Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c8.s5.52

c8.s5.52

Taking a comprehensive view of all relations, internal and external, of a state, Hindu thinkers discovered seven elements which go to make up statehood or sovereignty. This analysis is fully developed in the Arthaśāstra thinkers who preceded Kautalya, to whom he constantly refers but whose dates cannot be precisely determined. They agree that the state consists of seven elements:—(1) The Svāmin or Lord, generally the king; (2) the Amātya or minister; (3) the Janapada or territory; (4) the Durga or fort; (5) Koṣa or treasury; (6) Daṇḍa or army; and (7) Mitra or ally. Henceforward, the doctrine of the seven elements becomes an axiom of Hindu political thought, and is the corner-stone of the theory of the state. Analysed into its various concepts, it is seen to embody a remarkable theory. The state must have a territorial basis. It must provide for adequate protection of its inhabitants, and must have a well-defined foreign policy. It must have a regular administrative system, and must carefully look to its finances. It must be presided over by a chief. Another category treated of the three powers of the king—prestige, energy and good counsel; or as Kautalya puts it, army and treasury, valour and knowledge. But this line of thought ends quickly. It is the sevenfold category which forms the staple of speculation. The ‘calamities,’ or rather the perversions of the elements, form one of the subjects of prolonged debate. There were those who held that perversion of the monarch was the most serious of all; that of the minister next in disaster; and so on until the ally's misfortune was shown to be the least disastrous of all. The gradation of importance varied with different teachers.¹ Turning for a moment to the threefold category, Kautalya's teacher held that the king's energy was the most important of all factors in the state.