Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c8.s6: Brihaspati's Arthaśāstra

Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c8.s6

Language
English

Brihaspati's Arthaśāstra

c8.s6.1

Kautalya occupies an unrivalled position in the Hindu literature on polity. But, besides his own admissions, Sanskrit literature makes it clear that he was only one of a class of writers whose compositions have for the most part disappeared. A few years ago, however, Dr. F. W. Thomas unearthed another Arthaśāstra or a fragment of it. It is in Sūtra form. It is ascribed to Bṛihaspati and therefore styled Bārhaspatya Sūtra. It is rather short, comprising only six brief chapters. It has not much in common with the Dharmaśāstra which is ascribed to Bṛihaspati. Nor can its authorship be assigned to the founder of the Chārvāka school of materialism who bore the same name but whom the Sūtra writer, after a brief laudation, severely condemns. Nor again does it contain the passages which the Mahâbhârata and Kautalya quote from the Arthaśâstra writer who is called Bṛihaspati. For instance, Kautalya remarks that according to Bṛihaspati there were two sciences, Vārtâ and Daṇḍanīti.¹ The Bārhaspatya Sūtra, on the other hand, almost starts with the aphorism that Daṇḍanīti is the only science for a king.² According to Kautalya, it is Uśanas who believed in such a doctrine. It may be that the Bārhaspatya Sūtra draws both upon Bṛihaspati and Uśanas. From its designation, indeed, it is only natural to conjecture that it was connected, howsoever remotely, with the ancient school of Bṛihaspati. But the author need not have followed his eponymous spiritual ancestor in every detail. It is impossible to carry the discussion further. For one thing, from its claim to comprise the whole substance of policy,³ it appears that the piece extant is very likely only a fragment or abridgment of a larger work. Its date is even more uncertain than that of Kautalya. It has been pointed out that if its references to Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava and Śākta sects and to the Yādavas of Devagiri are genuine, it must be held to be a very late work, not anterior to the 12th century A.D. But these references may be interpolations, for the language and style of the work point to an earlier age. It breathes the Arthaśâstra atmosphere. Or it may be that it is a late abridgment of an earlier work. In any case its affinity to the Arthaśâstra schools is clear and it is best treated of along with Kautalya.

c8.s6.2

¹ Kautalya, Ed. Shâmasastry, p. 6; tr., p. 6.

c8.s6.3

² Bārhaspatya Sūtra, Ed. Thomas, I, 3.

c8.s6.4

³ Bārhaspatya Sūtra. The work opens with remark that the Āchārya Bṛihaspati explains Nītisarvasva, the whole substance of policy, to Indra, who occupies a prominent place in the traditional history of Hindu political science.

c8.s6.5

Brihaspati exalts Daṇḍanīti or the science of government to the rank of the supreme and only science for those who are concerned with it. It is also very ancient, almost eternal. Unlike many other Hindu writers, Brihaspati believes that they in the Kṛita or Golden Age were versed in it.¹ It stands by itself and need not always be tied to the chariot wheels of religion. Brihaspati declares unequivocally that the precepts of religion are not to be followed if they are opposed to usage.² In a later aphorism he again remarks that what is at variance with custom is not to be practised.³ Where it is a matter of acquiring anything one should follow the Lokāyata system which stresses worldly gain and enjoyment.⁴ Elsewhere, indeed, the paths of the Lokāyatas, like those of Kṣapaṇakas and Buddhists, are condemned as fraught with fatal dangers.⁵ But the tone of the work, on the whole, is secular.

c8.s6.6

¹ Ibid., III, 141-142.

c8.s6.7

² Ibid., I, 4.

c8.s6.8

³ Ibid., V, 16.

c8.s6.9

⁴ Ibid., II, 5.

c8.s6.10

⁵ Ibid., III, 15. A little later Brihaspati remarks that Itihāsas (histories), Purāṇas, and Sākta, Vaikhānasa, Sānkhya and Śaiva Scriptures should be respected (III, 31-36) but these sūtras are probably apocryphal.

c8.s6.11

While religion is not essential, moral discipline is indispensable to political success. Self-control is the prime requisite in a king and his ministers.⁶ Knowledge is another necessary factor in governance. The world is rooted in riches; riches are rooted in knowledge; "knowledge is all."⁷ A third desideratum is unity of control. The king should keep his wives, relations, friends, counsellors and dependents in hand. All sorts of means may be employed for the purpose—conciliation, gifts, and diplomacy, that is, divide and rule.⁸ But a king is not to place too much faith in others. He must constantly guard his person. Even a son, if he comes in the way of policy, is to be considered an enemy.¹ It is not wise to get familiar with heretics and men of low castes.² The utmost care should be exercised in the selection of ministers. They must be men of high character, free from the vices of gambling, drinking and sensuality as well as from recklessness. They must be acquainted with Śāstras. Young men should not be appointed to the delicate office of counsellor.³ When counsellors have once been chosen, their advice should be calmly listened to without ebullitions of anger. The king should initiate a measure and the counsellors should express their opinions one by one. Victory is rooted in counsel. A policy is to be executed only after it has been carefully examined by counsellors. In state enterprise it is desirable to secure as much co-operation as possible. The best line of action is that in which relations, friends, learned and thoughtful people all concur. The best policy is that which commands the ready unanimity of wise counsellors. The next best is that where unanimity is arrived at after a good deal of difference. The worst case is that in which the consultation room is the scene of reproaches, broils and tears.⁴ State officers should receive their due need of respect. Village headmen and city-officers alike should be honoured.⁵

c8.s6.12

⁶ Ibid., I, 1, 2.

c8.s6.13

⁷ Ibid., I, 32-35; VI, 8-15.

c8.s6.14

⁸ Ibid., I, 46-48, 52. Brihaspati would like a king to marry a woman of high rank and of his own country (I, 51).

c8.s6.15

¹ Ibid., I, 93; II, 50.

c8.s6.16

² Ibid., I, 75, 83-84.

c8.s6.17

³ Ibid., I, 58; II, 51-52.

c8.s6.18

⁴ Ibid., II, 54; III, 27; IV, 27, 30, 34, 36-44; VI, 4.

c8.s6.19

⁵ Ibid., III, 40-41.

c8.s6.20

Brihaspati sums up the duties of the king—which include the functions of the state—in a few pregnant aphorisms. The king must look after the frontiers and the sea-shore, that is to say, he must provide for adequate military and

c8.s6.21

The Functions of the State.

c8.s6.22

naval defence. Order must be strictly enforced. It is by the administration of punishment that "the holy sun is king," and gods and mortals are sustained. The order of the four castes must be protected. Resting houses should be provided for the convenience of travellers. Temples and schools, tanks and fields should be looked after, that is to say, the interests of religion, education and agriculture should be attended to. Festivals are to be encouraged. Liquor shops and the houses of harlots claim the attention of the state. Perhaps Bṛihaspati, like Kautalya, would like the state to check and regulate the human vices. When the same cryptic aphorism refers to shops, it is reasonable to infer that Bṛihaspati would not leave the economic life of the community to itself. There should be no oppression anywhere either in towns or in villages. Protection extends to all, but Brâhmaṇas, as usual, claim some exceptional privileges. They are exempt from capital punishment. All learning must be encouraged, but learned Brâhmaṇas are to be specially honoured.¹

c8.s6.23

¹ Ibid., III, 18, 26-27, 38, 49, 53-55, 76-78.

c8.s6.24

Such are the ideas of Bṛihaspati on Government. Arthaśâstra thinkers, like him and Kautalya, base their systems, not primarily on the scriptures but on reason and expediency. They acquired considerable influence and almost challenged the supremacy of the Dharmaśâstras. At any rate, more than one orthodox writer felt it necessary to lay down that if an Arthaśâstra doctrine conflicted with Dharmaśâstras, the latter must prevail. Nârada would like the two to be reconciled, but if that be impossible, the Arthaśâstra must be abandoned and the Dharmaśâstra followed.² Yâjñavalkya emphatically declares the Dharmaśāstra to be more "powerful" than the Arthaśāstra.¹ The Bhaviṣya Purāṇa bars the authority of the Arthaśāstra when it is opposed to the Dharmaśāstra. It will appear that orthodoxy prevailed in the long run. That is what partly accounts for the loss of Arthaśāstra literature. But a good deal of its subject-matter was incorporated into orthodox schools. This process had commenced as early as the age of the Mahābhārata. The epic weaves Arthaśāstra doctrines into its own political system which has so much in common with that of Manu, the prince of Dharmaśāstra writers. The other Dharmaśāstras clearly draw upon Arthaśāstras in their treatment of political topics. The great literary writers like Kālidāsa, Bhāravi, Māgha and Daṇḍin reproduce Arthaśāstra precepts. Story books like the Pañchatantra, Hitopadeśa and Kathāsaritsāgara sometimes reflect the spirit and atmosphere of Arthaśāstras. Thus, a good deal of Arthaśāstra doctrine was co-ordinated with the rest of Hindu governmental theory and became part and parcel of current political thought for centuries to come. Abul Fazl's review of Hindu Rājaniti or statecraft in his Āin-i-Akbari may be believed to reflect the notions of Hindus on government in the sixteenth century. It is more of Arthaśāstra than of Dharmaśāstra. The qualifications of counsellors or ministers recall Kautalya. The doctrine of Mandala is mentioned in a less exaggerated form. The king "should consider a prince whose territories are conterminous with his own, as his enemy though he be profuse in demonstrations of friendship. With one whose country is situated next beyond, he should form an alliance. With a third more remote, he should avoid all intercourse whether hostile or friendly."²

c8.s6.25

² Nârada, I, 37-39.

c8.s6.26

¹ Yājñavalkya, II, 21.

c8.s6.27

² Abul Fazl's Āin-i-Akbarī, tr. Jarrett, III, 259–261.

Linked texts (17)