History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.537.1

v4.c62.537.1

At the end of this section on Rājadharma, a question may be asked: what were the ends or purposes that the State in ancient India placed before itself or the dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra writers said the State should place before itself? The end of the State has been differently stated by different philosophers and theorists of the West from ancient times to the present day. To take only a few examples. To Plato and Aristotle³¹⁶ the end of the State was good life for the citizens. But it is not very easy to say what is meant by the good life. Bluntschli in 'Theory of the State' (Oxford, 1885) Book V Chap. IV p. 300 formulates the proper and direct end of the State to be 'the development of the national capacities, the perfection of the national life and finally its completion', provided, of course, that the process of moral and political development shall not be opposed to the destiny of humanity. This definition is not easy to grasp. There is no agreement as to what is the destiny of humanity and the concepts of nation and national life are hardly older than a few centuries even in Europe. For 'nation' one may substitute the word 'country' or 'kingdom'. Then it may be of some application to India. It is impossible to define the end of the State in a single word or in a few words. This question about the end of the State has been partly answered already when speaking of the ideals of kingship.