The first paragraph of this post is a post on fb and the rest the comments on the comments on that post.
Kautilya’s Arthshastra, the immortal work on statecraft is unique Indian contribution to the history of Political Theory in the sense that apart from other things, for the first time it provides a definition of state – Saptang theory -- in terms of its constituent elements with incisively comprehensive treatment of each. It devotes quite sizeable space to warfare – the Mandal theory—and the system of espionage, the secret service. Kautilya seems so contemporary and relevant through ages. He advises the prudent king to avoid a direct war with Snghas (probably referring to the confederation of what is called post Vedic republics in the north of Ganga region) but secret wars (Mantra yuddha). A sizeable number of secret agents consisted of prostitutes and charming women along with holy men and women. Out of 4 principles (Sam-dam-bhed-danda) of foreign policy, he thinks bhed(dissension) is more effective. One of the methods he suggest that a charming agent finds access to interact with 2 closely related republican chiefs in separate “coincidences” and in separate “mutual spontaneity” falls in love with each of them and creates such an animosity between them that it becomes matter of public knowledge. If they do not try to kill each other, she secretly kills one and blames the other. The infighting will weaken the republic that become easy to take over. Does Kautilya’s this doctrine has any meaning in contemporary times.
Philosophers do not create justices or injustices, they already exist in the society. Philosophers only respond and react to them. By 4th century BC, patriarchy; gender -- its ideology; genderized notions of sexuality along with taboos and inhibitions meant to control female sexuality and thereby personality, was an established fact. Plato was revolutionary revolutionary in this regard to allow women equal right to education, public offices and even to become philosopher queen. He is rebuked by his student for giving away the enslavement of women, one of the historic achievements of man. In ancient India too, patriarchy and prostitution were established facts. Prostitution was a recognized, prevalent institutions. Nevertheless prostitutes, widows and single women enjoyed much better rights and state protection. Care and livelihood of widows and single women was state responsibility. Many prostitutes and single women were secret agents and enjoyed good salary and many other privileges including legal immunity in many fields. Kautilya was not interested in social change but to maintain it well. His interest was creation and expansion of state -- monarchy -- attaining/retaining/expanding power. Using existing superstitions and prejudices in the interest of the state as part of Apaddharma. Ensuring observance of Vedic Dharma, i.e. Varnaashram Dharma was also part of Rajdharma.
Thanks Debu! for your enlightening, scholarly intervention. True it was not for general consumption but for specialists. NARENDRAARTHE. Not only it does not trace the divine origin of state and statecraft but also does not give any space to religion or priest in his definition of state in terms of 7 constituent elements. I also agree with you that it was writtenWe find many references in Arthashastra itself of many previous traditions, schools and teachers of the statecraft. Kautilya sounds a contemporary scholar. He begins his building theoy with the literature review. He would conclude the citations of other teachers by "nesti kautilya" and wouild conclude his vies with "iti kautliya".
Kautilya’s Arthshastra, the immortal work on statecraft is unique Indian contribution to the history of Political Theory in the sense that apart from other things, for the first time it provides a definition of state – Saptang theory -- in terms of its constituent elements with incisively comprehensive treatment of each. It devotes quite sizeable space to warfare – the Mandal theory—and the system of espionage, the secret service. Kautilya seems so contemporary and relevant through ages. He advises the prudent king to avoid a direct war with Snghas (probably referring to the confederation of what is called post Vedic republics in the north of Ganga region) but secret wars (Mantra yuddha). A sizeable number of secret agents consisted of prostitutes and charming women along with holy men and women. Out of 4 principles (Sam-dam-bhed-danda) of foreign policy, he thinks bhed(dissension) is more effective. One of the methods he suggest that a charming agent finds access to interact with 2 closely related republican chiefs in separate “coincidences” and in separate “mutual spontaneity” falls in love with each of them and creates such an animosity between them that it becomes matter of public knowledge. If they do not try to kill each other, she secretly kills one and blames the other. The infighting will weaken the republic that become easy to take over. Does Kautilya’s this doctrine has any meaning in contemporary times.
Philosophers do not create justices or injustices, they already exist in the society. Philosophers only respond and react to them. By 4th century BC, patriarchy; gender -- its ideology; genderized notions of sexuality along with taboos and inhibitions meant to control female sexuality and thereby personality, was an established fact. Plato was revolutionary revolutionary in this regard to allow women equal right to education, public offices and even to become philosopher queen. He is rebuked by his student for giving away the enslavement of women, one of the historic achievements of man. In ancient India too, patriarchy and prostitution were established facts. Prostitution was a recognized, prevalent institutions. Nevertheless prostitutes, widows and single women enjoyed much better rights and state protection. Care and livelihood of widows and single women was state responsibility. Many prostitutes and single women were secret agents and enjoyed good salary and many other privileges including legal immunity in many fields. Kautilya was not interested in social change but to maintain it well. His interest was creation and expansion of state -- monarchy -- attaining/retaining/expanding power. Using existing superstitions and prejudices in the interest of the state as part of Apaddharma. Ensuring observance of Vedic Dharma, i.e. Varnaashram Dharma was also part of Rajdharma.
Thanks Debu! for your enlightening, scholarly intervention. True it was not for general consumption but for specialists. NARENDRAARTHE. Not only it does not trace the divine origin of state and statecraft but also does not give any space to religion or priest in his definition of state in terms of 7 constituent elements. I also agree with you that it was writtenWe find many references in Arthashastra itself of many previous traditions, schools and teachers of the statecraft. Kautilya sounds a contemporary scholar. He begins his building theoy with the literature review. He would conclude the citations of other teachers by "nesti kautilya" and wouild conclude his vies with "iti kautliya".
No comments:
Post a Comment