Chapter I. Preliminary

Volume III pp. 1–16

Chapter I. Preliminary

(GOVERNMENT AND STATECRAFT)

CHAPTER I

rājadharma has been a subject of discussion in works on dharmaśāstra from very ancient timeṣ The Āp. Dh. S. II 9 25.1 says ‘The general and special dharmas of all varnas have been explained; but now we shall declare the dharmas of a king in particular’. Āp then states that the king should cause to be built a capital and a palace, the gates of which both should face the south; that the palace should be in the heart of the capital; that in front of the capital there was to be a hall called ‘áman-trana’ (hall of invitation); that to the south of the town there was to be an assembly house with doors on the north and south. Āp requires that in the king’s realm no brāhmaṇa should suffer hunger, sickness, cold or heat; Āp gives regulations about the assembly house and about persons who were to be allowed to engage in gambling; he prescribes that (the exercise in) arms, dancing, singing and music should not go on anywhere except in the houses of the king’s servants, that the king was to see that there was no danger from thieves in villages and forests, that the king should donate fields and money to brāhmaṇas according to their worth without detriment to his servants, that the king who meets death in recovering the property of brāh-maṇas and other warlike persons who meet death in fighting for a similar worthy cause reap the merit of a sacrifice (i. e reach heaven as reward); that the king should appoint in towns and villages officers and their subordinates, who are pure and truth-ful, for the protection of the subjects against thieves and who are to be made to make good what is stolen; that they are to collect lawful taxes for the king from the people except from learned brāhmaṇas, women of all castes, minors, students stay-ing with teachers and ascetics fulfilling the rules of their order, śūdras who do menial work for the higher castes (such as washing their feet), persons that are blind, deaf or dumb. Āp. then lays down punishments for adultery and rape, for slander and defamation, for manslaughter, for theft and appropriation of another’s land, for breach of contract to cultivate the field of another, for a herdsman leaving his herd or negligently allowing it to perish He states that if the king does not punish the guilty he incurs sin, that in disputes judges should be men of learning, clever and fulfilling their duties, that witnesses were to tell the truth and were to be punished if they be untruthful It will be noticed how Āp briefly covers the whole field of rāja- dharma In the Śāntiparva of the Mahābhārata rājadharma is dealt with at great length in chapters 56–130 and to some extent in 131–172 The Manusmṛti also states at the beginning of chap VII (1) that it will expound rājadharma That great literary activity on the science and art of government went on for many centuries before the Christian era follows from several considerations The Anuśāsanaparva (chap 39 8) speaks of the śāstras composed by Bṛhaspati and Usanas The Śānti- parva (81–3) names as expounders of rājaśāstra Bṛhaspati, Bharadvāja, Gaurasiras, Kāvyā, Mahendra, Manu Prācetasa and Viśālākṣa Śāntiparva (102 31–32) opposes the view of Śambara to that of ācāryas¹⁷ The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya mentions five schools (viz those of the Mānavas, the Bārhaspatyas, the Auśa- nasas, the Pārāśaras and the Ambhīyas), seven individual tea- chers (V. 5, and I. 8) only once (viz Bāhudantīputra, Dīrgha Cārāyaṇa, Ghoṭamukha, Kaṇiṅka Bhāradvāja, Kātyāyana, Kiñ- jalka, Pisunaputra,) and several times mentions the views of Bhāradvāja, Kauṇapadanta, Parāśara, Pisuṇa, Vātavyādhi, Viśālākṣa. Kauṭilya also cites at least 53 times the views of ācāryas, almost in every case for dissent Śānti 103 44 refers to a Bhāṣya on rājaśāstra Is it possible to see in this a reference to one out of the bhāṣyakāras indicated in the verse appended at the end of the Kauṭilīya or to the Kauṭilīya itself? Another fact indicative of the systematiza- tion of the science of government is that in the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāyaṇa, Manu and Kauṭilya ideas expressed by numbers had already been stereotyped long before those works were written viz such as saptāṅga rājya (State with seven constituent elements), ṣāḍguṇya (the six ways of policy viz alliance, declaration of war &c ), three śaktis, the four upāyas (sāma, dāna, bheda, daṇḍa), astavarga, and pañcavarga (Manu VII. 155), the 18 and 15 tīrthas (Sabhāparva 5 38)² For detailed information III ] about the Rājāśāstras of Bṛhaspati, Uśanas, Bhāradvāja culled from the Mahābhārata and other ancient works vide my paper on them in the Journal of the University of Bombay, vol. XI part 2 pp. 73-83, 1942.

The fulfilment of their duties and responsibilities by rulers was of paramount importance to the stability and orderly development of society and to the happiness of individuals in the State and therefore one often finds that rājadharma is said to be the root of or the quintessence of all dharmas. Śāntiparva (63.25) states 'know that all dharmas are merged in rājadharma; that rājādharmas are at the head of all dharmas' and (141 9-10) 'the welfare, good rains, sickness, calamities and death among people owe their origin to the king'³. It was the king's duty to see that the people in his kingdom acted according to the rules laid down in the smṛtis for the several varṇas and āśramas, to administer justice and to interfere when his help was sought for by a pariṣad (assembly of learned men) in enforcing the prāyaścitta (penance) prescribed for various lapseṣ Vide Gautama X. 7-8, XI. 9-11, Āp. Dh. S II. 5 10, 13-16⁴, Vasiṣṭha 19 1-2, Viṣṇu III. 2-3, Nārada (prākirnaka, 5-7 and 33-34), Śāntiparva 77 33 and 57 15, Matsyapurāṇa 215.63, Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa 27 28 and 28 36 and H. Dh. vol. II p. 965. Therefore it may be said with truth ( as done by the Mahābhārata ) that rājadharma was the highest goal of all the world, that it comprehended within itself all rules of ācāra, vyavahāra (administration of justice) and prāyaścitta (penance). It is on account of this all-pervading influence of government or royal power that the Mahābhārata frequently emphasizes that the king is the maker of his age, that it is he who can usher a golden age or an age of strife and misery for the country⁵. The Śukranītisāra (I 59-60) remarks that one should learn from śāstra what are good and evil actions, give up evil deeds and perform good ones and that the king is hence declared to be the cause of (good or evil) times according as he does good or evil acts Śukra IV. 1, 60 states that the king is the prompter of his age

Though rājadharma was thus an integral part of dharma-śāstra and was one of the most important subjects therein, yet apart from the works on dharmaśāstra separate treatises dealing with rājadharma alone came into existence in very early times Śāntiparva (chap 59) states that originally in the Kṛta age there was no king nor punishment, that then moha (delusion), greed and lust entered men, that in order to provide against the complete destruction of dharma, Brahmā composed a work in one hundred thousand chapters on dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa (verses 30 and 79), that part of this work on Nīti (science of government) was abridged by Śankara Viśālākṣa (verse 80, and so it was called Vaiśālākṣa) into 10000 chapters, that Indra studied it and reduced it to 5000 chapters (and the work was called Bāhudantaka, verse 83), that it waś compressed into 3000 chapters by Bṛhaspati (and so was called Bārhaspatya) and that Kāvya (Uśanas) reduced the work to 1000 chapterṣ The Kāmasūtra (I 5-8) contains a somewhat similar story that Prajāpati composed a work in one hundred thousand chapters, that Manu abridged it as regards dharma, Bṛhaspati as regards artha and Nandi abridged in 1000 chapters the science of erotics The Śāntiparva (69) gives (verses 33-74) a summary of the contents of the work of Brahmā on rājadharma which remarkably agrees with the principal topics of the Kauṭilīya

The Nītiprakāśikā (I 21-22) states that Brahmā, Maheśvara, Skanda, Indra, Pracetasa Manu, Bṛhaspati, Śukra, Bharadvāja, Veda-Vyāsa, Gauraśiras were the expounders of Rājaśāstra, that Brahmā composed a work on rājaśāstra in 100000 chapters, which was gradually reduced in size by each of the above-mentioned founders until Gauraśiras reduced it to 500 chapters and Vyāsa to 300 The Śukranītisāra (I 2-4) states that Brahmā composed nītiśāstra in 100000 verses, which was subsequently abridged by Vasiṣṭha and others (including Śukra )

It is interesting to note the names given to the science of government The most appropriate word is ‘rājāśāstra’ and it is employed by the Mahābhārata, which speaks of Bṛhaspati, Bharadvāja and others as ‘rājāśāstra-pranetāraḥ’ (vide p 2 above) The Nītiprakāśikā (I, 21-22) also dubs the divine and human III ] writers on government ‘rājāśāstrāṇām pranetāraḥ.’ The same word is employed by such ancient classical writers as Aśvaghoṣa in his Buddhacarita (I. 46).³ The first verse in Prof Edgerton's reconstructed Pañcatantra performs obeisance to Manu, Bṛhas- pati, Śukra, Parāśara and his son and Cāṇakya as the authors of nṛpaśāstra (science of kingship) Another name is Daṇḍanīti. The Śāntiparva (59. 78) explains why Daṇḍanīti is so called viz ‘this world is led (on to the right path) by daṇḍa (the power of punishment, sanction) or this science carries (or sets forth) the rod of punishment; hence it is called daṇḍanīti and it (faces) pervades the three worlds’ In Śāntiparva 69. 76 it is stated that ‘daṇḍanīti controls the four varṇas so as to lead them on to the performance of their duties and when it is employed by the ruler properly, it makes them desist from adharma.’⁴ Śānti 63. 28 identifies Daṇḍanīti with rājādharmaṣ The Kautilīya (I. 4) explains ‘Daṇḍa is the means of the stability and welfare of Ānvīkṣikī, Trayī (the three Vedas) and Vārtā; the rules that treat of daṇḍa are called daṇḍanīti, which is a means of acquiring what has not been acquired, which safeguards what is acquired, which increases what is guarded and distributes (increased wealth) among the deserv- ing.⁵ The Mahābhārata says (Śānti 69. 102) that a wise kṣatriya, putting daṇḍanīti in front, should always desire to acquire what is till then unacquired and should guard what is acquireḍ⁶ The Nītisāra (II. 15) says that dama (control or chastisement) is called daṇḍa, the king is called ‘daṇḍa’ because control is centered in him; that the nīti (rules) of daṇḍa is called daṇḍa- nīti and nīti is so called because it leads (people).⁷ Śānti (69. 104) says that daṇḍanīti is the special concern of the kṣatriya (rājan). It is said in the Vanaparva 150. 32 that without daṇḍanīti this whole world would break all bounds Vide also Śānti 15,29, 63,28, 69,74 ff (eulogy of daṇḍanīti) daṇḍanīti is said to be the support of the world (Śānti 121 24) and to have been produced by Devī Sarasvatī (Śānti 122 25 )

Arthaśāstra has been a synonym for daṇḍanīti When the Āp. Dh. S. II. 5 10 16 requires the king to appoint as purohita a brāhmaṇa well-versed in dharma and artha, it is clear that Āpastamba has in view dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra The Anuśāsanaparva says that Bṛhaspati and others composed artha- śāstras (39.10–11) Droṇaparva 6 1 speaks of a science of artha composed by Manu (Mānavī arthavidyā) Vide Jayaswal in ‘Manu and Yājñavalkya’ (pp. 5, 7, 16, 25, 36, 41, 42, 50, 84 for Manu and Artha) Śānti (71 14) states that a king whose sole concern is with arthaśāstra does not secure dharma and kāma and that all the wealth of such a king vanishes in (the pursuit of ) improper objectṣ Vide Śānti 302 109 which speaks of artha- śāstra as resorted to by the best among kingṣ The Rāmāyaṇa (II 100, 14) states that Sudhanvā, Upādhyāya of Rāma, was an adept in arthaśāstra. The arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya starts with the statement that it is the quintessence of all the arthaśāstras composed by former teachers in the whole world and at the end Kauṭilya states that that śāstra which is a means of acquiring and guarding the earth is arthaśāstra This mentions two of the four objects of daṇḍanīti stated in the Kautiliya itself (as shown in n 8 above) Only two objects are mentioned by Kauṭilya (as in Śānti 69 102) since they are the first and principal ones to be gained by the practice of the science of government. It is not meant that there was, as regards the topics to be dealt with, any distinction between daṇḍanīti and Arthaśāstra. The four objects mentioned by Kauṭilya are always placed before the kṣatriya by Manu (VII 99–100), Śānti 102 57 and 140 5, Yāj. I 317, Nītisāra I 18 (while I. 8 mentions only two purposes of rājavıdyā) At the end (XV 1) Kauṭilya states ‘artha is the sustenance of human beings, that is, the earth peopled by men That śāstra which is a means of acquiring and guarding that earth is arthaśāstra ‘Men derive their sustenance from the earth and all wealth also arises from the earth. Mr Jayaswal (Hindu Polity p 5) is not right when he translates ‘Artha is human population ‘ Vide U Ghoshal’s ‘Hindu Political Theories’ p 74 n and p 76 for the various interpretations of this passage by Jayaswal and others Authors a few centuries later than both the Mahābhārata and the Kautiliya treat the two as III] identical. Dandin in his Daśakumāracarita (VIII.) expressly says that Visnugupta composed his work on daṇḍanīti for the Maurya king in 6000 ślokas, though the Kauṭilya states at the very beginning that the work is an arthaśāstra. Dandin in the same context refers to ‘Arthaśāstras as helping to polish the intellect’ and speaks of some of the predecessors mentioned by Kauṭilya as writers on the śāstra (viz. the Arthaśāstra).⁸ The Amarakośa treats the two as identical.⁹ Medhātithi on Manu VII. 43 holds that the word ‘daṇḍanīti’ therein refers to the works of Cāṇakya and otherṣ The Mitākṣarā or. Yāj. I 313 paraphrases daṇḍanīti by arthaśāstra and on Yāj. I 311 explains daṇḍanīti as the lore useful in the acquisition and guarding of wealth (only the two objects mentioned by Kauṭilya in connec- tion with arthaśāstra). According to the Sukranītisāra (IV. 3 56) ‘that is said to be arthaśāstra in which instruction about the conduct of kings and the like is given without coming in conflict with śruti and Smṛti and in which the acquisition of wealth with great skill is taught’.

The words arthaśāstra and daṇḍanīti are applied to the science of government from two different points of view. Artha is defined in the Kāmasūtra (I 20) as ‘education, lands, gold, cattle, corn, domestic utensils and friends and the augmenting of what is acquired’ (vide H. Dh. Vol II part I p. 9 note 22). Therefore when wealth and prosperity of all kinds is the spring and motive of giving a name the science treating of these is called arthaśāstra and when the government of the people and the punishment of offenders are the main ideas the same is called daṇḍanīti. Though works like Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra place a high value on dharma they are principally concerned with the treatment of central and local government, taxation, the employment of sāma and other upāyas, with alliances and wars, appointment of officers and punishment. Therefore Artha- śāstra is mainly what is called dṛṣṭārtha smṛti, as stated by the Bhavisyapurāṇa (quoted by Aparārka p. 626, the Smṛticandrikā p 24, vyavahāra and Vīramitrodaya, paribhāṣā p. 19). Medhā- tithi on Manu VII. 1 explains that dharma in that verse means 'duties' (dharmasabdah kartavyatāvacanaḥ), that the duties of the king are either dṛṣṭārtha (i e the effects of which are worldly and visible) such as as the employment of six guṇas (sandhi, vigraha &c ) or adṛṣṭārtha (that have no visible effect but have a spiritual result) such as Agnihotra; here (in chap VII-IX of Manu) the remarks relate principally to dṛṣṭārtha matters since it is well-known that the word rājadharma is appli- cable to such matters (the six guṇas &c ) only ¹⁰ Medhātithi here declares that the rules of rājanīti are not based on the canonical books of dharmaśāstra but principally on the experience of worldly affairs

Another name for the science of government is Nītiśāstra or Rājanītiśāstra Śānti¹¹ 59 74 says that in the nītiśāstra are set forth all those means whereby people are prevented from forsaking the right path The Nītisāra of Kāmandaka¹² (I 6) does obeisance to Viṣṇugupta who extracted the nectar of Nīti- śāstra from the vast ocean of Arthaśāstra (works). The Pāñca- tantra p 2 holds that Arthaśāstra and Nītiśāstra are synony- mous The Mitākṣarā on Yāj II 21 remarks that the arthaśāstra referred to by Yāj is rājanītiśāstra that is part and parcel of dharmaśāstra The word 'rājanīti' occurs in Raghuvamśa 17 68 Vide Bhagavadgītā X. 38, Āśramavāsikaparva 6.5, Manu VII 177, Śānti 111 73, 138,39, 43 and 196, 268 9 and Anuśāsana 163 7 for Nītiśāstra meaning Arthaśāstra or Rājanīti and Droṇa 152 29 and Śānti 37 9 for the word rājanīti Another noteworthy word is 'naya' which means 'line of policy' and is employed by the Arthaśāstra (I 2) when it says 'naya and anaya (bad policy) are treated of in Daṇḍanīti'. It is also used in several classical works, such as the Kirātārjunīya (II. 3, 12, 54, XIII. 17).

The relation of arthaśāstra to dharmaśāstra has now to be understood As stated above rājadharma is a very important subject of dharma-śāstra Arthaśāstra which is principally concerned with the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the ruler is therefore properly speaking a part of dharmaśāstra As shown above it is supposed to have like dharmaśāstra a divine source But works on arthaśāstra enter into great details about the government of a country in all its aspects, while dharmaśāstra works generally deal only with a few salient features of rājaśāstra Just as the Kāmasūtra (I. 2. 14) states that dharma is the highest goal and kāma is the lowest of the three puruṣārthas (vide H. Dh. vol. II part 1 p 9), so Arthaśāstra also sets the highest value on dharma. The Kautiliya states (III. 1. at end )¹³ 'In any matter where there is a conflict between dharmaśāstra and practices or between dharmaśāstra and any secular transaction, ( the king ) should decide that matter by relying on dharma. If śāstra comes in conflict with any rational and equitable rule then the latter shall be the deciding factor and the ( strict ) letter of the text will be nowhere'. But Kauṭilya and other writers on artha-śāstra lay the greatest emphasis on artha. In the eager and relentless pursuit of worldly prosperity means may be recommended or followed which may come in conflict with the strictly ethical standpoint of the dictates of dharmaśāstra. In such cases of conflict dharmaśāstra works lay down (e.g. Ap. Dh. 1.9. 24. 23, Yaj. II. 21, Nārada, vyavahāramātṛkā chap. I. 39 ) that dharmaśāstra rules are to be preferred to the dictates of arthaśāstra. Viśvarūpa (on Yaj. II. 21 ) states that according to some predecessors of his the conflict between the dictates of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra is illustrated as followṣ Manu VIII. 351 (which is the same as Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra V. 190 and Matsyapurāṇa 227. 116-117) when dealing with vyavahāra ( a subject that pre-eminently belongs to arthaśāstra ) provides that in killing an ātatāyinn, no fault attaches to the killer: while Manu XI. 89 in the chapter on prāyaścittas (which is pre-eminently a topic of dharmaśāstra ) states that no penance is prescribed (i.e. there is no prāyaścitta for removing the guilt ) when a person of set purpose kills a brāhmaṇa. The result is that the latter rule prevails and sin is incurred by killing a brāhmaṇa even if the latter be an ātatāyin (though there may be no punishment by the king). Viśvarūpa does not accept this illustratioṇ The Mitākṣarā also refers to this example, disapproves of it and gives its own example. The Arthaśāstra declares that a king should endeavour to secure friends, since the acquisition of friends is superior to the acquisition of gold and land (as is laid down in Yaj. I. 352). The rule of dharma-śāstra is that a king has to dispense justice, being free from anger and avarice and in accordance with dharmaśāstra. Therefore when a suit comes before a king he must decide it according to law, even though he may lose the friendship of a person if his decision goes against the latter. The Viramitrodaya follows the Mitākṣarā. Dharmaśāstra went by the name of smṛti (Manu II 10), while arthaśāstra was treated as an Upaveda. The Viṣṇupurāṇa III 6. 28, Vāyu 61. 79 and Brahmāṇḍa 35. 88-89 mention the four Upavedas ¹⁴ viz. Āyurveda, Dhanurveda, Gāndharvaveda and Arthaśāstra as affiliated to the four Vedas respectively viz., Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveda. Kauṭilya (I. 5) states that the king should listen to the recital of itihāsa in the latter part of the day and includes both dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra under itihāsa ¹⁵ and requires the minister know-ing arthaśāstra to advise the king (with examples and precepts derived) from itihāsa and purāṇa.

Though Arthaśāstra is in theory for keeping to the path of dharma, one cannot blink one's eyes to the fact that the Mahā-bhārata and the Kauțilīya both support in several places the adoption of means entirely divorced from all rules of fair deal-ing and morality. In Ādiparva 140 we have a discourse by Kanika said to have been a mantra of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and a pro-found student of Rājaśāstra, which is almost on the same lines as Śāntiparva chap 140 where Bhīṣma sets out what lines of policy (nīti) should be followed by the ruler in adversity and how he should give up all thoughts of kindliness in such straitṣ He is supposed to give up the substance of the dialogue between the sage Bhāradvāja and Śatruṃtapa, king of Śauvīra. The whole chapter is full of Machiavellian advice. A few specimens may be set out here. One should be very courteous in speech, but like a razor at heart (verse 13); one desirous of prosperity may fold one's hands, may take an oath, may use sweet words, place his head on another's feet and even shed tears, one may carry on one's shoulders one's enemy till one accomplishes one's object and when a fit opportunity arises should break him like an earthen pot on a stone (17–18) ; the king should raise hopes promising their fulfilment at a distant day, but should put obstacles in the fulfilment of the hopes raised in others (32) ; when one is reduced to a wretched state one may extricate oneself from it by any act whatever whether gentle or horrible and practise dharma after one becomes able to do so (38); one should inspire confidence in one's enemy by some means which appear to be true ( to the enemy ), but one should strike him down at the right moment when he takes a wrong step (44); whoever causes obstacles to the purpose of the king, whether son or brother or father or friend, should be killed by the king who desires to prosper (47); without cutting the vitals of others, without committing horrible deeds and without killing indiscriminately as the fisherman in the case of fish one does not secure high prosperity (50); when about to strike one should utter sweet words and even after striking one should use honeyed words; even after severing another's head with a sword one should lament and shed tears (54); if some remainder is left in the case of a debt or fire or enemies, there is a tendency to grow and so no remainder should be left of these (58) It is to be noted that this chapter deals specially with what should be done in difficulties and can- not be supposed to be the real teaching of the Mahābhārata which is generally in line with the higher code of dharma- śāstra It embodied probably the words of earlier arthaśāstra writers like Bhāradvāja. After hearing this discourse on calculated cruelty and deceit Yudhiṣṭhira stood aghast and frankly told Bhīṣma that the course of conduct outlined by him did not differ from that of robbers and that he felt bewildered and would not exert himself in the way pointed out In chap. 142 Bhīṣma replies to this by saying that he did not base his dis- course merely on the sacred texts, but also on reason and the essence was distilled by wise men, that the considered rule of conduct for the king is twofold, viz. straightforward and crooked, that one should not ordinarily employ the crooked course of conduct, but should employ it as against an enemy who employs a crooked policy and effectively meet him by such policy. He further says that rājadharma cannot be based on a single source (v. 7) and that policies are to be pursued not merely by reliance on the sacred codes of law but on reason as well (v 17) and that Indra himself has declared this rule which he derived from Bṛhaspati. In Śānti-parva a weak king is advised to harass a very powerful ruler's state by sword, fire and poisoṇ In chap 130 it is stated that the preservation of the state is the paramount consideration and that a king whose treasury is depleted and who is therefore in difficulties may replenish his treasury even by harassing his subjects (except tāpasas and learned brāhmaṇas). In chap 138 it is said that self-interest makes friends or foes and that aviśvāsa (putting trust in no one) is the grand line of policy for kingṣ So it is clear that the Mahābhārata was prepared to give up in certain circumstances the strict rules of dharmaśāstra for kings and to allow them to pursue devious modes of action that were far from moral i.e. it tries to effect a synthesis of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra.

The Kautilīya also discloses how arthaśāstra writers did not shrink from giving advice which, to say the least, was most cruel, selfish and immoral. For example, in the section called ‘guarding the prince’ (Kaut I. 17) the views of several teachers are set out. Bhāradvāja says that princes are of the nature of crabs eating up their parent; so it is better to finish them in secret when they have no love for their father. Viśālākṣa abhorred this advice as cruel, as unsanctioned murder and as destructive of the seed of kṣatriyas and recommended that it was better to keep them confined in a single spot. Vātavyādhi recommended that princes should be made addicted to sensual excesseṣ Kaut disapproves of this as living death (for the princes), recommends proper care before conception and after birth and instruction in dharma. In Kaut V. 6 Bhāradvāja is quoted as saying that when the king is on his death-bed, the minister may set up the kinsmen of the king and the principal princes against one another, that whoever attacks should be killed by inciting the people against him, or having secretly punished the kinsmen and chief princes and brought them under control, the minister should himself take possession of the kingdoṃ Kauṭilya does not approve of thiṣ But even he advises (XIV Aupanisadika) the employment of poison, herbs and incantations against those who are irreligious or wickeḍ In I. 18 even Kaut does not shrink from advising that secret emissaries (of the reigning king) may kill an abandoned prince with weapons and poison and in V. 1 Kaut remarks that, when a king cannot openly put down the principal courtiers or chiefs III J Rājadharma

who are dangerous to the kingdom, he may inflict punishment on them in secret or may induce the brother of the officer to be punished to attack the latter by promising to give him the posit-ion and wealth of the officer and then destroy that attacker with weapons or poison saying that he was guilty of fratricide. In V. 2 for replenishing a depleted treasury Kauṭilya coolly asks the king to deprive the temples in the kingdom of their wealth through the superintendent of religious endowmentṣ

Sanskrit literature on rājadharma is very extensive. Apart from the meagre materials contained in such ancient dharma-sūtras as that of Āpastamba, the following works deserve close study and have been utilized in this section; the Mahābhārata (Vanaparva 150, Sabhā 5, Udyoga 33-34, Śānti 1-130, Āśrama-vāsika 5-7), the Rāmāyaṇa (Ayodhyā, chap. 15, 67, 100; Yuddha 17-18, 63), Manusmṛti VII-IX, Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya (which is the leading work on rājadharma), Yāj I 304-367, Vṛddha-Hārita-smṛti chap VII. verses 188-271, Bṛhat-Parāśara chap. X.pp. 277-285, Viṣṇudharmasūtra III, the Nītisāra of Kāmandaka, Agnipurāṇa chap. 218-242, Garuḍapurāṇa 108-115, Matsya 215-243, Viṣṇu-dharmottara II, Mārkaṇḍeya 24, Kālikā 87, the Nītiprakāśikā attributed to Vaiśampāyana (ed by Oppert), Śukranītīsāra (ed by Jīvānanda, 1890), the Abhilasitārthacintāmaṇi or Mānasollāsa (first four viṁśatis) of Someśvara, Yukti-kalpataru of Bhoja, Nītivākyāmṛta of Somadeva (959 A. D ), Bārhaspatyasūtra (ed by Dr. F.W. Thomas), the Rājanītikāṇḍa of the Kṛtyakalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara (edited from a single ms by Jagadīś Lal Shastri at Lahore, 1942 ), Rājanīti-ratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara, Rājanīti-prakāśa of Mitramiśra, Nītimayūkha of Nīlakaṇṭha, Rājanīti-dharmakaustubha of Anantadeva, Budhabhūṣaṇa of Prince Sambhājī (between A. D. 1675-1680, ed by Prof. H D. Velankar), daṇḍanīti of Keśavapaṇḍita (edited by V.S Bendrey, Poona, 1943) In recent times there is a deluge of works mostly inspired by the publication of the Kautilīya dealing with ancient and medieval Indian polity in its various branches The most important of these and a few other works independent of Kauṭilya are mentioned in the note below. ¹⁶ It would be impossible to go into all details about Government and Politics within the space at my disposal What is III J

proposed is to indicate and dilate upon only the fundamental ideas and principles of the several matters falling under rāja- dharma. Nor is it possible to enter here into formal and lengthy refutations of the several views propounded by Western and Indian writers about the forms and functions of Government and the state of society in ancient India. Most of the modern works referred to in note 19 above are more or less based on the same material in Sanskrit and Pāli, but the emotional or subjec- tive element is different in each case. Some western writers have without very solid foundations indulged in a facile and sweeping generalization that the great Empires of antiquity such as those of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Medians and Persians and the Indians were mainly tax-gathering insti- tutions (vide Sir Henry Maine's ‘Early History of Institutions' 1875, pp. 384 and 390; and Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar's 'Ancient Indian Polity' 1935, pp. 5—6 and pp. 66–69 (where passages from T. H. Green and others are cited); while some Indian writers vehemently assert that the Government in An- cient India was always some form of limited monarchy. Both characterisations are in my opinion misleading An endeavour will be made to present from the original texts as true a picture of the polity of ancient and medieval India as it is possible for me to do. It will do no good to label the ancient institutions of India with concepts and terms current in the West during the last one hundred and fifty years or so. Even in the West true democra- cies or real democratic governments did not exist and the masses in no country had elective popular assemblies or councils before the last quarter of the 18th century. Such assemblies do not exist even now in several countries of Europe Even in the ancient Greek city states the number of slaves who had no voice in the government was several times as large as the free citizens and those states were no democracies at all in the strict sense. ¹⁸ Indian polity has a recorded history of over two thousand years from at least the 4th century B. C. Its growth was gradual but its aims and ideals and its main elements have been the same throughout the centurieṣ India need not feel ashamed or fear a comparison of its ideals and theories of State with the ideals and theories of western countries in ancient and medieval timeṣ If western countries could boast of so-called republics and city states in ancient Greece and Rome, India also had several republics in ancient timeṣ The ancient Hindus made their own contributions to political thought, though unfortunately Western scholars of the 19th century like Max Müller, Weber and Roth were concerned most with the Vedic and allied literature and either did not know or ignored the vast literature on politics contained in Sanskrit and Pali workṣ Vide 'Some Aspects of ancient Hindu Polity' by Prof D R Bhandarkar (1929) pp 2-3 for views of Max Muller and others and criticism thereof, also Dr Beni Prasad's 'Theory of Government &c' p 1, U Ghoshal ‘History of Hindu Political Theories' pp 3-4