5.3. Political Philosophy of Arthashastra Traditio

Indian Political Science Association
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ARTHASHASTRA TRADITION

Author(s): Ashok Chousalkar
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 42, No. 1 (January-March 1981), pp.
54-66
Published by: Indian Political Science Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41855076
Accessed: 28-06-2019 04:39 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Indian Journal of Political Science
This content downloaded from 182.74.133.197 on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 04:39:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
5
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ARTHASHASTRA

TRADITION
- Ashok Chousalkar
The arthashastra tradition is India's unique contribution to political

thought in the sense that it a furnished progressive alternative to the Indian
people in the 6th century b.c. and also developed political philosophy
which was rationalistic in essence and utilitarian in character. In the
present paper, an attempt is made to study some of the philosophical
positions of the arthashastra thinkers in the light of problems of their
society. The study is based on the material furnished in the arthashastra
of Kautilya and Mahabharata.
(1) Offshoot of the Intellectual ferment

The arthashastra tradition was an offshoot of the intellectual ferment
that took place in 6th century b.c.1 This intellectual ferment was deve-
loped in different Janapada states which emerged as the state organisation
due to complex social, economic and political development. They affor-
ded a good platform for the development of various schools professing
different doctrines.2 But the introduction of iron technology hastened the
development of agriculture and increased the competition between differ-
ent states. But in the competition, bigger states like Magadha and
Kosala ultimately succeeded in destroying smaller states because of their
superior state organisation and standing armies. They subjugated various
pastoral and food-gathering tribes and settled them in newly acquired
land.8 That was the beginning of feudal revolution in India when the
kings used amoral methods to get things done. Due to disorder in the
society, there emerged new schools of thought who questioned the bases
of old morality and condemned the traditional Brahmanical religion
based on sacrifices.
There existed many schools of thought at that time but they could be
narrowed down to the three 1) supporters of traditional Brahman religion
based on Yedic dogma and sacrifices 2) the anti-vedic religious teachers
like Gautam Buddha, Mahavira and Gosala 3) Lokayata and arthashastra
teachers. All of them were affected by the new social revolution but their
responses were different. Reactionary vedic school clung to its old ideas.
Mahavira and Gosala advocated that cause of total renunciation because
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ARTHASHASTRA TRADITION 55
for them the world was full of sorrow. Buddha did preach c
tive moral principles and wanted to evolve universal religion
deeply influenced by pessimism which had negative influenc
and practice of his religion. It is true that Buddha was
philosopher and personality India had produced, and his teach
had revolutionary potential, but due to lack of positive unde
the new age, he too indulged in discovering illusions of epoch
and renunciation.
As against these two schools, arthashastra teachers understood the
causes of new change and advocated that the forces of change should
be strengthened with the help of institution of state. Thus, the artha-
shastra teachers put forward a positive alternative before the people.
(2) Origin and meaning of arthashastra

Arthashastra means a science which deals with the problem of acquisi-
tion and maintenance of wealth. Kautilya defines it as follows, "the
source of livelihood of man is wealth, in other words, the earth in-
habited by men. The science which is the means of attainment and pro-
tection of that earth is the science of politics" (15.1.1). The sources of
livelihood are three - agriculture, cattle-breeding and trade. Acquisition
and development of these sources as a means to provide stability to state
and society is the main purpose of this science.
There is a lot of controversy over the date of origin of the tradition
because we do not have any authentic information about it. But it is the
opinion of Prof. R.P. Kangle that the tradition originated in the 6th century
b.c.4 It had very close relationship with Lokayata thinkers, therefore,
it was identified with them. Some scholars held the view that initially
Lokayata philosophy was completely identified with arthashastra .5 One
can find influence of the practices of the kings of that period in artha-
shastra thought.
Arthashastra tradition was developed by three sets of people - royal
priests, ministers of the kings and wandering teachers. The royal priests
considered it as an extension of their duty to develop political methods on
new grounds because the society had disengaged itself from influence of
the primitive magical formulae. They decided to develop principles of
royal policy as the secular science. Tradition informs us that two of the
most important arthashastra thinkers - Brihaspati and Ushanasa were the
royal priests. Ministers of the king had experience of day-to-day function-
ing of the state, therefore, they also contributed handsomely to the deve-
lopment of arthashastra. Kautilya, Dirgha Charayana, Jabala, Katyayana,
Ghotmukha and Kalaka-Vrikshia were the ministers, who left a stamp of
their practical experience on the tradition. The third set of teachers was
wandering ascetics who were cut off from the main body of society. They
had vast experience of this world and they used to discuss secular aspects
of life in their gatherings (Dighanikay, Vol. 1 p. 245). The teaching of
56 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
these teachers was based upon the experiences

established norms of morality. They built up the
basis. Buddha did not like their teaching. Therefo
'beastly.'6 That was an age of disorder and the tea
fables to illustrate their ideas because in that tra
beings were also behaving like beasts as it was the
we can discern three stands in the fabric of arthashastra tradition and
they contributed equally to the development of political theory in ancient
India.
There existed at least four major schools of arthashastra tradition:
Schools of Manu, Brihaspati, Ushanasa and Parashara. Along with them,
their existed several important teachers like Bharadvaja, Gaurishirasa,
Vishalaksha and Pishuna. But we have access to only one book on
arthashastra which is composed by Kautilya on the basis of works com-
posed by earlier teachers (1.1.1). The scope oí arthashastra te very wide
as the contents of the arthashastra show or description on the divine book
on dandaniti in Mahabharata indicates (12.59). The thinkers generally
deal with origin of state, duties of king, inter-state relations and adminis-
tration. The method of their study is more or less empirical.
(3) Methods of arthashastra

Arthashastra teachers carried out inductive investigation in the pheno-
menon of state, therefore, the arthashastra is called drishtartha smriti.
Medhatithi on Manu (VIII. 1) explains that the duties of the king are
drishtartha i.e. effects of which are worldly and visible. He thinks that
the rules of politics are not based on canonical works but principally on
, the experience of worldly affairs.8 It is difficult to believe that without
following the method of empirical investigation, the teachers could have
developed theories like seven elements of state and raja-mandala. The
method of observation, analysis and deduction were applied in respect of
political life. Dr Ghoshal is of the view that the method of science is
empirical but in Kautilya's arthashastra , it is supplemented by some
interesting application of historical method as the author occasionally
draws upon traditional history to justify his arguments.9 Drekmeir
thinks that the arthashastra thinkers follow the method of inductive
realism10.
There developed philosophy of reason (Prajnya darshan) in ancient
India and most of the leading thinkers believed in efficacy of reason.11
Prajnya or reason was important concept in ancient India as it tried to
show how with the help of rational faculty of mind, one should pursue
three ends of life - dharma , artha and kama.12 It is said that philosophy
of reason is developed with the help of empirical investigation of human
practices that are found in different families, villages and tribes. The
empirical knowledge is distilled with the help of reason. It is said that
this philosophy is 'Sansarinť- means one dealing with human affairs.
Artha is the main subject of this philosophy.38 It seems that

of arthashastra tradition is the gift of the philosophy of reason th
in ancient India.
The preceding discussion makes it clear that the epistemology of
arthashastra thought is based on rational empiricism and it is occasionally
supported by historical method. Deductive method was more appreciated
as the tradition was not favourably disposed towards arbitrary use of
induction, though induction based on practical experience was sometimes
allowed. This theory of knowledge was identical with the one developed
by the Lokayata philosophers.
(4) Relationship between philosophy and politics
The arthashastra tradition more or less borrowed its epistemology from

the philosophy of Lokayata. Lokayata philosophy did not believe in
concepts like rebirth, Karma , existence of God, caste system and divinity
of vedas because their efficacy could not stand the test of reason and
they were not amenable to sense perception. They argue that this world
is developed due to combinations of different elements and there is no
divine agency to influence its functioning. The world goes on due to
human action therefore we should rely on our human efforts.14 We shall
later show that even the arthashastra thinkers say so.
It is interesting to note that Kautilya visualises a close relationship
between philosophy and politics. He wants a young prince to study four
lores - philosophy, vedas, economics and politics. He is of the view that
the philosophies of Samkhya, Yoga and Lokayata constitute philosophy
or anvikshiki. We have already seen how philosophy of Lokayata influenc-
ed the arthashastra thinking. Like Lokayata, even original Samkhya
philosophy was an atheistic philosophy which believed in empiricism and
materialism. It was naturalistic or Swabhava vadi in its character which
had some important political and ethical implications. It is the opinion
of D. Chattopadhyay that the third school of philosophy mentioned by
Kautilya is nothing else but philosophy of Nyaya-Vaisheshika which is
known for its logical rigour.15 In fact, the word anvikshiki is borrowed
from that school as it is derived from root iksh or to probe and anvikshiki
proper means probing or after knowledge.
Out of Manu, Brihaspati and Ushanasa, only Kautilya wants to study
philosophy. He is of the view that the study of philosophy is necessary to
investigate what is spiritual good and evil in vedic lore, material gain and
loss in economics, good and bad policy and politics, as well as relative
strength and weakness of these three sciences, philosophy confers benefit
on the people, keeps the mind steady in adversity and prosperity and
brings about proficiency in thought, speech and action. Philosophy is
ever thought of as the lamp of all sciences, as the means of all action
and as the support of all laws and duties." (1.2.11-12) He further stresses
that continuous study of sciences with practice, helps the king to acquire
trained intellect, from intellect comes practical

practical application results self possession, such is
(1.5.16) Thus, the entire study scheme is drafted t
discipline or Vinaya which would make him steadf
adversity and prosperity. The Mahabharata
study philosophy and other sciences to understand
life.
(5) Arthashastra concept of dharma
Arthashastra teachers brought about change in the definition of dharma

which was based on the vedas and dharmashastra. The concept assumed
complex ideological character as teachers like Buddha and Mahavira gave
different meaning to the word which was loaded with vedic dogma and
Brahmanical pretensions. The dharmashastra school claimed that dharma
was based on vedas and it got empirically manifested in the practice of
Varnashrama system.
In Mahabharata, which contains distilled wisdom of ancient artha-
shastra, there is a clear attempt to disengage dharma from vedic dogma.
The epic thinkers try to relativise it by saying that dharma has to be judged
on the basis of human experience and reason. Time, place and object are
the three principles on which dharma and adharma are decided (12.79.31)
on the basis of these three norms, Yudhisthira made an attempt to analyse
the four sources of dharma - vedas, smritis , practices of wise and customs
of people and came to a conclusion that all these four sources fall short
as a desired norm because the duties in different ages differ. All the
declarations are not equally suitable for all time and the vedic teaching is
related to time and place. Smritis also face the same problem. Acts of
wisdom cannot be a criterion as we have to first make the definition of
wisdom and sometimes we see that the unwise acts bring merit to the doer.
Customs of the people are constantly changing because they are brought
into existence to cater to the particular needs of the people and as the
need is over, they fall into discontinuance (12.250.1-20) Yudhisthira wants
to point out that it is difficult to understand the true nature of dharma
with the help of preconceived formulation. Bhishma accepts most of his
arguments and declares that one should not follow practices of the ances-
tors simpîy because they are old and respected. One should follow dharma
based on reason (12.254.48-401).
In two different chapters in 'Shantiparva', the relativistic nature of
dharma is clearly brought out as Bhishma declares that when it is danger-
ous to speak truth, untruth should be spoken. One should first understand
circumstances under which he has to act and he should act unrighteously
if it helps the course of dharma. Dharma should be practiced after
evaluating its consequences because dharma sustains the society. There-
fore, to protect dharma, we should behave unrighteously with unjust
persons and righteously with the just (12.110).
In the second extract, which is more identical with the vie

shastra teachers, Bhishma says, "I do not instruct you regar
taught by vedas alone. What I have told you is the result of
and wisdom. This is the honey gleaned by learned people wi
of their intelligence. One cannot be successful in the worldl
life, with the help of one-sided morality" (12.140-3-5) Dharm
meanings because true wisdom has manysided facets, it is like
devious undercurrents, therefore, the wise king should not
and off-cited word of wisdom but furnish an altogether fresh fo
(12.140-8-9). He holds that the vedas cannot be interpre
reason and as Ushanasa has pointed out, we have to strike ri
between the two (12.140.20-22) It is the duty of Kshatriya to
who deserves to be killed and protect the lives of the pe
wretch among the Kshatriyas in whose kingdom, robbers go
ing the property of people as crows pick up little fishes
(12.140.26.33).
It is recognised that it is very difficult to draw a line between righteous-
ness and unrighteousness, but the appeal eventually is to the judgement of
wise man and not to brute majority or sheer prosperity.17 The wise
man should take the help of Vijnyana bala to understand the situation.
Vijnyana bala means strength ensuing from human experiences. It may
help the king to modify abstract rule of right in the light of exigencies of
practical experience (12.130.3) This principle is some sort of beacon light
and with its help, other actions can be judged or investigated. Rigid
norms of dharma should be qualified by considerations of expediency.
Because it is as difficult to know dharma as to find out the legs of snake.
One has to find out dharma like a hunter who spots wounded dear with
the help of its blood-stained footprints. The person trained in four scien-
ces should not find it difficult to understand the true nature of dharma
(12.130.19-20).
(6) Self-preservation is the fundamental duty
The relativistic concept of dharma is basically linked with fundamental

principle of arthashastra political thought which lays down that self-pre-
servation is the fundamental duty of individual.18 It is constantly harped
in Mahabharata that the state came into existence to prevent logic of fish -
an Indian version of state of nature. The people decided to accept the
authority of the king as the king promised them that he would protect
their lives (12.67,68). Kautilya also gives allusions to this theory (1.13.
3-4). The Indian concept of social contract is based on the fact that the
life of human being is a rare gift and should be properly utilised in the
pursuit of trivarga ideal of dharma , artha and kama. The institution of
state is a means to attain that purpose. Since the life of human being is
more important than anything else, no institution can claim a right over it.
It is forcefully argued that one should abandon everyth

preservation of self. Í5.37. 1 6).
In Mahabharata, there is a separate section on apaddh
at the time of calamities which advises the individual that he should save
his life at any cost. Vishvamitra stole flesh of a dog from the house of
an outcaste and argued that he was doing so for the sake of self-preserva-
tion as the human body is the base of all activities (12.139. 75-76). To
save his cheerless self, he had committed a sin but he had done so for per-
forming meritorious act in remaining life. Therefore, he said that his
action was not against the norms of dharma. With the help of two inte-
resting best fables, Bhishma tried to illustrate the same point saying that
one should forge friendship with enemies to save his life (12.136). In the
next chapter, he declares that one should not repose trust in those who
are not worthy of it. One should abandon bad wife, bad son, bad king
and bad country because one cannot get happiness from them as one cannot
repose trust in a bad friend, one cannot live happily with a bad wife and
one cannot get sources of livelihood in a bad country. That indeed is a
wife who speaks sweet words that indeed is a son who gives happiness,
that indeed is a friend in whom you can repose trust and that indeed is a
country where you can earn the livelihood. (12.137.89-94). It is said that
if the king does not offer protection and tries to oppress people they pre-
fer to stay in jungle than to stay under a tyrant.
Thus the arthashastra teachers argue that a wise person should use his
intelligence and save his self when fallen in distress irrespective of any
moral consideration because there is nothing greater than human life
(12.180.12).
(7) Preservation of state
It is not that the calamities befall on individuals only, they befall on

the state also and apaddharama section is composed to guide the king in
distress. It is accepted that calamity befalling on the state is more serious
and Kautilya elaborately discusses how the calamities be-falling on the
seven constituent elements of the state should be removed (8-1-2). But in
Shantiparva, Bhishma discusses broader problems regarding the duty of
king. It is recognised that the state can be said to be fallen in distress
when its treasury is completely spent, army is rebellious, ministers are not
trustworthy and he is attacked by his enemies. Bhishma tells Yudhishthira
to devise necessary means to retrieve the situation.19 He advises Yudhi-
shthira to collect money from different sources because the state is rooted
in treasury. With the help of treasury only, he can rearm his soldiers, estab-
lish order in the society and win friends (12.131). It is the power that
gives prop to dharma as wind gives prop to smoke or earth gives
support to creepers. But again power is based on money or treasury,
therefore, the king should strengthen his treasury which is the root of po-
wer. In fact, everything is based on power of the king because in absence
of it, men will prowl like wolves (12.132). Therefore, the king
get swayed by moral considerations because for a kshatriya
his job, dharma and artha ought to be clear outright issues
which there can be no subterfuge or camouflage as the current
ing of dharma does not admit of direct proof.20
Bhishma advises Yudhishthira that there is nothing like
friendship in this world as human relations are based on self-in
protect his self-interest the king can forge alliances with his
cause there does not exist separate order of friends and foes.
securing the desired end he should not repose any trust becau
of their friendship is over (12.136).
The most vicious advice is given by sage Bharadvaja - an
arthashastra teacher who declared that the king should always
datida ready to crush his enemies. He should not trust his
try to find out ways and means to kill them. When situation d
should carry his enemy on the shoulders but as soon as an opp
comes he should break him like an earthen pot. He should b
like a lion, conceal himself like a tortoise, think about financ
like a crane, sleep alertly at night like a wild beast, be suspici
crow, be far-sighted like a vulture and enter the enemy
like a'snake with ease and poise. He should sever the head of en
own hand and shed tears for him. He should take help of a
cherous means to kill his enemy. He must see that his enemy i
destroyed as remnants of fire, debt and foe always increase. I
son, brother, teacher or a friend come in his way, they shoul
There is no separate order of friends and foes as friendship d
one's strength. Bharadvaja declares that the king should first
his position and then behave according to norms of dharma (12
ma argues that this type of policy, which is stained with sin, sh
followed during the normal time but should be resorted to
emergency.
The teaching of Bharadvaja represents some extreme tendencies of the
early arthashastra teachers as he parades his unbriddled selfishness and
lacks saving grace of appeal to the necessity of state.21 But it must be
said that even in Kautilya's arthashastra several immoral and vicious
methods are suggested to exterminate the enemy. Brihaspati also tells his
king to clandestinely adopt different mechanism to kill his enemy (12.104).
Therefore, Prof. Kangle has rightly argued that we can find echoes of
this type of teaching in most of the books on politics and law in ancient
India.22
The preceding discussion makes it clear that for arthashastra teachers
preservation of state was more important than anything else, therefore,
Brihaspati declared that the king should kill a person, be he a teacher or a
friend, if he is working against seven elements of state (12.57. 5-6) The
state's interests were considered very important, therefore, it is argued that
to save a family an individual may be abandoned

family may be abandoned and to save a Janapada a
doned (5.126.48). Therefore, it is natural that they
considerations to enter into political argument. It w
triya's duty involves lot of injustice, therefore, or
cannot be applied to them. The royal authority stan
goals because a kshatriya acts to safeguard the liv
noteworthy that Kautilya, gave more important pl
king than to three other sources of law like veda
king to exploit religious feelings and superstitions of
his treasury but he himself should not believe in
should use them to establish his authority on firm f
After noting down the characteristics of political
tra , Drekmeier argued that the theory of reason o
thousands years ago in India.24 Philosophy of Samk
fication to disengagement of royal authority from m
all acts, if done in the spirit of disinterestedness, inc
doing it, not for his own advancement but for the welf
The teaching of arthashastra teachers reminds one of
of reason of state ( raison d'etre) when he declared t
natural forces, the state should exercise all the m
emerge successful. Politics has its own law, that of
Therefore, the state is subject only to its own mor
should exercise supremacy because of all the institu
ves highest place as through this institution only, w
the people. The problem of reason of state emerg
because there was a struggle between forces of cons
anarchy. At such a historical moment, Meineck a
always prevailed because the state has its own mo
religious bodies cannot exercise control over it.2
view that there were two faces of reason of state -
forces of anarchy and disintegration and angelic - t
people.
(8) The state and individual

Though there exist some principles of reason of state in ancient artha-
shastra political thought,28 there are some differences also and notable
among them is individual's right of self-preservation. This is so because
political theory of arthashastra is based on social contract which visualises
reciprocal relationship between taxation and protection. The Mahabharata
calls that king a thief who realises taxes from the people but does not pro-
tect them (12.137.96). It is constantly harped that the people accepted
authority of the king because he promised to outlaw logic of fish. The
individualistic nature of theory is clear enough when it is said that for the
sake of one's own self everything should be abandoned. But it must be
admitted that whenever there is a conflict between state and indiv

arthashastra theory heavily weighed in favour of state though i
individual to survive by abandoning the state. The state does no
the right of self-preservation to individual but the individual has
it by using intelligence.
The duties of the state are recognised as the most important b
is asserted that it is danda of the king that establishes order in t
(12.15). The state has to perform negative as well as positive f
Negative function consists in rooting out logic of fish from huma
Kautilya says that on the danda is dependent yoga-kshema of the
well as the orderly maintenance of worldly life (1 4 3-4). Danda
used with full consideration, if it is used properly; it endows th
with dharma , artha and kama. If it is used in anger or passion, i
even forest anchorites and wandering ascetics; then what to
householders, if it is not used at all, it gives rise to law of fishes
stronger swallows the weak in absence of weilder of danda (1
Therefore, Kautilya argues that danda should be used with the s
self-discipline (1.5.1).
The positive function of the state is to ensure yoga-kshema of
ple. Yoga means successful accomplishment of an object and
means undisturbed enjoyment of it.29 This can be done by develo
terial sources like agriculture, cattle breeding and trade of the st
sources of artha cannot be developed without human action,
arthashastra thinkers give important place to human endeavour.
In sum, the arthashastra thinkers want the state to ensure yog
of the people and prevent logic of fish and while performing
these duties, if there is a conflict between individual and state, they take
the side of state.
Lokayata and arthashastra

There is a close relationship between the Lokayata ethics and artha-
shastra politics as both of them stand for action and condemn the concept
of renunciation. Lokayata philosophers categorically argued that the life
of body-torturing ascetic and fraudulent priests duping simple folk deserves
nothing but condemnation. An ordered society is necessary for the
realisation of the aim of happiness. Arthashastra is a science which tells
how order should be maintained and material resources developed with
the help of human endeavour. Therefore, the Lokayata philosophers are
followers of arthashastra and ai///30 In Mahabharata, Draupadi makes an
impassioned plea to follow the path of human action and attain material
advancement (3.33). She claims that this is the view of Brihaspati. V.S.
Agrawala thinks that views expressed by Draupadi are, infact, views of
Lokayata philosophers. It may be said that when the country was flooded
with pessimistic doctrines, the school of Brihaspati advocated the cause
of action for the benefit of the people.81
As we have noted earlier, there are some similaritie

and arthashastra as both of them believed in rationa
utilitarian ethics. They believe in the utilitarian
needs and aspirations are the ultimate criteria of
arthashastra was not a homogeneous tradition as
different schools like the schools of Manu, Ushanasa, Parashara and
Brihaspati and thinkers like Manu compromised with the vedic tradition.
School of Brihaspati did not do so.32 But one finds in Kautilya' s artha-
shastra belief in efficacy of vedas, support to varna system and belief in
existence of God or Soul. Except schools of Ushanasa and Brihaspati,
other schools seem to have compromised with the vedic religion and in
the synthetic work of Kautilya, we find this compromise at its logical end.
It is the opinion of Dr A.D. Pant that Kautilya tried to bring together
the practical and utilitarian teachings of early arthashastra thinkers with
the moral and social principles of traditional Brahmanism. It seems that
Kautilya followed the school of Manu in this respect.33 Kautilya did so
because he had greater understanding and deeper historical experience of
functioning of state. He knew that the varna system had economic base
and with the help of vedic legitimacy, it would be easier for the king to
obtain regular obedience of the people. Therefore, he exhorted the king
to protect the institutions of varna , private property and family. This
compromise was responsible for watering down the radical content of
arthashastra theory.
The arthashastra thinkers were as important and capable thinkers as
the contemporary religious teachers34 because they rightly understood the
pace and direction of historical development and offered positive alter-
native to the people. They visualised establishment of stable society on
the basis of agriculture which was feudal in character. From this point
of view they can be considered as the precursors of feudal revolution in
ancient India. Their political philosophy was based on realism and there
were certain extreme views about the human nature which would make
Machiavelli blush. The tradition developed its political theory in the
transitional period when there existed anarchy and pitiless struggle among
humän beings for survival. It certainly resembled with logic of fish,
therefore, the illustrations from animal world abound, especially in the
teaching of Bharadvaja. But as H. Zimmer has pointed out, this type of
teaching which supported despotism of the king, was the result of disorder
in the society and whenever there is disorder in the society, we find the
echoes of this theory in practice.35
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Agrawala V.S. India as Known to Panini (second edition), Prithvi Prakashan,

Varanasi, 1963, p. 391.
2. Mishra, K.C. Genesis of Janapada, pp. 204-314, Journal of Bihar Research Society ,
Vol. 44, 1958.
3. Kosambi, D.D. An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Indian History (second edi-
tion), Popular, Bombay, 1973, 155-56.
4. Kangle R.P. The Kautilya Arthashastra - a Critical Study , Vol. Ill, University of
Bombay, Bombay, 1965, p. 11.
5. Dr. Tucci's opinion is quoted by D. Chattopadhyay - Lokayata (second edition)

People's Publishing house, New Delhi, 1973, p. 7.
6. Barua, B.M. A History of pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy , University of Calcutta,

Calcutta, 1921, pp. 349-50.
7. Zimmer H. Philosophies of India - Pantheon Books, New York, 1953, p. 90.
8. Kane P.V. A history of dhar mashast ras, Vol III, Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, Pune, 1931, pp. 7-8.
9. Ghoshal U.N. A History of Indian Political ideas , Oxford University Press, Bombay,
1959, p. 82.
10. Drekmeier C. Kingship and Community in Early India , Oxford University Press,
Bombay 1962, p. 90.
11. Agrawala V.S. Bharat-Savitri Vol. II (in Hindi) Sasta Sahitya Mandai, New Delhi,
1977, p. 60.
12. ibid. p. 60.

13. ibid . pp. 48-49.
14. Mittal K.K. Materialism in Ancient India , Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi
1975, pp. 57-58.
15. Chattopadhyay, D. "Indian Materialism" pp. 491-504, In New Indology- felicita-

tion volume presented to Dr W. Ruben. Ed. H. Kruger, Berlin, 1971.
16. Belvalkar S.K The Mahabharata (critical edition) Vol.15 Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, Pune, 1950, critical notes, pp. 938-39.
17. ibid. p. 939.
18. Ghoshal, U.N. op. cit., p. 233.
19. Agrawala V.S. Bharat-Savitri , Vol. Ill, pp. 108-111.
20. Belvalkar, S.K., ibid., p. 932.
21. Ghoshal, U.N. ibid p. 101.
22. Kangle, R.P. "Bharadvaja- an ancient Indian teacher of Political Science".

Bharatiya Vidya , Munshi felicitation Vol., Vols. 20-21, 1960-61, pp. 333-39. In this
article, Kangle made a comparative study of views of Bharadvaja expressed in
Mahabharata and Arthashastra and came to the conclusion that despite some
differences in their ideas, Bharadvaja, whose views found place in Mahabharata
and Arthashastra might be the same person.
23. Sharma, R.S., Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Political

(second edition), Motila! Banarsidass, Patna, 1968, pp. 192-
24. Drekmeier C. ibid., pp. 204-5.
25. Ruben, W. "The beginning of the epic Samkhyas" Anna

Research Institute , Vol. 37, 1956, pp. 174-89.
26. Krader, L. Formation of State - an Anthropological Stu

national Inc. London, 1968, p. 105.
27. Meineck, F. Machiavellism - Yale University Press, New

Meineck is considered as the philosopher of Fascism wh
reason of state to glorify the Fascist rule in Italy. It w
attempt to study the ideological role played by ancient In
the development of Fascist ideology in Germany and I
Sarkar, B.K. Indian Historical Quarterly , and Kaiidas N
pp. 650-54, Vol. I, 1925, pp. 545-60, 743-59, Vol. 2, 1926, p
28. See for detailed discussion, a paper by B.S. Rawat raison ďetre in Kautilya
read at All India Political Science Conference , Jodhpur, Dec. 1976.
29. Kangle, R.P. ibid. p. 118.

30. Mittal, K.K. ibid. p. 57.
31. Agrawala V.S. Bharat Savitri , Vol. I, p. 216.
32. Chousalkar A.S. 'Development and political thought of early arthashastra thinkers'
Journal of University of Bombay , Vol. 46, 1976-77, pp. 31-44.
33. Pant, A.D. in Introduction to Beni Prasad's, Theory of Government in Ancient India
(second edition), Central Book Depot, Allahabad, 1968, p. 39. Dr Pant's is the
first detailed study of arthashastra tradition which is yet to be published. Only
abridged version of his findings is published in the above introduction.
34. Kosambi, D.D. Ancient Indian Culture and Civilisation - A historical outline (second
edition), Vikas, New Delhi, p. 127.
35. Zimmer, H. ibid . He describes the behaviour of nations during the Second World
War with the help of beast fables from Mbh. pp. 87-127.
(1) All the references of Mahabharata are drawn from the critical edition of
Mahabharata published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune.
(2) The Kautilya arthashastra text and translation by R.P. Kangle is followed,
published by University of Bombay, Bombay 1962-66.

5.3. Political Philosophy of Arthashastra Traditio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.3. Political Philosophy of Arthashastra Traditio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indian Political Science Association

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ARTHASHASTRA TRADITION

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ARTHASHASTRA

The arthashastra tradition is India's unique contribution to political

(1) Offshoot of the Intellectual ferment

(2) Origin and meaning of arthashastra

these teachers was based upon the experiences

(3) Methods of arthashastra

Artha is the main subject of this philosophy.38 It seems that

(4) Relationship between philosophy and politics

The arthashastra tradition more or less borrowed its epistemology from

trained intellect, from intellect comes practical

(5) Arthashastra concept of dharma

Arthashastra teachers brought about change in the definition of dharma

In the second extract, which is more identical with the vie

(6) Self-preservation is the fundamental duty

The relativistic concept of dharma is basically linked with fundamental

It is forcefully argued that one should abandon everyth

(7) Preservation of state

It is not that the calamities befall on individuals only, they befall on

to save a family an individual may be abandoned

(8) The state and individual

admitted that whenever there is a conflict between state and indiv

Lokayata and arthashastra

As we have noted earlier, there are some similaritie

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Agrawala V.S. India as Known to Panini (second edition), Prithvi Prakashan,

5. Dr. Tucci's opinion is quoted by D. Chattopadhyay - Lokayata (second edition)

6. Barua, B.M. A History of pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy , University of Calcutta,

7. Zimmer H. Philosophies of India - Pantheon Books, New York, 1953, p. 90.

12. ibid. p. 60.

15. Chattopadhyay, D. "Indian Materialism" pp. 491-504, In New Indology- felicita-

21. Ghoshal, U.N. ibid p. 101.

22. Kangle, R.P. "Bharadvaja- an ancient Indian teacher of Political Science".

23. Sharma, R.S., Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Political

25. Ruben, W. "The beginning of the epic Samkhyas" Anna

26. Krader, L. Formation of State - an Anthropological Stu

27. Meineck, F. Machiavellism - Yale University Press, New

29. Kangle, R.P. ibid. p. 118.

31. Agrawala V.S. Bharat Savitri , Vol. I, p. 216.

You might also like