the measurement of the land belong to the same service of which the *gopa* of the *Arthaśāstra* was a subordinate member. The great officers in charge of the markets and rivers, of cities and arts and crafts, mentioned by the Greek ambassador, remind us of some of the *adhyakshas* of the Bk. II of the *Arthaśāstra*.

c8.s2.33

There are no doubt some serious descrepancies between Kauṭilya and Megasthenes; but in most cases it can be shown that the Greek ambassador’s account is unreliable. The latter is, for some reasons unknown to us, drawing too rosy a picture of the Indian society when he states that theft, drinking and slavery were unknown in India. The data in the *Arthaśāstra* are not consistent with these statements, but are supported by the evidence of the Dharmasūtras written at about the 4th century B. C.; we can therefore well place him in the Mauryan period, though his picture differs from that of Megasthenes. Megasthenes’ statement that Indians did not know the art of writing and administered the laws from memory is now universally accepted as incorrect. His statement that the horses and elephants were the monopoly of the king is contradicted by Strabo and Arrian, who agree with Kauṭilya in recognising private ownership of these animals. When Megasthenes states that the state was the owner of land, he probably refers to the crown lands. Patañjali agrees with Kauṭilya in recognising the private ownership of arable land. The non-reference in the *Arthaśāstra* to the boards of five in the city and the military administration may be due to the fact that Kauṭilya perhaps wanted to refer to only the heads of the offices and not to their advisory councils

c8.s2.34

All things considered, it has to be admitted that there is a substantial agreement between the administrative and social picture as given by Kauṭilya and Megasthenes and we may well conclude that they were not far removed from each other in time.

c8.s2.35

The above facts as well as the colophon of the work would suggest that its kernel at any rate belongs to the Mauryan age and embodies the views of Kauṭilya. It was, however, retouched here and there in later times. Thus the reference to China could not have been in the original work, as the country was not known by that name in *c.* 300 B. C. It is probable that passages containing the term *suraṅga*, derived from the Greek term syrinx, may be later. At p. 255 the view of Bhāradvāja is placed after that of Kauṭilya. This may be an instance of opposite views being placed side by side in an impartial manner. But if it suggests that the view of Bhāradvāja was to be preferred to that of Kauṭilya, the passage would be a later addition.

c8.s2.36

Apart from a few such passages, the work seems to be substantially of the Mauryan age and may be taken to embody the views of the great minister of Chandragupta.

c8.s2.37

Kauṭilya was not only a famous statesman but also the founder of a school of politics; hence the great respect in which his name and work have been held by the subsequent centuries. Both Bāṇa¹ and Daṇḍin² refer to the study of this work especially by the princes, and the Jain tradition, as recorded in the *Nandīsūtra* (p. 391) enumerates the work among the heretical books along with the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Bhārata*. Even south Indian epigraphs describe skilled administrators and diplomats like king Durvinīta (9th century)³ and Mārashimha (10th century) of the Ganga dynasty³ as incarnations of Vishṇugupta or Kauṭilya or as well versed in his statecraft.

c8.s2.38

¹ येषामतिनृशंसं प्रायोपदेशनिर्घृणं कौटिलीयमर्थशास्त्रं प्रमाणम्। *Kādambarī.*

c8.s2.39

² अत्रोञ्च तावद्दण्डनीतिम्। इयनिदानीमाचार्यविष्णुगुप्तेन मौर्यार्थे षड्भिः श्लोकसहस्रैः संक्षिप्ता। *Daśakumāracharit*, Bk. I

c8.s2.40

³ Gumireddipura plates, *M. A. R.*, 1912; Vudlur grant, *M. A R.* 1942

c8.s2.41

The position of the *Arthaśāstra* in the realm of the literature on politics is analogous to that of Pāṇini's *Ashṭādhyāyī* in the field of grammar. Like Pāṇini, Kauṭilya superseded all his predecessors; their works were, therefore, lost in the course of time. The excellence of Pāṇini's work was so great that very few among the later grammarians thought it possible to supersede the great master. The same apparently was the view of the later scholars in the realm of the political science.

c8.s2.42

That seems to be one of the reasons for the relative dearth of original works in the later history of the science.

c8.s2.43

There were also some other reasons for this phenomenon. The Smṛitis written during *c.* 200 B. C. to 200 A. D. like those of Manu (Chaps. VII-IX), Vishṇu (Chap. III) and Yājñavalkya (Chap. I, 304-67) took over the discussion of the topics like the duties of the king, the functions of the different officers, the rules of civil and criminal law and the different theories concerning the foreign policy. Of course their treatment of these subjects was not as comprehensive or systematic as that of the *Arthaśāstra*, but it was quite sufficient for every day purposes. They possessed the additional advantage of including a discussion of the rules of *varṇa*, *āśrama* and *prāyaśchitta* and thus appeared as more useful manuals to the public than the books on the pure *Arthaśāstra*, as they dealt with a number of religious, social and philosophical topics also, in which the age was more interested than in the pure discussion of the details of political theories or the problems of Government administration.

c8.s2.44

The Smṛiti works referred to above deal with the administrative problems in a general way. Their treatment would have been found inadequate and new books would have come into the field, had there been intense activity in the realm of the political thought. But there was no such activity. The general form of the works of the political science was determined by the *Arthaśāstra* and a few other manuals of similar nature. New political theories were not adumbrated in later centuries. The semireligious and semi-moral outlook of the writers of the time was responsible for this. Our writers, for instance, concede the principle that the king is the servant of the people and there is no sin in killing a tyrant. A good many theories and books could have come in the field, if the problem of rigicide had been viewed purely from the secular point of view. What are the duties of the king in his capacity as the servant of the people, what are the secular remedies for the people, if the king begins to behave autocratically, under what circumstances would people be justified in withholding allegiance or the payment of taxes, how public opinion was to make itself felt, what were the different milder remedies that people could adopt before they had recourse to rigicide, how were they to be made effective in the face of the police and military forces of the king,—these and similar questions would have given rise to a number of divergent theories, resulting in a rich literature extending over several centuries. But this could not happen, because our writers looked at the question from the religious and moral point of view. The king was to be a virtuous ruler, devoted heart and soul to the welfare of the people; if he was not such, then gods will punish him. The subjects had no secular remedies feasible in normal times; gods were expected to destroy a bad king. Sometimes it is stated that he should be killed like a mad dog, but how, by whom, and under what circumstances is not explained. Abstruse thinking and daring speculation which is characteristic of Hindu thought in other departments like philosophy and poetics are strangely enough conspicuous by their absence in the works on the science of polity.

c8.s2.45

Epigraphical evidence shows that there existed considerable divergence in the country in the sphere of taxation and local government. New taxes were introduced by the different states in the course of time and the local government institutions developed on different lines in the various provinces of India. New books could have been written discussing these developments. But this did not happen, probably because taxation and local government were governed by local traditions, which were not usually incorporated in the standard works on polity.

c8.s2.46

The administrative machinery of the Guptas considerably differed from that of the Mauryas; fresh developments took place in this sphere under Harsha, as also under the rule of the early medieval dynasties. Books could have been written bearing upon the changes that were taking place in the administrative machinery. But this also did not happen. Probably the students of the political science felt that these were minor changes of details which were not sufficiently important to warrant the composition of fresh books.

c8.s2.47

It has been suggested that the foreign invasions and alien rule during *c.* 200 B. C. to 300 A. D. may have been responsible for the dearth of the political literature in the post-Kauṭilya period. This, however, appears improbable; the dominions of the Greeks, the Scythians, the Parthians and the Kushāṇas did not extend beyond the Punjab for any appreciable time. Madhyadeśa and Bihar, which were the centre of Aryan culture from *c.* 500 B. C. remained practically unaffected by the foreign conquests.

c8.s2.48

To conclude, the relative sterility in political literature in the first millenium of the Christian era seems to be due to the great sway which the classical work of Kauṭilya continued to have over the public mind and the absence of any noteworthy development in the sphere of the political thought or government machinery. A few manuals, with no particular claim to originality, were of course composed during this period and we shall briefly refer to them after a few remarks about the state of affairs in South India.

c8.s2.49

South India in the early period did not produce any important works on polity. We get only occasional references on the government of the day from such literary works as the *Tirukkural*, and the *Silappadikaram*. But they usually refer to the king and his officers and hardly throw any light either on the political theories or on the administrative structure as a whole.

c8.s2.50

The great fascination which Kauṭilya had over his successors is well illustrated by *Kāmandakīya Nītisāra*, composed probably in the Gupta age (*c.* 500 A. D.). This book is nothing but a metrical summary of the work of Kauṭilya. Obviously its anonymous writer felt that the best service he could render to the students of politics would be to summarise this standard work in the popular Anushṭub metre, so that it could be easily memorised by the student. The work, however, does not at all describe the administrative machinery. The king and his courtiers dominate the picture, showing the great importance that monarchy had acquired by this time. Kauṭilya's chapter on republican states is omitted, probably because they were no longer in existence. Civil, criminal and personal law are completely left out, probably because the Smṛiti writers of this period had specialised in this branch. Jayaswal attributed the work to Śikharasvāmin, a minister of Chandragupta II ; his arguments however are not convincing. Vishākhadatta and Daṇḍin do not refer to the work but Vāmana (*c.* 800 A.D.) knows it. Its time may be somewhere between 500 and 700 A. D.

c8.s2.51

The *Nītivākyāmṛita* is also a colourless summary of earlier political thought ; it is somewhat interesting as it proceeds from the pen of a Jain author, Somadevasūri (*c.* 960 A. D.)

c8.s2.52

The *Śukranīti*, whose date is rather uncertain, is the next work to be considered. It is very important for the student of ancient Indian polity. Like other works of the class, it does not occupy itself with theoretical discussion of the principles of polity or government, but it gives us a more detailed and comprehensive picture of the administrative machinery than is given by any other work of the post-Kauṭilya epoch. Its polity is of course monarchical, republics having disappeared long before the date of the work. Besides discussing the duties of the king and the functions of his ministers and officers the work describes the problems of foreign policy and methods of warfare. Civil administration is described in very great details. We get a vivid picture of the judicial administration. The four popular courts are referred to ; substantive law is however not dealt with. The state as envisaged by Śukra was an organisation for the welfare of the subjects. It was not only to suppress crime and disorder, but to control gambling and drinking. It was to maintain hospitals and rest-houses and encourage learning and scholarship. It was to increase the resources of the country by encouraging trade, developing mines, forests and industries and executing schemes of irrigation.

c8.s2.53

In several respects the work supplies information not to be found in other works on polity. Interesting and minute details are given about the seating arrangements in the royal court on formal occasions (II, 70-71) and about different grades of feudatories and their incomes (I, 282-83). The portfolios of different ministers are given in this work for the first time ; it enables us to have a clear picture of the day to day working of ministry with the assistance of the secretaries and under the control of the king (II, 109-10). Unlike any other work, Śukra gives us the percentage of the state income to be spent on different items (I, 316-17). The section dealing with the army administration (IV, Sect. VII) gives us the most comprehensive picture of the army organisation,—how the soldiers were to be recruited, trained and paid, how martial types of elephants and horses were to be selected, how weapons were to be manufactured or procured, etc.

c8.s2.54

Widely divergent views are held about the date of the *Śukranīti*. G. Oppert placed it even in the pre-Christian period; Dr. U. N Ghosal thinks that the work was written between 1200 and 1600 A. D. and the view of R. L. Mitra was similar. The fact is that the work is a composite one and was being retouched down to the 14th century; but its greater part has to be ascribed to the 11th or the 12th century A. D.. The statement that the Mlechchhas resided in the north-west of India, the reference to Sāmantas as both feudatories and officials, (I. 189), the information that the price of gold was 16 times that of silver (IV. 2. 92), as stated by Bhāskarāchārya, the inclusion of Deśabhāshās (vernaculars) as topics of study (IV. 3. 30), the reference to the Advaita Vedānta doctrine of Śaṅkara (IV. 3. 50), the injunction that peace should be made even with an Anārya, because otherwise he may uproot the kingdom (IV. 7. 243), the enunciation of the principle that the treasury should have a reserve equal to 20 years revenue (IV. 2. 23), which was obviously followed by Hindu kings of the 11th century as shown by the accounts of the plunder obtained from their treasuries by Muslim conquerors,—all these tend to show that the book as a whole belongs to the period between 900 and 1200. The verses dealing with firearms and gunpowder (IV. 7. 195-213; I. 231; II. 95 and 195) may have been added by the end of the 14th century, when gunpowder is known to have been used by the army of Vijayanagar.¹

c8.s2.55

¹ *E. C.* VIII Sa. 68; Sh. 433; Saletore, *Social and Political Life in Vijayanagar*, p. 430.

c8.s2.56

The *Bārhaspatya Arthaśāstra* is a small, unimportant and late booklet, doing justice neither to its subject nor to the reputation of its supposed author. Like some of the earlier Smṛitis, a few later Smṛitis also occasionally deal with administration, but their treatment is quite perfunctory.¹ The Purāṇas of the Gupta and post-Gupta period also deal with State and Government, but disclose no originality of thought or treatment.²

c8.s2.57

¹ See, for instance, *Vṛiddha-Hārita-Smṛiti*, Chap. VII, *Bṛihat-Pāraśara*, Chap. X.

c8.s2.58

² See, for instance, *Agnipurāṇa*, Chaps. 218-42, *Garuḍapurāṇa*, Chaps. 108-115, *Matsya-purāṇa*, Chaps. 215-43 *Mārkaṇḍeya*, Chap. 24.

c8.s2.59

From *c.* 1000 A. D. originality disappeared from most of the branches of Indian learning, and the science of polity was no exception. From *c.* 1000 A. D. to 1700 A. D. a number of compendiums were written giving a comprehensive treatment of Dharma in its different branches; *rājanīti* or politics also formed a section of most of these works. As important works of this class, we may mention *Abhilashitārthachintāmaṇi* (1st four chapters) of Someśvara, *Yuktikalpataru* of Bhoja (*c.* 1025 A. D.), *Rājanītikalpataru* of Lakshmīdhara (*c.* 1125 A. D.), *Rājanītikāṇḍa* of Devaṇa-bhaṭṭa (*c.* 1300 A. D. ), *Rājanītiratnākara* of Chaṇḍeśvara (*c.* 1325 A. D.), *Amuktamālyada* of king Krishṇadevarāya of Vijayanagar dynasty, *c.* 1525 A.D. *Nītimayukha* of Nīlakaṇṭha (*c.* 1625 A.D.) and *Rājanītiprakāśa* of Mitramiśra (*c.* 1650 A.D.). Most of these works are written from the theological rather than from the political point of view. Thus the *Rājanītiprakāśa* devotes as many as 100 pages to the description of the coronation ceremony. The *Nītimayūkha* gives detailed instructions to the king as to how he should cleanse himself, shave and bathe, what he should do if there are bad dreams and omens, and what different *śāntis* he should perform to avert different calamities. We have got sections in these works dealing with ministers, forts, treasury, foreign policy, war, etc. But there is nothing new about them. We usually get only a collection of quotations from earlier writers bearing upon these and similar topics.

c8.s2.60

Of the above mentioned works, we may review in detail the *Mānasollāsa* or *Abhilashitārtha chintāmaṇi*, as a typical work of the class; it was composed by the Chālukya king Someśvara (1125-1138 A. D.) Though written by a ruler, it is most disappointing as a book on Polity. Of its hundred chapters as many as 60 deal with the king’s luxuries, amusements and pastimes (*upabhogas*, *pramodas* and *krīḍās*) and only the first forty deal with the aquisition of a kingdom and its stabilisation. But even here the viewpoint is more religious than secular. Among the best means of gaining a kingdom figure the telling of the truth, the observance of sex morality, the offering of Śrāddha and the going on pilgrimage. The royal author is more anxious to display his knowledge of other subjects than that of the science of politics and seizes every opportunity to make unjustified digressions. While dealing with the health of the king, he gives a long list of tonics; while referring to the duties of the treasurer, he gives the multiplication tables, rules of three and five, etc. (II. 99-123). The author is less anxious to give instructions about the training of war elephants and more particular to give details about their abodes and varieties (II. 172-331). While dealing with the army we have large sections on the medical treatment of horses and elephants (II. 529-674). The section on treasury gives less information about the principles of taxation and its varieties and more details about the qualities and types of pearls, diamonds, etc. (II. 361-516). While dealing with military operations, we have a very detailed discussion of good and bad omens to be inferred from the position of stars and planets and the notes and cries of crows, dogs and jackals (II. 753-948).

c8.s2.61

As to purely political topics, the qualities of the kings, the qualifications of ministers (I, 54 ff.) and the duties of the treasurer, chamberlain and royal physician are mentioned, but there is nothing noteworthy about them. The same is the case about the discussion of the foreign policy. Occasionally however we get some interesting information. We are told that it was the duty of the foreign minister to summon feudatories at proper intervals in order to check their actions and policies (II. 128). It appears that forts were provisioned with snakes (kept in jars), tigers and other carnivorous animals, which were let loose when the enemy beseiged them (II. 555). Detailed lists are given about the weapons of the army (II. 681 ff.). The author allows destruction of crops, burning of towns and villages, imprisonment of enemy citizens, etc, during the course of the war.

c8.s2.62

The book is on the whole quite disappointing as a treatise on political science and shows that the manual-writers of this period had hardly any genuine interest in the science of politics; they were mainly occupied with the task of describing the hobbies, luxuries and pastimes of the king. The political science in the real sense of the term had ceased to be cultivated.

c8.s2.63

The same tendency is illustrated by a few works on polity written in vernaculars at this time. For instance, a manual on political science was written in Marathi in *c.* 1680 by Ramchandra Pant Amātya, a minister of Shivāji, for the guidance of the latter's son, but it shows no originality of thought. These works, therefore, possess very little intrinsic value to the student of the political science. Original thinking had come to an end for reasons already explained.

Linked texts (38)