The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c14.s2.27

c14.s2.27

How is it possible that a *śâstra* should be serviceable to all the orders in a community unless it is a science of all sciences, i. e. encyclopedic in its scope? The claims of *nîti-śâstra* are therefore presented by the utilitarian theorist on the strength of such a “synthetic” approach to human interests. “Other sciences” are *ekaika-deśa-bodhi*, i. e. they treat only of singled-out or specialized aspects of man’s life, and are limited as a matter of course.⁴ As Śukra observes, one can do without a knowledge of grammar,⁵ for the study of grammar is not a *sine qua non* for the mastery of words and their meanings. Similarly the study of logic⁵ nay be dispensed with by one who wants to acquire a knowledge of material substances. By like arguments can the comparative “uselessness” of Jaimini’s *Mimâmsâ*⁵ dealing with the rituals and ceremonies of religion, and of Vyâsa’s *Vedânta* philosophy⁵ which treats of the “eternal verities” of the universe, be easily demonstrated, as is done in the *Śukra-nîti*. But the one science which nobody can afford to ignore is the *nîti-śâstra*. “Without *nîti* the stability of no man’s affairs can be maintained just as without food no man’s physical body can be preserved.”⁶ Political philosophy is thus the very basis of social *sthiti* or equilibrium furnishing, as it does, the spiritual foundations of human existence.