Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t3: Mookerji-Law-Jayaswal-Sarkar, 1910-14

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t3

Language
English

Mookerji-Law-Jayaswal-Sarkar, 1910-14

c11.s1.t3.1

It was in connection with the work at the National Council of Education, Bengal, established during 1905-06 as an expression and embodiment of the national awakening known as the *Swadeshi Movement* that the present author's studies in Hindu culture as well as English translation of the *Śukranīti* were undertaken in 1907. Parts of this translation as well as the *Positive Background of Hindu Sociology* (first edition) were being prepared and published off and on in the journals of Calcutta, Allahabad, Madras and Dacca during 1911-13.

c11.s1.t3.2

These studies, intimately associated as they were with the work of Baman Das Basu of the Panini Office (Allahabad), editor of *The Sacred Books of the Hindus Series* and part-author of *Indian Medicinal Plants*, were carried on in the main in an atmosphere of co-operative research at Calcutta.¹ To this research-complex belonged also Radhakumud Mookerji's studies in Hindu shipping and the geographical unity of India under the inspiration of Satis Chandra Mukerjee of the Dawn Society (1903-06) and the National Council of Education, as well as Narendra Nath Law's investigations into the *Arthaśāstra* and Kashi Prasad Jayaswal's papers on Hindu coronation rituals and other aspects of Hindu polity (1911-13). That was the atmosphere of what may be described as an almost homogeneous and undifferentiated, although entirely informal, "school" of Hindu culture and social sciences at Calcutta. So far as the Kauṭalya question was concerned, that "school", like Shamasastry, considered the Indian tradition as but verified by the discovery of the *Arthaśāstra*.

c11.s1.t3.3

¹ The dates of the first publication in *book-form* are given below :
1. R. K. Mookerji : *History of Indian Shipping and Maritime Activity* (London 1911).
2. N. N. Law : *Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity based on the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya with an* Introduction by Mookerji on the Authenticity of Kauṭilya (London 1914).
3. B. K. Sarkar : : *Śukranīti* (Allahabad 1914), with Index by N. N. Law.
4. B. K. Sarkar : : *The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology* Vol. I. (Non-Political, Allahabad 1914). 5 R. K. Mookerji : *The Fundamental Unity of India* (London 1914).
6. K. P. Jayaswal : *Hindu Polity* (Calcutta 1924). By the time of its publication the "book" had widely moved away from the author's ideas of the 1910-14 period.

c11.s1.t3.4

And this tendency of that pre-war Calcutta School was fortified by Smith's treatment of the problem because in the second edition of his *Early History of India* (Oxford 1908, pp. 134-136) he actually supplemented his description of the Maurya institutions based on Megasthenes's *Indika* with data from the *Arthaśāstra*.

c11.s1.t3.5

During this period Shamasastry's work on the *Arthaśāstra* was being followed with keen interest at the "Calcutta School." In addition to his first paper in the *Indian Antiquary* (1905) and translation of Books I-IV. in the *Mysore Review* (1906-08) the following parts (in English) furnished the material for investigation:

c11.s1.t3.6

1. *Chāṇakya's Arthaśāstra or Science of Politics*, Books I and II. (Mysore 1908?), a brochure.
2. *The Arthaśāstra of Chāṇakya or Science of Politics*, Books III and IV. (Mysore 1908?), a brochure.
These two were available at the same time as articles in the *Mysore Review*, also, as indicated above.

c11.s1.t3.7

3. *The Arthaśāstra of Chāṇakya*, Books V-VII in the *Indian Antiquary* (1909-10).

c11.s1.t3.8

The entire text, edited by Shamasastry, was also available in 1909 (Mysore).

c11.s1.t3.9

The personal contact with Hermann Jacobi, the German champion of the Indian tradition, at Calcutta during 1911-12 had likewise some influence on the "School."

c11.s1.t3.10

The complications of the Kauṭalya question remained, therefore, untouched in the first edition of the present work. The following paragraphs are being reproduced from that edition:

c11.s1.t3.11

"There is no difficulty about the *Arthaśāstra* of Chāṇakya, or Kauṭilya, the Minister of Chandragupta Maurya, who for the first time in Indian history conceived and executed the plan of a vast Empire, the limits of which it has not been possible for any Indian monarch to reach or exceed.

c11.s1.t3.12

'Like Abul Fazl's *Ayeen Akbari*, the *Arthaśāstra* may be looked upon as the *Imperial Gazetteer of India* in one of the most remarkable periods of Indian culture-history. The chapters of this monumental document are devoted exclusively to a description of the multifarious incidents of political life under Chandragupta's government as well as economic and financial topics, e.g. the working of the mines, the opening of irrigation works, the establishment of factories; the maintenance of preserves and grazing grounds, of high ways of commerce, waterways, land-routes, and other facilities for communication; the establishment of markets and stores, the construction of embankments, dams and bridges, the planting of fruit and flower trees, of medicinal plants

c11.s1.t3.13

and herbs (i.e. the establishment of Āyurvedic and pharmaceutical gardens); protection of the disabled, the helpless and the infirm, and also of beasts &c; famines, census, central and municipal government; livestock; and many other social, juristic and economic institutions."

c11.s1.t3.14

"In the Introduction to Law's *Hindu Polity* Mookerji has summarised the arguments which may be advanced in support of the traditional and widely current view that the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya is the work of Chāṇakya the minister of Chandragupta and therefore belongs to the 4th century B.C. The writer has proved from both external and internal evidences—

c11.s1.t3.15

1. That the political connection of Kauṭilya with Chandragupta as his Finance Minister is a fact and not a myth.
2. That the *Arthaśāstra* attributed to Kauṭilya is a genuine work of antiquity and not a traditionally handed down fable.
3. That the work is the production of an individual author and not of a school, as is frequently the case with Indian treatises."

Cites (3)