The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c14.60

c14.60

In Mss. of the Arthaśāstra, both Kauṭalya and Kauṭilya occur as spellings of the author’s name. Both may, therefore, be held to As a scheme of administrative organisation, the Arthaśāstra is unsurpassed in Hindu literature. It is complete in its perspective, detailed in its regulations, thorough in its treatment. It makes provision for all contingencies, for all imaginable possibilities. As a statement of Hindu administrative theory, it leaves hardly anything to be desired. But its supreme merit is its gravest defect as a source of information on administrative practice. Here are no incidental references as in the Brāhmaṇas, Epics and Jātakas, which, merely on account of their inadvertence, may be held to be true to facts. Nor is politics here subsidiary and, therefore, roughly reflecting current practice as in the Dharma Sūtras and Dharma Śāstras. In the Arthaśāstra everything is elaborately planned, carefully thought out. In its own sphere it is an ideal, an utopia. Kauṭalya’s dialectical method points in the same direction. He is fond of inventing problems and riddles. Where possible, he states, discusses and corrects the views of others—and aims at the perfect conclusion. It is thus only in fundamentals and in broad outline of administrative structure which no theoretician could have produced out of his own fancy, that Kauṭalya can be relied on for the practical working of institutions. On the other hand, Kauṭalya’s secular tone and freedom from any religious bias tend to show that priestly influence was not always so powerful as the Dharma Śāstras might lead us to suppose.