A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c9.11

c9.11

The second theory bearing on the above point is that of Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar, who explains (op. cit. pp. 108-109) the concluding verse of Kauṭilya to mean that the Arthaśāstra was falling into desuetude in that author’s time and was rescued from oblivion by him. We are not quite sure whether this interpretation conveys the true meaning of the author. It fails, we think, to account for the word ‘amarṣeṇa’ in the text, since it is inconceivable that the mere neglect of the science by his contemporaries roused Kauṭilya’s indignation. It may further be observed that apart from the doubtful testimony of the above verse, Dr. Bhandarkar adduces no evidence in support of his contention. While the case for Kauṭilya’s recovery of the Arthaśāstra from oblivion thus seems to rest on very slender foundations, the theory of his partial reconstruction of the science can, it seems to us, be supported on valid grounds. For besides the internal evidence which we have mentioned above, there is the testimony of literary tradition in our favour. An anonymous verse tagged on to the end of Kauṭilya’s work runs as follows: “Observing the discrepancies in many ways among the commentators of the science (śāstra), Viṣṇugupta (Kauṭilya) himself composed the Aphorism (Sūtra) and its commentary.” Whatever might be the degree of weight attaching to this verse, it at any rate points to the confused condition of the Arthaśāstra in Kauṭilya’s time and mentions that author’s effort to end this confusion. Another point that may be mentioned in this connection is that Kāmandaka who was of knowledge (vidyās). As we have seen elsewhere, the three preceding schools of Manu Brihaspati and Śukra limited the number of these sciences to three, two, and one, respectively.∗ Kauṭilya, while yielding to none of these in his love of realism, emphatically rejects their views †, and he justifies the traditional list of sciences by pointing out the ends and purposes of each in relation to the needs of human existence.‡ Beginning with philosophy (ānvīkṣakī), he writes, "Philosophy viewing the other sciences in the light of reason does good to the world, keeps the mind steady in weal and woe, and bestows skill in knowledge, speech and action. Philosophy is ever declared to be the lamp of all the sciences, the means of accomplishing all deeds and the support of all duties." The triple Veda, he goes on, is useful (aupakārikaḥ) because it establishes the four classes (varṇas) and the four orders (āśramas) in their respective duties: the fulfilment of these duties, Kauṭilya adds, leads to heaven and salvation, while their violation brings about intermixture of the castes and consequent destruction. Vārttā, in its turn, is useful (aupakārikī) because it confers grain, cattle, gold, base metals and forced labour, and because by its means one is able to bring under his control through the instrumentality of the treasury and the army his own and his enemy's partizans.∗ Lastly, punishment (daṇḍa) which is the subject-matter of Daṇḍanīti, Kauṭilya states, promotes the security and the prosperity of the three other sciences, and in fact is their root.†