Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c11.s2.t4.8

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