The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t27: Statesmanship vs. Scholarship in Kauṭalya
The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t27
- Language
- English
Statesmanship vs. Scholarship in Kauṭalya
c11.s1.t27.1
According to Winternitz, the author of the *Arthaśāstra* is not a practical statesman but a mere Paṇḍit (*ein pedantischer Gelehrter*) and deals not with a powerful empire but with *Kleinstaaterei*, the condition of small states. Meyer considers this argument to have been deprived of all strength, in anticipation of all future scepticism, by the text itself. For, it says that both the science of politics and the political world were saved and reconstructed by the author.
c11.s1.t27.2
Kauṭilya is by all means a “Paṇḍit,” a scholar addicted to his technique of classification and so forth, as Winternitz remarks. The Indian tradition says so. Why should not this tradition possess a greater validity, asks Meyer, than the demands of the moderns who expect or believe that a “Paṇḍit” could not be a “statesman?” How do we know that this famous Chancellor of Chandragupta was or must have been something different?
c11.s1.t27.3
According to Meyer, Kauṭalya is not a Bismarck in the sense of a professional and trained publicist. But he may have risen to the position of the Chancellor on account of his helping Chandragupta up. It is doubtful, however, if he contributed much to the actual administration of the new empire, says Meyer. He may have been dismissed by his pupil, the Emperor, after a short time. The book, we are asked to suppose, may have been composed by the "exiled" king-maker, perhaps in his native land somewhere in South India.
Cites (1)
- Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit