Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c11.s2.t4: Conclusion of Somadeva's Work

Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c11.s2.t4

Language
English

Conclusion of Somadeva's Work

c11.s2.t4.1

adhere to his hereditary occupation. In certain passages he even seems to concede a particular sanctity to Brâhmaṇas but he would treat all as equal before the law. He has a higher conception of society and the state than the Brahmanic law-givers.

c11.s2.t4.2

Somadeva’s ephorisms were commented on by a Brahmanic scholar who, from his introductory verse, seems to have been named Haribala. He frequently illustrates Somadeva’s meaning by parallel quotations from Arthaśāstra and Dharmaśāstra authors as well as writers like Jaimini, the great master of the rules of interpretation. But he has few political views of his own.

c11.s2.t4.3

Somadeva Sūri’s fame as a politicist will always rest on the Nitivākyāmṛta but many of his ideas are also to be found in one of his earlier works called Yaśastilaka-Champū. In its third Āśvāsa or chapter he gives a description of king Yaśodhara and touches on a variety of political topics. His diction and lucidity are admirable, but practically all he has to say here on government has been incorporated in the Nitivākyāmṛta.² Somadeva is believed to have written at least three other works which have not yet been discovered but of which one called Trivargamahendramātalisañjalpa appears from its name to have touched on politics. It purports to be a dialogue between Indra and his charioteer Matali or Dharma, Artha and Kāma.

c11.s2.t4.4

¹ Haribala’s Commentary is printed with the text in the Digambara Jaina Granthamālā Series.

c11.s2.t4.5

² Yaśastilaka-Champū, Ch. III. This work is mentioned in the Nitivākyāmṛta. It has been published in the Kāvyamālā.

c11.s2.t4.6

CHAPTER IX.

c11.s2.t4.7

Nitisâstras.

c11.s2.t4.8

It was during the thousand years which separate the Mahâbhârata from Somadeva Sûri that practically what is virile and vigorous in Indian governmental speculation took its rise. The lines of thought represented by the Arthaśâstra, Dharmaśâstra, Purâṇas, Bhuddhists and Jainas do not entirely come to a close, but they merely revolve in circles after the tenth century. Henceforth, works on polity lack originality and freshness. Several Nitiśâstras or treatises on politics were composed but they are wanting in individuality. They cover the whole field of the Arthaśâstra and Dharmaśâstra but they are far less systematic. So far as contents are concerned, the line between Arthaśâstra and Nitiśâstra is very faint, almost non-existent. Kâmandaka’s Nitisâra is reckoned a Niti work but it is practically a summary of Kauṭalya. Somadeva Sûri’s Nitivâkyâmṛita is heavily indebted to the same old writer. There exists a Nitiśâstra, in several different versions, attributed to Châṇakya or Kauṭalya himself. The real author, however, is a moralist who flourished probably several centuries later. The chief difference between the two classes of writings is that the secularist tendency is far less in evidence in the Nitiśâstra. The latter comes into prominence after the Arthaśâstra as such has declined probably under Brahmanical influence. It is not impossible that Buddhist intellectual influences had something to do with Arthaśâstra development. Buddhism is not rationalism as some enthusiastic Western scholars tried to make out but in the first centuries of the Christian era it was certainly more liberal than Brahmanism. As it declined and Brahmanism regained its ascendancy, the Arthaśāstra probably gave way to the Nītiśāstra.¹

c11.s2.t4.9

¹ It is significant of the late origin of Nītiśāstras and the comparative neglect of Arthaśāstras about the eleventh century A.D. that Alberūnī has nothing to say of them while he gives a correct list of twenty Smṛitis, composed by "twenty sons of Brahman" and containing "commandments and prohibitions," and while he gives two lists of eighteen Purāṇas, a correct one as it was read out to him from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa and another which he had merely heard and which differs in regard to several names. (Alberūnī, India, tr. Sachau, Vol. I, pp. 130-131.) The word Nīti is derived from nī to lead. Nītiśāstras were meant to give the lead to mankind.

c11.s2.t4.10

The Yuktikalpataru² attributed to king Bhoja of Dhārā in Mālawā, the great patron of Sanskrit learning in the eleventh century A.D., treats of numerous administrative topics, including finances and taxation. It indicates how sites should be selected and buildings erected thereon. It has something to say on ships, ship-building, draughts and other animals and similar requisites of economic life. It lays down rules for the administration of urban areas. Inter alia it touches on the functions of the superintendent of forests and lays down the qualifications and duties of clerks. It is an unmistakable sign of decline that astrology chains the attention of a Nīti writer. Besides the internal economy of a state, it dilates at length on the exigencies of foreign relations and warfare. Treaties, embassies, espionage, diplomacy in general—all claim attention. Nor does the author omit to formulate directions for military expeditions. But in all this there is nothing which calls for special notice.¹

c11.s2.t4.11

² Yuktikalpataru has recently been published in the Calcutta Oriental Series. An excellent MS. copy is preserved in the Pāṇini Office, Allahabad. The author explains the title of his work by remarking that just as a Kalpa-tree bestows all desired gifts, so "wise men by resorting to this Kalpa-tree can achieve the most longed-for objects." The root of the tree lies in Polities, the stem is astronomy and astrology, the branches and flowers are the various sciences, the sap is the "nectar of the good."

c11.s2.t4.12

¹ Tremendous is the number of the topics dealt with in Yuktikalpataru. They include the priest, minister, ambassadors, daṇḍa or punishment, modes of conveyance, houses, thrones, charioteers, cavalry, elephants, the art of mounting elephants, missiles, daggers, bows. There are whole sections on things which have little bearing on politics. Diamonds, emeralds, corals, pearls, sapphires, etc., are treated in an interesting fashion.

c11.s2.t4.13

A more important work is that ascribed to Śukrâchârya. Śukranīti. Indeed, after Somadeva Sûri, Śukranīti is the most remarkable Hindu treatise on government. Dr. Gustav Oppert, the editor of the text, concluded that the work "belonged to the same period which produced the Smriti and the early epic literature."² But not only do the spirit and atmosphere of the work point to a much later period but it specifically refers to guns and gun-powder. Even allowing for interpolations, Śukranīti cannot be older than the twelfth or thirteenth century A.D. Like Yuktikalpataru it is a loose composite production treating of a mass of miscellaneous matters. It borrows freely and extensively from its predecessors, for instance, from the Mahâbhârata, Manu and even Kâmandaka, and thus indirectly from Kauṭalya. If Śukranīti deserves particular notice, it is because it represents the last summing up of Hindu political thought, and because it introduces a few novel features of minor importance.

c11.s2.t4.14

² Gustav Oppert's Edition, Madras, 1882, Preface, p. viii. Rajendra Lal Mitra declared that Śukranīti could not be earlier than the 16th century A.D. Recently, K. P. Jayaswal has placed it in the 8th century A.D. See also Benoy Kumar Sarkar on the date and locale of Śukranīti in the Positive Back-ground of Hindu Sociology, Book II, Part I, pp. 63–71. Śukra, like Kâmandaka, is often quoted by latter-day Sanskrit commentators.

c11.s2.t4.15

Conscious, perhaps, that he had appeared on the scene rather late, the author of Śukranīti is at pains to connect his handiwork with hoary antiquity. He repeats with slight modifications the Mahâbhârata version of the history of Daṇḍanīti which goes back to the beginnings of creation. He had elected to condense the version of Brahman because the life of man was too short. He conceives of politics as an art with a definite object. Daṇḍanīti aims at the promotion of general prosperity. It conduces to the stability of the world. It is, of course, particularly useful to rulers. A king who neglects it, sinks like a leaky vessel.¹ It need hardly be repeated that in Hindu speculation politics are not clearly separated from the general science of society. Like other writers, Śukra has something to say on society as a whole. At one place he displays an extraordinary breadth and liberality of outlook. It is not birth but “virtues and works” which determine the rank of a person in the system of caste. Passing to politics, Śukra adopts the time-honoured theory that a state is an organism of “seven limbs,” *viz.*, the sovereign, the minister, the ally, the treasure, the territory, the fort and the army. It is significant that Śukra compares them to various members of the human body.²

c11.s2.t4.16

¹ Śukranīti, tr. Benoy Kumar Sarkar, pp. 1, 2, 4. ² According to Śukra’s analogy, the king is the head, the minister is the eye, the ally is the ear, the treasure is the mouth, the army is the mind, the fort is the arms, the territory and the people are the legs.

c11.s2.t4.17

The most important factor in the body-politic is the sovereign, to whom Śukra assigns an unusually high position. It is from him that all social and political usage flows. He safeguards the whole fabric of society. He is the source of the prosperity of this world. He is the quintessence of divinity. “The king is made out of the permanent elements of Indra, Vâyu, Yama, the Sun, Fire, Varuṇa, the Moon and Kuvera, and is the lord of both the immovable and movable worlds.” Like Indra, the god of gods, he protects; like Vāyu or air, the spreader of scents, he generates kind and harsh actions; like the sun, the destroyer of darkness, he crushes irreligion and establishes the true faith; like Yama, the god of death, he punishes offences; like Agni or fire, he purifies and enjoys all gifts; like Varuṇa, the god of rain, he sustains every one; like the delightful moon, he pleases everybody by his virtues and activities; like Kuvera, the god of wealth, he protects the treasure and possessions of the state. All these attributes must be assiduously cultivated by the sovereign, who, otherwise, is like the moon shorn of its lustre. The same idea is emphasised in a slightly different manner. The sovereign must “possess the attributes of father, mother, preceptor, brother, friend, Vaiśravaṇa or Kuvera and Yama.” Like a father, he must “endow his subjects with good qualities”; like a mother, he must pardon offences and nourish children; like a teacher, he must advise and guide his disciples; like a brother, he must take only his legal share from ‘the ancestral property’; like a friend, he must be the confidant and keeper of the subjects’ lives, families, property and interests; like Kuvera, he must give wealth, and like Yama punish the wicked.¹

c11.s2.t4.18

¹ Ibid., 1, 2, 4, 11, 12-13, 13-14.

c11.s2.t4.19

In short, the calling of the sovereign is the very highest. It requires the most arduous and perfect training. A king must be religious and charitable, forbearing and yet valorous. He should be above all sensuality and grossness. He must be a master of the arts and sciences. He must follow the rules of policy and must respect old

Linked texts (9)