Kautilya on Royal Authority
Summary
The author, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, defends his position regarding the exaltation of royal authority by Kautilya against a critique by Prof. U. N. Ghoshal, which appeared in the Indian Historical Quarterly, Ran, XXVIII, No. 4 (December 1952), pp. 307-311. Sastri argues that Kautilya was both a traditionalist and an innovator. He bases his argument on the Hellenistic milieu, drawing upon Breloer’s Kautilya-Studien and Rostovtzeff’s work on Hellenistic history. Sastri suggests that viewing the Arthasastra against this background provides a convincing solution to the questions of its date and authenticity. He notes that Kautilya declared he based his work on earlier writings on Arthasastra and on established practices before determining the place of the royal edict (sasana) in the polity. Sastri points out that the chapter on sasana and the Adhyaksapracara were innovations by Kautilya based on contemporary foreign practices. He also highlights Kautilya’s unique definition of Arthasastra, which is not found elsewhere in Indian literature. Sastri addresses Prof. Ghoshal’s translation of verses from Book III, specifically regarding the four bases (catuspida) of law: dharma, vyavahara, caritra, and rajasasana. He contends that these bases successively override the preceding ones, with the royal edict holding the highest importance. Sastri disputes Ghoshal’s interpretation of these verses, arguing that they emphasize the superiority of the royal edict based on reason. He cites Yajnvalkya’s caveat against Kautilya’s position in his Smrti. Sastri further refutes Ghoshal’s claim that the king is subject to the rule of positive law by stating that Kautilya’s statements on this matter are traditional. Finally, Sastri criticizes Ghoshal for quoting later writers like Brihaspati and Katyayana to interpret Kautilya, arguing that this approach denies the unique nature of Kautilya’s contribution to the science of polity. Sastri advocates for studying differences rather than explaining them away through the traditional method of samanvaya.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The article argues that Kautilya’s exaltation of royal authority represents a significant historical innovation rather than a mere continuation of traditional Indian thought. By situating the Arthashastra within a Hellenistic and Achaemenid imperial context, the author demonstrates that Kautilya’s concepts, such as the *Sasanadhikara* and the unique definition of *Artha*, reflect contemporary foreign political practices. The text contends that Kautilya explicitly elevates the royal edict (*nyaya*) above *dharma*, custom, and common law, granting it superior validity. This interpretation challenges Prof. Ghoshal’s view by asserting that Kautilya fundamentally transformed the science of polity. Ultimately, the author emphasizes the necessity of historical analysis to recognize these distinct, concrete developments, rejecting traditionalist methods like *samanvaya* that obscure such radical shifts.