Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c8.s6.24

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