SANSKRIT LITERATURE

ANS 1

Manu Samhita, an ancient work held in the highest reverence by orthodox adherents of Brahmanism. Its reputed author is the law-giver Manu (Sayambhuva). The complete text in 12 chapters. The first edition of the English translation appeared in the series Sacred Books of the East, Volume 25, in 1886. The translator was Professor George Bhler. Words in round brackets in the text are his additions. (See book data at the end of the page).

The man
IN INDIAN mythology Manu is the first man and the legendary author of an important Sanskrit code of law, this book. It is also called Manu Samhita and Manu-smriti. The name Manu is associated with "man, male", and sometimes to "think". In Hinduism Manu is known as the first king. Rulers of medieval India traced their genealogy back to him. The epic poem Mahabharata says: "Manu was endued with great wisdom and devoted to virtue. And he became the progenitor of a line. And in Manu's race have been born all human beings, who have, therefore, been called Manavas. And it is of Manu that all men including Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, and others have been descended, and are, therefore, all called Manavas. Subsequently, monarch, the Brahmanas became united with the Kshatriyas. And those sons of Manu that were Brahmanas devoted themselves to the study of the Vedas. "The ten sons of Manu are known as Vena, Dhrishnu, Narishyan, Nabhaga, Ikshvaku, Karusha, Saryati, the eighth, a daughter named Ila, Prishadhru the ninth, and Nabhagarishta, the tenth. They all betook themselves to the practices of Kshatriyas. Besides these, Manu had fifty other sons on Earth. But we heard that they all perished, quarrelling with one another." [Mahabharata, Book 1: Adi Parva: Sambhava Parva: Section LXXV]

The Manu Samhita

Ancient law-books formed the basis of Hindu law. The Laws of Manu from somewhere between 200 BCE and 200 CE is considered the oldest and one of the most important texts of this genre. Scholars are now quite well agreed that the work is an amplified recast in verse of a "Dharma-sutra", no longer extant, that may have been in existence as early as 500 BCE. Manusmriti (Laws of Manu) is considered by some Hindus to be the law laid down for Hindus. The opening verses of the work tell how Manu was reverently approached in ancient times by ten great sages and asked to declare to them the sacred laws of the castes, and how he graciously acceded to their request by having the learned sage Bhrigu, whom he had carefully taught, deliver to them this instruction, that allegedly was taught to Manu by the self-existent Brahma, In other words, the book's true author is divine, is the claim, and the rewards of reading it are said to be great.

The pious Brahmin belief regarding the divine origin of the "Laws of Manu" is not shared by Oriental scholars of the western world. Manuals on dharma (right behaviour, law and such things) contain numerous restrictions, regulating daily conduct. Such law manuals do not always agree with sruti (authoritative texts in Hinduism), though, and in such cases sruti has precedence. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "with all this, the ethical teachings of the "Laws of Manu" is very high, embracing almost every form of moral obligation recognized in the Christian religion." Ancient Hindu manuals

proclaim duties of people at various stages of life (studenthood, householdership, retirement, and asceticism); bring dietary regulations; describe offenses and expiations minutely; systematise rights and duties of rulers; discuss purification rites, funerary ceremonies, forms of hospitality, and daily oblations; bring up juridical matters.

Laws of Manu has 2,694 stanzas in 12 chapters. It deals with interesting cosmogony, definitions of what is right and fit (dharma), the sacraments, initiation and Vedic study, forms of marriage, hospitality and funerary rites, dietary laws, pollution and purification, rules for women and wives, royal law, many sorts of juridical matters, and also more religious matters, which include donations, rites, the doctrine of karma ("giving-back"), the soul, and punishment in many sorts of hells. Thus, norms are embedded. The framework for the notions and rules meted out, is the ancient model of a fourclass society. There were only three such classes (castes) in the still older and most revered Vedic times, however, and likewise in the "twin culture" in ancient Iran. The bottom class was not into the stratified model back then. [Cf Xmd] The status of women were different in Vedic society from what the Manu Samhita tends to lay down as terms in self-contradictory fashion during a period when brahminical tradition was seriously threatened by non-Vedic movements, most notably Buddhism. The contradictions: Certain verses such as (III - 55, 56, 57, 59, 62) glorify the position of women, other verses (IX - 3, 17) seem to attack the position and freedom women have. Certain interpretations of Verse (IX - 18) claim that it discourages women from reading Vedic scriptures. Verse (II - 240), however, allows women to read Vedic scriptures. Similar contradictory phrases are encountered in relation to child marriage in verses (IX - 94) and (IX 90). Some of the codes of conduct pertain to the caste system and discuss the stages of life for "twice-born" males (the asrama system). Many codes favour the priest caste in what seems to be overt selfishness of the brahmin (priest) caste in terms of concessions made in fines and punishments. Punishments for crimes and misdemeanors were lightest when applied to offenders of the Brahmin caste, and increased in severity for the guilty members of the warrior, farmer, and serf caste respectively. The dignity of the Brahmin caste was greatly exaggerated, while the Sudra caste was despised. The Dharma Shastra (Law Book) of Manu provided Hindu society with norms of practical morality as mediated by its commentaries. [cf. Mux]. However, its influence was not as enormous as British administrators thought in the past, and not as strict either. The work was one of the first Sanskrit texts studied by the British, who thought the work consisted of legal codes. But they were not codes of law as much as norms related to social obligations and ritual requirements. Further, the text was never universally followed or acclaimed by the vast majority of

Indians in their history. In northern and southern India Vaishnavism and Shivaism were the common religious traditions, and the teachings of the Manu Smriti were not as widely followed or well-known in either cult. Manu Samhita is one of the most heavily criticized of the scriptures of Hinduism Some believe the text to be authoritative, but others do not. The work may also contain later interpolations of verses. Surendra Kumar, who counts a total of 2,685 verses in it, finds that only 1,214 are authentic, the other 1,471 being interpolations on the text.

ANS 2 No legal system can subsist without rights and duties and duties in the sense of act and forbearances towards others. The ancient Indian law, like any other legal systems of the ancient world, protected and law recognized the interests of individuals living in the community through law, Rights and duties construed as allowances, benefits and obligations were the part of ancient India legal system. But the concept of rights neither developed into the concept of natural right nor did it nature the psychology which is peculiar to the legal philosophy of the West. Modern concept of right brings with it to the owner of such rights, the sense, that he owns these rights like property. He thinks that others owe him the duty to respect his rights. He is of these rights though such ownership is called only incorporeal ownership. Such rights make men egocentric. They only fee a concern about themselves with an unconcerned and indifference towards others and the affairs of society. This has resulted in the attitude of man to disown society and become irresponsible to its purposes. The enforcement of ones own legal rights through a legal action, which is just like a battle, is itself steeped in the idea of conflict, and quarrel of civilized combatants. To this extent the lopsided view of ones own rights generates disharmony as well as disintegration of social unity. Thus, the doctrine of natural rights seems to have too much sanctity to the idea of individual rights. The doctrine of natural rights has its birth in terminological confusion created by natural law doctrine rob son considers that jus Natural produced the doctrine of natural right as a result of the ambiguity of meaning in gerent in the wood jus.One meaning of Jus is right, That which is morally binding. Jus may also be a right, that is, an actual and legally enforceable right. In the latter signification, jus natural means a right of nature, a right possessing inherent validity by virtue of its own essential justice and moral force. It was from this that, the doctrine of natural rights which became the ally of freedom and a weapon of attach against tyranny was evolved. The doctrine of natural rights has arisen only due to the loosening of control in Western society at the end of the medieval age. Feudalism, a social institution waned and ethics and religion lost hold upon the lives of people and state got so pre-occupied with military expeditions that the affairs of society were neglected while individual was taxed unnecessarily. The individual had to resort to the doctrine of rights for his safeguards against growing despotism of rights for his safeguards against guards against growing despotism of the state. At its initial stage the doctrine of rights performed the social function by giving expression to social purpose expressed by the legal system as a whole.

Economics, politics and law all worked both for the individual and the society. There was harmony between the individual ego and the social purpose. Both functions for one another. But the degeneration set in, and process of disorganization started due to the changed circumstances. When this process of degeneration has gone far, as in most European countries it had by the middle of the Eighteenth Centaury, the indispensable thing is to break the dead organization up and to clear the ground. In the course of doing so, the individual is emancipated and his rights are enlarged; but the idea of social purpose is discredited by the discredit justly obsolete order in which it is embodied.
2

Due to law economic relations, in the later half of the Seventeenth Centaury, the state itself began tobe considered as a machine. Reformation had already made Church a department of secular Government. Machiavelli asserted the freedom of the state to disown morality and spurn the religious yoke. In the Eighteenth Centaury, state and Church ceased to work for the maintenance of social ethics and for furtherance of the common ends. Now people began to consider that their economic activity was beyond the jurisdiction of morality. when the medieval democracy was shaken from its roots and democracy of revolution was still in the womb, the Government grew indolent and aristocracy turned irresponsible, Chruch was now remotely concerned with the daily life of the masses, Christianity lost its great hold, God was reduced into frigid categories of abstractions and individual began to assert his independence and forged the weapon of his rights. It was said that state had no authority to infringe these rights. The existence of state is only justified in the maintenance of rights. The most important right was that of property. The Whole society began to be looked upon as a joint stock company where political power and distribution of goods like dividends were to be determined on the basis of the shares of property. It was though that no moral limitations could be imposed on the economic selfinterest of individuals. Rights then appeared as foundations of social order. The pursuit of private end began to be look as public good. French revolutionaries have rights as absolutes of social and political order. Natural law ideology of rights was converted into utilitarian basis by Bentham and his followers. Adam Smith asserted that by economic mechanism these rights could be converted into public good. The individualists, like Turgo, Jefferson, etc. used the doctrine of individual rights to mitigate the abuses of the times- i.e., to do away with the last vestiges of feudalism which was an obstruction to free economic activity in society. Today again due to the failure of laissez-faire doctrine and due to class conflicts degeneration of society and commercialization of human relations, this doctrine of rights has reveled its destructive visage owing to which curbs have been put on it. In England these categories are being bent and twisted till they are no longer recognizable, and well, in time be made harmless. In America where necessity compelled the crystallization of principle in a constitution, they

the rigidity of an iron-jacket. The magnificent formulae in which a society of farmers, merchants and master craftsmen enshrined its philosophy of freedom are in danger of becoming fetters used by an Anglo-Saxon business aristocracy to bind insurgent movements of the part of an immigrant and semi-servile proletariat. There has been a general reaction against the doctrine of natural rights which has become a synonym for exaggerated individualism which is unconcerned with social purposed, and is indifferent to degradation and deprivation of a great mass of humanity. It was castigated as freedom or right to exploit. It was a great obstacle for the legal science because it had extra-legal validity. Austin was of the view that rights are acts or forbearance in the context of positive Law. To him the relation of right and duties only prevailed in case of relations between citizens inter se. Rights are legal creations sovereign is the creator of rights. Rights against sovereign are contradictions in themselves. Sovereign is the creator of rights. Rights against sovereign are contradictions are themselves. Sovereigns power cannot be limited as otherwise it becomes a negation of sovereignty itself. One has no right against the sovereign. Even if it is said that converging has got rights, it is also a negation of sovereignty
3

because rights can only be created by superior authority. No superior authority can be conceived of so as to grant right to the sovereign as this will, in effect, be again the violation of the very logic of sovereignty. No one has superior power to grant rights to the sovereign. Sovereign has then neither rights nor duties. The subjects or citizens have only absolute duties towards the sovereign as he holds the power to command obedience. It is quite clear that against sovereign, which only a personification of state is; the individual can have no rights. The absolute rights are not logically admissible in the science of law as they cannot be explained in the legal relations, apart from the context of law. These rights are only relating to a particular system. If rights are objective, i.e., if they mean allowances, benefits etc., allowed by law, one can scarcely object to the doctrine of rights. The advocated of the doctrine of rights want to subordinate the objective law to grant subjective rights as predetermined a priori conditions of civic life. It is pre-supposed ,as Kelsen observes: First there arise subjective rights and chief among these property, the prototype of all subjective rights, sand only at a later does there emerge the objective law as a political order, protecting and serving the independently arisen subjective right Accordingly, the whole idea of rights is grounded in the assertion of the subjective right of property. The ideological function of this whole contradictory conception of subjective right is clear enough. It is intended to uphold the idea that subjective rich that is, private property, is, in respect to objective law, a transcendent, a priori category in impassable obstacle to the construction of the content of the legal order. This conception of a subjective right different from and independent of the objective law becomes the more important when the latter is recognized to be a constantly

changing order, created by and founded neither on nature nor upon the eternal and divine will, particularly when the construction of the objective law proceeds in a democratic fashion. The conception of an independent subjective right, which is even more just than the objective law, is a device to protect the institution of private property from damage at the ideology of subjective right is related to the ethical values if individual freedom and autonomous personality when in this freedom property is always included Kelsen point out that the concept of right gets undue emphasis in the legal systems of today whereas the concepts of duty gets only step motherly treatment. A legal system is, no doubt, capable and competent to confer rights on individuals but if it does not so confer them, but only imposes duties, to express legal relations, the system can successfully discharge its legitimate functions. His intention is to put the notion of duty in the forefront. Right is only a device of capitalistic legal order founded upon the concept of property individual interests. In this way, the pure theory of law rejects the dualism of subjective and objective law and thereby has also removed the possibility of any ideological misuse. Legal relationship, called Rights can equally be expressed in terms of duties. ANS 3 Four Varnas are mainly the four functional groups, differentiated from each other on the basis of
attitude and aptitude, each one catering one of the basic fundamental need of the society.

The great ancient Greek philosophers dreamt of an Ideal society, in which they divided all people into four groups, not on basis of birth, but on their capabilities and aptitudes and were ranked in the following order

Philosopher Kings - People having intellectual acumen were called Philosopher kings.

Their specific duties were to do all intellectual work and set norms for the whole of society. Army men - People having warrior skills were to protect nation and its people from outside invasions and maintain peace and harmony within country-state. Business Community - It was supposed to do all kinds of business transactions and, Slaves - Menial works were assigned to slaves.

What Greek philosophers dreamt for an ideal state, was already practised in ancient India in real life. In ancient India, the whole system was based on the principles of Varna, Dharma and

Karma, It classified the society into four groups called Varna and assigned to each some specific tasks. According to principle of Varna, all persons were not identical in attitude and aptitude. They differed from one another on the grounds of natural endowments, qualities, physical strength, mental capacity, moral aspirations, likes and dislikes, inclination and expectations. Different activities were assigned to different groups according to their attitude and aptitude.i According to Smritis it was not birth, but the qualities and deeds, which fitted one into a particular group.ii Later on, upbringing, atmosphere and convenience made the system hereditary. Varna system divided people into following four functional groups.

Brahmins Simple living and high thinking was the motto of this group. On the basis of their natural inclinations, predominantly psychological characteristics, having `Sat and `austerity. Varna system assigned to Brahmins the work of pursuing knowledge. People having intellectual acumen for performing all intellectual work and setting norms for whole of society were put in this category. Though every group was supposed to lead a self restraint and self disciplined life in matter of social, political or economic activities, be it in a case of daily routine, occupation or inter group relationship. But higher a varna was ranked, purer it was considered, greater were the selfrestrictions on its behavior through rituals. Brahmans, being placed at highest position in the society, were put under maximum restrictions. They were supposed to lead a simple life, devoted to the spiritual and intellectual pursuits and were denied accumulation of wealth. According to this principle, in modern India, all intellectuals and knowledgeable persons in various disciplines - policy makers, planners, researchers, legislators etc irrespective of their present caste or creed may be called Brahmans. But there are some conditions. According to the dictats of Hindu scriptures, the spirit of Brahaminism expects a true Brahmin to possess intellectual and spiritual qualities and to keep himself/herself away from luxury, lust, selfishness, or illusions. They are debarred from accumulating wealth, serving their vested interests, working for self glorification or indulging themselves in the pleasures of material world. Their duty is learning, pursuit of knowledge and setting norms for common man, so that the whole humanity and their society as a whole could benefit from their knowledge. Kshatriyas Main function was protection of its people from internal and external aggression. In ancient India, in this group came people having `Rajas quality. For belonging to Kshatriya class, mainly association with political power was necessary. People having warrior skills and men of action having courage, bravery, power were included in this group. Their duty was to protect the people from internal disorders and external aggressions. In modern world, people working in institutions engaged in the task of governance (executive branch of the government) and protecting the nation from external aggression Armed forces of a nation) may be called Khhatriyas.
Vaishyas - Serving the needs of a community and providing basic amenities to all is its main function. People having business acumen were included in this category. They were engaged in production, business, trade and commerce. In modern world, business community is equivalent to Vaishyas community of ancient India. It has its own norms and traits. Shudras - People unable to do the above three tasks or the conquered ones were advised to work under the guidance of any of the above three Varnas or do menial jobs. Mostly people belonging to this category were supposed to be incapable of maintaining self-discipline and contributing to the society directly without any guidance. People, who fell outside caste system were anti-social elements, adivasis and foreigners, because they did not subscribe to rules and values of the society. Respect and status in the society was accorded on the basis to nature and social relevance of their work, contribution of their activities for social subsistence and amount of self-discipline, effort and training required to perform their duties well.

Not all but only those persons having wisdom, character, will-power, spirituality and ability to guide masses and who sacrificed their entire life in pursuit of knowledge and setting norms for the benefit of common men were supposed to be given a high status in society. Any community could seek to its elevate its social status by adopting or emulating desirable practices like its being r itually clean

and pure, observing restrictions for self-discipline, following honestly and sincerely defined rights and duties and working for excellence in their specific areas. Principles of Dharma and Karma provided the guidelines. Knowledge was supposed to be necessary for giving Dharma and Karma its due meaning, direction and value. Ignorance was considered to be leading to futile efforts destroying direction. Discipline was inculcated amongst ignorant masses, and a sense of direction was given to them through infinite variety of rituals, prayers, practices, customs and meditation. The principle of Dharma embraced within itself religion, law, duty, righteousness, morality and conformity with truth. In order to keep harmony in society, Principle Dharma prescribed based on inherent qualities and potentialities of its members separate duties appropriate to each Varna. According to Dharma, right and wrong were relative terms, which depend on the total configuration of the following four variables of an action:

Desa (region) The culture of a place, in which a person was born. Kala (time) -The period of historical time, in which a person was born. Shrama (Effort) -The efforts required of him at different stages of Life and; Guna (Quality) Aptitude and innate psycho-biological traits.

Dharma guided individuals to remain true and to fulfil their duties earnestly. It laid importance on being self sufficient and not to be greedy, not to accumulate beyond ones need, learn to give, observe austerity, simplicity and discipline in life, maintain cleanliness of diet, body and mind, be contented, be self-observant and alert, rise above the animal instincts of mankind etc. Moulding ones life according to Dharma was not an easy task. It required tremendous will power and a strong character. For persons with weak faculties, it was difficult to observe Dharma. The separate rules of conduct were aimed to inspire every one to perform ones own duties and obligations, giving everybody opportunities- social, economic physical and spiritual to do their jobs well and preserve the tradition and lifestyle of their respective communities. The Dharma of Brahmin was not that of a Shudra, or the Dharma of a student not that of an old man. Principle of Karma believed that the whole world of activities was a result of complex intermixing of three basic qualities of human nature goodness (Satwa), Passion (Rajas) and dullness (Tamas). `Goodness was associated with purity, peace and knowledge; `Passion with comfort and action; and `Tamas with ignorance, sloth, sleep and carelessness.iii These qualities determined the tendencies, potentialities, limitations, traits and character of individuals and gave them direction for action. `Adharma (immoral behavior), Alasya (laziness) and Agyan (ignorance) were held responsible for evils, exploitation, and miseries of the people.

The principle of Karma inspired people to do their own duties sincerely and to channel their efforts, energies and capacities for action par excellence. It taught people that Work is Worship. All types of work were worth pursuing and respectable. Any work done in its true spirit could never be derogatory or a waste. A work was not so much valued for its external reward, as for the intrinsic satisfaction towards realization of Swadharma. It prevented people from blaming others for their failures, miseries, or being revengeful.

ANS 7

The history of India begins with evidence of human activity of Homo sapiens as long as 75,000 years ago, or with earlier hominids including Homo erectus from about 500,000 years ago.[1] The Indus Valley Civilization, which spread and flourished in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent from c. 3300 to 1300 BCE in present-day Pakistan and northwest India, was the first major civilization in South Asia.[2] A sophisticated and technologically advanced urban culture developed in the Mature Harappan period, from 2600 to 1900 BCE.[3] This Bronze Age civilization collapsed before the end of the second millennium BCE and was followed by the Iron Age Vedic Civilization, which extended over much of the Indo-Gangetic plain and which witnessed the rise of major polities known as the Mahajanapadas. In one of these kingdoms, Magadha, Mahavira and Gautama Buddha were born in the 6th or 5th century BCE and propagated their ramanic philosophies.

Most of the subcontinent was conquered by the Maurya Empire during the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. It became fragmented, with various parts ruled by numerous Middle kingdoms for the next 1,500 years. This is known as the classical period of Indian history, during which time India has sometimes been estimated to have had the largest economy of the ancient and medieval world, with its huge population generating between one fourth and one third of the world's income up to the 18th century. Much of northern and central India was united in the 4th century CE, and remained so for two centuries, under the Gupta Empire. This period, witnessing a Hindu religious and intellectual resurgence, is known among its admirers as the "Golden Age of India". From this time, and for several centuries afterwards, southern India, under the rule of the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas, and Pandyas, experienced its own golden age. During this period, aspects of Indian civilization, administration, culture, and religion (Hinduism and Buddhism) spread to much of Asia. Kingdoms in southern India had maritime business links with the Roman Empire from around 77 CE. Muslim rule in the subcontinent began in 8th century CE when the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh and Multan in southern Punjab in modern day Pakistan,[4] setting the stage for several successive invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 15th centuries CE, leading to the formation of Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Mughal rule came from Central Asia to cover most of the northern parts of the subcontinent. Mughal rulers introduced Central Asian art and architecture to India. In addition to the Mughals and various Rajput kingdoms, several independent Hindu states, such as the Vijayanagara Empire, the Maratha Empire, Eastern Ganga Empire and the Ahom Kingdom, flourished contemporaneously in southern, western,eastern and northeastern India respectively. There is no doubt that the single most important power to emerge in the long twilight of the Mughal dynasty was the Maratha Confederacy. Initially deriving from the western Deccan, the Marathas were a peasant warrior group that rose to prominence during the rule in that region of the sultans of Bijapur and Ahmadnagar.[5] The Mughal Empire suffered a gradual decline in the early 18th century, which provided opportunities for the Afghans, Balochis, Sikhs, and Marathas to exercise control over large areas in the northwest of the subcontinent until the British East India Company gained ascendancy over South Asia.[6] Beginning in the mid-18th century and over the next century, large areas of India were annexed by the British East India Company. Dissatisfaction with Company rule led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, after which the British

provinces of India were directly administered by the British Crown and witnessed a period of both rapid development of infrastructure and economic decline. During the first half of the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and later joined by the Muslim League. The subcontinent gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, after the British provinces were partitioned into the dominions of India and Pakistan and the princely states all acceded to one of the new states.

ANS 5

KAUTILYA ON WAR Kautilya was a proponent of a welfare state but definitely encouraged war for preserving the power of the state. He thought that the possession of power and happiness in a state makes a king superior hence a king should always strive to augment his power. This actually coincides with the Webers view that there is no moral in international politics which means that states must be at war all the times. Kautilya though did not state this explicitly but we can infer that he did presume to be at war is natural for a state. On the other hand he like Thomas Hobbes believed the goal of science was power. He said that, Power is strength and strength changes the minds3, hence he used power as a tool to control his society as well as his enemies. He also believed that it is the Kings duty to seek material gain, spiritual good and pleasures. In this he clearly comes out as a realist and does believe in ethics of responsibility4. Kautilya thinks that for a King to attain these three goals must create wealth, have armies and should conquer the kingdoms and enlarge the size of his state. This is quite interesting because he in a way does believe that a states superiority is in its military and economic might which is what later philosophers and rulers have followed. In the case of war, Kautilya and Machiavelli have the same reasoning where they advocate the King to be closely involved in the science of war. Kautilya advocated three types of war: Open war, Concealed war and the Silent War5. Open war he describes as the war fought between states, concealed war as one which is similar to guerilla war and Silent war which is fought on a continued basis inside the kingdom so that the power of
3 Page

15, Roger Boesche, Kautilyas Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India of Responsibility was a type advocated by Max Weber in his lecture, Politics as an avocation 5 Page 22, Roger Boesche, Kautilyas Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India
4 Ethics

the King does not get diluted. In his opinion open warfare in any form was righteous. In open warfare he believed that State is one up on over morals and no morals can stop the State from fighting an open war. He believed that there were three types of kings who go into warfare and it is important to understand the distinction between the types of kings and the appropriate warfare strategy to be selected. Firstly, he thought there was a righteous conqueror who can believes in power of the state. This is where the open warfare needs to be fought and the righteous king treats the lost king with dignity. Secondly there is a greedy king who fights war for material wealth in which case along with power states resources are lost and hence to prevent such a war, one should use a tactical and concealed war. Thirdly he thought there were always demoniacal kings who wanted to plunder and here one must use silent wars. Kautilya was also very harsh in narrating the exact methods of fighting a silent war and use of spies and women as tools to reduce the strength of a state. Machiavelli, in his work does not labor into the details and one reason could be that the time when Machiavelli wrote, The Prince, the world had changed and already quite immoral in many ways. The aspect which I dislike in Kautilyas work is where he advocates the use of women as weapons of war. He saw women as a source of pleasure and charm which should be used to instill clashes between kings. One reason why wrote in detail explaining the strategy was because he was a strong proponent of social structure. He strongly believed in the caste system and the relative position of a man and a woman in a caste. This could be another reason why during his time there were many Kshatriyas6 . Using secret agents, assassins, lies were tactics which he advocated to win a war. He vehemently defends the

6 Kshatriyas

is a caste in the Indian system who were the warriors

state and believes that religion and morals are supposed to serve the state. In Kautilyas concept of war, chivalry does not have any place and he is a realist. When compared to two early Indian writers Bharadwaja7 and Vishalaksha8, the former is a realist and the latter is an idealist. Kautilya, takes the side of Bharadwaja in his Arthashastra and believes that war is a means to an end for wealth and stability. It is very difficult to say what inspired his thinking on the concept of war as we know that he was born as a poor Brahmin9and strongly believed in social structures. Kautilya also took the societal structure and Kings power as given and never challenged it. His focus was not on war per se but on the strategy and tactics of war which elaborates in his work. In describing his opinion on war, I think he has been very right in saying that a state which seeks power is in war all the time if we use his classification of war10