Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c8.s2.17

State and Government in Ancient India c8.s2.17

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (1)