Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c32.s1.16

c32.s1.16

(*f*) If all the Sastras composed by Paṇḍits have puerile distinctions and pedantic divisions, it is a literary fault of Kautilya's country; he could not escape the traditional mannerism in letters. The style of a certain European country is heavy and pedantically detailed in the eyes of other Europeans. That style, be the author a college professor or a statesman lecturing on statecraft, cannot be avoided by the native. To me, the details and theories of the AS. are such that no theoretical writer, *i.e.*, the contemptible 'Pandit' could have written it. This is in fact admitted by Jolly when he says that the writer was probably an official knowing administration. The admission itself contradicts the 'Pandit' 'thoretician' theory. 'The A. deals with internal and external policy and may be designated as an ancient Imperial Gazetteer of India, as a manual of political economy and polity' (Jolly, 1-2). Again, 'the general tendency of the A. is thoroughly realistic and worldly' (Jolly p. 3). The onus on Dr. Jolly is very heavy to prove that the author is some one other than the named and acknowledged (*e.g.*, by Śaṅkarārya, Bāṇa, Daṇḍin, Kāmandaka, and others) author of the work. Forgery is to be proved, not merely asserted, and proved by the party alleging it. It is for the reader to see if Dr. Jolly has discharged that onus. In my opinion he has not.