Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c8.s6.1

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.