Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t11: Sarkar 1918-1922

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t11

Language
English

Sarkar 1918-1922

c11.s1.t11.1

Between 1914 and 1918 my ideas about Kauṭalya were undergoing transformation. It was not considered necessary to doubt the tradition about the Maurya origin of the *Arthaśāstra*. But in regard to the contents of the work itself it was not felt reasonable to maintain that it could be treated *in its entirety* as an or the Imperial Gazetteer of Maurya India. Certain parts might indeed be regarded as descriptive-historical or objective-factual. But in the main it appeared to be a work of theory, a philosophical treatise or *vidyā* on politics just like the other *vidyās* or *śāstras* of Hindu literature. The position thus obtained was substantially different from that embodied in the first edition of Vol. I. of the present work.

c11.s1.t11.2

The changed position was, manifest in the following papers which were published from 1918 to 1922 in America and Europe:

c11.s1.t11.3

1. "Democratic Ideals and Republican Institutions in Ancient India" (*American Political Science Review*, November 1918).
2. "Hindu Political Philosophy (*Political Science Quarterly*, New York, December 1918).
3. "Hindu Theory of International Relations" (*American Political Science Review*, August 1919).
4. "Gilde di Mestier e Gilde Mercantili nell' India Antica" (*Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica*, Rome, April 1920).
5. The Theory of Property, Law and Social Order" (*International Journal of Ethics*, Chicago, April, 1920).

c11.s1.t11.4

6. "La Teorie de la Constitution dans la philosophie politique hindoue" (*Revue de Synthèse Historique*, Paris, August and December 1920).
7. "The Hindu Theory of the State" (*Political Science Quarterly*, New York, March 1921).
8. "La Démocratie hindoue" (*Séances et Travaux de l'Académie des Sciences morales et politiques*, Paris, July-August 1921).
9. "The Public Finance of Hindu Empires" (*Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science*, Philadelphia, September 1921).
10. "Politische Strömungen in der indischen Kultur" (*Deutsche Rundschau*, Berlin, March 1922).

c11.s1.t11.5

In all these papers Kauṭalya was cited as a mirror for the Maurya times. But a sharp distinction was made, in the first place, between institutions and theories. In the second place, care was taken to stress the discrepancy between *Realpolitik* and "pious wishes." In other words, Kauṭalya could not always be quoted as a reporter on institutions or laws actually enforced in a particular locality. Vol. II. Part I. of the *Positive Background* (Allahabad 1921-22), in so far as it had to do with the *Arthaśāstra*, differed thus essentially from Vol. I in ideology. This conception about the double or complex character of the *Arthaśāstra* was the fundamental feature of my *Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus* (Leipzig 1922) also.

c11.s1.t11.6

In that work occurs the following passage about the "literary" evidences, i.e., the Sanskrit, Pāli and Prākrit treatises on politics and law: “The evidential value of these latter sources (as contrasted with the inscriptions) of information in a portrayal of *Realpolitik*, excepting perhaps that of certain sections of the *Arthaśāstra*, is as a rule very questionable. This circumstance is not adequately realized by writers on Hindu law (public or private) but will have to be grappled with from now on as a problem in indology” (p. vii).

c11.s1.t11.7

Considerable portions of Kauṭalya’s book were then treated as but of the same rank as most of the *Dharmaśāstras* and *Nītiśāstras*, i.e., speculative or normative compositions without any necessary connection with the region or the epoch. The following passage from the *Political Institutions* (p. 163) describes the general character of all these Hindu *śāstras* or *vidyās*: “Neither merely pedagogic-ethical nor purely descriptive-anthropological are these political *vidyās* of Sanskrit literature. As manuals of *rājadharma* or duties for princes the *nītiśāstras* have natural analogues in Elyot’s *Boke Named the Governour* (1531) and in the works of John of Salisbury (twelfth century), Aquinas (thirteenth century), Occleve (fourteenth century), Patrizi (fifteenth century) and the like. For certain purposes, again, they may be slightly compared to treatises of the type of Fortescue’s *Governance of England* (1476). Moreover, like the Arab encyclopaedist Al Farabi’s *Al-Madinat-al-Fadila*, i.e., *Model City* (tenth century), based as it was on Plato, and like the *Prince* and the *Utopia* the writings of Kauṭalya, Kāmandaka, Śukra and Bhoja are contributions to political ‘ideals’ as well.”

c11.s1.t11.8

It may be remarked *en passant* that for the purposes of the above publications the quantitative statements in regard to the finances were taken *tentatively* as the data for Maurya India.

c11.s1.t11.9

In so far as the *Arthaśāstra* is the work of a scholar, theorist, philosopher, *Gelehrter* or *Paṇḍit* its statements cannot be depended upon automatically as descriptions of things *as they were* in Maurya times. On the other hand, one should not be justified in calling it un-Maurya or post-Maurya simply because certain things known to be Maurya from other sources are not to be found in this book. The question of age thereby acquired a new character. Logically, therefore, the *Arthaśāstra* could not be shorn of its Mauryanism simply because of its eventual discrepancy, say, with the inscriptions of Aśoka or the *Indika* of Megasthenes.

c11.s1.t11.10

The troubles have arisen in looking upon the *Arthaśāstra* as a “Gazetteer,” as was done in the first edition of Vol. I of the *Pos. Back.*, i.e., as a document of statutes relating to the constitution and law of a particular region in a certain period of history. That the *Arthaśāstra* in its entirety is not. It is in the main a logic or grammar of politics. In the manner of the Śākyan (Buddhist) *Nikāyas*, it furnishes us, among other things, with the psychological analysis of virtues and vices, crimes and punishments, nay, of the human personality itself. We find in it the logical classification of the *casus belli*, the formula by which to understand friends and foes, and altogether the mental apparatus involved in the mastering of the diverse problems of group-life. The *Arthaśāstra* is a philosophical treatise conceived in the traditional Indian way and with its varied schemes, plans, formulae, classifications etc. addresses itself not to this *narendra* (king) or that, this *amātya* (minister) or that, this *adhyakṣa* (superintendent or director) or that but to all and sundry who care to read this treatise and make use of its suggestions.

c11.s1.t11.11

It is this change in the orientation to the *Arthaśāstra* as mainly *Kauṭalya-darśanam* or the (social) philosophy of Kauṭalya that has determined my attitude in regard to subsequent researches, whether Indian or Eur-American. This position was systematically maintained in the papers contributed to the *Indian Historical Quarterly* (Calcutta) during 1925-28.¹

c11.s1.t11.12

¹ See the papers :
1. "Hindu Politics in Italian," September and December 1925 (p. 751) January and June 1926 (p. 356).
2. "On Some Methods and Conclusions in Hindu Politics," December 1926, (pp. 851-853), January 1927, (pp. 198-202).
3. "The German Translation of the Kauṭilyan Arthaśāstra," June 1928, (p. 378).

c11.s1.t11.13

In *Hindu Politics in Italian* are to be found the following passages: "The critics are very prone to ignore the fact that the *Arthaśāstra* is not history as Guizot's *History of Representative Institutions in Europe* is, nor does it attempt to set forth the constitution of a particular state, like, say, Joseph-Barthélemy's *Gouvernement de la France* (1920).—It is *Kauṭalya-darśanam*, a philosophical treatise established, as openly admitted in the text, on the researches and investigations of *pūrvāchāryas*, i.e., previous speculators and theorists. In general features it belongs to the type of works like Bodin's *Les Six Livres de la République* (1578) or Adam Müller's *Die Elemente der Staatskunst* (1809). Political philosophy is, as in Spann's *Der wahre Staat* (1921), to mention a modern work, essentially a structure of ideals and pious wishes. It may not overlook analyzing the existing institutions, practices and *mores*, but its fundamental *raison d'être* consists in the criticism of the *status quo* and suggestions as to the duties that lie ahead.''

c11.s1.t11.14

As a corollary to the above standpoint the question of the so-called *piccoli stati* (small states) as alleged to be furnishing the atmosphere of the *Arthaśāstra* was discussed in the following manner. ''How, then, are critics justified,'' it was asked, ''in attaching a realistic, objective and historical value to the Kauṭalyan doctrines in an off-hand way?'' The answer was given as follows: ''The doctrine of *maṇḍala* (''geopolitical'' sphere), for instance, will have to be taken as a philosophical category pure and simple, just like the doctrine of *saptāṁga* itself. It constitutes a logical framework, a formula, so to say, of formal logic.''²

c11.s1.t11.15

² For *saptāṁga* and *maṇḍala* see B. K. Sarkar: *Pol. Institutions etc.* (Leipzig 1922), pp. 167-192, 214-226.

c11.s1.t11.16

In the paper on ''Some Methods and Conclusions in Hindu Politics'' it was pointed out that the scope, i.e. the scientific nature, character or object of the Kauṭalyan treatise was as a rule misunderstood by indologists because of its institutional references and practical associations. ''It is the tendency to ignore the fact that the *Arthaśāstra* is *Kauṭalya-darśanam* (Kauṭalya philosophy). It is, in other words, a theoretical, speculative treatise, and not a historical work designed to portray the actual constitution of a particular state or states.'' The *Arthaśāstra* deals, it was observed, both with ''the art of government'' and the ''theory of the state'' but with each in the *darśana* or philosophical manner. It could not be overlooked that the ''art of government'' itself had a ''theoretical, speculative, philosophical'', i.e., *darśana*, aspect.''

c11.s1.t11.17

In the same paper it was also clearly brought out that from the standpoint of scope and methodology no distinction could be made between the main body of the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Dharma* or *Smriti* treatises. “In regard to these evidences (Gautama, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba,, etc.), it was observed, “my judgment is to the effect that their institutional value is questionable. For, as is well known, these *Smriti* books merely say that the king *should* do such and such things, the priest *should* do such and such things, and so on. Collections of these and allied ‘‘shoulds’’ may indicate the trends of thought, speculation, theory or philosophy in the social fields but not *necessarily* the actual histories of positive realities such as may point to what is or was being done by the men and women of flesh and blood.’’

c11.s1.t11.18

The occasion was utilized to repeat once more that the subtle distinction between ‘‘pious wishes’’ and *Realpolitik* had invariably escaped the workers in indology. The suggestion was, therefore, made to the following effect: ‘‘Workers in ancient Indian lore must have the courage to face the situation and ransack the available literary data from the standpoint of positive science wherever possible. The time has come to attempt rendering unto history the truths that are history’s and to philosophy the truths that are philosophy’s.’’

c11.s1.t11.19

R. G. Bhandarkar, 1919

c11.s1.t11.20

R. G. Bhandarkar is perhaps the first Indian indologist to argue against the Indian tradition.¹ The date of the *Arthaśāstra* was considered by him, in the course of his Presidential Address at the Oriental Congress held at Poona in 1919, to depend on that of the *Kāmasūtra*, whose author Vātsyāyana is the earliest author to notice the *Arthaśāstra*. The *Kāmasūtra* was considered to be a work of the first or second century A.C. This is the earliest date therefore to which in R. G. Bhandarkar's judgment the *Arthaśāstra* could be referred.

c11.s1.t11.21

¹ *Proceedings and Transactions of the First Oriental Congress* (Poona 1920), Vol. I. pp. 24-25.

c11.s1.t11.22

According to R. G. Bhandarkar, Vātsyāyana is said to have lived "about a hundred years" after Kuntal Sātakarṇi Sātavāhana who "must have flourished in the middle of the first century B.C."

c11.s1.t11.23

But the data of Vātsyāyana's *Kāmasūtra* are not considered to be as old as the first or second century A.C. On the strength of latest researches, e.g., those of H. Chakladar² Jolly places the *Kāmasūtra* somewhere in the fourth century A.C. R. G. Bhandarkar's method would then compel us, as it does Jolly, to assign the *Arthaśāstra* to, say, the third century A.C. The *Kāmaśāstra*-*Arthaśāstra* question has been later discussed by others. To argue about the probable interval of time on the strength of coincidences and resemblances is evidently very questionable.

c11.s1.t11.24

² *Vātsyāyana, the Author of Kāmasūtra*(Calcutta 1921); Jolly's Introduction to his and Schmidt's *Arthaśāstra* (Lahore) Vol. I. (1923), pp. 26, 28-29.

c11.s1.t11.25

It is interesting to observe that R. G. Bhandarkar goes not only against Jacobi (1912) who believed that the author of the *Arthaśāstra* is none other than the minister who helped Chandragupta Maurya but also against Hillebrandt (1908) who, without committing himself to any age or date, attributes the authorship to a member of the Chāṇakya school and not to Chāṇakya himself. He is thus radical in his position as regards the Indian tradition.

c11.s1.t11.26

Another point was raised by R. G. Bhandarkar. He was of opinion that the "occurrence of the name of Kauṭilya should not be taken as indicating his authorship of the whole statement."

c11.s1.t11.27

This is an important standpoint and cannot be easily explained away. There is no way but accept the proposition that the writer of the passages in which Kauṭalya has been quoted cannot be Kauṭalya himself. Even without going into the doctrine of *apadeśa* (i.e. statement of the views of others) one should accept the proposition on common-sense logic. (See Hillebrandt, 1908, Jacobi, 1912).

Cites (4)