Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t19: Kauṭalya on Forts Objective but Theoretical

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t19

Language
English

Kauṭalya on Forts Objective but Theoretical

c11.s1.t19.1

Yet Stein proceeds as follows:—"It is probable (*wahrscheinlich*) that Kauṭalya either derived his requirements for a fortified city from the existing arrangements in Pāṭaliputra and reproduced them or that he wanted to carry out his ideas of a fort in Pāṭaliputra." It is interesting that on the strength of his data as given above, Stein is not sure of his position, as indeed nobody can possibly be sure under such circumstances. He speaks therefore of "probability." He thinks of two probabilities. But regrettably enough, neither can be assumed as a matter of course. Suppose a British architect writes a book on town planning and gets it published in London. Shall we be justified in taking it for granted (1) that the author must have got his ideas of a town from London and London alone or (2) that he wants the city fathers of London to adopt his plan? A treatise on town planning, although published by a British firm in London and although the author is a Briton, may have nothing to do with London itself and the work may not be addressed to the Londoners at all. Stein's probabilities about Kauṭalya *vis-à-vis* Pāṭaliputra in the matter of the sections on fortification (*Durgavidhāna* and *Durganiveśa*) in the *Arthaśāstra* are therefore hardly of any worth. We cannot be forced to imagine that Kauṭalya's writings on fortification were based on what he may have seen at Pāṭaliputra or that he wanted his ideas to be accepted for the city. The reasonable way of looking at things would be to treat Kauṭalya just as an author and to believe that his sources as well as objects might be as wide as the world at large.

c11.s1.t19.2

But Stein proceeds with his "probabilities" further. In any case, says he, Kauṭalya's description of a fort "might be based on a reality (*Wirklichkeit*) and not be a theoretical one." The logic here is rather complicated and open to question. In the first place, supposing that Kauṭalya's ideas of forts and fortifications were based on a reality we are not justified in assuming that the only *Wirklichkeit* in India for an author on town planning or fortification was Pāṭaliputra. There were many other towns, forts and fortified towns which might equally furnish a Hindu author with *Wirklichkeit* as the basis for his writings. In the second place, Stein assumes that an author who bases his ideas on *Wirklichkeit* cannot at the same time be theoretical. This is an entirely untenable assumption. Indeed, there are very few theoretical treatises which are not based on *Wirklichkeit*. In other words, the sections on *Durgāvidhāna* and *Durganiveśa* might be based on actual forts and towns and yet at the same time serve the purpose of a theory. We are to understand that Kauṭalya may have been an author of practical common sense endowed with interest in the "objective" or "realistic" method of investigations and yet attempting nothing more than giving to his countrymen a scientific treatise on the theory of forts and cities.

c11.s1.t19.3

It is by systematically ignoring or overlooking the normal and common sense view of the matter that Stein comes to the following proposition: "Consequently (*Darum*) it may not appear to be unjustified (*unberechtigt*) to institute parallels between the data of Megasthenes and the requirements of Kauṭalya.' Unfortunately, we have noticed that the previous steps do not entitle him to use the word "*Darum*" and that the attempt to institute comparison between Megasthenes and Kauṭalya in regard to Pāṭaliputra is entirely *unberechtigt*, arbitrary and unscientific except as an interesting piece of intellectual gymnastics.

c11.s1.t19.4

In any case the analytical investigation and the intensive analysis of data should be appraised as almost exemplary.

c11.s1.t19.5

The present work is not a treatise on the *Arthaśāstra*. There is no room in it for an item by item examination of the data, results and methodology in Stein's study.⁴ But certain general considerations must not be overlooked.

c11.s1.t19.6

⁴ Stein's ideas have been referred to and examined in B. K. Sarkar: "Hindu Politics in Italian" in the *IHQ.*, Calcutta, September 1925-April, 1926, and *Hindu Rāṣṭrer Gaḍan* or The Morphology of the Hindu State in Bengali (Calcutta, 1927).

c11.s1.t19.7

In the first place, Kauṭalya's work is a book of *śāstra*, a philosophical or theoretical treatise, a work on some *vidyā*. It is not a report on actual conditions which may or may not influence the thought of an author. At any rate, an author is free to utilize these conditions in his own way as data.

c11.s1.t19.8

In the second place, Megasthenes's *Indika* is a report and is therefore entirely different from the *Arthaśāstra* in scope. Now, as reporter, Megasthenes may have been a monumental misinterpreter even with the best of intentions. One ought to treat this report as liable to fallacies of "mal-observation" and "*non-observation*." Besides, as an Hellenist Megasthenes was perhaps much too obsessed with his Platonisms and Egyptian and perhaps also Persian stories. Altogether, he is not implicitly to be trusted as an *objective historian*.

c11.s1.t19.9

In the third place, one need not be too liberal in the matter of according the benefit of doubt when a story by Megasthenes is in question. He did not enjoy an enviable reputation among the classical writers. Megasthenes and Ktesias were almost twins as notorious liars in the estimation of the ancient historians.⁵

c11.s1.t19.10

⁵ Mc Crindle: *Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian* (Calcutta 1926) pp. 17-20.

c11.s1.t19.11

Fourthly, therefore, the *Indika*, does not furnish the reliable touchstone for Mauryanism or the Maurya milieu. We need a third and more reliable source on the strength of which both Kauṭalya and Megasthenes can be “sized up” or appraised as to the Maurya or non-Maurya elements reflected in each.

c11.s1.t19.12

Finally, the discrepancies between Kauṭalya and Megasthenes do not dissipate, at the present state of knowledge, the Maurya atmosphere traditionally associated with the *Arthaśāstra*. Each may have referred to certain aspects or parts of the Maurya conditions and, therefore, although conflicting with the other, may have been objectively true to those conditions.

c11.s1.t19.13

Stein begins his chapter on officials with the following postulate: “*Die erstere bietet die Beschreibung des Gesehenen, die letztere die systematische Darstellung des Bestehenden*⁶ (The former, i.e., Megasthenes offers the description of the seen, the latter the systematic survey of the existing).

c11.s1.t19.14

⁶ P. 232; *cf.* Mc Crindle: *Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian* (Calcutta 1926) pp. 86-88.

c11.s1.t19.15

Evidently this postulate ought not to be accepted without question. Megasthenes (Fragment XXXIV) could not possibly have seen all these officials or their functionings. A German student of the French constitution who writes a thesis on his subject may live perhaps a few years in France, spending most of the time at Paris and perhaps living occasionally in Bordeaux, Marseilles, Nancy, etc. But his book is in the main based on the reports of public administration published by the French Government as well as on treatises on *Droit Public Français* written by French and other scholars. And his thesis is judged, among other things, on the quality, quantity and variety of reliable authorities. Now about the *Indika*, the world knows nothing as to its composition, its sources, etc. Whether it deals with any particular region or regions in India cannot be attested. What kind of people gave him information about the functioning of the public administration is unknown. Nor can one be positive about the books, Indian or foreign, from which he drew the data. It is certain at any rate that the *Indika* cannot be entirely a record of the *Gesehenen*.

c11.s1.t19.16

About the *Arthaśāstra* also Stein's statement is eminently open to question. The chapters, sections or paragraphs on *Adhyakṣaprachāra* (officials), *Durganiveśa* (forts and cities), *Janapadaniveśa* (country) etc., are written mainly with the grammatical *vidhiliṅg* form, which indicates, as a rule, that the functions *are to be* carried out, that one *should* do certain things, etc. A *Darstellung des Bestehenden* is expected in another literary form. The *Arthaśāstra* could claim to be a survey of the things that exist or have been existing if it had used the present or past tense in its statements. But as a rule that form of expression is lacking. Its style is mostly identical with that of the *Dharma-Smriti* and *Nītiśāstras*. It is more normative than descriptive-historical. Kauṭalya has never said that such and such an institution *besteht*, i.e., has been functioning in this region or that.

c11.s1.t19.17

In the three sections on *Landbeamten* (provincial officials) and *Militärbeamten* Stein is asking us to compare the eminently questionable *Indika* with the predominantly normative *Arthaśāstra*. A comparative analysis is interesting by all means, in so far as each is a literary production. But under the present conditions neither can be taken as the touchstone for Maurya India, if we apply the strictest canons of historical criticism. The problem of agreement or discrepancy is therefore irrelevant for the purpose in question, namely, the ascertainment of Maurya public law, economy and social organization.

c11.s1.t19.18

In so far as the *Indika* is alleged to be a work about Maurya India and in so far as the *Arthaśāstra* also is by tradition known to come from Maurya times there is no harm, therefore, in accepting both as documents for the same period although composed in two different styles. One can therefore embark upon reconstructing the administrative, financial and socio-economic history of Maurya India by drawing indifferently upon both. But of course one will have to avoid the most palpable inconsistencies and always take care to render unto philosophy or fable the things that are philosophy’s or fable’s and unto *Realpolitik* the things that can be confidently guessed as belonging to *Realpolitik*.

c11.s1.t19.19

Hillebrandt, 1923

c11.s1.t19.20

In *Altindische Politik* (Jena 1923) Hillebrandt stated his position as follows:

c11.s1.t19.21

“The identity of the author of the *Arthaśāstra*, as discovered today, with Kauṭalya or Chāṇakya, the

c11.s1.t19.22

minister of Chandragupta (B.C. 322-298?) is doubtful. The present text does not appear to have Kauṭalya himself as the author throughout (*nicht durchweg Kauṭilya selbst zum Verfasser habe*). It may be taken to have been the product of his school which collected the opinions of other teachers and in the style of *Sūtra* literature placed them *vis-à-vis* those of Kauṭalya. In the *Arthaśāstra* there are instances of citation from Kauṭalya himself (*iti Kauṭalyah*). Authors of the fourth century B.C. like the grammarian Patanjali are not used to self-quotation. The practice of the *Arthaśāstra* is rather too peculiar and should appear to be later than the old age ascribed to it. Altogether, then, only those words are to be taken as Kauṭalya's which are definitely attested (*beglaubigt*) as such. The rest of the book should be taken as a work of his pupils (*Jünger*) who preserved his opinions and expressions and brought them out in bold relief by posing them against the other doctrines. Or the work may have been prepared by his pupils on the basis of an old text by himself.'¹

c11.s1.t19.23

¹ Pp. 3-5. In the above quotation one should not suspect a literal translation from Hillebrandt.

c11.s1.t19.24

This is Hillebrandt's last word on the subject. In this interpretation the hand of Kauṭalya the minister of the fourth century B.C. is to be seen in two items: (1) in regard to certain actual words and phrases quoted by his *Schule* or *Jünger*, and (2) in regard to the first text which was perhaps the basis of the work that we see today. Thus considered, the original handiwork of the fourth century B.C. (c 320 B.C.) should appear to be very close to the document at present available.

c11.s1.t19.25

The distance from B.C. 320 will depend on what we understand by the *Schule*, the school of Kauṭalya, or by his *Jünger*, pupils or disciples. In case we take both these categories as implying Kauṭalya's immediate scholars the book becomes practically a work of c 300 B.C. But in case we are to understand simply followers or adherents the date of the work will depend on what we choose to take as the duration of the Kauṭalyan tradition among the leading institutions of the third or second century B.C. We are left with a good deal of vagueness in this regard.

c11.s1.t19.26

Hillebrandt does not, however, intend to leave us in the dark. He refers to the doubts about the antiquity of the *Arthaśāstra* engendered on account of Jolly's parallels with the medical and legal texts (1911-16) as well as of Stein's researches (1922) bearing on Megasthenes *vis-à-vis* Kauṭalya. But still he remembers that the *Arthaśāstra* is cited by the author of the *Tantrākhyāyikā* (fourth century A.C.) and Dandin, the novelist of the eighth century. Besides, the *Kāmandakīnīti*, the best known of the literary successors of the *Arthaśāstra*, is believed to be a work of the eighth, sixth or even fourth century. That is, some time before the fourth century A.C. the *Arthaśāstra* may have been composed. This is what Hillebrandt means when in spite of all endeavours he makes the vague conclusion that the book can be traced back to high antiquity (*geht das Kauṭilyaśāstra auf hohes Alter zurück*).

c11.s1.t19.27

While dealing with Hillebrandt's ideas a word may be said about his attitude in regard to Hindu politics. He is to be regarded as an exponent of what should perhaps be described as the "new indology". He is prepared to admit, what should have been accepted as a postulate long ago, that the Hindu mind and creative genius have functioned in positive and materialistic fields. In his *Altindische Politik* he has made it quite clear that the qualities of manhood, energism, civic sense, rationalism etc., are not the monopoly of the Western races and climates. The texts of European statesmanship have often been cited by him as parallels to Indian concepts and categories. The errors of German "romanticists"² are at last being made good by the Germans themselves to a certain extent. Eur-American scientists and philosophers may now perhaps be expected to attempt a change of front in regard to *orientalisme*.³

c11.s1.t19.28

² B. K. Sarkar: *Die Lebensanschauung des Inders* (Leipzig 1923).

c11.s1.t19.29

³ The first edition of the present work, The *Positive Background of Hindu Sociology* (Allahabad 1914) or rather the chapters that were published as magazine articles in Calcutta, Madras, Allahabad, Dacca etc. during 1911-13 raised perhaps the first cry in favour of a reform in indology both as regards Hindu materialism as well as parallelism with the Western culture-systems.

Cites (4)