History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.30
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.30
- Language
- English
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.