Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c14.s9.t1: 1. Chaṇḍeśvara's Rājanītiratnākara

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c14.s9.t1

Language
English

1. Chaṇḍeśvara's Rājanītiratnākara

c14.s9.t1.1

Chaṇḍeśvara's *Rājanīti-ratnākara* (Ocean of Politics) is a virtually dated treatise. It can be confidently placed in the fourteenth century. Hence its unusual importance in the history of Hindu thought. Moreover, it is one of the first writings of the Hindus in the period of early Moslem rule. As such, the treatise should be valuable as a document of Hindu reactions to the conditions of political and social life.

c14.s9.t1.2

Chaṇḍeśvara (c. 1290 ?-1375 ?) became minister of peace and war or foreign minister to king Harisimhadeva of Mithilā (reigned 1304-14) in North Bihar about 1310 A.C. His *Smriti-ratnākara* (law book) was composed in seven sections. Section I. (*Kritya-ratnākara*) must have been written before 1314, Section II. (*Dāna-ratnākara*) subsequently. Section III. (*Vyavahāra-ratnākara*) was composed while he was judge in addition to being foreign minister. Section VI. (*Vivāda-ratnākara*) was complete while Harisimha was still king. About the date of Section VII. (*Grihastha-ratnākara*) it is not possible to surmise.¹

c14.s9.t1.3

¹ See the editor's introduction to the text (Patna 1924) pp. k, r.

c14.s9.t1.4

Chaṇḍeśvara was like Gopāla and Lakṣmīdhara at once a student of law and politics. In a sense every student of *dharmaśāstra* was a student of *rājadharma*, and on the other hand, every student of *rājadharma*, *nītiśāstra*, *daṇḍanīti*, or *arthaśāstra* was also a student of *dharmaśāstra* from the earliest times. But it appears that men like Gopāla and Lakṣmīdhara had produced the *rājadharma* sections of their *Smriti* works, *Kāmadhenu* and *Kalpataru*, separately. The *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu* and the *Rājanīti-Kalpataru* were in this sense to be differentiated from the *rājadharma* sections in Manu, Yājnavalkya etc. This is perhaps why Chaṇḍeśvara quotes the *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu* and the *Rājanīti-Kalpataru* as independent texts. It should appear that his own *Rājanīti-ratnākara* may have been inspired in form by the appearance of the political works of Gopāla and Lakṣmīdhara. His *Smriti*-work had been completed in seven *ratnākaras* before he composed the *ratnākara* on *Rājanīti*.

c14.s9.t1.5

The *Rājanīti-ratnākara* does not pretend to be an original work. It is in the form of a *nibandha* or digest, the form which we have noticed in connection with the *dharma* or *smriti śāstras* from Harṣa to Hemādri. Chaṇḍeśvara takes a topic and on this topic quotes a number of authorities but apparently not in the chronological order. The original texts are given in full and along with them their authors. In connection with each text cited he offers his notes or comments. Chaṇḍeśvara's chapters thus look like a string of quotations with few explanatory words or sentences to tie them together.

c14.s9.t1.6

The readers are thus presented with a psychological or logical analysis of the subject matter. This analytical method ought by all means to be appreciated. It is questionable if we can often speak of Chaṇḍeśvara as furnishing the historical evolution of ideas. He has not cared to follow the strictly chronological order. Let us take ch. V. which discusses the *Sabhā*, Council or Court of Justice. His first authority is Hārīta, then comes Brihaspati, then Manu, Nārada, Viṣṇu, Nārada again, Lakṣmīdhara, Kātyāyana, Vyāsa, Brihaspati again, Nārada a third time, Kātyāyana again, Manu again, Nārada the fourth time. Chaṇḍeśvara's strength lies in the analysis of ideas. If to this were added the choronological or historical presentation we might get the medieval analogue of, say, a work like Cannan's *Review of Economic Theory* (London 1929).

c14.s9.t1.7

No matter, whether analytical or historical, the *Rājanīti-ratnākara* does present us with the history of Hindu political philosophy for nearly fourteen hundred years from Manu down to Chaṇḍeśvara. The author’s bibliography is rich. Regrettably enough for us moderns, he has not cared to mention Kauṭalya or Chāṇakya. But he is well read, and no modern professor of political science in the East or the West could beat him either in the perspicuous manner of presentation and lucidity of treatment or in the extent of literature covered by him within the short compass of less than 90 pages. Any Western author today who is called upon to deal with the leading ideas of European political philosophy from, say, Seneca to Bartolus (1314-1357), the prince of jurists, will know how to admire the command of subject-matter as well as the skill in handling it as displayed by our Brāhman of Mithila in the fourteenth century.

c14.s9.t1.8

Let us now analyze the contents of the *Rājanītiratnākara* with reference to the bibliography of Chaṇḍeśvara. The sixteen *taraṅgas* (waves) of his "Ocean" are indicated below along with the authorities cited in each:

c14.s9.t1.9

I. The King: Kulluka Bhaṭṭa, *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu* (twice), Guru (Brihaspati or Chaṇḍeśvara's preceptor), Yājnavalkya (thrice), *Nārada-Nīti* (This seems to be a *Nītiśāstra* independent of the Smriti work by Nārada), *Māhabhūrata* (twice), Manu (four times), Yasa, *Nāradīya* (Smriti), Smriti (without name), *Nītikalpataru*, Hārīta.

c14.s9.t1.10

II. The Minister: Manu (four times), Yājnavalkya, Vyāsa, *Amarakoṣa*, *Mahābhārata*, *Nārada* (Not the *Smriti*), Hārita, Nārada (*Smriti*).

c14.s9.t1.11

III. The Family Priest: *Vyāsa*, Manu (twice), Yājnavalkya.

c14.s9.t1.12

IV. The Judge: Kātyāyana, *Smṛiti* (without name), Brihaspati, Pallavakāra, Lakṣmīdhara, Hārīta, Vyāsa, Manu, Nārada (*Smṛiti*).

c14.s9.t1.13

V. The Council (Court of Justice): Hārīta, Brihaspati (twice), Manu (twice), Viṣṇu, Nārada (*Smṛiti*, four times), Lakṣmīdhara, Kātyāyana (twice), Vyāsa.

c14.s9.t1.14

VI. Forts: Manu (twice), Yājnavalkya, *Mahābhārata*.

c14.s9.t1.15

VII. Deliberations: Manu (thrice), *Mahābhārata* (twice), Yājnavalkya, *Nīti*, *Rājanīti* (it is interesting that Chaṇḍeśvara means *Kāmandakī nīti* when he uses the term *Rājanīti*). There is a lengthy extract from Kāmandaka in the present connection.

c14.s9.t1.16

VIII. Treasure: *Nīti* (Kāmandakī) twice, Manu, *Śruti* (without name), Yājnavalkya, *Pallava*, Sāgara, *Anye* (others).

c14.s9.t1.17

IX. The Army: Manu (7 times), *Anye* (others), Guru (Brihaspati or Chaṇḍeśvara's preceptor?), Kāmandaka, *Mahābhārata* (twice), Śrīkara, Lakṣmīdhara, *Pallava*.

c14.s9.t1.18

X. The General: Manu (twice), *Mahābhārata*, *Rājanīti* (*Kāmandakī*).

c14.s9.t1.19

XI. The Ambassador and others: Manu, *Śukranīti* (apparently different from the treatise translated by the present author), Manu (twice), *Nīti* (*Kāmandakī*), Yājnavalkya (thrice), *Mahābhārata*, *Rājanīti* (*Kāmandakī*, lengthy extracts), Pallava (twice), Kāmandaka, "Vāchaspati and others."

c14.s9.t1.20

XII. The King's Functions: Manu (seven times), Yājnavalkya (five times), *Arthaśāstra* (*Kāmandakīnīti*), *Śruti*, *Gītā*, "Maya, Maitra, Viśālākṣa, Manu, Brihaspati, Śukra and others," *Nītiśāstra* (*Kāmandakī*).

c14.s9.t1.21

XIII. Punishment: Manu (thrice), Yājnavalkya (thrice), Nārada (*Smriti*), *Pallava*, *Mātākṣarā*.

c14.s9.t1.22

XIV. Giving the Kingdom Away to the Eldest Son (Abdication): Manu (four times), *Rājanīti* (not however the *Kāmandakī*, says the editor), Hārita, Nārada (*Smriti*, twice), Vyāsa, *Mahābhārata*, *Rāmāyaṇa*, Vaśiṣṭha, Brihaspati, *Kāmadhenu*, Kātyāyana.

c14.s9.t1.23

XV. Giving the Kingdom away to the Eldest Son through the Priest and others: Lakṣmīdhara, *Nārada Rājanīti* (not Smriti), Pallavakāra, *Śukranīti* (not identical with the one translated by the present analyst), Brihaspati, *Padma Purāṇa*, *Bhāgavata*, *Rāmāyaṇa*, Manu (thrice), Koṣa (Amara), Viṣṇu, Yājnavalkya, *Arthapradīpa*, Nārada (*Smriti*), Kātyāyana, *Dharmaśāstra*, *Arthaśāstra*, Vyāsa, Śukra, "Gopāla, Lakṣmīdhara, Śrīkara, and others."

c14.s9.t1.24

XVI. Coronation: *Rājanīti*, Lakṣmīdhara (twice), *Pallava*, *Rāmāyaṇa*, *Madgurupaddhati* (Chaṇḍeśvara's own preceptor), *Pallava*, Manu (twice), Koṣakāra (Amara), Gopāla, *Nīti* (*Kāmandakī*, twice), Yājnavalkya, *Mitākṣarā*, Nārada, Kātyāyana.

c14.s9.t1.25

Chaṇḍeśvara cites 48 authors or treatises.

c14.s9.t1.26

The most popular authors with Chaṇḍeśvara are Manu and Yājnavalkya. The influence of the *Mahā-* *bhārata* is great. Nārada and Kāmandaka are also two of his great authorities. The following will give an idea of the number of times he has quoted his chief sources :

c14.s9.t1.27

| Manu : 38 times | |
| Yājnavalkya : 19 times | |
| *Mahābhārata* : 14 times | |
| Nārada : 13 times | (+ *Nāradīyam* 1 Nārada *Nīti* 1 Nārada *Rājanīti* 1) |
| Kāmandaka 2 | (+ *Nīti* 5 *Rājanīti* 5) |
| Pallavakāra : 8 times | |
| Lakṣmīdhara : 7 times | |
| Kātyāyana : 6 times | |

c14.s9.t1.28

Students of politics in the technical sense (i.e. *arthaśāstra* as contrasted with *dharmaśāstra*) will have to note that in chapters V. and XV. Chaṇḍeśvara uses the category *arthaśāstra*. *Nīti* and *Nītikalpataru* as the names of a literary work are known to him. And *Rājanīti* of course is the title of his own book. *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu* is mentined by him. It appears that he knows of treatises on *rājanīti* by Nārada and Harītā. These should appear to be different from the *smriti* or *dharmaśāstra* works by the same authors. Śukra is mentioned by him once in a group, namely, Maya, Maitra, Viśālākṣa, Manu, Brihaspati and Śukra. On another occasion Śukra is referred to as an author of *Rājanīti*. Finally, the book *Śukranīti* is quoted by Chaṇḍeśvara twice. But that book is not the one used by the present author.

c14.s9.t1.29

But so far as *nītiśāstra* or pure politics is concerned we understand that the *Kāmandakīnīti* is a living force with Chaṇḍeśvara. One can almost say that in his *milieu* *Kāmandakīnīti* = political science. In the fourteenth century, and especially in Mithilā, Kauṭalya or Chāṇakya may be said to have lived in and through Kāmandaka.

c14.s9.t1.30

There is a passage where we encounter a situation such as may throw light on the interpretation to be applied to the old question of *iti Kauṭalyah* (*Supra*, pp. 218, 224, 273, 306, 355).

c14.s9.t1.31

The *nibandha* (digest) writer of the fourteenth century (c. 1370), Chaṇḍeśvara of Mithilā in his *Rājanītiratnākara* (ch. V) writes *manmate ubhayoravirodhah* (i.e. in my opinion there is no conflict between the two). He is discussing the views of ancient (*prānchāh*) and modern (*navyāh*) writers on the definition of *dharmaśāstra* and offers his own view in the first person. The use of the first person by an author, it should appear, is not unknown in Hindu tradition. Kauṭalya might have done it too, had he cared. But the reference to Kauṭalya in the third person naturally leads us to suspect that the *Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra* was not written by Kauṭalya.

c14.s9.t1.32

Among the persons from whose tortures the king is to protect the people are enumerated the Kāyasthas. This passage from Yājnavalkya (I. 334) is interpreted by Chaṇḍeśvara (ch. XI) as follows: "The Kāyasthas are *lekhakāh* or writers, i.e. scribes, *gaṇakāh*, book keepers or accountants. On account of their *rājavallabhatā* (favoured or privileged position with the king) and *māyāvitayā* (personal influence) they are *durnivāra* (difficult to avoid or control). This is why the people has to be protected *viśeṣatah* (specially) from the Kāyasthas."

c14.s9.t1.33

Chaṇḍeśvara knows *arthaśāstra* as a category distinct from *dharmaśāstra*. But he does not mention any text by name. In chapter V. (*Sabhya*) he is explaining the epithet *dharmaśāstrakuśala* of *Nāradasmṛiti* (III, iv. 5). First, he gives the old view which by *dharmaśāstra* understands the works of "Manu and others." Then he gives the view of the moderns (*navyāḥ*) according to which is implied "any *śāstra* composed by *munis* (sages) which teaches the duties" including the "collection of *Mīmāṃsā* and other treatises." Finally, he gives his own interpretation. "In my view" (*manmate*), says he, there is no conflict between the old and the modern interpretations. In so far as the expression "and others" has been used Chaṇḍeśvara believes that the "*dharmaśāstra* composed by Manu and others, *arthaśāstra*, *Rājanīti* and other treatises" are implied. That *arthaśāstra* also is an important authority (*nirṇayaka*, regulator) was the conviction of Lakṣmīdhara on the strength of the *Nāradasmṛiti* passage (I. 39) which refers to an eventual conflict between *dharmaśāstra* and *arthaśāstra*. Lakṣmīdhara's interpretation about the status of *arthaśāstra* is quoted by Chaṇḍeśvara with approval (*Lakṣmīdhareṇa) tatraiva vyākhyātam iti yuktam).*

c14.s9.t1.34

On the other hand, Gopāla, the author of the *Smṛiti-Kāmadhenu*, is quoted as an authority by Lakṣmīdhara in his *Smṛiti-Kalpataru* (c. 1150). Lakṣmīdhara is therefore later than Gopāla (c. 1100). But since Gopāla is unknown to the *Mitākṣarā*, he is later than 1050. Altogether Śrīkara instead of being the juniormost becomes the seniormost. Perhaps the order in which Chaṇḍeśvara (ch. XV) cites Gopāla (c. 1100), Lakṣmīdhara (c. 1150) and Śrīkara (c. 950) in connection with the doctrine of *rājadhane dīnānāthādisakalaprāṇinām aṃśitvam* indicates that Śrīkara is perhaps the juniormost. But this is hardly possible. One does not know the title of his work nor as to whether it was a commentary (*bhāṣya*) or digest (*nibandha*). But as Śrīkara is quoted by the *Mitākṣarā* he is older than 1050 A.C. and certainly older than Lakṣmīdhara by nearly a century and a half. Chaṇḍeśvara's quotation should have read like "*Śrīkara-Gopāla-Lakṣmīdhara* and others.''²

c14.s9.t1.35

² Kane: *History of Dharmasastras* (Poona 1930), Vol. I. pp. 266-268, 293-296, 317-318.

c14.s9.t1.36

The doctrine referred to, then, prevailed in the Hindu philosophical milieu for four or five centuries from, say, 950 to 1400.

c14.s9.t1.37

An interesting classification of kings from the stand-point of status is furnished by Nārada in his *Nīti* which is evidently different from his *Smṛiti*.

c14.s9.t1.38

"There are two kinds of *rājā*: (1) the *samrāṭ* and (2) the tributary and the untributary *rājā*,'' says Nārada; "The *samrāṭ* is the ruler who regularly receives taxes or tributes from all rulers. He is the *chakravarttī*. The *rājā* who pays taxes every month and every year is known as *sakara* (tributary). But the *rājā* who offers tribute voluntarily (*svechchayā*) is the *adhīśvara*.''

c14.s9.t1.39

Chaṇḍeśvara quotes this view of Nārada's in chapter I. with approval and makes the following remark: "But the *dharma* or duties of all the three are identical.''

Cites (24)