Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t20: Jolly, 1923-25

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t20

Language
English

Jolly, 1923-25

c11.s1.t20.1

In 1923 Jolly had a chance to write extensively in English on the Kauṭalya question in connection with the Lahore text. So he summarized all his previous ideas in the most effective manner. His writings in the German Journals (1911-16) may be recalled. To these has to be added another German paper, namely, the one entitled "Eine neue indische Rechtsquelle" (A New Source of Hindu Law) which was published in 1921 in the *Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft*, Berlin (Journal of Comparative Jurisprudence) Vol. XXXVII which was dedicated to the jurist-anthropologist-sociologist Kohler. In this paper Jolly remarked that the *Arthaśāstra* might be traced to the fifth or fourth century after Christ. And he believed that the work had perhaps as little to do with the half-historical Chāṇakya as the Sayings of Solomon with the famous King Solomon. His views, as expressed in English, would not then appear new to those who are familiar with his previous writings.

c11.s1.t20.2

According to Jolly in the Introduction to the Lahore text (Vol. I, 1923) Kauṭalya must have been acquainted with the whole body of *Dharmaśāstra* literature such as we now have from the earliest *Dharmasūtras* down to the most recent metrical *Smritis* and *Smriti* fragments.

c11.s1.t20.3

Again, Manu, we are told, knows of two kinds of peace only while Kauṭalya describes ten kinds with characteristic names. The polity in Kauṭalya is more advanced and is alleged therefore to be later than that in Manu.¹

c11.s1.t20.4

¹ Introduction, Vol. I. (Lahore 1923) pp. 17-20.

c11.s1.t20.5

Jolly's arguments from the more developed character of the Kauṭalyan jurisprudence and polity really prove nothing. The book containing more developed accounts does not necessarily have to be the later in point of time. The *Arthaśāstra*, for instance, is more developed than *Śukranīti* in many respects. In that case the *Śukranīti* should have to be described as being older than the *Arthaśāstra*. Neither Yājnavalkya nor Manu had before himself the mission of writing encyclopædic and intensive treatises just on those items in which Kauṭalya was furnishing specialized treatment. This is also a way of interpreting the difference between Kauṭalya and the others. Again, in the matter of two authors having certain things in common nobody can on the strength of this fact only judge as to who is the original and who the borrower. As long as it is not possible to prove on other grounds that Yājnavalkya is older than Kauṭalya the agreement in certain rules cannot be made to yield much. The entire argument of Jolly in regard to the treatment of the common materials in the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Dharmaśāstra* is subject to this fallacy.

c11.s1.t20.6

It is impossible for a student of law and sociology, again, to admit with Jolly (p. 20) that, "generally speaking, the *Dharmaśāstra* or science of duty and religion has far better claims to a high antiquity than the *Arthaśāstra* or science of gain, which in its turn is older than the *Kamaśāstra* or science of love." He wants the modern mind, nurtured on anthropology as it is, to believe that the three sciences based on *Trivarga* (duty, gain and love) followed in the order mentioned in point of time as well as in rank and value. There is neither logic nor psychology in the concept that for several centuries men and women only did their duties, then after several centuries they learnt how to eat and drink, and then again after several centuries they began to taste the fruit of the forbidden tree. And yet this scheme of life's interests Jolly should like the students of human development to accept while they enter the domain of indology.

c11.s1.t20.7

Jolly (p. 21) believes that Vedic lore and literature were marked by high-flown idealism and one-sided religious character.' This is a fallacious belief and is evidently due to his singling out the idealistic passages from the Vedas and ignoring the materialistic, militaristic, secular, and other contents. The one-sidedness consists not in the subject of study itself but in his own method of study. Through Hegelian eyes one may discover nothing but idealism in the Vedas, a Karl Marx, on the other hand, would detect in the same stuff nothing but hunger's urge, a Gumplowicz nothing but race-conflicts and a Freud nothing but sex-impulse. But modern anthropology and history are not prepared to look upon such monistic interpretations except as curios. A rational interpretation of history would trace the *Arthaśāstra* elements as far back as the Vedic complex, not only the *Atharva Veda*, the document of "folk-elements" in Hindu culture, but to the *Rig Veda* as well.

c11.s1.t20.8

The parallelisms and identities traced by Jolly between the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Kāmasūtra*, again, cannot by themselves settle the priority of the one in relation to the other. In his judgment the *Kāmasūtra* is alleged to have borrowed of the *Arthaśāstra* and he concluded as follows: "If we may take as probable", says he, that the "*Kāmasūtra* was composed not long after the *Arthaśāstra*" one is asked to say that the date of the latter depends on that of the former (pp. 26-28).

c11.s1.t20.9

Jolly takes Kālidāsa in his *Śakuntalā* to have borrowed of the *Kāmasūtra* and therefore assumes the latter to be not more than a century ahead of the former. And, again, because the *Kāmasūtra* borrows of the *Arthaśāstra*, therefore, the latter is said to be not more than a century ahead of the former. According to him no borrower can be more than a century later than the original. And since Kālidāsa is generally referred to the fifth century *Arthaśāstra* cannot be older than the third century. A.C. In the whole series of arguments the fallacy consists in the assumption of not more than a century constituting the interval between the original and the borrower. Such fallacies can be due sheerly to a desperate determination to prove the post-Maurya origin of the *Arthaśāstra*.

c11.s1.t20.10

Other arguments of Jolly are based in the main on Stein's *Megasthenes und Kauṭilya* which has been examined at the proper place.

c11.s1.t20.11

In regard to the age of the *Arthaśāstra*, Jolly considers, as usual, the acceptance of c. B.C. 300 as very uncertain or problematic (*sehr unsicher*). His last word on the subject has already been referred to, namely, the Introduction to his and Schmidt's edition of the *Arthaśāstra* (Lahore 1923-24). There it is described as having been composed in the third century after Christ. Perhaps it is still later, says he, because of the references to alchemy and the making of gold. The influence of Stein's *Megasthenes und Kauṭilya* (1922) is to be seen in Jolly's ideas of the time.

c11.s1.t20.12

According to Jolly (p. 34) the *Arthaśāstra*'s use of the term *suruṅgā* or *surangyā* is suspicious. But the situation should not appear to be damaging. As the Indian word is probably derived from Greek syrinx the Kauṭalyan work may be said to betray its Indo-Hellenistic milieu by internal evidence. This, however, does not compel it to be a post-Maurya work by any means. The use of *suruṅgā* (mine or tunnel) in military tactics may have been regarded as a novelty among the Hindus *vis-à-vis* Alexander, and it is not improbable that they learnt of it from the Hellenists in the course of the anti-Alexandrine wars of self-defence. The thing as well as the term may thus have attracted the attention of Indian soldiers, statesmen, and scholars even before the days of the Mauryas.

c11.s1.t20.13

The *Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft* for 1925 (Vol. XLI) published Jolly's extensive paper entitled "Ueber die alte politische Literatur Indiens und ihre Bearbeiter" (On the ancient politicial Literature of India and its Researchers). The paper dealt exclusively with the researches of Indian scholars. While presenting a survey of the Indian publications from 1913 to 1924 he quotes Hillebrandt's *Altindische Politik* (1923) to indicate that the so-called Hindu republics, the *gaṇas* and the *saṁghas* were nothing more than aristocratic families of the Kingdoms or Empires.

c11.s1.t20.14

Jolly's conclusion in regard to the researches into Hindu politics by Indian scholars is as follows: "As a common tendency of all the preceding works are to be noticed the bringing into prominence of the political life of the Hindus in the place of their philosophy and religion which have been up till now presented in an one-sided manner as well as the demonstration of the democratic and republican polities and the rights of corporations in ancient India."

c11.s1.t20.15

He says further, "One cannot fail to see a connection of these *nur scheinbar rein wissenschaftlichen Tendenzen* (only apparently pure scientific tendencies) with the modern movements for freedom and autonomy. It lies in the interest of Swarajists to be able to refer to similar tendencies in the old literature of their fatherland. That is why most of the authors reviewed here do not wish to renounce the belief in the authenticity and early origin of the *Arthaśāstra*, although the evidences for it are inadequate. However much one may sympathise with the freedom movements of these Indian researchers, their historical viewpoints and conclusions are to be accepted with caution (*Vorsicht*) and one cannot entirely exonerate the authors named here from the reproach (*Vorwurf*) that they have not kept politics and history separate from each other.''

c11.s1.t20.16

Perhaps in these remarks of Jolly's we should read less a *Vorwurf*, i.e., reproach levelled against Indian scholars than its opposite, namely, the recognition of their services in the great work of national awakening or re-construction. There is no country on the surface of the earth including Jolly's where researchers and historians have not dedicated themselves to such a noble cause. Had the Indian scholars of the generation referred to above failed to apply themselves in and through their own fields to the noble mission of the remaking of India in co-operation with her poets, philosophers, pedagogues and publicists of the day perhaps Jolly would have been one of the first to condemn the intellectuals of Young India as a worthless and undutiful set.

c11.s1.t20.17

Be this as it may, it is very questionable whether the scholarship and investigations of Young India in their entirety or in part really deserve the *Vorwurf* of not keeping politics and history separate from each other.

c11.s1.t20.18

The significant fact at the present moment (1935) remains that the German scholars, Jacobi, Meyer and Breloer, and the Italian scholars, Formichi and Bottazzi, are neither Indians nor Swarajists. Nor do the contributors to the chapters on ancient Indian law and polity in the *Cambridge History of India* Vol. I. (1922) such as Hopkins of Yale (U.S.A.) and Thomas of London as well as the British members of the Indian Civil Service like Monahan, author of the *Early History of Bengal* (Oxford 1925), Fleet and, last but not least, Smith, all of whom have ventured on using the *Arthaśāstra* as an important authority on the legal, economic and political institutions of the Mauryas, happen to be known as champions of *Swaraj* for India. It is not the race but the brains of the researchers, not their politics but their logic that have determined in the main their predilections for the one or the other side in regard to the Kauṭalya question.

c11.s1.t20.19

When all this has been admitted it remains to add that Jolly’s Introduction to the Lahore text embodies the utmost that can be said against the Indian tradition. And as Jolly’s arguments which go back to 1911 constitute the original material upon which subsequent writers against the Indian tradition have mainly drawn, the Introduction deserves the greatest attention from all students of Kauṭalyalogy. It is, besides, the most comprehensive and intensive attack levelled against the tradition and is conceived in a thoroughly scientific spirit and as such cannot but command respect from all those who have to differ from him in the general logic of social science or in the special researches of indology.

Cites (6)