Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t36: Pran Nath, 1929-31

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t36

Language
English

Pran Nath, 1929-31

c11.s1.t36.1

About the *Arthaśāstra* Pran Nath in his *Study in the Economic Condition of Ancient India* (London 1929) states in a footnote (p. 103) that the "general view appears to be that it was compiled during the Gupta period." So he considers it "desirable to adopt the general view." But in regard to this alleged "general view" he mentions only two authorities, first, Thomas, who assigns the date as prior to the Christian era, and secondly, Jolly, who "holds the opinion that it was compiled much more recently." It is not clear as to what he means by the "general view." He has made considerable use of the *Arthaśāstra* for the purposes of this study but has nowhere discussed the date. In the introduction he assigns an "early date, perhaps not later than the times of the early Gupta sovereigns" (p. 8). Students of the Kauṭalya question are aware, however, that by 1929 one would hardly be justified in considering the Gupta period for the age of the *Arthaśāstra* as based on the "general view."

c11.s1.t36.2

The date of the compilation of Kauṭalya's *Arthaśāstra* was the subject of an independent paper by him in the *Indian Antiquary* for June and July 1931. Here he brought the date further down, namely, to the later Guptas, somewhere between 484 and 510 A.C.

c11.s1.t36.3

In this paper Pran Nath takes *janapada* in two senses, first, as an administrative division (p. 109), and secondly, as the entire state (p. 110). Hence there is a verbal confusion in his arguments bearing on where the author of the *Arthaśāstra* is alleged to have lived.

c11.s1.t36.4

At one point we are told that the *janapada* referred to in the *Arthaśāstra* is a small territory of the area of a modern *tahsil*. It is not clear as to whether Pran Nath believes that the state of the *Arthaśāstra* does not possess an area more extensive than that of a modern *tahsil*. But if so, one does not see why the *Arthaśāstra* should have regulations about forts, roads, rivers, ships etc. If, on the other hand, he believes, as indeed he does, that the *janapada* is only an administrative division but that the Kauṭalyan state is extensive, the references to sea ports, fisheries, pirate vessels, etc. cannot by themselves prove that the "author of the *Arthaśāstra* lived somewhere near the sea-coast."

c11.s1.t36.5

In one context the *Arthaśāstra* mentions certain regions which may be identified as follows: Konkana, Kaccha, Surāṣṭra, Sindh (*Aparānta*), some parts of Rajputana (*Jāṅgala*), Malwa with the capital at Ujjain (*Avanti*), the tracts along the banks of the Narmadā and Tāptī (*Anūpadeśa*) and Mahārāṣṭra. Pran Nath takes all these regions together and believes that they "would form a political unit." And then he considers this political unit to be the state furnishing the geographical *milieu* as well as the date of the *Arthaśāstra*. This unit he treats as identical with the Malwa Empire (Western Saka Satrapy) from A.C. 126 to 510. And, therefore, “Kauṭalya’s *Arthaśāstra* must fall within this period.” (pp. 111-112).

c11.s1.t36.6

But the geographical names in the *Arthaśāstra* are not all exhausted in the few indicated by Pran Nath. Naturally on the strength of the other names one might conceive of a much more extensive and in any case a *much different* political unit than that suspected by him.

c11.s1.t36.7

The *Arthaśāstra* has a law relating to the punishment of those whom Pran Nath calls the Eastern Huṇa (Prāg-Hūṇaka) regions or races. As is well known, the Huṇs were very powerful on account of their capture of the North-western Punjab in 465 A.C. By 510 when Mihirakula succeeded Toramana the Huṇ dominion was extensive and comprised Malwa. Pran Nath argues, therefore, that the kings of Malwa and perhaps other Hindu rulers did not like to “give any chance of complaint to the Huṇa chieftains.” Hence the law of racial abuse referred to above. In that case the “*Arthaśāstra* was compiled between 484 and 510 or 528,” as he says (p. 121).

c11.s1.t36.8

Unluckily there are two readings here, Prājjunaka and Prag-Hūṇaka, as Pran Nath admits. A third variant is also admissible. The Munich text has *Prāṇaka*.¹ It is not difficult, therefore, to dissipate the Huṇ milieu of the *Arthaśāstra*.

c11.s1.t36.9

¹ K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar: *Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity* (Madras 1935), p. 164.

c11.s1.t36.10

It should be observed, moreover, that the law of abuse refers to other two regions or races besides these. One is not compelled therefore to accept an interpretation which says that a law like this indicates the relativity of the passage in question to the ferocity of Huṇ legions, conquerors or overlords. The entire discussion bearing on the Malwa Empire and the Huṇ conquests should therefore appear to be irrelevant.

c11.s1.t36.11

In any case, Pran Nath seems to believe that the *Arthaśāstra* must in its entirety be a work of the fifth or early sixth century simply because one or two geographical or racial names appear to point to the Malwa Empire. But such conclusions about the entire *corpus* of literary work have generally been avoided in Indology by admitting that these stray words or phrases might have been interpolated in texts of long standing.

c11.s1.t36.12

In order perhaps to prove that the capital of the state implied in the *Arthaśāstra* was not Pāṭaliputra and that the state was not the Maurya Empire Pran Nath refers to the sea coasts and observes that "boats employed on pearl fishing did not sail from Patna." This logic is not more convincing than to say that the vessels of the British India Steam Navigation Co. do not sail from Delhi or Simla in order to prove that the British Empire of India must be located somewhere near the Bay of Bengal or the Arabian Sea. As long as certain parts of India are sea-washed there is no reason why the author of a *śāstra*, although having domicile in the mountains, forests or deserts, could not mention ports, ships and customs duties.

c11.s1.t36.13

With reference to the *pravālakam alakandakam*, i.e. coral from Alakanda (Alexandria) Pran Nath observes that Alexander came to India during Chandragupta's time and asks "If Kauṭalya was his minister, is it possible that he would have recognized a name which Greeks gave to a part so recently and have associated it with a particular kind of coral found there?'' (p. 123). One should reply in the affirmative. It is just a ''novelty'' associated with a great adventurer like Alexander that was well calculated to become popular in the very first years of post-Alexandrine Hellenism in western Asia. The same chronological bearing on the *Arthaśāstra* is to be seen in *surunga* or Hellenistic *syrinx*. That is, Kauṭalya can be a contemporary of Chandragupta Maurya not only in spite of but just because of his use of the terms ''Alakandaka'' (Alexandria) and *syrinx*.

c11.s1.t36.14

In view of the fact that Alexander's name is hardly referred to in Indian literature we have here an interesting evidence to the effect that his Hindu contemporaries remembered him in the name of the city founded by him as well as in the military tactics employed by him.

c11.s1.t36.15

Pran Nath observes that not a single coin of Chandragupta or Aśoka has been discovered as yet. But this does not necessarily render the Kauṭalyan ideas of coining un-Maurya or post-Maurya.

c11.s1.t36.16

He finds ''non-Indian ideals and culture'' advocated in the *Arthaśāstra*. This should be regarded as quite in keeping with the evolution of Indian history. There is no period of Indian ''ideals and culture'' when something ''non-Indian,'' ''non-Aryan,'' ''non-Brāhmaṇic'' or the like is not to be detected. We are therefore not justified in concluding, as Pran Nath does, that ''this may be due to the fact that the Malwa Empire for a long time remained under the influence of Greeks, Sakas and Huṇas.'' Further, the ''Persian'' custom referred to can by all means be pre-Maurya. Besides, fish and meat-eating as well as divorce and separation are not dangerously ''non-Indian.''

Cites (1)