A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c8.s3.42

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.