Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s3.72

c10.s3.72

Kauṭalya has certainly a deep sense of justice which does not allow him to stray beyond the legitimate sphere. He is up in arms against the unjust and *adhar-mic* methods of punishment.³ And it does not appeal to our reason that an author with such conceptions would lend himself to prescribing judicial torture to the suspected. A full and careful study of the *Arthaśāstra* shows Kauṭalya to be a constitutionalist statesman with a complete understanding of the *Dharmaśāstras* and willing to abide by them. The eighteen kinds of punishment mentioned have nothing of novelty about them. Manu has in fact ruled that the limb of the body which was responsible for the guilt must be cut off in the interest of the progress of the state.¹ In the case of Brahman culprits Kauṭalya follows the *Mānava-Dharmaśāstra* dictum, viz., banishment.² Thus it is seen that Kauṭalya has not broken any new ground but has consistently adopted the main principles of the Law-Codes. He nowhere sacrifices principles of *dharma* at the altar of worldly ends. To entertain such an opinion is to misread him. The *Arthaśāstra* in most respects does not fall short of the rulings of the *Dharmaśāstras*. Do not the latter deal with secular questions of state, law, and policy? What more has *Arthaśāstra* done to break away from the *Dharmaśāstras*? It explains in elaborate detail secular subjects which have been summarily dismissed with simple mention by the law books.