M. N. Roy Jawaharlal Nehru

Download 4,14 Mb.
Date conversion09.08.2018
Size4,14 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   67

Kautilya and Arthasastra

Although nothing can be said so far firmly and with certainty, it is mostly believed that Kautilya was born in Taksila. He received his education in the university of Nalanda, a university of world-wide fame. It is a common belief that Kautilya met Chandra-gupta m this university, who had also come here to receive his education. Kautilya was much impressed by Chandragupta. In fact, he found in the latter the qualities of a real icing of India. Kautilya's dream of installing Chandragupta on the throne of Magadh was realized when the latter became not only the king of Magadh, but the imperial king of India. And the former acted as the renowned minister of Chandragupta, the founder of the imperial Maurya dynasty, in succession to the dynasty of the Nandas.

Kautilya, who is also known as Chanakya, wrote a famous book, known as Arthasastra. He was not the first person to write Artha­sastra,^. book on the subject of acquisition and preservation of dominion (prithivi)—there were already three Arthat Jtra schools, namely, those of Manu, Brihaspati, and Usanas—but Kautilya '* Arthasastra is the only complete work of its kind that has come down to us. The contents comprise the branches of central and local Administration, home and foreign policy, civil and criminal law and the art of warfare. As Kautilya's work is avowedly a summary of the early Arthasastra literature, there arises the natural presumption that the same topics were handled by the above authors. This presumption is made a certainty by Kautilya's citations of his prede­cessors' view- under the above heads. It is not merely in the range but also in the quality of fts application to the problems of state and government that the Arthasastra opens a new chapter in the history of our ancient political literature. For the authors, while making a detailed examination of the rules and principles of state administration tod policy such as is unknown to their predecessors and contem­poraries approach their problems exclusively from an objective standpoint.1

In framing their rules and principles of government the Arthasastra thinkers in general apply the methods of observation, analysis and

For references to civil law and the art of warfare in the early Arthasastra works, vide Kautilya's quotations (III, 4-7, 11, 14, 17, 19-20 ; X, 6 e»7.).


great political thinkers

deduction in respect of the phenomena of political life. The method of the science, in other words, is primarily an empirical (if not a scientific) one. In Kautilya's work this is supplemented by some interesting applications of what may be called the historical method, as the author occasionally draws upon traditional history to justify his arguments. This is, however, made in the words applied by a modern historian of political theory to the thought of Machiavelli, to point a moral which has already been set forth and "adorn a tale which has already been told."'

It is in the branch of state law that Kautilya's ideas mark a great advance upon those of his predecessors. In his chapter (III, 1) introducing his section on law and legal procedure, the author refers prominently to four sources of the state law. These are the Sacred Canon {dharma), the current (Arthasastra ?), law (vyavahara), usage (sainstha) and reasoning (nyaya). Explaining the rule of interpreta­tion in the event of conflict of these laws, the author seems to state that the king should decide a law-suit in accordance with the canon when the current law is in conflict with the canonical works or with usage. Again he appears to observe that in the event of conflict between the canon and reasoning founded upon the law, reasoning will be the authority, the strict letter of the canonical text in this case being regarded as dead. Comparing the above account with that of the Dhamiasutras, we can perhaps trace a twofold development in the author's thought. This consists, firstly, in the addition of the Arthasastra (?) to the sources of the state law and in the clear recog­nition of reasoning as one of these sources. In the second place, the author lays down a double rule of interpretation in the event of conflict of laws. He seems to mean, firstly, that the canon prevails when this is ir. conflict with Arthasastra, or else when usage is in conflict w'h the latter, and secondly, that reasoning based upon the law prevails when this is in conflict with the canon.

As regards the authority of usage, Kautilya's views agree with those of the Dhannasutras. The king, he remarks, shall settle the law on this subject in accordance with the traditional usages of regions, castes, industrial and other organizations and villages. The king, according to him, should abrogate such customs as are harmful to his own interest or are contrary to righteousness, and establish instead the righteous customs : the king should adopt the righteous customs whether old or new and not their reverse, and he should abrogate unrighteous customs that have been started by others. Kautilya, following the early Smriti precedent, conceives the king to be subject to the law of his order. He makes the king liable to clauses of the civil and the criminal law for the fulfilment of his poli-
Vide the historical instances quoted by Kautilya (1, 6, 20 ; VIII, 3 ; IX, T etc.). The above quotation is from A History of Political Theories, Anc'eni and Medieval by W. A. Dunning, p. 293.



tical obligations. This involves the application of the rule of law to the sphere of the king's internal administration.

Kautilya's approach either to the problem of actual administra­tion of the state or to the question of mutual relations of the tem­poral ruler and his subjects was not that of a theorist. As such, he was not merely concerned with systematizing theories of state ; he made the politics of his country an object of his immediate concern. Kautilya was a Srotriya or Vedic Brahmana.3 At the same time Alexander's incoming and the stupid administration of the upstart (JVavfl) Nanda concerned him more than his Vedic studies. He thought it necessary to overhaul the existing system. The Brahmana emphasized again and again that state was a life on which depended social, individual and spiritual happiness. He reminded the people again and again that the bases of civilization of the Race are rooted in polity, that the sword which protects the people is the womb of civilization. The Brahmana idealized and idolized the country of the Aryas as much politically as religiously.

Position of the King

It was in the above context that Kautilya defined the position of the temporal king and his relationship with his subjects. He reduc­ed the position of a king to that of the servant of state, or rather, as our forefathers put it mercilessly, of a drudging 'slave' (dasya). The epic exhibits as an ideal that a king should even give up his dear wife if asked to do so by his subjects ; a popular and somewhat crude way of expressing the king's position, but all the same enshrining the radical demand of Hindu constitution from its king to sink his indi­viduality into his office. With such principles the king was virtually a constitutional slave. And the great monarchist Kautilya, the Hindu Hobbes, would not allow the king to have personal likes or dislikes. "A king has no personal likes ; it is the likes of the subjects (that should be followed by him)."* But this lefty sense of sacrifice made the consitutional slave into the moral master ; that "one man who rules over numerous wise and brave men." "Kings," iu» author (Kautilya) continues, "are visible dispensers of favours and u^iavours, and as such they are in the position of the god Indra and Yama res­pectively : he who despises them is visited with divine punishment." "Thus," concludes Kautilya, "the lowly folk should be silenced."

—Telang's MuJrarakshasa, Upodghata, p. 44.

Arthasastra, p. 429.

4 Arthasastra, Bk. I, Ch. 19 ; 16, p 39.

How far it is from forming in Kautilya's thought a philosophical theory of kingship is proved by his significant reference to 'the lowly

folk' whom it is sought to impress. In short, it is in the author's opinion a bit of commonplace platitude to lull the discontent of the masses against their ruler. Nevertheless, we may analyse the above extract, such as it is, to indicate the divergent and even contradictory stands in its composition. The extract starts with a State of Nature indicated by a single telling phrase ('the law of the jungle') which imports a new technical term (matsyanyaya) into the vocabulary of our ancient political literature. To end this evil State of Nature the people, we are told, made an agreement with a patriarch (Manu, son of the Sun) who is regarded in Brahmanical mythology or pseudo-history as progenitor of the present lines of kings. Likewise, Kautilya remarks that the people's agreement with Manu was preceded by his Divine creation. Whatever that may be, the agreement of the people in Kautilya's extract charges the people with payment of their customary dues to the ruler evidently for inducing him to end the condition of anarchy. From his theory of the origin of kingship, Kautilya draws the corollary—so relevant to this immediate and limited objective—that the king's taxes and punishments are necessary in the people's own interests as they provide him with the means of ensuring the security and prosperity of his subjects. Kautilya further lays down the theory of the king's .equivalence to the two most famous guardian deities of the world by parity of functions, and he derives therefrom the corollary of the subjects' religious obligation to honour their ruler.

The Theory of Danda

In Kautilya we notice a development of the theory of danda in three principal directions. In the first place he amplifies the older view of the function of danda in the general make-up. Danda, he says (14 and 5), is the means of ensuring security and pros­perity of the three sciences, namely, the Sacred Canon (trayi), philoso­phy (anviksiki), and Economics (varta) : in fact danda is their root : the course of worldly affairs (lokayatra) depends upon danda, and therefore he who seeks this course should constantly be ready to apply danda. In other words, the application of danda is justified on the ground that it is the safeguard of man's worldly existence, while it ensures the fulfilment of his complex interests as represented by the three other traditional sciences besides Politics. In the second place, Kautilya applies his deeper political insight to lay down a new technique relating to danda. The king who is severe in the applica­tion of danda, we are told, afflicts all creatures, and one who is mild in its application is overpowered by them, while one who justly inflicts it is respected by them. This implies that respect for authority is ensured by the just application of danda in contrast with its severe and mild application which leads respectively to the overthrow and disregard of the same. Thirdly and lastly, Kautilya gives us a com­plete explanation of the function of danda by posing three alternatives. When danda is applied with sound knowledge of the canon, it confers



the threefold end of life upon the people : when it is applied improperly under the influence of desire or anger or without knowledge, it afflicts even the forest-dwelling ascetics, not to speak of the house-holders : when it is not applied at all, it leads to the condi­tion indicated by the maxim of the larger fishes devouring the smaller ones. All this means that while the lawful application of danda ensures the complete happiness of the individual, its unlawful or vicious application causes universal disaffection, and its non-applica­tion produces anarchy symbolized by the law of the jungle.

The Theory of Government: The King

Kautilya's views on the theory of government under which he discusses three important subjects, the king, the officials, and the mechanism of the administration, are equally important and show a considerable development on tie ideas of the early Arthasastra on several points. About the position of the king, Kautilya' remarks that the king makes or mars the constituent elements of the state according as he is properly qualified or not. Justifying in this connection his own view against the contrary opinion of Bharadvaja, the author explains the supreme importance of the king's function. The king alone, he argues, selects the whole body of assistants ; he directs the heads of the administrative departments ; he remedies the calamities of the human and the material elements of the state and strengthens them ; he replaces bad officers, with good ones, he is constantly employed in honouring the deserving and punishing the wicked ; he endows his ministers and other subjects with his own prosperity, when he is prosperous, the ministers and others being dependent upon him for their success and failure follow his I 'havi-our, for the king stands at their apex. The king, in other words, is the master-key to the working of the whole administrative machine, appointing, guarding, correcting, strengthening and shaping its diffe­rent factors.

Kautilya's arguments regarding kingship involve evidently a strong plea for the dynastic principle as well as the principle of high birth. He holds that a new king is worse than a diseased king, because the new king acts without restraint in the belief that he himself has acquired the kingdom. Again, he argues that a strong but low-born king is worse than a weak but high-born one, and that the rule of a conqueror is worse than the dual rule of father and son or else of two brothers. It is t e nature of prosperity to attend high birth, and hence the subjects willingly wait upon the weak but high­born king, but the subjects tend to waver in their allegiance to a king who is strong but low-born. In the same way, the dual rule is productive of equal security and welfare of the subjects, and therefore it tends to come under the control of the officials. Thus, Kautilya reacts against the antimonarchic and the antidynastic tendencies characteristic of the older masters.



Along with other things, Kautilya regarded education as the most important thing, which is to be given to the princes with a view to training their minds and disciplining their wills. Hence he gives a comprehensive scheme of education of the princes. The prince, we read (1-5), after the performance of his tonsure ceremony shall apply himself to the learning of writing and arithmetic : after his investiture with the sacred thread he shall learn the Sacred Canon (trayi) and Philosophy (anviksiki) from cultured persons, Economics (varta) from the heads of the administrative departments, and Politics (dandaniti) from those versed in theory and practice. The educa­tion is to be continued after the sixteenth year when the prince has undergone the ceremonies of shaving of the head and marriage ; he shall devote the first part of the day to learning the military science and the second part to hearing lessons on a large number of sciences grouped together under the heading of traditional history. Through this intellectual training the prince shall learn discipline : Kautilya warns that one who fails to keep his sense-organs or fails to practise non-attachment towards the impressions of his sense-organs perishes instantly even if he were to be the ruler of the earth up to the bounds of the four oceans.

Not only does Kautilya give us our first known complete scheme of the prince's education, but he also presents us with a list of the king's qualifications. He classifies the king's qualities under four heads : these are the qualities of an inviting nature, those of the intellect, those of the will, and the king's distinctive qualities. It is quite unnecessary for us to go into the details of this pedantic classi­fication. It will be sufficient to say here that it illustrates the author's sense of the comprehensive qualifications needed for the king's office: these comprise the qualities of intellect and character, of birth and training as well as of sound principles and policies of government.

Council of Ministers and Amatyas

  1. Manu, VII, 30-31.

  2. Ibid., 54-57.

Whatever the qualities and qualifications the king may have, the Hindu king can never be regarded as a personal ruler. It is a law and principle of Hindu constitution that the king cannot act without the approval and co-operation of the council of ministers. The law sutras, the law books and the political treatises are all unani­mous on this point. Manu calls a king foolish who would attempt to carry on the administration by himself. He regards such a king as unfit.6 He lays down that the king must have 'colleagues', i.e., ministers ; and that in their midst and along with them he has to consider ordinary and extraordinary matters of state,8 even ordinary business ought not to be done by one man, not to speak of the con­duct of a kingdom. Yajnavalkya is of the same opinion and so are



the other law-givers. Kautilya, likewise, (although he was the greatest advocate of monarchy) has to say that matters of state should be discussed by the council of ministers and whatever the majority decides the king should carry out. It should be noted that this rule is enjoyed even when there is a body of mantrins or cabinet separate from the mantri-parishad. The Arthasastra says :

"When there is an extraordinary matter the mantrins and the mantri-parishad should be called together and informed. In the meeting whatever the majority decide to be done, should be done (by the king)."

It is remarkable that the king is not given even the power of vetoing. Kautilya in emphasizing the importance of the parishad says that Indra was called 'thousand-eyed', although he had only two eyes, because he had thousand wise members in his mantri-parishad who were regarded as his eyes.7

In the same way, Kautilya considers the appointment of the amatyas (the officials) indispensable for carrying out the work of government, and gives a comprehensive scheme of their functions. Government, he says at the conclusion of one of his chapters (1-7), is possible with the help of assistants, a single wheel does not move : the king should appoint ministers (sachiras) and abide by their advice. The king's acts have to be performed simultaneously, they are numerous and they are scattered in different places, and therefore the king has to get his acts performed by the amatya lest there be a lapse regarding time and place. In other words, the amatyds office is justified by the impossibility of one-man rule and by the number as well as the wide distribution in space and time of the govern­mental functions. In the second place, Kautilya, while criticizing the view which ranks the calamity of the amatyas above that of the rural area (janapada), explains the high importance of the amatya's functions All administrative acts relating to the janapada, he argues, depend, upon the amatya : such are the acts of ensuring its security and welfare against its internal and external enemies, remedying its calamities, colonization and improvement of its waste lands, and benefiting it through the collection of taxes and fines. This means that the amatya is the motive force behind the security and develop­ment of the heart of the kingdom, namely, its rural area.

7 Arthasastra, I, Ch. 15, 11.

As regards the selection of the amatyas for special posts, Kautilya, after describing the fourfold test (that of Virtue, Wealth, Desire, and Fear) laid down by his predecessors, modifies their scheme in one vital respect. The king, he says, must on no account make him­self or his queen the object in the matter of testing the amatyas, but he shall select third persons for this purpose. The king, he argues, should not corrupt an innocent mind which act would be like putting


great political thinkers

poison in water, for when an innocent mind is corrupted somehow^ it passes beyond cure : when a good man's mind is corrupted by the' four tests, it does not turn back without reaching the farthest linn^ (of evil). This extract, which does credit to the author's knowledge! of human psychology, conveys a much-needed warning to the king* against the danger involved in the traditional scheme. This is based! upon the author's conviction of the tendency of temptation to corrupt innocent minds.

Kautilya also does not leave untouched other aspects of king's administration, such as, civil and military administration. The king's civil and military administration involve a number of important prin­ciples. The king, we are first told, should keep under his own control the two vital portfolios of the central government, namely, the revenue and the army. This is based upon the author's conviction of the grave danger arising from the disaffection of the innermost circle of the king's ministers. Secondly, we read that the departmental heads should not only be selected for their merit, but should also be cons­tantly supervised when in office. This is founded upon two allied arguments, namely, that human nature is fickle and that power breeds corruption. The heads of departments are further warned against mutual combination as well as conflict on the ground that these involve the loss and destruction respectively of the king's substance. Thirdly and lastly, we are told that the army should be placed under a divided command since this is a sure guarantee against treachery.

Principles of State Policy

Kautilya's principles of government like those of his predecessors are mostly embedded in his discussions of the lines of state policy. He writes about the king that when the king is alert, his servants likewise become alert. But when he is careless, they become equally so, and they destroy his work and he is overpowered by his enemies. Kautilya further writes that the king should perform his work with the application of constant exertion, for exertion leads to success, while its opposite is certain to produce failure in respect of past and future acts. The author enjoins almost with a religious solemnity the king's observance of the qualities of exertion, dutifulness and impartiality. This culminates in the author's doctrine of the king's complete identification of his interests with those of his subjects.

As regards the policy of state relief of the people against provi­dential calamities, Kautilya remarks that the king shall show favour like a father to his people when they are afflicted by these visita­tions. The king is required to maintain the infants, the aged, the diseased and the distressed persons, helpless as well as barren women and the sons of women who are without guardians. On the other hand, we are told that the king should enforce (by fine or imprisonment in some cases) the duties of slaves and pledgees and relations towards their masters and principals, those of village-elders



ia respect of the property of minors and temples, and those of relatives regarding maintenance of wives and children, parents, minor brothers and unmarried as well as widowed sisters : should anyone embrace the monastic order without providing for the livelihood of his wife and son or induce a woman to adopt the same,he would also be liable to a fine ; one who has passed the age of reproduction can enter the monastic life after obtaining the permission of the judges. All this introduces us to a double aspect of the king's paternal rule over his subjects, namely, the humanitarian and the authoritarian.

Kautilya's policy of acquisition of dominion has been discussed in Section XIII of his work bearing the title, 'The Means of Captur­ing a Fortress'. The author gives in detail the fivefold method of achieving this result, namely, by creating disaffection among the enemy's partisans, by getting rid of the enemy through secret tactics, by setting spies on the enemy's kingdom, by siege, and by assault. Here the author contemplates four grades of acquisition of dominion descending from a king's mastery over a state-system to his lordship over a few vassals. Nevertheless, the methods of its acquisition follow a uniform pattern which is modelled on the means of capturing a fortress by the employment of wholesale treachery and violence.

But more important than this is Kautilya's policy of preservation of dominion. The rules relating to this policy may conveniently be studied under four heads, namely, the policy of security of the king and the community, colonization of the rural and urban areas, financial policy during an emergency and the policy of inter-state relations.

While discussing the policy of security, Kautilya first takes up the question of the king's personal security by pointing out its high political importance. The king, whose safety is ensured from those far and near, Kautilya writes (I, 17), is capable of protecting the kingdom. The king, according to him, should secure his safety in his palace and particularly in the acts of visiting his queen, taking his meals and attending to his other bodily needs, witnessing shows, visiting gardens, hunting, granting interviews, and joining in fairs and festivals. Secondly, Kautilya discusses the question of the king's keeping a watch over the behaviour of his own officials as well as those of his enemies. This involves the application of an elaborate system of espionage on the widest scale and with a high degree of technical perfection. Kautilya enumerates nine different classes of spies called after their appropriate technical terms, and he explains how the first five of these classes should be stationary and the re­maining four should be peripatetic : the spies are to be set in motion to keep a watch over eighteen classes of the king's officials as well as over the foreign kings and their corresponding set of officials. Third­ly, Kautilya discusses the measures which a king should necessarily take for guarding his own loyal and disloyal subjects against the enemy's wiles and for seducing those of the enemy. Lastly, Kautilya



describes in detail the methods of detection and arrest of thieves and adulterous persons as well as those of discovering stolen pro­perty and examining cases of suspected murder, and finally, those of punishing various types of offenders including officials guilty of abuse of authority.

Under the head of colonization of rural and urban areas, Kautilya explains the scheme of state-planned colonization of the rural area, which involves the application of the geopolitical ideas. Listing the programme of the all-round development of the rural area in his work Arthasastra (II, 1), the author remarks that the king shall save his territory from affliction by the enemy's troops as well as from the visitations of pestilence and famine, that he shall prevent the people from indulging in expensive amusements, that he shall protect agriculture from the burdens of fines, compulsory labour and taxes and the cattle-pens from thieves, wild animals and poisoners as well as from diseases, that he shall protect trade-routes which are in danger of being made insecure in different ways, and lastly, that he shall similarly protect all forests, irrigation works and mines and start new ones.

As regards the financial policy of the state in an emergency, Kautilya devotes one full chapter (V, 2) to the king's policy of reple­nishing his treasury when he is without revenue and is faced with financial difficulties. The author mentions alternative methods of replenishing the royal treasury by force and fraud through the agency of spies as well as government officers. The fundamental principle underlying it is that the necessity of the king or the state justifies the application of force and fraud in varying degrees for raising revenue in a grave emergency. This is subject only to the limitation imposed by sound policy in the shape of avoidance of public discontent. When the author allows the property of enemies of the state and of sinners to be seized on various pretexts in the interest of the state, he anticipates ? "twofold principle which was destined to be developed fully by Bhishma in the Mahabharata, namely, that the interest of the state in its grave emergency overrides the rules of morality and that ownership is founded on virtue."8

Inter-state Relations (Foreign Policy)

Lastly, let us deal with Kautilya's discussion of an old Arthasastra problem of inter-state relations arising from the subjects' attitude to­wards their ruler. Of the three vulnerable types of kings, namely, one who is plunged in a grave calamity but is a just ruler, one who is plunged in a minor calamity but is an unjust ruler, and one who has disaffected subjects, it is asked, which should be attacked in preference to the others ? Answering this question in favour of the last type, Kautilya argues that in the event of an attack the subjects

8 U. N. Ghoshal : A History of Indian Political Ideas, p. 138,



help the first king and remain indifferent towards the second, but they destroy the third king, be he never so strong. And Kautilya gives a solemn warning to the king against ill treatment of his sub­jects in the interest of his own security. For the author, after giving a Jong list of the king's faults, because of which his subjects become poor, greedy and disaffected, observes that when the subjects become poor they become greedy, that on becoming greedy, they become disaffected and that on being disaffected, they go over to the enemy's side, or else themselves slay their master : the king, therefore, must not produce the causes tending to make the subjects poor, greedy, and disaffected, but on the contrary he should counteract them im­mediately after their appearance. Poverty, greed and disaffection of the subjects arising by a causal chain from the king's faults, we are further fold, lead to his destruction by themselves or by the enemy.

While discussing the policy of a weak king towards his powerful aggressor, Kautilya asks the weak king to take refuge with a still more powerful ruler, or else seek shelter in an impregnable fort. The weak king, according to him, should adjust his policy of purchasing safety according as the aggressor belongs to one or other of the three types of conquerors, namely, the righteous, the greedy and the demoniac. When peace is established, the king should try by guiie to circumvent, its clauses (clauses of peace-treaty) ; should the aggres­sor exact surrender of troops, he may be given such elephants and horses as are disabled or as though able have been treated with poison, or else such troops as will destroy or harm him ; should he demand surrender of money, he may be given such costly articles as would find no purchaser, or such common articles as would be useless for his fighting ; should he demand land, he is to be given such land as can be easily recovered or is open to the enemy's attack, or is not protected by forts, or such as can be colonized only with great ex­penditure of men and money.

In the light of the above analysis we can now easily understand the goal of inter-state relations, as given by Kautilya. Kautilya explains his plan for the alignment of its constituent elements by the analogy of a wheel : within the sphere of the Prakritis, he says, the aggressor shall conceive the kings separated from him (i.e., his allies) as the circumference and those in between as the spokes and himself as the axle. Further, the author, while explaining the significance of the place-factor in relation to the policy of attack, defines the aggressor's sphere of influence : the whole territory, he remarks, extending north to south from the Himalayas to the southern sea and stretching in the reverse direction for a distance of 1,000 yojans h called the sphere of the world-ruler (chakravarti). The above ideat involve what may be called a dynamic conception of the goal ol inter-state relations. The objective of foreign policy, we are firmlj told, is progressive advance from a condition of Decline to that o Equilibrium and then to that of Progress.



Kautilya's Contributions to Political Thought

Thus, Kautilya's work contains the most perfect, the most coau_ plete and the most important contribution on the subject of state anfl its policies made by our ancient thinkers. Kautilya in contrast witti some of his radical predecessors based his fundamental ideas ell society and the state upon the Smriti pattern, thus helping to rehabh| litate the science of Arthasastra in the eyes of the Brahmana cano^ nists. It is tempting to suggest that he thus "contributed not onljr!i to the remarkable conception of the superlative merit of Rajadharma< in the Mahabharata, but also to that wholesale incorporation of ther Arthasastra material into the old Smriti tradition which constitutes one of the most distinctive characteristics of the political thought of Manu and Yajnavalkya as well as of Bhishma in the Great Epic."

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   67

The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page