Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c13: Chapter X. Classical Sanskrit Literature

Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c13

Language
English

Contents

Chapter X. Classical Sanskrit Literature

c13.2

The ideas which the legal and political writers expounded became part and parcel of the Hindu cultural tradition. They are reflected in literature, in poetry, in fiction, in biography and in history. Here is little that is original but the form and setting of the traditional wisdom are interesting. It need hardly be added that the works to be noticed here are written indiscriminately in verse or prose or partly in both. In ancient India, all subjects from the most abstruse to the most trivial, were handled in prose or verse equally well. The old theory of a Renaissance of Sanskrit literature in the Gupta age or in the sixth century is now completely discarded. Sylvain Levi suggests that the initiative of the Śaka satraps of the second century A.D. in Western India was responsible for the extension of Sanskrit to the meaner purposes of secular writing. But the works of Aśvaghoṣa who flourished in the age of Kaniṣka, either in the latter half of the first century A.D. or probably at the latest in the middle of the second century, leave no doubt that Sanskrit was already employed for various purposes.¹ Aśvaghoṣa is no mere dilettante; he is a master. The ground for him must have been prepared by others. It has been said that Sanskrit poetry is essentially aristocratic,

c13.3

¹ On the whole subject, A. B. Keith, Classical Sanskrit Literature, 7-21. Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, 318-324. The theories of Max Müller and Bhândârkar on the revival of Sanskrit in the 4th, 5th, or 6th century A.D. are set aside not only by the discovery of the works of Bhâsa and Aśvaghoṣa but also by the epigraphic researches of Bühler, Fleet and others. For the views of Sylvain Levi, Indian Antiquary, XXXIII et. seq.

c13.4

(Note: The marginal notes "The beginnings of Classical Sanskrit Literature", "Aśvaghoṣa.", and "A characteristic of Classical Sanskrit Literature." are treated as part of the body text flow or headings depending on layout, but here they appear as marginalia. I will transcribe them as part of the paragraph flow or as distinct lines if they break the text.)

c13.5

The beginnings of Classical Sanskrit Literature. The ideas which the legal and political writers expounded became part and parcel of the Hindu cultural tradition. They are reflected in literature, in poetry, in fiction, in biography and in history. Here is little that is original but the form and setting of the traditional wisdom are interesting. It need hardly be added that the works to be noticed here are written indiscriminately in verse or prose or partly in both. In ancient India, all subjects from the most abstruse to the most trivial, were handled in prose or verse equally well. The old theory of a Renaissance of Sanskrit literature in the Gupta age or in the sixth century is now completely discarded. Sylvain Levi suggests that the initiative of the Śaka satraps of the second century A.D. in Western India was responsible for the extension of Sanskrit to the meaner purposes of secular writing. But the works of Aśvaghoṣa who flourished in the age of Kaniṣka, either in the latter half of the first century A.D. or probably at the latest in the middle of the second century, leave no doubt that Sanskrit was already employed for various purposes.¹ Aśvaghoṣa is no mere dilettante; he is a master. The ground for him must have been prepared by others. It has been said that Sanskrit poetry is essentially aristocratic,

c13.6

Aśvaghoṣa.

c13.7

A characteristic of Classical Sanskrit Literature.

c13.8

that is, it is the poetry of those who sought or enjoyed the favour of princes.¹ So wide and various, however, is the use of Sanskrit among Buddhists, Jainas and Brahmanic Hindus that the dictum is clearly an over-statement. But, undoubtedly, a large number of Sanskrit poets flourished at the courts of princes and reflect the court atmosphere. They rarely evince a definite political *motif*, but from the nature of their surroundings or their plots they often make incidental political reflections. It is impossible to refer to all Sanskrit works but it is desirable to review the more important of them. Here, as elsewhere, the uncertainty of dates is a severe handicap, but, fortunately, classical Sanskrit literature, which could make no claim to divine origin or legal authority, has suffered little from interpolations.

c13.9

¹ A. B. Keith, Classical Sanskrit Literature, 21.

c13.10

As Sylvain Levi puts it, Aśvaghoṣa's Sûtrâlaṅkâra, along with his Buddhacharita, constitutes the first chronological landmark "in the nebulous chaos of the literary history of India." It is thus Aśvaghoṣa who stands at the head of classical Sanskrit literature.² He is the forerunner of Kâlidâsa. But he occupies so prominent a place in Buddhist Mahâyâna literature that he has to be noticed in connection with Buddhist theory. The Mṛichchhakaṭika has been ascribed to the 3rd century A.D., but the date is more than doubtful. After Aśvaghoṣa the next outstanding figure is probably the dramatist Bhâsa whose plays, recently discovered in Southern India, seem to prove him a forerunner of Kâlidâsa.³

c13.11

² The Kâmasûtra or Kâmaśâstra may be, in some form, older than Aśvaghoṣa but its date is not certain.

c13.12

³ Bhâsa's plays have been edited by T. Gaṇapati Śâstrî and published in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, No. XV, Svapnavâsavadatta; No. XVI (translated into English by Sukthankar, Oxford University Press, 1923). Pratijñânayaugandharâyaṇam,

c13.13

It is in the drama that classical Sanskrit literature touched its high-water mark. Bhâsa is probably the first of the long line of dramatists which continued for many centuries. Probably, he is not later than 350 A.D. But during the last few years the date and authorship of the works attributed to him have formed the subject of an acute controversy. While their discoverer and editor Ganapati Sâstri stands for the 5th century B.C., and for the common authorship of the thirteen plays discovered, it has been argued that these are not the product of a single mind, that, at the most, they can only belong to a single school and that they took shape about the 7th century A.D. But the fourth century A.D. and along with it identity of authorship is still the best working hypothesis. Like so many later dramatists, Bhâsa borrows his plots from the Râmâyana, the Mahâbhârata and popular legends. Kings, ministers and ambassadors jostle one another

c13.14

No. XVII, Pañcharâtram; No. XX, Avimâraka; No. XXI, Bâla-charita; No. XXII (which comprises five small plays); No. XXVI, Abhişekanâtaka; No. XXXIX, Chârudatta; No. XLII, Pratimânâtaka, between the years 1912 and 1915. For the date and authorship, T. Ganapati Sâstri, Bhâsa's Dramas, a criticism; also introduction to Svapnavâsavadatta and Pratimânâtaka. It is on linguistic grounds that Ganapati Sâstri places Bhâsa before Pâtañjali, Kâtyâyana and Pânini; L. D. Barnett in Bulletins of the London School of Oriental Studies, Sukthankar, Studies in Bhâsa, in J. A. O. S., 42; Keith, Sanskrit Drama, 91—126. The Pisharodis and C. Kunhana Râja also contest Ganapati Sâstri's theory. Also C. R. Devadhar, "The Plays ascribed to Bhâsa, their Authenticity and Merits." Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, 1925-26 (Vol. VII, Parts I and II), pp. 29—64. Bhâsa is inferior to Kâlidâsa in genius but he is much better adapted for the stage. It has been suggested that he represents a reaction against the ornate drama but it is equally plausible that his style was overlaid with ornament by his successors. Numerous comparisons have been drawn between Bhâsa and Kâlidâsa. For instance, Ganapati Sâstri's Introduction to Pratimânâtaka, Keith, Sanskrit Drama, 124—126.

c13.15

on his stage but his plays are not political. Not even the Abhiṣekanāṭaka fulfils the expectations raised by its title and its plot which begins with the conflict of Rāma's ally, the monkey Sugriva, with his brother Bāli and ends with the fall of the demon Rāvaṇa. Another piece, the Chārudatta, which probably supplied the plot to Śūdraka's Mṛichchhakaṭikā, is no better from the political point of view, though it throws interesting side-lights on the manners of those days. In Avimāraka, Kauñjāyana, one of the two ministers of king Kuntibhoja, laments the sad plight of those fools whom vanity prompts to accept the office of ministers. If their projects are successful, the glory falls to the strength of the sovereign. But if they fail, they are denounced for incompetence.¹ Shortly after, the minister wants the king to honour the envoy of the Benares sovereign. The king exclaims that the ministerial mind looks only to business, not to affection. When called in, he feels how heavy is the burden of the crown. Dharma or the law must be considered at first. The working of the minister's mind must be followed intelligently. The king must conceal his passions--desires and anger. A policy of mercy or sternness must be (determined and) followed as the juncture of events requires. Through spies--eyes of the king--the doings of the people must be perceived; so, too, the maṇḍala of neighbouring kings must be watched. The king must carefully guard his own person and yet expose it on the field of battle.² In the second act, the hero Avimāraka incidentally remarks that according to the injunction of Śāstras one should hold consultation with two (councillors).³ In a single-act play Dūtavākyam where the plot consists of Kṛṣṇa’s futile mission to Duryodhana on the eve of the Great Civil War, sovereignty appears in all its pride. Duryodhana scoffs at the idea of reconciliation. Princes enjoy dominion after defeating their enemies. Dominion is not to be begged in this world. Nor is it to be bestowed on the helpless.¹ The Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaṃ enshrines a beautiful picture of ministerial loyalty. Apart from these and similar unimportant political touches, it is clear that Bhāsa upholds the Brahmanic order of things and recognises the supremacy of Brāhmaṇas. In another single-act play, called Madhyamavyāyoga, based on a Mahābhārata incident, Bhimasena, proud of his Kṣatriya origin, feels that a Brāhmaṇa deserves the highest worship and is ready to sacrifice himself for his safety.² His inspiration throughout is that of the epics and his general conception of government is that of a virile, vigorous, righteous despotism.

c13.16

¹ Avimāraka (ed. Gaṇapati Śāstri), p. 4.

c13.17

² Ibid., p. 13.

c13.18

³ Ibid., p. 31, stanza ii on the same page for another political touch.

c13.19

¹ Dūtavākyaṃ (ed. Gaṇapati Śāstri), p. 38.

c13.20

² Madhyamavyāyoga (ed. Gaṇapati Śāstri), p. 17.

c13.21

Bhāsa’s Cārudatta has a family resemblance with the first four Acts of the Mṛcchakaṭikā. Those who would bring Bhāsa down to the sixth or seventh century hold that he merely abridged the more famous play. On the priority of Bhāsa, the conclusion is irresistible that he was drawn upon by the later dramatist who wrote probably in the fourth century A.D. The work is ascribed to a king Śūdraka, but the remarks on Śūdraka himself show it to be the handiwork of a court poet.³ In any case, the Mṛcchakaṭikā is one of the most remarkable Sanskrit works in point of dramatic portraiture and liberality of sentiment. The tyranny of custom is relaxed. Śûdraka, who, in spite of Konow's brilliant hypothesis, must remain a legendary person, is represented by the Sûtradhâra in the customary prologue as endowed with many of those qualities which the Hindu ideal of kingship demanded. He had knowledge, religious as well as secular. He was versed in the Ṛigveda and Sâmaveda, in mathematics and arts. He was warlike and energetic and the delight of those who knew the Vedas. In the body of the play itself love and politics go hand in hand. In the tenth and last Act, misrule and oppression lead to a revolution resulting in the death of the king Pâlaka.¹

c13.22

³ There are several editions of the Mṛcchakaṭikā. The Bombay one is edited by Raddi and Paranjape, who refer the play to the first century B.C. (Introduction, pp. 5–9.) Translation, called the Little Clay-Cart, by A. W. Ryder, Harvard Oriental Series, No. 9, 1905. Keith, Sanskrit Drama, 128–142.

c13.23

¹ Belwalkar (on Bhâsa and Śûdraka), Proceedings of the First Oriental Conference, Poona. The Mṛichchhakaṭikâ, a study by N. Chaṭṭopâdhyâya, Mysore, 1902. Also Ryder's Introduction. The Mṛichchhakaṭikâ, Act I, stanzas 4—7, Act X, 6.

c13.24

Whether the author of the Mṛichchhakaṭikâ actually preceded or followed Kâlidâsa it is not possible to say. Probably the two lived about the same time. But the date of Kâlidâsa is still one of the vexed problems of Indian history. Few will place him to-day as late as the sixth century A.D., but there is a tendency among some Indian scholars to establish the correctness of the traditional date, the first century B.C. Astronomical evidence places him in the fourth century A.D., which may be taken as the soundest working hypothesis. Kâlidâsa has been claimed by Kashmir, Gujarata, Bengal, the Deccan as well as the northern Gangetic region. But if, as many scholars think and as appears extremely probable, the Raghuvamśa contains veiled references to the Gupta emperors, the author may be presumed to have enjoyed the patronage of the Imperial Court or at any rate to have come into contact with it. Probably he spent some time at Ujjayinî, the chief town of Mâlawâ. On these hypotheses of the date and *locale*, Kâlidâsa is immensely important as revealing the culture and ideas of one of the most brilliant periods of Indian history.¹ By universal consent, he is the greatest of Indian dramatists and greatest of classical Sanskrit poets. He sets forth, *inter alia*, the political ideals of his age with extraordinary literary grandeur. In the Raghuvamśa he sings afresh the glories of the solar race which had been celebrated by Vâlmîki, the Purâṇas, and had been depicted, probably before him, by Bhâsa.

c13.25

¹ On the time and place of Kâlidâsa, there has grown up a voluminous literature in European and, latterly, in Indian languages. But the question of his age, as Macdonell observes, “is not likely to be definitely solved till the language, the style, and the poetical technique of each of his works have been minutely investigated, in comparison with datable epigraphic documents, as well as with the rules given by the oldest Sanskrit treatises on poetics.” Sanskrit Literature, 325. On the subject see Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature, 323—325; Keith, Sanskrit Drama, 143—147, and Classical Sanskrit Literature, 31-32, also J. R. A. S., 1901, p. 578, ff. Hoernle, J. R. A. S., p. 89, ff. Pâthak, J. B. B. R. A. S., XIX, p. 39, ff. K. G. Shankar, Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, Vol. VIII, 278—292; Vol. IX, 17—56; Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, Vol. II, 189—191; the Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. I, 309—316. In the last paper, the writer alters his opinion and argues for the first century B.C. K. Chattopâdhyâya, The Date of Kâlidâsa, in the Allahabad University Studies, Vol. II, 1926, pp. 79—170, fargues for the 1st century B.C., and *inter alia* aims at proving that Aśvaghoṣa modelled himself on Kâlidâsa and not *vice versa*.

c13.26

Here is the ideal of royalty in the very first Canto:—

c13.27

So Raghu’s line I sing,—pure from their birth,
Who till they won success worked on, and ruled
Earth to the sea: their car-track reached to Heav’n
The altar-fire they tended, suppliants all
Most fully satisfied, ill-deed with stripes
They punished—nor were slothful in their rule.
Wealth they amassed to scatter; fame in war they
sought,

c13.28

Ne’er spoke they falsely; sparing words, Not gain,—and wedded love for noble seed. Their children studied, gravely youth pursued Decent pleasures, and in ripe old age Ascetic lived they—till through pious thought At length they passed to win the Bliss Supreme. Me, poor of words and foolish, has their fame That sounded through the worlds late moved to write:—

c13.29

Of Dilipa with whom the dynastic story begins :— . . . . . 'mong Kings a Moon, As in the Milky Ocean Soma rose, Broad-chested, tall as Shat-tree, as a bull Wide-shouldered, long of arm, the Warrior-race He seemed embodied, fit for famous deeds. All-glorious, all-surpassing, he bestrode— Like Meru’s self—the earth. His vigorous mind— Matched with his beauty, while his Holy Lore Was equal with them: valour and success Were twinned : and still his Kingly virtues made Him to his foes a terror, but his folk Loved him and honoured,—as the sea yields pearls Yet nurtures monstrous births. He held the path That Manu traced, no Hair’s breadth strayed his folk From that pure model. Save to guard the realm, No tax was taken : so the Sun derives From earth that moisture which a thousandfold He soon gives back in rain. His armed host Was escort only for the King, who used Two arms alone in war, his insight keen In Holy Lore, and bow well-strung. Mankind Knew his deep purpose when it came to fruit, Not sooner : fathomless his mind and ways :— So here we reap the fruit of former lives!

c13.30

Fearless he guarded, duty's path
He strictly followed, wealth he stored, nor grudged
To spend that wealth, and unenthralled enjoyed
His royal pleasures : wise, he spared his words,
Slightly yet patient, generous secretly,
Opposed virtues seemed in him twin-born,
By sense unshackled, straining Brahına-wards,
By duty curbed he pleasure,—that his age
Brought no decay. For nurture, maintenance
And for protection looked his folk to him,
Their parents gave life only. So the king
Repressed the sinful, held the world upright,
Loved virtue, wedded for the Father's sake,
Kept righteous ways. As Indra doth for corn,
He drew from Earth her wealth for Sacrifice,—
And both alternate mildly ruled the Worlds,
His glory other Kings despaired to reach,
For theft, ungrasping, lived in name alone.
A worthy foe he honoured, as one sick
Loves healing bitters ; friends unworthy proved
Like hand snake-bitten did the King cast off,
Him the Creator formed of choicest seed,
To rear for men rich crop of good ; alone
He reigned over earth, sea-moated, girdled round
By ocean-ramparts, like a single town.”
Again,
It is Kṣatriya's duty to save others from harm
...... Whoe'er betrays that trust
Would forget Royal State and earn full scorn.” ¹

c13.31

¹ Kâlidâsa, Raghuvamśa, tr. de Lacy Johnstone, Canto I, pp. 1—4; II, 16; III, 23; Canto V.

c13.32

Universal dominion is assumed as the *summum bonum* of royalty. It is with real poetic fervour that Kâlidâsa describes Raghu's campaigns which brought nearly the whole of India under his sovereignty. It did not matter that the princes whom he laid low had done nothing to provoke his wrath. A horse-sacrifice was performed with all the religious solemnities. Under the chariot-wheels of imperialism, all independence was crushed. Yet annexation in the strict sense of the term is conspicuous by its absence. An indemnity, a tribute and homage are exacted as the outward symbols of suzerainty but autonomy in internal affairs is left undisturbed.

c13.33

Universal Sovereignty.

c13.34

Among the duties of the king, one of the most important was the protection of saints and ascetics. To them the King has always to be accessible. For their sake Daśaratha parted with his young boys Rāma and Lakṣamaṇa, who braved all the dangers from forests, brutes and demons to save the ascetic sacrifices from pollution. Raghu reduced himself to poverty by his generosity to Brāhmaṇas and others. Kālidāsa delights in painting the majesty and bounty of royalty but he would not like a king to stick to worldly pomp to the last. Raghu installed his son Aja as heir-apparent and associated him in the task of administration. The prince became half the king as the poet puts it. Some time later, Raghu retired from the world altogether into the forest, and Aja assumed all the insignia of sovereignty. This custom really averted civil wars of the type that contributed so much to the ruin of the Mughal Empire. Here was not much room for the quarrel of father against son, of brother against brother.¹

c13.35

¹ Kālidāsa, Raghuvamśa, Cantos IV, V, VIII, XI. On the Story of Rāma there is a Prākṛit epic called Setubandha or Rāvaṇavadha, which is attributed, probably wrongly, to Kālidāsa.

c13.36

In the Mālavikāgnimitra, his first dramatic piece, Kālidāsa handles royal and courtier characters but does not give much of political theory. The few references, however, that occur are quite interesting. The ideal of universal sovereignty is extolled in the very first lines. Enemies must be quickly extirpated lest they take deep root into the soil. The business of the state was divided into different departments under different ministers. They addressed their master in the most flattering terms. Among border princes, one of the commonest causes of dispute was the imprisonment of each other's subjects. The custom of approaching sovereigns with presents is clearly indicated. Mâlavikâgnimitra shows the disquiet of a polygamous royal household. Occasionally, it must have reacted dangerously on the policy of the state.¹

c13.37

¹ Mâlavikâgnimitra, tr. Tawney, pp. 1, 7–9, 29–30.

c13.38

The Vikramorvaśî also reveals a royal harem but, otherwise, politically it is disappointing. Śakuntalâ, too, the most charming product of a Hindu genius, which won Goethe's deep admiration, has singularly few political ideas. The King is the protector of all. He takes one-sixth of the produce of the soil in return for the functions he performs in society. He receives one-sixth of the merits and demerits of his subjects.² The king has to labour incessantly for his subjects as for his children.³ The king, like a tall tree, has to bear the heat and brunt, to shelter those under his charge. Royalty, like an umbrella in hand, makes more for inconvenience than for enjoyment. The king has to protect, adjudicate and to chastise. The king ought to be the nearest of kin to all.⁴ In a charming dialogue, Duṣyanta regrets to hear of the death of a childless merchant whose property must escheat to the state. He instructs his minister to ascertain if any of the wives of the deceased was pregnant. He rejoices to learn that one of them had just undergone the ceremonies on pregnancy. He ends by proclaiming the right of the unborn child to the property.¹ In the Kumâra Sambhava oppression leads the oppressed to crave for divine intervention which is readily granted. The Megha Dûta, the cloud messenger—the finest of Sanskrit lyrics, has nothing political.

c13.39

² Śakuntalâ, Act V, Śloka 4. “Unceasing toil is the lot of kings who draw one-sixths from their subjects.”

c13.40

³ Ibid., V, 5.

c13.41

⁴ Ibid., V, 6, 8.

c13.42

¹ Ibid., VI.

c13.43

Bhâravi, who belongs probably to the sixth century, ranks far below Kâlidâsa in pure literature, but he has a good deal more of political ideas. A minister must always give the best advice to the king. The king must always be ready to listen to wholesome advice, however bitter it may be. Prosperity comes when king and minister accord with one another.

c13.44

Bhâravi.

c13.45

Intricate, indeed, is the policy of the kings. It is so difficult for ordinary people to comprehend it. A sound policy alone consolidates a kingdom. Duryodhana had acquired his dominions by evil means, but he was engaged in consolidating his power through wisdom. He had divided his day and night into a definite time-table and spent his hours "in the performance of his various acts supported by precepts of sound policy." He behaved with the frankness of a loving friend to his dependents. He treated his friends as relatives and brothers, while his kinsmen were veritable kings. Punishment was to accord with old and wise legislation, and must be proper, impartial and dispassionate. Rich awards and dignities were bestowed on retainers for the success of their errands. At the same time, the army, the elephant corps, the feudal militia—all were kept in readiness. Spies and envoys brought accurate information of the doings of vassals. This course of policy had the desired result. His edicts were borne like wreaths of flowers, by "the rulers of men." Draupadī represents a fiery, warlike policy and, in the ardour of her enthusiasm for his cause, would like her husband to break his vow of not returning to the city for twelve years. Glory, fame, prosperity—at any cost, such was her motto. Bhīma, the brother of Yudhiṣṭhira, countenances this Machiavellianism. Mildness is a crime. Slavish adherence to promises is a folly. Yudhiṣṭhira, however, would have none of it. All angry passions must be controlled. Truth wins in the end. Vyāsa appears on the scene and counsels the acquisition of strength to achieve high aims.¹

c13.46

¹ Bhāravi, Kirātārjunīya, Canto I, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 21, 29—46; Canto II, 1—27, 28—52, also Canto III, Bhāravi is mentioned in the Aihole Inscription of 634 A.D.

c13.47

Daṇḍin, who flourished probably in the latter half of the sixth or in the seventh century of the Christian era, represents a decadent stage in literary style as in political wisdom. His Daśakumāracarita or the Doings of Ten Princes, though left incomplete, traditionally ranks among the masterpieces of Sanskrit literature. His diction has been pronounced superior to that of Kālidāsa himself, though to a modern reader he appears turgid rather than brilliant. His work, needless to say, is devoid of all systematic philosophy but it paints a type of political activity which is often incidental to a monarchical court.

c13.48

Of the princes, Rājavāhana is the chief. Somadatta Puṣpodbhava, Apahāravarman, Upahāravarman, Arthapapla Pramati, Mitragupta, Mantragupta and Viśruta are merely his associates. We hear of a King of Magadha who had three ministers. The office of minister was sometimes hereditary and was recognised as such. Intrigue was rampant. Favouritism was the order of the day. Jealousy, slander, backbiting darkened the ordinary life of courtiers. Poison and the dagger were often resorted to. Here was Machiavellianism *par excellence*. In foreign politics, might was right. He who felt himself strong enough was justified in attacking his neighbour and annexing his dominions. More delightful glimpses, however, are not wanting. Proficiency in sacred law and political science is the surest means of success in administration. This is what enabled Punyavarman to manage a vast empire with conspicuous success. His son was versed in the arts but he knew nothing of policy. He fell into the hands of worthless favourites and sycophants and came to ruin. Vasantavarman possessed a good knowledge of political science but was innocent of sacred law and what was worse, weak in character. He found himself unable to consolidate and maintain an empire. Education was effective in the case of Bhûskaravarman. Viśruta combined knowledge with virtue and strength and achieved glorious success. Nothing is more disastrous than weakness of character in the monarch. It opens the flood-gates of all intrigue and corruption. Everywhere, the thorough education of princes is insisted on. The accumulation of wealth is necessary for the chastisement of the enemy. In Viśrutacharita, one is surprised to find a denunciation of unscrupulousness.¹

c13.49

¹ Daṇḍin, Daśakumâracharita. On his date which is far from settled, Keith, Classical Sanskrit Literature, 70–73. Pâthak, Indian Antiquary, XLI, 235. In the Avantisundarî Kathâ which has just been discovered and which appears to be Daṇḍin’s work, the author works on the same plot as that of the Daśakumâracharita. See the Avantisundarî Kathâ, edited (along with its Summary by an unknown hand) by Râmakṛiṣṇa Kavi, in the Dakṣiṇabhâratî Series, No. 3, 1924.

c13.50

A work of an altogether different character is the three Śatakas or centuries of verses on love, resignation and policy, composed by Bhartṛihari who, according to the Chinese pilgrim Itsing, died about 650 A.D. He is reputed to have been a king and a Buddhist but, according to Itsing, he alternated seven times between worldly life and asceticism. In any case, he acquired an extraordinary amount of worldly wisdom and considerable insight into human nature. In his Hundred Precepts of Policy, however, he confined himself to everyday affairs of the world. His Nītiśataka falls under the category of general literature and not under that of Nītiśāstra. Only occasionally does he refer to the king or the state and that only from the individual's point of view. He illustrates the tendency accentuated in later ages, of Nīti or ‘policy’ to change its meaning and extend its sphere to all affairs. Bhartṛihari counsels the nursing of the realm, moderation in assessing taxes. Kings who are subject to paroxysms of rage will find themselves friendless.¹

c13.51

¹ Bhartṛihari, Nītiśataka, 46-47. It is interesting to recall that Bhartṛihari was the first Sanskrit author who came to the notice of any modern European. In 1651, some of his verses were translated by a Brāhmaṇa into Portuguese for a Dutch missionary, Abraham Roger in the South of India.

c13.52

About the same time probably lived Subandhu, who in his extraordinarily difficult Vāsavadattā paints king Chintāmaṇi as an embodiment of moral discipline, martial glory, beneficent protection and energy, as a universal conqueror and a patron of poetry and learning. Peace, virtue and happiness reigned in his age.²

c13.53

² Vāsavadattā by Subandhu, translated into English with an Introduction and Notes by Louis H. Gray. New York, 1913. (Columbia University Indo-Aryan Series, Vol. 8, p. 47, ff.) Subandhu's

c13.54

After Subandhu comes Bāṇa Bhaṭṭa whose novel, Kādambarī, was for the most part composed probably at the Court of Harṣa, Emperor of North India, in the first half of the seventh century. It was completed by his son Bhūṣaṇa Bhaṭṭa who in the Uttarabhāga successfully imitates the ponderous style of his father. In its opening pages the Kādambarī idealises universal dominion. It applauds a king's generosity and literary patronage which resulted in the foundation of many literary societies. When painting a picture of glorious Ujjain, it applauds freedom of thought. "Though the flight of the mountains was stayed, the flight of thought was free." An ideal realm is a heaven of perfect peace, quiet, harmony, prosperity and virtue. There is no intermixture of castes. The monarch must needs be absolute but he should hearken to the words of his preceptors.¹

c13.55

¹ Kādambarī by Bāṇabhaṭṭa, translated by C. M. Ridding in the Oriental Translation Fund. New Series, II, London, 1896. See pages 3, 4, 5, 7, 48-50, 77.

c13.56

In the course of a long discourse, the wise old minister Śukanāsa warns the heir-apparent Candrāpīḍa of the dangers of royal power and gives him plenty of excellent advice. He deprecates the idea of king's thinking of themselves as divine beings. He wants them particularly to avoid flatterers who extol them as divine.²

c13.57

² Ibid., 78-83.

c13.58

In his other work, Harṣacarita, Life of Harṣa, left incomplete, Bāṇa paints the glories of the emperor for whose audience numbers of conquered vassal princes wait at the gates. The poet delights in the delineation of royal pomp and splendour.

c13.59

Bāṇa's Kādambarī Bāṇa's Kādambarī Harṣacarita.

c13.60

date is not quite certain. Bāṇa refers to his work in the Preface to his Harṣacarita. Gray places him in the sixth or seventh century A.D. (see the Introduction). Keith, J. R. A. S., 1914, pp. 1102 et seq. Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 77.

c13.61

In epic style he paints his patron's regime as one of perfect virtue, happiness and prosperity. It is significant that though attached to a Buddhist Court in all likelihood, Bâṇa stands up for the Brahmanical order. "Caste confusion," we read, "ceased as if cleansed by a rain from the smoke clouds of oblation fires."¹

c13.62

¹ Harṣacharita by Bâṇabhaṭṭa, translated by E. B. Cowell and F. W. Thomas, in the Oriental Translation Fund, New Series, II, London, 1897. See pages 48-49, 65, 81-82, 89.

c13.63

To Harṣa himself (606—648 A.D.) is attributed the authorship of three dramatic pieces, the Priyadarśikâ, the Nâgânanda and the more famous Ratnâvali. Whether they were really composed by the emperor or by a poet of his court is impossible to dogmatise, but the difference in style precludes the possibility of Bâṇa's authorship.

c13.64

The Chinese traveller Itsing has it that the Nâgânanda had been dramatised by Harṣa and the report might have been correct.² But none of the plays contains a statesman's obiter dicta. Political reflections are there, but they lack freshness even in their setting.

c13.65

² The Ratnâvali has been edited by C. Cappeller, the Priyadarśikâ by R. V. Krishnamâchâriar, Srirangam.

c13.66

It is probably the seventh century A.D., so fertile in Sanskrit products, which witnessed the composition of the Bhaṭṭikâvya which seeks to combine grammatical instruction with an epic tale and poetic diction.³ It was attributed to Bhartṛihari, but it is undoubtedly the work of some one else. The Bhaṭṭikâvya upholds the orthodox Brahmanical order and, while narrating the story of Râma in twenty-two cantos, scatters the received political ideas.

c13.67

³ The Bhaṭṭikâvya by Mahâkavi Śrîbhaṭṭa, edited with Mallinâtha's Commentary by Kamala Śankar Trivedi, Bombay, 1898.

c13.68

It was probably in the seventh century that Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa composed a play, Veṇī Saṃhāra, on a Mahābhārata incident.¹ It seeks to recall the aristocratic and political temper of the Kurus and Pāṇḍavas but treats of politics in terms of the family and the clan. The political touches which are occasionally furnished in the conversations follow the traditional type.

c13.69

¹ Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa's Veṇī Saṃhāra, ed. J. Grill, Leipzig, 1871.

c13.70

The work of the seventh century in the domain of Sanskrit literature continued at least in the first half of the eighth century. About 700 A.D. comes Bhavabhūti, author of three plays, the Mālatī Mādhava, the Mahāviracharita, and above all, the Uttara Rāma Charita. The last two considerably modify the Rāmāyaṇa story in their plots. The Uttaracharita dares to criticise Rāma's action in exiling Sītā to calm irrational rumours, but it admits the high regard which a king must pay to popular sentiment. For the rest Bhavabhūti, a Brāhmaṇa of the Taittiriya school of the Yajurveda, is a believer in orthodox Brahmanism. In one of his scenes King Rāma is thrown into consternation when he is informed that a Śūdra was, contrary to Śāstric injunctions, practising penances and that this violation of Dharma was bringing ruin on some righteous folk. Rāma hurries to slay the Śūdra and thus maintain Dharma inviolate.²

c13.71

² Uttara Rāma Charita by Bhavabhūti, ed. J. R. Ratnam Aiyar and V. L. Shastri, Bombay, 1906. See Acts I, II and III. On Bhavabhūti, Keith, Sanskrit Drama, pp. 186–204. Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature, 362–365. R. G. Bhandarkar's Preface to his edition of the Mālatī Mādhava, Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. XV. Also the Introductions by various scholars to the editions and translations of his works, particularly that by S. K. Belvalkar, Harvard Oriental Series, No. 21. Bhavabhūti lived in Vidarbha, Modern Berar.

c13.72

To the period of Bhavabhūti belongs another famous poet Mâgha, author of the Śiśupâlabadha,¹ one of the five Mahâkâvyas. A well-known Sanskrit adago has it that Mâgha combined in himself the strong points of Kâlidâsa, Bhâravi and Daṇḍin, but to the modern reader he is frightfully artificial and imitative. The plot of the Śiśupâlabadha turns on Kṛṣṇa's killing of his perverse foolhardy relative and makes room for plenty of political maxims. But they turn out to be an echo of Bhâravi on whose Kirâta the whole work is modelled. Mâgha frankly does not care for principles in politics. The government should be popular but, above all, it should be efficient, firm and relentless. In dealing with enemies, self-interest has to be adroitly and unflinchingly pursued. Whatever has to be done must be done with rapidity and decision. Counsels cannot afford to wait too long. Glorifying ambition, Mâgha remarks that he who has the will to conquer shines like the sun amidst the "maṇḍala of twelve kings."²

c13.73

¹ Ed. with the Sarvaṅkaṣa Commentary of Mallinâtha by Durgâ Prasad and Śivadatta, Bombay, 1905.

c13.74

² Mâgha, Canto II, particularly ślokas 29, 30, 26, 65, 81.

c13.75

To the eighth or ninth century belongs a famous princely author, Viśâkhadatta, who wrote a political drama, Mudrâ-râkṣas.³ A series of adroit manoeuvres culminates in the replacement of the Nanda by the Mauryan dynasty on the throne of the Pâṭaliputra. Kauṭalya plays a leading part. The plot, however, turns more on secret intrigue and espionage than on statecraft. Here the sovereign position is a source of great uneasiness to the monarch. It is difficult for him to attend to his own interests as well as to those of others. The king chafes under the control of his minister Chûṇakya. When both the king and the minister are very powerful, says the dramatist, the goddess of royalty deserts one of them. Sovereignty, so to say, is indivisible. A king who entrusts everything to his minister will be like a babe when separated from him.¹

c13.76

³ Mudrârâkṣas, by Viśâkhadatta, edited by M. R. Kale with an English translation, Bombay, Śaka era 1821. Carpentier places Viśâkhadatta in the age of Kâlidâsa, but Jacobi, on astronomical evidence, brings him down to the latter half of the ninth century.

c13.77

¹ Ibid., Act III, pp. 39, 47, 63.

c13.78

In the vast range of Sanskrit literature, historical compositions, though not altogether absent as was supposed for long, are rather few in number. They throw a good deal of light on the working of institutions. But for political theory they are disappointing. Again they are, with the exception of Bâṇa's Harṣacharita, rather late and belong to the very close of the Ancient Age.

c13.79

In the latter half of the eleventh century Vidyâpati Bilhaṇa, of Kashmir author of the play Karṇasundari, wrote his Vikramâṅkadevacharita² in honour of his patron in which love, politics and warfare march side by side. The ideal of conquest and universal dominion is here reiterated. The monarch must, above all, possess vigour and energy. King Anantadeva of Kashmir is painted as a model of virtue, generosity, veracity and heroism. His arms stretch far beyond Kashmir.³ His brother Kṣitipati was not only a scholar himself but a patron of learning and withal a warrior.⁴ At the end of the work, Bilhaṇa winds up the story of his own life by a solemn exhortation to princes, in view of the fleeting nature of all prosperity, to worship those true poets "who work the salvation of your bodies of glory through the nectar of their verse, and renouncing pride make them your spiritual guides."¹ Padmagupta’s Navasâhasâṅka-charita ² is another work, written about the eleventh century, which celebrates the glories of Sindhurâja in the usual manner.

c13.80

² The Vikramâṅkadevacharita has been published in the Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. 14. Another edition is that by Georg Bühler, Bombay, 1875. Bilhaṇa's patron was King Vikramâditya Tribhuvanamalla of Kalyâṇa.

c13.81

³ Vikramâṅkadevacharita, XVIII, 33—39.

c13.82

⁴ Ibid., XVIII, 47—50.

c13.83

¹ Ibid., XVIII, 106; also 107.

c13.84

² Ed. Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. 53.

c13.85

Kalhaṇa’s Râjatarangiṇî, or chronicles of the kings (of Kashmir), is the most valuable of the few Sanskrit historical works though here and there it indulges in myths. The writer flourished in the twelfth century. His narration of events is interspersed with maxims on government. The desecration of holy shrines provokes divine vengeance. Oppression and avarice lead to the destruction of king. Wealth, acquired through oppression, will be destroyed by fire or fall into the hands of rivals and enemies. Kalhaṇa pauses to applaud the building of temples, the excavation of canals, relief of famines and similar beneficent projects. But in one passage we are told that ill-gotten wealth is purified if it is spent on pious objects such as gifts to Brâhmaṇas. Liberality and kind speech bring everything under the power of the king. Kings who revel in evil find their life, household and glory, aye, their very name, destroyed in a moment. Illicit love leads to numerous tragedies in royal dynasties. Among the maxims which Lalitâditya enunciates, there are a few which disregard the principles of justice and are meant to apply to the peculiar exigencies of Kashmir. It would be difficult to control the tribes in the mountain fastnesses if they accumulated wealth. They should be "punished," even if they had committed no offence. Villages should not be left more than the food supply necessary for the year. If they had wealth they would disobey the government. Nor should villagers be allowed to live in an urban style. Troops should not be raised from a single district. Officers should not be allowed to contract marriage alliances. Here is a philosophy of reason of state overriding all other considerations. It is interesting to observe that at first the Kashmir kings had seven principal officers—the judge, the revenue superintendent, the treasurer, the commander-in-chief, the envoy, the priest and the astrologer. But king Śachinava raised the number to eighteen.¹

c13.86

¹ Kalhaṇa, Rājatarangiṇī, IV, 342, 345–8, 352, 344, 701; V, 186–191, 212, 183 et. seq., 210 et. seq.; VIII, 195, 1–61, 993; I, 118–120. There is an excellent English translation of Kalhaṇa's work, with an Introduction, Commentary and Appendices by A. Stein. Westminster, MDCCCC.

c13.87

Much later than Kalhaṇa came the Jaina writer Merutuṅgāchārya who brought out his Prabandha Chintāmaṇi or Wishing-stone of Narratives in the fourteenth century.² He writes legends when treating of Vikramāditya and though gains in sobriety as his narrative proceeds, he retains his passion for tales which rebound to the glory of Jainism. Shortly after his account of Vikramāditya he records old stories of fabulous rewards to poets from princes.³ In "The History of Siddhārāja" he obviously approves of the king's action in granting exemption from taxes to some people who had been oppressed by royal officers.⁴ Later in the same story we find the minister Muñjāla dissuading his master from a foolish promise. The minister recites a couplet:—

c13.88

² Translated from Sanskrit Mss. C. H. Tawney, Calcutta. .On the reliability of his dates, R. Sewell, J.R.A.S., 1920, pp. 381–341.

c13.89

³ Ibid., 75–77.

c13.90

⁴ Ibid., 77–78.

c13.91

“Even if kings do not understand peace, and do not comprehend war,
Yet, if they attend to what is told them, by that alone they are wise.”

c13.92

The minister goes on to instruct the king from a treatise on policy.¹

c13.93

¹ Ibid., 88.

c13.94

In Sanskrit and Pāli literatures the didactic fable occupies a high place as an instrument of ethical and political instruction. Charming fables occur in such early compositions as the Upaniṣads and the Mahābhārata. But it was the glory of Buddhist literary craftsmanship to have developed this branch of literature to its full extent. The Avadānas and the Jātakas rank among the glories of Indian lore. Jainas and Brāhmaṇas felt the impulse and from the fourth century A.D., if not earlier, commences a long line of story books which have never altogether ceased. Owing to the Hindu conception of the unity of life, animals play as large a part as human beings in the tales. There can be no doubt that these works were originally composed in the language in which they are preserved. The theory that the stories and even the epics had first been composed in some Prākṛit and were then turned into Sanskrit has now been shown to be wholly untenable. The Tantrākhyāyika, preserved in Kashmir and perhaps composed there, is in any case earlier than the 6th century and may go back to the 4th century A.D.² Its avowed purpose is Nīti instruction. It refers to Kauṭalya and shows traces of Arthaśāstra influence.³

c13.95

² The Tantrākhyāyika was edited by Hertel in 1910 and translated in 1909. The work has come down to us in different versions but they are substantially in agreement.

c13.96

³ Keith, J.R.A.S., 1915, pp. 130–137.

The Fable

c13.s1.1

The Tantrākhyāyika seems to have been put very early into yet more popular versions. The Pañchatantra by Viṣṇuśarman has been the best known and the most influential of them all, but it was an earlier version of it which was translated into Pahlavi about the middle of the 6th century A.D. and thence into Old Syriac in 570 and into Arabic about 750, the last rendering, in its turn, being translated into Old Spanish in 1251 which, lastly, was the source of Latin and modern European versions. In India itself the Pañchatantra has influenced subsequent didactic literature in Sanskrit and has been translated into most of the Indian vernaculars.

c13.s1.2

The prologue of the Pañchatantra indicates its motive. A king Amṛtaśakti of Mahilāropya sets his three sons to school. But the princes display an incurable aversion to all study. The monarch is in despair. The paṇḍitas whom he consults only tell him that at least twelve further years are required for grammar which must precede all other studies. Then Viṣṇuśarman steps in and offers to show an easy way of acquiring the accomplishments essential for princes. The Pañchatantra¹ incorporates the traditional political maxims and puts them into the mouth of birds and animals. In the course of one anecdote we are told that the prosperity of kings is bound up with that of subjects. If the latter decline, the former are ruined. Every king should nurse his kingdom and should not be too exacting in his demands. A little later we are informed that a fort is more useful than a thousand elephants and a hundred thousand horses.²

c13.s1.3

¹ Pañchatantra, edited by Dr. J. Hertel in the Harvard Oriental Series, Vol. II. Benfrey's work on Pañchatantra inaugurated what may be called the scene of folk-lore, its motifs and migrations. See also Max Müller's Essay on the Migration of Fables.

c13.s1.4

² See Book I, Tale VII. The Lion and the Hare, pp. 41, 43.

c13.s1.5

An easy and condensed though slightly modified version of the Pañchatantra is Nārāyaṇa’s Hitopadeśa,¹ the most popular of Sanskrit school books, which, as the author says, was written to instruct princes, and which faithfully reproduces the Nīti precepts of the original.

c13.s1.6

¹ Ed. Peterson, Bombay, 1887. In the prologue to the Hitopadeśa Viṣṇuśarman undertakes to make the three uneducated princes masters of the science of ‘conduct’ in six months. Prastāvanā, pp. 2–5. The last two sections are devoted to peace and war between the Geese and Peacocks but the precepts are intended for wider application. An edition of the Hitopadeśa was published by Colebrooke at Calcutta as early as 1804.

c13.s1.7

Distinct in style from the Pañchatantra type of fable is the literary tale. The object of both, however, is the same. From the testimony of Bāṇa, Daṇḍin and, above all, Somadeva and Kṣemendra, it appears that about the fifth century A.D. or earlier, a great creative writer, Guṇāḍhya, composed the Bṛhat Kathā in the Paiśāchī dialect. It was on its basis that Somadeva, in the latter half of the eleventh century, wrote his Kathāsaritsāgara, the Ocean of the Rivers of Stories, which shows distinct traces of Buddhist influence and refers to Jātaka tales. At the very start a Brāhmaṇa offender is unceremoniously sentenced to death by a king. But, on the whole, its tone and spirit are Brahmanic. The Kathāsaritsāgara paints the rule of the Mlechchhas as one of persecution of Brāhmaṇas, interruption of sacrifices and abduction of the hermit’s daughters. The gods are frightened. Śiva comes to the rescue and commissions his son to assume the form of a man and slay the Mlechchhas.²

c13.s1.8

² Kathāsaritsāgara, Vol. II, Book XVIII, Canto CXX. The Kathāsaritsāgara was composed between 1063–66 A.D. and 1081–88.

c13.s1.9

Another work of a similar character, though of inferior merit, is the Puruṣaparīkṣa by Vidyāpati Thakur, a protege of Śwasimhadeva, composed in the 14th or 15th century but belonging to the old tradition.¹ Now and then it touches political subjects. Here it has no originality of its own but it weaves the time-honoured precepts wonderfully well into its narration. Thus, one should decide alone on a course of policy. There is too great a risk of mistaking the right for the wrong and vice versa. Consultation is essential for all success. Now and then, however, we catch glimpses of arbitrary despotism. For instance, King Nanda of Kusumpur deprives his minister, Śakaṭāra, of all his property, and throws him into prison. The minister himself belonged to the Kayastha caste. Rules of caste were often disregarded in the choice of ministers, and Brāhmaṇas were often passed over in favour of the more capable members of the lower castes.

c13.s1.10

¹ Puruṣaparīkṣa (The story of one well-versed in wordly wisdom) by Vidyāpati Thakur, translated by V. R. Nerukar, Bombay, 1914.

c13.s1.11

Numerous sayings are spread all over the work here and there. For example, the army is the strength of kings, as recourse to evil is the fashion of the wicked; meanness is the mainstay of the poor, while truth is the forte of the good. (XII, Tale of a base informer.) We are told of ministers, who drew the mind of the king away from duty and themselves usurped the practical authority. Indeed, once we are told that ministers are naturally of crooked minds. (XIII, Tale of a base informer.) Blessed is the king who has an assembly full of efficient men (XVII, Tale of a man learned in the Śāstras.) “Ignorance of kings comes to light in this world when they patronize fools as is also the case when they do not favour the really merited.” (Tale of a man knowing the art of singing, XXII.) “A king transgressing proper limits of decorum and moral rectitude through pride, like an elephant mad with intoxication, and erring from the duties of a king, is none but a demon.” Yet “if we plot against him for these offences of his, we incur the sin of treason against the king: if we put up with his mischief, destruction awaits us. So he ought to be taught religion through sages.” When the sages failed the king was expelled. (Tale of a repentant sinner.)

c13.s1.12

There exist numerous other story-books in Sanskrit. The dates of the Śukasaptati, and the Jaina and Brahmanical versions of the Vetālapañcaviṃśatikā and Siṃhāsanadvātriṃśikā are uncertain but they fall in with the tradition.

c13.s1.13

The eleventh century saw another story-book of considerable literary merit, the Dharmaparīkṣa by the Jaina writer Amitagatisūri, author of Subhāṣitaratnasandoha, Pañcasaṃgraha, Śrāvakācāra and other works.¹ He writes in an easy clear style but in a narrow sectarian tone. The Dharmaparīkṣa (scrutiny of religions) ridicules Buddhist and Brahmanic schools but in its stories it cheerfully incorporates the received political views.

First 108 of 171 passages. Read on

Linked texts (77)