The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c13.s1.41

c13.s1.41

His strategy for dealing with the intractable gap between practice and theory is not to destroy the existing tribal order and to replace it with the order of the centralized bureaucratic state—as we saw, this would anyhow be hard to do. We noted already how the *Arthaśāstra* and other texts glossed over the chasm between the two orders. They take a concept or an institution from the tribal order and present it in terms of the opposite order. This is not just wishful thinking; it is realistic in that it shows how the old may change into the new, transforming existing institutions. But there is no intention to force the change. Rather than destroy the existing forms, Kauṭilya prefers to cumulate the old and the new without forcing a decision. He offers a different, ideal orientation point for the transformation of the state but remains in tune with the redistributive system based on the interdependence of the participants and geared to the immediate equitable diffusion of resources. It is this combination that seems to govern India to the present day. Modern India does have its competent planners and top bureaucrats, but, as in Kauṭilya’s day, the modern mahāmātras—the chief ministers of the states and other regional leaders—bargain on an equal footing with the central authorities for the distribution of power and resources.