How rulers must conduct:
Lessons from ancient India
Dr Murli Manohar Joshi
If some one wants to know how
India was governed in ancient
times and what were the
principles on which the
governance was based then,
one should turn to the two
epics, Valmiki's Ramayan and Vyasa's
Mahabharat and Kautilya's Arthashastra.
These three can be considered as the
iconic sources for understanding India's
political tradition and basics of
governance. In this article attempt will
be made to identify the principles of
governance in each of these texts as they
stand today.
Ramayana
It is well recognized that the two
epics have deeply influenced the
social, cultural, political and moral
aspects of Indian life and thought. 'The
Ramayan and Mahabharata are', says
Swami Vivekanand, 'the two
encyclopaedias . . . . portraying an ideal
civilization which the humanity has yet to
aspire.'
Ramayana is a kavya and not a text
book on hard statecraft. Its aim is to
present its hero 'Rama' as an ideal
person. Valmiki, through the conduct
and responses of Rama brings to us, how
while facing a number of challenges and confusing and complicated situations
Rama could successfully tide over
them and that too without deviating
from the highest principles of Maryada
based on Dharma.
The Ramayana is not
only a very fine
specimen of poetic art
but also a strong votary
of righteousness in a
king (state) who should
observe sadachar
(ideals of good
conduct). He should
govern according the
principles of eternallaw
(sanatana-dharma) .
Decision-making
The Ramayana is not only a very fine
specimen of poetic art but also a
strong votary of righteousness in a
king (state) who should observe
sadachar (ideals of good conduct). He
should govern according the principles
of eternal-law (sanatana-dharma).
The king, according to Valmki,
cannot be a despot. We find in
Ramayan the king consulting
ministers, learned men and the
principal officers of the army in
shaping the policy of the State. Not
only this, but a wider consultation with
the people from different parts of land
was held.
The Ramayana is not
Freedom of
expressison and
participation in frank
discussions on
important matters
related to the state by
the people was treated
as basic for a righteous
governance by the king.
Ramayana indicates that free
expression of opinion was invited in
such assemblies. As an example, for
finalizing Rama's installation as heirapparent,
Dasaratha invited an
exceptionally large gathering.
Announcing his intention of retiring
from administration, he said, 'If what I
have proposed is proper' and is to your
liking, do you accord approval to it,
and advise me as to what else I am to
do and in what manner'. He then
invited free discussion for obtaining
dispassionate decisions. Even when
the leaders, and the citizens took
counsel together and gave their
unanimous support, the king wanted
to make them think a second time and
so he spoke again as if he had not
known their minds.
'You have wished for Rama', said he,
'as soon as you have heard my speech.
This raises doubts in my mind. Do you,
therefore, speak out your minds truly?
Why, while I am righteously ruling the
land, do you wish to see my son
installed?'
Thus, the freedom of expressison
and participation in frank
discussions on important matters
related to the state by the people
was treated as basic for a righteous
governance by the king.
It would be interesting to note that
the epic describes that even Ravana as
an obstinate and wilful ruler allowed
free discussion in his assembly; where
not only Bibhisana but also
Kumbhakarna vehemently criticized
his conduct towards Sita. Says
Kumbhakarna in a blunt and fearless
manner. 'all this that thou hast done',
says he to Ravana, 'is not worthy of
thee.'
Welfare policies
The main feature of the governance
of the descendents of Iksvaku was
their commitment to righteousness
and devotion to the welfare of their
subjects. Under Dasaratha's efficient
administration a state where no one
was slenderly read or illiterate or
untruthful existed in Ayodhya and its
provinces with a high level of culture
and affluence.
King's concern for the welfare of the
people is reflected during a
conversation when Bharat was
pursuing Rama to return to the palace,
the latter asks about the welfare of
people in Kosala: '
Dharma is not yet
another 'religious' faith
among many mutually
contesting 'religious
faiths'. But neither is
dharma antagonistic to
any religious faith.
Rather, dharma is the
foundation of 'religion'
itself. Thus religion in
its institutional form
divides, while dharma
unites.
The goal of the king,
or of the state, is the
protection of all living
beings with kindness
towards them and that
is the highest dharma
The Rajdharma of the
king (state).
'Do you look
favourably to the welfare of
agriculturists and cowherds? And do
they, remaining in their respective
vocations, receive from you what
they want and get over what they find harmful? See the people not
suffer from lack of water supply and
so on?'
Rama further asks Bharat to take good
care of the soldiers and servants by
timely payment of their salary and
supply of provisions. He warns that if
these people get angry with the king
great disaster comes to the state.
Though Ramayana is a Kavya, it also
deals with polity, administration,
diplomacy and war and other topics. War
according to Valmiki, is not to occupy the
land or properties of the vanquished but
its purpose is to remove an obstruction.
Rama did not kill Ravana for
occupying Lanka but to remove an
impediment in the rule of dharma and
that is the righteous war. We shall see
later that Mahabharata also deals with
the concept of dharma and Rajdharma in
its manifold aspects.
Mahabharata
We have seen that the king or state
in Ramayana is to observe
certain norms of Maryada, during
governance, based on dharma. The
Mahabharata enquires about the
political theory of which law and
governance are essential components.
The greatest part of the political thought
in the Mahabharata unfolds in
Shantiparva in the form of a long
conversation between Yudhishthira and
the dying Bhishma. Asks Yudhishthera:
What is governance? What is its origin
and its purpose? What is it like? What are
its forms and structure? To this Bhishma
replies:
There was a time when kingdom or
king (state) did not exist and there was;
neither governance nor governor. The
people protected each other by means of
dharma which sustained them.
But this state did not last long and
after sometime people lost their sense of
duty and obligations. Driven only by their
greed, people started doing violence to
each other which created anarchy. Thus
arose the need for a governing force, to
bring order in the people and the king or
state was invested with the authority of
governance or power of danda
(punishment).
It is through governance order is
created and the material conditions of
life are protected. Protection is the first foundation of all social order and the
justification of the existence of the
state. The Mahabharata declares that
the power of danda or the authority to
govern is drawn from the tenets of
dharma. It is, therefore, essential to
enquire into the attributes of dharma.
The attributes of dharma
Yudhishthira, in Shantiparva, asks
whether dharma is knowable or not or
whether one knows it or not; it is finer
than the razor's edge and also quite
solid like a mountain. Sometimes, it
appears as crystal clear and when one
approaches near it, it just disappears,
then how to know it?
Mahabharat has tried to resolve this
dilemma which even sages found
difficult to resolve. A question can be
naturally asked as to how dharma was
explained in Vedic Texts. According to
Vedic understanding, the order in the
Universe is sustained by a spiritual law
Rta, it was inferred that perhaps order
in human affairs would also be
sustained by a similar universal law -
called as dharma. There have been
several meanings of the dharma,
including varna-ashrama dharma.
According to Mahabharata, dharma
can be best understood through its
attributes.
Before trying to know the attributes
of dharma discussed in Mahabharata,
one should understand that dharma is
not 'religion'. It is wrong to equate
dharma with religion in the sense of
the terms in which 'religion' and
'religious' have been used in the
common parlance.
For example, all the sematic
religions believe in an extraterritorial
creator-God, revealed through a
prophet who announces the sacred
commandments, recorded in a book,
to regulate personal conduct, thought
and relationships, and also in a
hierarchy of priesthood to supervise
and control that regulation.
Dharma has none of these elements
as any essential part of its meaning. It
does not require as a presupposition
even 'belief in the existence of God',
which all religions do. Thus, Dharma is
not yet another 'religious' faith among
many mutually contesting 'religious
faiths'. But neither is dharma antagonistic to any religious faith.
Rather, dharma is the foundation of
'religion' itself. Thus religion in its
institutional form divides, while dharma
unites.
A religion is exclusivist because it
rejects all that is not in its book or
commandments while dharma is all
inclusive, and includes every form of life.
In this sense dharma is holistic and takes
life and issues in their totality.
Since religion is divisive, it must be
separated from the affairs of the state
and governance, as it has been done in
the West. Dharma, on the other, should
form the foundation of every socioeconomic
thought and praxis, affairs of
state and governance for creating a
sharing and caring world. Dharma,
therefore, cannot be synonymous with
any particular social structure because
this would be against its universal
character.
The universality of dharma
According to Mahabharata, dharma
can be understood as what supports,
sustains, upholds and brings together all
living beings, securing, their dharana and
therefore, whatever has the
characteristic of doing that, is certainly
dharma. And further, All the dharmic
preachings are with a view to nurturing,
cherishing, providing more amply,
enrich, enhance the life and living of all
living beings. Therefore, whatever has
the characteristic of bringing that about
certainly is dharma.
The Mahabharata declares in
uncertain terms that all
pronouncements of dharma are with a
view to secure freedom from violence,
ahimsa. Therefore, not doing violence
against all living beings is the
characteristic of dharma. Describing
further attribute of dharma, the
Mahabharata continues to emphasize
that ahimsa is the highest dharma -
'ahimsa paramodharma, ahimsa is the
highest truth and together they secure
the highest good for all human beings.
The state, according
to Mahabharata, was
created to protect the
weak, the poor, the
exploited, the helpless,
and the oppressed from
the strong. That large
class of the weak is
only able to survive
because of the power of
the king and this is an
important aspect of
Rajadharma.
Ahimsa is not 'just killing' but it is to
create a situation of non-violence in
human behaviour and determines the
basis of relationship and its fulfillment.
Therefore, it is on the basis of ahimsa
and truth all actions are governed.
Remembering that whatever has its
beginning in justice is dharma and
whatever is unjust is adharma, it
follows that if one dharma is
destructive of another dharma, then it
is sinful and not dharma. That alone is
true dharma that is established
without denigrating and opposing
another dharma.
The message from the
Mahabharata is loud and clear that
all authority in all its acts be subject
to dharma, and that dharma is the
sovereign and not the king or the
state and further, the laws and
governance of the state shall never
deprive, starve, diminish, separate,
uproot, hurt, do violence, debase,
and degrade the other. When they
do, they become self-destructive in
the first place. The natural
foundations of law and governance
everywhere are in dharma', which is
very flow of life in which all are
united.
Rajdharma
As stated earlier, the purpose of
governance is to ensure the people
'protection form fear, for there is
nothing more degrading to human
worth than living in fear.' The
Mahabharata then goes on to enquire
the limits to use of governance and the
legitimacy of opposing it when it
creates conditions of oppression and
violence.
Hence, given the fundamental
importance of governance against
anarchy, also the fundamental
place of the philosophy of
governance, 'the raja-dharma', the
Mahabharata reiterates again that
in all the acts of governance, the
goal of the king, or of the state, is
the protection of all living beings
with kindness towards them and
that is the highest dharma The
Rajdharma of the king (state).
Maharshi Vyas enjoins, therefore,
Let the king protect his subjects
from their fear of him; from their
fear of others; from their fear of
each other; and from their fear of
things that are not human.
The main purpose of the state,
according to Mahabharata, is to create
conditions for freedom from fear,
including the fear of violence. In other words, its purpose lies in 'protecting the
small fish from the big fish', keeping in
mind that in the process the state does
not itself become the 'big fish'. That will
lead to oppression and terror resulting in
adharma by the state.
The king to create
social and economic
conditions not only of
freedom from fear but,
more positively, of
human flourishing,
where the individual is
enabled to come into
the fullness of his, or
her, being. Ahimsa can
be realized only in a
society where trust,
friendship, and caring -
the elements of human
bonding, individual and
social - exist.
Protection' has, in the
Mahabharata, the wider
meaning of creating
conditions of personal
and social bonding. That
is the function of the
king, or of the state.
The state according to Mahabharata,
was created to protect the weak, the
poor, the exploited, the helpless, and the
oppressed from the strong. That large
class of the weak is only able to survive
because of the power of the king and this
is an important aspect of Rajadharma.
The Mahabharata further warns
the king, 'Beware, the weak are, in
actual fact, much stronger than the
strong, for nothing is left of the strong
that have been burnt by the weak'.
And further, "When the king wipes
the tears of the poor, the
dispossessed, and the old. And
creates happiness among the people
thereby, such conduct on his part is
called the king's dharma
(Rajdharma)."
According to Mahabharata, Law and
governance are the instruments for
protection. The importance and meaning
of protection requires a set of laws and
governance which create social and
economic conditions where one lives in a
society without fear.
Thus, there is a wider meaning of
protection and the Mahabharata enjoins
upon the king to create social and
economic conditions not only of freedom
from fear but, more positively, of human
flourishing, where the individual is
enabled to come into the fullness of his,
or her, being. Ahimsa can be realized
only in a society where trust, friendship,
and caring - the elements of human
bonding, individual and social - exist.
Protection' has, in the Mahabharata, the
wider meaning of creating conditions of
personal and social bonding. That is the
function of the king, or of the state.
In Mahabharata principles of
governance require the state to be
committed to social concerns which
need to be attended for creating an
ahimsak society. The institutions of the
state have to be continuously vigilant for
keeping order and curbing violence.
The discipline of dharma
The discipline of the king is to be
derived from the purpose for which he was invested with the power of
governance, and Mahabharata asks
the king (state) to exercise power
subject to certain disciplines. The king
should first discipline himself and then
only try to discipline his subjects and
subordinates. If he does so without
realizing his own defects, he becomes
an object of ridicule and should always
remember that The interest of his
subjects alone is his interest, their
well-being his well-being; and in their
good lies his own good.
The Mahabharata says that power is
never considered its own justification,
for the state is not an end in itself and
further, the power without dharma is
as much the way to tyranny as dharma
left unprotected is the way to anarchy.
In other words, the power 'of the
state has to exercise disciplines upon
itself most of all, the discipline of
dharma. Power is not to be exercised
arbitrarily but in accordance with the
dharma' exhorts Mahabharata.
Social concerns
The Apastamba Dharamasutra
proclaims with such finality, it is the
primary duty of the king to ensure that
none within his domain suffers from
hunger, want or deprivation. Sage
Apastamba lays down the discipline of
the kings in this context, thus: let no
one suffer from hunger and disease, or
from extremes of heat and cold. No
one in the kingdom ought to suffer
thus, either because of general scarcity
or because of specific design against
him.
Under such circumstances, people
may become angry and the state might
be lost to the enemies of the country.
And, Bhisma, in a particularly
intense yet short chapter in the
Anusasanaparvan, warns
Yudhisthira that the hunger of even
one person in a kingdom renders
the life of the king meaningless; and
if there be a king in whose kingdom
young children eagerly watch the
delicious meals of others and are
not offered the same food with all
ceremony and care, what indeed
would be the fate of such a king?
What indeed can be a sin greater
than that.
The king must protect the wealth of the old, the young, the blind and the
poor. And he must not take away
anything from the helpless women, or
from the cultivators who have created
their own irrigation system.
The wealth that is taken away from
the poor takes away the prosperity of
the king and destroys the country.
Therefore, instead of depriving the
poor, offer them great comfort and
gratification, and relieve the people
of all fear of hunger. And further, the
king should not extinguish the
opportunities of livelihood.
The protection of the life and
dignity of women is the primary aim
of governance and the Mahabharata
in unequivocal terms states, 'A king in
whose kingdom crying and wailing
women are forcibly carried away in
front of their sons and husbands who
cry and wail in vain, one feels that
there is no governance. And Bhisma
adds, having given his promise to
protect the people and the state fails
to protect then such a state is as good
as non-existent.
Conduct during abnormal times
If there is a situation which suddenly
leads towards chaos and anarchy and
the very existence of the state is in
danger and it is no longer able to
preserve and protect dharma,
Mahabharata, under the circumstances
allows the state to waive the normal
ethical behaviour, only and only, till the
duration such circumstances exist. This
is known as conduct during distress -
Apadh-Dharma.
The state can take measures, though
unethical, for collecting resources by
force or even coercion. The Mahabharata
says if the state exists then alone dharma
can be protected and order can be
restored when the very existence of the
state becomes doubtful, the material
resources required to counter the threat
have to be collected.
The protection of the
life and dignity of
women is the primary
aim of governance and
Mahabharata in
unequivocal terms
states, 'A king in whose
kingdom crying and
wailing women are
forcibly carried away in
front of their sons and
husbands who cry and
wail in vain, one feels
that there is no
governance. And
Bhisma adds,
having given his
promise to protect the
people and the state
fails to protect then
such a state is as good
as non-existent.
But the king is also warned that
anything acquired by adharma
ultimately leads to resentment and
anger leading to violence in the society.
Resources acquired by unethical means
would never prove beneficial to the state
and the people. In times distress, it is the
duty of both the state and the people to
protect each other. Therefore, as soon as normalcy is restored the state should
return back to the people whatever
was acquired to save the existence of
the state. Mahabharat warns that
distressful times should not become
an excuse for doing wrong things.
Capital punishment
Perhaps for the first time anywhere,
it is in the Mahabharata that an
argument against capital punishment
was advanced. It develops in
answering the question of
Yudhishthira, put to Bhishma: 'How
should the king protect the people in a
way without causing violence to
anybody? Bhishma narrates an old
conversation between Satyavan and
his father, Dhyumatsena who says,
'One should use only that system of
punishment that does not dismember
the body. Neither should anybody be
punished without first carefully
examining the alleged offence of a
person and applying to it the
established principles of law.'
On putting a criminal to death, the
king renders his family without any
means of sustenance, which is like
putting them to death as well.
Therefore, the king must think
carefully. The purpose of governance
is not to kill the wicked, but to create
conditions in which the people can be
good.
One should use only
that system of
punishment that does
not dismember the
body. Neither should
anybody be punished
without first carefully
examining the alleged
offence of a person and
applying to it the
established principles
of law.
The Mahabharata continues to
stress that the power of governance
must be exercised without anger
and intolerance, the king must keep
away from darpa (arrogance) and
should be free from deviousness
and cunning. The king should also
be free from likes and dislikes. He
should keep preferences, anger,
greed and vanity far away and treat
all beings with a sense of equality.
Because the king holds power he is
not authorized to oppress people
and violate dharma. The king is
placed more than anyone else
under the fear of danda, law and
governance.
On putting a criminal
to death, the king
renders his family
without any means of
sustenance, which is
like putting them to
death as well.
Therefore, the king
must think carefully.
The purpose of
governance is not to kill
the wicked, but to
create conditions in
which the people can be
good.
The Mahabharata has narrated a
story of a frightfully terrible war and its
resultant consequences on either side
and declares that nothing worthwhile
has ever been achieved through war.
The king should preserve and expand whatever he (state) possesses without
recourse to war. Victories must be
achieved by enhancing all areas of
knowledge and not by cunningness and
arrogance. In other words, Mahabharata
proposes reconciliation as a process for
resolving the two opposite view points.
The crux of the foundation of
governance is dharma based on truth
and ahimsa. In other words, the state
should also be accessible and
transparent. The assembly or the sabha,
that declares whether a law or an order
is in accordance with the Dharma must
have the trust of the people.
Mahabharata prescribes that, 'An
assembly without elders is no assembly.
The elders who don't speak according to
dharma are no elders. Dharma not
based on truth is adharma. Finally truth
full of cunning is no truth.
Arthashastra
Kautiltya's Arthashastra is a unique
Indian text that hasn't lost its relevance
in contemporary India. The very reason
that this book appeals to our generation,
even after over 2400 years, shows that
Kautilya has fine-tuned each concept in
great detail, proving his farsightedness.
Kautilya says that treasury (Vittam) is
the foundation of the state but vittam or
finances have to be collected in
accordance with dharma. A king, says
Kautilya, should devote his best attention
to the treasury.
Thus he, like the Mahabharata,
advocates that dharma is the basic in the
affairs of the state, the Atharshastra
exhorts the king to behave in a righteous
manner and further says," In the
happiness of the people lies his
happiness, in their welfare, his welfare."
Kautilya defines the purpose of the
state as one - ensuring the welfare and
security of the people and two -
maintaining and expanding the power of
state. Although, Kautilya expounds
dharma as the basis of governance but
when it comes to international affairs, he
says the biggest dharma is the protection
of state. This is not a contradiction,
according to Kautilya, because if the
state is not protected from external
aggression how can dharma be
practiced?
Kautilya agrees with the Mahabharata
about using unethical methods during threat to state and suggests coercion is
necessary even on its own people
because some times the state might
face both internal disorder and
external threats simultaneously.
Kautilya says, the pursuit of people's
welfare as well as the maintenance of
the philosophic tradition, the Vedas
and the economic well-being of the
society are dependent on the power of
punishment danda wielded by the
king. The maintenance of law and
order by use of punishment is the
science of government. By maintaining
order, the king can preserve what he
already has, acquire new possessions,
augment his wealth and power, and
share the benefits of improvement
with those who are needy or who can
use them for the benefit of the people.
The progress of this world depends
on the maintenance of order through
the fear of danda (punishment). Some
authors, other then Kautilya, have
commented: 'Those who seek to
maintain order shall always hold ready
the threat of punishment. For, there is
no better instrument of control than
coercion.' Which the empowered
agencies can always use for personal
benefit ignoring the interest of the
state.
Kautilya disagrees because a severe
king, meting out unjust punishment, is
hated by the people he terrorizes while
one who is too lenient is held in
contempt by his own people. Whoever
imposes just and deserved
punishment is respected and
honoured. A well-considered and just
punishment makes the people devoted
to dharma, artha and kama
(righteousness, wealth and
enjoyment). Unjust punishment,
whether awarded in greed, anger or
ignorance, excites the fury of even
those who have renounced all worldly
attachments like forest recluses and
ascetics, not to speak of householders.
When, conversely, punisment is
awarded through misplaced leniency
and no law prevails, then the law of the
jungle leads to anarchy. Internal
security is ensured if the state is strong
and at the same time recognizes its
own failures - and remedies them. It is
in presence of a king, maintaining just
Duties common to all,
ahimsa (not-violence to
be observed in relation
to all living beings),
satya (truthfulness),
compassion, freedom
from malice, tolerance
and purity (physical,
intellectual and mental
in all aspects of one's
persona). He also
suggested various
measures for the king
to adopt to improve the
ethical climate, and to
this end proclaimed, a
king should uphold the
highest ethical
standards and rule
through his character
and qualities and not by
his authority, a rigorous
ethical code of conduct
was to be observed by
the king and his staff.
law, the weak can resist the powerful.
Kautilya pleads for a just and fair legal
system capable of protecting the poor
from the tyranny of the powerful,
including the state.
It is interesting to note that
Arthashastra holds the state as
responsible for any failure to protect
the public. "If a stolen property was
not recovered and the thief could not
be apprehended, the victim was
compensated by the state. If the state
unjustly appropriated the property of
any person and did not restore it
back, the owner was paid its actual
value and if the state was found
responsible for not protecting a
person and thereby increasing the
risk of loss, the judges could increase
the compensation."
Kautilya, thus, advocates the principle
of responsibility and accountability of
the state in its acts and administration.
That an idea like this was conceived by
ancient Indian political thinkers in the
4th century BC is something remarkable.
A responsive and accountable state
with governance based on the
foundation of dharma would perhaps
be cherished by all. According to
Arthashastra, the stable social
structure and prospering economic
environment is dependent on
governance that ensures order and
sustained prosperity.
Kautilya, therefore, emphasized the
creation of an ethical climate in the state
and also suggested various measures to
enhance it. He described the basic
dharmic values as, "Duties common to
all, ahimsa (not-violence to be observed
in relation to all living beings), satya
(truthfulness), compassion, freedom
from malice, tolerance and purity
(physical, intellectual and mental in all
aspects of one's persona).
He also suggested various
measures for the king to adopt to
improve the ethical climate, and to
this end proclaimed, a king should
uphold the highest ethical standards
and rule through his character and
qualities and not by his authority, a
rigorous ethical code of conduct was
to be observed by the king and his
staff.
Excessive use of the state's coercive power, warns Kautilya, leads to
resentment, unrest and rebellion
among the people, while the impotent
state leads to anarchy. He argues that
a central task of the state is to identify
grievances of the people and their
causes, preferably before resentment
among the people turns into unrest or
rebellious mood. Without delay, the
ruler must remedy the causes of such
grievances in order to calm down the
people. The emphasis should be on the
preventive measures, and even if, in
spite of remedial action, a rebellion
does break out, the people should not
be punished collectively. Instead, they
should be treated leniently. If they
refuse to compromise or submission,
harsh measures be used to curb the
menace.
For providing good
governance,
Arthashastra
recommends that the
state apparatus should
be well organized and
efficient. A king can
create such a situation
only with the help of
others. Just as one
wheel alone can not
move a chariot, the king
as a single person can
not run he state,
therefore, the king
should appoint
advisers, counselors
and ministers to advise
and help him. Kautilya
says that a brave and
righteous king, advised
by the learned and the
wise who know the
shastras supported by a
loyal and devoted team
who are ever vigilant to
keep the treasury full,
can never be defeated.
The Arthashastra them
goes on to discuss the
number, qualities and
method of selection of
the top echelons of
king's administrative
hierarchy. Kautilya
recommends for
creating a strong
intelligence system to
keep a watch on
internal conspiracies
and external threats to
the state.
Like the Mahabharata, Kautilya also
argues in favour of reconciliation as a
process for resolving the
contradictions. For this, establishment
of a credible mechanism and an
inclusive governance with firm
commitment to the welfare of the
weak and poor was also recognized by
both Mahabharata and Arthashastra.
For providing good governance,
Arthashastra recommends that the
state apparatus should be well
organized and efficient. A king can
create such a situation only with the
help of others. Just as one wheel alone
cannot move a chariot, the king as a
single person cannot run he state.
Therefore, the king should appoint
advisers, counselors and ministers to
advise and help him.
Kautilya says that a brave and
righteous king, advised by the learned
and the wise who know the shastras
supported by a loyal and devoted team
who are ever vigilant to keep the
treasury full, can never be defeated.
The Arthashastra then goes on to
discuss the number, qualities and
method of selection of the top
echelons of king's administrative
hierarchy. Kautilya recommends for
creating a strong intelligence system to
keep a watch on internal conspiracies
and external threats to the state.
Welfare policies
The Kautilyan state assumes social
responsibility not only for the people, but also for animals. The state was
running the hospitals, gurukuls and
enforced the rules of public hygiene. The
state looked after the women's rights
including divorce and remarriage of the
widows. The government kept food
reserves for emergency situation.
Agriculture being the principal source of
revenue was given all support. The
artisans smiths etc. received full and
sympathetic consideration by the state.
Elaborate arrangements were made
for animal welfare perhaps a unique
feature of Arthashastra. State had also
taken special care for consumer
protection. Weights and measures were
standardized and legal system to prevent
cheating the consumers and foreign
traders were enacted. In matters of
grievance redressal, by government or
judiciary, priority was given to the
deprived, the poor, the widows, the
disabled, the learned and so on.
Even at such a distant past the
farsighted Kautilya had emphasized
that the total salary bill of the state
was to be capped at about one fourth
of the revenue collected. In some
sectors like textile, the wages were
linked with the quality (or
productivity) of the product.
Wages were to be disbursed promptly
and in case of soldiers delay in payment
of salaries was not acceptable in any
circumstance.
Officers were not permitted to
misbehave with the women with whom
he had to deal officially, violation of this
code was punishable.
Thus, one can see Kautilya was far
ahead from his times. "One also finds a
continuity in the evolution of the political
thought starting from Vedic era to
Kautilya.
The dharma as the foundation of
governance has been recognized all
through and the emphasis on social
welfare and personal character of the
king has been maintained throughout
this period of Indian history. Let us
stop calling Kautilya as India's
Machiavelli while the facts are other
way round.
The author is a scholar of
international repute and an
eminent parliamentarian.