Kautilya on Royal Authority
Summary
In “Kautilya on Royal Authority,” Dr. U. N. Ghoshal replies to Prof. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri’s rejoinder concerning the origins of centralised government in ancient India. Sastri had suggested that Kautilya’s Arthāśāstra and the Maurya statecraft show significant Hellenistic influence, arguing that Candragupta adapted Ptolemaic administrative models. Ghoshal reaffirms his earlier criticism of this view and argues that administrative centralisation and the theory of state‑landlordism were already developing in pre‑Mauryan northern India. He points out that Brahmanical and early Buddhist texts describe the universal prevalence of the king’s peace and justice and mention various grades of officials such as law‑keepers, military commanders and jailors. These references indicate that the institution of the king’s law (śāsana) and a professional bureaucracy existed before the Mauryas. Ghoshal cautions against the tendency to overstate Western influences and notes that even Rostovtzeff, a classical scholar, speculated about Hellenisation without direct evidence. He examines specific verses from the Arthāśāstra that define artha (prosperity) and describe the king’s duties. Ghoshal contrasts Kautilya’s emphasis on dharma, vyavahāra (legal procedure) and caritra (custom) with Hellenistic concepts, asserting that the Indian treatise roots royal authority in indigenous traditions of law and justice. He also discusses the concept of kingly sovereignty as reflected in Buddhist Jātakas, where the symbolic invocation of the king’s officer is enough to arrest criminals. This, he argues, demonstrates that the king’s authority was socially accepted and institutionalised across the realm. Ghoshal concludes that the Maurya administration was an extension of earlier systems rather than an innovation imported from abroad. He advocates a nuanced reading of Indian and Greco‑Roman sources to avoid misattributing influences. The article thus contributes to debates on the indigenous development of political thought in ancient India.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Ghoshal concludes that Kautilya’s theory of royal authority reflects a tradition of administrative centralisation and legalism that predates the Mauryas. Evidence from Brahmanical and Buddhist texts shows that state officials, standing armies and revenue systems were already established. Consequently, he rejects interpretations that attribute these features to Hellenistic influence and emphasises the need to contextualise Indian political thought within its own intellectual history.