01 Introduction

RĀJADHARMA

( GOVERNMENT AND STATECRAFT)

CHAPTER I

Rajadharma has been a subject of discussion in works on dharmasastra from very ancient times. The Āp. Dh. S. II. 9.25.1 says “The general and special dharnus of all varṇas 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 ‘aman 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; Ap. 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 mapas 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, sūdras who do menial work for the higher castes (such as washing their feet), persons that are blind, deaf or dumb. Ap. 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 herdeman leaving his herd or negligently allowingHistory of Dharmasāstra

i voi.

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 Ap. briefly covers the whole field of rājam dharma. In the Sāntiparva of the Mahābhārata rājadharma is dealt with at great length in chapters 56-130 and to some extent in 131-17%. The Manusmrti also states at the beginning of chap. VII (1) that it will expound rājadharmas. 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 Bphaspati and Usanas. The Santi parva (58.1-3) names as expounders of rājaśūstra Bphaspati, Bharadvāja, Gauraśiras, Kavya, Mahendra, Manu Pracetasa and Visalākṣa. Sāntiparva (102.31-32 ) opposes the view of Sambara to that of acāryas’. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya mentions five schools (viz. those of the Mānavas, the Bārhaspatyas, the Ausa nasas, the Pārāsaras and the Ambhiyas), seven individual tea chers (V. 5, and I. 8) only once (viz. Bāhudantiputra, Dirgha Cārāyaṇa, Ghotamukha, Kaṇinka Bhāradvāja, Kātyāyana, Kin jalka, Pigunaputra,) and several times mentions the views of Bhāradvāja, Kauṇapadanta, Parāśara, Pisuna, Vātavyādhi, Viśālākṣa. Kautilya also cites at least 53 times the views of acāryas, almost in every case for dissent. Sānti 103.44 refers to a Bhāsya on rājasāstra. Is it possible to see in this a reference to one out of the bhāsyakāras indicated in the verse appended at the end of the Kautiliya or to the Kauṭiliya itself? Another fact indicative of the systematiza tion of the science of government is that in the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāyaṇa, Manu and Kautilya ideas expressed by numbers had already been stereotyped long before those works were written viz. such as saptāóga rājya (State with seven constituent elements ), ṣadguṇya (the six ways of policy viz. alliance, declaration of war &c.), three śaktis, the four upayas (sāma, dana, bheda, danda), astavarga, and pañcavarga (Manu VII. 155), the 18 and 15 tirthas (Sabhāparva 5.38). For detailed information

  1. Hught foran HAT E TEHT: Sana vai getih ga: 11 iterat u ra p arantaa FIT 10%. 31-32.

  2. दशपाचवर्षान्ससप, सस्पता। अधर्म त्रिवर्ग चविद्यास्तिमा रापण ॥ करयं fomfatter Theme i srutorato 100. 68-69. Tuo means the ton ,

Im]

Rajadharma

about the Rājaśāstras of Bșhaspati, Uśanas, Bhāradvāja culled from the Mahabharata 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 develop ment 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. Santiparva (63.25) states * know that all dharmas are merged in rājadharma; that rajadharmas 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. It was the king’s duty to see that the people in his kingdom acted according to the rules laid down in the smrtis for the several varṇas and āsramas, to administer justice and to interfere when his help was sought for by a pariṣad ( assembly of learned men) in enforcing the prāyaścitla (penance ) prescribed for various lapses. Vide Gautama x. 7-8, XI. 9-11, Ap. Dh. S. II. 5. 10. 13-16’, Vasistha 19. 1-2, Vispu III. 2-3, Narada (prakirnaka, 5-7 and 33-34), Santiparva 77.33 and 57.15, Matsyapurana 215.63, Markandeya 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 com prehended within itself all rules of ācāra, vyavahāra ( admini stration of justice) and prayascitta (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 country’. The Sukranitisara (I.

  1. एवं धर्मान राजधषु सर्वान्सर्वावस्थं संपलीनानिबोध । … सर्व विद्या राजधर्मषु युक्ताः सर्वे लोका राजधर्मे प्रविष्टा । सर्षे धर्मा राजधर्मप्रधामा । शान्तिपर्व 63. 25, 26, 29; राजमूला महाभाग योगक्षेमवृष्टयः । प्रजाहपाधयक्षेप मरणं च भयानि च ॥ तं त्रेता द्वापरं च कलिच भरतर्षभ । राजमूला इति मतिर्मम भारपत्र संशयः ॥ शान्ति 141.9-10; सर्वस्य जीवलोकस्य राजधर्मः परायणम् । शान्ति. 56. 3.

  2. आप.ध.. II. 5. 10. 18-16 तस्य चेन्छाबमतिमवरेन राजानं गमयेद । राजा पुरोहितं धर्मार्थकुशलम् । स बाह्मणालियुज्यात् । बलविशेषेण पधदास्यवर्ज निपमेप शोषयेत् ।

  3. कालो वा कारण राज्ञो राजा पा कालकारणम् इति वे संशयो मा एमाजा कालस्य कारणम् ॥ उयोग 132. 16 and शान्ति 69. 79; हतं प्रेता द्वापरं । कालिब भरतर्षभ । राजाचानि सर्वाणि राजैव युगमुच्यते ॥ … राजैव कर्ता भूतानां राजैव च पिनाशकः । शान्ति. 91.6ands; पत्र संमहोत धर्म राजर्षिसेविते । लोकस्य संस्थान भवेत्सर्व ज्याकुलीभवेत् । शान्ति. 56.6% युगमवर्तको राजा धर्माधर्मप्रशिक्षणार । युगाना न प्रजानां न पोका किन्द सपस्य नीतिसार IV. 1.60. . .

[Vol.

59-60 ) remarks that one should learn from sastra 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. Sukra 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. Santiparva (chap. 59 ) states that originally in the Kr̥ta 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, kānia and mokṣa (verses 30 and 79); that part of this work on Niti (science of government) was abridged by Śhaṅkara Vitālākṣa (verse 80, and so it was called Vaigalaksa) into 10000 chapters, that Indra studied it and reduced it to 5000 chapters (and the work was called Bahudantaka, verse 83), that it was compressed into 3000 chapters by Bșhaspati (and so was called Bārhaspatya) and that Kāvya (Uśanas) reduced the work to 1000 chapters. 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 Sāntiparva (69) gives (verses 33-74) & summary of the contents of the work of Brahmā on rājadharma which remarkab ly agrees with the principal topics of the Kauṭiliya.

The Nitiprakāśikā (I. 21-22 ) states that Brahma, Maheśvara, Skanda, Indra, Prācetasa Manu, Brhaspati, Sukra, Bhāradvāja, Veda-Vyāsa, Gaurasirag were the expounders of Rājaśāstra, that Brahma composed a work on rājaśāstra in 100000 chapters, which was gradually reduced in size by each of the above mentioned founders until Gaurasiras reduced it to 500 chapters and Vyāsa to 300. The Sukranitisāra (I. 2-4) states that Brahma composed nitiśāstra in 100000 verses, which was subsequently abridged by Vasiṣtha and others (including Sukra).

It is interesting to note the names given to the science of government. The most appropriate word is rājaśāstra’ and it is employed by the Mahabharata, which speaks of Bphaspati, Bharadvāja and others as ‘rājaśāstra-pranetāraḥ’ (vide p.% above). The Nitiprakaśika (I. 21-22) also dubs the divine and human

III)

Rajadharma

writers on government ‘rājaśāstrāṇām. pranetāraḥ.’ The same word is employed by such ancient classical writers as Aśvaghoṣa in his Buddhacarita (I. 46). The first verse in Prof. Edgerton’s reconstructed Pañcatantra performs obeisance to Manu, Bṛhas pati, Sukra, Parāśara and his son and Canakya as the authors of nṛpaśāstra (science of kingship). Another name is Dandaniti. The Sāntiparva (59.78) explains why Dandaniti is so called viz. this world is led (on to the right path) by danda (the power of punishment, sanction) or this science carries (or sets forth) the rod of punishment; hence it is called dandaniti and it (faces) pervades the three worlds.’ In śāntiparva 69.76 it is stated that ‘Dandaniti 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.’? Santi 63. 28 identifies Dandaniti with rajadharmas. The Kauṭiliya (I. 4) explains ‘Dagda is the means of the stability and welfare of Anviksiki, Trayı (the three Vedas) and Vārtā; the rules that treat of danda are called dapdaniti, 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. The Mahābhārata says (Santi 69. 102 ) that a wise ksatriya, putting dandaniti in front, should always desire to acquire what is till then unacquired and should guard what is acquired. The Nitisāra (II. 15) says that dama (control or chastisement) is called danda, the king is called ‘danda’ because control is centered in him; that the niti (rules) of danda is called danda niti and niti is so called because it leads (people).’”* Sānti(69. 104) says that dandaniti is the special concern of the ksatriya (rājan). It is said in the Vanaparva 150. 32 that without Dapdaniti this

  1. यहाजशानं भृगुरकिरा वान चक्रतुशकरावी तो ॥ तयोः मुसोतोच ससर्जत FLYTTET UT EFFORT Tata I. 46.

  2. वण्डेन नीयते चेदं व नयतिमा पुनः । दणीतितिति ख्याता श्रीलकामभिव at it snifaqe 59.78; quentia: fantamargo faneuf 1 ST FOR AT

Tuset firqeua ti a. 69. 76. Funt: is in the dative and superar in the ablative.

  1. walmiraterat ornar por: #1.aporalfa: 1 sety THIOF erritmot prerafaat u niet afarratil supru 1.4 (p. 9).

  2. दण्डनीति पुरस्कृत्य विजानन क्षत्रिया सदा। अमवा व लिप्सेव लग्धं व परि TASUT STR. 69.10%.

  3. VE TUIHRECHTEVE 1978: I mu free wife when firreau of TT II. 15 and y. I. 157 (latter reading AFATEORI &o.)

(Vol.

whole world would break all bounds. Vide also Śānti 15,29, 63.28, 69.74 ff (eulogy of Dandaniti). Dandaniti is said to be the support of the world (Sānti 121.24) and to have been produced by Devi Sarasvati (Santi 122.25.)

Arthaśāstra has been a synonym for dapdaniti. 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 Apastamba has in view dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra. The Anuśāsanaparva says that Bphaspati and others composed artha sāstras (39.10-11). Dronaparva 6,1 speaks of a science of artha composed by Manu (Mānavī arthavidyā). Vide Jayagwal in

Manu and Yājñavalkya’ (pp. 5, 7, 16, 25, 26, 41, 42, 50, 84, for Manu and Artha). Sānti (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 objects. Vide Sānti 30%. 109 which speaks of artha sāstra as resorted to by the best among kings. The Rāmāyana (II. 100.14) states that Sudhanvā, Upādhyāya of Rāma, was an adept in arthaśāstra. The arthasāstra of Kautilya starts with the statement that it is the quintessence of all the arthagāstras composed by former teachers in the whole world and at the end Kautilya states that that sāstra which is a means of acquiring and guarding the earth is arthaśāstra. This mentions two of the four objects of dandaniti stated in the Kauṭiliya itself (as shown in n.8 above). Only two objects are mentioned by Kautilya (as in Santi 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 diṣtinction between Dandaniti and Arthagāstra. The four objects mentioned by Kautilya are always placed before the kṣatriya by Manu (VII. 99-100), śānti 102. 57 and 140.5, Yaj. I. 317, Nitisāra I. 18 ( while I. 8 mentions only two purposes of rājavidya). At the end (XV. 1) Kautilya states’ artha is the sustenance of human beings, that is, the earth peopled by men That gāstra which is a means of acquiring and guarding that earth is arthasāstra.’ 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 V. 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 Mahabharata and the Kauṭiliya treat the two as

holds that the others. The Mitakse

311 explains

II)

Rājadharma

identical. Daṇdin in his Dasakumaracarita (VIII.) expressly says that Viṣṇugupta composed his work on dandaniti for the Maurya king in 6000 ślokas, though the Kautillya 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 Kautilya as writers on the śāstra (viz. the Arthaśāstra )." The Amarakośa treats the two as identical, 12 Medhātithi on Manu VII. 43 holds that the word ‘Dandaniti’ therein refers to the works of Canakya and others. The Mitāksarā or. Yāj. I. 313 paraphrases dandaniti by arthasāstra and on Yaj. I. 311 explains dandanīti as the lore useful in the acquisition and guarding of wealth (only the two objects mentioned by Kautilya in connec tion with arthasāstra ). According to the Sukranitisāra (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 Sruti and Smṛti and in which the acquisition of wealth with great skill is taught’.

The words arthaśāstra and dandaniti are applied to the science of government from two different points of view. Artha is defined in the Kāmasutra (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 dapdaniti. Though works like Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra place a high value on dharma they are principally concerned with the treatment of central and local government, taxation, the employment of sama and other upāyas, with alliances and wars, appointment of officers and punishment. Therefore Artha gāstra is mainly what is called drṣtartha smrti, as stated by the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (quoted by Aparārka p. 626, the Smṛticandrikā p. 24, vyavahāra and Viramitrodaya, paribhāṣā p. 19). Medha tithi on Manu VII. 1 explains that dharma in that verse means

  1. Juhen angefore rarpretarerfigtha Atut ETH: 15 RUS: ATI …… OTO # **: TIHTTUATO: FRITT Frar STUTETTU: &0.19919ATUITE VIII. pp. 131 and 133 (B.S. Series edition).

  2. sppdret grafica paraarurumont: 1 Tata (starief). Hitta स्वामी derives ‘दम्यतेनेन दमनं वा व सनीयते बम्प प्रति प्राप्यते पया सादा #ifaruri

I vol.

  • duties’ (dharmaśabdaḥ kartavyatāvacanaḥ), that the duties of the king are either drstārtha (i. e. the effects of which are worldly and visible) such as the employment of six gunas (sandhi, vigraha &c.) or adrstārtha (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 drstārtha matters since it is well-known that the word rājadharma is appli cable to such matters (the six guṇas &c.) only.13 Medhātithi here declares that the rules of rājaniti are not based on the canonical books of dharmaśāstra but principally on the ex perience of worldly affairs.

Another name for the science of government is Nitiśāstra or Rajanitisāstra. Sānti" 59.74 says that in the nitiśāstra are set forth all those means whereby people are prevented from forsaking the right path. The Nitisara of Kamandaka’s (I. 6) does obeisance to Viṣṇugupta who extracted the nectar of Niti gāstra from the vast ocean of Arthasāstra (works). The Pañca tantra p. 2 holds that Arthaśāstra and Nitiśāstra are synony mous. The Mitākṣarā on Yāj. II. 21 remarks that the arthaśāstra referred to by Yāj. is rājanitiśāstra that is part and parcel of dharmasastra. The word ‘rājaniti’ occurs in Raghuvamsa 17.68. Vide Bhagavadgita X. 38, Aśramayāsikaparva 6.5, Manu VII. 177, Sānti 111, 73, 138,39, 43 and 196, 268,9 and Anusāsana 163.7 for Nitiśāstra meaning Arthaśāstra or Rājaniti and Drona 152,29 and Santi 37.9 for the word rājaniti. Another noteworthy word is ’naya’ which means ’line of policy’ and is employed by the Arthaśāstra (1.2) when it says’naya and anaya (bad policy) are treated of in Dandaniti’. It is also used in several classical works, such as the Kirātārjuniya (II. 3, 12, 54, XIII. 17).

The relation of arthagāstra to dharmaśāstra has now to be understood. As stated above rājadharma is a very important subject of dharma-śāstra. Arthasāstra which is principally concerned with the rights, privileges and res ponsibilities of the ruler is therefore properly speaking a part of dharmaśāstra. As shown above it is supposed to have

  1. WATTE: TOTT $37 … veru TUTTE I Hear भनिहोत्रादि । तह प्राधान्यन स्वार्थ उपदिश्यते । तत्रैव च राजधर्मप्रसिद्धिः । Avi ON AE VII. I.

  2. Wariant

og

aret e forta ht. 59,74.

  1. fetaressad prarandagen etter i gang med Premiera torta TRENIRET 1.6.

DI )

Rajudharma

like dharmaśāstra a divine source. But works on arthasāstra 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 Kamasutra (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 Kauṭiliya states (III. 1. at end) ‘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 Kautilya and other writers on artha Bāstra 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 confict 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, vyavahāramātrkā, chap. I 39 ) that dharmaśāstra rules are to be preferred to the dictates of arthasāstra. Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. II. 21 ) states that according to some predecessors of his the conflict between the dictates of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra is illustrated as follows. Manu VII. 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 ātalāyin, no fault attaches to the killer: while Manu XI. 89 in the chapter on prayascittas (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 atatāyin ( though there may be no punishment by the king ). Viśvarūpa does not accept

16, Ura VATTO A PATRATE I ARAW forrer vitori विनिमपेत् ॥शा विमतिपत धर्मम्यान केनचित् । म्पायस्ता प्रमाण स्यात्तत्र पाहि oppofaunasta III. 1. p. 150. Prof. K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar gives two in consistent translations of the e verser at pr. 54, 170 of his . Ancient Indian

Polity’ (1935). WA HA" unde va UTATE PHAN #T hafiffifemra IX. 7. D. 362.

10

[Vol.

this illustration. The Mitakṣarā also refers to this example, disapproves of it and gives its own example. The Arthasāstra 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 Yāj. I. 352). The rule of dharma Gāstra is that a king has to dispense justice, being free from anger and avarice and in accordance with dharmaśāstra. There fore 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 smrti (Manu II. 10), while arthasāstra was treated as an Upaveda. The Viṣṇupurāṇa III. 6. 28, Vāyu 61.79 and Brahmānda 35. 88-89 mention the four Upavedas 1 viz. Ayurveda, Dhanurveda, Gandharvaveda and Arthasāstra as afiliated to the four Vedas respectively viz. Rgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveda. Kautilya (15) states that the king should listen to the recital of itihāsu in the latter part of the day and includes both dharmasastra and arthaśāstra under itibāsa’ 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 Maha bhārata and the Kauṭiliya both support in several places the adoption of means entirely divorced from all rules of fair deal ing and morality. In Adiparva 140 we have a discourse by Kaṇika said to have been a mantrin of Dhrtarāstra and a pro found student of Rājaśāstra, which is almost on the same lines as Santiparva chap. 140 where Bhiṣma sets out what lines of policy (niti ) should be followed by the ruler in adversity and how he should give up all thoughts of kindliness in such straits. He is supposed to give the substance of the dialogue between the sage Bhāradvāja and Satruntapa, king of Sauvira. The whole chapter is full of Machiavellian advice. A few speci mens 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

  1. strgaten werdent partiet i 79: 1 streetrei agit fur marante # Aggtra III. 6. 28 quoted by mu p. 6.

  2. aparataste wat graft Pere paraqiteteru mwada arhii nitate I. 5. p. 10.

W

III )

Rajadharma

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 honoyed 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 sastra. It embodied probably the words of earlier arthaśāstra writers like Bhāradvāja. After hearing this discourse on calculated cruelty and deceit Yudhisthira ‘stood aghast and frankly told Bhisma 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 Bhisma 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 well12

[Vol.

(v. 17 ) and that Indra himself has declared this rule which he derived from Bphaspati. In Sānti-parva a weak king is advised to harass a very powerful ruler’s state by sword, fire and poison. 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 diffi culties 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 kings. 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 Kautillya 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’( Kauṭ. 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 ksatriyas and recommended that it was better to keep them confined in a single spot. Vātavyādhi recommended that princes should be made addicted to sensual excesses. 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 kingdom. Kautilya does not approve of this. But even he advises (XIV Aupaniṣadika ) the employment of poison, herbs and incantations against those who are irreligious or wicked. 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 ā king cannot openly put down the principal courtiers or chiefs

III)

Rājadharma

13

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 Kautilya coolly asks the king to deprive the temples in the kingdom of their wealth through the superintendent of religious endowments.

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, Sānti 1-130, Āśrama vāsika 5-7), the Rāmāyana (Ayodhyā, chap. 15, 67, 100; Yuddha 17-18, 63), Manusmrti VII-IX, Arthaśāstra of Kautilya ( which is the leading work on rājadharma), Yāj. I. 304-367, Vṛddha-Hārita smrti chap. VII. Verses 188-271, Bṛhat-Parāśara chap. X.pp. 277-285, Viṣṇudharmasūtra III, the Nitisara of Kamandaka, Agnipurāga chap. 218-242, Garuḍapurāpa 108-115, Matsya 215-243, Vispu dharmottara II, Mārkaṇdeya 24, Kālikā 87, the Nitiprakāśikā attributed to Vaiśampāyana ( ed. by Oppert), Sukranitisāra ( ed. by Jivānanda, 1890), the Abhilaṣitārthacintāmaṇior Mānasollāsa (first four vimśatis ) of Someśvara, Yukti-kalpataru of Bhoja, Nitivākyāmrta of Somadeva ( 959 A, D.), Bārhaspatyasūtra (ed. by Dr. F.W. Thomas), the Rājanitikāṇda of the Kr̥tyakalpataru of Lakṣmidhara ( edited from a single ms. by Jagadish Lal Shastri at Lahore, 1942 ), Rājaniti-ratnākara of Capdeśvara, Rājaniti prakasa of Mitramiśra, Nitimayūkha of Nilakantha, Rāja. dharmakaustubha of Anantadeva, Budhabhūṣana of Prince Sambhāji (between A. D. 1675-1680, ed. by Prof. H.D. Velankar), Dandaniti of Keśavapaṇdita (edited by V. S. Bendrey, Poona, 1943). In recent times there is a deluge of works mostly inspired by the publication of the Kauṭiliya dealing with ancient and medieval Indian polity in its various branches. The most important of these and a few other works independent of Kautilya are mentioned in the note below. 18

  1. Some parts of the Santiparva may be later than Kāmandaka’s work, since santi ( 123. 11-12) refers to the dialogue of Kāmandaka and Angaristba king of Anga. But it need hardly be said that it is not absolutely necessary to hold that the extant Nitisāra of Kamandaka is referred to by sāntiparva.

( Continued on next page)

[Vol.

It would be impossible to go into all details about Govern ment and Politics within the space at my disposal. What is

(Continued from last page)

The reference may be only to a legend. The modern works referred to above aro:- Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity* (1935) and ‘Rājadbarma (1941) by Rao Bahadur K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar ; ‘The Nature and grounds of political obligation in the Hindu state’ by J. J. Anjāria (1935) : * Development of Hindu polity and Political Theories’ (Calcutta, 1929 ) by N. C. Baodopadhyaya; " Public Administration in Ancient India" (1916) by Dr. P. N. Baanerjea ; ‘Some Aspects of ancient Hindu Polity’ (1921) by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar: ‘The theory of Government in Ancient India’, (1927) and The State in Ancient India’ (1928) by Dr. Beni Prasad : ‘Buddbist India’ (1903) by Rhys Davids; * Hindu Administrative Institu tions (Madras, 1929) and ‘Mauryan Polity’ (Madras, 1932) by Prof. V. R. Ramchandra Dikshitar : History of Hindu Political Theories’ (2nd ed, Calcutta, 1927) by U. Ghosbal; Prof. E. W. Hopkins’ ‘Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India ’ in Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. XIII. pp. 57-372; ‘Hindu Polity’ (1924 ) by K. P. Jayaswal ;

• Administration and Social Life under the Pallavas’ (1938) by Dr. C. Minakshi; ‘Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity’ (vol. 1, 1914 ), ‘Inter-state Relations in Ancient India’ (London, 1920), ‘Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity’ (Oxford, 1921 ), ‘Studies in Indian History and Culture’ (1925) by Dr. Narendranath Law; ‘Corporate Life in Ancient India’ (Calcutta, 1919) by Dr. R. C. Majmudar ; ‘Local Goveroment in Ancient India’ (1919) by Dr. Radbakumud Mukerjee : Study in the Economic condition of Ancient India’ by Dr. Pran Nath; ‘Positive Background of Hindu Sociology’ (Allahabad, 1914) and ‘The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus’ (1922) by Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar ; Sovereignty in Ancient Hindu Polity’ by Dr. H. N. Sioba (London, 1938) : ‘International Law in Ancient India’ by Prof. S. V. Viśvanatban. I have to make general acknowledgments to these works for much useful information, particularly to those of K. P. Jayaswal and N. N. Law. For a list of Mss. on Polity or its sub-topics, vide N. N. Law’s articles in Modern Review for October 1917 to January 1918 and March and June 1918 and for a list of available Mss. and printed works on ‘Vārtā’ (economics ) vide the same writer’s Studies in Indian History and Culture’ pp. 384 ff. In my treatment of rājadharma I have generally restricted myself to data derived from Sanskrit works on dharmaśāstra and arthasastra and have rarely ventured into works in Pāli. Similarly it has to be borne in mind that the works referred to cover a period of several centuries and further that In dia is not one country but a continent of wbich northern India formed one more or less homogeneous unit, while the Deccan formed another and South India formed a third unit. The institutions of these, particularly of the last of the three differ in many particolars from those of the other two. But the authentic data furnished by South India aro later by centuries than thoso supplied by the north and besides are comparatively meagre. Therefore in this work one has to confine oneself principally to Sanskrit works composed in North India or the Deccan.

III)

Rajadharma

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 iudulged 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. 198 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 centuries. India need not feel ashamed or fear

  1. Berolzheimer in ’the World’s Legal Philosophies’ (tr. by Jastrow, New York, 1929) p. 62 remarks ‘Plato approved of slavery unreservedly, finding it & necessary condition for the maintenance of the proper status of the citizen…. Thus in the maritime and industrial states there was a large slave class; in Corinth, 460000; Aegina, 470000; la Attica (according to the consus of 309 B, C.) 400000’,

I Vol.

a comparison of its ideals and theories of State with the ideals and theories of western countries in ancient and medieval times. If western countries could boast of so-called republics and city states in ancient Greece and Rome, India also had several re publics in ancient times. The ancient Hindus made their own contributions to political thought, though unfortunately Western scholars of the 19th century like Max Mūller, 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 works. Vide ‘Some Aspects of ancient Hindu Polity’ by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (1929) pp. 2-3 for views of Max Mūller and others and criticism thereof, also Dr. Beni Prasad’s “Theory of Government &c.’ P. I, U. Ghoshal History of Hindu Political Theories’ pp. 3-4.