Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c8.s3: III

A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c8.s3

Language
English

Contents

III

c8.s3.1

The Buddhist canonists deal incidentally with a few chosen topics of the State, but they share with the authors of the Dharmasūtras and the Arthaśāstra the credit of being the makers of Hindu political theory—The Buddhist story of the origin of kingship involves Social as well as Governmental Contracts, but is unconnected with any system of rights and duties—The Buddhistic list of the seven conditions of success of the Vajjian (republican) confederacy.

c8.s3.2

With the period forming the subject-matter of the present chapter we open a new and interesting page in the history of Hindu political theory. The age of experiment, as it may be called, is past, that of growth and development has begun. The Brāhmaṇas which are the true fountain-head of the Hindu ideas of the State are not wanting in striking reflections relating to the nature of the king's office, the mutual relations of the king and the Brāhmaṇa order and the like questions. But these, as we have endeavoured to show elsewhere, involve a long and painful process of groping which is the mute witness of the birth-throes of a new thought, and they occur intermixed with extraneous matter in the form of dogmatic expositions of the great ceremonies of royal and imperial consecration. In the present period a change comes over the scene. The practical spirit of the age found vent in the preparation of short aphoristic manuals based on the teachings of the earlier canon, and the priestly authors of these works, the founders of the Vedic schools of sacred law (Sūtracharaṇas) carefully separate their description of the sacrificial rituals that are treated in the Śrauta and the Grihya Sūtras, from the first arranged list of duties pertaining to the constituent classes and sections of the community, that is laid down in the Dharmasūtras. A new departure moreover, is signalized by the schools and authors of the Arthaśāstra who bring into being an independent branch of knowledge avowedly concerned with the acquisition and the preservation of States. Finally, the founders of the Buddhist canon, the leaders of a new heresy, introduced a rich leaven into the general ferment of ideas through their daring speculations into the origin of the social and the political order, and the conditions of the republican communities.

c8.s3.3

With this brief survey of the prevailing tendencies of the present period, let us embark on an examination of the works that fall within the limits of this chapter. And first, as regards the Dharmasūtras, it has to be remarked at the outset that the political ideas of the priestly authors do not assume the character of a system: they are rather of the nature of scattered hints which it is left for other schools and authors to develop and mature. At the root of these ideas, however, there lies the unified concept of a social order. The canonical authors of the Dharmasūtras, indeed, treat the public functions of the king not in themselves, but as part and parcel of the Whole Duty of this personage, and, in a wider sense, as an incident in a comprehensive scheme of duties ordained by the Highest God. This might perhaps be taken to imply that Politics comprising the sum of the king’s governmental functions did not rank in these canonical works as an independent science, but it counted as a branch of Positive Law governing the whole conduct of the king, and claiming to derive its origin from the Divine will.

c8.s3.4

The concept of Dharma introduces us to the grand notion of our authors which has been just mentioned, namely, the notion of the social order. As conceived in the Dharmasūtras, the concept presupposes the division of society into a number of component parts, such as the four castes (varṇas) and the four stages of life (āśramas), each of which is subject to a specific body of rules. The source of these social divisions as well as of the rules binding them is said to lie in the will of the Supreme Being. It therefore follows that Society, as here conceived, is the rule of Law, the Law being held to be imposed from without by the Divine will.∗ This avowed belief in the dogmatic basis of the social order might seem to exclude all possibilities of rational speculation in respect of its nature. Such, however, is not the case in actual practice. In the social scheme unfolded in the Dharmasūtras, one may detect beneath the outer garb of dogma a keen appreciation of the principle of specialization and division of labour, as well as that of the organic unity of society. “Brahman forsooth,” so runs a passage of Baudhāyana, “placed its majestycont

c8.s3.5

∗ \* We must, however, observe that apart from the authority attaching to the rules of the varṇas and the āśramas by virtue of their divine creation, they are held even in the Dharmasūtras to contain their sanction within themselves. This is based on the certainty that the observance of these rules will lead to true welfare, while their violation will bring about misery. Cf. Gautama XI 29-30: “(Men of) the (several) castes and orders who always live according to their duty enjoy after death the rewards of their works, and by virtue of a remnant of their (merit) they are born again in excellent countries, castes, and families, (endowed) with beauty, long life, learning in the Vedas, (virtuous) conduct, wealth, happiness, and wisdom. Those who act in a contrary manner perish, being born again in various (evil conditions)”; Apast. II. 5. 11. 10-11: “In successive births men of the lower castes are born in the next higher one, if they have fulfilled their duties. In successive births men of the higher castes are born in the next lower one, if they neglect their duties”; Ibid II. 9. 21. 1-2: “There are four orders, viz. the order of householders, the order of students, the order of ascetics, and the order of hermits in the woods. If he lives in all these four according to the rules (of the law), without allowing himself to be disturbed (by anything), he will obtain salvation.” basis of Dharma, for he defines it (Mīmāñsāsūtras, I. 1. 2. 2) as that which is desirable and is indicated by the Vedic injunction (chodanālakṣaṇārtho dharmaḥ). In the Mīmāñsā system the intrinsic authority of Dharma is sought to be explained by assuming the existence of an invisible force (apūrva) attaching to men's actions. The doctrine is thus interpreted by Colebrooke. "The subject which most engages attention throughout the Mīmāñsā, recurring at every turn, is the invisible or spiritual operation of an act of merit. The action ceases, yet the consequence does not immediately arise, a virtue meantime subsists unseen, but efficacious to connect the consequence with its past and remote cause, and to bring about, at a distant period or in another world, the relative effect. That unseen virtue is termed Apūrva, being a relation superinduced, not before possessed." (Quoted, Priyanath Sen, *Principles of Hindu Jurisprudence*, p. 27). \* Ibid I. 10. 18. 2-5 S. B. E. Vol. XIV. p. 199.

c8.s3.6

Thus the Dharmasūtras would appear to predicate a twofold source of the authority of their rules of human conduct. It is interesting to observe that these principles of divine creation and intrinsic worth are held in some of the great philosophical systems to inhere in the concept of Dharma itself, of which the above rules are the product. Kaṇāda, the reputed author of the Vaiśeṣika Sūtras, indeed stresses the latter quality alone, for he defines (I. 1.2) Dharma as that from which results the fulfilment of welfare and salvation (yatohbhyudayaniḥśreyasasiddhiḥ sa dharmaḥ). On the other hand Jaimini appears to combine the twofold in the Brāhmaṇas, together with (the duties and privileges of) studying, teaching, sacrificing for themselves, sacrificing for others, liberality, and accepting (gifts), for the protection of the Vedas ; in the Kṣatriyas it placed (strength), together with (the duties and privileges of) studying, sacrificing, liberality, (using) weapons, and protecting the treasure (and the life of) created beings, for the growth of (good) government ; in the Vaiśyas (it placed the power of work), together with (the duties of) studying, sacrificing, liberality, cultivating (the soil), trading, and tending cattle, for the growth of (productive) labour. On the Śūdras (it imposed the duty of) serving the three higher (castes).''cont

c8.s3.7

In the scheme of duties just described, it will be noticed that the function of protection is reserved for a special class, namely, the Kṣatriyas. This would seem to involve as its necessary corollary an oligarchical constitution in which the Kṣatriyas monopolised the political power. Nevertheless the Dharmasūtras expressly entrust the function of government to the king who is indeed the Kṣatriya *par excellence*. To him belong the duties of lawful punishment, State relief of the Brāhmaṇas and other people, fighting the enemy, levying of taxes, administration of justice, appointment of State officers, performance of sacrifices, and the like.∗ The bare enumeration of these duties is enough to show how the king’s public functions are blended in the Dharmasūtras with his domestic functions in the category of the Whole Duty of this personage.

c8.s3.8

∗ Cf. Gaut. X. 7-48; Ibid XI; Vas. I. 41-43; Ibid XVI. 2-9; Ibid XIX; Baudh. I. 10. 18. Apast II 10. 25-26.
* Gaut. VIII. 1-3. S. B. E. Vol. II. pp. 211-212.

c8.s3.9

Proceeding to the theories of kingship in the canonical works, we may observe that the conception of a system of laws governing the constituent members of the community, which is that of the Dharmasūtras, has obviously the result of limiting the king’s powers. Yet the ideas of the Dharmasūtras are not centred on the limitation of the king’s powers alone, but they involve in however unsystematic a fashion the balancing of the principles of authority and responsibility. In this respect, indeed, the Dharmasūtras follow in the track laid down by the Brāhmaṇas. The basis of the king’s authority however is sought in the later canon to lie, not in the dogma of the king’s divine nature, but in his fulfilment of the fundamental needs of the individual and of the society. Gautama writes in one place, “A king and a Brāhmaṇa, deeply versed in the Vedas, these two, uphold the moral order in the world. On them depends the existence of the four-fold human race, of internally conscious beings, of those which move on feet and on wings, and of those which creep, (as well as) the protection of offspring, the prevention of the confusion (of the castes and) the sacred law.”cont This striking dictum might have been based upon a text of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa describing the king and the learned Brāhmaṇa as upholders of the sacred law.† But while the earlier author derives from this text the conception of the natural and necessary limitations of the powers of both, the later writer amplifies it with the object of magnifying their importance. The later view virtually amounts to this, that the king’s office is, along with that of the Brāhmaṇa, the foundation of the social and the moral order as well as the indispensable condition of the bare existence of the people. The full import of this idea as justifying a wide range of duties owed by the subjects to their sovereign is not brought out till we reach the contemporary Arthaśāstra and the later Brahminical canon. Nevertheless it is observable that Gautama in one place derives from the king’s function of protection his right of immunity from censure. He writes, “The advice of the spiritual teacher and the punishment (inflicted by the king) guard them. Therefore a king and a spiritual teacher must not be reviled.”‡

c8.s3.10

† *Supra*, p. 41.

c8.s3.11

‡ Gaut. XI. 31-32, S. B. E. Vol. II. p. 235. The same duty is inculcated by Āpastamba who declares (I. 11. 31. 5) that a pious householder must not speak evil of the gods or of the king.

c8.s3.12

Let us next consider the ideas and notions of the Dharmasūtras which tend to counteract the above doctrine of the king's authority. To begin with the most fundamental point, the concept of Dharma implies, as we have seen before, that the king is governed in the whole course of his conduct by a body of rules claiming to derive their origin from the highest source, namely the will of the Supreme Being. Specifically, this responsibility to the Divine Law is illustrated in the rule of the Dharmasūtras making the king liable to sin for the unjust exercise of his power.∗ The Dharmasūtras invoke the aid of the penitential discipline to enforce the duty of just government upon the king.† With this may be connected the fact that Gautama imposes an intellectual training as well as moral discipline upon the king.‡ The sanction of spiritual or temporal penalty, however, it should be observed in the present place, is not the only incentive to the king's good government. For the authors of the Dharmasūtras inculcate protection by making the king participate in the spiritual merits and demerits of the subjects.∗ While in the above cases the king's duty is derived directly from the Divine Will, a somewhat rational basis of the same is suggested, by a passage of Baudhāyana. He writes, "Let the king protect (his) subjects receiving as his pay a sixth part."† In this passage is evidently involved the view that the king is an official paid by the subjects for the service of protection. In this case the king's duty of protection would follow as a logical corollary from his collection of taxes. This doctrine of the relation of taxation to protection is of great importance in Hindu political theory. The later writers recur to it far down into the Middle Ages, and it is incorporated in the theories, Buddhistic as well as Brahminical, of the origin of kingship.‡

c8.s3.13

∗ Cf. Apast. II. 11. 28. 13. "If the king does not punish a punishable offence, the guilt falls upon him." Baudhayana (I. 10. 19. 8) makes the king liable to one-fourth of the sin following from unjust trials.

c8.s3.14

† Thus Gautama (XII. 48) prescribes a penance for the king who neglects to inflict punishment, while Vasistha (XIX. 40-43) imposes a penance upon the king as well as the purohita in the event of the unjust decision of suits.

c8.s3.15

‡ Gaut. XI. 2-4. "(The king shall be) holy in acts and speech, fully instructed in the threefold (sacred science) and in logic, pure, of subdued senses, surrounded by companions possessing excellent qualities and by the means (for upholding his rule)." Bühler's translation.

c8.s3.16

∗ Gautama, *e.g.*, declares (XI 11) that the king obtains a share of the spiritual merit gained by his subjects; while Viṣṇu (III 28) mentions that a sixth part both of the virtuous deeds and of the iniquitous acts committed by the subjects devolves upon the king.

c8.s3.17

† I. 10. 18. 1. 'Receiving as his pay', the term used in the original is 'bhṛitaḥ' which the commentator Govindasvāmin explains as 'bhṛitirvetanaṁ dhanam tadgrāhī bhṛitaḥ.' The use of 'vetana' (wage) to indicate the king's dues is noticeable.

c8.s3.18

‡ The rule of Baudhāyana just cited, along with similar passages from other Hindu authors, has been interpreted in recent times as justifying a wider power of the people over the king than, we think, is warranted by the texts. Prof. Pramatha Nath Banerjea (*Public Administration in Ancient India*, pp. 72-73) claims on the authority of the above text of Baudhāyana as well as other passages from Kauṭilya, the Śukranīti and the Mahābhārata that "the conception of the king as the servant of the state was one of the basic principles of political thought in Ancient India." Practically the same view is held by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (*Carmichael Lectures*, Part I, pp. 122-123) who quotes Baudhāyana's text along with other passages from the Dharmasūtras, Kauṭilya, and the Śāntiparvam to show that according to the Hindu notion the king "never wielded any unqualified power, but was looked upon as merely a public servant though of the highest order." We are not quite sure whether the claim advanced on behalf of the people can be upheld in the present case. There is no warrant in the authorities cited for a statement such as that the king derives his authority from the people in whom is vested the ultimate sovereignty. On the contrary, the deeply rooted idea of the authors is that the Kṣatriya order in which the king is included is ordained by the Supreme Being to protect the people and is subject to the Dharma imposed by His will. In the passage (I. 188) quoted by Dr. Banerjea from the Śukranīti in this connexion, the king is indeed declared to be appointed to the service of the people, but this appointment, it is expressly stated, is ordained by Brahmā. It might be argued that the text of Śukra (II. 274-275) quoted by Dr. Banerjea which justifies the right of deposition of the bad king, along with other texts from the Mahābhārata justifying the right of tyrannicide, pointed to the popular control over the king. Such passages, however, are of too exceptional a character to be accepted as the standard expression of the Hindu theory. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the Hindu thinkers tended to the view, which is however implied rather than expressed, that the king is the servant of the Supreme God.

c8.s3.19

In the course of our survey of the ideas of kingship in the Dharmasūtras, we have seen how one of the priestly authors treated the office of the Brāhmaṇa in conjunction with that of the king, and declared both of them to be in effect the foundation of individual existence as well as of social order. This dictum, we think, is important as furnishing, probably for the first time, a theoretical argument in favour of the old canonical doctrine of the joint authority of the king and the Brāhmaṇa over all the rest, Regarding the mutual relations of these powers, we may first observe that Vasiṣṭha quotes with approval the old Vedic text declaring Soma to be the king of the Brāhmaṇas, while Gautama expresses the idea more clearly by saying that the king is master of all with the exception of the Brāhmaṇas.[^asterisk] Not only do our authors hold, after the fashion of the Brāhmaṇa works, that the priestly power is independent of the kingly power, but they also make in the earlier manner the one superior to the other. Speaking of the respective functions of the king and the Brāhmaṇa, Vasiṣṭha says in one place, “The three (lower) classes shall live according to the teaching of the Brāhmaṇa. The Brāhmaṇa shall declare their duties, and the king shall govern them accordingly.”dagger The king, then, is as it were, merely a magistrate charged with the duty of carrying out the law laid down by the Brāhmaṇas. After this, it is perhaps unnecessary to mention that Gautama quotes in one passage a Vedic text to the effect that Kṣatriyas who are assisted by the Brāhmaṇas prosper and do not fall into distress.[^ddagger] And yet it is noticeable that, perhaps owing to the greater moderation of the priestly pretensions, the authors do not press the theory of the Brāhmaṇa's superiority to the point reached in some of the Brāhmaṇa texts, namely that the priestly power is the source of the kingly power.

c8.s3.20

dagger † Vas. I 39-41, S. B. E. Vol. XIV, pp. 7-8. [^ddagger]: ‡ Gaut. XI 14. Cf. Śat. Br. IV 1. 4. 4-6.

c8.s3.21

[^asterisk]: * Vas. I 45. (Cf. Śat. Br. V 4. 2. 3) ; Gaut. XI 1.

c8.s3.22

While the Dharmasūtras are the product of the Vedic theological schools and are inspired by the canonical tradition, the works with which we are concerned in the present place trace their origin to the independent schools and authors of political science (Arthaśāstra) and contribute some of the most original and valuable chapters to the history of Hindu political theory. The early literature of the Arthaśāstra may be shown, even from the scanty evidence at our disposal, to have been not only rich in stores of thought, but also to have attained a considerable size and extent. Its present condition, however, is no index of its true character. For the whole of it has perished with the exception of a few fragments that are scattered through the pages of the later Brahminical canon as well as secular Arthaśāstra. Kauṭilya quotes the opinions of four specific schools and thirteen individual authors of the Arthaśāstra.∗ Most of these citations are reproduced in the Nītisāra of Kāmandaka, who moreover mentions some authors unknown to Kauṭilya. The Śāntiparvan section of the Mahābhārata (LVIII-LIX) furnishes two lists of authors of political science (daṇḍanīti or rājaśāstra), in which no less than six names can be identified with those mentioned by Kauṭilya.† The Śāntiparvan, moreover, contains a mass of traditions and legends connected with statecraft, which are attributed to schools and individual teachers some of whom were not known to Kauṭilya.∗ In some cases, again, the simultaneous occurrence of identical or nearly identical verses in the Mahābhārata and the Manusamhitā stamps them, in accordance with the usually accepted canon of interpretation on this point, as the specimens of a pre-existing collection of metrical maxims and presumably the relics of the lost literature of Arthaśāstra.∗

c8.s3.23

∗ \* For a full list of these names and references, vide D. R. Bhandarkar, op. cit., pp. 89-90.

c8.s3.24

† Infra, p. 69. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (op. cit. pp. 91-97) treats this point in full detail.

c8.s3.25

∗ The following is a list of authors and schools of the Arthaśāstra that are common to the Kauṭilīya and the Śāntiparvan. In the latter case those references alone are given, which clearly relate to treatises on the science of polity or else its subject-matter.
1. Viśālākṣa, Ś. LVIII 2, LIX 80-82 ; K. pp. 13, 27, 32, 322, 328, 382.
2. Indra, Ś. LVIII 2, LIX 83, LXIV 16 ff., LXV, CIII 4 ff. Bāhudantiputra, K. p. 14.
3. Brihaspati, Ś. LVI 39, LVIII 1, Ibid 13 ff. LXVIII 7 ff., CXXII 11 ; Aṅgiras (Brihaspati), Ś. LXIX 72-73, King Marutta’s saying in accordance with the teaching of Brihaspati, Ś. LVII 6-7. School of Brihaspati, K. pp. 6, 29, 63, 177, 192, 375.
4. Manu, Ś. LVII 44-45, CXXI 11. School of Manu, K. pp. 6, 29, 63, 177, 192.
5. Śukra, Ś. LVI 29-30, LVII 3, Ibid 41, LVIII 2, LIX 85. CXXII 11, CXXXIX 71-72. School of Śukra, K. pp. 6, 29, 63, 177, 192.
6. Bhāradvāja, Ś. LVIII 3, CXL 3 ff. ; K. pp. 13, 27, 32, 255, 322, 327, 382. The list of teachers not mentioned by Kauṭilya but quoted in the Śāntiparvan is as follows :—
1. Gauraśiras, LVIII 3.
2. Wind-god, LXXII 3 ff.
3. Kaśyapa, LXXIV 7 ff.
4. Vaiśravaṇa (Kubera) LXXIV. 4-18.
5. Utathya, XC 3 ff., XCI.
6. Vāmadeva, XCII 3 ff., XCIII-XCIV.
7. Śamvara, CII 31.
8. Kālakavrikṣīya, CIV 3 ff., CV, CVI 1 ff.
9. Vasuhoma, CXXII 1-54.
10. Kāmandaka, CXXIII 12 ff. Kāmandaka mentions three names not known to Kauṭilya :— 1 Maya XII 20. 2 Puloman XII 21. 3 The Maharṣis XII 23.

c8.s3.26

∗ Vide S. B. E. (Vol. XXV, Introduction, p. xc) and D. R. Bhandarkar (op. cit. p. 103). [^\dagger]: If is of course not only possible but probable that many of the authorities quoted in the Sāntiparvan, especially those about whom Kauṭilya is silent, belonged to the period intervening between the composition of the Kauṭilya and the Mahābhārata. Nevertheless it has been thought desirable to consider the extracts of the Mahābhārata in this section since their study could not very well be dissociated from that of the schools and teachers mentioned by Kauṭilya.

c8.s3.27

Thus the sources of the early Arthaśāstra works fall into two principal categories, namely, the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya and the Mahābhārata along with the Manusamhitā. Kauṭilya's treatise is generally assigned to the period of Chandragupta Maurya's reign (c. 322-298 B. C.), while the Manusamhitā and the Mahābhārata are held to belong to the first two centuries before and after the Christian era. It would therefore appear *prima facie* that Kauṭilya's citations belonged to the early stage of the Arthaśāstra literature, while those of the Mahābhārata represented a somewhat later phase of the same. This presumption is confirmed by the internal evidence, since the extracts quoted in the Śāntiparvan imply an advanced stage of speculation and often involve the formulation of abstract principles, while Kauṭilya's citations belong to a period when speculation had not yet emerged from the leading-strings of the discussion on concrete issues, and it still bore the stamp of immaturity. Nevertheless the quotations in the Mahābhārata must have acquired a respectable degree of antiquity at the time of its composition, for the canonical author cites them as authoritative expositions of the king's duties (rājadharma) and applies to them the significant title of old legend (itihāsam purātanam).[^\dagger]

c8.s3.28

How far may the date of the Arthaśāstra be carried back into the past? We have no means of giving a precise answer to this question, but the following data may help us to form some idea of its antiquity. Already in the time of Kauṭilya the literature of the Arthaśāstra must have reached a considerable size, since he quotes no less than four specific schools and thirteen individual authors. “A School,” as Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar remarks, “means a traditional handing down of a set of doctrines; and presupposes a series of āchāryas or teachers, who from time to time carried on the work of exegetics and systematisation.”¹ Rich and extensive as is the literature of Arthaśāstra referred to by Kauṭilya, it contains within itself sufficient evidence pointing to a still earlier stratum in the history of this science. The discussions of the authorities whom Kauṭilya quotes involve, as will appear from the sequel, a number of political categories. Such are the four sciences (vidyās), the seven elements of sovereignty (prakritis) the three powers (śaktis) of the king, the seven royal vices (vyasanas) divided into two sub-groups, the six expedients of foreign policy (guṇas), and the four means of conquering an enemy. These categories must have come into general vogue when the authorities quoted by Kauṭilya composed their treatises, for otherwise they would not have been accepted more or less implicitly by those authors. A long interval, therefore, which may well have extended over three centuries, separated these dim beginnings of Arthaśāstra thought from the time of Kauṭilya.∗

c8.s3.29

¹ * Op. cit. p. 109.

c8.s3.30

∗ We are prepared to accept Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar's date for the beginning of the Arthaśāstra but we demur to some of his arguments. He writes (op. cit. p. 110), "All things considered, it is impossible to bring down the beginning of Indian thought in the sphere of Arthaśāstra to any period later than 650 B. C." In support of this view he advances, *inter alia*, the following reasons:—(1) One of the concluding verses of Kauṭilya's work, which begins with the words 'yena śāstram cha śastram cha,' means that the Arthaśāstra was falling into desuetude in Kauṭilya's time and was rescued from oblivion by that author. (2) Kauṭilya does not mention Gauraśiras while he quotes the six other teachers of kingly science that are referred to in Ch. LVIII of the Śāntiparvan. Therefore Gauraśiras and probably other teachers as well were forgotten in Kauṭilya's time. (3) The Śāntiparvan (Ch. LIX) attributes the origin of Daṇḍanīti to the god Brahmā and the creation of the different treatises on it to the different gods and demi-gods. "This means that in the 4th century B. C. Arthaśāstra was looked upon as having come from such a hoary antiquity that it was believed to have emanated from the divine, and not from the human, mind." Now the correct meaning of the reference to Arthaśāstra in the verse above stated seems to be that Kauṭilya brought the science from a state of chaos to order and harmony, not that he recovered it from oblivion (Infra, Ch. III). The second argument is of little or no weight, since if Kauṭilya fails to quote Gauraśiras, the Mahābhārata is silent about other authors of the Arthaśāstra that are mentioned by Kauṭilya. Such are Parāśara (Kaut. pp. 13, 27, 32, 323, and 328), Piśuna (Ibid pp. 14, 28, 33, 253, 323, and 329), Vātavyādhi (Kaut. pp. 14, 33, 263, 324, 330), and Kātyāyana, Kaṇiṅka Bhāradvāja, Dīrghachārāyaṇa (or perhaps Chārāyaṇa, vide Shamasastry's Revised Edition of Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, Introduction, p. xxi) Ghoṭamukha, Kiñjalka as well as Piśunaputra (Kaut. p. 251). Nor can it be definitely proved that Kauṭilya was unacquainted with Gauraśiras. It is not at all improbable that Gauraśiras is identical with the equally mysterious masters of the Arthaśāstra (āchāryyas) whom Kauṭilya quotes no less than Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (op. cit. p. 93) : “In Chapter 235 of the Śāntiparvan we have another tradition narrated about this work (viz., the archetypal work of Brahmā on Daṇḍanīti). There its authorship has been ascribed to eight sages, who read it out to the god Nārāyaṇa. The god was exceedingly pleased with what he heard, and said : ‘Excellent is this treatise that ye have composed consisting of a hundred thousand verses........Guided by it Svāyambhuva Manu will himself promulgate to the world its code of dharma, and Uśanas and Brihaspati compose their treatises based upon it’. We are then told that this original work of the sages will last up to the time of king Uparicharu and disappear upon his death.” To understand the real significance of the theory of divine creation of Daṇḍanīti, it is necessary to consider the object with which the section on kingly duties in the Śāntiparvan seems to have been written. This, we think, was nothing less than the formulation of the sum of duties relating to the king, conceived with an almost exclusive reference to his public functions. In these circumstances nothing would be more natural than for the author to magnify the extreme antiquity and authoritative character of Daṇḍanīti, the essence of which he incorporated in his system. We are therefore inclined to hold that it was with a deliberate purpose, and not merely out of mere forgetfulness of its human origin, that the fiction of divine creation of Daṇḍanīti was introduced into the Śāntiparvan.

c8.s3.31

Before proceeding to analyse the leading ideas and concepts of the early Arthaśāstra authors, it will be well to consider the nature and scope of the science which they brought into vogue. As regards the first point, the evidence is of a twofold character.

c8.s3.32

forty-two times, much oftener than he quotes the other schools and teachers of the Arthaśāstra. Even if the two were independent personages, it may be argued that Kauṭilya had no occasion for mentioning Gauraśiras, since he only quotes the older authors when he has to cite a chain of discussion in which they figure or else refutes their views. Another ground on which Kauṭilya's silence about Gauraśiras may be explained without committing oneself to Dr. Bhandarkar's theory is that the latter author lived or at least came into prominence in the interval between the composition of Kauṭilya's work and that of the Sāntiparvan. For it is only a gratuitous assumption, running counter to the generally accepted view on this point, to state that the composition of the Sāntiparvan was prior to that of the Kauṭilīya. The third argument involves a *petitio principii*, since it takes for granted apparently on the strength of the second argument that the Sāntiparvan was composed earlier than the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. Moreover, it fails to give the true explanation of Brahmā's creation of the science of Daṇḍanīti. This view of the origin of the science is indeed not peculiar to the Mahābhārata. Vātsyāyana, in the beginning of his Kāmasūtra, describes how Prajāpati (Brahmā) created the people and recited to them a work of 100,000 chapters showing the way towards the acquisition of virtue, wealth, and desire. Afterwards the three parts relating to these ends were separated respectively by Manu, Brihaspati, and Nandin. A closer approximation to the story of the Mahābhārata occurs in the late mediæval work called the Śukranītisāra. According to its author (I. 2-4), the Self-existent One (Brahmā) recited the Nītiśāstra consisting of 100 lacs of verses for the good of the world, and afterwards abstracts of this work were prepared by Vasiṣṭha, Śukra and others in the interests of kings and other persons whose tenure of existence was limited. Nevertheless it is difficult to subscribe to the view that the ascription of divine origin to Daṇḍanīti in the Sāntiparvan was merely due to its hoary antiquity. That the canonical author was aware of the human origin of the science is evident from an alternative story of its creation which is thus summarised by Kauṭilya writes in the concluding chapter of his work, “ ‘Artha’ is the means of subsistence (vritti) of men ; it is, in other words, the earth which is filled with men. Arthaśāstra is the science (śāstra) (which deals with) the mode of acquisition and protection of that (earth).” ∗ This definition is applied by Kauṭilya to the early Arthaśāstra works in his very opening lines where he describes the plan of his own treatise. He writes, “This single Arthaśāstra has been prepared by summarising nearly all the Arthaśāstra works that were written by the early masters with regard to the acquisition and protection of the earth.” The second line of argument is concerned with the interpretation of the parallel concept of Daṇḍanīti. Kauṭilya writes in one place, “Daṇḍanīti is the means of acquiring what is not gained, protecting what is gained, increasing what is protected and bestowing the surplus upon the deserving.”¹ It is evident that this is but an amplification of the category of acquisition and protection mentioned in the foregoing definition.² Now both the Manusamhitā and the Mahābhārata mention the four functions stated by Kauṭilya in such a way as to make them the essence of the king’s occupation.³

c8.s3.33

∗ Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, Revised edition by R. Shamasastry, p. 426. Dr. Shamasastry (English translation, p. 515) translates this passage as follows :—“The subsistence of mankind is termed ‘artha,’ wealth ; the earth which contains mankind is also termed ‘artha,’ wealth ; that science which treats of the means of acquiring and maintaining the earth is the Arthaśāstra, Science of Polity.” Here earth (bhūmi) is evidently taken to be the alternative meaning of ‘artha.’ It is interpreted by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal in the same sense in his translation of the above passage (q. v.). We are very much inclined to doubt whether the above interpretation is the correct one. In our opinion the author clearly intends in the above passage to use ‘ityarthaḥ’ in the sense of the secondary signification of the first ‘artha’ which, as here used, is a technical term. A much later writer, Sarvānanda, while explaining the term ‘Arthaśāstra,’ likewise takes ‘bhūmi’ to be the derivative, and not the alternative, meaning of ‘artha.’ He writes (commentary on Amarakoṣa I. 6. 5) : arthāḥ hiraṇyādayasteṣu pradhānamartho bhūmiritareṣām tadyonitvāt.

c8.s3.34

¹ * Kaut. p. 9.

c8.s3.35

² † Śaṅkarāryya indeed states (commentary on Kāmandaka I. 8) that the increase of what is protected is a form of acquisition while the bestowal upon the deserving is a kind of protection.

c8.s3.36

³ ‡ Thus Manu (VII 99-101) not only enjoins the king to pursue these functions, but he also describes them as the fourfold means of securing the ends of human existence. The Mahābhārata (Śāntiparvan, CXL 5-70) quotes a dialogue between the sage Bhāradvāja and the king Śatruñjaya concerning the means of fulfilling these four functions.

c8.s3.37

Kāmandaka, indeed, expressly styles them as such.∗ Since the Arthaśāstra is, from the first, connected with the institution of the monarchic State, it follows that there is a general agreement of the canonical as well as the secular writers concerning the nature of the science. This shows that the definition of Daṇḍanīti was not introduced by Kauṭilya, but it went back to the old authors of the Arthaśāstra.

c8.s3.38

∗ Kām. I 20: "The acquisition of wealth by righteous means, (its) protection, increase and bestowal upon the deserving form the fourfold occupation of the king (rājavrittam chaturvidham)."

c8.s3.39

It would appear from the above that Arthaśāstra was essentially the Art of Government in the widest sense of the term.† But although such was the strict definition of the science, it tended almost from the first to embrace a mass of abstract speculation within its orbit. The extracts cited by Kauṭilya show that the discussion of the concrete problems of administration led the early teachers of Arthaśāstra to enquire into the essential nature of the State institutions. The Mahābhārata, above all, reproduces numerous extracts from the early Arthaśāstra authors, involving, as we shall presently see, the treatment of such abstract questions as the nature of the king's office and the mutual relations of the sovereign and his subjects.

c8.s3.40

† Mr. K. P. Jayaswal's interpretation of Arthaśāstra (*Calcutta Weekly Notes*, Vol. XV, p. cclxxv) which is based upon his own version of the passage quoted above from Kauṭilya (p. 426) is different. He first translates this passage as follows:—"Society is men's instinct. Territorial division of humanity is 'Society.' The science of well-being and development of the territorial unit is the Arthaśāstra." "In other words," he continues, "the science of development of territorial groupings of the social animal called man is what Kauṭilya styles the Arthaśāstra. We may render it into English as the science of the Common Wealth." We consider both this version and its interpretation to be far-fetched and untenable.

c8.s3.41

Arthaśāstra, then, while strictly meaning the art of public administration, tends in effect to include the theory of the State as well. Let us next consider the scope of this science. A perusal of Kauṭilya's work shows that this author treated the subjects of central and local administration, home and foreign policy, as well as civil law and the art of warfare. As Kauṭilya's work is admittedly a summary of the early Arthaśāstra literature, the natural presumption is that the same topics were dealt with in either case. This is reduced to a certainty by Kauṭilya's own citations which make it abundantly clear that all the above subjects were treated by his predecessors.∗

c8.s3.42

∗ For references to the civil law in the early Arthaśāstra literature, vide Kaut. pp. 157, 161, 162, 164, 177, 185, 192, 196, 198. As regards references to the art of war, vide Ibid p. 375. The references to the public administration as well as internal and external policy are quoted in the course of the present section. [^*] What is the relation of the concept of Daṇḍanīti to that of the Arthaśāstra? Apart from the category of four functions included within the sphere of Daṇḍanīti which has been stated above, Kauṭilya gives two interpretations of the term. He defines it (p. 9.) in its narrow etymological sense of the direction (nīti) of punishment (daṇḍa), while elsewhere (p. 6) he indicates its scope more broadly as comprising both right and wrong policy (nayānayau). It follows from the above that Daṇḍanīti, while strictly meaning the art of punishment, is, in effect, the art of government. Its scope, then, even in its latter sense, falls short of that of the Arthaśāstra. A tacit recognition of the difference between Daṇḍanīti and Arthaśāstra may perhaps be traced in the fact that while Kauṭilya adheres to the traditional classification of the sciences in which Daṇḍanīti is separated from Trayī, he makes Arthaśāstra a branch of the Vedas by including it in the category of Itihāsa. Ibid, pp. 6, 7, and 10. In the subsequent period the shades of difference between Daṇḍanīti and Arthaśāstra were obliterated so that the two became convertible terms. Compare Amarakoṣa (I. 6. 5): ānvīkṣikī daṇḍanīti tarkavidyārthaśāstrayoh. Mr. K. P. Jayaswal (*Calcutta Weekly Notes*, Vol. XV, p. cc lxxv) translates Daṇḍanīti as the Ethics of the Executive. There is no warrant for this interpretation, so far as we are aware, in Hindu political theory. As we have seen above, Kauṭilya gives the etymological signification of Daṇḍanīti. This is amplified by the later writers who seize the occasion to explain the meaning of the terms daṇḍa and nīti in the above definition. Thus Kämandaka (III 15) writes, "Restraint (damah) is known as daṇḍa; daṇḍa is the king, since it resides in him; the direction (nīti) of daṇḍa is daṇḍanīti; nīti is so called because it directs." This paraphrase is reproduced with a slight verbal change in the Śukranītisāra (I 157). Similarly Kṣīrasvāmin (commentary on Amarakoṣa, I 5. 5.) writes, "*Daṇḍa* is restraint or that by which (one) is restrained; daṇḍanīti or Arthaśāstra is that by which restraint is directed, *i.e.*, applied to those deserving to be restrained." Apart from this primary meaning of Daṇḍanīti the later authors give its secondary or derivative sense which brings their definition into line with Kauṭilya's description of the scope of the science. Thus Śaṅkarāryya, commenting on the above passage from Kāmandaka, writes, "The term ‘damah,’ stands for the nature of ‘daṇḍa’ as well as for ‘daṇḍa’ in the sense of a specific expedient of public policy. Now the author ignores the nature of ‘daṇḍa’ on the ground that policy has for its subject-matter all the elements, and he has in view the expedient taking the form of punishment alone; hence he says, ‘damo daṇḍah’ etc. Although conciliation, dissension and gift are possible as expedients of policy, nīti is generally called by this alone, because mankind is preponderantly wicked in its nature…Or the term daṇḍa here signifies restraint alone, and should be understood to include the limitless expedients of conciliation and the rest, which are the means of restraining one’s own and enemy’s partisans.” Compare Sarvānanda, commentary on Amarakosa, I. 6. 5.

c8.s3.43

A word may be added about the method of the Arthaśāstra. A perusal of the treatise of Kauṭilya is enough to show that the conclusions of the Arthaśāstra authors were reached by a process of reasoning based upon the facts of human nature and of political life. The method of these writers, in other words, was an empirical one. In Kauṭilya, who has left us the only complete work of Arthaśāstra now extant, the empirical method is supplemented by some very interesting applications of what may be called the historical method. In one place (Ibid pp. 11-12), e.g., Kauṭilya is solemnly urging the king to master the category of six senses which he calls the 'six enemies.' In stressing this point he quotes the instances of no less than eleven kings or republican communities (saṅghas) that perished through indulgence of the senses, while he mentions two kings who won success through their self-restraint. For other instances of the use of the historical method, vide Ibid pp. 41,329,360.

c8.s3.44

Such, then, is the skeleton outline of the science of Arthaśāstra. In order to understand its true nature, it is further necessary to consider what the authors with whom we are now concerned believe to be its relation to the sister sciences. An interesting sidelight is thrown upon this point by Kauṭilya's quotation of a short discussion relating to the list of the sciences (vidyās). It appears that the sciences were traditionally held to be four in number, namely, the sacred canon (trayī), philosophy (ānvīkṣakī), the art of government (daṇḍanīti), as well as agriculture, cattle-breeding, and trade (vârttâ). This division, which evidently gave due weight to the claims of secular as well as sacred learning, proved to be unacceptable to three of the radical schools preceding Kauṭilya. The school of Manu excluded philosophy, from the list of sciences on the ground that it was merely a branch of the Vedas. More sweeping is the criticism of the other two schools. The school of Brihaspati excluded, in addition to philosophy, the Vedas which it characteristically declared to be merely a pretext for a man versed in worldly affairs. Thus Daṇḍanīti and Vārttā alone, according to this prince of materialists, are entitled to rank as sciences.∗ This view would seem to mark the extreme swing of the pendulum from the position of the Dharmasūtras, in which rājadharma was held to be part and parcel of the canonical scheme of duties. But the tendency towards simplification of the list of sciences did not end with Brihaspati. The school of Uśanas (Śukra) took the last step, and proclaimed Daṇḍanīti to be the only science on the ground that the operations (ārambhāḥ) of all other sciences are fixed therein.† Politics, then, according to this ultra-political school, is the one master-science furnishing the key to all the rest.

c8.s3.45

∗ In the parallel passage of Kāmandaka (III 3-5) paraphrasing Kauṭilya's text, the view of the school of Brihaspati is based upon the argument that mankind is principally addicted to the pursuit of wealth (lokasyārthapradhānatvāt).

c8.s3.46

† Śaṅkarāryya, commenting on the parallel passage of Kāmandaka (III. 5), illustrates this argument by the analogy of the nave of a chariot-wheel (rathanābhivat).

c8.s3.47

Let us pause here to compare the concept of Arthaśāstra with that of the king's duties (rājadharma) figuring in the canonical Dharmasūtras. This comparison must be understood to refer to the common element in both the concepts, namely, the category of public functions of the king. From this standpoint it appears that both Arthaśāstra and Rājadharma have virtually the same nature, involving in either case the art of government in a monarchic State. The Arthaśāstra, however, confines itself exclusively to the investigation of the phenomena of the State, while Rājadharma deals with the same as an incident in a comprehensive scheme of duties ordained by the Creator. Hence while the canonical writers mention only the rudiments of public administration, the secular authors are able to treat their subject on a vastly enlarged canvas: they treat the institutions of the State alike in their normal and healthy as well as abnormal and diseased condition, and make the first serious attempt to grapple with the concrete problems of administration. A second point of comparison suggests itself in connection with the basis of the parallel concepts. Arthaśāstra, as we have seen, is independent of the sacred canon, and is the product of the secular schools and individual teachers. Hence it lacks the positive character attaching to the Rājadharma by virtue of the latter's association with the great concept of Dharma (Law or Duty). We may, lastly, compare the twin concepts from the point of view of Ethics. Since Rājadharma is equivalent to the Whole Duty of the king, its rules are determined by the ideal of the highest good of this individual. Arthaśāstra, on the other hand, has avowedly for its end the security and prosperity of the State. Accordingly its rules of kingly conduct are determined primarily with reference to the interests of the State alone.∗

c8.s3.48

∗ At a later period, in the Rājadharma sections of the Śāntiparvan and the Manusamhitā, the canonical authors absorbed the system of the Arthaśāstra in their grand synthesis of kingly duties. The result was that the distinction between Arthaśāstra or Daṇḍanīti and Rājadharma became one of nomenclature alone. Infra, Chap. IV.

c8.s3.49

Although Rājadharma was specially a concept of the sacred canon, there was one secular teacher who treated the similar concept of Kṣatriyadharma in his own system, and made it the basis of comparison with the parallel groups of duties (dharmas). This estimate was naturally coloured by the limited outlook of the author whose horizon was bounded by his subject.∗ In the Śāntiparvan Bhīṣma quotes a remarkable address uttered by the god Indra who, it will be remembered, is elsewhere mentioned as an author of the science of polity,† and is quoted by Kauṭilya in the person of his follower.‡ In the passage in question king Māndhātā addressing the god says, "I have attained immeasurable worlds and spread my fame by following the extensive duties of the Kṣatriyas. I do not know how to fulfil the chiefest duty which emanated from the primeval God." Indra replies that those who are not kings and seek for virtue do not attain the highest felicity. The duty of the Kṣatriya was first produced out of the primeval God, and then came the other duties which are its parts, as it were. The remaining duties have been created as possessing a limit, but the duty of the Kṣatriya has no limits and has many systems. Since all the duties are absorbed in this duty, it is declared to be the highest. As the classes (varṇas), Indra goes on, observe their respective duties by the help of the Kṣatriya duty, the former duties are declared to be useless. Those who do not observe the established usage and are constantly engaged in the pursuit of desirable objects, are declared to be persons having the nature of beasts : as the duty of the Kṣatriyas secures for them the right course by the application of means contributing to their welfare (arthayogāt), it is better than the duty of the orders (āśramas).¹ In this extract, it will be noticed, the author brings the concept of Kṣatriyadharma into relation with other branches of dharma, and awards it the palm of excellence. This, it is urged, subsumes the other dharmas : it is the mainspring of the duties of the classes (varṇadharma), and it is the instrument for directing the untamed man to the pursuit of the good life.

c8.s3.50

∗ Similarly Kauṭilya at the close of his work declares that the Arthaśāstra secures the acquisition and protection of this and the next world, and that, while setting in motion and guarding the threefold end of existence, it destroys the reverse.

c8.s3.51

† Cf. Śāntiparvan, LVIII 2 and LIX 83.

c8.s3.52

‡ The term used by Kauṭilya is Bāhudantiputra, which means, according to Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (op. cit. p. 95), "a follower of Bāhudantin (Indra), *i.e.* of the system of Arthaśāstra laid down by him."

c8.s3.53

¹ * Śāntiparvan, Ch. LXIV 16 ff. ; LXV 6-7.

c8.s3.54

Although the definition of Arthaśāstra was sufficiently wide to apply to monarchies as well as republics, it was the former type of State that fixed itself in the standard categories and concepts of this science.² An interesting discussion quoted by Kauṭilya[^asterisk] concerning the relative seriousness of the ‘calamities’ thereof, shows that the early authors of the Arthaśāstra accepted as an article of their political creed the category of seven elements of sovereignty.dagger These consist of the king (svāmin), the minister

First 54 of 140 passages. Read on

Linked texts (23)