A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c8.s3.93

c8.s3.93

It will appear from the above that the theories of kingship in the Arthaśāstra, while corresponding broadly to those of the Dharmasūtras, are not lacking in the formulation of original principles. Originality, however, is the dominant note of the rules of practical politics which constitute, as the definition of the science indicates, the core of the Arthaśāstra. This remark applies not merely to the rules themselves, but also and above all to the ideas underlying them. The first and the most important point that arises in this connection is the consideration of the authors' attitude towards morality and religion. The remarkable criticism of the traditional list of sciences by three of the Arthaśāstra schools has shown us that at least to two of them, namely, the schools of Brihaspati and Śukra, not only was the Art of Government an independent science by itself, but, what is more important, the holy Vedas themselves had no right to count as a branch of study bearing on the practical affairs of men. Yet it is neither Brihaspati nor Śukra that has left us what may be called the earliest specimens of Machiavellian statecraft in Hindu political theory. Kauṭilya cites in one place the views of various authors relating to the king's control of the princes. Bhāradvāja, we learn from this, prescribed secret punishment for those princes who were wanting in natural affection for their father: Vātavyādhi suggested that the princes should be seduced to sensual indulgence on the ground that revelling sons never hate their father: lastly, the Āmbhīyas (āchāryyas?) recommended that while one spy should tempt the prince to indulge in hunting, dice and women, another spy should prevent this.∗ These opinions exhibit, within the limited range of their application, an unmistakable disregard for morality for the sake of ensuring what is conceived to be the interest of the king. None of the teachers with whom we have now to deal, however, carried the subordination of morality to politics to such a pitch as Bhāradvāja. In Chapter CXL of the Śāntiparvan we are told how king Śatruñjaya asked Bhāradvāja as to the mode in which that which is not gained can be won, that which is acquired can be increased, that which is increased can be protected, and that which is protected can be given away. In these four functions is comprised, as we learn from the later testimony of the Manusamhitā and of Kāmandaka the whole compass of the king's activity.∗ The sage's reply, as might be expected, covers a wide range of home and foreign policy. It will be enough for our present purpose to extract some select passages out of this address. The king, we are told, should be humble in speech alone, but sharp at heart like a razor. He should carry his foe on his shoulders as long as the time is unfavourable, but when the opportunity arrives he should dash his enemy to pieces like an earthen pot on a piece of rock. The king who desires prosperity should slay the individual who thwarts his purposes, be this person even his son, brother, father, or friend. Without piercing the vitals of others, without committing cruel deeds, without slaying creatures even in the fashion of fishermen, one cannot attain high felicity. When wishing to smite, he should speak gently; after smiting, he should speak gentler still; after striking off the head with his sword, he should grieve and shed tears. The remnants of debt, fire and enemies, increase over and over again; hence he should not tolerate this remnant. These rules, the teacher concludes, have been laid down for times of distress : why should not they be applied when one is attacked by an enemy ?[^asterisk] For cold calculating treachery and heartless cruelty it would be hard to match the sentiments of the above passage except in the pages of the immortal author of the *Prince* whose name is naturally suggested by it. Even the plea of inexorable necessity is not wanting to complete the analogy.