The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t19.2

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.