Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62: Rājadharma (Government and Statecraft)

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62

Language
English

Contents

Rājadharma (Government and Statecraft)

v4.c62.2.1

Rājadharma has been a subject of discussion in works on dharmaśāstra from very ancient times. The Āp. Dh. S. II. 9.25.1 says 'The general and special *dharmas* of all varṇas have been explained: but now we shall declare the dharmas of a king in particular'. Āp. then states that the king should cause to be built a capital and a palace, the gates of which both should face the south; that the palace should be in the heart of the capital; that in front of the capital there was to be a hall called 'āmantraṇa' (hall of invitation); that to the south of the town there was to be an assembly house with doors on the north and south. Āp. requires that in the king's realm no brāhmaṇa should suffer hunger, sickness, cold or heat; Āp. gives regulations about the assembly house and about persons who were to be allowed to engage in gambling; he prescribes that (the exercise in) arms, dancing, singing and music should not go on anywhere except in the houses of the king's servants, that the king was to see that there was no danger from thieves in villages and forests, that the king should donate fields and money to brāhmaṇas according to their worth without detriment to his servants, that the king who meets death in recovering the property of brāhmaṇas and other warlike persons who meet death in fighting for a similar worthy cause reap the merit of a sacrifice (i. e. reach heaven as reward);

v4.c62.2.2

that the king should appoint in towns and villages officers and their subordinates, who are pure and truthful, for the protection of the subjects against thieves and who are to be made to make good what is stolen; that they are to collect lawful taxes for the king from the people except from learned brāhmaṇas, women of all castes, minors, students staying with teachers and ascetics fulfilling the rules of their order, śūdras who do menial work for the higher castes (such as washing their feet), persons that are blind, deaf or dumb. Āp. then lays down punishments for adultery and rape, for slander and defamation, for manslaughter, for theft and appropriation of another's land, for breach of contract to cultivate the field of another, for a herdsman leaving his herd or negligently allowing it to perish. He states that if the king does not punish the guilty he incurs sin, that in disputes judges should be men of learning, clever and fulfilling their duties, that witnesses were to tell the truth and were to be punished if they be untruthful. It will be noticed how Āp. briefly covers the whole field of rājadharma. In the Śāntiparva of the Mahābhārata rājadharma is dealt with at great length in chapters 56-130 and to some extent in 131-172. The Manusmṛti also states at the beginning of chap. VII (1) that it will expound rājadharmas.

v4.c62.2.3

That great literary activity on the science and art of government went on for many centuries before the Christian era follows from several considerations. The Anuśāsanaparva (chap. 39.8) speaks of the śāstras composed by Bṛhaspati and Uśanas. The Śāntiparva (58.1-3) names as expounders of *rājaśāstra* Bṛhaspati, Bharadvāja, Gauraśiras, Kāvya, Mahendra, Manu Prācetasa and Viśālākṣa. Śāntiparva (102.31-32) opposes the view of Śambara to that of ācāryas¹. The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya mentions five schools (viz. those of the Mānavas, the Bārhaspatyas, the Auśanasas, the Pārāśaras and the Āmbhīyas), seven individual teachers (V. 5, and I. 8) only once (viz. Bāhudantiputra, Dīrgha Cārāyaṇa, Ghoṭamukha, Kaṇiṅka Bhāradvāja, Kātyāyana, Kiñjalka, Piśunaputra,) and several times mentions the views of Bhāradvāja, Kauṇapadanta, Parāśara, Piśuna, Vātavyādhi, Viśālākṣa. Kauṭilya also cites at least 53 times the views of ācāryas, almost in every case for dissent. Śānti 103.44 refers to a Bhāṣya on *rājaśāstra*. Is it possible to see in this a reference to one out of the bhāṣyakāras indicated in the verse appended at the end of the Kauṭilīya or to the Kauṭilīya itself? Another fact indicative of the systematization of the science of government is that in the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāyaṇa, Manu and Kauṭilya ideas expressed by numbers had already been stereotyped long before those works were written viz.

v4.c62.2.4

such as saptāṅga rājya (State with seven constituent elements), ṣāḍguṇya (the six ways of policy viz. alliance, declaration of war &c.), three *śaktis*, the four upāyas (sāma, dāna, bheda, daṇḍa), aṣṭavarga, and pañcavarga (Manu VII. 155), the 18 and 15 tīrthas (Sabhāparva 5.38)². For detailed information about the Rājasāstras of Bṛhaspati, Uśanas, Bhāradvāja culled from the Mahābhārata and other ancient works *vide* my paper on them in the Journal of the University of Bombay, vol. XI part 2 pp. 73-83, 1942.

v4.c62.3

¹ मन्यते कर्षयित्वेवा तु क्षमा साध्वीति शम्बरः । असन्तप्तं तु यद्दार्य प्ररयेति प्रकृतिं पुनः ॥ नैतदस्मोक्षमत्याचार्या न च साधुनिदर्शनम् । शान्ति 102. 31-32.

v4.c62.4

² द्वापरञ्चचतुर्वर्गात्सप्तवर्गं च तत्त्वतः । अष्टवर्ग त्रिवर्गं च विद्यास्तिस्त्रश्च राघव ॥ कृत्यं विंशतिवर्गश्च तथा प्रकृतिमण्डलम् । अयोध्याकाण्ड 100. 68-69. दशवर्ग means the ten व्यसनs.

v4.c62.5

The fulfilment of their duties and responsibilities by rulers was of paramount importance to the stability and orderly development of society and to the happiness of individuals in the State and therefore one often finds that rājadharma is said to be the root of or the quintessence of all *dharmas*. Śāntiparva (63.25) states ‘know that all dharmas are merged in rājadharma; that rājadharmas are at the head of all dharmas’ and (141.9-10) ‘the welfare, good rains, sickness, calamities and death among people owe their origin to the king’³. It was the king’s duty to see that the people in his kingdom acted according to the rules laid down in the smṛtis for the several varṇas and āśramas, to administer justice and to interfere when his help was sought for by a *pariṣad* (assembly of learned men) in enforcing the *prāyaścitta* (penance) prescribed for various lapses. Vide Gautama X. 7-8, XI. 9-11, Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 10. 13-16⁴, Vasiṣṭha 19. 1-2, Viṣṇu III. 2-3, Nārada (prakīrṇaka, 5-7 and 33-34), Sāntiparva 77.33 and 57.15, Matsyapurāṇa 215.63, Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 27.28 and 28.36 and H. Dh. vol. II. p. 965. Therefore it may be said with truth (as done by the Mahābhārata) that *rājadharma* was the highest goal of all the world, that it comprehended within itself all rules of *ācāra*, *vyavahāra* (administration of justice) and *prāyaścitta* (penance). It is on account of this all-pervading influence of government or royal power that the Mahābhārata frequently emphasizes that the king is the maker of his age, that it is he who can usher a golden age or an age of strife and misery for the country⁵. The Śukranītisāra (I.

v4.c62.6

³ एवं धर्मान् राजधर्मेषु सर्वांन्त्सर्वावस्थं संप्लीनान्निबोध । ... सर्वा विद्या राजधर्मेषु युक्ताः सर्वे लोका राजधर्मे प्रविष्टाः । सर्वे धर्मा राजधर्मप्रधानाः । शान्तिपर्व 63. 25, 26, 29; राजमूला महाभाग योगक्षेमसुवृष्टयः । प्रजासु व्याधयश्चैव मरणं च भयानि च ॥ कृतं त्रेता द्वापरं च कलिश्च भरतर्षभ । राजमूला इति मतिर्मम नास्त्यत्र संशयः ॥ शान्ति 141. 9-10; सर्वस्य जीवलोकस्य राजधर्मः परायणम् । शान्ति. 56. 3.

v4.c62.7

⁴ आप. ध. सू. II. 5. 10. 13-16 तस्य चेच्छास्त्रमतिप्रवर्तेरन् राजानं गमयेत् । राजा पुरोहितं धर्मार्थकुशलम् । स ब्राह्मणाञ्नियुञ्ज्यात् । बलविशेषेण वधदास्यवर्जं नियमैरुपशोषयेत् ।

v4.c62.8

⁵ कालो वा कारणं राज्ञो राजा वा कालकारणम् । इति ते संशयो मा भूद्राजा कालस्य कारणम् ॥ उद्योग 132. 16 and शान्ति 69. 79; कृतं त्रेता द्वापरं च कलिश्च भरतर्षभ । राजवृत्तानि सर्वाणि राजैव युगमुच्यते ॥ ... राजैव कर्ता भूतानां राजैव च विनाशकः । शान्ति. 91. 6 and 9; तत्र चेत्संप्लुयेत धर्मे राजर्षिसेविते । लोकस्य संस्था न भवेत्सर्वं च व्याकुलीभवेत् ॥ शान्ति. 56. 6; युगप्रवर्तको राजा धर्माधर्मप्रशिक्षणात् । युगानां न प्रजानां न दोषः किन्तु नृपस्य तु ॥ शुक्रनीतिसार IV. 1. 60.

v4.c62.9

59-60) remarks that one should learn from śāstra what are good and evil actions, give up evil deeds and perform good ones and that the king is hence declared to be the cause of (good or evil) times according as he does good or evil acts. Śukra IV. 1. 60 states that the king is the prompter of his age.

v4.c62.10

Though rājadharma was thus an integral part of dharmaśāstra and was one of the most important subjects therein, yet apart from the works on dharmaśāstra separate treatises dealing with rājadharma alone came into existence in very early times. Śāntiparva (chap. 59) states that originally in the Kṛta age there was no king nor punishment, that then *moha* (delusion), greed and lust entered men, that in order to provide against the complete destruction of dharma, Brahmā composed a work in one hundred thousand chapters on dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa (verses 30 and 79); that part of this work on Nīti (science of government) was abridged by Śaṅkara Viśālākṣa (verse 80, and so it was called Vaiśālākṣa) into 10000 chapters, that Indra studied it and reduced it to 5000 chapters (and the work was called Bāhudantaka, verse 83), that it was compressed into 3000 chapters by Bṛhaspati (and so was called Bārhaspatya) and that Kāvya (Uśanas) reduced the work to 1000 chapters. The Kāmasūtra (I. 5-8) contains a somewhat similar story that Prajāpati composed a work in one hundred thousand chapters, that Manu abridged it as regards dharma, Bṛhaspati as regards *artha* and Nandi abridged in 1000 chapters the science of erotics. The Śāntiparva (69) gives (verses 33-74) a summary of the contents of the work of Brahmā on rājadharma which remarkably agrees with the principal topics of the Kauṭilīya.

v4.c62.11

The Nītiprakāśikā (I. 21-22) states that Brahmā, Maheśvara, Skanda, Indra, Prācetasa Manu, Bṛhaspati, Śukra, Bhāradvāja, Veda-Vyāsa, Gauraśiras were the expounders of Rājaśāstra, that Brahmā composed a work on rājaśāstra in 100000 chapters, which was gradually reduced in size by each of the abovementioned founders until Gauraśiras reduced it to 500 chapters and Vyāsa to 300. The Śukranītisāra (I. 2-4) states that Brahmā composed nītiśāstra in 100000 verses, which was subsequently abridged by Vasiṣṭha and others (including Śukra).

v4.c62.12

It is interesting to note the names given to the science of government. The most appropriate word is 'rājaśāstra' and it is employed by the Mahābhārata, which speaks of Bṛhaspati, Bharadvāja and others as ‘rājaśāstra-praṇetāraḥ’ (vide p. 2 above). The Nītiprakāśikā (I. 21-22) also dubs the divine and human writers on government 'rājaśāstrāṇām praṇetāraḥ.' The same word is employed by such ancient classical writers as Aśvaghoṣa in his Buddhacarita (I. 46).⁶ The first verse in Prof. Edgerton's reconstructed Pañcatantra performs obeisance to Manu, Bṛhaspati, Śukra, Parāśara and his son and Cāṇakya as the authors of nṛpaśāstra (science of kingship). Another name is *Daṇḍanīti*. The Śāntiparva (59. 78) explains why Daṇḍanīti is so called viz. 'this world is led (on to the right path) by daṇḍa (the power of punishment, sanction) or this science carries (or sets forth) the rod of punishment; hence it is called daṇḍanīti and it (faces) pervades the three worlds.' In Śāntiparva 69. 76 it is stated that 'Daṇḍanīti controls the four varṇas so as to lead them on to the performance of their duties and when it is employed by the ruler properly, it makes them desist from adharma.'⁷ Śānti 63. 28 identifies Daṇḍanīti with rājadharmaḥ. The Kauṭilīya (I. 4) explains 'Daṇḍa is the means of the stability and welfare of Ānvīkṣikī. Trayī (the three Vedas) and Vārtā; the rules that treat of daṇḍa are called daṇḍanīti, which is a means of acquiring what has not been acquired, which safeguards what is acquired, which increases what is guarded and distributes (increased wealth) among the deserving.⁸ The Mahābhārata says (Śānti 69. 102) that a wise kṣatriya, putting daṇḍanīti in front, should always desire to acquire what is till then unacquired and should guard what is acquired.⁹ The Nītisāra (II. 15) says that *dama* (control or chastisement) is called daṇḍa, the king is called 'daṇḍa' because control is centered in him; that the nīti (rules) of daṇḍa is called daṇḍanīti and nīti is so called because it leads (people).'¹⁰ Śānti (69. 104) says that daṇḍanīti is the special concern of the kṣatriya (rājan). It is said in the Vanaparva 150. 32 that without Daṇḍanīti this whole world would break all bounds. Vide also Śānti 15.29, 63.28, 69.74 ff (eulogy of Daṇḍanīti). Daṇḍanīti is said to be the support of the world (Śānti 121.24) and to have been produced by Devī Sarasvatī (Śānti 122.25.)

v4.c62.13

⁶ यद्राजशास्त्रं भृगुरङ्गिरा वा न चक्रतुर्वंशकरावुभौ तौ ॥ तयोः सुतौ तौ च ससर्जतुस्तत्कालेन शुक्रश्च बृहस्पतिश्च ॥ बुद्धचरित I. 46.

v4.c62.14

⁷ दण्डेन नीयते चेदं दण्डं नयति वा पुनः । दण्डनीतिरिति ख्याता त्रींल्लोकानभिवर्तते ॥ शान्तिपर्व 59. 78; दण्डनीतिः स्वधर्मेभ्यश्चातुर्वर्ण्य नियच्छति । प्रयुक्ता स्वामिना सम्यगधर्मेभ्यो नियच्छति ॥ शान्ति. 69. 76. स्वधर्मेभ्यः is in the dative and अधर्मेभ्यः in the ablative.

v4.c62.15

⁸ आन्वीक्षिकीत्रयीवार्तानां योगक्षेमसाधनो दण्डः । तस्य नीतिर्दण्डनीतिः । अलब्धलाभाथर्था लब्धपरिरक्षणी रक्षितविवर्धनी वृद्धस्य तीर्थेषु प्रतिपादनी च ॥ अर्थशास्त्र I.4 (p. 9).

v4.c62.16

⁹ दण्डनीतिं पुरस्कृत्य विजानन् क्षत्रियः सदा । अलब्धं च लिप्सेत लब्धं च परिपालयेत् ॥ शान्ति. 69.102.

v4.c62.17

¹⁰ दमो दण्ड इति ख्यातस्तात्स्थ्याद्दण्डो महीपतिः । तस्य नीतिर्दण्डनीतिर्नयनान्नीतिरुच्यते ॥ नीतिसार II. 15 and शुक्र० I. 157 (latter reading तस्माद्दण्डो &c.)

v4.c62.18

Arthaśāstra has been a synonym for daṇḍanīti. When the Āp. Dh. S. II. 5.10.16 requires the king to appoint as purohita a brāhmaṇa well-versed in dharma and artha, it is clear that Āpastamba has in view dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra. The Anuśāsanaparva says that Bṛhaspati and others composed arthaśāstras (39.10–11). Droṇaparva 6.1 speaks of a science of artha composed by Manu (*Mānavī arthavidyā*). Vide Jayaswal in 'Manu and Yājñavalkya' (pp. 5, 7, 16, 25, 26, 41, 42, 50, 84, for Manu and Artha). Śānti (71. 14) states that a king whose sole concern is with arthaśāstra does not secure dharına and kāma and that all the wealth of such a king vanishes in (the pursuit of) improper objects. Vide Śānti 302. 109 which speaks of arthaśāstra as resorted to by the best among kings. The Rāmāyaṇa (II. 100. 14) states that Sudhanvā, Upādhyāya of Rāma, was an adept in arthaśāstra. The arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya starts with the statement that it is the quintessence of all the arthaśāstras composed by former teachers in the whole world and at the end Kauṭilya states that that śāstra which is a means of acquiring and guarding the earth is arthaśāstra. This mentions two of the four objects of daṇḍanīti stated in the Kauṭilīya itself (as shown in *n.* 8 above). Only two objects are mentioned by Kauṭilya (as in Śānti 69. 102) since they are the first and principal ones to be gained by the practice of the science of government. It is not meant that there was, as regards the topics to be dealt with, any distinction between Daṇḍanīti and Arthaśāstra. The four objects mentioned by Kauṭilya are always placed before the kṣatriya by Manu (VII. 99–100), Śānti 102. 57 and 140. 5, Yāj. I. 317, Nītisāra I. 18 (while I. 8 mentions only two purposes of rājavidyā). At the end (XV. 1) Kauṭilya states '*artha* is the sustenance of human beings, that is, the earth peopled by men That śāstra which is a means of acquiring and guarding that earth is arthaśāstra.' Men derive their sustenance from the earth and all wealth also arises from the earth. Mr. Jayaswal (Hindu Polity p. 5) is not right when he translates 'Artha is human population.' Vide U. Ghoshal's 'Hindu Political Theories' p. 74 n and p. 76 for the various interpretations of this passage by Jayaswal and others. Authors a few centuries later than both the Mahābhārata and the Kauṭilīya treat the two as identical. Daṇḍin in his Daśakumāracarita (VIII.) expressly says that Viṣṇugupta composed his work on daṇḍanīti for the Maurya king in 6000 ślokas, though the Kauṭilīya states at the very beginning that the work is an arthaśāstra. Daṇḍin in the same context refers to 'Arthaśāstras as helping to polish the intellect' and speaks of some of the predecessors mentioned by Kauṭilya as writers on the śāstra (viz. the Arthaśāstra).¹¹ The Amarakośa treats the two as identical.¹² Medhātithi on Manu VII. 43 holds that the word 'Daṇḍanīti' therein refers to the works of Cāṇakya and others. The Mitākṣarā on Yāj. I. 313 paraphrases daṇḍanīti by arthaśāstra and on Yāj. I. 311 explains daṇḍanīti as the lore useful in the acquisition and guarding of wealth (only the two objects mentioned by Kauṭilya in connection with arthaśāstra). According to the Śukranītisāra (IV. 3.56) 'that is said to be arthaśāstra in which instruction about the conduct of kings and the like is given without coming in conflict with Śruti and Smṛti and in which the acquisition of wealth with great skill is taught'.

v4.c62.19

¹¹ अधीष्व तावद्दण्डनीतिम् । इयमिदानीमाचार्यविष्णुगुप्तेन मौर्यार्थे षड्भिः श्लोकसहस्रैः संक्षिप्ता। ...... येपि मन्त्रकर्त्तारः शास्त्रतन्त्रकाराः शुक्राङ्गिरसविशालाक्षबाहुदन्तिपुत्रपराशरप्रभृतयः &c. । दशकुमारचरित VIII. pp. 131 and 133 (B.S. Series edition).

v4.c62.20

¹² आन्वीक्षिकी दण्डनीतिस्तर्कविद्यार्थशास्त्रयोः । अमरकोश (शब्दादिवर्ग). क्षीरस्वामी derives 'दम्यतेनेन दमनं वा दण्डः स नीयते दम्यं प्रति प्राप्यते यया सा दण्डनीतिरर्थशास्त्रम् ।

v4.c62.21

The words arthaśāstra and daṇḍanīti are applied to the science of government from two different points of view. Artha is defined in the Kāmasūtra (I. 20) as 'education, lands, gold, cattle, corn, domestic utensils and friends and the augmenting of what is acquired' (vide H. Dh. Vol. II part I. p. 9 note 22). Therefore when wealth and prosperity of all kinds is the spring and motive of giving a name the science treating of these is called arthaśāstra and when the government of the people and the punishment of offenders are the main ideas the same is called daṇḍanīti. Though works like Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra place a high value on dharma they are principally concerned with the treatment of central and local government, taxation, the employment of *sāma* and other upāyas, with alliances and wars, appointment of officers and punishment. Therefore Arthaśāstra is mainly what is called *dṛṣṭārtha smṛti*, as stated by the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (quoted by Aparārka p. 626, the Smṛticandrikā p. 24, vyavahāra and Vīramitrodaya, *paribhāṣā* p. 19). Medhātithi on Manu VII. 1 explains that dharma in that verse means ‘duties’ (dharmaśabdaḥ kartavyatāvacanaḥ), that the duties of the king are either dṛṣṭārtha (i. e. the effects of which are worldly and visible) such as the employment of six *guṇas* (sandhi, vigraha &c.) or adṛṣṭārtha (that have no visible effect but have a spiritual result) such as Agnihotra; here (in chap. VII-IX of Manu) the remarks relate principally to dṛṣṭārtha matters since it is well-known that the word *rājādharma* is applicable to such matters (the six guṇas &c.) only.¹³ Medhātithi here declares that the rules of rājanīti are not based on the canonical books of dharmaśāstra but principally on the experience of worldly affairs.

v4.c62.22

¹³ धर्मशब्दः कर्तव्यतावचन इत्युक्तम्। ... कर्तव्यं च दृष्टार्थं षाड्गुण्यादि । अदृष्टार्थमग्निहोत्रादि । तत्रेह प्राधान्येन दृष्टार्थं उपदिश्यते । तत्रैव च राजधर्मप्रसिद्धिः । मेधा० on मनु VII. I.

v4.c62.23

Another name for the science of government is Nītiśāstra or Rājanītiśāstra. Śānti¹⁴ 59. 74 says that in the nītiśāstra are set forth all those means whereby people are prevented from forsaking the right path. The Nītisāra of Kāmandaka¹⁵ (I. 6) does obeisance to Viṣṇugupta who extracted the nectar of Nītiśāstra from the vast ocean of Arthaśāstra (works). The Pañcatantra p. 2 holds that Arthaśāstra and Nītiśāstra are synonymous. The Mitākṣarā on Yāj. II. 21 remarks that the arthaśāstra referred to by Yāj. is rājanītiśāstra that is part and parcel of dharmaśāstra. The word ‘rājanīti’ occurs in Raghuvaṁśa 17.68. Vide Bhagavadgītā X. 38, Āśramavāsikaparva 6.5, Manu VII. 177, Śānti 111. 73, 138.39, 43 and 196, 268.9 and Anuśāsana 163.7 for Nītiśāstra meaning Arthaśāstra or Rājanīti and Droṇa 152.29 and Śānti 37.9 for the word rājanīti. Another noteworthy word is ‘naya’ which means ‘line of policy’ and is employed by the Arthaśāstra (I. 2) when it says ‘naya and anaya (bad policy) are treated of in Daṇḍanīti’. It is also used in several classical works, such as the Kirātārjunīya (II. 3, 12, 54, XIII. 17).

v4.c62.24

¹⁴ येर्यैरुपायैर्लोकस्तु न चलेदार्यवर्त्मनः । तत्सर्वं राजशार्दूल नीतिशास्त्रेनिदर्शितम् ॥ शान्ति. 59. 74.

v4.c62.25

¹⁵ नीतिशास्त्रामृतं धीमानर्थशास्त्रमहोदधेः । समुद्दधे नमस्तस्मै विष्णुगुप्ताय वेधसे ॥ कामन्दकीयनीतिसार I. 6.

v4.c62.26

The relation of arthaśāstra to dharmaśāstra has now to be understood. As stated above rājadharma is a very important subject of dharma-śāstra. Arthaśāstra which is principally concerned with the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the ruler is therefore properly speaking a part of dharmaśāstra. As shown above it is supposed to have like dharmaśāstra a divine source. But works on arthaśāstra enter into great details about the government of a country in all its aspects, while dharmaśāstra works generally deal only with a few salient features of rājaśāstra. Just as the Kāmasūtra (I. 2. 14) states that dharma is the highest goal and kāma is the lowest of the three puruṣārthas (vide H. Dh. vol. II part 1 p. 9), so Arthaśāstra also sets the highest value on dharma. The Kauṭilīya states (III. 1. at end)¹⁶ 'In any matter where there is a conflict between dharmaśāstra and practices or between dharmaśāstra and any secular transaction, (the king) should decide that matter by relying on dharma. If śāstra comes in conflict with any rational and equitable rule then the latter shall be the deciding factor and the (strict) letter of the text will be nowhere'. But Kauṭilya and other writers on arthaśāstra lay the greatest emphasis on artha. In the eager and relentless pursuit of worldly prosperity means may be recommended or followed which may come in conflict with the strictly ethical standpoint of the dictates of dharmaśāstra. In such cases of conflict dharmaśāstra works lay down (e. g. Āp. Dh. I.9. 24. 23, Yāj. II. 21, Nārada, vyavahāramātṛkā chap. I. 39) that dharmaśāstra rules are to be preferred to the dictates of arthaśāstra. Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. II. 21) states that according to some predecessors of his the conflict between the dictates of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra is illustrated as follows. Manu VIII. 351 (which is the same as Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra V. 190 and Matsyapurāṇa 227. 116-117) when dealing with vyavahāra (a subject that pre-eminently belongs to arthaśāstra) provides that in killing an *ātatāyin*, no fault attaches to the killer: while Manu XI. 89 in the chapter on prāyaścittas (which is pre-eminently a topic of dharmaśāstra) states that no penance is prescribed (i. e. there is no prāyaścitta for removing the guilt) when a person of set purpose kills a brāhmaṇa. The result is that the latter rule prevails and sin is incurred by killing a brāhmaṇa even if the latter be an ātatāyin (though there may be no punishment by the king). Viśvarūpa does not accept this illustration. The Mitākṣarā also refers to this example, disapproves of it and gives its own example. The Arthaśāstra declares that a king should endeavour to secure friends, since the acquisition of friends is superior to the acquisition of gold and land (as is laid down in Yāj. I. 352). The rule of dharmaśāstra is that a king has to dispense justice, being free from anger and avarice and in accordance with dharmaśāstra. Therefore when a suit comes before a king he must decide it according to law, even though he may lose the friendship of a person if his decision goes against the latter. The Vīramitrodaya follows the Mitākṣarā. Dharmaśāstra went by the name of smṛti (Manu II. 10), while arthaśāstra was treated as an Upaveda. The Viṣṇupurāṇa III. 6. 28, Vāyu 61. 79 and Brahmāṇḍa 35. 88-89 mention the four Upavedas¹⁷ viz. Āyurveda, Dhanurveda, Gāndharvaveda and Arthaśāstra as affiliated to the four Vedas respectively viz. Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveda. Kauṭilya (I. 5) states that the king should listen to the recital of *itihāsa* in the latter part of the day and includes both dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra under itihāsa¹⁸ and requires the minister knowing arthaśāstra to advise the king (with examples and precepts derived) from itihāsa and purāṇa.

v4.c62.27

¹⁶ संस्थाया धर्मशास्त्रेण शास्त्रं वा व्यावहारिकम् । यस्मिन्नर्थे विरुध्येत धर्मेणार्थं विनिश्चयेत् ॥ शास्त्रं विप्रतिपद्येत धर्मन्यायेन केनचित् । न्यायस्तत्र प्रमाणं स्यात्तत्र पाठो हि नश्यति॥कौटिलीय III: 1. p. 150. Prof. K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar gives two inconsistent translations of these verses at pp. 54, 170 of his 'Ancient Indian Polity' (1935). धर्ममूलत्वात्कामफलत्वाच्चार्थस्य धर्मार्थकामानुबन्धायार्थस्य सिद्धिः सा सर्वार्थसिद्धिः। कौटिलीय IX. 7. p. 362.

v4.c62.28

¹⁷ आयुर्वेदॊ धनुर्वेदो गान्धर्वश्चेति तं त्रयः । अर्थशास्त्रं चतुर्थं च विद्या ह्यष्टादशैव ताः ॥ विष्णुपुराण III. 6. 28 quoted by अपरार्क p. 6.

v4.c62.29

¹⁸ पश्चिममितिहासश्रवणे । पुराणमितिवृत्तमाख्यायिकोदाहरणं धर्मशास्त्रमर्थशास्त्रं चेतीतिहासः । कौटिल्य I. 5. p. 10.

v4.c62.30.1

Though Arthaśāstra is in theory for keeping to the path of dharma, one cannot blink one's eyes to the fact that the Mahābhārata and the Kauṭilīya both support in several places the adoption of means entirely divorced from all rules of fair dealing and morality. In Ādiparva 140 we have a discourse by Kaṇika said to have been a *mantrin* of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and a profound student of Rājaśāstra, which is almost on the same lines as Śāntiparva chap. 140 where Bhīṣma sets out what lines of policy (*nīti*) should be followed by the ruler in adversity and how he should give up all thoughts of kindliness in such straits. He is supposed to give the substance of the dialogue between the sage Bhāradvāja and Śatruntapa, king of Sauvīra. The whole chapter is full of Machiavellian advice. A few specimens may be set out here. One should be very courteous in speech, but like a razor at heart (verse 13); one desirous of prosperity may fold one's hands, may take an oath, may use sweet words, place his head on another's feet and even shed tears, one may carry on one's shoulders one's enemy till one accomplishes one's object and when a fit opportunity arises should break him like an earthen pot on a stone (17-18); the king should raise hopes promising their fulfilment at a distant day, but should put obstacles in the fulfilment of the hopes raised in others (32);

v4.c62.30.2

when one is reduced to a wretched state one may extricate oneself from it by any act whatever whether gentle or horrible and practise dharma after one becomes able to do so (38); one should inspire confidence in one's enemy by some means which appear to be true (to the enemy), but one should strike him down at the right moment when he takes a wrong step (44); whoever causes obstacles to the purpose of the king, whether son or brother or father or friend, should be killed by the king who desires to prosper (47); without cutting the vitals of others, without committing horrible deeds and without killing indiscriminately as the fisherman in the case of fish one does not secure high prosperity (50); when about to strike one should utter sweet words and even after striking one should use honeyed words; even after severing another's head with a sword one should lament and shed tears (54); if some remainder is left in the case of a debt or fire or enemies, there is a tendency to grow and so no remainder should be left of these (58). It is to be noted that this chapter deals specially with what should be done in difficulties and cannot be supposed to be the real teaching of the Mahābhārata which is generally in line with the higher code of dharmaśāstra. It embodied probably the words of earlier arthaśāstra writers like Bhāradvāja.

v4.c62.30.3

After hearing this discourse on calculated cruelty and deceit Yudhiṣṭhira stood aghast and frankly told Bhīṣma that the course of conduct outlined by him did not differ from that of robbers and that he felt bewildered and would not exert himself in the way pointed out. In chap. 142 Bhīṣma replies to this by saying that he did not base his discourse merely on the sacred texts, but also on reason and the essence was distilled by wise men, that the considered rule of conduct for the king is twofold, viz. straightforward and crooked, that one should not ordinarily employ the crooked course of conduct, but should employ it as against an enemy who employs a crooked policy and effectively meet him by such policy. He further says that *rājadharma* cannot be based on a single source (v. 7) and that policies are to be pursued not merely by reliance on the sacred codes of law but on reason as well (v. 17) and that Indra himself has declared this rule which he derived from Bṛhaspati. In Śānti-parva a weak king is advised to harass a very powerful ruler's state by sword, fire and poison. In chap. 130 it is stated that the preservation of the state is the paramount consideration and that a king whose treasury is depleted and who is therefore in difficulties may replenish his treasury even by harassing his subjects (except *tāpasas* and learned brāhmaṇas). In chap.

v4.c62.30.4

138 it is said that self-interest makes friends or foes and that *aviśvāsa* (putting trust in no one) is the grand line of policy for kings. So it is clear that the Mahābhārata was prepared to give up in certain circumstances the strict rules of dharmaśāstra for kings and to allow them to pursue devious modes of action that were far from moral i. e. it tries to effect a synthesis of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra.

v4.c62.31

The Kauṭilīya also discloses how arthaśāstra writers did not shrink from giving advice which, to say the least, was most cruel, selfish and immoral. For example, in the section called 'guarding the prince' (Kauṭ. I. 17) the views of several teachers are set out. Bhāradvāja says that princes are of the nature of crabs eating up their parent; so it is better to finish them in secret when they have no love for their father. Viśālākṣa abhorred this advice as cruel, as unsanctioned murder and as destructive of the seed of kṣatriyas and recommended that it was better to keep them confined in a single spot. Vātavyādhi recommended that princes should be made addicted to sensual excesses. Kauṭ. disapproves of this as living death (for the princes), recommends proper care before conception and after birth and instruction in dharma. In Kauṭ. V. 6 Bhāradvāja is quoted as saying that when the king is on his death-bed, the minister may set up the kinsmen of the king and the principal princes against one another, that whoever attacks should be killed by inciting the people against him, or having secretly punished the kinsmen and chief princes and brought them under control, the minister should himself take possession of the kingdom. Kauṭilya does not approve of this. But even he advises (XIV Aupaniṣadika) the employment of poison, herbs and incantations against those who are irreligious or wicked. In I. 18 even Kauṭ. does not shrink from advising that secret emissaries (of the reigning king) may kill an abandoned prince with weapons and poison and in V. 1 Kauṭ. remarks that, when a king cannot openly put down the principal courtiers or chiefs who are dangerous to the kingdom, he may inflict punishment on them in secret or may induce the brother of the officer to be punished to attack the latter by promising to give him the position and wealth of the officer and then destroy that attacker with weapons or poison saying that he was guilty of fratricide. In V. 2 for replenishing a depleted treasury Kauṭilya coolly asks the king to deprive the temples in the kingdom of their wealth through the superintendent of religious endowments.

v4.c62.32

Sanskrit literature on rājadharma is very extensive. Apart from the meagre materials contained in such ancient dharma-sūtras as that of Āpastamba, the following works deserve close study and have been utilized in this section; the Mahābhārata (Vanaparva 150, Sabhā 5, Udyoga 33-34, Śānti 1-130, Āśrama-vāsika 5-7), the Rāmāyaṇa (Ayodhyā, chap. 15, 67, 100; Yuddha 17-18, 63), Manusmṛti VII-IX, Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya (which is the leading work on rājadharma), Yāj. I. 304-367, Vṛddha-Hārīta-smṛti chap. VII. verses 188-271, Bṛhat-Parāśara chap. X. pp. 277-285, Viṣṇudharmasūtra III, the Nītisāra of Kāmandaka, Agnipurāṇa chap. 218-242, Garuḍapurāṇa 108-115, Matsya 215-243, Viṣṇudharmottara II, Mārkaṇḍeya 24, Kālikā 87, the Nītiprakāśikā attributed to Vaiśampāyana (ed. by Oppert), Śukranītisāra (ed. by Jīvānanda, 1890), the Abhilaṣitārthacintāmaṇi or Mānasollāsa (first four viṁśatis) of Someśvara, Yukti-kalpataru of Bhoja, Nītivākyāmṛta of Somadeva (959 A. D.), Bārhaspatyasūtra (ed. by Dr. F. W. Thomas), the Rājanītikāṇḍa of the Kṛtyakalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara (edited from a single ms. by Jagadish Lal Shastri at Lahore, 1942), Rājanīti-ratnākara of Caṇḍeśvara, Rājanīti-prakāśa of Mitramiśra, Nītimayūkha of Nīlakaṇṭha, Rājadharmakaustubha of Anantadeva, Budhabhūṣaṇa of Prince Sambhāji (between A. D. 1675-1680, ed. by Prof. H. D. Velankar), Daṇḍanīti of Keśavapaṇḍita (edited by V. S. Bendrey, Poona, 1943). In recent times there is a deluge of works mostly inspired by the publication of the Kauṭilīya dealing with ancient and medieval Indian polity in its various branches. The most important of these and a few other works independent of Kauṭilya are mentioned in the note below.¹⁹

v4.c62.33

¹⁹ Some parts of the Śāntiparva may be later than Kāmandaka's work, since Śānti (123. 11-12) refers to the dialogue of Kāmandaka and Aṅgariṣṭha king of Aṅga. But it need hardly be said that it is not absolutely necessary to hold that the extant Nītisāra of Kāmandaka is referred to by Śāntiparva. (*Continued from last page*) The reference may be only to a legend. The modern works referred to above are:—'Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity' (1935) and 'Rājadharma' (1941) by Rao Bahadur K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar; 'The Nature and grounds of political obligation in the Hindu state' by J. J. Anjāria (1935); 'Development of Hindu polity and Political Theories' (Calcutta, 1929) by N. C. Bandopadhyaya; "Public Administration in Ancient India" (1916) by Dr. P. N. Bannerjea; 'Some Aspects of ancient Hindu Polity' (1921) by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar; 'The theory of Government in Ancient India', (1927) and 'The State in Ancient India' (1928) by Dr. Beni Prasad; 'Buddhist India' (1903) by Rhys Davids; 'Hindu Administrative Institutions' (Madras, 1929) and 'Mauryan Polity' (Madras, 1932) by Prof. V. R. Ramchandra Dikshitar; 'History of Hindu Political Theories' (2nd ed. Calcutta, 1927) by U. Ghoshal; Prof. E. W. Hopkins' 'Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India' in Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. XIII. pp. 57-372; 'Hindu Polity' (1924) by K. P. Jayaswal; 'Administration and Social Life under the Pallavas' (1938) by Dr. C. Minakshi; 'Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity' (vol. 1, 1914), 'Inter-state Relations in Ancient India' (London, 1920), 'Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity' (Oxford, 1921), 'Studies in Indian History and Culture' (1925) by Dr. Narendranath Law; 'Corporate Life in Ancient India' (Calcutta, 1919) by Dr. R. C. Majmudar; 'Local Government in Ancient India' (1919) by Dr. Radhakumud Mukerjee; 'Study in the Economic condition of Ancient India' by Dr. Pran Nath; 'Positive Background of Hindu Sociology' (Allahabad, 1914) and 'The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus' (1922) by Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar; 'Sovereignty in Ancient Hindu Polity' by Dr. H. N. Sinha (London, 1938); 'International Law in Ancient India' by Prof. S. V. Visvanathan. I have to make general acknowledgments to these works for much useful information, particularly to those of K. P. Jayaswal and N. N. Law. For a list of Mss. on Polity or its sub-topics, vide N. N. Law's articles in Modern Review for October 1917 to January 1918 and March and June 1918 and for a list of available Mss. and printed works on '*Vārtā*' (economics) vide the same writer's 'Studies in Indian History and Culture' pp. 384 ff. In my treatment of *rājadharma* I have generally restricted myself to data derived from Sanskrit works on *dharmaśāstra* and *arthaśāstra* and have rarely ventured into works in Pāli. Similarly it has to be borne in mind that the works referred to cover a period of several centuries and further that India is not one country but a continent of which northern India formed one more or less homogeneous unit, while the Deccan formed another and South India formed a third unit. The institutions of these, particularly of the last of the three, differ in many particulars from those of the other two. But the authentic data furnished by South India are later by centuries than those supplied by the north and besides are comparatively meagre. Therefore in this work one has to confine oneself principally to Sanskrit works composed in North India or the Deccan.

v4.c62.34

It would be impossible to go into all details about Government and Politics within the space at my disposal. What is proposed is to indicate and dilate upon only the fundamental ideas and principles of the several matters falling under rāja-dharma. Nor is it possible to enter here into formal and lengthy refutations of the several views propounded by Western and Indian writers about the forms and functions of Government and the state of society in ancient India. Most of the modern works referred to in note 19 above are more or less based on the same material in Sanskrit and Pāli, but the emotional or subjective element is different in each case. Some western writers have without very solid foundations indulged in a facile and sweeping generalization that the great Empires of antiquity such as those of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Medians and Persians and the Indians were mainly tax-gathering institutions (vide Sir Henry Maine's 'Early History of Institutions' 1875, pp. 384 and 390; and Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar's 'Ancient Indian Polity' 1935, pp. 5-6 and pp. 66-69 (where passages from T. H. Green and others are cited); while some Indian writers vehemently assert that the Government in Ancient India was always some form of limited monarchy. Both characterisations are in my opinion misleading. An endeavour will be made to present from the original texts as true a picture of the polity of ancient and medieval India as it is possible for me to do. It will do no good to label the ancient institutions of India with concepts and terms current in the West during the last one hundred and fifty years or so. Even in the West true democracies or real democratic governments did not exist and the masses in no country had elective popular assemblies or councils before the last quarter of the 18th century. Such assemblies do not exist even now in several countries of Europe. Even in the ancient Greek city states the number of slaves who had no voice in the government was several times as large as the free citizens and those states were no democracies at all in the strict sense.19a Indian polity has a recorded history of over two thousand years from at least the 4th century B. C. Its growth was gradual but its aims and ideals and its main elements have been the same throughout the centuries. India need not feel ashamed or fear a comparison of its ideals and theories of State with the ideals and theories of western countries in ancient and medieval times. If western countries could boast of so-called republics and city states in ancient Greece and Rome, India also had several republics in ancient times. The ancient Hindus made their own contributions to political thought, though unfortunately Western scholars of the 19th century like Max Müller, Weber and Roth were concerned most with the Vedic and allied literature and either did not know or ignored the vast literature on politics contained in Sanskrit and Pāli works. Vide 'Some Aspects of ancient Hindu Polity' by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (1929) pp. 2-3 for views of Max Müller and others and criticism thereof, also Dr. Beni Prasad's 'Theory of Government &c.' p. 1, U. Ghoshal 'History of Hindu Political Theories' pp. 3-4.

v4.c62.35

19a Berolzheimer in 'the World's Legal Philosophies' (tr. by Jastrow, New York, 1929) p. 62 remarks 'Plato approved of slavery unreservedly, finding it a necessary condition for the maintenance of the proper status of the citizen. ... Thus in the maritime and industrial states there was a large slave class; in Corinth, 460000; Aegina, 470000; in Attica (according to the census of 309 B. C.) 400000'.

v4.c62.36

SEVEN AṄGAS OF RĀJYA

v4.c62.37.1

According to almost all of our authorities a state (*rājya*) is constituted by seven elements²⁰ viz. *svāmin* (ruler or sovereign), *amātya* (minister), *janapada* or *rāṣṭra* (the territory of the State and its people), *durga* (fortified city or capital), *kośa* (accumulated wealth in the ruler's treasury), *daṇḍa* (army), *mitra* (friends or allies).' These seven are called *aṅgas* or *prakṛtis*. The word prakṛti in works on politics is also used for the constituents of a circle of states (of a maṇḍala). Vide Manu VII. 156 and Kauṭilya (VI.2). The word also means ministers as in Śukranītisāra II. 70-73 and 'subjects' in Khāravela's Inscription (E. I. vol. 20 p. 79 l. 4), Nārada (prakīrṇaka 5), Raghuvaṁśa VIII. 18. The order in which these are arranged and their names vary a good deal. The quotations given below will indicate how the order differs. The sequence is important for the reason that some of our authorities expressly state that when calamities befall or deterioration sets in each of the seven elements, those that befall each preceding one are more serious for the State than those of each succeeding one (Kauṭilya VIII. 1, Manu IX. 295). For *janapada* sometimes the word *jana* or *rāṣṭra* is used, for 'daṇḍa' the word 'bala' and the word 'pura' for 'durga'. The Āśramavāsiparva (5.8) speaks of eight angas of *rājya*. According to Sumantu quoted by the Sarasvatīvilāsa (p. 46) *daṇḍa* means "punishment bodily or monetary" and 'army' is included under 'kośa'.

v4.c62.37.2

Sumantu says that th esvāmin has to be preserved by himself, the ministers by showing them proper respect, the people by keeping them contented, the fortified capital by abundance of wealth and grain, the kośa by proper expenditure, daṇḍa by following one's dharma, friends by truthfulness. The authorities are agreed that the ruler is the most important or the first of the seven. Kauṭilya puts the matter very forcibly and realistically when he states that the briefest exposition of the elements of *rājya* is to say that the king is the State²¹. This is really not the same doctrine as that emphasized by Louis XIV of France when he said '*L'Etat c'est moi*'. Kauṭilya makes his position clear (in VIII. 1) by saying that it is the king who appoints ministers and servants and superintendents, who takes measures of relief against calamities befalling the other prakṛtis and measures of prosperity, that it is he who appoints other ministers when those already appointed are under calamities, that if the ruler is prosperous he transmits prosperity to his prakṛtis, that the prakṛtis bear that character which the king has and that hence the ruler occupies the position of a permanent, never-exhausted centre of power. The Śukranītisāra II.4 remarks that if the king begins to act at his sweet will, it leads to calamities, to loss of ministers and of the kingdom. The Śukranītisāra (I.

v4.c62.37.3

61-62) compares the seven aṅgās of rājya to the organs of the body viz., the king is the head, the ministers are the eyes, ally the ear, treasury the mouth, the army the mind, capital and rāṣṭra are hands and feet. It is emphasized by Kānı. (IV.1-2) that each of the seven elements is complementary to the others, that if the state is defective even in one out of the seven elements it does not pull well. the Śāntiparva it is stated that it is not possible to say categorically that any one of the seven excels the others in merit, but that at different times a different element assumes importance over others, since that particular element is in the particular circumstances capable of accomplishing the purpose in hand. This shows that Manu and the Mahābhārata held that there was an organic unity in the several elements of rājya. All must work harmoniously towards one ideal or end. Manu (IX. 296-297) says this by means of a simile 'Just as among the three staves tied together (by a rope of cow's hair) used by a *sannyāsin* no particular staff is superior (to the others), so among the seven elements of the state no particular one can be said to excel the others, since each of them has a particular excellence of its own; a particular element is pre-eminent in some particular matter and therefore the superiority of one to the others when expressed (as e. g. in Manu IX.

v4.c62.37.4

295) is to be confined to that matter alone.' Manu here emphasizes the harmonious working or unity of the seven elements though they are diverse in their individual characters. The analysis of the elements and nature of the State led ancient Indian writers to hold that a mere conglomeration of people did not by itself constitute a State, but that for a State there must be people who live within certain definite geographical limits (rāṣṭra), they must be bound by the bond to render allegiance to a ruler (svāmī), have a certain system of government (amātya), must have a regulated economic system, a force for defence and international relationships. That is, the most essential elements of a state are (1) a sovereign, (2) a system of government, (3) a definite territory and (4) a population of some size. These four were known even to the most ancient sūtras. Vide Gaut. XI. 1 (rājā), Āp. II. 6. 25. 10 (amātya), Āp. II. 10. 25. 11, II. 10. 26. 4 (viṣaya, nagara, grāma), Gaut XI. 5-8 (prajā).

v4.c62.38

²⁰ स्वाम्यमात्यजनपददुर्गकोशदण्डमित्राणि प्रकृतयः। कौ. VI. 1, p. 257; स्वाम्यमात्या जनो दुर्गं कोशो दण्डस्तथैव च। मित्राण्येताः प्रकृतयो राज्यं सप्ताङ्गमुच्यते ॥ याज्ञ. I. 353; स्वाम्यमात्यौ पुरं राष्ट्रं कोशदण्डौ सुहृत्तथा । सप्त प्रकृतयो ह्येताः सप्ताङ्गं राज्यमुच्यते ॥ मनु IX. 294; स्वाम्यमात्यदुर्गकोशदण्डराष्ट्रमित्राणि प्रकृतयः । विष्णुधर्मसूत्र III. 33; स्वाम्यमात्यसुहृद्दुर्गकोशदण्डजनाः । गौतमसूत्र quoted in सरस्वतीविलास p. 45. Vide also शान्ति 69. 64-65, मत्स्य 225. 11 and 239, अग्निपुराण 233. 12, कामन्दक I. 16 and IV. 1-2. The application of the word प्रकृति to these is lucidly explained by Aparārka (p. 588) यतः कार्यमुत्पद्यतेऽवतिष्ठते नियमेन भवति सा प्रकृतिः। यथा हिरण्यं कुण्डलस्य । राज्यं च विना स्वाम्यादिभिर्नोत्पद्यते, उत्पन्नमपि न तैर्विना चिरकालमनुवर्तते । ततो भवन्ति स्वाम्यादयो राज्याङ्गानि ।

v4.c62.39

²¹ राजा राज्यमिति प्रकृतिसंक्षेपः । कौटिल्य VIII. 2; तत्कूटस्थानीयो हि स्वामीति। कौ. VIII. 1; सप्ताङ्गमुच्यते राज्यं तत्र मूर्धा नृपः स्मृतः । दृगमात्यः सुहृच्छ्रोत्रं मुखं कोशो बलं मनः। हस्तौ पादौ दुर्गराष्ट्रौ (?)—शुक्रनीति I. 61-62; सप्तांगस्यापि राज्यस्य मूलं स्वामी प्रकीर्तितः । राजनीतिप्र. p. 123; सप्ताङ्गस्यास्य राज्यस्य त्रिदण्डस्येव तिष्ठतः । अन्योन्यगुणयुक्तस्य कः केन गुणतोऽधिकः ॥ तेषु तेषु हि कालेषु तत्तदङ्गं विशिष्यते । येन यत् सिध्यते कार्यं तत्प्राधान्याय कल्पते ॥ शान्तिपर्व; मनु. IX. 296-297 contain almost these very words and ideas. मत्स्य 239. 1 has परस्परोपकारीदं सप्ताङ्गं राज्यमुच्यते ।

v4.c62.40

These seven elements will now be dealt with one after another.

v4.c62.41

It should be noted that neither Kauṭilya nor Kāmandaka defines *rājya*. Etymologically it means the 'karma' or 'bhāva' (activity or state of a king)', being derived from 'rājan' with the affix 'ya' (ṣyañ or 'yak', acc. to Pāṇini V. 1. 124 and 128). This is the etymological meaning. But 'rājya' is employed in the sense of 'kingdom' in popular parlance and also in the smṛtis and works on polity as in Manu VII. 111, Kām. XIII. 81-82. But when it is said that 'rājya' has seven elements then 'rājya' has a very wide meaning and stands for the king, the ministers, the country and its people and the economic and military resources and in such a case it is proper to translate the word as 'the State' (as including both the Government and the governed). In some cases 'rājya' should be rendered as 'government' which includes only the king and his ministers and conveys also in modern times the agency or machinery through which the will of the State is formulated, realized or carried out; vide Mānasollāsa II. 8, verses 688, 689, 691 The Nītivākyāmṛta (p. 43) says "rājya means the activity of the ruler that would be appropriate to protecting the earth".

v4.c62.42

Medhātithi on Manu VIII. 1 remarks that *rājya* means 'a prosperous people'. In XIII. 4 Kauṭilya states (*na hyajano janapado rājyam janapadam vā bhavatīti Kauṭilyaḥ*) it as his opinion that a territory without any inhabitants cannot become a *rājya* (a kingdom) or a janapada (as one of the seven elements). Śabara on Jai. II. 3. 3 has a discourse on the derivation of *rājya*.

v4.c62.43

Prof. Bhandarkar in 'Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity' (pp. 66–89), Jayaswal in 'Hindu Polity' part II p. 9, Prof. B. K. Sarkar in 'Positive Background of Hindu Sociology' Book II pp. 34–39 and others maintain that this ancient analysis of *rājya* into seven elements shows that the idea of the State as an organism, that is, the organic theory of the State was known to Hindu thinkers and that this doctrine of *saptāṅga rājya*21a satisfies the definition of the State given by Bluntschli and others. On the other hand Mr. Anjaria in chapter IV of his 'Nature and grounds of political obligation in the Hindu state' after pointing out how there are different versions of the organic theory of the state denies vehemently that the Hindu theory can be called a proper organic theory of the State, particularly because the Hindu thinkers did not regard the State as a moral organism, because they attached a permanent stigma of inferiority to large sections of the community on the bare ground of birth and that the Hindu conceptions did not harmonize the authority of the State and the liberty of the individual. It would be far beyond the scope of the present work to enter into any discussion of this problem. All that may be said is that Mr. Anjaria tilts the balance to the other side too much. The faults he points out in the Hindu theory and practice beset almost all theories of the State almost in all countries. Even in the times of Plato and Aristotle huge populations of slaves had no voice in the affairs of the state. Up to the 19th century true democracies never existed even in Europe.

First 51 of 781 passages. Read on

Linked texts (71)