Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c4: Chapter I: Introductory

Public Administration in Ancient India c4

Language
English

Chapter I: Introductory

c4.2

IN Ancient India, the different branches of knowledge were grouped under four heads, namely, Philosophy, the Vedas, Economics, and Politics.¹ Of these, Politics was regarded as a very important—if not the most important—subject of study. The Mahābhārata says, “When the Science of Politics is neglected, the three Vedas as well as all virtues decline.”²

c4.3

¹ Chānakya says, “Ānvīkṣikī (Philosophy), Trayī (the Vedas), Vārttā (Economics), and Daṇḍanīti (the Science of Government) are the four sciences.” Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 1. The Mahābhārata, the Kāmandaki, and the Sukranīti follow Chānakya’s classification, and use almost identical words. According to the school of the Mānavas there are only three sciences—the Vedas, Economics, and Politics; the school of Brihaspati reduces the sciences to two, namely, Economics and Politics, while that of Usanas regards the Science of Government as the only science, all other branches of knowledge being dependent on it.

c4.4

² “Majjet trayī daṇḍanītau hatāyāṁ sarve dharmāḥ prakṣayeyuḥ.” Mahābhārata, Śānti Parva, Sec. 63, sl. 28.

c4.5

The method of study pursued in ancient times was somewhat different from that generally adopted at the present day. Politics was treated more as an art than as a science; in other words, guidance in the practice of actual administration, rather than the construction of a complete and consistent system of political theories, was the object mainly aimed at in the study of the subject. Chānakya, for instance, defines Politics as "the science which treats of what is right in public policy and what is not, and of power and weakness."¹ According to the Sukranīti, a knowledge of the science "enables rulers to gain victories over their foes, to please their subjects, and to be proficient in statecraft."² The mode of treatment was thus more practical than theoretical; and one result of this was that the conclusions were expressed in the form not of scientific principles but of moral precepts.

c4.6

¹ Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 1.

c4.7

² Ch. I. sls. 6-7.

c4.8

Our sources of information regarding the systems of administration which prevailed in India in the ancient times and the political ideas and ideals which moulded and shaped those systems, are various. Briefly speaking, they are: the Vedas, the Hindu Epics, the Smritis, the Purānas, the religious books of the Buddhists and the Jainas, historical and dramatic literature, accounts of foreign travellers, epigraphic records, and lastly, a few treatises which deal specially with Politics.

c4.9

In the Rig-Veda, many passages are met with which allude to the colonisation of the country by the Āryas, and speak of the sanguinary wars of the Āryan conquerors with the non-Āryan inhabitants of the country. But nothing is said about the system of administration, and very little information, beyond a few scattered hints, can be obtained from the earlier portion of Vedic literature about the political condition of India during the earliest period of her history. The later Vedic works, however, such as the Aitareya Brāhmana, the Satapatha Brāhmana, and the Atharva-Veda, are more informing in this respect.

c4.10

The Rāmāyana and the Mahābhārata are not historical works in the modern sense of the term; but they give us a graphic and fairly accurate picture of the life of the Āryas in what is known as the Heroic Period of Indian history. The stories found in these Epics are largely based on real occurrences, and although the main themes of the Epics are the wars of the heroes, both of these great works present us with glimpses of the political condition of early Hindu society and of the relations between the rulers and the ruled, while not a few chapters of the Mahābhārata are specially devoted to an exposition of the duties of kings and of the rights and obligations of subjects.¹

c4.11

¹ In the Mahābhārata, a mythical account is given of the source of the Science of Politics. It is said that Brahman composed by his own intelligence a treatise consisting of a hundred thousand lessons. In it were treated the subjects of Virtue, Wealth, and Pleasure. A large portion of it was devoted to the subject of Government, that is to say, the growth, conservation, and destruction of States. This book discussed in detail the duties of the king, of the ministers, and of the people, and other kindred matters. It was first studied by Siva and abridged by him for the benefit of mankind. Further abridgments were made by Indra, Brihaspati,

c4.12

The most ancient among the Smritis were in prose, and are known as the Dharma-sūtras. Only a few fragments of some of these works have yet been discovered. The Dharma-śāstras appear to have been later redactions in verse of the earlier Dharma-sūtras.¹ The most important of the Smriti works at present known are those attributed to Gautama, Āpastamba, Vasistha, Bodhāyana, Vishnu, Manu, Yājnavalkya, and Nārada. Their purpose is to

c4.13

¹ Considerable doubts still exist as to the dates of composition of the Vedas, the Epics, the Smritis, and the Purānas. We do not propose to enter here upon a discussion of this controversial topic, but will content ourselves with a few remarks on the subject. The hymns of the Rig-Veda are considered to have been the earliest utterances of the Āryan race, and many of them go back to a very remote period, while the bulk of the Vedic literature seems to have been composed before 1000 B.C.

c4.14

Sukra, and others. Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 59, sl. 28, etc. The origin of the name of the science is described thus: Brahman said, "Because men are led by Government (daṇḍa), or in other words, Government leads or controls everything, therefore this Science will be known in the three worlds as the Science of Government (Daṇḍanīti)." Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 59, sl. 78.

c4.15

Weber placed the date of composition of the Rāmāyaṇa in the third or fourth century after Christ; but nobody accepts this view now. According to Prof. Jacobi, the Rāmāyaṇa was composed in Kosala on the basis of ballads recited by rhapsodists throughout that district. Prof. Rhys Davids is of opinion that the date of the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa as Epics must be later than that of the ballad literature preserved in the Nikāyas. We are inclined to think that these Epics, originally composed in the form of ākhyana poetry about the tenth or ninth century B.C. were several times enlarged and revised, until they assumed something like their present shape in the third or second century B.C. Barth rightly remarks, "the Hindu Epic is ancient, as ancient in the origin as the earliest traditions of the nation." Indian Antiquary, 1895, p. 71.

c4.16

The existing Code of Manu is perhaps not very old, but probably it was based upon a more ancient Dharma-sūtra of the Mānava school. Chānakya, in his Arthasāstra, frequently refers to this school of the Mānavas. Roughly speaking, we may say that the Sūtra works were composed between 1000 and 500 B.C., while the Dharma-śāstras were compiled between the third century B.C. and the fifth century A.D.

c4.17

describe the whole of the rites and customs which ought to prevail in private, civic, and public life, and, naturally, they all devote some of their chapters to discussions of political subjects like the duties of kings, public finance, civil and criminal laws, and judicial procedure. These chapters are inestimable value to the student of ancient Politics.

c4.18

The Purāṇas appear to be works which were originally composed for the purpose of giving instruction to the less advanced sections of the community in all matters concerning this world and the next. Their great value from the historical standpoint lies in the fact that they contain a considerable amount of genuine historical tradition and preserve more or less correct lists of the various dynasties of kings who ruled in India from the earliest times until towards the close of the Hindu period of Indian history.¹ To the student of political science the Agni Purāṇa, which treats of politics in considerable detail, is specially important.

c4.19

¹ Comparatively recent dates have been assigned by many scholars to the Purāṇas. But even Prof. H. H. Wilson admits that "a very great portion of the contents of many, some portion of the contents of all, is genuine and old. The sectarian interpolation or embellishment is always sufficiently palpable to be set aside, without injury to the more authentic and primitive material." Vishnu Purāṇa, Preface, p. vi. Mr. Pargiter says, "Metrical accounts of the dynasties that reigned in Northern India after the great battle between the Pāṇdavas and the Kauravas, grew up gradually, composed in slokas in a literary Prākrit and recited by bards and minstrels, and after writing was introduced into India, about seven centuries B.C., there would have been no lack of materials from which those accounts could have been composed and written down." Dynasties of the Kali Age, Introduction, xxvii.

c4.20

A considerable amount of incidental information is supplied by the Buddhist and Jaina Sūtras, the Jātakas, the Milinda Panha, and other religious works of the two sects. Although the information obtainable from this source is small in quantity, the fact that the object of composition of these works was religious and not political lends to it a greater degree of reliability than is possessed by some of the other sources.

c4.21

The purely historical literature of India at present known to us is exceedingly meagre. The Rāja-taranginī¹ of Kalhana, which treats of the Kings of Kashmir, is practically the only work in Indian literature that makes some approach to the modern conception of history. The Dīpavamsa and the Mahāvamsa contain much legendary material for history, and although not absolutely reliable in every detail as records of historical events, they are very helpful to us in elucidating some of the difficult points of Indian history and administration.² Much light is also thrown on the political condition of India by the writings of poets like Bhāsa and Kālidāsa, and in particular by such works as the Mudrā-Rākshasa of Visākhadatta, Mrichchakatikā of Sūdraka, the Harsha-charita of Bāna and the Dasakumāra-charita of Daṇḍin. From some of the story books, such as the Panchatantra, the Brihat-Kathā, and the Kathā-sarit-sagara, we learn a great deal about the political ideas of the Hindus. In Tamil literature the most well-known works on the subject are the Mani-Mekalai and the Kural.

c4.22

¹ This work has been translated into English by Mr. J. C. Dutt, and also by Sir M. A. Stein.

c4.23

² Prof. Rhys Davids says: “What we find in such chronicles is not indeed sober history, as we should now understand the term, but neither is it pure fiction. It is good evidence of opinion as held at the time when it was written.” Prof. Geiger seems also to be of the same opinion. The approximate dates of composition of the Dīpavamsa and the Mahāvamsa were the fourth and the fifth century A.D. respectively.

c4.24

The earliest foreign travellers who left any accounts of their visits to India were the Greeks. Much of their writings consists merely of ‘travellers’ tales,’ and as such are useless. But Megasthenes, who was attached for several years as Ambassador to the Court of Chandragupta Maurya, was a very careful observer of facts and events which came under his direct notice, and although he perhaps lacked the faculty of critical judgment, his writings still remain one of the most important sources of our information regarding the condition of the country in the fourth century before Christ. The information derived from this source is supplemented by that obtained from the historians of Alexander’s Indian campaign.¹ Many Chinese pilgrims visited India during the period between the fourth and eighth centuries A.D., and the accounts left by them, especially those left by Fa Hian, Hiuen Tsiang,² and I-Tsing,³ are of very great use to people interested in the affairs of ancient India. Alberuni’s Tārīkh-i-Hind¹ is also useful as throwing some light on the state of the country on the eve of the Mahomedan conquest.

c4.25

¹ Mr. McCrindle’s translations have made these works very useful to the general reader.

c4.26

² Translated by Beal.

c4.27

³ Translated by Takakusu.

c4.28

¹ Translated by Sachau.

c4.29

The epigraphic records are invaluable for the elucidation of the facts of the history of India. Besides, they give us many useful hints about the political affairs of the periods to which they relate. Most of these records, however, are comparatively recent in date, and as such are not of much assistance to us. Of the earlier records, Asoka’s inscriptions and the inscriptions of the Guptas are the most important. Some of the Ceylon inscriptions are of special interest in this regard. We also derive some useful information from many of the copperplate records of grants made by kings and others.

c4.30

Of the works which treat specially of the subject of Public Administration, the most important is the Arthaśāstra of Chānakya.² ‘Arthaśāstra,’ literally, means the science of secular welfare, as distinguished from ‘Dharma-śāstra,’ or the science of moral and spiritual well-being. But this work treats only of Politics, for in Kautilya’s opinion Public Administration was the chief means of promoting the welfare of the people. The author appears in Sanskrit literature under various names, such as Kautilya, Kautalya, Chānakya, and Vishnugupta. As Prof. Jolly puts it, “a flood of light has been thrown on the political condition of India in the very times when Megasthenes visited it, by the recent discovery of the Kautiliya Arthasastra.” The author of this great work was himself a practical statesman,¹ and it bears on every one of its pages the impress of a great mind. It evinces a thorough grasp of essential principles as well as a mastery of minute details. But it is not free from defects of a very serious character. For

c4.31

² “The measures to be taken for the acquisition and the preservation of the earth have been described in this book.” Arthaśāstra, Bk. XV. ch. 1. In another passage the author says that the system of public administration has been here described for the guidance of kings. So great was the fame of this work that the name ‘Chānakya’ became almost a synonym for ‘Political Science.’ In an inscription, the Rāshṭrakūṭa King, Govinda IV., is described as ‘Chānakya-chaturmukha.’ Vide Epigraphia Indica, Vol. VII. p. 36. According to the Purāṇas, Chandragupta was placed on the throne by Kautilya. The Matsya, Vāyu, and Brahmāṇda Purāṇas say: “Uddhariṣyati tān sarvān Kautilyaḥ.” The Matsya adds: “Kautilyaś Candraguptan tu tato rājye ’bhiṣekṣyati.” The other Purāṇas also say practically the same thing. The Mahāvamsa says: “Then did the Brāhmana, Chānakka, anoint a glorious youth, known by name Chandagutta, as King over all

c4.32

¹ As to the authenticity of the Arthasāstra, Dr. Jolly remarks, “It can no longer be called into doubt after the learned disquisition contained in a paper published in Germany by Prof. Hillebrandt of Breslau.” Dr. Jolly adds, “We consider this one of the most important discoveries ever made in the whole range of Sanskrit literature.” Mysore Review, May, 1909. Vide also Über das Kautilīyaśāstra und Verwandtes by Alfred Hillebrandt (Breslau, 1908).

c4.33

Jambudvīpa, born of a noble clan, the Moriyas, when, filled with bitter hate, he had slain the ninth (Nanda) Dhanananda.” Geiger’s Mahāvamsa, Ch. V. This story is confirmed by the Mudrā-Rākshasa. The Kathāsarit-sagara tells us that Chandragupta obtained his throne “through the kindness of Vishnugupta.”

c4.34

Mr. Shama Sastri has placed the public under a deep debt of gratitude by editing this work, and also by publishing translations of portions of it in the Mysore Review and the Indian Antiquary. I have frequently consulted Mr. Sastri’s translations for the purpose of the present work. Mr. Sorabji has published a few notes on the first two books of the Arthasāstra.

c4.35

side by side with words of the highest kind of wisdom, we find here emphasised the utility of time-servingness and the necessity for the subordination of ethical principles to considerations of expediency. The political doctrine preached in this book, namely, that the end justifies the means, marks a notable departure from the high moral standard of earlier times.

c4.36

It strikes us as a curious coincidence that Chānakya, the greatest political philosopher of India, was the contemporary of Aristotle, the most eminent political theorist of Ancient Greece, and perhaps also a junior contemporary of Aristotle’s predecessor and teacher, Plato.¹ The opinion of scholars is divided on the question whether the Arthaśāstra is the work of Chānakya himself or of a school founded by Chānakya. Prof. Hillebrandt² holds the latter view, but Prof. Jacobi³ advances weighty arguments to prove the individual authorship of the work. Prof. Keith suggests, “Surely one obvious solution is that Kautilya was an energetic student of the Arthaśāstra, who carried his theoretical knowledge into practice, and in the evening of his days enriched the theory by knowledge based on his practical experience, and that the Arthaśāstra is based on his teaching, though not by his own hand.”⁴

c4.37

¹ When Chānakya placed Chandragupta on the throne of Magadha in 323 or 322 B.C., he was evidently a middle-aged, if not an old, man.

c4.38

² Über das Kauṭilīyaśāstra, 1908.

c4.39

³ Über die Echtheit des Kautiliya, SKPAW, 1912.

c4.40

⁴ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, January, 1916.

c4.41

The author of the Arthaśāstra ¹ says in his Preface to the book that it is founded on all the ancient books written on the subject by the ancient teachers, and in the body of the work he criticises the views of many political theorists, such as Usanas, Brihaspati, Bharadvāja, Parāsara, Visālāksha, and Pisuna, and of the schools founded by these teachers. The names of these teachers and of some others also occur in the Mahābhārata. But at present we know nothing of their writings beyond what is contained in the Smritis. It is not improbable, however, that some of their works will be discovered in future and will add considerably to our knowledge of the polity of Ancient India.² Of political works now known to us besides the Arthasāstra, the most notable are the Nītisāra of Kāmandaki, the Nītivākyāmrita of Somadeva Sūri, and the Nītisāra which is attributed to Sukrāchārya.¹ All these works seem to have been based, to a greater or less extent, on the Arthasāstra. The Kāmandaki-nīti was probably composed in the third or fourth century A.D., and may be regarded as a metrical version of certain portions of the Arthasāstra. The Nītivākyāmrita also, like the Kāmandaki, closely follows the Kautiliya in its treatment of political topics. It appears to have been composed in the tenth century.² In the Sukranīti are to be found passages which occur in the Kāmandaki, but it also contains matter which is not to be found in the earlier books. The date of compilation of the bulk of the book may be placed in the ninth or tenth century after Christ, but some portions are evidently more modern.³ Mention may also be made of a few other books of comparatively recent dates, which, though not important in themselves, show the continuity of the political system of the Hindus.

c4.42

¹ Kautilya has sometimes been compared to Machiavelli. But this comparison does not seem to be a very happy one. There is no doubt that both these great writers wrote for the guidance of princes, and that both favoured a subordination of ethical principles to considerations of expediency. But the points of similarity do not extend any further. In intellectual acumen and in comprehensiveness of outlook, Kautilya far surpasses his Italian rival. Moreover, the Hindu author was also a practical statesman of the first rank to whose guidance and advice Chandragupta owed the foundation and consolidation of a pan-Indian Empire; while the practical experience of the Florentine diplomat was limited to a few years' service in a subordinate department of the State. Lastly, Kautilya's political ideas continued to be accepted by many generations of kings and statesmen as safe guides in their work of actual administration, but Machiavelli's Prince and other works were valued merely as abstract treatises and never influenced to any considerable extent the current of political events. If any European politician can be compared to Chānakya, it is Bismarck.

c4.43

² Dr. F. W. Thomas of the India Office Library has obtained possession of a copy of a small MS. work entitled ‘Brihaspati Sūtra.’ He is now editing and translating this work, and has kindly permitted me to consult it. This work appears to be comparatively modern, but probably it contains some of the traditional ideas of the Bārhaspatya school of Politics.

c4.44

¹ Very little is known about the authors of these books. Dr. Rajendralala Mitra held the opinion that Kāmandaki was a Buddhist, and that his work was composed some time before the fifth century A.D. Sukrāchārya, the reputed author of Sukranīti, is supposed to have been the preceptor of the Demons (Daityas). He is also known by other names, such as Usanas, Kavi, Bhārgava, Maghābhava, etc.

c4.45

² Somadeva Sūri wrote his ‘Yasastilaka’ in Saka 881 (959 A.D.).

c4.46

³ Gustav Oppert’s opinion that the work was composed anterior to the composition of the Mahābhārata is entitled to no weight. The truth seems to be this, that the work in its present shape was compiled from several ancient works on Politics.

c4.47

The Yuktikalpataru, ascribed to King Bhoja, was probably composed in the eleventh or twelfth century.¹ The Nītimayūkha is a portion of Nīlakantha’s Bhāskara, compiled in the seventeenth century. Nothing is known about the authorship or the probable date of the Nītiprakāsikā, attributed to Vaisampāyana, but the detailed description which it gives of the weapons used in warfare shows that it is a recent work.² Abul Fazl, in his Ayeen-i-Akbery (written in the sixteenth century) gives a short summary of Hindu polity (Rajneet) and law (Beyhar) which is very interesting.

c4.48

¹ Several kings bearing the name of Bhoja are to be found in history, and it is not known to which of them it refers. Bhoja, King of Dhara, is supposed to have lived about the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century, and is said to have been not only a great patron of learning but himself the author of several learned works. This book has not yet been printed, but a manuscript copy exists in the Bodleian at Oxford, and a few copies are known to exist in India.

c4.49

² In 1881 Gustav Oppert published this work at Madras, but the authenticity of the work has not yet been established beyond all doubt.

c4.50

There is a large number of books and manuscripts in the British Museum, in the India Office Library, and in the Libraries at Oxford and Cambridge which profess to give the teachings of Chānakya, but none of them are of any use to the student of Political Science.³ A manuscript has, however, been recently found in the Oriental Manuscripts Library of Madras, entitled ‘Chānakya-sūtra,’⁴ which looks like an abridgment of a few chapters of the Arthaśāstra. The style of this work is akin to that of the Nītivākyāmṛita of Somadeva Sūri, and it probably belongs to the same period as the latter work.

c4.51

³ Eugene Monseur published some years ago a few of these works in a volume which contains the Niti-Sataka, Niti-Sāstra, Laghuchānakya-Rājanīti-Sāstra, Vriddha-Chānakya-Rājuhnīti-Sāstra and Chānakya-Sloka.

c4.52

⁴ A copy of this MS. is now in the possession of Mr. F. W. Thomas.

Linked texts (20)