Hindu Administrative Institutions c6.41

c6.41

Presuming these works are comparatively old and not quite recent as some scholars take them to be, it is interesting to see what they have to say on the concept of *nīti* in general and *daṇḍa nīti* in particular. Śukrācārya says, ‘*Nītiśāstra* aims at social well-being and leads on to the welfare of mankind. It is admitted to be the very source of *dharma*, *artha* and *kāma*, and hence a means to salvation. Therefore it is for the king to study always this *śāstra*, the knowledge of which helps him to overcome his enemies, and himself to become an object of delight to his people.’¹ Thus the *Nītiśāstra* is twelfth century. But a comparative study of the extant texts of Śukra with those of the *Mahābhārata* and even Kauṭalya where quotations are often given from Śukra demonstrates the fact that the present work is undoubtedly a fragment of the ancient treatise of Śukrācārya. The late lamented Pandit Gaṇapati Śāstri pointed out in the course of a personal discussion on the subject that the very fact that the extant treatise has no reference to Kauṭalya shows that it must be a work perhaps anterior to Kauṭalya himself. The *Bārhaspatya Sūtras* on the other hand remind one of the *Cāṇakya Sūtras* published by Dr. Shama Śāstri in his edition of the text of the *Arthaśāstra*. The present work which is in the form of *sūtras* in style bears the mark of an ancient work and leads to the supposition that there must have been an elaborate treatise, the *Bārhaspatya Arthaśāstra*, perhaps a *Bhāṣyam* (commentary) on the *Sūtras*, which has been lost. The archaic expressions, the style and even grammatical errors show that it is an early piece of composition with perhaps redactions of later centuries. That it mentions the town of Śrīrangam and the names of various religious sects cannot be taken to prove that the work is recent. The name Śrīrangam and the names of religious sects are found mentioned in the *Sangam Literature* of the ancient Tamil land. In works like *Śilappadikāram* and *Maṇimēkalai* there are distinct references to these and these works are claimed to be compositions of the earlier centuries of the Christian era. (*Vide* S. K. Aiyangar, *Ancient India*, pp. 255-382.) Such being the case it is hard to understand why the date of this work should not be fixed some time about or before that of these Tamil classics.