A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c8.s3.47

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.∗